THE ASIAN LABORATORY OF HUMAN SECURITY AND REFUGEES

THE ASIAN LABORATORY OF HUMAN SECURITY AND REFUGEES

The 21st century has the potential to be recognized as the era dominated by Asian influence and achievements, especially in terms of Human Security (HS) (Kim, 2010). HS has an Asian origin, as evidenced by the prominent role of Japan in advancing a HS agenda of ‘freedom from want’ that transcends the state-centric approach and prioritizes the well-being of individuals (Acharya, 2001). In addition, influential scholars such as Mahbubul Haq and Amartya Sen, have Asian roots, and along with many other Asian academics who have contributed to shaping a distinctive Asian perspective on HS.

The Asian view of HS differs from the allegedly narrow Westphalian view that focuses on the physical securitization of states. This view puts a premium on the principles of sovereignty and noninterference. However, as Kim stresses, these principles are not new or uniquely Asian (Kim, 2010). What is new is how the international system has changed since the Westphalian era. Developments in international law, human rights, globalization, and demography have created new opportunities and challenges for HS. The rise of intrastate conflicts, the emergence of transnational threats, the adoption of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and the inclusion of human development in the global agenda are some examples of the transformation. But with the rise of Asian countries, is really a new Eastphalian world order emerging, as Kim(2010) asserts?

Kim (2010) illustrates two reasons for his argument. First, globalization has made states less willing and able to safeguard individuals from various transnational threats. Second, the convergence of security and human rights has contributed to the rise of HS as a normative framework.

In his postulation, as the Asian rise has paralleled the growth of HS, the future trajectory of HS discourse depends upon the Asian states to frame it. It is argumentative however HS will be a people-centered concept because Asian states have an inclination toward rigid sovereignty.

There is no unified Asian view on HS (Kim, 2010). While Japan embraced the expanded vision of HS, China, India, and other Asian states remains skeptical. There is a difference in their approach to HS. Japan’s broader vision incorporates both freedom from fear and freedom from want, and it argues that the state alone cannot protect all people, especially refugees (S. N. Ogata et al., 2003).

Where the view gets confrontational is the controversial aspect of HS, that states pursuing HS disperse some responsibility on the state to intervene in other states that are unable to protect their citizens under the principle of R2P or the more general imperative of humanitarian intervention.

This divergence in acceptance underlies respective histories. Given Japan's history of imperialism in the 1930s and 1940s, her acceptance of a broad version HS is skeptical to other Asian countries (Kim, 2010). It is also more so, because of Japan’s highly developed nature and the rights ascribed to its highly homogenous population. In practice, Japan’s policies are still discriminatory, especially its backdoor migration policy, as an example. China, on the other hand, given its experience of imperial incursion from Japan and its policy culture, doesn’t provide much space for HS given its government's unique character and sensitivity towards creeping foreign power in its affairs. India provides the most outstanding case. Its bilateral and geopolitical interests vis-à-vis China leave little policy choice for humanitarian concerns. Which is especially relevant for the long-term solution for Rohingya refugee crisis.

Additionally, only a handful of Southeast Asian countries share a HS approach that addresses both freedom from fear and freedom from want, are they really keen on developing frameworks to protect vulnerable groups of refugees.

The key theme for HS in Asia remains, the subordination of human-centeredness to the state-centeredness. For a more people-centered view of HS to be actualized, even a limited view of humanitarian intervention would suffice to stop the atrocities committed against the Rohingya. In actuality, the Myanmar junta has repeatedly failed to safeguard the rights of its people (Kim, 2010). In the past, after the cyclone devastation, the junta has deliberately intervened and prevented life-saving goods from reaching the devastated Rohingya and other minority groups. While the neighboring Asian countries and other major players remained fixated on the idea of non-intervention and sovereignty. As most Asian nations have yet to ratify the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, or the 1954 Convention Regarding the Status of Stateless Persons (Moretti, 2021), there doesn't remain much hope for the stateless.

To build an Eastphalian approach, states should be able to extend its referent object to the individual irrespective of their nationality. The normative appeal of HS has the potential to solve the Rohingya refugee problem. Even in a true ‘Eastaphalian’ order bereft of HS based on Asian values with human rights, universalism holds the responsibility for states in the region to resolve the suffering of the millions of refugees. But that is if the nations of Asia come together to respect the values of their traditions, which remains a big catalyst, contingent upon calculation of national interest in Asian laboratory.

References

Acharya, A. (2001). Human security. International Journal, 56(3), 440–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/002070200105600304/ASSET/002070200105600304.FP.PNG_V03

Kim. (2010). Human Security with an Asian Face? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 17(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.2979/gls.2010.17.1.83

Moretti, S. (2021). Southeast Asia and the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: Substance without Form? International Journal of Refugee Law, 33(2), 214–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeab035

Ogata, S., & Cels, J. (2003). Human Security - Protecting and Empowering the People. Global Governance, 9(3), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-00903002

Ogata, S. N., Sen, A., & -, C. on H. S. T. A.-T. T. (2003). Final Report of the Commission on Human Security (NV-). [CHS Secretariat in New York] [New York]. https://doi.org/LK - https://worldcat.org/title/224464013

Popular posts from this blog

DOES HUMAN SECURITY BRING ANYTHING NEW TO REFUEE PROTECTION?

Does Human Security (HS) Bring Anything New to Refugee Protection? A salient question in the search for meaning for physical security that has reoriented or at least given preponderance to HS since the Cold War was “Whose security?”. This is a question that has been asked repeatedly in security discourse. However, the previous realist assertion was no longer viable in the century to come. The reorientation of security was in some sense necessary at that time, at least to rub along with the democratic consensus to cut down funding for physical security. A shift in orientation from state to individual or community, at least in normative advocacy, seemed to make up for the vacuum (Paris, 2001). Although in reality all this normative advocacy made little sense in policy application, David Chandler opinioned that human security as a concept did not ‘bark’ (Chandler, 2008). However, it is my assertion that independent research into HS continued ...
Read more

Who are the Rohingya? Contested claims of their origin.

Image
WHO ARE THE ROHINGYA? Figure : Map of Rakhine (former Arakan) state of Myanmar (Source : Map of Rakhine State-Wikipedia) The question is simple, but answering it is complex. The Rohingya are an ethnic, religious, and linguistic minority group from the northern Rakhine state (Harvard Divinity School, 2021). They are distinct from the major Burman group and share cultural traits that are more similar to those of South Asia (Matisoff, 2023). The Rohingya are predominantly Muslims who claim to be the descendants of Indo-Aryans but assert their indigeneity to western Myanmar, having lived there since precolonial times (Blakemore, 2019). However, their origin and identity are highly debated among scholars. C. R. Abrar citing Nicolaus (1995) argues that the influx of Muslim traders from Afghanis...
Read more