The NSWG will be undertaking a discussion paper project with a solicitation for contributions from academics and stakeholders in the field of contemporary national security. At present, we are in the process of comiling ideas about the nature of this initiative. In particular, we're looking for contributions from NSWG members and interested parties as to which essential themes need additional exploration by the academic community. Please feel free to post thoughts, comments, suggestions, and links.
All the best,
- Mike
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This (militarization of police) is definitely an important theme. We could look at it alone, or alternatively, incorporate it into a larger analysis of changing forms of social control. The privatization of some security functions and the blending of policing - intelligence - military roles are related issues.
In looking at this, the broader trend towards 'war on' approaches to social problems is worth exploring. The 'war on drugs' was (and remains) the origin of the contemporary militarization trend, but over the last five years we have seen a further intensification in relation to the 'war on terror.' Politically, it remains profitable to call for 'get tough' antagonistic measures, and 'more = better' models of policing, despite the absence of evidence to support such approaches. Ultimately, I think that the dual trends of police (para)militarization and an expanding panoptic are of immense concern, and indicative of an expansionary trajectory in social control with indeterminate limits.
That is a good question, Pascal.
Politicization of intelligence services is to be feared as much as politicization of policing.
I have heard rumors that central, read, (PM and most of the cabinet), governance are not themselves deeply versed in day to day intelligence practices. Their exposure is mostly limited to daily polished reports. Of course most of these practices are highly classified and would only become available to those members once they gain office. What I mean by this is that while the government certainly forms objectives for security services, they likely do not micromanage.
There is also the question of how security services affect governance. Their specialized capacity for intelligence gathering and claimsmaking might afford them a certian amount of power to influence governance.
It appears as though the political dimension of state social control mechanisms is the overarching theme that we're looking at here. There are two key dimensions to this - the direct political-hegemonic relationship between the state and social control (policing and intelligence) organizations; and the broader influence of military-industrial and market-based trends on the nature of policing and intelligence-gathering.
This would be a fascinating area to explore further through a discussion paper. Current research on the politicization and privatization of security mechanisms would be instructive, as would the body of work on the political economy of security - also the literature on shifts in policing associated with the 'war on drugs.'
If there's interest in an alternate avenue for exploration, I'll suggest the security-liberty continuum as a starting point. I think it would be fascinating to investigate the varying approaches to the question 'can / should civil liberties be exchanged for increased security?' There are many 'yes' responses, and many 'no' arguments, and bringing claims-makers from all sides together in a single project would be thought-provoking.
Policing:
Three dimensions of this topic emerged:
Politicization – Existing or establishing connections between the police and political action. ie. Ottawa police appearing to back mayoral candidate, UK Police publicly backing anti-terror and extended-detention legislation post 7/7
Privatization – changing and intensifying role of private security forces in policing and national security. ie: increased powers and presence of private forces, increased surveillance by these forces and potential privacy violations, private ‘military’ forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Militarization – Blurring of the distinction between police and military roles. ie: ‘Regular’ Ottawa police increasingly trained to carry assault rifles and ‘engage’ hostage takers. Use of language like ‘frontline’, also US initiatives to integrate domestic policing information with military functions, as battleground reconnaissance.
Alec Lalonde and Cynthia undertook to explore this topic for next week.
Evolution of Counterterrorism:
How has counterterrorism changed since 9/11, and is it even recognizable?
In Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Lebanon, ‘counter-terrorism’ continues to take the shape of ‘war’, and appears to succeed in ‘countering’ little. This is one of several mutations of the concept and application of ‘counterterrorism’
The ad - Security fallacy:
Use and abuse of word and concept: the (in) security zones of the mid-east, bombing and brinksmanship. I will be looking into this topic for this week.
Typology of Terrorism:
A sketch of the evolution or modern variants, possibly a suggestion of future trajectory.
Disinformation:
- Theory and application of disinformation in state counterterrorism plans.
Patterns of War (conflict) in the Mid-East:
- Patterns of beginning/development/end and Claims patterns of various actors
ie: From Today’s Guardian:
The small village of Qana, south-east of Tyre, was a symbol of Lebanon's tragedy before yesterday's air strike. Ten years ago, in remarkably similar circumstances, Israeli artillery shelled a UN compound there, killing more than 100 civilians. The bombardment was part of the Israeli operation codenamed Grapes of Wrath, aimed (then, as now) at punishing Hizbullah for cross-border attacks and dislodging it from the border.
Israel apologized and said it had been an accident caused by old maps and poor calculations. Backed by the US, Israel blamed mainly Hizbullah for using civilians as human shields. But a UN report noted many inconsistencies in the Israeli account and said it was "unlikely" the deaths were the result of technical errors.
Representations of Terrorism:
- Frederick Explains it best: It might be a pertinent topic since we do pay much attention to the definition. This could include the different ways around the world to depict “a terrorist”: in cartoons, in jokes, as a qualitative to an already “evil” element, etc. It could also include the past portrayals and the modern portrayal.
Theory:
An exploration of some aspect of theory in relation to current events.
Alec has uncovered some resources regarding the militarization of police, they are as follows:
The Garrison State (1941)
Harold Lasswell was probably one of the first social scientists to comment on the convergence of civil-military relations in The Garrison State. Lasswell saw the introduction of aerial warfare as the “socialization of risk” since civilian populations were for the first time vulnerable to firepower of enemy forces. Unremitting preparations for war will inevitably force specialists on violence to assume an elite role in state functions. While terrorism was never one of Lasswell’s primary concerns the emergence of sub-state actors as the perennial enemy of freedom and democracy in the eyes of many American policy makers has certainly brought the Garrison Society theme back into focus. Lasswell’s developmental construct of a militarized society is a cautionary tale for contemporary social control measures.
Warrior Dreams: Paramilitary Culture in Post-Vietnam America (1994)
James Gibson traces the origins of the paramilitary culture in contemporary America from the failings of conventional state power in Vietnam to the War on Drugs of the 1990s. Gibson analyzes the search for an Anglo-American identity that assumes the role of masculine warrior and protector of ‘traditional’ American society. Such an identity is epitomized in the paramilitary soldier who acts independently or in concert with a small group of elite warriors who combat terrorists, drug dealers, and communists at home and abroad. The rise of gun enthusiasm, survivalists, and tactical police units is pitted against a back drop of increased immigration, equalization of the sexes, and economic recession. Gibson offers a compelling look into the factors that have shaped paramilitarism and morphed what was once fringe culture into virtual state policy.
I’ve printed off some other articles and news reports that are of interest.
Alvaro, Sam. Boundary Issues in National Security Agencies: The Military and Police Forces in Canada.
Gene Healy. “Deployed in the USA: The Creeping Militarization of the Home Front,” CATO Institute Policy Analysis no. 503. December 17, 2003.
Peter Kraska. “Militarizing Criminal Justice: Exploring the Possibilities,” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 1999, vol. 27 (winter): 205-215.
Peter Kraska and Louis Cubellis. “Militarizing Mayberry and Beyond: Making Sense of American Paramilitary Policing,” Justice Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 4, December 1997.
OPP Emergency Response Services: A Comparison 1995-2006. July 17, 2006.
Meeting minutes from Ottawa police decision to fund the acquisition of carbine rifles.
Post a Comment