Human Security in Asia

¶ … Threats to security are seen to come not only from external military aggression but also from a myriad of internal challenges -- separatist movements, social unrest, or the collapse of the political system." -- Anwar 2003,

With the international attention given to "military aggression," especially external military aggression, in recent years, it is easy to allow one's idea of was security means to become clouded with Hobbesian and Machiavellian notions of armed conflict, with "war on terror" images of military and intelligence operations hunting down terrorists, and with the debate on nuclear proliferation in developing (or underdeveloped) nations like Iran and North Korea. What these definitions of security lack, however, is a full understanding of the term; military operations and protection from terrorist attacks are most certainly important factors in a nation's security, however, they are far from being the total measure of peace and stability in a society.

Anwar's definition of security as something that includes internal factors is especially significant in today's climate in southeast Asia. These nations face significant threats to their security each day; these threats are not in the form of nuclear threats or military invasion from other nations, but in the form of human security issues such as poverty and hunger, the accessibility of healthcare and gainful employment, protection from the state against human rights violations, and protection both of and from the environment (Henk 2005). Human security scholars assert that the security of the individual citizen from the above factors, among others, has primary importance in developing nations, above that of security against military aggression.

The field of human security studies is vast, and is unquestionable out of the scope of this paper. Instead of attempting a generalized treatment of the field which would most definitely fail to fully explain the concepts involved, this paper will instead treat the issue of human security in two developing Asian nations: Indonesia and Burma. These examples were chose because of their obvious differences as well as their similar need for a more secure human situation. This case study will demonstrate that despite the economic and political differences, both Indonesia and Burma lack sufficient human security protections to ensure their most beneficial situation for both the state and its individual citizens.

To fully explore the situation in these nations, first we will examine the definitions of human security and how they are important in the developing world, followed by a specific examples of how this human security is not protected in Indonesia and Burma, concluding with ways that the governments of these two states might better protect human security, and why this would be beneficial to their overall security as well as the individual security of citizens.

HUMAN SECURITY: A FRAMEWORK FOR COMPLETE SECURITY

Political theory has long assumed that the principle actor in international relations is the state; states interact in order to ensure their own well-being and, in doing so, ensure the well-being of their citizens (Hayden 2004). The end of the Cold War revealed holes in this theory; there were states who were in no danger of foreign invasion or attack who were substantially insecure. This revelation led one think tank to note that there existed "challenges to security other than political rivalry and armaments," for example, development issues, overpopulation, and environmental degradation, among others (Stockholm Initiative, 1991, p. 17).

These threats to individual citizens, while not military or external threats and not perceived as immediately threatening to the state, are actually a state security issue. Rawls defines "unjust social arrangements" as "violence." (Rawls 1999, p. 302). The endorsement (even if it is implicit and not stated) of violence against citizens is most definitely a threat against a state's security. Aside from an outright citizen rebellion, which is obviously detrimental to the security of a state, citizens who are hungry, without shelter, unhealthy, unprotected from crime, and not fairly represented in government are detrimental to the security of the state in a manner other than militarily; each injury suffered by an unprotected citizen will eventually be felt by the state as a whole.

This shift in the idea of security from something that only applies to states en toto to a value of which every individual deserves protection from outside harms, including those potentially inflicted by the state itself (repression of beliefs or speech, or limited voting rights, for example) became a full-fledged theory of security in 1994, when the United Nations Development Program issued a report on the concept and state of human security (UN 1994). This report criticized the traditional concept of security as "too narrow" and expanded the definition to include "protection from the threat of disease, hunger, unemployment, crime, social conflict, political repression, and environmental hazards" (UN 1994, p. 22). These protections, the UN stated, were much more relevant in a post-Cold War world than was the protection against nuclear weapons or foreign invasion; poverty and disease were occurring daily on a massive scale in the developing (and semi-developed) world; military threats and nuclear war seemed much less immediate.

Individual insecurities, however, like disease, hunger, and political repression also threaten the security of the state as a whole, by undermining the individuals who make up the state. The next section outlines the specific human security issues faced by two developing southeastern Asian nations.

CASE STUDIES: HUMAN SECURITY IN INDONESIA AND BURMA

Indonesia and Burma have been selected as case studies due to their separate nature; they are each a part of southeastern Asia but have different security concerns and situations. Both, however, have pressing human security problems in the form of a repressive and abusive military and state apparatus, a lack of internal security demonstrated by internal conflicts, and both lack much of the necessary infrastructure to provide basic individual security for its citizens, leaving many in poverty, hunger, and in sub-part shelters. Below, both nations' situations will be detailed, including instances that directly affect the state's security -- like internal armed conflict -- as well as those have an indirect effect on the state security, such as the quality of life of the citizens and the state of the environment.

First, Indonesia; the largest archipelagic nation in the world is home to some of the world's most stunning beaches and vistas. This exceptional physical beauty masks the desperate nature of life for many Indonesian residents to tourists. Twenty-seven percent of Indonesians live below the poverty line, and after the tsunami of 2004, significant damage to the physical infrastructure occurred that will cost billions to repair. For the nearly 10% of Indonesians who are unemployed, daily necessities are a luxury that they can't afford, and post-tsunami, many families are without their homes, jobs, or any place to live and work at all (CIA Factbook 2004).

The human security effects of this poverty and unemployment are obvious; citizens who are hungry or homeless are less inclined to support the state as a whole, and more inclined to participate in dissident behavior. Crime can be linked to impoverished conditions as well, further deteriorating the internal security of the state. The Indonesian state has been "discredited to the point where many people have taken the law in their own hands...incidences of violent crime have gone up since the [Asian] economic crisis [of 1997]. A general state of lawlessness has therefore beset the country" (Anwar 2003, p. 547). This lawlessness detracts from the overall security of the Indonesian state by undermining the authority of the government and law enforcement, by depriving citizens of their possessions, freedoms and possibly their lives, and by serving as a detriment to tourism, a major source of income for the Indonesian government. One armed group has "especially targeted foreigners for kidnap and ransom; tourists and missionaries in the area are particularly vulnerable" (ibid.). This insecurity of person among both citizens and travelers who bring a significant portion of the economy can only work against the overall security of the Indonesian state.

This lawlessness is not Indonesia's only threat against the individual and collective security; the armed group mentioned earlier is one of several rebel militias in the nation. Hundreds of thousands of citizens have been displaced from Aceh, where government intervention against the rebel group there has created a state of near-war; even more refugees are internally displaced as a result of this conflict, 535,000, than the huge numbers of Indonesians who have been displaced as a result of the tsunami, 441,000 (CIA Factbook 2005). In addition to these displacements, crime and violations of liberty occur against citizens of Aceh every day: "in the month of January 2000 alone over 100 people were tortured, 21 were unlawfully killed, over 400 homes, shops, and stalls were burned down, and 90 homes and shops were damaged" (Anwar 2003, p. 547). These displacements, whether from fleeing armed conflict in Aceh or the natural disaster of December 2004, as well as the imminence of lawlessness and danger, create an atmosphere of instability among these refugees as well as their fellow citizens who see how negatively these displacements have affected their fellow countrymen, both economically and socially.

These internal conflicts significantly impact the overall security of the nation; one easy observation is that if the Indonesian military and law enforcement are spending significant amounts of their time managing internal and local conflicts, such as that in Aceh or the "open warfare between Christians and Muslims" in the area of Maluku, then the state's security as a whole is diminished due to these resources being diverted toward controlling internal strife and conflicts as opposed to protecting the entire state, as is their first and ideal task.

Burma is "a resource-rich country that suffers from government controls, inefficient economic policies, and abject rural poverty" (CIA Factbook, 2005). Most observers would rank Burma as considerable more oppressive than Indonesia; indeed, the two nations are different in political systems (military junta vs. democracy), economics (a real growth rate of over 4% for Indonesia while Burma is at -1.3%), and sources of revenue (Burma is more focused on exports, while Indonesia utilizes its tourist industry more) (ibid.).

What the two nations share, in addition to their geographic proximity, is a constant state of human insecurity. Burma's internal conflicts include a repressive government that substantially limits the human rights of citizens, and the military'has more child soldiers than any other country in the world, and its forces have used extrajudicial execution, rape, torture, forced relocation of villages, and forced labor in campaigns against rebel groups" (Human Rights Watch 2004). The specter of government oppression pervades nearly every aspect of Burmese life; fear of the government and of reprisal for "inappropriate" behavior is pervasive. Nearly 1,300 of the over 3,500 prisoners held as "security detainees" in Burmese prisons are suspected to be imprisoned because of their political beliefs and actions; many are members of parliament and were "arbitrarily arrested for exercising their freedoms of opinion and expression" (ibid.).

As evident from these two descriptions, both Burma and Indonesia have significant human security problems. The nations are dissimilar in their specific violations of individual rights and in the role of the government -- Burma's government is overtly oppressive, their military is accused of crimes such as rape, execution without trial, and of using child soldiers, crimes for which the United States and most developed nations use to justify their economic sanctions against Burma (HRW 2004). Indonesia's military, on the other hand, is not accused of such atrocities and has a relatively healthy relationship with the citizens and the developed world as a whole. The military conflict in Indonesia does play a role in creating instability, but it is nowhere near the scale of the instability wreaked by the Burmese military with the approval of the Burmese government.

What the nations have in common is that their human security (or insecurity) is profoundly more important to their situations that is their state security, or the traditional understanding of "security" in the international relations field. In the following section, this shift from external to internal focii will be explained and possible remedies to the human insecurity in southeast Asia will be introduced.

ENCOURAGING HUMAN SECURITY

Many nations take steps to ensure that their human security is maintained in a manner that benefits the security of the state. Industrialized nations, for example, provide social services to the poor, homeless, and/or hungry to combat these societal ills; many nations prevent government influence on individuals in matters such as speech, religious beliefs, and expression. This protection of basic tenets of human security creates a more secure nation by providing for its citizens and their freedoms; individuals who are happy with their nation are less likely to participate in internal conflicts as well as more beneficial to the state as an international entity by improving the economy and export/import ratio of the nation.

One primary method of encouraging human security is, Anwar says, to create a democratic political atmosphere (2005). Autocracies, dictatorships, and military governments leave much to be desired in terms of their attention to the individual and in terms of promoting human security;

"democracy and democratization are key components of human security. Human dignity does not depend only on people's ability to secure a livelihood. Equally important is individuals' right to participate in the decision-making processes that determine their lives. Democracy goes hand in hand with the protection of human rights, particularly civil and political rights" (Anwar 545).

One significant step toward ensuring human security, as Indonesia has done, is to promote a democratic society where citizens feel as if they are contributing to the nation as opposed to being ruled by it, as is the case in Burma.

Even the institution of democracy, however, is not sufficient to provide all human security needs -- protection from hunger, from One specific example of how a state may increase human security before it is a fully-functional democratic society is in the treatment of SARS in Vietnam. The Vietnam government's methods of addressing and treating SARS are a nearly-textbook case of ways to incorporate human security into a state and international crisis.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, had the potential to become an international nightmare -- a highly contagious, potentially fatal disease. In threatening the health of any nation home to or hosting an individual who had been exposed to the disease, SARS made a public health issue international. The realm of public health, once considered irrelevant to international relations, became one of the most vital areas to control and secure in light of the SARS epidemic (Curley and Thomas 2004). The disease did spread beyond its point of origin, in mainland China, to many southeast Asian nations; however, much of the spread of SARS was prevented by human security activities on the part of the Vietnamese government.

Vietnam had to address the SARS epidemic in February 2004, when the outbreak began within Vietnam's borders. It did so by instituting a strict quarantine to ensure that the disease did not spread -- but that measure could have been taken in any nation, and although it undoubtedly helped contain the virus, quarantine was not, in itself, a human security protection. What the Vietnamese government did which was an exceptional example of human security protection was to institute a massive public information campaign as well as a system of inter-ministerial communications between hospitals and health officials to monitor the spread of the disease (Curley and Thomas 2004). It was these methods of communication, both with the public and with relevant health officials, which prevented the disease from being spread out of ignorance of its high contagion and which gave the public a participatory role in ensuring their own security from the disease.

It is worth noting that although the first case of SARS was observed in November 2002, the World Health Organization was not notified until the last day of February 2003 (Curley and Thomas 2004, p. 21). A more participatory and communicative relationship between individuals who interact with human security issues each day, in this case, doctors and hospital staff, with officials in government who are more concerned with the welfare of the state as a whole, could have possibly prevented the SARS outbreak or at least contained to a smaller area.