Under the ruins, the beach!

Security theatre

- the easy way out

Life has always been risky and the future has always been insecure. But never before has “security” played this big of a role in international and domestic politics.

Text Une Holden Vadstein

In April this year, when former Greek minister of finance and (pretty mainstream) left-wing economist Yanis Varoufakis travelled to Berlin for a Palestinian conference, he was banned from entering Germany. Germany’s objective was to protect Israel’s security. The British-Palestinian war surgeon Ghassan Abu Sittah was at the same time banned by Germany from Schengen for a year. In Oslo, 32 billion NOK (approximately €2.7 billion) are spent trying to protect presumed terror goals from presumed or expected terrorist attacks – the latest operation being securing the government building quarter against the awful attacks that already happened in 2011. Many of the bigger European cities are scattered with concrete blocks or huge flower pots to prevent streets from vehicular terror attacks that might occur in the future.

Why is this problematic? Security and safety are undoubtedly goods that grant us freedom – in a safe and secure environment, we are free to move, speak and act. However, “security” is not used objectively and universally – it is rather skewed and granted the few and powerful. The question is at what – and whose – cost “security” is ensured.

The question is at what – and whose – cost “security” is ensured.

A state that justifies invasive measures with “security” usually does so to ensure some concept of “national security”, which often seems to be threatened by a specific entity. This threat might be a pandemic, presumed threats from an assumed hostile state or group, or something else – but since 9/11, a frequently used (constructed) threat has been terrorists from foreign (Muslim) countries. Since the 9/11 attacks were performed by a non-domestic group (opposite to the norm in the US, where most terror attacks are carried out by far right groups or white supremacists), terrorism has since been viewed as an external threat in Western countries. “National security” has thus been racialized (and not granted everyone) – Muslims are more likely to be seen as “risky people” than white people.

Here, we encounter the first problem; namely how considerations of “national security” may come at the expense of these “risky people”.

In order to fulfil the political need for control over the “terror threat”, as well as the strict anti-terrorism laws imposed by the UN (resolution 1373 and 1624), governmental surveillance is widely used to prevent acts of terror before they occur. While damage control and the prevention of deadly attacks are indeed noble missions, they are also hard to carry out – especially while simultaneously respecting the rule of law.

In the trend that professor of criminal law Lucia Zedner calls pre-crime, acts are increasingly criminalized at earlier stages – especially acts of terror. This trend is in itself in conflict with the criminal law tradition, since it deviates from the general principle that preparation of a criminal act goes unpunished. Additionally, these laws call for specific surveillance of people who are suspected to be unlawful – which in turn can result in early censorship or restrictive measures to prevent crimes. When this is done successfully, it might save lives. But when it isn’t, it results in cases like the ones of Abu Sittah and Varoufakis, where any disturbance of the established “peace” is seen as too risky for national security. The “risky” people that are censored, monitored and sanctioned could of course be bad, evil men planning an enormous deadly attack on Western values, but they might as well be a pro-Palestinian trying to speak their mind.

Security at 60th Munich Security Conference. Photo: Srihari Thalla – Creative Commons

When Abu Sittah and Varoufakis were essentially censored, Germany signaled that the individual legal security is under threat – which is the second problem we encounter. As mentioned, the “security” justification usually points to “national security”, and completely overlooks the consideration of other securities (and freedoms, which are closely linked to security and safety). Germany shows authoritarian tendencies when individual rights are overrun by “national security” – an ambiguous concept that could just as well include legal security, freedom of speech or freedom of movement, but that, as Germany shows, includes no such thing. What good is this national security if the price we have to pay is our freedom of speech and movement or our legal security?

Furthermore, the above mentioned measures are mostly symbolic, often expensive and hardly ever effective. Security measures that aim to ensure security at any cost, be it legal security or staggering sums, could actually prove to be counterproductive.

Even though symbolic security measures (or “security theater” in the words of cryptographer Bruce Schneier) might calm people’s fear and in turn contribute to a more open and relaxed society, they could just as well feed into the notion that we are under threat, others are scary and we should tread carefully. A society in fear breeds distrust, and distrust provides fertile ground for radicalization, terrorism, instability and turmoil.

In addition, it is to me unclear and frankly disturbing how Western states talk of security and the terror threat, while they fuel the fire in Gaza with more arms to Israel. Islamic terrorism, resulting out of the devastation in the Middle East, should not come as a surprise in the next years. When there’s a will, there’s a way – violent extremism born out of the West’s hypocrisy and state crimes will never be beat by barricaded streets, censorship, surveillance or talk of “security”. In the security-ensuring counter-terrorism process, we might even end up with a more authoritarian and less free society.

Torggata Blad er et kompromissløst uavhengig blad og nettmagasin – en humoristisk, systemkritisk og informativ utgivelse som sparker til venstre og høyre, oppover og nedover og midt i balla.

Pr. 2024 er Torggata Blad et forum for en fargerik forsamling av bidragsytere med varierende interesser og orientering. Det er en rar og forhåpentligvis skjærende stemme i koret av norske magasinutgivelser.

Torggata Blad ble grunnlagt i 2007 av
Bror Wyller (forfatter og lege)

Torggata Blad er støttet av: