Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
  • Save
A Human Security Approach in delivering as One to Vulnerable People facing multiple threats - Dr. Yasushi Katsuma
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

A Human Security Approach in delivering as One to Vulnerable People facing multiple threats - Dr. Yasushi Katsuma

  • 890 views
Published

In this presentation, I will try to achieve 4 objectives. …

In this presentation, I will try to achieve 4 objectives.
I will discuss that there seems to be some emerging consensus on the scope of “Human Security.”
I will show the complementarity between the “State Security” and “Human Security.”
I will explain that a “Human Security Approach” offers us a useful framework to assess & analyze the multiple threats that vulnerable people face.
I will discuss that this multidisciplinary “Human Security Approach,” overcoming academic compartmentalization in “delivering as one,” is effective in narrowing the gap through the dual strategies of empowerment and protection.

This work was presented during the II Workshop on Medical Anthropology in Rome, on October 14th - 15th 2011.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
890
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • It is always tough to be the 1 st speaker in a session. And today, I am a bit more nervous because I will talk about human security, a stimulating concept, in front of these distinguished participants. But of course, I am not here to preach you what to believe. Rather, coming from a university, my role is to simply summarize the on-going debate on HS, and contextualize its approach within the current discussion on MDGs, with special emphasis on health MDGs. As you see the screen, the title of my presentation is… And the subtitle is…
  • In this presentation, I will try to achieve 4 objectives. I will discuss that there seems to be some emerging consensus on the scope of “ Human Security .” I will show the complementarity between the “ State Security ” and “ Human Security .” I will explain that a “ Human Security Approach ” offers us a useful framework to assess & analyze the multiple threats that vulnerable people face. I will discuss that this multidisciplinary “ Human Security Approach ,” overcoming academic compartmentalization in “delivering as one,” is effective in narrowing the gap through the dual strategies of empowerment and protection.
  • First, let us review the evolving debate on HS. UNDP’s Human Development Report of 1994 introduced the concept of HS to the international development community, emphasizing both freedom from fear and freedom from want. On the other hand, HS Network has paid special attention to freedom from fear. The Commission on HS, co-chaired by Prof. Amartya Sen and Madam Sadako Ogata, former UN High Commission for Refugees, folllowed the tradition of the UNDP report.
  • Now, let me summarize their positions in a matrix. One school of HS has a wider scope, including violence and poverty. Another HS school has a focus on violence only.
  • While these 2 competing paradigms keep creating tensions among global policy-makers, there seems to be some emerging consensus. At the World Summit in 2005, The Heads of State and Government committed themselves to define the notion of Human Security . At the same time, the member states have endorsed The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) the populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, that is, mass atrocities. In 2010, UNSG Ban Ki-Moon published a report. It says that Human Security does not entail the use of force against the sovereignty of States. Human Security is different from the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Human Security integrates the goals of (1) freedom from fear , (2) freedom from want , and (3) freedom to live in dignity.
  • Now, let me summarize these in a matrix. UNSG’s report excludes mass atrocities from the scope of HS, and explicitly adds equity concerns to the concept. On the other hand, mass atrocities will be discussed within the R2P framework.
  • Let us move on to the 2 nd objective of my presentation: Complementarity between “State Security” & “Human Security”. HS is people-centered. HS identified multiple threats (Violence; Poverty; Equity) to Vulnerable People. HS has 2 inter-related strategies. Empowerment of Vulnerable People to Enhance their Resilience to Multiple Threats; Building Capacities of the Communities & Governments to Mitigate the Threats Themselves and to Protect Vulnerable People already Affected by the Threat
  • Let me introduce you to a recent initiative by PAHO (Pan American Health Organization). Based on the resolution “Health, Well-being, and HS” adopted by the member states, PAHO now has a mandate to define the health sector contribution to HS. Member states now have the mandate to analyze HS to include it in their national health plans.
  • There are 2 inter-agency platforms already available for the “Health, Well-being, and HS.” Inter American Coalition for the Prevention of Violence Pan American Alliance for Nutrition and Development Currently, PAHO is drafting a reference document “Public Health and Human Security”
  • Let’s move on to my 3 rd objective: A Human Security Approach as an Analytical Framework. We identify and put vulnerable people at the core of our analysis. Some of them have their own families, while others don’t.
  • These vulnerable people face multiple threats to their freedom from want, freedom from fear, and freedom to live in dignity. Broadly speaking, these threats may be categorized into 3 groups: poverty, violence, and inequity. For example, think of a girl child in Country A. Her family has limited access to safe drinking water, and often suffer from diarrhea. As a result of health promotion, she now travels to a well and fetch relatively clean water, spending 3 hours a day, carrying out one of the traditional roles of women in that society. While traveling to the well, she faces the danger of anti-personal landmines. If she becomes disabled, will she be allowed to continue receiving education?
  • For this family, there are several external layers: community/local gov/national gov/regional org. In addition, there are CSOs/NGOs, whether local, national or international.
  • The empowerment strategy is to empower the vulnerable people and their family to enhance their resilience to these multiple threats already affecting them. The protection strategy is to build capacities of their communities and governments to mitigate the threats themselves, and protect the vulnerable people already affected by the threats through development partnerships, policies, programs & projects, and participation.
  • Lastly, I would like to emphasize the indivisibility of peace, development and human rights. They are inter-related.
  • Is there any value added by the HS approach? My tentative response is that it is useful to overcome academic compartmentalization in “delivering as one”. Current and emerging threats are Multiple, complex and inter-related . They have Global, trans-national or intra-state dimensions that often go beyond the state system. The multi-disciplinary human security approach is effective in narrowing the gap By Assessing & analyzing the multiple threats to vulnerable people. By Formulating the empowerment strategy to enhance the resilience of vulnerable people facing multiple threats. By Formulating the protection strategy to building capacities of the communities & governments. Therefore, in short, the multi-disciplinary human security approach is useful to overcome academic compartmentalization in “delivering as one”, and the dual strategies of empowerment and protection is effective in narrowing the implementation gap.

Transcript

  • 1. Yasushi KATSUMA , Ph.D., LL.M. Visiting Scholar, Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University Professor, Faculty of International Research & Education; Director, Waseda Institute for Global Health, Waseda University
  • 2.
    • I will discuss that there seems to be some emerging consensus on the scope of “ Human Security . ”
    • I will show the complementarity between the “ State Security ” and “ Human Security .”
    • I will explain that a “ Human Security Approach ” offers us a useful framework to assess & analyze the multiple threats that vulnerable people face.
    • I will discuss that this multidisciplinary “ Human Security Approach , ” overcoming academic compartmentalization in “delivering as one ,” is effective in narrowing the gap through the dual strategies of empowerment and protection.
  • 3.
    • UNDP Human Development Report (1994)
      • Freedom from fear ; and Freedom from want .
      • Security: Economic, Food, Health, Environmental, Personal, Community, and Political.
    • Human Security Network (1999-)
      • Freedom from pervasive threats to people’s rights, their safety or even their lives. [Freedom from fear]
    • Commission on Human Security (2003) ; Friends of Human Security (2006-)
      • To protect the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment.
      • Protecting people from critical and pervasive threats.
  • 4. 1994 HDR; 2003 CHS; Friends of Human Security (2006- ) Human Security Network (1999- ) HUMAN SECURITY Freedom from Fear (Violence) HUMAN  SECURITY Freedom from Want (Poverty)
  • 5.
    • World Summit (2005)
      • All individuals are entitled to freedom from fear and freedom from want , with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their human potential.
      • The Heads of State and Government committed themselves to define the notion of Human Security .
      • The Responsibility to Protect ( R2P ) the populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity (mass atrocities).   [Prevent; React; Rebuild]
    • UN Secretary-General’s Report (2010)
      • Human Security does not entail the use of force against the sovereignty of States. Human Security is different from the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
      • Human Security integrates the goals of (1) freedom from fear , (2) freedom from want , and (3) freedom to live in dignity , through people-centered, comprehensive, context-specific and preventive strategies.
  • 6. 2010 UNSG Report 1994 HDR; 2003 CHS; Friends of Human Security (2006- ) Human Security Network (1999- ) 2001 ICISS; 2005 World Summit HUMAN SECURITY Mass Atrocities ----------- Freedom from Fear (Violence) HUMAN  SECURITY R2P HUMAN SECURITY Freedom from Want (Poverty) Freedom to Live in Dignity (Equity)
  • 7. State Security Human Security For whom? State-Centered People-Centered What threats? Military & Political Threats to the State Multiple Threats (Violence; Poverty; Equity) to Vulnerable People Scope of threats? Inter-State; Intra-State Global; Trans-national; Intra-State What actors? State; Regional & Int’l Organizations People & their Families; Communities; CSOs & NGOs; Local & National Governments; Regional & International Organizations Strategies Military Defense; Conflict Resolution
    • Empowerment of Vulnerable People to Enhance their Resilience to Multiple Threats;
    • Building Capacities of the Communities & Governments to Mitigate the Threats Themselves and to Protect Vulnerable People already Affected by the Threats
    Policy circles Defense Studies; Political Science Peace Studies; Development Studies; Human Rights Studies
  • 8.
    • MANDATE
    • Guidelines on
      • Policy Framework based on causal determinants
      • Apply essential public health function
      • Define the Health Sector contribution to Human Security
      • Increase Primary Health Care , Impact Assessment and Professional capacity
      • Collaborate with UN Organizations
    • Member States
      • Analyze Human Security to include it in National Health Plans
      • Emphasis on intersector action
    • To the Director:
      • Follow the UN Debate
      • Develop policy and methodological guidelines
      • Debate and sensitize (capacity) within the Organization and State Members
  • 9.
    • Dialogue
      • At the Regional Meeting on Violence and Injuries Prevention
      • In Central America
        • Sub-regional Workshop (in Panamá City): UNDP-PAHO
        • Technical National Groups: El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras
    • Engaging 2 available Interagency Platforms
      • Inter American Coalition for the Prevention of Violence (OAS, PAHO, UN-Habitat, CDC, UNESCO, UNDP, WB, IDB)
      • Pan American Alliance for Nutrition and Development (ECLAC, PAHO, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNAIDS, WFP, ILO, UNIFEM, UNODC, UNEP, UNOPS, OHCHR)
    • Drafting PAHO’s Reference Document “Public Health and Human Security”
  • 10. Vulnerable People Family
  • 11. Vulnerable People ex) Anti-Personal Landmines Family Multiple Threats of: ex) Lack of Access to Safe Water Poverty Violence ex) Gender-Based Discrimination Inequity
  • 12. Regional Organization Vulnerable People National Government Local Government Community Family CSOs/NGOs Multiple Threats of: Poverty Violence Inequity ex) Anti-Personal Landmines ex) Lack of Access to Safe Water ex) Gender-Based Discrimination
  • 13. Regional Organization Vulnerable People Partnership Policy Participation National Government Local Government Community Family Empowerment Strategy Program Protection Strategy CSOs/NGOs Multiple Threats of: Inequity Poverty Violence ex) Anti-Personal Landmines ex) Lack of Access to Safe Water ex) Gender-Based Discrimination
  • 14. Peace Studies Development Studies Human Rights Studies Threats Violence Poverty Inequity Orientation Freedom from Fear Freedom from Want Freedom to Live in Dignity Objectives Improving Safety Achieving Goals (MDGs) Setting Norms Academic disciplines Anthropology; Political Science Economics; Business; Sociology; Health & Nutrition Sciences; Education; Agriculture Law Strategic interventions Reconciliation for Peace; Banning Inhumane Weapons Partnerships; Policy Changes; Programs & Projects; Community Participation Rights-Holders (People) claiming their Rights to the Duty-Bearer (State)
  • 15.
    • Current and emerging threats
      • Multiple, complex and inter-related
      • Global, trans-national or intra-state dimensions
    • The multi-disciplinary HS approach , overcoming academic compartmentalization in “delivering as one,” is effective in narrowing the gap:
      • Assessing & analyzing the multiple threats to vulnerable people.
      • Formulating the empowerment strategy to enhance the resilience of vulnerable people facing multiple threats.
      • Formulating the protection strategy to building capacities of the communities & governments
        • to mitigate the threats themselves; and
        • to protect vulnerable people already affected by the threats.
  • 16.
    • Thank You!