The Cosmopolitan Military

Armed Forces and Human Security in the 21st Century

Jonathan Gilmore

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137032270
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Military Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

What role should national militaries play in an increasingly globalised and interdependent world? This book examines the often difficult transition they have made toward missions aimed at protecting civilians and promoting human security, and asks whether we might expect the emergence of armed forces that exist to serve the wider human community.

1

A Cosmopolitan Renaissance in the Theory and Practice of International Relations

1.1

Introduction

This chapter surveys the political and intellectual landscape within which this book’s exploration of the cosmopolitan military is situated. The post-Cold War period and the continued advance of globalisation have provided significant openings for a rethinking of political community, the boundaries of moral responsibility and the ways in which the world’s most vulnerable human beings might be protected from harm. The chapter argues that these openings have led to the development of new ideas about community, security, moral responsibility and the role of the military, but also pose some challenging questions. Intellectually, a plethora of different conceptualisations of cosmopolitanism have emerged, alongside debates on ethical commitments in foreign policy and on how security is conceptualised and for whom. Corresponding policy developments have also reflected these reconsiderations of moral community and an increasingly human-centred diplomatic discourse. The concept of human security has sought to reframe security debates with individual human beings, rather than states, as key security referents. In doing so, a more complex security environment is revealed, highlighting the latent threats overlooked in traditional security discourse. Similarly, debates on humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) opened up a discussion on whether we have responsibilities to protect vulnerable non-citizens from large-scale human rights violations. These policy developments have raised questions about moral responsibility, the ethical significance of national boundaries and how these security problems might be best addressed and by whom. It is in this intellectual and policy context that the emergence of the cosmopolitan military is situated.

The chapter argues that as Western states have increasingly adopted foreign policies that appear to be part of the post-Cold War cosmopolitan trajectory, their militaries are undergoing their own process of cosmopolitanisation. The operations they undertake are commonly defined by objectives of protection and complex forms of ‘armed social work’ that aim to address the wider range of threats to human security. Importantly, these roles are directed for the benefit of non-citizens. This creates a significant paradox, as the contemporary Western military’s role of protecting the Other appears juxtaposed against their more traditional role of protecting co-nationals from the Other. The chapter concludes by outlining some of the dilemmas posed by the expansion of moral horizons and its permeation into the military. The experience of military cosmopolitanisation during the 1990s and the early 20th century, with which this book is concerned, provides a vivid illustration of the ways in which these dilemmas have been encountered, addressed and, in many cases, remain unresolved.

1.2

Human ‘centredness’, critical security approaches and the cosmopolitan vision

The post-Cold War cosmopolitan renaissance

The cosmopolitan vision addressed in this book is linked to increasingly fluid identities and conceptions of self and other, alongside the apparent expansion of transborder moral solidarity and moral community that have become evident in the latter part of the 20th century and the early 21st century. At the core of the contemporary cosmopolitan agenda are the ways in which social, cultural and technological changes have affected ideas about who we think we are, to whom we have ethical responsibilities and what the vision of a universal community of humankind might look like. Although a period often associated with sentiments of liberal triumphalism, ‘the end of history’ (see Fukuyama, 1989), the end of the Cold War provided significant avenues for a renaissance in cosmopolitan thought.1 Famously, and as it turned out somewhat prematurely, the 1990s was declared to be the start of the ‘New World Order’, which would see the world transformed into a liberal rule-governed international order, replacing the “law of the jungle” power politics of the Cold War (Bush, 1990). In such an environment, the pursuit of human rights, development and a more humane form of international political life appeared possible through the expansion of liberal democratic systems. The decay of the exclusionary dichotomies of East–West ideological rivalry, alongside the receding potential for catastrophic military conflict, created greater space for the reconsideration of political community and the boundaries of moral concern. The parallel discourses of liberal internationalism and cosmopolitanism, which have flourished in the post-Cold War era, frequently overlap in their focus on human rights, emancipation and the idea of a more universal moral community. However, they are not synonymous and the ‘post-universal’ or ‘thin’ forms of cosmopolitanism have positioned themselves as a via media between local particularisms and the hegemonic universalism of liberal internationalism (see Linklater, 1998; Beck, 2006; Erskine, 2008; Delanty, 2009). In place of a dichotomy between the resurgent forces of nationalism and a vision of liberalism often interpreted as strongly reflective of a Western image, ‘post-universal’ cosmopolitans seek to embrace hybridity – the new identities, ethics and forms of community that emerge from transcultural encounters. Indeed, the relationship between cosmopolitanism and post-Cold War liberal internationalism has been problematic, particularly when connected to the aggressive and often militarised liberalism pursued by certain Western states in the early 21st century. This theme is discussed in more detail in Chapter Three. A central problem has been the conflation of a cosmopolitan vision, centred on the reflexive reconciliation of universality and difference, with a highly moralised and totalising narrative of liberal internationalism that left little room for the fluidity, ambiguity and contingency embraced by post-universal cosmopolitanism.

The end of the Cold War, although undoubtedly significant, is perhaps only of equal significance to the acceleration of globalisation in the last three decades of the 20th century. Large-scale migration and advancements in communications and transport technology have been influential in decompartmentalising states and creating increasingly fluid senses of loyalty, identity and empathy. For Beck (2006: 10) the increasing interconnectedness of different societies has led to the emergence of a form of ‘banal cosmopolitanism’ whereby our everyday lives become “the locus of encounters and interminglings or, alternatively of anonymous coexistence and the overlapping of possible worlds and global dangers, all of which requires us to re-think the relation between place and the world”. Conceived this way, cosmopolitanisation is less of an ethical choice and rather a more latent process with a significant impact on one’s sense of self-identity and perception of community. Delanty (2009: 72) argues that cosmopolitanism invokes processes of “self-problematisation and self-transcendence” as traditional identities and outlooks become destabilised. The everyday encounter with people who might traditionally have been thought of as the Other forces us to question how fundamentally different we are from them and to interrogate the nature of our ethical connection. It goes beyond simple acceptance and tolerance of diversity, as might be associated with multiculturalism, towards the fuller reconfiguration of identities, loyalties and conceptions of community. This process carries with it significant implications for the legitimacy of long-established forms of political community – most notably the state – that are (in theory at least) based on relatively stable forms of national identity and premised on consistent patterns of moral solidarity with co-nationals and the exclusion of non-citizens from the scope of one’s moral concern. The extent to which globalisation has or has not reduced the power and influence of the state is contested and there is likely to be a variegated impact of banal cosmopolitanisation across different states and societies. Similarly, the extent to which states have ever functioned as hermetically sealed boxes with static national identities and stable moral communities is also equally questionable, even in the 19th–20th century golden age of nationalism.

Nevertheless, to varying degrees, increasing interconnectedness has drawn into question the compartmentalisation of the world into sovereign states, with national borders delimiting the boundaries of moral concern. Revolutions in communications technology in the late 20th century, particularly the emergence of satellite communications and the Internet, combined with the growth in worldwide air travel, have made it easier than ever for Self and Other communities to intermingle and overlap, complicating the distinction between the two. As we find ourselves more able than ever to communicate with those from other cultures, to travel across state boundaries or to view graphic images of distant human suffering, conduits through which transborder compassion and empathy might develop, become evident. The question of specifically why distant strangers should be regarded as less significant becomes more pertinent. In developing an argument for a ‘global ethic’, Ignatieff (2012: 14) suggests that particularist sentiments and loyalties must be forced to justify themselves using reason and persuasion, rather than being uncritically accepted as ‘traditional’ and therefore intrinsically worthy. Automatic loyalties to the state and affinities with one’s national community, whilst not necessarily abandoned, are thus subjected to critical scrutiny and reflection. Through this process, the perceived difference between Self and Other may potentially be diminished in light of changing global contexts. At the same time, cosmopolitan scholars do not necessarily reject the idea of bounded political communities. Beck (2006: 7) argues that “cosmopolitanism without provincialism is empty, provincialism without cosmopolitanism is blind”. Erskine’s (2008) work on ‘embedded’ cosmopolitanism actively seeks ethics with a global scope that are situated within the proximate communities and social relationships that most often influence the moral self. Bounded political communities still remain an important point of anchorage for those who inhabit them and the cosmopolitan vision does not push towards a world of atomised individuals or the suppression of cultural difference. The issue is not so much a triumph over the state or more localised forms of community, rather the end of state boundaries as the fundamental determinants of identity and moral solidarity. As the boundaries between different identities and forms of community become blurred, and communities become less compartmentalised, socially embedded individual human beings, rather than states, become the central unit of analysis.2

The cosmopolitan vision also draws out a normative dimension, to address questions about how we should navigate our way through processes of cosmopolitanisation and how we should discharge our responsibilities to a widened moral community. Widening the scope of moral concern beyond state boundaries plays into important questions of protection and the avoidance of harm, forming the foundations for the conceptualisation of the cosmopolitan military. Increasing contact with the non-citizen Other creates opportunities for an enhanced sense of empathy and sensitivity to the ways in which distant strangers may be affected by violence and insecurity. For Linklater (2011a: 82), as societies become more interconnected, “people develop more complex understandings of how distant strangers are – or can be – harmed by their conduct or disadvantaged by global structures and processes”. Underpinning Linklater’s analysis is the notion that although human beings may have vastly different understandings of the good life, as a species we have shared vulnerabilities and an overriding collective interest in avoiding unnecessary harm. It is from this that agreement between different societies on ‘harm conventions’ can be achieved as part of the ‘civilising’ process in international relations. These conventions have often been developed between states to reduce harm in international society, and constitute some of the key rules and norms that cement international order.3 However, Linklater’s argument is extended to suggest that the focus on states is insufficient and that ‘cosmopolitan harm conventions’, which protect “individuals in and of themselves” should be developed (Linklater and Suganami, 2006: 179). The implication is that states have not always been the most reliable guardians of their inhabitants’ wellbeing and that in many cases they may act as a primary source of harm. An obvious example of cosmopolitan harm conventions in practice would be the diverse range of international human rights instruments – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute amongst others – that have emerged in the post-World War Two era. Through an appreciation of common human vulnerability, an expanded scope for empathy and a focus on the prevention of harm, it is possible to see the foundations for a reappraised view of security, with individuals worldwide, rather than the state and one’s co-nationals, as the key reference point.

The intellectual foundations for the cosmopolitan military may also be located in elements of the critical security studies movement, particularly the so-called Welsh School associated with the work of Ken Booth and Richard Wyn Jones.4 Sharing a focus on empathy and a concern for the wellbeing of humans worldwide, elements of critical security studies demonstrate affinities with the cosmopolitan standpoint in their reflections on security. These approaches typically reject the reification of the state as the central referent object of security – that which is to be protected by security practices and institutions. The reasoning is that the “reified and unreflective” preoccupation with inter-state security during the Cold War, largely ignored the threat frequently posed by states to their own citizens and ignored the complex intra-state sources of insecurity commonly encountered in the Third World (Wyn Jones, 1999: 99–103; Acharya, 1997). However, the Welsh School also progresses toward an overt embrace of trans-border moral solidarity. Booth (2005: 267) highlights the importance of

Problematizing all institutional identifiers that divide humanity and that get in the way of recognising and implementing the view that every person, in principle, has equal moral worth. The temporality of all institutions should lead us to focus on the individual as the ultimate referent for security; the corollary of this that we should consider as central to our concerns the ultimate collectivity of individuals, common humanity.

By locating human beings, rather than states, as the central security referents, this approach thus internalises a cosmopolitan vision, with a normative commitment to species level moral concern and protection from harm.

Critical security studies writers have typically identified a wider range of threats to human survival, beyond the military threats on which traditional security studies have focused (see Buzan et al., 1998). However, in addition to accepting the widened account of threats, the Welsh School expands upon this to develop a deepened conception of what it is to be secure. Drawing heavily on the Frankfurt School, the Welsh School frames security as emancipation. As Booth (1991: 319 argues:

Emancipation is the freeing of people (as individuals and groups) from those physical and human constraints which stop them carrying out what they would freely choose to do. War and the threat of war is one of these constraints, together with poverty, poor education, political oppression and so on. Security and emancipation are the two sides of the same coin.

Booth (2007: 107) later makes a specific distinction between security and simple survival in suggesting that “survival is being alive; security is living”. There are clear parallels that might be drawn between the idea of security as emancipation and the notion of positive peace developed by Johan Galtung. Galtung (1969: 168) defines violence as “when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations”. Violence thus occurs when a human being’s life chances are being limited in an avoidable manner. This broad understanding examines personal violence – forms of direct, immediate and physical harm – alongside structural violence – the latent and indirect threats posed by underdevelopment and inequality. Following on from this, he highlights the idea that peace may be considered not only as the absence of violence (negative peace) but also as social justice (positive peace) (Galtung, 1969: 183). The prevention of harm on a global level thus involves more than agreeing not to perpetrate direct violence against other human beings. It can be logically extended to incorporate positive duties to contribute to societal development, poverty reduction, public health and gender equality, amongst many o...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 A Cosmopolitan Renaissance in the Theory and Practice of International Relations
• 2 Military Orthodoxy and the Warfighting Tradition
• 3 The Troubled Cosmopolitan Present
• 4 Reimagining Cosmopolitanism as Military Practice
• 5 The United Nations: Concepts, Capability and the Cosmopolitan Military
• 6 Constructing the ‘Cosmopolitan-Minded’ National Military
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index