Mary Kaldor’s book, Human Security, is a collection of seven essays describing the historical context, theoretical foundations, and development of human security as a concept. Kaldor argues the world is seeing the emergence of what she coins “new wars”, that is “… wars that take place in the context of the disintegrating of states… fought by networks of state and non-state actors… where most of the violence is directed against civilians” (pg. 3). From this assumption she moves the reader through a series of logical steps, concluding with a new and unorthodox approach to human security and hence, the use of military force.
Kaldor’s first four essays lay out the historical context in which the modern debate over human security takes place. Specifically, the essays explore 1) a decade of intervention, 2) the american concept of power and compliance, 3) new nationalism, and finally 4) a case study of the Balkan intervention. The goal of these essays is to illustrate a new emerging concept of new wars where nationalism, informal combatants, and criminalized informal economies align to perpetuate conflict, and the American classic military doctrine is unprepared and ill equipped to face them.
Her next two essays build the theoretical foundations of human security. Chapter 5 follows the changing meaning of “global civil society” from ancient Greece to the present. The chapter holds an impassioned argument to “establish a set of global rules based on consent” (pg. 153), that is: global governance to minimize domestic and international violence. In Chapter 6, Kaldor tackles Just War doctrine. She argues new wars blur the distinction between international and domestic , combatant and non-combatant, and thus between war and peace, and in the face of this, “a new ethical approach is needed, grounded in the notion that the rights of individuals supersede the rights of states and that, therefore, international law that applies to individuals overrides the laws of war” (pg. 154-155), a concept she defines as “Just Peace”.
The real meat of Kaldor’s book lies in her final chapter. Here, she posits a new definition of security that “is about confronting extreme vulnerability not only in wars but in natural and man-made disasters…” (pg. 183) and a new definition of development that goes beyond improving standards of living to include “feeling safe on the streets or being able to influence political decision-making” (pg. 183). Based on these new definitions, she proposes five principles of human security: the primacy of human rights, legitimate political authority, multilateralism, the bottom-up approach, and regional focus.
First, a human security approach places human rights above everything. Kaldor argues: “this principle means is that unless it is absolutely necessary and legal, killing is to be avoided. For the military it means the primary goal of protecting civilians rather than defeating an adversary. Of course, sometimes it is necessary to try to capture or even defeat insurgents but this has to be seen as a means to an end, civilian protection, rather than the other way round. So-called collateral damage is unacceptable” (pg. 186). Furthermore, she argues gross human rights violations must be as “individual criminals rather than collective enemies” (pg. 186). [Emphasis mine]
Second, human security requires institutions of political authority considered legitimate by local populations. Thus, gaining political legitimacy is a central goal in any operation. This requires a commander “who understands politics and has access to political authority” (pg. 188). I am in firm agreement with her on this point.
Third, human security operations must include a commitment to 1) work with international organizations, 2) create and enforce common rules, and 3) focus on coordination.
Fourth, human security approaches must be bottom-up. That is, decisions in human security operations should be made in consultation with local populations. Regarding this, Kaldor takes a stance many operators would consider naive in the extreme: “the solution is to talk to everyone and it should not be so difficult to identify people with conscience and integrity who could act as local guides” (pg. 189).
Finally, a human security approach demands conflicts be examine at the regional, rather than state, level. She accurately argues new wars have no clear boundaries and thus restricting the focus to state-level perspectives makes us vulernable to epiphenonoma is neighboring states.
Overall, Kaldor’s book is an excellent and interesting perspective on human security, evidenced by the numerous “Wow!” comments I semiconsciously wrote in the margins. The last chapter contains her core argument. The middle five chapters are seemingly present only to (sometimes disjointedly) guide the reader to the logic she presents in the final chapter. Readers strapped for time could gain a good portion of the book’s worth by reading only the introduction and last chapter.
Last month, American and Iraqi forces launched a major push into the Sadr City section of Baghdad. The operations led to intense fighting and crippled Sadr City’s already flimsy infrastructure. As a result, large swaths of Sadr City are currently without trash collection, sewer systems, electricity, food, and access to health services.
The situation in Sadr city represents not only a humanitarian disaster, but also a direct threat to winning hearts and minds. Michael Gordon, in his New York Times article, points out the problem:
On Saturday, three Sadr City residents gingerly approached an American Army position to deliver a warning: Unless the Iraqi government or its American partner did something to restore essential services and remove the piles of garbage, the militias would gain more support.
…
“Through a ‘Hezbollah-like’ scheme, the Shiite Sadrist movement has established itself as the main service provider in the country,” notes a recent report by Refugees International, an advocacy group. “As a result of the importance of nonstate actors in the delivery of assistance and security, civilians are joining militias.”
The lack of infrastructure, sanitation, and health services offer opportunities for militias to move quickly, winning hearts and minds by merely providing token services to residents. While the Iraqi government can provide greater levels of support, militias can provide support right now. For example, the Iraqi government is promising $150 million to bolster Sadr City’s infrastructure, however, it will not do so until the security situation improves. The speed of the Sadrists allows them to compete against the Iraqi government for public support at a fraction of the cost. That is, in the battle for hearts and minds, $100 today is worth more than a $10,000 a year from now.
Small Wars Journal has a good piece by MountainRunner on in-sourcing national power. Here is the gist of the argument:
The U.S. needs to take a systematic, holistic “whole of government” approach to reconstruction and stabilization that puts the focus on meeting the basic needs of the people in these countries. This shouldn’t be about what the U.S. needs or wants, but what the people of the country in question need and want. Basically, when people are safe, secure, full (not hungry), engaged and comfortable, they have no need to fight or support terrorists. Terrorists work by instigating and sustaining instability, fear, and discomfort (disillusionment) and if the USG fights buys-in to this approach by fighting back with hard-power only, it just perpetuates the cycle.
Matt’s analysis is spot on. Rupert Smith’s “wars amongst the people” and Mary Kaldor’s “new wars” cannot be won by the pointy end of the spear (read: military force) alone. Modern conflict requires a human security perspective where victory is obtained more through civilian programs than military operations. A force prepared for these wars needs more than just boots on the ground, but also wingtips (diplomatic), booties (health), steel-toes (engineering), and Birkenstock (NGOs). The military component of such a force does not seek victory through the destruction of the enemy (impossible in modern conflict) but simply provides the security and stability necessary for the civilian / political components to achieve a sustainable, successful outcome.