Children in Armed Conflict: Human Security
Introduction
The instruments of International law previously discussed provide a basic framework for dealing with the issues surrounding the child soldier’s phenomenon. However they fail to provide an effective enforcement mechanism that can enforce the special protection that children are entitled to under international legal norms. Human security is able to provide a much needed impetus for action involving the abuse of children on such a large scale. Human security can take the existing law and enforce it with a focus on individual suffering and even provide potential humanitarian intervention if a state fails. Post conflict peace building also has an important role to play in providing human security for children in failed states. The purpose in this chapter is to outline the concept of human security and apply it to the vulnerabilities of the child soldier. Recommendations are provided regarding a human security based approach to the problem of child soldiers. Firstly an intervention policy based on the international law and based upon peace enforcement principals is argued for. This should be backed up by a resolute post conflict rebuilding scheme that utilises the action of external actors acting on a regional basis. The idea of human security has gained importance in the political realm. It has been included into decision making, policy design and programmatic implementation (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009: 53) Examples of successful implementation are the Ottawa process on landmines and the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict adopted by the United Nations.
Human Security Outline
To what extent can we apply human security theory to the issue of children in armed conflict, can we securitize the issue adequately to develop a framework for dealing with the issue? This is the primary concern of trying to attach human security theory to child soldiers. The human security debate itself is an ongoing one with important conceptual problems yet to be addressed. The theory is yet to be concretely defined and thus much debate surrounds the definition and broadness of the idea. Fox (2003: 474) explains that “it must be noted the human security paradigm is a building that is still under construction and has been the object of much criticism as well as praise”. The theory knows no boundaries while the crux of the debate seems to revolve around what constitutes human security and what does not. Paris (2001: 92) in his criticism of the theory points to the “broad sweep and definitional elasticity of most formulations of human security”, the theory unable to secure exactly what it wishes to be. The alternative end of the spectrum holds human security as the potential successor to the unwieldy and outdated traditional approaches. According to McRae (2001: 15) human security can bring a much needed shift in emphasis and become “the new measure of success for international security and the international system”. The Commission on Human Security expects the theory to ‘complement state security’ and to step in when the state itself threatens the vulnerable within its own borders. Human security is according to the commission an alternative but not a replacement to traditional security theory (Commission on Human Security, 2003: 2). Human security aims to protect the most vulnerable in society, whom I argue are more vulnerable than children?
Development of Human Security Theory
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 1994 Human Development Report lays the foundation for human security as an international relations discipline. Human security emerged from this report as a paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities and challenging the Realist and Liberal schools of international relations theory. National, Regional and global stability is argued to be dependent on the individual. In essence the theory is implicitly people centred and builds upon post-cold war ideas for development, international relations, strategic studies and human rights. The 1994 report is considered the land mark publication for the advancement of human security as a theory in security studies. The sheer scope of the concept and its various definitions has led to much criticism. These critics point towards the vagueness of the theory and argue that it is ineffective on the international stage.
The UNDP report of 1994 points towards four essential characteristics that make up the concept of human security. Firstly it is argued that the concept must apply universally and concern the entire world. Second the components that make up the theory are based on interdependence. Thirdly human security is more easily obtained through early prevention than later intervention. Such an idea is very popular in contemporary conflict resolution with both the UN and EU focusing on preventative operations. Finally the primary concern of security should be the individual, the theory is people centred. (UNDP 1994 :22-23) It is important that human security is differentiated from the broader concept of human development. The latter is based on trying to widen the range of people’s choices, the former aims to allow these choices to be exercised freely and without menace. Much debate abounds around the realms of each discipline. These can be divided into the broad and narrow schools on human security.
Definitions of Human Security: Broad vs. Narrow
Human security can arguably be divided into three distinct schools that have arisen out of current debates. The first of these definitions is the natural rights/rule of law based approach that concerns itself with basic individual rights to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ and the international community’s obligation to uphold these rights (Alston 1992, Lauren 1998, Morsink 1998). The second view is that human security constitutes a humanitarian based approach which ‘informs international efforts to deepen and strengthen international law’(Hampson, 2009: 230) with a particular focus on tackling issues such as genocide and war crimes while limiting threats to civilian life. This policy of intervention can involve military force and should be used to avert or prevent the mass suffering and restore basic human rights and dignity (2009: 231). These first two conceptions of human security are more focused and considered narrow schools compared to a broader view which suggests, ‘human security should be widely constructed to include economic, environmental, social and other forms of harm to the overall livelihood and well being of individuals’ (2009: 231). Human security concerns itself greatly with threats to the individual and provides risk assessment analysis to identify individual suffering.
The Report of the Commission on Human Security (2003) defines the broad scope of human security theory as a;
‘means for protecting fundamental freedoms…. It means protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and situations. It means using processes that build on people’s strength and aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people the building blocks of survival’ (UN, 2003).
In protecting fundamental freedoms people are safe from threats to their person, livelihood and way of life. The building blocks of society aim to empower the individual so they can live freely in a safe and stimulating environment. An increase in globalisation and interdependence led to concerns that actions in one place may have effects internationally. Such issues as unresolved development have been seen in Somalia, East Timor and Haiti. This common theme of under development has become interrelated with an increasingly globalized international system. These linkages, although considered vague by some academics create the basis of human security theory.
‘In the final analysis human security is a child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, a job that was not cut, an ethnic tension that did not explode in violence, a dissident who was not silenced. Human security is not a concern with weapons; it is a concern with human life and dignity’ (UNDP 1994: 22).
The broad definition offered by the 1994 UNDP report encompasses a large area including economic, food, health, environmental, political, community and personal security. This scope makes it difficult for actors to efficiently target areas for the application of human security. However each area warrants a close examination into whether they affect the individual and thus the international security system as a whole. If something is a threat to security it cannot be ignored merely because it is outside the remit of traditional security practice. Counter to this broad scope would be that of Sabine Alkire (2002) who provides a more focused and narrow view on human security. Focusing essentially on the fundamental aspects Alkire states ‘the objective of human security is to safeguard the vital core of all human lives from critical pervasive threats, and to do so without impeding long term human flourishing’ (2002) Here the critical threat is what should be assessed. Providing a more focused definition allows human security to become more effective as a security tool. Allowing such a broad scale security concern merits problems in applicability and conceptualisation of the theory.
Supporters of human security theory suggest that the concept of security has been applied to States reacting to external aggressors or acting on protecting national interest. They argue that the new referent of security theory should be the individual. The concept highlights the issue of States vs. Individuals as the referents of international order. Traditional international relations theory would suggest that the main actor of a secure world is the nation state. Indeed the focus since the signing of the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 has been the sovereign right of the state to decide its internal matters. External threats were treated as security issues and the main threat to the world order. Human security concerns itself with an attempt to bypass the nation state and deal directly with the individual and their personal struggles. The safety of the individual is vital to global security; a threat to an individual is a threat to international security. This directly correlates to the child soldiers issue; a critical or pervasive threat to a child is a threat to an individual and thus a threat to global security.
It should be established that human security is a more focused discipline than human development. Modern states can focus human security on dealing with threats to life and physical violence through prevention, protection and empowerment of individuals (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009: 13). Human development and broader issues can be brought in so ‘a conceptual framework leads to a mutually enforcing human security policy which emphasises crisis prevention and crisis management policies at the same time’ (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009: 14) Successful management of the broad (development) and the narrow (political violence) schools requires politics that address both their needs. Both the narrow and the broad definitions should be taken into account, as the ambition of human security is its shining light, while the narrow school provides an operational framework for immediate implementation. The humanitarian focused approach fits squarely onto the issue of child soldiers, a focused human security based approach allows for more effective action in tackling the underlying problems identified in a broader analysis. The broad theory as a whole needs to be developed further but no doubt it provides a strong framework for the implementation of security allowing reinforcement mechanisms from human development to aid the individual. The narrow school allows us to focus in and act on children involved in armed conflict while the broad scale can help to work and identify the roots of conflict in a post peace building programme.
Children in Conflict
While they may suffer as individuals the child armed with modern weapons can clearly constitute a military threat to the standard infantry soldier. The first U.S casualty of the conflict in Afghanistan was a Green Beret shot by a 14 year old equipped with a sniper rifle (Singer, 2003). These underage soldiers have become ‘a recurring feature of the modern battlefield, present in the majority of the world’s conflicts and armed organisations (2003). Military tactics and strategy must take the issue of children as a ‘hard’ security threat. By 2005 over 100 young boys had been captured as active combatants around Fallujah and Najaf in the Iraq war. Such fears were expressed by Singer (2003) when he warned of the ‘military style boot camps organised by the regime for thousands of Iraqi boys’ in operation before the 2003 invasion. Such camps date back to the Iran/Iraq war which raged in the Middle East during the 1980’s. Both sides utilised children in their combat forces with Iran guilty of deploying human shield tactics and using children to clear minefields by simply walking across them. The children involved were motivated by a combination of religious fervour and political brainwashing; ultimately a child was convinced that his role was one of a martyr carrying out tasks with terrifying obedience. Singer (2003) further argues that units of child soldiers would most likely based on historical precedent1 be “deployed in small units, serving as light infantry and irregulars, to defend Iraqi cities, particularly Baghdad. Their most likely use will be in small scale ambushes, sniping, and roadblocks”. Such activity would bring children into front line soldiering, making them a potential target for a military response. Such a traditional approach makes children into the targets of direct military action, a situation that is unsatisfactory to the liberal agenda of the West and to any moral actor. Despite the fears expressed by Singer and a number of casualties resulting from the actions of child soldiers, the war in Iraq did not highlight the issue of children in armed conflict. This was also the case in the Iran/Iraq war despite good access to child soldier prisoners and wide spread use of children in combat .Indeed the issue of child soldiers in traditional state military security is “difficult to locate” and instead “appears to fall squarely within the human security approach” (Fox 2004: 465). First and foremost the phenomenon is a child protection issue and the viability of child combatants should not have to enter military strategy and tactics. Military tactics evolved to wipe out adults will surely work just as effectively on minors; however the issue here is why and how children are drawn into such conflict. Military strategists must deal with children and the problem of child combatants without having to engage them on a tactical level. A more human approach is needed and required to provide protection and security for minors in conflict zones. Human security literature identifies the vulnerable as among the most vital to protect in society, surely children constitute one of the most vulnerable groups in need of such assistance. Child soldiers must be securitised under a system that identifies and aims to protect the vulnerable, dealing with underlying issues that a traditional approach seeks to sideline as irrelevant.
Human Security and Child Soldiers
Human security is a useful tool for understanding global vulnerabilities that exist in the child soldiers issue while challenging the traditional system of national security. A people centred view is necessary for national, regional and global stability. This view gains further momentum when applying human security to children and securitising the child soldiers issue. Supporting the ambitious broad definition of human security provides that it combines and is fully informed by international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and international refugee law. These fields then become a vital tool in the battle against the wide scale abuse of children in armed conflict. The effect of armed conflict on children is clearly devastating and this resonates into wider society. Noble Peace Prize Laureate Oscar Arias (2002) explains that ‘slowly but surely, progressive thinkers in the security and development communities got together and began promoting the notion of human security: the idea that fortified borders, armed conflicts and ideological domination do not necessarily lead to security. Security was recast as a concept that should be applied to individuals instead of states’. This view provides a strong basis for protecting children through the concept of human security as they are typically the most vulnerable individuals in society. The child soldier’s phenomenon leads to mass displacement of minors within and across borders, furthering the security threat exerted by children’s involvement in armed conflict. The narrow school of humanitarian action should be applied to enforce basic human rights on a state that has failed to protect its populace. The broad school has a role to play in developing new law, identifying and dealing with the root causes that lead to the breakdown of the state and the manipulation of children into armed conflict.
Recommendations/Security Reform
It is necessary to make a number of security suggestions that human security theory would be able to provide regarding the issue of children in armed conflict. The monitoring, ‘access to information and dissemination of best practices is typically difficult in conflict zones and where the situation fluctuates rapidly’ (Alfredson, 2002: 24). A system needs to be developed that allows the international community to successfully monitor the suffering of individuals within war torn states. This would become easier with a set of standards that regional actors could use to recognise the needs and dangers faced by child soldiers. Standards of practice at different stages of intervention including prevention, response and monitoring need to be developed to deal with the issue of children in armed conflict (2002: 24). Aid organisations, governments and regional actors need to monitor closely states where children could face possible threats from recruitment. This should be backed by rigorous investigation into increased armed group activity or unexplained absences reported from schools (2002: 24). The most vulnerable children in rural areas should be monitored closely as they are usually at more risk than their urban counterparts who can rely upon the protection of government forces more frequently. Governments following a human security paradigm should first aim to ratify and promote universal implementation of the CRC and OP-CRC. An enforcement mechanism such as intervention should then enforce these standards on recruitment, demobilisation and reintegration. Actors such as armed groups should be forced to comply with the standards set by international legal instruments or face the consequences of collective action from states concerned with human security practices. This represents a clear shift from state interest to the security interest of the individual. Governments should also take steps to ensure the protection of children when armed conflict breaks out, providing strengthened security where children are at risk of recruitment from non- state actors. The international community has a role to play in ensuring that children have adequate protection with support for preventative actions and ensuring rapid response to areas of abuse. Governments should also be prepared to accept United Nations agency staff into their territory to allow for a substantial analysis of the situation. These staff along with government officers and security personal should be trained to protect children from recruitment into armed groups. The responsibility to protect principal should be applied to humanitarian intervention. This theory seeks to rethink the relationship between security, sovereignty and human rights. The theory becomes important when trying to resolve issues of humanitarian intervention and traditional state security boundaries. Human Security embraces these ideas and applies them to the suffering of the individual and their demand for security.
Humanitarian Intervention and Peace Enforcement
The issue of child soldiers can easily branch across the spectrum of human security definitions. However it rests comfortably in the humanitarian focused school which would allow for enforcement of international norms established by the broad approach. The concept of responsibility to protect and human security are important focuses for the future evolution of peace operations. International legitimisation provides a strong basis to intervene and introduce collective norms on human rights violators and spoilers of peace. Human Security is developing so that intervention can be legitimate and legal on the grounds of personal suffering. The issue of child soldiers opens the debate for outward intervention in failed states that cannot provide the basic protection for its children. Berry (2001: 93) demonstrates this point, ‘the phenomenon of child soldiers is inextricably linked to a crisis of the states as manifested in civil conflict’. In the aftermath of the Cold War, armed conflicts have occurred mainly within states. War between states has become rare in the current political climate. This position has put human security at the forefront of international politics. Essentially there has been a shift from external threats towards internal struggles that realism and liberalism are unable to deal with. With the ability to act collectively states can prevent civil war and genocide in war torn or rogue states. It has begun to be recognised that even territorial security does not guarantee the security of citizens or indeed children within a state. Examples such as North Korea, Rwanda, Somalia and Uganda comply with such a statement (King. 2001: 388). Human security is a theory that can be applied to help different suffering groups in society
Peace enforcement has a role to play in the human security paradigm and the effect it could have on the child soldier’s phenomenon is profound. Peace enforcement is in essence an evolutionary response to a changing geopolitical climate. It evolved due to the rising number of intra state conflicts that occurred in the 1990’s and attempts to reflect the reality of the world today. The concept moves towards the idea of collective security and away from the peacekeeping that developed in response to Security Council stalemate in the Cold War. As a result of this changing climate the aim of maintaining international peace and security set out in the UN Charter has moved towards a human security based approach. Forcible intervention sub contracted out to actors with regional interest allows humanitarian issues such as child soldiers to be acted upon. The U.K government distinguishes peace enforcement as ‘force used coercively to get compliance with agreements, impose a peace or protect civilians from hostilities (Pugh, 2009: 410). Thus the impartiality of such an operation is towards the mandate; protecting civilians from hostilities will require use of force against hostile actors. In this case the parties attempting to abduct or use children in an armed group should be mandated as the hostile actor. Resolution 688 in the aftermath of the Gulf War was the first to recognise that a minority group could fall under threat within a nation state. It would seem legitimate that under a human security paradigm the individual, children in this case, could fall under threat in a broken state. Precedent exists for such action and allows for concerted pressure or intervention based upon the individual suffering of children. Under Resolution 688 the traditional impartiality of peacekeeping was eroded with the emphasis placed on the mandate and use of force to protect the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq. Targeted use of such resolutions by the Security Council would allow for intervention based on the abuse of children on a large scale. A threshold would need to be set, allowing for potential action once a certain number of cases had been reported or where wide scale use of children in armed groups is well documented. The aim in dealing with conflict would be to intervene, halt fighting, reduce innocent suffering and promote recovery. Introducing a human security element to deal with the underlying causes of the conflict would then become vital in a post conflict rebuilding programme aiming to supplement the original intervention.
For the issue of child soldiers to be addressed it is important that external actors take the responsibility to act upon individual suffering. It may not be realistic to respond to a handful of individuals but a threshold must be set for the potential implementation of an intervention based on human suffering. Regional organisations will increasingly become important actors in carrying out peace enforcement missions. The HLP report formed by Kofi Annan in 2003 makes a strong case for a move towards collective security in humanitarian actions.
‘In some contexts, opposition to a peace agreement is not tactical but fundamental. We must learn the lesson: peace agreements by governments or rebels that engage in or encourage mass human rights abuses have no value and cannot be implemented, these contexts are not appropriate for consent based peacekeeping; rather they must be met with concerted action’ (HLP report, para 222)
The value of such action was highlighted and put forward by the HLP report and promotes the idea of human security and concerted action to limit genocide and human rights abuses. Concentrated action by a number of regional actors could have a positive effect on the issue of child soldiers in a state where civil protection has broken down. The UN has shown support for the increasing power of the European Union and aims to encourage a similar project in the African Union. The danger of such regional outfits taking an important role in peace keeping is that their interest will come before that of the humanitarian mission. The United Nations must be decisive and clearly mandate and set the doctrine for such intervention by regional actors.
Post –Conflict Peace Building
Post conflict peace building plays an important role in understanding the causes of a war and dealing with them so that children will not be pulled back into armed conflict. Human Security encompasses the ability to attach itself to the development nexus with the sole aim of providing future protection for the individual. Children affected by war are vulnerable to the aftermath unless they are protected adequately by a well implemented peace reconstruction process. In this instance human security is linked with the peace building process and any attempt to deal with the root cause of armed conflict leading to the protection of the individual. Nosworthy (2009: 172) argues that addressing the root cause of a conflict and promoting development and democracy in countries not affected by war can prevent the outbreak, recurrence or continuation of armed conflict. The United Nations Security Council has recognised that the rights of children are integral in building a post-conflict environment, making the child a priority with Resolution 1612 (2005). This resolution called for the implementation of a report system aimed at monitoring post conflict situations. Nosworthy (2009: 173) further elaborates
‘While the focus of their (United Nations Security Council) deliberation has been on the recruitment or use of children by armed forces or groups, their concern is also with a number of grave violations, namely: killing or maiming children, attacks against schools or hospitals, abduction, rape or other grave sexual violence against children, and denial of humanitarian access to children. Members of both armed forces and armed groups appear in early reports as perpetrators of abuses against children, highlighting the importance of engaging these same actors in safe guarding the security of children’
As a result it is the security actor that must play the key role in protecting the rights of the child in conflict. Engaging various actors in a preventative and post conflict setting will allow children to be protected by the body of international law that already obliges such practice.
Conclusion
How can a state centred traditional security approach ever strive to deal with children in armed conflict and securitize the issue successfully? Human security steps in to fill the void and provide a people centred paradigm that is able to securitize child soldiers and the underlying problems that traumatise wider society. The first step to addressing the issue is simply for states to be aware of the issue and to provide preventative measures to prevent child recruitment. The individual is the referent of security and requires adequate protection from the international community as a whole. A paradigm that is focused on the individual will deal with the threats that children must face from armed conflict, ultimately achieving their security
The instruments of International law previously discussed provide a basic framework for dealing with the issues surrounding the child soldier’s phenomenon. However they fail to provide an effective enforcement mechanism that can enforce the special protection that children are entitled to under international legal norms. Human security is able to provide a much needed impetus for action involving the abuse of children on such a large scale. Human security can take the existing law and enforce it with a focus on individual suffering and even provide potential humanitarian intervention if a state fails. Post conflict peace building also has an important role to play in providing human security for children in failed states. The purpose in this chapter is to outline the concept of human security and apply it to the vulnerabilities of the child soldier. Recommendations are provided regarding a human security based approach to the problem of child soldiers. Firstly an intervention policy based on the international law and based upon peace enforcement principals is argued for. This should be backed up by a resolute post conflict rebuilding scheme that utilises the action of external actors acting on a regional basis. The idea of human security has gained importance in the political realm. It has been included into decision making, policy design and programmatic implementation (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009: 53) Examples of successful implementation are the Ottawa process on landmines and the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict adopted by the United Nations.
Human Security Outline
To what extent can we apply human security theory to the issue of children in armed conflict, can we securitize the issue adequately to develop a framework for dealing with the issue? This is the primary concern of trying to attach human security theory to child soldiers. The human security debate itself is an ongoing one with important conceptual problems yet to be addressed. The theory is yet to be concretely defined and thus much debate surrounds the definition and broadness of the idea. Fox (2003: 474) explains that “it must be noted the human security paradigm is a building that is still under construction and has been the object of much criticism as well as praise”. The theory knows no boundaries while the crux of the debate seems to revolve around what constitutes human security and what does not. Paris (2001: 92) in his criticism of the theory points to the “broad sweep and definitional elasticity of most formulations of human security”, the theory unable to secure exactly what it wishes to be. The alternative end of the spectrum holds human security as the potential successor to the unwieldy and outdated traditional approaches. According to McRae (2001: 15) human security can bring a much needed shift in emphasis and become “the new measure of success for international security and the international system”. The Commission on Human Security expects the theory to ‘complement state security’ and to step in when the state itself threatens the vulnerable within its own borders. Human security is according to the commission an alternative but not a replacement to traditional security theory (Commission on Human Security, 2003: 2). Human security aims to protect the most vulnerable in society, whom I argue are more vulnerable than children?
Development of Human Security Theory
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 1994 Human Development Report lays the foundation for human security as an international relations discipline. Human security emerged from this report as a paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities and challenging the Realist and Liberal schools of international relations theory. National, Regional and global stability is argued to be dependent on the individual. In essence the theory is implicitly people centred and builds upon post-cold war ideas for development, international relations, strategic studies and human rights. The 1994 report is considered the land mark publication for the advancement of human security as a theory in security studies. The sheer scope of the concept and its various definitions has led to much criticism. These critics point towards the vagueness of the theory and argue that it is ineffective on the international stage.
The UNDP report of 1994 points towards four essential characteristics that make up the concept of human security. Firstly it is argued that the concept must apply universally and concern the entire world. Second the components that make up the theory are based on interdependence. Thirdly human security is more easily obtained through early prevention than later intervention. Such an idea is very popular in contemporary conflict resolution with both the UN and EU focusing on preventative operations. Finally the primary concern of security should be the individual, the theory is people centred. (UNDP 1994 :22-23) It is important that human security is differentiated from the broader concept of human development. The latter is based on trying to widen the range of people’s choices, the former aims to allow these choices to be exercised freely and without menace. Much debate abounds around the realms of each discipline. These can be divided into the broad and narrow schools on human security.
Definitions of Human Security: Broad vs. Narrow
Human security can arguably be divided into three distinct schools that have arisen out of current debates. The first of these definitions is the natural rights/rule of law based approach that concerns itself with basic individual rights to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ and the international community’s obligation to uphold these rights (Alston 1992, Lauren 1998, Morsink 1998). The second view is that human security constitutes a humanitarian based approach which ‘informs international efforts to deepen and strengthen international law’(Hampson, 2009: 230) with a particular focus on tackling issues such as genocide and war crimes while limiting threats to civilian life. This policy of intervention can involve military force and should be used to avert or prevent the mass suffering and restore basic human rights and dignity (2009: 231). These first two conceptions of human security are more focused and considered narrow schools compared to a broader view which suggests, ‘human security should be widely constructed to include economic, environmental, social and other forms of harm to the overall livelihood and well being of individuals’ (2009: 231). Human security concerns itself greatly with threats to the individual and provides risk assessment analysis to identify individual suffering.
The Report of the Commission on Human Security (2003) defines the broad scope of human security theory as a;
‘means for protecting fundamental freedoms…. It means protecting people from critical (severe) and pervasive (widespread) threats and situations. It means using processes that build on people’s strength and aspirations. It means creating political, social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems that together give people the building blocks of survival’ (UN, 2003).
In protecting fundamental freedoms people are safe from threats to their person, livelihood and way of life. The building blocks of society aim to empower the individual so they can live freely in a safe and stimulating environment. An increase in globalisation and interdependence led to concerns that actions in one place may have effects internationally. Such issues as unresolved development have been seen in Somalia, East Timor and Haiti. This common theme of under development has become interrelated with an increasingly globalized international system. These linkages, although considered vague by some academics create the basis of human security theory.
‘In the final analysis human security is a child who did not die, a disease that did not spread, a job that was not cut, an ethnic tension that did not explode in violence, a dissident who was not silenced. Human security is not a concern with weapons; it is a concern with human life and dignity’ (UNDP 1994: 22).
The broad definition offered by the 1994 UNDP report encompasses a large area including economic, food, health, environmental, political, community and personal security. This scope makes it difficult for actors to efficiently target areas for the application of human security. However each area warrants a close examination into whether they affect the individual and thus the international security system as a whole. If something is a threat to security it cannot be ignored merely because it is outside the remit of traditional security practice. Counter to this broad scope would be that of Sabine Alkire (2002) who provides a more focused and narrow view on human security. Focusing essentially on the fundamental aspects Alkire states ‘the objective of human security is to safeguard the vital core of all human lives from critical pervasive threats, and to do so without impeding long term human flourishing’ (2002) Here the critical threat is what should be assessed. Providing a more focused definition allows human security to become more effective as a security tool. Allowing such a broad scale security concern merits problems in applicability and conceptualisation of the theory.
Supporters of human security theory suggest that the concept of security has been applied to States reacting to external aggressors or acting on protecting national interest. They argue that the new referent of security theory should be the individual. The concept highlights the issue of States vs. Individuals as the referents of international order. Traditional international relations theory would suggest that the main actor of a secure world is the nation state. Indeed the focus since the signing of the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 has been the sovereign right of the state to decide its internal matters. External threats were treated as security issues and the main threat to the world order. Human security concerns itself with an attempt to bypass the nation state and deal directly with the individual and their personal struggles. The safety of the individual is vital to global security; a threat to an individual is a threat to international security. This directly correlates to the child soldiers issue; a critical or pervasive threat to a child is a threat to an individual and thus a threat to global security.
It should be established that human security is a more focused discipline than human development. Modern states can focus human security on dealing with threats to life and physical violence through prevention, protection and empowerment of individuals (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009: 13). Human development and broader issues can be brought in so ‘a conceptual framework leads to a mutually enforcing human security policy which emphasises crisis prevention and crisis management policies at the same time’ (Werthes,Heaven and Volnhalls 2009: 14) Successful management of the broad (development) and the narrow (political violence) schools requires politics that address both their needs. Both the narrow and the broad definitions should be taken into account, as the ambition of human security is its shining light, while the narrow school provides an operational framework for immediate implementation. The humanitarian focused approach fits squarely onto the issue of child soldiers, a focused human security based approach allows for more effective action in tackling the underlying problems identified in a broader analysis. The broad theory as a whole needs to be developed further but no doubt it provides a strong framework for the implementation of security allowing reinforcement mechanisms from human development to aid the individual. The narrow school allows us to focus in and act on children involved in armed conflict while the broad scale can help to work and identify the roots of conflict in a post peace building programme.
Children in Conflict
While they may suffer as individuals the child armed with modern weapons can clearly constitute a military threat to the standard infantry soldier. The first U.S casualty of the conflict in Afghanistan was a Green Beret shot by a 14 year old equipped with a sniper rifle (Singer, 2003). These underage soldiers have become ‘a recurring feature of the modern battlefield, present in the majority of the world’s conflicts and armed organisations (2003). Military tactics and strategy must take the issue of children as a ‘hard’ security threat. By 2005 over 100 young boys had been captured as active combatants around Fallujah and Najaf in the Iraq war. Such fears were expressed by Singer (2003) when he warned of the ‘military style boot camps organised by the regime for thousands of Iraqi boys’ in operation before the 2003 invasion. Such camps date back to the Iran/Iraq war which raged in the Middle East during the 1980’s. Both sides utilised children in their combat forces with Iran guilty of deploying human shield tactics and using children to clear minefields by simply walking across them. The children involved were motivated by a combination of religious fervour and political brainwashing; ultimately a child was convinced that his role was one of a martyr carrying out tasks with terrifying obedience. Singer (2003) further argues that units of child soldiers would most likely based on historical precedent1 be “deployed in small units, serving as light infantry and irregulars, to defend Iraqi cities, particularly Baghdad. Their most likely use will be in small scale ambushes, sniping, and roadblocks”. Such activity would bring children into front line soldiering, making them a potential target for a military response. Such a traditional approach makes children into the targets of direct military action, a situation that is unsatisfactory to the liberal agenda of the West and to any moral actor. Despite the fears expressed by Singer and a number of casualties resulting from the actions of child soldiers, the war in Iraq did not highlight the issue of children in armed conflict. This was also the case in the Iran/Iraq war despite good access to child soldier prisoners and wide spread use of children in combat .Indeed the issue of child soldiers in traditional state military security is “difficult to locate” and instead “appears to fall squarely within the human security approach” (Fox 2004: 465). First and foremost the phenomenon is a child protection issue and the viability of child combatants should not have to enter military strategy and tactics. Military tactics evolved to wipe out adults will surely work just as effectively on minors; however the issue here is why and how children are drawn into such conflict. Military strategists must deal with children and the problem of child combatants without having to engage them on a tactical level. A more human approach is needed and required to provide protection and security for minors in conflict zones. Human security literature identifies the vulnerable as among the most vital to protect in society, surely children constitute one of the most vulnerable groups in need of such assistance. Child soldiers must be securitised under a system that identifies and aims to protect the vulnerable, dealing with underlying issues that a traditional approach seeks to sideline as irrelevant.
Human Security and Child Soldiers
Human security is a useful tool for understanding global vulnerabilities that exist in the child soldiers issue while challenging the traditional system of national security. A people centred view is necessary for national, regional and global stability. This view gains further momentum when applying human security to children and securitising the child soldiers issue. Supporting the ambitious broad definition of human security provides that it combines and is fully informed by international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and international refugee law. These fields then become a vital tool in the battle against the wide scale abuse of children in armed conflict. The effect of armed conflict on children is clearly devastating and this resonates into wider society. Noble Peace Prize Laureate Oscar Arias (2002) explains that ‘slowly but surely, progressive thinkers in the security and development communities got together and began promoting the notion of human security: the idea that fortified borders, armed conflicts and ideological domination do not necessarily lead to security. Security was recast as a concept that should be applied to individuals instead of states’. This view provides a strong basis for protecting children through the concept of human security as they are typically the most vulnerable individuals in society. The child soldier’s phenomenon leads to mass displacement of minors within and across borders, furthering the security threat exerted by children’s involvement in armed conflict. The narrow school of humanitarian action should be applied to enforce basic human rights on a state that has failed to protect its populace. The broad school has a role to play in developing new law, identifying and dealing with the root causes that lead to the breakdown of the state and the manipulation of children into armed conflict.
Recommendations/Security Reform
It is necessary to make a number of security suggestions that human security theory would be able to provide regarding the issue of children in armed conflict. The monitoring, ‘access to information and dissemination of best practices is typically difficult in conflict zones and where the situation fluctuates rapidly’ (Alfredson, 2002: 24). A system needs to be developed that allows the international community to successfully monitor the suffering of individuals within war torn states. This would become easier with a set of standards that regional actors could use to recognise the needs and dangers faced by child soldiers. Standards of practice at different stages of intervention including prevention, response and monitoring need to be developed to deal with the issue of children in armed conflict (2002: 24). Aid organisations, governments and regional actors need to monitor closely states where children could face possible threats from recruitment. This should be backed by rigorous investigation into increased armed group activity or unexplained absences reported from schools (2002: 24). The most vulnerable children in rural areas should be monitored closely as they are usually at more risk than their urban counterparts who can rely upon the protection of government forces more frequently. Governments following a human security paradigm should first aim to ratify and promote universal implementation of the CRC and OP-CRC. An enforcement mechanism such as intervention should then enforce these standards on recruitment, demobilisation and reintegration. Actors such as armed groups should be forced to comply with the standards set by international legal instruments or face the consequences of collective action from states concerned with human security practices. This represents a clear shift from state interest to the security interest of the individual. Governments should also take steps to ensure the protection of children when armed conflict breaks out, providing strengthened security where children are at risk of recruitment from non- state actors. The international community has a role to play in ensuring that children have adequate protection with support for preventative actions and ensuring rapid response to areas of abuse. Governments should also be prepared to accept United Nations agency staff into their territory to allow for a substantial analysis of the situation. These staff along with government officers and security personal should be trained to protect children from recruitment into armed groups. The responsibility to protect principal should be applied to humanitarian intervention. This theory seeks to rethink the relationship between security, sovereignty and human rights. The theory becomes important when trying to resolve issues of humanitarian intervention and traditional state security boundaries. Human Security embraces these ideas and applies them to the suffering of the individual and their demand for security.
Humanitarian Intervention and Peace Enforcement
The issue of child soldiers can easily branch across the spectrum of human security definitions. However it rests comfortably in the humanitarian focused school which would allow for enforcement of international norms established by the broad approach. The concept of responsibility to protect and human security are important focuses for the future evolution of peace operations. International legitimisation provides a strong basis to intervene and introduce collective norms on human rights violators and spoilers of peace. Human Security is developing so that intervention can be legitimate and legal on the grounds of personal suffering. The issue of child soldiers opens the debate for outward intervention in failed states that cannot provide the basic protection for its children. Berry (2001: 93) demonstrates this point, ‘the phenomenon of child soldiers is inextricably linked to a crisis of the states as manifested in civil conflict’. In the aftermath of the Cold War, armed conflicts have occurred mainly within states. War between states has become rare in the current political climate. This position has put human security at the forefront of international politics. Essentially there has been a shift from external threats towards internal struggles that realism and liberalism are unable to deal with. With the ability to act collectively states can prevent civil war and genocide in war torn or rogue states. It has begun to be recognised that even territorial security does not guarantee the security of citizens or indeed children within a state. Examples such as North Korea, Rwanda, Somalia and Uganda comply with such a statement (King. 2001: 388). Human security is a theory that can be applied to help different suffering groups in society
Peace enforcement has a role to play in the human security paradigm and the effect it could have on the child soldier’s phenomenon is profound. Peace enforcement is in essence an evolutionary response to a changing geopolitical climate. It evolved due to the rising number of intra state conflicts that occurred in the 1990’s and attempts to reflect the reality of the world today. The concept moves towards the idea of collective security and away from the peacekeeping that developed in response to Security Council stalemate in the Cold War. As a result of this changing climate the aim of maintaining international peace and security set out in the UN Charter has moved towards a human security based approach. Forcible intervention sub contracted out to actors with regional interest allows humanitarian issues such as child soldiers to be acted upon. The U.K government distinguishes peace enforcement as ‘force used coercively to get compliance with agreements, impose a peace or protect civilians from hostilities (Pugh, 2009: 410). Thus the impartiality of such an operation is towards the mandate; protecting civilians from hostilities will require use of force against hostile actors. In this case the parties attempting to abduct or use children in an armed group should be mandated as the hostile actor. Resolution 688 in the aftermath of the Gulf War was the first to recognise that a minority group could fall under threat within a nation state. It would seem legitimate that under a human security paradigm the individual, children in this case, could fall under threat in a broken state. Precedent exists for such action and allows for concerted pressure or intervention based upon the individual suffering of children. Under Resolution 688 the traditional impartiality of peacekeeping was eroded with the emphasis placed on the mandate and use of force to protect the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq. Targeted use of such resolutions by the Security Council would allow for intervention based on the abuse of children on a large scale. A threshold would need to be set, allowing for potential action once a certain number of cases had been reported or where wide scale use of children in armed groups is well documented. The aim in dealing with conflict would be to intervene, halt fighting, reduce innocent suffering and promote recovery. Introducing a human security element to deal with the underlying causes of the conflict would then become vital in a post conflict rebuilding programme aiming to supplement the original intervention.
For the issue of child soldiers to be addressed it is important that external actors take the responsibility to act upon individual suffering. It may not be realistic to respond to a handful of individuals but a threshold must be set for the potential implementation of an intervention based on human suffering. Regional organisations will increasingly become important actors in carrying out peace enforcement missions. The HLP report formed by Kofi Annan in 2003 makes a strong case for a move towards collective security in humanitarian actions.
‘In some contexts, opposition to a peace agreement is not tactical but fundamental. We must learn the lesson: peace agreements by governments or rebels that engage in or encourage mass human rights abuses have no value and cannot be implemented, these contexts are not appropriate for consent based peacekeeping; rather they must be met with concerted action’ (HLP report, para 222)
The value of such action was highlighted and put forward by the HLP report and promotes the idea of human security and concerted action to limit genocide and human rights abuses. Concentrated action by a number of regional actors could have a positive effect on the issue of child soldiers in a state where civil protection has broken down. The UN has shown support for the increasing power of the European Union and aims to encourage a similar project in the African Union. The danger of such regional outfits taking an important role in peace keeping is that their interest will come before that of the humanitarian mission. The United Nations must be decisive and clearly mandate and set the doctrine for such intervention by regional actors.
Post –Conflict Peace Building
Post conflict peace building plays an important role in understanding the causes of a war and dealing with them so that children will not be pulled back into armed conflict. Human Security encompasses the ability to attach itself to the development nexus with the sole aim of providing future protection for the individual. Children affected by war are vulnerable to the aftermath unless they are protected adequately by a well implemented peace reconstruction process. In this instance human security is linked with the peace building process and any attempt to deal with the root cause of armed conflict leading to the protection of the individual. Nosworthy (2009: 172) argues that addressing the root cause of a conflict and promoting development and democracy in countries not affected by war can prevent the outbreak, recurrence or continuation of armed conflict. The United Nations Security Council has recognised that the rights of children are integral in building a post-conflict environment, making the child a priority with Resolution 1612 (2005). This resolution called for the implementation of a report system aimed at monitoring post conflict situations. Nosworthy (2009: 173) further elaborates
‘While the focus of their (United Nations Security Council) deliberation has been on the recruitment or use of children by armed forces or groups, their concern is also with a number of grave violations, namely: killing or maiming children, attacks against schools or hospitals, abduction, rape or other grave sexual violence against children, and denial of humanitarian access to children. Members of both armed forces and armed groups appear in early reports as perpetrators of abuses against children, highlighting the importance of engaging these same actors in safe guarding the security of children’
As a result it is the security actor that must play the key role in protecting the rights of the child in conflict. Engaging various actors in a preventative and post conflict setting will allow children to be protected by the body of international law that already obliges such practice.
Conclusion
How can a state centred traditional security approach ever strive to deal with children in armed conflict and securitize the issue successfully? Human security steps in to fill the void and provide a people centred paradigm that is able to securitize child soldiers and the underlying problems that traumatise wider society. The first step to addressing the issue is simply for states to be aware of the issue and to provide preventative measures to prevent child recruitment. The individual is the referent of security and requires adequate protection from the international community as a whole. A paradigm that is focused on the individual will deal with the threats that children must face from armed conflict, ultimately achieving their security
