Human security threats in Indonesia and Burma

¶ … 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.

CONCLUSIONS

The SARS epidemic is but one specific example of the affirmation that "the security of the state resides in the security of the individual," (Curley and Thomas 2004, p. 17). A secure and healthy nation requires that its citizens be protected not only from external threats like foreign attack or invasion, but from more individualized threats like crime, poverty, and infectious disease. Critics of human security theory note that it is nearly impossible to enforce via external mechanisms, like the U.N. They are correct; however, it is the hope of human security scholars that, upon seeing the traditional state security that is to be gained via providing individual human security, these states will implement more human security-friendly measures on their own.

The human security perspective, then, may not immediately solve all of the problems of international relations, and may not be implemented by every underdeveloped nation, but it can "provide some basis for answering the challenges posed by the common pathologies evident in failed and failing states" (Henk 102). The debate over the position of human security still simmers, even after the demonstration of its efficacy in one realm in the SARS outbreak (see Timothy, K. 2004 for a more detailed discussion of the international debate on the validity of human security theory).

Human security theory is not meant to replace or out-rank traditional theories of international relations or of relations between states, but to provide a framework for preventing many of the disputes and potential conflicts that populate traditional international theory. By assuring the individual security of each citizen, human security theory asserts, the security of the state as a whole is protected -- and this, instead of replacing other theories of international relations, can "not replace but rather complement" these theories in a manner most beneficial to all actors in the international arena (Ogata 2004, p. 26).

Works Consulted

Alagappa, M. And Inaguchi, T., eds., 1999. International Security Management and the United Nations. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Anwar, D., 2003. "Human Security: An Intractable Problem in Asia" in Muthia Alagappa, ed., Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features, Stanford: Stanford University Press; 536-567

Buzan, B. And Waever, O., 2003. Regions and Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chalk, P.,2005. "Militant Islamic Extremism in Southeast Asia," in Terrorism and Violence in Southeast Asia, Smith, P., 2005. London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 19-37.

CIA Factbook, Burma, 2005. Online at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bm.html.

CIA Factbook, Indonesia, 2004. Online at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bm.html.

Curley, M. And Thomas, N., 2004. "Human security and public health in Southeast Asia: the SARS outbreak," in Australian Journal of International Affairs, 58(1), pp. 17-32.

Dupont, A., 2005. "Transnational Violence in the Asia-Pacific: An Overview of Current Trends," in Terrorism and Violence in Southeast Asia, Smith, P., 2005. London: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 3-18.

Hayden, P., 2004. "Constraining War: Human Security and the Human Right to Peace," in Human Rights Review 6(1), pp.35-55.

Harada, S. And Tanaka, A., 1999. "Regional arrangements, the United Nations, and security in Asia," in Alagappa, M. And Inaguchi, T., eds., 1999. International Security Management and the United Nations. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 323-346.

Henk, D. 2005. "Human Security: Relevance and Implications," Parameters 35(2), pp. 91-106.

Human Rights Watch, 2004. "Human Rights Overview, Burma." Online at http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia& c=burma

Human Rights Watch, 2004. "Human Rights Overview, Indonesia." Online at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/indone9823.htm

Peck, C., 1999. "UN Preventive Action," in Alagappa, M. And Inaguchi, T., eds., 1999. International Security Management and the United Nations. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 427-444.

Pernia, E. And Deolalikar, A., eds., 2003. Poverty, Growth and Institutions in Developing Asia. New York: Macmillan.

Smith, P., ed., 2005. Terrorism and Violence in Southeast Asia. London: M.E. Sharpe.

Stockholm Initiative on Global Security and Governance, 1991. Common Responsibility in the 1990s. Stockholm: Prime Minister's Office.

Timothy, K., 2004. "Human Security Discourse at the United Nations," in Peace Review, 16(1), pp. 19-24.

United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report, 1994. http://hrd.undp.org/reports/global/1994/en/.