Peace processes and Northern Ireland: Squaring circles?

The aim of this article is to review some of the issues involved in the current ‘peace process/talks’ in Northern Ireland. Despite the current euphoria over the talks, Good Friday Agreement and the Nobel Prizes there are still many serious issues to be resolved that leave the whole process in doubt. These are substantive issues that can often appear as trivial detail in the rhetoric and hyperbole of peace. Three issues particularly stand out: decommissioning of weapons, the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the role of terrorist activists. These, I argue, are key concerns that go to the heart of the Troubles, yet have not been resolved. And it is around these concerns that much of the current talks revolve. They also reflect seriously on the extent to which democratic government can engage in deals with terrorists, trading peace for integrity at what price?     

Sir Alfred Zimmern lectures Australia, 1938: a utopian on Munich?

Abstract

Professor Sir Alfred Zimmern, a highly prominent British commentator on international politics, was a notable visitor to Australia in 1938. Due to the critiques of EH Carr, Martin Wight and Hedley Bull, Zimmern became associated with the ‘utopian’ school of analysis of the inter-war period. In a stay lasting five weeks which coincided with the Munich crisis, his (now neglected) lectures and broadcasts were widely reported. Zimmern did not fully endorse the Munich agreement, which had been negotiated by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and was supported by Australian Prime Minister Joseph Lyons. He was privately critical of Australian policy-makers. Despite Bull’s claim that Zimmern was a believer in progress and thus bound to discern the growth of order in international affairs, Zimmern’s analysis of the Munich agreement emphasized the return of power politics and the dangers of war. Further examination of his 1930s writings shows that such possibilities were not inconsistent with his broader analysis of international relations.     

Rescuing Peacebuilding? Anthropology and Peace Formation*

International Relations (IR) and related social science disciplines focusing on peace and conflict studies have enabled a bureaucratic understanding of peacebuilding and a liberal form of peace. This has extended into a neoliberal type of statebuilding. There is now an impressive international architecture for peace, but its engagement with its subjects in everyday contexts has been less impressive. An earlier group of conflict researchers, grouped around John Burton and later A.J.R. Groom, have long argued that this is partly because IR has concentrated on elite power, problem-solving methodology and positivist epistemologies. It has failed to understand the dynamics, agency and hybridity of human society and institutions when it comes to peace, or that inequality is conflict inducing. Rescuing peacebuilding from neoliberal epistemological frameworks requires an anthropological and ethnographic sensitivity.     

British Peace Activism and ‘New’ Diplomacy: Revisiting the 1899 Hague Peace Conference

This analysis provides a re-appraisal of the 1899 Hague Conference by looking more closely at how citizen activists—notably in Britain but also transnationally—used it as a forum through which to press their agenda onto politicians and diplomatists. In so doing, this assembly existed as a stepping-stone between the ‘old’ diplomacy of the nineteenth century and the ‘new’ diplomacy of the twentieth. Peace activists identified and harnessed a growing body of progressive public opinion—on both a domestic and international scale—in the hope of compelling governments to take the necessary steps towards realising their ambitions of peace, disarmament, and international arbitration. Although the tangible outcomes of the 1899 Conference were limited, the precedents it established not only paved the way for further advances in international law, but also facilitated ever closer public and press scrutiny of international affairs into the twentieth century.     

Microstate Democracy: Majority or Consensus; Diffusion or Problem-Solving?

While several studies suggest that small country size is conducive to democracy, the understanding of this link between smallness and democracy is still less than complete. By examining the nature and profile of microstate democracy in the year 2005, this article aims at promoting a better understanding. Two research tasks are pursued. First, the article investigates if microstate democracy is predominantly about majority democracy, or alternatively consensus democracy, or a blend of majority and consensus. Second, while testing the validity of diffusion and rationality assumptions for explaining country choices of democratic form, the article aims at drawing forth a better appreciation of the foundations of microstate democracy. The findings indicate that smallness is particularly conducive to majority democracy, and that diffusion goes a long way to explain this small state preference for majority rule. However, the microstates within the majoritarian framework are often inclined to resort to non-majoritarian choices, and elements of rationality are therefore in the picture as well. Small size does not appear to associate systematically with culture to the exclusion of rationality or with rationality to the exclusion of culture.     

EUROSUR: saving lives or building borders?

This article analyses the origins and development of the European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) in order to better understand its functioning in view of its stated objectives. Particular attention will be devoted to the European Commission’s recurring claim that one of EUROSUR’s main goals is to save lives at sea. This contribution questions that assertion. It rather considers EUROSUR as representative of the steady, technocratic development of a European system for border management. The reliance on the exchange of information, the reinforcement of FRONTEX, the European Union’s agency for the coordination of operational cooperation between national border guards and the emphasis on cooperation with third countries support this claim.     

Development agencies: Global or solo players?

This paper questions whether development agencies and their staff, at whatever level (community-based organisations, national or international NGOs) are sufficiently clear about their own values and roles, and seeks to analyse tensions and dilemmas that arise when roles are confused. Clarity about the roles of the people and agencies involved is essential for the development of a valid global citizens' movement that can interconnect local and global problems and actors, and work towards sustainable solutions.     

Characteristics of China''''s Foreign Policy:Putting Peace First

Having entered into the new century, the world is marked by unfathomable vicissitudes. The artful maneuver of China's foreign policy under this backdrop attracts wide attention. And this must be attributed to the fact that China's diplomacy highlights "pe…     

Honeymoon or consolidation,or both?: Time dependence of democratic durability

Much research has been done to identify factors that facilitate or prevent democratic breakdown. Little attention, however, has been paid to the question of whether and how the baseline risk level (after controlling for the impacts of relevant factors) changes over time. Using a flexible parametric survival model, I analyse the duration of 149 democratic periods (1946–2008) and demonstrate that the baseline risk has an inverted-U shape, which provides evidence for the honeymoon effect and democratic consolidation. This finding has an important policy implication for democratic assistance programmes.     

Democracy promotion and China: blocker or bystander?

The increasingly prosperous, mighty, and assertive China is arguably the most powerful country blocking democracy today. In addition to withholding democratic rights of one-fifth of the world's population, authoritarian China represents an alternative development model that has gained significant traction. China thus constitutes a challenge to democracy promoters. But does Beijing also countervail democracy promotion by the European Union and the United States? After a summary of the party-state's response to democracy promotion at home, we test the hypothesis that geostrategic interests or a perceived risk of regime survival will lead the People's Republic to countervail democracy promotion outside its own borders. We do so by focusing on the most likely cases in China's near-abroad: Myanmar and Hong Kong. Our analysis of Myanmar suggests that Beijing remains focused on securing economic and security interests irrespective of regime type when regime survival at home is not at risk. The case of Hong Kong, on the other hand, allows us to identify the tactics used by Beijing when there is a significant risk of democratic spillover. This case also demonstrates that the People's Republic of China is able to stifle United States and European Union democracy support when it wishes to do so.     

Security-sector reform: development breakthrough or institutional engineering?

This article provides the academic background to the development community’s recent and growing interest in security-sector reform. It seeks to understand how this debate has evolved and the direction it may take, especially in relation to its impact on policy and the resources available for security-sector reform in developing states. Although there are numerous initiatives underway that relate to security-sector reform, the input of the development community would be valuable towards establishing a more holistic and comprehensive perspective. This provides an enormous opportunity to influence the transformation of the security sector in certain countries. Yet such progress requires a broad and sustained level of cooperation among a range of different government departments in donor countries. This has never happened before and the outlook is bleak, which will severely constrain future attempts to move from ‘institutional engineering’ to holistic security-sector reform.     

Communication or information: excellence in which one?

ABSTRACT

Communication conditions the fate of people about and for whom the outcomes arise. The challenge to scholars, practitioners and policy makers is for excellence in the practice of communication. The question which arises is whether this excellence is about efficiency or effectiveness. Towards unravelling this question, two media theoretical notions of communication and information are examined. Though mutually related, the two basic notions are nevertheless different. This article argues that the interchangeable regard and use of these notions by many scholars, practitioners and policy makers is the reason for communication's little apparent impact on improving the developing communities' social and economic conditions despite the accelerated pace, tempo and volume of information technology. The paper rationally situates this argument within the field of development and the role therein of ‘communication’ with reference to the development performance of generally the Third World, and Africa particularly, over the last three decades. Upon this argument, the article suggests a communication paradigm of reversals and practical diversities as a contribution towards excellence in communication. Only when messages sent really begin to speak to the intended audiences and form the basis of intervention can there be excellence in communication.