The role of East Timor's security institutions in national integration – and disintegration

Abstract

This article examines the interplay between security sector developments and national unity in East Timor since the Indonesian occupation ended in 1999. Particular attention is paid to the regional distinction between Loromonu and Lorosae – people from the west and east of East Timor, respectively. In 2006, East Timor experienced a crisis that saw the disintegration of the military and police forces, and widespread violence that led to massive internal displacement. It was during this crisis that the Loromonu–Lorosae distinction first emerged as a major societal cleavage. The article argues that the independence cause and the guerrilla force Falintil had been an important focus of East Timorese national unity in 1999. In the years that followed, however, the implementation of flawed security policies led to new military and police forces that were politicized, factionalized and lacking in cohesion. Prior to the 2006 crisis, the Loromonu–Lorosae distinction was primarily an issue within the army. As the crisis escalated, however, the violence was to a large extent framed by the east–west dimension, and popular perceptions of the military as ‘eastern’ and the police as ‘western’ hardened. A year after the crisis, little if any progress had been made towards reducing the increased salience of the Loromonu–Lorosae distinction in society. The main internal security challenges – gang activity, the unresolved issue of the so-called ‘petitioners’, and the destabilizing role played by fugitive former head of military police Alfredo Reinado – all had an east–west dimension. The article also finds that new initiatives aimed at reforming East Timor's military and police forces appeared to be lacking in both depth and relevance for addressing the country's new level of internal division, and its immediate, internal security challenges.     

Statebuilding in Divided Societies: The Reform of Dayton in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract

Drawing from the literature on conflict regulation and other plural society theories, this paper provides a framework of analysis to explore the dynamics involved in the external statebuilding process in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). The analysis is based on a three-level framework whereby patterns of conflict regulation are analyzed at the inter- and intra-ethnic levels, as well as what this article terms the ‘supra-national’ ethnic level, where interactions between domestic and external actors are considered. In order to explore these issues empirically, this paper examines the process of constitutional reform in BiH over the course of 2005–6, drawing from personal interviews. The paper concludes that, while the assistance provided by external actors has proven substantial, the neglect of intra-ethnic dynamics and other related considerations have often rendered external actors’ efforts at shaping the statebuilding process in BiH ineffective.     

JISB Interview: The Responsibility to Protect

Abstract

Dr Aidan Hehir interviewed Dr Francis Deng, UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, in New York on 20 August 2009     

Reconceptualizing International Intervention: Statebuilding, ‘Organic Processes’ and the Limits of Causal Knowledge

This article examines the transformation in the conceptual understanding of international intervention over the last two decades. It suggests that this conceptual shift can be usefully interrogated through its imbrication within broader epistemological shifts highlighting the limits of causal knowledge claims: heuristically framed in this article in terms of the shift from policy interventions within the problematic of causation to those concerned with the management of effects. In this shift, the means and mechanisms of international intervention have been transformed, no longer focused on the universal application of Western causal knowledge through policy interventions but rather on the effects of specific and unique local and organic processes at work in societies themselves. The focus on effects takes the conceptualization of intervention out of the traditional terminological lexicon of International Relations theory and instead recasts problems in increasingly organic ways, suggesting that artificial or hubristic attempts at socio-political intervention should be excluded or minimized.     

Responsibility to Peace: A Critique of R2P

Abstract

The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 led to the doctrine of R2P, which envisages the use of force in defence of human rights. But as the Kosovo conflict demonstrates, nothing is more destructive of human rights than war. The protection and promotion of human rights should be done through lawful and non-lethal means. This essay argues that citizens and states have a responsibility to peace as much as to human rights because human rights can only flourish in a condition of peace. This essay seeks to restore peace to its proper place in the discussion of international politics and human rights.     

The Tragedy of Liberal Diplomacy: Democratization,Intervention, Statebuilding (Part I)

Since the end of the Cold War, democracy promotion, intervention and statebuilding have once again been explicit features of American foreign policy. Current assessments of this return, however, overlook both their longer term history and their roots in liberal (and not just American) ideology. The contradictions and dynamics entailed in the liberal philosophy of history have already played themselves out once before, in the modernization theories and policies of the early Cold War period. Despite their academic and political failures at the time, the same assumptions now underpin democracy promotion in the post-Cold War period and show signs of the same dynamics of failure. In this two part essay, I argue that the repetition of such counterproductive policies constitutes a recurring ‘tragedy of liberal diplomacy’ in which the shaping of US foreign policy by assumptions deeply rooted in the liberal philosophy of history plays a central part in producing the very enemies that policy is designed to confront and transform.     

Contextualising the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ in Darfur

ABSTRACT

This article argues for a thorough contextual analysis based on understanding local, regional and international politico-economic linkages in the Sudan, in order to ground prospects of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) doctrine in the ongoing crisis in Darfur. The R2P framework was crystallised by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001. It was adapted and subsequently endorsed by United Nations (UN) member states during the 2005 UN World Summit. The R2P ostensibly provides normative benchmarks on how states should respond to the quadruple human rights violations of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Indeed, there is debate on whether the prevailing crisis in Darfur constitutes a test case for the application of the R2P. However, such debate is misplaced on two grounds: first, it glosses over the inherent conceptual deficiencies of the R2P, as presently constituted. More importantly, such debate is primarily inspired by reactionary and externalising influences based on past international failings, like Rwanda (1994) and Bosnia (1993). Hence, it is argued that the starting point of analysing the Darfur crisis should be a thorough investigation of how local, regional and international politico-economic factors have historically worked in an orchestrated fashion to trigger and sustain the crisis in the Sudan. Knowledge and an understanding of such historical specificity is a requisite for determining the relevance of the R2P in Darfur. The R2P, as presently constituted and practised, does not address this gap.     

Assessing the reset: successes and failures in the Obama administration's Russia policy, 2009–2012

Critics of the Obama administration's ‘reset’ with Russia claim that it has failed to improve bilateral relations and has conceded too much to Russia at the expense of American interests. In fact, the reset has delivered significant improvements in key areas and established the institutional basis for continued cooperation in the future, benefiting both states. Although disagreements remain on several important issues including missile defence, humanitarian intervention, and democracy, the reset has been broadly successful on its own terms, which were always limited in scope and based on a pragmatic recognition of the limits of possible cooperation. Future progress is uncertain, however – obstacles include differences of national interest; the complicating effects of relations with third party states and the impact of domestic politics. A continuation of the pragmatic approach underpinning the reset represents the best chance for stability in the US–Russia relationship.     

Humanitarian impacts of economic sanctions on Iran and Syria

International sanctions against Iran and Syria have been tightened to unprecedented levels since 2012, particularly in the case of the European Union's (EU's) restrictions on the countries' energy and finance sectors. Marking a departure from the EU's carefully targeted sanctions policies of recent decades, they represent de facto comprehensive measures widely associated with negative humanitarian impacts. This paper analyses semi-structured interviews, official discourse and case studies to explore early reports of negative impacts on the health of ordinary citizens in Iran and Syria and examines associated policy responses, particularly in the EU context. The author outlines why a shift towards broader-based sanctions could be problematic for the EU and outlines constraints currently preventing more efficient risk mitigation. This paper suggests ways that sanctions, representing an increasingly vital, albeit contested, tool of EU foreign and security policy, could be used in a more prudent manner if a worsening humanitarian situation is to be avoided.     

U.S. National Identity,Political Elites,and a Patriotic Press Following September 11

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, U.S. government and military leaders often articulated distinctly pro-American themes in their public communications. We argue that this national identity discourse was at the heart of the U.S. government's attempt to unite the American public and to mobilize support for the ensuing "war on terrorism." With this perspective, we content analyzed Time and Newsweek newsmagazines for the five weeks following September 11 to identify potential communication strategies employed by government and military leaders to promote a sense of U.S. national identity. Findings suggest (a) that government and military officials consistently emphasized American core values and themes of U.S. strength and power while simultaneously demonizing the "enemy," and (b) that journalists closely paralleled these nationalist themes in their language.