WELCOME HOME, HISTORY

Resistance, Security and Terror

Today

What does it mean for History to have ‘ended’?

Do we live in an age of clashing civilisations?

Does the war on terror mean the end of resistance?

Does repression secure our freedom?

To what extent is globalisation a battle of ‘us’ against ‘them’?

Returning to the sociological

We have focused on the influence of (global) social life on individuals

Today we consider how the threat of terrorism impacts upon our capacity for agency: has the threat of terrorism reduced our capacity to resist power?

As always, our intention to think critically about the (global) society in which we live

Getting cold

The Soviet Union (The USSR) and Germany were initially allies in World War II until Germany invaded in 1941

The war on the ‘Eastern Front’ continued until 1945 when the USSR liberated Berlin

This made the USSR and the Western nominal allies, although this quickly changed

The ‘Cold War’ dominated much of the reminder of the 20th Century, exemplified by the 1961 constructed of a 111km call to divide up East and West Berlin

Hot and Cold

The Fall

The Berlin Wall, which divided East Berlin (Communist) from West Berlin (Capitalist), symbolised the Cold War divide

Because of substantial differences in wealth and freedoms, East Berliners were escaping to the West

After standing as symbol of oppression for 28 years, in 1989 the wall was suddenly overcome and Germany was reunited in 1990

The End of History

With the fall of the Berlin wall and the subsequent collapse of communism, it was thought that ‘History had Ended’

American conservative political scientist Francis Fukuyama stated: "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.“

This position has some similarity with post-modernity: we no longer have to engage with ‘big ideas’, we can simply live

Indeed, without significance ideological disputes, 1990s produced a period remarkable stability and prosperity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6B7g6mt4Gk

Can you remember where you were on

9/11?

History returns

If Fukuyama had argued that debates over how we should live had ended, 9/11 signalled the presence of violence resistance to this idea in dramatic, Hollywood-style

For many 9/11 was also an ended to ironic post-modern and a time to return to reality and traditional values

It fit into a burgeoning American political agenda that has redefined global conflict as a clash between two different ways of life

The idea of a ‘clash of civilisations’ was proposed by Samuel Huntington (1996)

Following the end of the ‘Cold War’, Huntington suggested that future conflicts will be framed by reference to religion and culture rather than between nation-states

This thesis was developed in response to Francis Fukuyama’s idea of the ‘End of History’, but is often referenced in the ‘war on terror’

Critics argue that it constructs an ‘us’ against ‘them’ ideology, ignoring differentiation within ‘civilisations’ and promoting US imperialism

15

The Clash of Civilisations

16

Global ‘civilisations’

Do you feel like there is a ‘them’ to

be against?

The clash within us

More concerning for many is the clash of civilisations within Western society

An explicit rejection of multiculturalism is often tied to a fear of ‘extremism’

In some areas of the world the influence of the West is viewed as an equal threat

These perceived threats have been the catalyst for nationalist movements and the increased popularity of fundamentalist religions

The underlying agenda of the clash of civilisations thesis is the battle between Christianity and Islam

Islam is often positioned as the enemy and opposite of Western ideals

Islamophobia, which came to prominence post 9/11, is a particularly strong prejudice that includes an emotional response of anger or anxiety

Islamophobia has led to deep seated prejudiced stereotypes of Muslims

Islamophobia

Islamic Jihad

In the West terror is often thought of as a specifically Islamic practice

This is provoked by the notion of Islamic Jihad, a highly controversial term that tends to be used to signify fundamentalist followers of Islam who are prepared to be violent in the name of their beliefs

Many scholars suggest Jihad only means struggle and is not necessarily violent

Contemporary use positions Islam as a fundamental, illiberal and violent religion/ideology that is incapable of engaging in global dialogue and can only be expressed through acts of terror

Terror

Terrorism is the most visible form of conflict resulting from the clash between ideologies and religions

The concept of ‘Terror’ first emerged with the French Revolutionaries of the late 18th century

Following the French Revolution that defined the enlightenment, up to 40,000 people were executed

Revolutionary governments often use these practices of extreme political violence to suppress resistance and make a clean break from previous regimes

Terror and stability

Thomas Jefferson : “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

Whilst the French Revolution was driven by the desire for ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité’, it was maintained through the violent repression of enemies

The ‘end of history’ suggests that these kinds of struggles belong to the past

Terror today

According to the US State Department, terrorism is “politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Cohen and Kennedy, 2013, p.203)

This definition deliberately excludes government and military action

Terrorism is ultimately a socially defined form of political violence

What would you like to ask?

Total War

The 9/11 attacks created a new era of global conflict known as the ‘war on terror’

The war on terror has redefined political conflict, creating a ‘total war’ in which everyone is a potential combatant and the line between civilian and solider has become blurred

Who are we at war with?

An ‘enemy combatant’ was traditionally defined as member of the enemies’ armed forces who receive rights as prisoners of war under the 3rd Geneva convention

Since the US is at war, people can be detained as enemy combatants rather than as civilians, making them prisoners of war who can be detained indefinitely (during wartime)

Unlawful combatants suspected of terrorist practices can be detained without rights and far from any defined battlefield

Rather than presuming innocence, anyone can be the subject of surveillance because they are potentially an enemy combatant

Restricting liberties

The Patriot Act, which has been strongly criticised for its affect on civil liberties and increasing the power of the government over the people, was signed into law in October 2001

In Britain the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act was passed in 2001

This act:

Enabled the home secretary to indefinitely detain, without charge or trial,

foreign nationals who are suspected of terrorism.

Grants the police and security services, including foreign agencies, the power to ask public bodies, including schools, hospitals, customs and inland revenue to disclose personal records during terrorism and criminal investigations.

The legislation was followed by the Terrorism Act 2006 following the ‘7/7’ bombings

The 7/7 attacks

The attacks on London of July 7th, 2005 killed 56 people and injured 700 through four suicide attacks

There were three bombs on tubes (Aldgate, Edgeware Road and Russell Square) and on a bus near Tavistock Square

While there had been political bombings in London before, this attack brought a new emphasis to the ‘global war on terror’

Do you ever worry about the

possibility of terrorism in

London?

Terror and political change

Public displays of violence continue to be used as a repressive force in many parts of the world

However, contemporary acts of terror are most commonly committed to try to provoke political change

Fighting back

Terrorism is often seen as violence for the sake of violence and is almost universally condemned

But if there isn’t any possibility for democratic resistance because democracy isn’t working in your local area, could non-democratic resistance be justified?

This question has become relevant in the Western world through anti-globalisation and anti-austerity protests, as well as through the emergence of ubiquitous state surveillance

Violence as liberation is perhaps most evident in the ‘Arab Spring’

Arab Spring

The ‘Arab Spring’ is a series of political uprisings in the Arab world

These begun in Tunisia with the death of a street trader and most notably spread to Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen

Whilst these events could be seen as the advance of history and liberal democracy, they raise the question of the rights of governments to supress dissidents

This question is most salient in the Western world through state surveillance

What would you do if Britain was invaded and all resistance was

illegal?

Big Brother is watching

There are approximately 1.85 million CCTV cameras in the UK

This massive surveillance network is a strong threat to civil liberties as private actions become public

This surveillance has been extended into the digital world

The NSA and You

The National Security Agency (NSA) scandal broke in June 2013 when a massive domestic and foreign spying surveillance programme was revealed

This programme had long been rumoured, but the scale and specific details still stood as a shock to the establishment and to the public

Not only was the US government spying on foreign governments, but it was revealed that access to personal social network accounts was also possible

Democratic Surveillance

The explicit defence of these programmes, one passionately argued by many, is that total surveillance is required to stop terrorist activity

Conversely, this surveillance culture has entered into non-violent dissident groups, including student and environmental protest groups

For many, government infiltration into resistance movements is an extreme threat to democratic participation

That is, if governments have direct access to all information, do they have the total power to prevent anti-government resistance?

If you are doing nothing wrong, do you have nothing

to fear?

Wiki Leaking to you

Part of the resistance to state surveillance and control has been the emergence of ‘hacking’ organisations like Wikileaks and Anonymous

These groups are part of a wider technologically enhanced libertarian movement that includes digital currency, the ‘deep net’ and 3-D printing

Punishments against these groups that support freedom of information over censorship in the name of security have been severe

Security vs. Freedom

These surveillance measures evoke the new form of political struggle between liberty and security that will define your generation

If the state serves to protect citizens, at what point does this protection become repressive?

This question returns the debate to Robespierre and political repression: Does liberty have to be protected with blood and repression?

Torture

This debate is particularly salient in regards to torture

The threat of terrorist acts has bought torture into public debate, asking whether it is legitimate to use torture to obtain information that would prevent acts of terror

Water-boarding, Guantanamo Bay and Rendition have become particular issues

Rendition

Rendition involves transferring an individual to another country without their consent

This has allowed the US and UK to (allegedly) transport foreign nationals to other countries where they can be legally tortured to obtain information

There is considerable debate over whether evidence obtained during torture is admissible and what counts as torture or ‘enhanced interrogation’

Guantanamo Bay

Guantanamo Bay, which the US leases off Cuba, has been used to hold ‘terror suspects’ since 2001

Suspects are those determined to be part of the war on terror

These suspects were considered outside of the Geneva Convention

The prison has created dilemmas about how to process the uncharged but imprisoned people

Drones

Drones are unmanned planes

These drones have been operating outside of the US to attack ‘terrorist targets’, particularly in Pakistan and Yemen

These strikes have been criticised as ‘targeted killings’ of ‘militants’

Executive execution

US citizens have been killed outside of the US by drones

These attacks are a form of capital punishment based on secret evidence and without trial

Moreover, they are often not based on terrorist actions, but the possibility of action

Given that drones do surveillance over the US, there is a very real possibly of these extrajudicial killings occurring within the US

How far is too far?

In Summary

If the end of the Cold War appeared to bring in a new era of prosperity, this was ended abruptly by the events of 9/11

This has led to a ‘total war’ of ‘us against them’

These events created a range of new security measures that have shifted the balance between freedom and security

Is dissent still possible within Western democracies?

Next Week

Course Review and Exam Preparation