Echoes of Kafka: The “War on Terror”

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Binkley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
21St Century ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
Collateral Damage ◽  
Black And White ◽  
Hearts And Minds ◽  
The U.S

The issue of international terrorism at the beginning of the 21st century, in the United States in particular, has left populations asking: “who and where is the enemy and how do we bring them to justice?” But a more important question could be “Who is the victim and who is not, and what measures are appropriate while minimising collateral damage?” Peeling away the complex layers in the politics of anti‐terror policy leads to the inevitable conclusion that long gone are the alleged days of “black and white” cases of nation‐wide warfare. Franz Kafka all too often warns of the psychosocial pressure that follows as a result of the hegemonic power dynamic, and though imperialism was no new concept in Kafka’s era, his concerns shine ever brighter in light of the rise of the neo‐colonial anti‐terror initiative. Politics aside, this situation is a powerful echo, prophecy even, of a host of Kafka’s literary works, which warn of a ‘psycho‐dystopian’ world of torture machines on colony‐island penitentiaries, of summary executions and the breaching of basic human rights to achieve a government’s desired end. In this presentation, I will demonstrate how Der Prozeβ (The Trial) – with its parallels to the ethereal nature of law‐ is still relevant to the case of the U.S.‐led “War on Terror” in a world of liberally accessible media and information, spreading discontent and paranoia in the hearts and minds of the very population that the anti‐terror policy is designed to “protect”.

“The Only Game in Town”: The Strategy and Effectiveness of the CIA’s Lethal Drone Campaign, 2009–2012

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Fuller
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
The United States ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Collateral Damage ◽  
Safe Haven ◽  
The U.S

This chapter focuses on the notions of accuracy, collateral damage, and blowback, assessing just how accurate the CIA's program is, and the extent to which it has aided the United States in its efforts to end the ongoing War on Terror. If one is to measure the campaign by its primary goals—the decapitation of the al-Qaeda leadership; the denial of safe haven in the AfPak region; and the undermining of the Taliban's insurgency against the U.S.-backed Afghan government in Kabul—the campaign has been a success. Yet, while the drone's ability to consistently loiter over the mountains and valleys of the AfPak region may have succeeded in reducing al-Qaeda's threat, the chapter argues that the CTC's drone campaign also played a key role in creating the power vacuum into which the Islamic State was able to step.

scholarly journals AN INVESTIGATION ON THE DETERIORATING SECURITY SITUATIONS OF THE PAKISTAN

2020 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 105-114
Author(s):  
Zain Ul Abiden Malik ◽  
Hani Fatima ◽  
Aleen Fatima
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Development ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
The United States ◽  
Terrorist Threat ◽  
Security Values ◽  
The Government ◽  
Hearts And Minds ◽  
The U.S

Security plays a very important role in the progress of a nation. It is the pillar of a state on which a nation stands. Without security it is very difficult for a nation to survive on the map of world. Since Pakistan joined the U.S.-led war on terror in September 2001, stability has been heavily affected, and Pakistan has faced many stability challenges since then. With the participation in the “war on terror, the security situation in country” deteriorated within the few years, as army had to carry out a number of operations in its territory against its own people with the aim to disregard the terrorist threat. The war against terrorism has significantly impacted on the overall economic as well as social development of the country. Incidents of 9/11 have divided the nation into American supporters, both pro and unfavorable. Pakistan, the United States helping ally faces more negative security values rather than optimistic ones. This paper addresses Pakistan’s security woes and reasons for the country's worsening security situation. To bring stability to Pakistan, the government needs to take plan to conquer its people' hearts and minds.

Palestine Unbound

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-134
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Task Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
The Us ◽  
Intention To Move ◽  
Arab Israeli Conflict ◽  
The U.S

This section, updated regularly on the blog Palestine Square, covers popular conversations related to the Palestinians and the Arab-Israeli conflict during the quarter 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018: #JerusalemIstheCapitalofPalestine went viral after U.S. president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced his intention to move the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. The arrest of Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi for slapping an Israeli soldier also prompted a viral campaign under the hashtag #FreeAhed. A smaller campaign protested the exclusion of Palestinian human rights from the agenda of the annual Creating Change conference organized by the US-based National LGBTQ Task Force in Washington. And, UNRWA publicized its emergency funding appeal, following the decision of the United States to slash funding to the organization, with the hashtag #DignityIsPriceless.

José Isabel Salas Galindo and Others: United States (Inter-Am. Comm'n H.R.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 738-822
Author(s):  
Rosa Celorio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
Just Cause ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The U.S

On October 5, 2018, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR or Commission) issued its long-awaited decision in the case of José Isabel Salas Galindo and Others concerning the United States. The case is related to the U.S. military intervention in Panama on December 20, 1989, which resulted in the ouster of General Manuel Noriega Moreno, the country's ruler at the time. This U.S. military operation—better known as “Operation Just Cause”—has been the subject of extensive commentary historically and wide reflection on the number of casualties, effects, legality, and scope.

The “Hearts and Minds” Fallacy: Violence, Coercion, and Success in Counterinsurgency Warfare

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline L. Hazelton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
El Salvador ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Building ◽  
Military Strategy ◽  
The Government ◽  
Zero Sum ◽  
Hearts And Minds ◽  
Government Benefits ◽  
The U.S

Debates over how governments can defeat insurgencies ebb and flow with international events, becoming particularly contentious when the United States encounters problems in its efforts to support a counterinsurgent government. Often the United States confronts these problems as a zero-sum game in which the government and the insurgents compete for popular support and cooperation. The U.S. prescription for success has had two main elements: to support liberalizing, democratizing reforms to reduce popular grievances; and to pursue a military strategy that carefully targets insurgents while avoiding harming civilians. An analysis of contemporaneous documents and interviews with participants in three cases held up as models of the governance approach—Malaya, Dhofar, and El Salvador—shows that counterinsurgency success is the result of a violent process of state building in which elites contest for power, popular interests matter little, and the government benefits from uses of force against civilians.

Decoding Morris Janowitz: Limited War and Pragmatic Doctrine

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald S. Travis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Vietnam War ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Unconventional Warfare ◽  
Stability Operations ◽  
Low Intensity ◽  
Limited War ◽  
The U.S

The American sociologist Morris Janowitz presented two world views of security named “absolutist” and “pragmatist.” This dualistic paradigm endures into the 21st century and explains how complex and contentious security options are debated within the U.S. security establishment. His paradigm also reveals a condition called the “hegemon trap,” which means that the more powerful militarily that a state becomes relative to other states, the less likely it will fight a large-scale conventional war, resulting in frequent and perpetual limited, low-intensity, and unconventional wars. Based on experiences learned since the Vietnam War, the United States can improve global security by balancing resources between absolutist and pragmatist outlooks. This requires devoting a greater share of resources toward peacetime engagement, stability operations, and unconventional warfare.

Doe v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-573
Author(s):  
Gregory H. Fox
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Immigration And Naturalization Service ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Chinese Citizen ◽  
The U.S

The plaintiff, a Chinese citizen who entered the United States under a nonimmigrant student visa, appealed from a decision by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to deny his request for asylum. Plaintiff claimed that he had a “well-founded fear of persecution,” the prerequisite to attaining “refugee” status under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the Act) and implementing regulations promulgated by the INS. He also claimed that the immigration judge had erred by refusing to obtain a second advisory opinion from the Department of State’s Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (BHRHA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (per Nelson, J.) held that (1) the immigration judge had abused his discretion by not requesting a second advisory opinion from the BHRHA; and (2) the judge had incorrectly applied an objective standard in evaluating plaintiffs asylum request, when credible evidence demonstrated that plaintiff had a subjectively valid fear of persecution if deported to China. The court remanded the case to the immigration judge with instructions to obtain a second opinion from the BHRHA and to consider plaintiffs asylum request on the assumption that he qualified as a “refugee.”

Uzbekistan and the United States

2006 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-105
Author(s):  
Mehmet Kalyoncu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Political System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Forces ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
Independent States ◽  
Close Cooperation ◽  
The Common

Uzbek president Islam Karimov has gotten away relatively easily with hisbrutal suppression of the Andijon uprising (May 13-14, 2005), in which thestate security forces opened fire on protesters and killed about 700 of them.Despite the fact that this book was written before this event, ShahramAkbarzadeh’s Uzbekistan and the United States: Authoritarianism,Islamism & Washington’s Security Agenda articulates quite well howKarimov came to the point where he could find the courage to becomeincreasingly authoritarian despite Uzbekistan’s bad record of human rightsabuses and failed democratic reforms. The author argues that Karimov’salready existing authoritarianism has intensified and yet has been relativelyignored as a result of his close cooperation with the United States in theAmerican-led “war-on-terror.” He argues that the common threat of Islamist extremism has brought the United States and Uzbekistan togetherand has become a pretext for the latter to continue its repressive policies,which have caused Uzbekistan’s human rights and democratization recordsto falter even further.Akbarzadeh takes the reader through a series of sociopolitical transformationsby which Karimov has sought to consolidate his power. Theseinclude the domestic restructuring of the Uzbek political system in the post-Soviet era; regional alignments and power struggles, most notably againstRussia; and, finally, Tashkent’s long-sought bilateral relations with theUnited States, which gained a whole new dimension after 9/11 and throughoutthe American-led “war on terror.” The author concludes that the cooperationbetween Tashkent and Washington in the fight against Islamistextremism and, consequently, the latter’s downplaying its concerns aboutdemocratic reforms in Uzbekistan, would only encourage Karimov to bemore repressive and less accountable toward the citizens of Uzbekistan.The book contributes to the understanding of political developments in thenewly independent states by probing the interaction between Uzbek domesticpolitics and the international political and security agendas ...

Briefly Noted

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 1054-1055
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Native American ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The U.S

On August 23, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Mitchell v. U.S., denying a certificate of appealability to the petitioner who sought a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence of death. The petitioner, Lezmond Mitchell, argued that his conviction and sentence must be vacated in light of an August 12, 2020, report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that concluded that Mr. Mitchell's trial and sentence were a violation of his rights under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. Mr. Mitchell, the only Native American on federal death row, argued that the IACHR report created rights binding on the U.S. “‘(1) because they are derived directly from the OAS Charter, a treaty within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) because they are derived, through the OAS Charter, from the American Declaration, a statement of human rights norms the United States has not only adopted, but helped to draft.’” The Ninth Circuit concluded that Mr. Mitchell's motion to vacate “did not make ‘a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right’” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and denied his motion. In its reasoning, the Court explained that “reasonable jurists would not find debatable the district court's conclusion that the IACHR's decision is not binding in federal court.” It agreed with the District Court's conclusion that IACHR rulings are not binding on the U.S. because the OAS Charter is “not self-executing” and there is no U.S. statute which implements it. Moreover, the District Court correctly determined that because the American Declaration is not a treaty, it creates no binding legal obligations, nor does the “IACHR's governing statute, the Statute of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights . . . give the IACHR power to make binding rulings with respect to nations, like the United States, that have not ratified the American Convention.” The Ninth Circuit thus joins the other federal courts of appeals that have addressed this issue by concluding that neither the American Declaration, nor the IACHR's recommendations related thereto, is a source of binding obligations for the United States under international law. Cf. Cardenas v. Stephens, 820 F.3d 197, 203 (5th Cir. 2016); Tamayo v. Stephens, 740 F.3d 991, 997–98 (5th Cir. 2014); Flores-Nova v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 652 F.3d 488, 493 (3d Cir. 2011); Igartua v. United States, 626 F.3d 592, 603 n. 11 (1st Cir. 2010); In re Hicks, 375 F.3d 1237, 1241 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2004); Garza v. Lappin, 253 F.3d 918, 925 (7th Cir. 2001); Roach v. Aiken, 781 F.2d 379, 381 (4th Cir. 1986).

scholarly journals United States security cooperation with Kenya in the second decade of the 21st century

2021 ◽  
pp. 5-16
Author(s):  
Rafał Jureńczyk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Africa ◽  
21St Century ◽  
The United States ◽  
Training And Development ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Security Cooperation ◽  
Security Sector ◽  
The Us

The subject of the paper is the cooperation of the United States with Kenya in the area of security in the second decade of the 21st century. The introduction contains the methodological assumptions of the paper and a synthetic historical background. The first section of the paper covers the theoretical framework. The second section outlines the increase of the United States’ strategic involvement in Africa, including East Africa, in the 21st century. The third section discusses the joint efforts of the US and Kenya in combating terrorism and piracy. The fourth section is devoted to US training and development assistance for the Kenyan security sector. The considerations are carried out within the framework of the postcolonial current of the theory of international relations. During the research, the method of analyzing text sources was used. The main thesis of the paper assumes that although Africa, including Kenya, was not a particularly important area of strategic interest of the United States, these countries had significant common security interests and undertook cooperation to implement them. First of all, it concerned counteracting international terrorism, but also the general stabilization of East Africa. In the future, the importance of East Africa in American politics might systematically increase, both in the area of economy and security, which will entail further strengthening of cooperation between the US and Kenya.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document