Enmity then empathy: How militarisation facilitated collaborative but exclusive exchange in Sierra Leone's Ebola response.

In the autumn of 2014, with the 2013-16 West Africa Ebola epidemic spiralling out of control, the United Kingdom announced a bespoke military mission to support-and in some ways lead-numerous Ebola response functions in Sierra Leone. This study examines the nature and effect of the civil-military relationships that subsequently developed between civilian and military Ebola response workers (ERWs). In total, 110 interviews were conducted with key involved actors, and the findings were analysed by drawing on the neo-Durkheimian theory of organisations. This paper finds that stereotypical opposition between humanitarian and military actors helps to explain how and why there was initial cooperative and collaborative challenges. However, all actors were found to have similar hierarchical structures and operations, which explains how and why they were later able to cooperate and collaborate effectively. It also explains how and why civilian ERWs might have served to exclude and further marginalise some local actors.

Examining the militarised hierarchy of Sierra Leone's Ebola response and implications for decision making during public health emergencies.

BACKGROUND: In September, 2014, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) called for militarised assistance in response to the rapidly escalating West Africa Ebola Epidemic. Soon after, the United Kingdom deployed its military to Sierra Leone, which (among other contributions) helped to support the establishment of novel and military-led Ebola Virus Disease (Ebola) response centres throughout the country. To examine these civil-military structures and their effects, 110 semi-structured interviews with civilian and military Ebola Response Workers (ERWs) were conducted and analysed using neo-Durkheimian theory. RESULTS: The hierarchical Ebola response centres were found to be spaces of 'conflict attenuation' for their use of 'rule-bound niches', 'neutral zones', 'co-dependence', and 'hybridity', thereby not only easing civil-military relationships (CMRel), but also increasing the efficiency of their application to Ebola response interventions. Furthermore, the hierarchical response centres were also found to be inclusive spaces that further increased efficiency through the decentralisation and localisation of these interventions and daily decision making, albeit for mostly privileged groups and in limited ways. CONCLUSIONS: This demonstrates how hierarchy and localisation can (and perhaps should) go hand-in-hand during future public health emergency responses as a strategy for more robustly including typically marginalised local actors, while also improving necessary efficiency-in other words, an 'inclusive hierarchical coordination' that is both operationally viable and an ethical imperative.

Why we must question the militarisation of conservation.

Concerns about poaching and trafficking have led conservationists to seek urgent responses to tackle the impact on wildlife. One possible solution is the militarisation of conservation, which holds potentially far-reaching consequences. It is important to engage critically with the militarisation of conservation, including identifying and reflecting on the problems it produces for wildlife, for people living with wildlife and for those tasked with implementing militarised strategies. This Perspectives piece is a first step towards synthesising the main themes in emerging critiques of militarised conservation. We identify five major themes: first, the importance of understanding how poaching is defined; second, understanding the ways that local communities experience militarised conservation; third, the experiences of rangers; fourth, how the militarisation of conservation can contribute to violence where conservation operates in the context of armed conflict; and finally how it fits in with and reflects wider political economic dynamics. Ultimately, we suggest that failure to engage more critically with militarisation risks making things worse for the people involved and lead to poor conservation outcomes in the long run.

CO2 emissions-energy consumption-militarisation-growth nexus in South Africa: evidence from novel dynamic ARDL simulations.

This study draws ardent attention to the Sustainable Development Goal 13 (climate change mitigation) of the United Nations by investigating the CO2 emissions-energy consumption-militarisation-economic growth nexus for South Africa (SA) from 1960 to 2019. The researcher applied frequency domain causality and the novel dynamic autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) simulation approaches to achieve the research objective. The main findings reflected that (i) there is a long-run equilibrium relationship between the variables; (ii) there is no causality between militarisation and energy consumption; (iii) unidirectional causality runs from militarisation to economic growth; (iv) there is no causality between militarisation and CO2 emissions; and (v) unidirectional causality runs from energy consumption to economic growth. The dynamic ARDL simulations' main results suggest that (i) in the short-run, a positive and insignificant relationship exist between militarisation and CO2 emissions. Conversely, a negative and significant relationship was recorded in the long-run. Thus, the treadmill theory of destruction is not valid for SA. (ii) In the short-run, economic growth has a positive and significant impact on CO2 emissions, while in the long-run, economic growth has a negative and significant impact on CO2 emissions. This implies the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis holds for SA. Overall, this research suggests a synergy between defence, energy, growth, and environmental policies in the short- and long-run to promote and maintain environmental quality in SA.

The political economy of expedience: examining perspectives on military support to Sierra Leone's Ebola response.

The 2013-2016 West Africa Ebola Epidemic is the largest outbreak of Ebola in history. By September, 2014 the outbreak was worsening significantly, and the international president of Médecins Sans Frontières called for military assistance. In Sierra Leone, the British and Sierra Leonean militaries intervened. They quickly established a National Ebola Response Centre and a constituent network of District Ebola Response Centres. Thereafter, these inherently militarised centres are where almost all Ebola response activities were coordinated. In order to examine perspectives on the nature of the militaries' intervention, 110 semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted and analysed. Military support to Sierra Leone's Ebola response was felt by most respondents to be a valuable contribution to the overall effort to contain the outbreak, especially in light of the perceived weakness of the Ministry of Health and Sanitation to effectively do so. However, a smaller number of respondents emphasised that the military deployments facilitated various structural harms, including for how the perceived exclusion of public institutions (as above) and other local actors from Ebola response decision making was felt to prevent capacity building, and in turn, to limit resilience to future crises. The concurrent provision of life-saving assistance and rendering of structural harm resulting from the militaries' intervention is ultimately found to be part of a vicious cycle, which this article conceptualises as the 'political economy of expedience', a paradox that should be considered inherent in any militarised intervention during humanitarian and public health crises.

Epidemics and the Military: Responding to COVID-19 in Uganda.

The UN Security Council's response to Ebola in 2014 legitimised militarised responses. It also influenced responses to COVID-19 in some African countries. Yet, little is known about the day-to-day impacts for ordinary citizens of mobilising armies for epidemic control. Drawing on 18 months ethnographic research, this article analyses militarised responses to COVID-19 during, and following, two lockdowns at contrasting sites in Uganda: a small town in Pakwach district and a village in Kasese district. Both field sites lie close to the border of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Although the practice of health security varied between sites, the militarised response had more impact than the disease in these two places. The armed forces scaled back movement from urban conurbations to rural and peri-urban areas; while simultaneously enabling locally based official public authorities to use the proclaimed priorities of President Museveni's government to enhance their position and power. This led to a situation whereby inhabitants created new modes of mutuality to resist or subvert the regulations being enforced, including the establishment of new forms of cross-border movement. These findings problematise the widely held view that Uganda's response to COVID-19 was successful. Overall, it is argued that the on-going securitisation of global health has helped to create the political space to militarise the response. While this has had unknown effects on the prevalence of COVID-19, it has entrenched unaccountable modes of public authority and created a heightened sense of insecurity on the ground. The tendency to condone the violent practice of militarised public health programmes by international and national actors reflects a broader shift in the acceptance of more authoritarian forms of governance.

Cordons Sanitaires and the Rationalisation Process in Southern Europe (Nineteenth-Century Majorca).

Never before the nineteenth century had Europeans, especially in the south, adopted cordons sanitaires in such great numbers or at such a fast rate. This article aims to analyse the process of the rationalisation and militarisation of the cordons sanitaires imposed in the fight against epidemics during the nineteenth century on the Mediterranean island of Majorca (Spain). These cordons should be understood as a declaration of war by the authorities on emerging epidemics. Epidemics could generate sudden and intolerably high rises in mortality that the new liberal citizenship found unacceptable. Toleration of this type of measure was the result of a general consensus, with hardly any opposition, which not only obtained the support of scientists (especially in the field of medicine) but also of most of the local and provincial political elite, and even of the population at large.