Li Junqiang 3129901017. Introduction- What is human security Human Security Become Relevant in...

Li Junqiang 3129901017

Introduction- What is human security Human Security Become Relevant in Security

Discourse in Southeast Asia? Human Security Implications in Violent

Internal Conflicts in Southeast Asia A New Label for Old Challenges What Does Human Security Really Inform in

Southeast Asia? The ASEAN Way and Human Security Human Security: A Way out of Impasse and

Help to Resolve Internal Conflicts in Southeast Asia?

In UNDP’s terms, there are seven aspects to human security: economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political security.

Two major components of “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear”

This article therefore examines the utility of the human security concept by exploring whether the current discourse and approach are able to contribute to resolving certain violent internal conflicts in Southeast Asia, some of which have a long history.

1. The UNDP’s Human Development Report proposed a new approach to security, stating that the main objective behind the concept of human security was that of protecting the freedom of every individual in order to enhance his or her well-being and dignity.

(the concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly)

Narrow interpretations of security had been more closely related to nation-states than to people.

At the heart of the debate on human security is an ongoing effort to find a balance between ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom from want’.

In recent years, however, the region has begun to emphasize a people centered approach. For example, the ASEAN Charter, adopted at the 13th ASEAN summit in November 2007, emphasizes promoting a people-oriented ASEAN, an approach that was to be implemented in ASEAN’s key areas of cooperation: economic, political-security, and socio-cultural.

The catalyst for this change is said to have been transnational challenges faced by the region since 1997

Of these, the most significant episode, was the 1997 financial crisis, which led to increased poverty levels and damaged the social, educational, and numerous other aspects of the well-being of people in the region, particularly in Indonesia and Thailand.

Even more onerous were the economic costs of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. More significantly, however, the majority of the tsunami’s victims were poor people living in villages, slums, and shanty-towns, a vast proportion of them children

A statement: In Southeast Asia today, the so-called

non-traditional security issues are becoming traditional security issues. The traditional way of dealing with them is no longer adequate. All the crises we have experienced in the last five years, while the roots may be different, all of them have human security dimensions

Question: Whether a people-centered approach – that is, a human security approach – can actually help to resolve problems related to violent internal conflicts in Southeast Asia ?

Southern Thailand: Thailand’s three southernmost provinces,

Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat, have attracted attention over the last few years because of the increased – almost daily – incidence of violence in these areas.1

Although the rise of violence in southern Thailand is not a new phenomenon, it has been escalating continuously since early 2004

Understanding ‘Violence’ in Southern Thailand: How Does Human Security Matter? To explain the current unrest in southern

Thailand from a human security perspective, we need to reassess threats in terms of the local people’s point of view.

On the whole, The violence in southern Thailand can thus be explained from a human security perspective, which offers a deeper, more comprehensive analysis of the problem.

Thai Government’s Discourse of Human Security The above analysis of the situation in southern

Thailand from a human security perspective shows the relevance of human security for violence. However, what does this amount to in practice? Thailand is one of the governments in the region that has incorporated human security into national policy actions, with human security becoming part of the country’s national strategy.

There is thus a huge gap between the ideals of human security and actual practice, which depends on the approach the government chooses to adopt in particular situations.

Thai Government’s Discourse of Human Security The above analysis of the situation in southern

Thailand from a human security perspective shows the relevance of human security for violence. However, what does this amount to in practice?

Thailand is one of the governments in the region that has incorporated human security into national policy actions, with human security becoming part of the country’s national strategy.

The relationships between injustice and violence have also been discussed in various theories, including the theory of basic human needs, rightsbased approaches, the theory of violence, and the justice discourse.

Johan Galtung describes the relationship of these three types of violence – structural, cultural, and direct – using the image of a triangle of violence, putting each of the three types of violence at a corner of a triangle.

It has become clear that the notion of human security offers some explanations regarding violent internal conflict in Southeast Asia.

First, the notion addresses the scope of security .It necessitates considering both traditional and non-traditional kinds of security threats.

Second, it redefines the main referent object of security.

For the countries of Southeast Asia, where the state has been central in security discourse, the human security concept contrasts markedly with the region’s values and practice – the ASEAN Way – which uphold a commitment to the idea of state sovereignty.

ASEAN’s Discourse of Human Security the Report of the Eminent Persons Group

on the ASEAN Charter states that ‘ASEAN has spared no effort to promote human security, notably respect for human rights and international humanitarian law’

Clearly, while favoring a people-centered approach, policymakers in the region have become wary of the ‘freedom from fear’ aspect of human security.

Compatible or Incompatible? Human Security and the ASEAN Way ASEAN’s interpretation of human security

exemplifies the divided reactions over the human security concept among policymakers in Southeast Asia. The notion of human security shares similarities with comprehensive security. Both concepts broadened the scope of security in Asia.

Compatible or Incompatible? Human Security and the ASEAN Way On the other hand, there are also reasons

for the limited acceptance of the human security concept in the region.

In the end, is human security compatible with Southeast Asian values and the ASEAN Way?

For C. Wright Mills (1956: 171), ‘all politics is a struggle for power; the ultimate kind of power is violence’. Therefore, to actually manage security, differences must be reconciled within a society through the political process. In this process, states tended to be dominant In this sense, the ASEAN Way to a certain

extent limits the applicability of human security in Southeast Asia.

The major difficulties in applying human security in the countries of Southeast Asia are related to contested relationships between the individual states and other identity groups. The consequence is two interconnected problems: threat assessment/identifications and unreconciled threat recognitions.

There are two conditions that suggest that it is unlikely the region will apply human security in handling these internal conflicts. First, policymakers are still wary of the liberal

interventionist connotations of the concept. Second, where a government’s legitimacy is in

question, tension results from the different threat identifications among various actors.

Critics of human security claim that the concept has limited usefulness because of its inapplicability – it is impossible to deal with all the issues that it encompasses because there are too many of them.

Human security does have a potential to ameliorate internal conflicts in Southeast Asia. However……………….

Thank you!