Security and Empire: Mechanics of Securitization in Imperial Spaces

Security and Empire: Mechanics of Securitization in Imperial Spaces Security and Empire: Mechanics of man actions and perceptions. This understan- Securitization in Imperial Spaces ding of space thus allowed the presentations to transcend individual empires, and explore Veranstalter: Benedikt Stuchtey / Andrea overarching realities of (in)securities. Examp- Wiegeshoff. University of Marburg; Pe- les were taken from a number of empires, inter Haslinger, Herder Institute, Marburg cluding the British, Dutch, French, Japanese, /SFB/TRR 138 „Dynamics of Security“ Russian, and U.S. Datum, Ort: 16.03.2016-18.03.2016, The first panel centred on punitive spaces: Bericht von: Stephen Foose / Florian Neiske, penal colonies and prisons. Thematically, the Faculty of History and Cultural Studies, Uni- relationships between punitive measures, pe- versity of Marburg nal locations and security of empire were examined. JONATHAN DALY (Chicago, USA) Empires desired security, empires struggled presented on the deeply rooted use of exile for security, and empires established security. as a means for security in Russia. Conside- Both at home and on the spot decisions were ring the territorial space available and lack of made, actions were taken, and consequences sufficient administrative structures, he argued were evaluated. Nevertheless, security remai- that exile was perceived to embody a cost ef- ned elusive, contested and dependent upon fective and humane form of punishment. In perspective. With this in mind, empires were this way, exile was used (by authorities) as a on the other hand fragile, porous and them- means to create security in the centre. At the selves created insecurity. The complex reali- same time though, this form of removal had ties between concepts, creation, implementa- the potential to create insecurity in distanced tion and outcome of security influenced his- spaces, where exiles could evade close state torical processes. Furthermore, they present control. Moving from open spaces to enclosed an analytical opportunity to explore acade- ones, STEPHAN SCHEUZGER (Bern, Swit- mic connections between security studies and zerland) discussed the global spread of pri- empire studies: How did empires respond to sons in the 19th century and its connection to issues of security and insecurity in different security. Prisons, he contended, represented imperial settings? Did empires compete or multifunctional institutions built around con- cooperate with each other? What exchanges cepts of social-control. Depending on avail- took place between them? able resources, they could be used to deter Exploring the relationship between these political disagreement and criminality, act as two academic fields acted as catalyst and space for individual reformation, or to pro- guideline for the international conference Se- vide labour. In colonial contexts, for examp- curity and Empire: Mechanics of Securitiza- le, the practice of penal labour was empha- tion in Imperial Spaces, held at the Her- sized. Regarding security and prisons, dis- der Institute for Historical Research on East courses tended to focus on the prevention of Central Europe in Marburg, Germany 16- jail breaks or external attacks, rather than on 18 March, 2016. After PETER HASLINGER ensuring state/imperial security. Given this, (Marburg, Germany) offered a warm wel- Scheuzger suggested that security is an insuf- come to start the conference, BENEDIKT ficient analysis-category for prisons and pro- STUCHTEY (Marburg, Germany) and AN- posed social-control as a better alternative. DREA WIEGESHOFF (Marburg, Germany) In the keynote lecture, MARTIN THOMAS expanded on such questions and outlined (Exeter, UK) discussed violence, civilians and larger concepts of empire and security, re- insecurities of colonial counter-insurgency. spectively, in their introductory remarks. To Thomas presented colonial violence, not as a encourage comparative perspectives, the fi- binary of for/against colonialism, but rather ve panels of the conference were organized entwined with local rivalry and militia frag- around various imperial spaces, within a ti- mentation, similar to civil war frameworks. meframe of 1850 to 1930. Space was concep- This dynamic lead to a reduction of civili- tualized both as a material dimension as well an space, where involvement in the conflict as a social construction, created through hu- could be avoided. In response, governments © H-Net, Clio-online, and the author, all rights reserved. enacted lawfare, or emergency laws that lega- Floating spaces drifted away to subversive lized excessive action, further decreasing civi- meeting points in the next panel. Both papers lian space. Unable to declare neutrality, civili- examined surveillance measures by empires ans were coerced to position themselves in the beyond their own borders, as they tracked the conflict and became targets. Colonial conflict movement of presumed subversive individu- and governmental permissive violence, there- als. To begin, KATHLEEN KELLER (St. Peter, fore, denied civilian agency and closed space USA) discussed growing anxiety and prac- open to non-commitment. tices of surveillance in French West Africa. The next panel moved away from the fixed, The interwar period marked a time of crisis and explored floating spaces. Areas of mobili- for the French Empire, where uncertainty lead ty, the transportation of ideas and people, and to broadened concepts of suspicious activi- attempts to control or secure moveable ob- ties. In this context, authorities associated the jects were discussed. KRIS ALEXANDERSON spread of radical ideas with foreigners who (Stockton, USA) demonstrated how oceans displayed non-conformist behaviours. Foreig- and ships were perceived as potential areas ners were thus viewed as potentially dange- of danger. Using the example of Dutch ship- rous and disproportionately put under sur- ping companies in Asia, she discussed measu- veillance. Such measures, she argued, exem- res of on board surveillance and policing, ad- plified an ever expanding culture of suspici- opted to combat the spread of anti-west ideo- on, leading to exaggerated responses. Cros- logies. As part of this process, non-state ac- sing the Atlantic Ocean, SEEMA SOHI (Boul- tors, like captains and European crew mem- der, USA) presented inter-imperial security bers, were integrated into a larger network of practices aimed at the Indian anti-colonial colonial security practices. Alexanderson thus movement in the US. Using the example of in- illustrated how empires were active beyond ternational entry points, she outlined coope- their fixed borders. FRITHJOF BENJAMIN ration between the British, American and Ca- SCHENK (Basel, Switzerland) moved inside nadian authorities on surveillance and border the Russian empire and explored the ambi- control. Whereas for the US, anti-immigration guous connections between railways and se- and racism dominated the discourse, the fear curity. Railways, he argued, were seen as a of anti-colonial movements lead the British. modern tool of imperial rule, valuable for Yet shared ideologies of anti-radical repres- controlling space, transporting military forces sion warranted collaboration. Sohi’s examp- and goods, and encouraging territorial inte- le illustrated the imperial desire and ability to gration. Increased mobility, however, genera- practice security beyond their borders. ted new challenges, as people or ideas nee- Port cities, the topic of the next panel, re- ded to be monitored. At the same time, tracks presented contact zones not only of actors and trains became popular targets for attacks, or goods, but also diseases or ideas. MARK leaving railroads as a valuable, yet vulnera- HARRISON (Oxford, UK) began the panel ble tool. Using the Crippen Murder Case, RO- with his examination of the British Empire’s LAND WENZLHUEMER (Heidelberg, Ger- responses to the spread of cholera throughout many) illustrated the challenges of dealing the Asia-Pacific region. The spread, Harrison with the movement, control and access of in- argued, was at the time not viewed as a di- transit information. In the Crippenis case, the rect security issue, and questioned if securi- ship captain controlled the coming and go- tization of public health was relevant in the ing of information from on board, giving ac- 19th Century. Imperial authorities, rather, we- cess to both security forces and media out- re concerned about potential indirect conse- lets. At the same time constant reporting and quences, such as loss of economic influence emerging public interest established uncon- or reputation. Therefore, reactions were not trolled spaces, where reputations of metropo- consistent and depended on local circumstan- litan institutions were challenged. Wenzlhue- ces, as Harrison’s examples of Bombay (Mum- mer highlighted the difficulties and chances bai), Sydney, Calcutta (Kolkata) and Nagasa- of policing/securing under the watch of the ki showed. Illustrating the realities of securi- public eye. ty and disease from a different lens, JEONG- © H-Net, Clio-online, and the author, all rights reserved. Security and Empire: Mechanics of Securitization in Imperial Spaces RAN KIM (Oxford, UK) presented on the ex- ting within British India, Hyderabad’s bor- ample of Japanese controlled Dairen. During der became a contested area. By securitizing the early 20th Century, Dairen was hit by a their border, the British (Raj) looked to con- series of different diseases. Japanese authori- trol the movement of people and goods. How- ties were quick

Load more