Virtuous imperialism or a shared global objective? - Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic - page 66

on the individual level was assumed to be addressed by and through the state
apparatus, at least for stable and secure states in the North. State-centric secu-
rity definitions are considered sufficient in democratic, economically complex
developed settings because it is assumed that the people can dictate their
needs/securities to government and these will be/are executed at the people's
behest. As a foreign policy tool therefore, human security protected northern
state security while at the same time offering assistance and support to the
'other', at least where northern states chose to identify relevant and worthy
human security threats.
The danger of the 'us-them/we-other' polarization can be further illus-
trated in the tendency towards humanitarian intervention, where the virtuous
imperialism critique can be most strongly felt, and we see this critique often
in debates about 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P), which is a policy plat-
form that has strong roots in human security (ICISS 2001; Bellamy 2009;
Kofi Abiew 2010). A common criticism of human security and its related
concept of R2P is that it can easily lead to humanitarian intervention if the
right 'conditions' apply. In the interest of ceasing conflict, protecting indi-
viduals and establishing security, humanitarian intervention can be a logical
consequence of human security initiatives. As Michael Pugh states, 'rational,
civilized “humanitarian intervention” may be a part of the packaging in which
Western security culture, self-perception and self-interest are wrapped' (Pugh
2002). This view is well exemplified in Canadian policy in the early 2000s:
For Canada, human security is an approach to foreign policy that puts
people - their rights, their safety and their lives - first. Our objective
is to build a world where universal humanitarian standards and the rule
of law protect all people; where those who violate these standards are
held accountable; and where our international institutions are equipped
to defend and enforce those standards. In short, a world where people can
live in freedom from fear.
(Government of Canada 2004)
For some critics of human security, approaches such as those found within
American security policy could logically follow from the previous Canadian
position:
the ultimate goal of U.S. strategy must be to spread democracy everywhere.
The United States must finish the job that Woodrow Wilson started. The
world, quite literally, must be made safe for democracy, even those parts of
it, like the Middle East, that have so far resisted that tendency. Terrorism
- and by implication the authoritarianism that breeds it - must become
as obsolete as slavery, piracy, or genocide: 'behaviour that no respectable
government can condone or support and that all must oppose'.
(Gaddis 2002)