This chapter contributes to the ongoing debates (Mansfield, Osborne, Pennell and McCartney) about enlistment in the Great War. It argues that mules were procured and muleteers were enlisted by using legal methods that left mule owners and men of military age with little alternative. Before discussing muleteer recruitment, it is important to understand mule procurement because initially, as reflected in the name of the operation at Famagusta, the Mule Purchasing Commission, the focus was on purchasing mules. By July 1917, the focus had clearly switched to muleteers when the name changed to Muleteer Recruiting and Supply Purchasing Staff and greater numbers of muleteers were recruited in comparison to mules. In the case of the Cypriot Mule Corps the peasant and labouring classes were given little option but to enlist to serve in the British army, as the British were able to play on local push factors to pull in volunteers.

Modernisation had seen life expectancy rates rise and infant mortality rates drop, resulting in a dramatic increase in the Cypriot population, which led to a surplus of people searching for work. The British prevented them from migrating to places with work, thus making the Cypriot Mule Corps a golden opportunity. The service of Cypriots in the British armed forces during the Great War was truly enormous proportional to the population of the island. The British knew how to pull the Cypriots into the Mule Corps, and they knew how to limit their own responsibilities towards these men too. British imperial power was reflected in the passing of laws to procure mules more or less forcibly. In Salonica, they were worked very hard. Yet it was soon realised that mules, no less than men, needed to be rested to reduce sickness and casualties, and extract more effective work out of them.

This introduction presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in the subsequent chapters of this book. The book argues that Cypriot mules and mule drivers played a pivotal role in British logistics in Salonica and Constantinople, especially the former. It explores Cypriot society from late Ottoman through to early British rule, until the Great War. The book covers the role of Cyprus during the Great War beyond the Mule Corps to show that the Cypriot contribution was much greater. It explores the impact of the war on Cypriot socio-economic conditions, particularly of so many men serving abroad on the local economy and society. The book delves into the formation of the Mule Corps. It also explores questions such as why and how Mule Corps was formed, why Cypriot mules and men were selected, and its administration and organisation.

This chapter begins by describing the 'spontaneous' migration of the population of the Western Front areas of the Russian Empire at the outbreak of war in 1914 along with deportation of others, including Russian subjects. It examines the causes and consequences of mass movement of refugees that began in the summer of 1915, the efforts of the authorities to accommodate refugees in the rear and ensure their welfare. The chapter addresses the activities of public organisations before and after February 1917 and the activities of the main Soviet organisation for refugees after the Bolshevik revolution. After the change of power in February 1917 and the general democratisation of political life, refugee committees, including national committees, were reformed to include an elective element. After signing the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, the Soviet government was obliged to prepare for the re-evacuation of prisoners of war and refugees on its territory.

Chapter One outlines the analytical techniques that were used to explore the EU’s ‘fight against terrorism’ discourse. The chapter contends that language and identity are significant in that they help to construct the ‘fight against terrorism’ discourse, which it is argued makes the practice of EU counter-terrorism policy possible. The chapter considers three theoretical concepts that underpin this investigation into EU counter-terrorism policy: discourse, representation and securitisation. The chapter outlines the methodological approach used to conduct this analysis of the ‘fight against terrorism’: a three-step process of discourse analysis. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the analysis was itself completed and why various texts were selected for analysis.

Chapter Five investigates the strand of the ‘fight against terrorism’ discourse that connects the threat of terrorism to ‘violent religious extremism’, ‘radicalisation’ and the threat of the ‘Muslim’ other. The first part of the chapter maps the emergence and evolution of this stand of the discourse. The chapter shows how in its initial phase the language of ‘radicalisation and recruitment’ to terrorism contained an assumption that ‘radicalisation’ was something more likely to occur in Europe’s ‘Muslim communities’, arguing that the impact of this was to implicitly construct the ‘Muslim’ other as a potential terrorist threat. The second part of the chapter critiques the concept of ‘radicalisation’ demonstrating how knowledge about ‘radicalisation’ is highly contested and retains an implicit racial bias against the ‘Muslim’ other, which it has been unable to shed. I conclude by considering how the logic of counter-radicalisation is making possible a new form of precautionary security governance, the impact of which is the further securitisation of social and political life within the EU

The final chapter highlight the main contribution that this research makes to debates on EU counter-terrorism policy. The first part argues that an exploration of language, identity and the study of ‘others’ is essential if we are to develop a comprehensive understanding of the EU’s ‘fight against terrorism’. The second part considers the EU’s emerging role as a holistic security actor. The third part demonstrates how the EU is developing a particular security identity that is committed to the creation of a system of precautionary security governance. The fourth part reflects on the implications of the ‘fight against terrorism’ for ‘human rights’ in the EU area, as well as the extent to which the EU counter-terrorism response can be considered effective. The fifth part offers some discussion of future avenues for research, including some of the limitations of the interpretive approach adopted in this study. Finally, concluding remarks are offered on the significance of the EU’s ‘fight against terrorism’ discourse.