Student Network for Human Security (SNHS) Blog

The 2008 version of the Humanitarian Response Index was launched by the Development Assistance Research Associates (DARA) NPO (See the complete note here). For those of you that did not know the index, the web page is here. You can check there the results of last and this year, where the performance of 22 countries plus the European Commission is compared, as well as check other activities of DARA. However, the whole report is not available on-line.

The approach used to evaluate response performance combines quantitative data and qualitative perception by humanitarian organization on the ground. The pillars of the index are:

(1) Responding to the needs
(2) supporting local capacity and recovery
(3) Working with humanitarian partners
(4) Promoting Standards and Enhancing implementation
(5) Promoting learning and accountability

Relevant for our particular interest, Japan remains not well regarded, in a low 18th position. Criticism points to recognized structural weaknesses on refugees and local NGOs. Besides, predominance of earmarked funding, and low support to forgotten emergencies are also highlighted. Positive scores relate to "affirming primary role of civilian organization" and allocation of aid in accordance to international indexes. A little bit confusing, do not you think? Well, expect further info.

OAGS

The Center for Global Development is a think-tank located in Washington D.C., with prolific work in the areas of improving international aid, poverty reduction strategies and health - among others.

Continuing with year-end indexes, the CGD has just made public its Commitment to Development Index, ranking 22 high-income countries according to how consistent are their actions related to the pleas of support LDC around the world. Then, the evaluation does not relies merely on aid efforts, but takes a wider view including rates on trade, investment, migration, environment, security and technology.

Japan has usually been at the bottom of the chart, well behind western peers, although with the inclusion of South Korea to the group of countries this year, the situation changed. Criticism points principally at the small share of income that is used in ODA, as well as the high barriers to exports from developing countries. The authors coincide with DARA report on the issue of refugees and NGO weakness - the latter in terms of small amount of private charitable giving attributable to tax policy. Conversely, it is to be revised whether valuation of parameters such as security and environment overlook country's historical developments that may condemned it to low scores.

On the theoretical ground of security, let's observe that the parameter of security seems to make exclusive reference to violence issues - or freedom from fear. However, other researchers in the CGD sustain security connections with global poverty and disease, among others.

When trying to classify harm situations in our world, there is a thin and fragile line between negligence and unintended harm. It starts as a unavoidable weakness of the knowledge apparatus - I mean, the impossibility to be 100% sure of a finding - and then this uncertainty spreads to all the stakeholders and their decisions.

There are several cases of this problem, but let's concentrate in the astonishing article in November 25th edition of the NYT, which is based in a paper from Harvard School of Public Health (the paper is available here). According to the researchers, due to South Africa government disagreement on the causal relation between HIV and AIDS, and thus the decision to not use antiretrovirals, 3.8 million person-years were lost from 2000 to 2005. The calculation includes both the lives lost and babies born with the disease. The reporter goes further and explores the political background and motivations behind such decision.

If right, was such decision negligence or unintended harm? Anyway, it is a sad example of how the traditional apparatus to safeguard citizens could fail to act and, hopefully, fruitful ground to re-shape the systems available to confront this century challenges to security.

The news do not specifically mention human security, but the inclusion of human rights and democratic principles in the charter may open some space.

For those interested, here is an interesting summary of what happened last May. Enjoy,

In a recent post, Owen blog recalls and amplifies Alanna Shaikh list of some situations on which NGO can unintentionally do harm to the community it’s trying to serve. A summary to invite you to read the original post:

1. Initiate projects with little chance of success.
2. Make communities outsider-dependents.
3. Destabilize community power structures (reinforcing inequitable existent power structures or creating internal tensions)
4. Build and leave without money for maintenance or staff.
5. Take the best people out of the country's system (so they do good in your project but then become unwelcome in the government)
6. Getting personally too influential, so leaders become accountable to the organization, not to the population.

The author claims that these are equally applicable to donors as well as multilateral organizations.

What do you think?

It happens often to this house that many interesting news pile and pile up the bookmark corner, waiting for a proper introduction, which rarely comes on time. So, before leaving for winter vacation, the decision is to let them flow with a mere comment, giving space for the new year. Then, hereby some recent - and less digested - highlights:

+ A group of researchers in Netherlands claimed to have proved the "broken windows theory", which states that observing disorder may encourage people on further illicit behavior. The extract of the original version of the theory, as published by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kellingav, available in Wikipedia, goes like this:

Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.
Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars.

+ There are signs that may point to an inclusion of Human Security - literally - inside the security policy of the new United States administration. The first is Obama's Strategy to Promote Global Development and Democracy, titled "Strengthening our common security by investing in our common society". The proposal is one eighty turn on foreign policy that recognizes a broader causal web on current security issues and, thus, calls for wider action and support for a soft power approach to security issues. Besides, among the headings of the document, there is the Freedom from fear - though related to the initial proposition by Franklin Roosvelt.

Furthermore, there is the proposition of a Sustainable Security, presented by the team on national security of the Center for American Progress - according to the Economist, Obama's favorite think-tank. The new concept is an attempt to harmonize national security with human security and collective security, as can be read here, or viewed in the following explanatory video.

By now I am looking for deeper information to base any judgment but, so far, beyond the spectacular presentation, I think that the co opting menace is not cleared, and the cosmopolitan principle far from took into account. Anyway, it is a great opportunity for scholars working on human security to expand their voice.

+ A research reviewed by the Economist, sustains that drug firms suppress unfavorable information about new products. This kind of companies' unethical behavior is in line with a previous story we linked here about asbestos exports and, in the most basic sense, may be another face of the sadly famous Hannah Arendt's "Banality of Evil". Is it to much to think so? Or is it really just business as usual?

Best regards,

Without more introduction, some news:

+ Member nations of the NATO alliance have blocked actions of their troops against drug trade in Afghanistan, because their laws do not permit them do that (New York Times). Drugs are an important source of income to sustain insurgent groups, and the US supports counternarcotics operations. However, some NATO members sustain that the problem of drugs is on of law enforcement, and not an issue of the military. It is of special relevance because this kind of operations are prone to involve civilian casualties. The situation has an additional element that makes it more theoretically interesting, given that the roots of the disputes between the two positions is in the NATO mission casted as "security assistance" ans its implications.

Coda: this phrase in the declarations of Gen. Craddock (US) caught my attention: "He also noted the increasing size and professionalism of the Afghan National Army, which Afghans trust more than they do the office of the presidency." = a future coup?

+ The Japan Times publishes a fuming column about a resort project in Cambodia that threats to heavily affect the ecosystem and surrounding populations. In my opinion, the author goes too fast to blame international donors, but it is well worth to observe his comments about the rule of law and "human security".

+ The Genocide Prevention Task Force released on December 8th its report with the aim of helping the upcoming new US government to prevent genocide - obviously, with the help of all the international community. The group orient its proposals in terms of the leadership, organization and funding. The review published in the Economist highlights the good sense of the report, further mentioning the involvement of will, diplomacy, action and sharing information (networking), but the magazine adequately warns about the unpredictability that surrounds these lamentable episodes of history. The release video here on:

Happy holidays!