problem is not simply the lack of a clear mandate. A deeper issue is that there remains a lingering uncertainty amongst many international decision-makers about whether greater sensitivity to ethnic diversity really is desirable or necessary. Even if no one today believes in 1950s-style theories of modernisation and nationbuilding2 (according to which ethnic differentiation should disappear as societies develop), it remains the case that ethnic politics is often implicitly perceived as both retrograde and dangerous, rather than a natural and normal part of any free and democratic society. The result is not just a lack of co-ordination between international organisations, but also inconsistency or even paralysis within them. And yet, alongside the evidence of ad hoc inconsistency, there is also evidence of remarkable consistency or isomorphism across international organisations regarding the governing of ethnic diversity, at least at the level of discourse. Everyone today acknowledges that claims to national homogeneity or unanimity can only be sustained by the brutal suppression of dissent and diversity, including ethnic, national, religious and indigenous diversity, and hence that the public expression of this diversity is an inevitable feature of a free society, and indeed a marker of its freedom. There is also greater awareness of the dangers – both to peace and to justice – of older ideologies of racial or religious supremacy, and the practices of coercive assimilation, imperialism, ethnic cleansing, or even genocide that they can give rise to. This suggests that we should be wary of oversimplified or overlydeterministic categorisations of international actors as either for or against multiculturalism, neoliberalism, collective rights and so on. To be sure, there are differences in approach amongst these international actors. One would expect a development bank, for example, to have different priorities than a human rights organisation, and non-governmental advocacy or philanthropic organisations to have different priorities than intergovernmental organisations. Yet these differences are perhaps more subtle than often assumed. What we see are efforts to work within common vocabularies, discourses and principles that attempt to link human rights, pluralism, development, peace and the nation-state. After all, while pluralism may now be an integral part of the ‘global models of nationally organised progress and justice’ (Meyer et al., 1997), these models are precisely nationally organised – that is, they take the existing world order of nation-states as the starting point within which progress and justice is to be achieved, including progress and justice for minorities. Insofar as this is so, the very models that support pluralism also provide ample latitude for states and international organisations to emphasise the importance of stability and security, alongside respecting diversity. Hence, both security organisations and human rights bodies can partake of this shared discourse, and can draw upon the same epistemic communities. Conclusion The fact that a diversity of international organisations are active players in this field creates both opportunities and challenges for minorities. On the one hand, minorities have been able to take advantage of the multiple access points that arise from the very diversity of international actors. On the other hand, because all of these international forums were initially designed with other purposes in mind, and are typically structured by states with a view to upholding the world order of nation-states, advocates for diversity I n t e r n a t i o n a l a p p r o a c h e s t o g o v e r n i n g e t h n i c d i v e r s i t y often face an uphill battle. Groups appeal to the international level to help overcome resistance to diversity at the national level, but to ensure success in their objectives these groups ultimately need to gain the support of other state actors. The international realm is no less subject to the logic of state power and raison d’état than the national level, even if it operates in a somewhat different form. This helps explain the very mixed record of modest gains for some minority claims combined with decisive rejection of others. Underlying all of this is a theme familiar to all theorists and practitioners of governance: ‘context matters’. Whether they are international actors or other actors seeking to engage and motivate international actors, all do so within a particular historical moment that provides the opportunity for action while also framing it. For Commonwealth countries, those moments have included decolonisation; ‘third wave democratisations’ after the Cold War; and the transition to a multipolar world which is ongoing – including spheres of trade and aid. Even if diversity and rights protection are now recognised values (intergovernmentally, and by the UN and Commonwealth ‘of the peoples’), the outcomes are always the result of political contestation and negotiation, not the unfolding of any universal logic of justice. Endnotes 1 This is a familiar refrain in the literature on international intervention in Bosnia, which combines affirmation of international norms of minority rights while simultaneously empowering the very actors that had brutally violated such norms during the civil war. 2 Ideas about the pursuit of national homogeneity and ‘unanimist’ political ideologies, of the sort that dominated both Communist regimes and military dictatorships during much of the Cold War, have been thoroughly discredited. References Boulden, J, and Kymlicka, W., eds. 2015. International Approaches to Governing Ethnic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meyer, J., Boli, J., Thomas, G. and Ramirez, F., 1997. ‘World Society and the Nation‐State’. American Journal of Sociology, 103 (1), pp. 144–181. Commonwealth Governance Handbook 2014/15 113 JANE BOULDEN is a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada. During 2004–14 she held the position of Canada Research Chair in international relations and security studies. She is also currently a research fellow at the Queen’s University Centre for International and Defence Policy. From 2000 until 2004 she was a MacArthur Research Fellow at the Centre for International Studies, University of Oxford. Her recent books include Responding to Conflict in Africa: The United Nations and Regional Organizations, The United Nations and Nuclear Orders and Terrorism and the UN: Before and After September 11th. WILL KYMLICKA is the Canada Research Chair in political philosophy at Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada, where he has taught since 1998. His research interests focus on issues of democracy and diversity, and in particular on models of citizenship and social justice within multicultural societies. He has published eight books and more than 200 articles, which have been translated into 32 languages, and has received several awards, including the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2012.
CEP template 2012
To see the actual publication please follow the link above