This book explores how different publics make sense of and evaluate anti-terrorism powers within the UK, and the implications of this for citizenship and security. Since 9/11, the UK’s anti-terrorism framework has undergone dramatic changes, including with the introduction of numerous new pieces of legislation. Drawing on primary empirical research, this book examines the impact of these changes on security and citizenship, as perceived by citizens themselves. We examine such impacts on different communities within the UK, and find that generally, whilst white individuals were not unconcerned about the effects of anti-terrorism, ethnic minority citizens (and not Muslim communities alone) believe that anti-terrorism measures have had a direct, negative impact on various dimensions of their citizenship and security. This book thus offers the first systematic engagement with ‘vernacular’ or ‘everyday’ understandings of anti-terrorism policy, citizenship and security. Beyond an empirical analysis of citizen attitudes, it argues that while transformations in anti-terrorism frameworks impact on public experiences of security and citizenship, they do not do so in a uniform, homogeneous, or predictable manner. At the same time, public understandings and expectations of security and citizenship themselves shape how developments in anti-terrorism frameworks are discussed and evaluated. The relationships between these phenomenon, in other words, are both multiple and co-constitutive. By detailing these findings, this book adds depth and complexity to existing studies of the impact of anti-terrorism powers. The book will be of interest to a wide range of academic disciplines including Political Science, International Relations, Security Studies and Sociology.
This edited collection surveys how non-Western states have responded to the threats of domestic and international terrorism in ways consistent with and reflective of their broad historical, political, cultural and religious traditions. It presents a series of eighteen case studies of counterterrorism theory and practice in the non-Western world, including countries such as China, Japan, India, Pakistan, Egypt and Brazil. These case studies, written by country experts and drawing on original-language sources, demonstrate the diversity of counterterrorism theory and practice and illustrate that how the world ‘sees’ and responds to terrorism is different from the way that the United States, the United Kingdom and many European governments do. This volume – the first ever comprehensive account of counterterrorism in the non-Western world – will be of interest to students, scholars and policymakers responsible for developing counterterrorism policy.
This book is about the public language of the 'war on terrorism' and the way in which language has been deployed to justify and normalise a global campaign of counter-terrorism. It explains how the war on terrorism has been reproduced and amplified by key social actors and how it has become the dominant political narrative in America today, enjoying widespread bipartisan and popular support. The book also explains why the language of politics is so important and the main methodological approach for analysing the language of counter-terrorism, namely, critical discourse analysis. Then, it provides the comparison drawn between the September 11, 2001 attacks and World War II and the attack on Pearl Harbor. One of the most noticeable aspects of the language surrounding the attacks of September 11, 2001 is its constant reference to tragedy, grievance and the exceptional suffering of the American people. The book focuses on the way in which language was deployed to construct the main identities of the protagonists. It demonstrates how terrorism is rhetorically constructed as posing a catastrophic threat to the American 'way of life', to freedom, liberty and democracy and even to civilisation itself. The book analyses how the administration's counter-terrorism campaign has been rhetorically constructed as an essentially 'good' and 'just war', similar to America's role in World War II. Finally, the book concludes that responsible citizens have a moral duty to oppose and resist the official language of counter-terrorism.
Pakistan has achieved a number of important successes in its bid to curb domestic terrorism. 1 Some analysts have described the country's counterterrorism struggle as a success attributed to the predominant role of the military. 2 Indeed, the degree of security produced by the military-led counterterrorism (CT) campaign is noteworthy; it is equally true that this effort has concomitantly been subverted by other important actors in the social and political arena. 3 The prevailing environment can be conceptually termed as an
concerns topped the priorities of security in Japan, with terrorism coming in way down the list of concerns. However, in January 2015, news of a hostage crisis involving Japanese nationals held captive by the Islamic State (IS) in Syria was greeted by shock and bewildered surprise. Rolling media blanket coverage ensured that terrorism instantly rocketed up the security and public agenda. A typical news report suggested the brutal nature of the beheadings and videos provided a ‘shock to a country that can feel insulated from distant geopolitical problems’ and that Japan
This is not a temporary emergency requiring a
momentary remedy, this will last far beyond the term of my life.
(Sir Vernon Harcourt, 1883, speaking of the threat from
Fenian terrorism, cited in Staniforth 2013 : 3)
Despite the recent – and
In preceding chapters, we explored
the different ways in which citizens conceive of security and
insecurity, and the ways in which anti-terrorism powers are interpreted
and evaluated by UK publics, including in relation to their impacts on
aspects of citizenship. In this chapter, we now bring these analyses
together, examining the relationship between conceptions or
‘WAR ON TERRORISM’ is the most extensive
counter-terrorist campaign in history and the most important conflict
since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Its scope and expenditure of
resources are so great that in a few years it could soon rival the cold
war. In trying to make sense of this new historical era, there is a
temptation to focus solely on its most visible
Discourses on terrorism are not foreign to Colombian society. The word is used every day by politicians, state officials, academics, journalists, analysts and people in the streets. Every Colombian has grown up understanding that terrorism is part of everyday life. The people have been victims of a wide range of actors, including drug kingpins, paramilitary squads, guerrillas and even state forces. Car bombings, armed assaults in towns, assassinations, kidnappings and massacres are common themes in the daily news.
There are, as we have seen,
numerous reasons to take public understandings, experiences and
discussions of anti-terrorism powers more seriously than has been the
case to date. In the first instance, doing so offers opportunity, as
argued in Chapter 1 , for thinking through efficacy
and impact in this particular area of security policy. It also, as
outlined in Chapter 2