Taylor Owen of the International Peace Research Institute points out that criticisms of human security tend to fall into two categories, theoretical and political2. Theoretical critiques question the validity of the process by which official threats to human security are labeled as such. Also in question is the number of offenses that are labeled, that there are too many and that having too many dilutes the power of the philosophy.
Political critiques question the consequences of securitizing development and humanitarian efforts. Having the stigma of “security” can lead to militarization of these efforts, and while the manpower and transportation resources available in the military is a welcome addition, the show of force, even the possibility of force can undermine the spirit of the effort. Other criticisms point out that support in certain developing areas could pull resources from efforts to help those that are ideological allies, and put them towards those with ideological difference (i.e. Breeding Terrorists).
Owen suggests that empirical procedures should be used to study the effects of each threat on its own, as opposed to multiple threats at the same time, and from that research determine priorities and thresholds as a guideline to govern actions in support of human security. Without a system similar it Owen's to provide definite guidance for the efforts, it would be impractical to name human security as the core value of foreign affairs.
Don't Bite the Hand That Feeds You
Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) adjusted for purchasing power, ranks as the 11th highest in the world3, but the total value of the foreign trade (in 2003) ranks as the 4th highest in the world4. The high level of trade is clearly very important to Canada's economy, and the United States has a large share in that trade. According to Statistics Canada March 2005, the United States were responsible for 84.64% of all Canadian exports, and 58.8% of all Canadian imports. The same is true of Canada's rank in the United States' top trading partners, although at a smaller percentage. Canada is responsible for 23.6% of the United States' exports, and 17.6% of imports (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/index.html), so while Canada is also important to the American economy, it is at a much lower level. This partnership works well for both countries now, but if Canada were to take a stance on human security, they would need to confront the United States on some issues. The first value of the Human Security Program is the Protection of Civilians. The United States keeps an active naval base on Cuban soil, at Guantanamo Bay, and uses it to house prisoners. As of June 2005, it was suspected that that about 520 foreign terrorism suspects were being imprisoned there without charge, and there are constant accusations of mistreatment of prisoners. 3 Britons were released from Guantanamo in 2004 without charge, and later released a 115 page report that details alleged torture, religious persecution, sexual degradation, and forced drugging. Clearly there are some questionable practices by the USA, the kind that would need to be addressed if Canada wished to continue trade and hold the values of human security as core to them. In this hypothetical situation, there are 3 probably outcomes. The first, that Canada confronts the United States and convinces them to reform their ways. This is the least likely scenario. Second, Canada confronts their neighbor about their questionable imprisonment practices, but the United States do not reform. In this situation, it is likely that one state or the other would make changes to their trade agreements, Canada as a sign of disapproval with practices against their core values, or the United States in a gesture of punishment to weaker state who has tried to disrespect them in the International theater. Either way, Canada has much more to lose from this than the USA does, and to endanger the integrity of its own economy in an effort to help non-Canadian citizens, while seemingly noble, is irresponsible and does a disservice to the Canadians that elected the government who brought about these decisions.
Posing
In the hypothetical situation outlined above, there is mention of three possible outcomes, the third being that Canada declares human security as their core value and continues trade with the United States, ignoring any threats that they may pose. This situation puts Canada in a far more questionable position than the previous two. Canada would be flying the banner of human security, probably pursuing multiple efforts around the world, all financed in part by their trade agreement with the United States, who's actions in Guantanamo Bay allegedly violate the basic human rights of those imprisoned there, and who's preemptive strike against Saddam Hussein in Iraq does not uphold the philosophies of “Conflict Prevention” and “Peace Support Operations”.
Is Canada that powerless against the United States? Mark Proudman claims that even this is true of European countries due to their inability to make war anywhere if need be (cite). With all states essentially reduced to a soft power position except for the USA, Canada has an unfortunate partner to be economically tied to if they want to be the marquee upholder of human security.
It’s The Thought That Counts
The desire to uphold human security is a noble one, it foregoes the realist philosophy of exclusively self serving states. All signs point to this movement evolving towards success, the desire is there, the principles are developing. Foreign Affairs Canada has already created a human security program and is acting on it. They have joined the Human Security Network with over a dozen other like-minded countries to share their vision.
Human security is still a pipe dream, it hasn’t yet matured enough to support the weight of a country’s foreign policy. Canada has the reputation, the resources, and the generous national attitude to become a great champion for this cause, unfortunately the cause is not ready for the champion.
Bibliography
1. Foreign Affairs Canada Website, 2004, http://www.humansecurity.gc.ca/psh_brief-en.asp
(June 10, 2005).
2. Taylor Owen, “Human Security – Conflict, Critique and Consensus: Colloquium Remarks and a Proposal for a Threshold-Based Definition,” Security Dialogue 35(3) (2004):373-87.
3. Stats Canada Website, 2005,
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/indi01b.htm
(June 10, 2005).
4
----------
Human Security as a young concept, is it irresponsible to create policy based on unproven, non-consensused, highly contested ideals(definition.pdf pg 6)?
Theoretical critique questions the validity of the process whereby threats to security are 'added to the list'. Labeling too many things as security threats dilutes the level of necessity. Proper research isn't being done
Political critique questions the consequences of securitizing development and humanitarian assistance. Prioritizing aide to developing areas could mean aide being diverted to those with ideological differences as opposed to ideological allies.
Owen (definition.pdf pg11-12) proposes scientific study to define what threats are, and established threshold values to define when action is required. Until such a thing is done, useless. Also, little to no major works done by opponents so far. Ironically, the 'west' are the ones diagnosing these problems, and they are shown to be the cause of many of them. (reply to tow.pdf, pg2-3)
Who are Canada's friends?
International Trade Canada lists Chile, Costa Rica, Israel, the United States, and Mexico as the countries it currently enjoys Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with. (http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/reg-en.asp)
Why does Canada need them
-1/3 of GDP from exports
- 85% of exports to USA
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html)
Can we continue to do this level of business with USA and still claim that Human Security is a core value?
USA not member of human security network (over a dozen member states)
