Abstract
Reviewed by: Sorpong Peou (speou@politics.ryerson.ca ), Ryerson University, Canada
Human security emerged as an innovative concept in 1994, when the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) published its human development report. Since then, scholars and policymakers have paid attention to the concept by incorporating it into their academic work or policy discourses. Unfortunately, the concept remains far from dominant, and, according to some scholars, has lost momentum. Thus, it is important that those who embrace the concept continue to defend and popularize it. The authors of Freedom from Fear, Freedom from Want have, to a large extent, succeeded in doing this.
The book is an important contribution to human security as a field of study, and should be helpful to those keen on deepening their knowledge of the concept. The authors should be commended for the impressive amount of work they put into this study, which is generally well-researched and well-written and presented in a comprehensive and expert way. Its coverage is comprehensive, in the sense that the authors touch on a wide range of human-security-related issues, including violence, conflict, human rights, the rule of law, global governance, civil society, intervention, peacebuilding, globalization, development, transnational crime, business, and the environment. They clearly adopt the so-called “broad” or “development-based” approach to human security, as initially formalized by UNDP.
The interest of the book derives in large part from the authors’ arguments about human security. Although not the first to make the case that freedom from fear and freedom from want are “complementary and reinforcing,” as well as “structurally linked together” (5), they adopt a bottom-up approach to human security. For them, many of the security challenges that individual humans face are “structural and engrained in economic underdevelopment along with poverty” (7).
How human security can be achieved is also an important focus of the book. The authors contend that top–down approaches are problematic, and, more specifically, that state-centric global governance and intervention can result in protracted humanitarian crises or human insecurity. They make an important point about humanitarian intervention, especially when carried out or led by powerful states, which in their view have their own agendas and pursue their national security interests.
The authors argue that global institutions such as the United Nations (UN) play a useful role in the protection of people or the promotion of human security, but that their bottom-up approach recognizes the importance of local actors in peacebuilding operations. Any global peace initiatives must be taken in full consultation with local constituencies, especially those who personally experience human insecurity. One interesting example the authors cite to make the case for local agency is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa (151–152). The work of the Commission has benefitted this post-apartheid state in various ways, and the findings clearly suggest that local actors have the potential to resolve their own insecurity dilemma without aggressive global intervention.
The bottom-up approach also means engaging grassroots and global civil society organizations (chapters 4 and 5), both of which the authors stress can be effective. The role of non-governmental organizations has been subject to legitimate criticism, but these actors play a crucial post-conflict role in doing what governments often fail to do for their populations, such as incorporating local advice into their agendas, assisting donors in channelling aid delivery, and performing advocacy work on human security.
The last chapter of the book covers another interesting aspect of human insecurity: transnational crime and its effect on refugees and economic migrants. The authors contend that the answer to this problem is building good governance, capable of protecting refugees and migrants.
The end of the book makes a forceful case for human development through poverty reduction and movement toward the UN-led Millennium Development Goals. In chapter 7, the authors argue that this development-based approach offers “the best opportunity for creating increasing human security as well as nation-states and regions, in a world that has become increasingly interconnected” (160–161). Unlike critical scholars who condemn capitalism and the profit-maximizing role of multinational corporations (MNCs), the authors contend that things have begun to change. For example, new global strategies, such as corporate social responsibility, have been adopted as part of business models.
Overall, the book makes compelling normative arguments, but the concept of human security is still not empirically validated. After more than twenty years, the global agenda remains largely unfulfilled. The authors make many points that are accurate but discouraging to those who embrace the concept. Such points include the statements that “[i]n the post-Cold War period we have not seen any increase in the collective human security of individuals or nation-states” (21) and that “[g]lobal inequality is on the rise” (228).
Although Freedom from Fear, Freedom from Want is required reading for anyone interested in human security issues, the reader should be aware of other major works that are left out. For a more in-depth historical treatment of human security, one should at least consult S. Neil MacFarlane and Yuen Foong Khong’s Human Security and the UN: A Critical History.
The book under review offers various interesting insights on the ongoing challenges of implementing human security, but still does not shed sufficient light on theoretical issues (despite the authors’ liberal bent and its biases).