Helsinki Process and Human Security Network in Dialogue

“What is the gap to be filled? Implementation!” argued former President of Ireland Mary Robinson in a joint session of Helsinki Process and Human Security Network, organised at the invitation of the Canadian Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Allan Rock. The aim of the event was to discuss the common elements of agenda of Human Security Network and the Helsinki Process. Robinson argued that new energy and ability to implement would be brought to the international community if governmental and inter-governmental actors would work strategically with the other stakeholders, namely the civil society networks and the business community.

Helsinki Process Track report “Empowering People at Risk: Human Security Priorities for the 21st century” was introduced by the convenor of the Track, Fen Hampson. The ambassadors of the countries involved in the Human Security Network discussed the policy priorities emphasised by the report. It was argued, that human security is not just a concept but primarily a programme for policy action. Human security approach brings the focus to the implementation.

The recent campaigns on landmines, International Criminal Court and small arms show, agreed many, that there is international momentum for human security issues. In particular, the momentum for an international treaty on small arms was highlighted. Co-Chair of the Helsinki Process, Minister Erkki Tuomioja, emphasised the phenomena of a paradigm shift in international relations. Both Porto Alegre and Davos voice similar concerns. Helsinki Process is contributing to the dialogue between the governmental, non-governmental and business community stakeholders to advance global agenda.

It was natural that the work of the Human Security Network and the Helsinki Process were discussed in relation to the preparations for the major event and the UN reform. Some suggested that the process leading to the proposed Peace Building Commission could benefit from a multistakeholder process built around it. Additionally it was proposed, that in further debate on the “responsibility to protect”, a concept launched by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, more work should be done on the diplomatic side of it. The prevention and diplomatic intervention should be seen as obligatory. In the end of the meeting, it was discussed, that co-operation between the two initiatives should continue.