Reconceptualising International Intervention

Reconceptualising International Intervention cii - The Centre for International Intervention University of Surrey 30-31 July 2014 This event is funded by the ESRC. www.surrey.ac.uk/cii Image: UN Photo/Marie Frechon

About us cii The Centre for International Intervention, School of Politics Making Sense of International Intervention cii the Centre for International Intervention at the University of Surrey is a new initiative designed to provide critical scrutiny of the range of interventions used in international relations today. These include developmental projects situated within peace building/ state building operations in conflict-affected and fragile states, military intervention and humanitarian assistance in situations of extreme crisis, and softer forms of intervention such as mediation and diplomacy. cii s purpose is to develop an in-depth, solid, understanding of how interveners conceptualise, rationalise, and operationalize their interventions, of the response from recipient communities, and of the consequences for both. It undertakes this task with the aim of enhancing both academic and practical understanding of intervention. cii provides a forum for the exchange of ideas, research, and data to enable local and international stakeholders from diverse fields and backgrounds to make sense of international intervention in line with the above perspective. It achieves this by carrying out innovative multi-disciplinary research into theoretical and practical dimensions of international intervention, developing strong collaborative links with other institutions involved in the study and practice of intervention, and organising workshops and conferences aimed at feeding back insights to relevant bodies and to inform future research in the area. This is done by producing briefs for different audiences including academics, policy-makers, the military, NGOs, and the corporate sector. www.surrey.ac.uk/cii 2 www.surrey.ac.uk

Welcome Intervention, n. The action of intervening, stepping in, or interfering in any affair, so as to affect its course or issue. Now freq. applied to the interference of a state or government in the domestic affairs or foreign relations of another country. The Oxford English Dictionary We are delighted to welcome you to this first event in a 3-year, ESRC-funded, seminar series entitled: Explaining the Intervention Matrix: Theory and Practice from Northern and Southern Perspectives. The series rests on the claim that the study of international intervention has been under-theorised and that a more nuanced understanding of processes supporting it requires a multidisciplinary approach. The organising principle is a two-dimensional matrix. One axis is theory and practice; the other North and South. Thus the different seminars will be considered on the one hand in terms of what the theory indicates and what the practice delivers, and on the other the extent to which perspectives of intervention differ depending on whether one is intervening or is the target of intervention. Behind this approach is a judgement that the model of international intervention that has dominated the thinking of Western governments since the end of the Cold War is overly narrow and that as a consequence much intervention has been inappropriate and ineffective. The prevailing model has been characterised under the label of humanitarian intervention. Put crudely, this describes coercive military intervention to achieve humanitarian ends. But intervention by outside actors, usually from powerful countries in the North, in the affairs of poorer countries in the South has always taken a broader course. From the activities of Britain s East India Company in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries to those of the World Bank and international NGOs in the late 20th international intervention has occupied many different shapes and forms. Now, in the 21st century, the very context of intervention is changing fundamentally and at gathering speed; economic globalisation, disruptive technological innovation, shifting power relations between North and South - all challenge established models and allow the emergence of new ones. Intervention may occur to secure an economic end state as much as a political one and appears less as a series of separate episodes and more as a set of continuous processes, involving a wider range of actors impacting on each other in an increasingly interdependent world. New tools such as those exploiting cyberspace and those geared at manipulating currencies to expand or contract markets are increasingly powerful. This first conference is designed to map current theoretical approaches to international intervention and to critique new and emerging conceptual frameworks. It will attempt to understand and frame intervention in a holistic way, encompassing the wide range of ways in which states or governments interfere in the affairs of others. It is structured around four themes: changing rationales for intervention, managing crisis and its aftermath, technology, remoteness, and ground truth, and where the global meets the local. Conference participants include academics, practitioners, and policy-makers; in this way we aim to understand better the different perspectives of these three communities relating to international intervention. I would like to thank all our speakers, panellists, and other participants for their contributions, and also my co-organisers from the University of Surrey, Ipshita Basu, Mirela Dumic, Roberta Guerrina, and Adele Stanislaus for their support. Professor Sir Mike Aaronson www.surrey.ac.uk 3

Programme Day 1: Wednesday 30 July 2014 Venue: Rik Medlik Building (32MS01) 08.30-09.15 Registration and Coffee (MS Foyer) 09.15-09.30 Welcome Theme 1: Changing Rationales for Intervention 09.30 11.00 Keynotes 11.00-11.30 Coffee (75MS02) 11.30-13.00 Panel 1 Professor Jennifer Welsh, Professor in International Relations, European University Institute, Florence: Understanding the Constraints on Humanitarian Intervention Professor Phil Cerny, Professor Emeritus of Politics and Global Affairs, University of Manchester and Rutgers University-Newark: Reframing the International : Managing the New Security Dilemma D. Averre/L. Davies: Russia and Responsible Intervention P. Herron: The Ambiguity of Intervention: Theory and Practice Beyond State Sovereignty M. Jakeman: US International Trade Policy as Intervention R. A. Pop: R2P is Not Enough 13.00-14.00 Lunch (75MS02) Theme 2: Managing Crisis and its Aftermath 14.00-15.30 Keynotes 15.30-16.00 Tea (75MS02) 16.00-17.30 Panel 2 17.30-18.15 Drinks (MS Foyer) Dr Jamie Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary-General, NATO: Boots on the Ground? Will there be Interventions in the Future and, if so, How Will They be Different From the Past? Dr Brad Evans, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Bristol: The Promise of Violence in Age of Catastrophe S. Blair: Striking a Balance: The Need for a New civ-mil Paradigm S. Catignani: The Politics and Practices of Nation-Building: The Military s Role in Recent International Interventions A. Dzurovski: Post Conflict Management and International Intervention - Are Economic Measures Essential. The case of Macedonia P. Rexhepi: Engaging the Locals: International intervention and the Politics of Participation in Kosovo 1999-2008 18.15-22.30 Dinner (Shere village, transport organised) 4 www.surrey.ac.uk

Programme Day 2: Thursday 31 July 2014 Venue: Rik Medlik Building (32MS01) 08.30-09.00 Coffee (75MS02) Theme 3: Technology, Remoteness, and Ground Truth 09.00-10.30 Keynotes 10.30-11.00 Coffee (75MS02) 11.00-12.30 Panel 3 12.30-13.30 Lunch (75MS02) Professor Mark Duffield, Emeritus Professor, University of Bristol: Exploring the Digital Development-Security Nexus Professor Jim Lynch, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey: Beneficial Remoteness: Use of Earth Observation in Improving Sustainability of Land Use M. David: Past Time to Re-Define Intervention and Sovereignty: the European Experience C. Donnellan: Remote Control: Implications of New Ways of War C. Fuller: Unmanned Frontiers: America s New Model of Counterterrorist Intervention A. Krishnan: Promoting Democracy Through Covert Action? New Cyber Tools for Intervention Theme 4: Where the Global Meets the Local 13.30-15.00 Keynotes 15.00-15.30 Tea (75MS02) 15.30-17.00 Panel 4 17.00 Close Peter Walker, Director of the Feinstein International Center, Rosenberg Professor of Nutrition and Human Security, Tufts University: Can Humanitarian Interventions ever be Fit for Purpose? Roberta Guerrina, Reader in Politics, School of Politics, University of Surrey: UNSCR 1325: Opportunities and Perils of a Global Gender Norm M. Bywater: The Rocky Road of Neutrality: Humanitarian Action in the Eras of Liberal Interventionism and the Global War on Terror D. O Dwyer: Unintended Consequences? A Gramscian Analysis of the Role of International Civil Society in Banning Landmines and Cluster Munitions and Legitimising Western Military Power A. R. S. Rajah: War by Other Means: A Biopolitical Perspective on the Western-led Norwegian Intervention in Sri Lanka K. Wright: Reconciling Local and International Understandings of UNSCR 1325 in Military Intervention? www.surrey.ac.uk 5

Keynote Bios Professor Jennifer Welsh, Professor and Chair in International Relations at the European University Institute and a Senior Research Fellow at Somerville College, University of Oxford. Prof. Welsh is a former Jean Monnet Fellow of the European University Institute in Florence, and was a Cadieux Research Fellow in the Policy Planning Staff of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs. She has taught international relations at the University of Toronto, McGill University, and the Central European University (Prague). She was a founder Co-Director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict. She is the author, co-author, and editor of several books and articles on international relations. Her current research projects include the evolution of the notion of the responsibility to protect in international society, the ethics of post-conflict reconstruction, the authority of the UN Security Council, and a critique of conditional notions of sovereignty. In July 2013 Prof Welsh was appointed Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General for the Responsibility to Protect, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. Professor Phil Cerny, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Manchester (U.K.) and of Political Science and Global Affairs at Rutgers University-Newark (New Jersey, U.S.A) and a member of the International Advisory Board of the Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy as well as several other journals. He is a political scientist who has previously taught at the Universities of Manchester, Leeds, and York in the United Kingdom, and held visiting research and teaching positions at Harvard University, Dartmouth College, New York University, and the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques in Paris. Prof. Cerny has written extensively on political theories of the state and globalization. He is the author of The Politics of Grandeur: Ideological Aspects of de Gaulle s Foreign Policy (Cambridge University Press, 1980). His most recent work includes Embedding Neoliberalism: The Evolution of a Hegemonic Paradigm in the Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy, Multi-Nodal Politics: Globalization is What Actors Make of It in the Review of International Studies. Dr Jamie Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, NATO. Dr Shea has enjoyed a varied and challenging career with NATO spanning over 30 years. He has worked as Director of Information and Press and served as Spokesman of NATO and Deputy Director of Information and Press during the war in Kosovo. He has held positions as Deputy Head and Senior Planning Officer, Policy Planning Unit and Multilateral Affairs Section of the Political Directorate, and has acted as speechwriter to the Secretary General of NATO as well as drafting NATO Ministerial communiqués and undertaking policy planning of Ministerial meetings. Dr Shea holds a number of academic positions in Europe and the United States and is a regular lecturer and conference speaker on NATO and European security affairs and on public diplomacy and political communication and lobbying. Dr Brad Evans, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Bristol. Dr Evans is also founder/ director of the histories of violence project. His co-directed movie Ten Years of Terror received international acclaim, screening in the Solomon K. Guggenheim museum, New York during September 2011. Dr Evans has recently been a visiting fellow at the Committee on Global Thought at Columbia University, New York (2013-14). He sits on the editorial boards for a number of reputable international academic journals in the fields of political philosophy. He also serves as a consultant on violence to a number of cultural organisations. He is currently a member of the Global Insecurities Centre (University of Bristol); serving board member for the Centre for Scholarship in the Public Interest (McMaster University, Ontario); founding member of the Society for the Study of Bio-Political Futures (Syracuse University, NY); and honorary associate of the Zygmunt Bauman Institute (The University of Leeds). 6 www.surrey.ac.uk

Keynote Bios Professor Mark Duffield, Professor Emeritus and former Director of the Global Insecurities Centre, University of Bristol. Professor Duffield has taught at the Universities of Khartoum, Aston, and Birmingham and has held Fellowships and Chairs at Sussex, Leeds, and Lancaster. He is currently a member of the Scientific Board of the Flemish Peace Institute, Brussels, and a Fellow of the Rift Valley Institute, London and Nairobi. Outside of academia, during the 1980s, he was Oxfam s Country Representative in Sudan. Prof. Duffield has advised government departments including DFID, EU (ECHO), the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA); also NGOs such as CAFOD, International Alert, Comic Relief and Oxfam; and UNICEF, UNOCHA, UNDP and UNHCR. His books include Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security (2001) and Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of People (2007). Professor Jim Lynch, Emeritus Professor, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey. Professor Lynch graduated in industrial chemistry from Loughborough University in 1968, took a PhD in microbial physiology from Queen Elizabeth (now King s) College, London in 1971, and obtained a DSc from the University of London for studies on the effects of soil micro-organisms on plants in 1984. From 1993-2003 he was Professor of Biotechnology and Head of the School of Biomedical and Life Sciences at the University of Surrey; from 2004 he was appointed Distinguished Professor of Life Sciences. In 2009 he became visiting Professor of Life Sciences at the University of Helsinki. He has travelled extensively internationally and given over 60 keynote lectures at international meetings. From 1989-2006 he was Co-ordinator for the OECD Programme on Biological Resource Management. Since 1999, he has chaired the steering group of International Clean-Up. He has consulted widely for industry and UK and overseas governments. He has produced fifteen books in microbial ecology/environmental biotechnology. In January 2014 he became Chair of Governors at the University of Chichester in the UK. Professor Peter Walker, Director of the Feinstein International Center, Rosenberg Professor of Nutrition and Human Security, Tufts University, Boston, USA. Prof. Walker has worked for a number of British-based NGOs and environmental organizations in several African countries, as well as having been a university lecturer and director of a food wholesaling company. In 1990 he joined the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in Geneva, where he was Director of Disaster Policy for 10 years before moving to Bangkok as Head of the Federation s regional programmes for Southeast Asia. He has travelled extensively in the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, and has published widely on subjects as diverse as the development of indigenous knowledge and famine early warning systems, to the role of military forces in disaster relief. Prof. Walker was the founder and manager of the World Disasters Report and played a key role in initiating and developing both the Code of Conduct for disaster workers and the Sphere humanitarian standards. On 1 August 2014 he takes up a new post as Dean for the Falk School of Sustainability at Chatham University in Pittsburgh, USA. Dr Roberta Guerrina, Reader in Politics, School of Politics, University of Surrey. Dr Guerrina is a Senior Lecturer and Head of the School of Politics at the University of Surrey. She is a European policy analyst with a particular interest in European social policy, citizenship policy and gender equality. She has published in the area of women s human rights, work-life balance, identity politics and the idea of Europe. She is author of Mothering the Union: Gender Politics in the EU (Manchester University Press, 2005) and Europe: History, Ideas and Ideologies (Arnold, 2002). Dr. Guerrina s main research interests are the interface between national, European and international politics, particularly with reference to the role of gender values/norms in shaping policy agendas. www.surrey.ac.uk 7

Theme 1: Changing Rationales for Intervention Keynotes: Jennifer Welsh, Professor in International Relations, European University Institute, Italy Title: Understanding the Constraints on Humanitarian Intervention Abstract: This paper will examine why, despite the seemingly powerful push factor of humanitarian concern, most cases of atrocity crimes or mass humanitarian suffering are not met with forceful intervention from the outside. Three main forms of constraint will be examined: 1) institutional (which involve issues of legality and legitimacy); 2) material (which involve both the decline in military capacity in Western countries and the inapplicability of military means to many humanitarian crises; and 3) moral (which involve growing concerns about both unintended consequences and infringement of the right of self-determination). The paper will discuss how the liberal internationalist moment of the late 1990s has receded, and with it the appetite for military intervention in humanitarian crises. Phil Cerny, Professor Emeritus of Politics and Global Affairs, University of Manchester and Rutgers University-Newark, UK/USA Title: Reframing the International : Managing the New Security Dilemma Abstract: Security is being transformed in a world of increasing complex interdependence. States no longer fight each other, but are confronted with conflicts involving both state and non-state actors -- local and regional struggles between centralising elites (Ahmed 2013) -- including both domestic elites and transnational alliances and networks -- and quasi-tribal groups seeking to retain their traditional autonomy and social hierarchies in rugged economic, political and social landscapes (Root 2013). The result is that external intervention of any kind, whether military, humanitarian or economic, is becoming increasingly ineffective and counterproductive. The so-called Obama Doctrine, as exemplified in his West Point commencement speech of 28 May, reflects these dilemmas. Approaches involving peacekeeping (Goldstein 2011), police (Cerny 2015) and gendarmerie (Kuera 2014) are increasingly being suggested as representing future approaches to this problem. Panel 1 Derek Averre / Lance Davies, University of Birmingham, UK Title: Russia and Responsible Intervention Abstract: The principles and means of implementation underpinning Responsibility to Protect (R2P) have caused considerable tension amongst actors in the international system. A dichotomy is emerging between states (especially the Western liberal democracies) that support the emerging humanitarian norms of R2P and those that perceive sovereignty and qualified intervention in the internal affairs of states as a core principle of international law. Russia appears to be situated within the latter group. However, while the norms of sovereignty and non-interference are central to Russian foreign policy, this paper argues that Moscow s approach to R2P has become more nuanced as it attempts to reshape current norms and conflict management processes intrinsic to R2P. First, its approach is premised upon a synthesis of both statist and humanitarian norms. Moscow considers the re-establishment of the primacy of state order as a central long-term aim, while humanitarian intervention is viewed as a short-term goal to effect a cessation of 8 www.surrey.ac.uk

violence. Second, implementing this interpretation of R2P is achieved through responsible intervention, which comprises a regulated framework of impartiality and proportionate force characteristic of the methods underpinning standard peace operations as stipulated by United Nation s principles and guidelines; Russia s approach to conflict management as the alleviation of insecurity rests on combating the immediate threat to stability while ensuring the means do not compromise the ends. This paper will, first, examine Russia s contribution to shaping global norms in a period which is witnessing a shift in power from the agendas of the Western liberal democracies to those of the emerging powers and, second, its practice in terms of its leading role in regional conflict management. It concludes by analysing to what extent its contribution to shaping global norms is influenced by its role in promoting a regional statist order. Patrick Herron, European University Institute, Italy Title: The Ambiguity of Intervention: Theory and Practice Beyond State Sovereignty Abstract: This paper critically assesses the relationship between sovereignty and intervention. The traditional understanding of intervention in International Relations literature is as a violation of sovereignty. Although this position has been scrutinised by several observers, it remains scholarly orthodoxy to see nonintervention as a necessary corollary of sovereignty and to understanding coercive interference as incompatible with, or constitutive of, that general rule. International practice, however, casts doubt on the theoretical assumption that sovereignty generates an obligation to refrain from intervention. This paper historically scrutinises the practice of international intervention and nonintervention from the beginning of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century. It identifies notable interventionary norms in the relations between sovereign states, exposing cracks in the posited sovereignty-nonintervention complex. The paper looks in detail at the arguments made by states about intervention and nonintervention at two historical moments: first, the debates that took place within the Concert of Europe regarding intervention in Spain and Naples; second, the debates about the codification of nonintervention into western-hemispheric law in the first half of the 20th century. Drawing on these debates, the paper argues that, in practice, debates about intervention are not limited to arguments about the sovereignty of states, but are in fact embedded in broader arguments about what it means for states to be free, or self-mastering. It is by understanding intervention in this broader context of the freedom of states, the paper argues, that the ambiguous normative position of intervention in modern international relations can best be understood. Mark Jakeman, University of Reading, UK Title: US International Trade Policy as Intervention Abstract: International trade agreements are conventionally presented as contracts between equals, freely entered into for the mutual benefit of all parties. They are, however, often concluded between unequal nations with the benefits being distributed to suit those states which carry greater economic weight. Such agreements can and often do, profoundly affect the wealth generating capacity, employment opportunities and income levels of ordinary citizens. They constitute a de facto intervention by one state into the domestic economic arrangements of another. As global economic activity becomes more integrated so the rules governing it are expanding beyond tariff rates and quotas to include intellectual property rights, labour standards, protection of foreign capital and extra-judicial adjudication of disputes. Such intervention is set to become more prevalent. International trade is a key component of US foreign policy; trade dominates the dialogue between America and most other states. Trade policy extends US influence and control into the economies of other states. US trade objectives are shaped by beliefs about the dichotomous nature of capitalism; positively as the only system which truly enables the spread of its values and negatively as a system which contains the seeds of American decline. To protect its interests the US seeks to intervene in the www.surrey.ac.uk 9

economies of other nations via bilateral, regional and global trade arrangements. Systemic trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are designed to create an economic environment which favours US business practices. However, capitalism as an economic system is inherently unstable and as other economies grow, the influence of the US will be challenged. In an attempt to control this challenge America seeks not only to regulate trade between nations, but to intervene in the economies of competitor nations using trade policy as a lever. Raluca Andrea Pop, West University of Timisoara, Romania Title: R2P is Not Enough Abstract: The debate on international intervention aka humanitarian intervention is an old one and is predominantly focused on ways and methods of intervening and on how to improve the effectiveness of interventions. Yet the concept and its framework of action are still vaguely defined. Within international law there are attempts to clarify the concept and to set some ground rules e.g. the ICISS report. The problem is that R2P is a norm and not a law it provides the framework for international interventions, but it doesn t impose these regulations on the international community. Results of this vagueness and freedom of action are frequent misinterpretations of the concept and actions taken based on one s own (favorable) interpretations. The main argument is that one must first eliminate the misunderstandings of the term and set a universally defined concept. Afterwards, based on the definition, the creation of a legally binding and universal framework can begin by starting from a theory. One plausible possibility is the just war theory, which was the base for the ICISS report. The paper is set to present in a concise manor the just war theory and its main concepts and to analyze the most common practices of international interventions to this day. Furthermore by focusing on how the theory might have been adapted into practice, the essay aims to present a possible and advantageous way for further discussions and evaluations of international interventions. The paper aims to argue that the just war theory could yet again be the basis of a new but more precise legally binding framework for future international interventions. Theme 2: Managing Crisis and its Aftermath Keynotes: Jamie Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary-General, NATO Title: Boots on the Ground? Will there be interventions in the future and, if so, how will they be different from the past? Abstract: As NATO terminates its ISAF mission in Afghanistan, and focuses once again on territorial collective defence in Eastern Europe, many pundits have speculated that the age of interventions is now over and that Western defence establishments will go back to focusing on force on force and major manoeuvre operations. In his presentation, Dr. Jamie Shea will take a contrary view and argue that the deteriorating situation in the Sahel, North Africa and the Middle East will require multiple interventions by the NATO Allies in the years ahead. The French operations in Mali and the Central African Republic and the return of US military advisors to Iraq are but the latest examples. However, the interventions of the future will not be like Afghanistan and Iraq, but will be smaller and more focused and will be largely about local capacitybuilding and the use of advanced technology and special forces. Will this strategy be adequate to cope with the looming threats from the next generation of failed and failing states and how can the training and equipping of local forces produce better results than heretofore in Iraq or Afghanistan. Will NATO be able to 10 www.surrey.ac.uk

structure its forces so as to be able to do conventional deterrence in Eastern Europe as well as expeditionary operations in the South; and to what extent will new technologies such as drones, ISR, robotics and intelligence and social media exploitation compensate for declining military manpower? The presentation will grapple with these issues and try to provide at least some initial answers. Brad Evans, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Bristol, UK Title: The Promise of Violence in Age of Catastrophe Abstract: Ours is an age of catastrophe. It is also defined by the promise of violence of multiple kinds. But what does it actually mean to say that we now must accept the injuncture to live dangerously? And how might we critique the changing contours of this landscape such that endangerment today appears normal and crises inevitable? As this talk will demonstrate, this belief in the necessity and positivity of human exposure to danger is fundamental to the new doctrine of resilience that has been politically developed in zones of crises, and imported back to metropolitan zones of affluence in the decade following the violence of 9/11. Resilience, it will be argued, demands the disavowal of any belief in the possibility to secure ourselves and accept that life is a permanent process of continual adaptation to dangers said to be outside our control. The resilient subject is a subject which must permanently struggle to accommodate itself to the world, and not a subject which can conceive of changing the world, its structure and conditions of possibility. This has profound bearing on our world visions. As a condition for partaking in that world which accepts the necessity of threats as integral to our radically interconnected times, contemporary liberal subjectivities must accepts the dangerousness of the world it lives in, along with the realisation that our societies are built to be vulnerable. In this regard, not only are questions of security displaced by a doctrine which promotes insecurity by design. It also paves the way for the liberal retreat from the world of peoples as the future now appears as an endemic terrain of disaster and catastrophe. Panel 2 Stephanie A Blair, Stabilisation Unit, FCO, UK Title: Striking a Balance: The Need for a New Civ-Mil Paradigm Abstract: International intervention in order to promote a rule-based international order is a catch-all phrase for a multitude of concepts, approaches, activities and actors. Primarily associated with military hard power, the contributions of political and civilian actors and their soft power activities are relatively understudied. Indeed the military also seeks to deploy soft power as evidenced by the UK International Defence Engagement Strategy. The numerous asymmetries of numbers of personnel, timeframes, associated budgets, and legal frameworks, not to mention the visible impact of hard over soft power help to explain this unhelpful association. Associated and overlapping concepts contribute to differing understandings and approaches: peacekeeping, peace support, peace enforcement, peacebuilding, statebuilding, early warning, conflict prevention, counter insurgency. The multitude of actors engaged also makes this a difficult arena for comparison: the UN, EU, OSCE, NATO, (and now GCC?), notwithstanding the manifold motivations, aims, tools, resources and desired outcomes. Yet the comprehensive approach, which combines military and politico-civilian activities into smart power, is overused and has come to be seen as impossible to implement. This paper proposes the need for a new civ-mil paradigm. It will offer a pragmatic approach to understanding peace and security operations by focusing on a number of contradictory issues that warrant particular examination, and yet where a balance could be struck in order to understand contemporary international intervention beyond a Northern military paradigm. It will discuss, and offer a civilian www.surrey.ac.uk 11

practitioner view and recommendations on, the balancing efforts required between, inter alia: political, civilian and military efforts; top down and bottom up approaches; the motivation of national interests and international politics versus context specific programming; give war a chance versus the moral R2P imperative; hubris and humility; simplicity and complexity in concept rich environment; north-south and south-south contributions; pragmatism and idealism; and theory and practice. It will conclude by setting out the limits, traps, gaps and prospects for peace and security interventions in operationalising this new paradigm. Sergio Catignani, University of Exeter, UK Title: The Politics and Practices of Nation-Building: The Military s Role in Recent International Interventions Abstract: Although significant research has highlighted the fact that Western militaries have played an increasingly central, yet uneasy and problematic role in conducting operations that have gone beyond the mere provision of physical security, in post-cold War international intervention, the following paper examines the actual ways in which combat units on the ground have tried to reconceptualise their selfidentities and self-conceptions from warrior to cosmopolitan forces (Elliott, 2004) in order to carry-out humanitarian and nation-building functions since 9/11. By adopting a social theory of learning (Elkjaer, 2005; O Toole & Talbot, 2011) and by relying on survey data and in-depth group interviews conducted at all levels of command with two U.S. Army airborne brigade combat teams (2009-10 and 2010-11 deployments), as well as interview data conducted at all levels of command within 5 British Army infantry battalions, which deployed to Afghanistan between 2009 and 2011, this paper, in fact, analyses the cognitive and normative changes combat personnel underwent through processes of shared meaning-making in order for them to adapt and adopt their multiple self-identities and non-combat practices during their deployments. This paper will finally not only examine the effects that the intermittent transformation of combat personnel into social workers with guns, as on battalion commander declared in an interview, may have had on their traditional warrior ethos and self-conceptions, but also the way in which their daily practices and the politics of nation-building underlying them may have affected the way international intervention will be conceived in future international interventions within states deemed by the West to necessitate a nationbuilding solution to local instability and disorder. Anastas Dzurovski, State University St Kliment Ohridski, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Title: Post Conflict Management and International Intervention: Are Economic Measures Essential? The Case of Macedonia Abstract: Macedonian conflict resolution of 2001 through involvement of the international community (NATO USA and EU) is often described as a success story. Despite, the paper argues that economic consequences were not managed accordingly. The conflict has produced huge fiscal discipline differentiation among the two major ethnic communities, instant increase of informal economy, lack of fulfillment of legal economic obligations etc. The paper research finds facts about the post crisis management that should be more focused on economic issues and the government has no capacity to resolve such huge issue. 12 www.surrey.ac.uk

Piro Rexhepi, New York University, USA. Title: Engaging the Locals: International Intervention and the Politics of Participation in Kosovo 1999-2008 Abstract: This paper examines the politics of internationally administered state-building processes in Kosovo after the NATO Military Intervention in 1999 and the subsequent establishment of the United Nations Interim Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Through an exploration of the relationship between the local political establishment and the international administration, the paper examines local perceptions of participation in the democratic peace-building process vis-à-vis the international administration. Qualitative data was derived from 50 face-to-face interviews with Assembly Members, civil servants in the Assembly, executive officials, members of civil society organisations as well as international staff working or having worked in Kosovo during the time period concerning this study. Theme 3: Technology, Remoteness, and Ground Truth Keynotes: Mark Duffield, Professor Emeritus of Development Politics, University of Bristol, UK Title: Exploring the Digital Development-Security Nexus Abstract: The popular 1990 s idiom that you cannot have development without security, and security without development is impossible addressed only terrestrial relations and effects. Growing political pushback on the ground, and increasing risk-aversion among aid functionaries, has seen the subsequent spread of international no-go-areas. Relief managers are now physically remote from disaster zones. However, if liberal states have become inhibited and uncertain on the ground, the electronic ocean that is the atmosphere represents the last unregulated global medium where one-sided and uninhibited political action is still possible. Drone kills are a visible, if limited, example of the unbounded opportunities available. In digitally recouping the distance created by the loss of ground-control, the permissive dual-use relationship between development and security has reappeared. In terms of the technologies used, there is little difference, for example, between the algorithmic mapping of disaster-affected populations for the purpose of resilience-messaging, and the simulation and prediction of adversarial behaviour for reasons of prevention and interdiction. In the continuing innovation and convergence of these atmospheric technologies, the disaster zones of the global-south act as unregulated commercial laboratories. The paper explores this new field of action and draws out some of its wider historic and political implications. Jim Lynch, Distinguished Professor of Life Sciences, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, UK Title: Beneficial Remoteness: Use of Earth Observation in Improving Sustainability of Land Use Abstract: There is much concern globally about the use of land for new opportunities such as biofuel production versus traditional use in forestry and food security. New programmes in intervention such as REDD+ (Reduction of Emissions Due to Deforestation) which are promoted by the UN and other international bodies, will protect forest resources for traditional fuel and carbon capture and storage, thereby reducing the magnitude and impact of climate change. The financial return from such programmes to rural communities in the tropics will enhance the sustainability of land use and improve the quality of life of such communities. The implementation of these programmes can be achieved with the use of existing and developing earth observations from air and space. Agricultural practices such as fertilisation and crop protection can also be www.surrey.ac.uk 13

made more efficient by the use of satellite data in precision agriculture. Policy makers need to embrace such technology and act on the evidence provided by remoteness. Panel 3 Maxine David, Department of Politics, University of Surrey, UK Title: Past Time to Re-Define Intervention and Sovereignty: the European Experience Abstract: In any analysis of why conflict occurs, a range of factors is considered and very often, no matter when and where is under consideration, there is common cause. Thus, disparities in wealth, inequality in access to resources, lack of political representation, perceptions of injustice, the negative effects of corruption, ethnic and/or religious differences - all these are familiar features in the narratives of a whole host of conflicts. Since the adoption of R2P in 2005, but even before, global actors were directed to consider prevention more deeply. Arguably, the state and institution-building processes that took place in Europe after World War II were less about post-conflict transformation than about prevention of future conflict and even crisis, through economic integration and the building of common political structures. Framed this way, the EU becomes one of the most interventionist of the global actors and our understandings of intervention too narrow and inconsistent with realities on the ground. This paper therefore begins by arguing that current understandings of intervention are not fit for purpose. As a consequence, complacency and a narrative of normativity have resulted in insufficient attention being paid to the perceptions of at least one key actor in Europe - Russia. The significance of this error has been felt most deeply and recently by Ukraine. In the second part of the paper, I continue the twin themes of complacency and deficient definition to argue that various western states euphoria over the use of new social media in the Arab Spring, where developments in communications were deemed to have democratising effects, have not been met with corresponding dialogue and action to ensure that a wider understanding of the implications of the continuing global communications revolution is established. This is particularly important in relation to our understandings of sovereignty. Through reference to the Russian case, I demonstrate that states are creating a bordered reality on the ground that runs counter to the transformative borderless capacities of social media, and that such political actions have potential to create high levels of societal dissatisfaction and therefore conflict. It is time, therefore, to reconceptualise both intervention and sovereignty in order that we can better understand the likely perceptions and reactions of other actors and to ensure that the ordering of states and societies does not run counter to the everyday experiences of people. Caroline Donnellan, Oxford Research Group, UK Title: Remote Control: Implications of New Ways of War Abstract: New ways of war are being implemented as a result of major advances in communications and technology, including information technology, and a dominant idea now is countering threats at a distance without the deployment of large military forces. This is reflected in the use of drones (both reconnaissance and armed variants), special forces and the evolving privatisation of military forces. Also connected with these discreet military measures are cyber and surveillance activities. The presentation will describe how a project entitled Remote Control being undertaken on behalf of the Network for Social Change (a group of individuals providing funding for progressive social change), is endeavouring to look at the implications of these strategies in the long-term and the consequences of what might follow when technological developments are opened up to a wider range of players. How can the risk of blowback or revenge attacks be properly measured? How can state security issues and the need for transparency and accountability be 14 www.surrey.ac.uk

reconciled? What might be the unintended consequences of these strategies? The presentation will consider issues from work that is being commissioned through investigative journalists, academics, think tanks and specialist research agencies to delve deeper into the subject and examine the long-term effects of changing methods of warfare as well as to raise public awareness. It will explain how it is intended to bring together the various pieces of work that are being undertaken across the different strands of remote warfare into an information resource for policy-makers to help build long-term security. Christopher Fuller, University of Southampton, UK Title: Unmanned Frontiers: America s New Model of Counterterrorism Intervention Abstract: The chaos and instability left across the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring has seen the al-qaeda franchise - previously reeling from an intense CIA/JSOC targeted killing campaign - resurgent. The organisation and its affiliates now control more territory across the Middle East and Africa than at any other point in their history. This backwards step in the War on Terror has come at a terrible time for the US. After more than a decade of the costly and at times highly controversial War on Terror, the American public has tired of US military intervention and nation-building efforts abroad. The failure to rally Congressional and public support behind proposed action against Syria reflected this growing weariness, as does the growing public support for the so called zero option of complete withdrawal from Afghanistan following the 2014 deadline, regardless of conditions on the ground. This paper will explore how the Obama administration has sought to counter the American public s traditional resistance to actively occupying foreign territory, and their fatigue with foreign interventions through the construction of an unmanned empire. It will highlight how legislation passed in the aftermath of 9/11 has been used to build an interconnecting network of drone bases which enable the US to maintain a constant and lethal presence in hotspots around the world without needing boots on the ground. The paper will illustrate the full extent of this empire through an interactive digital world map and satellite imagery of the bases themselves, presenting a full visualization of the extent of America s newest tool for intervention. Armin Krishnan, East Carolina University, USA Title: Promoting Democracy through Covert Action? New Cyber Tools for Intervention Abstract: The US and other Western countries have made it one of their declared strategic goals to promote democracy in the world by isolating dictatorships and by supporting pro-democracy movements in authoritarian states. Much of this activity is overt and legitimate, but some aspects can be best described as covert action since they are not officially acknowledged. The greater availability of the Internet to masses of people worldwide and the development of new social media and online services like Twitter and Facebook have provided Western intelligence services with new tools for covert intervention. They can now weaken authoritarian governments simply by making information available to people in closed societies (information operations) and by enabling them to organize in digitally driven revolutions. This paper looks at the Arab Spring in terms of a digital insurgency that received much of its traction through the support of Western IT companies like Google and pro-democracy NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy. It is argued that social media played some role in the course of the Arab Spring and that the West financially, technologically, ideologically, and diplomatically supported the digital revolutions in the Middle East in 2011 in a way that amounts to foreign intervention or (cyber) covert action. The paper will lay out some of the known aspects and methods for fomenting the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt based on available information from key players and from recent leaks that describe cyber covert action methods employed by Western intelligence. Finally, it will assess the potential for creating, strengthening, or exploiting digital www.surrey.ac.uk 15

insurgencies in the future and will conclude that cyber subversion tactics will eventually lead to ever greater censorship and ever tighter control of the Internet that will make future successes in this field less likely. Theme 4: Where the Global Meets the Local Keynotes: Peter Walker, Director of the Feinstein International Center, Rosenberg Professor of Nutrition and Human Security, Tufts University, USA Title: Can Humanitarian Interventions Ever Be Fit for Purpose? Abstract: This paper reflects on the conundrum of hitching a global, loosely constructed international humanitarian aid system to highly context specific local crises and institutions to promote and secure a purportedly international set of rights and norms through the assurance of material aid and protection. The paper will examine the international aid system as a delivery service and demonstrate how it has become supply rather than demand driven and at least on paper seems incapable of reforming itself. The paper then examines the critical present day challenges to the system and its possible reactions to it, including challenges to the universality of its norms. The paper goes on to look at alternative constructs and in particular the complexities of large external organizations partnering with small local organizations. A generic model is postulated from this which seeks to understand how, in a more globalized and chaotic world, the old adage of think global act local, can actually work, regardless of the nature of the global intervention. Roberta Guerrina, School of Politics, University of Surrey, UK Title: UNSCR 1325: Opportunities and Perils of a Global Gender Norm Panel 4 Matthew Bywater, London School of Economics, UK Title: The Rocky Road of Neutrality: Humanitarian Action in the Eras of Liberal Interventionism and the Global War on Terror Abstract: At the heart of humanitarianism exists an inherent paradox, emanating from contradiction between the ambitious nature of this big idea or radical notion and its self-professed limited ambitions of providing simple palliative care. This misfit goes quite a way in explaining why we live in a world of humanitarianisms, not a single humanitarianism, as practitioners of this concept have in frustration in the face of suffering sought to do more, resulting in attempts to agitate for state action through speaking out, advocacy and even calling for military action. Drawing primarily upon post-cold War cases of military humanitarian intervention, this paper examines the relationship between the humanitarian doctrine of neutrality and respective solidarist, alchemist and militarised humanitarianisms. The recurrent argument is that notions of absolute neutrality are a misnomer due to inherent convergence of interests between humanitarian and Western state actors; it is consequently judicious to distinguish between perceived and absolute neutrality and their potential lack of correspondence to one another. This misnomer is exemplified by the fine line between advocating for international action and explicitly calling for military intervention. 16 www.surrey.ac.uk