Human Security Agenda: East Timor

The “human security agenda” is a foreign policy which focuses on the safety of ordinary people whose security is threatened, rather than the security of the state, as policy was during the Cold War period. For 25 years East Timor had been under Indonesian rule until, in 1999, the referendum vote for political autonomy in East Timor (78.5% wished to separate) was followed by a violent outbreak by anti-independence militia groups. While countries such as Australia, Britain and New Zealand that embraced the human security agenda were quick to send troops, Canada hesitated. Their response was “slow cautious, and minimalist” despite Axworthy’s (Canadian foreign minister) enthusiasm towards the policy. Chretien however, did not share this enthusiasm. Sending troops to East Timor was not in the interest of Canada as anything more than a symbol, and limited its involvement to diplomacy. In contrast, Australia had mobilized troops in march 1999 for possible action, followed by Britain and New Zealand all committing 2000-4000 troops each. Canada waited to hear from the UN before making any move. On the same day that Habibie (held office in East Timor at the time) asked for UN peacekeeping to intervene, Chretien promised 200 troops, in total about 600Canadian Forces personnel to be assigned to the East Timor mission. Canadian troops only got to East Timor by the end of October that year, two months after others had been there. Canada’s Labour Force also refused to handle products from Indonesia, but Canada’s contribution was very small, and not willing to subject their own troops to hostile fire. The “human security agenda” does not provide a viable foundation for Canadian foreign policy because, although in theory protecting those who are threatened sounds great, in practice it involves risking the safety of a states own people, and if it is not in their interest to aid others, they would rather protect their own. As Roland Paris stated, the human security agenda is an “honorable” goal, but involves far too great a commitment and not very useful when making a foreign policy.

Sources:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~rgwhitma/classweb2/history%20and%20conflict.htm

T.S. Hataley and Kim Richard Nossal (Queen’s University), “The Limits of the Human Security Agenda: The Case of Canada’s Response to the Timor Crisis”