Bryan Mabee

Discourses of empire: the US ‘empire’, globalisation and international relations

The contemporary normalisation of discussing United States foreign policy in terms of imperialism and empire is of great interest to all scholars of international relations, and the purpose of the present article is to analyse this trend in terms of the broader context of the role of empire in international relations theorising. There is a deeper logic to the recognition of a truly imperial republic than just contemporary foreign policy, as the US as empire seems to convey a richer understanding and a deeper resonance of Americas contemporary role. What is also striking are the ties between empire and globalisation, which are increasingly being recognised. The use of imperial language as a more general discourse questions the dominant assumptions in international relations concerning the state of anarchy in the international system, without abandoning the dynamics of power and coercion that are part and parcel of imperial relationships, which can help to convey a richer sense of the dynamics of the international realm.

Varieties of militarism: Towards a typology:

Militarism – a mercurial, endlessly contested concept – is experiencing a renaissance of sorts in many corners of the social science community. In critical security studies, the concept’s purview has become increasingly limited by an abiding theoretical and analytical focus on various practices of securitization. We argue that there is a need to clarify the logic and stakes of different forms of militarism. Critical security scholars have provided valuable insights into the conditions of ‘exceptionalist militarism’. However, if we accept that militarism and the production of security are co-constitutive, then there is every reason to consider different manifestations of militarism, their historical trajectories and their interrelationships. To that end, we draw on the work of historical sociologists and articulate three more ideal types of militarism: nation-state militarism, civil society militarism and neoliberal militarism. We suggest this typology can more adequately capture key transformations of militarism in the modern period as well as inform further research on the militarism–security nexus.

Pirates, privateers and the political economy of private violence

Historical accounts of private violence in international relations are often rather under-theorised and under-contextualised. Overall, private violence historically needs to be seen in the context of the relationship between state-building, political economy and violence, rather than through the narrative of states gradually monopolising violence. Pirates and privateers in late-seventeenth and early-eighteenth century Europe were embedded in a broader political economy of violence which needed and actively promoted ‘private’ violence in a broader pursuit of power. As such, the de-legitimatisation of piracy and privateering were the consequence of a number of interlinked political economic trends, such as the development of public protection of merchant shipping (through the growth of centralised navies), the move away from trade monopolies to inter-imperial trade, and the development of capitalism and industrialism. Present forms of private violence also need to be seen as part of a broader historical dynamic of war, violence and political economy.

Re-imagining the Borders of US Security after 9/11: Securitisation, Risk, and the Creation of the Department of Homeland Security

The articulation of international and transnational terrorism as a key issue in US security policy, as a result of the 9/11 attacks, has not only led to a policy rethink, it has also included a bureaucratic shift within the US, showing a re-thinking of the role of borders within US security policy. Drawing substantively on the ‘securitisation’ approach to security studies, the article analyses the discourse of US security in order to examine the founding of the Department of Homeland Security, noting that its mission provides a new way of conceptualising ‘borders’ for US national security. The securitisation of terrorism is, therefore, not only represented by marking terrorism as a security issue, it is also solidified in the organisation of security policy-making within the US state. As such, the impact of a ‘war on terror’ provides an important moment for analysing the re-articulation of what security is in the US, and, in theoretical terms, for reaffirming the importance of a relationship between the production of threat and the institutionalisation of threat response. La unión del terrorismo internacional y transnacional como asunto clave en la política de la seguridad de EE.UU., por consecuencia a los ataques del 11/9, no sólo ha conducido a un nuevo replanteamiento de política, sino que también ha incluido un cambio burocrático dentro de los EE.UU., señalando un replanteamiento del rol de las fronteras dentro de la política de seguridad en los EE.UU. El artículo analiza el argumento de la seguridad de EE.UU. para examinar la fundación del Departamento de Seguridad Patria, extrayendo sustancialmente del enfoque a la ‘securización’ con base a los estudios de seguridad, indicando que su misión provee una nueva manera de proporcionar ‘fronteras’ a la seguridad nacional de los EE.UU. Por lo tanto, la securización del terrorismo no sólo se representa al señalar al terrorismo como un asunto de seguridad, sino que también se consolida con la organización de la determinación de políticas de seguridad dentro la nación estadounidense. Como tal, el impacto de una ‘guerra al terrorismo’ provee un momento importante para analizar la rearticulación de lo que la seguridad es en los EE.UU. y en términos teóricos, para reafirmar la importancia de la relación entre la producción de la amenaza y la institucionalización de la respuesta a la amenaza.

From ‘liberal war’ to ‘liberal militarism’: United States security policy as the promotion of military modernity

ABSTRACT The connection between liberalism and war has been a persistent recent focus in security studies. A large critical literature on liberal war has developed, ranging from viewing such wars as predicated on expanding spaces of capitalist accumulation to seeing them as techniques of a global liberal governmentality. However, this critical literature needs to be complemented by an institutional approach to militarism that links liberal war with broader societal dynamics of warfare. The article argues that the concept of ‘liberal militarism’ provides a means to better historicize and institutionalize liberal war beyond the sharp edge of military interventions, connecting liberal war to broader institutional manifestations of war preparations and war making, which are also fundamentally linked to liberal approaches to modernization. The article uses the example of the United States during the Cold War and after to demonstrate that liberal approaches to modernization were explicitly formulated as key to US foreign and security policy, a form of ‘military modernity’. The article further analyses US foreign policy in terms of the military modernity of ‘security assistance’ in the Obama administration. Seeing liberal militarism through the lens of US-led modernization efforts draws on important insights from the critical literature on liberalism and war, but emphasizes the historical institutionalization of military power as central to understanding its durability.

Globalization and Security

The previous chapter made a case for a historicized conception of state power, based on a neo-Weberian conception of the state. The security state provides an idealized model of the post-war transatlantic state, which provides a more robust model to examine in the context of increasing globalization. While the previous chapter laid the foundation for a historical understanding of the relationship between state and security, as well as the state and internationalism in the twentieth century, in the main it left out an account of the process of state change in terms of social power. The main argument about change in the previous chapter came from the reaction of domestic social forces to international interactions, found mainly in increasing intensified interstate wars, and an increasingly interdependent international economy.

The Security State and the Globalization of the Arms Industry

The previous chapter indicated the importance of the connection between globalization and security, highlighting the growing sense of global threat inherent in the discourse surrounding nuclear weapons. However, it also pointed to the paradoxical impact of global threats, highlighting the ways in which states have sought to mitigate global challenges through forms of state retrenchment. Additionally, this retrenchment demonstrates the continued importance of both globalization and nationalism (or fragmentation), which have both been crucial in understanding the dynamics of the security state. The focus of the present chapter is the contemporary predicament of the globalization of the arms industry, which provides another excellent starting point for an analysis of the relationship between security and globalization.

Global Migration, Security and Citizenship

The migration of peoples to different areas of the world has been important in the development of civilizations throughout history. Movements of people were not only crucial to survival, but also led to the development of new societies, and the dispersion of technologies and cultures.1 Since the development of the nation-states system, migration has taken on new significance. From the forced labour migration of slavery and colonialism to non-coercive labour migrations, the movement of populations as a result of war, and so on, migration has gone hand in hand with the development of contemporary nation-states. As Weiner describes it, the most distinctive feature of the various waves of migration of previous centuries ‘is that they changed the social structures, and especially the ethnic compositions, of both sending and receiving countries’.2 The movement of new peoples and cultures not only added to the productivity of states, it also led to new cultural dynamics, and resulting social structures; ‘in short, migrants create states, and states create migrants’.3

Conclusion: The Globalization of Security and the Future of the Security State

The goal of this book has been to chart the relationship between globalization and security, in order to assess the potential impacts on the ‘security state’. Globalization has had an important impact on security in terms of shifting the organization of state power beyond the national level. However, the argument and evidence consistently showed that such shifts were the product of a tension between state power and the transnationalization of power, and as such, a constant strand throughout has been to emphasize the continuing political power of the state: not necessarily the continuation of the nation-state, but in terms of the transformation of the spatial reach of state power. If the development of nation-states was largely about the bounding of social power within the territorial borders of the state, globalization has primarily concerned the expansion of social power beyond and through the borders of the state. The study has indicated that such changes do not necessitate an end to the state as the institutional source of political power, but does have important impacts on the organization of states, pointing to the development of an increasingly integrated transatlantic region, and a potential scale shift of the governance of security functions. A restructuring of state power rather than the end of the state.

The ‘Security State’ and the Evolution of Security Provision

Security is at the very heart of contemporary political life. In the developed states of the North, most individuals’ security is provided by the state — from protection from the internal and external threat of violence to the provision of basic needs — and is therefore contingent on political relationships, mainly found in the link between citizen and state. The potential impacts of globalization, while not necessarily threatening the life of the state itself, are bound to have an influence on this vital area. However, the state itself is a historically constituted entity that has undergone changes throughout its history. The importance of this recognition is that the development of a theory of the globalization of security cannot be properly analysed without some idea of the interaction between state change and security in international relations.