Robin Cameron

A more 'human' human security: The importance of existential security in resilient communities

This chapter offers a revision of human security that can formulate how to prepare for, respond to and recover from natural disasters.

Bodies, Space and Politics: The Intensification of Spatial Control After 9/11

Where has foreign policy gone? The conventional wisdom of international relations (IR) once held that the territorially defined sovereignty was the basis for grounding of the pursuit of security. This sovereign territory defined by borders also corresponded with the legal exercise of sovereign authority within and in defence of its borders. The practice of foreign policy in this context was the pursuit of national interests abroad, defending against threats and negotiating beneficial agreements and alliances. The use of military force was used against those abroad; policing was for at home. The domestic and foreign faces of intelligence gathering were distinguished by assigning different agencies to these respective tasks. Broadly speaking, the strategic rationale of the military was focused abroad and the civil order role of policing was orientated inwards. It was perhaps never so simple. There were always exceptions and contestations of this way of viewing the world but it did constitute something of the theoretical and policy framework in which IR occurred. September 11, 2001 and the ensuing global wholesale reorientation of security apparatuses has seen policing functions occur abroad and military technologies employed at home.18 The lines demarcating inside and outside have blurred, as perceived ‘foreign’ threats of Islamic terrorism can occur domestically.

Foreign Policy as Domestic Discipline and Control

This chapter lays out a theory of how the effects of foreign policy can be understood not only between countries but also within countries. The first section highlights the limits and silences of traditional accounts of foreign policy when understood according to an ‘either foreign or domestic’ conception of global politics. This either/or conception of politics is grounded in the dichotomised understanding of sovereignty detailed in Chapter 1. Creating foreign policy within the confines of an ‘either/or’ mentality, where political space is either foreign or domestic, not only ensures that foreign policy takes on a bridging or protecting role, but continually affirms its function as a specific instrumental tool within orthodox IR. In doing so, foreign policy practice perpetuates this potent figuration of IR.

Conceptualising Foreign Policy and Social Control

This chapter examines a number of critical theories that highlight the effects of foreign policy on domestic social order. It foregrounds a range of methods that will be used in Chapter 3 to develop a framework that will be employed in the case study chapters of Part II. These approaches demonstrate the effects of foreign policy on social order by shedding light on the way that Enlightenment rationality and modern techniques of social regulation act upon the self. As discussed in Chapter 1, the advent of modern subjectivity enabled reason in individuals and productivity throughout society; an emancipation that was, however, subject to its own internal constraints and regulations. It is this other ‘dark side’, the dynamic of control and regulation within modern social processes, that this chapter is concerned with.

Populations, Health and Trauma: The Mass Psychological Effects Stemming from 9/11

This chapter addresses the wider social effects on the population that have resulted from the War on Terror. It seeks to bring to the literature on the psychological effects of terrorism and appropriate recovery techniques a reading that is sensitive to the wider social implications, particularly those of gender. The previous chapter located a number of spatial modes of regulation within domestic spaces, engendered places occupied by foreign policy. In this chapter, populations are regulated by the domestic operation of foreign policy. The previous chapter located a number of spatial modes of regulation within domestic spaces, engendered places occupied by foreign policy. This chapter examines how people, conceived as populations, are regulated by the domestic operation of foreign policy. It will demonstrate that in the aftermath of 9/11, the process of collective national recovery became a matter of security. Re-establishing a psychological normalcy among the domestic population is a way of expunging the effects of the attack on American soil by foreigners. The lingering psychological effects of 9/11 are a weakness and a sign that ‘the terrorists are winning’; the foreign is encroaching on the domestic. The binary of normalcy versus effects of trauma are once again, as in Chapter 5, overlaid with the geopolitical constellation of foreign threats. The goals of foreign policy inform social stereotypes of what it is to be normal. When this new ‘normal’ becomes a means by which to measure and regulate the population, it becomes akin to a biological fact because it starts to apply to a large number of people.

Sovereignty and the Modern Subject: Theory as Practice

Subjects of Security is concerned with developing an understanding of the ways in which a state’s foreign policy affects, and in particular contributes to the organisation of, its own domestic sphere. This proposition may seem at first entirely self-contradictory. After all, as those schooled in the dominant traditions of international relations (IR) would know, foreign policy, seemingly by definition, has an exclusive concern with the foreign, the international; that which is ‘outside’ the state. This chapter will challenge these perceived contradictions by posing the question, ‘Why do people think that foreign policy does not affect domestic order?’ In doing so, this chapter will highlight the fact that the processes which demarcate foreign and domestic policies exist and thrive within the foundations and practices of traditional IR theory. By demonstrating that the separation of domestic and international realms is an ongoing process of partitioning, this chapter will render suspect the proposition put forward by orthodox discourses of modern sovereignty that the domestic and international remain logically and naturally separate. Consequently, this chapter will demonstrate that the seemingly clear-cut divisions between the domestic and international realms bewilder attempts to grasp the complex practices of modern sovereignty.

Beyond Conspiracy? Cold War Antecedents of Foreign Policy Regulation

Subjects of Security examines how foreign policy pervades and structures domestic politics. Viewed in such terms, foreign policy cannot simply be seen as the external actions of states as agents of international relations (IR). It needs to be recognised equally as a discourse that both con strains and enables the actions of those within the state. Foreign policy creates structures within the state, which shape the behaviour of each citizen, in both overt and subtle ways. For instance, foreign policy determines what kind of actions are seen as acceptable in a particular national security environment, and what kind of language is acceptable as part of public discourse. Consequently, foreign policy infuses thoughts and actions; it exists as a generalised discourse of national security obligations, subtly informing the decisions and actions of each citizen.

Refusing to occupy ourselves with simplistic messages

One of the most important legacies of the Occupy Movement is the positive impact it has had on political discourse. In light of what at face value seems to be a thorough routing of formal organizations of Occupy, and a similar erosion of its public appeal, it has nonetheless had a significant impact on political debate, globally. These effects are still evident today, despite the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, the Occupy Movement was not mentioned by either presidential candidate in any major speech or policy announcement during the recent 2012 US election. Typically my approach to papers is to highlight what I see to be a problem, then offer a critical analysis that highlights a range of taken for granted practices, which are seen as unrelated but in fact perpetuate, or constitute, this practice, and then propose normative options that can be used to overcome the problem. Given the optimistic tone I am bringing to this paper I want to turn this approach on its head by addressing not a problem but a solution, namely what Occupy has achieved. I will be addressing initially what I see as a new political language and then turning to what I think can be described as a novel political form. Following this, rather than offer a critique I will counter some of the critiques of the Occupy Movement, specifically the accusation that the movement lacks a clear message and accompanying program of reform. Rather than a weakness, this is one of its strengths. Finally, rather than offering solutions, I conclude by highlighting what I see as the central problem that Occupy must overcome if it is to live up to the high ideals that it has set for itself. This is the problem of not being able to move beyond longstanding disagreements that prevent the ‘left’ from engaging what is traditionally understood as the ‘right’ of politics.