The Case of the Blair Government and Bush Administration 20

Constructivism, Contestation and the International Detention Regime: The Case of the Blair Government and Bush Administration 2001-2006 Submitted by Jodie Anstee, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Politics, September 2008 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (signature) ......................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor Theo Farrell, Dr Milja Kurki, Professor Tim Dunne and Professor David Armstrong for all their intellectual support and guidance during the course of writing this thesis. I would also like to thank Jocelyn Vaughn for all her comments, stimulating discussion, and peer support, as well as Rob Anstee, whose broader support has been crucial from the start of my PhD journey right through to completion. 2 Abstract The international detention regime has been placed under a considerable amount of strain in the context of the war on terror. Political elites in both the USA and UK have significantly challenged accepted standards of appropriateness regarding detention, even though these states are traditionally strongly associated with the promotion of human rights internationally. Such defections and contestations present researchers with an intriguing process to understand, as these practices, by definition, challenge our settled assumptions about the post Cold-war international order. This thesis examines one element of this puzzle, assessing how the normative constraints associated with the international detention regime were negotiated by the Blair government and Bush administration so as to allow for contestation and apparent defection in 2001-2006. Generally, the IR literature on norms has focused on their constraining power, considering simple dichotomies of compliance and defection, often drawing on pre- defined interests to explain behaviour. Whilst constructivists have recognised the constitutive nature of norms, they lack a persuasive account of the micro-foundational processes of norm influence which prevents them from engaging with the contestation of seemingly embedded international normative standards. In order to address this problem I draw from the social identity approach in social psychology, where scholars focus on the multiplicity of social identities and the interactive processes of norm influence and contestation at a micro-foundational level. I demonstrate that by firmly embedding individuals in the broader social identities context and focusing on the management strategies employed by political elites we can better understand the nature of normative constraint in these cases, and whether or not an enabling framework for such counter-normative practices was established. This thesis aims to bridge some of the gap that exists between research that focuses on international norms and that which concentrates on state leaders, demonstrating the importance of the broader interactive processes of contestation, generally missing from current constructivist accounts of international norms. 3 Table of Contents Introduction 5 Chapter 1: Norms, Influence and Expectations 19 Chapter 2: The Contribution of Psychology 61 Chapter 3: The Social Identities Contexts of the USA/UK 91 Chapter 4: The Management of Social Identities: The Case of the UK 117 Chapter 5: The Management of Social Identities: The Case of the USA 159 Conclusion 206 Bibliography 215 4 Introduction 'I was in extreme pain and so weak that I could barely stand. It was freezing cold and I was shaking like a washing machine. They questioned me at gunpoint and told me that if I confessed I could go home’ (Tarek Dergoul, a British citizen held in Guantánamo Bay, cited in Rose, 2004a) ‘Nobody should feel defensive or unhappy about the quality of treatment they’ve received. It’s probably better than they deserve’ (US Vice President Cheney, cited in Kampfner, 2004: 150) The international detention regime has been significantly undermined in the course of the US led war on terror. 1 Images of torture, abuse, and the harsh conditions of detention have, in certain spheres, come to dominate the representation of counter- terrorism policies. Many of the measures sought clearly indicated a revision of international standards of appropriateness. What has been particularly surprising about such practices is the centrality of the UK and USA. Their detention policies have created a vast amount of controversy and normative debate amongst academics, lawyers, politicians, journalists, and the general public. These practices do not appear to fit well with the liberal democratic identities of these states, and indeed their association with human rights promotion and moves to eradicate torture in the world. Indeed, they significantly challenge our expectations due to the strong ‘negative’ association between torture and identity, as indicated in the statement ‘the torturer has become like the pirate and the slave-trader before him, hostis humani generic , an enemy of all mankind’ (Kaufman, 1980). The rhetoric and policies of political elites in the UK and USA, with regards to detention, suggest an unravelling of established codes of practice. This is in a global context where human rights progression has long been assumed, and for states where human rights have a recognized role in political preferences and policies (Hunt, 2007). Whilst, an overwhelming amount of anti-terror legislation has been enacted across the world since the September 11 th attacks in New York in 2001 (Ramraj, Hor, and Roach, 2005), the detention practices of representatives of the UK and USA in 2001-2006 are particularly challenging. This is because political elites from these states have previously been instrumental in the creation of such normative regimes, and are 1 For the sake of clarity, this thesis uses the term ‘international detention regime’ to refer to the international normative regime prescribing minimum standards for detention and prohibiting torture. I employ the term ‘regime’ to indicate a normative and constitutive collection of internationally recognized standards. This differs from the neo-liberal use of the concept, where regimes are understood in an institutional and regulative manner. The international detention regime that I refer to in this study is defined in detail towards the end of Chapter 1. 5 generally seen as norm innovators in international society. Due to their positioning, their policies have a significant influence on other states in terms of example-setting and demonstrating standards of appropriateness, challenges to which are very difficult to reverse (Roach, 2007). The US detention facilities and procedures at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are perhaps the most visible symbol contesting the international detention regime, which has been accompanied by the resurrection of debates on torture and accepted interrogation practices. These behaviours, which are contrary to general expectations, create a considerable demand for researchers to understand the processes involved; in particular, how international normative regimes actually influence the behaviour of political elites given such stark examples of contestation. This thesis addresses the following overarching question: How have the normative constraints regarding detention practices been negotiated by the USA and UK in the war on terror so as to enable contestation of the international detention regime? For example, how can we account for the processes that allow for contestation at a micro-foundational level? How was constraint manifest in this period given that it looks like the regime failed? And, were the political elites in the USA and UK successful in creating an enabling framework to allow for sustainable action counter to the normative regime? The literature in international relations (IR) provides us with different ways to understand the seemingly counter-normative practices concerning detention sought by the UK and USA in 2001-2006. Insights from realist and neo-liberal scholars have focused on power and pre-defined interests to explain defections from international norms (Goertz and Diehl, 1994; Slaughter and Raustiala, 2002). However, such approaches rely very heavily on a simple dichotomy between compliance and defection, which obscures value conflicts and isolates states and state leaders from the broader normative context. They neglect to engage with the processes of contestation that accompany seemingly counter-normative behaviours, and debates about what exactly is in the state’s interests in these circumstances. Constructivist scholars have on the other hand advanced our understanding and appreciation of international normative regimes by recognising their constitutive, as opposed to purely regulative nature, and demonstrating their importance in the conduct of international affairs. They have not, however, provided a persuasive account of the processes by which these normative standards are embedded as well as contested, allowing for fluctuations in influence. The need to account for revisionism, defection 6 and contestation is a gap that is identified in the literature (Cardenas, 2004, Dunne, 2007).2 Constructivist

Load more