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