Human Security M apping: A New M ethod for M easuring Vulnerability1 Taylor Owen2 Although gaining legitimacy in many academic and policy communities, the concept of human security has no single accepted definition, no universal foreign policy mandate and no consensus-commanding analytic framework for its measurement. This is in part do to a perceived conceptual ambiguity coupled with an inherent paradox in its measurement - the broader the spectrum of human security measured, the more difficult data collection and aggregation become. This paradox has forced the existing measuring methodologies to be either broad and conceptually accurate, but of questionable feasibility and reliability, or narrow and feasible, but not representative of the full range of insecurities. In response to this difficulty, a measuring methodology is proposed and tested in Cambodia, centred around a new perception of space. Selecting indicators based on their regional relevance and aggregating them using their common denominator, location, allows the methodology to be conceptually broad, analytically accurate and practically feasible. Using a Geographic Information System, this methodology documents threats, allows for analysis of spatial correlations, and may prove valuable to both humanitarian and development agencies seeking to locate and identify high priority beneficiaries, and to understand the impacts of specific threats on processes of social and economic recovery from armed conflicts. 1 W ork for this project was funded by the Canadian International Development Agency and the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs. Research was conducted as a MA student at the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia and as a research assistant in the Center for the Study of Civil W ar at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. 2 Taylor Owen is a DPhil Candidate at Oxford University and a Post Graduate Fellow in the Yale Genocide Studies Program. He can be reached at taylor@ prio.no. 1 Table of Contents 1. Conceptual Background...................................................................................3 1.1 From Traditional Security to Human Security ................................................3 1.2 Defining Human Security ...................................................................................3 1.2.1 Narrow Conception............................................................................4 1.2.2 Broad Conception...............................................................................4 1.3 Utility of Human Security...................................................................................6 1.4 Measuring Human Security ................................................................................6 2. Overview of Case Study and Conceptual Approach........................................8 2.1 Choice of Case Study: Cambodia ......................................................................8 2.2 Brief Background of Cambodia.........................................................................9 2.3 A New Definition of Human Security..............................................................10 2.4 From Definition to Measurement .....................................................................11 3. M ethodology and Case Study..........................................................................12 3.1 Stage One: Threat Assessment...........................................................................13 3.2 Stage Two: Data Collection and Organization................................................13 3.3 Stage Three: Data Visualization and Analysis.................................................15 4. Future of Research...........................................................................................22 5. Conclusion.......................................................................................................23 Bibliography.........................................................................................................24 Acronyms.............................................................................................................25 2 1. Conceptual Background 1.1 From Traditional Security to Human Security Up until 1989, what we now refer to as ‘traditional security’ or ‘national security’ dominated the field of international security. In this view of security, the state acts as the referent object responsible for the preservation of territorial integrity, domestic order, international affairs and most importantly, the protection of its citizens from armed threats. In this view, the primary threat to the state, and subsequently to its people, is the use of force by other states, with interstate war being the main concern. The early 1990s marked an important departure in the field of security studies, as security threats could not be read anymore through Cold W ar lenses and both international and local actors redefined rules of engagement. Greater emphasis was given to the domestic dimensions of civil wars and, as in the extreme cases of the Serbian government's attack on the Kosovar Albanians and the Rwandan Hutu's genocide of the Tutsis, responsibility was put on the state for the insecurity of the very people it was meant to protect. W hat has become clear is that despite the macro level stability created by the east- west military balance of the Cold W ar, citizens were not safe. They may not have suffered from outright nuclear attack, but they were being killed by the remnants of proxy wars, the environment, poverty, disease, hunger, violence and human rights abuses. Ironically, the faith placed in the realist worldview, and the security it provided, masked issues threatening the individual. Once the central foci of security, the protection of the person was all too often negated by an over-attention on the state. Allowing key issues to fall through the cracks, “traditional security” simply failed at its primary objective: protecting the individual. This new type of instability led to the challenging of the notion of traditional security by such concepts as cooperative, comprehensive, societal, collective, international or human security (Baylis, 1997). Although these concepts move away from a focus on inter state relations, human security takes the most dramatic step by making the referent object the individual, rather than the state. W hile it acknowledges the continued importance of the state as a key contributor to the security of individuals, human security argues that the security of individuals goes well beyond simple state security. This shift from a state focus to and individual focus is necessary due to the aforesaid failures of the traditional security paradigm, and also in order to direct research and policy towards the issues most threatening peoples’ lives. 1.2 Defining Human Security “Security can no longer be narrowly defined as the absence of armed conflict, be it between or within states. Gross abuses of human rights, the large-scale displacement of civilian populations, international terrorism, the AIDS pandemic, drug and arms trafficking and environmental disasters present a direct threat to human security, forcing us to adopt a much more coordinated approach to a range of issues.” United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan (2000). Although all agree that the focus of human security should be on the individual rather than the state, there is considerable ambiguity over the exact definition of human security. The debate may be characterised by two schools of thought, each with their own idea of what should and should not be considered a threat to human security. These schools can be called 3 the narrow and the broad conceptions of human security, based primarily on how much of the possible human security spectrum (factors that can harm an individual) they feel should be included. 1.2.1 Narrow Conception On one end of the spectrum addressing definitions of human security is the ‘narrow’, or what has become known as the Canadian Approach (McRae and Hubert, 2001). By using a definition that primarily focuses on violent threats, the Canadian Approach clearly separates human security from the much broader and already established field of international development. Indeed, the Canadian government acknowledges the UNDP conception (described below) as merely a phase in the development of human security, but envisions a much more focused definition, one centered on violent threats, as an instrument of policy (Acharya, 2001). The Canadian definition, therefore, restricts the parameters of human security to a focus on the threat of violence to the individual. This can come from a vast array of threats, including the use of landmines, ethnic discord, state failure, drug trade, or trafficking in small arms. This must, as former foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy (2001) points out, be countered primarily by the use of ‘soft power’, such as diplomatic resources, economic persuasion, and the use of intelligence and information technology. W hile a vigorous debate over definitions and ambiguity in the human security paradigm is perused in the literature, a strong argument for the narrow conception is simply the number of successful international initiatives using its parameters. In fact, most of the significant policy advances achieved in the name of human security have used this narrow definition. For instance, the International Conventional for the Ban of Landmines, the International Criminal Court, as well as the recent