Author(s)
Tate, JaniceEditor(s)
Eade, DeborahPublication date
2005-02-01
Metadata
Show full item recordJournal
Development in PracticeDocument type
Journal articleLanguage
EnglishDescription
The British government has increasingly assumed the role of international arbiter and peacekeeper, both with and without a UN mandate. The hijacking of the moral high ground and recurrent assertion of global consensus - even in the presence of overwhelming opposition - reveals a disregard for the integrity of cultural diversity and opinion. Often `humanitarian' concerns have been used to justify military intervention, and the promise of aid is used to deflect dissent. Based on her experiences as an aid worker in post-conflict Kosovo, the author makes two central points. First, that the social, cultural, and institutional chaos precipitated by conflict is highly predictable and constitutes a powerful argument against military solutions. Second, that aid is not a universal panacea. It is a last resort and often, even with the best intentions, done badly. It should never be used to mask political imperatives.<p>This article is hosted by our co-publisher Taylor & Francis.</p>Pages
4ISSN
0961-4524EISSN
1364-9213ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1080/0961452052000321587