26/11, Israel and the Politics of Mobility
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wilfrid Laurier University Scholars Commons @ Laurier Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive) 2015 TENTATIVE SECURITIES: 26/11, ISRAEL AND THE POLITICS OF MOBILITY Rhys A. Machold Wilfrid Laurier University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons, Human Geography Commons, and the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Machold, Rhys A., "TENTATIVE SECURITIES: 26/11, ISRAEL AND THE POLITICS OF MOBILITY" (2015). Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive). 1776. https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/1776 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive) by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TENTATIVE SECURITIES: 26/11, ISRAEL AND THE POLITICS OF MOBILITY by Rhys Machold M.Sc. Global Politics, London School of Economics and Political Science, 2009 B.A.Sc. McMaster University, 2008 Dissertation Submitted to the Balsillie School of International Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of Philosophy in Global Governance Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, Ontario, Canada © Rhys Machold 2015 Abstract This dissertation examines the global mobility of security knowhow in relation to the management of terrorism in megacities. Specifically, it offers three insights. First, it shows how historical events are performed as sites in need of transnational policy intervention. Second, it enables an understanding of how and why the sourcing of policy ‘models’ actually takes place. Third, it sheds light on how mobile policy schemes travel geographically and are put to work in particular contexts. In doing so, it elaborates on the conditions under which policies move geographically but also addresses the kinds of constraints and contradictions they face. The dissertation develops two closely related theses. The first has to do with how policy models are constructed as mobile objects while the second highlights the kinds of pressures and conflicts that such models are used to resolve. Regarding the construction of policy models, Israel’s status as a global policy exemplar should not be understood as a closed professional consensus or incontrovertible fact that exists independently ‘out there’. Rather it is a deeply ideological construct, emerging from processes of geographic interaction. Israel’s claim to expertise in security knowledge needs to be constantly re- articulated. Indeed, the Israeli involvement in the 2008 Mumbai attacks (26/11) reveals a basic tension. On the one hand, the Israeli officials’ prerogatives to comment on the handling of 26/11 reflects Israel’s dominant position on matters of counter-terrorism and homeland security (HLS). On the other hand, the extensive efforts of Israeli officials to situate Israeli security expertise as a ‘solution’ also reveals that the relationship between 26/11 and the ‘Israeli experience’ of fighting terrorism was not, in fact, obvious or natural. This link had to be actively made. Indeed, the event’s status as a failure of governance in need of urgent policy intervention emerged through Israeli criticisms of Indian security authorities and comparisons to their own alleged success in managing live terror attacks. The second component of my thesis is that the Mumbai authorities’ decision to take up Israeli security ‘solutions’ must be situated in relation to local public pressures and conflicts to which 26/11 gave rise. The reason why Maharashtra politicians decided to learn from Israel in 2009 was not because they suddenly woke up to the reality of global terrorism and realized that ‘securing’ Mumbai against this threat would require a set of technical skills that they lacked. Rather it was because they believed that an association with Israel would be helpful in managing public dissent and restoring their authority to govern. What ‘learning from Israel’ offered was not a set of concrete policy prescriptions for how to manage terrorism but rather an image of progress and success. i Acknowledgments In carrying out this project I have been helped by countless people whose generosity, support and kindness have been invaluable at every turn. I am greatly indebted to all the members of my supervisory committee whose support and critiques have allowed me to develop my own scholarly voice more clearly and decisively. My supervisor Kim Rygiel has afforded me the time and space to develop my project on my own terms, while always proving me with astute insights, guidance and immense support throughout. Rianne Mahon has been an apt skeptic, giving me countless close reads on previous drafts and helping me to develop my claims more economically and directly. Deb Cowen, whose work has been deeply inspiring to my own, has pushed me to articulate the intellectual and political stakes of my project more forcefully and explicitly. I also wish to thank Swapna Banerjee-Guha, whose warmth, good humour and generosity made my time in Mumbai especially memorable. While in India I was helped tremendously and benefitted from the good company of a few people in particular: Dilnaz Boga, Paramita Nath, Sanober Keshwar and Rupesh Kumar. Special thanks to Yotam Feldman and Neve Gordon for their generous insights and support in carrying out my fieldwork in Israel. Amit Breuer and Smardar Peretz also helped greatly in making my trip to Israel possible. I have benefitted from the friendship and ever good company of my wonderful colleagues at the Balsillie School: Anton Malkin, Sarah Martin, Adam Malloy, Dan Herman, Masaya Llavaneras Blanco, Veronica Rubio-Vega, Antulio Rosales and Maryam Javan Shahraki and Tracey Wagner-Rizvi. Along the way I have benefited from productive conversations with a number of people: Pete Adey, Paul Amar, Lisa Bhungalia, Andy Clarno, Mat Coleman, Will Coleman, Simon Dalby, Aaron Henry, Ishan Ashutosh, Craig Jones, David Huxtable, Veronica Kitchen, Adam Molnar, Alison Mountz, Marijn Nieuwenhuis, Leila Stockmarr, Mariana Valverde and Margaret Walton-Roberts. I also wish to thank all of the administrators and support staff at the Balsillie School for their incredible patience and support over the past five years: Kelly Brown, Terry Levesque, Andrew Thompson, Randy Wigle and Joanne Weston. None of this work would have been possible without the generous support of a number of scholarships, fellowships and grants from Wilfrid Laurier University, the Balsillie School, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship, the Indian Commonwealth Scholarship and the Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute. This project also benefitted greatly from the opportunity to participate in the “Politics of Failure” workshop at U of T and the follow-up “Security Failures” panel at ISA in New ii Orleans. Special thanks to Coleen Bell, John Grundy, Ali Howell, and Debbie Lisle for all of their work in organizing the two events and inviting me to take part. Chapter 3 of this dissertation is adapted from an article published in Environment and Planning A, where I received a number of productive critiques and suggestions from the journal’s editors and three anonymous reviewers, the members of my supervisory committee and Richard Ek. Part of the conclusion is drawn from an article in the Interventions section of the Antipode website where I also received helpful comments from Lisa Bhungalia and the journal’s editors. Although I am sure that many of my interviewees would certainly take issue with my findings (not to mention my politics), I wish to acknowledge how crucial their cooperation was in carrying out this project. Their willingness to share their time and insights with me has guided my work and thinking, sometimes in rather unexpected directions. Many of these interviewees were also remarkably generous in helping me make connections in places where I had few prior contacts. For their participation and help in navigating some very unfamiliar worlds I am ever grateful. Thanks always to Francesca, Galen, Illyes, Paul, Pawel, Shabab, Sasha, Steve, Rianka, Rob, Rosie, Mieke, Mike, Nathaniel, Taylor and Victoria. Finally I wish thank my family—Clea, Rainer and Rita and most of all to Malene. iii Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... V INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1: URBANIZING SECURITY: TOWARD A RESEARCH AGENDA 30 CHAPTER 2: PERFORMING ‘FAILURE’: THE POLITICS OF TECHNICALITY ........................................................................................................... 63 CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY AND THE MODEL: POLICY MOBILITY AND BECOMING OF ISRAEL’S HOMELAND SECURITY DOMINANCE ................. 83 CHAPTER 4: MILITARIZING MUMBAI: THEATRICS, VISIBILITY AND THE POLITICS OF RESPONSE ......................................................................................... 109 CHAPTER 5: RE-INVENTING BEST PRACTICE ................................................ 143 CHAPTER 6: WHAT TRAVELS? POLICY TOURISM, ‘SUCCESS’ AND GEOGRAPHIES OF EXCLUSION ........................................................................... 170 CHAPTER 7: EDUCATING A MARKET: DISASTER CAPITALISM, NEOLIBERALISM, AND PROBLEMS OF DIFFERENCE ................................... 202 CONCLUSION: 9 IS (REALLY) NOT 11 ................................................................