Scholars and practitioners alike have identified interventions on behalf of Armenians as watersheds in the history of humanitarianism. This volume reassesses these claims, critically examining a range of interventions by governments, international and diasporic organisations and individuals that aimed to bring ‘aid to Armenia’. Drawing on perspectives from a range of disciplines, the chapters trace the history of these interventions from the 1890s to the present, paying particular attention to the aftermaths of the Genocide and the upheavals of the post-Soviet period. Geographically, they connect diverse spaces, including the Caucasus, Russia and the Middle East, Europe, North America and South America, and Australia, revealing shifting transnational networks of aid and intervention. These chapters are followed by reflections by leading scholars in the fields of refugee history and Armenian history, Professor Peter Gatrell and Professor Ronald Grigor Suny, respectively.
institutions, or re-engineering old ones, to achieve long-term social,
political and economic transformation. Given that internationalorganisations and developed country governments can be expected to
continue to launch efforts to transform post-conflict territories, or
indeed any country classified as ‘underdeveloped’, what
does the experience in Kosovo tell us about the enterprise? This account
Official reports on the UN Mission
in Kosovo generally refer to UNMIK as the only significant actor in the
territory during its post-conflict reconstruction. In the field of
public administration development, however, several large and
influential internationalorganisations and bilateral donors in addition
to the UN played leading roles. Although the majority of these actors
study comes with a particular set of concerns that I have been mindful of in this research. 15 At the same time, I would not wish to reduce or objectify the lived human experience that lies at the heart of this study, so it is a question of balance and considered choices. I have drawn from personal testimonies in secondary sources, and from primary sources involved in working with refugees and arrivals.
Much of the history of humanitarianism research focuses on the narratives and policies of internationalorganisations and their wider regimes. This universalising
dimensions that compose EU foreign policy, as this might influence the
outcome of any assessment (Jørgensen, 1998 :
96). Assessments of EU foreign policy have in fact varied depending on
the particular conceptualisation of the EU and its foreign policy
adopted by the observer (as a state-like entity, an internationalorganisation or sui generis ), the components of the external
action considered (CFSP
in the (less affected) west of the city.
Administration by a neutral internationalorganisation
was proposed as an interim solution to the problem of lack of agreement
on common institutions after the ceasefire, as well as to help with the
reconstruction of the city. The idea of supporting the administration of
Mostar was originally launched in October 1993 in the context of the
negotiations of the
The reconstruction of Kosovo after 1999 was one of the largest and most ambitious international interventions in a post conflict country. Kosovo was seen by many international actors as a ‘green fields’ site on which to construct the government institutions and practices they considered necessary for future peace and prosperity. For a while Kosovo was close to being a laboratory for the practice of institution building and capacity development. This book looks beyond the apparently united and generally self congratulatory statements of international organisations and donors to examine what actually happened when they tried to work together in Kosovo to construct a new public administration. It considers the interests and motivations and the strengths and weaknesses of each of the major players and how these affected what they did, how they did it, and how successful they were in achieving their goals. Although in general the international exercise in Kosovo can be seen as a success, the results have been uneven. Some public administration institutions perform well while others face ongoing challenges. The book argues that to a significant extent the current day performance of the Kosovo government can be traced to the steps taken, or sometimes not taken, by various international actors in the early years of the international intervention.
Throughout the 1990s, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) was forced to face the challenges posed by the genocide of Rwandan Tutsis and a succession of major outbreaks of political violence in Rwanda and its neighbouring countries. Humanitarian workers were confronted with the execution of close to one million people, tens of thousands of casualties pouring into health centres, the flight of millions of others who had sought refuge in camps and a series of deadly epidemics. Where and in what circumstances were the MSF teams deployed? What medical and non-medical assistance were they able to deliver? Drawing on various hitherto unpublished private and public archives, this book recounts the experiences of the MSF teams working in the field. It also describes the tensions (and cooperation) between international humanitarian agencies, the crucial negotiations conducted at local, national and international level and the media campaigns. The messages communicated to the public by MSF’s teams bear witness to diverse practical, ethical and political considerations. How to react when humanitarian workers are first-hand witnesses to mass crimes? How to avoid becoming accomplices to criminal stratagems? How to deliver effective aid in situations of extreme violence? This book is intended for humanitarian aid practitioners, students, journalists and researchers with an interest in genocide and humanitarian studies and the political sociology of international organisations.
This chapter investigates the standardisation and legitimisation of countering extremism at an international level. Based on Critical Discourse Analysis, this work examines the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC’s) discourse on terrorism, specifically in its relation to extremism. Here, a significant shift took place and the concept of extremism became central to the UNSC’s counter-terrorism activity. It is therefore argued in this work that the concept has problematically been assigned discursively a wide range of meanings. These encompass phenomena that go from physical violence to behaviours and even narratives and ideas. The UNSC has reflected but also mutually constituted this shift in the global discourse on terrorism, broadening and legitimising states’, and its own, exceptional powers. Moreover, in virtue of its legal and political powers, the UNSC has not only produced a discourse on this menace but has also established international legal norms and bodies and enforced them on states of the international community. Describing and discussing these processes, the present chapter thus analyses what is better conceptualised as a Foucauldian dispositif of extremism. Through this, it will be argued, the international organisation enforced a global, standardised governmentality which encompassed the public and political realm but also the private and domestic sphere.
Never before had MSF teams been the direct witnesses of genocide and repeated mass violence on such a huge scale. The method of observation adopted for this book was, as matter of priority, to focus on the work of field teams and reconstruct their perceptions, decisions and actions. The following sources were used: numerous reports submitted to MSF head offices by MSF teams; witness statements published by the Rwandans; public documents from international organisations and research studies based on field surveys. The history of Rwanda is also told through a series of events which shed light on the political dynamics of the 1990s. Lastly, a summary of MSF’s activities in the Great Lakes region since 1980 is also included. Three very specific questions about Rwanda and the Great Lakes region during the period 1990 to 1997 are formulated: Where were MSF’s teams working? What work were they involved in? Which of the obstacles they encountered became the subject of debate, and which of these went on to be made public?