|
|
 As
the Sources of Insecurity network proceeds we will present papers in key
areas for discussion and debate. As an example, we are providing a discussion
paper produced in the formation of this network by one of our participants.
Human Security in Context
A network such as the ‘Sources of Insecurity’ proposal
is an extremely positive and important development at a time when
we have seen a serious deterioration in the international and regional
security environment, new (unconventional) security threats and challenges,
and a crisis in national and international policymaking that prioritises
militarised and coercive responses at the expense of human security,
and is rapidly undermining co-operative international frameworks in
the area of security dialogue, global economic reform, public health,
human rights, weapons of mass destruction, conflict resolution and
peace-building.
Over the past five years a number of very negative
and destabilising developments have occurred in
Australian, Asia-Pacific and global security which
pose serious practical and conceptual challenges
to conventional defence and foreign policy frameworks
and responses. These security challenges have all
been of a complex and unconventional nature—they
do not accord with conventional models of state-based
military threats from the deployment or use of
conventional military force; they involve non-state
or multiple actors, or complex processes such as
social, environmental and economic feedbacks; they
have required the involvement of new security actors
such as international agencies, police forces,
citizens, NGOs, media and civil societies; and
they challenge the relevance and efficacy of conventional
(militarised, state-based) security responses.
The common thread linking all these developments
is how, in various ways, they constitute serious
threats to the human security and welfare of individuals,
as distinct from threats directed at military forces
or states as such. These threats have arisen from
complex interactions between economic turmoil,
crises in governance, identity politics, new and
emergent health threats, human rights abuse, ethnic
tension, religious and political violence, state
policy and individual belief. Threats to human
security arising from such developments in turn
often also generate problems for national, regional
and global security.
While the use of conventional policy responses
has sometimes been appropriate, on other occasions
the application of conventional policies (economic,
diplomatic and military) has worsened such crises.
The common reflex to attempt to read non-conventional
security challenges through the lens of conventional
state-based analysis has gravely distorted policy
and imposed significant additional costs in human
and financial terms. In particular, there is a
danger that an over-reliance on conventional military
responses to unique new forms of terrorism—combining
networked small-scale groups acting on the basis
of controversial religious doctrines and perceptions
of injustice, wounded dignity and cultural threat—runs
the risk of prolonging rather than reducing such
threats.
Recent developments have been very negative and disturbing for Australia,
and in the cases of East Timor, September 11 and the Kuta bombings,
involved significant threat, injury and loss of life for Australians,
along with ongoing levels of threat and involvement. The Asian economic
crisis negatively affected the Australian economy, and generated complex
problems of governance, political transition and conflict which were
felt later in the Maluku islands and East Timor, and in problems in
Australia’s relationships with Indonesia and ASEAN.
The security crises on the Korean Peninsula and
the sub-continent, and the fraying of international
arms control and disarmament efforts, have the
potential to undermine Australia’s security
environment, directly threaten its security or
involve it in large-scale armed conflict. Stresses
on the United Nations, and ongoing problems in
its decision-making and governance, undermine an
institution which has been central to Australian
foreign policy since it was established and to
which it has devoted significant resources and
effort.
The conflicts in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan
are of significant concern to communities in Australia,
have generated flows of refugees, and involved
Australian military forces in visible roles, perhaps
creating greater potential for Australians to be
targeted in terrorist operations. Crises in Papua
New Guinea and the Pacific Islands have created
substantial demands on Australian diplomacy, its
aid budget and its armed forces. People movements
have generated significant refugee flows to Australia,
and generated enormous political division and tensions
within Australia and between Australia, its neighbours
and others in the international community.
All of the above developments have imposed significant
economic, human and diplomatic costs on Australia,
and will continue to. Some Australian policy responses
have been enormously costly and controversial,
strained key regional relationships, or worked
against the grain of existing international norms
or international law. There is substantial scope
for renewed debate and analysis about the nature
of the challenges and demands imposed on Australian
policy in recent years, and about the effectiveness
of Australian policy in meeting and reducing them.
The problems these complex, interrelated and surprising
developments have posed for analysis, scholarship
and policy suggest that there is a need for a threefold
effort to build and strengthen efforts in: (1)
research that will generate better understanding
of how complex multifaceted security crises and
threats arise and develop; (2) conceptual innovation
in the area of defining, understanding and prioritising
security; and (3) efforts to marry improved crisis
analysis with conceptual innovation to generate
new policy proposals and options.
Dr Anthony Burke, School of Politics and International Relations, University
of NSW |
 |
 |
| Sources of Insecurity ©Copyright
2004 |
|
