Critical security studies and the united nations preventive deployment in Macedonia

Abstract

This essay takes as it starting point that meta-theoretical assumptions affect our analyses of UN peace operations and have normative consequences. It demonstrates how this fact could be taken into account in such analyses by introducing an approach to the study of security – Critical Security Studies (CSS) – and by showing how the central ideas of this approach may be fitted into an alternative framework for analysis. This framework is based on the method of immanent critique and is in particular concerned with conceptions of security and human emancipation. An illustration of how this framework can be utilized to study the UN's preventive deployment in Macedonia is then provided. It is argued that some of this UN operation's activities can be regarded as contributions to a process of emancipation in Macedonia

Notes

For excellent examples of such an approach see, Sandra Whitworth's ‘The Practice, and Praxis, of Feminist Research in International Relations’, in Richard Wyn Jones (ed.), Critical Theory and World Politics, London: Lynne Rienner, 2001, pp.149–60; ‘Gender, Race and the Politics of Peacekeeping’, in Edward Moxon-Browne (ed.), A Future for Peacekeeping?, London: Macmillan, 1998, pp.176–91; and ‘Where is the Politics in Peacekeeping?’, International Journal Vol.50, No.2, 1995, pp.427–35.

For convenience, the name ‘Macedonia’ is used to refer to the country here. However, it should be pointed out that this name has been, and may still, in some environments, be contentious. The country is only recognized by many states as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), due to a name dispute with Greece, although its constitutional name is the Republic of Macedonia. Nevertheless, Macedonia is now increasingly used both in academic literature, journalistic work and on the international scene. One may even say it has become the norm.

On this debate, see for example Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1986; Richard Ashley, ‘The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics’, Alternatives Vol.12, No.4, 1987, pp.403–34; Yosef Lapid, ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.33, No.3, 1989, pp.235–54; James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, Lexington: Lexington Books, 1989; Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organisation, Vol.46, No.2, 1992, pp.391–425; R.B.J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; Christine Sylvester, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994; Steve, Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

For more on this distinction, see Eli Stamnes and Richard Wyn Jones, ‘Burundi: a Critical Security Perspective’, Peace and Conflict Studies, Vol.7, No.2, 2000, pp.37–55.

Richard Price and Christian Reus-Smit, ‘Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol.4, No.3, 1998, p.271.

The term ‘object’ in ‘referent object’ refers to the grammatical object, i.e. the entity for whom security is discussed/provided, and does not imply a lack of subjectivity.

R.B.J. Walker, ‘Security, Sovereignty, and the Challenge of World Politics’, Alternatives Vol.15, No.1, 1990, pp.3–27; R.B.J. Walker, ‘The Subject of Security’ in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Cases and Concepts, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 1997, pp.61–81; Ken Booth, ‘Security and Emancipation’, Review of International Studies, Vol.17, No.4, 1991, pp.313–26; Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, 2nd edn., London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991 (first edition 1983); Christian Reus-Smit, ‘Realist and Resistance Utopias: Community, Security and Political Action in the New Europe’, Millennium, Vol.21, No.1, 1992, pp.1–28; Ole Wæver, Barry Buzan, Morten Kelstrup and Pierre Lemaitre, Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe, London: Pinter Press, 1993; Martin Shaw, Global Society and International Relations, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994; Richard Wyn Jones, ‘“Message in a Bottle?” Theory and Praxis in Critical Security Studies’, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol.16, No.3, 1995, pp.299–319; Richard Wyn Jones, Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999; Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Cases and Concepts, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 1997; Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998. The distinction between ‘broadening’ and ‘extending’ is Wyn Jones' (1999, n.7 above), pp.104, 112.

See, in particular, Richard Wyn Jones, ‘“Travel without maps”: Thinking about Security after the Cold War’ in M. Jane Davis (ed.), Security Issues in the Post-Cold War World, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1996, pp.209–10; Wyn Jones, Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory, pp.110–12 and Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity and Interest: A Sociology of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp.92, 94–5.

See Buzan et al., 1991 (n.7 above), p.24.

Seyla Benhabib, Critique, Norm, Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory, New York: Columbia University Press, 1986, p.21.

David Held, Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1980, p.382; Benhabib (n.10 above), p.47.

See, Wyn Jones, 1999 (n.10 above), pp.70–1.

Axel Honneth, ‘The Social Dynamics of Disrespect: On the Location of Critical Theory Today’, translated by John Farrell, Constellations Vol.1, No.2, 1994, p.262.

Ibid., p.263.

Ibid., p.266; Axel Honneth, The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts, translated by Joel Anderson, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995, pp.92–130.

Honneth 1994 (n.13 above), p.263.

For a comprehensive CSS analysis of this operation, see, Eli Stamnes, United Nations Preventive Deployment in Macedonia: a CSS Analysis, PhD thesis, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, 2002.

UN doc. S/RES/795, 1992; UN doc. S/24923, 1992; Bo Pellnäs, ‘UN Preemptive Deployment in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ in Peter Wallensteen (ed.), International Intervention: New Norms in the Post-Cold War Era?, Report No.45, Uppsala: Uppsala University, Department of Peace and Conflict Studies, 1997, pp.107–114; Abiodun Williams, Preventing War: The United Nations and Macedonia, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, pp.43–4.

Due to the redeployment of Swedish and Norwegian troops to Bosnia, NORDBAT was reorganized in the autumn of 1994 to consist of two Finnish companies and SCANDCOY, a Scandinavian company consisting of 108 Danish, Norwegian and Swedish troops.

These were unarmed and were the only UN presence along the Albanian border. There were no observation posts in that area because of local scepticism concerning UN military deployment. It was feared that such deployment would ‘cut the communications between Albanians on both sides of the border’, Pellnäs (n.18 above), p.109.

Abiodun Williams (n.18 above), p.46; Clive Archer, ‘Conflict Prevention in Europe. The Case of the Nordic States and Macedonia’, Cooperation and Conflict Vol.29, No.4, 1994, p.370, Nordic UN Stand-by Forces, 4th edn., Helsinki: NordSamFN, 1993, pp.180–86.

UN doc. S/25954, 1993.

There has been much speculation as to the reasons underlying this offer, see for example Michael Lund, ‘Preventive Diplomacy for Macedonia, 1992–1998: From Containment to Nation Building’, in Bruce W. Jentleson (ed.), Opportunities Missed, Opportunities Seized: Preventive Diplomacy in the Post-Cold War World, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999, pp.192–93; Misha Glenny, ‘Heading Off War in the Southern Balkans’, Foreign Affairs Vol.74, No.3, 1995, pp.98–108.

UN doc. S/RES/842, 1993.

Bengt Holmen and Ståle Ulriksen, ‘Norden i felt: På oppdrag for FN og NATO’, NUPI Report 257, Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, 2000, p.11. This was rather remarkable since it was contrary to US policy. And perhaps even more surprising was the fact that the Republicans did not object to this either, Pellnäs (n.18 above), p.112.

UN doc. S/1994/300, 1994; UN doc. S/RES/908, 1994.

UN doc. S/RES/983, 1995.

UN doc. S/1996/76, 1996; UN doc. S/RES/1046, 1996. This was a result of the termination of the UN operations in Bosnia (UNPROFOR) and Croatia (UNCRO). Since the mission no longer could rely on engineering support (for road construction and repair) from the other operations in the theatre, it was also reinforced with a 50 person strong Indonesian heavy engineering platoon, UN doc. S/RES/1046, 1996.

UN doc. S/RES/1160, 1998.

UN doc. S/RES/1186, 1998.

The so-called Intersectoral Mission on Developmental Social Issues, see Action for Social Change: A New Facet of Preventive Peace-Keeping. The Case of UNPREDEP, Report of the Intersectoral Mission on Developmental Social Issues, Helsinki: National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, 1996.

Henryk Sokalski, ‘Preventive Diplomacy: The Need for a Comprehensive Approach’, Balkan Forum Vol.1, No.18, 1997, pp.37, 47. Note that he refers to the third pillar as ‘peace-building’ or ‘the human dimension’.

The Russian Federation abstained.

UN doc. S/1999/201; UN doc. SC/6648.

UN doc. S/24923, 1992 and annex.

UN doc. S/1994/300, 1994, para. 37; UN doc. S/RES/908, 1994.

UN doc. S/RES/1058, 1996; UN doc. S/RES/1105, 1997; UN doc. S/RES/1110, 1997; UN doc. S/RES/1142, 1997.

See this link made explicitly in, for example, UN doc. S/RES/1058, 1996 and UN doc. S/RES/1142, 1997.

UN doc. S/1994/300, 1994, paras. 37, 42.

UN doc. S/1997/365, 1997, paras. 24, 26.

UN doc. S/1998/454, 1998, para. 11; UN doc. S/1999/161, 1999.

UN doc. S/24923, 1992.

UN doc. S/RES/908, 1994; UN doc. S/1994/300. In connection to this the cooperation with the host authorities is emphasized, something that may be read as an additional expression of the UN's statism.

UN doc. S/24923, 1992, annex, paras 17, 22, 24, 26–7; UN doc. S/RES/1105, 1997; UN doc. S/RES/1110, 1997.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, New York: United Nations, 1992, para. 17. Boutros-Ghali has himself made a link between this report and the actual operation in Macedonia. He refers specifically to its paragraphs 28–32 in a letter to the President of the Security Council of 23 November 1992 when describing the kind of preventive deployment relevant for the case of Macedonia.

For example Henry Sokalski, who served as the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in 1995–98, had previously worked as the Director for Social Development in UN's Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs and was in addition to this the UN co-ordinator for the International Year of the Family in 1994. His interest in and emphasis on the ‘human dimension’ of the operation might be linked to this experience.

These can be distinguished in academic and journalistic accounts of the situation in the Republic as well as the interviews carried out in connection to the work on Stamnes (n.17 above). These conceptions of security should not be seen as completely separate and independent, neither as the only conceptions of security existing amongst people in Macedonia. They only represent the author's subjective understanding of the case and not an exhaustive ‘objective’ account.

For a comprehensive discussion of these conceptions of security, see ibid., pp.192–258.

Honneth 1994 (n.13 above), p.263.

The comprehensive discussion would also highlight the problems of applying Honneth's ideas to a situation in which the recognition of collectives, such as ethnic groups, are involved, as well as other problems with his normative standard, including the problem of choosing emancipatory paths in cases where the recognition of one identity seems to exclude the recognition of another.

UN doc. A/RES/47/225, 1993; UN doc. S/RES/817, 1993

Honneth 1995 (n.15 above), p.122.

Honneth 1994 (n.13 above), p.266.

The UN operation had, however, uneven economic effects on different parts of Macedonia and may have resulted in new patterns of inequality. This underlines Nancy Fraser's point that redistribution and economic equality does not necessarily follow from recognition, see, ‘Rethinking Recognition’, New Left Review Vol.2, No.3, 2000, pp.107–20.

Honneth 1994 (n.13 above), p.266; Honneth 1995 (n.15 above), p.122.

Article 5.

Ken Booth and Peter Vale, ‘Critical Security Studies and Regional Insecurity: The Case of Southern Africa’ in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 1997, p.329; Johan Eriksson, ‘Observers and Advocates? On the Political Role of Security Analysts’, Cooperation and Conflict, Vol.34, No.3, 1999, p.320.

See for example Williams 2000 (n.18 above) pp.118–30; Keith S. Brown, ‘In the Realism of the Double‐Headed Eagle; Parapolitics in Macedonia 1994‐9’, in Jane K. Cowan (ed.), Macedonia: The Politics of identity and Difference (London: Pluto Press, nd) pp. 130–3.