Privatization-Individuation-Pluralization

When looking into the concept of privatization and how it relates to individuation and pluralization, I want to start with clarifying the concept of privatization by describing what it means. Then I will relate it to the concepts of individuation and pluralization. Last I will give examples of these concepts when talking about migration.
First, Privatization is, according to Mc Guire “the process where certain institutional spheres (religion, family, leisure, art) are segregated from the dominant institutions of the public sphere (economic, political, legal)” (Mc Guire, 289) which means that those issues that help creating, maintaining or changing one’s identity are in the modern society located in the private sphere. People living in this kind of society have a greater personal freedom to choose the sources from where you get “a sense of order, an interpretation of reality, a system of meaning” (Mc Guire, 289) and belonging in a community. In other words, people will have greater personal autonomy, with no restraints in their search of identity. The freedom in creating your own identity is of course a great thing, but there can also be problems with privatisation. Individuals may find it hard to shape their identity on their quest through the smorgasbord of alternative worldviews. How is one supposed to know what is true? Or what the right way to think and act is? It can be very difficult to find meaning and belonging and to become integrated in the community and to legitimate your self, when so many different sources are trumpeting out packages with “ultimate meanings”.
This process, where the individual is searching for meaning and belonging and ways to express your self, is a process of individuation. The process of privatization in the society is linked to the concept of individuation because the individual living in a privatized society has been forced to an individuation process that lies within the private sphere. Like mentioned above, during the individuation process there is a search for meaning and belonging and ways to express your self. On the whole, there is a search for identity. And this can be problematic in a society where values and directions are not provided by the institutions. Due to the process of privatisation in the society the relationship between the individual and society has changed. During the individuation process, people will have to find forms of expressing themselves voluntarily, without any restraints from society, which leads to a development of new and alternative worldviews.
Then how does this relate to pluralization? When a society consists of different groups with competing worldviews, or competing versions of truth, it is a pluralistic society. If privatization deals with the location of religion (for example), and individuation deals with the form of religion, then pluralism deals with the situation of religion. In a pluralistic situation the competing worldviews are put in relation to one another and not taken for granted. Every version of truth that exists is competing with the other to legitimate its norms, values and goals. And in order to protect your own belief, isolation from other worldviews might be necessary, or you could increase your personal ambiguity.
In a pluralistic society like USA, where immigrants since the beginning of time have built the country, the government might find it difficult to present a legal system, since the different ethno religious groups have separate moral answers when it comes to dealing with legal issues. The courts have no foundation of moral unity to build their legal system on, which creates problem. Printing “In God We Trust” on every dollar bill might be a strange thing to do in a pluralistic society where no single version of truth should have more legitimacy than the other. It seems like the government legitimates the orthodox Protestantism over the competing other worldviews, which could be seen as a bit hypocritical. Also, the president of the USA has put himself in a position where he chooses to legitimate a certain version of truth. He is signing laws to prohibit homosexual marriage even if the individuals have been pushed into the private sphere while undergoing an individuation process in the pluralistic society where motives and options are not controlled by institutions. So the belonging and meaning that you strive to find through the process of individuation in a privatised society without any external restraints, is later judged before laws that prohibits you to practice your worldview in society. You have a freedom to choose, but you will suffer if you make the wrong choice. Mc Guire describes it very well when saying that “[w]ithout agreement on the way to live together, claims of moral authority make no sense” (Mc Guire, 283).
The relationship between the individual and the state and the history of the state lies behind these issues of privatization, individuation and pluralism. The modernisation process in France for example is important. France is another country that is based on equality but has a great oppression of minorities. In order to be a full citizen in France today you have to be part of the secularization. Convert and loose ethnicity/’race’/’culture’ is racism that cannot be targeted, neo-racism. And the message it sends is “You are not allowed to choose freedom!”, “When it comes to religion you are not free to express yourself!” . The clothing are signs that works as an expression for us. And the French wants to protect their worldview from other competing ones. It should be a pluralistic society, but it still has legislations towards minorities. The immigrants should be emancipated, and made French. But maybe by prohibiting religious symbols in school (in the public sphere) the “veil starts to become an even stronger symbol for you and it can start to backfire” (Marjane Satrapi). A resistance will build up, as a response and this is something that is critical in our multicultural pluralistic societies of today.
The tolerance that should exist between the competing versions of truth in a pluralistic society seems to be slowly fading all over the world. The integration into this type of modern society for an immigrant might be really hard since the public institutions doesn’t provide any sources of meaning nor belonging. Of course a refugee from Iran will find it hard to receive a “Swedish identity” or feel integrated into society when she/he has no Swedish private network what so ever. Since institutions are pushing the individuals into the private sphere for a sense of belonging, people living in a pluralistic society might get more and more segregated. And since we all attempt to protect our own worldviews from the other competing ones in order to legitimate ourselves we risk to loose the societal shared conception of order where we are suppose to be “thinking and feeling together” (Mc Guire, 283).

Works Cited
Mc Guire, Meredith, B. Religion: The Social Context. 4th Ed.Wadsworth publishing company, 1997.
Satrapi, Marjane. Notes from class

Medias Part in Wars

Growing up in the 80's, where the family gathered around the TV at nights; so being exposed to the fast accelerating media outlets of our time; it is easy to comprehend the importance of media in our democratic society. People rely on the media to report the facts, and to carry an unlimited discourse; because in a democracy one should have the right to credible information and the freedom of expression. But what happens if media becomes bias and looses objectivity, and somehow limits the discourse? What if this happens at the same time as its roll/task becomes more important, while an increasing number of people are relying on the media -more than ever before- to tell them the truth? Mc Chesney makes a critical and very important claim in Outfoxed when he says that “media is the nervous system of a democracy – if it cannot function; democracy will not function” (Outfoxed, 2004), which is perfectly true. Because, when looking at the Medias roll before/during/after a war; one can see that democracy is easily lost by the ignorance of certain news media to attain objectivity and to extend the discourse. In this essay I will take a closer look at the Medias roll during war; with a focus on the Vietnam War and the ongoing Iraq War. I will investigate the differences/similarities of the war coverage by the Media/News Media from both of these wars; first I will discuss the most important features of each of the wars, and later compare them to see if any change in the media coverage can be found in a historic perspective. I will also prove the importance of objectivity in a democracy. Since Media/News Media has come to contribute to a construction of ideology, supported and created by certain interests; which through the media strategies of manufactured news and propaganda, exposes the public for bias coverage which narrows the discourse and lessens democracy.
First, I will take a closer look at the media coverage of the Vietnam War. But I will start with discussing the important features of the media during the ‘build up’ to war. Because, in order to create a public ideological support for the Vietnam War, the American media came to work alongside the government to spread it’s interests and beliefs. The Governments agenda became the Medias agenda. Because, just as Carruthers claims: “civilian support [is] essential to the warfront” (Carruthers, 2000:5); and through the media, the State tried to manufacture support and create an opinion for starting a war. The Government expected the media to print propaganda, which systematically worked to manipulate the attitudes, beliefs and actions of the American people; and it did. This way the Government was able to gain enough support for the war, so that they could start occupying Vietnam. A main feature of this propaganda spread by the media was the demonization of the negative Other, which worked as an incitement for the American soldiers to kill the Vietnamese, and also as an incitement for the public to believe in their cause. In other words; they used fear as a motivator for going to war.
Then, once the Government had gained enough support for the war and decided to send troops to Vietnam, the news media and the Government extended their common agenda further. The fact that the Vietnam War was unique; because it was the first ‘TV-war’/‘living room’ war, is important since it “chang[ed] how Americans understood warfare” (Cook, 2001:203). By experiencing a war for the first time through the TV in the living room, the American public started to feel a closer relationship with the soldiers in combat, at the same time as it affected the opinion about the reality of the war. Following the war on the TV-screen made the war feel less real (although more present), but since the news media “presented not the war itself, but its construction” (Cook, 2001:204) the viewer attained a warped view of the reality of the war. Cook claims that “the unreality of pictures results in a distance towards the dead Vietnamese and empowers the Americans” (Cook, 2001:212), which was exactly in line with the Governments/News Medias agenda. By the images shown, the new technology helped producing the idea that American was superior its enemy.
Further, there are several ways in which the Government and the news management did work together in order to forge these bonds of sentiment (and thereby gaining control over the publics’ opinion about the Vietnam War and further the support for the war). First, we need to take a look at the ‘dead body-politics’ that was played out during this war. The one-sided coverage of the dead bodies during this war came to “privilege American bodies…at the expense of the North Vietnamese bodies” (Cook, 2001:203). Since “the dead body is available as a symbol for political and economical investment” (Cook, 2001:204), in contrast to the coverage of the Vietnamese bodies, the dead American bodies were hardly ever shown; and if they were shown they were portrayed as powerful symbols, “carefully filmed and framed” (Cook, 2001:206) with no wounds, blood or faces shown. By doing this, the media placed meanings upon the dead bodies shown. Vietnamese bodies were shown all the time, and they were represented very differently; as less valuable; with less ethical treatment. By choosing this one-sided coverage the news media dehumanized, demonized and racialized the Vietnamese, and by the providing cultural and ideological support for their agenda the Government and the news media enhanced the nationalism and patriotism in the country. Which, in its turn, lead to an increasing support for the war. A way of performing this deconstruction of the enemy, media started to use the language in a helpful way; by using euphemisms. For example, “Dead soldiers” would be mentioned as “non-operative personnel” instead; in order to avoid certain words that would affect the public negatively where the meaning is the same, but the sound of it is softened.
Second, the reason why the public were exposed to such one-sided coverage of the Vietnam War was because the news media depended on the partisan sources it used. And this dependency of sources produced a standardization of footage. When Cook says that the “TV news coverage depended on government and military access” (Cook, 2001:213) at the same time as each network shared common interests with the military/governmental sources (Cook, 2001:205), one realizes the danger of objectivity being lost. This suggests that through the dependency of sources; the government can manufacture news and manipulate the public with misinformation and by withholding information. The reason for this is of course to maintain -or maybe even better- to enhance the support for war, and also to maintain the morale amongst the troops.
Also, it has been argued that the extended media coverage of the Vietnam War (due to the fact that it was the first ‘TV-war’) eventually made America loose the war (the ‘Vietnam Syndrome’); which is not true. I believe the public interpreted the news in the way that it only enhanced the public opinion already held about the war. Knightley writes that an opinion poll executed by Newsweek in 1967 showed that “vad de sett på TV fick en majoritet av tittarna att stödja kriget” (Knightley, 2004:455). 64 percent of the people they questioned explained that watching the news reports about the war increased their support for the war; while 26 percent said it increased their feeling of wanting to oppose the war (Knightley, 2004:455). I also believe that along with the fact that the News Media/Government tried to withhold the reality of the war from the public (in order to maintain the support for the war); the unreality of this ‘TV-war’ “reduced and diminished the impact of [the] images” (Cook, 2001:211) shown. Since this led to a compassion fatigue experienced by the American people, would also suggests that it is hard to believe that the publics’ opinion about the war would be able to change.
When discussing the ongoing war in Iraq, it is important to highlight certain features, which are specific for this war. Pentagon worked alongside the Media in the ‘build up’ for war; through tightening bonds with certain news media channels they were able to spread lies about the cause for the war. Fox News was one of the channels that carried a common agenda with the Government. The media strategy was to mislead the public by tying the 9/11 attacks to Saddam Hussein; and then successfully making the public believe in the necessity of a pre-emptive strike towards Iraq. And it worked. By using propaganda by creating enemy images (using the Saddam-Hitler analogy) the Pentagon/News Media shifted its focus from the original reasons for intervention (WMD) during the war, to that of the hunt for Saddam Hussein. Bryan Whitman (deputy secretary of defence) was according to Knightley “den främsta hjärnan bakom den amerikanska mediaplanen” (Knightley, 2004:531). He convinced the Pentagon with a plan to shape the American publics opinion about the war and to try to create support for a ’coalition of the willing’. And the plan (which eventually worked) was to;
“Betona vilket hot den irakiska regimen innebär… Avfärda och förringa alla som skapar tvivel kring detta hot... Försök inte vädja till logiken utan vädja istället till allmänhetens hjärta och sinne, framför allt till hjärtat... Hamra in följande budskap hos allmänheen: ’Lita på oss. Vi vet mer än vi kan tala om’” (Knightley, 2004:531).
Also, to spread certain propaganda, which would create a support for the war, Pentagon worked alongside with Hollywood. Donald Rumsfeld gave the reality TV-show ”Soldiers” greenlight, and it was aired right before the war broke out. The purpose of “Soldiers” was to create a bond between the American public and the soldiers in the field, and “den fick stor betydelse för hur USA lade upp sin mediestrategi inför kriget” (Knightley, 2004:536). It led to the embeddedment strategy discussed below, since it would serve the same purpose.
Once the war was a fact, Pentagon continued to control the media coverage of the war, by following Whitman’s extended guidelines. His suggestion that the journalists should be embedded with the troops - which meant that the media would be incorporated and mobilized without feeling controlled - became a reality. Pentagon also hoped that this would lead to a highlighting of the roll of the military (and especially the roll of the average ‘American boy and girl-soldiers’); and thereby further the support for the war. This was exactly the purpose of the reality show “Soldiers” as well. This might sound as a good idea; because the war correspondent would really get the opportunity to come close to the war. But there lies a danger in turning the reporter into one of the troops; because it is inevitably that the war correspondent would start identifying with the side he was embedded with. Reporters started to use the words “we” and “us” in their reports; they became bias, and sometimes applauded Iraqi deaths and wore arms as well. A journalist interviewed in the documentary Deadline Iraq claimed, “embedded journalists might as well join the army” (Deadline Iraq, 2003). This means that objectivity is lost again; the reporter took a side in the war and therefore hardly ever produced an objective analysis of the conflict. Knightley writes that: “[j]ag lyckades bara hitta två exempel på inbäddade korrespondenter som lämnade kritiska rapporter om uppträdandet hos de amerikanska soldater de var inbäddade hos, reportage som stod I strid med den offentliga framställningen av vad som hände” (Knightley, 2004:534).
Moreover, the sources used in the Iraq war were extremely bias; due to several facts. First, the embeddedment strategy led to a very one-sided reporting which I just have explained. Second, the military headquarters in Iraq (Cent Com) installed by the Americans could easily manipulate which stories should be made public and which stories should end up on the ‘shit list’; which consisted of material that should be avoided. Third, the fact that the Americans discouraged the unilateral news media (by bombing Hotel Palestine in the first phase of war where a lot of the unilateral journalists were located) suggests that George W. Bush was serious when he coined his famous expression “Either you are with us – or against us”. If the war journalists didn’t write what Pentagon requested – they could get killed!
Looking at the media coverage of the Vietnam War and the Iraq War one can see both similarities and differences, and from these make some conclusions of the trends from a historic perspective. Some significant differences are that the Iraq war was much more intimate, immediate and more censured than the Vietnam War. It has become more dangerous for the journalists to be involved in the war; due to the embedded journalism and to the increasing war casualties amongst war correspondents since Pentagon have come to regard them as threats. George W. Bush really has come to show that he is serious when he says: “Either you are with us – or against us”; and if you are not with us it might cost you your life. And this, I suggest, is an extremely dangerous trend. The immediacy of this war is also a significant difference. Today we are able to follow the war twenty-four hours/day if we would desire to. News reaches us faster, but at the same time the sources has become more important. Pentagon has understood this and that is why they introduced the embedded journalist strategy. In a way the journalists, during the Vietnam War, were embedded with the troops; but the guidelines the Pentagon put out for the journalists in the Iraq War suggest much more censorship; which is dangerous. The Cent Com, which was an unknown feature in the Vietnam War, did also suggest an increased effort by the Pentagon to control the media coverage of the Iraq War.
There were also certain similarities of the media coverage during these two wars. For example, just as during the Vietnam War; the journalists made one mistake during the Iraq War when they (again) choose to focus on the efficiency of the war – and not the intent of the intervention itself. Also, the media outlets were used for propaganda purposes in the same way.
In conclusion, in order to understand the importance of objectivity in a democracy, Dorothy Holland and Debra Skinner talks about a “Co-development of Identity, Agency and Lived Worlds”. They suggest that the conditions which our private lives and our public representations are in effects the production of the texts/artefacts that are being submitted by the production. From these products we all make our own interpretations. We consume the texts/artefacts and apply to our readings a meaning of the context. Here, competing products influence our thoughts, and the conditions of something particular or something universal will affect how we perform these readings/interpretations of the raw material. This; in its turn, will affect how we live our lives. Because, if something influences us; we will live our life there after; and also shape our social relations thereafter.
Let us then focus on the American Democracy; what happens if the State/Pentagon, Hollywood and the Media Institutions all has an influence on the production of the texts/artefacts; and especially in the conditions of war? And what happens if the State/Pentagon alongside with Hollywood and the Media Institutions influences what is being produced with a dishonest agenda? Then the texts/artefacts also will take on dishonest forms; and if the propaganda springs from these three different instances at the same time, one would be exposed to very subjective facts. When Pentagon for example puts out guidelines for embedded journalism, or when Fox News Channel does not “separate news from commentary” (Outfoxed, 2004); they already apply a meaning to the context which forces the public to read/interpret the transmitted material in a subjective way. And especially if one is being forced to read/interpret the subjective material in the conditions of war; it will enhance the meaning to the context already offered. So, the same time “as military training produced troops capable of killing, network news produced viewers capable of understanding killing as acceptable, even desirable” (Cook, 2001:205). Hollywood makes the TV-war remind the public enough of a movie, that it is hard to understand the reality of war. And the public almost seemed to have received compassion fatigue. To dehumanize the enemy to further the support for war, was one type of propaganda; to appear as being “Fair and Balanced” – representing objective and journalism – is one type of propaganda, since, in fact you are spreading misinformation and transmitting bias media coverage. The public is being tricked be the common agenda of Pentagon, Hollywood and the Media Institutions, and during the conditions of war also the rest of the world is affected of their agenda. Objectivity is being lost in all news media, and we will not know who to trust anymore; which suggests that also democracy is lost. And now…wasn’t that what “we” were fighting for in the first place?

Works Cited
Carruthers, Susan L. The Media at War: Communication and Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Palgrave Macmillan, New York: 2000.
Cook, Bernie. Over My Dead Body: The Ideological Use of Dead Bodies in Network News Coverage of Vietnam. Overseas Publishers Association, N.V: 2001.
CBC News. Deadline Iraq: Full Uncensored stories of the War. CBC News: 2003.
Greenwald, Robert, Dir. Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism. 2004.
Holland , Dorothy and Skinner, Debra. The Co-development of Identity, Agency and Lived Worlds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1996.
Knightley, Phillip. Krigets Första Offer är Sanningen: Krigskorrespondenten som Hjälte och Mytskapare. Ordfront Förlag, Stockholm: 2004.
Morris, Errol. The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. 2003.
Notes from Lecture + Handouts.
Noujaim, Jehane. Control Room. Magnolia Pictures, 2004.

On Humanitarian Interventions

Humanitarian arguments were discussed as early as 1917, when USA entered WWI. But during the 1990’s and up until today, the issue of humanitarian interventions has been widely discussed; mainly because international interventions has become easier to discuss after the cold war due to the changes in the international interaction between countries (Lindholm Shultz, Helena, Krig I Vår Tid, 2002:137). Human rights issues have become increasingly important during recent years, and the principle of sovereignty is often questioned, while an increasing amount of people supports humanitarian intervention because they believe it is U.N.’s responsibility to protect exposed civilians. But while many requests for international humanitarian interventions remain unheard, it is somewhat obvious that these interventions are not simply based on humanitarian interests, but on strategic and political interests as well. There are different argumentations regarding the ethics in international relations and politics. Some people are against humanitarian interventions because they argue if it really is correct to try to achieve peace with wars? Some people say that humanitarian interventions will lead to grain drain in the countries, and some people argue that humanitarian interventions should be similar to those after the Tsunami catastrophe, which only consisted of pure help to the people in need. Some of the different argumentations that exist regarding the ethics in international relations are the skeptics argumentation, the state moralists and the cosmopolitans’ argumentations. Now, from these three different perspectives, the humanitarian interventions in Somalia 1992 will be discussed.
When discussing the ethics in international relations, and whether or not humanitarian interventions would be a correct tool to apply in this situation, skeptics would argue that humanitarian interventions would be needed to apply in this conflict. Morality is not really an issue for the skeptics, because they believe in the principle that “might makes right” (Nye, Joseph, Understanding International Conflicts, 2005:23) and that the only choice one has is to either “kill or be killed” (Nye, 2005:23). Ethics in international relations are for the skeptics overlooked since they believe in the Athenians’ principle that “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept” (Nye, 2005:23). Since this conflict was believed to threaten international peace and security, humanitarian interventions would be necessary to apply in this conflict for the skeptics. And this was the reasons for the U.N. and the USA to intervene in Somalia. So then it can be argued that USA acted as skeptics when they wanted to send troops for the Task Force because the conflict threatened world peace; under the principle “kill or be killed”. But, one can also argue that they acted as skeptics when George Bush made the choice to intervene only because he was resigning from office, and that he pushed this good deed because he wanted to be at good foot with the American people. Because it is known that, for skeptics, humanitarian interventions are applied if they gain something from it themselves. Because, still this country is in need for humanitarian interventions, but since USA does not seem to gain anything from the situation today, they have decided to ignore it. Also, since skeptics pushes the issue of order very hard, one could argue that everything does not have to be either black or white; order or justice. The skeptics often miss the fact that it is possible to compromise between order and justice.
Moreover, according to the state moralists would probably not have accepted humanitarian interventions in Somalia 1992. Because, they believe that it is wrong to intervene in other states businesses, which means that the principles of sovereignty and autonomy is of utter most importance for them, and living by these principle is “the best way to preserve order” (Nye, 2005:26). Here it can then be argued whether or not it was correct by the U.N. to intervene since Somalia at this time was a country without a state. And maybe the state moralists would then think it would be alright to intervene since it was a stateless country. But, Nye claims that for the state moralists “[w]ar is justified to defend a state’s territorial integrity or to defend its sovereignty against external aggression” (Nye, 2005:161). So even if Somalia was stateless, it still wasn’t an external aggression towards the country, so the state moralists would probably not have agreed to humanitarian interventions in this case. But it is important to remember that external aggression is very hard to define, and this is a problem with the state moralists reasoning. Conflicts are often very complicated, which makes it hard to decide when humanitarian interventions are legitimized.
Further, the cosmopolitans would in Somalia’s case argue that humanitarian interventions would be a necessity. They push the issues of justice for the individual and human rights very strong, and they believe that national borders are a pretty immoral invention. Therefore, international politics are very much in focus for them, because they believe that we are a “society of individuals” (Nye, 2005:160). Actually, cosmopolitans begged the U.N. to apply humanitarian interventions in Somalia. They feared starvation, and believed that something had to be done to save the civilians lives. But they are sometimes also very sceptical towards economic interventions in certain countries, when they believe that they will cause grain-drain, and not be of any help. But what cosmopolitans often forgets, is to see the bigger picture. And this is a great danger, because if too much emphasis is put on justice for individuals and human rights, the issue of safety is often overlooked. With that comes a risk of chaos in the world, which I believe, is important to question. That is probably the only downside with the cosmopolitans’ arguments. Also, according to Nye, cosmopolitans believe that “it is permissible to intervene on the side of the good” (Nye, 2005:160), which I also believe is pretty vague. Because, how do one define “good” and how can one define “who” the “good” is.
Last, since peace is still not restored in Somalia, and since over 100 000 Somalis lives in refugee camps in Kenya today, there have been many requests to apply humanitarian interventions after they failed the first time (Lindbom Schultz, 2002:143). More and more people tend to lean towards the cosmopolitan argumentation today, since human rights issues have become increasingly important. A larger amount of people do believe that it is U.N.’s responsibility to protect civilians, but I personally believe that the U.N. can do more than they do in the world today. Also the USA could do more in the world, and not just when it benefits them in some way. Morals and ethics in international relations and politics are extremely hard to agree on, and there are advantages and disadvantages with all three alternative views discussed above. Personally, I would believe I am a cosmopolitan, with a fear of chaos lurking around the corner.

Works Cited

Lindbom Schultz, Helena. Krig I Vår Tid. Studentlitteratur Lund: 2002.
Nye, Joseph S. Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History. 5th ed. Pearson Education, Inc; 2005.Notes from lectures

On Collective Security

In order to fully understand the concept of collective security, it is important to briefly mention a few things about the time period the concept first was brought into light. The concept of collective security came to be widely discussed after WWI, when many regarded the balance of power politics no longer acceptable. Woodrow Wilson (the liberal president of USA at that time) argued that balance of power policies “violated democracy and national self-determination” (Nye, Joseph, Understanding International Conflicts, 2005:86) and was therefore regarded as immoral and as simply a way for the sovereign states to preserve their power. Instead, Wilson claimed that the world would be a much safer place if “security [was] a collective responsibility” (Nye, 2005:87), and therefore he introduced the concept of collective security, where the League of Nations would work as both a moral and military force. And this has become the dominating bearing principle in the United Nations charter today.
First, let us take a closer look at what this system means and what characterizes the system of collective security. It is important to mention that this system is a peace enforcement method and not a peace-keeping method, and it operates after the well known principle: one for all – all for one. In this system all aggressions are of concern for everyone, which means that if one state acts as an aggressor, the other states will put their arsenal of military forces together in order to attack the aggressor. This is the principle of the entire collective security system, and these military coercive measures are stated in Article 42 in the United Nations charter today. This system is not the same as a selective system of military alliances (NATO); instead it is a security system for all states in the entire collective; and it works as a worldwide protection. Because, just as Nye claims;
“if all nonaggressive states banded together, the preponderance of power would be on the side of the good. International security would be a collective responsibility in which nonaggressive countries would form a coalition against aggressors. Peace would be indivisible” (Nye, 2005:87).
According to Nye there are a few differences between the former balance of power system and the collective security system. And these differences might be of importance to highlight, in order to be able to characterize the collective security system completely. This new system focused on “the aggressive policies of a state” (Nye, 2005:87) instead of focusing on how strong a state was becoming, and according to that evaluate it as a potential threat. Also, there would be no danger of threatening alliances forming around the world, because alliances would not be formed in advance. Instead a worldwide alliance would be formed against the aggressor after it executed an aggressive action towards another state. Last, in comparison to the balance of power system, this system is a global system where everyone must be involved in order for it to work. And states must be willing to “voluntarily give up some sovereignty to the international community in return for the guarantees of collective security and international law” (Nye, 2005:88), which means that it works internationally as the police force works domestically.
Also, in order to make this system work, there are certain guidelines that have to be established. First, there must be some kind of consensus that aggression is illegal and that a threat is a threat towards “us”. Second, there must be an obligation for all states to be supportive with troops. Third, there has to be some kind of organisation that regulates the appointed troops.
When discussing collective security, one needs to take into account that there are both advantages and problems with this system. First, it has been critiqued for being a naive and utopian system, because states might not want to provide automatic help to countries if it does not lie in their own interest. It is a good thought, but in reality it might not work. Examples of this will follow later, when the Ethiopian conflict and the Iraq-Kuwait conflict is discussed further on. Also, the collective security system will have the effect that small and insignificant conflicts will become worldwide battles, where everyone will be pulled into a state of war that might not seem relevant. And even if the collective would be able to take down the aggressor, it is still a risk to involve everyone in all conflicts. Moreover, the system establishes status quo, and it is an unfair system when it comes to the veto system; where five permanent states have the right to stop decisions today (in the days of the League of Nations, all states had the right to veto). This means that the superpowers can still choose to stay out of certain conflicts; which also make the system very ineffective. Also, this system assumes that all states concerned are equally sensitive about the pressure from other states, which might not be true in reality. Another problem with this system is that there is not a generally accepted definition of “aggression”; which leads to a problem when dealing with acts of prevention and pre-emption. Last, many people are under the opinion (pacifists of course) that it should not be the United Nations task to pursue wars. And the system of collective security would require greater worldwide militarization than the politics of alliances would, which might be a danger with the system.
Further, even though Woodrow Wilson pushed this organisation of international security very hard, the weakness with the League of Nations was early noted when the United States did not want to join after all. And this was a great backlash for Wilson, since the United States would have been the Leagues most important country. If the United States would have joined, the guarantee for worldwide security would have been stronger. Instead, countries engaged in smaller alliances that went against the system of collective security in order to feel safe. Even though it was a success that Germany joined in 1925, and that “[t]he League managed to settle some minor disputes, such as one between Greece and Bulgaria” (Nye, 2005:90) the crisis in Manchuria and Ethiopia eradicated the optimism about the system, where it became obvious that the system was “slow, cautious, and totally ineffective” (Nye, 2005:92). For example, when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, the League of Nations established sanctions, which was believed to be enough incitement for Italy to withdraw its troops, but they did not do anything else. Instead the main countries of the League (Britain and France) were worried about the fact that Germany was getting stronger, and they wanted Italy to join forces with them against Germany. This lead to that the conflict in Africa was overlooked, because of the distance to that war in comparison to the indicators of a rising conflict in Europe. Instead these countries choose to restore the balance of power in Europe, and overthrew the collective security system, which eventually led to WWII. (Nye, 2005:90-92).
But, after the cold war it has become easier to discuss international interventions, and the U.N. seem to have become more involved in international conflicts. In the U.N. charter under chapter seven, the collective security system is discussed as peace enforcement, where an intervention of a state is allowed if that state threatens the world peace and security. Article 43 in the U.N. charter regulates the appointment of troops. The Security Council leads the troops centrally and they also have the political responsibility for the troops. The system of collective security has never taken into action when it comes to U.N., but the Security Council can execute mandates for military actions, but that means that they will have no control over what is done in its name. For example, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 2nd, 1990, it was considered a threat against world peace, and it was agreed that an intervention was necessary. But instead the U.N. delegated mandates to the Coalition of the Willing (which was led by Americans), where the USA could affect all the political directives. The steady reports they were to submit to the Security Council, only arrived after having undergone certain processes within the US (censorship), which meant that the Security Council did not have any influence over neither tactics nor politics in this war. This is a problematic development of the collective security system. Interventions seem to be exercised only in the cases where there are political and strategic interests. And the fact that the USA can use its interests and intervene in conflicts in the name of the U.N., but still decide over all political directives and tactics is wrong.
To conclude, the system of collective security sounds very great in theory, but since the veto system exists for the five most important players it is very ineffective. Countries (especially USA) often only want to intervene in conflicts if it is in their own interest, which is not how it is supposed to be. And even if USA is part of U.N., the 2003 Iraqi invasion clearly shows that USA very well can act on its own in the world today, without anyone being able to stop them. Since it is very hard to define an “aggressor”, the pre-emptive/preventive wars have become ambiguous. Who is really the aggressor? I think that since the U.N. never considered Saddam a clear, sufficient and imminent threat in 2003, would not USA then be viewed as a country that clearly threatens world peace after they declared war on Iraq? The attack will not only have many effects on the world; there amongst increased terrorism, but it is also a fact that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, which makes the attack clearly unacceptable. But since the U.N. never will attack the superpower USA, George W Bush might continue his democratization of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran followed by Iraq. I think that USA has managed very well to achieve their obvious goal: to make U.N. ineffective. And it is just another proof of that the system of collective security unfortunately does not work in practice.

Works Cited

Lindbom Schultz, Helena. Krig I Vår Tid. Studentlitteratur Lund: 2002.
Nye, Joseph S. Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History. 5th ed. Pearson Education, Inc; 2005.Notes from lectures

Experiences of War

Whenever there is an armed conflict, one can be sure of the fact that the civilians in that place have undergone extreme forms of violence, both physical and psychological. These different forms of violence, which the civilians become exposed to, are built up by their perpetrators as time goes by, and it will affect them in several different ways; for the rest of their lives. Just think about the apathetic children our state just now decided to deport from Sweden. They had undergone terrible trauma, and are today in a state where they cannot even move, talk, or eat. (The fact that we have decided to deport them is another political issue which will not be discussed here, but I still have to say that I find it outrageous). However, the Mayan war widows in Guatemala who Judith N. Zur describes in Violent Memories had their entire lives thrown upside down during the terrible time of rural terror (1978-1985) called la violencia. When reading about these Mayan war widows, or about how the shadow networks has been created, or watching the film Welcome to Sarajevo; one comes to realize that the culture and history that exists before a period of war is at the same time extremely important to individuals in order to try to survive and build up your identity and meaning after the culture you knew became eradicated. One also realizes that the fear built up during the war and the physical and psychological violence that civilians are exposed to will have very serious effect on them for the rest of their lives, and that reconstructing a ‘self’, finding meaning, remembering, handling the truth is necessary for a culture to survive and to develop.
First, there are several ways in which both the physical and psychological violence can be built up in armed conflicts. According to Zur, during la violencia, the army used physical violence when they burnt down cornfields and villages. They destroyed health-centres, schools and they took over the churches. They made the NGO’s flee. They raped women and killed their animals. This physical violence generates psychological violence. The psychological violence is very important in the beginning of a conflict, since the purpose of it is to break down your enemy. Zur writes that physical violence like public executions was during la violencia “intended to completely efface the identities of individuals” (Zur, 1889:78). Well, one thing is for certain; it creates “conditions of extreme insecurity…and increased deprivation” (Zur, Violent Memories, 1998:71), which probably was the purpose of the violence in the first place. It is a way to “terrorize [people] through destroying individual autonomy and destabilizing their communities” (Zur, 1998:71). Because, by eliminating the religious leaders, the NGO’s and important buildings; the individual is weakened. And this is then the purpose of the physical violence, by creating fear and terror; the perpetrator hopes to make the community crumble.
Second, it is also common in armed conflicts that the civilians are exposed to other forms of psychological violence. An army can use disinformation to “heighten the level of fear in a community” (Zur, 1998:74), or start myths of violence – also with the same purpose. During la violencia, according to Zur; “[o]ne of the most insidious manifestations of psychological terror was the military regime’s manipulation of language” (Zur, 1998:74), which was executed simply to achieve domination over the civilians. By manipulating the language the perpetrators sought to “increase the sense of intimidation” (Zur, 1998:74). Civilians were forced to change their language, certain words could not be said, and meanings disappeared to them. The fear created when being forced to carefully consider every word coming from your mouth, and the loss of meaning was the purpose of this psychological violence. Also, manipulation of language is “having the power to stigmatize persons and activities which question official realities” (Zur, 1998:75). Here manipulation of language was used to stigmatize the civilians in order to make them less threatening.
Further, how does the physical and psychological violence come to affect the civilians after the conflict is over? Does it affect them for the rest of their lives? In what ways does it affect them? I believe that the fears experiences during times of terror will definitely have an effect on the victims for ever, since their entire social reality has been destroyed. Consciously and unconsciously victims battles with the requests to forget, or try to protect themselves from certain memories. According to Zur; “the conscious devices include silence, mutism, negation, forgery and confusion” (Zur, 1998:160). And the unconsciously tool used for protection against memories of experiences is denial. People will experience chaos while their memory/associations/perception does not work. The K’iche women believe that “wisdom is based on knowledge and memory (and intelligence and feelings)” (Zur, 1998:161) which means that loosing their memory and knowledge during this time creates a feeling of chaos in them. What they know, what they can associate with is no longer there. They start to feel lost and unwise. Because, when a person’s entire social reality suddenly collapses, it will have an effect on them. The experience of personal loss or the experience of drastic changes in a person’s familiar world can create “disorientation and numbness, denial, severe anxiety and finally, anomie or despair” (Zur, 1998:161). It can be very hard to find words that describe experiences, and it can be extremely hard to find yourself without any language or any cultural belonging.
Further, when your entire worldview has crumbled, it is extremely hard to try to reconstruct your ‘self’, to give rise to representations of the ‘self’, to find meaning and cultural belonging. But during these time periods, it is very important to create memories and trying to handle the truth, in order to start some kind of a healing process. But, since one’s private memory often is different from the ‘official memory’ which is what the perpetrator wants you to remember, your own memory is violated and this “affects victims for years because the violence is internalized” (Zur, 1998:170). This makes to victim find it even harder to start to reconstruct a ‘self’ and create an identity, since “it hinders attempts to re-establish continuity with the past” (Zur, 1998:187) which is very important to the victims. However, people will have to continue struggle with their healing process, and while doing so, they sometimes collectively share memories/stories in their communities, while trying to merge past events into their present lives. According to Zur, for victims of violence “memories become whole only in social contexts, taking their shape according to group processes and the conceptual structures of certain groups” (Zur, 1998:172) which means that by collectively sharing memories/stories is starting to shape a culture, where their own memories in a way becomes real. It is part of a cultural understanding. And it is also through this process that a self-image can be created.
Furthermore, in order so survive, victims of violence are forced to act and take on responsibilities even though they might not have any energy for it. In their new world they have to try to find a continuity of the ‘self’. And sometimes victims of violence have to look into the past, into their old identities and structures and morals, to be able to create a feeling of continuity and to be able to create a new ‘self’. According to Zur: “[i]dentity or knowing who you are, is ‘to be oriented in moral space” (Zur, 1998:181). When victims of violence try to conform to their new identities, they can sometimes reinterpret meanings of occurrences in the past because “suffering is initially caused by meanings, [so therefore] altering meanings can reduce the suffering” (Zur, 1998:181).
When individuals become victims of violence, and loose their cultural belonging (where their worldview is shaped), they find it hard to interpret the world and their experiences on their own. Therefore people start networking, trying to recreate their culture, trying to share meanings, memories and create new identities. This is what people do in order to survive, because just like Nordstrom claims: “ [p]eople survive in communities” (Nordstrom, 2004:132). The shadow networks described in Shadows of War are a way of surviving the post-war periods for the victims of violence. Even though

“[t]here is no doubt that some of the communities that revolve around illicit exchange and profiteering are grounded in violence, fear and exploitation…others are invested in establishing ordered communities and stable relations” (Nordstrom, 2004:133).

Communities mean different things to different people. But, most of all they mean survival, survival and development after periods of fear and terror. The physical and psychological violence that the victims have been exposed will have significant effects on them for the rest of their lives. But as time passes by, and because of the necessity of continuity; they will create new identities based on their shared meanings, memories and history. This is crucial for their survival, and for their own development.

Works Cited

Nordstrom, Carolyn. Shadows of War: Violence, Power, and International Profiteering in the Twenty-First Century. London: University of California Press, Ltd, 2004.
Zur, Judith N. Violent Memories: Mayan War Widows in Guatemala. Oxford: Westview Press, 1998.

Local Wars?

Is there such a thing as ”local wars”? Or are does all wars require international involvement? Are we all involved in one way or another in the ongoing wars around the world? I believe that we are. Did you ever buy a diamond? Well, when discussing the term “local wars” it is important to make a notion of all the actors and activities involved in a war; the legal activities and the illegal activities, which are carried out. It is important to recognize the visible actors and activities as well as the invisible. When reading Shadows of War, by Carolyn Nordstrom, one realizes the importance, power and the size of “the vast networks of people who move goods and services worldwide” (Nordstrom, Shadows of War, 2004:107). According to Nordstrom these networks are not just extremely central to the world politics and economy but she describes them as “societal systems that cut across national, linguistic and ethnic collectives” (Nordstrom, 2004:107) which are “more formalized, integrated and bound by rules of conduct” than we can imagine. Therefore I argue that the term “local wars” is an illusion, since these networks created from times of war, have become “extra-state networks [which] extend across war and peace and across all worlds countries” (Nordstrom, 2004:107) and because their power is comparable to some world-states.
First, it is not only through media that local wars are made a global issue. Even though I hate to admit that that was my first thought; no wars are local, because we all get affected by wars around the world through media. The western world is not just involved in the local wars through welcoming (or not welcoming) refugees, sending aid, selling weapons, in negotiations, peace-keeping troops or NGO´s; but in so many other ways which is extremely important to be aware of. Namely, we are all involved in the local wars through the international shadow networks. These shadow networks are informal networks which operate when the formal networks do not operate anymore. The activities of the shadow networks are, according to Nordstrom, not simply “criminal, illicit, or illegal activities, but cross various divides between legal, quasi-legal, and downright illegal activities” (Nordstrom, 2004:106). The activities of the shadow networks can for example be activities of gun smuggling, trafficking, and gun and diamond trade. There are networks that make sure the requested goods crosses the borders, there are networks that laundry money, and networks that are tied with the formal state systems when they are running their business. When Nordstrom describes that “[g]uns ride as often with bags of grain through international ports as they do with state-authorized arms shipments through military channels” (Nordstrom, 2004:111) one understands that drawing the line between illegal/legal business operations is extremely hard in times of war. But “[t]hese intersections of power, il/legality, (questionable) legitimacy, and non/formal are characteristics of shadow networks” (Nordstrom, 2004:112). And since these shadow networks operates internationally, one can argue that wars are not local. The degree of involvement in the ongoing wars around the world varies from individual to individual.
Second, another reason why one can argue that wars are not “local” is that fact that these shadow networks generate enormous amounts of money each year, according to Nordstrom:

“[a]s much as [twenty] percent of the world’s financial deposits are located in unregulated banks and offshore locations…The United Nations estimates the annual value of illicit drug traffic at [five hundred billion dollars]…Non-formal markets comprise a much larger section of the world’s true economy than formal indices document” (Nordstrom, 2004:108, 113).

Also, everyone knows that money means power. These successful business men have often gained political power. And this is an important point to make, because just like Nordstrom argues, there is a “thin line between criminal traffic and government-inspired trade” (Nordstrom, 2004:106). Some leaders which operate in the shadow networks have gained just as much power as some leaders of some states. So it is important to realize that these shadow networks have gained much political power, which also affects us through the political activities that goes on around the world today. Again, the “local” wars are made global.
Third, it is easy to regard these shadow networks as something single handed bad. But ironically, one has to realize that these networks are fundamental in times of war or post-war, not only for the survival of the individual but also for the development in certain places. Because for some people war is normality, and while living in times of war/post-war people are forced do whatever it takes to survive. And they have to turn to these shadow networks which not only provide them with a sense of community and belonging, but also with necessities and other goods. But through these networks they can start to develop and “piece together a society and economy” (Nordstrom, 2004:113). And this is in a way ironic, since “[t]he whole point of development is to move economies into formal state-based frameworks and stop non-formal activities” (Nordstrom, 2004:113). This proves that shadow networks are not single handed bad, but utterly important for some individuals/countries survival.
Further, another point that has to be made when discussing these shadow networks is the fact that the way they are have been created and the way the are being run today, is very similar to the ways that states has been created and still operates today. Nordstrom quotes Charles Tilly who claims that “war making, extraction, and capital accumulation interacted in shaping the development of the European state” (Nordstrom, 2004:115) and asserts that “banditry, piracy, gangland rivalry, policing and war making all belong to the same continuum” (Nordstrom, 2004:115) in the process of a creation of a state. Of course this state performed violence will rub off on the individuals living in it. Still, today, violent actions are carried out by certain states. There is not that much of a difference between the violence performed by states and by these shadow networks. Aren’t some states performing some form of organized crime against other states? I would personally claim that the USA performed a crime when attacking Iraq over nothing. States also perform illegal activities such as torturing prisoners of war or abducting people. Some states are performing crimes against their own inhabitants, like with the case of la violencia in Guatemala, where “the genocidal nature of state violence against the indigenous population” (Zur, Violent Memories, 1998:67) certainly proved to exist. Judith N Zur says in Violent Memories that both visible and invisible violence was performed by the state, and that:

”[i]nvisible violence was (and still is) covertly performed by clandestine organisations belonging to the army, the security forces, and the police…[a]rmy intelligence officers are believed to be responsible for many killings and disappearances…[but] both the military and government disclaim any involvement in their atrocities and blame the guerrillas”(Zur, 1998:79).

With the illegitimate violence that have created states and that states still perform today, might be a reason for the illegal features of the international shadow networks in the world today.
In conclusion, the concept of “local wars” should be rethought, since I believe there is not such a thing as a local war. This concept is an illusion, since one can say that every individual are involved in the ongoing wars around the world today in one way or another. Wars or post-war periods make people do what it takes in order to survive. Certain everyday activities such as getting food for the day have created shadow networks. For example, in Welcome to Sarajevo there is a scene where someone has managed to get a hold of a few eggs, and they make omelettes on them and it looks like that was the best thing they had tasted in years. The way these goods reach the people in war are both through legal activities and illegal activities. Drawing the line is very hard, since “the cosmopolitan centres of the world depend in part on ‘shadow’ economics and politics” (Nordstrom, 2004:115). Well, since these networks have come to extend beyond the nation-states and therefore has come to involve international actors, they also have come to have an impact on the world economy and therefore also on world politics. Also, these shadow networks, which in a way has come to operate the way states in general has come to operate throughout history, have ironically become necessary for countries development. Not only have they created a sense of meaning and belonging for the citizens in terrible times, but they have also been necessary for reshaping and recreating the economy and society. These shadow networks have come to be “worldwide alliances” (Nordstrom, 2004:131) but these
“interrelated transnational industries shouldn’t be confused with states, but they do have governing councils, laws and security forces. They forge trade agreements, foreign policy and currency exchanges. And they set up the transport routes, communication linkages, and banking systems needed to effect trade” (Nordstrom, 2004:131).
Therefore one can argue that the expression “local wars” is and illusion.

Works Cited

Nordstrom, Carolyn. Shadows of War: Violence, Power, and International Profiteering in the Twenty-First Century. London: University of California Press, Ltd, 2004.
Zur, Judith N. Violent Memories: Mayan War Widows in Guatemala. Oxford: Westview Press, 1998.

About the European Refugee Politics

Well, the asylum regime in Europe has changed over the last decades. One can say that it has changed from an uncoordinated liberalism to a harmonised restrictionism. The European countries have been working together to increase a control of their borders, to harmonise policies that restricts asylum seekers to enter Europe through international agreements.
Throughout the 80s and 90s there have been restrictions in the asylum politics to reduce the number of asylum seekers and refugees from entering the host countries. This have happened both on a national and international level, and a sense of inclusion and exclusion has arisen. For example, there has been an introduction of transit and visitor’s visas, carries sanctions and airport international zones (with the first country of asylum rule). In 1990 the Dublin Convention was released, which limited the possibility of applying for asylum in the EU to one country. The procedures that grants asylum has been shortened, phrases like “countries with no serious risk of persecution” has been mounted. There has also been a change in the interpretation of the Geneva Convention, which has led to a demand of “higher standards of proof of persecution” (Joly, 343). This means that a lot of refugees are not processed under Geneva Convention, but instead gain lesser statuses. For example, the new status of ‘Temporary Protection’ has been implemented, which “negates with the premise of Geneva Convention” (Joly, 344).
There has also been a change towards non-integration of the refugee. The demands of host countries to “homogenise groups in order to make them fit into a unified national character” (Warner, 257) while prohibiting them of having the space in the community where they can express their culture, has led to an exclusion of the refugee in society. He/she has come to be viewed as the “other”, who is placed outside the nation-state. The policy shift towards temporary protection has made the refugee stateless, and therefore unprotected; which also means not having to conform. This has led to an absence of programmes for integration. Because when the aim is for the refugee to be returning home, what is really the point of integrating him/her into the host society? This is really a disempowerment of refugees and it increases xenophobia and racism in society. The politicians and the media help with spreading the negative image of the refugee; that the refugee is a problem that needs to be solved. He/she has come to represent a failure of the state. According to Dillon, this exclusion of refugees is a form of violence from the state. Because, he claims that “the violence is included in the very act of defining those who are inside and those who are outside” (Warner, 261). In order to solve these problems, there has to be a change in the discourse. The negative projections, the generalisations, stereotyping and the distrust of the refugee are dangerous. The victim should under no circumstances be blamed.
Also, the conditions of reception have gotten worse since countries are trying not to attract asylum seekers. For example, there has been a limitation of freedom of movement, reduced welfare benefits and also more limited rights to education and work. Somewhat due to discrimination, but somewhat also due to the fact that immigrants are segregated in their host societies. The immigrant often ends up in communities with less resources put on education and therefore less opportunities for continued education and therefore also less opportunity for work. But even if one would manage to gain a university degree, one would risk getting discriminated against.
When former Yugoslavia experienced a major crisis, a new approach to refugee policy took shape. A comprehensive approach which dealt with early warnings, pre-emptive actions and “focusing on the root causes of refugee movements” (Joly, 351) were thought to be an answer to the refugee crisis. There was a focus on assisting the return of refugees, both with good return programmes and help with rebuilding the country of origin. Encouragements and incentives for the refugee to return home called ‘safe guards’ was a part of this return programme, which meant that the refugee have a “legal rights to return to the host country for a six-month period”. And there was a support of voluntary return. There was also a focus on re-integration in the country of origin.
The increase in mobility of people and the globalisation has led to a change in the refugee policy towards Inter-governmental agreements. For example, the Amsterdam Treaty, the Schengen Agreement, the Geneva Convention, the Dublin Convention and other Conclusions and Resolutions. It is positive, that governments take decisions together to share the responsibility of refugees, and that they are trying to cooperate internationally. But there seem to be a selection in the harmonisation of the policies. Some of these inter-governmental conclusions are unlike the Geneva Convention not binding, but are implemented in the legislation of the different countries. Lack of harmonisation is especially visible when it comes to reception and settlement. Also, a lot of NGO’s has entered the debate. So one can today see a certain amount of tensions between the liberal views on the refugee policy where the human rights issues weigh in, and the countries “who want to restrict asylum and integration” (Joly, 354).
Actually, recently EU released the ‘Haagprogramme’, which shows how it is going to deal with questions regarding border control issues, police coorperation, asylum and migration issues. They are introducing the same asylum application process in all countries, and there will also be a possibility to apply for asylum from the country of origin. Also, there will be a stronger focus on stopping human trafficking. But I don’t think this will solve the problem. The aim is to fucos on getting fewer asylum applicants. And this is another clear example on further exclusion of “the other”, due to an enhanced inclusion os ‘us’. The same goes for the asylum reception centres, that are suggested to be placed in ‘safe third countries’, which in fact they are not. The safety of the refugee cannot be guaranteed. And this; I think is a dangerous evolvement of the common EU refugee policy. This means that the EU think it is more important to exclude the rest of the world than considering the human rights aspect in this issue.
For the refugee, the state is both the root cause of flight and the solution for protection. States who are forcing citizens to flea are letting other states down and are forcing them to take responsibility for their own citizens. One solution would be that no one violated the human rights, then no more refugees would be created. And the root causes of the refugee flows need to be examined and prevented if possible. States also need to take responsibility and fulfil their obligations to guarantee protection of refugee. And the problems with resettlement/repatriation need even more attention. A return to unsafe countries should be out of the question. Enhancement in the protection of the refugee must be taken into consideration. The refugee should not be standing outside the responsibility of the state. The “de-territoralisation of the trinity, the inherent violence of the state, and the incapacity of all states to fulfil their human rights obligations” (Warner, 265) has lead to an exclusion of the refugee in society.

Works Cited

Grete Brochmann and Tomas Hammar. Mechanisms of Immigration Control. Berg publishers. Oxford-New York, 1999.
Geddes, Andrew. The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe. Sage, London, 2003.
Eriksson, Peter. “Sätt fart på Integrationen” in Sydsvenska Dagbladet. Nov 3, 2004.
Karl Vicktor Olsson and Lars Larsson. “EU Slopar Veto i Asylfrågor” in Sydsvenska Dagbladet. Nov 7, 2004.
Aleinikoff, Alexander T. ”State Centered refugee Law : From Resettlement to Containment” in MistrustingRefugees. Berkely, University of California Press. 1995.
Wrench John, Rea Andrea, Ouali Nouria. Migrants, Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market: Integration and Exclusion in Europe.
Soininen, M. “Refugee Care in Sweden: The problems of Unemployment anti-discrimination Policies” in J. Wrench, A. Rea & N. Ouali. Migrants and the Labour market, Integration and Exclusion in Europe. Basingstoke, Macmillan. Pp 195-216.
Bevelander, Pieter. “Getting Foothold, Male Immigrant Employment Integration and Structural Change in Sweden, 1970-1995” in Journal of International Migration and Integration. Fall 2001.
M Cross and R Waldinger. “Economic Integration and Labour Market Change” in J. Hjarnö From Metropolis to Cosmopolis. Papers, Migration no 30. Danish Centre for Migration and Ethnic Studies. Esbjerg, South Jutland University Press. Pp 30-93.
Mitzi Gras and Frank Bovenkerk. “Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in the Netherlands”: Discrimination in Access to Employment.
Gustafson, Per. “Globalisation, Multiculturalism and Individualism”: the Swedish Debate on Dual Citizenship. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Vol. 28, No. 3: 463-481, 2002.
Ralph Rotte and Peter Stein. “Migration Policy and the Economy”: International Experiences, 2002.
Warner, Daniel. “The Refugee State and State Protection”.
Think Tank: “Immigration and Integration Policies in Denmark and Selected Countries”: The Think Tank on Integration in Denmark. Ministry of Refugee, immigration and Integration Affairs. Feb, 2004. http://www.inm.dk/Index/dokumenter.asp?o=102&n=1&d=2392&s=5
Notes from Lectures.
Joly, Daniele. ”A New Asylum Regime in Europé”, in Refugee Rights and Realities: Evolving International Concepts and Regimes. Cambridge University Press. 1999.