Although I'm technically off the grid, the news that ISIS proclaimed women and girls in Mosul should submit to genital mutilation (FGM), and the report's subsequent debunking, compel me to emerge from hiatus.
Leaving aside why a fake report on FGM should be viewed as needed to discredit a group who is executing civilian, forcibly displacing minotiries and destroying cultural property, I have mixed feelings about the outcry this story raised.
On the one hand it indicates a widespread norm in the West, in UN circles and among the Muslim population in Mosul to view FGM as a heinous human rights violation: that's a good thing. That said, the appropriation of women's issues to denigrate men "we" might wish to cast as barbaric enemies has a long history and has rarely served women or feminist interests. Using feminist causes for propagandistic ends should not be confused with genuine feminism (which we can define for simplicity's sake as HuffPo did today) since it undermines efforts to reach gender equality in two ways.
First, it perpetuates conflict through stereotyping and emnification, conflicts in which women often suffer disproportionately. If we are following global affairs critically, we should be conscious of these dynamics and find ways to promote women's human rights without contributing to war propaganda. Second, pointing fingers at "Them" blinds "Us" to ways in which our own institutions and policies also perpetuate harmful gendered practices. Too often the media spotlight on barbaric foreigners closes the space for feminist activists on the home front to press for greater gender equity at home. And simplistic narratives of bad men oppressing women in foreign lands obscure the complexity of these practices - which implicate and affect men as well as women - and too often substitute for exploring efforts at change.
In the case of genital cutting, for example, consider some actual facts: Even though ISIS is apparently not going to be forcibly circumcising girls and women in Iraq, millions of girls do face non therapeutic genital cutting in the Mideast/Africa / Southeast Asia. Female circumcision as practiced in the US as recently as the 1970s: Playgirl magazine promoted it in 1973, and Blue Cross Blue Shield covered the procedure until 1977. The US no longer tolerated circumcision of girls, but baby boys are still cut primarily for cultural reasons in the US - as well as Africa, Israel, Canada, Australia, much of the Muslim world and parts of Europe. Moreover, inter-sex children undergo involuntary genital surgeries in the name of gender 'normalcy'.
None of this is consistent with human rights unless chosen voluntarily by consenting adults, according to the Genital Integrity movement, which is meeting this weekend for its Bi-ennial Symposium in Boulder, CO. I have been attending this meeting to present research findings from my recently published book project and can attest to the inspiringly multi-vocal and genuine efforts here to eradicate all forms of genital cutting - in a way that engages, respects and builds bridges to communities who engage in it, with fortitude and compassion, rather than demonizing.
Highlights will include:
- Some Colorado conference travel to present my research findings to one of the activist communities whose work I profiled in my book
- London for a week of exploratory research among NGOs that specialize in civilian casualty-counting, plus visits with my son to the newly re-opened Imperial War Museum and 222B Baker Street
- Some southwest road-tripping fun with children, partner and siblings sandwiched in.
Between all this I'll drag along various bits of light reading, among them the following, in case you're interested in reading along:
Samer Abdelnour and Akbar Saeed have published a terrific article in International Political Sociology. "Technologizing Humanitarian Space: Darfur Advocacy and the Rape-Stove Panacea" critically traces the emergence of fuel-efficient cook-stoves as a global "solution" to sexual violence in refugee camps.
Here's the abstract:
We examine how an unassuming domestic technology—the fuel-efficient stove—came to be construed as an effective tool for reducing sexual violence globally. Highlighting the process of problematization, the linking of problems with actionable solutions, we show how US-based humanitarian advocacy organizations drew upon spatial, gender, perpetrator, racial, and interventionist representations to advance the notion that “stoves reduce rape” in Darfur. Though their effectiveness in Darfur remains questionable, efficient stoves were consequently adopted as a universal technical panacea for sexual violence in any conflict or refugee camp context. By examining the emergence and global diffusion of the rape-stove problematization, our study documents an important example of the technologizing of humanitarian space. We postulate fuel-efficient stoves to be a technology of Othering able to simplify, combine, decontextualize, and transform problematizations from their originating contexts elsewhere. When humanitarian advocates construe immensely complex crises as “manageable problems,” the promotion of simple technical panaceas may inadvertently increase the burden of poverty for user-beneficiaries and silence the voices of those they claim to champion and serve.
I remember teaching about the firewood/rape nexus in refugee settings during my days at GSPIA, but I was not aware of how the technology had proliferated since then or of many of the pernicious side effects of this technocratic solution to a multi-dimensional problem (here is an op-ed version by Abdelnour). It was nice to read a detailed critical assessment of such a policy, and to think about how many other globalized practices are doing more harm than good (or maybe some good and some harm) in places where well-meaning agents are struggling to deal with so much nastiness. Fuel-efficient cook-stoves to reduce rape are a band-aid, but so are refugee settings themselves: technocratic efforts to cordon off nastiness from vulnerable populations, and cordon off vulnerable populations from their host societies. The takeaway is that looking below the rug of humanitarian policy leads to some pessimistic conclusions.
Lots of ink is being spilled over Gaza. Watching and reading, I am reminded of something I read early in my career, while writing my second book. This thing I read was a manual for reporters, written by veteran British war correspondents Annabel McGoldrick and Jake Lynch. Jaded by knowledge of how the media can exacerbate or dampen conflicts, their manual contained specific suggestions for producing "peace journalism."
For example, McGoldrick and Lynch suggest reporters avoid portraying conflicts in zero-sum terms, emphasizing essentialist divisions, adopting language that victimizes or demonizes, or reporting only the horrors. Instead, they suggest, war reporters should "disaggregate the two parties into many smaller groups pursuing many goals," engage in "asking questions that reveal areas of common ground," and ask victims "how they are coping and what they think."
Like many I am today watching unfolding events in Gaza with sadness, outrage and a sense of helplessness. As a non-expert in the region, I have very little value to add in terms of insights. But what I can do, I figure, is a) pass along things I've seen come across my feeds that exemplify this kind of reporting and b) dwell especially on some under-covered angles that might complicate the conventional story of intractable hatreds in ways consistent with McGoldrick and Lynch's suggestions.
Germany won the Men's World Cup. The other half of the tournament takes place next year, in Canada.
Calling the men's half of the tournament 'The' World Cup while excluding half the world's population including some of the best players in the world is really nothing more than gendered language at its sexist best.
At Huffington Post last week, Jezebel's Valerie Alexander penned a terrific piece on why this semantic distinction is so important:
American commentators, please stop announcing that Landon Donovan is the "all-time U.S. leading goal scorer." He is not. With 57 international goals, he's not even in the Top Five. The all-time U.S. leading goal scorer is Abby Wambach, with 167 goals, followed by Mia Hamm (158), Kristine Lilly (130), Michelle Akers (105) and Tiffeny Milbrett (100). In fact, Abby Wambach is the all-time leading goal scorer in the world, among all soccer players, male or female.
I don't want to take anything away from what Landon Donovan has achieved. But every time he sits there, silently allowing that phrase to be rattled off -- 'all-time leading U.S. goal scorer' -- without pointing out that he is the all-time leading men's goal scorer, it does take away from what Abby Wambach and Mia Hamm have achieved -- total world domination. It would be great if he displayed some of the dignity and grace we know he possesses and say, 'All-time leading men's scorer. There are seven U.S. women higher on the list than me.'
Rob Farley and I talk on BloggingheadsTV about new books (his and mine); the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots; how political scientists might study the circulation of science fiction and fantasy in real-world politics; and the meaning of Game of Thrones' fourth season.
As I write this, Twitter and Facebook inform me that air raid sirens are going off in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, as well as several cities and towns closer to the Gaza Strip, while Israeli forces have launched air strikes against Gaza and are considering the mobilization of as many as 40,000 reservists for a possible ground incursion. The numbers of dead, wounded, and terrorized are mounting.
This most recent escalation comes on the heels of the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens in the West Bank, and also the official and unofficial retaliation by both the Israeli government and a small group of Jewish extremists. But while this is the proximate cause, the truth is that this week’s bloodshed and terror is rooted in the simmering hatred, prejudice, and distrust that has characterized the peace process almost since its inception.
While leaders have in the past at least made a pretense of working toward the goals set out way back in the 1990s, the Israeli government under Netanyahu and the deeply-divided Palestinian leadership have both made clear their unwillingness to compromise. Decades of occupation, radicalism, and foot-dragging have brought us to the point where leaders and citizens now find themselves, committed to verbally endorsing a peace process that has no chance of ever turning into actual peace. At the very least, peace would require an end to – rather than the continued expansion of – Israeli settlements in the West Bank, just as it would require Hamas and its supporters to unequivocally give up on the dream of a map of the region that doesn’t include Israel. But peace would also require giving up on the idea that justice is bound up with affixing blame and with retaliation, giving up on the whole ridiculous notion that everything will be sorted out properly once everyone finally understands whose fault it all really is.
Imagine never knowing whether your next step will be your last, whether your children are safe in the fields around your house, whether objects they find in the street are toys or deadly explosives. For people living where landmines lie in wait long after wars end, such frightening thoughts are daily realities.
“The humanitarian impact is heartbreaking,” said Kiman Lucas of Clear Path International, which assists landmine survivors. For almost two decades, US landmine policy has been at odds with NATO allies and in the uncomfortable company of Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Syria. “Everywhere I go,” Lucas told me, “people question why the US has not already joined the landmine ban treaty.”
But without much fanfare last week, representatives of the State Department announced subtle but crucial changes to the US government’s stance, distancing itself from the unilateral tone of Bush-era policy.
Just in time for you to head to the beach with a copy, my new book is now available from Cornell University Press.* As many of you know, this is the culmination of a my 6-year NSF-funded research project on why some human security problems get on the global agenda and others don't. The answer in a nutshell: it's all about what's going on within the advocacy networks. A teaser of the first chapter is here. A nice write-up by the Chronicle of Higher Education is here.
The book includes a longer version of the argument in this article, and three case studies on human security campaigns that I've followed and occasionally written about at the Duck - causes long championed by norm entrepreneurs but varying in their ability to gain traction on the global agenda:
- 1) The campaign for a new norm providing compensation to collateral damage victims. This idea that civilian war victims should be compensated by the militaries that harm them was the brainchild of humanitarian legend Marla Ruzicka, and has been cultivated over the years by the Center for Civilian Victims in Conflict (CIVIC) since Marla's untimely death. Starting in 2007 I followed this group, documenting their efforts to get governments, generals, diplomats and humanitarian "gatekeepers" to take seriously the idea of "amends" for the lawful victims of military operations. Chapter Four tells that story up to 2011.
- 2) The campaign to ban autonomous weapons. Roboticist Noel Sharkey, and his colleagues, have been promoting this idea since 2007, but it gained salience on the international stage in 2012 when Human Rights Watch picked up the issue and launched a report on the topic. Now it is a full-fledged global campaign. Chapter Five tells the story of how norm entrepreneurs sold this concept to humanitarian disarmament elites despite opposition from counter-norm-entrepreneurs, and learned the art of transnational advocacy unexpectedly along the way.
- 3) The campaign to stop infant male circumcision. Although nearly three million baby boys are circumcised annually worldwide, often without anesthetic and primarily for cultural reasons, the practice has long been opposed by a grassroots transnational movement of health care practitioners, families, and children's rights advocates. The cause has nonetheless received short shrift from the human rights movement, as Deb DeLaet has documented. Chapter Six examines "intactivist" efforts and agenda-vetting by human rights organizations and explores reasons for inattention to this bodily integrity rights issue by powerful actors in the human rights network.
Each of these cases illustrates the broader argument: that norm entrepreneurs must market their causes through human security "hubs" in order to succeed, and that their chances of doing so depend on social ties between actors, issues and subcultures within global issue networks. But each also tells a fascinating story of social change agents on the global front-lines, and the work they do each day to make our world a better place, often against great odds.
1) Jarrod Hayes is Assistant Professor in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs and is the author of Constructing National Security: US Relations With India and China. You may have seen his IO article on securitization, and his guest posts on nuclear policy, Crimea, the Arab Spring and other topics; and you probably know him as a long-time Duck reader and commenter as well. Jarrod is keen to blog on security, US / Asian foreign policy and climate change in between hiking, kayaking, and working on his house.
2) Tim Luecke is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University and the managing editor for International Theory. Tim's current research focuses on the concept of ‘political generations’ and its applications and explanatory value in International Relations. Other areas of expertise include German foreign policy, qualitative methods, and raising nine-year-old daughters. In his free time, he rock-climbs and is a Reggae and Drum and Bass DJ under the pseudonym “Troublemaka.”
3) Heather Roff-Perkins is Visiting Associate Professor at the Denver's Korbel School of International Studies and the author of Global Justice, Kant and the Responsibility to Protect. She specializes in just war theory, military technology, and has a particular interest in cyber-warfare. She blogs at Kantemplation and is a frequent contributor to the Huffington Post. She also has expertise in raising toddlers and training dolphins for the US Navy.
4) Cynthia Weber is Professor of International Relations at University of Sussex in the UK and author of numerous book including Simulating Sovereignty and Faking It: US Hegemony in a Post Phallic Era. She has written for OpenDemocracy and readers may recall her popular "PoliSciJobRumors" guest post at the Duck. She also directs.
Please issue them a warm welcome.
Last Spring the International Studies Association approved a new ISA journal, the Journal of Global Security Studies. I am normally pretty sanguine about new journals in the discipline but in this case I feel genuine excitement. Why? Because JOGSS is not just another outlet for scholarship but is actively positioning itself institutionally to cultivate much-needed bridges and conversation across divides within the sub-field:
"The mission of JOGSS is to publish first-rate work from across the entire range of methodological, epistemological, theoretical, normative, and empirical concerns reflected in the field of global security studies and, more importantly, encourage dialogue, engagement, and conversation across different parts of the field."
This is important because security studies scholarship has long been siloed in a number of blocs, all largely ignoring one another. By contrast, JOGSS would put these different takes on "security" in dialogue, bringing together conventional rationalist approaches on great power politics with critical human security studies and everything in between.
This effort is reflected in the journal's first call for proposals, which was released today to the ISA membership and is excerpted below the fold. An early special issue on "The Future of Security Studies" is envisioned, with papers cultivated through a workshop process. It's a great opportunity for students or more advanced scholars interested in the direction in which our sub-field is headed. I hope many Duck readers will consider submitting!
This is a guest post by Philip Martin, PhD student in the Department of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, columnist David Brooks advises a U.S. approach to Iraq which uses military force to arm-twist Iraqi elites into forming an inclusive new government, since “if you get the political elites behaving decently, you can avoid the worst.” At Political Violence @ a Glance, Barbara Walter also argues in favor of a negotiated settlement based on power-sharing as the optimal solution to Iraq’s current political fragmentation, an outcome that will supposedly “become increasingly attractive to everyone as the costs and risks of war increase.”
It is true that if moderate elites had more power in Iraq this would reduce the intensity of the country’s domestic political violence; it is less clear, however, that another power-sharing coalition government brokered by foreign interveners is an effective means to this end. For the last decade or more, scholars and practitioners have advocated for inclusivity, integration and power-sharing as the principal solution to the problem of civil war termination, expecting that these arrangements can reassure combatant groups of their participation in the post-war distribution of power, and eventually establish a cooperative model of governance which builds trust and moderation. Yet empirical research on foreign-imposed regimes and the determinants of peace agreement success provides little optimism about the likely effectiveness of these institutional arrangements.
In the same weekend that parents around the nation watched their high-school and college students graduate and spread their wings for brighter shores, Game of Thrones served us up a season finale that was both about passages out of childhood, and about the shadow of parent-child relationships that follow people into their young-adulthoods.
Similarly, it is safe to say Game of Thrones as a series came of age this season in its richness and complexity (while making mistakes along the way and learning from them). I don't only mean the characters: Sansa Stark, who mid-season vaulted unexpectedly from girlish frailty to saucy, empowered womanhood; Daenerys Targaryen, who has gone from single-minded teen mother-of-cute-baby-dragons to a seasoned parent setting painful boundaries with her children (albeit inexpertly), and ejecting her surrogate father along the way; boy-king Tommen Barratheon, who has lost a brother, secured a fiance and assumed the throne all in a few weeks; Tyrion Lannister, who finally closed the door on his Daddy-issues; Arya Stark, who abandoned her de facto and would-be keepers and put the rudder to home and hearth in the majestic final moments of the season. And I don't only refer to the way whatever leftover innocence we may have had as an audience has been increasingly shaken this season by the show-runners' tricking us into cheering at the death of children or forcing us to confront the fact that honorable men can also be rapists.
Mostly what I mean is that the sprawling arc of the show is gradually, inexorably fulfilling the germ of its promise in the series' opening scenes, maturing into the story it was born to be: a story of climate insecurity overlooked by the machinations of state-centric power politics. This was the tale Martin always meant to spin, this was where the series has been heading, and this arc has been intentionally dormant amidst the childish dramas of Westeros and Essos. In the season finale, the wildlings emerge as climate refugees; we are introduced to the Children of the Forest (synechdoche for indigenous populations and deep ecology); we are reminded that here be giants. If Game of Thrones is a metaphor for real-world politics, and if the metaphor is about global affairs instead of domestic politics, then it seems less like a story about Westphalian statebuilding and more like a 21st century metaphor for our frog civilization boiling in its hot, carbon-baked planetary pot. But I also refer to a few key moments in the show that tell us something about how the show is maturing, albeit imperfectly.
I have not blogged episode-by-episode about GoT this Spring (for that you can always follow Scott Eric Kaufman, Alyssa Rosenberg or Laura Hudson). But with the season now wrapped up, I do want to offer my take for what it's worth on three of the season's biggest moments. By big, I don't mean best (though one tops my list) nor most controversial (though one probably counts) nor most important to the plot (really, how can we pick among twists? [non-book-fan SPOILER alert: the last twist from Storm of Swords at that link has not yet been revealed on the show.) Rather these are the scenes that made me, as a book fan, along with a significant portion of the Internet, stop and go some combination of "huh" and "um..." Here are my readings on what they meant and why they matter:
For a perspective on how global civil society might better mobilized for armed violence reduction read this new report, by a Brazilian humanitarian disarmament NGO, Instituto SoudaPaz. "What's Next?" is both an up-to-date manifesto on the importance and political tactics by which small arms advocates might more meaningfully influence global debate and policy, and a reflection on the nature, challenges and promise of global civil society mobilization in this area which might be usefully generalized to other thematic transnational advocacy domains. It's a long read but a helpful resource if you are doing research or praxis in this area.
On June 12, Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, will brief the United Nations Human Rights Council on the human rights implications of lethal autonomous weapons. Last month, member states were likewise briefed by panels of experts at an informal meeting under the auspices of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), which Charli Carpenter has blogged about here.
Much of the discussion pertaining to lethal autonomous weapons, or “killer robots,” revolves around the implications for international humanitarian law, particularly whether they will be able of discriminating between combatants and civilians, or whether they will be used to violate human rights. Little attention, however, is paid to the realities of the costs of such systems and whether they will be operationally useful or advantageous.
One of my favorite blogs turned ten this past weekend. Lawyers, Guns and Money was an early entrant to the IR blogosphere and Rob Farley and his crew are some of its most well-known voices. Last weekend they ran a series of anniversary reflections which I hope you'll surf on over and read. They're all amazing, funny, heart-twanging, and Rob's in particular has a lot of history and depth to it and some nice reflections on how the blogosphere has changed in the last decade.
Since I contributed to LGM for eighteen months between January 2010 and May 2011, I also contributed an anniversary post here, in which I ruminated on work-life balance issues as they relate to different types of academic blogging, and what I found special about my time there. The take-home paragraph is below the fold:
At my side event presentation at the UN CCW Experts Meeting on Autonomous Weapons last month, I presented public opinion data showing strong US opposition to the idea of deploying such weapons. Since the panel was specifically focused on "morality and ethics" and since my remarks were on measuring the public "conscience" per se rather than public opinion in general, I re-examined my coding of open-ended comments with a view toward whether popular arguments for or against the use of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) were based on humanitarian principles or interest-based reasoning. At the Monkey Cage this week, I describe the results:
While both camps prioritize "saving lives," humanitarian thinking per se is largely absent from explanations for opinions in favor of autonomous weapons. Rather, proponents of such weapons unflaggingly invoke national self-interest: the need to protect “our troops” from harm or “our national security” from robot arms races – arguments invoked as well by analysts and lawyers advocating such weapons. Only a small proportion of AWS proponents surveyed qualify this statement with concern for foreign civilians. And there is almost no sense among the U.S. public that autonomous weapons might actually be a viable means of reducing war crimes against foreign civilians – though this is a moral argument made by some proponents of AWS and, according to Zack Beauchamp, perhaps the most important question in the debate. Most arguments in favor of AWS by American voters are interest-based arguments based on the hope of saving American lives (though notably active-duty personnel in the survey did not agree with this thinking).
On behalf of Dan Drezner and myself I am pleased to announce the lineup for our panel proposal to the 2015 International Studies Association Annual Conference in New Orleans, which I submitted today.
The call for proposals specified we were looking for papers specifically investigating the empirical impacts of / circulation of ASOIAF/GoT cultural artifacts in real-world politics. (An example of which might be the above tweet, which was disseminated on the official White House twitter feed earlier this month).
As such we are not seeking papers that critically analyze the books/show as a political text itself, or that apply pedagogical lessons from the show to the real world, or that treat the popular cultural artifacts or their fandom themselves as a primary object of study through political lenses (though any of these aspects might conceivably come to play in papers for this panel). Rather, we are interested in rigorous, data-driven research taking seriously popular culture (in this case ASOIAF/GoT) as an independent variable on political phenomena and empirically examining ways in which its fictional memes, concepts or allegories infuse or inform real-world politics, political phenomena or political debate (widely construed) on issues other than Game of Thrones itself.
We ended up with quite an interesting set of projects. With the permission of the authors, the abstracts we are submitting are below the fold for your reading pleasure. I look forward to seeing many of you there next spring. Characters welcome.