A podcast on "relativity of security: terrorism and counterterrorism"

The following audio file can be accessed through the link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10zTVw3vWBElsnHW6FV2jWsT-thWixKwB/view?usp=sharing 

And below is the transcript for the audio file. Hope you like it :)

Hey folks, welcome back to my podcast - International Relations with Anika! Today I am going to talk about one of my favorite topics - International Security Studies. When we hear the term ‘security’, especially in the context of IR, our mind jumps straight to the military and war, basically everything that is associated with state security. This is the realist approach, but in the post cold war era, this term has evolved to include a lot more concerns than just state security. There has been advocacy for both the broadening of the realm of security, where different kinds of pressing concerns are acknowledged beyond just military and state security, as well as the deepening of the realm of security, where more referent objects of the security concerns are addressed, including non-state actors, individuals, etc., as highlighted in the Krause and Williams summary on the evolution of security studies. Another important aspect of this is the relativity of security - to understand who is the referent object, which is the object to be protected, and who is the threat object. Other questions of how this security is ensured, for what purpose and by which security actors are also important ones to consider. Today I will discuss terrorism and counterterrorism from the perspective of relativity.

Terrorism, as a security threat, is a rather nuanced one. Although acts of terrorism have been happening throughout history, it became a top priority concern post 9/11. It isn't a traditional threat, because it is transnational in nature, and without a military base or a specific movement to target, it cannot be combatted as easily using traditional security approaches. The threat object in such cases are the various terrorist groups scattered all over the world, and the referent object is whichever area or group of people they decide to attack. Although the state, particularly the civilian population, remains the main referent object, acts of terrorism rarely threaten the entire state, and the unpredictability of their targets makes it that much harder to counter. The security of the civilians is ensured by the state usually, through state sanctioned counter terrorism encounters and operations. Though newer approaches are required to weed out potential terrorists or catch the perpetrators, the general approach  hasn’t strayed from military aggression and physical force. A good example of this would be the aftermath of 9/11 when the US responded with legislations, establishment of the department of homeland security, and military aggression, including the Iraq war. Through the concern of terrorism, we can see the broadening of security issues.

As terrorism became more prominent as a 21st century security threat, counterterrorism laws and practices have evolved with it. In the western countries specifically, large sums of money have been funneled into operations and intelligence missions. Making use of today’s globalization and technological advancement, officers are trained to combat terrorism, but there is another aspect to counterterrorism, in that these practices themselves can be considered a security threat. UN bodies and NGOs have documented extensive human rights abuses perpetrated under the pretext of combating terrorism, such as torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention, racial profiling, breaches of privacy rights and violations of due process rights and effective remedies. In this case, the threat object often becomes the state or the counterterrorism officials sent by the state, and the referent objects are the individuals targeted by these teams. In many cases these individuals are picked up and interrogated without much evidence, but even if they are rightfully identified as terrorists, every individual has inalienabe rights that should not be violated under any circumstances. While counterterrorism has been reformed to a certain extent through UN frameworks and international laws and regulations, there are still major loopholes in the legal frameworks of many countries that allow these violations to occur. The security of these individuals can be ensured through petitions and legal aid, although it is not always effective. Here, we can see the deepening of security, because the referent object has shifted beyond the state. An example of this is the detainees in Guantanamo bay, who have been awaiting trial or proper incarceration for the past two decades while being subjected to alleged human rights violations. 

A few interesting conclusions can be drawn from this analysis. The first is that in a single security threat, which was terrorism, there are multiple threat objects and referent objects, depending on which perspectve the situation is being looked at, whether from the perspective of the state, or the perspective of the individuals targeted by the state. This is a prime example of relativity of security, because the means of securing the referent object from a threat turned into a security threat itself. This way of examining security concerns is perhaps the best because it allows a deeper understanding of each situation without sticking to generalizations and conventional methods of solving the security issue. By looking at each case in a relative manner, the solutions also tend to be more effective and can help solve the threat in a longer term. The socio-political and economic dimensions of the referent object are also important. For example, methods to tackle public health concerns as part of human security in developing regions with poor infrastructure will be different from the methods used in developed western countries with good accessibility to resources. 

Another interesting observation is that the methods of ensuring the security in the two cases we considered were vastly different. In the former, it was through military aggression and with the help of significant funding, whereas in the latter, the methods are far less effective and drawn out. Therefore, we can see that the means of securing the referent object are not at the same level of effectiveness, nor is the authority of the security actors. Individual states are always more powerful than international agencies in terms of physical prowess and authority. These important questions examined through the lens of relativity make a big difference in understanding the security relations between states, within states, and between non-state actors, as explained very well in the Krause and Williams chapter.

With this, I will end today’s discussion, and I hope that I was able to do justice to a topic as complex and fascinating as International Security in such a short time. Tune in next week for another juicy topic, and till then, goodbye :)

References:

1. Krause, Keith, and Michael Williams. “Security and ‘Security Studies.’” The Oxford Handbook of International Security, 2018, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198777854.013.2 .
   
   

2. “Human Rights and Terrorism.” Icelandic Human Rights Centre. Accessed February 4, 2022. https://www.humanrights.is/en/human-rights-education-project/human-rights-concepts-ideas-and-fora/human-rights-in-relation-to-other-topics/human-rights-and-terrorism#:~:text=UN%20bodies%20and%20NGOs%20have,due%20process%20rights%20and%20effective .
   
   

3. Latif, Muhammad Ijaz, and Rehman Afzal Khan. “Tackling Terrorism: Traditional Security Approaches.” Pakistan Horizon 64, no. 2 (2011): 21–31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24711175 .
   
   

4. R. Richard Banks, Racial Profiling and Antiterrorism Efforts, 89 Cornell L. Rev. 1201 (2004) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol89/iss5/3
   
   

5. G. Patel, Tina. “It's Not about Security, It's about Racism: Counter-Terror Strategies, Civilizing Processes and the Post-Race Fiction.” Nature News. Nature Publishing Group, May 2, 2017. https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201731 .
   
   

6. The New York Times. “The Guantánamo Docket.” The New York Times. The New York Times, May 18, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/guantanamo-bay-detainees.html .
   
   

7. “The 9/11 Effect and the Transformation of Global Security.” Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed February 4, 2022. https://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/global-memos/911-effect-and-transformation-global-security .