Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro Instituto de Relações Internacionais The Metaphor of “War on Drugs” and “Mass Murder” in the Philippines: discourse analysis, power relations, and an interview with President Rodrigo Duterte1 Gabriel Gama de O. Brasilino* Abstract In this article I offer an analysis of statements pronounced by Rodrigo Duterte in a interview conducted by two journalists from the Al Jazeera Global Media Network. I show how through these statements and rhetoric - a political discourse dependent on and effective through the metaphor of "war on drugs" - Duterte attempted to legitimize the extrajudicial killing of more than 3.500 citizens constructed as threats to public security, and enemies to be (“legitimately”) killed. I draw on Foucault's Critical and Genealogical Discourse Analysis (1971; 2003; 2007), to argue that, although the "war on drugs" is a metaphor (MIDDLEMASS, 2014) - and not war in the literal or modern sense - mobilized within a discursive strategy previous to, during and after presidential elections, it [the “war on drugs”] is a (bio)politics of drugs and security that results in confrontations, hunting, punishment, and, in the limit, extermination of declared enemies (FOUCAULT, 2003; 2007; ZACCONE, 2015). In other words, through the metaphorical language of ‘war’, President Duterte admits, tries to legitimize and normalize exceptional (political) violence(s) to deal with the “the problem of drugs,” crimes and (in)security, that is, his discourse produces specific power- and knowledge-effects. Before analyzing the statements, I delineate the historical level of Duterte’s election campaign, and the context of the interview. In the closing remarks, I consider the role of discourse analysis for critical security studies, being reflexive to the previous arguments, and offering paths for future research on the debate on drugs (de)criminalization, (racist) criminal justice systems, and political violence(s) more generally. Key words: Philippines, Discourse, “War on Drugs”, Extrajudicial killings, (In)Security. 1 AL JAZEERA, 2016. From here on I will be using “[A. J.]” for Al Jazeera Journalist and “[R. D.]” for Rodrigo Duterte. “Mass Murder” is an expression used by Duterte in the interview, as will be shown, referring to the extrajudicial killings committed by police, the PDEA, and “vigilantes” in the context of “war on drugs”. The transcription of the interview is under my responsibility. I should thank professors Liana Biar (PPG-Letras PUC-Rio), Jimmy Casas Klausen, and Paula Sandrin (PPG-IRI PUC-Rio) for their comments and suggestions. * E-mail: [email protected] Resumo A proposta desse artigo é oferecer uma análise das declarações proferidas pelo atual presidente das Filipinas, Rodrigo Duterte, numa entrevista conduzida por dois jornalistas da rede Al Jazeera. Duterte foi eleito a partir de uma campanha focada na retórica das “drogas”, crimes e punitivismo, um discurso político dependente e efetivo através da metáfora da “guerra às drogas”. Duterte tentou legitimar os assassinatos extralegais de mais de 3.500 cidadãos, em sua grande maioria “viciados” e “traficantes de drogas”, construídos como ameaças à ordem e inimigos a serem “legitimamente” assassinados. Seguindo a Análise Crítica do Discurso de Michel Foucault (1971), argumenta-se que, embora a “guerra às drogas” seja uma metáfora mobilizada dentro de uma estratégia discursiva eleitoral e política, isto é, uma figura de estilo, uma técnica ou procedimento da linguagem e não uma guerra, no sentido literal ou moderno do termo, a “guerra às drogas” pode ser interpretada como uma biopolítica de drogas e (in)segurança que produz perseguições, confrontos, punições violentas e, no limite, o extermínio de inimigos declarados. Em outras palavras, por meio do uso dessas declarações, Duterte admite e tenta legitimar, ou normalizar diferentes formas de violência (política) para lidar com o “problema generalizado e dimensional” relacionado ao “vício”, ao “crime” e à (in)segurança pública, ou seja, produzem efeitos de poder e de verdade (DILLON & REID, 2009; DOTY, 1996; FOUCAULT, 1971; 2003). Delineia-se o contexto ou nível histórico dessa “guerra às drogas” durante as eleições presidenciais nas Filipinas (2016) e a entrevista ao Al Jazeera. A partir de uma reflexão sobre a análise de discurso enquanto método interdisciplinar, considero, por fim, possíveis estratégias discursivas no debate sobre Segurança Pública e políticas de (des)criminalização das drogas e dos sujeitos e subjetividades ligado(a)s a drogas como ópio, maconha, cocaína – “viciado”; “traficante de drogas” – e sobre sistemas (racistas) de justiça (direito), violência e relações de poder. Palavras Chave: Filipinas, Discurso, Guerra às Drogas, Execuções Extralegais, (In)Segurança. Introduction “If it involves human rights, I don’t give a shit! I have to strike fear, because [as I have said] the enemies of the state are out there to destroy the children”. Rodrigo Duterte, 2016. This text offers an analysis of statements pronounced by Rodrigo Duterte, current president of the Philippines, in an interview conducted by two journalists of the Al Jazeera Media Network. Through these statements; the rhetoric of drugs, addiction, crimes, and punishment; a political discourse deeply dependent on and effective through the metaphor of "war on drugs", Duterte attempted to legitimize the extrajudicial killing of thousands of people in a short period of time. In this sense, although the “war on drugs” is a metaphor, “a figure of style, a technique or procedure of language” (DERRIDA, 1997, p. 276), mobilized within a discursive strategy prior to, during, and after presidential elections – the rhetoric of drugs, crimes, and justice – to maintain and expand a set of power relations and positions (i.e. presidency), it is a biopolitics of drugs and (in)security that results in 1 confrontation, hunting, punishment, and, in the limit, extermination, of declared enemies (FOUCAULT, 1971; FIGUEIREDO et al., 1997; ZACCONE, 2015). Through the metaphorical language of “war”, President Duterte admits and tries to legitimize and normalize exceptional (political) violence(s) to deal with “the problem of drugs”. In the following sections, I draw on critical discourse analysis, especially Foucault’s, setting the epistemological ground for the argument; I delineate the historical level of Duterte’s election for presidency, in his interpretation a context of “a widespread and dimensional problem”, related to drug addiction and criminality; and the context of the interview. Then I explain why the “war on drugs” is not war in the literal or modern western sense, but a metaphor mobilized in electoral and political discursive strategies, producing specific power- and knowledge-effects (FOUCAULT, 1971; 2003; 2007). Then I think through the content of the interview: Duterte’s political discourse, especially his rhetoric strategies on drugs, addiction, and crimes, deeply dependent on and effective through the metaphor of “war on drugs”. Finally, I draw a reflexive account of the previous analysis, and offer directions for researches on drugs, criminal justice systems, and international political violence(s). Language, Foucault, and Critical Discourse Analysis Critical discourse analysis (CDA), as other methods of discourse analysis, involves a theory of language, its nature (what it is), its effects (what it does) and how it (re)produces such specific effects (i.e. identification; differentiation; subjectivation; persuasion; legitimization; normalization). CDA, however, is the most interdisciplinary one, encompassing different methods and theoretical analytical categories – linguistic and multimodal – in accordance with epistemological principles from critical realism, and Foucault’s post-structuralist genealogy2. It also involves an engagement with social movements that are critical to the uneven distribution of material and symbolic resources; to the naturalization of discursive tactics – drug prohibition and “war on drugs” for instance – that serve dominant interests and tries to legitimize, normalize militarization of public security. The main 2 On the interdisciplinarity in CDA see for example STROM, M.; ALCOCK, E. (2017); JULIOS- COSTA, M. (2015); BREEN, M. D. (2017). 2 goal of CDA, thus, is to unveil, to unmask power struggles, to show how those interests represent particular groups, despite of being presented as ‘national(ist)’, ‘universal’, ‘morally correct’ and ‘legitimate’. This interdisciplinarity will help in a great extend here, for “war on drugs”, and (in)security politics more generally, are strongly disputed categories across disciplines in the human sciences. Language, according to structuralist linguistics, “mean not simply words or even a vocabulary and set of grammatical rules but, rather, a meaning-constituting system: that is, any system – strictly verbal or other – through which meaning is constructed and cultural practices organized and by which, accordingly, people represent and understand their world, including who they are and how they relate to others” (SCOTT, 1988, p. 34). Foucault (1971), however, in his poststructuralism – a term that doesn’t help much, since he is not missing Saussure completely, but I use here to indicate the epistemological approach this analysis will follow – is not interested in the internal structure of language, but in the historical context in which it is used, the rules that constitute any linguistic performance, emphasizing the excesses,