Human Security: Relevance and Implications

Abstract

Since the end of the Cold War, the phrase "human security" increasingly has surfaced in scholarly literature, in the conversations of policy professionals and policy advocates, and occasionally in the popular media. The phrase itself suggests a departure from the esoteric jargon of the Cold War, which was preoccupied with state-centric issues of thermonuclear holocaust, strategic alliances, compellance, and deterrence. But despite its increasing usage, the new concept rarely is defined for the lay reader and seems to carry a slippery range of alternative definitions. For some, the association of "human security" with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) either commends its value or undermines its validity, regardless of the content. For others, the phrase connotes an exciting or troubling consensus on security themes by a putative global intelligentsia. Policy makers in several countries have gone so far as to embrace the concept as a foundation for their national foreign policy, while U.S. policy makers are at best ambivalent or, more commonly, skeptical. Can any concept still so undefined and contested really have much utility? Or more to the point, should U.S. military professionals pay any attention to it? This article argues in the affirmative, acknowledging that it is a paradigm gaining in prominence and may be an important part of the conceptual environment in which U.S. military professionals will act in the future. The use of the concept also might have sufficient utility for U.S. policy makers to warrant a closer examination. The purpose of this article is to note the origin, meaning, and contemporary usage of the "human security" concept, and to suggest why U.S. military professionals should not ignore it. The article also will explore several implications of the increasing global interest in the concept and will offer some cautions and concerns.