May 2013 - Volume 5, Issue 3 Life in Politics The Newsletter of the School of Politics Centre for International Intervention: “Hitting the Target?” Whitehall Launch Contents Eighteen months after it was first conceived, cii’s “Hitting the Target?” project reached a significant milestone with the launch at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in Whitehall of a joint cii/RUSI report examining the impact of remote weapons systems (especially ‘drones’) on international intervention. The report, which flowed from the successful workshop funded by Surrey’s Institute of Advanced Studies in July 2012 and included articles from a number of the workshop participants, considered the strategic policy drivers for the use of drones in targeted killings and the ethical, legal, and decisional implications of their use. One of the contributions to the report was a public opinion survey carried out by YouGov Cambridge, which showed that while the British public is prepared to support the use of drones in targeted killings of known terrorists (although that support falls away depending on the number of innocent civilians killed as a result of the strike) people are also concerned that the availability of this very sophisticated weaponry might put too much power in the hands of Western political leaders contemplating intervention in a foreign country, and might also have the unintended consequence of turning people in that country Centre for International Intervention: “Hitting the Target?” Whitehall Launch 1 CRonEM 2 Doctoral Matters 3 Out of the Bunker, and Forward in Attack! Gender Fights Back 4-5 Conference Season: The International Studies Association, San Francisco 6 UACES Common Security and Defence Policy Workshop 7 The Next Islamic Bomb: Rethinking the Iranian Nuclear Question 8-9 Rights and Democracy in the Arab Spring: Is this their Liberal Hour? 10-11 Critical Terrorism Studies Field Trip to the British Transport Police 12 Seeing in the New Year with a Conference on Political Thought 13 On the Receiving End: First meeting of the international team in Surrey 14-16 Making Politics Work 17 Reciprocity as the basis of European integration 18-19 Graduation! Postgraduate Degree Ceremony, April 2013 19 Ireland Can’t See Woods Through Trees, Can Students? 20 against the West. These findings broadly match the conclusions of the report itself, which argues that it is not the technology we should be wary of, but rather the uses to which it is put. These findings attracted a fair amount of media interest, including a piece in the Evening Standard that became one of the University’s ‘top stories’ in the week after Easter. CONTINUED...
Transcript
May 2013 - Volume 5, Issue 3
Life in PoliticsThe Newsletter of the School of Politics
Centre for International Intervention: “Hitting the Target?” Whitehall Launch
Contents
Eighteen months after it was first conceived, cii’s “Hitting the Target?” project reached a significant milestone with the launch at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in Whitehall of a joint cii/RUSI report examining the impact of remote weapons systems (especially ‘drones’) on international intervention. The report, which flowed from the successful workshop funded by Surrey’s Institute of Advanced Studies in July 2012 and included articles from a number of the workshop participants, considered the strategic policy drivers for the use of drones in targeted killings and the ethical, legal, and decisional implications of their use.
One of the contributions to the report was a public opinion survey carried out by YouGov Cambridge, which showed that while the British public is prepared to support the use of drones in targeted killings of known terrorists (although that support falls away depending on the number of innocent civilians killed as a result of the strike) people are also concerned that the availability of this very sophisticated weaponry might put too much power in the hands of Western political leaders contemplating intervention in a foreign country, and might also have the unintended consequence of turning people in that country
Centre for International Intervention: “Hitting the Target?” Whitehall Launch 1
CRonEM 2
Doctoral Matters 3
Out of the Bunker, and Forward in Attack! Gender Fights Back 4-5
Conference Season: The International Studies Association, San Francisco 6
UACES Common Security and Defence Policy Workshop 7
The Next Islamic Bomb: Rethinking the Iranian Nuclear Question 8-9
Rights and Democracy in the Arab Spring: Is this their Liberal Hour? 10-11
Critical Terrorism Studies Field Trip to the British Transport Police 12
Seeing in the New Year with a Conference on Political Thought 13
On the Receiving End: First meeting of the international team in Surrey 14-16
Making Politics Work 17
Reciprocity as the basis of European integration 18-19
Graduation! Postgraduate Degree Ceremony, April 2013 19
Ireland Can’t See Woods Through Trees, Can Students? 20
against the West. These findings broadly match the conclusions of the report itself, which argues that it is not the technology we should be wary of, but rather the uses to which it is put. These findings attracted a fair amount of media interest, including a piece in the Evening Standard that became one of the University’s ‘top stories’ in the week after Easter.
Continued...
Politics Newsletter
2 www.surrey.ac.uk
These and other issues were debated on 26th March in the elegant RUSI Library by a distinguished panel of invited speakers comprising: Lt Gen (retd.) Sir Graeme Lamb, former Commander, Field Army, British Army; Dr Lou Perrotta, former Head of the Lessons Team at the UK Stabilisation Unit; and Dr Jamie Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary-General of NATO. The panel was chaired by Sir Mike Aaaronson, Executive Director of cii. A full house – there was standing room only – heard a lively discussion that laid bare some of the complexities surrounding decisions to use armed force and the conduct of war – and the vital importance of respecting humanitarian principles even if recourse to war was unavoidable. Professor Marie Breen Smyth, Academic Director of cii, reminded the audience that behind the sophistication of new technology lie basic political choices; as always it is the politics that turns out to be the most elusive – and fascinating – aspect of international intervention.
The “Hitting the Target?” report itself, together with details of the launch event, can be found on the ci website at: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/cii/
SiR PRoFeSSoR MiKe AARonSon eXeCutiVe diReCtoR oF tHe CentRe FoR inteRnAtionAL inteRVention
Continued...
Has the EU Passed its Sell-by Date? Launch of the Centre for Research on the European MatrixOn 15th November 2012, CRonEM (the Centre for Research on the European Matrix) had its official launch event at Europe House in London. The event was part of Politics Month and attracted a diverse audience of policy-makers, academics and general public. The event asked: “has the EU passed its sell-by date?” The question was debated by Sir Stephen Wall, CRonEM Advisory Board member and former Permanent Representative of the UK, and Dr Richard Corbett, member of the cabinet of Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council. Sir Stephen Wall has published on Britain’s struggle to find a happy place within Europe, whereas Dr Richard Corbett has been an outspoken critic of the United Kingdom Independence Party. A video clip with filmed debate is available at www.surrey.ac.uk/cronem
From left: Sir Stephen Wall (CRonEM Advisory Board member and former Permanent Representative of the UK), Prof Alex Warleigh-Lack (CRonEM Executive Director) and Dr Richard Corbett (member of the cabinet of Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council)
About CRonEM: Researching how European integration shapes the way we live
CRonEM is a new multidisciplinary research centre housed in the School of Politics. At CRonEM, we research European integration as a matrix of overlapping layers of governance, institutions and processes that shape how people of this continent live their lives and are governed, as well as how Europe engages the rest of the world. We understand the EU as a core part of this matrix, but not as a synonym for it. CRonEM organises a series of research seminars, an annual conference and other events aimed at outreach beyond academia, particularly in the Surrey region.
Politics Newsletter
www.surrey.ac.uk 3
Doctoral Matters Doctoral Seminar DaysThe last Doctoral Day took place on 27th February, with a full programme of students presenting. These events start with a light lunch before kicking off with research presentations that stretch through the afternoon, to be followed by a drink at Wates House for those inclined. These seminar days are of great importance in order that staff can be familiar with what PhD students are studying, as well as to give the doctoral students practice in presenting and critical feedback on their thesis. All staff and PGR students are expected to attend. PGT students may also attend if they wish. The next Doctoral Seminar Day is scheduled for 12th June.
Postgraduate Research ConferenceThe 3rd Postgraduate Research Conference (Inspiring Research) was held on the 29th – 30th January and was again a great success, with interesting keynotes by Nigel Biggs, Dr Malcolm Parry OBE, and Professor Steve Goss, as well as an interesting evening event with Jim Al-Khalili. Presenters from the School of Politics included Sam Cooke, Katharine Wright and Stavroula Chrona, who all presented well and received useful feedback. The University will look forward to running it again next year.
Studentships and ScholarshipsThe FAHS Faculty Studentship Programme (FSP) closed-off on 2nd February and the final date for the Doctoral Training Centre Scholarships was 22nd February.
Viva SuccessesTwo recently completed viva-voce exams have resulted in PhD awards to John Turner and Anne Bostanci. John’s viva was on the 21st January. His PhD thesis is titled: ‘Historical Ambitions Meet Contemporary Obstacles: The Salafi Jihadist Challenge to the International System and The Role of US Hegemony’. The thesis asks, what are the social, ideological and historical trends that have brought Salafi Jihadism into conflict with the US at the turn of the 21st century? He proposes that one of the primary factors driving Salafi Jihadist violence against the United States and its allies lies in an incompatibility between the contemporary international system and the Salafi Jihadist vision of an Islamic political order. John has been a PhD student and Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) here in the Department of Politics since 2008. Jack Holland, who examined the viva, said: ‘John’s thesis is excellent. It persuasively explains the competing, historical geopolitical imaginations and aspirations that underpin the war on terror’.
Anne Bostanci defended her thesis on 12th February. The title of her thesis is ‘Telling Stories about EUrope: Political Myth, Identity and the Public Relations of the European Union’. The thesis investigates the imaginary of Europe presented in the European Union’s public relations efforts in the form of political myths. It starts from the premise that narrative accounts such as this imaginary are drawn on by individuals as well as collectives in the construction of identity in political communities and provides an interdisciplinary theoretical framework that accounts for cognitive and performative processes of discursive identity construction. The empirical material drawn on comprises examples of the EU’s political marketing material; namely, a large number of its public relations brochures. Resulting from a critical discourse analysis of this material, the study outlines a typology of the affective narratives that make up the EU’s myth-complex, summarises their underlying ideological cluster, and identifies the political function fulfilled by a number of communicative strategies employed – all of which may contribute to constructions of European identity in the image of the EU.
MARK oLSSendiReCtoR oF tHe doCtoRAL PRoGRAMMe
Anne Bostanci, Doctoral Researcher in the School of Politics
Politics Newsletter
4 www.surrey.ac.uk
The University of Surrey School of Politics PhD students Anne Waqar, Katharine Wright and Adele Stanislaus have won a coveted British International Studies Association, Post Graduate Network (BISA-PGN) award for their conference proposal ‘Behind the Lines: Gender in the Bunker in Defence and Security Studies’. The proposal fought off tough competition from PhD students throughout the country competing for the £2000 sponsorship offered for a postgraduate conference. Such was the standard of the proposal applications that the BISA –PGN committee decision makers decided to split the prize with another proposal from postgraduate students at Warwick University.
Out of the Bunker, and Forward in Attack! Gender Fights Back
The one-day conference, to be held at the university on Wednesday 11 September 2013, aims to bring together postgraduate researchers to explore the crucial issue of the role of gender in Security Studies. The conference will engage with gender analysis of the narratives underpinning Security Studies to provide important insights into the dynamics of power in international politics.
Delegates at the conference will have the opportunity to benefit from keynote addresses by two
respected and renowned feminist scholars. Author of numerous books and articles, Jill Steans, Senior Lecturer in International Relations Theory at the University of Birmingham, will present the first keynote address. And Claire Duncanson, from the University of Edinburgh, an expert on nuclear proliferation, will offer her insights into gender and non-proliferation regimes.
The conference has three major security related themes, and the participants will address these in their presentation papers at the event.
Each of these themes reflects the research areas and interests of the PhD convenors of the conference. The first of these is Women in the Military. The papers on this panel will speak to wide-ranging issues such as the gender identity of female combatants, women’s military history, and the military as a gender actor.
The important, but much neglected issue of Gender and Non-Proliferation Regimes is the second theme. Feminist voices on nuclear weapons seem to have become peripheral to the wider debates on disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation regimes. This panel aims to provide a forum to focus contemporary feminist thought on issues such as the connections between masculinities and nuclear weapons, and gender perspectives on eliminating weapons of mass destruction.
The third and final theme is concerned with Gender and Security Institutions. The papers for this panel will highlight the significance of military and defence institutions in the normalising of hegemonic masculinity, and their role in the production of power in international relations. The analyses will explore the crucial
Annie WaqarDoctoral Researcher and Conference Organiser
Katharine Wright Doctoral Researcher and Conference Organiser
Politics Newsletter
www.surrey.ac.uk 5 www.surrey.ac.uk 5
issue of the prospects for transformative change in security thinking and practices.
The conference is a first for Surrey School of Politics PhD students. It provides a unique opportunity for the convenors to network with other junior scholars in International Relations, to stamp
their organisational and hospitality skills on the event, and for the School of Politics to demonstrate its interest and support for the network of new scholars in International Relations. It is also pleasing to know that a subject that is frequently on the periphery of International Relations is to scale the bunkers, advance to the front line, and fight
back the resistance to gender in International Relations.
AdeLe StAniSLAuSdoCtoRAL ReSeARCHeR
Co-oRGAniSeRS And FeLLoW PHd StudentS: KAtHARine WRiGHt And Annie WAQAR
School of Politics Call for Papers
Postgraduate Academic Conference
Behind the Lines: Gender in the Bunker of Defence and Security Studies?
University of Surrey, Guildford (UK)Wednesday 11th September 2013, 08:45 to 18:00
The School of Politics at the University of Surrey hosts a conference for allpostgraduate researchers with an interest in gender and international security.
This one day conference, funded in part by the British International Studies Association Postgraduate Network (BISA-PGN), draws together postgraduate scholars from across the discipline of International Relations to examine the role of gender and power in shaping the production of dominant narratives in security studies, by addressing three themes: women in the military; gender and nuclear non-proliferation regimes; gender and security institutions. The conference provides an opportunity to discuss your research and network with researchers interested in issues relating to gender and security studies.
Keynote Speakers
Dr Jill Steans, University of Birmingham
Dr Claire Duncanson, University of Edinburgh
Please email your paper or poster abstract of no more than 250 words together witha short bio to:
For more information visit our website: www.genderandsecurity.wordpress.com
Co-Convenors: Ms Adele Stanislaus, University of Surrey; Ms Annie Waqar,
University of Surrey; Ms Katharine Wright, University of Surrey
Politics Newsletter
6 www.surrey.ac.uk
Conference Season: The International Studies Association, San FranciscoI’ve just got back from the International Studies Association annual conference in San Francisco. ISA is always an exciting trip, and this year, with over 6000 registering to attend, it was particularly frenetic. The lobby of Union Square’s Hilton Hotel resembled a bazaar come 5:45pm every day, and the bars and restaurants of Downtown were filled each night by conference-goers who had forgotten to take off their large name badges.
While the social side of conference going is hugely important, the formal academic offerings at ISA are particularly rich. Drs David and Kaeding both took advantage of the opportunity to attend ‘moose head panels’, where some of the discipline’s biggest names gather to perform their respective theoretical positions. Secretly, everybody hopes that their scholar of choice performs well, giving those on the ‘other side’ of the discipline a polite but robust intellectual kicking.
For me, the most interesting panels were located beyond those for which you had to queue to get in. One that I will remember in particular was placed in the dreaded ‘graveyard shift’ (on the Saturday afternoon) but still attracted forty eager scholars. It is not often you get to hear papers on the militarization of youth through computer games, the reproduction of ethnic stereotypes in TV’s ‘Breaking Bad’, and then listen to a ‘collective performance of silence’ on Radiohead’s Kid A album. Flanked by James Der Derian and Michael Shapiro, the panel comprised some of the foremost cultural theorists in the field of International Relations. And it offered something refreshingly different to round off four intense days of panels and papers.
My own paper was a co-authored affair, with Lee Jarvis from the University of Swansea, exploring the construction of Osama bin Laden’s death by the Obama Administration. We argue that bin Laden’s death has effectively been written out – forgotten – from the story of the operation and its implications, in order to legitimize the violence of the day, and veil the murky legality of the decision to act. Presenting
alongside colleagues from the British International Studies Association’s US Foreign Policy Working Group, we were fortunate to receive some useful feedback, which will be incorporated into the article prior to its submission to a leading journal.
Outside of the conference, San Francisco is a wonderful city, just as I remembered it from five years ago (the last time ISA was in town). As tends to be the case for Easter conferences, it coincided with the peak of my annual marathon training, ahead of the Virgin London Marathon at the end of April. Last year I managed to run from Mexico to ISA in San Diego. This year, with no international borders in sight, I set out to run across the Golden Gate Bridge. It was a wonderful experience and one I won’t forget in a hurry. And it was made even better by stumbling across the roadblock that was in place for President Obama’s imminent arrival in the Presidio neighbourhood, as he prepared to wine and dine wealthy Democrat donors. Beyond racking up the miles and attending a dizzying array of conference panels, I also got the chance to (finally) visit Alcatraz, which, I promise, is far more interesting than the film ‘The Rock’ would have you believe!
Applications for next year’s ISA, in Toronto, open again in June already! Before then, I’ve got some domestic trips to London, Birmingham, Warwick and Newcastle lined up. It’s unlikely, however, that any will quite match the buzz of watching 6000 IR experts simultaneously attempt to coordinate their evenings.
dR JACK HoLLAndLeCtuReR in inteRnAtionAL ReLAtionS
Politics Newsletter
www.surrey.ac.uk 7
Every good workshop should begin with a social. Therefore some of the participants at the Collaborative Research Network (CRN) for CSDP Strategy workshop met informally at a pub in Guildford the day before our first event which took place at the University of Surrey. Whilst a local newspaper photographer took evidence of our get-together, fortunately we didn’t end up in the local freebie rag! Following the usual teething problems (finding a laptop which works and locating tables – the original set up looked as though it was ready for a meeting of alcoholics anonymous (can you get an addiction to CSDP?)) the workshop started on 1st February with a panel on the state of the strategic debate (Galbreath, Dijkstra and Schmidt). This was followed by whether there were synergies between the EU’s various strategies (Longo, Merket, Barrinha; Carrapiço and Mawdsley) and the member states and their impact (Sweeney, Chelotti, Chappell; Petrov and Muniz; Faleg). The papers were from a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives and led to good discussions. Finally, Richard Whitman, Sven Biscop
UACES Common Security and Defence Policy Workshop
and Geoffrey Edwards contributed to a lively round table discussion. The formal parts of the programme were combined with breaks within the workshop which provided opportune moments for networking among the delegates. This was the first of three workshops over the next couple of years on the topic area which aims to facilitate further collaborative work including publications among the participants. We hope for further lively discussions at the University of Maastricht and in Brussels as well as at various conferences. In this respect some of us will be meeting again in May – this time in Baltimore, US for the EU Studies Association Conference where we have organised three panels. It felt rather ‘international’ to say “see you in Baltimore” when saying goodbye to some of the delegates.
dR LAuRA CHAPPeLLLeCtuReR in euRoPeAn PoLitiCS
Politics Newsletter
8 www.surrey.ac.uk
The Next Islamic Bomb: Rethinking the Iranian Nuclear Question
Iran must never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, so we are told. Nuclear non-proliferation has been considered for some time an absolute good in international politics. This notion gained further credence after the efforts of the A.Q. Khan network allowed an unstable state with deep tensions with its nuclear armed neighbour to obtain such capabilities. It is no doubt desirable, in an idealised international community, that all states would disavow the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and those who already posses such capabilities would lay down their arms for the cause of world peace, as Mikhail Gorachev so admirably suggested at Reykjavik in 1982. This seems, however, at least in the short term, somewhat unlikely. A nuclear armed Iran, it is asserted, would almost certainly present a threat to regional stability, the sovereignty of not only Iran’s Arab neighbours and Israel, but equally Europe and Turkey. Iran, of course, claims that its nuclear ambitions extend no further than the boundaries of civilian use, for energy
production. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against the pursuit of weapons, calling it a “grave sin.” Iran’s Parliament speaker Ali Larijani declared recently that, “We have repeatedly said that such weapons have no place in Iran’s nuclear doctrine.” However, this thinly veiled deceit seems scarcely plausible from a regime that not only openly espouses its regional hegemonic ambitions, denounces the validity of the Israeli state, actively supports its enemies, and feels threatened by not only great powers, its neighbours, and the undoubtedly nuclear capable Israel, but as well its own domestic population. The question that must now be thoughtfully considered is not just what can the international community really do to persuade Iran, but as well, why is Iran pursing nuclear weapons capabilities in the first place? If we can understand why Iran wants the bomb, then it is possible we can more thoughtfully consider how to ensure such weapons are never used.
Politics Newsletter
www.surrey.ac.uk 9
In the first instance, it is necessary to at least consider what it is that “we” can do. Apart from military conflict it would seem that dissuading Iran from its nuclear ambitions is distinctly unlikely, through carrots or sticks. Conversely, it would not seem difficult to sell the argument that war with Iran would likely in the long run be more detrimental to regional and world security than Iran actually obtaining nuclear weapons. The security threats are obvious, 1) Iran could use nuclear weapons against its Middle Eastern neighbours. 2) Iran may aid terror organisations with this capability. Neither of these assertions warrants a great deal of merit. Whatever the ranting of the clerical establishment or the often misquoted but often repeated belief that Iran is making plans to “wipe Israel of the map,” Iran’s hostility towards the West and its neighbours, Iran remains a rational actor. Either of these provocations would result in foreign policy suicide. Iran’s ability to project its power compared to that of the West is minimal. Its use of these weapons, or the choice to supply Hezbollah with such capabilities would result in consequences that would far outweigh any gains. Iran may be a state with hegemonic ambitions, driven in part by an ideological position, but the Iranian leadership is not suicidal.
So why does Iran want the bomb? The most obvious answer is that joining the nuclear club serves as a significant deterrent for those who suggest that military action is not, “off the table.” Observation made even more ominous by the presence of US forces in the region, and of course the worst kept secret in the Middle East, Israeli nuclear weapons. Second, it is a matter of prestige for a regime which seeks to legitimise itself in terms of not only in the eyes of its domestic population, but also aims to reassert itself as a significant regional power in the eyes of the international community. In both cases obtaining nuclear weapons is symbolically valuable. Short of armed conflict, then, it seems that sanctions, condemnation, threats of war, inspections and politely asking will not put the genie back in the bottle. Which leads this discussion back to where it began, asking what can “we” do.
So often forgotten in great discussions about the questions of international politics are the realities of domestic politics. Iran is a diverse and complex political entity. The generation that ousted the Shah from power and swept the country with revolution is long since disillusioned with the failed promises of the Ayatollahs. 84% of Iran’s population are literate,
compared to the regional average of 62%. 71% per cent are urbanised and the internet it widely available in all major cities and is increasing in rural areas. 25% of Iranians with post secondary education have lived abroad. 64% of the Iranian population is under 30, the same demographic that protested the overthrow of Mossadegh that brought Shah Pahlavi to power and the same that ushered out the Shah for Khomeini. The Iranian government is deeply divided not only between reformists, revolutionaries and conservatives, but equally between the clerical establishment, the President, the military, the Revolutionary Guard and other elements of the government. Iran has a highly developed civil society with a population that is showing increasing dissatisfaction with its political elites and an eagerness to engage with the West. However, as much as these factors would seem to point to regime change, or at least reform, threats from outside Iran’s borders too easily stir nationalist sentiment and brings the old spectre of imperialist intruders to the forefront of Iranian politics. For some it may be too much of an act of faith to leave Iran to its own devices. However, an absence of faith in the Iranian people may only bring escalated tensions with greater consequences than recent history has observed.
JoHn tuRneR doCtoRAL ReSeARCHeR
Politics Newsletter
10 www.surrey.ac.uk
Rights and Democracy in the Arab Spring: Is this their Liberal Hour?
One question that is still to be asked regarding the series of rebellions and protests in the Middle East that have come to be known as the Arab Spring concerns the possible parallels that can be discerned with those great liberal revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
At a first look certain similarities seem obvious. The rebellions of the Arab Spring, manifesting themselves across the Arab world in countries as different as Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Bahrain and Syria, have been a demand expressed for both liberty and rights more generally. Perhaps, what has been most common across all these countries has been a demand for
certain specific freedoms which have been essentially economic and political. On the one hand they have been a call for economic entitlements to a decent living and viable future; on the other, and related to this, a questioning of the role of the state with concern to its legitimacy. Peoples in these Arab nations have, for really the first time in any major vocal way, come to question the state according to its justification for rule as well as for the ancillary privileges it confers on certain elite groups who have historically participated in rule, monopolized access to the power institutions whereby rule is conducted, and seen it as their largely undefined right to be able to continue to rule. For common to all of these Arab states has been a new demand that their states extend rights more generally to the population, and institute democratic mechanisms of accountability, transparency and representation to all, as well as justify their legitimacy in terms of such criteria.
No more obvious example is the case of Egypt which saw the end of the 30 year rule of Hosni Mubarak and his replacement, eventually, with a democratically elected legislative led by the Freedom and Justice Party and President Muhammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood. The same is true, despite the differences in the forms of state formation and civil society of these countries, with Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia, Libya, and Syria. What has taken place and continues still, have been protests concerning the rights of individuals as citizens concerning democratic representation, as well as economic and political entitlement and inclusion more generally; demands that each individual, race and religious grouping, should have a fair and equal right to participation and assured rights of future continuance, based on transparent and generally accepted ideas of legitimacy, which motivate this historical juncture such demands.
A further parallel between the rebellions of the Arab Spring and the seventeenth century revolutions consists in a reconfiguration of the dualities in the relation between representation and divine power. Just as Locke argued against Robert Filmer and the doctrine of the divine right of kings to open up and extend a space for popular representation and political obligation grounded in the individual, so too, a singular commonality of the Arab Spring has been a protest by the citizenry on behalf of securing a greater accountability of rulers to the demos in a refashioning of the basis of political legitimacy, away from justifications in terms of caste, tribe, family or religion. Such protests were not against religion per se, but rather for a re-spatialisation or re-positioning of the religious in relation to the secular whereby both the manner and rationale for governance will be rendered newly accountable to the people as citizens in what must now be seen as the emergence of a new, albeit early, form of social contract. Influenced and inspired by the messages emanating from new forms of electronic and digital technology which communicate comparative models of global governance experience and rights, Arab peoples have begun the slow demand for secured rights against oppression, or, indeed, as is just as likely, from being simply ignored,
Politics Newsletter
www.surrey.ac.uk 11
as well as new demands of justification by rulers for the rule they maintain and the basis by which they adhere to power. Affinities with the earlier liberal revolutions and movements of change should be carefully qualified, however. Although these new demands can be represented as an expression of liberal rights and freedoms, they are of a narrower scope than those theorized by Locke and which came to prevail in the West, through the revolutions of 1688, 1776, and 1789.
By correctly understanding the call for freedoms and state accountability as a limited demand to increase individual rights of citizenship within a limited sphere we can more easily make sense of episodes such as the Dutch cartoons uproar. Although positive political and economic rights are being demanded, the rebellions must be seen as a qualified re-alignment of the relation of the secular in relation to religion. What are not being granted are rights of open expression in relation to sacred values or texts. In the Arab world, the type of liberty being called for excludes such hurts. As a further corollary of course, the parallel rise of violence concurrent with the demand for rights testifies to the absence of any institutionalized principle or mechanism which has agreed recognition or acceptance for the management or processing of such discontents. Needless hurt to other peoples’ religious views in acts of gross insensitivity by proclamations through the public media must surely be seen as akin to gross violations of legitimate privacy, whether via phone hacking or with the assistance of a powerful telephoto lens. In this sense, we could say that the new demands of the Arab world should not be read as a blanket demand for liberty which tolerates either cultural or social insensitivity or hurt and that violence will be a likely result of such reckless irresponsibility. The liberty and rights sought can thus be seen to constitute a necessary realignment of the secular and the religious at a particular historical juncture without eradicating the demands for respect, responsibility, caution, and care.
Within this context we can understand also what perhaps may emerge in respect to democracy. If our analysis is correct, then calls for greater democracy are of a potentially different sort to those models that have been implemented in the West. What is being called for is more limited mechanisms of transparency and legitimacy concerning political representation and state power, and individual rights and freedoms must be interpreted in this light. Seen in this light, it may be that what transpires in the Arab Spring is an attempt to balance the values of liberty with community responsibility in a way altogether different to what we in the West have historically understood that dividing line to be.There are many other misunderstandings associated with the vagueness and generality of the concept of democracy. It is certainly far from clear that any simple, liberal-capitalist, Western, view of democracy can be straightforwardly exported to other parts of the world. Much clarification is indeed called for. There is always a potential problem with a conception of democracy as ‘rule by the people,’ lest, as has frequently happened, the majority in a society should act in illiberal or grossly unjustified ways. It is in addressing this type of problem that the philosopher Ronald Dworkin, in his recent book, Justice for Hedgehogs (2011, pp. 384 – 388), rejects majoritarianism as the basis for democratic decision-making, preferring what he calls a ‘partnership’ model of democracy. On this basis, he is willing to support practices, such as judicial review, which do not have ‘majority support’ or which are not subject to ‘electoral validation.’ The argument against majority decision-making is simply that majorities are not always right.
The Arab Spring shows a new consensus on these values now emerging in a global world more interconnected than ever before under the impetus of new technologies of communication and publicity. Although the crucial issues and values will be mediated both culturally and historically in very different ways, hopefully they permit enough convergence to enable globally constituted panels to express judgments upon the practical workings of democracy if and when it errs. Rather than a partnership between different status and employment groups from different levels of society, as Dworkin suggests, what rather is required are overlapping networks representing the diversity of the world’s citizens organized variously in a plurality of cross-checking constituencies and structures. What is needed to consolidate the expectations and stirrings of the Arab world then is the participation of refereeing bodies that can be seen to represent a genuine national non-partisanship in the opinions rendered.
PRoFeSSoR MARK oLSSen & JoHn tuRneR (doCtoRAL ReSeARCHeR)
Politics Newsletter
12 www.surrey.ac.uk
Critical Terrorism Studies Field Trip to the British Transport PoliceOn the 18th March, students studying the Critical Terrorism Studies module with Professor Marie Breen-Smyth were invited to take part in a field trip to the British Transport Police (BTP) Headquarters in London for an insight into the role of the BTP in counter-terrorism, which included the chance to handle police firearms and armoury, and witness an explosives search dog demonstration.
After a rough start, thanks to train delays, we finally arrived at the BTP Headquarters in Blundell Street. Inside, we had to register and were led to a conference room where a presentation regarding the role of the BTP in counter terrorism as well as their counter terrorism strategies and units were outlined. From the presentation, we learnt that the BTP’s role is primarily focused on protecting the railway network across Britain. The railway system is vulnerable because of the lack of compulsory identity and luggage checks, its open space and, of course, the economic imperative to ensure the safety of billions of people who use the railway network every year. In 2012, 1.3 billion rail journeys were made as well as 1.1 billion on the Tube. The risks on the UK network were highlighted, with a particular attention to unattended items, deliberate hoaxes and overreaction, which may lead to station closures. Finally, the BTP’s counter terrorism strategies were explained, which involve reducing the risk of attack by terrorists, reassuring the public, minimising disruption, creating a hostile environment for terrorists with the use of patrols and CCTV and, most importantly, being flexible to the terrorism threat level, adjusting priorities and the ability to handle both normal crime and terrorist incidents.
After the presentation, we were then taken upstairs to the museum where there were posters and displays on the history of terrorism and terrorist organisations, procedures for dealing with unattended items, along with equipment available to the BTP for determining chemical and radioactive explosives. This aspect intrigued the group and many asked meaningful and insightful questions. In this part of the tour, the inspectors talked us through the history of terrorism, as well as recent threats and incidents, such as Al Qaeda and the July 7th bombings in London. We were then introduced to the standard “HOT” procedure to determine the risk of unattended items. The procedure involves assessing whether the item is Hidden, whether it is Obviously suspicious and whether it is Typical of its surroundings. Afterwards, we were shown equipment used to detect chemicals and radiation as well as x-rays, including a 3D X-ray, which are used to scan suspicious items without opening them.
After the little exhibit, we were then shown the armour and firearms, including the chance to actually touch and hold some of the weapons. The BTP historically had no armed unit and delegated to the Metropolitan Police until the 2008 Mumbai bombings, which targeted railways. After that, it was seen as necessary to have an armed BTP unit and £6.5 million was spent on training. The armed unit now patrols nine stations in London. The inspectors went on to explain the strictness of firearm control, including a valid firearms licence which officers had to maintain as well as a strict procedure for obtaining weapons. Many of the weapons, such as Tasers, also keep track of when it was used for investigation later. The cornerstone of British weapons policy is justification for using these weapons and the BTP are certainly not exempt. There must be justification for using these weapons in real life situations and the inspectors wasted no time in explaining to us how essential this rule was to them.
Finally, we were shown different types of explosives, such as Ammonium Nitrate, TNT, C4, PE4, TATP and SEMTEX. And, to wrap things up, a dog by the name of Cassie was called in to demonstrate her capabilities in sniffing out SEMTEX explosives hidden in the room. The dog excitedly carried out her task, guided by her trainer, and soon sniffed out the explosives and was given a tennis ball to play with as a reward. The BTP originally had
Politics Newsletter
www.surrey.ac.uk 13
six dogs but that has now expanded to over twenty. They are primarily used on routes and in buildings, as well as scanning people for suspicious items.
Overall, this field trip gave all of us a deeper insight and understanding of the BTP and their role in counter terrorism as well as the tools available to them to do just that. I would like to thank Inspector Dixon and his colleagues for showing us around and giving a fascinating insight into their work. I would also like to thank Professor Marie Breen-Smyth for her efforts in organising this field trip. Hopefully, next year’s cohort will be able to visit and experience the same thing.
FRedeRiCK WonGLeVeL 6 Student
Seeing in the New Year with a Conference on Political Thought
Just while everyone else was still scoffing the last of the Christmas pudding and still sobering up from the New Year’s Eve party, I was packing my overnight bag to take the one and half hour train ride from Guildford to Oxford for the 2013 Political Thought Conference, held at St Catherine’s College from Thursday the 3rd to Saturday 5th of January. At these conferences, all sessions are plenary and consist of a single paper followed by discussion. As is normal for political theorists, one arrives to attend the first paper at 4.30pm proceeded by registration and followed by a drinks reception and dinner. The paper by Lea Ypi from LSE was titled ‘On trade and teleology: the role of commercial relations in Kant’s philosophy of history’. After dinner had wiped old Kant from one’s mind, Patchen Markell from Chicago presented ‘The surprising Platonism of Hannah Arendt’ after which everyone gravitated to the bar to continue their New Year’s celebrations. The next day (Friday) Robb Judd from UCL presented ‘Playing Kant at the court of King Arthur: Why Rawls and Williams are closer than you might think’, Duncan Bell from Cambridge presented on ‘Racial Utopianism and the Elimination of War’, Anne Phillips on ‘Revisiting Humanism’, and Alan Finlayson (UEA) on ‘In Defense of Parliamentary Rhetoric’. These were followed on the Saturday by Ruth Kinna (Loughborough) on ‘Nihilism Before Nietzsche: imitation, art and life’ and Margaret Moore (Queens University Ontario) on ‘Global Justice and Territory’. The Conference is organised by the Association for Political Thought for Britain and Ireland, the Convenors were Gary Browning, Oxford Brookes, and Elizabeth Frazer, Oxford; and the Academic Convenors were David Owen (Southampton) and Dan Butt (Bristol). Overall, a nice way to start the New Year…
PRoFeSSoR MARK oLSSen
Politics Newsletter
14 www.surrey.ac.uk
On the Receiving End:First meeting of the international team in Surrey
In early December 2012, researchers and film makers from universities in Serbia and Palestine travelled to Surrey for the first meeting of the international team involved in researching local perspectives on international intervention. Colleagues from the Faculty of Media and Communications of Singidunum University (Belgrade), from Birzeit University in Ramallah, and Al-Azhar University in Gaza travelled to the UK to meet with a team in the School of Politics, in order to plan the next phase of a collaborative project funded by the British Academy and supported by the British Council.
The project On the Receiving End: Towards More Critical and Inclusive Perspectives on International Intervention is designed to build a partnership between the University of Surrey, Singidunum, Al-Azhar and Birzeit in both teaching and research. The project is driven by a common desire to develop more critical work on international intervention and to include the perspectives of those on the receiving end of such intervention in a literature that currently is entirely focussed on elite perspectives from largely Western and Northern points of view. The project aims to assess previous practices of international intervention, record local experiences in areas which have witnessed the effects of intervention and set these alongside the opinions of UK policy makers.
Students at each institution can become involved in the project through participation in the research training provided at each institution, and then by participating in documenting local perspectives on intervention. These views will be recorded both in written and audio-visual forms. The materials generated by the students will be based on the primary research and reading they have undertaken, with Surrey students focussed on the views of UK policy makers, whilst Palestinian students and those in Serbia focus on local views from the receiving end.
The project aims to produce film and video outputs as well as the more traditional scholarly outputs. It is also planned to hold two summer schools, the first of which will be held during the second year of the project in Belgrade, and the second in Birzeit during the final year, with a one-day event in Al- Azhar in Gaza. The University of Surrey is currently investigating the provision of access to their MA in international intervention via distance learning, and similar possibilities for the other participating institutions will be explored throughout the duration of the project. In the end, it is hoped that this project will lead to a more substantial research project focused on global legitimacy and international intervention.
Two days of intense meetings resulted in more clarity in respect of the definitional and role related aspects of the project, and a more concise timeline in which various aspects of the project will be completed. It was agreed that perspectives on intervention were greatly influenced by context, and that researchers based in a post-conflict society (Serbia), as compared with those living as occupied populations (Palestine), or in a Western context (Surrey) would necessarily not only see intervention differently, but define it according to their own local priorities and perspectives. The introduction of diverse perspectives on intervention will serve to challenge over-generalisations about intervention and contribute specificity and contextualisation not only to the work of the project but also to wider understandings of intervention as a whole.
The project team anticipate further local discussions with other colleagues beyond the immediate project team, in order to build more specific and better contextualised and nuanced understandings of attitudes to and consequences of international intervention. The wide variety of experiences of intervention, even between the Palestinian participants, where Gaza has experiences distinct from those in the West Bank, offers the possibility of enriching understandings of and the motivations, methods and consequences of intervention. Following the Surrey meetings, the international team emerged with a shared perspective of the roles and operations within the project and clarity about the contribution the project work can make to deconstructing over-generalised
Politics Newsletter
www.surrey.ac.uk 15
understandings of intervention and developing a more calibrated account which is sensitive to national, regional and other differences on intervention. Plans for locally based research carried out by the partners in the project will provide a good start to achieving this ambition. Researchers in Belgrade, for example, are engaged with the question, ‘what do we know about intervention?’ with the possibility of exploring that question in order to delineate and record experiences of everyday life during a decade of intervention. Ultimately this will expand the current literature on intervention as a whole.
During the visit, colleagues from Palestinian universities participated in a Round Table event to which Surrey staff and students together with all the universities in the region were invited. The Round Table addressed the issue of the ‘Prospects for a Palestinian State’ which was attended by over a hundred people and a lively discussion took place. It was immensely refreshing to have a debate informed by up to date perspectives on the role of the Palestinian Authority, the position of the Israeli, US and UK governments and the other abstentionists in the vote on Resolution 194 at the UN from scholars from the region. This not only proved to be a great success with the students, but also with the scholars who were impressed by the interest shown by students and staff from across the university and beyond.
International colleagues were also entertained by Surrey’s new Pro Vice Chancellor for International Relations, Professor Vince Emery, and his staff in the International Relations Office. The value of international collaboration in enriching and diversifying our research is supported by Professor Emery and his staff across the University as a whole.
Surrey staff look forward to ongoing and fruitful collaboration with our colleagues in the project. More information about the project will be posted regularly on the cii website, and the websites of the other participating institutions. The project also has a Twitter hashtag - #ReceivingEnd - and a closed Facebook group is planned for the near future.
Cii – tHe CentRe FoR inteRnAtionAL inteRVention in tHe SCHooL oF PoLitiCS, uniVeRSitY oF SuRReY
The project is funded by The project is supported by
Politics Newsletter
16 www.surrey.ac.uk
Visit to the International Relations Office
Project team members with Pro Vice Chancellor for International Relations, Professor Vince Emery (in the middle)
Project team members:
Sitting from left: Dr Orli Friedman (CFCCS, Singidunum), Dr Ipshita Basu (Surrey), Ms Lois Davis (Surrey) Standing from left: Prof Marie Breen-Smyth (Surrey), Dr Maxine David (Surrey), Prof Bassem Ezbidi (Birzeit), Dr Mkhaimar Abusada (Al-Azhar), Ms Ina’am Al Obaidi (Birzeit), Ms Dunja Resanović (CFCCS, Singidunum) and Ms Sam Cooke (Surrey)
From left: Prof Bassem Ezbidi (Birzeit) and Professor Sir Mike Aaronson, Executive Director of the Centre for International Intervention
Photographs from “On the Receiving End” Visit
Politics Newsletter
www.surrey.ac.uk 17
Making Politics WorkRecently, I’ve been able to get out of the office and into other peoples’ office instead. To clarify, they’ve invited me to talk to them, rather than anything nefarious.
What’s of particular interest to me is that these people work in national and European institutions, doing the work that gives me and my colleagues such interest as academics.
In the classroom, it’s often simple to think and talk about politics as a purely abstract activity or something of no particular consequence. We only have to look at the world around us to see how misguided that is an approach.
In short, politics matters to our daily lives, on matters big and small.
The lesson that has particularly struck in my recent visits has been that too often we underestimate the importance of practice over theory. Put differently, simply finding a solution that will be good enough takes priority over finding one that speaks to an integrated worldview that marries strategic vision with intellectual, theoretical and practical rigour.
The reason for this is simply that the world is rather more messy in practice than it is in theory. There’s all the office politics, the personalities, the previous policies and commitments, the knock-on effects, the impact of the media and other commentators, not to mention all the other stuff that goes on in peoples’ lives. Once you’ve factored in all of that, there’s not too much time to reflect on whether you’re a realist or a neo-realist and how this will affect whether you push a particular policy option.
If we want to understand how politics actually works, then we need to engage with the messy realities of practices just as much as we do with the high theory.
It also requires that we understand that politicians and bureaucrats are people, just like us. Just as you don’t consciously attempt to reflect your social constructivist leanings into the management of your daily routine (I’m guessing), so too civil servants don’t assiduously apply principal-agent theory when completing the form for new office supplies.
As psychology has long understood, and other social sciences are increasingly recognising, people take mental shortcuts and use heuristics to find some way through all of these difficulties. That’s why political life rarely fits a theoretical model and why we would all do well to get out of the classroom more often.
dR SiMon uSHeRWooddiReCtoR oF LeARninG & teACHinG
Politics Newsletter
18 www.surrey.ac.uk
Reciprocity as the basis of European integration
In recent weeks, I’ve been caught up in a number of conversations about how the EU works. One common theme running through these discussions has been the idea that any one country (usually the UK in these discussions) is being ‘forced’ to do things by the Union and that without that pressure this country would be able to run its affairs as it sees fit, without ‘interference.’
This provokes a number of responses from me.
Firstly, the EU is only a coercive system in so far as member states allow it to be. They create the Union through the treaties and reserve the right to amend those treaties as they see fit. Moreover, they hold the ultimate sanction of leaving the Union. But the fact that they don’t should suggest that the benefits outweigh the costs, in a global sense.
This leads to a second point. Integration is not always about winning: that’s why we have majority voting, so that we can overcome opposition. Therefore, it is to be expected that on some things, some states will lose out. But that comes with the much larger benefit that these same states will win on other matters. The Union is a big package deal, where states trade off costs to secure benefits.
Let’s take the UK. It does lose out on matters such as agriculture or financial regulation, but it has also been able to secure a functional internal market, the primacy of a NATO-led European defence, the introduction of subsidiarity and – more prosaically
– improved management in European institutions. The popular debate about the costs of membership remains essentially at the level of budgetary contributions, rather than the consideration of non-monetary aspects and so tends to ignore such matters.
Put differently, the Union doesn’t look like any one member state, but rather like a mix of all of them. Certainly, larger members have more influence, but that’s just as true for the UK as it is for France or Germany.
This is reciprocity in action: I give, so that you may give.
And this is really at the core of my position in the debates I end up having. If the UK (or anyone else for that matter) doesn’t engage with the bargaining, then why should anyone else? Imagine a friend who never showed any interest or flexibility in what they wanted, and to whom you would always have to cleave if you want to do something with them. You’d maybe tolerate it a few times (perhaps they have great conversation/connections), but it would be both
Politics Newsletter
www.surrey.ac.uk 19
boring and annoying, and at some point you’d find a friend who wasn’t such a pain.
States aren’t people, but the general point holds: there’s only so far that diffidence and unwillingness to compromise will take you, even if it does mean you can stay true to all your interests.
And even that’s not the case.
If the UK did leave the EU, it would still need to decide on some form of relationship. I’ll not go into the options here, but in short the UK would still be geographically next to a huge market and a significant international political actor, and good relations are always preferable to bad ones. With that in mind. what incentive would the EU have to accommodate all the UK’s demands for access and/or influence, notwithstanding the desirability of accessing British markets? That’s reciprocity in action, again, by the way. And because it’s in action, and because access is desired by both sides, we would expect a price to be extracted, either via financial contributions (à la Norway) or via a lack of institutionalised consultation
(i.e. you have to take what’s given to you on specific regulation).
Even if nothing could be agreed, British firms would still want to sell into the EU, so would need to conform to EU standards (which are currently also UK standards), so there’d be no incentive to not continue to follow EU standards, even outside the Union: predictability trumps independence.
Doubtless, I’ll have more of these conversations in the weeks and months to come. Maybe more people will come to see that being king of nothing isn’t quite as good as it’s cracked up to be.
dR SiMon uSHeRWoodSenioR LeCtuReR in PoLitiCS
This piece is based on a contribution to the School of Politics’ blog (http://www.uniofsurreyblogs.org.uk/politics/), where colleagues write on contemporary topics.
Graduation! Postgraduate Degree Ceremony, April 2013
The views expressed within the political articles are those of the individual authors and not the School of Politics or the University of Surrey.
We welcome pieces that invite response and dialogue.
What is the value of your education, relative to other things? In one of the more depressing news stories to come out of my home country since the onset of the economic crisis, the Irish government is considering selling off its national forests to aid its quest for solvency. The deal considered would grant private companies and foreign investors harvesting rights for 80 years and would make Ireland the only country in the developed world without nationally owned forests. The proposed dividends of such a deal? About enough money to cover three weeks of interest payments on the nation’s debt.
It would seem to indicate that something has gone seriously wrong with market valuation of public goods in the midst of the crisis. Ireland’s green space is obviously not just a vital component of the economy through the tourist industry, but is a huge part of the Irish cultural identity. It begs the question of how we determine the value of social, cultural and economic goods in the midst of crisis.
Challenging the existing, market dominated rationale can hardly be considered radical anymore. Just recently, Bill Gates has expressed his frustration with the skewing of social priorities that occurs when we abide only by market imperatives: “The malaria vaccine in humanist terms is the biggest need. But it gets virtually no funding. But if you are working on male baldness or other things you get an order of magnitude more research funding because of the voice in the market place”. Currently more money is invested in the search for a cure to male pattern baldness than for either HIV or Malaria. The Global Forum for Health Research has decried the fact that only 10% of global health research is devoted to diseases afflicting 90% of the world’s population. Does this indicate that the market has a holistic understanding of value?
As students, we are probably all at some stage asking ourselves what value we have in an austerity economy. Students have taken a savage/’perfectly legitimate’ (depending on your perspective) portion of the weight of cuts in this crisis which has led to many public debates about the value of higher education. What I say here, I say in the hope of supporting those of you who listen to detractors of a University education and feel disheartened. Higher education has been a cornerstone of social development in this country for a very long time. Like Ireland’s forests, the value of your education is not reduced simply because of the dominance of particular ideological narratives that can see it in no other light than as a commodity. From my perspective, the pillaring of students and the education programs they hope to pursue is the fairly predictable result of the abject refusal by neoliberalism’s proponents to challenge their paradigm in the wake of a crisis for which it itself is largely responsible. What you are doing is not intrinsically less valuable just because higher education is perceived an easy target in a crisis. All that has changed is the narrative.
Of course, it is important to be aware of how the jobs market interprets your degree, which is why it is so important that whatever you chose to do, you do it well. But, if you feel like the knowledge you are gaining isn’t considered a useful commodity then remember, we can’t all work in scalp fertilisation – but you could be doing something much more valuable.
CiARAn GiLLeSPie doCtoRAL ReSeARCHeR
Ireland Can’t See Woods Through Trees, Can Students?
