Terrorism and the Postcolonial ‘State’
21 Feb 2018-pp 110-125
TL;DR: The authors provides the prevalent terrorism discourse and asks that the gaze be turned inwards to understand the legacy of colonial control and marginalisations, which legitimises territorial nation-states and challenges alternative ways of collective political and cultural existence.
Abstract: Postcolonial states have demonstrated more faith in the nation-state than their Western counterparts. This chapter provides the prevalent terrorism discourse and asks that the gaze be turned inwards to understand the legacy of colonial control and marginalisations, which legitimises territorial nation-states and challenges alternative ways of collective political and cultural existence. It addresses the Indian state's responses to this armed rebellion, labelled as left-wing extremism or terrorism that challenges the territorial sovereignty and integrity of India. The terrorism discourse has largely determined the self-perception of postcolonial nations and their anxieties around their statehood; they in turn continue to develop specific genealogical narratives about terrorism and its encounter with postcolonial modernity and its violences. The idea of nation as a shared community has been the most important inspiration for the resistance of colonial societies against imperial control. Prominent scholars of nationalism have envisaged the concept of 'nation' as an 'imagined community'.
Citations
More filters
01 Jun 2020
TL;DR: The authors examines the field of counterterrorism and race in the context of international relations (IR) scholarship and identifies noteworthy texts for examining situated knowledge and individual experiences of counterterrorism as a form of IR-relevant inquiry.
Abstract: This article examines the field of counterterrorism and race in the context of international relations (IR) scholarship The article identifies noteworthy texts for examining situated knowledge and individual experiences of counterterrorism as a form of IR-relevant inquiry Drawing on the fields of postcolonialism, sociology, and legal and terrorism studies, this paper identifies the real-world challenges that academics of counterterrorism and race are responding to, the analytical frameworks they utilise, and the key questions they collectively pose for IR The article finishes by presenting the problem of how to reconcile two understandings of race: one, upheld by those with state-endorsed counterterrorism knowledge with more academic understandings of race, and another disconnected from a wider politics and submerged in colonial/imperial histories
17 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that counter-terrorism is a political activity which contributes to the production of a specific Nigerian identity by designating north-eastern Nigeria and the Lake Chad Basin as "ungoverned" spaces.
Abstract: ABSTRACT This article explores a neglected question in ongoing debates about counter-terrorism efforts in Nigeria: How is Nigeria’s counter-terrorism strategy discursively framed? The article argues, in part, that Nigeria’s counter-terrorism strategy is essentially a political activity which contributes to the production of a specific Nigerian identity by designating north-eastern Nigeria and the Lake Chad Basin as “ungoverned” spaces. This construction of identity through geography, though, has important implications for policy, identity and security in Nigeria, and beyond. This study of Nigeria, I also argue, presents an opportunity for a much-needed conversation between CTS and postcolonialism for broadening knowledge on discourses around (counter-)terrorism. Drawing upon the concept of space in postcolonial scholarship, this article demonstrates how the relationship between geography, identity and subjectivity offers a broader framework for articulating continuing, and recent, discourses of counter-terrorism. It demonstrates how Nigerian counter-terrorism discourse reproduces, and transforms, well-known Euro-centric and state-centred discourses which intersect with colonial and imperialistic ideas (and practices). In doing so, the article makes two notable contributions: first, it provides a sustained focus on official articulations of counter-terrorism in Nigeria by examining important primary data. Second, in mobilizing the concept of space in postcolonialism, it facilitates crucial theoretical reflections within (critical) terrorism studies.
4 citations
TL;DR: In this article , the authors argue that deprivation of citizenship is an ongoing force of colonial violence and that the removal of citizenship rights is not merely an aberration of the “normal” rules of citizenship but bound up with ongoing forms of colonial dispossession informed by racial hierarchies, the regulation of belonging and mobility.
Abstract:
This article argues that deprivation of citizenship is an ongoing force of colonial violence. By exploring the case of citizenship stripping in India's northeastern state of Assam, the article proposes that the removal of citizenship rights is not merely an aberration of the “normal” rules of citizenship but bound up with ongoing forms of colonial dispossession informed by racial hierarchies, the regulation of belonging and mobility. Interdisciplinary scholarship on deprivation of citizenship remains largely Euro/Western-centric and fails to consider how deprivation works as part of broader patterns of colonial-modern dispossession. By drawing on Gurminder K. Bhambra's (2015) work on the colonial constitution of citizenship and Aurora Vergara-Figueroa's (2018) work on deracination, we treat deprivation of citizenship as a legacy of the colonial and racialized structure of citizenship itself. By using Assam as a case study, the article examines how practices of deprivations are tied to the histories of dispossession, extraction, and control, which underpinned the historical emergence of citizenship in (post)colonial India and beyond.
TL;DR: This paper examined what it means for both immediate and conceptual resistance to Islamophobia if it and its racialization are considered as part of a wider global history of Muslims engaging in "black" as a mode of imperial resistance.
Abstract: Abstract Motivated by Kundnani's [Kundnani, The Muslims Are Coming! (London, 2015), 10] commentary that racialization within counterterrorism politics reflects “an imperialist political culture,” this article theoretically engages with and expands from the political moment that was Muslim counterterrorism policymaker Baroness Sayeeda Warsi speaking at the launch of Runnymede's Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us All (A 20th Anniversary Report) in 2017. Noting Warsi's appeal to political blackness made during her speech contesting state-sponsored Islamophobia, it is argued that embedding Warsi's rhetoric in a wider analytical framework organized around black-centric traditions prompts a wider conversation about the intricacies of racism within Britain and its international underpinnings. Inspired by the arguments of Aydin [Aydin, The Idea of the Muslim World (Cambridge, 2017)] and Narayan [Narayan, “British Black Power,” The Sociological Review 67 (2019): 945–67], this article examines what it means for both immediate and conceptual resistance to Islamophobia if it and its racialization are considered as part of a wider global history of Muslims engaging in “black” as a mode of imperial resistance. By examining the relationship between anti-imperial blackness and Muslimness, this article offers a unique angle to understand the presence of the international, as several groups across the world endeavor to resist the racism of national security regimes. Motivé par le commentaire de Kundnani (2015, 10) selon lequel la racialisation au sein des politiques de lutte contre le terrorisme refléterait « une culture politique impérialiste », cet article s'engage et se développe sur le plan théorique à partir du moment politique qu'a constitué le discours qu'a prononcé la baronne Sayeeda Warsi, législatrice en charge de la lutte contre le terrorisme musulman, lors du lancement du rapport marquant le 20e anniversaire du rapport Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us All du think tank Runnymede en 2017. Tenant compte de l'appel de Warsi à la « blackness » politique lors de son discours contestant l'islamophobie soutenue par l’État, cet article affirme que l'intégration de la rhétorique de Warsi à un cadre analytique plus large organisé autour des traditions centrées sur les « Noirs » invite à un débat plus large sur les complexités de l'antiracisme britannique et international et son détachement problématique des histoires anti-impérialistes. Il s'inspire des arguments d’ Aydin (2017) et de Narayan (2019) et examine ce que cela signifie pour la résistance immédiate et conceptuelle à l'islamophobie si celle-ci et sa racialisation sont considérées comme faisant partie d'une histoire globale plus large de musulmans s'engageant en tant que « noirs » comme mode de résistance à l'impérialisme. Examinant la relation entre la « blackness » anti-impérialiste et la musulmanité, cet article offre un angle unique pour réfléchir à la solidarité antiraciste tandis que plusieurs groupes du monde entier s'efforcent de résister au racisme des régimes de sécurité nationale. Este artículo está motivado por el comentario de Kundnani (2015, 10) de que la racialización dentro de la política antiterrorista refleja “una cultura política imperialista” y en él se detalla de manera teórica el momento político que supuso la intervención de la baronesa Sayeeda Warsi, responsable de la política antiterrorista musulmana, durante el lanzamiento de la islamofobia de Runnymede, y se extiende a partir de entonces: Continúa siendo un desafío para todos (informe del vigésimo aniversario de 2017). Al señalar la apelación de Warsi a la negrura política que hizo durante su discurso en el que impugnó la islamofobia patrocinada por el estado, se argumenta que incorporar la retórica de Warsi en un marco analítico más amplio organizado en torno a las tradiciones centradas en la población negra da lugar a una conversación más general sobre las complejidades del antirracismo tanto británico como internacional y su problemático desapego de las historias antimperialistas. Este artículo está inspirado en los argumentos de Aydin (2017) y Narayan (2019), y en él se examina lo que significa para la resistencia tanto inmediata como conceptual a la islamofobia si esta y su racialización se consideran parte de una historia global más amplia de musulmanes que se involucran en cuestiones de “negros” como un modo de resistencia imperial. Al examinar la relación entre la musulmanidad y negrura antimperial, en este artículo se detalla un punto de vista único para reflexionar sobre la solidaridad antirracista, ya que varios grupos en todo el mundo se esfuerzan por resistir el racismo de los regímenes de seguridad nacional.
TL;DR: The authors examines the political and legal controversies around a counterterrorism programme conducted by the Dutch government to support the so-called moderate groups in Syria between 2015 and 2018, and unpack how the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs constructed and justified their definition of material support for moderate groups deployed in this programme, against existing definitions of terrorism funding and terrorist groups embedded in European counterterrorism financing regulations.
Abstract: This article examines the political and legal controversies around a counterterrorism programme conducted by the Dutch government to support the so-called moderate groups in Syria between 2015 and 2018. The controversies centred around the question how the Dutch government was able to define and support armed moderate groups in Syria and distinguish them from terrorist organizations. The objective of the article is to take up this question and unpack how the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs constructed and justified their definition of material support for moderate groups deployed in this programme, against existing definitions of terrorism funding and terrorist groups embedded in European counterterrorism financing regulations. Connecting to the debates around materiality in both International Relations and International Law, this article follows the material-semiotic practices through which definitions of terrorism come into being. The empirical analysis draws on interviews with legal professionals, policy documents and court transcripts, and provides a detailed overview of how multiple and even conflicting definitions of terrorism and terrorism financing are constructed by the Dutch state. Taking this interdisciplinary approach to materiality and based on the empirical analysis, I propose that this controversy on defining terrorism and terrorism financing reflects a Eurocentric assumption about the knowledge and responsibilities of the Western state in the War on Terror. While the empirics are grounded in the Dutch context, my analysis is relevant for multiple European countries who engaged in similar operations between 2015 and 2018, as well as for future counterterrorism efforts targeting terrorist groups.