The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Interventions : A Pragmatic Examination of Humanitarian Intervention with Special Reference to Kosovo

Kansainvälisen oikeuden alaan kuuluvassa tutkielmassa käsitellään humanitaarisen intervention oikeutusta ja laillisuutta. Tutkimuskysymyksenä on, missä määrin humanitaarisilla näkökohdilla perusteltuja sotilaallisia toimia tai niillä uhkaamista voi pitää kansainvälisoikeudellisesti hyväksyttävänä ja millainen painoarvo ennakkotapauksena olisi annettava NATO-maiden Kosovossa toteuttamalle väliintulolle. Tutkielmassa perehdytään ihmisoikeusajattelun tiettyjen taustaoletusten kritiikkiin. Tarkastelun kohteena ovat erityisesti kannanotot, joiden mukaan ihmisoikeuksia ei voi pitää luonteeltaan universaaleina, sekä kyseiseen kritiikkiin liittyvät väitteet siitä, että ns. hegemonisessa asemassa olevat valtiot hyödyntävät ihmisoikeusargumentteja oikeuttaakseen voimankäyttönsä. Universaalisuuskritiikkiä voidaan pitää pitkälti perusteltuna, mutta nykyinen kansainvälinen yhteisö tarvitsee kuitenkin tietynlaisia yleismaailmallisia normeja voidakseen toimia tehokkaasti. Kritiikin ei voikaan katsoa pätevän humanitaarisen intervention kannalta keskeisiin ihmisoikeusnormeihin kuten kansanmurhan kieltoon, sillä kyseiset velvoitteet suojaavat kansainvälisen yhteisön toimivuutta ja uskottavuutta. Humanitaarisiin argumentteihin liittyy kuitenkin muita ongelmia: niillä on esimerkiksi aika ajoin pyritty oikeuttamaan sotilaallisia toimia, joissa ihmisoikeusnäkökohdat eivät välttämättä ole olleet etusijalla. Ihmisoikeuksille ei ole syytä antaa kansainvälisessä oikeudessa asemaa universaaleina "superargumentteina", jotka eivät olisi kyseenalaistettavissa. YK:n peruskirjan ja kansainvälisen tapaoikeuden näkökulmasta humanitaarisen intervention kaltaiseen voimankäyttöön vaaditaan turvallisuusneuvoston hyväksyntä, jota ei Kosovo-operaatioon saatu. Interventiota voi tässä suhteessa pitää yksiselitteisesti laittomana, sillä sen tueksi esitetyt oikeudelliset argumentit eivät ole vakuuttavia. Tapaukseen liittyvät ihmisoikeusnäkökohdat ovat kuitenkin siinä määrin merkittäviä, että ongelmaan ei ole perusteltua suhtautua tiukan legalistisesti. Operaation hyväksyminen moraaliargumenttien nojalla voisi kuitenkin johtaa nykyisten voimankäyttörajoitusten marginalisoitumiseen, mikä olisi yllä käsitellyn kritiikin valossa ongelmallista. Tutkielmassa nostetaan suositeltavaksi ratkaisuksi lähestymistapa, jossa Kosovon tapaus ymmärretään yksittäisenä oikeudenvastaisena mutta samalla oikeudenulkoisena poikkeustapauksena. Tällöin peruskirjan mukainen voimankäytön sääntely säilyy entisellään ilman että humanitaariset näkökohdat jäisivät tyystin huomiotta. Ratkaisu ei sulje pois mahdollisuutta suhtautua positiivisesti Kosovo-operaation mahdollisesti luomaan "poliittiseen normiin": suuren mittakaavan ihmisoikeusloukkaukset eivät jää Euroopassa seurauksitta. Ilman turvallisuusneuvoston suostumusta toteutettaviin humanitaarisiin interventioihin liittyvien käytännöllisten ja kansainvälisoikeudellisten riskien vuoksi niihin on kuitenkin aihetta suhtautua suurella varauksella.

Valoa itään? : Kansanlähetys ja Neuvostoliitto 1967-1973

Light to the East? The Finnish Lutheran Mission and the Soviet Union 1967 1973 The Cold War affected the lives of Christian churches, especially in Europe. Besides the official ecumenical relations between east and west, there existed unofficial activity from west to east, such as smuggling Bibles and distributing information about the severe condition of human rights in the USSR. This study examines this kind of unofficial activity originating in Finland. It especially concentrates on the missionary work to the Soviet Union done by the Finnish Lutheran Mission (FLM, Suomen Evankelisluterilainen Kansanlähetys) founded in 1967. The work for Eastern Europe was organised through the Department for the Slavic Missions. FLM was founded within the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, but it was not connected to the church on an organisational level. In addition to the strong emphasis on the Lutheran confession, FLM presented evangelical theology. The fundamental work of the Department for the Slavic Missions was to organise the smuggling of Bibles and other Christian literature to the Soviet Union and other countries behind the iron curtain. They also financed several Christian radio programmes produced and aired mainly by the international Trans World Radio. The Department diversified its activity to humanitarian help by distributing material help such as clothes and shoes to the unregistered evangelical and baptist groups, which were called the underground churches . In Finland the Department focused on information services. It published its own magazine, Valoa idässä (Light in the East), 5 to 6 times per year. Through the magazine and by distributing samizdat material received from the unregistered Christian groups, it discussed and reported the violations of human rights in the Soviet Union, especially when the unregistered Christian groups were considered the victims. The resistance against the Soviet Union was not as much political but religious: the staff of the Department were religious and revivalist young people who thought, for instance, that communism was in some way an apocalyptic world power revealed in the Bible. Smuggling Bibles was discussed widely in the Finnish media and even in parliament and the Finnish Security Police (SUPO, Suojelupoliisi) and in the Lutheran Church. From the church s point of view, this kind of missionary work was understandable but bothersome. Through their ecumenical connections, the bishops knew the critical situation of churches behind the iron curtain very well, but wanted to act diplomatically and cautiously to prevent causing harm to ecumenical or political relations. The leftist media and members of parliament especially accused the work of the Department of being illegal and endangering relations between Finland and the Soviet Union. SUPO did not consider the work of the Department as illegal activity or as a threat to Finnish national security.

Humanitaarisuuden varjossa : Poliittiset tekijät lastensiirroissa Ruotsiin sotiemme aikana ja niiden jälkeen

The evacuation of Finnish children to Sweden during WW II has often been called a small migration . Historical research on this subject is scarce, considering the great number of children involved. The present research has applied, apart from the traditional archive research, the framework of history-culture developed by Rüsen in order to have an all-inclusive approach to the impact of this historical event. The framework has three dimensions: political, aesthetic and cognitive. The collective memory of war children has also been discussed. The research looks for political factors involved in the evacuations during the Winter War and the Continuation War and the post-war period. The approach is wider than a purely humanitarian one. Political factors have had an impact in both Finland and Sweden, beginning from the decision-making process and ending with the discussion of the unexpected consequences of the evacuations in the Finnish Parliament in 1950. The Winter War (30.11.1939 13.3.1940) witnessed the first child transports. These were also the model for future decision making. The transports were begun on the initiative of Swedes Maja Sandler, the wife of the resigned minister of foreign affairs Rickard Sandler, and Hanna Rydh-Munck af Rosenschöld , but this activity was soon accepted by the Swedish government because the humanitarian help in the form of child transports lightened the political burden of Prime Minister Hansson, who was not willing to help Finland militarily. It was help that Finland never asked for and it was rejected at the beginning. The negative response of Minister Juho Koivisto was not taken very seriously. The political forces in Finland supporting child transports were stronger than those rejecting them. The major politicians in support belonged to Finland´s Swedish minority. In addition, close to 1 000 Finnish children remained in Sweden after the Winter War. No analysis was made of the reasons why these children did not return home. A committee set up to help Finland and Norway was established in Sweden in 1941. Its chairman was Torsten Nothin, an influential Swedish politician. In December 1941 he appealed to the Swedish government to provide help to Finnish children under the authority of The International Red Cross. This plea had no results. The delivery of great amounts of food to Finland, which was now at war with Great Britain, had automatically caused reactions among the allies against the Swedish imports through Gothenburg. This included the import of oil, which was essential for the Swedish navy and air force. Oil was later used successfully to force a reduction in commerce between Sweden and Finland. The contradiction between Sweden´s essential political interests and humanitarian help was solved in a way that did not harm the country´s vital political interests. Instead of delivering help to Finland, Finnish children were transported to Sweden through the organisations that had already been created. At the beginning of the Continuation War (25.6.1941 27.4.1945) negative opinion regarding child transports re-emerged in Finland. Karl-August Fagerholm implemented the transports in September 1941. In 1942, members of the conservative parties in the Finnish Parliament expressed their fear of losing the children to the Swedes. They suggested that Finland should withdraw from the inter-Nordic agreement, according to which the adoptions were approved by the court of the country where the child resided. This initiative failed. Paavo Virkkunen, an influential member of the conservative party Kokoomus in Finland, favoured the so-called good-father system, where help was delivered to Finland in the form of money and goods. Virkkunen was concerned about the consequences of a long stay in a Swedish family. The risk of losing the children was clear. The extreme conservative party (IKL, the Patriotic Movement of the Finnish People) wanted to alienate Finland from Sweden and bring Finland closer to Germany. Von Blücher, the German ambassador to Finland, had in his report to Berlin, mentioned the political consequences of the child transports. Among other things, they would bring Finland and Sweden closer to each other. He had also paid attention to the Nordic political orientation in Finland. He did not question or criticize the child transports. His main interest was to increase German political influence in Finland, and the Nordic political orientation was an obstacle. Fagerholm was politically ill-favoured by the Germans, because he had a strong Nordic political disposition and had criticised Germany´s activities in Norway. The criticism of child transports was at the same time criticism of Fagerholm. The official censorship organ of the Finnish government (VTL) denied the criticism of child transports in January 1942. The reasons were political. Statements made by members of the Finnish Parliament were also censored, because it was thought that they would offend the Swedes. In addition, the censorship organ used child transports as a means of active propaganda aimed at improving the relations between the two countries. The Finnish Parliament was informed in 1948 that about 15 000 Finnish children still remained in Sweden. These children would stay there permanently. In 1950 the members of the Agrarian Party in Finland stated that Finland should actively strive to get the children back. The party on the left (SKDL, the Democratic Movement of Finnish People) also focused on the unexpected consequences of the child transports. The Social Democrats, and largely Fagerholm, had been the main force in Finland behind the child transports. Members of the SKDL, controlled by Finland´s Communist Party, stated that the war time authorities were responsible for this war loss. Many of the Finnish parents could not get their children back despite repeated requests. The discussion of the problem became political, for example von Born, a member of the Swedish minority party RKP, related this problem to foreign policy by stating that the request to repatriate the Finnish children would have negative political consequences for the relations between Finland and Sweden. He emphasized expressing feelings of gratitude to the Swedes. After the war a new foreign policy was established by Prime Minister (1944 1946) and later President (1946 1956) Juho Kusti Paasikivi. The main cornerstone of this policy was to establish good relations with the Soviet Union. The other, often forgotten, cornerstone was to simultaneously establish good relations with other Nordic countries, especially Sweden, as a counterbalance. The unexpected results of the child evacuation, a Swedish initiative, had violated the good relations with Sweden. The motives of the Democratic Movement of Finnish People were much the same as those of the Patriotic Movement of Finnish People. Only the ideology was different. The Nordic political orientation was an obstacle to both parties. The position of the Democratic Movement of Finnish People was much better than that of the Patriotic Movement of Finnish People, because now one could clearly see the unexpected results, which included human tragedy for the many families who could not be re-united with their children despite their repeated requests. The Swedes questioned the figure given to the Finnish Parliament regarding the number of children permanently remaining in Sweden. This research agrees with the Swedes. In a calculation based on Swedish population registers, the number of these children is about 7 100. The reliability of this figure is increased by the fact that the child allowance programme began in Sweden in 1948. The prerequisite to have this allowance was that the child be in the Swedish population register. It was not necessary for the child to have Swedish nationality. The Finnish Parliament had false information about the number of Finnish children who remained in Sweden in 1942 and in 1950. There was no parliamentary control in Finland regarding child transports, because the decision was made by one cabinet member and speeches by MPs in the Finnish Parliament were censored, like all criticism regarding child transports to Sweden. In Great Britain parliamentary control worked better throughout the whole war, because the speeches regarding evacuation were not censored. At the beginning of the war certain members of the British Labour Party and the Welsh Nationalists were particularly outspoken about the scheme. Fagerholm does not discuss to any great extent the child transports in his memoirs. He does not evaluate the process and results as a whole. This research provides some possibilities for an evaluation of this sort. The Swedish medical reports give a clear picture of the physical condition of the Finnish children when arriving in Sweden. The transports actually revealed how bad the situation of the poorest children was. According to Titmuss, similar observations were made in Great Britain during the British evacuations. The child transports saved the lives of approximately 2 900 children. Most of these children were removed to Sweden to receive treatment for illnesses, but many among the healthy children were undernourished and some suffered from the effects of tuberculosis. The medical inspection in Finland was not thorough. If you compare the figure of 2 900 children saved and returned with the figure of about 7 100 children who remained permanently in Sweden, you may draw the conclusion that Finland as a country failed to benefit from the child transports, and that the whole operation was a political mistake with far-reaching consequenses. The basic goal of the operation was to save lives and have all the children return to Finland after the war. The difficulties with the repatriation of the children were mainly psychological. The level of child psychology in Finland at that time was low. One may question the report by Professor Martti Kaila regarding the adaptation of children to their families back in Finland. Anna Freud´s warnings concerning the difficulties that arise when child evacuees return are also valid in Finland. Freud viewed the emotional life of children in a way different from Kaila: the physical survival of a small child forces her to create strong emotional ties to the person who is looking after her. This, a characteristic of all small children, occurred with the Finnish children too, and it was something the political decision makers in Finland could not see during and after the war. It is a characteristic of all little children. Yet, such experiences were already evident during the Winter War. The best possible solution had been to limit the child transports only to children in need of medical treatment. Children from large and poor families had been helped by organising meals and by buying food from Denmark with Swedish money. Assisting Finland by all possible means should have been the basic goal of Fagerholm in September 1941, when the offer of child transports came from Sweden. Fagerholm felt gratitude towards the Swedes. The risks became clear to him only in 1943. The war children are today a rather scattered and diffuse group of people. Emotionally, part of these children remained in Sweden after the war. There is no clear collective memory, only individual memories; the collective memory of the war children has partly been shaped later through the activities of the war child associations. The main difference between the children evacuated in Finland (for example from Karelia to safer areas with their families) and the war children, who were sent abroad, is that the war children lack a shared story and experience with their families. They were outsiders . The whole matter is sensitive to many of such mothers and discussing the subject has often been avoided in families. The war-time censorship has continued in families through silence and avoidance and Finnish politicians and Finnish families had to face each other on this issue after the war. The lack of all-inclusive historical research has also prevented the formation of a collective awareness among war children returned to Finland or those remaining permanently abroad.. Knowledge of historical facts will help war-children by providing an opportunity to create an all-inclusive approach to the past. Personal experiences should be regarded as part of a large historical entity shadowed by war and where many political factors were at work in both Finland and Sweden. This means strengthening of the cognitive dimension discussed in Rüsen´s all-inclusive historical approach.

Somali State Failure: Players, Incentives and Institutions

In Somalia the central government collapsed in 1991 and since then state failure became a widespread phenomenon and one of the greatest political and humanitarian problems facing the world in this century. Thus, the main objective of this research is to answer the following question: What went wrong? Most of the existing literature on the political economy of conflict starts from the assumption that state in Africa is predatory by nature. Unlike these studies, the present research, although it uses predation theory, starts from the social contract approach of state definition. Therefore, rather than contemplating actions and policies of the rulers alone, this approach allows us to deliberately bring the role of the society – as citizens – and other players into the analyses. In Chapter 1, after introducing the study, a simple principal-agent model will be developed to check the logical consistence of the argument and to make the identification of causal mechanism easier. I also identify three main actors in the process of state failure in Somalia: the Somali state, Somali society and the superpowers. In Chapter 2, so as to understand the incentives, preferences and constraints of each player in the state failure game, I in some depth analyse the evolution and structure of three central informal institutions: identity based patronage system of leadership, political tribalism, and the Cold War. These three institutions are considered as the rules of the game in the Somali state failure. Chapter 3 summarises the successive civilian governments’ achievements and failures (1960-69) concerning the main national goals, national unification and socio-economic development. Chapter 4 shows that the military regime, although it assumed power through extralegal means, served to some extent the developmental interest of the citizens in the first five years of its rule. Chapter 5 shows the process, and the factors involved, of the military regime’s self-transformation from being an agent for the developmental interests of the society to a predatory state that not only undermines the interests of the society but that also destroys the state itself. Chapter 6 addresses the process of disintegration of the post-colonial state of Somalia. The chapter shows how the regime’s merciless reactions to political ventures by power-seeking opposition leaders shattered the entire country and wrecked the state institutions. Chapter 7 concludes the study by summarising the main findings: due to the incentive structures generated by the informal institutions, the formal state institutions fell apart.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.

“And now to the rest of the trash…” Representations of begging Roma and an ideal society in two Nordic newspapers

Since begging East European Roma became a common view in the streets of larger Nordic cities, vivid discussions about their presence and activities have been carried out in the mass media. This thesis examines the public debates in Finland and Norway through a discursive analysis and comparison of press content from the two countries. The aim of the study is firstly to identify the prominent discourses which construct certain images of the beggars, as well as the elements and internal logics that these discourses are constructed around. But in addition to scrutinizing representations of the Roma, also an opposite perspective is applied. In accordance with the theoretical concept of ‘othering’, debates about ‘them’ are assumed to simultaneously reveal something significant about ‘us’. The second research question is thus what kind of images of the ideal Finnish and Norwegian societies are reflected in the data, and which societal values are salient in these images. The analysis comprises 79 texts printed in the main Finnish and Norwegian quality newspapers; Helsingin Sanomat and Aftenposten. The data consists of news articles, editorials, columns and letters to the editor from a three-month period in the summer of 2010. The analysis was carried out within the theoretical and methodological framework of critical discourse analysis as outlined by Norman Fairclough. A customized nine-step coding scheme was developed in order to reach the most central dimensions of the texts. Seven main discourses were identified; the Deprivation-solidarity, Human rights, Order, Crime, Space and majority reactions, Authority control, and Authority critique discourse. These were grouped into two competing normative stances on what an ideal society looks like; the exclusionary and the inclusionary stance. While the exclusionary stance places the begging Roma within a frame of crime, illegitimate use of public space and threat to the social order, the other advocates an attitude of solidarity and humanitarian values. The analysis points to a dominance of the former, although it is challenged by the latter. The Roma are “individualized” by quoting and/or presenting them by name in a fair part of the Finnish news articles. In Norway, the opposite is true; there the beggars are dominantly presented as anonymous and passive. Overall, the begging Roma are subjected to a double bind as they are faced with simultaneous expectations of activity and passivity. Theories relating to moral panics and ‘the good enemy’ provide for a deepened understanding of the intensity of the debates. Keywords: East European Roma, begging, media, newspapers, Helsingin Sanomat, Aftenposten, critical discourse analysis, Norman Fairclough, othering, ideal society, moral panics, good enemy, double bind, Finland, Norway