The first major post-Cold War conflict, the 1991 Gulf war, indicated how much had already changed. Saddam Hussein had enjoyed Western support in Iraq's war against Iran in the 1980s, but was abruptly cast as the 'new Hitler' after his invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. This book is about how the media have interpreted conflict and international intervention in the years after the Cold War. By comparing press coverage of a number of different wars and crises, it seeks to establish which have been the dominant themes in explaining the post-Cold War international order and to discover how far the patterns established prior to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks have subsequently changed. The key concern is with the legitimacy of Western intervention: the aim is to investigate the extent to which Western military action is represented in news reporting as justifiable and necessary. The book presents a study that looks at UK press coverage of six conflicts and the international response to them: two instances of 'humanitarian military intervention' (Somalia and Kosovo); two cases in which the international community was criticised for not intervening (Bosnia and Rwanda); and two post-9/11 interventions (Afghanistan and Iraq). There were a number of overlapping UN and US interventions in Somalia in the early 1990s. Operation Restore Hope was the first major instance of post-Cold War humanitarian military intervention, following the precedent set by the establishment of 'safe havens' for Iraqi Kurds and other minorities at the end of the 1991 Gulf war.
This chapter explores the ways in which identity claims and identity fragmentation have played a significant role in reshaping the global political agenda. The disruptions to the post-Cold War international order and increased insecurity and political unrest have also impacted the way we debate and conceptualise identity. Globalisation and critiques of ‘identity politics’, however, have important effects for understanding the ‘politics of identity’ and the ways in which ideas about identity constitute not only subjects but states and organisations. This chapter examines some of the contours of these debates with a view to refocussing attention on the politics of identity, specifically regarding how identity works, and the effects (and affects) it produces.
International Relations theory and the study of UN peace operations
demand; all of these ensure that the UN peace operations will remain a most fertile territory for theorists and practitioners alike for many years to come.
Hence the connection drawn, often explicitly, in several studies of UN ‘interventionism’ in the 1990s to the larger IR debate about whether or not the post-ColdWarinternationalorder was moving in a solidarist, as distinct from a pluralist, direction. See
’s effective loss of modern
statehood justified far-reaching international intervention. For the
editorialists of both papers, the crisis was clearly understood as a
defining moment in changing the post-ColdWarinternationalorder and
abandoning the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference. It
is notable that these two papers continued to carry explicitly
pro-intervention editorials during the
intervention in Iraq was justified, a strong majority of citizens
claimed it was ‘not justified’ (41 per cent) or
‘largely not justified’ (27 per cent). 19
The war in Iraq, for many Europeans, had little to do
with the ‘war on terrorism’. The EU and the US have
different conceptions of the post-ColdWarinternationalorder. For the
US, the ‘war on terrorism’ is the licence to reassert US
justification for this activism, however, were
necessarily different from the past.
This book is about how the media have interpreted conflict
and international intervention in the years after the Cold War. By
comparing press coverage of a number of different wars and crises, it
seeks to establish which have been the dominant themes in explaining the
post-ColdWarinternationalorder and to discover how far the
others rests on its claim to
offer a more plausible understanding of the nature of law, and the analytical and
normative implications of that understanding.
By US hegemonic liberalism, Habermas is referring to neo-conservative and
liberal ‘empire’ arguments that support US interventionism as the way forward
for a more stable post- ColdWarinternationalorder. Habermas’s critique of
this kind of thinking is that because it effectively reduces law to power it
compromises its own liberal credentials. This not only leads the US to make
serious mistakes about how to fight
after which there has been prolonged discussion about whether Russia
would remain in the Council. 51
Moreover, the two sides have begun to accuse the other of
undermining the post-ColdWarinternationalorder. NATO (and some of its
member states) have asserted that in annexing Crimea and intervening in
eastern Ukraine, Russia is undermining the post-Cold War European
security order. Russia, for its part
, each attempting to
assert its authority in the fluid post-ColdWarinternationalorder.
Similarly, Woodward argues that Western accusations of war crimes were
‘a servant of American policy toward the conflict. By pressing for
war crimes prosecutions at points when the Serbs were suing for peace,
the US prioritised the defence of supposedly universal moral norms over
the resolution of the conflict, even
occupation posed an even bigger
threat to a world economy hugely dependent on the steady flow of oil
and gas from the Middle East. Equally problematic was the standard the
invasion would set. Iraq’s aggression ran afoul of all the moral and legal
principles that were supposed to shape the new, post-ColdWarinternationalorder. And as the sole remaining superpower, the US felt called
upon to tackle these challenges.
To be sure, the US had major geostrategic interests in the region and
had been deeply involved in regional power balancing. To this day, the
US has major