Securitization beyond borders: Exceptionalism inside the EU and impact on policing beyond borders

Objectives

The workpackage will present a detailed analysis of an alternative conceptualisation of security which can embrace both internal and external definitions and reframe the academic knowledge’s of international relations, political sociology and political theory. It will discuss how and why the discourses concerning security, by opposing it to mobility instead of freedom and by undermining the notion of freedom, destabilize the triptych relation between danger, (in)security and freedom. It will address the question of civil liberties regarding the perceptions of (in)security, fears and unease arising both from outside and inside in relations with the management of unease by the security professionals and the political discourses of (il)liberalism by the professionals of politics.

The first objective of this workpackage is to analyse the relations between these national political debates and their Europeanization with the development of transnational technologies shared by the professionals of security (or unease management) which are now part of a field which encompass both internal and external agencies (polices, customs, intelligence services, military people and private agencies).

The second objective is to relate the every day securitisation through technologies, routines of the different agencies with the political discourses of exceptionalism after September 11 and the development of arguments about a «permanent state of emergency». How far the «governmentality by unease» which is an old tendency of risk societies of late modernity is correlated with the political agenda of exceptionalism? Is it possible to understand the dynamic and dialectic development of the (in)securitisation of the social life nowadays by correlating the two phenomena? How the citizens react to this rhetoric of permanent state of emergency? How does it affect the credibility of the professionals of politics (and media)? Do we have a generalisation of the crisis of representative democracy by the monopolisation of «truth» by specific professional agents and «experts»? What are the practices of resistance by civil movements, transnational advocacy networks and how they affect the «state legitimacy»?

The third objective is to understand how the transnational field of security professionals affects the construction of a specific European defence and helps or not to set up a common foreign policy.

Linking the discussion on exceptionalism with (in)securitisation in our societies, the workpackage 2 will develop the sociological aspects of what is security today both internally and externally. It will discuss the relation between freedom and (in)security by analysing the social practices of the different agents and the dynamic of transformation of their relations.

The data collected and analysis carried out within the framework of this workpackage will be used also to inform the observatory. Description of work

This workpackage builds upon the work of 2 FP5 projects: ELISE and FORNET. The practices of (in)securitisation are both internal and external. The idea of precise organizational boundaries between police and military activities along the lines of the physical frontiers of the state is under challenge. Policing is developing at high speed beyond the territorial frontiers accelerating pre-existing tendencies. Defence is less and less related only to interstate war, and intelligence communities are working on the re-definition of the enemy which is considered as « transversal », as neither outside, nor purely inside. Discourses concerning the transformation of war and crime, -i.e. criminalisation of war and organisation of crime at a global level- are now changing the way of conceptualising the notion of security.

The idea of a de-differentiation between internal and external security will be leading the research of the workpackage 2. A large body of research has already been undertaken both at the conceptual and the empirical level. The idea of a « Mobius ribbon of security », where the boundaries do not disappear between internal and external security attacks, the idea of a globalisation of threats and of a world chaos invading the inside of the society and the personal safety of the individuals. It is also critical to the idea that nothing has changed, that the physical borders of the state are still operating and could protect the population if reinforced through more control activities. It shows that the borders are now « intersubjective », delocated and relocated in relation to the trajectories of the individuals when they want to move or when they are considered as virtual danger according to proactive activities of the different agencies of the professionals of security, especially in a context of political discourses concerning war on terrorism at the global level by main political leaders of the Western countries. This is particularly so in respect of political discourses concerning war on terrorism at the global level by main political leaders of the Western countries. . We will follow the institutional developments of each services inside the different ministries of interior, justice, defense, foreign affairs and the private companies with whom they are in contact as well as their network of «sister» institutions over Europe and transatlantic arena. We have contacts with the highest authorities in France and Uk to do interview with the responsibles in charge and we will carry in depth interviews about the policies of the different services. We will an&lyse their visions ot the threats, their priorities, and their efficiency in achieving their goals;The work undertaken in WP10 on the consequences of the security policies oin Islam and Muslims after 9/11 will also facilitate a broader analysis on the status of religion in the differentiation between internal and external security

The practices of (in)securitisation are also discursive and technological. So we will analyse the main statements of thepoliticians and some of the security professionals in the media or during the interviews in order to understand how they shape the idea of danger, risk and threat and how they choose and prioritise their policies. Thepractices of (in)securitisation are related to the political realm of the professionals of politics, of media and public space on one hand and to the routines of the day to day work of the different public and private agencies dealing with insecurity on the other hand. They are organised by the national and European discussions concerning the different policies areas of defence, justice and home affairs, border management, and freedom of movement, immigration and asylum. They are also linked with the practices to maximise technologies of control and surveillance of individuals and minority groups, especially after September 11th 2001, as well as with the exchanges of know-how between EU members and with the candidate countries. These technologies are both transversal and largely diffused, even if their cost create discrimination between the rich countries inside EU and others who have not or do not want to put so much money in computerisation, technologies of proactive policing, high tech surveillance... They are also reshaped by each national debate and specific political interests of the national professional of politics or from the majority (unanimity) of them at the EU level of the council. The national cultures, the embedded traditions of civil liberties create differentiated resistances in each society and the idea of a new balance between danger, (in)security and freedom is organised through different arguments and debates. We will try to assess what are the technologies in use and where.

Following the reasoning of Pierre Bourdieu’s work, but including Michel Foucault’s ideas concerning knowledge and truth, and by critical International Relations theory, the French team will draw a topology of the security field at the transnational level focusing on the enlarged Europe but also in relation with the transatlantic impact. This dynamic topology will follow the transformations of discourses concerning threats and risk by public and private institutions which are considered by the other institutions as central in their capacity to claim what is a danger, how to deal with risk and how answer the question who is the enemy. It correlates these discourses with the social capital and the symbolic power of each institution and will look in details about the transnational links that each institution has created and at the interaction between the different networks in competition. It will help to map the field of the professionals of security in relation with the national political arenas and the European sphere and to frame the way the research will be conducted for the observatory (WP17).

Drawn on previous research (concerning the practices of French, UK, Italian, Spanish and German policemen, as well as their military counterparts, the intelligence communities and some intermediary agencies as customs or police with military status), the goal of this workpackage is to draw a precise map of the different positions of security institutions and to see how far the professional solidarities go beyond the national ones and restructure the power relations both at the EU level and at the national level.We will follow the French and UK networks of security institutions over Europe and their impact on the EU level (Europol, Eurojust). With the help of our Italian, Gerrman and Spanish collegues we will compare for these countries the results of the french UK enquiries. How far is the strength of the professionals of (in)security when they compete for the legitimate and official truth about threats and risks against the professionals of politics? Where do the citizens locate their beliefs about knowledge concerning terrorism, war and crime threat?

The notion of «field of the professionals of (in)security» at the EU and transatlantic level will be used here to describe and to analyse the process of competition for knowledge concerning threats, risks and vulnerabilities in ours societies. We will develop from the axes of the field a cartography of the trajectories of the different agencies (see the methodology used by Pierre Bourdieu in La Distinction, but adapted to our object). If this mapping is given with precision, it will not only give a general understanding of the overall relations of the political at the EU level, by avoiding the hyper simplifications to analyse EU political life as a conglomerate of the national political lives, but also provide an other way of thinking the alliances and competitions concerning the transformations of the balance between danger, security and freedom. It will help to explain the social forces which are transversal to each national culture and their direct or indirect impact on civil liberties. It will also give a practical knowledge of which institutions share the same visions of threats and risks and how it is related to their structural positions and dynamic of transformation (reshaping their boundaries and their identities). It will enable an understanding of the «bureaucratic politics» at the EU level beyond the false distinction between national lives and Brussels. It will provide an efficient tool of visualization of the diffusion, from an agency to another, of the methods and know how of those who intervene in threat analysis.

To develop this problematisation and this methodology of the topology of a field of security, different researchers will carry interviews with the security professionals, especially in France and Uk but also with the help of other teams in Italy, Spain and Germany, as well as Belgium, Netherlands and in all the Eu institutions. They will compare the interviews with the official discourses, with the documentation available inside some of the administrations (when it is not secret or confidential -but two of them have accreditations for confidential documents at least in France), with the different scholarly works and some documents coming from investigative journalism. An historical dimension will be added to understand when and where the social transformations have taken places.

A first researcher will look at the way policing is now carried out beyond the borders (both national and European ones, what are the agencies involved in policing activities and what are the competing discourses for missions and responsibility of security. Policing is no more the tasks of the only national polices or even European bodies as Europol or OLAF, but also the task of consulates delivering visas, or of military forces working to stabilise post conflict societies which are considered as a virtual risk for EU security if they implode. What are the networks of agencies working together? How far the candidate countries are part of the process which delocalise the surveillance and the old techniques of control? Do security of EU and NATO could be compatible? Interviews with responsibles of institutions but also with NGOs and of people which were targeted or which have their rights denied for legitimate entries inside the EU will be developed.

A second researcher will look at the role of the military in internal security in France, UK, Italy, Germany by analyzing its involvement in antiterrorist activities, fight against organized crime, and surveillance of urban unrest. Researches done by the french team in the 1990S will help to set up the backgroung situation and to have interviews with the main responsibles in charge, including special meetings and round tables with some of them. From when and how the military doctrines of western countries are reframing the image of the enemy and the notion of threat as well as that of vulnerability? Do they exchange know how on these subjects? S/he will analyze how far this involvement restructures the civil liberties and the western values of liberalism? What is the relation to policing beyond the borders? What are the relations to national and international justice?

A third researcher will analyse the security industry (looking especially at the Milipol salon in Paris and barhein which is the main places for contacts between internal security professionals and private companies, especially the different ones selling technologies of control and surveillance which have effects on individuals and minority groups. How far the private sector is autonomous or not from the public? How does it contribute to the framing of the threats and risk management as well as the idea of critical infrastructures and networks? How are theses groups correlated between them and what are their relations with police organizations, military agencies and intelligence communities? The documentation of the salon milipol and some private companies will be investigated.

A fourth researcher will look at the transformation of the role of the intelligence community after September 11th 2001 in France, Spain, and UK and the relations they have with police and military services, especially in the context of discourses concerning more collaboration and even integration of the different organizations. S/he will look at the creation of new bureaucratic structures and also combined training programs. The Italian team will provide its help on Italy. The transatlantic dimension will be take into account. Interviews will be conducted by a team of senior researchers.

A fifth researcher will discuss the political and mediatic discourses of exceptionalism in France, Italy, Spain, UK and Greece as well as at the EU level in the Parliament, and the Commission and Counciltrying to see if they encourage or not the transformation of technologies inside the different services or, at the contrary if they are much more a part of the political spectacle. S/he will also discuss the practices of resistance coming from the civil societies and their advocacy networks. She

A sixth researcher will analyse building upon the expertise in the FP5 project FORNET, the common foreign policy of the European Union, its internal coherence after September 11, the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how it is affected by the network at the Euro-Atlantic level, of the security professionals. US experts will be actively involved in the research.

In each case, different empirical studies have already been undertaken by the team of Sciences-po, the military college of Coetquidan and the journal Cultures et Conflits through the Center for study of conflicts which run the journal from 1996 for police and 1998 for military and intelligence activities. They were supported by the French Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Interior and they were largely comparative approaches with Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, UK and USA. Four studies, each of 100 pages have been undertaken for the french ministry of defense which has agreed that the researchers involved could now released openly these researches.

WP2 will be closely related with the analysis of principles of exceptionalism in WP1, with WP 3 securitisation and war, with WP7 on social inequality and poverty, with WP11 on assessment of vulnerabilities and WP 14 concerning securitisation, liberty and law.