Suchergebnisse

"The American war against Iraq has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and displaced millions of people. Between 20 March 2003 and 30 September 2017, more than 172,000 Iraqis resettled in the United States. This book explores the experiences of fifteen Iraqis who resettled in the US after 2003. It examines the long war against Iraq that began in 1991 and the decisions some Iraqis made to leave their homes and seek refuge in the United States. The book also delves into the possibilities for belonging and cultural exchange for this cohort of Iraqis and their political engagement with non-profit organizations, advocacy, and activism against the 2017 Travel Ban"--

The American war against Iraq has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and displaced millions of people. Between 20 March 2003 and 30 September 2017, more than 172,000 Iraqis resettled in the United States. This book explores the experiences of fifteen Iraqis who resettled in the US after 2003. It examines the long war against Iraq that began in 1991 and the decisions some Iraqis made to leave their homes and seek refuge in the United States. The book also delves into the possibilities for belonging and cultural exchange for this cohort of Iraqis and their political engagement with non-profit organizations, advocacy, and activism against the 2017 Travel Ban.

War is cruel. Its purpose is to cause suffering. American wars create survivors and victims who confront us with the penetrating gaze of those who demand justice. Their presence implores Americans to make ourselves responsible for the pain we have caused them. Meeting the obligation demanded of us by the millions of individuals we have caused to suffer requires developing a liberatory anti-war praxis informed by distinct ethical and political commitments. While neither exhaustive nor exclusive of other potentially complementary orientations and activities, I ground liberatory anti-war praxis in: (1) Commitment to praxis as a route to liberation; (2) Perpetual unsettledness toward the cruelties of war; (3) Ethical sensitivity to the victims of empire; (4) Dedication to facilitating liberatory peace; (5) Engagement with questions of pacifism, nonviolence, and liberatory self-defense. I locate liberatory anti-war praxis in the pacifist tradition, however anti-war praxis need not commit to absolute nonviolence. Each context is unique, and it is the prerogative of those suffering cruelty to pursue their own strategies and tactics of liberation.

Review of: Refugees in America: Stories of Courage, Resilience, and Hope in Their Own Words, Lee T. Bycel (2019)
New Brunswick, Camden, Newark, New Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press, 216 pp.,
ISBN: 978-1-97880-621-4, h/bk, £23.28

Qualitative interviewing is an affective process that involves interacting with others on an interpersonal level. This approach can bring to the surface traumatic and painful memories for participants as well as for the interviewer. I recently completed research involving semi-structured interviews with individuals who sought refuge in the United States after the 2003 American invasion of their country. Although research focused primarily on participants' lives after resettlement, a salient unexpected conversation topic was participants' recollections of the war. Because of frequent recurrence of this topic, I experienced symptoms of secondary traumatic stress. I was unprepared for the emotional and psychological effects conducting research with those who have experienced trauma can entail. I situate my experience within the extant literature on risks to qualitative researchers and detail for other scholars engaged in similar work the possibility of encountering secondary traumatic stress, the importance of preparing for it, and potential strategies for addressing it.

The U.S. led invasions and occupations of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 created displacement crises that continue to this day. Yet despite the on-going consequences of these actions, and immediate needs of millions of people, U.S. and allied responses have been slow, narrow, and inadequate with regard to basic humanitarian aid and protection. In 2006, for example, the U.S. Government created programs to issue Special Immigrant Visas to a limited number of Afghans and Iraqis who worked for the U.S. military in various capacities. These programs were created to help the "friends" of the U.S. that assisted in its war effort. In this way the U.S. Government recognized a limited duty to redress harm while millions of others who were negatively affected by the invasions and occupations are given no such consideration. This paper first considers "cosmopolitan" and "anti-cosmopolitan" justifications for redressing harm done to outsiders. Then, following what Shelley Wilcox calls the global harm principle I argue that the states involved in military action in Afghanistan and Iraq have an obligation to assist everyone negatively affected, not just "friends." In order to fulfill this obligation, the U.S. and its allies should expand their refugee resettlement programs to admit any non-combatants from Afghanistan or Iraq who wishes to resettle. For those who do not wish to resettle in the United States or Europe, greater funds should be made available in the form of direct cash transfers to individuals and greater funding for international organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). I draw upon precedents of reparations in international law and practice, such as those made following cessation of wars, to support this recommendation. Finally, I consider several of the key trade-offs implied by the GHP when implemented in a "non-ideal" world.

The U.S. led invasions and occupations of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 created displacement crises that continue to this day. Yet despite the on-going consequences of these actions, and immediate needs of millions of people, U.S. and allied responses have been slow, narrow, and inadequate with regard to basic humanitarian aid and protection. In 2006, for example, the U.S. Government created programs to issue Special Immigrant Visas to a limited number of Afghans and Iraqis who worked for the U.S. military in various capacities. These programs were created to help the friends of the U.S. that assisted in its war effort. In this way the U.S. Government recognized a limited duty to redress harm while millions of others who were negatively affected by the invasions and occupations are given no such consideration. This paper first considers cosmopolitan and anti-cosmopolitan justifications for redressing harm done to outsiders. Then, following what Shelley Wilcox calls the global harm principle I argue that the states involved in military action in Afghanistan and Iraq have an obligation to assist everyone negatively affected, not just friends. In order to fulfill this obligation, the U.S. and its allies should expand their refugee resettlement programs to admit any non-combatants from Afghanistan or Iraq who wishes to resettle. For those who do not wish to resettle in the United States or Europe, greater funds should be made available in the form of direct cash transfers to individuals and greater funding for international organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). I draw upon precedents of reparations in international law and practice, such as those made following cessation of wars, to support this recommendation. Finally, I consider several of the key trade-offs implied by the GHP when implemented in a non-ideal world. ; Published version