Version actuelle datée du 22 mai 2020 à 17:19

The concept of development in international relations

Données clés
Faculté	Faculté des sciences de la société
Département	Département de science politique et relations internationales
Professeur(s)	Stephan Davidshofer^[1]^[2]^[3] Xavier Guillaume^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]
Cours	Critical approaches to international relations

Lectures

The idea of moving from humanitarian to development is that humanitarian remains a matter for the practitioner while development has its own theory.

Languages

Español Français Italiano

Humanitarian aid[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

A distinction must be made between humanitarian action and humanitarian action. Has emerged through a nebula where a humanitarian order of extremely diverse actors with diverse approaches. There is also a distinction between Dunkirk and Wilsonian organisations, which are totally different approaches to humanitarian aid, with one aimed at guaranteeing the integrity of a humanitarian space based on the principles of neutrality and independence in particular, and another, more transformist approach aimed at transforming the societies in which we operate.

One possible distinction is that between a needs-based and a rights-based approach:

a needs-based approach is an approach whose purpose of humanitarian aid is first and foremost to provide some kind of relief, direct assistance to people who are the object of humanitarian aid and who need it, whether in natural disasters or armed conflicts;
a rights-based approach is much more ambitious since the aim is to ensure respect for human rights. For some, we are opening the Pandora's box since we are beginning to touch on the sovereignty of States, which is the great taboo of international relations, particularly around the notion of the responsibility to protect, which is important and symptomatic of the tension around action vs. humanitarian intervention.

In a way, having an intervention approach will automatically mobilize much more resources. Need-based humanitarian action aims to alleviate people's suffering without distinction. The problem is relatively simple. The other interventionist or Wilsonian approach requires the mobilization of many actors because the aim is to transform and improve societies, to transform the international system, it is a global project. Coordination is open to many actors raising many questions.

The most complicated cooperation will be between humanitarian and military personnel. In the context of Somalia, the question at some point will be who works for whom. In other words, questions are raised on the ground, in particular as to who is being involved, for the well-being of the population and for the strategic interest of a State. In the humanitarian space, we are faced with two trends that disagree on the meaning of their profession. The second, more interventionist approach will automatically open up to development.

Humanitarian aid in a rather intuitive way was considered as short-term aid. When we seek to transform a country and improve its infrastructure, we are looking at a long-term perspective involving the mobilization of other actors and other issues.

In a more purist approach, we are reluctant to deal with problems that are simple problems of funding, independence from the state, autonomy of decision-making in order to respect humanitarian space. While the Wilsonian interventionist approach, the interventionist space makes no sense, because it is a much more political project, whereas the humanitarian in its desire for independence and creating an autonomous space, the idea is to put itself outside the political stakes. On the one hand, we are in each other's midst to relieve people's suffering and the goal is that the work should not be called into question or short-circuited by political issues, whether by belligerents on the ground or in the Ethiopian context. On the other hand, the challenge is to be able to connect a range of agents in the most effective way possible on a political agenda described as liberal, on which they agree to transform a state so that it can develop.

The other danger in the logic of space is that States are very present in humanitarian aid. The fact that states themselves may have humanitarian agencies may seem contradictory to purists. If we take to the extreme that foreign policy is the same as foreign policy and that the development and humanitarian objectives are the same, this is problematic as in Iraq or Afghanistan. The objective was to do nation-building, but this raises the problem that, for example, an NGO working in well rehabilitation in a remote region of Afghanistan is not only working to develop Afghanistan, but ultimately contributes to making Afghanistan safer because a developed Afghanistan is a safer Afghanistan that would host fewer terrorists so it would be less of a threat to the West.

There are chains and pooling of actors that seem relatively coherent, but which are extremely problematic from an ethical point of view, but which are also extremely problematic from the point of view of the practitioners themselves.

In Humanitarianism transformed^[9], Mickael Barnett highlights two transformations that would be politicization on the one hand and institutionalization on the other:

politicisation: it is the fact that there are more and more actors and more and more challenges facing humanitarian actors who must necessarily take a position in relation to political actors, but they choose to extricate themselves from them or keep their distance.
institutionalization: we are faced with an increasingly complex system with more and more actors generating more and more logics of cooperation and pooling of know-how that are extremely different, ranging from more traditional humanitarian, to development, to the military and private actors.

Barnett sees himself in a more Wilsonian approach, not taking a negative view that actors should work together and that there is no reason not to do so, raising the issue of politicization and institutionalization.

Stories and definitions[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Development is a concept steeped in common sense. There will be a totally different approach to humanitarian work since we are both in a field of practice with people whose profession is humanitarian work such as development agencies, certain NGOs, certain countries and certain UN agencies; and we are also in a field of study with a development theory, a much more traditional format for a course.

Development is a notion around which there is much debate, but no consensus. Some of them point it out at different times, often in relation to the different approaches adopted.

If there is a traditional understanding of development it is how it is mobilized, practiced and criticized as a result of the idea of progress that comes from the Enlightenment period. It is a logic of progress and improvement of humanity towards more reason and freedom, to which is added a maturation of the commercial society. Critics describe this project as a liberal project in the kind of society in which we aim to be a "Western society".

The contemporary meaning of development dates back to the end of the Second World War with President Truman's statement of 20 January 1949 in his inaugural speech. This is the starting point of modern development history or what Gilbert Rist calls the "era of development".

A few years after the end of the Second World War, the Cold War emerged, yesterday's allies became the new enemies and at the time, the main place of development or humanitarian aid was Europe with the implementation of the Marshall Plan to help rebuild the destroyed Europe. It was already a highly politicized project at the time, since the countries that benefited from it were the countries of the Western bloc.

It is said that the invention of development is found in point IV of Truman's speech. One of his advisers suggested that he should say something about the countries of the South, which would be a good thing in terms of political communication.

"... we need to launch a new programme that is bold and puts the benefits of our scientific and industrial progress at the service of improving and growing underdeveloped regions. ...] Their economic life is primitive and stationary. Their pauvreté́ is a handicap and a threat, both for them and for the most prosperous regions. I believe that we should make available to peaceful peoples the benefits of our pool of technical knowledge to help them achieve the better life to which they aspire. And, in collaboration with other nations, we should encourage capital investment in regions where development is lacking. ...] Greater production is the key to prospérité́ and peace".

There is the idea that nations that have a certain scientific lead and a certain number of advances can use this lead to improve the growth of underdeveloped regions. Truman invented modern development through the invention of underdevelopment. The relationship between development and underdevelopment became the main area of friction for a very important ethical and ideological debate during the Cold War.

Some will not hesitate to find a direct link between underdevelopment and threat, because they are perceived as threatening because they are underdeveloped. The era of development began in 1949. The issue of underdevelopment as a threat will return at the end of the Cold War because during the Cold War development actors do not systematically work with the military. During the Cold War, the military did their business in a secure environment and developmentists went about their business in their own corner. One of the places where the military and developmentists already meet is the counter-insurgency framework where the military with other actors are on the scene to "win back hearts and minds" as in the Algerian war or the Vietnam war. The Truman Declaration is a mixture of genres.

We are in the invention of development through the invention of underdevelopment. It is an interventionist tension through a need to develop countries because they could appear threatening. This thesis is based on issues related to illegal immigration. There is the idea that underdeveloped countries in different forms are dangerous.

There have also been other readings in the history of development. The reading that most challenges modernist reading is a much more Marxist reading of the history of development as the theory of the world system with globalization. Cowen and Shenton published in 1996 Doctrines of Development^[10] linking the emergence of the practice of development with the spread of industrial capitalism since the beginning of the 19th century in England. The thesis developed is that capitalism generates a "surplus of life".

To enforce order, strategies must be developed to manage and care for populations and especially for the most excluded and potentially dangerous fringe. These populations will be placed under guardianship and excluded. In the end, when development goes international, we are in a process of reproducing these practices, we manage at the global level these populations which are the surplus of a global capitalism. We are moving from a positivist approach to a Marxist approach in which the challenge of development is to manage potentially dangerous populations.

Mark Duffield in Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples^[11] is inspired by Cowen and Shenton. He postulates that there is only one difference between Western countries and South-East countries: in North countries people are insured and in South countries people are not insured. It uses the image of insurance to distinguish populations. The example he gives is that at one time for disaster reinsurance companies, the 2006 tsunami that killed 300,000 people cost half as much as a hurricane in Florida in the same year. That is, in the populations affected by the tsunami, there were so few people who received insurance that it was cheaper than a hurricane in Florida that killed 20 people. It will show that the world is divided between these two types of populations. So the interventions we are going to make in the West are interventions in terms of social security and unemployment insurance, while those we are going to have in the countries of the South are simply aimed at leaving these countries in a state of autarky in order to keep these countries running at least with the idea that family networks are more important and that they will be based on them. Duffield will distinguish the global practice of development as the management of surplus living by saying that the countries of the South are even more in a bad situation because they are populations that are not insured.

Modernists and their critics: towards the impasse of development theory[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

We are moving from a fairly defined and historically traceable practice, which is that of humanitarian aid, to a field of practice, which is development with more vague, conflictual outlines and, above all, to the challenges of important international relations in terms of transforming the international system or being able to transform the international system.

The development debate takes place from the late 1950s to the late 1980s and even today. This is the moment when development theory was the most important.

Modernists[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

On development there is the modernised thesis that underlies this approach in terms of progress to a certain extent that is intuitive based on the Truman Declaration launching the era of development or, as some will say, underdevelopment.

The modernist thesis, which is still very important today, is based on the idea that the countries of the South are lagging behind in their cultural and economic development. In other words, there is a sense in which progress is being made towards more reason, rationality and democracy and we must help the countries lagging behind to catch up. It is a logic where all companies go through different phases of development. From a critical point of view, modernist theory can be summarized as a development by phase.

Walt Whitman Rostow and Talcott Parsons are the most cited authors in relation to the canons of this modernist thesis. They start from the idea that a society is developed when it is increasingly differentiated, i.e. the different sectors of society are differentiated. By becoming more complex and different, a society develops.

The modernist thesis is supported by key development actors such as the World Bank, which will help reform countries to catch up. Military-humanitarian interventions, when they have a complex military intervention component, with developmentists, lawyers, we remain in this paradigm. It is a paradigm that also applies to democratization since there are currently European Union operations in various countries with the dispatch of lawyers to help build and develop "rules of law operation" in order to help establish a rule of law by training lawyers and provide these countries with institutions that would enable them to become developed States.

For this approach, the causes of underdevelopment are internal. If the countries of the South are underdeveloped, it is their fault because they have not developed the capacities that would allow them to develop, so we will help them to develop. This concerns the area of "good governance", because if we have good governance, it is possible to develop.

When we talk about the responsibility to protect, we mean the idea that we can intervene in a country as long as the government of a country is not going to be able to provide its citizens with the means for its development. The border becomes blurred on the fields of action of the intervention.

Typically, the countries that are going to be against intervention will be countries that will have a "southern" type of sovereignty relationship, such as Brazil, India and China, which have a discourse on respect for sovereignty that is much more traditional in the sense that sovereignty is intangible and all states in the international system are equal and therefore we cannot overthrow regimes.

Critics[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

In these theses of modernism, which are intended to be transformative, a whole series of criticisms have emerged. Most of the critics are Marxist, the most famous of which is the theory of dependence of André Franck, but also of Prebisch who want there to be a relationship of dependence between centre and periphery in the international system. Ultimately, the countries of the centre are developed because the other countries are underdeveloped. Underdevelopment is not simply the cause of bad governance, but because underdevelopment simply becomes a historical creation of capitalism, because to exercise it, capitalism needs to create underdevelopment.

There is also the thesis of Wallerstein and Amin's theory of the world system theory, where we are in the emergence in a much longer time of a capitalist world economy since the 16th century that will create these dependency relationships.

What these critics have in common and on which they agree is that the causes of underdevelopment are external. It is the functioning of the international system that will generate underdevelopment. When we talk about development, the real issue is the causes of underdevelopment, which is at the heart of the fundamental disagreement between the various protagonists.

The debate ran out of steam a little at the end of the 1980s because there were great signs of the modernist theory running out of steam in practice with the debt crisis in Latin America caused by loans to help them develop, on the other hand, there has been a series of criticisms against Marxist theories in which they have been criticised for being in a functionalist bias with a certain sense of history that lent a certain homogeneity to all the countries of the South while we are not in a homogeneous population, but in different stages of development where the development of certain countries has thwarted some of the dependence, notably with Brazil and certain countries of South-East Asia. We have reached a development impasse according to David Booth.

At the end of the Cold War, there were some failures of one thesis and the other, but this remained the great defeat of Marxist theses. The thesis of dependencies that was in vogue has been somewhat lost in the sense that we can quite rightly make a correlation between the explosion of humanitarian interventions, an explosion of development aid, a belief in the end of the Cold War as a great moment of unlocking the international system with the end of humanity. The end of the Cold War enshrined the modernist thesis with a vision of underdevelopment as the result of internal and not external causes. The modernist thesis remains the most popular, the causes of underdevelopment being concerned as internal rather than external.

Peace-building and the fusion between security and development[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

This is the idea that since the end of the Cold War, we have been on a liberal agenda aimed at transforming the countries of the South that are lagging behind and from there mobilizing huge resources. From the 1990s onwards, the idea emerged that it was possible to solve the problems of the countries of the South by intervening in them. This is a very positive logic in the context of the time with the desire to reap the peace dividend. Francis Fukuyama in his book The End of History and the Last Man develops^[12]

the idea that in a liberal world, the socialist system having lost, a new system is being set up all over the world because it is the best system and that it will be exported with practices and a cultural model and also soft power. After that, Fukuyama converted to peace building.

A liberal project to regulate the world is being set up. One of the most famous books is Mickael Iniatiev's Empire Light, which will explain that under the benevolent leadership of the United States, the United States will do its best to settle the countries of the South and finally help them enter the international community and benefit from the opportunity to be in liberal democracies and with a functioning market economy. It's the idea of a lean empire.

Mark Duffield is an English academic who has an interest in Marxist approaches, but who is also a former humanitarian worker and will develop the thesis with other authors such as David Chandler and David Harly who will challenge the liberal agenda of transformation and liberalization in the southern countries. Duffield's thesis is to point out that for the developmentist since its creation in the 1940s, underdeveloped countries are a threat and that developing the countries of the South is a way for the countries of the North to be more secure.

At the same time as the UN, the United States or even the European Union, there is the idea that security is development and that development is security. In the end, the two projects are completely linked. September 11 is no longer seen as a rupture, but as a continuity in the relationship between security and development. The US National Security Strategy fully supports the idea that certain countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan must be developed to generate less terrorism. The 2003 European Security Strategy also sets up this scenario where, as a benevolent foreign policy, it is necessary to be benevolent to generate more security. There is an interest in "sympathy".

There is the idea that interests and values converge. In Switzerland, a human security division has been created in the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is a concept created in 1994 by UNDP to contribute to the security of individuals in order to contribute to the security of the world. For Duffield, NGOs and aid agencies are the first lines of imperialist actors in the countries of the South.

His thesis is a little problematic because we are in a somewhat nuanced reading of humanitarian interventions that would be limited to an imperialist project. Duffield makes a link between liberalism, security and development. That is to say, a liberal society that is established beyond a discourse on progress and freedom is in a Foucauldian understanding of power since the exercise of power is exercised in a biopolitical manner. Liberalism is becoming a technique of governing populations. From then on, this system will be exported to the rest of the world and security and development are only two sides of the same coin that support an imperialist project.

As a Marxist, he is part of a historical perspective in which the whole development of the various humanitarian development, security, military and international police tools are only means of controlling the "surplus of life". From this historical perspective, Duffield says that decolonization has created the need to police the international scene and we will have to intervene to manage these undesirable populations and that humanitarian aid is only a last safety net to manage these populations. Duffield sees it as an extremely effective power technique, explaining that some have tried eugenics or extermination and that, in the end, this mode of government is more effective, but we remain in a logic of power exercise and domination. That's why we're in an imperial project.

He gives the example of the abolition of slavery because he points to the tension and paradox of liberalism. By pushing for the abolition of slavery, that is, to give more freedom to this population, when slavery was abolished, the question arose as to what to do with these populations. There has been the experience of the constitution of Sierra Leone or Liberia or Liberia or even some in Jamaica, where the aim was to show that it is possible to create States and that these populations can take charge of themselves. This is a dark vision of the international system, but one that has the merit of challenging a doxa on humanitarian interventions that is part of a historical coherence that may prove relevant in some cases.

To criticize Duffield, we notice that he is part of a certain vision of history. In his work, he will talk about the fusion between security and development, but to a certain extent he adopts a very Wilsonian Anglo-Saxon vision of humanitarian aid. One may wonder whether Duffield does not reproduce and support a certain vision of intervention and justify them when practitioners on the ground are not caught in an imperialist scheme and when their profession is that of humanitarian aid, which must retain a certain independence. So this theory, which is intended to be teleological, is not representative of the real situation. It would be a form of simplism.

Annexes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Bibliographie[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

↑ Page de Stephan Davidshofer sur Academia.edu
↑ Page personnelle de Stephan Davidshofer sur le site du Geneva Centre for Security Policy
↑ Compte Twitter de Stephan Davidshofer
↑ Page de Xavier Guillaume sur Academia.edu
↑ Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de l'Université de Édimbourg
↑ Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de Science Po Paris PSIA
↑ Page de Xavier Guillaume sur Academia.edu
↑ Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de l'Université de Groningen
↑ Barnett, Michael. "Humanitarianism Transformed." Perspectives on Politics 3.04 (2005): n. pag. Web
↑ Cowen, Michael, and Robert W. Shenton. Doctrines of Development. London: Routledge, 1996.
↑ Duffield, Mark R. Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples. Cambridge: Polity, 2007.
↑ Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. Francis Fukuyama. New York: Perennial, 1992.

[1] Page de Stephan Davidshofer sur Academia.edu

[2] Page personnelle de Stephan Davidshofer sur le site du Geneva Centre for Security Policy

[3] Compte Twitter de Stephan Davidshofer

[4] Page de Xavier Guillaume sur Academia.edu

[5] Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de l'Université de Édimbourg

[6] Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de Science Po Paris PSIA

[7] Page de Xavier Guillaume sur Academia.edu

[8] Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de l'Université de Groningen

[9] Barnett, Michael. "Humanitarianism Transformed." Perspectives on Politics 3.04 (2005): n. pag. Web

[10] Cowen, Michael, and Robert W. Shenton. Doctrines of Development. London: Routledge, 1996.

[11] Duffield, Mark R. Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples. Cambridge: Polity, 2007.

[12] Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. Francis Fukuyama. New York: Perennial, 1992.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

@@ Ligne 1 : / Ligne 1 : @@
-L’idée de passer de l’humanitaire au développement est que l’humanitaire reste une affaire de praticien tandis que le développement a sa propre théorie.
+{{Infobox Lecture
+ | image =
+ | image_caption =
+ | faculté = [[Faculté des sciences de la société]]
+ | département = [[Département de science politique et relations internationales]]
+ | professeurs =
+* [[Stephan Davidshofer]]<ref>[http://unige.academia.edu/StephanDavidshofer Page de Stephan Davidshofer sur Academia.edu]</ref><ref>[https://www.gcsp.ch/News-Knowledge/Experts/Guest-Experts/Davidshofer-Dr-Stephan-Davidshofer Page personnelle de Stephan Davidshofer sur le site du Geneva Centre for Security Policy]</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/stedavids Compte Twitter de Stephan Davidshofer]</ref>
+* [[Xavier Guillaume]]<ref>[http://edinburgh.academia.edu/XavierGuillaume Page de Xavier Guillaume sur Academia.edu]</ref><ref>[http://www.pol.ed.ac.uk/people/academic_staff/xavier_guillaume Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de l'Université de Édimbourg]</ref><ref>[http://www.sciencespo.fr/psia/users/xavierguillaume Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de Science Po Paris PSIA]</ref><ref>[http://edinburgh.academia.edu/XavierGuillaume Page de Xavier Guillaume sur Academia.edu]</ref><ref>[https://www.rug.nl/staff/x.guillaume/research Page personnelle de Xavier Guillaume sur le site de l'Université de Groningen]</ref>
+ | enregistrement =
+ | assistants =
+ | cours = [[Critical approaches to international relations]]
+ | lectures =
+*[[Introduction to critical approaches to international relations]]
+*[[Sociology of the discipline of international relations]]
+*[[Norms in international relations]]
+*[[Globalizations: definition and situation]]
+*[[Globalization: circulation between imperialism and cosmopolitan strategies]]
+*[[Otherness in international relations]]
+*[[The concept of domination in international relations]]
+*[[Humanitarian action: between action and intervention]]
+*[[The concept of development in international relations]]
+*[[Security and international relations]]
+*[[Surveillance and international relations]]
+*[[War and international relations]]
+*[[War, peace and politics in Africa since the end of the Cold War]]
+*[[Borders in international politics]]
+*[[The borders of Europe]]
+*[[Mobility and international relations]]
+*[[To conclude the course of critical approaches to international relations]]
+}}
-= L’humanitaire =
+The idea of moving from humanitarian to development is that humanitarian remains a matter for the practitioner while development has its own theory.
-[[Fichier:Ri2 approches de l'humanitaire.png|300px|vignette|right]]
+{{Translations
+| es = El concepto de desarrollo en las relaciones internacionales
+| fr = Développement
+| it = Il concetto di sviluppo nelle relazioni internazionali
+}}
-Il faut faire une distinction entre l’action humanitaire et les actions humanitaires. A émergé à travers une nébuleuse où un ordre humanitaire des acteurs extrêmement divers avec des approches diverses. Il y a aussi une distinction entre organisation dunantienne et wilsonienne qui sont des approches totalement différentes de l’aide humanitaire avec une visant à garantir l’intégrité d’un espace humanitaire autour des principes de neutralité et indépendance notamment et une autre approche plus d’ordre transformiste visant à transformer les sociétés dans lesquelles on intervient.
+= Humanitarian aid =
-Une distinction possible est celle entre une approche basée sur le besoin et une approche basée sur le droit :
+[[Fichier:Ri2 approches de l'humanitaire.png|300px|vignette|right]]A distinction must be made between humanitarian action and humanitarian action. Has emerged through a nebula where a humanitarian order of extremely diverse actors with diverse approaches. There is also a distinction between Dunkirk and Wilsonian organisations, which are totally different approaches to humanitarian aid, with one aimed at guaranteeing the integrity of a humanitarian space based on the principles of neutrality and independence in particular, and another, more transformist approach aimed at transforming the societies in which we operate.
-*une approche basée sur le besoin est une approche dont l’objet de l’aide humanitaire est avant tout d’apporter une sorte de soulagement, d’aide directe aux gens qui sont l’objet de l’aide humanitaire et qui en ont besoin que cela soit lors de catastrophes naturelles ou de conflits armés ;
-*une approche basée sur le droit est beaucoup plus ambitieuse puisque le but est de faire respecter les droits de l’homme. Pour certains, on ouvre la boîte de pandore puisqu’on commence à toucher à la souveraineté des États qui est le grand tabou des relations internationales notamment autour de la notion de la responsabilité à protéger qui est importante et symptomatique de la tension autour de l’action vs. l’intervention humanitaire.
-En quelque sorte, le fait d’avoir une approche d’intervention va automatiquement mobiliser beaucoup plus de moyens. L’action humanitaire basée sur le besoin vise à alléger les souffrances des gens sans distinction. Le problème est relativement simple. L’autre approche interventionniste ou wilsonienne nécessite de mobiliser de nombreux acteurs parce qu’on vise à transformer et à améliorer les sociétés, à transformer le système international, c’est un projet global. On ouvre la coordination à plein d’acteurs soulevant de nombreuses questions.
+One possible distinction is that between a needs-based and a rights-based approach:
+*a needs-based approach is an approach whose purpose of humanitarian aid is first and foremost to provide some kind of relief, direct assistance to people who are the object of humanitarian aid and who need it, whether in natural disasters or armed conflicts;
+*a rights-based approach is much more ambitious since the aim is to ensure respect for human rights. For some, we are opening the Pandora's box since we are beginning to touch on the sovereignty of States, which is the great taboo of international relations, particularly around the notion of the responsibility to protect, which is important and symptomatic of the tension around action vs. humanitarian intervention.
+In a way, having an intervention approach will automatically mobilize much more resources. Need-based humanitarian action aims to alleviate people's suffering without distinction. The problem is relatively simple. The other interventionist or Wilsonian approach requires the mobilization of many actors because the aim is to transform and improve societies, to transform the international system, it is a global project. Coordination is open to many actors raising many questions.
-La coopération la plus compliquée va être celle entre les humanitaires et les militaires. Dans le contexte de la Somalie, la question à un moment donné va être de savoir qui travaille pour qui. C’est-à-dire que sur le terrain, sont soulevées des questions notamment de savoir pour qui intervient-on, pour le bien-être de la population, pour l’intérêt stratégique d’un État. Dans l’espace humanitaire, on est face à deux tendances qui sont en désaccord sur la signification de leur métier. La deuxième approche plus interventionniste va automatiquement ouvrir sur le développement.
+The most complicated cooperation will be between humanitarian and military personnel. In the context of Somalia, the question at some point will be who works for whom. In other words, questions are raised on the ground, in particular as to who is being involved, for the well-being of the population and for the strategic interest of a State. In the humanitarian space, we are faced with two trends that disagree on the meaning of their profession. The second, more interventionist approach will automatically open up to development.
-L’aide humanitaire dans un entendement assez intuitif était considérée comme une aide de court terme. Lorsqu’on cherche à transformer un pays, améliorer ses infrastructures, on est dans une perspective de long terme impliquant la mobilisation d’autres acteurs et d’autres enjeux.
+Humanitarian aid in a rather intuitive way was considered as short-term aid. When we seek to transform a country and improve its infrastructure, we are looking at a long-term perspective involving the mobilization of other actors and other issues.
-Dans une approche plus puriste, on est réticent aux problèmes qui sont des problèmes simples de financement, d’indépendance par rapport à l’État, d’autonomie de prise de décision afin de respecter l’espace humanitaire. Alors que l’approche interventionniste wilsonienne, l’espace interventionniste n’a aucun sens, car c’est un projet beaucoup plus politique alors que l’humanitaire dans sa volonté d’indépendance et de créer un espace autonomie, l’idée est de se mettre en dehors des enjeux politiques.
+In a more purist approach, we are reluctant to deal with problems that are simple problems of funding, independence from the state, autonomy of decision-making in order to respect humanitarian space. While the Wilsonian interventionist approach, the interventionist space makes no sense, because it is a much more political project, whereas the humanitarian in its desire for independence and creating an autonomous space, the idea is to put itself outside the political stakes. On the one hand, we are in each other's midst to relieve people's suffering and the goal is that the work should not be called into question or short-circuited by political issues, whether by belligerents on the ground or in the Ethiopian context. On the other hand, the challenge is to be able to connect a range of agents in the most effective way possible on a political agenda described as liberal, on which they agree to transform a state so that it can develop.
-D’un côté, on est dans l’entre-soi pour soulager la souffrance des gens et le but est que le travail ne soi pas remis en question ou court-circuité par des enjeux politiques que cela soit par des belligérants sur place comme dans le cadre Éthiopien. D’un autre côté, l’enjeu est de pouvoir de la manière la plus efficace possible mettre en relation une série d’agents sur un agenda politique qualifié de libéral sur lequel ils sont d’accord visant à transformer un État pour qu’il puisse se développer.
-L’autre danger dans la logique d’espace est que les États sont très présents dans l’humanitaire. Le fait que des États eux-mêmes peuvent avoir des agences humanitaires peut paraître contradictoire pour les puristes. Si on pousse à l’extrême que la politique étrangère la logique que la politique étrangère et que les objectifs en termes de développement et d’humanitaire sont les mêmes, cela est problématique comme en Irak ou encore en Afghanistan. L’objectif était de faire du nation-building, mais cela soulève le problème que par exemple une ONG qui travaille dans la remise en état de puits dans une région retirée d’Afghanistan travaille non seulement à développer l’Afghanistan, mais en fin de compte, elle contribue à rendre l’Afghanistan plus sûr parce qu’un Afghanistan développé est un Afghanistan plus sûr qui accueillerait moins de terroristes donc il serait moins une menace pour l’occident.
+The other danger in the logic of space is that States are very present in humanitarian aid. The fact that states themselves may have humanitarian agencies may seem contradictory to purists. If we take to the extreme that foreign policy is the same as foreign policy and that the development and humanitarian objectives are the same, this is problematic as in Iraq or Afghanistan. The objective was to do nation-building, but this raises the problem that, for example, an NGO working in well rehabilitation in a remote region of Afghanistan is not only working to develop Afghanistan, but ultimately contributes to making Afghanistan safer because a developed Afghanistan is a safer Afghanistan that would host fewer terrorists so it would be less of a threat to the West.
-Il y a des enchainements et des mises en commun d’acteurs qui semblent relativement cohérents, mais qui sont extrêmement problématiques d’un point de vue éthique, mais qui l’est aussi extrêmement du point de vue des praticiens eux-mêmes.
+There are chains and pooling of actors that seem relatively coherent, but which are extremely problematic from an ethical point of view, but which are also extremely problematic from the point of view of the practitioners themselves.
-Dans ''Humanitarianism transformed''<ref>Barnett, Michael. "Humanitarianism Transformed." Perspectives on Politics 3.04 (2005): n. pag. Web</ref>, Mickael Barnett met en avant deux transformations qui serait la politisation d’un côté et l’institutionnalisation de l’autre :
+In ''Humanitarianism transformed''<ref>Barnett, Michael. "Humanitarianism Transformed." Perspectives on Politics 3.04 (2005): n. pag. Web</ref>, Mickael Barnett highlights two transformations that would be politicization on the one hand and institutionalization on the other:
-*'''politisation''' : c’est le fait qu’il y a de plus en plus d’acteurs et de plus en plus d’enjeux auxquels sont confrontés les acteurs de l’humanitaire qui doivent forcément prendre position par rapport à des acteurs politiques, mais ils font le choix de s’en extraire ou de garder des distances.
+*'''politicisation''': it is the fact that there are more and more actors and more and more challenges facing humanitarian actors who must necessarily take a position in relation to political actors, but they choose to extricate themselves from them or keep their distance.
-*'''institutionnalisation''' : on est face à un système de plus en plus complexe avec de plus en plus d’acteurs qui génèrent de plus en plus de logiques de coopération et de mise en commun de savoir faire extrêmement différents qui vont de l’humanitaire plus traditionnelle, au développement, aux militaires à des acteurs privés.
+*'''institutionalization''': we are faced with an increasingly complex system with more and more actors generating more and more logics of cooperation and pooling of know-how that are extremely different, ranging from more traditional humanitarian, to development, to the military and private actors.
-Barnett se reconnaît dans une approche plus wilsonienne ne voyant pas d’un mauvais oeil qu’il faut faire travailler les acteurs ensemble et qu’il n’y a aucune raison qu’on ne le fasse pas soulevant le problème de la politisation et de l’institutionnalisation.
+Barnett sees himself in a more Wilsonian approach, not taking a negative view that actors should work together and that there is no reason not to do so, raising the issue of politicization and institutionalization.
-= Histoires et définitions =
+= Stories and definitions =
-Le développement est une notion chargée de sens commun. Il va y avoir une approche totalement différente de l’humanitaire puisqu’on est à la fois dans un champ de pratique avec des gens dont leur métier est l’humanitaire comme des agences de développement, certaines ONG, certains pays et certaines agences onusiennes ; et on est aussi dans un champ d’étude avec une théorie du développement soit un format beaucoup plus traditionnelle pour un cours.
+Development is a concept steeped in common sense. There will be a totally different approach to humanitarian work since we are both in a field of practice with people whose profession is humanitarian work such as development agencies, certain NGOs, certain countries and certain UN agencies; and we are also in a field of study with a development theory, a much more traditional format for a course.
-Le développement est une notion autour de laquelle il y a beaucoup de débat, mais pas de consensus. Certains le font remonter à différents moments souvent en rapport avec les différentes approches adoptées.
+Development is a notion around which there is much debate, but no consensus. Some of them point it out at different times, often in relation to the different approaches adopted.
-S’il y a un entendement traditionnel du développement c’est comment il est mobilisé, pratiqué et critiqué découlant de l’idée de progrès qui vient de la période des Lumières. C’est une logique de progrès et de perfectionnement de l’humanité vers plus de raison et de liberté auquel s’ajoute une maturation de la société commerciale. Les critiques qualifient ce projet de projet libéral s’inscrivant dans le type de société au sein de laquelle nous visons qu’on peut aussi qualifier de « société occidentale ».
+If there is a traditional understanding of development it is how it is mobilized, practiced and criticized as a result of the idea of progress that comes from the Enlightenment period. It is a logic of progress and improvement of humanity towards more reason and freedom, to which is added a maturation of the commercial society. Critics describe this project as a liberal project in the kind of society in which we aim to be a "Western society".
 <youtube>PXE-u4WanMI</youtube>
-Le sens contemporain du développement date de la fin de la Deuxième guerre mondiale avec la déclaration du président Truman du 20 janvier 1949 lors de son discours d’investiture. C’est le point de départ de l’histoire moderne du développement ou ce que Gilbert Rist appelle « l’ère du développement ».
+The contemporary meaning of development dates back to the end of the Second World War with President Truman's statement of 20 January 1949 in his inaugural speech. This is the starting point of modern development history or what Gilbert Rist calls the "era of development".
-Quelques années après la fin de la Deuxième guerre mondiale, la Guerre froide émerge, les alliés d’hier deviennent les nouveaux ennemis et à l’époque, le lieu principal du développement soit de l‘aide humanitaire est l’Europe avec la mise en place du plan Marshall pour aider à la reconstruction de l’Europe détruite. C’est un projet déjà très politisé à l’époque puisque les pays qui ont pu en bénéficier sont les pays du bloc occidental.
+A few years after the end of the Second World War, the Cold War emerged, yesterday's allies became the new enemies and at the time, the main place of development or humanitarian aid was Europe with the implementation of the Marshall Plan to help rebuild the destroyed Europe. It was already a highly politicized project at the time, since the countries that benefited from it were the countries of the Western bloc.
-On dit que l’invention du développement se retrouve dans le point IV du discours de Truman. Un de ses conseillers lui aurait suggéré de glisser un mot concernant les pays du sud ce qui serait une bonne chose en termes de communication politique.
+It is said that the invention of development is found in point IV of Truman's speech. One of his advisers suggested that he should say something about the countries of the South, which would be a good thing in terms of political communication.
-« [...] il nous faut lancer un nouveau programme qui soit audacieux et qui mette les avantages de notre avance scientifique et de notre progrès industriel au service de l'amélioration et de la croissance des régions sous-développées. [...] Leur vie économique est primitive et stationnaire. Leur pauvreté́ constitue un handicap et une menace, tant pour eux que pour les régions les plus prospères. [...] Je crois que nous devrions mettre à la disposition des peuples pacifiques les avantages de notre réserve de connaissances techniques afin de les aider à réaliser la vie meilleure à laquelle ils aspirent. Et, en collaboration avec d’autres nations, nous devrions encourager l’investissement de capitaux dans les régions où le développement fait défaut. [...] Une production plus grande est la clef de la prospérité́ et de la paix »
+"... we need to launch a new programme that is bold and puts the benefits of our scientific and industrial progress at the service of improving and growing underdeveloped regions. ...] Their economic life is primitive and stationary. Their pauvreté́ is a handicap and a threat, both for them and for the most prosperous regions. I believe that we should make available to peaceful peoples the benefits of our pool of technical knowledge to help them achieve the better life to which they aspire. And, in collaboration with other nations, we should encourage capital investment in regions where development is lacking. ...] Greater production is the key to prospérité́ and peace".
-Il y a l’idée que les nations qui ont une certaine avance scientifique et un certain nombre de progrès puissent mettre cette avancée à l’amélioration de la croissance des régions sous-développée. Truman a inventé le développement moderne à travers l’invention du sous-développement. La relation entre le développement et le sous-développement devient le lieu de friction principale de débat très important éthique et idéologique pendant la Guerre froide.
+There is the idea that nations that have a certain scientific lead and a certain number of advances can use this lead to improve the growth of underdeveloped regions. Truman invented modern development through the invention of underdevelopment. The relationship between development and underdevelopment became the main area of friction for a very important ethical and ideological debate during the Cold War.
-Certains ne vont pas à hésiter à trouver un lien direct entre le sous-développement et la menace, parce que perçu comme menaçant parce qu’ils sont sous-développés. À partir de 1949 est ouverte l’ère du développement. La question du sous-développement comme menace va revenir à la fin de la Guerre froide parce que pendant la Guerre froide les acteurs du développement ne travaillent pas systématiquement avec les militaires. Pendant la Guerre froide, les militaires font leurs affaires dans la sécurisé et les développementalistes vont leurs affaires dans leur coin. L’un des lieux où les militaires et les développementalistes se rencontrent déjà est le cadre de la contre-insurrection où les militaires avec d’autres acteurs sont sur place afin de « reconquérir les cœurs et les esprits » comme dans le cadre de la guerre d’Algérie ou de la guerre du Vietnam. La déclaration Truman est un mélange des genres.
+Some will not hesitate to find a direct link between underdevelopment and threat, because they are perceived as threatening because they are underdeveloped. The era of development began in 1949. The issue of underdevelopment as a threat will return at the end of the Cold War because during the Cold War development actors do not systematically work with the military. During the Cold War, the military did their business in a secure environment and developmentists went about their business in their own corner. One of the places where the military and developmentists already meet is the counter-insurgency framework where the military with other actors are on the scene to "win back hearts and minds" as in the Algerian war or the Vietnam war. The Truman Declaration is a mixture of genres.
-On est dans l’invention du développement à travers l’invention du sous-développement. C’est une tension interventionniste à travers un besoin de développer des pays parce qu’ils pourraient paraître menaçant. Cette thèse raisonne pour des questions liées à l’immigration clandestine. Il y a l’idée que les pays sous-développés sous différentes formes sont dangereux.
+We are in the invention of development through the invention of underdevelopment. It is an interventionist tension through a need to develop countries because they could appear threatening. This thesis is based on issues related to illegal immigration. There is the idea that underdeveloped countries in different forms are dangerous.
-Il y a eu aussi d’autres lectures de l’histoire du développement. La lecture qui remet le plus en question la lecture moderniste est une lecture beaucoup plus marxiste de l’histoire du développement comme la théorie du système monde avec la globalisation. Cowen et Shenton ont publié en 1996 ''Doctrines of Development''<ref>Cowen, Michael, and Robert W. Shenton. Doctrines of Development. London: Routledge, 1996.</ref> liant l’émergence de la pratique du développement avec la diffusion du capitalisme industriel dès le début du XIXème siècle en Angleterre. La thèse développée est de dire que le capitalisme génère un « surplus de vie ».
+There have also been other readings in the history of development. The reading that most challenges modernist reading is a much more Marxist reading of the history of development as the theory of the world system with globalization. Cowen and Shenton published in 1996 ''Doctrines of Development''<ref>Cowen, Michael, and Robert W. Shenton. Doctrines of Development. London: Routledge, 1996.</ref> linking the emergence of the practice of development with the spread of industrial capitalism since the beginning of the 19th century in England. The thesis developed is that capitalism generates a "surplus of life".
-Pour faire respecter l’ordre, il faut développer des stratégies pour gérer et s’occuper des populations et surtout de la frange la plus exclue qui est potentiellement dangereuse. Il y a une mise sous tutelle de ces populations qui vont être mises à l’écart. En fin de compte, lorsque le développement passe à l’international, on est dans une reproduction de ces pratiques, on gère au niveau global ces populations qui sont le surplus d’un capitalisme global. On repart d’une approche positiviste vers une approche marxiste dans le cadre duquel, l’enjeu du développement est de gérer les populations potentiellement dangereuses.
+To enforce order, strategies must be developed to manage and care for populations and especially for the most excluded and potentially dangerous fringe. These populations will be placed under guardianship and excluded. In the end, when development goes international, we are in a process of reproducing these practices, we manage at the global level these populations which are the surplus of a global capitalism. We are moving from a positivist approach to a Marxist approach in which the challenge of development is to manage potentially dangerous populations.
-Mark Duffield dans ''Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples''<ref>Duffield, Mark R. Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples. Cambridge: Polity, 2007.</ref> s’inspire de Cowen et Shenton. Il postule qu’il y a une seule différence entre les pays occidentaux et les pays du sud est que dans les pays du nord les gens sont assurés et dans les pays du sud les gens ne sont pas assurés. Il utilise l’image de l’assurance pour distinguer les populations. L’exemple qu’il donne est qu’à un moment pour les sociétés de réassurance en cas de catastrophe, le tsunami de 2006 qui a fait 300000 morts a coûté deux fois moins qu’un ouragan en Floride la même année. C’est-à-dire que dans les populations touchées par le tsunami, il y avait tellement peu de gens qui bénéficiaient d’assurance que cela coûte moins cher qu’un ouragan en Floride qui a fait 20 morts. Il va montrer que le monde est divisé entre ces deux types de populations. Donc, les interventions que l’on va faire en occident sont des interventions en termes de sécurité sociale et d’assurance chômage alors que celles qu’on va avoir dans les pays du sud visent simplement à laisser ces pays dans un état d’autarcie visant à faire tourner au minimum ces États avec l’idée que les réseaux familiaux sont plus importants et qu’ils vont se baser dessus. Duffield va distinguer la pratique globale du développement comme gestion du surplus de vie en disant que les pays du sud sont encore plus dans une mauvaise situation parce que ce sont des populations qui ne sont pas assurées.
+Mark Duffield in ''Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples''<ref>Duffield, Mark R. Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of Peoples. Cambridge: Polity, 2007.</ref> is inspired by Cowen and Shenton. He postulates that there is only one difference between Western countries and South-East countries: in North countries people are insured and in South countries people are not insured. It uses the image of insurance to distinguish populations. The example he gives is that at one time for disaster reinsurance companies, the 2006 tsunami that killed 300,000 people cost half as much as a hurricane in Florida in the same year. That is, in the populations affected by the tsunami, there were so few people who received insurance that it was cheaper than a hurricane in Florida that killed 20 people. It will show that the world is divided between these two types of populations. So the interventions we are going to make in the West are interventions in terms of social security and unemployment insurance, while those we are going to have in the countries of the South are simply aimed at leaving these countries in a state of autarky in order to keep these countries running at least with the idea that family networks are more important and that they will be based on them. Duffield will distinguish the global practice of development as the management of surplus living by saying that the countries of the South are even more in a bad situation because they are populations that are not insured.
-= Modernistes et leurs critiques : vers l’impasse de la théorie du développement =
+= Modernists and their critics: towards the impasse of development theory =
-On passe d’une pratique assez définit est historiquement traçable qui est celle de l’humanitaire vers un champ de pratique qui est le développement aux contours plus flous, plus conflictuels et surtout aux enjeux de relations internationales importants en termes de transformation du système international ou de capacité à pouvoir transformer le système international.
+We are moving from a fairly defined and historically traceable practice, which is that of humanitarian aid, to a field of practice, which is development with more vague, conflictual outlines and, above all, to the challenges of important international relations in terms of transforming the international system or being able to transform the international system.
-Le débat sur le développement se déroule de la fin des années 1950 jusqu’à la fin des années 1980 et même jusqu’à aujourd’hui. C’est le moment où la théorie du développement a été la plus importante.
+The development debate takes place from the late 1950s to the late 1980s and even today. This is the moment when development theory was the most important.
-== Modernistes ==
+== Modernists ==
-Sur le développement il y a la thèse modernise qui sous-tend cette approche en termes de progrès dans une certaine mesure qui est intuitive se basant sur la déclaration Truman lançant l’ère du développement ou, comme certains diront ,du sous-développement.
+On development there is the modernised thesis that underlies this approach in terms of progress to a certain extent that is intuitive based on the Truman Declaration launching the era of development or, as some will say, underdevelopment.
-La thèse moderniste qui est encore aujourd’hui très importante se base sur l’idée que les pays du sud souffrent d’un retard dans leur développement culturel et économique. C’est-à-dire qu’il y a un sens dans lequel on se développe de progrès vers plus de raison, de rationalité et de démocratie et qu’il faut aider les pays en retard à rattraper leur retard. C’est une logique où toutes les sociétés passent à travers différentes phases de développement. D’un point de vue critique, la théorie moderniste se résume à un développement par phase.
+The modernist thesis, which is still very important today, is based on the idea that the countries of the South are lagging behind in their cultural and economic development. In other words, there is a sense in which progress is being made towards more reason, rationality and democracy and we must help the countries lagging behind to catch up. It is a logic where all companies go through different phases of development. From a critical point of view, modernist theory can be summarized as a development by phase.
-Walt Whitman Rostow et Talcott Parsons sont les auteurs les plus cités par rapport aux canons de cette thèse moderniste. Ils partent de l’idée qu’une société est développée lorsqu’elle est de plus en plus différenciée, c’est-à-dire que les différents secteurs de la société sont différenciés. En se complexifiant et en se différenciant, une société se développe.
+Walt Whitman Rostow and Talcott Parsons are the most cited authors in relation to the canons of this modernist thesis. They start from the idea that a society is developed when it is increasingly differentiated, i.e. the different sectors of society are differentiated. By becoming more complex and different, a society develops.
-La thèse moderniste est soutenue par les principaux acteurs du développement comme la Banque mondiale qui va aider à réformer des pays afin de combler un retard. Les interventions militaro-humanitaire, lorsqu’elles ont un volet d’intervention militaire complexe, avec des développementalistes, des juristes, on reste dans ce paradigme. C’est un paradigme qui s’applique aussi à la démocratisation puisqu’il y a des opérations actuellement de l’Union européenne dans différents pays avec l’envoi de juristes pour aider à construire et développer de « rules of law operation » afin d’aider à mettre en place un État de droit en formant des juristes et doter ces pays d’institutions qui leur permettrait de devenir des États développés.
+The modernist thesis is supported by key development actors such as the World Bank, which will help reform countries to catch up. Military-humanitarian interventions, when they have a complex military intervention component, with developmentists, lawyers, we remain in this paradigm. It is a paradigm that also applies to democratization since there are currently European Union operations in various countries with the dispatch of lawyers to help build and develop "rules of law operation" in order to help establish a rule of law by training lawyers and provide these countries with institutions that would enable them to become developed States.
-Pour cette approche, les causes du sous-développement sont internes. Si les pays du sud sont sous-développés, cela est leur faute puisqu’ils n’ont pas développé les capacités qui leur permettraient de se développer donc on va les aider à se développer. Cela touche au domaine de la « bonne gouvernance », car si on a de la bonne gouvernance, il est possible de se développer.
+For this approach, the causes of underdevelopment are internal. If the countries of the South are underdeveloped, it is their fault because they have not developed the capacities that would allow them to develop, so we will help them to develop. This concerns the area of "good governance", because if we have good governance, it is possible to develop.
-Lorsqu’on parle de responsabilité à protéger, c’est l’idée qu’on peut intervenir dans un pays du moment que le gouvernement d’un pays ne va pas être en mesure d’offrir à ses citoyens les moyens de son développement. La frontière devient floue sur les champs d’action de l’intervention.
+When we talk about the responsibility to protect, we mean the idea that we can intervene in a country as long as the government of a country is not going to be able to provide its citizens with the means for its development. The border becomes blurred on the fields of action of the intervention.
-Typiquement, les pays qui vont être contre l’intervention vont être des pays qui vont avoir un rapport de la souveraineté de type « sud » comme le Brésil, l’Inde et la Chine qui ont un discours sur le respect de la souveraineté qui est beaucoup plus traditionnelle dans le sens où la souveraineté est intangible et tous les États du système international sont égaux et donc on ne peut pas renverser les régimes.
+Typically, the countries that are going to be against intervention will be countries that will have a "southern" type of sovereignty relationship, such as Brazil, India and China, which have a discourse on respect for sovereignty that is much more traditional in the sense that sovereignty is intangible and all states in the international system are equal and therefore we cannot overthrow regimes.
-== Critiques ==
+== Critics ==
-Dans ces thèses du modernisme qui se veulent transformative ont émergé toute une série de critiques. La plupart des critiques sont marxiste dont la plus connue est la théorie de la dépendance de André Franck, mais aussi de Prebisch qui veulent qu’il y ait une relation de dépendance entre centre et périphérie dans le système international. En fin de compte, les pays du centre sont développés grâce au fait que les autres pays sont sous-développés. Le sous-développement n’est pas simplement la cause d’une mauvaise gouvernance, mais parce que le sous-développement devient simplement une création historique du capitalisme, car pour exercer, le capitalisme a besoin de créer du sous-développement.
+In these theses of modernism, which are intended to be transformative, a whole series of criticisms have emerged. Most of the critics are Marxist, the most famous of which is the theory of dependence of André Franck, but also of Prebisch who want there to be a relationship of dependence between centre and periphery in the international system. Ultimately, the countries of the centre are developed because the other countries are underdeveloped. Underdevelopment is not simply the cause of bad governance, but because underdevelopment simply becomes a historical creation of capitalism, because to exercise it, capitalism needs to create underdevelopment.
-Il y aussi la thèse de la théorie du système-monde de Wallerstein et Amin où on est dans l’émergence dans un temps beaucoup plus long d’une économie-monde capitaliste depuis le XVIème siècle qui va créer ces rapports de dépendance.
+There is also the thesis of Wallerstein and Amin's theory of the world system theory, where we are in the emergence in a much longer time of a capitalist world economy since the 16th century that will create these dependency relationships.
-Ce qu’ont en commun ces critiques et le point sur lequel elles se retrouvent est que les causes du sous-développement sont externes. C’est le fonctionnement du système international qui va générer le sous-développement. Lorsqu’on parle du développement, la vraie question est celle des causes du sous-développement qui est le cœur du désaccord fondamental voyant les différents protagonistes s’affronter.
+What these critics have in common and on which they agree is that the causes of underdevelopment are external. It is the functioning of the international system that will generate underdevelopment. When we talk about development, the real issue is the causes of underdevelopment, which is at the heart of the fundamental disagreement between the various protagonists.
-Le débat s’est un peu essoufflé à la fin des années 1980 parce qu’il y avait des grands signes d’essoufflement de la théorie moderniste dans la pratique avec en Amérique latine la crise de la dette suite à des crédits afin de les aider à se développer, d’un autre côté, il y a eu une série de critiques contre les théories marxistes où ont leur adressait la critique d’être dans un biais fonctionnaliste avec un certain sens de l’histoire qui prêtaient une certaine homogénéité à tous les pays du sud alors qu’on est pas dans une population homogène, mais dans différents stades de développement où le développement de certain pays à mis en échec certaines de la dépendance notamment comme avec le Brésil et certains pays du sud-est asiatique. On est arrivé à une impasse du développement selon David Booth.
+The debate ran out of steam a little at the end of the 1980s because there were great signs of the modernist theory running out of steam in practice with the debt crisis in Latin America caused by loans to help them develop, on the other hand, there has been a series of criticisms against Marxist theories in which they have been criticised for being in a functionalist bias with a certain sense of history that lent a certain homogeneity to all the countries of the South while we are not in a homogeneous population, but in different stages of development where the development of certain countries has thwarted some of the dependence, notably with Brazil and certain countries of South-East Asia. We have reached a development impasse according to David Booth.
-À la fin de la Guerre froide, on constate certains échecs d’une thèse et de l’autre, mais cela reste la grande défaite des thèses marxistes. La thèse des dépendances qui était en vogue a un peu perdu dans le sens où on peut tout à fait faire une corrélation entre l’explosion des interventions humanitaire, une explosion de l’aide au développement, une croyance de la fin de la Guerre froide comme grand moment de déblocage du système international avec la fin de l’humanité. La fin de la guerre froide consacre la thèse moderniste avec une vision du sous-développement comme étant le fruit de causes internes et pas externes. La thèse moderniste reste la plus en vogue, les causes du sous-développement étant concernées comme interne plus qu’externe.
+At the end of the Cold War, there were some failures of one thesis and the other, but this remained the great defeat of Marxist theses. The thesis of dependencies that was in vogue has been somewhat lost in the sense that we can quite rightly make a correlation between the explosion of humanitarian interventions, an explosion of development aid, a belief in the end of the Cold War as a great moment of unlocking the international system with the end of humanity. The end of the Cold War enshrined the modernist thesis with a vision of underdevelopment as the result of internal and not external causes. The modernist thesis remains the most popular, the causes of underdevelopment being concerned as internal rather than external.
-==La construction de la paix et la fusion entre la sécurité et le développement==
+==Peace-building and the fusion between security and development==
-C’est l’idée que depuis la fin de la Guerre froide, on est sur un agenda libéral qui viserait à transformer les pays du sud qui sont en retard et à partir de là mobiliser énormément de moyens. À partir des années 1990, émerge l’idée qu’il est possible de régler les problèmes des pays du sud en y intervenant. C’est une logique très positive dans le contexte de l’époque avec la volonté de récolter les dividendes de la paix. Francis Fukuyama dans son ouvrage ''La fin de l’histoire et le Dernier Homme'' développe<ref>Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. Francis Fukuyama. New York: Perennial, 1992.</ref> l’idée que dans un monde libéral, le système socialiste ayant perdu, un nouveau système s’installe dans le monde entier parce que c’est le meilleur système et qu’il va s’exporter avec des pratiques et d’un modèle culturel et aussi du soft-power. Après cela, Fukuyama se reconverti dans le peace building.
+This is the idea that since the end of the Cold War, we have been on a liberal agenda aimed at transforming the countries of the South that are lagging behind and from there mobilizing huge resources. From the 1990s onwards, the idea emerged that it was possible to solve the problems of the countries of the South by intervening in them. This is a very positive logic in the context of the time with the desire to reap the peace dividend. Francis Fukuyama in his book The End of History and the Last Man develops<ref>Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. Francis Fukuyama. New York: Perennial, 1992.</ref>
-Se met en place un projet libéral de régulation du monde. L’un des livres les plus connu est de ''Empire light'' de Mickael Iniatiev qui va expliquer que sous le leadership bienveillant américain, c’est pour le mieux que les États-Unis vont s’engager pour régler les pays du sud et les aider enfin à entrer dans la communauté internationale et à bénéficier de la chance d’être dans des démocraties libérales et avec une économie de marché qui fonctionne. C’est l’idée d’un empire allégé.
+the idea that in a liberal world, the socialist system having lost, a new system is being set up all over the world because it is the best system and that it will be exported with practices and a cultural model and also soft power. After that, Fukuyama converted to peace building.
-Mark Duffield est un universitaire anglais qui a un intérêt pour les approches marxistes, mais qui est aussi un ancien travailleur humanitaire et va développer la thèse avec d’autres auteurs comme David Chandler et David Harly qui vont remettre en question l’agenda libéral de transformation et de libéralisation des pays du sud. La thèse que va développer Duffield est celle de mettre le doigt sur le fait que pour le développementaliste depuis sa création depuis les années 1940, les pays sous-développés sont une menace et que développer les pays du sud est une façon pour les pays du nord d’être plus en sécurité.
+A liberal project to regulate the world is being set up. One of the most famous books is Mickael Iniatiev's Empire Light, which will explain that under the benevolent leadership of the United States, the United States will do its best to settle the countries of the South and finally help them enter the international community and benefit from the opportunity to be in liberal democracies and with a functioning market economy. It's the idea of a lean empire.
-Au même moment que cela soit l’ONU, les États-Unis ou même l’Union européenne, il y a l’idée que la sécurité est du développement et que le développement est la sécurité. En fin de compte, les deux projets sont complètement liés. Le 11 septembre n’est plus vu comme une rupture, mais comme une continuité dans le rapport entre la sécurité et le développement. La stratégie nationale de sécurité américaine adhère tout à fait à l’idée qu’il faut développer certains pays comme l’Irak et l’Afghanistan afin qu’ils génèrent moins de terrorisme. La stratégie européenne de sécurité datant de 2003 aussi met en place ce scénario où en tant que politique étrangère bienveillante, il faut être bienveillant pour générer plus de sécurité. Il y a un intérêt à la « sympathie ».
+Mark Duffield is an English academic who has an interest in Marxist approaches, but who is also a former humanitarian worker and will develop the thesis with other authors such as David Chandler and David Harly who will challenge the liberal agenda of transformation and liberalization in the southern countries. Duffield's thesis is to point out that for the developmentist since its creation in the 1940s, underdeveloped countries are a threat and that developing the countries of the South is a way for the countries of the North to be more secure.
-Il y a l’idée que les intérêts et les valeurs convergent. En Suisse a été créée au département des affaires étrangères une division de sécurité humaine qui est justement un concept créé en 1994 par le PNUD visant à contribuer à la sécurité des individus afin de contribuer à la sécurité du monde. Pour Duffield, les ONG et les agences d’aide sont les premières lignes des acteurs de l’impérialisme dans les pays du sud.
+At the same time as the UN, the United States or even the European Union, there is the idea that security is development and that development is security. In the end, the two projects are completely linked. September 11 is no longer seen as a rupture, but as a continuity in the relationship between security and development. The US National Security Strategy fully supports the idea that certain countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan must be developed to generate less terrorism. The 2003 European Security Strategy also sets up this scenario where, as a benevolent foreign policy, it is necessary to be benevolent to generate more security. There is an interest in "sympathy".
-Sa thèse est un peu problématique parce qu’on est un peu dans une lecture peu nuancée des interventions humanitaires qui se limiteraient à un projet impérialiste. Duffield fait un lien entre libéralisme, sécurité et développement. C’est-à-dire qu’une société libérale qui se met en place au-delà d’un discours sur le progrès et la liberté est dans un entendement foucaldien du pouvoir puisque l’exercice du pouvoir s’exerce de manière biopolitique. Le libéralisme devient une technique de gouvernement des populations. À partir de là, ce système va s’exporter dans le reste du monde et la sécurité et le développement ne sont que deux faces de la même médaille qui soutiennent un projet impérialiste.
+There is the idea that interests and values converge. In Switzerland, a human security division has been created in the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is a concept created in 1994 by UNDP to contribute to the security of individuals in order to contribute to the security of the world. For Duffield, NGOs and aid agencies are the first lines of imperialist actors in the countries of the South.
-Comme étant marxiste, il s’inscrit dans une perspective historique au sein de laquelle tout le développement des différents outils humanitaires développementalistes, de sécurité, militaire et de police internationale ne sont que des moyens de contrôler le « surplus de vie ». Dans cette perspective historique, Duffield dit que la décolonisation a créée le besoin de policer l’international et on va devoir intervenir pour gérer ces populations indésirables et que l’humanitaire n’est qu’un dernier filet de protection pour gérer ces populations. Duffield y voit une technique de pouvoir extrêmement efficace expliquant que certains ont tenté l’eugénisme ou l’extermination et qu’en fin de compte, ce mode de gouvernement est plus efficace, mais on reste dans une logique d’exercice du pouvoir et de domination. C’est pourquoi on est dans un projet impérial.
+His thesis is a little problematic because we are in a somewhat nuanced reading of humanitarian interventions that would be limited to an imperialist project. Duffield makes a link between liberalism, security and development. That is to say, a liberal society that is established beyond a discourse on progress and freedom is in a Foucauldian understanding of power since the exercise of power is exercised in a biopolitical manner. Liberalism is becoming a technique of governing populations. From then on, this system will be exported to the rest of the world and security and development are only two sides of the same coin that support an imperialist project.
-Il donne l’exemple de l’abolition de l’esclavage parce qu’il met le doigt sur la tension et le paradoxe du libéralisme. En poussant pour l’abolition de l’esclavage c’est-à-dire pour donner plus de liberté pour cette population, lorsque l’esclavage a été aboli a émergé la question de savoir quoi faire de ces populations. Il y a eu l’expérience de la constitution de la Sierra Leone ou encore du Libéria ou encore certains en Jamaïque où le but étaient de monter qu’on peut créer des États et que ces populations peuvent se prendre en main eux-mêmes. C’est une vision sombre du système international, mais qui a le mérite de remettre en question une doxa sur les interventions humanitaires qui s’inscrit dans une cohérence historique qui peut s’avérer pertinente dans certains cas.
+As a Marxist, he is part of a historical perspective in which the whole development of the various humanitarian development, security, military and international police tools are only means of controlling the "surplus of life". From this historical perspective, Duffield says that decolonization has created the need to police the international scene and we will have to intervene to manage these undesirable populations and that humanitarian aid is only a last safety net to manage these populations. Duffield sees it as an extremely effective power technique, explaining that some have tried eugenics or extermination and that, in the end, this mode of government is more effective, but we remain in a logic of power exercise and domination. That's why we're in an imperial project.
-Pour critiquer Duffield, on remarque qu’il s’insère dans une certaine vision de l’histoire. Dans ses travaux, il va parler de fusion entre sécurité et développement, mais dans une certaine mesure il adopte une vision anglo-saxonne très wilsonienne de l’aide humanitaire. On peut s’interroger si Duffield ne reproduit-il pas et n’appuie-t-il une certaine vision de l’intervention ainsi que les justifier alors que les praticiens sur le terrain ne sont pas pris dans un schéma impérialisme et que leur métier est celui de l’humanitaire qui doit garder une certaine indépendance. Alors, cette théorie qui se veut téléologique n’est pas représentative de la situation réelle. Ce serait une forme de simplisme.
+He gives the example of the abolition of slavery because he points to the tension and paradox of liberalism. By pushing for the abolition of slavery, that is, to give more freedom to this population, when slavery was abolished, the question arose as to what to do with these populations. There has been the experience of the constitution of Sierra Leone or Liberia or Liberia or even some in Jamaica, where the aim was to show that it is possible to create States and that these populations can take charge of themselves. This is a dark vision of the international system, but one that has the merit of challenging a doxa on humanitarian interventions that is part of a historical coherence that may prove relevant in some cases.
+To criticize Duffield, we notice that he is part of a certain vision of history. In his work, he will talk about the fusion between security and development, but to a certain extent he adopts a very Wilsonian Anglo-Saxon vision of humanitarian aid. One may wonder whether Duffield does not reproduce and support a certain vision of intervention and justify them when practitioners on the ground are not caught in an imperialist scheme and when their profession is that of humanitarian aid, which must retain a certain independence. So this theory, which is intended to be teleological, is not representative of the real situation. It would be a form of simplism.
 = Annexes =

« The concept of development in international relations » : différence entre les versions