Home is Where the Human is? Ethics, Intervention and Hospitality in Kosovo

Abstract

The human is frequently made central to the way international ethics is thought and practised. Yet, the human can be used to close down ethical options rather than open them up. This article examines the case of British foreign policy in Kosovo. It argues that the human in this context was placed at the centre of ethical action, but was discursively constructed as a silent, biopolitial mass which could only be saved close to its territorially qualified home. It could not be protected by being brought to the UK. To remain human, the subject of ethical concern, the Kosovan refugee, had to remain near Kosovo. This construction of the human-home relationship meant that military humanitarian intervention became the only ethical policy available; hospitality, a welcoming of the Kosovan refugee into the British home, was ruled out. This article questions such a construction of the human, listening to the voices of Kosovan refugees to open up the relationship between the human and its home. The complexity that results shows that a more nuanced view of the human would not allow itself to be co-opted so easily to a simplistic logic of intervention. Rather, it could enable the possibility of hospitality as another way of practising international ethics.

Geopolitics of Home

“…Whilst in these latter terms it is argued that the Dutch reception policy can be defined as ‘very adequate’, for the residents the situation is far less positive due to lack of autonomy and inability to hold up cultural customs (van der Horst’s 2004). The lack of home has also been discussed in Bulley’s (2010) work on the Kosovan refugee crisis. Welcoming of the Kosovan refugee into the British home was ruled out by the United Kingdom (UK) government on the proviso that the nature of human–home relationships meant that military humanitarian intervention became the only ethical policy available.…”

Still a ‘Force for Good’? Good International Citizenship in British Foreign and Security Policy

“…Although the concept might have significant transformative and solidarist potential, its deployment within the War on Terror counterinsurgency context during Labour's tenure, indicates that preventing the outflow of terrorism from the world's zones of instability was its primary objective. Along similar lines, ‘lidist’ tendencies and arguably outright hypocrisy were evident in Labour's concern for vulnerable populations overseas, whilst simultaneously pursuing policies reflecting a dramatically reduced concern for the wellbeing of those applying for asylum within UK borders (see Bulley 2010a). The focus on containing the effects of state failure, poverty and marginalisation, rather than attempting to challenge the causes, indicates a somewhat thin level of commitment to moral solidarity with endangered non‐citizens.…”

Securing the human in critical security studies: the insecurity of a secure ethics

“…As has been argued elsewhere (Bulley 2010b), while the USA, UK and many of its NATO allies were keen to secure the Kosovan human through military intervention, the option of doing so by welcoming them into NATO countries as refugees was given far less consideration. As noted above, the UK presented only two policies: act (i.e.…”

“…83). Taking Kosovans out of the region simply made it more difficult to get them 'home' again after, which was the stated aim of most actors (see Bulley 2010b). Even this return of the Kosovan refugees, seen as an almost universal 'good' by most international actors, had severe repercussions, felt in reprisal attacks, revenge violence and the reverse ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Roma from Kosovo from late 1999 to 2000 (Medvedev 2002).…”

“…6. For more on the priority given to the suffering human in this context, see Bulley (2010b). 468 M. Bourne and D. Bulley…”