| Abstract
|
:
|
This dissertation seeks to situate and examine the post-9-11, 2001 George W. Bush-led War on Terror in the Horn of Africa—Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan—focused on Somalia, in light of the emergent Human Security discourse. Operationally defining Human Security as containing the threat from organized political violence (war and terrorism), three research questions were asked. (1) What are the ideologies and histories that inform the principal actors that are clashing, symbolized by George W. Bush and his Administration and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda? (2) How has the War on Terror and bin Laden's "Jihad against the Jews and Crusaders" been taking shape in Somalia and the Horn of Africa? (3) What are Human Security matters, and what value does it have in the Bush Administration's interventions in the region? Informed by the hypothesis that State security would be valued more than the insecurities of individuals in the Bush Administration's policies in the region, to the degree that profit is put over people and that all life is not equally valued, deploying the critical-gestures made in Africana Philosophy and the pragmatic valuations made in International Society theory, the research findings suggest the following: (1) George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden can be interpreted as the world's leading ideologues, clashing with themselves and global publics, informed by their own histories/civilizations and records. (2) The interventions of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden have, in effect, escalated war, terrorism and international, regional and local insecurities, in Somalia and the Horn of Africa, despite their declared interests. (3) Human Security matters are about securing the freedom from want and fear, addressing the insecurities of individuals and not just States. Examining the War on Terror in the region, we found that, on balance, the Bush Administration has a Human Security-deficit: it is focused on State security; it is ruled by zero-sum calculations that privilege short-term interests, the Untied States and regional allies; and is heavily focused on procuring the resources and energy for war. In contradistinction to this deficit, it is contended that a common, Human Security interest would address international, regional and individual insecurities; would be more pragmatic, and less ideologically circumscribed, informed by the lessons learned by other democracies in the face of terrorism; and would take human rights and the rule of law seriously, in practice.
|