DOCSLIB.ORG

Accountability in International Aid: the Case of Georgia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Accountability in International Aid: the Case of Georgia Accountability in International Aid: The Case of Georgia by Till Bruckner [email protected] Abstract This thesis explores accountability in international aid to the Republic of Georgia in 2008-2009. Conceptualizing accountability as the obligation to manage the expectations of multiple stakeholders with often divergent interests, it challenges the common assumption that making aid more accountable per se will automatically lead to better aid. Instead, it argues that accountability relationships reflect power relationships; power influences which stakeholders' expectations are met, to what degree they are met, and what kinds of accountability demands by which stakeholders are viewed as legitimate and therefore entail an organizational obligation to respond. After discussing the links between power and accountability in international aid, with particular reference to donors, NGOs and the Georgian government, the thesis proceeds to explore how power and accountability relationships have influenced the allocation, management and implementation of international aid in Georgia, focusing on the aftermath of the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia. Based on extensive fieldwork in Georgia during 2008-2009, the thesis examines the influence of power and accountability relationships on emergency relief operations, the composition of an international aid package worth USD 4.5 billion, donor involvement in formulating state policy on internally displaced persons and the subsequent donor-financed provision of housing to the displaced, and the provision of bulk food aid to conflict-affected Georgians. This thesis concludes that accountability relationships in international aid reflect power relationships. As aid recipients wield little or no power over donors and NGOs, these aid providers often can (and do) ignore the expectations generated by this stakeholder group, instead giving priority to managing the competing expectations of more powerful stakeholders. Therefore, the widely observed lack of effectiveness of international aid is not due to an overall lack of accountability within international aid, as is commonly believed. Rather, aid is often ineffective at relieving human suffering and generating pro-poor development because aid providers are primarily accountable to powerful stakeholders with little interest in making aid more effective. PhD thesis, University of Bristol, 2011 Supervisors: Dr Timothy Edmunds and Reverend Dr Martin Gainsborough Viva Examiners: Professor Mark Duffied and Dr Vanessa Pupavac 1 Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction page 3 The August 2008 War and its Aftermath page 3 The Global Aid Industry page 5 Accountability and International Aid page 6 Surviving Georgia‟s Foreign Overlords page 7 Research Methodology page 10 Chapter Overview page 14 Chapter Two: Accountability, Power and Third Party Government page 16 Accountability and Power page 17 Third Party Government in the West page 20 Conclusion page 25 Chapter Three: Accountability and Power in International Aid page 26 Aid Accountability and Aid Effectiveness page 26 Third Party Government in International Aid page 29 Donors, NGOs and Phantom Accountability page 31 Conclusion page 37 Chapter Four: Geopolitics, Humanitarian Relief and Macro-Level Aid page 39 The “Military-Humanitarian Operation” of August 2008 page 40 The Joint Needs Assessment and Brussels Donor Conference page 48 Conclusion page 58 Chapter Five: Georgian IDP Policy and the Mushroom Villages page 61 Georgian IDP Policy: From Separation to Integration page 61 The Mushroom Villages page 67 Conclusion page 77 Chapter Six: Inedible Food Aid and Phantom Accountability page 81 Inedible Food Aid page 81 Formal Accountability Standards and Food Aid page 88 Accountability Failure page 92 Conclusion page 94 Chapter Seven: Conclusion page 98 Accountability and Power in International Aid page 98 Aid Accountability to Domestic Stakeholders page 101 Donors and Phantom Accountability page 105 The Aid Charade page 108 Rethinking International Aid page 110 Bibliography page 111 2 Chapter One: Introduction This thesis explores accountability in international aid to the Republic of Georgia in 2008-2009, arguing that accountability relationships in international aid reflect power relationships. This introductory chapter opens with an overview of the August 2008 Russian-Georgian war and the ensuing provision of billions of dollars in humanitarian and development aid by international donors. It then moves on to examine the supply side of aid, discussing the main theoretical approaches to the global aid industry in general before focusing in greater depth on the issue of aid and accountability. A subsequent section explores the political context within which this aid was received in Georgia, highlighting enduring patterns in the nation‟s long history of interaction with external great powers. After briefly discussing the research methodology used to explore the links between power and accountability in aid to Georgia, this chapter closes with an overview of the thesis as a whole. The August 2008 War and its Aftermath The Republic of Georgia and Russia went to war in August 2008, following weeks of escalating tensions in and around the self-declared republic of South Ossetia. The Georgian armed forces were decisively defeated on the battlefield within days and fled. Russian troops and local paramilitary forces assumed control of the entire territory of South Ossetia, a sizeable portion of which had previously been controlled by Georgia. Unopposed, the Russian army then pushed further south into Georgia proper, occupying the town of Gori and advancing towards the capital of Tbilisi. Meanwhile, in the west, Russian forces evicted Georgian troops from the Kodori gorge, a highland valley that was Georgia‟s last foothold inside the territory claimed by the self-declared republic of Abkhazia, and temporarily occupied several towns in western Georgia. While the conflict made headlines around the world, military engagements only lasted for several days and were generally limited to a small geographical area. Contrary to initial claims by both sides and early media reports1, damage to infrastructure was minor and largely confined to the theatre of engagement (EC/WB 2008), and combined military and civilian fatalities added up to less than a thousand people.2 Nevertheless, the impact on Georgia was huge. Around 127,000 people fled the Russian advance and took refuge with relatives or in public buildings in the capital Tbilisi and other locations in Georgia.3 Most of the displaced came from in and around Gori and were able to return home following the Russian withdrawal from the area several weeks later. In contrast, over 20,000 Georgians who had fled South Ossetian territory and the Kodori gorge were expected to remain displaced, adding to Georgia‟s over 200,000 long-term displaced from earlier conflicts in the 1990s (MRA 2010). Following the war, Georgia plunged from double-digit growth into deep recession as trade ground to a near halt, foreign investors fled, tax revenues plummeted, and the banking system teetered on the brink of collapse, threatening economic turmoil (UN/WB 2008). The Georgian government remained in power and the administration continued to function unimpeded, but the August 2008 episode had strongly shaken the leadership‟s credibility both at home and abroad, not least because a mounting body of evidence suggested that Tbilisi rather than Moscow had been the main instigator of the war.4 Western donors and aid organizations reacted quickly to the conflict. Initially, the US military took the lead in relief operations, putting uniformed US troops on the ground as a “humanitarian tripwire” to 1 “1,500 Reported Killed in Georgia Battle”, NYT, 09 August 2008; “Georgia conflict: Screams of the injured rise from residential streets”, The Telegraph, 09 August 2008; “Pensioners burned alive in a church and a baby stabbed to death - just some of the horrific stories from Georgia”, Daily Mail, 12 August 2008; “Saakashvili Says Russia Hit Pipeline; BP Unaware”, Civil Georgia, 12 August 2008; “An Uncertain Death Toll In Georgia-Russia War”, Washington Post, 25 August 2008; “Saakashvili: 1,600 Houses „Destroyed‟ in Buffer Zone”, Civil Georgia, 17 October 2008 2 “Official Interim Report on Number of Casualties”, Civil Georgia, 03 September 2008 3 “2011 UNHCR country operations profile – Georgia”, UNHCR website. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi- bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e48d2e6 (acc. 07 April 2011) 4 "Georgia Claims on Russia War Called Into Question", NYT, 07 November 2008; "Georgia fired first shot, say UK monitors", Sunday Times, 09 November 2008; "British Monitor Complicates Georgian Blame Game", Wall Street Journal, 19 December 2008; “Missiles Over Tskhinvali”, The National Interest, 20 April 2010; see also: Bruckner 2010a, Halbach 2009, Richter 2009. 3 deter further Russian advances (Hansen 2010). In order to signal continuing support for Georgia and its government, and to boost economic confidence, the Bush administration announced a one billion dollar American aid package in early September 2008 (TIG 2008g). During a conference held in Brussels the following month, international donors pledged a total of 4.5 billion dollars in aid over a three year period (TIG 2008e). This donor largesse towards Georgia was remarkable. The total amount pledged was huge for a middle-income country of just over four million inhabitants that had suffered little direct war-related damage. In fact, the 4.5
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia
    Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia Niklas Nilsson SILK ROAD PAPER January 2018 Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia Niklas Nilsson © Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program – A Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center American Foreign Policy Council, 509 C St NE, Washington D.C. Institute for Security and Development Policy, V. Finnbodavägen 2, Stockholm-Nacka, Sweden www.silkroadstudies.org “Russian Hybrid Tactics in Georgia” is a Silk Road Paper published by the Central Asia- Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program, Joint Center. The Silk Road Papers Series is the Occasional Paper series of the Joint Center, and addresses topical and timely subjects. The Joint Center is a transatlantic independent and non-profit research and policy center. It has offices in Washington and Stockholm and is affiliated with the American Foreign Policy Council and the Institute for Security and Development Policy. It is the first institution of its kind in Europe and North America, and is firmly established as a leading research and policy center, serving a large and diverse community of analysts, scholars, policy-watchers, business leaders, and journalists. The Joint Center is at the forefront of research on issues of conflict, security, and development in the region. Through its applied research, publications, research cooperation, public lectures, and seminars, it functions as a focal point for academic, policy, and public discussion regarding the region. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this study are those of
    [Show full text]
  • Who Owned Georgia Eng.Pdf
    By Paul Rimple This book is about the businessmen and the companies who own significant shares in broadcasting, telecommunications, advertisement, oil import and distribution, pharmaceutical, privatisation and mining sectors. Furthermore, It describes the relationship and connections between the businessmen and companies with the government. Included is the information about the connections of these businessmen and companies with the government. The book encompases the time period between 2003-2012. At the time of the writing of the book significant changes have taken place with regards to property rights in Georgia. As a result of 2012 Parliamentary elections the ruling party has lost the majority resulting in significant changes in the business ownership structure in Georgia. Those changes are included in the last chapter of this book. The project has been initiated by Transparency International Georgia. The author of the book is journalist Paul Rimple. He has been assisted by analyst Giorgi Chanturia from Transparency International Georgia. Online version of this book is available on this address: http://www.transparency.ge/ Published with the financial support of Open Society Georgia Foundation The views expressed in the report to not necessarily coincide with those of the Open Society Georgia Foundation, therefore the organisation is not responsible for the report’s content. WHO OWNED GEORGIA 2003-2012 By Paul Rimple 1 Contents INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Department of Sociological and Political Sciences
    Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Department Of Sociological And Political Sciences Laura Kutubidze Main Social-Political Aspects of Georgian Press in 2000-2005 (Short version) Dissertation report for receiving academic degree - PH D. In Journalism Report is developed in Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Scientific instructor, PH D. In Journalism, Professor Marina Vekua Tbilisi 2009 Content: Introduction; I chapter – Several General Specifications for Characterization of essence of Mass Media and Georgian Mass Media; About the Mass Communication and Mass Media; The General Specifications of Georgian Mass Media in Millennium; II chapter – Country from the Prism of Georgian Media; Image of the Country; West or Russia? (problematic aspects of State orientation); Several Aspects of the Topic of External Policy ; “Informational Guarantee” of Destabilization ; III chapter – Elections and the Political Spectrum; Elections of President, 2000 Year and Local Elections, 2002 Year; Permanent Election Regime, 2003 Year; Elections of Parliament and President, 2004 Year ; Elections in Post-revolution Adjara; IV chapter - “Rose Revolution” and Post-revolutionary Period; V chapter - Georgian Mass Media on the Visit of US President George Bush to Georgia; Conclusion; STATE. 2 Introduction The dissertation report mainly is based on printed media of 2000-2005, (newspapers – “Alia”, “Resonansi”, “24 Saati”, “Dilis Gazeti”, “Akhali Taoba”, “Kviris Palitra”, “Akhali Versia”, “Kviris Qronika”, “Georgian Times”, “Mtavari Gazeti”,
    [Show full text]
  • Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics
    Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics Study of the Media Coverage of the 2016 Parliamentary Elections TV News Monitoring Report 11 July – 30 August, 2016 The Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics is implementing the monitoring of TV news broadcasts within the framework of the project entitled “Study of the Media Coverage of the 2016 Parliamentary Elections” funded by the European Union (EU) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The monitoring is carried out from 20 May to 19 December, 2016 and covers main news programs on the following 11 TV channels: “1st Channel” of the public broadcaster, “Rustavi 2”, “Maestro”, “GDS”, “Tabula”, “Kavkasia”, “TV Pirveli”, “Obieqtivi”, “Ajara TV”, and “TV 25”. The report covers the period from 11 July through 30 August 2016. The quantitative and the qualitative analysis of the monitoring data has revealed the following key findings: As during the previous round of monitoring, majority of TV channels most actively covered the activities of the government of Georgia (GoG). “Kavkasia” leads the list of the channels with favorable treatment of the Government’s activities with 18% of positive coverage. “Rustavi 2” is the most critical to the GoG with 72% of negative coverage and “GDS” – the most neutral, with 83% of neutral tone. “Kavkasia” revealed highest indicators (14%) of positive tone in connection with the President of Georgia. “Obieqtivi” was the most critical with 14% of negative tone and “Tabula” - the most neutral with 95% of neutral tone indicators. Activities of the “Georgian Dream” party were covered most favorably on “Imedi” (54% of positive tone indicators), and most negatively on “Rustavi 2” (52% of negative tone indicators).
    [Show full text]
  • Gender and Society: Georgia
    Gender and Society: Georgia Tbilisi 2008 The Report was prepared and published within the framework of the UNDP project - “Gender and Politics” The Report was prepared by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) The author: Nana Sumbadze For additional information refer to the office of the UNDP project “Gender and Politics” at the following address: Administrative building of the Parliament of Georgia, 8 Rustaveli avenue, room 034, Tbilisi; tel./fax (99532) 923662; www.genderandpolitics.ge and the office of the IPS, Chavchavadze avenue, 10; Tbilisi 0179; tel./fax (99532) 220060; e-mail: [email protected] The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations or UNDP Editing: Sandeep Chakraborty Book design: Gio Sumbadze Copyright © UNDP 2008 All rights reserved Contents Acknowledgements 4 List of abbreviations 5 Preface 6 Chapter 1: Study design 9 Chapter 2: Equality 14 Gender in public realm Chapter 3: Participation in public life 30 Chapter 4: Employment 62 Gender in private realm Chapter 5: Gender in family life 78 Chapter 6: Human and social capital 98 Chapter 7: Steps forward 122 Bibliography 130 Annex I. Photo Voice 136 Annex II. Attitudes of ethnic minorities towards equality 152 Annex III. List of entries on Georgian women in Soviet encyclopaedia 153 Annex IV. List of organizations working on gender issues 162 Annex V. List of interviewed persons 173 Annex VI. List of focus groups 175 Acknowledgements from the Author The author would like to express her sincere gratitude to the staff of UNDP project “Gender and Politics” for their continuous support, and to Gender Equality Advisory Council for their valuable recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • By Daria Vaisman Though Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili
    By Daria Vaisman Though Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili counts controversial Turkish reformer Kemal Ataturk as a role model, his presidency more closely resembles that of a leader from Georgia’s northern neighbor: Catherine the Great, the “enlightened despot” who famously shoved Russia into the 18th century with a combination of “legislomania” and liberal reforms borrowed from Europe. Georgia too has become a case study for the impact of a strong leader on a weak state. Whether a dominant executive power is necessary to quickly reform a dying and corrupt government or presages authoritarianism is a topic frequently debated in Tbilisi. Yet no one here doubts that Georgia is better off now than when Saakashvili took over in 2003. During that year’s Rose Revolution, when Saakashvili replaced Eduard Shevardnadze, Georgia was a failed state, ranking alongside Bangladesh and Nigeria as one of the most corrupt in the world. Its largest export was scrap metal. Today, Georgia has become the darling of international organizations and a key component of an increasingly Russophobe U.S. policy—a happy position that is as much the result of geopolitics than successful reform at home. According to a recent World Bank report, Georgia is this year’s transitional—country success story, having slashed corruption more than any other country in Europe and Central Asia. Its GDP continues to grow at a respectable 7 to 8 percent despite a Russian ban on Georgian wine and water—its largest exports-and a worryingly high inflation rate. Perceptions have changed along with the numbers. “Corruption is not the rule anymore: You’re no longer expected to be corrupt,” said Georgian political scientist Gia Nodia.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Public Opinion Barometer 2006 Tbilisi 2006
    Nana Sumbadze Georgia Public Opinion Barometer 2006 Tbilisi 2006 This survey was funded by the Human Rights and Governance Grants Program (HRGGP) of the Open Society Institute. Contact information: Institute for Policy Studies. Chavchavadze Av.0, entrance VI. 079 Tbilisi Georgia Tel: (9953)-0060; (9953)-9743. Fax: (9953)-0060. e-mail: [email protected] Website: www.ips.ge Full text of the report can be found at: www.ips.ge Cover and design: Gio Sumbadze Contents Foreword ................................................................................4 Major findings........................................................................ 6 Results ..................................................................................4 The sample and methodology...............................................4 Democracy building .............................................................6 Participation..............................................................6 Rule of law, equality and trust..................................7 Local elections and political preferences.................. Media........................................................................ 5 Governance............................................................................8 External orientation ..............................................................38 Poverty .................................................................................4 Estimation of economic condition of the household 4 Incomes and expenditures ........................................4 Property
    [Show full text]
  • Georgian Foreign Policy After the Ukrainian Crisis No. 4
    No. 4 September 2015 Georgian Foreign Policy after the Ukrainian Crisis By Lika Merebashvili, Intern, Eastern Europe Studies Centre Developments in Ukraine from the 2013 “Euromaidan” to the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine are widely referred as the Ukrainian crisis, which emerged as a consequence of the pro-European shift of Ukraine’s foreign policy understood as a threat by Russia to its influence over the Eastern Europe. The recent Russian-Western involvements in Ukraine fomented reconsideration of Georgian foreign policy by the new government of Irakli Garibashvili. However, not all members of the government seem to agree on how the policy should develop. As a result, the problem of poor coordination within the political elite has brought very fragmented and undefined foreign policy in Georgia. The article shows how the Ukrainian crisis affected the foreign policy of Georgia and why the Garibashvili’s government avoided to actively stand against Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine. In addition, analysis of the role of the recent governmental shift in Georgia and the examples of its uncoordinated policies are followed by the consequences and prospects in the conclusion. Governmental Shift and New Foreign Policy Agenda in Georgia In the late 2012 a newly formed coalition Georgian Dream won over the previously dominant United National Movement (UNM), which was famous for its pro-Western and anti-Russian orientation. Euro- Atlantic aspirations of Georgia remained the main foreign policy priority, but along with
    [Show full text]
  • In Arlington, VA
    The Politics of Border Walls in Hungary, Georgia and Israel Gela Merabishvili Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Planning, Governance and Globalization Gerard Toal Giselle Datz Joel Peters Susan Allen 22 September 2020 Arlington, VA Keywords: Borders, Nationalism, Security, Geopolitics, Hungary, Israel, Georgia Copyright 2020 Gela Merabishvili The Politics of Border Walls in Hungary, Georgia and Israel Gela Merabishvili ABSTRACT Politicians justify border walls by arguing that it would protect the nation from outside threats, such as immigration or terrorism. The literature on border walls has identified xenophobic nationalism’s centrality in framing border walls as a security measure. Yet, alternative geographic visions of nationhood in Hungary, Georgia and Israel define the fenced perimeters in these countries as the lines that divide the nation and its territory. These cases illustrate the contradiction between the geography of security, marked by the border wall, and the geography of nationhood, which extends beyond the fenced boundary. These cases allow us to problematize the link between “security” and “nationalism” and their relationship with borders. Therefore, this dissertation is a study of the politics of reconciling distinct geopolitical visions of security and nationhood in the making of border walls. Justification of border walls requires the reframing of the national territory in line with the geography articulated by border security and away from the spatially expanded vision of nationhood. A successful reframing of the nation’s geography is a matter of politicians’ skills to craft a convincing geopolitical storyline in favor of the border wall that would combine security and nationalist arguments (Hungary).
    [Show full text]
  • RESPONSES to INFORMATION REQUESTS (Rirs) Page 1 of 2
    Home > Research > Responses to Information Requests RESPONSES TO INFORMATION REQUESTS (RIRs) New Search | About RIR's | Help 09 February 2005 GGA43343.E Georgia: Information on the treatment of members of the democratic movement by state authorities and the population in general (November 2003-January 2005) Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Ottawa Information on the treatment of members of the democratic movement was scarce among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate. However, the following information on democratic conditions and events is relevant. According to Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitors, the November 2003 elections "fell short of a number of international standards for democratic elections" (Freedom House 23 Aug. 2004). Mass demonstrations provoked the resignation of then-president Eduard Shevardnadze on 23 November 2003 (BBC News 3 Feb. 2005a; Agence France Presse 2 Dec. 2003). "[S]ecurity forces refrained from violently dispersing demonstrations" and no violence erupted during the protests (Country Reports 2003 25 Feb. 2004). The elections were cancelled and new ones were scheduled for 4 January 2004 (Freedom House 23 Aug. 2004; Country Reports 2003 25 Feb. 2004; Colisée 28 July 2004). Although the demonstrations led by opponents to President Shevarnadze were not met with violence, Freedom House indicates that "progovernmental supporters" violently suppressed peaceful demonstrations both on 19 November 2003 and at other times before the 2003 elections; "[o]ther instances of violence occurred during earlier opposition demonstrations in September in Bolnisi and in October in the republic of Ajaria" (23 Aug. 2004). However, Country Reports 2003 states that there were "[n]o reports of political killings nor politically motivated disappearances" in 2003 and that the rights to freedom of association and assembly were generally respected (25 Feb.
    [Show full text]
  • “Can Democracy Stop Terrorism”
    THE IMPACT OF REVOLUTIONS ON MEDIA FREEDOM IN THE TRANSITION COUNTRIES: ON THE EXAMPLE OF GEORGIA AND KYRGYZSTAN By Elena Parfenova Submitted to Central European University Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts Supervisor: Professor Miklos Sukosd CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2007 Abstract The goal of this thesis is to examine the major changes in the area of media following such contemporary events as Rose Revolution in Georgia and Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan. The present empirical research traces and systematizes what changes these counties saw in the area of media after the revolutions and discusses what exactly revolutions have brought for media freedom and media development in both countries. It offers the analysis of the post-revolutionary tendencies according to the six criteria crucial for media democratization. The research is based on the review of the wide variety of the secondary sources as well as on the in-depth interviews conducted with journalists and media experts. The overall conclusion of the present analysis is that, despite the popular expectations, neither for Georgia not for Kyrgyzstan recent ‘color’ revolutions brought positive tendencies towards media democratization in the short run (1,5-3 years). Certain improvements in Georgian legislation are counterbalanced by either lack of changes or predominantly negative trends according to five other criteria. In Kyrgyzstan, minor improvements in the scope of independent media have no substantial influence on the overall picture given that according to the four criteria there are no positive changes, and that according to the last criteria of journalistic culture - the situation has deteriorated.
    [Show full text]
  • The Georgian View of Military Reforms and Modernization Efforts Since 2008
    WL KNO EDGE NCE ISM SA ER IS E A TE N K N O K C E N N T N I S E S J E N A 3 V H A A N H Z И O E P W O I T E D N E Z I A M I C O N O C C I O T N S H O E L C A I N M Z E N O T The Georgian View of Military Reforms and Modernization Efforts since 2008 KATHERINE HILKERT Open Source, Foreign Perspective, Underconsidered/Understudied Topics The Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is an open source research organization of the U.S. Army. It was founded in 1986 as an innovative program that brought together military specialists and civilian academics to focus on military and security topics derived from unclassified, foreign media. Today FMSO maintains this research tradition of special insight and highly collaborative work by conducting unclassified research on foreign perspectives of defense and security issues that are understudied or unconsidered. Author Background Katherine Hilkert was born in Georgia. She holds an MA in linguistics from Tbilisi State University and in national security studies and terrorism from American Military University in Charles Towne, WV. She served in Iraq in 2007-2008, where she worked closely with the Georgian Armed Forces. Upon returning from Iraq, Katherine accepted a senior media analyst position at CENTCOM. Katherine recently graduated from English for Heritage Language Speakers (EHLS) scholarship program at Georgetown University. She is fluent in Georgian and Russian, and currently studying Chechen.
    [Show full text]