RPP 8
I am studying the official discourse from the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Organization Mission in Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) since the new mandate from May 28, 2010 because I want to explain how the lack of a defined success in the mandate may be contributing to the continued instability on the ground.[1]
The citation for the main document from the United Nations in regard to the mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is:
UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 1925 (2010) [on extension of the mandate of the UN Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)], 28 May 2010, S/RES/1925(2010), available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4c174e522.html [accessed 18 November 2018]
In any organization there will be a headquarters element that provides directives and instruction. The United Nations uses language that does not seem to provide specificity as to what the forces on the ground can actually do. Although the document states that the mission must “Ensure the effective protection of civilians, including humanitarian personnel and human rights defenders, under imminent threat of physical violence, in particular violence emanating from any of the parties engaged in the conflict;”, it does not lay out guidelines for how this should actually be done.[2]Looking at how the Security Council frames assistance in the mandate may shed light on the reports coming from the field. Does the document need to have more specific direction? Does it need to state something like “with armed peace enforcement soldier?” What do the follow on updates to the resolution state? These are pieces of the discourse that I believe may lack the necessary detail for success on the ground.
Comparing different field reports to the mandates, along with background provided in a literature review, may assist in shining light on what type of security situation the UN is really striving for. Are the UN and the mission on the ground in the DRC on the same page? This information could be valuable in identifying shortcomings in communication.
[1]UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 1925 (2010) [on extension of the mandate of the UN Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)], 28 May 2010, S/RES/1925(2010), available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4c174e522.html [accessed 18 November 2018]
[2]UN Security Council, pp. 5.
Notes
UN Security Council, Security Council resolution 1925 (2010) [on extension of the mandate of the UN Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)], 28 May 2010, S/RES/1925(2010), available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4c174e522.html [accessed 18 November 2018]
Josh –
This is a good start to thinking about your project topic through an interpretivist lens. I really like the example you gave, because it establishes the puzzle you are seeking to analyze – typical UN bodies are infamous for their use of words such as “recommends,” “encourages,” “advocates for,” “promotes,” “requests,” etc. (as a Model UN delegate, my friends and I always joke around about the amount of time we devote to simulating UN problem-solving when the actual organization can only provide recommendations that countries can chose to either follow (with their own added distinctions) or completely disregard). The UN Security Council, however, has the unique ability to actually implement more tangible measures, including the ability to send peacekeeping troops. It is really interesting, and puzzling, that recent UNSC discourses have made use of the soft language that only “ensure[s] the effective protection of civilians,” without specifying. While I understood what you meant with the quote you provided, and understood the puzzle that ensues as a result of that vague wording, I would clarify this in your design sketch (which I’m sure you will and plan to) so that all readers of all backgrounds have the puzzle a little more clearly spelled out.
Also, I would be careful not to conflate wording with discourse. You probably didn’t mean to do this, but in your discussion of Resolution 1925, you stated the word “verbiage,” which makes it seem like you want to focus on nuanced wording in your project. Again, I doubt you meant to do this, but the way you construct this in your project design is super important, since, as we discussed in class, there is a fine line between rhetoric and discourse. I’m sure with more of the sources and quotes you plan on integrating into your research, you prove me wrong, but I just thought I’d caution against this since its only such a slight difference, and with interpretivist research this means the world (since discourse involves the production of interrelated texts and their integration into and reception by society, while words and rhetoric deal with lower level (but still significant) meaning making that itself contributes to discourse (as opposed to standing on its own).
I look forward to seeing how your research develops in an interpretive setting!
Josh — this is a very good start, and you have some good advice from Milena here as well. The documents that you discuss in your post are precisely the type of primary source that you want to use to establish that there is a puzzle concerning meanings to be researched here. To build on Milena’s comments, I do think that you could do even more to identify some of the specific meanings/identities that are being created in these discourses (and thus sharpen the puzzle even more). Right now the middle part of your problem statement — “…because I want to explain how the lack of a defined success in the mandate …” — is still a bit vague. For mat middle part, work towards a precise statement/question about the meanings that you have found in specific primary sources that want to analyze. Compare, for example the way Carabine might have written her problem statement: “I am researching social policy and lone mothers in 1830s Britain because I want to find out why lone mothers were constructed as immoral individuals in order to help my reader understand why lone mothers were stigmatized, isolated, and even institutionalized in the 1800s (and beyond).” Notice how the middle part focuses precisely on the discourses/meanings that she has identified in the primary sources and that she proposes to analyze? How exactly is the idea of success constructed/represented in different ways in these sources? Make sure to keep this in mind as you continue your reading and research!