Opening Address
Gaishi Hiraiwa

Prime Minister Obuchi, Dr. Boutros-Ghali, ladies and gentlemen.
As chairman of the Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA), I take pleasure in
addressing you on the opening of this symposium commemorating the fortieth anniversary of JIIA.
JIIA was established in December 1959 on the initiative of Prime Minister Shigeru
Yoshida to conduct wide-ranging research and surveys in fields related to international
affairs and diplomacy. Its aims were “to create a major research facility in cooperation
with academe, the bureaucracy, politics, business, the press, and other spheres, andprepare a system for empirical research oriented toward advancing our new democratic
diplomacy.” Thus it was established on the basis of the consensus of opinion leaders ina variety of fields.
In the 40 years since then, JIIA, true to the spirit of its founders, has expanded its
fields of activity in response to international trends and changes. With the recent riseof so-called track-two diplomacy, JIIA, as a leading Japanese think tank, prides itself
on having made significant contributions to the formulation of Japanese foreign
policy.
With the cooperation of Dr. Hans van Ginkel, rector of United Nations University,and others at UNU, we have organized this symposium on the theme “In Quest of
Human Security.” During this symposium, we will have the opportunity to hear thevaluable opinions, informed by penetrating insight, of eminent authorities from both
Japan and overseas as they discuss measures for conflict prevention, promotion of sustainable development, and enhancement of human dignity—all core issues of humansecurity.
Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi, who will deliver the first keynote speech today, hastaken the initiative in pleading the importance of human security to the world and has
demonstrated leadership in regard to the establishment of a special fund for that purpose within the United Nations. Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who will deliver the second keynote speech, made heroic efforts for world peace as Secretary-General of theUN, presenting the initiative known as An Agenda for Peace.
1Opening Speeches

Thank you very much for taking part in the JIIA 40th Anniversary Symposium, “In
Quest of Human Security.” I hope and pray that this symposium will serve to deepen
understanding of human security and further advance efforts to create a more peaceful and affluent international community. In closing, I ask your support for JIIA.

2

Welcoming Address
Hans van Ginkel

Your Excellency, Mr. Keizo Obuchi, Prime Minister of Japan; excellencies; ladies andgentlemen; distinguished guests and participants: Welcome to UNU House.
Among our highly respected guests, I would just like to single out one person—
former Secretary-General of the United Nations, a well-known academic, Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, who officially inaugurated this UNU House in February 1993. Dr.
Boutros-Ghali’s presence and the presence of so many highly qualified speakers, panelists, and participants from around the world illustrate the strong convening powerof the Japan Institute for International Affairs and its new president, Hisashi Owada.
I extend my sincere congratulations to the Japan Institute for International Affairs,
its chairman, Gaishi Hiraiwa, and Ambassador Owada, for 40 years of distinguishedservice to a safer life in a better world for all. It has been a pleasure and privilege towork together with JIIA in preparing for this symposium.
We have great expectations of the substance and the outcomes of this symposium.
Human security is problematic still and highly deserving of attention. It is appropriate to further clarify the concept and practical ways to achieve human security to guarantee human dignity to all in the light of the initiatives taken by Japan, in particularby Prime Minister Obuchi. Mr. Obuchi’s presence and alliance confirm his commitment to human security, a commitment that is shared by UNU. I wish you all a challenging and productive symposium.

3KEYNOTE SPEECHESIn Quest of Human Security
Keizo Obuchi■

Peace, Development, and Democratization
Boutros Boutros-Ghali

In Quest of Human Security
Keizo Obuchi

Ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you very much for inviting me to address the 40th Anniversary Symposiumof the Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA). It is a great honor to have been
given the opportunity to deliver the keynote speech at this gathering of distinguishedopinion leaders from around the world, and I wish to convey my gratitude to thecohosts, JIIA and the United Nations University (UNU).
I also wish to express my heartfelt congratulations to JIIA on its fortieth anniversary. In 1959, when former Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida proposed the establishment of JIIA, Japan had almost no institutions fully dedicated to research oninternational affairs. JIIA was a pioneer in this field and has continued to spearhead
Japanese research on international affairs. I hope and trust that JIIA will continue toengage in activities promoting peace and prosperity for Japan and the world as a whole,
and will continue to develop and flourish.
I have addressed gatherings here at UNU on a number of occasions. The university
is making great scholarly contributions to the United Nations’ objectives of peace anddevelopment for humanity as a research and training institution addressing such global
issues as peace and governance, the environment, and development. I also understandthat UNU is active in the field of human security. In June this year, for example, UNU
and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs cohosted a seminar on development and humansecurity. I hope that this symposium, cohosted by two such distinguished institutions,will yield significant results.
The Cold War, which had shaped the world for almost 40 years after World War II,
ended exactly 10 years ago with revolutionary upheaval in Eastern Europe, followedby the dissolution of the Soviet Union. We must not forget that one major factor
behind this structural change in the international community was the massive andswift global movements of people, goods, money, and information, and the muchcloser linkages among peoples brought about by these transnational economic activities and information flows. Not even the iron curtain, symbolized by the Berlin Wall,could withstand those currents, and the peoples in Eastern Europe and the Soviet
7Keynote Speeches

Union won their freedom and democracy. The advance of globalization brought unprecedented prosperity to the world. For example, trade transactions worldwide tripled
between 1985 and 1996, while exchanges of information more than quadrupled. In
addition to this bright side, however, globalization has a dark side. Such phenomenaas the widening gap between the rich and poor and progressive environmental degradation threaten human life and dignity and people’s livelihoods.
The collapse of the bipolar Cold War order epitomized by U.S.-Soviet confrontation greatly reduced the possibility of another world war. Unfortunately, however, a
new post–Cold War world order has yet to take form; the international community is
still searching for a new order. Meanwhile, religious and ethnic tensions that once
smoldered beneath the surface are triggering more frequent armed conflicts in the formof civil wars. Armed conflicts and other threats to human life and security haveemerged in various parts of the world. These have led to grave situations, generating
huge numbers of refugees and, through antipersonnel landmines and so on, inflicting
great harm on countless women, children, and other civilians. Other threats to humanlife and security have also surfaced, including violations of human rights, terrorism,drugs, international organized crime, and infectious diseases.
In light of these developments, “human security,” which focuses on individual human beings, is now being taken more and more seriously by the international community. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has discussed human security in various
reports, and this can be regarded as an indication of the international community’s
growing awareness of its importance.
Thirty-six years ago, when I was still just a student, I traveled on my own to 38
countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, North America, and Latin America
as a backpacker, something that was exceedingly unusual at the time. This solitaryjourney taught me the importance of the links between people, and of people as individuals. Ultimately, I believe, it gave me an appreciation of “human security.” One of
my first actions as minister for foreign affairs was to sign the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines andon Their Destruction, the so-called Ottawa Convention, thus shifting the Japanese
government’s policy on this issue. My underlying thinking was “human security.” And,
as prime minister, I have taken every opportunity to persuade the international community of the importance of the perspective of human security and have done my best
to make it a pillar of Japan’s diplomacy.
Threats to human security differ by country and region. In Africa, for example, thechief threats are poverty, disease, and conflict; in many developed countries, the threats
include drugs and organized crime; in Cambodia, they include landmines. In addition,
the threats sometimes change the way in which they manifest themselves, as when the
Asian countries that had been achieving dazzling economic growth were suddenly
plunged into economic crisis. All this shows that there are many arguments on what
the threats are. What is now required of national governments is to find ways to incor8

Obuchi: In Quest of Human Security

porate the perspective of human security into policy implementation, translating it
into concrete action.
It was with this in mind that I proposed the establishment of the Human Security
Fund within the UN in the policy speech I delivered in Vietnam in December 1998.
Japan will continue to take the initiative to see that the perspective of human security
is reflected in concrete measures.
All three of this symposium’s sessions—“Measures for Conflict Prevention,” “Promotion of Sustainable Development,” and “Enhancement of Human Dignity”—
address important and interrelated aspects of human security. I would like briefly toshare some of my own thoughts on these topics.
The theme of session I, “Measures for Conflict Prevention,” deals with the prevention of armed conflict, the greatest threat to human life, dignity, and livelihood. I
believe a comprehensive approach to conflict prevention in two senses is important.
First, such an approach should be seen in terms of a series of processes: elimination ofpoverty and the other latent causes of conflict, resolution of conflict when it does breakout, and steady postconflict reconstruction to prevent recurrence. Second, it is important that countries take a comprehensive approach at each stage, mobilizing all possible policies and measures—political measures, financial and other socioeconomic
policies, development policies, and so forth.
Regulation of all weapons that can be used as means of conflict, including pistols,
machine guns, and other small arms, as well as antipersonnel landmines, is also important. In regard to landmines, the Ottawa Convention, which as already mentioned
I decided to sign when I was foreign minister, took effect on March 1, 1999. I willcontinue to work for early realization of the target of “zero victims” not only in bilateral fora but also through international organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In the area of the regulation of small arms, Japan has been in theforefront of the international community, taking the lead through chairing of a UN
expert group, and intends to continue to work actively to ensure the success of the UN
conference on small arms regulation to be held in 2001.
In regard to the theme of session II, “Promotion of Sustainable Development,” Iwish to emphasize the importance of both the developing countries’ independent efforts for development and their linkages with developed countries as members of theinternational community on an equal footing; in other words, developing countries’
ownership and their partnership with aid donors. In October last year, Japan cosponsored the Second Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD
II), aimed at African countries’ socioeconomic development and poverty reduction
and their integration into the global economy. The Tokyo Agenda for Action drawn
up at TICAD II is based on the concepts of ownership and partnership.
I also wish to emphasize the importance of creating opportunities for more people
to participate in economic activities by means of individual self-reliance and improvement of people’s ability to stand on their own feet. Enhancement of education and9Keynote Speeches

promotion of such measures as the provision of funds at the grass-roots level are important in this context.
The theme of session III is “Enhancement of Human Dignity.” Conflict prevention
and the realization of sustainable development are requirements for ensuring humansecurity. In addition, human security requires the building of societies in which people
are respected as individuals, can fully realize their individual potential, and can function as responsible members of society. I believe that citizens’ voluntary initiatives are
essential to ensuring individual freedom and potential. In that sense, the role of NGOs
and other components of civil society has become important. Notably, NGOs haveplayed an extremely important role in regard to landmines and global warming, encouraging and supplementing intergovernmental negotiations. I believe that in the
future, governments will need increasingly to value cooperation with NGOs and tosupport their activities.
Although I may digress somewhat from the theme of this symposium, I would liketo take advantage of the invaluable opportunity afforded by this gathering of intellectual leaders from around the world to share some of my thoughts about three important items on Japan’s current diplomatic agenda: the Kyushu-Okinawa Summit,
relations with North Korea, and diplomacy vis-à-vis East Timor and Indonesia.
As we approach the year 2000, globalization and the information revolution are
advancing apace, as I mentioned before, but not a few people feel apprehension anddiscontent in the face of the rapidly changing socioeconomic environment. I trust that
the Group of Eight leaders will bring to the Kyushu-Okinawa Summit, being held in
the final year of the twentieth century, a determination to build a more prosperous andpeaceful twenty-first century. Also, since this will be the first G8 Summit in Asia inseven years, I hope it will transmit a strong and positive “Okinawa Message” from Asia.
In regard to relations with North Korea, Japan’s basic policy is to strive to normalize
relations, which have been anomalous since the end of World War II, in close concert
with the Republic of Korea and the United States and in full awareness of the importance of maintaining peace and stability in Northeast Asia. The government welcomes
the success of the recent mission to North Korea of Japanese parliamentarians of all
the major political parties, led by former Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, which
aimed through interparty talks to prepare a climate conducive to the smooth conductof intergovernmental negotiations on normalization of relations, and takes seriously
the joint announcement achieved by the mission. The government considers it desirable to establish a full-fledged forum for overall dialogue between the authorities ofJapan and North Korea and is now carefully studying the talks between the Murayama
mission and the North Korean side, undertaking a detailed analysis of their content.
As part of this process, the government is reviewing the measures taken against North
Korea following the August 1998 missile launch.
Moving on to East Timor, it is important to advance the process of independence
and nation-building smoothly while working to improve conditions for refugees and
10

Obuchi: In Quest of Human Security

displaced persons. This is an extremely important issue for all of us from the perspective of human security, as well. Next week Xanana Gusmão, president of the National
Council of Timorese Resistance, and Sergio Vieira de Mello, Special Representativeof the UN Secretary-General and transitional administrator for East Timor, will visit
Tokyo to attend the Donors’ Meeting for East Timor. Japan, as an Asian country, intends to provide as much assistance as possible for development in the fledgling nationof East Timor. In this context, I wish to say a few words about Indonesia, which is extremely important for the stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region. Two weeks
ago, I visited Indonesia, the first foreign leader to do so after the democratic instatement of the new administration. To support continued reform efforts under President
Abdurrahman Wahid, I explained Japan’s future economic assistance policy and presented specific proposals, especially for the creation of a safety net for the sociallydisadvantaged.
In my speech in Vietnam in December 1998, I declared my belief that the twentyfirst century should be “a century of peace and prosperity built on human dignity” forAsia. Governmental efforts alone will not guarantee human security in Asia and theworld in the coming twenty-first century. To advance human security, the process ofintellectual exchange, whereby intellectual leaders of the international community
meet, pool the results of their endeavors, and have them reflected in government policies, is also essential. The intellectual leaders representing JIIA, UNU, and the broader
international community are all expected to fulfill such a role. This being the case, I
strongly hope that lively and useful discussions will take place during the two days ofthis symposium.

11Peace, Development, and Democratization
Boutros Boutros-Ghali

First of all, let me express my gratitude for having been invited to the celebration of
the fortieth anniversary of the Japan Institute of International Affairs.
Japan, through a group of scholars, has played an important role in the promotionof international law and the study of international affairs. I should like especially tothank both Ambassador Hisashi Owada and Judge Shigeru Oda, two colleagues andfriends. I mention them particularly because I have worked with them for a long time.
I have read their publications and followed with admiration their careers in international affairs.
Today, my purpose is to speak about the connection between peace, development,
and democracy in the post–Cold War era. All three are interlocked, and I will try to
explain what this means with reference to the three agendas I presented during mymandate as the Secretary-General of the United Nations: An Agenda for Peace in 1992,
An Agenda for Development in 1994, and Agenda for Democratization in 1996.
Peacekeeping, development, and democracy are being redefined and extended in thepost–Cold War era. The connections between them are beginning to emerge. We willneed a new level of understanding and a new depth of commitment to understand theimportance of this connection if we want to make human security a reality.
Let me mention each one in turn. The first concept is peace.

I. Peace
After the heavy hand of the bipolar system has been lifted, violence has erupted inmany regions of the world. The UN in the Cold War decades created the concept ofpeacekeeping. After the Cold War, UN peacekeepers took on vast new duties. The UN
started as many new operations in my term as Secretary-General as in the previous 45
years.
We must realize that today’s operations are not peacekeeping in the traditional sense.
The earlier missions involved UN forces that were lightly armed. First, they were12

Boutros-Ghali: Peace, Development, and Democratizationinterposed between two states in order to maintain a ceasefire. Second, they were therewith the agreement of all concerned. Third, they were an international presence, not aforce expected to take drastic action or to intervene.
First, UN operations may take place today where there is no peace to keep. Second,
they take place where new forms of assertive action may be required. UN forces protect relief shipments, provide services for victims, respond to refugee needs, enforce
embargoes, remove antipersonnel mines, and try to confiscate arms. Third, UN operations now involve a large civilian dimension beyond military-related steps, such as
monitoring elections, public safety, information and communication, institutionbuilding, and the restoration of infrastructure and administrative services.
Peacekeeping today is vastly different from the past in both quantity and quality. It
is even chronologically different. Peace requires preventive diplomacy, peace-making,peacekeeping, and postconflict peace-building. The cycle continues through perpetualrounds. Increasingly, we can see that work for peace provides us with no place of rest.
It is a continuous process.
Peacekeeping must take place before, during, and after conflicts.
(1) Before conflict, preventive diplomacy is of vast importance. In matters of peaceand security, as in medicine, prevention is obviously better than cure. It saves lives andmoney, and it forestalls suffering. This approach has traditionally involved personal
contacts, good offices, fact-finding missions, and early-warning systems. No otherendeavor for peace repays our time, effort, and investment so well.
Today, the concept of preventive diplomacy is expanding. It may require, for example, observers as a means of dealing with violence. UN observers in South Africa,
in Haiti, in Georgia, and in Guatemala have helped reduce tensions, contain demonstrations, and stop clashes from getting out of control.
And within this concept has come a step never before taken by the UN: preventive
deployment. In December 1992, the Security Council decided to put units of UN
peacekeepers into the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in order to prevent a
wider Balkan war. This is an example of the new range of actions needed for preventive diplomacy in the future.
(2) During conflict, expanded forms of peacekeeping are taking place. In a growing
number of conflicts, protection of humanitarian relief shipments is required. This needwas most dramatically evident in Somalia, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Similarly, theSecurity Council authorized UN forces to secure Sarajevo airport and related lines ofcommunication so that vital humanitarian aid could get through to the former Yugoslavia.
Enlarged peacekeeping during conflict also may require sanctions when ceasefire
agreements break down. Military measures such as “no-fly” zones may be involved. In

13

Keynote Speeches

Cambodia, in 1992, the Security Council imposed petroleum sanctions against any
party not complying with the ceasefire disarmament or national reconciliation requirements of the Paris Agreements.
And when the rules of engagement for peacekeeping operations are not sufficient,
UN forces may need authorization to react to force. In some cases, they may use force
to prevent an escalation in violence. In the former Yugoslavia, for example, in Eastern
Slavonia, if territory was not given up in accordance with an agreed peace plan, “peace
enforcement” by UN troops on the ground was the only solution.
(3) After conflict must come postconflict peace-building. This involves sustained efforts to identify and support structures to build trust and well-being among peoples.
Such measures include commercial, cultural, and educational projects that are necessary to build bridges between parties to a conflict. The goal is to forestall a reemergenceof cultural and national tensions that could spark renewed hostilities. Without such
efforts, no peace agreement is likely to last for long. The concept of postconflict peacebuilding is the counterpart of preventive diplomacy, which seeks to avoid the breakdown of peaceful conditions. On a deeper level, both are contributions to the second
stage of work for world peace: development.

II. Development
Just as the concept of “peacekeeping” needs a new definition, so it must be for the concept of “development.” What was once a matter of economics is now seen to involve
many other dimensions.
We are forced to this new perception by the failure of development as it has been
known in the past. The Soviet model for development has collapsed. Western policies
and programs of assistance have often proved disappointing. Development, in its traditional meaning, has failed to transform poor countries and countries in postconflictsituations. Achieving a new foundation for development may well be the most difficult intellectual task of our time.
The situation is, however, far from hopeless. There is no excuse for pessimism. It istrue that many socioeconomic problems have not been solved. But it is also true thatmany countries have radically transformed their societies and economies. Industrialization and information technology provide a new basis for cooperative international
progress. And this has contributed to agreement on some common values and a sharedvision of the kind of world we want to see: the global village of tomorrow.
Development cannot guarantee peace; but without development on the widest
scale, we know that the young will be restless and resentful. Land will not be productive. People will fight for resources. And creativity will be misdirected, and disorder
may prevail.
Without a new and workable concept of development, the UN will face an endless14

Boutros-Ghali: Peace, Development, and Democratization

sequence of the types of conflicts we are confronting at this moment. And new conflicts, with worsening implications, can be expected.
Like peacekeeping, development is best understood as involving stages.
Before conflict, development can help prevent it from breaking out. By engaging
people’s energies positively, development can absorb the impact of differences, can ease
confrontations, and can help avoid economic and social deterioration.
During conflict, development is replaced by humanitarian relief. Under conditionsof conflict, development cannot go forward. Out of necessity it is replaced by humanitarian assistance to people made hungry, driven from their homes, or otherwise
harmed by the fighting. Such relief efforts, even when successful, conclude with a situation that is worse than before conflict began.
After conflict, development takes the form of reconstruction, rehabilitation. When
conflict has stopped, true development once again may take root. Postconflict peacebuilding can start.
A long-term vision is required at this point. An example is the new concept of “sustainable development.” At the UN Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the leaders of the member states of the UN
agreed that every nation’s domestic economic policy must take into account its impact
on the global environment. The Rio Conference thus added to the body of establishedprinciples that bind us all. Abuse of environment for economic gain destroys its very
purpose; it kills the goose that lays the golden egg. Sustainable development will becentral to development’s new definition.
In 1995, which was the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the UN, a summit
on social development took place. It has provided a new momentum in favor of theconcept of development. It called upon us to produce a comprehensive vision and an
integral plan of action. It was the historical moment when all the many dimensions ofdevelopment were brought together.
The third concept is democracy.

III. Democratization
There can be no flowering of development as I have described it without the third great
concept I want to emphasize: democratization. Peace is a prerequisite to development.
Democracy is essential if development is to succeed over the long term.
Real development of a state must be based on the participation of its population andrequires some form of democracy. To ensure such an achievement, democratizationmust not only take place inside a state, but among states in the international community. Key factors are (1) international law, (2) human rights, and (3) international assistance to democratization.
The present decade, which will end in a few days, was dedicated to internationallaw. Virtually every aspect of what we call the “international community” is rooted in
15

Keynote Speeches

the great project of international law that began with Grotius over three centuries ago.
It is a process to which distinguished lawyers of different parts of the world have contributed a great deal.
The importance of international law in dealing with settlement of conflict is obvious. What is less obvious, but equally important, is that international law is critical todevelopment. A network of uniform commercial codes can speed commerce and linkdifferent cultures in common commitments. Economic transactions, from the smallest farmer to vast global corporations, insist on reliability. That requires rules that spanborders, as well as mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of commercial disputes.
The cause of human rights has advanced considerably in the last four decades. Human rights are principles of value in themselves. But they also make practical sense.
Development cannot fully succeed where human rights are neglected. This is the ageof information and communication. And it is the age of people-centered development.
People must be free to think, act, and communicate not only as political but also as
economic beings. So human rights and human security become a pillar of development.
Human rights, equal rights, government under law, economic opportunities, freedomof thought and speech, individual involvement, and governmental accountability: allare the attributes of democratization.
Throughout most of this century and the last one, democracy was regarded as something possessed by a few fortunate states and practiced within their borders. The international scene was defined by power politics. A balance of power provided aninternational system for the nations of the world; democracy among states, international democracy, was not even considered as a possibility.
The UN Charter offered a new vision. With its opening words, “We the Peoples of
the United Nations,” democratization was built into the world organization. Even states
whose internal politics were not democratic joined a representative parliament in which
all states, large and small, were equal. The UN is taking on a wide array of new responsibilities to assist the progress of democratization within states and among states.
Like peacekeeping and development, the process of democratization is best understood as involving stages.
Before conflict, democracy within a state can help prevent internal confrontations
and disputes. By engaging political parties, ethnic groups, minorities, or tribes in discussion, debate, and negotiation within the framework of national institutions, democracy can help to avoid the use of force.
Democracy among states can perform the same service. Studies based on serious
statistics have proven that wars and armed conflicts between two democratic states
seldom happen. On the contrary, nondemocratic states are more tempted by militaryadventures.
During armed conflict, democracy hardly exists. Military objectives will prevail,disinformation will prevail, and opposition will not be tolerated. In the case of a civil
16

Boutros-Ghali: Peace, Development, and Democratization

war, the situation will be more complex, and often the basic governmental institutions
will cease to function.
After conflict, the transition to democracy in states emerging from war is particularly
difficult. The economy is completely destroyed, and civil society becomes weaker ordisappears. In civil war, the leaders are usually the same leaders that were formerly
engaged in the armed conflict. Furthermore, the potential recurrence of the conflictmay threaten the peace process. This is what happened in Angola.
In recent years, the UN has ventured into an entirely new field: long-term monitoring of human rights. El Salvador, Mozambique, and Cambodia provided the first examples, in the context of the peace agreements that brought an end to the armed
conflicts in these countries.
The UN sent missions to study the situation of human rights in Lithuania andEstonia. This was conceived as an effort of preventive diplomacy to defuse tensions between these nations and the Russian Federation.
In the UN Secretariat in New York, a new office was created whose purpose, in
essence, is to deal with electoral assistance requested by member states. This is a partof the effort to promote democratization. In the short period since 1992, this officehas handled dozens and dozens of requests from Asian states, Eastern European states,
Latin America, and Africa. All these require technical and electoral assistance and sending observers.
In the International Organization of the Francophonie, of which I am secretary
general, we have given electoral assistance to many countries in cooperation with theUN, the Commonwealth, the Organization of African Unity, the Arab League, andthe European Union. Our assistance was not limited to the electoral period only, but
we were also involved in the preparatory stages of the elections, discussion with thepolitical parties, and civic education of the population. Furthermore, we have often
taken part in the postelectoral process to ensure a peaceful transition to the new majority.
But democracy within states may only be fully sustained over time if linked to increasing democratization among states and at all levels of the international system.
Among states, the UN is providing a framework for democratization. It is a forum
where all voices can be heard. It provides a means of consensus-building. Preserving
the moral authority of the UN requires the fullest participation and engagement of allstates. This, in turn, calls for the involvement of all levels of international life: nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions, parliamentarians, business and professional communities, the media, and the public at large. It also means
applying the principles of democratization within the UN itself.
The time has come to fulfill the logic of the UN Charter and pursue democratization not only within states, but throughout the international system. These then are
the three great tasks of the United Nations as set down by the charter:• Without peace, there can be no development and there can be no democracy.
17

Keynote Speeches• Without development, there can be no democracy, and without the basic elementsof well-being, societies will disintegrate and enter into disputes.
• Without democracy, no real development can occur. And without such development,
peace cannot long be maintained.
Thus the three great priorities are interlocked. The heart of this interconnection isthe difficult question raised by timing among peace, development, and democracy. In
some cases, peace, development, and democracy have been pursued and achieved simultaneously. Such was the case in El Salvador and Mozambique, where the UN’s effort in support of democratization served as a link between conflict resolution on the
one hand, and reconstruction and development on the other hand. In other cases,
however, the joint pursuit of these three goals has proven more difficult at times, contributing to political instability, social disarray, and economic crisis.
Democratization requires as a precondition the achievement within a nation of acertain level of peace and a certain level of development. Both development and peaceare essential; yet the articulation between development and democracy is more complex when development is based on foreign assistance. Can the democratization of astate be a condition for foreign assistance? Can the interruption of the democratic
process be a reason for aid suspension? What are the criteria regarding what constitutes
a regressive situation in the democratic process?
I do not pretend to provide easy answers to these questions. The discussion which
we will have later may help us to find solutions in order to understand the new approach to international assistance.
Let us conclude by trying to understand the complexity of the articulation between
peace, development, and democracy by formulating four basic rules:• The potential recurrence of conflict is a constant threat to the peace process and tohuman security. Hence any external support for postconflict peace-building,postconflict development, and postconflict democracy-building must be consistentand sustained.
• International assistance must be phased over time, focusing on development before
the conflict, humanitarian aid during the conflict, rehabilitation after the conflict,and sustainable development aid in order to build peace and promote human security.
• There is no one model of democratization or democracy suitable to all societies. Democracy cannot be exported or imported. Each state must be free to decide for itself its priorities for the welfare of its people.
• Democratization within states must also be supported by a process of democratization among states. The globalization of the market economy must be controlled bya global democracy.

18

PRESENTATIONS

Session I
Measures for Conflict Prevention
Hisashi Owada■

Session II
Promotion of Sustainable Development
Jesus P. Estanislao■

Session III
Enhancement of Human Dignity
Hans van Ginkel

Session I

Measures for Conflict Prevention
Hisashi Owada

I. “Human Security” and Conflicts“A new breeze is blowing.” So declared George Bush 10 years ago, in his January 1989
inaugural address as president of the United States, as he referred to the signs of change
emerging in Eastern Europe. A mere 10 months later, the Berlin Wall came tumbling
down like a flimsy stack of blocks. No mere “breeze,” what Europe experienced wasrather a powerful hurricane of major reform, bringing an end to the Cold War structure that had dominated the world for over 40 years since the end of World War II.
While Bush demonstrated foresight in his assessment, so great are the changes wehave seen in the decade since then that his remark can now be regarded as “the understatement of the century.” And it has become clear that neither the collapse of the
Berlin Wall nor the end of the Cold War symbolized thereby has brought us to “theend of history.”
As we approach the start of a new millennium, the shifts that we are confronted within international society go beyond such readily visible historic episodes as the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. Not only do they proclaim the end of the international orderthat has prevailed in the half century since the end of World War II, but they indicate
to us that we are experiencing a truly historic structural transformation in the international system that has supported the world from the seventeenth century up to ourown times. Ever since the birth of the modern international society symbolized by thePeace of Westphalia, the prevailing order has been composed of sovereign states andgrounded in the twin principles of sovereign equality among them and noninterference in each other’s internal affairs. In that sense the modern international system
may be said to be an order founded on equilibrium among sovereign states within amultipolar structure. The culmination of this was the bipolar structure of the Cold
War era. The end of the Cold War has clearly revealed to us that a world is emerging
in which this sort of order, built on equilibrium among sovereign states, can no longer
prevail. How is this structural transformation likely to affect the world in the periodahead?
21

PresentationsFirst of all, the disappearance of the international order maintained through a “balance of terror” between the United States and the Soviet Union as the world’s two
superpowers can be taken as a major change for the better inasmuch as it has freed us
from a situation in which our greatest security concern was the threat of all-out nuclear
war. On the other hand, however, we still cannot draw even the outlines of a new order to guide the world of the twenty-first century in place of this former bipolar structure. Amidst the rapidly progressing integration of international society, not only are
the ties of mutual interdependence among states growing dramatically closer, but also
human activities are becoming globalized in a way that transcends the framework ofstate power; this situation is becoming the biggest factor regulating international relations. Under these circumstances, it is quite implausible to think that the disappearance from the scene of one of the two superpowers that previously sustained thebipolar order will lead immediately to the emergence of a unipolar order. At the sametime, the notion that a classical multipolar order based on equilibrium among sovereign states will now reemerge must be seen as anachronistic thinking that fails to grasp
the structural transformation taking place in the international society that sustained
the previously prevailing international system.
Second, the collapse of the order grounded in ideological confrontation on a global
level offered the major possibility of leading international society from a divided world
to a unified one. At the same time, however, it allowed the emergence of numerous
internal confrontational factors that had previously been bottled up within the overall
structure of confrontation between the U.S. and Soviet camps. The crumbling of theCold War structure has led not so much to increased interstate confrontations between
sovereign states as to the proliferation of intrastate conflicts based on religious, racial,ethnic, or other historical or cultural factors, a phenomenon that we see occurring in
Africa, Europe, Asia, and elsewhere. Under these circumstances, the problem of“security” cannot be solved merely by ensuring security of the state as such; we mustalso direct our efforts at the search for ways to achieve “human security,” through ensuring security of the individuals that constitute the state. In other words, policies
aimed at national security centering on military power are no longer sufficient; we now
need policies based on a more comprehensive perspective to deal with the issue of
security for human beings, the constituent elements of the nation.
Third, amidst this structural transformation of the international system, the question arises as to who are the principals for whom the international order seeks to assure justice, safety, and prosperity. Under the traditional international system, we havetended to think of international relations as being exclusively relations between andamong states. Now, however, the end of the Cold War has revealed to us a new set ofcircumstances under which issues that cannot be handled by states as units are more
numerous than those that can. We must also note that the emerging situation is one
that poses a question concerning the values that international society should seek toachieve, such as the realization of justice, the guarantee of security, and the achieve22

Session I

Owada: Measures for Conflict Prevention

ment of prosperity: The contents of these values relate not to sovereign states but tothe individual human beings who are their constituent members.
The situation relating to the crisis in Kosovo in 1999 was symbolic of this problem,
inasmuch as it highlighted, with such clear contrast, the dilemma of today’s international society concerning the international public good that the contemporaryinternational order should seek to protect, that is, the dichotomy between “justice insovereign terms,” meaning the securing of freedom and dignity for sovereign states,and “justice in human terms,” meaning the securing of freedom and dignity for individuals. The situation presented us with these two mutually incompatible alternatives
and demanded that we choose between them.
It is in this context that the concept of human security is of extreme significancetoday. In contemporary international society, nation-states bear the responsibility ofensuring security toward their people through securing the safety of the state. However, that alone is insufficient. The basic framework for our handling of the large
issues of security in today’s world must be one that not only secures the safety of thestate but also secures the safety of individual human beings.

II. The Contemporary Significance of Conflict Prevention
In the light of the above, inasmuch as the conflicts that arise within internationalsociety—whether in relations between states or out of causes within a single country—
cannot be ignored from the standpoint of the order of international society as a whole,
it follows that international society must take steps to keep them from occurring in
the first place and to counter them when they do occur. When a conflict leads to conditions that interfere with people’s right to development and prosperity and that infringe upon their human dignity, international society can no longer avert its gaze on
the grounds that the conflict has no external impact on the national security of sovereign states.
If we consider the issue of conflict prevention from this perspective, it should beclear that international society cannot take the approach of waiting for situations todevelop from disputes into conflicts and to emerge full blown on the scene of international relations before considering them to be the proper object of international concern and of the application of international law. And if we adopt a stance of treating
the issue of conflict prevention in this sort of broader context, then it is necessary forinternational society to strengthen its preventive strategy to deal with all the stages
ranging from that of preventive diplomacy, seeking to change the underlying conditions that foster situations liable to cause a conflict, through, ultimately, that of preventing the recurrence of a conflict by turning the temporary lull following a ceasefire
agreement into a peace that will endure.
In this sense, as former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali
pointed out in his keynote speech at this symposium, in our quest to achieve human23Presentations

security, it is crucial to pursue peace, development, and democracy in a balanced, comprehensive manner. The absence of any one of these elements is liable to pose a threat
to human security. The current Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, also presented his concept of a “culture of prevention” to this year’s General Assembly, noting that it is
far more effective to prevent conflicts from happening than to deal with them after
they occur. This may be considered an observation that should be viewed in the samecontext.
In particular, given that so many of the conflicts in the post–Cold War world are
not conflicts between states but rather intrastate ethnic or religious conflicts, we must
seriously consider a conflict prevention strategy that is directed not just at the former
but also at the latter. This is also a manifestation of the sense of crisis arising from theineffectiveness of approaches based on the traditional international system, which focuses on relations between states, in dealing with conflicts of the sort that are currently
proliferating.
Bearing the preceding points in mind, it should be clear that when we consider theissue of conflict prevention in today’s circumstances, it is important to take a comprehensive approach to the strengthening of preventive functions in all the following
stages:(1) How to contain and eliminate the underlying root causes (including social, economic, and cultural factors) that give rise to the outbreak of conflicts.
(2) How to keep a crisis situation from leading to an explosive escalation of tensions.
(3) How to stop the outbreak of conflicts in the form of the use of force.
(4) How to prevent the recurrence of conflicts after the use of force has been halted.

III. Concrete Proposals Concerning Conflict Prevention
In January 1998, the Japanese government organized a pioneering event in this connection, the Tokyo International Conference on Preventive Strategy, at which concerned individuals conducted extremely broad-reaching deliberations about the proper
shape of preventive strategy in regard to the preceding four aspects, with particularreference to the question of how to strengthen the functioning of the UN and otherinternational institutions. The focus of the deliberations was especially on ways ofstrengthening the conflict prevention roles of the UN and regional organizations, buteven so, its conclusions are so comprehensive and pregnant as to be quite adequate toserve as the starting point for the discussions in the current session of this symposium.
For the details I would refer you to the official report of this conference attached tothis paper, but allow me to touch on the salient points relating to each of the fourstages to which I have just alluded.
(1) Preventive efforts in improving economic, social, and cultural infrastructure
The Tokyo International Conference noted the importance of promoting and24

Session I

Owada: Measures for Conflict Prevention

strengthening respect for social diversity, elimination of extreme poverty, constructionof a participatory democratic system based on respect for human rights and the rule oflaw, and tolerance of diversity as part of an effort to prevent conflicts from a long-term,
fundamental perspective. Of special weight in this connection is the promotion andstrengthening of the spirit of tolerance.
When different ethnic groups, religions, cultures, and traditions coexist within asingle country, the maintenance of social stability requires the individual citizens of thecountry to keep up a spirit of tolerance toward each other. If major cracks appear, theresult is confrontation, which can then escalate into violent conflict. The conflict in
the former Yugoslavia may be said to have occurred because there were underlying gaps
between the Serbian, Croatian, and Muslim populations that produced confrontations, and the lack of mutual tolerance provided fertile ground for these confrontations
to escalate into a conflagration.
Everyday education is an important key to the fostering of a spirit of tolerance.
Education must inculcate both the preciousness of peace and the need for tolerance.
In this respect, the practice of Malaysia, where ethnic Chinese and Malay populations
coexist, and where education aimed at fostering mutual tolerance between ethnic
groups is regularly carried out, can well be of reference for the effective prevention of
conflicts.
The importance of “education for peace” goes without saying. As stated in the Preamble to the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) Constitution, “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men
that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” Particularly in recent years, attention
has focused on the importance of protecting children affected by armed conflicts. With
respect to those who have taken up arms, including child soldiers, the goal should not
be merely to get them to lay down their arms; in order to build a culture of conflict
prevention over the long term, there is a fundamental need for the provision ofadequate basic education, including literacy and elementary arithmetic, and also for
education in the meaninglessness of armed conflict and the preciousness of peace.
Without such a foundation, we cannot hope for true national reconciliation after conflicts are over.
(2) The importance of early warning
The participants in the Tokyo International Conference also discussed the importance of early warning. In particular, they discussed concrete proposals for translating
early warning functions into action as practical policies. Early warning can be seen as
being of extremely great importance as a prerequisite to the ability of internationalsociety to respond promptly with the aim of countering situations in which the sparksof latent confrontations have emerged and tensions are escalating.
The dramatic advances in information technology (IT) have ushered in the age of an“information society,” in which information from all around the world is transmitted
25

Presentations

instantaneously. Under these circumstances, some may well judge that the mechanisms
to enable early warning and prediction are already fully in place and that this is not a
problem point for conflict prevention. There is no guarantee, however, that the information concerning the heightening of tensions in social relations will always be transmitted accurately to international society. In fact, we have repeatedly seen situations
in which international society has not taken note of problems until confrontations
have escalated to the stage of armed conflict. It is of extreme importance even in today’s
information society to construct a setup that will assure that accurate information isquickly made available on international networks so that international society willpromptly learn of such rising tensions.
In this connection we need to note the importance of the role played by regional
institutions and organizations. Information about rising tensions in local communities is available first to international institutions and nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) that are operating locally. It is thus crucial to improve the ability to gather
this information, to secure close and organic cooperation among those concerned atevery stage of the information-analysis and policy-making process, and to enhancesystems and measures so as to minimize the time required for this process. For thispurpose, it is important to share accurate information and analysis abilities with theseregional institutions and organizations and to provide technology for the improvementof the early warning system.
One area that bears consideration is the possibility of creating such a network andimplementing joint training programs among those involved—meaning donors andother concerned countries, the UN and the regional institutions, NGOs, and others,
including those at both the local and the central levels. Improving the early warning
system and the software that is the key to its operation through measures like these andthereby making it possible to keep the system in constant readiness will raise the political determination of the constituent members of international society to prevent
conflicts and will create the foundation to enable action based on shared perceptions.
However, what is most decisive is not to obtain early warning information but rather
to translate this information into action and deter conflicts from occurring. In otherwords, when the early warning system reveals a rise in social tensions in a certain region, international society must respond quickly and take effective measures before it
escalates into a violent conflict based on the use of force.
As a practical matter, given the constraints imposed by the principles of sovereign
equality and noninterference in domestic affairs within the present system of international relations, the means that can be used are extremely limited. As I explained earlier, international society is now in a transitional period as it experiences a major
structural transformation in the international system. While tears are appearing in the
fabric of the principle of sovereign equality, this principle cannot yet be labeled completely obsolete. Under these circumstances, even when international society judges on
the basis of information provided through the early warning system that some sort of26

Session I

Owada: Measures for Conflict Prevention

action must be taken, it is possible that the country or countries involved will resist or
refuse such action in the name of the principles of sovereign equality and noninterference in internal affairs. It will be difficult, both theoretically and practically, for international society to use compulsion against such countries. Particularly in cases of thissort, it should be both beneficial and practical for the UN and regional institutions,acting in the name of international society, to attempt monitoring of the situation andpersuasion aimed at improving it. This is clear from the effectiveness of the pressure
from international society in dealing with the situation in East Timor.
We must also note the importance of “preventive deployment” based on some formof international presence, alongside diplomatic efforts at the international and regional
levels, as a means of prompt action to deal with tense situations. It is widely understood that the UN presence implemented as preventive deployment in the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been effective. We should also recall the existenceof cases like that of Papua New Guinea, where preventive deployment encouraged
progress in peace negotiations.
In order to prevent tensions from immediately escalating into armed conflicts, it isalso important to block the availability of arms for use in such conflicts. The majorityof the weaponry presently used in regional conflicts consists of so-called small arms,
landmines, and such. The prompt implementation of embargoes on exports of arms
like these in situations where confrontations are intensifying should be effective interms of preventing conflicts from expanding.
To make such measures work in practice, it is important to secure transparency inthe process of acquiring arms of this sort even in peacetime. It would be effective forthis purpose to establish an international arms transfer registration system.
(3) Intervention to prevent the outbreak of conflicts
Even when it appears that fighting cannot be avoided, it is important to make utmost efforts to prevent the outbreak of a full-fledged armed conflict and to keep itfrom expanding. Conflicts particularly victimize the innocent civilians who become
refugees and displaced persons. Providing ample humanitarian assistance to suchpeople is also essential from the standpoint of human security. In some cases, a military presence may be required in order to secure the safety and effectiveness of humanitarian aid. In such cases, there may be a problem in defining the relationship between
such activities and traditional “peacekeeping.” I would suggest that it will be necessary
to clarify the nature of these activities as an extremely limited form of humanitarian
intervention.
Especially in cases of this sort, it will be necessary to pay ample attention to balancing these activities by international society with the traditional principles of state sovereignty and noninterference in internal affairs. However, one distinctive feature ofdomestic conflicts in recent years is that many have been occurring in “failed states,”
meaning countries where the government responsible for protecting people’s property
27

Presentations

and lives has fallen into functional paralysis. Under such circumstances, it should be
helpful to characterize the international actions as being implemented from the standpoint of achieving human security.
Finally, interventions of this sort require huge amounts of money. International society needs to achieve a common recognition of the point that the prompt, ample, andeffective provision of human and financial resources is the key to the success of suchactivities.
(4) Preventing recurrence of conflicts
Even after a conflict has been halted by a ceasefire agreement, this represents nomore than the achievement of a temporary lull. It is extremely important to take goodadvantage of this opportunity as the occasion for “peace-building” activities, including the achievement of national reconciliation and the rebuilding of social infrastructure and democratic institutions. This is the way to lay the groundwork to prevent therecurrence of conflicts. In this sense, it is important at times to coordinate peacekeeping and peace-building activities not sequentially but through simultaneous operations(a successful example of this being UNTAC, the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia). At this stage as well, the activities of NGOs and other nonstate actors and the cooperation of regional institutions should be helpful in terms of avoiding
friction with the principles of sovereignty and internal noninterference.
In order to prevent the recurrence of conflicts, it is essential to advance the processof national reconciliation. And it is important once again to foster the spirit of tolerance among the people of the nation. In this connection the education referred to earlier has a major role to play.
At the same time, we should note that effectively punishing those who have
trampled on peace in the recent past has a deterrent effect for the sake of peace in the
future. The UN Security Council has established special courts that have prosecutedand punished people responsible for crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. It
will be helpful to make people realize, through the effective functioning of such tribunals, that international society is unanimous in its determination to make the instigation of conflicts a “losing proposition” and to see that the instigators are brought tojustice. In this connection, a UN-organized conference in 1998 adopted the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, a treaty for the establishment of a permanent court to carry out these functions. It is of epochal significance that moves areunderway to establish an international framework to punish the activities of individuals as international crimes for the first time in history.
The disarmament of former combatants once a conflict is over may be cited as anextremely important undertaking. And the larger the scale of the conflict, the greater
the human and financial cost of accomplishing the subsequent disarmament. In regions and countries where tolerance is fragile and the seeds of potential conflict arepresent, it is important both to get people to lay down their arms at the earliest pos28

Session I

Owada: Measures for Conflict Prevention

sible moment and to settle them into their proper lives. International society must
recognize that measures to achieve this are part of the essential cost of building peace
for the future.

IV. Conclusion
I have offered an overview of the issue of conflict prevention as one of the core concepts for the idea of “human security.” It is true that there is no better way to eradicate
conflicts than this prevention. But to implement conflict prevention effectively is noeasy matter. This is because “prevention” is by its very nature something that is difficult to see. What kinds of concrete efforts can prevent what kinds of conflicts? This is
the theme we should pursue at this symposium.
The proliferation of regional conflicts, political crises, and various other cases since
the end of the Cold War has taught us the entire cycle from the outbreak of conflicts
through their conclusion. Applying what we have learned to deepen our understanding of conflict prevention is an important part of building the “culture of prevention”
of which Secretary-General Annan has spoken. This is the basis on which we must
marshal our wits and come up with a comprehensive conflict prevention strategy.
In conclusion, I want to mention the most important point: It is that a coherent
approach is needed that encompasses the level of the state, the bilateral level, the levelof regional frameworks, and the global level so as to deal effectively with the increasingly complex conflicts of the post–Cold War era. The task cannot be limited to states,
the traditional actors in international relations; it will be important to promote theroles of new actors, including civil society and NGOs, in helping to carry out conflict
prevention strategy. These new actors are already making remarkable achievements inmany fields, but the development of a comprehensive conflict prevention strategy that
includes roles for them will be essential for the promotion of human security. I wish
to conclude by pointing out that conflict prevention is not an issue just for governments; it is an issue for us as individuals.

29

Session II

Promotion of Sustainable Development
Jesus P. Estanislao

It is with great delight that I join all the other guests and participants in extending
congratulations and expressing best wishes to the Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA) on the occasion of its fortieth anniversary.
In addition, I wish to acknowledge with sincere gratitude the invitation to participate in this symposium. In particular, I wish to congratulate JIIA for the choice of thesymposium title, “In Quest of Human Security.” The choice bespeaks the need to learn
the lessons from our work in this century, and our determination to apply those lessons to our work in the next.
One of those lessons is highlighted by the structure of this symposium. Topics relating to politics and the need for conflict prevention, to economics and the need forsustainable development, to civics and the need for enhancement of human dignity
may be treated separately. But there is a fundamental recognition of their close interconnection and the need for an integral, indeed an integrated, view of human security, if we are to promote it at all.

I. Development from the Viewpoint of Human Security
The attraction of the human security paradigm lies in its wisdom to center all of ourattention on the human individual. The human person—each and every human being on earth—is brought to the very center of all our concerns, whether political, economic, civic, or social. Indeed, each person is the alpha and the omega of development.
It should also be stressed that each person is the principal agent and instrument forthe process of development to unfold on a sustainable and progressive basis.
Over several decades of work, as we have used separate paradigms and journeyed on
separate courses to development, we have taken various twists and turns. Fads havecome and gone. Issues have surged and ebbed. Debates have heated up and cooled
down. But as we stand on the threshold of the turn of the century (and of the millennium), many of us have come to the conviction that individual people do matter, andthey matter preeminently in development. This is why under the human security para30

Session II

Estanislao: Promotion of Sustainable Development

digm we insist: Individual human rights are to be respected; individual human potentials are to be developed; and individual human dignity is to be enhanced.
The centrality of the individual person in the process of development gives us aframework for ensuring that development is by, for, and of every individual person.
This framework encompasses the key elements that must be promoted in any development process. These elements are productivity (by people), welfare (for people), andprogress (of people). They highlight the imperative of working well, of having more,
and of becoming better. Efficiency, material well-being, and the overall quality of life
as human beings are thus brought all together and jointly emphasized.
This is an expansive view of development, and rightly so, since every human person is expansive, being a composite of body, mind, and spirit. That is why, if wedevelop a human person at all, we must ensure for each the provision of basic humanneeds, basic education and training, and the prospect of advancement in culture,expertise, and values. We speak of basic human needs to include not only food, clothing, and shelter, but also other material needs such as safe water, clean air, and affordable health care services. We speak of basic education and training as the equipment
needed by each individual to participate in the work force, gain some employment,
and exercise the rights of citizenship. But over and beyond these basic needs are thehigher needs (for advancement in culture and expertise as well as toward values) thatmake any human person humane, capable of participating in the exciting enterpriseof promoting human progress itself, starting with oneself and extending to the wholeof humanity.
From this rather comprehensive view of development, with its broad componentsthat are closely and intimately linked with each other, we see a dynamic process. This
process, if it is to sustain itself at all, must keep on aiming at its all-encompassing objective, focused on each individual person. Thus for development to be sustainable, it
has become clear that it must give due regard to the physical environment and the preservation of the quality of its resources. (Unless the physical environment is properly
taken care of, resources can be abused and life itself can be put under grave threat.) It
also has to make markets work more effectively and competitively. (Unless markets are
made to work, inefficiencies pile up and distortions build up to stunt growth and reverse progress.) It must also secure the rule of law and the fresh, often heady air of freedom. (Unless people are free to pursue their own enterprises, creativity dries up andinitiative is stifled.) It is not a surprise that at a time when we are justifiably concerned
about the sustainability of development, we are rightly stressing the importance of
maintaining environmental standards, promoting a level playing field in competitivemarkets, and preserving the gains of democratization and liberalization in every fieldof endeavor.
The environment, market competition, and liberal democracy are no longer separate issues to be pursued and promoted separately. Rather, they are interconnected as
fundamental requirements for the sustainability of development. They are also all31

Presentations

happily put together under the comprehensive, all-encompassing umbrella of humansecurity.

II. Instruments for Promoting Sustainable Development
The requirements of development, which can sustain itself so as to uplift every individual toward a condition of progress, are enormous. They are clearly beyond the exclusive power and purview of any instrument that is used singly and exclusively,
without cooperation and contribution from other instruments. Fortunately, we havevarious instruments that can make their own distinct contribution. The challenge is
to make them work in close cooperation with each other so as to secure progress forevery individual in the decades and the century ahead.
First and foremost, we have families and other natural communities in society. They
are, less arguably today, the most effective instruments for helping secure basic humanneeds as well as basic education and training. To them belongs the primary role of securing these needs. They may have to be assisted by subsidiary institutions, such as
schools, whose role is secondary to families in the education and upbringing of children. Thus, we can cover a lot of ground, travel a great distance, by helping and equipping families to take very good care of their own. Instead of supplanting them, weshould aim to supplement the efforts and initiatives of families in providing for themost basic needs of the body, mind, and spirit of the young, whom they care for.
We then have the state and the market. We have now traveled some distance fromthe simplified paradigms, which put the state, with its visible hands, and the market,
with its invisible hand, at two opposite poles in an apparent jostle against each other.
Previously, it was assumed that the more leverage and coverage for one, e.g., the market, the less for the other, e.g., the state. No longer! We have now come around to theview that if we want markets to work well and effectively, we need strong governments
to regulate and ensure that ground rules are observed. Experience has shown thatmarkets get distorted easily where governments are too weak to supervise and oversee.
Experience has further shown that a level playing field for all, where the players arevery unequal in terms of capacity and access to resources, becomes a playground withvery uneven and unfair results. So, even as we extol the efficiency of market competition and the effectiveness of corporate governance in business enterprises, we should
also put in efforts to strengthen government supervision and oversight, and to equip
government officials and bureaucrats with the attitudes and expertise of modern public administration and governance.
We also have value systems, which affect the way people think and shape the way
people act. Through the existing communications systems and other facilities forpeople-to-people contact and interaction, ideas travel very quickly today. Informationand lifestyles can be shared much more broadly and copied easily.
Globalization has crept in and influenced many elements of culture and shaped the32Session II

Estanislao: Promotion of Sustainable Development

operative values of peoples. But even as many barriers have come down and borders
have become porous, it is not clear whether people are actually adopting a much moreglobal and universal outlook. Thus, progress toward global norms and standards isslow and uneven. Even the institutional arrangements by which issues can be discussed, norms can be agreed, and standards can be set are creaking from their inability
to cope with the demands and realities of a more integrated and interdependent world.
We should then be working to strengthen the institutional mechanisms for global rulesof conduct, while at the same time encouraging the richness and variety of local cultures to flourish and develop. Indeed, as we promote certain fundamental elements ofglobal citizenship, we should give full support to local initiatives and grass-roots programs in many fields of endeavor. Indeed, the challenge for any society is how to doboth and combine the approaches of stressing both the global and local in a consistentand coherent fashion.
The challenge is for national governments to take the lead. It is only they, as a practical matter, that can strike the proper combinations and appropriate balances so as touse all the instruments with consistency and coherence. But for national governments
to lead effectively, they must learn to make a strategic retreat from the commandingheights they used to occupy and scale down into specific niches they have to claim forproper coordination and supervision. This does not mean to push back and limit theauthority and responsibility of national governments. Rather, it is to draw them backfrom the dangers and inefficiencies of overstretch and push them up to the higher levelof taking oversight and supervisory responsibility.
From such a perch, national governments can be much more facilitative and supportive of families, other natural societies, and local governments in the provision ofbasic human needs and basic education and training. In other words, they seek tobroaden the field for initiative and responsibility for the subsidiary units in society,even as they maintain an eagle eye on overall compliance with norms and standards.
Increasingly, many of these norms and standards are being set at the international
level. Indeed, as the forces of globalization and international interdependence continue to lap into many shores and sectors, there will be many more codes of conduct,
conventions, and treaties, statements of best practices, and agreements on goals andtimetables forged at the global level. National governments will continue to take responsibility for forging them, and eventually enforcing them, following internationalframeworks.
It is through proper frameworks that national governments can bestride two principles that need to be brought into mutual complementation with each other. The firstof these principles is subsidiarity. This mandates that responsibility and initiative
should be brought down to as close to the individual as possible so that the genuineinterest of the individual can be most effectively served. The second is solidarity. This
stipulates that all initiatives should be undertaken with a view of the whole, in consistency with national and international norms and standards.
33

Presentations

III. Some Approaches to Sustainable Development
Guided by these two key principles, moving forward, we should be aiming at the provision of all basic human needs for all individual persons on our planet by certain dates
within the first few decades of the next century. The political will must come from theinternational community and therefore from national governments in concert witheach other. They must set targets. They must galvanize the commitment of every region and every national government to put in all the best efforts, the proper framework, and the required resources to meet the agreed targets.
But even as benchmarks are set, it should be clear that most of the initiative andresponsibility should be at the subsidiary level, that of families, natural societies, business enterprises, and local governments. That is where most of the action should takeplace. There, market forces should be made to work. There, competitive efficiency
should be fostered. There, supplies, drawn most cost effectively from various sources,
for all basic human needs should be increased up to the level of sufficiency.
The provision of adequate opportunity for basic education and training can follow
some benchmarking, with sufficient latitude for each national government to stresssome specific elements, which can reinforce their claim to specific niches in a more
openly competitive global economy. As more and more of these specific elements need
to be emphasized, the greater latitude and responsibility each national government
should assume. That latitude becomes greatest in the area of advancement of culture,expertise, and values. However, taking into account the tools for open communication and close interaction now available, national governments can encourage andsupport networking, based on shared and focused interests, of their national institutions with others from the broader regional and global community.
Through benchmarking, stressing and claiming specific niches, and networking, weshould be aiming at providing equality of opportunity to meet the most basic needs
and requirements of all individuals on a global basis. But we should be discerning,open, and realistic to permit and expect inequality of eventual outcomes, which will
be dictated by individual talent, competitive advantage, and the turn of the risk-reward
calculus for each initiative and every enterprise. In other words, the starting point foreveryone, in each individual’s journey toward further development, needs to be secured, with the joint efforts of all. But how far each individual travels and how much
mileage each individual covers toward full development is left largely free and open,
within as conducive, facilitative, and supportive a framework as can be provided at alllevels (familial, local, national, global).
At a time when aid budgets are falling and donor fatigue is gripping the international donor community, we should stress that global leadership and vision should
somehow be matched by adequate resources that can go to those societies and communities in most need. Institutional capacities in a number of economies still have tobe developed and strengthened. Counterpart funds to local resources devoted to the34Session II

Estanislao: Promotion of Sustainable Development

human security and sustainable development agenda should be strategically deployed.
Nonetheless, at the global level, there should be much greater reliance on the policy
framework and the standards it sets rather than on the aid resources it provides. Overtime, the balance is to be tilted very heavily toward the former and away from the latter. At the national level, there should be much greater reliance on the oversight andsupervisory authority, which ensures firm and faithful compliance, perhaps within areasonable time frame, with global standards and international norms. While occasional direct intervention may be required during a crisis, increasingly this would be
more the exception rather than the rule. There would also be further retreat from theminutiae of administrative details to greater focus on broader, bigger-picture issues.
Responsibility for creative and competitive action as well as for proper conduct, consistent with national and global norms, is shunted down to levels as close to the individual as possible.
This approach is increasingly taken in the critical areas of human security andsustainable development. Environmental quality, market competition, the rule of law,and respect for individual human rights are increasingly brought within the domain
of international standard-setting mechanisms. National governments have to intervene
for those standards to be observed. Freedom of enterprise at the level of subsidiarysocial and economic units, however, is gaining greater adherence, and is being fostered
more broadly and, it is hoped, also more deeply.
But any and all approaches toward human security and sustainable development canlead us to the comprehensive and all-encompassing goal of caring for and enablingeach individual person only if we imbue everyone, at all levels, of the centrality of theindividual in the process of development. Precisely because the individual is at thecenter of it all, success or failure depends on how each individual balances rights with
duties, the spirit of enterprise with that of solidarity, freedom with responsibility.
It is on that balance that the fate of each individual hangs. It is on that same balancethat the fate of our communities, our nation-states, and the international community
also hangs.
So, let us not take our focus away from the individual person—the beginning, themeans, and the end of development that is sustainable.

35

Session III

Enhancement of Human Dignity
On Alienation, Human Dignity, and Responsibility

Hans van Ginkel

Introduction
Much remains to be done in order to prevent conflicts breaking out, and to secure sustainable development. In many regions of the world, war and poverty are still a bitterpart of the daily routine of millions of people. In spite of all the efforts deployed in thepast decades, the task that lies ahead, if not to end war and poverty but, more modestly, just to contain them, remains immense.
Some very bleak figures about the state of the world in terms of social alienation
serve as a reminder of this task. But first it is important to consider the meaning ofthese figures. Behind the dryness of the numbers and statistics, there are names, there
are faces, there are people—people living in such conditions of destitution that it istheir very human dignity that is at risk or denied to them.
To be born on the street, to live on the street, and to die on the street is to this day
the unchosen fate of millions and millions of individuals. The deliberate killing ofstreet kids in major cities of some countries is an extreme example. For these individuals, life is hardly a life, or at least it is hardly a human life. It is more a question of mere
survival.
Indeed, how can one experience the joys and the meaning attached to human life,
how can one experience a life of human dignity, when survival from day to day—yes
from day to day, sometimes even from hour to hour—is not even ensured? How can
one project oneself into the future and build bonds with others if living long enoughto see tomorrow constitutes a major challenge?
In view of widespread and profound poverty, some among the lucky and privileged
ones will perhaps think that this is not their problem, that it is not their responsibility.
Besides being morally wrong, such an attitude is certainly bad human judgment. It isbad judgment since, in the end, we cannot put an absolute distance between ourselves
and our fellow human beings, wherever they are in the world.
Our own human dignity largely depends upon feeling responsible for others and forhelping them when they are in need. Any indignity of condition imposed upon others
36Session III

Ginkel: Enhancement of Human Dignitythat we do not attempt to remedy somehow becomes our own indignity. Responsibility, here, is the natural complement of solidarity, of human and social solidarity.
It really is this sense of responsibility and of solidarity that has animated the workof the United Nations since its beginning and that continues to animate it. The United
Nations University itself, in its own way, has made the understanding and the unveiling of mechanisms of poverty and of its effects on people one of its key missions. For
UNU, this is only natural since, after all, knowledge is a major tool of human empowerment.

I. On Social and Political Alienation
The state of the world, in terms of economic and social development, is quite appalling. Today, global inequalities in income and living standards have reached grotesque
proportions. The gap in per capita income between the richest and the poorest countries in the world is wider than ever.
In 1960, the richest countries had, on average, 30 times the per capita income of thepoorest. The gap was 60 to 1 in 1990. And last year it approached the ratio of 80 to 1.
So, in less than 40 years, the gap between rich and poor has more than doubled, almost
tripled. Clearly, the trend indicates that the marginalization of the least-developed
countries is increasing year after year.
What does this mean in terms of daily life for the people living in the poor parts of
the world? In concrete terms, it means that four trends of deprivation afflict a large
proportion of our fellow human beings. First, a short and unhealthy life; second, deprivation of knowledge; third, economic deprivation; and fourth, social exclusion.
First, a short and unhealthy life. The numbers sadly speak for themselves: last year,
in the 10 poorest countries of the world, which are all in Africa, the average life expectancy of individuals was around 45 years. At the same time, in the 10 richest countries, life expectancy was 78. This is a huge difference. As a result, a person viewed aselderly in the poorest countries is still a relatively young person, full of potential forthe future, in the richest countries, most certainly here in Japan. As a result, also,
people in the richest countries outlive, on average, individuals of the poorest countries
by almost 30 years, more than the time span of an entire generation. In this context, it
is not hard to imagine the lack of access to medical services and safe water, for instance,
suffered in the poorer regions of the world.
The second major problem is the deprivation of knowledge. Once again, numbers
offer a cruel comparison. In the 10 richest countries, the rate of literacy reaches 99.9
percent. In the 10 poorest countries, the rate of literacy does not go above 42 percent.
The numbers are even worse when it comes to economic deprivation. Last year, thegross domestic product (GDP) or the income per capita did not reach US$400 in thepoorest countries. For some of them, it even went down as low as US$200; this is noteven a dollar a day.
37

Presentations

Social exclusion is the logical outcome of situations of extreme poverty. It cannot
be otherwise. Deprived of proper access to health and education services, lacking adequate financial means to ensure their daily existence, people who are trapped in situations of extreme poverty are, literally, falling out of the bonds of society. And, all too
often, women, even more so than men, are the first victims of destitution: women andthe children they try to care for.
Although extreme poverty is primarily a phenomenon unfolding in the least developed countries, as illustrated by these numbers, it is by no means limited to them. Extreme deprivation is not the exclusivity of poor countries. As a result of some of thenegative effects generated by globalization, poverty is a worldwide disease. As such, italso affects affluent societies.
It is not only in the capitals of the poor countries of Africa, Latin America, or Asia
that one finds destitution. This is also found in the heart of the developed world, in
New York, Paris, London, and elsewhere. The only difference is that, while extreme
poverty characterizes the whole life and social fabric of some poor societies, in affluent
societies it is confined to pockets of exclusion, especially in big cities.
However, such a difference does not change the overall impact that poverty has oneach of its victims. In addition to material hardship pushed to the limits of the bearable, poverty undermines the very sense of self and identity of individuals.
It is not only extreme poverty and social alienation that undermine the very senseof self and identity of individuals. It is also political alienation. These are also the conditions of uncertainty, of fear and even terror, brought upon individuals by politicalleaders and regimes more eager to satisfy their drive for power than the welfare of theirown people.
Paradoxically, political alienation pushed to the limits of the bearable can be either
very systematically organized or the product of uncontrolled violence. The politicalregimes that dominated Eastern Europe until 1989 are prime examples of the first case,of a cold-blooded and rationalized system of political alienation. To live under theseregimes meant, literally, having your life, having your mind, stolen from you. The
books authored, e.g., by André Brink and Nadine Gordimer describe clearly such situations in South Africa during apartheid.
It goes without saying that countries with very rigid social structures, where majorgroups in society are systematically disadvantaged in terms of access to education, thejob market, and political power, come very close to the same position. Unequal accessto opportunities and lack of transparency and democracy are major threats to humandignity. These so-called horizontal inequalities have been identified in an important
UNU/WIDER study as the roots of all major humanitarian emergencies.1
Uncontrolled and widespread violence, on the other hand, has been more the po1. Jeni Klugman, “Social and Economic Policies to Prevent Complex Humanitarian Emergencies,”
UNU/WIDER Policy Brief, Washington, D.C., 1999.
38

Session III

Ginkel: Enhancement of Human Dignity

litical and social disease of developing countries not able to stabilize and integrate
properly. The media abound with images of the effects of widespread and uncontrolled
violence in Africa—think about Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone yesterday and perhaps
soon again, Angola, Congo today—in Southeast Asia—Cambodia—and in East
Timor and elsewhere.
In both rationalized violence and uncontrolled violence, political alienation is the
product of a profound dysfunctioning of the state. It is the product of a state that remains foreign to what it should be and should do, to what is its chief mission: to guarantee the respect and the welfare of people, the enhancement of their well-being anddignity.

II. On Human Dignity
The attack on human dignity, and the difficulty of upholding one’s human dignity, isprobably the ultimate end result of deprivation and continuous domination. But what
exactly is human dignity? And why is it denied by extreme poverty and political alienation?
Human dignity is first and foremost a vision of the individual. It is a vision of theindividual that conveys a very central and simple idea: that there are a number of rightsthat are attached to the fact of being human. Without the minimum respect and fulfillment of these rights, human dignity cannot be achieved—human dignity is denied.
It is this vision that inspired the first modern true democrats, in the sixteenth century, in the Netherlands—and, I must confess, I say this with a certain pride—to lay
the foundations of local democracy and of modern republicanism in the Republic of
the Seven United Provinces (Union of Utrecht, 1579). In doing so, they paved the way
and prepared the rise of democratic culture, at the end of the eighteenth century, in
the United States and in France, and then around the world. It is this vision of the individual and of his or her dignity that led the first modern democratic lawmakers,
people of great social imagination, to embrace inalienable rights of individuals in thedrafting of constitutional documents.
As such, they stressed the almost sacred character of values, such as equality and freedom, and made them the foundation of the establishment of civil, political, and economic rights. In doing so, democratic lawmakers launched a quest for human dignity
whose aim has been, since then, to ensure that individuals’ basic needs are met. From
this foundation, individuals can be the masters of their own destiny, they can find thebasis for self-respect in the capacity to take their own decisions within a given economic, social, and political context.
The quest for human dignity has not stopped since. The development of modern
democracy has been a movement toward the establishment of rights that meet boththe basic and the evolving needs of people.
In indicating, through the establishment of rights of individuals, what it is to be39

Presentations

human and what it takes for human dignity to be respected, these rights do more thanjust contribute to secure the egoistic welfare of the individual. They manage to recognize that relationships with others—bonds of socialization—are also a key element of
human dignity. This is the second aspect of human dignity.
Rights outline the basis and the conditions for a reasonably established, stable, andsustainable material life. Rights allow individuals to project themselves into the futurewith others. In doing so, they make it possible for people to envision a life of sharing
with others—a life where those values and institutions, such as love and family relationships, which give so much meaning to human life, are possible.
Without having secured the proper economic and political conditions of living, it
is close to impossible to project oneself into the future with others. It is close to impossible to build a life made of all the experiences of sharing and bonding that makelife worth living, that make life a meaningful human life. Transparency, respect for eachliving individual, equity, access to opportunities, democracy: These are all among thefundamental concepts underlying human dignity.
Ultimately, the experience of social and political alienation is a profoundly debilitating experience. Not only does it deprive individuals of the necessary and minimum
conditions of life. It also tends to deprive the destitute from reaching out to others,
from having the possibility to share a life with others. Without food, without shelter,without minimum income, without minimum of freedom and security in their lives,
how can people envisage in all serenity the possibility to engage with others? Hardly
having a life of their own, how can these people have a life to share?
While it is true that human dignity is very much the will and the power to survive
in a decent way against all odds, sometimes the odds are just too much, too overwhelming. In denying to individuals proper conditions of living, social and politicalalienation forces them into isolation. It forces them into exile from themselves andfrom others. Here lies perhaps the biggest scandal of social and political alienation, andits most vicious attack on human dignity. Powerless and disconnected from themselves
and others, the destitute are, then, stripped of their human dignity.

III. On Responsibility
So, should we close our eyes to so much despair? Should we turn our back on people
in distress? Should we let them down? Should we see the struggle against poverty andpolitical alienation, in favor of human dignity, as a lost battle? Of course, we should not!
The fact that all the efforts deployed in the past 50 years to eradicate extreme poverty and facilitate the development of democracy, to enhance human dignity, have notalways been successful, could certainly be a reason for skepticism and discouragement.
It certainly should lead us to reevaluate the public policies that have been implemented
to tackle the problems of human security that we are addressing at this symposium.
But nothing, no past failures or frustrations, will ever be a sufficient reason to give40

Session III

Ginkel: Enhancement of Human Dignity

up the fight in favor of human dignity. Especially since we have had some major successes in the past years, as the opening up of the Eastern bloc in Europe after 1989
indicates or the abolishment of apartheid in South Africa or the development of
democracy in Latin America. These are not small achievements.
There is a clear moral duty not to give up on those to whom human dignity is being denied. In addition, what is also at stake is what we owe to ourselves as human beings—as human beings aiming at being people of dignity ourselves.
We sometimes tend to forget that responsibility is part of what defines us as humanbeings. Responsibility is at the same time the expression and the instrument of our humanity as modern human beings. As such, it is also a test, a test of our own humandignity.
The ability to feel that any indignity from which our fellow human beings suffer is anindignity that we share. To abstain, not to interfere when we see individuals suffer, lose
their human dignity by either human degradation or human violence, makes us in turnlose our own dignity. Identifying with people in need and trying to do something about
it is the minimum requirement for expressing and extending a sense of responsibility.
Somehow, we all know this because, in the end, the people whom we tend to admire the most, the people whom we tend to revere the most, are very often the ones
who have been able to make this sense of responsibility and solidarity the calling of
their life.
Clearly, we cannot dedicate all our energy to this cause. This certainly would not be
a very realistic proposition. Yet we should at least see it as an integral part of our identity as human beings and act upon it at our own level.
In that respect, we should never evaluate what we can do in favor of human dignity
on the basis of what we have already done or of what others are doing. Acting in favorof human dignity is not about calculating. It is not about comparing. It is about doing
as much as one can. Even if we are already doing much, if we have the possibility to do
more, let us not be afraid to do so.
This is at least the way I see things, and it is the advice I would give to donor countries, to rich countries that are in the very privileged position to make a difference, tomake a huge difference by helping wherever they can. It is so much better to be in thecondition to give than to need to receive.

IV. The Contributions of the UN and UNU
It is appropriate now, at the dawn of a new millennium, to revisit and reassess pastpolicies of the international community in the field of poverty eradication, respect forhuman rights, democratization, and the enhancement of human dignity. Without
overlooking and underestimating all their positive aspects, one also must be aware of
their limitations and try to overcome them.
This is certainly what the various institutions of the UN system have been em41

Presentations

barking on in recent years. In fact there has been a wave of appraisal and renewal.
A few years ago, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali made a special effort to ensure that the
UN would do as much as possible to facilitate the development of democracy aroundthe world.2 It is really under his impulse that the UN began to get systematically involved in democratic institution-building in supporting transparency, equity, andequal access.
Today the new attention given by the World Bank and the UN Secretariat to sustainable development and governance issues is also a clear indication of the evolutionof the thinking and ways of doing things of the international community. And so isthe fact that human security is now more and more viewed as an integral part of theagenda of the UN system. This is a step in the right direction.
War is not the only face of insecurity. It is only one of many. And war usually comes
forth from the entrenchment of economic disparity within and between nations, fromthe systematic marginalization of people and countries, from deprivation and political alienation. This is why the notion of “human security” could prove to be a goodanalytical and policy tool for a more equitable and more stable world.
As it is currently used in policy and academic circles, it encompasses a triple commitment. It encompasses, first, a commitment to ensure that there is less instability ofsocieties and less vulnerability of people. Second, it encompasses the need to address,
intellectually and also on the ground, problems of poverty, of human rights, of democracy, and of human dignity, in a holistic manner.
Finally, it embraces the idea that human rights and human dignity are not primarily a matter of charity or good will. It is a matter of ensuring that interactions amongindividuals do not generate conflicts and pathologies that, in the end, can only contribute to bringing down the fabric of society.
UNU is committed to human security and does its best to bring its contribution to
the debate. Our institute in Helsinki, the World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER), has been for some time now at the forefront of the debate. Outof the various projects that it has conducted in the past years on this type of question,
a number of publications have contributed to shaping the thinking and the policy initiatives on human security.
Our Peace and Governance Program at the UNU-Centre, in Tokyo, is also planningto dedicate a significant part of its activities of the coming years to human security
issues.

Conclusion
Ambassador Owada made a major contribution by identifying “human dignity” as a key
dimension of human security. Human dignity is the basic value underlying human
2. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Agenda for Democratization, New York, United Nations, 1996.
42

Session III

Ginkel: Enhancement of Human Dignity

rights. It is the driving force enabling human beings, under very adverse circumstances, to continue against all odds, as has been so well illustrated by Sergio Vieira de
Mello speaking about the people of East Timor. It is the connecting principle that
holds society together and future oriented.
Human dignity, however, is under continuous threat from two sides:• social (and economic) alienation• political (and cultural) alienation
We cannot accept an economic system overriding the interests of the weakest insociety. We must realize that economic problems are not natural disasters; that our economic system basically is a man-made system and can thus be changed. We cannot juststand there and look away from concrete problems.
When we do not take responsibility, we are not prepared to care and share to upholdhuman dignity; we will end up somehow sharing human “indignity,” undermining thefuture of humankind. This explains the grief of the Dutch people over Srebrenica. Because these were our men. We stood by and could not do anything to prevent the tragedyof Srebrenica.
Only the systematic and active promotion of peace, of development and democracy—
as Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has championed—can help prevent such disasters in the
future.

43

DISCUSSIONS

Session IV
A Strategy for Consolidating Human Security
Hisashi Owada
Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Hans van Ginkel
Jesus P. Estanislao
Maurice Strong
Yasushi Akashi■

Summary of the Discussions

Session IV

A Strategy for Consolidating Human Security

Amb. Hisashi Owada: The final session is a synthesizing session. We have had three
sessions: one on prevention of conflict; the second one on the promotion of sustainable development; and the third one on the enhancement of human dignity. All theseare salient components of the concept of human security. I would ask the panelists tofocus on these three—what I would describe as the “triad of human security”—andoffer comments in an effort to come to a common understanding of the basic conceptof human security, and then to think about common themes running through thistriad, the three major aspects of human security.
For example, the issue of international values in state terms as against global values
in human terms was one of the issues discussed in all three of the sessions. Anotherproblem that was raised, either explicitly or implicitly, was the relevance of participatory democracy in promoting the cause of human security in all three areas. Anotherissue that came up was the role of civil society in this regard. And finally—I believe it
was Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali who raised the issue—there is the issue of how to approach these different problems, as well as the proposals relating to them that havebeen advanced in the course of the discussion, in an organically integrated way.
Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali: First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me toparticipate in this very important symposium and to say that I learned a great deal
from this event. I have just a few remarks to make.
First, it appeared that there was a consensus among the panelists—and contradict
me if this consensus does not exist—about the new role of civil society in international
affairs. We believe that the enhancement of human dignity needs the support and thecooperation of civil society. This being said, there is a crisis of confidence between thestates and the possibility of giving a role to civil society. What was also mentioned isthat the adoption of certain rules/norms/mechanisms to integrate the nonstate actors
in the international system—the United Nations or other specialized agencies—mayhelp to overcome this credibility crisis between the nonstate actors and the states.
I have always been obsessed by the division in the world between rich countries andpoor countries, and I believe that you will have a new digital wall which exists withthe development of the new technologies. Here again, I am afraid that the participation of civil society tomorrow in the international system will accentuate the division
47

Discussions

in the world between North and South, between rich and poor, or between developing and developed nations, because the real nonstate actors are in the democratic countries, and are part of the rich world, where they can afford the existence of
nongovernmental organizations or very strong parliamentarians of big cities who havethe possibility to get involved in international affairs. This may accentuate the division of the world which is, and will continue to be, the real problem of tomorrow. In
fact, if the destruction of the Berlin Wall has put an end to the Cold War and to theconfrontation between East and West, there has been no solution to date for the new
emerging information society to the confrontation between North and South, and I
am afraid that will accentuate this division.
The second remark I would like to make is about the discussion on prevention. We
all agree on the importance of the prevention of conflict. Unfortunately, the international community, the family of nations, is still not ready to accept prevention as an
approach to solve future conflicts. For many reasons, it will not gain the support ofpublic opinion. Public opinion will react only after a disaster has occurred, and you
will have thousands of refugees, houses that have been burned—only then will theinternational community be able to intervene.
My third point is that the state will remain the main actor throughout the next century. And citizens who are not specialists like us interested in the problems of globalization or international affairs will try to return to their villages, to the fundamentals of theirreligions and traditions, and will be opposed to any kind of transnational organization.
So we will have mininationalism on one side and globalization on the other side.
And lastly there is the issue of human dignity. Will human dignity be more protected by the return to the village, or will human dignity be more protected by international conventions, by the supervision of international public opinion, by projectionof images through CNN or through other media? This I do not know. I believe that
this is a problem that deserves our attention in discussing the concept of human dignity. I agree that human dignity protected by the village, the return to the fundamentals, is a very retrograde attitude; but on a practical level what counts is humanbeings—will people feel more reassured being in their villages or will they be morereassured knowing that there is a very important NGO that will intervene in their favor? This remains a big question. These are a few of my thoughts on the symposium,and once more, I want to thank you and all the participants of this meeting for theirgracious welcome.
Dr. Hans van Ginkel: In science, at the moment, we see a development where themajor changes are not on the level of what we can see ourselves. In fact, science is focusing more and more on very macro scales, going into space and having bigger overviews, and going into very micro scales, within cells of living organisms. In order to
get a better view—whether very big or very small—we need to develop new equipment
and good approaches for meaningful interpretations.
48

Session IV

A Strategy for Consolidating Human Security

In the world, we can see the same type of development. We go to ever bigger structures, and we go back to smaller structures. On the one hand, there is the process ofglobalization, and there is a need to organize society, trade at least, on the global
scale—through the United Nations or other multilateral organizations. On the other
hand, we see decentralization, going back to local levels. Many people who use modern means of technology—communication, transport—in order to be very mobile andto go around the world for their work, these same people seem to need some kindof base where they feel at home. So in the literature you can find “rootedness” as aconcept—people want to belong somewhere. That is an important starting point from
where they participate in life. For many people in search of a very mobile and flexible“global” world, the basic values are, after all, in the people themselves; these are in theindividual and the core group he/she belongs to. So this is where education and socialization become very important elements. Therefore, it is the idea of human dignity, where people start from their own inner views, that is a basic principle on which
all other elements are based.
I do not always agree that in this aspect of human dignity there is a very big difference between rich and poor. Certainly the conditions are different, and it can sometimes become very difficult to maintain his or her “human dignity.” Nevertheless, formany of us, a prime example of human dignity is Uncle Tom. When we read this book,when we were still very young, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, we knew that Uncle Tom was notrich and that he was very dependent in some ways. But there was no question about
his human dignity. I think we should keep that in mind. Human dignity is a crucial
underlying principle, and its importance comes from the fact that it focuses on theindividual. It helps to make use of the individual as the major generating power for all
development; it makes clear that we need each individual, when we want to develop
society successfully.
Our society often is quite cynical. At certain stages, in times of high unemployment, also in developed countries, it seems as if new generations and young people getlabeled as “not needed” in the job market. At the same time, we define the jobs ourselves, and the distribution of income and the distribution of free time. Making useof each individual as a major support for human security and human dignity makes
people more forward looking and prepared to act with responsible social behavior. It
helps them to engage themselves in the future and in society. We must appeal to eachindividual citizen to engage himself or herself in the future. At the same time, humandignity holds society together, and as such, it promotes sustainable development. It
must be said again: For that, one does not have to be rich. When you look at Japan,
Germany, and most of Europe after World War II in the time of reconstruction, theway people were contributing to that reconstruction; the way in which many individuals in Asia, in the growing economies, have been contributing to that growth;
they did it because there was an appeal to each individual person and not to a vague
collective. This can only be achieved when there is, indeed, a participatory democracy,
49

Discussions

because people need to feel involved; they need to feel that they can make a difference
and have an influence. And that is the major role of civil society in sustainable humandevelopment. To assume responsibility, to show commitment, and to contribute.
I agree very much with Dr. Boutros-Ghali that it will be very difficult to get positive acceptance and good cooperation between the governmental and nongovernmental levels. I remember in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), when the World Conference on Higher Education was
being prepared, the governments did not have very clear ideas about the most desired
outcomes of the process, so for a long time they let it go. As a consequence, the nongovernmental organizations had a major influence on that conference. And then there
was the World Conference on Science. Governments wanted to make sure from the
beginning that this would not happen again. This made a major difference in the profile of the two conferences. Nevertheless, the progress is there; step-wise, it is very
important. Participation is increasing worldwide. Only in this way will conflict prevention be possible, because horizontal inequalities, exclusion, and excessive income
disparities will gradually disappear and be replaced by inclusion and participation, by
sharing and caring.
The world needs balance, understanding, compassion. Complex problems very
rarely have simple answers; more often they require very nuanced complex answers.
We should not, therefore, continuously force our systems out of balance by just replacing one single “solution” or “answer” with another. Therefore, I am sometimes concerned when the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and others focus
too much on governance, and governance only. Governance is, indeed, very important; there is no question about that. One has to look at it. But one also has to look at
the working of the economic system and the economic rules. I am very concerned that
we did not even use the word “WTO,” the World Trade Organization, during this
symposium in relation to world security, and the fact that those people who were protesting in Seattle were probably not defending the cause of the people we are specifically talking about here.
Prof. Jesus P. Estanislao: I would like to echo the ideas expressed by Dr. Boutros-Ghali
and Dr. van Ginkel. I also wish to highlight the different pushes and pulls we experience in today’s world. There is a push toward bigger, wider realities. The word “globalization” probably summarizes many of the forces that are much bigger than the realityof the “state” to which we have been accustomed these past decades.
But we are also being pulled back into giving greater importance to smaller units
within society and the subsidiary units within the state, thereby highlighting the individual as well as the institutions that surround the individual. But in looking at allthese very different forces, we must realize that—fundamental as the individual is, andimportant as the world community is—the states are still going to be the main instruments for getting things done.
50Session IV

A Strategy for Consolidating Human Security

So it is fundamental that we give consideration as to what states can do precisely inthe process of globalization within an international framework conducive to humandevelopment and as to what states can do in order to protect and promote the welfare
of individuals. What is it that states must do to respond to the forces pushing us toward globalization and those pulling us toward individual dignity?
First and foremost, we must be concerned about strengthening global institutions
and making them much more effective. This is absolutely necessary because increasingly the things that we used to take care of at the level of the state are being pushed
toward the global level. For example, currency used to be exclusively handled at thenational level, but there are now pressures for handling it at the regional level, if not
the global. Indeed, many of the functions that the states used to perform are increasingly demanding broader attention at the global scale, and the challenge for different
states is to ensure that the mechanisms for attending to problems of the global community could be as effective as the national mechanisms, and are as subject to the usual
requirements, e.g., transparency, accountability, fairness, clear rules, etc.
For the individual, states need to respect basic human rights and promote the welfare of individuals by strengthening support mechanisms for individual welfare. In thisregard, the village is important, as are the local community and civil society. But as wegive emphasis to these institutions that promote individual welfare, let us not forgetthat, while stressing freedom, we also give due emphasis on social responsibility. Indeed, these two must go hand in hand always, otherwise individuals, families, and civilsociety will be oriented toward selfish interests and away from their responsibility to
the broader common good. The state must take care of this social orientation.
With respect to implementation, I endorse strongly the suggestions of Professor
Ryokichi Hirono for the international community to set clear targets to be achievedby a certain date for all basic human needs, e.g., food, clothing, shelter, clean air andwater, and basic education and training. We now have access to advances in expertise,
as well as to appropriate values demanded by an interdependent world. What is required is the political will at both the state and global levels to make sure that thesetargets are set and met.
Finally, we have been thinking of individuals mainly as objects to be provided for.
But basic to human development and welfare, individuals must also be regarded asagents to promote peace and prosperity. States must also make demands on all individuals and challenge them so they can rise up to their full potential. Dignity is basic
because it flows from nature, but it needs to be enhanced through the exercise of virtues, the pursuit of values, the application of skills, and the use of knowledge so thatan individual can contribute to the progress of the human family, the village and the
local community, the nation-state, and the global family.
Dr. Maurice Strong: I have learned a great deal from this experience. The insights andperspectives of my colleagues have made this one of the most illuminating seminars I
51

Discussions

have attended. I will just give a few observations that occur to me at this late stage inthe process. One is, of course, on the question of human security. It simply reminds
us that the individual human being is the final object of all security exercises. National
security that does not produce human security for the citizens of the nation will not
be effective. Global security that does not ultimately enhance and protect humansecurity will not be effective. I think it is extremely important, but we need a reminder.
The environment issue in dealing with the principles of the 1972 Declaration of
Stockholm made it clear that nation-states, while having every right to exercise theirsovereignty, had to exercise it on a basis that it did not infringe the rights of their neighbors and the environment of their neighbors. The same is true of human security.
Human security cannot be achieved at the level of one individual at the expense ofother individuals. So it is not a purely individualistic thing, although the basis formeasuring human security is individual.
Many of the things that were said during this symposium remind one of the needfor a culture of peace. Now, the culture of peace as approved by the General Assemblyof the UN recently is a bit of a catchall. It has a lot of elements in it, and it could be
looked at as a very fuzzy and vague thing because of that. On the other hand, it really
does capture the essence of our dialogue here, that peace is a complex systemic processthat involves the management on a more equitable basis of various sectors of society. I
believe that it is very timely that the UN General Assembly has in fact given us thisbasic framework. It is now up to us to put meat and substance on that framework, but
it does provide a very useful basis for fulfilling some of the basic elements that haveemerged during the discussion.
Now, sustainable development: I think it is quite clear that we are talking about thesustainability of our societies and sustainability of our civilization; about sustainable
development as the pathway to sustainable societies, not as an end in itself. And we
recognize that a sustainable civilization requires our ability to manage equitably andsustainably the complex of forces through which our actions and policies are shaping
our own future. This not only requires a global context, as Professor Hirono has aptly
reminded us, but also, as Professor Rothschild has reminded us, requires a historicalcontext. We not only must look at the global dimension; we must look in depth at thetime dimension, at the historical dimension, and we have much to learn from that, as
she has said.
Redressing the dichotomies and imbalances to which the technological civilization
has given rise: We have the richest civilization ever; in material terms, the most successful civilization ever. And yet, that civilization, while it has improved immensely the lotof many, has left many by the wayside. Dr. van Ginkel gave us some very good information on that. But if we do not redress those imbalances, we cannot hope for a sustainable or a peaceful world at the global or the individual level. Redressing the grossimbalances to which the technological civilization has given rise surely must be the central basis for achieving the kinds of goals to which we were aspiring in this symposium.
52

Session IV

A Strategy for Consolidating Human Security

Poverty. The elimination of poverty: In the richest civilization ever, pervasive poverty is a moral blot on our civilization, and its persistence clearly makes our future unsustainable. And the gross inequities that are arising: inequities—the gulf between richand poor—that have been growing as our economy has been growing.
Values: I am very encouraged to hear the almost universal acceptance of the importance of values, what motivates us. We know, we have the capacity today, more capacity than we have ever had; technology has enlarged the tools available to us to create
the kind of civilization that we want. The real question is our motivation, our values.
We do not have to have a homogeneity of values, but we must have a certain set ofcommon values that we acknowledge. And one of those is, of course, respecting thedifferent values of others, respecting the fact that it is the diversity of the human experience that gives us our richness. In ecological systems, the strongest systems arethose that preserve the most variety and diversity; and the same of human systems. We
do not need homogeneity, but we do need a certain measure of acceptance of common norms, values, and standards in order to protect the individual freedom andrights of all.
Now, this also means trade-offs. I often speculate that we do make trade-offs between our dignity and our rights, on the one hand, and our opportunities, on the otherhand. For example, the automobile. Probably no technology ever opened up more
options for human versatility of experience than the automobile. And yet, we accept
the fact that we stop at a red light, we need licenses, we drive on a certain side of theroad—not the same side in each country—and we accept certain disciplines. When
we want to go on air travel, we subject ourselves to the indignity of a personal search,which at some previous times would have been seen as an offense against our personaldignity. Why do we accept it? We make a trade-off to enjoy the benefit of air travel
and to do it with a feeling of security and safety. I just want to remind ourselves thatthese notions of security and dignity do require a balancing, a set of trade-offs. They
are not always simple choices.
Another of my basic beliefs is that we will never be able to deal effectively with
global issues until individual people see the relationship between their own interests
and their own behavior and the larger global issues. We have not yet done a very goodjob of doing that. And even where, as in Seattle recently, people have a perception thatthings are happening, that perception is often accompanied by inadequate information and knowledge. So, we have a real job of education to do in that field, and withthe guidance of Dr. van Ginkel, I hope our University for Peace is going to be able towork with UNU in helping to achieve some of that.
Finally, implementation through governance: We recognize that the system of relationships through which we are shaping our own future—and we should be aware that
this is probably the first time in history in which we are shaping our own future—that
the actions we take, or fail to take, are actually going to be producing the future towhich we aspire, which means we must have some sense of how we are acting in re53

Discussions

spect to that future. The institutions through which we are dealing with these are notsystemic. Unfortunately, governments and the UN are not systemic. And one of thethings we are trying to do in UN reform is to develop an issue management system,
where around every issue you can collect the particular actors who have a real interest—not just the UN agencies, but all the main actors. This is because in so many of
the areas in which the UN is now the logical place to reach global agreement, the UN
is not the principal source of capability in these fields. So those who do have the capability must be brought around the table, and that means participation. Participationin decisions might be made on a narrow sectoral basis—like the WTO, like the International Monetary Fund decisions. But we now know that decisions cannot be madein purely narrow technocratic disciplinary terms when they affect broad sectors of society. There must be better mechanisms to enable those affected by the decisions toparticipate. Earth Council has as its principal purpose helping to empower people at
the grass-roots and community level and helping them to participate in the issues that
affect them.
Now, one last thing, the rule of law: We absolutely must make, and do need, a workable democratic system at the global level in which the superpower, the United States,
has a loyal opposition, where the other powers, the middle powers, and the developing countries are able to provide an effective counterbalance, not as an enemy to theUnited States, but as a loyal opposition to make democracy work at the global level,
which it is not really doing very well now.
Mr. Yasushi Akashi: A lot of useful ground has already been covered by previous
speakers, and therefore I will not go into these matters. But I wish to mention a few
things. Certainly, the concept of human security has brought us to important post–
Cold War issues relating to individuals. They are nonmilitary security aspects, and I
think the concept is a useful one. But we must be careful not to make the concept toocomprehensive, or else the concept may lose its precise implications. In our interest in
the micro approach, we should not lose sight of the macro approach. And, at the riskof being considered some kind of reactionary, I would like to put some emphasis on
the traditional sense of security which is covered under conflict resolution or conflict
prevention.
In the nineties, we are still faced with more threats to security from a national orregional viewpoint, while the global threat of world war has receded to the background. In South Asia and Northeast Asia, there are significant amounts of tension andthe threat of the spread of weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, chemical, and biological. These may even become more serious in the forthcoming century. So, in ouremphasis on nonmilitary aspects, and on light weapons and antipersonnel mines, we
may forget some of these mounting dangers to the basic security questions.
My second point is globalization and its dark side, to which Prime Minister Obuchi
yesterday made reference. Globalization has many welcome aspects—it enhances the54Session IV

A Strategy for Consolidating Human Security

lives of people by and large. But it has led to the revival of an extreme form of nationalism, or to fundamentalism—not just in the Islamic world, but in the Christian worldand elsewhere as well. Here again, we must make sure that we proceed with globalization, but with appropriate attention to the identity of cultures and nations. Progress isnever linear, and while we should move toward more global acceptance of humanrights and human values, we should also take account of the fact that there will be regional and cultural differences in our approaches in attaining these objectives.
My third point is the question of implementation—the role of international organizations, including the UN—a lot of reference has already been made to this. How do
we create new laws for civil society, NGOs, mass media, and intellectuals, aside fromstates as principal actors? And here we must make some hard choices and serious tradeoffs. If we enhance the role of the UN in the area of sanctions, nonmilitary sanctions,
we may impinge on individual security in the sense of reducing the standards of livingof common people living in the countries that are subjected to sanctions. So there arethese hard issues for which there is no easy answer.
I would like to refer to the useful ideas brought forth, particularly by Dr. van Ginkel,
around human dignity and human solidarity, because the question of human security
is a moving concept. In Japanese society, for instance, the sense of insecurity is moreinvisible. There is concern about the future, about the relationship between generations, how to distribute the burden of social security between different generations.
And because Japan has progressed so fast—some economists say that Japan’s standardof living has gone up 15 times in the last 100 years—because of that, it has created aserious spiritual and psychological void. Many people feel insecure because of that fact.
This kind of nonmaterial security question within societies—particularly in developed
societies, but which I think developing countries will face sooner or later—creates theissue of better communication between generations within society. This is a new
dimension of security we are beginning to face today.

55

Summary of the Discussions

Ambassador Hisashi Owada began his comments by emphasizing that the concepts ofnational security and human security are not substitutes for each other, but arecomplementary. Some matters that enhance national security will help guarantee thesecurity of individuals. But simply to concentrate on the enhancement of national security does not necessarily guarantee human security. National security is meant toaddress the security of the people. In that sense, human security and national security
are the same. With the new changes and developments that are coming about, however, there are issues that must be looked at from the viewpoint of the interests of theindividuals involved rather than the interests of the state as such.
Professor Hisako Shimura stressed that while sovereign states will continue to be an
important element of the international community, real change—whether historical,
social, economic, or political—is brought about by forces that impact on the individual. The example of participatory democracy was given. The United Nations monitors and organizes elections, which some consider to be essentially Western-inspired
institutions. But after hearing case after case and seeing images of hundreds of thousands of people in different countries walking long distances and waiting for hours intheir best clothing to cast their votes, she now believes in the universal value of elections. Although states will continue to be important, civil society and its various
nonstate actors should not feel powerless. They should not compete with state institutions, but become partners to create changes, and regard states as agents for institutionalizing the changes. In this way, changes may have a start rooted in the individual.
Professor Ryokichi Hirono expressed his concern with the implementation of matters relating to human security, particularly at the local level. He asked how discussionsof human security and the development of common goals for humanity at the global
or national level can be translated into issues or problems in the day-to-day lives ofcommon people. He has surveyed citizens of his community for topics on international relations they would like discussed on a weekly program he coordinates at a
local radio station. The topics they choose are usually those covered by the mass media—by television and newspapers. While these are important issues, he feels that there
must be something more meaningful, because what the media feature are usually issues important to them, but not necessarily important to the common person. He
noted that the radio program uses different aspects of the Universal Declaration of56

Session IV

Summary of the Discussions

Human Rights to inform the listeners of such ideas as food for all, education for all,health for all, shelter for all, employment for all. He believes that this kind of message
will penetrate deeper than just discussing incidents taking place around the world.
Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali proposed reaching out directly to younger people
through “cyber clubs” so that youth all over the world can communicate with eachother, rural radio, education, and contacts through a parliament of young people,
where they can participate and give messages to actual parliamentarians. Young parliamentarians all over the world can convene, as was done in 1999 in Geneva, wheremore than 10,000 responses from young people all over the world were received. He
also recommended “voluntaria,” sending young people to work abroad for a shortperiod to come in contact with other people and providing opportunities to learn
about other continents. The problem is that, all over the world, public opinion is interested not in international affairs but in internal affairs. Unless the public participatesin international affairs, international civil society cannot provide support, and even aminimum of international democracy cannot be attained. He believes that educationand promotion of international contacts for the young generation will prepare a newleadership for tomorrow.
Dr. Hans van Ginkel pointed out the difference between public opinion and theopinion of the people. Public opinion is steered by the media, and it is based on theassumption that people will be interested in this message. It is the average of the large
group that will be interested in that type of message, and in time the public is expected
to default to this message. But he concluded that it is something quite different fromthe opinion of the people, which is fairly diverse, and therefore it is not easy to capture public opinion as one broad concept. He also noted that many problems must beplaced in the proximity of people in order to get them interested. There are many
problems on the global level or in developing countries, but it is not too difficult totranslate them into recognizable problems around the corner. But this is not done generally, and problems are kept on an abstract level.
Professor Emma Rothschild underscored what Professor Jesus Estanislao said about
the continuing importance of the state and the centrality of the individual and individual dignity. But one important role for the state is precisely to protect individuals
and their rights, and, in this regard, the state is under threat in a number of respects at
the moment. She referred to Professor Theodor Meron’s statement about civil society
and NGOs not being bound by a coherent set of rules. The rapidly increasing powerof large corporations, including their influence on policies of international organizations through public-private partnership, is also a major aspect of globalization. She
mentioned the example of people queuing up in their best clothes to vote and agreed
that participating in democracy is of inestimable importance and that the strengthening of government organizations through a new kind of participatory democracy is thechallenge. This is not just a problem for transitional or developing countries. Democracy is a process, and in many ways the most developed countries are losing democratic
57

Discussions

flexibility and imagination rapidly. In terms of implementation of matters relating tohuman security, she stressed the importance of thinking in terms of specific humansecurity projects—the Convention on the Rights of the Child, education, and a freepress in institutions, for example. The only way to make sense of such large global
political concepts as human security is to list specific things that have been done in
specific countries or regions with specific names—including countries that are regarded as preconflict or postconflict—and in three or five years time, or at JIIA’s fiftiethanniversary, reconvene and ask, “Did this add up to something called ‘human security’?” “Was it a new principle?” and “Was it a good principle?”
Ambassador Rachad Farah concluded that what is important in the end is how those
who are living below the poverty level can be assisted. The disparity between rich andpoor has become so large that today we no longer talk about “basic human needs,” but“human security,” which means that the situation is more drastic. The twenty-first
century is confronted with a new disease—the fight for the dignity of the humanbeing. This will require education, especially of the general public in rich countries.
Support and assistance from the mass media, parliamentarians, and civil society areneeded for financing projects in education and health. Concrete action must be taken
and funds must be obtained to help the realization of the human security concept.
Finally, he asked how much had been spent after World War II for what is called “state
security” without making any difference.

58

APPENDICES

Agenda■ParticipantsAgenda
Saturday, December 11, 1999
9:00–9:10

Opening Remarks
Mr. Gaishi Hiraiwa
Prof. Dr. Hans van Ginkel

9:10–9:50

Keynote Speeches
H.E. Mr. Keizo Obuchi
Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali

10:10–10:40 Session I: Measures for Conflict Prevention
Presenter: Amb. Hisashi Owada
10:40–11:40 Free discussion
Moderator: Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Panelists: Mr. Jusuf Wanandi
Prof. Hisako Shimura
Dr. Kennedy Graham
11:40–12:30 Questions and Answers
14:00–14:30 Session II: Promotion of Sustainable Development
Presenter: Prof. Jesus P. Estanislao
14:30–15:30 Free discussion
Moderator: Mr. Maurice Strong
Panelists: Amb. Rachad Ahmed Saleh Farah
Prof. Ryokichi Hirono
Mr. Shahid Husain
15:50–16:50 Questions and Answers

Sunday, December 12, 1999
9:30–10:00 Session III: Enhancement of Human Dignity
Presenter: Prof. Dr. Hans van Ginkel
10:00–11:00 Free discussion
Moderator: Mr. Yasushi Akashi
61

Appendices

Panelists: Prof. Emma RothschildProf. Ribot Hatano
Prof. Theodor Meron
11:20–12:20 Questions and Answers
14:00-15:30 Session IV: A Strategy for Consolidating Human Security
Free discussion/Discussion with the audience
Moderator: Amb. Hisashi Owada
Panelists: Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Prof. Dr. Hans van Ginkel
Prof. Jesus P. Estanislao
Mr. Maurice Strong
Mr. Yasushi Akashi

62

Participants
H.E. Mr. Keizo Obuchi

Prime Minister of Japan

Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali

Former Secretary-General of the United
Nations

Mr. Yasushi Akashi

Chairman, Japan Centre for Preventive
Diplomacy

Prof. Jesus P. Estanislao

Professor, University of Asia and thePacific/Vice-Chair, Philippine PECC

H.E. Mr. Rachad Ahmed Saleh Farah

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Djibouti to Japan

Dr. Kennedy Graham

Director, UNU International Leadership
Academy, Jordan

Prof. Ribot Hatano

Professor, Faculty of Law, Gakushuin
University

Prof. Ryokichi Hirono

Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Economics,
Seikei University

Mr. Shahid Husain

Former Senior Vice President, The World
Bank

Prof. Theodor Meron

Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School

Prof. Emma Rothschild

Director, Centre for History and Economics, King’s College, Cambridge

Prof. Hisako Shimura

President, Tsuda College

Mr. Maurice Strong

President, The Earth Council/Special
Advisor to the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations

Mr. Jusuf Wanandi

Former Chairman, Centre for Strategic andInternational Studies

Prof. Dr. Hans van Ginkel

Rector, The United Nations University

Mr. Gaishi Hiraiwa

Chairman, The Japan Institute of International Affairs/Counselor, The Tokyo
Electric Power Co., Inc.

Amb. Hisashi Owada

President, The Japan Institute of International Affairs
63