Having added wars and occupation as risks to human development, the UNDP's top analysts should add corruption and incompetence in power, writes Hassan Nafaa* Coining new terms has become big business, with governments and research centres trying to stay ahead in the game. A new term with the ability to dazzle is the first step to control minds and manipulate thinking. Consequently, terminology has become an effective weapon in current intellectual battles, a tool that sets the tone for historical transitions. And US research centres have become masters in that trade. I will mention two examples to support my point. One is the term "peace process" which was used to promote the "small steps" approach of Henry Kissinger that became popular following the 1973 War. The other is the term "constructive chaos" which was used to promote the "Greater Middle East" concept so loved by the neocons working for George W Bush after 9/11. The catchwords were effective. The words "peace" in the first example and "constructive" in the second dazzled many Arab intellectuals and politicians, especially those inclined to go along with any America idea. It was easy to fall into the trap and hard to come out of it. It took us years to realise that the "small steps" policy wasn't a way to arrive at peace but a way of managing the conflict in Israel's favour. The Greater Middle East concept is equally pernicious. It is a scheme meant to spread chaos in the Arab world before putting it together again in a way that suits the US and Israel. The US is busy manufacturing terminology. It invents new concepts not only in areas where its influence is greatest, but also across the board. Because the US has great weight within international governmental and non-governmental organisations, it has a great chance to influence theory as well as practice. We all know what happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The disappearance of the communist superpower left the US in sole control of the international order. And American research centres grabbed the opportunity to market US policies and plans as valid theoretical arguments. I would say that those who package concepts for global domination know that what they are doing contradicts with the established principles of the UN Charter and international law. According to UN principles, sovereignty is unassailable and all nations are equal and not permitted to interfere in each other's internal affairs. But these UN principles are not helpful for the US imperial dream. Therefore, new terms and concepts are being coined all the time. This is why the term "human security" appeared all of a sudden and was hastily adopted by various international organisations. Those who follow up changes in the political lexicon may notice that the term "human security" is intertwined with the US need to spread its direct military presence. If you may remember, the term came into public use not long after the US came out victorious from the "liberation of Kuwait". The military success in Kuwait whetted the US appetite for military intervention in areas that the US considered of strategic interest. Before long, the US decided to send combat units to Somalia "to protect relief convoys" said to be threatened by rival warlords who took over the country in the early 1990s. Until that point, the use of Chapter VII was confined to blatant instances of aggression and major violations of international peace and security. A narrow interpretation of Chapter VII didn't satisfy US officials. Eventually, they succeeded in linking the concept of security to humanitarian considerations in a way that allows them to expand the mandate of the UN Security Council and make Chapter VII cover matters that had previously been outside its scope. The concept of "humanitarian intervention" ran into strong opposition, especially from Third World countries. Before long, another concept emerged. "Human security", the new concept, also generated considerable debate, but turned out to be not lacking in substance. The Human Development Report, first published by the UNDP in 1994, made an effort to define "human security". As I mentioned in a previous article, the UNDP adopted a broad definition of the dimensions and challenges of human security, breaking it down to its main components. According to the UNDP, humanitarian security covered: economic security that is threatened by poverty and unfair distribution of wealth; food security that is threatened by hunger and famine; health security that is threatened by various forms of illness and harm; environmental security that is threatened by pollution and disturbance of ecosystems as well as the exhaustion of natural resources; personal security that is threatened by violence and crime; political security that is threatened by various types of physical and mental repression; and social security that is threatened by ethnic and sectarian strife. You may note that the report made no mention of military intervention or foreign occupation among the threats to human security. Finally, however, the writers of the UNDP Human Development Report decided to include, in their 2009 report, the matter of human security in their discussion of the Arab world. Considering the changes that happened in the region between 1994 and 2009, this decision was not overdue. Indeed, the 2009 report dedicated an entire chapter to the matter of occupation and military intervention as threats to human security in Arab countries. The chapter discussing this phenomenon was intentionally placed near the end of the report, which raised quite a few eyebrows and set off a row or two. Remarkably, the 2009 report did not set aside a separate chapter to ethnic conflicts in the Arab world, although these have been getting worse in recent years. It contains, however, lengthy paragraphs about the humanitarian suffering in Darfur. Because of its neglect to mention the host of disputes caused by ethnic strife in the region, the report drew a fair amount of criticism. Some even said the report was clear evidence that the UNDP and its writers were working under pressure from outsiders. With due respect for the great efforts of the UNDP to identify obstacles to progress in Arab countries, and the laudable fact that since 2002 the report has been written by independent Arab experts, it is my fear that the US and donor countries are putting on certain pressures that only serve to distort the report and diminish its scientific value. In fact, the concept of "human security" gives us a rare opportunity to understand the contradictions inherent in the structure of the international system. If we adhere faithfully to that concept we may be able to put together a new international order, one capable of resolving many of the problems facing humanity everywhere. The concept of "human security", if properly understood, can take the discussion of security from the confining range of military threats to a wider horizon of issues. Ultimately, it can change the way we see the world and provide us with a legal formula that is superior to anything the current UN Charter can offer. But we will have to apply this concept on the level of the entire international system. The whole world should be our starting point, not individual nations or regions. As things are, the security of humans in any part of the world is less threatened by war than by famine, poverty, pollution, trans-continental epidemics, climate change, and organised crime. Therefore, we need to give equal consideration to all these threats, something that the UN Charter cannot do. The UN Charter sees "collective security" as the mainstay of international peace and security. And it assumes that military aggression by one state against another is the worst threat to international peace and security. The UN Charter gives the UN Security Council the power, however theoretical, to confront aggression and repel it. But the institutional structure of the UN doesn't give similar power to an agency that can prevent or confront economic, environmental, social and cultural crimes that threaten people and countries and that may cause many more tragedies and victims than all the wars we know. In a "globalised" international system where many boundaries that used to separate humans and society have collapsed, and where the world is turning into a small village, we need to be able to react to all types of threat to humanity. This is the kind of collective responsibility the international order needs to assume. If you agree to the above view, then you may also agree that we need to embrace the concept of "comprehensive human security" instead of the concept of "collective security" that has so far been the cornerstone of the UN Charter. However, the practices adopted by the UNDP so far suggest that "human security" is just a tool. A concept that holds so much promise is being used for short-term ends, merely to pressure governments or countries into a certain course of action. The dialectic relationship between the "local" and the "international" is now flawed. In terms of responsibility for the threats surrounding the human race, we are not neutral enough or objective enough to call a spade a spade. But that's exactly what we need. We need to lay responsibility at the doorstep of major powers when that's the right thing to do. Major powers, especially the US and its allies, have been not only the main instigators of wars that take the lives of millions. They are also the main source for pollution, for wasting resources, and for damaging the environment. This doesn't mean that those countries alone are to blame. Clearly there are governments in the Third World that due to their corruption and tyranny bear much blame for the current humanitarian crisis. Therefore, believers in human security must condemn the stupidity of power in the same breath as they denounce tyranny and corruption. So far, the UNDP is not willing to do so. * The writer is professor of political science at cairo University
