Bay of Bengal and Central Asian crises provoke re-examination of ‘security’

May 20, 2015

A group of rescued migrants from Myanmar and Bangladesh, passengers of the first migrants boat, temporarily housed at a government sports auditorium in Lhoksukon, Aceh province, on May 11, 2015 (AFP)

All things considered, the onus is more on Myanmar and Bangladesh to see the ‘Boat People’ as presenting a grave humanitarian crisis which needs to be resolved on the basis of human values. The latter task would prove easier if a human dimension is introduced into the concept of security. That is, what is needed to be provided by states for their citizenry is human security and not the kind of security that is forged by governments through the use of tough law and order measures. The latter methods could make a country ‘safe’ for its citizens but without the much needed human warmth that is emotionally gratifying for people.

Aggravating crises in the Bay of Bengal and Central Asia should be seen by the perceptive observer of international political developments as bringing to the fore the concept of security in its many dimensions. While both crises feature displacement of people and attendant hardships, it is open to question whether the human is being strongly focused on by the numerous actors purportedly handling these crises.

Nevertheless, the developments in question ought to provoke a re-examination of the adequacy or otherwise of the concept of security as it is commonly understood. While the Bay of Bengal crisis with its emphasis on the travails faced by the ‘Boat People’ from Myanmar and Bangladesh, has an obvious human dimension, this not so much the case, apparently, in the current tensions affecting the Central Asian states bordering Russia, such as, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Belarus. Through these seeming contrasts, these crises highlight the most important facets of the concept of security, which are now beginning to receive the attention of the world community, although inadequately highlighted by the latter.

Refugees in their thousands from Myanmar and Bangladesh are braving the hazards of the seas to reach the seemingly safer and more stable climes of the wealthier South East Asian states, such as, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia. But these displaced cannot expect a ‘warm welcome’ on account of their being seen as a huge material liability and the validity of this viewpoint cannot be disputed too much.

So, states and publics need to look well beyond the ‘peace of the graveyard’. The years when the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration held sway in Sri Lanka would prove instructive in this regard. The MR government did bring about some law and order by militarily defeating the LTTE but it could not provide all sections of the local people with any emotional security worth speaking of. For instance, the minority communities of Sri Lanka were left with the sense that they were not being integrated with the rest of the Lankan public. Consequently, the MR government did not receive the minority communities’ vote at the last presidential poll.

Accordingly, it is up to the Myanmarese and Bangladeshi states to provide for all sections of their publics security with a human dimension, if this is not being done adequately. The people factor could never be taken out of ‘security’ and it is the responsibility of governments to ensure that this is so. In short, governments are duty-bound to treat their publics humanely by recognizing the dignity of all humans.

Besides, governments are now obliged to protect their citizens under the UN-sanctioned R2P principle, which is an integral part of International Law. No section of a country’s populace could be abandoned to hardships and hazards, whatever the circumstances.

On the other hand, the purely law and order approach to providing security is illustrated currently in Central Asia. Russia has deployed some of its troops in the Central Asian countries earlier mentioned to bolster their security in the face of perceived law and order threats by the Taliban and its allies, which are at present in a major offensive against the Afghan security forces. Apparently, the fighting in Afghanistan is expected to spill over into Central Asia, which acts as buffer between Russia and Afghanistan.

There is likely to be a fear on the part of Russia and its one time Central Asian Republics that a security vacuum is opening-up in Afghanistan, now that NATO forces are in the process of pulling out of it. Hence, Russia’s current military drills in Central Asia.

It would not be irrelevant to point out that it was the fear on the part of the USSR in 1979, that the Afghan Mujahedin would over-run Afghanistan, that compelled the USSR to deploy its forces in Afghanistan at that time. It was also, apparently, believed by the USSR that in the event of a Mujahedin take-over of Afghanistan, Islamic fundamentalism would penetrate Central Asia and cause instability on the USSR’s borders.

However, the USSR military intervention in Afghanistan lasted nearly a decade, causing bloodshed and suffering of immense proportions. That was the price paid by the USSR for approaching security in highly conventional terms. It made a cataclysmic blunder on the lines of the US military involvement in Vietnam in the sixties and early seventies of the century past.

It should be plain to see that war and conflict is made possible, to a considerable extent, by states’ continuous adherence to a conventional understanding of security. If the human costs of war are closely considered by states and other actors and the perpetration of human suffering is seen by them as running contrary to the establishment of even a degree of peace, the possibility of war breaking out could be minimized.

In fact, countries would not rush to wage wars against each other if the concept of security is linked to humanity and the practice of core human values. All security is human security; this needs to constitute states’ approach to local and international security. This consensus has thus far evaded the human race. The idea of human security must be adhered to acted upon, come what may, if a degree of world peace is to be achieved. This needs to guide the actions of all relevant global actors.