The Militarisation of COVID-19: The Armed Forces and Human Rights

“The Army will heal the people”, declared AMLO in April 2020 (Lopez Obrador cited by Herrera, 2020), when referring to the pivotal role the army will play in addressing the COVID-19 caused pandemic. This statement is illustrative of the global changes which have in recent years drastically impacted the security field and its agencies. The latter typically would not be directly involved in health issues. Regardless, globalisation processes have highlighted the deepening internal-external nexus and given new rise to new interactions between the state and external security forces. In this world, as the threats figuring in the international arena become increasingly transnational and ambiguous in nature (Brandão, 2015), a natural health threat such as COVID-19 overlaps with its own framing as a security threat. 

Dominguez, J., P. (2017) Source

However, until fairly recently, the ruling Real Politik paradigm of the Cold War would not have included a pandemic when considering security studies (Eriksson e Rhinard, 2009). Recognising the virus as a security threat sets new securitary dynamics into play. In several countries, regardless of the current political regime, these external security agencies, namely the army, have been mobilised and have been contributing to safeguarding public health by building medical tents and hospitals (Graham, 2020). One could interpret the attribution of this responsibility as an illustration of the internal/external security nexus, which highlights the integrated nature of a previous binary understanding (Bigo, 2000). Conversely, other occasions have witnessed armed forces tagging along with police agencies in enforcing brutal measures and crushing human rights (de Waal, 2020).

The shifting role of traditionally external security agencies, traditionally tasked with addressing external defence concerns is mirrored by this point and raises new questions. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the profound engagement of military agencies in the response, it is productive to weigh the responsibilities imposed on security agencies by state actors, continuously bearing in mind that security is a “powerful political tool in claiming attention for priority items in the competition for government attention” (Buzan, 1991 p. 370). As such we will explore of the militarisation of the pandemic through an analysis of the repercussions of the parts external security forces are currently playing. To this end, it will be fruitful to first map out the fundamental concepts in security studies which may help unpack the dynamics at hand. Lastly, we will focus on the concrete effects of the involvement of the military in the pandemic response, from positive results, to negative ones. Considering the diverse results in the employment of the armed forces to the service of public health, we will once again come back to a derivative meaning of security.

The Militarisation of COVID-19

For the past decades, external security agencies have participated in supporting responses to large scale outbreaks or natural disasters (Godefroy, 2020). In reality, the new reality linked to the 9/11 attacks imposes a more integrated understanding of security. These attributions also come to emphasise the concept of Human Security (CIVIC, 2020). Ultimately, this vision the individual as the referent security object, against all alternatives, corresponding to an extension of the meaning of security (Newman, 2010; Rothschild, 1995). This notion is also linked to a more connected world, where ultimately the notions of security and defence are blurred. 

Accordingly, in the midst of the pandemic and all its consequences, the army is suited to address the pressing need to support the state apparatus in various ways (Branco, 2020). In parallel, the threat posed by the virus has been painted time and time again as if a war enemy, which directly legitimises the involvement of armed forces for the protection of the State, even if within the domestic territory. On the other hand, the militarisation of the pandemic raises questions on the civil-military relationships. The deepening of the relationship between the government and the armed forces is worth highlighting, and especially so when memories are fresh of brutal violent State policies acted on by the armed forces (Noko, 2020). 

Moreover, the active framing of the pandemic as pertaining to the military universe is not without consequences, starting with the role played by security agencies and its impact on societies. In reality, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet points out:

“We have seen many States adopt justifiable, reasonable and time-limited measures. But there have also been deeply worrying cases where Governments appear to be using COVID-19 as a cover for human rights violations, further restricting fundamental freedoms and civic space, and undermining the rule of law.”

Whereas realist authors criticise the expansion of the security concept and privilege the material dimensions of responses to strictly military threats in the definition (Ceyhan, 1998; Deudney & Ayoob apud McSweeney, 2004; Walt, 1991), a critical point of view would point to the intrinsic link between politics and security (Williams, 2008). In these terms, security becomes a much more complex issue, considering that its meaning derives directly from the political understanding of the one interpreting or producing it (Krause, 1998; Bigo, 2000; McSweeney, 2004). 

Accordingly, this line of thinking would also privilege a constructive lens when analysing the threats included in the security agenda (Haftendorn, 1991) through processes of naming and framing, contradicting the inherent threatening character of the phenomenon in question (Bigo, 2000; Eriksson & Rhinard, 2009). As Nunes (2008 p. 4) put it, we are now looking at the “relations of mutual dependence between the security representations, the normative choices and the way security concerns and practices play out in the social and political world” (“relação de dependência mútua entre as representações da segurança, as escolhas normativas e a forma como preocupações de segurança e práticas se desenrolam no mundo social e político”). 

As previously noted, this realisation accompanies the expansion of the range of topics susceptible of being considered security (Fierke, 2007; Schlag, Junk & Daase, 2016), as the individual therefore becomes the central referent object when thinking about security (UNDP, 1994; Commission on Global Governance, 1995; Rothschild, 1995). Through the lens of Human security, the concept of security may reach a large variety of topics, such as positive peace, social and economic justice, climate change and public health (Ullman, 1983; Buzan, 1991; Booth, 1991). Accordingly, military operations tied to a traditionally narrower, state-centric understanding of security become linked to a broader security agenda (Godefroy, 2020).

As ISSAT (2020) points out, the COVID 19 pandemic reinforces Human Security’s place at the “forefront of the world’s concerns”. Health issues are therefore listed on the security agenda as a threat, opening the way for it to be met as so, by mobilising security agencies. This point is perfectly mirrored in the current COVID-19 response, which has generally become a top security priority for States at this point. After having reflected on the evolution of security definitions in the context of a globalised world, it is also worth diving into the responses addressed to securitised phenomena.

Navarro, W. (2019). Source

To this end, we will focus on the roles played by the state security agencies through which the legitimate monopoly of violence is operationalised. This strategy will allow for a deeper debate on the political priorities which drive and frame security issues, and will contribute to our understanding of the repercussions of the involvement of the security agencies in responding to a public health issue, framed as pertaining to the security field. 

External Security Forces Responses 

We have briefly explored the evolution of the security arena towards a much more complex configuration in recent decades. A growing number of actors, an array of ambiguous and shifting threats and a wider configuration of conflicts compose a difficult environment. In this same line, security agencies also suffer unorthodox shifts (Bigo, 2000; Brandão, 2015; Gebhard & Norheim-Martinsen, 2011). A clear division of security spheres (internal/external) entails a sharp division of labour between security bodies (Fierke, 2007). Nowadays, however, we witness the involvement of the military in domestic conflicts in ways alike to warfare, deployed by external security agencies who address the internalisation of typically external phenomena. On the other hand, the internationalisation of domestic security priorities leads to a large array of civilian external missions, where police and domestic intelligence and border services play a fundamental key (Bigo, 2000; Brandão, 2015).

In the context of the internal/external security nexus, which points to the increasing indissociability between these two fields, a definition of internal security as the “protection of national territory against internal threats by using traditional means” (Bigo, 2000 p. 322) is no longer effective. In consequence, innovative answers to new and ambiguous threats leads to the internalisation of transnational phenomena, exemplified by the current pandemic. As previously noted, external security forces are a useful resource to diminish the virus’ terrible impact.

Africom (2020). Source

On the other hand, critical scholars question the legitimacy and coherence of deploying security measures to non-traditional security phenomena (Booth, 2007). The first obvious argument is that it is not possible to tackle the virus through pure military force (McSweeney, 2004). On the other hand, there are also inherent risks deriving from securitising and subsequently militarising civilian topics (Dalby apud McSweeney, 2004; Fierke, 2007). The active portrayal of a certain issue, such as COVID-19, as an active urgent matter in the security agenda leads to calls for “urgent”, “abnormal” actions. Such urgent actions go through a process of normalisation, thus opening the way for potential consecutive breaches of fundamental human rights standards. 

Media outlets have documented cases of security agencies brutality against civilians. This dynamic also bring to life the indissociable relationship between security and politics, as states are now taking advantage of the framing of public health issues as a security crisis to apply traditional military solutions. Armed forces take on supporting roles not only for the health bodies directly targeting the pandemic, but also to internal security agencies who currently carry repressive policies designed to fit authoritarian and violent political objectives. Considering the derivative nature of security, the inherently dependence of security agencies, and their constructed role according to the political views of the actors involved, it is important to stress once more that external security forces may be a valuable part in the strategy for tackling the pandemic. Indian external security agencies, for example, have also been mobilised to building health care facilities, such as hospitals in the region of Kashmir and Jamil (PTI, 2020). 

Conversely, they may also become the state’s armed wing in enforcing brutal domestic measures. On the other side of the spectrum, Indian armed forces took the pandemic to double down on the pre-existent crushing security measures (Mir, 2020). Tensions have been aggravated in the region during April 2020, as attacks took place and Indian armed forces set up artillery weapons in Kashmiri villages. 5 Rwandan soldiers have been arrested after being accused of brutalising, raping and killing civilians during the country’s lockdown. South African civil society has already risen up to condemn the army, along with the police, for using “violence, excessive force, torture and assault” when enforcing lockdown measures. Peru, on the other hand, has recently passed a law which has been described by Amnesty International Americas Director as “sending a message of impunity for abuses committed by security forces”.

Ministerio de la Defensa de Perú (2018). Source

In parallel, external security forces such as the army may offer important resources, organisational and logistical capabilities, experience and knowledge on crisis management and high-quality medical facilities (ISSAT, 2020; WOLA, 2020). According to ongoing experiences, the militarisation of the pandemic in the simple sense of involving armed forces may be a productive strategy. That is, if these organs who in principle act beyond the State’s territorial boundaries act under the ultimate control of civilian bodies, and provided they respect principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and precaution (OHCHR, 2020). Many international actors have thus turned to the military to provide critical resources to a militarised pandemic response (Mani, 2020; EUROMIL, 2020).

This point illustrates the inherently derivative nature of security in that it directly responds to dominant political interests. Moreover, it comes to show that this no longer binary categorisation of security spheres and agencies may ultimately call into play emergency measures and responses. In turn, these measures are highly framed by the securitisation of the pandemic and are acted upon by security forces, distorting checks and balances and harming human rights.

References

Aijazi, O. (2020, May 7). India uses coronavirus pandemic to exploit human rights in Kashmir. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/india-uses-coronavirus-pandemic-to-exploit-human-rights-in-kashmir-137682

Armed forces and COVID-19. (2020). Retrieved from European Organisation of Military Associations and Trade Unions [EUROMIL]: http://euromil.org/armed-forces-and-covid-19/

Bigo, D. (2000). When Two Become One: Internal and External Securitisations in Europe. In M. Kelstrup, & M. Williams (Eds.), International Relations Theory and The Politics of European Integration. Power, Security and Community. Routledge. 

Booth, K. (1991). Security and Emancipation. Review of International Studies, 17(4), 313-326 

Booth, K. (2007). Theory of World Security. Leiden: Cambridge University Press.

Brandão, A., P. (2015). O nexo interno-externo na narrativa securitária da União Europeia. JANUS-NET e-Journal of International Relations 6(1). 

Branco, C. (2020, May 1). How Armed Forces Help Fight COVID-19. Valdai.

Buzan, B. (1991). People, states, and fear: an agenda for international security studies in the post-Cold War era. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books. 

Ceyhan, A. (1998). Analyser la sécurité : Dillon, Waever, Williams et les autres. Cultures & conflits, (31–32). 

CIVIC (2020, March 30). Center for Civilians in Conflict. Retrieved from As COVID-19 Continues to Claim Civilian Lives Around the Globe, CIVIC Calls on Governments to Demonstrate Restraint in Enforcing Response Measures: https://civiliansinconflict.org/publications/testimony/covid-19-enforcing-response-measures/

Commission on Global Governance. (1995). Our global neighborhood: The report of the Commission on Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

de Waal, A. (2020). Coronavirus: Why lockdowns may not be the answer in Africa. BBC.

Eriksson, J., & Rhinard, M. (2009). The Internal—External Security Nexus: Notes on an Emerging Research Agenda. Cooperation and Conflict, 44(3), 243–267.   

Fierke, K. M. (2007). Critical approaches to international security. Camridge: Polity. 

Gebhard, C., & Norheim-Martinsen, P., M., (2011). Making sense of EU comprehensive security towards conceptual and analytical clarity. European Security, 20(2), 221-241. 

Godefroy, B. (2020, April 1). Linking Human Security and Health Security in the Age of COVID-19. Retrieved from Center for Civilians in Conflict: https://civiliansinconflict.org/blog/linking-human-security-and-health-security/

Graham, E. (2020, April 8). The armed forces and COVID-19. International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Haftendorn, H. (1991). The Security Puzzle: Theory-Building and Discipline-Building in International Security. International Studies Quarterly, 35(1), 3.  

Herrera, R. (2020). Ejército va a curar al pueblo.- AMLO. El Norte.

International Security Centre Advisory Team (ISSAT). (2020). Security and Justice Reform Response to Covid-19 Crisis. Retrieved from DCAF: https://issat.dcaf.ch/ara/Learn/SSR-in-Practice/Thematics-in-Practice/Security-and-Justice-Reform-Response-to-Covid-19-Crisis

Kaledzi, I. (2020, April 4). Rwandan soldiers arrested for rape, brutalities during lockdown. Africa Feeds. Retrieved from Africa Feeds: http://www.namnewsnetwork Kaledzi.org/?p=68528

Krause, K. (1998). Critical Theory and Security Studies: The Research Programme of `Critical Security Studies’. Cooperation and Conflict, 33(3), 298–333.  

Mani, K. (2020, April 21). https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/28700/from-peru-to-venezuela-military-forces-take-the-lead-in-coronavirus-responses. World Politics Review. Retrieved from ‘The Soldier Is Here to Defend You.’ Latin America’s Militarized Response to COVID-19: https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/28700/from-peru-to-venezuela-military-forces-take-the-lead-in-coronavirus-responses

McSweeney, B. (2004). Security, identity, and interests: a sociology of international relations. Cambridge [England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Mir, T. (2020). India is using the pandemic to intensify its cracdown in Kashmir. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/30/india-is-using-pandemic-intensify-its-crackdown-kashmir/

Newman, E. (2010). Critical human security studies. Review of International Studies, 36(1), 77-94 

Noko, K. (2020, april 2). The problem with army enforced lockdowns in the time of COVID-19. Al Jazeera.

Nunes, J., R. (2008), Politics, Security, Critical Theory: A Contribution to Current Debates on Security, University of Wales, Aberystwyth. 

PTI. (2020). Army Setting up Two Covid-19 Hospitals in Jammu & Kashmir. News 18 India.

Rickard, C. (2020, April 1). Human Rights fights back as seccurity forces take abusive action under cover of COVID-19 regulation. Retrieved from African Lii: https://africanlii.org/article/20200401/human-rights-fightback-security-forces-take-abusive-action-under-cover-covid-19

Rothschild, E. (1995). What Is Security? Daedalus, 124(3), 53-98.  

Rwanda: Lockdown Arrests, Abuses Surge. (2020, April 24). Retrieved from Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/24/rwanda-lockdown-arrests-abuses-surge

Schlag, G., Junk, J., & Daase, C. (Eds.). (2016). Transformations of security studies: dialogues, diversity and discipline. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 

Tucker, D., & Niezen, C. (2020, March 30). Peru: State must immediately repeal law that sends a wrong message of impunity for possible police abuses amidst the COVID-19 emergency. Retrieved from Amnisty International: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/03/peru-debe-derogar-ley-impunidad-abusos-policiales-emergencia-covid19/

Ullman, R. H. (1983). Redefining Security. International Security, 8(1), 129. 

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1994). Rapport mondial sur le développement humain 1994. Paris: Economica. 

United Nations Office of the High Commissionar for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2020, April 27). Retrieved from COVID-19: Exceptional measures should not be cover for human rights abuses and violations: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25828&LangID=E

 Williams, P. (Ed.). (2008). Security studies: an introduction. London ; New York: Routledge. 

Wola Staff. (2020, April 13). Monitoring Anti-Democratic Trends and Human Rights Abuses in the Age of COVID-19. Retrieved from WOLA: https://www.wola.org/analysis/anti-democratic-trends-human-rights-abuses-c