Through a case study on Za'atari, the largest Syrian refugee camp in Jordan, this paper critically explores a contemporary example of intersection between local and global humanitarian and securitization processes in refugee governance. The paper argues that Syrian refugees have been subjected to humanitarian care and securitized treatment, with their construction in terms of potential threat to State security interests spiking in correlation with insecurities over the expansion of the “Islamic State” (IS). The paper tracks the suit of measures implemented by the host Jordanian State, with the support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), to produce docile refugee subjects of “humanitarian government” in a closed camp. It notes how the UNHCR invariably augments and extends the remit of Jordanian State power at the expense of refugee rights, in the name of ensuring refugee and aid worker security and the effectiveness of the aid operation. The camp plays a critical role in a performative politics of containment targeting local and global audiences.
Although the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is widely lauded for its humanitarian commitment to refugees, critical studies and human rights reports point to a troubling interweaving of security and humanitarian approaches in its responses to refugees. This paper adds to this growing body of literature a critical analysis of Jordan’s response to the still ongoing Syrian refugee crisis. It traces the government-led response, supported by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), across four sites, namely Cyber City, Za’atari Camp, Azraq Camp and Rukban. The analysis highlights how State security concerns emanate the modalities of humanitarian governance, blurring the boundaries between compassionate care for refugees and a politics of containment aimed at securing not only the outer borders of the Jordanian State but also regionally and beyond from the potential threat of militant violence. The paper situates the securitised humanitarianism on display in this case in relation to the intersection of local and global security priorities and processes post 9-11.
This review considers Lila Abu-Lughod’s Do Muslim Women Need Saving? and reflects on the book’s key implications for human rights practitioners. Through discussions of topical concerns such as veiling, honour crimes and forced marriages, the book critiques the global project of ‘saving’ the Muslim woman in the name of human rights and gender equality. The author reviews the book from the perspective of a human rights educator and a veiled Muslim woman living in the liberal West.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.