Podcasts about Humanitarian intervention

When it comes to US foreign policy in the early 20th Century, isolationism tends to come to mind. What, then, was Woodrow Wilson's impact on the end of WW1?Don is joined by Charlie Laderman to find out more about the peace negotiations, the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, and how these things were understood in the US.Charlie is is Senior Lecturer in International History at King's College London. He is the author of 'Sharing the Burden: The Armenian Question, Humanitarian Intervention and Anglo-American Visions of Global Order'.Produced by Freddy Chick and Sophie Gee. Edited by Max Carrey. Senior Producer was Charlotte Long.Enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original documentaries that are released weekly and AD-FREE podcasts. Get a subscription for $1 per month for 3 months with code AMERICANHISTORY sign up at https://historyhit.com/subscription/ You can take part in our listener survey here.

On this episode of Radio Rothbard, Ryan McMaken and Tho Bishop are joined by Aaron Sobczak of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. The three discuss conservative calls to revive the "Hamiltonian tradition," why it stands opposed to the classical liberalism of the American Revolution, and the role it has played in the growth of the modern regime that neo-Hamiltonians claim to oppose.Donate $5 today to support the Mises Institute's Fall Campaign and receive a physical copy of Murray Rothbard's Anatomy of the State: https://mises.org/rr5"It's Always Been Hamiltonian Statecraft" by Aaron Sobczak: https://Mises.org/RR_206_AFollow Aaron on X @aaron_sobczak • Read his work at https://ResponsibleStatecraft.org/author/AaronSobczak"The Return of Hamiltonian Statecraft: A Grand Strategy for a Turbulent World" by Walter Russell Mead (Foreign Affairs): https://Mises.org/RR_206_B"The Unseen Costs of Humanitarian Intervention" by Ryan McMaken: https://Mises.org/RR_206_CFollow Aaron on X @aaron_sobczakRead his work at The Quincy Institute for Responsible StatecraftBe sure to follow Radio Rothbard at https://Mises.org/RadioRothbardRadio Rothbard mugs are available at the Mises Store. Get yours at https://Mises.org/RothMug PROMO CODE: RothPod for 20% off

On this episode of Radio Rothbard, Ryan McMaken and Tho Bishop are joined by Aaron Sobczak of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. The three discuss conservative calls to revive the "Hamiltonian tradition," why it stands opposed to the classical liberalism of the American Revolution, and the role it has played in the growth of the modern regime that neo-Hamiltonians claim to oppose.Donate $5 today to support the Mises Institute's Fall Campaign and receive a physical copy of Murray Rothbard's Anatomy of the State: https://mises.org/rr5"It's Always Been Hamiltonian Statecraft" by Aaron Sobczak: https://Mises.org/RR_206_AFollow Aaron on X @aaron_sobczak • Read his work at https://ResponsibleStatecraft.org/author/AaronSobczak"The Return of Hamiltonian Statecraft: A Grand Strategy for a Turbulent World" by Walter Russell Mead (Foreign Affairs): https://Mises.org/RR_206_B"The Unseen Costs of Humanitarian Intervention" by Ryan McMaken: https://Mises.org/RR_206_CFollow Aaron on X @aaron_sobczakRead his work at The Quincy Institute for Responsible StatecraftBe sure to follow Radio Rothbard at https://Mises.org/RadioRothbardRadio Rothbard mugs are available at the Mises Store. Get yours at https://Mises.org/RothMug PROMO CODE: RothPod for 20% off

Patrick J. Vernon (Kings College London - @paddyjvernon @warstudies) speaks with the Thinking Global team about Queer International Relations and the 2024 UK General Election. Patrick Vernon chats with Kieran (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@kieranjomeara⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) about Queer IR, how it intersects with this election, queer epistemology, their most recent work The Coloniality of Humanitarian Intervention, and more. This is the third episode in our 2024 UK General Election special series, posting a new episode every day in the week leading up to the July 4th election. Lastly, this week we have another Open Letter Competition. Entries WILL be read out on the next episode so long as they are sent in before Thursday 4th July. Please do email your answers (no more than 300 words) to thinkingglobal.eir@gmail.com for the following question: In what way has this UK General Election been entwined with international relations and why? Thinking Global is affiliated with ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠E-International Relations⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - the world's leading open access website for students and scholars of international politics. If you enjoy the output of E International Relations, please consider a ⁠⁠donation⁠⁠.

Is the media coverage of foreign policy focusing on states' behavior to, purposely, dehumanize people? How mainstream, traditional and social media coverages of international conflicts are influenced by and/or can influence too: People, States & Systems? How complex is the experience of covering human rights violations, defense and protection? Can media coverages of human rights violations and mass crimes vary depending on the diplomatic, economic, religious and cultural ties of the countries' news companies, journalists and editors are from, based on or respond to? Are states foregoing Humanitarian Intervention and R2P mechanisms because economic, diplomatic and religious ties with private or third party actors triumph over, or come at the expense of, the suffering of “other” people?  Which human stories of conflict, justice, peace and memory become top news and why others aren't? Where are these stories being told and who is paying attention, ridiculing, ignoring or censuring them?  A Spanish-language interview with Marta Saiz, freelance human rights journalist with more than a decade of experience covering conflict, migration and human rights stories in Iran, Greece, Palestine, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia and Paraguay;  winner of the 2021 Premio de periodismo de migración laboral of the International Labour Organization.  Listen to related episodes 32. Mendy Marsh and Chiderah Monde on COVID-19 & Humanitarian Aid System Collapse 76. War Journalism's Effect On Us 86. Chloé Meulewaeter on Global Military Spending & Demilitarization Efforts 165. Rachel Winny on the Rise of Disinformation & Conflict Escalation  174. Social Media Warfare Effects On Us Recommended links Web Links https://linktr.ee/martasaiz IG: @marsaime TW: @martasaiz Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marta-saiz/ Luana Malheiro: “En Brasil, la guerra contra las drogas es contra las personas pobres y negras” Chile: “El amor y la solidaridad entre mujeres fue clave para sobrevivir” Las rebeldes de Irán Lesbos, vivir en la desembocadura del horror y la guerra Casa Frida, un espacio seguro para migrantes LGBTIQ+ en México El teatro como herramienta de resistencia en Palestina  Cuidar la tierra para cuidar la vida: la resistencia de las mujeres rurales en Palestina​ Cuando salir del armario (en Honduras) significa rechazo, violencia, ruptura con el hogar y muerte Victoria Sandino: "Toda mi vida he sido rebelde"

In this week’s episode, Jeremi and Zachary are joined by Dr. Julia F. Irwin to discuss American Humanitarian Assistance in the 20th and 21st century. Zachary sets the scene with his poem entitled, “The Old Colossus.” Dr. Julia F. Irwin is the T. Harry Williams Professor of History at Louisiana State University.  She is a […]

The US government is frequently defined generally as an army with an insurance company.  Regarding the latter, podcast listeners are well aware federal healthcare policymakers have essentially done nothing to address the healthcare industry's annual 500 million ton carbon footprint, 9% of total annual US GHG emissions, despite the fact that at $1.5 trillion the federal government is far and away the largest purchaser of healthcare services.  What about the army?  The army, or the Department of Defense (DOD), is the single largest institutional fossil fuel user and consequently the single largest GHG emitter in the world.  The DOD along with the military-industrial complex annually emit over 110 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions that represents 80% of the federal governments total annual GHG emissions.  This reality is particularly disturbing and paradoxical because the DOD's contribution to the climate crisis compromises its mission to ensure our nation's security.  Despite the fact climate crisis-caused geopolitical instability is increasing, absent proactively working toward building climate security, or climate crisis-related conflict prevention the Pentagon is, Prof. Crawford concludes, inadvertently or deliberately militarizing climate change, that is preparing to fight climate-related battles.  (Listeners are also encouraged to read MIT Press's related 2021 work by Gus Speth titled, They Knew, The US Fed Govt's 50 Year Role in Causing the Climate Crisis.)       This 35-minute interview begins by Prof. Crawford describing what largely accounts for the DOD GHG emissions and problems associated with calculating total DOD emissions.  She explains the 1997 Kyoto agreement that permitted countries to exempt military emissions from nations' reduction goals.  She explains the DOD's use of fossil fuels since Vietnam to present and reductions in DOD emissions over the past few years, discusses US continuing the emission costs of continuing to defend the Persian Gulf, the debate between DOD building resilience versus mitigating GHG emissions and the interview concludes with Prof. Crawford's comments concerning whether increasing climate disruption will necessarily lead to conflict or war.         Neta Crawford is Montague Burton Chair in International Relations and also holds a Professorial Fellowship at Balliol College, Oxford.  She previously taught Boston University and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.   Prof. Crawford is a co-founder and co-director of the Costs of War Project, based at Brown University and since 2017 has served on the board of the nuclear non-proliferation advocacy organization, Council for a Livable World.   She also serves on the editorial boards of The Journal of Political Philosophy and Global Perspectives.  Prof. Crawford received the Distinguished Scholar award from the International Ethics section of the International Studies Association in 2018.   She was a co-winner of the 2003 American Political Science Association Jervis and Schroeder Award for best book in International History and Politics for her work, Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, Humanitarian Intervention.  Professor Crawford's most recent publication is The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War (MIT Press, 2022). She is also working on To Make Heaven Weep: Civilians and the American Way of War.  She has authored several other books including, Accountability for Killing: Moral Responsibility for Collateral Damage in America's Post‑9/11 Wars (2013).  Her opinion pieces have appeared in The Washington Post.  Prof. Crawford earned her undergraduate degree at Brown and her doctorate in political science at MIT.  Information on Prof. Crawford's book is at: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262047487/the-pentagon-climate-change-and-war/. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

Professor Laderman is a prolific historian of international affairs based in the War Studies Department at King's College London. His books include Sharing the Burden: The Armenian Question, Humanitarian Intervention, and Anglo-American Visions of Global Order as well as Hitler's American Gamble: Pearl Harbor and Germany's March to Global War. Laderman has also written for the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy, and The Washington Post and has worked as a commentator for the BBC.

Today on the show, We'll speak to Flashpoints contributor, Franz Jerome about US plans for a so-called humanitarian intervention to save Haiti. Also, BanKillerDrones.org begs U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres to call on all sides in the Ukraine War to immediately stop using weaponized drones. And later we'll rebroadcast this weeks edition of the Election Crimes Bulletin The post Franz Jerome on US plans for Humanitarian Intervention to Haiti appeared first on KPFA.

Ever been the victim of unwanted humanitarian intervention? Teia talks us through an unwanted intervention and some pretty huge assumptions that were made about her needs! This leads Lauren and Teia into a well-timed tenuous link; let's talk needs assessments! Non-profit organisations carry out assessments at the beginning of projects to determine what services or support people need. But how well are they really listening!?Things we mention: 1) Nexus programming - now this is a concept we mention A LOT. This is the idea that humanitarian work (think a short-term response to support people affected by an earthquake), development work (think building schools, training people how to build motorbikes) and peace work (think helping to unite groups in conflict), come together to operate as one programme. Previously they often worked in silos. You can find out more about 'Nexus' programming here.2) Podcast: Sounds like a CultFollow us:Instagram: @jrnypodcastTwitter: @jrnypodcastEdited by Teia Rogers Music by Praz Khanal Get Premium Content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this 2019 episode, John interviews the celebrated British writer Zadie Smith. The conversation quickly moves through Brexit (oh, the inhumanity!) and what it means to be a London–no, a Northwest London–writer before arriving at her case against identity politics. That case is bolstered by a discussion of Hannah Arendt on the difference between who and what a person is. Zadie and John also touch on the purpose of criticism and why it gets harder to hate as you (middle) age. She reveals an affection for “talkies” (as a “90's kid,” she can't help her fondness for Quentin Tarantino); asks whether young novelists in England need to write a book about Henry VIII just to break into bookstores; hears Hegel talking to Kierkegaard, and Jane Austen failing to talk to Jean Genet. Lastly, in Recallable Books, Zadie recommends Jean-Philippe Toussaint's The Bathroom. Transcript of the episode here. Mentioned: Zadie Smith, White Teeth, NW, Swing Time, “Two Paths for the Novel” “Embassy of Cambodia,” Joni Mitchell: Some Notes on Attunement” “Zadie Smith on J G Ballard's Crash“ Willa Cather, Song of the Lark (1915, revised 1932) Elif Batuman, The Idiot Charlotte Bronte, The Professor and Villette George Eliot, Middlemarch Pauline Kael, various film reviews Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood Ursula Le Guin, “The Story's Where I Go: An Interview” Doris Lessing, The Fifth Child Hilary Mantel, Beyond Black and Wolf Hall Dexter Filkins, “The Moral Logic of Humanitarian Intervention” (on Samantha Power) Patti Smith, Just Kids Elizabeth Strout, Olive Kitteridge, Olive Again Gary Winick (dir.), Thirteen Going on Thirty (starring Jennifer Garner, not Anne Hathaway) Sally Rooney, Normal People Toyin Ojih Odutola Matthew Lopez, The Inheritance Jean-Philippe Toussaint, The Bathroom  Elizabeth Ferry is Professor of Anthropology at Brandeis University. Email: ferry@brandeis.edu. John Plotz is Barbara Mandel Professor of the Humanities at Brandeis University and co-founder of the Brandeis Educational Justice Initiative. Email: plotz@brandeis.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In this 2019 episode, John interviews the celebrated British writer Zadie Smith. The conversation quickly moves through Brexit (oh, the inhumanity!) and what it means to be a London–no, a Northwest London–writer before arriving at her case against identity politics. That case is bolstered by a discussion of Hannah Arendt on the difference between who and what a person is. Zadie and John also touch on the purpose of criticism and why it gets harder to hate as you (middle) age. She reveals an affection for “talkies” (as a “90's kid,” she can't help her fondness for Quentin Tarantino); asks whether young novelists in England need to write a book about Henry VIII just to break into bookstores; hears Hegel talking to Kierkegaard, and Jane Austen failing to talk to Jean Genet. Lastly, in Recallable Books, Zadie recommends Jean-Philippe Toussaint's The Bathroom. Transcript of the episode here. Mentioned: Zadie Smith, White Teeth, NW, Swing Time, “Two Paths for the Novel” “Embassy of Cambodia,” Joni Mitchell: Some Notes on Attunement” “Zadie Smith on J G Ballard's Crash“ Willa Cather, Song of the Lark (1915, revised 1932) Elif Batuman, The Idiot Charlotte Bronte, The Professor and Villette George Eliot, Middlemarch Pauline Kael, various film reviews Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood Ursula Le Guin, “The Story's Where I Go: An Interview” Doris Lessing, The Fifth Child Hilary Mantel, Beyond Black and Wolf Hall Dexter Filkins, “The Moral Logic of Humanitarian Intervention” (on Samantha Power) Patti Smith, Just Kids Elizabeth Strout, Olive Kitteridge, Olive Again Gary Winick (dir.), Thirteen Going on Thirty (starring Jennifer Garner, not Anne Hathaway) Sally Rooney, Normal People Toyin Ojih Odutola Matthew Lopez, The Inheritance Jean-Philippe Toussaint, The Bathroom  Elizabeth Ferry is Professor of Anthropology at Brandeis University. Email: ferry@brandeis.edu. John Plotz is Barbara Mandel Professor of the Humanities at Brandeis University and co-founder of the Brandeis Educational Justice Initiative. Email: plotz@brandeis.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this 2019 episode, John interviews the celebrated British writer Zadie Smith. The conversation quickly moves through Brexit (oh, the inhumanity!) and what it means to be a London–no, a Northwest London–writer before arriving at her case against identity politics. That case is bolstered by a discussion of Hannah Arendt on the difference between who and what a person is. Zadie and John also touch on the purpose of criticism and why it gets harder to hate as you (middle) age. She reveals an affection for “talkies” (as a “90's kid,” she can't help her fondness for Quentin Tarantino); asks whether young novelists in England need to write a book about Henry VIII just to break into bookstores; hears Hegel talking to Kierkegaard, and Jane Austen failing to talk to Jean Genet. Lastly, in Recallable Books, Zadie recommends Jean-Philippe Toussaint's The Bathroom. Transcript of the episode here. Mentioned: Zadie Smith, White Teeth, NW, Swing Time, “Two Paths for the Novel” “Embassy of Cambodia,” Joni Mitchell: Some Notes on Attunement” “Zadie Smith on J G Ballard's Crash“ Willa Cather, Song of the Lark (1915, revised 1932) Elif Batuman, The Idiot Charlotte Bronte, The Professor and Villette George Eliot, Middlemarch Pauline Kael, various film reviews Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood Ursula Le Guin, “The Story's Where I Go: An Interview” Doris Lessing, The Fifth Child Hilary Mantel, Beyond Black and Wolf Hall Dexter Filkins, “The Moral Logic of Humanitarian Intervention” (on Samantha Power) Patti Smith, Just Kids Elizabeth Strout, Olive Kitteridge, Olive Again Gary Winick (dir.), Thirteen Going on Thirty (starring Jennifer Garner, not Anne Hathaway) Sally Rooney, Normal People Toyin Ojih Odutola Matthew Lopez, The Inheritance Jean-Philippe Toussaint, The Bathroom  Elizabeth Ferry is Professor of Anthropology at Brandeis University. Email: ferry@brandeis.edu. John Plotz is Barbara Mandel Professor of the Humanities at Brandeis University and co-founder of the Brandeis Educational Justice Initiative. Email: plotz@brandeis.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

In this 2019 episode, John interviews the celebrated British writer Zadie Smith. The conversation quickly moves through Brexit (oh, the inhumanity!) and what it means to be a London–no, a Northwest London–writer before arriving at her case against identity politics. That case is bolstered by a discussion of Hannah Arendt on the difference between who and what a person is. Zadie and John also touch on the purpose of criticism and why it gets harder to hate as you (middle) age. She reveals an affection for “talkies” (as a “90's kid,” she can't help her fondness for Quentin Tarantino); asks whether young novelists in England need to write a book about Henry VIII just to break into bookstores; hears Hegel talking to Kierkegaard, and Jane Austen failing to talk to Jean Genet. Lastly, in Recallable Books, Zadie recommends Jean-Philippe Toussaint's The Bathroom. Transcript of the episode here. Mentioned: Zadie Smith, White Teeth, NW, Swing Time, “Two Paths for the Novel” “Embassy of Cambodia,” Joni Mitchell: Some Notes on Attunement” “Zadie Smith on J G Ballard's Crash“ Willa Cather, Song of the Lark (1915, revised 1932) Elif Batuman, The Idiot Charlotte Bronte, The Professor and Villette George Eliot, Middlemarch Pauline Kael, various film reviews Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood Ursula Le Guin, “The Story's Where I Go: An Interview” Doris Lessing, The Fifth Child Hilary Mantel, Beyond Black and Wolf Hall Dexter Filkins, “The Moral Logic of Humanitarian Intervention” (on Samantha Power) Patti Smith, Just Kids Elizabeth Strout, Olive Kitteridge, Olive Again Gary Winick (dir.), Thirteen Going on Thirty (starring Jennifer Garner, not Anne Hathaway) Sally Rooney, Normal People Toyin Ojih Odutola Matthew Lopez, The Inheritance Jean-Philippe Toussaint, The Bathroom  Elizabeth Ferry is Professor of Anthropology at Brandeis University. Email: ferry@brandeis.edu. John Plotz is Barbara Mandel Professor of the Humanities at Brandeis University and co-founder of the Brandeis Educational Justice Initiative. Email: plotz@brandeis.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

In this 2019 episode, John interviews the celebrated British writer Zadie Smith. The conversation quickly moves through Brexit (oh, the inhumanity!) and what it means to be a London–no, a Northwest London–writer before arriving at her case against identity politics. That case is bolstered by a discussion of Hannah Arendt on the difference between who and what a person is. Zadie and John also touch on the purpose of criticism and why it gets harder to hate as you (middle) age. She reveals an affection for “talkies” (as a “90's kid,” she can't help her fondness for Quentin Tarantino); asks whether young novelists in England need to write a book about Henry VIII just to break into bookstores; hears Hegel talking to Kierkegaard, and Jane Austen failing to talk to Jean Genet. Lastly, in Recallable Books, Zadie recommends Jean-Philippe Toussaint's The Bathroom. Transcript of the episode here. Mentioned: Zadie Smith, White Teeth, NW, Swing Time, “Two Paths for the Novel” “Embassy of Cambodia,” Joni Mitchell: Some Notes on Attunement” “Zadie Smith on J G Ballard's Crash“ Willa Cather, Song of the Lark (1915, revised 1932) Elif Batuman, The Idiot Charlotte Bronte, The Professor and Villette George Eliot, Middlemarch Pauline Kael, various film reviews Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood Ursula Le Guin, “The Story's Where I Go: An Interview” Doris Lessing, The Fifth Child Hilary Mantel, Beyond Black and Wolf Hall Dexter Filkins, “The Moral Logic of Humanitarian Intervention” (on Samantha Power) Patti Smith, Just Kids Elizabeth Strout, Olive Kitteridge, Olive Again Gary Winick (dir.), Thirteen Going on Thirty (starring Jennifer Garner, not Anne Hathaway) Sally Rooney, Normal People Toyin Ojih Odutola Matthew Lopez, The Inheritance Jean-Philippe Toussaint, The Bathroom  Elizabeth Ferry is Professor of Anthropology at Brandeis University. Email: ferry@brandeis.edu. John Plotz is Barbara Mandel Professor of the Humanities at Brandeis University and co-founder of the Brandeis Educational Justice Initiative. Email: plotz@brandeis.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/popular-culture

In this 2019 episode, John interviews the celebrated British writer Zadie Smith. The conversation quickly moves through Brexit (oh, the inhumanity!) and what it means to be a London–no, a Northwest London–writer before arriving at her case against identity politics. That case is bolstered by a discussion of Hannah Arendt on the difference between who and what a person is. Zadie and John also touch on the purpose of criticism and why it gets harder to hate as you (middle) age. She reveals an affection for “talkies” (as a “90's kid,” she can't help her fondness for Quentin Tarantino); asks whether young novelists in England need to write a book about Henry VIII just to break into bookstores; hears Hegel talking to Kierkegaard, and Jane Austen failing to talk to Jean Genet. Lastly, in Recallable Books, Zadie recommends Jean-Philippe Toussaint's The Bathroom. Transcript of the episode here. Mentioned: Zadie Smith, White Teeth, NW, Swing Time, “Two Paths for the Novel” “Embassy of Cambodia,” Joni Mitchell: Some Notes on Attunement” “Zadie Smith on J G Ballard's Crash“ Willa Cather, Song of the Lark (1915, revised 1932) Elif Batuman, The Idiot Charlotte Bronte, The Professor and Villette George Eliot, Middlemarch Pauline Kael, various film reviews Quentin Tarantino, Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood Ursula Le Guin, “The Story's Where I Go: An Interview” Doris Lessing, The Fifth Child Hilary Mantel, Beyond Black and Wolf Hall Dexter Filkins, “The Moral Logic of Humanitarian Intervention” (on Samantha Power) Patti Smith, Just Kids Elizabeth Strout, Olive Kitteridge, Olive Again Gary Winick (dir.), Thirteen Going on Thirty (starring Jennifer Garner, not Anne Hathaway) Sally Rooney, Normal People Toyin Ojih Odutola Matthew Lopez, The Inheritance Jean-Philippe Toussaint, The Bathroom  Elizabeth Ferry is Professor of Anthropology at Brandeis University. Email: ferry@brandeis.edu. John Plotz is Barbara Mandel Professor of the Humanities at Brandeis University and co-founder of the Brandeis Educational Justice Initiative. Email: plotz@brandeis.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

Dr Iacovos Kareklas, Visiting Fellow at the Changing Character of War Centre (CCW), presents a strongly argued thesis that there is a legal and moral right to unilateral humanitarian intervention which dates back to the Peloponnesian War. The presented paper adopts a fresh approach on unilateral humanitarian intervention, and purports to demonstrate that, in certain cases, not only is permissible, but also legally and morally imperative. This academic venture is predominantly based on authoritative state practice, which in the view of the author should constitute reliable international legal custom, as well as theoretical groundwork; namely the well-established notion that violation of human rights necessitates intervention for the restoration of moral order, and applicable theories of deterrence (and just retribution) rendering humanitarian military intervention unobjectionable on grounds of the possibility of imminent humanitarian catastrophes. Iacovos Kareklas got his B.A. and M.A. Degrees (Honours) in Law from Cambridge University, Magdalene College. He holds a Ph.D. in International Law from London University (London School of Economics and Political Science). He specialized in all fields of Public International Law and every aspect of the Cyprus problem. He conducted sustained and in depth research in the United Kingdom Foreign Office Archives with regard to the critical phases of the Cyprus Question. In the academic year 2003-2004 he was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of Government, Harvard University. He did postdoctoral studies in International Relations Theory with special reference to the Use of Military Force under the worldwide distinguished political scientist, Professor Stanley Hoffmann. At Harvard, he also taught the course Classical Theories of International Relations. In the year 2004-2005, Dr. Kareklas was appointed Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard's Center for Middle Eastern Studies. In 2006 and 2007 he was elected Fellow of the Faculty of Law in the University of Oxford, where he specialized in the Philosophy of Law. From 2013 to 2020 he was Associate Professor at the European University Cyprus, where he taught Public International Law, Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, and International Politics. He spent a year as researcher in the Institute of Commonwealth Studies (ICS) of London (2001-2002), the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (2003), the Oxford Centre for Criminology (2006), and has been a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Iacovos is the author of numerous books and articles in the fields of his specialization. His latest book entitled Thucydides on International Law and Political Theory was published in New York by Rowman and Littlefield: Lexington Books, in 2020. As a Visiting Research Fellow at CCW, he is conducting further research on the Law of War with emphasis on military humanitarian intervention.

Wednesday, April 27, 2022 Hoover Institution, Stanford University   The Hoover Institution hosts Book Talk: Hitler's American Gamble on Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11 am PDT. The Hoover Institution Library & Archives and History Working Group invite you to a book talk with co-authors, Brendan Simms, director of the Centre for Geopolitics at the University of Cambridge and Charlie Laderman, Hoover research fellow and senior lecturer at King's College, London. Simms and Laderman will discuss their book, Hitler's American Gamble: Pearl Harbor and Germany's March to Global War (Hachette Book Group, 2021). This event will be moderated by Niall Ferguson, Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior faculty fellow of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. PARTICIPANT BIOS Dr. Charlie Laderman is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and senior lecturer in international history at the War Studies Department, King's College, London (KCL). His first monograph, Sharing the Burden (Oxford University Press, 2019), explored the American and British response to the Armenian Genocide. It was awarded the Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era's H. Wayne Morgan Prize in political history. Brendan Simms is the director of the Centre for Geopolitics and professor of the History of European International Relations at the University of Cambridge. He is an expert on European geopolitics, past and present, and his principal interests are the German Question, Britain and Europe, Humanitarian Intervention and state construction. He teaches at both undergraduate and graduate level in the Department of Politics and International Studies and the Faculty of History.  Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior faculty fellow of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, where he served for twelve years as the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History. He is the author of sixteen books, including The Pity of War, The House of Rothschild, Empire, Civilization, and Kissinger, 1923–1968: The Idealist, which won the Council on Foreign Relations Arthur Ross Prize.

Myk Labas reads five letters in dialogue with each other around the topic of Alexander Gallus' recent article "The Russian "Threat to Freedom and Democracy"".   Letters can be read at: 1. "Comments On "The Russian Threat"" 2. "Letter on the Reply to "The Russian 'Threat to Freedom and Democracy'" 3. "Regarding Gallus' The Russian "Threat to Freedom and Democracy"" 4. "The Hegemony of Humanitarian Intervention" 5. "On Russia and Ukraine and Geopolitical Realpolitik"   Music featured: 'Sickles and Hammers' & 'Paranoid Chant', by Minutemen

Is there a case for humanitarian intervention? In this episode, Aarthi Ratnam and Priyal Lyncia D'Almeida discuss the criteria for intervention and the scope of responsibility. To identify what these cases are, they propose the "conditions of exceptionalism", by looking at historical examples of mass violence. They also highlight the importance of post-intervention responsibilities of the international community.Suggested Readings:“State Deviancy and Genocide: The State as a Shelter and a Prison.” - Anderson K.“The Law of Peoples: With, the Idea of Public Reason Revisited.” - John Rawls“Humanitarian War: Military Intervention and Human Rights” - Adam Roberts“Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations.” - Michael WalzerCheck out Takshashila's courses: https://school.takshashila.org.in/You can listen to this show and other awesome shows on the new and improved IVM Podcast App on Android: https://ivm.today/android or iOS: https://ivm.today/iosYou can check out our website at https://www.ivmpodcasts.com

In Episode 86 of the CounterVortex podcast, Bill Weinberg returns to the book The Responsibility to Protect in Libya and Syria: Mass Atrocities, Human Protection, and International Law by Syrian American legal scholar Yasmine Nahlawi, exploring applicability of its analysis to the current disaster in Afghanistan. This discussion is taken up at the request of Eric Laursen, author of The Duty to Stand Aside: Nineteen Eighty-Four and the Wartime Quarrel of George Orwell and Alex Comfort. Laursen is the first to take up the CounterVortex special offer, by which new Patreon subscribers get to choose a topic for exploration on the podcast. When do we have a responsibility to protect, and when do we have a duty to stand aside, and how can these imperatives be reconciled? Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon. https://www.patreon.com/countervortex Production by Chris Rywalt We ask listeners to donate just $1 per weekly episode via Patreon. We now have 28 subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 29!

The fellas discuss Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan and the resulting political class meltdown, the arrival of incel terrorism in the UK with the Plymouth shooting, and answer YOUR emails about the prospect of left-wing political violence in the face of climate change. It's a three-fingers of bourbon kind of show, and keep the bottle on hand! IF YOU DIG THE SHOW AND WANT IT TO CONTINUE, PLEASE SUB US A FEW QUID ON Patreon.com/ThePopularPod

Simon Alvey, Will Cooling and Dr Luke Middup reunite to discuss the staggeringly quick takeover of Afghanistan by th Taliban. We discuss how the takeover happened so quickly and what it means for Afghanistan, whether President Joe Biden was right to withdraw American fores, and what this says about the role of Britain in the world. We finish by looking at the imminent deal between the SNP and Greens, which will see Green MSPs enter government for the first time. 

Thomas Peak speaks with Alex Bellamy and Stephen McLoughlin about their new book Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention and the role of history in studying military intervention and the responsibility to protect.

While a number of books came out on the centenary of the Russian Revolution, few seriously considered how the 20th century would have unfolded differently if the violent forces of counter-revolution and White terror had not crushed the Marxist dreams of a new future. What if the revolution had successfully spread to Western Europe and the United States of America? What would have happened if Rosa Luxemburg was not murdered by Freikorps thugs? What if the colonial empires had turned into non-racist mechanisms for egalitarian global development? As historians, we are not supposed to ask these “what if” questions, but our friends in political science can engage in such thought experiments. Philip Cunliffe’s Lenin Lives! Reimagining the Russian Revolution 1917-2017 (Zero Books, 2017) dares to ask these questions and then to carefully think through the answers. This counter-factual history plays out the consequences of a successful Russian and, more importantly, German Revolution. Cunliffe explores how not only politics and economics would have followed different historical trajectories (for example: no fascism!), but he also considers the environmental and scientific consequences of Lenin living just a little longer. Above all, Lenin Lives! is an exercise in historical empathy and social optimism. How would early 20th century Marxists have shaped the world had they not been subjected to generations of violent repression? Could they have built a better world? Dr. Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer in International Conflict at the University of Kent’s School of Politics and International Relations. His research interests include Peacekeeping, Humanitarian Intervention, Responsibility to Protect, Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Critical Theory, and IR Theory. He is the author of Legions of Peace: UN Peacekeepers from the Global South (2013), Cosmopolitan dystopia: International intervention and the failure of the West (2020) and The New Twenty Years’ Crisis: A Critique of International Relations, 1999-2019 (2020). He has also published several anthologies. If his voice sounds familiar, you may recognize it from Aufhebunga Bunga, which bills itself as the global politics podcast at the end of the End of History. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he’s not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

While a number of books came out on the centenary of the Russian Revolution, few seriously considered how the 20th century would have unfolded differently if the violent forces of counter-revolution and White terror had not crushed the Marxist dreams of a new future. What if the revolution had successfully spread to Western Europe and the United States of America? What would have happened if Rosa Luxemburg was not murdered by Freikorps thugs? What if the colonial empires had turned into non-racist mechanisms for egalitarian global development? As historians, we are not supposed to ask these “what if” questions, but our friends in political science can engage in such thought experiments. Philip Cunliffe’s Lenin Lives! Reimagining the Russian Revolution 1917-2017 (Zero Books, 2017) dares to ask these questions and then to carefully think through the answers. This counter-factual history plays out the consequences of a successful Russian and, more importantly, German Revolution. Cunliffe explores how not only politics and economics would have followed different historical trajectories (for example: no fascism!), but he also considers the environmental and scientific consequences of Lenin living just a little longer. Above all, Lenin Lives! is an exercise in historical empathy and social optimism. How would early 20th century Marxists have shaped the world had they not been subjected to generations of violent repression? Could they have built a better world? Dr. Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer in International Conflict at the University of Kent’s School of Politics and International Relations. His research interests include Peacekeeping, Humanitarian Intervention, Responsibility to Protect, Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Critical Theory, and IR Theory. He is the author of Legions of Peace: UN Peacekeepers from the Global South (2013), Cosmopolitan dystopia: International intervention and the failure of the West (2020) and The New Twenty Years’ Crisis: A Critique of International Relations, 1999-2019 (2020). He has also published several anthologies. If his voice sounds familiar, you may recognize it from Aufhebunga Bunga, which bills itself as the global politics podcast at the end of the End of History. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he’s not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

While a number of books came out on the centenary of the Russian Revolution, few seriously considered how the 20th century would have unfolded differently if the violent forces of counter-revolution and White terror had not crushed the Marxist dreams of a new future. What if the revolution had successfully spread to Western Europe and the United States of America? What would have happened if Rosa Luxemburg was not murdered by Freikorps thugs? What if the colonial empires had turned into non-racist mechanisms for egalitarian global development? As historians, we are not supposed to ask these “what if” questions, but our friends in political science can engage in such thought experiments. Philip Cunliffe’s Lenin Lives! Reimagining the Russian Revolution 1917-2017 (Zero Books, 2017) dares to ask these questions and then to carefully think through the answers. This counter-factual history plays out the consequences of a successful Russian and, more importantly, German Revolution. Cunliffe explores how not only politics and economics would have followed different historical trajectories (for example: no fascism!), but he also considers the environmental and scientific consequences of Lenin living just a little longer. Above all, Lenin Lives! is an exercise in historical empathy and social optimism. How would early 20th century Marxists have shaped the world had they not been subjected to generations of violent repression? Could they have built a better world? Dr. Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer in International Conflict at the University of Kent’s School of Politics and International Relations. His research interests include Peacekeeping, Humanitarian Intervention, Responsibility to Protect, Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Critical Theory, and IR Theory. He is the author of Legions of Peace: UN Peacekeepers from the Global South (2013), Cosmopolitan dystopia: International intervention and the failure of the West (2020) and The New Twenty Years’ Crisis: A Critique of International Relations, 1999-2019 (2020). He has also published several anthologies. If his voice sounds familiar, you may recognize it from Aufhebunga Bunga, which bills itself as the global politics podcast at the end of the End of History. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he’s not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

While a number of books came out on the centenary of the Russian Revolution, few seriously considered how the 20th century would have unfolded differently if the violent forces of counter-revolution and White terror had not crushed the Marxist dreams of a new future. What if the revolution had successfully spread to Western Europe and the United States of America? What would have happened if Rosa Luxemburg was not murdered by Freikorps thugs? What if the colonial empires had turned into non-racist mechanisms for egalitarian global development? As historians, we are not supposed to ask these “what if” questions, but our friends in political science can engage in such thought experiments. Philip Cunliffe’s Lenin Lives! Reimagining the Russian Revolution 1917-2017 (Zero Books, 2017) dares to ask these questions and then to carefully think through the answers. This counter-factual history plays out the consequences of a successful Russian and, more importantly, German Revolution. Cunliffe explores how not only politics and economics would have followed different historical trajectories (for example: no fascism!), but he also considers the environmental and scientific consequences of Lenin living just a little longer. Above all, Lenin Lives! is an exercise in historical empathy and social optimism. How would early 20th century Marxists have shaped the world had they not been subjected to generations of violent repression? Could they have built a better world? Dr. Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer in International Conflict at the University of Kent’s School of Politics and International Relations. His research interests include Peacekeeping, Humanitarian Intervention, Responsibility to Protect, Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Critical Theory, and IR Theory. He is the author of Legions of Peace: UN Peacekeepers from the Global South (2013), Cosmopolitan dystopia: International intervention and the failure of the West (2020) and The New Twenty Years’ Crisis: A Critique of International Relations, 1999-2019 (2020). He has also published several anthologies. If his voice sounds familiar, you may recognize it from Aufhebunga Bunga, which bills itself as the global politics podcast at the end of the End of History. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he’s not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

While a number of books came out on the centenary of the Russian Revolution, few seriously considered how the 20th century would have unfolded differently if the violent forces of counter-revolution and White terror had not crushed the Marxist dreams of a new future. What if the revolution had successfully spread to Western Europe and the United States of America? What would have happened if Rosa Luxemburg was not murdered by Freikorps thugs? What if the colonial empires had turned into non-racist mechanisms for egalitarian global development? As historians, we are not supposed to ask these “what if” questions, but our friends in political science can engage in such thought experiments. Philip Cunliffe’s Lenin Lives! Reimagining the Russian Revolution 1917-2017 (Zero Books, 2017) dares to ask these questions and then to carefully think through the answers. This counter-factual history plays out the consequences of a successful Russian and, more importantly, German Revolution. Cunliffe explores how not only politics and economics would have followed different historical trajectories (for example: no fascism!), but he also considers the environmental and scientific consequences of Lenin living just a little longer. Above all, Lenin Lives! is an exercise in historical empathy and social optimism. How would early 20th century Marxists have shaped the world had they not been subjected to generations of violent repression? Could they have built a better world? Dr. Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer in International Conflict at the University of Kent’s School of Politics and International Relations. His research interests include Peacekeeping, Humanitarian Intervention, Responsibility to Protect, Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Critical Theory, and IR Theory. He is the author of Legions of Peace: UN Peacekeepers from the Global South (2013), Cosmopolitan dystopia: International intervention and the failure of the West (2020) and The New Twenty Years’ Crisis: A Critique of International Relations, 1999-2019 (2020). He has also published several anthologies. If his voice sounds familiar, you may recognize it from Aufhebunga Bunga, which bills itself as the global politics podcast at the end of the End of History. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he’s not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

While a number of books came out on the centenary of the Russian Revolution, few seriously considered how the 20th century would have unfolded differently if the violent forces of counter-revolution and White terror had not crushed the Marxist dreams of a new future. What if the revolution had successfully spread to Western Europe and the United States of America? What would have happened if Rosa Luxemburg was not murdered by Freikorps thugs? What if the colonial empires had turned into non-racist mechanisms for egalitarian global development? As historians, we are not supposed to ask these “what if” questions, but our friends in political science can engage in such thought experiments. Philip Cunliffe’s Lenin Lives! Reimagining the Russian Revolution 1917-2017 (Zero Books, 2017) dares to ask these questions and then to carefully think through the answers. This counter-factual history plays out the consequences of a successful Russian and, more importantly, German Revolution. Cunliffe explores how not only politics and economics would have followed different historical trajectories (for example: no fascism!), but he also considers the environmental and scientific consequences of Lenin living just a little longer. Above all, Lenin Lives! is an exercise in historical empathy and social optimism. How would early 20th century Marxists have shaped the world had they not been subjected to generations of violent repression? Could they have built a better world? Dr. Philip Cunliffe is a Senior Lecturer in International Conflict at the University of Kent’s School of Politics and International Relations. His research interests include Peacekeeping, Humanitarian Intervention, Responsibility to Protect, Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Critical Theory, and IR Theory. He is the author of Legions of Peace: UN Peacekeepers from the Global South (2013), Cosmopolitan dystopia: International intervention and the failure of the West (2020) and The New Twenty Years’ Crisis: A Critique of International Relations, 1999-2019 (2020). He has also published several anthologies. If his voice sounds familiar, you may recognize it from Aufhebunga Bunga, which bills itself as the global politics podcast at the end of the End of History. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he’s not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In Episode 69 of the CounterVortex podcast, Bill Weinberg reviews The Responsibility to Protect in Libya and Syria: Mass Atrocities, Human Protection, and International Law by Syrian American legal scholar Yasmine Nahlawi. While Noam Chomsky's critique of "humanitarian intervention" has merit, those who parrot it act as if it simply ends the conversation—and, worse, engage in post-truth revisionism to deny mass atrocities entirely. The Nation magazine has repeatedly run lying propaganda that merely turns the realities of the Syrian war on their head, portraying the victims as aggressors. And contrary to the unseemly gloating about the chaos in Libya since the fall of Qaddafi, there is a good case that the situation there would be worse, not better, if there had not been a "regime change" war. Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon. https://www.patreon.com/countervortex Production by Chris Rywalt We ask listeners to donate just $1 per episode via Patreon. We have made it to our initial goal of $30 per episode! Thank you for your support, and please keep it coming!

In The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention (Oxford University Press, 2020), Rajan Menon shows that this belief, while noble, is naïve. He considers it ancient artifact belonging to the brief period right after the end of the cold war- the ‘Unipolar Moment' With the end of the Cold War has come an upsurge in humanitarian interventions-military campaigns aimed at ending mass atrocities. These wars of rescue, waged in the name of ostensibly universal norms of human rights and legal principles, rest on the premise that a genuine "international community" has begun to emerge and has reached consensus on a procedure for eradicating mass killings. Rajan Menon argues that, in fact, humanitarian intervention remains deeply divisive as a concept and as a policy, and is flawed besides. The advocates of humanitarian intervention have produced a mountain of writings to support their claim that human rights precepts now exert an unprecedented influence on states' foreign policies and that we can therefore anticipate a comprehensive solution to mass atrocities. States continue to act principally based on what they regard at any given time as their national interests. Delivering strangers from oppression ranks low on their list of priorities. Indeed, even democratic states routinely embrace governments that trample the human rights values on which the humanitarian intervention enterprise rests. States' ethical commitment to waging war to end atrocities remains episodic and erratic-more rhetorical than real. And when these missions are undertaken, the strategies and means used invariably produce perverse, even dangerous results. This, in no small measure, stems from the hubris of leaders-and the acolytes of humanitarian intervention-who have come to believe that they possesses the wisdom and wherewithal to bestow freedom and stability upon societies about which they know little. Medha Prasanna is an M.A candidate at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention (Oxford University Press, 2020), Rajan Menon shows that this belief, while noble, is naïve. He considers it ancient artifact belonging to the brief period right after the end of the cold war- the ‘Unipolar Moment' With the end of the Cold War has come an upsurge in humanitarian interventions-military campaigns aimed at ending mass atrocities. These wars of rescue, waged in the name of ostensibly universal norms of human rights and legal principles, rest on the premise that a genuine "international community" has begun to emerge and has reached consensus on a procedure for eradicating mass killings. Rajan Menon argues that, in fact, humanitarian intervention remains deeply divisive as a concept and as a policy, and is flawed besides. The advocates of humanitarian intervention have produced a mountain of writings to support their claim that human rights precepts now exert an unprecedented influence on states' foreign policies and that we can therefore anticipate a comprehensive solution to mass atrocities. States continue to act principally based on what they regard at any given time as their national interests. Delivering strangers from oppression ranks low on their list of priorities. Indeed, even democratic states routinely embrace governments that trample the human rights values on which the humanitarian intervention enterprise rests. States' ethical commitment to waging war to end atrocities remains episodic and erratic-more rhetorical than real. And when these missions are undertaken, the strategies and means used invariably produce perverse, even dangerous results. This, in no small measure, stems from the hubris of leaders-and the acolytes of humanitarian intervention-who have come to believe that they possesses the wisdom and wherewithal to bestow freedom and stability upon societies about which they know little. Medha Prasanna is an M.A candidate at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.

In The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention (Oxford University Press, 2020), Rajan Menon shows that this belief, while noble, is naïve. He considers it ancient artifact belonging to the brief period right after the end of the cold war- the ‘Unipolar Moment’ With the end of the Cold War has come an upsurge in humanitarian interventions-military campaigns aimed at ending mass atrocities. These wars of rescue, waged in the name of ostensibly universal norms of human rights and legal principles, rest on the premise that a genuine "international community" has begun to emerge and has reached consensus on a procedure for eradicating mass killings. Rajan Menon argues that, in fact, humanitarian intervention remains deeply divisive as a concept and as a policy, and is flawed besides. The advocates of humanitarian intervention have produced a mountain of writings to support their claim that human rights precepts now exert an unprecedented influence on states' foreign policies and that we can therefore anticipate a comprehensive solution to mass atrocities. States continue to act principally based on what they regard at any given time as their national interests. Delivering strangers from oppression ranks low on their list of priorities. Indeed, even democratic states routinely embrace governments that trample the human rights values on which the humanitarian intervention enterprise rests. States' ethical commitment to waging war to end atrocities remains episodic and erratic-more rhetorical than real. And when these missions are undertaken, the strategies and means used invariably produce perverse, even dangerous results. This, in no small measure, stems from the hubris of leaders-and the acolytes of humanitarian intervention-who have come to believe that they possesses the wisdom and wherewithal to bestow freedom and stability upon societies about which they know little. Medha Prasanna is an M.A candidate at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention (Oxford University Press, 2020), Rajan Menon shows that this belief, while noble, is naïve. He considers it ancient artifact belonging to the brief period right after the end of the cold war- the ‘Unipolar Moment’ With the end of the Cold War has come an upsurge in humanitarian interventions-military campaigns aimed at ending mass atrocities. These wars of rescue, waged in the name of ostensibly universal norms of human rights and legal principles, rest on the premise that a genuine "international community" has begun to emerge and has reached consensus on a procedure for eradicating mass killings. Rajan Menon argues that, in fact, humanitarian intervention remains deeply divisive as a concept and as a policy, and is flawed besides. The advocates of humanitarian intervention have produced a mountain of writings to support their claim that human rights precepts now exert an unprecedented influence on states' foreign policies and that we can therefore anticipate a comprehensive solution to mass atrocities. States continue to act principally based on what they regard at any given time as their national interests. Delivering strangers from oppression ranks low on their list of priorities. Indeed, even democratic states routinely embrace governments that trample the human rights values on which the humanitarian intervention enterprise rests. States' ethical commitment to waging war to end atrocities remains episodic and erratic-more rhetorical than real. And when these missions are undertaken, the strategies and means used invariably produce perverse, even dangerous results. This, in no small measure, stems from the hubris of leaders-and the acolytes of humanitarian intervention-who have come to believe that they possesses the wisdom and wherewithal to bestow freedom and stability upon societies about which they know little. Medha Prasanna is an M.A candidate at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention (Oxford University Press, 2020), Rajan Menon shows that this belief, while noble, is naïve. He considers it ancient artifact belonging to the brief period right after the end of the cold war- the ‘Unipolar Moment’ With the end of the Cold War has come an upsurge in humanitarian interventions-military campaigns aimed at ending mass atrocities. These wars of rescue, waged in the name of ostensibly universal norms of human rights and legal principles, rest on the premise that a genuine "international community" has begun to emerge and has reached consensus on a procedure for eradicating mass killings. Rajan Menon argues that, in fact, humanitarian intervention remains deeply divisive as a concept and as a policy, and is flawed besides. The advocates of humanitarian intervention have produced a mountain of writings to support their claim that human rights precepts now exert an unprecedented influence on states' foreign policies and that we can therefore anticipate a comprehensive solution to mass atrocities. States continue to act principally based on what they regard at any given time as their national interests. Delivering strangers from oppression ranks low on their list of priorities. Indeed, even democratic states routinely embrace governments that trample the human rights values on which the humanitarian intervention enterprise rests. States' ethical commitment to waging war to end atrocities remains episodic and erratic-more rhetorical than real. And when these missions are undertaken, the strategies and means used invariably produce perverse, even dangerous results. This, in no small measure, stems from the hubris of leaders-and the acolytes of humanitarian intervention-who have come to believe that they possesses the wisdom and wherewithal to bestow freedom and stability upon societies about which they know little. Medha Prasanna is an M.A candidate at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention (Oxford University Press, 2020), Rajan Menon shows that this belief, while noble, is naïve. He considers it ancient artifact belonging to the brief period right after the end of the cold war- the ‘Unipolar Moment’ With the end of the Cold War has come an upsurge in humanitarian interventions-military campaigns aimed at ending mass atrocities. These wars of rescue, waged in the name of ostensibly universal norms of human rights and legal principles, rest on the premise that a genuine "international community" has begun to emerge and has reached consensus on a procedure for eradicating mass killings. Rajan Menon argues that, in fact, humanitarian intervention remains deeply divisive as a concept and as a policy, and is flawed besides. The advocates of humanitarian intervention have produced a mountain of writings to support their claim that human rights precepts now exert an unprecedented influence on states' foreign policies and that we can therefore anticipate a comprehensive solution to mass atrocities. States continue to act principally based on what they regard at any given time as their national interests. Delivering strangers from oppression ranks low on their list of priorities. Indeed, even democratic states routinely embrace governments that trample the human rights values on which the humanitarian intervention enterprise rests. States' ethical commitment to waging war to end atrocities remains episodic and erratic-more rhetorical than real. And when these missions are undertaken, the strategies and means used invariably produce perverse, even dangerous results. This, in no small measure, stems from the hubris of leaders-and the acolytes of humanitarian intervention-who have come to believe that they possesses the wisdom and wherewithal to bestow freedom and stability upon societies about which they know little. Medha Prasanna is an M.A candidate at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention (Oxford University Press, 2020), Rajan Menon shows that this belief, while noble, is naïve. He considers it ancient artifact belonging to the brief period right after the end of the cold war- the ‘Unipolar Moment’ With the end of the Cold War has come an upsurge in humanitarian interventions-military campaigns aimed at ending mass atrocities. These wars of rescue, waged in the name of ostensibly universal norms of human rights and legal principles, rest on the premise that a genuine "international community" has begun to emerge and has reached consensus on a procedure for eradicating mass killings. Rajan Menon argues that, in fact, humanitarian intervention remains deeply divisive as a concept and as a policy, and is flawed besides. The advocates of humanitarian intervention have produced a mountain of writings to support their claim that human rights precepts now exert an unprecedented influence on states' foreign policies and that we can therefore anticipate a comprehensive solution to mass atrocities. States continue to act principally based on what they regard at any given time as their national interests. Delivering strangers from oppression ranks low on their list of priorities. Indeed, even democratic states routinely embrace governments that trample the human rights values on which the humanitarian intervention enterprise rests. States' ethical commitment to waging war to end atrocities remains episodic and erratic-more rhetorical than real. And when these missions are undertaken, the strategies and means used invariably produce perverse, even dangerous results. This, in no small measure, stems from the hubris of leaders-and the acolytes of humanitarian intervention-who have come to believe that they possesses the wisdom and wherewithal to bestow freedom and stability upon societies about which they know little. Medha Prasanna is an M.A candidate at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ép. 12 Histoire décoloniale du caoutchouc (3/3). Détruire plus et encore au nom du profitCet épisode fait partie d'une mini-série sur l'histoire d'un produit très présent dans notre vie quotidienne, le caoutchouc. Ce produit banal mais très utile a cependant peu de valeur marchande comme beaucoup d'autres matières premières extraites des Suds.L'histoire du caoutchouc montre comment l'Occident s'empare d'un produit qui lui est utile, pour son propre bénéfice, sans le partager avec les populations qui le cultivent. Dans cet épisode, nous évoquons comment l'exploitation des humain·es, des sols et des forêts d'hévéas se poursuit jusqu'à nos jours.Vous pouvez aussi lire un article sur cette histoire sur le blog Perspectives décolonialesRéférences :Musiques:Musique amazonienne, Música instrumental de la Amazonía peruana Musique seringueira, V.A. - O Baque do Acre : A Memória Musical dos Seringais (2012)Musique congolaise : Mbuta Nsana...mpissa ya KongoMusique vietnamienne, le Nhạc đỏ ou « musique rouge » Musique Bunong Documents audiovisuels:« La Chorrera, el genocidio del caucho en el Amazonas »Film d'animation « Caoutchouc rouge, rouge coltan », réalisé par Jean-Pierre Griez (2018)Podcast « Sans blanc de rien » (2019)TV5 Monde, « Ces paysans du Cambodge attaquent le groupe Bolloré pour récupérer leurs terres spoliées » (2/10/19) Bibliographie:CAAP & IWGIA, Informes de Roger Casement y otras cartas sobre las atrocidades en el Putumayo, Lima, CAAP-IWGIA, 2011.CETA IWGIA, La defensa de los caucheros, Iquitos, CETA-IWGIA, 2005.Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch, Le Congo au temps des grandes compagnies concessionnaires. 1898-1930, Paris-La Haye, Mouton, 1972.Charles Dupoizat, « L'Industrie et le commerce du caoutchouc en Malaysia et en Indonésie », Archipel, 1982/24, p. 51-72.Anne Gouyon, « Les plaines de Sumatra-sud : de la forêt aux hévéas », Revue Tiers Monde, 1993/135, p. 643-670.Adam Hochschild, Les fantômes du roi Léopold II. La terreur coloniale dans l'État du Congo, Tallandier, 2019.Fabian Klose (éd.), The Emergence of Humanitarian Intervention, Cambridge University Press, 2016.Fany Kuiru, La fuerza de la manicuera. Acciones de resistencia de las mujeres uitoto de la Chorrera-Amazonas durante la explotación del caucho – Casa Arana, Tesis de Maestría en Estudios políticos, Universidad Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Bogota, 2019.Edm. Leplae, « La culture de l'hévéa au Congo belge », Journal d'agriculture traditionnelle et de botanique appliquée, 1926, n° 56, p. 204-218.Éric Panthou, Les plantations Michelin au Viêt-nam, Ed. « La Galipote », 2013.Lissell Quiroz, « Construire l'État, civiliser l'Indien dans l'Oriente péruvien (1845-1932) », Les Langues Néo-Latines, n° 379, déc. 2016, p. 37-50.Michael R. Dove, « Histoires et savoirs autochtones hybrides chez les petits cultivateurs d'hévéa d'Asie », Revue internationale des sciences sociales, 2002/3, n° 173, p. 389-400.Ngbwapkwa Te Mobusa, « L'exploitation du caoutchouc par l'État indépendant du Congo dans le territoire de Banzyville, district de l'Ubangui (1900-1908), Civilisations, vol. 41, no. 1/2, 1993, p. 291–306.Pierre Boulle, Le sacrilège malais, Julliard, 1955.Pierre Gourou, « La petite hévéaculture en Asie du Sud-Est », Annales de géographie, 1953/333, p. 397-398.Putumayo : la vorágine de las caucherías. Memoria y testimonio. Primera parte, Bogota, Centro Nacional de la Memoria histórica, 2014.René Fabre, « Les plantations de caoutchouc du Vietnam », Politique étrangère, 1970, 35/4, p. 371-403.Roger Casement, The Casement Report, 1904, The Gutemberg Project Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.

Ép. 11 Histoire décoloniale du caoutchouc (2/3). Exploitation et génocides Cet épisode fait partie d'une mini-série, dans laquelle nous avons voulu raconter l'histoire d'un produit très présent dans notre vie quotidienne, le caoutchouc. On trouve ce produit sous différentes formes (des pneus, des tuyaux, des gants jetables, des chaussures, des gazons synthétiques ou encore des revêtements de raquettes de tennis). C'est un produit banal mais très utile. Il a cependant peu de valeur marchande comme beaucoup d'autres matières premières extraites des Suds.L'histoire du caoutchouc montre comment l'Occident s'empare d'un produit qui lui est utile, pour son propre bénéfice, sans le partager avec les populations qui le cultivent. Aujourd'hui, nous partons pour le 19e siècle. En Europe, la demande de caoutchouc explose. Les vélos font fureur dans les villes européennes alors que l'industrie automobile prend son envol. La soif de la richesse que le caoutchouc peut procurer motive la surexploitation des hévéas et des travailleurs autochtones.Références :Musique amazonienne, Música instrumental de la Amazonía peruanaMusique seringueira, V.A. - O Baque do Acre : A Memória Musical dos Seringais (2012) Musique congolaise : Mbuta Nsana...mpissa ya Kongo Musique vietnamienne, le Nhạc đỏ ou « musique rouge » Musique Bunong Générique: Atch, Freedom Documents audiovisuels:« La Chorrera, el genocidio del caucho en el Amazonas » Film d'animation « Caoutchouc rouge, rouge coltan », réalisé par Jean-Pierre Griez (2018)Podcast « Sans blanc de rien » (2019) TV5 Monde, « Ces paysans du Cambodge attaquent le groupe Bolloré pour récupérer leurs terres spoliées » (2/10/2019) Bibliographie:CAAP & IWGIA, Informes de Roger Casement y otras cartas sobre las atrocidades en el Putumayo, Lima, CAAP-IWGIA, 2011.CETA IWGIA, La defensa de los caucheros, Iquitos, CETA-IWGIA, 2005.Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch, Le Congo au temps des grandes compagnies concessionnaires. 1898-1930, Paris-La Haye, Mouton, 1972.Charles Dupoizat, « L'Industrie et le commerce du caoutchouc en Malaysia et en Indonésie », Archipel, 1982/24, p. 51-72.Anne Gouyon, « Les plaines de Sumatra-sud : de la forêt aux hévéas », Revue Tiers Monde, 1993/135, p. 643-670.Adam Hochschild, Les fantômes du roi Léopold II. La terreur coloniale dans l'État du Congo, Tallandier, 2019.Fabian Klose (éd.), The Emergence of Humanitarian Intervention, Cambridge University Press, 2016.Fany Kuiru, La fuerza de la manicuera. Acciones de resistencia de las mujeres uitoto de la Chorrera-Amazonas durante la explotación del caucho – Casa Arana, Tesis de Maestría en Estudios políticos, Universidad Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Bogota, 2019.Edm. Leplae, « La culture de l'hévéa au Congo belge », Journal d'agriculture traditionnelle et de botanique appliquée, 1926, n° 56, p. 204-218.Éric Panthou, Les plantations Michelin au Viêt-nam, Ed. « La Galipote », 2013.Lissell Quiroz, « Construire l'État, civiliser l'Indien dans l'Oriente péruvien (1845-1932) », Les Langues Néo-Latines, n° 379, déc. 2016, p. 37-50.Michael R. Dove, « Histoires et savoirs autochtones hybrides chez les petits cultivateurs d'hévéa d'Asie », Revue internationale des sciences sociales, 2002/3, n° 173, p. 389-400.Ngbwapkwa Te Mobusa, « L'exploitation du caoutchouc par l'État indépendant du Congo dans le territoire de Banzyville, district de l'Ubangui (1900-1908), Civilisations, vol. 41, no. 1/2, 1993, p. 291–306.Pierre Boulle, Le sacrilège malais, Julliard, 1955.Pierre Gourou, « La petite hévéaculture en Asie du Sud-Est », Annales de géographie, 1953/333, p. 397-398.Putumayo : la vorágine de las caucherías. Memoria y testimonio. Primera parte, Bogota, Centro Nacional de la Memoria histórica, 2014.René Fabre, « Les plantations de caoutchouc du Vietnam », Politique étrangère, 1970, 35/4, p. 371-403.Roger Casement, The Casement Report, The Gutemberg Project,1904. Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.

Histoire décoloniale du caoutchouc (1/3). Le vol d'une plante américaine connue depuis avant ColombL'épisode que vous écoutez fait partie d'une mini-série, dans laquelle nous avons voulu raconter l'histoire d'un produit très présent dans notre vie quotidienne, le caoutchouc. On trouve ce produit sous différentes formes (des pneus, des tuyaux, des gants jetables, des chaussures, des gazons synthétiques ou encore des revêtements de raquettes de tennis). C'est un produit banal mais très utile. Il a cependant peu de valeur marchande comme beaucoup d'autres matières premières extraites des Suds.L'histoire du caoutchouc montre comment l'Occident s'empare d'un produit qui lui est utile, pour son propre bénéfice, sans le partager avec les populations qui le cultivent. Aujourd'hui, nous remontons plusieurs centaines d'années en arrière, quand tout a commencé, avec le vol d'une plante en Amazonie.Références :Musique amazonienne, Música instrumental de la Amazonía peruanaMusique seringueira, V.A. - O Baque do Acre : A Memória Musical dos Seringais (2012) Musique congolaise : Mbuta Nsana...mpissa ya Kongo Musique vietnamienne, le Nhạc đỏ ou « musique rouge » Musique Bunong Générique: Atch, Freedom Documents audiovisuels:« La Chorrera, el genocidio del caucho en el Amazonas » Film d'animation « Caoutchouc rouge, rouge coltan », réalisé par Jean-Pierre Griez (2018)Podcast « Sans blanc de rien » (2019) TV5 Monde, « Ces paysans du Cambodge attaquent le groupe Bolloré pour récupérer leurs terres spoliées » (2/10/2019) Bibliographie:CAAP & IWGIA, Informes de Roger Casement y otras cartas sobre las atrocidades en el Putumayo, Lima, CAAP-IWGIA, 2011.CETA IWGIA, La defensa de los caucheros, Iquitos, CETA-IWGIA, 2005.Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch, Le Congo au temps des grandes compagnies concessionnaires. 1898-1930, Paris-La Haye, Mouton, 1972.Charles Dupoizat, « L'Industrie et le commerce du caoutchouc en Malaysia et en Indonésie », Archipel, 1982/24, p. 51-72.Anne Gouyon, « Les plaines de Sumatra-sud : de la forêt aux hévéas », Revue Tiers Monde, 1993/135, p. 643-670.Adam Hochschild, Les fantômes du roi Léopold II. La terreur coloniale dans l'État du Congo, Tallandier, 2019.Fabian Klose (éd.), The Emergence of Humanitarian Intervention, Cambridge University Press, 2016.Fany Kuiru, La fuerza de la manicuera. Acciones de resistencia de las mujeres uitoto de la Chorrera-Amazonas durante la explotación del caucho – Casa Arana, Tesis de Maestría en Estudios políticos, Universidad Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Bogota, 2019.Edm. Leplae, « La culture de l'hévéa au Congo belge », Journal d'agriculture traditionnelle et de botanique appliquée, 1926, n° 56, p. 204-218.Éric Panthou, Les plantations Michelin au Viêt-nam, Ed. « La Galipote », 2013.Lissell Quiroz, « Construire l'État, civiliser l'Indien dans l'Oriente péruvien (1845-1932) », Les Langues Néo-Latines, n° 379, déc. 2016, p. 37-50.Michael R. Dove, « Histoires et savoirs autochtones hybrides chez les petits cultivateurs d'hévéa d'Asie », Revue internationale des sciences sociales, 2002/3, n° 173, p. 389-400.Ngbwapkwa Te Mobusa, « L'exploitation du caoutchouc par l'État indépendant du Congo dans le territoire de Banzyville, district de l'Ubangui (1900-1908), Civilisations, vol. 41, no. 1/2, 1993, p. 291–306.Pierre Boulle, Le sacrilège malais, Julliard, 1955.Pierre Gourou, « La petite hévéaculture en Asie du Sud-Est », Annales de géographie, 1953/333, p. 397-398.Putumayo : la vorágine de las caucherías. Memoria y testimonio. Primera parte, Bogota, Centro Nacional de la Memoria histórica, 2014.René Fabre, « Les plantations de caoutchouc du Vietnam », Politique étrangère, 1970, 35/4, p. 371-403.Roger Casement, The Casement Report, 1904, The Gutemberg Project Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.

Prof. Charlie Laderman (Kings College, London), Sharing the Burden: The Armenian Question, Humanitarian Intervention, and Anglo-American Visions of Global Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019)Interviewed by Anna Aleksanyan (Ph.D. Student, Clark University)[August 7, 2020]

A conversation with Prof. Kevin Heller of the University of Copenhagen about unilateral humanitarian intervention - Heller argues that it is not only unlawful, and should remain so, but that it may actually constitute an act of aggression as defined under the Rome Statute, and that its perpetrators could, theoretically, be charged for the crime of aggression. See website for reading material.

Dan Kovalik just published a book about how the US justifies imperialist violence under the guise of humanitarian intervention. He sits down with Lee Camp this week to discuss the book and how it applies to the US’s current situation. Under Trump, we’ve seen how the first time the media embraced him was after he bombed Syria in the middle of a US-Russian proxy war disguised as a Syrian civil war. They also take swings at Obama's UN Ambassador, the ostensibly left-wing Samantha Power, whose hands ended up drenched in blood in Libya. Their wide-ranging conversation exposes the bloody character of US empire-building. Naomi Karavani takes a look at how US TV’s reality documentary ‘Live PD’ encouraged police malfeasance. The ‘copaganda’ was canceled in the wake of the George Floyd uprising, but Karavani shows how shocking it is that it lasted so long. Natalie McGill reports on a piece of mind-blowing history: a successful black community in the middle of Manhattan that was demolished and replaced with Central Park. This is part of the story of how white supremacy still reigned, even after slavery was officially over.

E4: A Decade of Peace? Wars in the 90sE4.1: Killing in the NameE4.2 Acts of GenocideE4.3 Problems from HellThe end of the Cold War did not mean global peace. In this episode, Emma and Chloe talk about the US’ foreign policy, and how its interventions in foreign wars in the 1990s continue to shape the US’ global outlook today. They discuss the origins of the ideas of humanitarian warfare and liberal interventionism, and the US’ long history of foreign interventions; disasters in Somalia, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia; and the US ongoing debates about how, if it all, it can promote democracy outside its own borders.ALSO – keep an eye out for a bonus episode, released Friday, where Chloe speaks to Dr Charlie Hunt from RMIT University about the UN’s role in peace and war in the 90s.LinksSamantha Power, A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, Basic Books, 2002https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/samantha-power/a-problem-from-hell/9780465050895/Daniel Bessner, “The Fog of Intervention,” The New Republic, September 4, 2019https://newrepublic.com/article/154612/education-idealist-samantha-power-book-reviewJeffrey Goldberg, “The Obama Doctrine,” The Atlantic, April 2016https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/Dexter Filkins, “The Moral Logic of Humanitarian Intervention,” The New Yorker, September 2019.https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/16/the-moral-logic-of-humanitarian-intervention

The end of the Cold War did not mean global peace. In this episode, Emma and Chloe talk about the US’ foreign policy, and how its interventions in foreign wars in the 1990s continue to shape the US’ global outlook today. They discuss the origins of the ideas of humanitarian warfare and liberal interventionism, and the US’ long history of foreign interventions; disasters in Somalia, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia; and the US ongoing debates about how, if it all, it can promote democracy outside its own borders.ALSO – keep an eye out for a bonus episode, released Friday, where Chloe speaks to Dr Charlie Hunt from RMIT University about the UN’s role in peace and war in the 90s.LinksSamantha Power, A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, Basic Books, 2002https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/samantha-power/a-problem-from-hell/9780465050895/Daniel Bessner, “The Fog of Intervention,” The New Republic, September 4, 2019https://newrepublic.com/article/154612/education-idealist-samantha-power-book-reviewJeffrey Goldberg, “The Obama Doctrine,” The Atlantic, April 2016https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/Dexter Filkins, “The Moral Logic of Humanitarian Intervention,” The New Yorker, September 2019.https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/16/the-moral-logic-of-humanitarian-intervention

E4: A Decade of Peace? Wars in the 90sE4.1: Killing in the NameE4.2 Acts of GenocideE4.3 Problems from HellThe end of the Cold War did not mean global peace. In this episode, Emma and Chloe talk about the US’ foreign policy, and how its interventions in foreign wars in the 1990s continue to shape the US’ global outlook today. They discuss the origins of the ideas of humanitarian warfare and liberal interventionism, and the US’ long history of foreign interventions; disasters in Somalia, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia; and the US ongoing debates about how, if it all, it can promote democracy outside its own borders.ALSO – keep an eye out for a bonus episode, released Friday, where Chloe speaks to Dr Charlie Hunt from RMIT University about the UN’s role in peace and war in the 90s.LinksSamantha Power, A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, Basic Books, 2002https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/samantha-power/a-problem-from-hell/9780465050895/Daniel Bessner, “The Fog of Intervention,” The New Republic, September 4, 2019https://newrepublic.com/article/154612/education-idealist-samantha-power-book-reviewJeffrey Goldberg, “The Obama Doctrine,” The Atlantic, April 2016https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/Dexter Filkins, “The Moral Logic of Humanitarian Intervention,” The New Yorker, September 2019.https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/16/the-moral-logic-of-humanitarian-intervention

In this episode of Horns of a Dilemma, Charlie Laderman, lecturer in international history at the War Studies Department at King's College, discusses his book Sharing the Burden: The Armenian Question, Humanitarian Intervention, and Anglo-American Visions of Global Order. Laderman talks about the mass killing and death of Armenians during the period that preceded and shortly followed the independence of the Turkish Republic. The subject of this episode focuses on the question of how this incident signaled the rise of a global order based simultaneously on liberalism, sovereignty, and a commitment to human rights. This event took place at the University of Texas at Austin and was sponsored by the Clements Center. 

A healthy Shadi and a sick Damir chew over Richard Holbrooke’s complicated legacy, as well as the moral imperatives and political limits of humanitarian intervention.

In Sharing the Burden: The Armenian Question, Humanitarian Intervention, and Anglo-American Visions of Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2019), Charlie Laderman exposes the way that imperial ambitions suffused the ideas and practices of turn-of-century humanitarian intervention. Beginning his story in the late 19th century Ottoman Empire, Dr. Laderman demonstrates how the successive waves of violence perpetrated against Armenian Christians provoked new ways of thinking about imperial governance, the practice of intervening on humanitarian grounds, and notions of “civilization” itself. Laderman's book opens in the mid-19th century Ottoman Empire, when both Eastern and Western European states stood poised to further destabilize the Ottoman government with repeated interventions and invasions into its territory, ostensibly on behalf of the Ottoman Empire's non-Muslim subjects. The Ottoman administration's precarity, coupled with intensifying religious and ethnic tensions along the Empire's far-flung borders, created conditions that were ripe for violence and abuse. By the 1890s, this violence became directed squarely at the Armenian Christian minority in the eastern province of Anatolia. The repeated waves of violence committed against the Armenian Ottomans after 1894 became what both Laderman and his historical actors call the “Armenian Question”—a problem that British and U.S. officials, American missionaries, and the broader American public became increasingly desperate to “solve.” Laderman structures his book around the kinds of “solutions” that American and British politicians, missionaries, and journalists proffered in response to escalating violence toward Armenians. In Laderman's telling, the Armenian massacres became a lens through which British and American officials came to interpret the practices of “enlightened” versus “barbaric” imperial rule—and it made them puzzle whether or how a prospective Anglo-American alliance might secure a more “stable” and humanitarian global order. In recovering this history, Dr. Laderman challenges the notion that humanitarian intervention originated as a form of international politics only in the latter half of the 20th century. He ultimately demonstrates just how crucial the Armenian Genocide was in early 20th-century conceptions and praxes of imperial internationalism—and what this meant for the Anglo-American relationship and global governance more broadly after the First World War. Charlie Laderman is a Lecturer in International History at the War Studies Department of King's College, London. He was previously a Fox International Fellow and Smith Richardson Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University, and a Harrington Faculty Fellow at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas, Austin. Sarah Nelson is a PhD candidate at Vanderbilt University's department of history, and a joint-PhD candidate in Comparative Media Analysis and Practice (CMAP). Her dissertation addresses the history of international telecommunications governance, tracing the long history of attempts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Sharing the Burden: The Armenian Question, Humanitarian Intervention, and Anglo-American Visions of Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2019), Charlie Laderman exposes the way that imperial ambitions suffused the ideas and practices of turn-of-century humanitarian intervention. Beginning his story in the late 19th century Ottoman Empire, Dr. Laderman demonstrates how the successive waves of violence perpetrated against Armenian Christians provoked new ways of thinking about imperial governance, the practice of intervening on humanitarian grounds, and notions of “civilization” itself. Laderman’s book opens in the mid-19th century Ottoman Empire, when both Eastern and Western European states stood poised to further destabilize the Ottoman government with repeated interventions and invasions into its territory, ostensibly on behalf of the Ottoman Empire’s non-Muslim subjects. The Ottoman administration’s precarity, coupled with intensifying religious and ethnic tensions along the Empire’s far-flung borders, created conditions that were ripe for violence and abuse. By the 1890s, this violence became directed squarely at the Armenian Christian minority in the eastern province of Anatolia. The repeated waves of violence committed against the Armenian Ottomans after 1894 became what both Laderman and his historical actors call the “Armenian Question”—a problem that British and U.S. officials, American missionaries, and the broader American public became increasingly desperate to “solve.” Laderman structures his book around the kinds of “solutions” that American and British politicians, missionaries, and journalists proffered in response to escalating violence toward Armenians. In Laderman’s telling, the Armenian massacres became a lens through which British and American officials came to interpret the practices of “enlightened” versus “barbaric” imperial rule—and it made them puzzle whether or how a prospective Anglo-American alliance might secure a more “stable” and humanitarian global order. In recovering this history, Dr. Laderman challenges the notion that humanitarian intervention originated as a form of international politics only in the latter half of the 20th century. He ultimately demonstrates just how crucial the Armenian Genocide was in early 20th-century conceptions and praxes of imperial internationalism—and what this meant for the Anglo-American relationship and global governance more broadly after the First World War. Charlie Laderman is a Lecturer in International History at the War Studies Department of King’s College, London. He was previously a Fox International Fellow and Smith Richardson Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University, and a Harrington Faculty Fellow at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas, Austin. Sarah Nelson is a PhD candidate at Vanderbilt University’s department of history, and a joint-PhD candidate in Comparative Media Analysis and Practice (CMAP). Her dissertation addresses the history of international telecommunications governance, tracing the long history of attempts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Sharing the Burden: The Armenian Question, Humanitarian Intervention, and Anglo-American Visions of Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2019), Charlie Laderman exposes the way that imperial ambitions suffused the ideas and practices of turn-of-century humanitarian intervention. Beginning his story in the late 19th century Ottoman Empire, Dr. Laderman demonstrates how the successive waves of violence perpetrated against Armenian Christians provoked new ways of thinking about imperial governance, the practice of intervening on humanitarian grounds, and notions of “civilization” itself. Laderman’s book opens in the mid-19th century Ottoman Empire, when both Eastern and Western European states stood poised to further destabilize the Ottoman government with repeated interventions and invasions into its territory, ostensibly on behalf of the Ottoman Empire’s non-Muslim subjects. The Ottoman administration’s precarity, coupled with intensifying religious and ethnic tensions along the Empire’s far-flung borders, created conditions that were ripe for violence and abuse. By the 1890s, this violence became directed squarely at the Armenian Christian minority in the eastern province of Anatolia. The repeated waves of violence committed against the Armenian Ottomans after 1894 became what both Laderman and his historical actors call the “Armenian Question”—a problem that British and U.S. officials, American missionaries, and the broader American public became increasingly desperate to “solve.” Laderman structures his book around the kinds of “solutions” that American and British politicians, missionaries, and journalists proffered in response to escalating violence toward Armenians. In Laderman’s telling, the Armenian massacres became a lens through which British and American officials came to interpret the practices of “enlightened” versus “barbaric” imperial rule—and it made them puzzle whether or how a prospective Anglo-American alliance might secure a more “stable” and humanitarian global order. In recovering this history, Dr. Laderman challenges the notion that humanitarian intervention originated as a form of international politics only in the latter half of the 20th century. He ultimately demonstrates just how crucial the Armenian Genocide was in early 20th-century conceptions and praxes of imperial internationalism—and what this meant for the Anglo-American relationship and global governance more broadly after the First World War. Charlie Laderman is a Lecturer in International History at the War Studies Department of King’s College, London. He was previously a Fox International Fellow and Smith Richardson Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University, and a Harrington Faculty Fellow at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas, Austin. Sarah Nelson is a PhD candidate at Vanderbilt University’s department of history, and a joint-PhD candidate in Comparative Media Analysis and Practice (CMAP). Her dissertation addresses the history of international telecommunications governance, tracing the long history of attempts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Sharing the Burden: The Armenian Question, Humanitarian Intervention, and Anglo-American Visions of Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2019), Charlie Laderman exposes the way that imperial ambitions suffused the ideas and practices of turn-of-century humanitarian intervention. Beginning his story in the late 19th century Ottoman Empire, Dr. Laderman demonstrates how the successive waves of violence perpetrated against Armenian Christians provoked new ways of thinking about imperial governance, the practice of intervening on humanitarian grounds, and notions of “civilization” itself. Laderman's book opens in the mid-19th century Ottoman Empire, when both Eastern and Western European states stood poised to further destabilize the Ottoman government with repeated interventions and invasions into its territory, ostensibly on behalf of the Ottoman Empire's non-Muslim subjects. The Ottoman administration's precarity, coupled with intensifying religious and ethnic tensions along the Empire's far-flung borders, created conditions that were ripe for violence and abuse. By the 1890s, this violence became directed squarely at the Armenian Christian minority in the eastern province of Anatolia. The repeated waves of violence committed against the Armenian Ottomans after 1894 became what both Laderman and his historical actors call the “Armenian Question”—a problem that British and U.S. officials, American missionaries, and the broader American public became increasingly desperate to “solve.” Laderman structures his book around the kinds of “solutions” that American and British politicians, missionaries, and journalists proffered in response to escalating violence toward Armenians. In Laderman's telling, the Armenian massacres became a lens through which British and American officials came to interpret the practices of “enlightened” versus “barbaric” imperial rule—and it made them puzzle whether or how a prospective Anglo-American alliance might secure a more “stable” and humanitarian global order. In recovering this history, Dr. Laderman challenges the notion that humanitarian intervention originated as a form of international politics only in the latter half of the 20th century. He ultimately demonstrates just how crucial the Armenian Genocide was in early 20th-century conceptions and praxes of imperial internationalism—and what this meant for the Anglo-American relationship and global governance more broadly after the First World War. Charlie Laderman is a Lecturer in International History at the War Studies Department of King's College, London. He was previously a Fox International Fellow and Smith Richardson Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University, and a Harrington Faculty Fellow at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas, Austin. Sarah Nelson is a PhD candidate at Vanderbilt University's department of history, and a joint-PhD candidate in Comparative Media Analysis and Practice (CMAP). Her dissertation addresses the history of international telecommunications governance, tracing the long history of attempts.

In Sharing the Burden: The Armenian Question, Humanitarian Intervention, and Anglo-American Visions of Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2019), Charlie Laderman exposes the way that imperial ambitions suffused the ideas and practices of turn-of-century humanitarian intervention. Beginning his story in the late 19th century Ottoman Empire, Dr. Laderman demonstrates how the successive waves of violence perpetrated against Armenian Christians provoked new ways of thinking about imperial governance, the practice of intervening on humanitarian grounds, and notions of “civilization” itself. Laderman’s book opens in the mid-19th century Ottoman Empire, when both Eastern and Western European states stood poised to further destabilize the Ottoman government with repeated interventions and invasions into its territory, ostensibly on behalf of the Ottoman Empire’s non-Muslim subjects. The Ottoman administration’s precarity, coupled with intensifying religious and ethnic tensions along the Empire’s far-flung borders, created conditions that were ripe for violence and abuse. By the 1890s, this violence became directed squarely at the Armenian Christian minority in the eastern province of Anatolia. The repeated waves of violence committed against the Armenian Ottomans after 1894 became what both Laderman and his historical actors call the “Armenian Question”—a problem that British and U.S. officials, American missionaries, and the broader American public became increasingly desperate to “solve.” Laderman structures his book around the kinds of “solutions” that American and British politicians, missionaries, and journalists proffered in response to escalating violence toward Armenians. In Laderman’s telling, the Armenian massacres became a lens through which British and American officials came to interpret the practices of “enlightened” versus “barbaric” imperial rule—and it made them puzzle whether or how a prospective Anglo-American alliance might secure a more “stable” and humanitarian global order. In recovering this history, Dr. Laderman challenges the notion that humanitarian intervention originated as a form of international politics only in the latter half of the 20th century. He ultimately demonstrates just how crucial the Armenian Genocide was in early 20th-century conceptions and praxes of imperial internationalism—and what this meant for the Anglo-American relationship and global governance more broadly after the First World War. Charlie Laderman is a Lecturer in International History at the War Studies Department of King’s College, London. He was previously a Fox International Fellow and Smith Richardson Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University, and a Harrington Faculty Fellow at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas, Austin. Sarah Nelson is a PhD candidate at Vanderbilt University’s department of history, and a joint-PhD candidate in Comparative Media Analysis and Practice (CMAP). Her dissertation addresses the history of international telecommunications governance, tracing the long history of attempts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Sharing the Burden: The Armenian Question, Humanitarian Intervention, and Anglo-American Visions of Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2019), Charlie Laderman exposes the way that imperial ambitions suffused the ideas and practices of turn-of-century humanitarian intervention. Beginning his story in the late 19th century Ottoman Empire, Dr. Laderman demonstrates how the successive waves of violence perpetrated against Armenian Christians provoked new ways of thinking about imperial governance, the practice of intervening on humanitarian grounds, and notions of “civilization” itself. Laderman’s book opens in the mid-19th century Ottoman Empire, when both Eastern and Western European states stood poised to further destabilize the Ottoman government with repeated interventions and invasions into its territory, ostensibly on behalf of the Ottoman Empire’s non-Muslim subjects. The Ottoman administration’s precarity, coupled with intensifying religious and ethnic tensions along the Empire’s far-flung borders, created conditions that were ripe for violence and abuse. By the 1890s, this violence became directed squarely at the Armenian Christian minority in the eastern province of Anatolia. The repeated waves of violence committed against the Armenian Ottomans after 1894 became what both Laderman and his historical actors call the “Armenian Question”—a problem that British and U.S. officials, American missionaries, and the broader American public became increasingly desperate to “solve.” Laderman structures his book around the kinds of “solutions” that American and British politicians, missionaries, and journalists proffered in response to escalating violence toward Armenians. In Laderman’s telling, the Armenian massacres became a lens through which British and American officials came to interpret the practices of “enlightened” versus “barbaric” imperial rule—and it made them puzzle whether or how a prospective Anglo-American alliance might secure a more “stable” and humanitarian global order. In recovering this history, Dr. Laderman challenges the notion that humanitarian intervention originated as a form of international politics only in the latter half of the 20th century. He ultimately demonstrates just how crucial the Armenian Genocide was in early 20th-century conceptions and praxes of imperial internationalism—and what this meant for the Anglo-American relationship and global governance more broadly after the First World War. Charlie Laderman is a Lecturer in International History at the War Studies Department of King’s College, London. He was previously a Fox International Fellow and Smith Richardson Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University, and a Harrington Faculty Fellow at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas, Austin. Sarah Nelson is a PhD candidate at Vanderbilt University’s department of history, and a joint-PhD candidate in Comparative Media Analysis and Practice (CMAP). Her dissertation addresses the history of international telecommunications governance, tracing the long history of attempts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Sharing the Burden: The Armenian Question, Humanitarian Intervention, and Anglo-American Visions of Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2019), Charlie Laderman exposes the way that imperial ambitions suffused the ideas and practices of turn-of-century humanitarian intervention. Beginning his story in the late 19th century Ottoman Empire, Dr. Laderman demonstrates how the successive waves of violence perpetrated against Armenian Christians provoked new ways of thinking about imperial governance, the practice of intervening on humanitarian grounds, and notions of “civilization” itself. Laderman’s book opens in the mid-19th century Ottoman Empire, when both Eastern and Western European states stood poised to further destabilize the Ottoman government with repeated interventions and invasions into its territory, ostensibly on behalf of the Ottoman Empire’s non-Muslim subjects. The Ottoman administration’s precarity, coupled with intensifying religious and ethnic tensions along the Empire’s far-flung borders, created conditions that were ripe for violence and abuse. By the 1890s, this violence became directed squarely at the Armenian Christian minority in the eastern province of Anatolia. The repeated waves of violence committed against the Armenian Ottomans after 1894 became what both Laderman and his historical actors call the “Armenian Question”—a problem that British and U.S. officials, American missionaries, and the broader American public became increasingly desperate to “solve.” Laderman structures his book around the kinds of “solutions” that American and British politicians, missionaries, and journalists proffered in response to escalating violence toward Armenians. In Laderman’s telling, the Armenian massacres became a lens through which British and American officials came to interpret the practices of “enlightened” versus “barbaric” imperial rule—and it made them puzzle whether or how a prospective Anglo-American alliance might secure a more “stable” and humanitarian global order. In recovering this history, Dr. Laderman challenges the notion that humanitarian intervention originated as a form of international politics only in the latter half of the 20th century. He ultimately demonstrates just how crucial the Armenian Genocide was in early 20th-century conceptions and praxes of imperial internationalism—and what this meant for the Anglo-American relationship and global governance more broadly after the First World War. Charlie Laderman is a Lecturer in International History at the War Studies Department of King’s College, London. He was previously a Fox International Fellow and Smith Richardson Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University, and a Harrington Faculty Fellow at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas, Austin. Sarah Nelson is a PhD candidate at Vanderbilt University’s department of history, and a joint-PhD candidate in Comparative Media Analysis and Practice (CMAP). Her dissertation addresses the history of international telecommunications governance, tracing the long history of attempts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Scott Morrison is going to Washington--or is it Mar-a-Lago? In anticipation of the Australian PM’s state dinner with Donald Trump, Emma and Chloe look back on the history of American-Australian relations. From the ANZUS treaty to Iraq (and detouring through conspiracy theories, Gough Whitlam, and the CIA), Australia has a track record of following the US everywhere it goes, including into war. With Trump ‘locked and loaded’, Emma and Chloe ask whether history repeating, and will Australia find itself at war in Iran?Reading ListOn Trump and Morrison/the US in the World:Dexter Filkins, “The Moral Logic of Humanitarian Intervention,” The New Yorker, 16 September 2019.https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/16/the-moral-logic-of-humanitarian-interventionElaine Pearson, “Trump’s Attack on Asylum-Seekers Was Made in Australia,” Foreign Policy, 24 July 2019https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/24/trumps-attack-on-asylum-seekers-was-made-in-australia-png-manus-island-nauru-new-zealand-refugees-offshore-detention/Tanya Levin, “What Scott Morrison’s faith means,” The Saturday Paper, Edition No. 261, July 13-19, 2019https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2019/07/13/what-scott-morrisons-faith-means/15629400008440Jeffrey Goldberg, “The Obama Doctrine,” The Atlantic, April 2016https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/“America’s ‘credibility’ is not the problem here,” Crikey, 31 October 2017.https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/10/31/yale-diaries-americas-credibility-is-not-the-problem-here/“The History of the USA and Australia’s Love In – and Turnbull’s Grovelling,” Daily Review, 6 May 2017.https://dailyreview.com.au/history-great-relationship-australia-us-love/59439/“Trump, Syria and the Irrelevance of History,” Daily Review, 15 April 2017.https://dailyreview.com.au/trump-syria-irrelevance-history/58522/“Teaching History in TrumpWorld,” Daily Review, 4 March 2017https://dailyreview.com.au/teaching-history-trumpworld/56534/On handshakes:Adam Boult and Chris Graham, “Justin Trudeau's handshake with Donald Trump the 'biggest display of dominance in the history of Canada',” The Telegraph, 14 February 2017.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/13/justin-trudeau-becomes-latest-world-leader-brave-trumps-awkward/On Whitlam:Christopher Knaus, “Whitlam dismissal 'palace letters' case wins right to be heard by high court,” The Guardian, 16 August 2019https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/16/battle-over-whitlam-dismissal-palace-letters-heads-to-high-courtGuy Rundle, “All facts point to US involvement in the Dismissal,” Crikey, 13 November 2015 [$].https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/11/13/rundle-all-facts-point-to-us-involvement-in-the-dismissal/James Curran, “How Whitlam rattled the ANZUS alliance,” The Monthly, August 2012.https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/august/1348618116/james-curran/dear-mr-presidentOn the US and anti-Semitism in the UK:Owen Jones, “Fighting smears and the antisemitic minority in the Labour party,” 8 March 2019https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qxk0hW0_EQ&feature=youtu.be

Beyond the Noise with David Jamieson is a weekly podcast with CommonSpace journalist David Jamieson, where he gets behind the 24/7 news cycle and gets to the heart of issues, trying to find the substance behind the headlines. In this weeks podcast Jamieson speaks to Vladimir Unkovski-Korica, a lecturer in the Eastern and Central-European studies department at Glasgow Univeristy, speaks to David Jamieson about the legacy of the Kosovo War. They discuss: 1:54 – How great power conflicts shaped the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia and promoted conflict in the Balkans. 14:49 – How did the West seek to intervene into the collapse of the state? 17:45 – How the pro-war factions of the war on terror cut their teeth in the Balkans. 29:56 – How the anti-war movement also began to cohere.

Jeremi sits down in an English pub with Professor Charlie Laderman to discuss British-American relations and their effects on the two democracies. Dr. Charlie Laderman is a lecturer in international history at King’s College, London. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, and his new book is: Sharing the Burden: Armenia, Humanitarian Intervention […]

This Anthropology Departmental Seminar was given by Jok Madut Jok, SUNY Upstate Medical University, on 23 November 2018

Michael Reisman on Unilateral Action and the Transformations of the World Constitutive Process:The Special Problem of Humanitarian Intervention (simultaneous interpretation into Chinese)

Michael Reisman on Unilateral Action and the Transformations of the World Constitutive Process: The Special Problem of Humanitarian Intervention

In Global Inquirer’s first live episode of the semester, we examine the case for and against international humanitarian intervention in Syria. Joined by guest Mark Leon Goldberg, editor of the United Nations’ UN Dispatch blog and host of the Humanity in Action's Global Dispatches Podcast, along with researcher Dom Giovanniello, we’ll examine cases for and against humanitarian intervention in Syria’s civil war over the past seven years, and discuss what can still be done to tackle the humanitarian crisis. Since 2011, the conflict in Syria has claimed over 500,000 lives and displaced more than half of the country's pre-war population. Over 5.4 million Syrians have fled their homes seeking refuge abroad, placing tremendous strain on neighboring countries and the EU. The civil war has also devolved into an international conflict, with Iran, Russia, Turkey, the Gulf States, and the United States all seeking to promote their interests. ISIL and other militant groups have taken advantage of the situation to pursue their extreme agendas and reek devastation on innocent civilians both in Syria and abroad. In light of this situation, several questions arise. Could the international community have done more to stop the bloodshed? Would military intervention have improved or worsened the situation? What can still be done? And, given the high cost of the Syrian civil war, is there a moral obligation to intervene? Join us or tune in this Wednesday as we discuss these questions and the cases for and against international humanitarian intervention in Syria and other conflicts.

Motion: Humanitarian Intervention Does More Harm than Good. The international community currently faces a global refugee crisis and mass atrocities in Iraq, Myanmar, Syria, Yemen, and beyond. How should the West respond? Proponents of humanitarian intervention – the use of force to halt human rights abuses – argue that the world’s most powerful militaries have a responsibility to protect innocent civilians around the world. Beyond saving lives, they argue, intervention deters would-be abusers and ensures global stability, thereby strengthening the liberal world order. But opponents argue that military intervention is thinly veiled Western imperialism, and subsequently, an assault on state sovereignty. And, it’s ineffective: the West, with its military might, increases the death toll and worsens the conflicts it sets out to solve. Further, given recent waves of populism in the U.S., France, and U.K., they suggest that Western nations should spend their time looking inward rather than policing activity around the world.  This debate is presented in partnership with The German Marshall Fund's Brussels Forum, broadcast live from Brussels, Belgium. The More We Evolve, The Less We Need God: http://smarturl.it/ReligionDebateTix Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The UN is the world’s most idealistic organization: a place where representatives of countries all over the world can get together and talk about governance, peace, human rights, and a bunch of other nice stuff. As fluffy as these conversations may seem, they have a life or death impact on millions of those suffering from the hardships of war and oppression around the world. In this episode of World Class Podcast, we talk about the golden age of humanitarian intervention, its apparent slow down since 9/11, and ask one of the toughest ideological questions of all: can we as a global society possibly share some universal values? Should human rights be prioritized over the sovereignty of countries? Where has humanitarian intervention succeeded and failed? We ask ourselves these questions and also pass them on to Tonny Brems Knudsen, political scientist and an decade-long expert on the UN and humanitarian interventions. He gives us his perspective on why there has been a lack of action in the face of atrocities in Syria and recently during the Rohingya-crisis in Myanmar.

The EU Delegation to the US' Isabelle Tilghman sits down with Professor Tammy Proctor, Department Head and Professor of History at Utah State University to discuss a large-scale yet little known humanitarian effort led by Americans in Belgium during the First World War.

March 19, 2014 What are the moral responsibilities of international institutions and nations when leaders attack the lives and fundamental rights of their own people? What are the ethical obligations in the face of genocide or crimes against humanity? Is there a “responsibility to protect” vulnerable populations, especially refugees, women and children? Under what circumstances is “humanitarian intervention” permitted or required? Catholic social teaching has long addressed the morality of the use of military force. How do the traditional “just war” criteria apply to these cases? Several distinguished leaders at Georgetown addressed the moral dimensions and human consequences of these questions. They also explored the lessons of Bosnia, Rwanda, and Libya and discussed what should be done regarding Syria.

We take a look at humanitarian intervention - why does the world so often invoke it as the solution to conflict? And is it even legal? We also chat about the latest Australian asylum seeker outrages and Jeff Sessions' back-to-the-future tough on crime stance.

Malia Lee Womack, a PhD/MA Ohio State student in Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and Latin American Studies (respectively), interviews Dr. Katherine Borland, an Associate Professor of Folklore Studies and Comparative Studies at Ohio State University for a podcast titled “Problematizing Humanitarian Intervention in Latin America.” The podcast explores the complexities of United States residents volunteering in and providing aid to Latin America, and examines human rights strategies and grassroots organizing occurring in the region. Womack and Borland consider in what ways disadvantaged communities are generally more able to identify the problems they face and the most ideal solutions to these problems. Given the value of grassroots organizing and critiques of imperial intervention in Latin America, what obligations do wealthier nations and their citizens have to contribute to the empowerment of people in Latin American countries? How should this intervention be modeled?

 This content is for members only

Why does the UN intervene in some cases of mass violence and not others? Why and how have public attitudes toward humanitarian intervention changed over the past decades? And how do the stories we tell each other about cases of violence and civil war impact our decisions about when intervention is appropriate? Carrie Booth Walling's recent book, All Necessary Measures: The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) sets out to answer these questions. She looks at a series of international crises in the 1990s in the 1990s and early 2000s, beginning with Iraq in 1991-2 and concluding with the recent conflict in Syria. In each case, she examines how member-states in the UN characterize the conflict and how that characterization shapes their preferred responses. The conclusion is simple: narratives matter. They determine how people describe the conflict. They determine the kind of responses countries are willing to consider. And they determine, at least in part, whether the UN chooses to intervene in conflicts, and if so, how and to what end. Walling's research is careful and her conclusions measured and well-supported. She joins an increasing emphasis in genocide studies on the importance of narratives of all kind. Readers will come away with an increased understanding of why the international community sometimes seems to care about mass violence and sometimes does not. This podcast is the last in our summer/fall series on research about genocide prevention. If you find this interview interesting, I encourage you to listen to previous interviews in the series as well. The series includes interviews with Scott Straus, Bridget Conley-Zilkic and James Waller. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why does the UN intervene in some cases of mass violence and not others? Why and how have public attitudes toward humanitarian intervention changed over the past decades? And how do the stories we tell each other about cases of violence and civil war impact our decisions about when intervention is appropriate? Carrie Booth Walling’s recent book, All Necessary Measures: The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) sets out to answer these questions. She looks at a series of international crises in the 1990s in the 1990s and early 2000s, beginning with Iraq in 1991-2 and concluding with the recent conflict in Syria. In each case, she examines how member-states in the UN characterize the conflict and how that characterization shapes their preferred responses. The conclusion is simple: narratives matter. They determine how people describe the conflict. They determine the kind of responses countries are willing to consider. And they determine, at least in part, whether the UN chooses to intervene in conflicts, and if so, how and to what end. Walling’s research is careful and her conclusions measured and well-supported. She joins an increasing emphasis in genocide studies on the importance of narratives of all kind. Readers will come away with an increased understanding of why the international community sometimes seems to care about mass violence and sometimes does not. This podcast is the last in our summer/fall series on research about genocide prevention. If you find this interview interesting, I encourage you to listen to previous interviews in the series as well. The series includes interviews with Scott Straus, Bridget Conley-Zilkic and James Waller. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why does the UN intervene in some cases of mass violence and not others? Why and how have public attitudes toward humanitarian intervention changed over the past decades? And how do the stories we tell each other about cases of violence and civil war impact our decisions about when intervention is appropriate? Carrie Booth Walling’s recent book, All Necessary Measures: The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) sets out to answer these questions. She looks at a series of international crises in the 1990s in the 1990s and early 2000s, beginning with Iraq in 1991-2 and concluding with the recent conflict in Syria. In each case, she examines how member-states in the UN characterize the conflict and how that characterization shapes their preferred responses. The conclusion is simple: narratives matter. They determine how people describe the conflict. They determine the kind of responses countries are willing to consider. And they determine, at least in part, whether the UN chooses to intervene in conflicts, and if so, how and to what end. Walling’s research is careful and her conclusions measured and well-supported. She joins an increasing emphasis in genocide studies on the importance of narratives of all kind. Readers will come away with an increased understanding of why the international community sometimes seems to care about mass violence and sometimes does not. This podcast is the last in our summer/fall series on research about genocide prevention. If you find this interview interesting, I encourage you to listen to previous interviews in the series as well. The series includes interviews with Scott Straus, Bridget Conley-Zilkic and James Waller. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why does the UN intervene in some cases of mass violence and not others? Why and how have public attitudes toward humanitarian intervention changed over the past decades? And how do the stories we tell each other about cases of violence and civil war impact our decisions about when intervention is appropriate? Carrie Booth Walling’s recent book, All Necessary Measures: The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) sets out to answer these questions. She looks at a series of international crises in the 1990s in the 1990s and early 2000s, beginning with Iraq in 1991-2 and concluding with the recent conflict in Syria. In each case, she examines how member-states in the UN characterize the conflict and how that characterization shapes their preferred responses. The conclusion is simple: narratives matter. They determine how people describe the conflict. They determine the kind of responses countries are willing to consider. And they determine, at least in part, whether the UN chooses to intervene in conflicts, and if so, how and to what end. Walling’s research is careful and her conclusions measured and well-supported. She joins an increasing emphasis in genocide studies on the importance of narratives of all kind. Readers will come away with an increased understanding of why the international community sometimes seems to care about mass violence and sometimes does not. This podcast is the last in our summer/fall series on research about genocide prevention. If you find this interview interesting, I encourage you to listen to previous interviews in the series as well. The series includes interviews with Scott Straus, Bridget Conley-Zilkic and James Waller. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why does the UN intervene in some cases of mass violence and not others? Why and how have public attitudes toward humanitarian intervention changed over the past decades? And how do the stories we tell each other about cases of violence and civil war impact our decisions about when intervention is appropriate? Carrie Booth Walling’s recent book, All Necessary Measures: The United Nations and Humanitarian Intervention (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) sets out to answer these questions. She looks at a series of international crises in the 1990s in the 1990s and early 2000s, beginning with Iraq in 1991-2 and concluding with the recent conflict in Syria. In each case, she examines how member-states in the UN characterize the conflict and how that characterization shapes their preferred responses. The conclusion is simple: narratives matter. They determine how people describe the conflict. They determine the kind of responses countries are willing to consider. And they determine, at least in part, whether the UN chooses to intervene in conflicts, and if so, how and to what end. Walling’s research is careful and her conclusions measured and well-supported. She joins an increasing emphasis in genocide studies on the importance of narratives of all kind. Readers will come away with an increased understanding of why the international community sometimes seems to care about mass violence and sometimes does not. This podcast is the last in our summer/fall series on research about genocide prevention. If you find this interview interesting, I encourage you to listen to previous interviews in the series as well. The series includes interviews with Scott Straus, Bridget Conley-Zilkic and James Waller. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The war in Syria continues, and while West Africa's Ebola outbreak has receded, Doctors Without Borders is still in West Africa as it works to transition from caring for survivors to rebuilding and supporting local healthcare systems to do the work. Med students Ethan Forsgren, Nick Dimenstein, Amelia Hurst and Sean Wetjen spoke with Dr. John Lawrence, vice president of the aid organization's US board of directors, about some of the future directions that MSF might consider in a world where humanitarian crises seem to happen every day.

How are humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect changing in the current international political scene? In Humanitarian Intervention: Ideas in Action (3rd ed., Polity Press, 2016), Thomas G. Weiss (The Graduate Center, CUNY) explores the past, present, and future of these phenomena. The book offers a synthesis of conceptual debates, case studies, and historical analysis in exploring the constantly evolving theory and practice of humanitarian intervention. It also discusses that way that transformations in how wars are fought and in the identity and operations of humanitarian organizations impact prospects for intervention. The interview covers the history of humanitarian intervention and the emergence of the ‘responsibility to protect’ norm, the role of the UN and of humanitarian organizations in relation to intervention, shifting understandings of sovereignty, the expansion of what is understood to constitute a threat to international peace and security, the present situation in Syria, and much more. — John McMahon is a Doctoral Candidate in Political Science at The Graduate Center, CUNY, where he has also completed the Women’s Studies Certificate. He is a Fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics at the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at The Graduate Center, which co-sponsors the podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How are humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect changing in the current international political scene? In Humanitarian Intervention: Ideas in Action (3rd ed., Polity Press, 2016), Thomas G. Weiss (The Graduate Center, CUNY) explores the past, present, and future of these phenomena. The book offers a synthesis of conceptual debates, case studies, and historical analysis in exploring the constantly evolving theory and practice of humanitarian intervention. It also discusses that way that transformations in how wars are fought and in the identity and operations of humanitarian organizations impact prospects for intervention. The interview covers the history of humanitarian intervention and the emergence of the ‘responsibility to protect’ norm, the role of the UN and of humanitarian organizations in relation to intervention, shifting understandings of sovereignty, the expansion of what is understood to constitute a threat to international peace and security, the present situation in Syria, and much more. — John McMahon is a Doctoral Candidate in Political Science at The Graduate Center, CUNY, where he has also completed the Women’s Studies Certificate. He is a Fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics at the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at The Graduate Center, which co-sponsors the podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How are humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect changing in the current international political scene? In Humanitarian Intervention: Ideas in Action (3rd ed., Polity Press, 2016), Thomas G. Weiss (The Graduate Center, CUNY) explores the past, present, and future of these phenomena. The book offers a synthesis of conceptual debates, case studies, and historical analysis in exploring the constantly evolving theory and practice of humanitarian intervention. It also discusses that way that transformations in how wars are fought and in the identity and operations of humanitarian organizations impact prospects for intervention. The interview covers the history of humanitarian intervention and the emergence of the ‘responsibility to protect’ norm, the role of the UN and of humanitarian organizations in relation to intervention, shifting understandings of sovereignty, the expansion of what is understood to constitute a threat to international peace and security, the present situation in Syria, and much more. — John McMahon is a Doctoral Candidate in Political Science at The Graduate Center, CUNY, where he has also completed the Women’s Studies Certificate. He is a Fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics at the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at The Graduate Center, which co-sponsors the podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How are humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect changing in the current international political scene? In Humanitarian Intervention: Ideas in Action (3rd ed., Polity Press, 2016), Thomas G. Weiss (The Graduate Center, CUNY) explores the past, present, and future of these phenomena. The book offers a synthesis of conceptual debates, case studies, and historical analysis in exploring the constantly evolving theory and practice of humanitarian intervention. It also discusses that way that transformations in how wars are fought and in the identity and operations of humanitarian organizations impact prospects for intervention. The interview covers the history of humanitarian intervention and the emergence of the ‘responsibility to protect’ norm, the role of the UN and of humanitarian organizations in relation to intervention, shifting understandings of sovereignty, the expansion of what is understood to constitute a threat to international peace and security, the present situation in Syria, and much more. — John McMahon is a Doctoral Candidate in Political Science at The Graduate Center, CUNY, where he has also completed the Women’s Studies Certificate. He is a Fellow at the Center for Global Ethics and Politics at the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at The Graduate Center, which co-sponsors the podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The plight of Afghanistan remains as relevant a question as ever in 2016. Just what did the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the international occupation of this country accomplish? Will an Afghan government ever exercise effective control over its territory and build a modern, prosperous integrated nation-state? How will Afghanistan evolve in light of the Taliban's enduring strength and the rise of groups like the Islamic State? What role can regional powers like Pakistan and China play in the future of this nation? Timothy Nunan (Harvard Academy Scholar for International and Area Studies) offers news ways to think about these questions in his book Humanitarian Invasion: Global Development in Cold War Afghanistan (Cambridge University Press, 2016). Unlike many existing works, Nunan does not limit his analysis to how Afghanistan became an important aspect of great power politics or Cold War rivalries. Instead, he offers a fascinating history of how ideas about international development and humanitarianism played out in this nation from the beginning of the Cold War to the start of the Taliban's rule. Drawing on wide array of archival research and oral interviews conducted in multiple languages, Nunan describes how Americans, Soviets, and Europeans failed to “modernize” Afghanistan in ways that made sense to them. He also explains how events in Afghanistan help elucidate larger changes in the fields of international development and humanitarianism. As the failure to produce a modernized “third-world state” became more obvious, NGOs such asMedecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) and the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan deployed new ideas about humanitarianism to justify their interventions in Afghanistan on the behalf of helpless victims.While Nunan deserves credit for exploring the motivations and assumptions of foreign actors, he also never loses sight of how Afghanistan's complex history shaped events on the ground. In particular, he excels at describing how the idea of Afghanistan as a Pashtun nation-state influenced the way actors conceived of development and humanitarian intervention. Timely and well-written, Humanitarian Intervention stands out as a thought-provoking international history that elucidates the difficulties involved in building a “modern” nation. It also raises important questions about just how much the “humanitarian interventions” of NGOs can accomplish in a world where the existence of “failed states” often results in mass killing and violence.

The plight of Afghanistan remains as relevant a question as ever in 2016. Just what did the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the international occupation of this country accomplish? Will an Afghan government ever exercise effective control over its territory and build a modern, prosperous integrated nation-state? How will Afghanistan evolve in light of the Taliban’s enduring strength and the rise of groups like the Islamic State? What role can regional powers like Pakistan and China play in the future of this nation? Timothy Nunan (Harvard Academy Scholar for International and Area Studies) offers news ways to think about these questions in his book Humanitarian Invasion: Global Development in Cold War Afghanistan (Cambridge University Press, 2016). Unlike many existing works, Nunan does not limit his analysis to how Afghanistan became an important aspect of great power politics or Cold War rivalries. Instead, he offers a fascinating history of how ideas about international development and humanitarianism played out in this nation from the beginning of the Cold War to the start of the Taliban’s rule. Drawing on wide array of archival research and oral interviews conducted in multiple languages, Nunan describes how Americans, Soviets, and Europeans failed to “modernize” Afghanistan in ways that made sense to them. He also explains how events in Afghanistan help elucidate larger changes in the fields of international development and humanitarianism. As the failure to produce a modernized “third-world state” became more obvious, NGOs such asMedecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) and the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan deployed new ideas about humanitarianism to justify their interventions in Afghanistan on the behalf of helpless victims.While Nunan deserves credit for exploring the motivations and assumptions of foreign actors, he also never loses sight of how Afghanistan’s complex history shaped events on the ground. In particular, he excels at describing how the idea of Afghanistan as a Pashtun nation-state influenced the way actors conceived of development and humanitarian intervention. Timely and well-written, Humanitarian Intervention stands out as a thought-provoking international history that elucidates the difficulties involved in building a “modern” nation. It also raises important questions about just how much the “humanitarian interventions” of NGOs can accomplish in a world where the existence of “failed states” often results in mass killing and violence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The plight of Afghanistan remains as relevant a question as ever in 2016. Just what did the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the international occupation of this country accomplish? Will an Afghan government ever exercise effective control over its territory and build a modern, prosperous integrated nation-state? How will Afghanistan evolve in light of the Taliban’s enduring strength and the rise of groups like the Islamic State? What role can regional powers like Pakistan and China play in the future of this nation? Timothy Nunan (Harvard Academy Scholar for International and Area Studies) offers news ways to think about these questions in his book Humanitarian Invasion: Global Development in Cold War Afghanistan (Cambridge University Press, 2016). Unlike many existing works, Nunan does not limit his analysis to how Afghanistan became an important aspect of great power politics or Cold War rivalries. Instead, he offers a fascinating history of how ideas about international development and humanitarianism played out in this nation from the beginning of the Cold War to the start of the Taliban’s rule. Drawing on wide array of archival research and oral interviews conducted in multiple languages, Nunan describes how Americans, Soviets, and Europeans failed to “modernize” Afghanistan in ways that made sense to them. He also explains how events in Afghanistan help elucidate larger changes in the fields of international development and humanitarianism. As the failure to produce a modernized “third-world state” became more obvious, NGOs such asMedecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) and the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan deployed new ideas about humanitarianism to justify their interventions in Afghanistan on the behalf of helpless victims.While Nunan deserves credit for exploring the motivations and assumptions of foreign actors, he also never loses sight of how Afghanistan’s complex history shaped events on the ground. In particular, he excels at describing how the idea of Afghanistan as a Pashtun nation-state influenced the way actors conceived of development and humanitarian intervention. Timely and well-written, Humanitarian Intervention stands out as a thought-provoking international history that elucidates the difficulties involved in building a “modern” nation. It also raises important questions about just how much the “humanitarian interventions” of NGOs can accomplish in a world where the existence of “failed states” often results in mass killing and violence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The plight of Afghanistan remains as relevant a question as ever in 2016. Just what did the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the international occupation of this country accomplish? Will an Afghan government ever exercise effective control over its territory and build a modern, prosperous integrated nation-state? How will Afghanistan evolve in light of the Taliban’s enduring strength and the rise of groups like the Islamic State? What role can regional powers like Pakistan and China play in the future of this nation? Timothy Nunan (Harvard Academy Scholar for International and Area Studies) offers news ways to think about these questions in his book Humanitarian Invasion: Global Development in Cold War Afghanistan (Cambridge University Press, 2016). Unlike many existing works, Nunan does not limit his analysis to how Afghanistan became an important aspect of great power politics or Cold War rivalries. Instead, he offers a fascinating history of how ideas about international development and humanitarianism played out in this nation from the beginning of the Cold War to the start of the Taliban’s rule. Drawing on wide array of archival research and oral interviews conducted in multiple languages, Nunan describes how Americans, Soviets, and Europeans failed to “modernize” Afghanistan in ways that made sense to them. He also explains how events in Afghanistan help elucidate larger changes in the fields of international development and humanitarianism. As the failure to produce a modernized “third-world state” became more obvious, NGOs such asMedecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) and the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan deployed new ideas about humanitarianism to justify their interventions in Afghanistan on the behalf of helpless victims.While Nunan deserves credit for exploring the motivations and assumptions of foreign actors, he also never loses sight of how Afghanistan’s complex history shaped events on the ground. In particular, he excels at describing how the idea of Afghanistan as a Pashtun nation-state influenced the way actors conceived of development and humanitarian intervention. Timely and well-written, Humanitarian Intervention stands out as a thought-provoking international history that elucidates the difficulties involved in building a “modern” nation. It also raises important questions about just how much the “humanitarian interventions” of NGOs can accomplish in a world where the existence of “failed states” often results in mass killing and violence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices