This article was initially prepared for the Conference on Peace, Development, and Regionalization in East Asia, organized by the East Asia Institute and the Gorbachev Foundation of North America, Seoul, September 2–4, 2003. My thanks to the conference organizers and participants for comments on the original draft and to two anonymous referees for comments on the revised one.Google Scholar

1. “East Asia” is used in two different ways in regional discussions. One refers to an area including mainland China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and possibly portions of Vietnam, something that John Fairbank and Edwin Reischauer referred to as the sinic culture area. The second expands the region to include the countries of Southeast Asia. For current purposes I'm using the second meaning because the discussion of security terms and regional institution building is, at least for the moment, primarily centered on the wider concept of the region as seen for example in the ASEAN+3 process and the supporting track-two activities.Google Scholar

2. Buzan, Barry, “Human Security in International Perspective,” in Anthony, Mely and Hassan, Mohamed Jawhar, eds., The Asia Pacific in the New Millennium (Kuala Lumpur: ISIS Malaysia, 2001); Ignatieff, Michael, “The Seductiveness of Moral Disgust,” in Ignatieff, The Warrior's Honour: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience, chap. 3 (New York: Viking, 1998); Bain, William W., “Against Crusading: The Ethic of Human Security and Canadian Foreign Policy,” Canadian Foreign Policy 6, no. 3 (Spring 1999); Luttwak, Edward, “Give War a Chance,” Foreign Affairs 78, no. 4 (July-August 1999); Paris, Roland, “Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?” International Security 26, no. 2 (Fall 2001): 102.Google Scholar

3. The list and a selection of syllabi from courses they offer are available online at www.humansecurity.info.Google Scholar

4. And it has scarcely registered on the screen of the international media. A Google search assessing the frequency of different adjectives for modifying security (e.g., national security, regime security, comprehensive security, cooperative security, homeland security) in English-language newspapers in 2002 revealed that less than 0.3 percent of the references were to “human security.” Google Scholar

5. Capie, David and Evans, Paul, The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2002), pp. 139–147.Google Scholar

6. It also appears to be something of a syndrome or value signifier. A person interested in human security is also likely ambivalent about globalization, liberalization, and unfettered markets; is committed to international development and more equal distribution of resources; uses words like “social justice” and “root causes”; supports multilateral institutions including the UN, ICC, and the new diplomacy of coalitions of the willing (in the sense used in the anti-personnel landmines campaign, not the war in Iraq); and is apoplectic about U.S. unilateralism and exceptionalism.Google Scholar

7. King, Gary and Murray, Christopher, “Rethinking Human Security,” Political Science Quarterly 116, No. 4 (Winter 2002).Google Scholar

8. Commission on Human Security, Human Security Now: Protecting and Empowering People, (New York: CHS, 2003), www.humansecurity-chs.org, p. 4.Google Scholar

9. Mack, Andrew, “The Human Security Report Project,” typescript, November 2002. The first edition of the Human Security Report was scheduled for release in December 2003.Google Scholar

10. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa, November 2001). The report and the supplementary volume, Research, Bibliography, and Background, are available online at www.idrc.ca. and www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/report2. In addition to the English version, it is available in French, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese. A Thai translation has just been completed by a group of scholars at Chulalongkorn University Bangkok.Google Scholar

11. The Responsibility to Protect, p. 15.Google Scholar

12. Ibid.Google Scholar

13. Ibid.Google Scholar

14. Acharya, Amitav, “Human Security: East Versus West,” International Journal (Summer 2001), p. 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Yann-huei, Song, “The Concepts of Human Security and Non-Traditional Security: A Comparison,” paper presented at the Human Security Conference, Taipei, December 16, 2002.Google Scholar

16. Anthony, Mely, “Human Security in the Asia-Pacific: Current Trends and Prospects,” in Dickens, David, ed., The Human Face of Security: Asia-Pacific Perspectives (Canberra: Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, 2002).Google Scholar

17. APEC Leaders' Declaration, “Bangkok Declaration on Partnership for the Future,” October 21, 2003, www.apec.org.Google Scholar

18. Dialogue and Research Monitor: An Inventory and Analysis of Multilateral Meetings on Asia Pacific Security, 1994–2002, www.jcie.or.jp.Google Scholar

19. On the academic side, there are now several research projects and teaching programs focusing on human security, including at Ritsumeikan University (led by Sato Makoto), Tokyo University (led by Yamamoto Yoshinobu), and Sophia University (led by Sorpong Peou).Google Scholar

20. Chyungly, Lee, “Human Security: Implications for Taiwan's International Roles,” www.humansecurity.info.Google Scholar

21. Mohanty, Manoranjan, “Humanitarian Intervention in an Unequal World—A View from Below,” paper presented at the International Seminar on Humanitarian Intervention, Beijing, August 27–28, 2002.Google Scholar

22. Human Security Report 2004, Centre for Human Security, University of British Columbia, forthcoming July 2004.Google Scholar

23. Thakur, Ramesh, “Intervention Could Bring Safeguards in Asia,” Daily Yomiuri, January 3, 2003.Google Scholar

24. Evans, Gareth, “Humanity Did Not Justify This War,” Financial Times, May 14, 2003.Google Scholar

25. Singapore Institute of International Affairs, “Sovereignty and Intervention: Special Report,” June 2001, www.siiaonline.org.Google Scholar

26. Acharya, Amitav, “Redefining the Dilemmas of Humanitarian Intervention,” Australian Journal of International Affairs 56, No. 3 (2002): 379; McDougall, Derek, “Regional Institutions and Security: Implications of the 1999 East Timor Crisis,” in Tan, Andrew and Boutin, Kenneth, eds., Non-Traditional Security Issues in Southeast Asia (Singapore: Select Publishing, 2001), p. 169.Google Scholar

27. Shulong, Chu, “China, Asia, and Issues of Sovereignty and Intervention,” China Institute of International Relations, November 2000.Google Scholar

28. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Beijing, “China's Position Paper on Cooperation in the Field of Non-Traditional Security Issues,” May 29, 2002, www.fmprc.gov.cn.Google Scholar

29. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, “Rapporteur's Report on Beijing Roundtable Consultations,” June 14, 2001, http://web.gc.cuny.edu/icissresearch/Reports/Beijing_Rapporteur_Report.html. Yuxi, Mao, “‘Human Intervention’ Dubious,” China Daily, February 25, 2002.Google Scholar

30. Shulong, Chu, China and Human Security (Vancouver: Program on Canada-Asia Policy Studies, North Pacific Policy Paper no. 8, 2002), p. 25, www.pcaps.iar.ubc.ca.Google Scholar

31. Carlson, Allen, Protecting Sovereignty, Accepting Intervention: The Dilemma of Chinese Foreign Relations in the 1990s (New York: National Committee on United States-China Relations, China Policy Series no. 18, September 2002), pp. 3, 32, 29.Google Scholar

32. Acharya, Amitav, “Human Security: East Versus West,” International Journal (Summer 2001), pp. 444–451. Acharya, Amitav, “Human Security: East Versus West,” International Journal (Summer 2001).Google Scholar

33. Thiparat, Pranee, ed., The Quest for Human Security: The Next Phase of ASEAN? (Bangkok: Institute of Security and International Studies, 2001), p. 62.Google Scholar

34. Chen, Lincoln, “Human Security: Concepts and Approaches,” in Matsumae, Tatsuro and Chen, Lincoln, eds., Common Security in Asia: New Concepts of Human Security (Tokyo: Tokai, 1995); Japan Center for International Exchange, The Asian Crisis and Human Security: An Intellectual Dialogue on Building Asia's Tomorrow (Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange, 1999); Japan Center for International Exchange, Sustainable Development and Human Security: Second Intellectual Dialogue on Building Asia's Tomorrow (Tokyo and Singapore: Japan Center for International Exchange/Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1999); Japan Center for International Exchange, Health and Human Security: Moving from Concept to Action (Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange, 2002).Google Scholar

35. It is instructive that of the roughly sixty papers completed from 1999 to 2002 by authors in Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia in the first phase of a Ford Foundation research and conference project on nontraditional and human security, only seven dealt directly with issues of violence and intervention. And only ten paid attention to nonstate actors as policy players and not just the targets of policy. See Khan, Abdur Rob, ed., Globalization and Non-Traditional Security in South Asia (Colombo: Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, 2001); Chari, P. R., ed., Security and Governance in South Asia (Colombo: Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, 2001); Yunling, Zhang, ed., Stability and Security of Socio-Economic Development in East Asia (Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 2001); and Tan, Andrew and Boutin, Kenneth, eds., Non-Traditional Security Issues in Southeast Asia (Singapore: Select Publishing, 2001).Google Scholar

36. Lizee, Pierre, “Human Security in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia,” Contemporary Southeast Asia 24, No. 3 (December 2002): 509 Google Scholar

37. Ibid., p. 513.Google Scholar

38. McRae, Rob and Hubert, Don, eds., Human Security and the New Diplomacy: Protecting People, Promoting Peace (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

39. Thiparat, Pranee, ed., The Quest for Human Security: The Next Phase of ASEAN? (Bangkok: Institute of Security and International Studies, 2001).Google Scholar

40. In a carefully researched and argued essay, Rosemary Foot concludes that “the US has compromised its stance in the sphere of human rights promotion, as it searches for military bases, intelligence cooperation and political support in the struggle against terrorism. The US has moved closer to governments with poor human rights records which it once shunned, has reversed or modified policies that were introduced in order to signal displeasure with a country's human rights record, and has downgraded attention to human rights conditions in some other nations'. Moreover, these compromises have run in parallel with a serious curtailment of fundamental civil liberties at home'. These trends have undermined the international authority of the US stance in this issue area and imply that there has been a trade-off between the imperatives of security in the ‘age of terror’ and human-rights protection.” Foot, Rosemary, Human Rights and Counter-terrorism in America's Asia Policy, Adelphi Paper 363 (London: IISS, 2004), p. 6.Google Scholar

41. Liotta, P. H., “Boomerang Effect: The Convergence of National and Human Security,” Security Dialogue 33, No. 4 (December 2002).Google Scholar