Disposable Land Sources and Collateral Murder. Understanding Foreign Policy over the Middle East through the lens of Orientalism and the Security Dilemma.

 Disposable Land Sources and Collateral Murder. Understanding foreign policy over the Middle East through the lens of Orientalism and the Security Dilemma. 

 Liam Miles  - Liam.miles@mail.bcu.ac.uk 

Eliska Duskova 

Introduction 

This Article will merge the Security Dilemma with Edward Said’s 1978 notion of Orientalism, as a method of explaining the rationale behind Western and Eastern Foreign Policy over the Middle East which as argued in this Article has seen the Middle East become a disposable land source for the advancement of Capitalism and Geopolitical Power and Control.  In its simplest form, the security dilemma is an embodiment of political science, which explains the dilemma between decisions taken by a state to strengthen its own security. These actions however, run the risk of provoking other or rival states to act, which in turn inevitably leads to a decrease in the original state of security for the original state, thus producing a security dilemma. (Wivel A 2010). ”. Two major comparative case studies will be explored in aiding our understanding and contextualising both the Security Dilemma and Orientalism. The first case study will be the 2003 invasion of Iraq, causes and consequences of such an Invasion by the U.S and their Allies. Orientalist discourse will be used to explain acts of ‘collateral murder’ and the ways in which the Middle East has become a disposable land source for conflict and the advancement of Capitalism and Geopolitical power and control. This Article will then explore the social exclusion and concentration camps in which Uighur Chinese Muslims are being subjected to and the difference in imperial strategies to have control over the Middle East.  

Understanding Orientalism 

Edward Said’s notion of Orientalism was first published in 1978 and is regarded by many scholars as being one of the most important concepts in the field of Post-Colonial Studies. Orientalism (1978) offers an interesting insight into the field of Oriental studies and into the ways in which the Western political and social narratives have falsely depicted the Orient and have produced an imaginative geography which portrays the Middle East as a Romanticised and exotic ideal. It is argued throughout this Article that these false depictions and imagined Geographies are a method to gain geopolitical power and control. This section will unpick the narratives discussed by Said in his book Orientalism and how these narratives are intrinsically linked to acts of domination that have been witnessed over the Middle East, whereby numerous civilians have been subjected to ‘collateral murder’ and the physical landscape of the Middle East has become a disposable land source for such performative acts of Hegemony, from both Eastern and Western Hegemonies.  

 

The first chapter titled- “The scope of Orientalism” explores the origins of Oriental study and discourse. According to Said (1978) the West has denied autonomy of the Middle East through the power of knowledge. To have knowledge means to dominate the object (the Orient), and thus inferiority and superiority are consequences of knowledge. The Western doctrine of domination is based on knowledge which allows for easy management of the object of knowledge, and thus can generate easy profit and social control. Beginning with Napoleon’s occupation of Egypt, Said argued that the Orient has become the West’s laboratory. Orientalism became an academic field and it was regarded as ‘scientific knowledge’. (Said 1978). The mere status of scientific knowledge justified and legitimised the West’s superiority. Said continued by arguing that the Social Construction of the Orient and the moulding of its identity was created by Western discourse. Furthermore, the Orient was labelled by Said as “irrational, abnormal, childish and weak” and that Western Scholars were generalising and simplifying the Oriental culture. This idea of labelling and creating an identity that Said mentions in his book, corresponds with the concept of ‘otherness’. Bauman (1990) argues that societies establish identity categories using dichotomies. The main message of the first chapter is that the concept of the Orient was developed by the West and it has served the West.  

 

The second chapter titled- “Orientalist structures and restructures” focuses on the shift of the Western perception of the Orient to modernity. The Orient has been romanticised by Orientalists and their aim to rescue the Orient from itself and it’s ‘strangeness’. Orientalists used newly established scientific disciplines such as Philology and Anthropology. These sciences were used to attempt to prove the modern Western Superiority and they illustrate the increased specialisation and Institutionalism of Orientalism in the 19th century. Said critically analysed the works of famous 19th century Orientalists such as De Sacy’s and Renan’s whose work are full of prejudice and generalisation. Said also draws upon an association between the Orient and sex. Europeans who travelled to the Orient to seek exotic and romanticised sexual experiences.  

Finally, the third chapter “Orientalism Now” focuses on Orientalism’s shift from a scholarly activity to an instrument of American foreign policy. Orientalism shifted from a philological discipline into a social science discipline. Despite the new jargons, dogmas in Orientalism still exist. In this chapter, Said describes the missionary attitude towards the Middle East adopted by Western Hegemonies. Since the advent of the Second World War, the USA has become a centre stage of Global politics and has thus played a major role in the narratives of twentieth Century Orientalism. The modern Orientalism is centred around the Government and Corporate interest in the Eastern and Middle Eastern part of the world. Said points out that there is an absence of Human Rights for Arabs and Western domination over the Orient is still maintained, particularly through the economic pressures from the USA. These economic pressures including grabs for the world oil reserves will be critically explored later on in this Article.   

Orientalism (1978) is arguably an essential book for understanding the portrayals of the Middle East, its causes and the consequences, so the book is not without its appraises. However, in an effort to offer a critique which will later in this article present itself is the bipolar world division frequently used within Orientalism to distinguish European Countries from Oriental Countries. However, it can be argued that the relationships between countries in the Orient and in Europe are more complicated and thus cannot be divided bipolarly. Furthermore, the impression can be struck that Said uses the words “European” and “Western” almost interchangeably. The bipolar division leads to generalisation, which Said himself in his book criticises.    

The 2003 invasion of Iraq- Walking the path of Orientalist Discourse 

In 2003, the United States of America declared war on Iraq and shortly after the announcement, invaded Iraq, and Afghanistan using military bombardment and the establishment of bases. Hinnebusche (2007) argues that there are three fundamental causes and motivations for this invasion. These motivations are global strand strategy, the US Strategic position of the Middle East and the political interests of George Bush’s ruling coalition. 

This section aims to explore the global strand strategy, to contextualise the reasons as to why the both the land of the Middle East and the people within it have become a disposable source of collateral murder for the muscle flexing, conquering and dominating at the hands of both Eastern and Western hegemonies. This section will explore narratives and case studies from both a historical and contemporary lens. The priorities set under George Bush’s Global Strand Strategy (see Hinnebusche 2007)  were and continues to this day to be global hegemony. As backed by Boyle M (2008), the strategy developed by the U.S in which they would fight this ‘war on terror’ and manage the murky waters of International Relations and scrutiny would be to give other states a choice. They are either supporting America, and all the military bombardment on civilian populations, or they were on the side of the terrorists, and therefore would be held accountable for the supporting of terrorism. This laid the foundations bare and set the precedent of what would be a ruthless and tireless military campaign, which has appeared to devastate the civilian populous of Iraq and Afghanistan significantly more than the ‘terrorist organisations’ which they sought to destroy.  

To provide some context to the language used in speeches delivered by former U.S President George W. Bush following the events of 9/11 would set the tone in which the conflict would be fought. According to https://abcnews.go.com, Bush said the following.  

“We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbour them, and feed them, and house them. Make no mistake about it, underneath these tears, there is a strong determination of America to win the war, and we will win it”.  

The use of the term “those” and “them” does not make clear who the enemy is, nor the extent of this threat. This is not to say that Al-Qaeda and similar organisations did not pose a significant threat to International Security they did, and they continue to pose a threat to this day. However, this Article is dissecting the approaches in which America handled the aftermath of 9/11 and the labelling and othering of the whole Middle Eastern population. If Bush had simply referred to the perpetrators of 9/11 as a group of minority radicals, and that the terror organisation of Al-Qaeda was a radical threat, and not subject to one country or state,  and that alongside the co-operation of authorities in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and even Turkey, then it is the belief of the authors of this Article that the outcome of the war on terror would have turned out different, and would not have produced half of the devastating and unrecoverable consequences for the Middle East which includes; political instability, economic decline, distrust in the West, and tragic bloodshed and murder scene of the civilian populations in both Iraq and Afghanistan and put America and Britain in a state where today, we are fighting a ‘war on terror’ which appears to be irreversible as it is an ideological trench. This othering and labelling of the Middle East as being a nation of terrorists, is what Said (1978) described in his book- Orientalism. This subjection to othering of the Middle East can be seen widely through discourse of language used by politicians and contemporary media (see examples of the film Aladdin’s Arabian nights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIYL-PQa010 and  Cardi B’s Bodak Yellow- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEGccV-NOm8) whereby these two videos collectively portray the Middle East as solely being a Camel riding, sword fighting, fire braving, money splashing and home of exotic Belly dancers. This is relevant in explaining the imaginative geographical construction of the Middle East, through these othered discourses and exotic portrayals. Further examples of this othering  can be found from the Guardian’s report on Bush’s speech to the American people and military telling them to brace themselves for a “bloody and long-lasting war”. According to the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/), Bush told the American people-  

“get ready for war” and “this war would crush those who have chosen their own destruction”  

“Everyone who wears the uniform should get ready, we’re at war. There’s been a war declared”  

“we will find those who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes, we’ll get them running and we will bring them to justice”.  

It is relevant to explore the narratives deployed by the United States Government, particularly the use of the term ‘war’. It set the expectation that America would use military force to bombard the Middle East, in its efforts to dominate and hold control over the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan, in the name of the war on terror.  

However, the ‘war on terror’ has simply become a façade to both the American people and the global stage. It is argued by scholars that the invasion and conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan which has followed since 2003, has been an attempt by America to achieve two aims. Firstly, to compromise the position and advancement of communism in the Middle East, which argued by Scott P (2007) has been an aim of the United States since the invasion of the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1979. The second aim of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was to hold power over the world oil reserves, which if  in the control of America, would make them more hegemonic and powerful to the rest of the world when in a position of compromise and negotiation with other states, for the distribution and selling of this oil. (Hinnebusche 2007). These two rationales for the invasion of the Middle East, under the guise of a ‘war on terror’ have one major factor in common. This is the preservation and advancement of capitalism. Oil is an essential resource required for any capitalist and industrial nation to survive and thrive. Therefore, as argued by Hinnebusche (2007), it is in the ideological and political interests of America to have some power over the world oil reserves. This of course is an act of offensive hegemony in which ideological discourses over the Middle East, have justified the ‘war on terror’ which has been an attempt to control the Middle East and preserve Capitalism. (Daddow 2013). This ideological othering of the Middle East would set a dangerous precedent for the future, as explored in this Article.  

 In 2002, the American National Security Strategy (https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf) was published, which asserted the key priorities for America’s domestic and foreign policy in the years moving forward. The largest points were around protecting America’s homeland from the ever-growing threat of Global Terrorism and establishing a balance of power between America and those states that they deem to be a threat to the preservation of America’s hegemony and capitalist interests.  The preservation of peace and ‘fighting terrorists and tyrants’ were also the key priorities of America’s security strategy moving forward. The extent of the issue was described within the strategy as being the threat of modern technology being used by terrorists to harm America and its citizens. Therefore, this threat is used to justify America’s use of military power, homeland defences and law enforcement agencies which collectively work together to dismantle and eradicate such threats. The statement also said that America and their allies will work to “deny terrorists any sanctuary” in any country across the world. This statement alone highlights to the reader that America is willing to cross borders and exert power and control over politically weakened nations, within the Middle East in an effort to either capture of kill terrorists, or those they believe are a threat to America. These ideal sets are encompassed by Orientalist discourses, which others the Middle East, thus the trust in the capability for the Middle East to manage their own foreign affairs is diminished.  The Middle East has then become a metaphorical playground or disposable land source for the implementation of hegemony, capitalist restoration, and the elimination of threats to the United States from both an ideological and political angle. The security statement (2002) also denotes that Global terrorism has just formed itself out of thin air, and the actions and foreign policy committed by the United States in the decades before 9/11 haven’t contributed to the rise of resistance and global terrorism in the way we know it today. Global terrorism has been mobilised and its consciousness has been awakened (Scott P, 2007). The evidence from the security statement point towards America adopting an offensive military approach, which in relation to the Security dilemma in a notion of states being greedy, in terms of land occupation and attempting to control the world oil reserves, all under the name of fighting global terrorism and protecting the homeland.  

This section aims to explore the consequences of the invasion of Iraq, and how America has put itself in a position of significant insecurity and is now fighting a battle which is not going to cease anytime soon. According to Hinnebusche (2007), the consequences of the Iraq invasion of 2003 have resulted in Iraq being plunged into civil war, elongated insurgency, and political instability. It can be argued that the experiences that Iraq’s endured of American military policy has resulted in a rise of terrorist organisations and the support for these terrorist groups. Such experiences according to Hinnebusche (2007) involved the bombing raids of densely populated urban areas, the demolition of homes, collective punishment of villages for ‘harbouring and abetting terrorists’, detention camps, flood and resource blockades and a general lack of respect for local customs, religion, heritage and culture. These collective actions and experiences are what can fuel the actions which in the West are labelled as terrorism, however to these groups, they seem themselves as ‘liberators’ or ‘freedom fighters. Against an oppressive force from the West. (Martin G 2017). Not only has the invasion of Iraq held severe consequences for the Middle East, the war has also affected America’s stance on the world stage. Research conducted in 2004 by the Pew Research centre (https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2004/03/16/a-year-after-iraq-war/)  revealed that Europeans as a majority wanted a foreign and security policy independent from any involvement from the United States. Numerous countries in the Middle East were surveyed and participants revealed that terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and leaders such as Osama Bin Laden were favoured by larger percentages. These countries included Pakistan, Jordan, and Morocco. This included Turkey where suicide bombings against the West were within some groups becoming increasingly justified. These findings reveal that in parts of the Middle East and North Africa, there is an increased hostility towards the United States, and many citizens in Europe wish to distance themselves from America and their foreign policies. This raises a couple of questions. Firstly, how much longer will it be before America becomes completely isolated and unsupported on the world stage, which in time will severely damage their invests in capitalism. Secondly, for how long America can sustain itself financially and in terms of resources in a war whose scope and threat of insecurity is increasing daily and does not look like will be over anytime soon.  

Regardless to the answers to these questions, the invasion of Iraq and ‘war on terror’ which has continued onwards have damaged the interests of capitalism in the long run for America. This is in terms of sovereign support from allies, trading negotiations and access to oil, which has been argued earlier is an essential resource for capitalism to survive and thrive in a competitive global economy.  

The following bullet points display the quotes and eventualities which took place on a bombing raid in Iraq. This video footage came from Wikileaks see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYTxuW2vmzk­) This video shows the drone footage in which the bombing raids and open firing on civilian populations in Iraq took place.  

  • 01-29- Weapon not confirmed. 
  • 01-39- “Yeah he has a weapon too”.  
  • 01-45: “Six Individuals carrying AK-47s. Permission to engage”?  
  • 01-51- “Roger, that’s we have zero personnel East of our position, so feel free to engage, over”.  
  • RPG has been identified by this point.  
  • 02-59/3-00- Rapid firing- “keep shooting”.  
  • 03-29: The drone is circulating on the hunt for more targets to engage with.  
  • 03-52- “We will shoot some more”.  
  • 05-44 “One individual wounded, trying to walk away”.  
  • It is unclear if this individual is holding a weapon, if they see a weapon, they will engage.  
  • 07-35: “Come and let us shoot” – this was at a van arriving at the scene of the engagement to pick up wounded bodies. 
  • 08-20: The drone opened fire on the van- 8 individuals shot, dust clouds were forming.  
  • 08-54: More engagement with the van (open fire). 
  • 10-04: Van is In the middle of the road with 10-15 bodies laid around it.  
  • 10-10: “Right through the windshield” (Bullet holes) – “Ha-ha, Ha-ha”. 
  • 13-03: Footage shows that there was a child in the van that they had opened fire on.  
  • 16-48: “I have eleven Iraqis EKIA (Enemy killed in action), and one small child.  
  • 16-54: “Oh well!”.  
  • 17-42: “That’s their fault for bringing their kids to battle”.  
  • 17-43: “That’s right”.  
  • 31-22: “At least six individuals in this building with weapons”. “Can we put a missile through there?”.  
  • 31-45: “         Triangle building appears to be abandoned and under construction”.  
  • 32-00: “Crazy Horse – 18 (Code name), if you think there are individuals in that building with weapons, go ahead and engage, over”.  
  • 33-32: “You wanna hit North to South or East to West?”  
  • 34-20: Missile has struck the building and has also hit a man walking past the building. He is also killed in the missile strike.  
  • 34-43: “Wait for the smoke to clear, and fire one more”.  
  • 36-47: “There is goes, look at that bitch go”. “Shoosh!”.  
  • 37-05: “Does it look good?” “Sweet”. 

This video from Wikileaks lasted a total of 38 minutes and 4 seconds. This video alone clearly displays the ways in which American military and strategic foreign policy has been run on a partial evidence basis, whereby the mere sight of a weapon, regardless of the functionality or intention of the use of that weapon would justify the use of missile strikes and open firing. There also appears to be a genuine hunger among the military personnel recorded in this video for the open firing and missile raids of individuals and property, and it seems from this video that any slight cause for justification would be used for the constant bombardment and bombing raids. For example, the sighting of ‘suspicious individuals’, or those believed to be carrying weapons would be a just cause. Lastly, the fact that children were targeted and killed in these bombing raids as well links to the claim made in the title of this video, that Iraqi’s who are killed in the crossfire, are simply “collateral murder”. This notion of collateral murder is of course linked to Said’s notion of Orientalism, whereby the Middle East is a land source which needs to be conquered, and the fundamental argument that this Article aims to decipher, in that the Middle East, but more notably Iraq and Afghanistan have become disposable land sources for the imperialism and hegemony of the West.  

China and Monopolisation- A new advent of imperialism?  

Imperialism is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary (2020) as “A situation in which one country has a lot of power or influence over others, especially in political and economic matters”. Two major case studies will be explored in support of this definition from both Eastern and Western Power Blocks. A relevant case study to draw upon, when contextualising the Security Dilemma, is the growth of industrialism and economic capital. China is a relevant case study to understand such growth. China began developing its industrial consciousness and its economic flourishment in the 1980s and 1990s (Tang 2009) and since this progression, the economic prosperity of the U.S, in terms of trade, manufacturing and demand for goods, has been rivalled by China. Different realist theories have posited the intention and outcome of this industrial rivalry. According to Collins (2013) offensive realists would argue that China is striving to become the next Global Hegemony, particularly In the region of South East Asia, and in turn this strive for hegemony would require the build-up of military resources to compete with rival states. The U.S in turn would feel threatened by this threat on both an industrial and military scale, and could take action to heighten its security and appearance of strength on the Global stage which in reflection of rivalry with China would restore a balancing act. This is the security dilemma in its simplest form. This Article will link the security Dilemma to the Said’s concept of Orientalism, and the acts of contingent sovereignty of the Middle East by both Eastern and Western hegemonies.  

 

To provide a bit of contextual background as to one of the dominant causes of Chinese or Far Eastern presence in the Middle East is simply due to Trade and profit making. Said (1978) ascertained that having knowledge about a certain region allows easy management of local populations, and thus generates easy profit. Arguably, China has sufficient knowledge of the Middle East, due to its long tradition of commercial activity with the Middle East. This economic activity can be traced as far back as to the origins of the Silk Road. This Historical and Political connection between China and the Middle East is often used in political dealings between themselves. (Chen, 2011). China experienced exponential economic growth since it opened itself up to foreign trade in the early 1980s. This economic awakening required finding new markets, and during this time the Middle East appeared to be an attractive market, especially due to its oil reserves, which argued by Hinnebusche (2007) is an essential resource for Private Capitalism and Industrialism to survive and thrive. This is a very similar parallel to the USA and their motivations for becoming invested in the Middle East, as will be explored later in this Article. Typically, China has fostered better Relations in the Middle East mostly due to their noninterfering approach to local and regional conflicts, this in time has created a strategic position for the achievement of Chinese geopolitical goals in the region.  

The dangerous partner?  

As discussed earlier, China’s influence in the Middle East has mostly been maintained through soft power. An example being not interfering in local and regional conflicts. This approach well illustrates the Chinese philosophy in the Middle East. Unlike the USA, it can be interpreted that China views the Middle East as an opportunity for growth and political expansion as opposed to a problem that needs resolving and mediating, which has empirically been Western discourse. According to Lons et al (2019), in recent years China has established partnership agreements with at least fifteen Middle Eastern Countries, which cements the idea that there are opportunity interests. Furthermore, China has established “Confucius Institutes” in various countries in the Middle East, which aims to teach Chinese language and Culture to Middle Eastern Scholars. (Fulton, 2019). These partnerships in addition to China providing monetary loans to Middle Eastern Countries such as Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria. (Reuters, 2019). These loans contribute to the rise of Chinese power over the region and can be argued is a monopolising act as the money is in the shape of a Loan.  

However, despite the creation of economic and political partnerships and cooperation with the Middle East, at least on the surface, one cannot ignore the more recent treatment of the Uighur Chinese Muslim Minority population. Evidence has displayed mistreatment, social exclusion and even the implementation of Detention camps whereby those with  Arab and Islamic heritages have been othered. Some may argue that China tries to control Xinjiang because of its strategic importance, and thus it is necessary for China to control the Uighur population and its separatist tendencies. Xinjiang borders with eight countries, it has oil and it is also a place, where Chinese nuclear weapons are being tested (Marshall, 2015). However, recent news suggests that there is more to the Chinese repression of the Uighur minority. Islam is being criminalised in China and Uighurs are being incarcerated in detention camps (Kang, 2020). Despite geographically belonging to the ‘Orient’ and having itself experienced colonialism, China sees and treats Muslims as inferior. There is a geopolitical competition between the USA and China (Fulton, 2019).  This competition exists on an economic, military, and technological basis. The technological level is mainly a question of security, which can be demonstrated by the controversial spread of Chinese 5G technology in the Middle East. To conclude, it can be argued that as a product of political, social, military, and economic intervention and interference in the Middle East from Far Eastern and Western superpowers, the Middle East has become a disposable land source in which its populous are subjected to being victims of ‘collateral murder’ which this next section will critically investigate.  

Conclusion 

This Article has produced a relevant opportunity to critically explore Said’s 1978 concept of Orientalism as a gate way to understanding the ways in which the Middle East has become falsely depicted ranging from contemporary media (see Cardi B 2015) to aggressive and strategic foreign policy in which Colonialism is presenting itself in different forms. Our case study of the far East in China has revealed that the Middle East has been seen to be an opportunity for economic dependency through loans and monopolisation. Our Western case study exploring the ‘War on Terror’ and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq has shown Colonialism of the Middle East under the presentation of contingent sovereignty and the idea that the Middle East is a problem which needs fixing as discussed in Orientalism (Said 1978). The Security Dilemma in its simplest context has allowed understanding as to why States go to War and the actions States take to gain power and control over weaker States. The Global Climate is as fragmented as ever, however as Global Citizens, it is imperative that we understand and deconstruct the narratives which shapes Post- Colonial studies and the rationales produced by those in Power which has sent Soldiers and Citizens to war and to their graves. Through these case studies, it is argued that the Middle East has become a disposable land source for the interests of far Eastern and Western Hegemonies in which its citizens have paid the ultimate price.- collateral murder, sectarian and civil war along with the establishment of numerous organisations which are committed to the liberation of their state and the downfall of their occupiers which as argued in this Article is irreversible and has left a future of uncertainty and unprecedented insecurity.  

 

References  

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Know your enemy! The Fireworks that light up Cities and the flaws of the free market logic.

  To provide a summary of 2020, life has been pretty bleak.   The Corona Virus has rampaged through the World, with the UK as no exception as the death tolls that we know of have tragically reached nearly 60,000. ( https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ ) whilst at the same time, millions of people in Britain have lost their jobs, families have broken down and many are already living in fear, loneliness and deteriorating mental health. In response to the ever growing risk to Public Health, the Government have introduced a series of measures which they believe will curb the spread of the virus and protecting those vulnerable as well as businesses who by the day are suffering economically. One rule in particular that is policy during the time of writing this piece is that people are not allowed to mix in households or indoor spaces in groups of more than six, unless all members of the party are from the same household. This measure at least means that there cannot be any Bonfire or firework di
Read more

Micro and Macro harms of Neoliberalism through the lens of violent and structural crime.

Day after day, the wider media issue reports on violent crimes, with a heavy focus on knife crime. It can be argued that the way in which violent crime is reported in the media focuses on pointing the blame on race, age, gender and the local communities in which they are immersed into. This blog aims to explore these narratives and to point out that the representation of violent crime, in the media is often misguided and does not truly reflect the reality as well as exploring central social structures and political philosophies which need to be held to account as well. On Monday April 1 st , 2019, BBC News published a headline on their website titled, - ‘Schools and NHS could be held accountable over Youth Crime’. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-477686 3 1 The article discussed the ways in which schools and the NHS have ‘failed’ to prevent youth groups falling into violent crime. First, this article is blatant evidence that the wider media are not willing to accept that the Pol
Read more

BOOK REVIEW: TERRORIST HUNTER BY TAMER ELNOURY

Terrorist Hunter is written by a non-fictional FBI Agent called Tamer Elnoury. He narrates his incredibly moving story of his work undercover, posing as an Al-Qaeda sympathiser. His ultimate mission, to take down one of the biggest terrors plots the world has ever seen at the hands of Al-Qaeda. Throughout the book, as a reader, I learned about the regime and inside nature of an Al-Qaeda operative, actively capitalising on his misinterpretation of the teachings of Islam and the Quran.  I learned about the differences between American and Canadian undercover systems, for example how the Canadians would typically keep their own agents in the dark, whereas the US has a much higher rate of intel sharing amongst their most trusted political allies. They have the same motivation- to protect the Homeland, but they often differ in their approach. Tamer Elnoury also describes how the issue of national jurisdictions can cause complications for when the legal process begins once the terrorists
Read more