The Global Sociology Blog

In an interview with the Guardian, Mary Kaldor outlines her views on human security in the global context. That is the subject of her latest book, Human Security (review forthcoming). Her view fit fairly well with the vision of global security outlined in Samantha Power’s latest book on Sergio Vieira de Mello (which I reviewed here). Mary Kaldor is current Professor of Global Governance and co-Director (with the indispensable David Held) of the Centre for the Study of Global Governance at the London School of Economics.

Her views on human security have been outlined not only in her book but also in a report - A Human Security Doctrine for Europe - presented in 2004 to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana as part of the Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities. This was followed in 2007 with a follow-up report titled A European Way of Security.

So, in this global context, how do we define human security?

“In many ways Kosovo represents a laboratory for Kaldor’s thinking on human security, which she defines as the security of individuals and communities rather than the security of states. This security of individuals is a fundamental thread in Kaldor’s work - its utopian aspect. For Kaldor, humanitarian intervention and international peacekeeping involve “a genuine belief in the equality of all human beings; and this entails a readiness to risk lives of peacekeeping troops to save the lives of others where this is necessary”.”

It is eerie how much her thinking matches indeed the evolution of Vieira de Mello on what makes or breaks a peacekeeping mission, especially as it pertains to newly-independent Kosovo, where the EU mission will be composed of “police, judges, lawyers, and administrators.” Similarly, Kaldor expresses the same frustration regarding the gap of good intentions, when it comes to the UN, and the tendency to turn sensible statements of principles into bureaucratic nightmares.

However, contrary to the unrelenting optimism of Vieira de Mello and his faith in the capacity of the UN to improve and protect people’s lives, Kaldor’s assessment is more clear-cut and unflattering:

“”It is hard to find a single example of humanitarian intervention during the 1990s that can be unequivocally declared a success. Especially after Kosovo, the debate about whether human rights can be enforced through military means is ever more intense. Moreover, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have been justified in humanitarian terms, have further called into question the case for intervention.”"

Leaving aside the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan which do not constitute peacekeeping operations in the UN sense, it is also hard to make the case that things would be better had the UN not intervened. Moreover, it is well-known that members of the UNSC have a tendency to not fully fund and staff peacekeeping missions, dooming them often from the start. There is nothing inherently condemned to failure in peacekeeping but there are systemic issues in political will and implementation.

As for Iraq and Kosovo, had the Bush administrations actually read Kaldor’s book on New Wars, they would have probably made fewer deadly mistakes. And there is also the problem of who is part of the interventionist party and what interventionism really implies:

“A crucial and recurring problem for those who intervene, even those with the best of intentions, says Kaldor, is the psychological distance and the cultural barriers between the so-called internationals and the local population. Kaldor remembers an instance in Iraq where she was appalled by the insensitivity and arrogance of a young, uneducated American talking down to a highly qualified Iraqi with a Phd.”

So, what is to be done in the global context of new wars? According to Kaldor, there should be a shift in thinking in the nature and goal of warfare: military intervention should be more about protecting civilians than military victory. This might have proved a better strategy in Iraq when it came to fighting the insurgency, another costly mistake.