Challenges to Humanitarian Action

2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 2-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas de Torrenté
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
The United States ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Great Loss ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
Humanitarian Action ◽  
International Power ◽  
Global War ◽  
The Cold War

It is a commonplace to say that the world has changed since the tragic events of September 11. This also holds true for those dedicated to humanitarian action—to the prevention of death and the alleviation of suffering during crisis and conflict, irrespective of any consideration other than need. The cause of the change for us, however, is not so much the attacks themselves or their vicious character. Sadly, such great loss of life and willingness to inflict death indiscriminately upon innocent civilians is nothing new, as those of us who have worked in areas of conflict know only too well.What has changed is that, as a result of these attacks, the leading international power, the United States, has declared a new global war on terrorism. This war, as it has been defined, pits terrorism against freedom, and those who would imperil humanity against those who stand to defend it. While the main focus, thus far, has been on Afghanistan, the repercussions have swiftly embraced the entire planet. Like the Cold War, this is an open-ended, global fight defined to uphold both interests and values. Yet unlike the Cold War, it is one in which alliances are constantly shifting, the enemy consists primarily of an ill-defined set of nonstate actors as well as their purported state sponsors, and territorial control is not necessarily an aim.The U.S.–led war on terrorism poses a number of challenges for independent humanitarian action and the principles that underpin it. First, it seeks to subordinate humanitarianism to its broader purpose, undermining the ability of humanitarian actors to impartially reach out to all victims. Second, by questioning the applicability of international humanitarian law, the antiterrorism campaign could well threaten the fundamental restraints on the conduct of warfare, thus weakening the protection and assistance to which civilians are entitled. Third, there is a shift in attention to conflicts worldwide, and the victims they generate, making it more difficult to respond to crises at the margins of current priorities.

Contesting Identity

2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 423-436
Author(s):  
Sanjeev Kumar H.M.
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Religion And Politics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
War Economy ◽  
The Us ◽  
Global War ◽  
The Cold War

The interface between religion and politics has become strong in the wake of expansion of modernity in its contemporary form. This can be regarded as cultural globalization. To interpret this phenomenon, the demonization of Islam by the West led by the US has been taken as a key epistemological point. This article argues that this policy, framed as part of the American strategy in the global war on terrorism, has constituted a key component of the larger US agenda. One facet of this agenda is primarily related to America’s bid to perpetuate the institutional structure of the permanent war economy envisaged during the Cold War period. The structure consists of the vocational interests of the arms lobby and the hawkish politico-bureaucratic-strategic condominium in the US. To accomplish this goal, communism, the United States’ Cold War enemy, has been replaced by a new enemy, Islam, at the end of the Cold War. The events of 11 September 2001 brought all this to a full circle and facilitated the US to advance justifications for continuing the permanent war economy and to substantiate the transformation of the ideological conflict of the Cold War into a cultural conflict in the post-Cold War period. In this regard, the rise of US soft power, made possible by the pervasive impact of globalization, has helped defend America’s post-Cold War proposition regarding an emergent war culture and the portrayal of Islam as the Manichean other in this war.

Liberal Internationalism from George W. Bush to Barack Obama

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Smith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
Democratic Peace ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
Liberal Internationalism ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Global War

This chapter examines the United States' liberal democratic internationalism from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. It first considers the Bush administration's self-ordained mission to win the “global war on terrorism” by reconstructing the Middle East and Afghanistan before discussing the two time-honored notions of Wilsonianism espoused by Democrats to make sure that the United States remained the leader in world affairs: multilateralism and nation-building. It then explores the liberal agenda under Obama, whose first months in office seemed to herald a break with neoliberalism, and his apparent disinterest in the rhetoric of democratic peace theory, along with his discourse on the subject of an American “responsibility to protect” through the promotion of democracy abroad. The chapter also analyzes the Obama administration's economic globalization and concludes by comparing the liberal internationalism of Bush and Obama.

Afghanistan Meets the Amazon: Reading The Kite Runner in America

PMLA ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 124 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Aubry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Novel ◽  
United States Military ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
Customer Reviews ◽  
Global War ◽  
Fictional Representations

This essay considers the American reception of Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner in the context of the Bush administration's global war on terrorism by examining the customer reviews of the novel posted on Amazon. As many of the responses indicate, identification serves as a paradoxical means of negotiating with fictional representations of foreignness. The intense and painful empathy inspired by The Kite Runner serves a valorizing function for American readers, strengthening their sense of their own humanity—an effect that resists strict political categorization. Hosseini's ambivalent conception of what it means to be human, I argue, supports a diversity of competing attitudes toward the United States' military intervention in the Middle East and central Asia, while simultaneously catering to fantasies of escape from ideological and cultural divisions altogether.

The Growth of Intelligence Contracting in the Post-Cold War Era

2019 ◽  
pp. 76-117
Author(s):  
Damien Van Puyvelde
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Intelligence Community ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
Technology Revolution ◽  
Cold War Era ◽  
The Government ◽  
Global War

This chapter charts and explains the rise of intelligence outsourcing in the post-Cold War era. In the 1990s, the private sector led the information technology revolution and became an indispensable asset for the intelligence community. Meanwhile government policies downsized the government intelligence workforce and a number of experienced officials moved to the private sector. Intelligence contracting boomed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks because the private sector offered a pool of knowledge and capabilities that managers deemed necessary at the time. The government hired thousands of contractors to intensify the national intelligence effort rapidly, and outsourcing diversified to an unprecedented level. In the atmosphere of emergency that characterized the early days of the global war on terrorism, this expansion was not planned, and a variety of contractors related to the intelligence community in ways that were not always harmonious and economically viable.

Al Qaeda and the War on Terrorism: An Update

2004 ◽  
Vol 103 (677) ◽  
pp. 423-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
Global War

More than three years into the global war on terrorism, the United States has no clear policy. It lacks, in turn, a sharp and well-formed strategy … to direct its efforts through the coming phases of what will likely prove a long struggle.

scholarly journals Guerra e opinião pública nos Estados Unidos: o caso da Guerra do Iraque em 2003 / War and public opinion in the United States: the Iraq War in 2003

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-448
Author(s):  
Cláudio Júnior Damin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Iraq War ◽  
The United States ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
Global War ◽  
The Relationship

O artigo aborda a relação existente entre guerra e opinião pública nos Estados Unidos. O artigo foca na análise do caso da Guerra do Iraque iniciada em março de 2003 durante os mandatos de George W. Bush. Esse conflito insere-se no contexto dos ataques terroristas de 11 de setembro de 2001, sendo parte constitutiva da chamada “guerra global contra o terrorismo”. A primeira hipótese de trabalho é a de que inicialmente e reproduzindo padrões históricos anteriores, a guerra foi amplamente aprovada pela população norte-americana, processo que se prolongou por alguns meses e influenciou decisivamente para a reeleição do presidente republicano em 2004. Como segunda hipótese assevera-se que, passado algum tempo, o humor da opinião pública sofreu uma inflexão, diminuindo a aprovação popular à guerra e tendo como importante desdobramento a derrota dos republicanos na eleição de 2008, com o conflito ainda em curso. Espera-se mostrar, portanto, como a Guerra do Iraque pode ser dividida em duas fases distintas, sendo a primeira de bônus para o governo de George W. Bush e seus correligionários republicanos e a outra de ônus a partir do crescimento do número de baixas militares norte-americanas e da crise de credibilidade do governo no que concerne às perspectivas de vitória definitiva no conflito.Abstract: The article discusses the relationship between war and public opinion in the United States. The article focuses on the analysis of the case of the Iraq War that began in March 2003 during the administration of George W. Bush. This conflict is within the context of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, being a constituent part of the "Global War on Terrorism." The first hypothesis is that initially and reproducing previous historical standards, the war was widely approved by the American population, a process that was prolonged for a few months and influenced decisively to the re-election of Republican president in 2004. As a second hypothesis asserts that, after some time, the mood of public opinion has undergone a shift, reducing the public approval of the war and with the important effect the defeat of the Republicans in the 2008 election. It is expected, therefore, to show how the Iraq War can be divided into two distinct phases, with the first bonus for the George W. Bush and his fellow Republicans and other liens being from the growing number of U.S. military casualties and the crisis of credibility of the government with regard to the prospects of ultimate victory in the conflict.

scholarly journals The Russians and the American 'war on terrorism': Lessons learned after September 11

2002 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 379-407
Author(s):  
Vladimir Rukavisnjikov
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
World Trade Center ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
First Year ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
Global War

Paper deals with the Russian perception of the American 'war against terrorism' started after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon. It shows how the Russian attitudes towards the American foreign policy have changed during the first year of this war - from September 11, 2001 to September 11, 2002. The American 'global war on terrorism' is reviving and crystallizing deep-seated cultural and ideological differences between the United States and Russia and becoming a factor jeopardizing global stability. The analysis is based on data of opinion surveys, official documents and messages conveyed to the public by the national electronic and printed media.

AMERICAN CONCEPTS OF NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENCE IN EUROPE

2011 ◽  
Vol 161 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-181
Author(s):  
Paweł TURCZYŃSKI
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Power Balance ◽  
Missile Defense ◽  
The Us ◽  
International Power ◽  
The Cold War

It was in the 1970s when building anti-missile systems became technically possible. In the 1980s, R. Reagan had a vision of creating such a system covering the United States. After the Cold War was over, those projects were put to a halt, but as soon as fears of terrorist attacks increased, W. Clinton started developing them again, and after 9/11, G. Bush prioritized them. The US was quick to develop proper military technologies, but the concept of the National Missile Defense was often criticized. Other countries (Russia and many EU members) criticized Americans for disturbing the international power balance and the selective choice of participating countries. In 2009 B. Obama renounced previous projects and proposed creating an international system shielding many countries. This project was accepted by NATO members and Russia, but its final creation has been put off.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document