Pragmatic solidarism and the dilemmas of humanitarian intervention

The theory and practice of humanitarian intervention in the 1990s has produced a series of seemingly intractable dilemmas. Why do states act in some cases and not others? How are we to evaluate the legitimacy of particular acts? This article introduces a new perspective on these questions informed by a combination of pragmatism and solidarism. It argues that although the search for criteria that may be used to judge the legitimacy and efficacy of humanitarian intervention may be a futile one, it is possible to think about a politics of legitimate humanitarian intervention. Such a politics may be based on three key insights drawn from pragmatism: the dialogic construction of moral knowledge, the fallibility of knowledge, and the priority of democracy over philosophy. The article discusses how such a pragmatic solidarism may be used to interrogate the quest for legitimising criteria and to build a new politics of humanitarian intervention.

The politics of suffering: Progress, modernity and the adolescent crisis

A concern for progress is central to the public agendas of modern societies. Political actors compete with one another mainly with regard to their respective claims to bring about a better future, particularly in the economic and technological spheres. The focus on progress has, however, deeper roots which date back to the aspirations of the Enlightenment. Around that time, the belief arose that systematic improvements are made possible by the structural features of modern society and culture, improvements that will gradually release humanity from much of the suffering characterising its historical past. This article argues the persistence of a culture of progress, rather than easing suffering, in fact enhances and mobilises it for the pursuit of superficial forms of gain. It is also claimed the attempt by Habermas' critical theory to develop a broader and more satisfactory conception of progress fails to address this problem. The article suggests an alternative and more fundamental critique of progressive ideas is required. It reflects upon these abstract theoretical questions in connection with the concrete example of the 'adolescent crisis' and the role ideas of progress play within it.

ANZUS - Alive and well after fifty years

Marking its fiftieth anniversary in late 2001, the ANZUS alliance remains Australia's primary security relationship and one of the United States' most important defence arrangements in the Asia-Pacific region. It is argued here that ANZUS has defied many common suppositions advanced by international relations theorists on how alliances work. It thus represents an important refutation of arguments that they are short-term instruments of mere policy expediency and are largely interest-dependent. Cultural and normative factors are powerful, if often underrated, determinants for ANZUS's perpetuation. ANZUS may thus constitute an important test case for expanding our understanding of alliance politics beyond the usual preconditions and prerogatives normally associated with such a relationship.

Commonwealth of Australia: July to December 2001

The six-month period from July to December 2001 was an extraordinary phase in Australia’s political history. Until 26 August, when 460 asylum seekers were rescued from their sinking vessel off the Western Australian coast, there was nothing to suggest that politics in Australia would be any different from the usual round of policy pronouncements, routine attacks by the opposition, and the occasional headlinegrabbing scandal. It seemed, as the Australian’s international editor Paul Kelly wrote, that tax would dominate the 2001 federal election campaign (21-22 July 2001). Once the asylum seekers had been rescued by the Norwegian freighter Tampa and refused entry to Australia, however, tax declined in significance. The ramifications of the Tampa incident and its aftermath were still engaging the Australian polity when, on 11 September, terrorists hijacked four passenger jets in the United States and flew two of them into the World Trade Centre in New York, one into the Pentagon, and crashed another in Pennsylvania, killing, it was estimated, more than 6000 people. Both incidents changed Australian politics. The extent and significance of the changes remain to be fully seen, but one short-term effect was to boost significantly the government’s chances of re-election.