Stopping refugees to help them, or ourselves? Boat refugees arriving in Europe (Time, 2014). A study on the justificatory discourse used by states in military (humanitarian) interventions relating to refugees. Name: Ewa Slutzky Studentnumber: 5875307 Research project: Global Migration Supervisor: Jeroen Doomernik Date: 27 June 2014 ‘Doing nothing for others is the undoing of ourselves.’ Horace Mann. 2 Content INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY .............................................. 9 1. CONCEPTUALIZATION ......................................................................................................... 9 1.1 REFUGEE FLOWS STEMMING FROM NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS ................... 10 1.2 MILITARY (HUMANITARIAN) INTERVENTION ..................................................................... 12 1.3 RELATION BETWEEN REFUGEE FLOWS AND MILITARY INTERVENTIONS ............................. 13 2. POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE EFFECT .................................................................... 16 2.1 HUMANITARIAN CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................... 16 2.2 SELF-INTEREST .................................................................................................................. 19 2.3 CHANGES SINCE 9/11 ........................................................................................................ 23 2.4 INTERIM CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 24 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 26 3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 26 3.2 CASE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 26 3.3 INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................................... 27 3.4 TRIANGULATION AND LIMITATIONS .................................................................................. 29 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 30 4. CASES BEFORE 9/11 ........................................................................................................... 30 4.1 RWANDA ........................................................................................................................... 30 4.1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 30 4.1.2 Discourse ....................................................................................................................... 31 4.2 FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: BOSNIA ........................................................................................ 33 4.2.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 33 4.2.2 Discourse ....................................................................................................................... 34 4.3 MACEDONIA ...................................................................................................................... 36 4.3.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 36 4.3.2 Discourse ....................................................................................................................... 37 4.4 INTERIM CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 37 3 5 CASES AFTER 9/11 .............................................................................................................. 39 5.1 GEORGIA ........................................................................................................................... 39 5.1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 39 5.1.2 Discourse ....................................................................................................................... 39 5.2 LIBYA ................................................................................................................................ 41 5.2.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 41 5.2.2 Discourse ....................................................................................................................... 42 5.3 MALI ................................................................................................................................. 45 5.3.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 45 5.3.2 Discourse ....................................................................................................................... 46 5.4 INTERIM CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 49 6 DISCOURSE IN GENERAL ..................................................................................................... 51 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 53 SOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 56 LEGAL DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................................. 56 LITERATURE ............................................................................................................................ 56 MEDIA ...................................................................................................................................... 59 OTHER ...................................................................................................................................... 60 UN RECORDS ........................................................................................................................... 61 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 63 APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...................................................................................... 63 APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW HARRY VAN BOMMEL ................................................................... 66 APPENDIX III: INTERVIEW IVAN BRISCOE ............................................................................. 68 APPENDIX IV: INTERVIEW CAROLINE ORT ............................................................................ 71 APPENDIX V: INTERVIEW MICHIEL SERVAES ........................................................................ 73 4 Introduction ‘Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable’ George Orwell wrote in his 1946 essay ‘Politics and the English Language’. This relates perfectly to the topic of this research as it is concerned with how interventions –with their relating inevitable deaths- are justified, possibly using refugees. Refugee flows, and large migration patterns of any kind, can have a large effect on neighbouring countries, the region and the international community and many people feel very strongly about them. Therefore, refugees are often the topic of popular political speech. They can be used to justify the decisions made about interventions and to interfere with the principles of state sovereignty and non- interference. The principles of state sovereignty and non-interference are two of the most, if not the most, important principles in international relations and law. However, in some cases international law has determined that these principles have to be set aside and a military intervention can be justified and legal. Military interventions have increased rapidly over the years and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (hereinafter: UNHCR) calls displacement the biggest concern of the 21st century (UNHCR, 2013). Although military interventions are only allowed if the Security Council (hereinafter: SC) has decided so because of a situation that threatens international peace and stability they have taken place for many other reasons. Often, humanitarian reasons have been mentioned by state leaders and in many cases other reasons (such as economic concerns) will be the main reason to intervene. A reason that is also mentioned is to prevent refugee flows. To this end, military intervention may be deemed necessary and this has often been the case. The main object of the thesis however is not to examine the relationship between the two but to examine how states justify the means (military intervention) to this particular end (stop or prevent refugee flows). It is relevant to know why states find it so important to stop these refugee flows that they are willing to possibly violate international law, sacrifice lives and risk becoming involved in a full-fledged war. However, political language can differ from the true motivations and within the