12 April 2011
War and Peace Conferrence
Session 8 - Jesse Fulcher, “Nonviolent Responses and Mormon Attitudes: Reasons and Realities” from LDS WarPeace on Vimeo.
24 February 2011
I am...
- sitting in the loungeroom with max as we both 'work on seperate laptops, and feeling totally New Age about it...
- marking countries that have experienced revolts in 2011 on our big map...
- moaning over the unexpected costs of extra text books for Uni this semester (although secretly i'm happy about all the interesting new reading it means)...
- getting excited to start my final year of undergrad...
- dreading being the only undergrad at the War and Peace conference this March...
- reading speeches and talks given by Gordon B. Hincley that reference war since 2001...
- trying to think of what else I can put in fried rice for dinner...
- planing my segment for a Conflict Resolution Workshop on the 5th...
- wondering when Mum and Dad will get home tonight...
- hoping I can survive another week without a hair cut...
... In no particular order.
19 January 2011
To what extent was the trusteeship system born out of the sincere and honest desire to ‘bring the benefits of civilisation to all those who do not yet enjoy it’?
The debate over whether it was born out of the sincere and honest desire to ‘bring the benefits of civilisation to all those who do not yet enjoy it’, essentially revolves around whether trusteeship is (as stated in the lecture) ‘a real concern for the welfare of independent peoples’ or simply a proclaimed humanitarianism used as a window dressing of self motivated actions.
On one hand the idea of trusteeship holds an idea of a “standard of civilisation” (Paris 2002:650). If there is a belief in a standard of some sort there is the expectation that such a standard must be met. This standard was seen as a European responsibility and was articulated at the Berlin Conference on Africa in 1885 where colonial powers agreed to “bind themselves to watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for the improvement of the conditions of their moral and material well-being” (Paris 2002:651). In this conference it appears that there was a sincere desire. However it is nearly impossible to correctly speculate as to the actual intentions of these European colonial powers.
It is a common idea in contemporary studies that trusteeship is seen as simply a way to disguise self interest and economically motivated actions within developing states. In this sense trusteeship relies on the fundamental idea of inequality. This idea of inequality can lead to a sense of responsibility and the ‘white man’s burden’. However this idea and sense of inequality can also distance the trusteeship state from its ‘dependents’. This can aid in justifying economically self interested motivations and their actions.
To a large degree the debate over the original intentions of trusteeship is problematic as it relies heavily upon a speculation of actual versus proclaimed intentions.
On one hand the idea of trusteeship holds an idea of a “standard of civilisation” (Paris 2002:650). If there is a belief in a standard of some sort there is the expectation that such a standard must be met. This standard was seen as a European responsibility and was articulated at the Berlin Conference on Africa in 1885 where colonial powers agreed to “bind themselves to watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for the improvement of the conditions of their moral and material well-being” (Paris 2002:651). In this conference it appears that there was a sincere desire. However it is nearly impossible to correctly speculate as to the actual intentions of these European colonial powers.
It is a common idea in contemporary studies that trusteeship is seen as simply a way to disguise self interest and economically motivated actions within developing states. In this sense trusteeship relies on the fundamental idea of inequality. This idea of inequality can lead to a sense of responsibility and the ‘white man’s burden’. However this idea and sense of inequality can also distance the trusteeship state from its ‘dependents’. This can aid in justifying economically self interested motivations and their actions.
To a large degree the debate over the original intentions of trusteeship is problematic as it relies heavily upon a speculation of actual versus proclaimed intentions.
18 January 2011
To what extent was the trusteeship system born out of the sincere and honest desire to ‘bring the benefits of civilisation to all those who do not yet enjoy it’?
The debate over whether it was born out of the sincere and honest desire to ‘bring the benefits of civilisation to all those who do not yet enjoy it’, essentially revolves around whether trusteeship is (as stated in the lecture) ‘a real concern for the welfare of independent peoples’ or simply a proclaimed humanitarianism used as a window dressing of self motivated actions.
On one hand the idea of trusteeship holds an idea of a “standard of civilisation” (Paris 2002:650). If there is a belief in a standard of some sort there is the expectation that such a standard must be met. This standard was seen as a European responsibility and was articulated at the Berlin Conference on Africa in 1885 where colonial powers agreed to “bind themselves to watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for the improvement of the conditions of their moral and material well-being” (Paris 2002:651). In this conference it appears that there was a sincere desire. However it is nearly impossible to correctly speculate as to the actual intentions of these European colonial powers.
It is a common idea in contemporary studies that trusteeship is seen as simply a way to disguise self interest and economically motivated actions within developing states. In this sense trusteeship relies on the fundamental idea of inequality. This idea of inequality can lead to a sense of responsibility and the ‘white man’s burden’. However this idea and sense of inequality can also distance the trusteeship state from its ‘dependents’. This can aid in justifying economically self interested motivations and their actions.
To a large degree the debate over the original intentions of trusteeship is problematic as it relies heavily upon a speculation of actual versus proclaimed intentions.
Peacekeeping should be privatised because private companies, military and otherwise, are more likely to foster peace and prosperity. Discuss.
The argument that “peacekeeping should be privatised because private companies, military and otherwise, are more likely to foster peace and prosperity” is true to some extent, however the form and extent of peace and prosperity must be measured against the legitimacy of private companies and the international atmosphere such a dimension of privatisation creates.
Bellamy and Williams in Understanding Peacekeeping illustrate the complexities of a privatised peacekeeping mission through the example of the international problem of Rwandan Refugees fleeing into Zaire after the 1994 genocide. Bellamy and Williams state that a private company offered to provide “training and logistical support” (Bellamy and Williams 2010: 327). However this offer was rejected, on the bases of high costs and principles. These principles on which privatisation were rejected can be assumed to be the weighty issues of sovereignty and representation. These issues are important to the functioning of the international community and should not be dismissed as irrelevant. However it is important to note that the UN did not send a peacekeeping force to Zaire at all. Rather than simply rejecting privatisation in favour of a UN lead force, a complete lack of action became the favourable alternative.
This active decision by the UN placed principles of sovereignty and representation above the possible effectiveness of private companies. However the effectiveness of the private companies should not be ignored simply in favour of abidance of international norms and expectations. It is argued that private companies have a greater interest in quick resolutions and establishment of peace because of their reliance on happy costumers. Singer gives the changing state of globalisation as a reason for a shift to privatisation, thus showing privatisation to be a type of evolution matching the evolution in globalisation (Singer 2001). The privatisation of peacekeeping creates a great inducement for the actors to achieve peace and prosperity.
Although the privatisation of peacekeeping can obtain results quicker than other forms of peacekeeping, it is debateable whether these benefits outweigh the costs to the public community, a loss in sovereignty and representation and a change in international norms.
To what extent is Duffield’s “the changing aid paradigm” a useful concept?
The underlying concept of this “changing aid paradigm” is the current state of development, in particular, the polarisation of development. This can be seen in two ways, firstly the wealth gap between the richest and poorest areas of the world. Secondly Duffield states there are, “two contradictory developments: complex forms of economic and political integration within the main bloc areas, as opposed to ethnocentric or fundamentalist assertion or breakdown outside” (Duffield 1997: 529). This reflects the differing states of development throughout the world, particularly in relation to regionalisation.
The importance of this concept is shown by Duffield throughout his article, in particular the effects of this changing paradigm on activities of NGOs. A current example of this is the case of refugees. Duffield explains that there is a tendency to view cases of refugees from the perspective of receiving states, rather than the states from which refugees come. However as part of this changing paradigm there has been a shift of focus. The focus has been on aiding the conflict states in securing a safe environment for their citizens (Duffield 1997:530). This new focus can be seen as a result in a shift towards an understanding of different regions developing at a different pace.
It is in cases such as this that Duffield’s changing aid paradigm become useful as it places the new response to development situations within a theoretical framework which can better articulate such a change.
What were the problems caused by the mandate to U.N. peacekeepers in Bosnia?
The differences between the mandate of U.N. peacekeepers in Bosnia and the achievable actions of the peacekeepers caused a series of problems for the peacekeepers of UNPROFOR II.
UNSCR770 authorised the use of force under Chapter VII (of the UN charter), only for the distribution of humanitarian aid. This caused a series of problems. Firstly, this was problematic because it did not match the RoE of the contributing states in relation to the use of force. As explained in previous lectures, the RoE of peacekeepers are determined by the individual states contributing peacekeepers to the mission. This became problematic for UNPROFOR, as the RoE determined by these states further restricted peacekeepers to a state of minimum use of force only in self defence. This created problems for the enforcement of the UN’s humanitarian mandate. Another problem caused by this narrow mandate was the inability of peacekeepers to address the problems of ethnic cleansing that were growing. Peacekeepers were able to save thounsands of Bosnians from starvation but were unable to address the ethnic cleansing that was occurring because of the restrictions to their mandate.
It should be understood that the mandate did change to include the protection of civilians. In June 1993 the Mandate was extended under UNSCR836, to include the protection the already established safe zones. This resolution authorized (in addition to UNSCR770) the use of force in reply to attacks on safe areas and humanitarian convoys etc. However this was problematic as the peacekeepers in Bosnia did not have the military means to undertake such actions.
Although the mandate to UN peacekeepers on Bosnia did change and become broader, especially in relation to the use of force, problems remained for the UN peacekeepers in Bosnia. A combination of restricting RoE and a lack of physical ability meant that the mandates given by the UN became a problem and a disproportionate burden for the peacekeepers in Bosnia.
UNSCR770 authorised the use of force under Chapter VII (of the UN charter), only for the distribution of humanitarian aid. This caused a series of problems. Firstly, this was problematic because it did not match the RoE of the contributing states in relation to the use of force. As explained in previous lectures, the RoE of peacekeepers are determined by the individual states contributing peacekeepers to the mission. This became problematic for UNPROFOR, as the RoE determined by these states further restricted peacekeepers to a state of minimum use of force only in self defence. This created problems for the enforcement of the UN’s humanitarian mandate. Another problem caused by this narrow mandate was the inability of peacekeepers to address the problems of ethnic cleansing that were growing. Peacekeepers were able to save thounsands of Bosnians from starvation but were unable to address the ethnic cleansing that was occurring because of the restrictions to their mandate.
It should be understood that the mandate did change to include the protection of civilians. In June 1993 the Mandate was extended under UNSCR836, to include the protection the already established safe zones. This resolution authorized (in addition to UNSCR770) the use of force in reply to attacks on safe areas and humanitarian convoys etc. However this was problematic as the peacekeepers in Bosnia did not have the military means to undertake such actions.
Although the mandate to UN peacekeepers on Bosnia did change and become broader, especially in relation to the use of force, problems remained for the UN peacekeepers in Bosnia. A combination of restricting RoE and a lack of physical ability meant that the mandates given by the UN became a problem and a disproportionate burden for the peacekeepers in Bosnia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
