Human Security——Focusing on Japan

沈乐乐2015.4.23

Contents

• introduction of human security

• Japan's responce

Human Security• oringin

– The UNDP’s (1994) 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 ndividual in order to enhance his or her well-being and dignity.

– 联合国开发计划署《人类发展报告》强烈呼吁 , 安全的本质和关注点从此要从国家、 核武器转向“人” ( 包括个人和人组成的群体 ) 。这种以人为本的安全包含两 方面的内涵 : 一是免受诸如饥饿、疾病、压迫等慢性威胁 ; 二是家庭、工作或社区等日常生活免受突如其来的中断的威胁。

• seven aspects – economic security– food security– health security– environmental security– personal security– community security– political security

• 能造成人的安全威胁的七大范畴或领域– (1 ) 经济安全 : 确保基本的收入 ;– (2) 食品安全 : 所有人在任何时候都享有基本粮食供应的保障 ;– (3) 健康安全 : 免于疾病的传染和过早死亡的威胁 , 尤其是在发展中国家和贫困人群中 ;– (4) 环境安全 : 确保人类生活的健康环境 , 使之免受破坏 ;– (5) 人身安全 : 免遭直接的人身暴力威胁 , 这是人的安全中至关重要的要素 ;– (6) 共同体安全 : 确保某种归属感给人带来的安全 , 保护共同体的文化特性和传统 ;– (7) 政治安全 : 每个人都应生活在他们的基本人权得到尊重和保障的社会。

Human Security• definitions

– Narrow definitions concern violent threats to individuals, placing the ‘freedom from fear’ aspect at the core of consideration.

– Broad definitions include not only violent threats but also hunger, disease, and natural disasters (freedom from want), since these have caused more deaths than war and violent conflict, particularly during the last decade.

• two major components– freedom from want 免于匮乏的自由– freedom from fear 免于恐惧的自由– On the whole, the needs of people in the region – whether economic, health-related, enviro

nmental, cultural, or political – are about ‘freedom from want’,whereas the ongoing violence – whether by armed groups or by state authorities – is about ‘freedom from fear’.

• 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’.

– This consideration is critical to the notion of the ‘responsibility to protect’,whereby threats are addressed in terms of a state’s failure.

– 但人的安全的概念却有着非常不同的伦理视角。尤其是在主权、干涉、国家与公民之间的关系等问题上 , 人的安全强调和追问国家的合法性到底在哪里。也即它强调国家主权的国际合法性不仅在于对领土的控制 , 更重要的是在于如何履行作为国家的义务 , 如达到基本人权标准 ,或提供一定的社会福利等等。换言之 , 只靠抵御外来军事威胁甚至成功的经济政策 , 都难以保障一个政府的合法性甚至生存权。国家必须展示出它对公民的支持和服务。因此 , 从人的安全视角 , 在回答谁的安全威胁的来源以及用什么方式去达到这种安全这些重要问题时 , 个体或社群至少要成为指涉对象之一。

Human Security• relationship with other concepts

– Non-traditional security(NTF)• First, in a region where historical animosities remain high, NTS issues can avoid sensitive areas and find common ground

for cooperation that traditional security approaches would be unable to envisage. • Second, NTS cooperation has turnedpeople-to-people relations in a more prominent and conciliatory direction, and enhan

ced human security consideration, thus taking things further than the indirect consequences of functionalism.

• NTS and human security are conceptually not the same, NTS can enhance human security considerations.

• 联合国提出的“人的安全”概念在更大程度上超越了传统的国际关系研究范畴 ,走向了以人为本的非传统安全研究。“社会安全”、“人的安全”作为非传统安全理论研究中的主要领域 ,将“人”和“社会”作为安全的指涉对象 , 不仅为安全治理提供了新的主体和目标 , 也为非传统安全能力建设提供了具有参照意义的维度。

– Responsibility to Protect(R2P)• The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a new doctrine in collective security,was given impetus

in July 2009 by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his report, ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect’, presented at the United Nations General Assembly (2009).

• A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

• The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.

• If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

• 国家保护责任：政府有责任保护平民，如果一国政府做不到，国际社会可以采取行动。

Japan's Responce• Environmental security and regional cooperation

– Sino–Japanese cooperation in the environmental security area started quite early—in the late 1970s—and has achieved encouraging outcomes.

• the Environmental Development Model City Plan• the Sino–Japanese Greening Communication Fund or the Obuchi Fund.

– The establishment of the Tripartite Environment Ministers Meeting (TEMM) between China, Japan and South Korea in 1999 symbolised a more formal and institutionalised cooperation among the three major Northeast Asian countries.

• TEMM is the highest level intergovernmental forum promoting environmental cooperation in Northeast Asia.

• In 2009, ten priority areas for environmental protection were identified at the 11th Tripartite Environment Ministers Meeting (TEMM 11) of China, Japan and South Korea.

– Environmental cooperation is also bringing local governments, NGOs and civil society groups into greater prominence in regional affairs.

• In Japan, environment-related NGOs include the East Asia Environmental Information Express Messenger (EAEIEM) and Study Group for a Sustainable Society (SGSS).

• Japan commenced bilateral grant aid for grassroots human security – together　 with multilateral commitment via UNTFHS – that supported local NGOs　and civil society organizations engaged in post-conflict humanitarian programs.

Japan's Responce• Disaster management and regional cooperation

– Disaster management is another important area of NTS cooperation in Northeast Asia, as the region is subject to natural disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons, floods, landslides and tsunamis.

– China and Japan have cooperated closely in earthquake relief at various levels, including the governmental, institutional and scientific.

• the China Earthquake Administration and the Japan Meteorological Agency have established collaborative relations and play an important role in initiating cooperation in this area.

• Scientists from both countries maintain close contact and collaboration in the fields of seismology and earthquake engineering.

• The University of Tokyo and Kyoto University of Japan have worked closely with Chinese institutions in research on disaster prevention and volcanic earthquake areas.

– China, Japan and South Korea have all made great efforts to enhance their cooperation in the area of disaster management

• The chief agencies involved were The China Earthquake Administration, The Japan Meteorological Agency and The Korea Meteorological Administration.

Sino–Japanese cooperation in the environmental security area started quite early—in the late 1970s

—and has achieved encouraging outcomes.• 1977： the first Japanese environmental delegations visited China.

• 1988:Japan provided official development assistance (ODA) to China’s environmental

• projects, in the form of an environment-related yen loan.

• 1988:the establishment of a Sino–Japan Friendship Centre for Environmental Protection (SJC) 1994: the conclusion of the Agreement on Environmental Protection and Cooperation.

• 1996:the formal establishment of the Sino–Japanese Friendship Centre for Environmental Protection.

• 1998: the Sino-Japanese Joint Communique´ on Environmental Cooperation in the 21st Century.

• 2007: the first China–Japan high-level economic dialogue, in which environmental protection and energy-saving emerged as the central issue.

• ......

Japan's Responce• The concept of ‘comprehensive security’ developed by

Japan in the 1970s (adopted in the early 1980s) and later adopted by many East Asians is a good indicator.

– Japan has long embraced a broader understanding of security that goes beyond military defence. Issues such as economic factors, energy, food and earthquake became important aspects of its national security considerations.

• In the environmental aspect, the key development is the common experience of ‘elevating’ the significance of environmental problems into security threats.

– ‘Becoming a Leading Environmental Nation Strategy in the 21st Century—Japan’s Strategy for a Sustainable Society’.

• 1995:曰本首相村山富市在联合国大会上表示人的安全理念应该被用来推动安全从关注国家安全到关注个人安全和权利的转型 ,并提出日本将实施以人为本的和以社会发展为目的的政府开发援助 (ODA) 。

• 亚洲金融危机 (1997-1998年 ) 的爆发使日本格外关注人的安全中的经济与社会因素 , 尤其是在进行危机援助时日本强调作为基本的人的安全的健康和就业问题、社会中的弱势群体问题 . 更多地体现了人的安全中“免于匮乏的自由”。

• 1998 ： Prime Minister Keizo　Obuchi visited Southeast Asian countries and expressed his vision of human security assistance targeting people suffering from the impact of the　 1997–1998 Asian economic crisis.

• 1999年外交蓝皮书 :专门列入了人的安全保障栏目 ,指出只要是涉及确保人的“生存”、“日常生活” 和“尊严”的问题 , 如贫困问题、毒品泛滥、传染病、自然灾害、对人权的侵犯、 地雷杀伤人员等问题 , 都应涵盖在人的安全概念中。

The concept of ‘comprehensive security’ developed by Japan in the 1970s (adopted in the early 1980s) and later

adopted by many East Asians is a good indicator.

• Akaha argues, for Japan,concerns such as economic factors, energy, food and earthquake are not necessarily ‘non-traditional’ security issues but continuing problems.

• With few natural resources—as sharply revealed in the oil crisis of 1973–1974—and highly vulnerable to natural disasters, it was perhaps inevitable that Japan should be especially preoccupied with its economic security, including the supply of energy and food.

• 日本有关注相关问题的先天传统。

Japan's Responce

• Human security is Japan’s core diplomatic policy.– 2000： Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori declared at the UN Millennium Sum

mit that human security was a pillar of Japan’s foreign policy– Japan has developed self-esteem as the ‘promoter of human security’ in　 the international community

• Given the economic orientation of Japan’s human security doctrine, ‘freedom from want’ was valued more highly than ‘freedom from fear’.

• Japan’s human security　 approach lacks any mechanism to provide protection to people in conflict　 situations where the concerned state has no ability or political will to stop violence and atrocities.– Both ‘protection’ and ‘empowerment’ emphasized in　 Japan’s human s

ecurity concept are only effective in pre- and post-conflict　 stages, and there is no provision for stopping ongoing violence and crimes　 that endanger people’s life and dignity under conflict situations. This is a serious drawback to Japan’s human security policy.

Human security is Japan’s core diplomatic policy.

• Japan has aspired to play an influential role in the field of international security particularly since the Gulf War in 1990–1991.

• the financial contribution was not greatly appreciated, the government began to seek an alternative way to demonstrate Japan’s more active engagement in international security issues.

• They found the answer in the concept of human security that first drew global attention in a 1994 UNDP report.

‘freedom from want’ was valued more highly than ‘freedom from fear’.

• Clearly, while favoring a people-centered approach, policymakers in the region have become wary of the ‘freedom from fear’ aspect of human security. They worry that it may justify intervention by other countries in response to internal conflicts in which human rights violations are often the causes, symptoms, and consequences of violence.

• According to Acharya (2007: 20), this is why Southeast Asian governments remain wedded to state security, although contrasting reactions can be found within academia and the nongovernmental sector.

• It is easier for Japan to work with 'freedom from want' than 'freedom from fear'– economy– the nature of country

• 海湾战争结束后 , 日本通过参与联合国维 和行动 (PKO) 的途径首次向海湾地区派遣了自卫队扫雷艇参加多国部队的 扫雷作业 ,并于 1992年在国会通过《协助联合国维持和平活动法案》 , 从法 律上确定自卫队可出国执行联合国主持的国际维和行动。但是这些举动却引起了日本邻国的高度戒备 ,并怀疑其军国主义的复活。因此 , 日本对人的安全的理解和采纳在理论上虽然很宽泛和综合 , 同时包括免于恐惧和免于匮乏的自由 , 但在外交实践中日本却更倾向于后者 , 其主要原因还在于考量周边国家对日本军事行为和人道主义干预问题的敏感性

Japan's Responce• Various development programs have been incorporated into the human

security framework, ranging from community development, medical services, educational improvement, poverty eradication and civil society mpowerment, to name a few, but none directly address the fear factor.

– The first challenge to such selective interpretation and implementation of Japan’s human security foreign policy was posed by the ‘global war on terrorism’

– he experience in Iraq became a breakthrough for the Japanese government to lower the perceived boundary between ‘freedom from want’ and ‘freedom from fear’ in conducting human security policy.

– Soon after, however, a new global development challenged Japan’s human security diplomacy stemming from the UN adoption of R2P in the 2005 World Summit Outcome.

– it clearly resonates with the principle of human security – especially its ‘freedom from fear’ aspect

– Japan, given its emphasis on human security’s non-military approach, faces a challenge of responding to R2P advocates and critics. Supporting R2P might signal that Japan is abandoning its post-WWII pacifism, while opposing the new security doctrine could weaken Japan’s position in UN diplomacy. Consequently, Japan took the compromise position of ‘passively’ supporting the World Summit adoption of R2P.

Japan's Responce——R2P• During the General Assembly’s plenary session cited above, the Japanese r

epresentative welcomed the Secretary-General’s initiative and expressed support for R2P, but this does not mean that Japan strongly supports efforts to mainstream R2P policies.

• Ban Ki-moon’s message had an impact on Japanese policymakers regarding R2P; it was no longer a threat to Japan’s diplomatic identity as champion of human security.

• Japan was ready to participate in R2P implementation,provided that it be strictly limited in scope and confined to addressing the four specific crimes.

– UN General Assembly’s plenary meeting in July 2009

• Thus, Japan no longer views R2P as a threat to human security doctrine, but also sees little incentive to play a bigger role in mainstreaming R2P.

unenthusiastic on R2P• It is not simply due to the fact that R2P envisages the use of military means in fulfillin

g the responsibility of the international community, but also due to concerns that R2P may undermine the concept of human security, Japan’s keystone diplomatic initiative in the international community.

• Japan’s reluctance, however, was more due to its desire to attract support for its bid to reform the UN and gain a permanent seat on the UNSC and also because it was concerned that R2P would overshadow its own diplomatic efforts to promote human security.

• Having failed　 in its ambition to reform the UN and assume a position commensurate with　 its financial contributions, Japan had no incentive to embrace a new concept such as R2P, especially since it was an initiative that might overshadow　 its own efforts to promote human security as a new international norm.

– Japan was concerned that R2P would highlight the ‘weakness’ of its human security approach and would dredge up the old issue of dispatching　 the SDF to conflict zones, one that always provokes domestic disputes and　 could undermine ‘trust’ in Japan’s non-military human security approach.

– R2P was a threat to Japan’s efforts　 to create a more assertive diplomatic identity. The government also interpreted R2P as an approach to human security that negated Japan’s emphasis on non-military means.

• Thus, importantly, in respect of the question of ‘security for whom?’, the state is no longer the only referent object of security. In other words, security is no longer regarded as exclusively about the state, because other referent objects, such as individuals, groups, even ecological systems, have now been recognised.

• human security brings to mind intervention.

Ban Ki-moon’s message

• Japan has long been a leader in the area of human security. You　 are increasingly focusing on the relationship between human security and the responsibility to protect – the obligation accepted by all　 States . . .

• There are many ways to do this. Helping countries to build　 capacity, ensuring early warning, taking decisive action in response to　 threats, and collaborating with regional and other groupings are all　 part of the responsibility to protect. Prevention is the key . . .

• We look to Japan’s leadership in developing ways to translate [the responsi-bility to protect] into practice.

• (United Nations Information Centre 2008)

UN General Assembly’s plenary meeting in July 2009

• Yukio Takasu praised the report for strictly limiting R2P to four specific crimes –i.e. genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity –and excluding the possibility of enlarging the scope to cover threats such as poverty, pandemics, climate change, and natural disasters.

• Ambassador Takasu further asserted that international assistance and capacity-building – which were identified as R2P’s Pillar two – should not be wide-ranging and instead focus on issues such as the rule of law, security sector reform and protection of human rights