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-

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 to blame Chinese coolies, un- ever, for Hyderabad, the border was cruci- free migrant labourers, for the spread, leading al for everyday securities – food, health, and them to impose quarantine and health mea- work - of their population. Each state the- sures. Despite being labelled a security issue, refore had competing concepts of security, coolies were necessary for the labour force. with state security often creating insecurity Their need grew during wartime, as the fo- for people. Beverley thus reminded us of the cus shifted towards expanding labour mobi- importance of reflecting on the question of lization. The balancing act of imperial securi- ‘whose security?’. Continuing with the chal- ty issues and economic interests was central lenges of multiple sovereignties, MAURUS to Kim’s work. REINKOWSKI (Basel, Switzerland) presented DANIELA HETTSTEDT (Basel, Switzer- on the Ottoman imperial presence in Egypt. land) next presented on the duality of inter- He claimed, formal Ottoman control was ra- imperial cooperation and competition in the ther weak. Such weakness allowed foreign neutral city of Tangier. Without formal con- empires to gain influence and informal power, trol, security issues and common problems as the British did in the late 19th century. lead to the formation of platforms for nego- Foreign influence lead the Ottomans to exami- tiation. Cooperation, however, could not be ne the security of their position as sovereign separated from competition, as Empires had power, as it was challenged from without and different reasoning for participating. A desi- within. The British aimed to protect their inte- re to ensure involvement was most often mi- rests, e.g. the Suez Canal, while internal Egyp- xed with a fear of exclusion. The erection of tian expansion into Sudan created its own se- the Cape Spartel lighthouse exemplified such curity issues. Through this, Reinkowski illus- imperial practice, where maritime security trated how multiple layers of sovereignty pro- brought multiple nations together to ensure duced competing securities. access to greater strategic interests. Turning Reflecting on the conference, the conclu- towards the east, KERSTIN SUSANNE JOBST ding panel debate aimed to not only ad- (Vienna, Austria) discussed competing narra- dress and answer the questions which spaw- tives of the Crimean city of Sevastopol and its ned the conference, but to discuss and ex- harbour. In an effort to challenge the success pand on the approaches and potential for fur- narrative so often found in Russian memory ther work. Introduced and chaired by Bene- regarding Sevastopol, Jobst compared aspira- dikt Stuchtey, the panel also included ECK- tions and realities surrounding the city. Suc- ART CONZE (Marburg, Germany), BEATRI- cess narratives emphasize the city as built out CE DE GRAAF (Utrecht, Netherlands) and of imperial victory, representing the symbio- MADELEINE HERREN-OESCH (Basel, Swit- ses between nature and Russian power. Rea- zerland). Throughout the discussion, the is- lity, though, reminds that Sevastopol failed to sue of whose security remained central. In im- become economically dominant, and was con- perial contexts, it was noted, (state) security quered by multiple foreign invaders, though often entailed implicit euro-centrism, produ- tales of Russian heroics during sieges persis- cing highly imbalanced views of security. To ted. counter this, furthering research into exami- Leaving the shores behind, the last panel nations of indigenous or non-state concepts of trekked across frontiers and borderlands. The security could be useful. Thereby, forcing re- thematic focus of the panel included notions conceptualization of what security (can) ent- of challenged sovereignty and fixed borders. ail(s). Concepts of security, therefore, it was ERIC LEWIS BEVERLY (Stony Brook, USA) said, could be expanded to include everyday concentrated on the subordinate, but formally concerns, perceived threats, and dangers. Mo- sovereign Indian state Hyderabad and com- reover, the issue of how the availability of re- plexities of local competing securities. Exis- sources could influence security perceptions

© H-Net, Clio-online, and the author, all rights reserved. and responses was raised. A proposal was Panel 2: Floating Spaces suggested that by potentially including fur- Chair: Anna Veronika Wendland (Herder In- ther semantic fields surrounding security institute Marburg) to analysis, narrowness could be avoided. At Kris Alexanderson (University of the Pacific): the same time, however, concerns were raised Subversive Seas. Transoceanic Policing and that such broadening of security has the po- Anti-Imperial Migrations in the Twentieth- tential to reduce its analytical precision. Century Dutch Empire The panel then discussed the potential rela- Frithjof Benjamin Schenk (University of Ba- tionship between empire studies and security sel): Connecting and Disconnecting the Empi- studies. It was proposed that security could re’s Peripheries: Imperial Railroads and Secu- be used not as a research topic, but as a lens rity in late Tsarist Russia to look at and analyse empires in their his- Roland Wenzlhuemer (University of Heidel- torical settings. Such an approach would in- berg): Policing Between the Ship and the troduce new research questions and encoura- World: The Crippen Murder Case 1910 ge comparative perspectives, both within and between empires. In comparing, the possible Panel 3: Subversive Meeting Points existence of multiple layers of security could Chair: Andrea Wiegeshoff (University of Mar- be exposed. While on the other hand, through burg) inter-imperial comparison, larger questions, Kathleen Keller (Gustavus Adolphus Colle- such as to the existence of an imperial security ge): A Culture of Suspicion and the Surveil- culture – either synchronically or diachroni- lance of Foreigners in Interwar French West cally, could be addressed and potentially ans- Africa wered. Members of the panel also addressed Seema Sohi (University of Colorado Boulder): areas that were missing, or underrepresented Repressing „Hindu Conspiracies“ from Laho- during the conference. Topics and questions re to San Francisco: Tracing the Inter-Imperial regarding gender, the environment or the role Collaborations of the British and U.S. Empires of individuals as negotiator between imperial and local actors, appeared only on the bor- Panel 4: Port Cities ders. Taking the presented works and the pro- Chair: Friedrich Lenger (University of Gie- posed areas for research, the panel concluded ßen) by highlighting the fruitfulness of combining Mark Harrison (University of Oxford): Disea- empire and security studies. se and Security in Britain’s Maritime Empi- Conference Overview: re: Cholera in the Asia-Pacific Region, c.1860- 1900 Welcome: Peter Haslinger (Herder Institute Daniela Hettstedt (University of Basel): Inter- Marburg) national Organizations as Inter-Imperial Ac- Introduction: Benedikt Stuchtey / Andrea tors? Negotiating Security at Tangier (Moroc- Wiegeshoff (University of Marburg) co), 1852-1914 Panel 1: Penal Colonies and Prisons Kerstin Susanne Jobst (University of Vienna): Chair: Benedikt Stuchtey (Marburg) Concepts of Internal and External Security: Histories of Sevastopol in Tsarist Times Jonathan Daly (University of Illinois at Chica- Jeong-Ran Kim (University of Oxford): Secu- go): Security on the Cheap: Exile in the Russi- rity and Disease in Japanese Controlled Dai- an Empire ren, 1900-1940 Stephan Scheuzger (University of Bern): Transforming Models of Social Control: The Panel 5: Frontier and Borderlands Prison in Imperial Contexts Chair: Peter Haslinger (Herder Institute Mar- burg) Public Keynote Lecture Martin Thomas (University of Exeter): Civi- Eric Lewis Beverley (Stony Brook Universi- lian Spaces and the Insecurities of Colonial ty): Securing Empire’s Borderlands: Mobility, Counter-Insurgency Sovereignty, and Legal Regimes in South Asia and Beyond

Maurus Reinkowski (University of Basel): „Unprotected Domains“: Ottoman Imperial Presence in Egypt under British Occupation Panel Debate Chair and Introduction: Benedikt Stuchtey (University of Marburg) Participants: Eckart Conze (University of Marburg) Beatrice de Graaf (Utrecht University) Madeleine Herren-Oesch (University of Ba- sel)

Tagungsbericht Security and Empire: Mechanics of Securitization in Imperial Spaces. 16.03.2016- 18.03.2016, , in: H-Soz-Kult 16.06.2016.