CIAO DATE: 09/03

International Affairs

May 2003

• Why protect civilians? Innocence, immunity and enmity in war  by Slim, H.

  The issue of civilians in war has risen to new heights in international political consciousness in recent years. The principle of civilian protection has been at once the justification for war and the main guide to the conduct of such wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan ands most recently in Iraq. The so-called new wars of the 1990s have seen a consistent pattern of massive civilian atrocity and the new policies of massive global terrorism are similarly intent on civilian attack. It remains to be seen how well those pursuing the war against terror will hold to the civilian ethic. In truth, the idea of the civilian is a deeply contested one and has more usually been rejected than embraced by those who pursue war, political violence and terror. The simple power of the idea itself and the humanitarian sentiment that accompanies it to produce the notion of ‘innocent civilians’ cannot be relied upon to make a reality of civilian protection. Instead, the case for civilian identity and civilian protection must be determinedly and continuously argued in war. This means recognizing the main sources of political, passionate and practical objection to the civilian idea and taking them on one by one as they arise. Repeatedly arguing the case for civilian rights must be at the very heart of political, military, humanitarian and religious endeavour. Arguments of prudence and self-interest must be made alongside much deeper and more difficult moral arguments about people's innocence, their identity and their relationship to war. Holding fast to the civilian ethic in the face of terror and war requires significant moral argument and moral leadership from politicians, military commanders and ordinary people alike.

• George W. Bush, Idealist  by Mazarr, M.J.

  There is much anger and confused grumbling these days outside the United States—and in Europe in particular—about the character of the Bush administration's foreign policy. Perceived American unilateralism is raising hackles and questions. This article contends that current trends in US foreign policy can be better understood by realizing that many senior Bush administration officials are not ‘realists’, at least as that philosophy of world politics is classically understood. Many of the resulting views—that, for example, threats to security often originate in ideology rather than material strength—are demonstrably correct and even hopeful in their faith in long-term historical trends. But there may be no getting around the essential contradictions required of US foreign policy in an age when America is the leading power, when a new global community of trading democracies is emerging, and yet when a number of distinctly old-style threats to the peace remain very much in evidence. Washington could do more to smooth the edges of those contradictions in order to point up the idealism and hopefulness of US policy.

• Commentary: Martians and Venutians in the new world order  by Cox, M.

  One of the most significant results of 9/11 has been to provoke the most serious crisis in the transatlantic relationship—the subject of Robert Kagan's influential and provocative treatise. Lauded by some as one of the more important contributions to the study of world politics in recent years and attacked by others as possibly the most misguided analysis of European—American relations ever, Kagan sets forth in stark, realist terms why the rift is serious, long-term and unlikely to be overcome by neat diplomatic footwork. However, as this commentary seeks to show, if Kagan is right there is little chance of constructing anything like a ‘new world order’. Moreover, if the clash continues, far from enhancing American power in the world, it is more likely to weaken it.

• A common European foreign policy after Iraq?  by Crowe, B.

  Taking as read the wide range of other instruments that the EU has for international influence (enlargement, aid, trade, association and other arrangements, etc.), the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), under pressure from the Kosovo conflict, has been shaped by two important decisions in 1999: the creation of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) to give the EU a military capability when NATO as a whole is not engaged, and the appointment as the new High Representative for the CFSP of a high-profile international statesman rather than a senior civil servant.

  A major European effort will still be needed if Europe is to be effective militarily, whether in the EU/ESDP or NATO framework. The management of the CFSP has been held back by the doctrine of the equality of all member states regardless of their actual contribution. This in turn leads to a disconnect between theory (policy run by committee in Brussels) and practice (policy run by the High Representative working with particular member states and other actors, notably the US). It has been difficult for Javier Solana to develop the authority to do this, not in competition with the Commission as so widely and mistakenly believed, as with member states themselves, and particularly successive rotating presidencies. It is important that misdiagnosis does not lead to politically correct solutions that end up with the cure worse than the disease. Ways need to be found to assure to the High Representative the authority to work with third countries and with the member states making the real contribution, while retaining the support of all. Then, with its own military capability, the EU can have a CFSP that is the highest common factor rather than the lowest common denominator, with member states ready to attach enough priority to the need for common policies to give Europeans a strong influence in the big foreign policy issues of the day.

• Confusion at home, Confusion abroad: Turkey between Copenhagen   by Robins, P.

  In November 2002 it looked as though Turkey was about to make a fresh start. A new post-Islamist political force, the AKP, had swept to power in national elections. Lobbying was in full swing for the EU to name a date for the commencement of accession negotiations. Ankara was talking to Washington about how Turkey could best help the US in the event of war with Iraq, and the Americans were fully prepared to reciprocate. There was even hope that the Cyprus problem might be solved. Some five months later those hopes are smouldering wreckage. Cyprus, and indeed the Kurdish issues, have returned to haunt EU—Turkish relations. The AKP is divided and discredited. The much-vaunted relationship between Turkey and the US, apparently built on the rock of geo-strategic relations, has dissolved into bitter recrimination. This article explores how and why the auspicious outlook for Turkey five months ago has dissolved so quickly and so thoroughly. It will be argued that the shortcomings of leadership, domestic ideological competition and the difficulty of managing a relentless and complex foreign policy agenda have all played their part. Turkey has been left with an economy on the edge of collapse, war on its borders, turmoil in its traditional friendships, a new crisis of domestic governance and the perception of rising existential threats. In view of these combustible components, there is little doubt that worrying about Turkey will continue to exercise the Atlantic community over the years ahead.

• Transitional justice and human rights in Afghanistan  by Rubin, B.R.

  Like other societies emerging from protracted conflict, Afghanistan confronts a legacy of past crimes and violence. Communist rulers, Soviet occupiers, rural resistance fighters, Islamist parties, the Taleban movement, Pakistani volunteers, al-Qaeda members, power-seeking warlords, and the anti-Taliban coalition all contributed more or less to the litany of abuses since 1978. Almost no one in the society has been untouched, and almost no one with any power has clean hands. For these very reasons, caution and care are necessary. Demobilizing and reintegrating tens of thousands of irregular militia, as well as creating new security forces are the necessary conditions for the rest of the peace-building agenda, and, as shown by the author's first-hand experience in the Bonn negotiations over the post-Taleban succession, raising the issue of past crimes prematurely may lead fighters to revert to previous modes of behaviour. He argues for a careful start that emphasizes documenting the scale of the abuses with an emphasis on the suffering of the victims rather than the guilt of the perpetrators, in order gradually to support an Afghan debate on how to reconcile the society with its history.

• The idea of global civil society  by Kaldor, M.

  The main argument of this article is that the idea of global civil society challenges the concept of international relations. It traces the evolution of the idea of society and argues that civil society has always meant a rule-governed society where rules were based on some form of social contract among citizens. Historically, civil society was always territorially tied and contrasted with international relations between states. What changed in the 1980s and 1990s was the global dimension of civil society—a social contract is being negotiated across borders establishing a set of global rules involving states as well as international institutions. The article ends by asking whether September 11 and the war in Iraq mark a reversion to international relations.

• The missing link: the need for comprehensive engagement in regions of refugee origin  by Loescher, G.; Milner, J..

  Asylum policies in Britain and in the countries of its EU partners are failing to cope with the demands made upon them. With migration pressures mounting and opportunities for legal immigration to many EU states restricted, larger numbers of potential migrants are turning to alternative means of entry and access, namely irregular migration and asylum channels. The responses of states to these challenges have been to adopt more restrictive policies and practices that have considerably changed the balance between immigration control and refugee protection. While states have the right to control entry and enforce their borders, the restrictive measures that have come to dominate policy-making and recent immigration enforcement initiatives in Britain and its European partners do not sufficiently discriminate between asylum seekers and other kinds of migrants, thereby failing to safeguard the right of refugees to seek protection. Current British proposals to move asylum seekers to ‘safe areas’ in regions of origin fail to understand the burdens, pressures and priorities of countries in the regions, fail to ensure effective protection for those in need, and are unlikely to deliver the UK policy objective of substantially reducing the numbers of illegal entries to Britain. What is needed is an approach that reduces the number of individuals seeking protection in Europe while maintaining the European tradition of providing asylum to those in genuine need. The ‘missing link’ in asylum policy that would respond both to the concerns of states and to the protection needs of refugees is more comprehensive engagement in regions of refugee origin. It is in this way that western asylum countries, including the UK, may best address the challenge of providing international protection to victims of persecution and respond to their own concerns about asylum.

• The 'external dimension' of EU immigration and asylum policy  by Boswell, C.

  Since the late 1990s, the EU has sought to develop the so-called ‘external dimension’ of cooperation on immigration and asylum: attempts to manage migration through cooperation with migration sending or transit countries. However, one can discern two rather distinct concepts of the ‘external dimension’. The first involves attempts to externalize traditional tools of domestic or EU migration control; the second to prevent the causes of migration and refugee flows, through development assistance and foreign policy tools. Both are based on different assumptions about how best to influence migration flows, and will have divergent impacts on migration flows, refugee protection and relations with third countries. It therefore makes a big difference which of the two is likely to emerge as the predominant pattern of cooperation in the future. This article looks at the factors influencing the emergence of both concepts, focusing on three central determinants: the potential of such approaches to meet migration policy goals; the institutional context; and domestic political—electoral pressures. It argues that the two last factors have militated in favour of the prevalence of externalization approaches to the detriment of longer-term strategies of migration management, refugee protection and relations with third countries.