Approach to the Mounting Concern of Human Security

Globalization and Human Security
I am grateful for this opportunity to address this illustrious Trilateral Commission on the subject of human security, a concept which holds the key to the building of the international order in the 21^st century and is the chief concern of my work.

Globalization, which is the topic of this session, is often discussed in terms of a certain dichotomy. In this dichotomy, structural changes in the international community combine with startling advances in transportation, information, and communications systems to produce rapid economic growth and unprecedented prosperity. On the negative side, however, the world is beset with problems of poverty, environmental destruction, infectious diseases, and a rash of intracountry or intraregional wars or conflicts that have essentially been prevented from surfacing thus far.

Indeed, the truly global movement of short-term finance is said to have been a major factor behind the recent Asian currency crisis. It is still fresh in our minds how the crisis exposed the failings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the neoclassical conviction in the omnipotence of deregulation and the market mechanism, while also deeply undercutting optimism about the effects of globalization per se.

There is a limit to what individual countries can do in the face of a phenomenon that might be termed a “wide-ranging diversification of threats” in the international community. We must apprehend this phenomenon as a problem bearing on the very existence of each and every person, and develop more formidable countermeasures for it. To this end, we must first organically mobilize governments, international agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other actors to construct intellectual, political, and economic networks on a global scale. We must then use these networks as means for establishing nothing less than a new international system that will underpin an order in which “human survival, human well-being, and human freedom” will be assured in the new century. This is our basic perspective on human security.

In my remarks today on the subject of human security, I would like to emphasize the process of policy-making and implementation, which is generally not taken up in such discussions, and point out certain issues based partly on my own experience.

The Course of Discussion about Human Security
As is well-known, the idea of human security was originally advocated in the Human Development Report 1994 of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) with a view to improving individual well-being.

In this connection, I would like to note an observation that I regard as of vital importance made by Professor Amartya Sen, who views matters from the standpoint of improving human capabilities for participation in the market economy as opposed to the neoclassical model of economic growth. In short, Professor Sen asserted that the process of development is not primarily one of expanding the supply of goods and services, but of enhancing the capabilities of people.

As I see it, the core concerns for ensuring human security lie in higher degrees of “individual capability” and “freedom” in this process of development and advancement. To put it another way, the key is helping people in all countries and regions, regardless of differences in basic conditions in the social, economic, technical, health and hygiene, and other aspects to elevate their capabilities for carving out a life for themselves on their own responsibility.

In fact, a look back at the tenor of international discussion on development reveals a successive shift of focus from the theory of “trickle-down” effects of economic growth to emphasis on Basic Human Needs (BHN) in the 1970s, from the Structural Adjustment Approach to “adjustment with a human face” in the 1980s, and further to New Development Strategy and reinforcement of human-centered development in the 1990s. I do not think it would be self-serving of me to characterize this transition over the decades as a move away from discourse grounded in the neoclassical premise of isolated but uniform individuals in pursuit of maximizing their own profit and benefit, and toward that resting on distinct individuals and their capabilities in differing historical, political, and social contexts, i.e., notion of human security.

Japanese Approach to Human Security
The approach of the Japanese government to human security was delineated by former Prime Minister, Keizo Obuchi, in his policy speech delivered in Hanoi in December 1998. In his remarks, former Prime Minister Obuchi, noted that we must make the 21^st century an age of peace and prosperity grounded in human dignity and characterized human security as a major concern of foreign policy. In addition, he announced the institution of the Human Security Fund in the United Nations for the purpose of bolstering coordination in this area among governments, international agencies and NGOs. (Including the allocation in the current fiscal budget, a total of roughly $83 million has been appropriated for this fund.)

Part of the background to such endeavors is the aid furnished by Japan to the countries affected by the Asian currency crisis. Besides providing more than $80 billion in financial aid, Japan also offered assistance of other types to give a helping hand to the socially vulnerable segments of the population who are hit hardest by the measures of structural adjustment taken in the wake of the crisis. In response to the critical supply shortages due to the severe lack of foreign currency in Indonesia, for example, Japan provided about $33 million in grant aid for emergency purchase of basic medicine, as well as some 750,000 tons of rice, all while monitoring the situation by means of information collected from international agencies, NGOs, and other parties with a local presence.

Such endeavors also reflect the priority accorded to the field of human and social development in the context of Japan’s official development assistance (ODA), in the conviction that the full exercise of individual talents by people actively participating in the economic life of a country is essential for sustainable economic growth. (At 20.2 percent, the share of Japan’s 1998 ODA occupied by this field represented fulfillment of the 20/20 Initiative of the World Summit for Social Development in 1995.)

This outlook is also embodied in policy in individual fields.

In the field of basic education, for example, Japan has provided yen loans not only for the cultivation and reeducation of teachers but also for support of study in Japan by foreign nationals. At the time of the Asian currency crisis, it extended emergency grants and other aid to students from the affected countries.

In the field of health and medical care, the emergency supply of medicine I’ve already mentioned has been joined by assistance, in the aspect of both human resource development and financing, for reform of the medical service system with a focus on primary health care and greater autonomy, as well as support for the self-help efforts of persons infected with the human immuno-deficiency virus.

In its aid for women, Japan has supplemented its long-standing program of vocational training with assistance in the form of the micro-credit financing resources needed for economic independence.

Needless to say, promotion of the participation of local citizenry and coordination with NGOs are today virtually taken for granted as integral parts of this process.

I naturally am not claiming that all of the specific measures in these fields were direct outgrowths of the human security perspective; on the contrary, in most cases, they were hammered out, tried, refined, and implemented in response to the situation at hand or the suggestions of concerned parties.

To my mind, this very process is of extremely great significance and sheds light on the advisable approach to Japanese policy-making for the future. In essence, in addressing the individual issues of development and global problems based on the concern of individual capability as a contention raised in learned debate, the government has laid down human security as a definite orientation and purpose in the process of drafting and executing policies rooted in real problems. This may rightly be termed a splendid example of collaboration in the good sense among politicians, bureaucrats, academics, and private parties that has ironically been largely unconscious. Moreover, it is different in kind from both the conventional Japanese-style approach of consensus-building from the bottom up and the American-style one of decision with strong leadership from the top down.

In addition, human security has value as a perspective for assessing the policy results. This is to say that results must be examined not only from the standpoint of macro-level indicators but also from that of individual well-being and increased self-reliance, and not only by government but also by grassroots organizations and groups on the popular level.

The Debate over Conflicts
In the international dialogue on the subject of human security, perhaps the greatest controversy is generated by the issue of conflicts, human rights, and humanitarian intervention. Canada’s approach is typical in this regard. It places human security above national sovereignty and condones the imposition of sanctions or even the use of military force for humanitarian intervention in the event of egregious infringements of human rights or crimes against humanity associated with civil wars or interethnic hostilities.

This stance presumably springs from the Western European ideas of civil society. Nevertheless, the reality is that the traditional notion of national sovereignty is still an underlying principle in the international community, and respect for political, historical, and economic diversity and variation on the national and regional levels will come to constitute the main pillar of international understanding. As such, excessive collaboration in “interventions” outside the scope of deliberations and decisions in the U.N. Security Council under the banner of human security could, on the contrary, erode international support for the cause of human security itself.

Representatives of Japan, myself included, have conferred with Canadian counterparts on this point on several occasions. Although the latter have since begun to mention the importance of eradicating poverty and organized crime, there undeniably remains significant gap in respect of the placement of emphasis.

There is, of course, no argument about the gravity of conflicts as viewed from the standpoint of human security. It is my position, however, that reinforced approaches which are both adapted to the stage of development and all-encompassing should be accorded far more importance than debate about the pros and cons of “intervention” in conflicts.

More specifically, I am here referring to approaches that bear in mind the whole process of measures for the elimination of poverty and other latent factors contributing to the outbreak of conflicts, steps for resolution in the event of actual conflicts, and prevention of recurrence through reconstruction and rehabilitation programs after the conclusion of hostilities. In the process leading from the resolution of the immediate conflict to rehabilitation (GAP), the central task is to rebuild societies that respect the individual, are conducive to exercise of individual capabilities, and enable fulfillment of responsibilities by their constituent members, in keeping with the dictates of human security. To make this possible, we must develop total approaches seamlessly harnessing policies in the political, economic, and social development spheres while also organically mobilizing the energies of international agencies, NGOs, private enterprises, and other principals.

In the case of Kosovo, for instance, the Japanese government sent six personnel to the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), and from forty to fifty Japanese nationals became involved in NGO activities there. Besides such contribution on the human level, Japan put together a blanket package of financial aid worth some $280 million dollars when the assistance for neighboring countries and its assessed contributions for UN peace-keeping is included (this total also includes roughly $51.8 million from the aforementioned Human Security Fund). While one of the backbones of Japanese policy is support for NGO activities, this aid was directed to the whole spectrum of relevant fields, from construction of housing and schools to assistance for the repatriation of soldiers and further to programs to relieve psychological trauma. As the person in charge of policy on support for Kosovo at the time, I might add that it was conceived, prepared, and executed precisely in accordance with the thinking outlined above.

In connection with the GAP problem, the Human Security Fund established by Japan donated a sum of about $470,000 for projects developed through collaboration among the U.N. Headquarters, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the Japan Emergency NGOs (JEN), a Japanese NGO. The substance of these projects is cooperation with local communities for support of primary education in Kosovo in the wake of the hostilities, and specifically for repair of primary school facilities and related technical assistance. I felt that all of the effort was worthwhile when members of the NGOs on the scene contacted me by email to thank me for the aid, which they praised as a model of comprehensive and timely support rooted in genuine needs.

At any rate, my own experience as well reaffirmed the importance and efficacy of the human security perspective for preventing the occurrence and recurrence of conflicts.

Further Discussion and Policy-making
Before finishing, I would like to say a few words about three points which I consider important for future studies, from the standpoint of human security, of 21^st century policy for coping with all sorts of issues in the international community, from conflicts to development, as follows.

1. Review of international system As I’ve already mentioned, the diversity of threats facing the world today cannot be met merely on the strength of national or intergovernmental efforts. I believe that, in the final analysis, the issue is even linked to review of the set-up of the international system itself. Response to problems requires the gathering of information, the prompt and efficient mustering of human and material resources, and sure deployment and execution in the field. In each of these phases, various nongovernmental actors in ever increasing diversity such as international agencies, NGOs, and multinational corporations are playing bigger roles and becoming indispensable players.

I believe that a system for organically coordinated action by these actors will constitute the core of the international order in the 21^st century. In the construction of this system, it will be even rnore vital to position the independent individual not merely as a passive beneficiary or victim but as an active player whose interests are to be respected.

To this end, the reinforcement of capabilities and schemes must make provisions for formal participation of NGOs as aggregates of such independent individuals in the policy-making process of governments and international agencies (indeed, such arrangements are already starting to be made). Another key task is to bolster the functions of the United Nations as the central organ for coordinating and supplementing the activities of such actors in coping with globalization.

2. Construction of Intellectual Networks The construction of such an international system for human security will entail what would amount to a truly general mobilization of all human intellectual resources across the conventional political, economic, scientific and technological boundaries. For this purpose, it would be most effective to construct intellectual networks that are interdisciplinary and international, and enable a smooth sharing and organic utilization of knowledge in all fields. I personally believe that the effects of these networks of knowledge will go beyond the realm of human security and become the single-greatest driving force of the 21^st century international order.

In keeping with this outlook and at my instruction, the Japanese government hosted a symposium in June 1999 on the subject of development with a special focus on human security. Among the persons invited to participate were Professor Lincoln Chen, Executive Vice President of the Rockefeller Foundation. I would also like to mention that efforts for the construction of these intellectual networks in a framework known as “An Intellectual Dialogue on Building Asia’s Tomorrow” are already being made at the initiative of Mr. Tadashi Yamamoto, who is here with us today. And I personally have high hopes that this Trilateral Commission will play a pivotal role in the construction of these networks.

3. International and Political Orientation Given its fields of concern and the process of policy-making, human security absolutely must have official blessings on an international scale as well as support and solidarity accompanied by action.

Furthermore, in light of its importance for the international order in the 21^st century and its international scope, I think that human security is the most appropriate issue for deliberation in the Group of Eight conferences and the United Nations as the supreme forums of political and economic discussion in the current international system.

The forthcoming Okinawa Summit, for example, will bring together the political and economic leaders of eight key countries together for talks on problems and issues in areas such as development, the fight against poverty, and measures for health and hygiene. A key question here is if and how these leaders will share and discuss the central human security ideas of improving individual well-being and capabilities in this context.

In addition, human security must garner a broadly-based understanding and support, inclusive of developing countries, in the United Nations, a universal organization with 188 member countries. Moreover, the United Nations is probably the sole entity capable of playing a central role in coordinating the execution of measures needed for human security.