Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Katrin Seidel
(University of Leipzig)
Markus Hoehne (University of Leipzig)
Send message to Convenors
- Discussant:
-
Serunkuma Yusuf Kajura
(Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg)
- Format:
- Panel
- Stream:
- Perspectives on current crises
- Location:
- S65 (RW I)
- Sessions:
- Monday 30 September, -
Time zone: Europe/Berlin
Short Abstract:
The panel explores dynamics of knowledge production in the context of perceived crises and uncertainty in the wider Horn of Africa, focusing on the tensions and confluences of knowledge production at the local and the international level, and the consequences thereof.
Long Abstract:
Logics of international interventions in “crisis zones” are often based on the assumption of an emergency. At the level of (sub-)regional and international organisations (e.g., AU, EU or UN), these interventions are accompanied by the production of buzzwords such as “state failure”, “humanitarian crisis”, “civil war”, “terrorism”, or “authoritarianism”. Experts around the globe take these terms up and produce academicised accounts that sometimes criticise, but often legitimise and guide protracted interventions. In this panel, we explore dynamics of knowledge production in the context of perceived crises and related uncertainty in the wider Horn of Africa. We are interested in exploring the tensions and/or confluences of knowledge production about crises at local and international level, and the consequences thereof for local populations.
We invite contributions that address one or more of the following guiding questions regarding crises in the Horn of Africa:
• What is the relevance of knowledge (local, regional, external) in the context of crisis interventions?
• How and by whom is knowledge about crises constructed, used and commodified in the contexts of interventions?
• What about hegemonic logics within globalised institutions regarding knowledge productions about crises?
• What models of order are used to deal with crises (political, social, and economic), and how do these selective discourses travel and get translated?
• What are unintended consequences of interventions in situations defined as crises and how do they shape knowledge production concerning protracted crises?
• Who benefits from knowledge production about crises?
• Whose voices are marginalized and silenced?
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Monday 30 September, 2024, -Paper short abstract:
The focus is on how African (sub-)regional conflict resolution meachnisms are influenced by international peace mediation models. It addresses how these interventions reproduce what they seek to avoid: epistemic violence, decontextualisation of conflict and rejection of local conflict resolution.
Paper long abstract:
The paper focuses on how African (sub)regional conflict resolution mechanisms are influenced by international peace mediation models. Peace mediation, as a guiding paradigm for global peace governance and conflict management, is used as a tool for achieving UN SDGs 16 'Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions'. It is loaded with promises of conflict transformation, peace and security, and crises prevention.
I examine effects of the transfer of peace mediation models to the African Union and IGAD frameworks. By reveiling the hegemonic power embodied in the international legal order and underlying Anglo-Eurocentric political-philosophical thought, the paper also addresses how these mediation models reproduce what they seek to avoid: epistemic violence, the decontextualisation of conflict and the rejection of local conflict resolution.
The study problematises the persistence of 'liberal' peace mediation approaches and practices embedded in a 'culture of intervention' and 'politics of domination'. It argues that the absence of agreement on 'African approaches to conflict resolution' perpetuates cycles of domination. A structural analysis of knowledge production in the field of internationalised conflict resolution reveals angles for transformative possibilities and ethical responsibilities.
Paper short abstract:
2018s peace process promised a pathway towards regional stability and prosperity. The invasion of the Tigray-region by Eritrean and Ethiopian troops became devastating, also for Eritrean refugees in the country. Beyond international attention people once more try to leave.
Paper long abstract:
In the last 20 years Ethiopia has become a major destination for refugees from neighbouring Eritrea. Life has always been challenging for these refugees, inside and outside Ethiopia’s refugee camps, mostly situated in Northern Tigray province. Few got a chance to be resettled and many set out into irregular migration towards Europe. 2018s peace process between Eritrea and Ethiopia promised far-reaching changes and a pathway towards regional stability, cooperation and prosperity. And certainly, the awarding of the Noble Peace price to the Ethiopian Prime Minister was big news in international media and the European Union was full of praise, hoping to strengthen control and diminish irregular migration.
Eritrean refugees, however, experienced increasing uncertainty and threats to personal safety and status. They had reason to mistrust Ethiopia’s reconciliation with the state they fled - and they were right after all. The Tigray-War (2020-2022), in which Eritrea and Ethiopia’s federal government jointly invaded Tigray province, became a devastating catastrophe, brought suffering, famine, destruction and further instability. Refugee camps in the North became inaccessible and totally cut off from international help. Refugees in Tigray were attacked by various forces, while urban refugees in Addis Ababa head to fear persecution and deportation. The relocation of refugee camps did not bring safety or improve people’s existential dilemma. Once more people are on the move, unseen and unwanted.