The Privatization of Force and its Consequences

Some food for thought on the commodification of security, from The Privatization of Force and its Consequences - Unintended but not Unpredictable by Jörg Friedrichs:

There is a problem with asymmetrical access to security as a commodity. There is an increased risk that the people most in need of security are systematically excluded, with fatal consequences. This is supported by economic theory. As long as the provision of security is in the public domain, it is either a ‘public good’ or a ‘club good’ (Krahmann 2008). In a democratic society, security is a public good. Nobody is systematically excluded from its enjoyment, and nobody’s enjoyment is reduced by somebody else’s enjoyment. In a less democratic society, security may be a ‘club good’ for a privileged class while others are excluded. When security is provided by the market, however, it can never be a public good. Instead, it is either a ‘club good’ or a ‘private good’. For example, it is a ‘club good’ in the case of gated communities. In the case of a burglar alarm, it is a ‘private good’ which is consumed exclusively
and cannot be enjoyed by outsiders at the same time.

There is [also] a problem with the inherently expansive logic of the market. The provision of security by the market risks being driven by supply rather than need. This may be a problem even when security is publicly provided, for example when there is a military-industrial complex. However, the problem is exacerbated when security is provided by the market, because on the market supply tends to create its own demand. As other market actors, private security providers are set to engage in marketing, lobbying, and public relations to increase the demand for their products. The expansive dynamics of the market may contribute to the further de-legitimization and atrophy of the public sector where it is already at its weakest, e.g. in Africa (Leander 2005). In more developed parts of the world, where the commercial supply of security and force is matched by a consumer culture, the commodification of force is likely to lead to an endless spiralling of private supply and demand (Loader 1999).

[...]

In the United States and Britain, the ‘private police’ reached rough numerical equality with the public forces of order by the late 1960s and 1970s, respectively (Spitzer and Scull 1977: 18; Draper 1978: 23).11 In 2007, there were 625,880 public police officers and 1,032,260 million private security guards in the US (with security guards defined as those who ‘guard, patrol or monitor premises to prevent theft, violence or infractions of rule’).

Der Vulkan - Roman unter Emigranten

Der kollektive kulturelle Reichtum welcher in den 30ern Deutschland verließ erscheint mir nur um so gigantischer je mehr ich mit ihm vertraut werde. Joseph Roth, Sebastian Haffner, Georg Glaser, Bodo Uhse oder Hannah Arendt - um nur die zu erwähnen, welche ich hier bereits besprochen habe - nun also Klaus Mann mit seinem Vulkan - Roman unter Emigranten. Mann als solcher scheint deserving of an entry devoted exclusively to him. Der Sohn Thomas Manns, der Neffe Heinrich Manns und natürlich der Bruder Erika und Golo Manns - auch wenn ich mit seinen Geschwistern wenig vertraut bin. Verfasser eines der ersten offen homosexuellen Werken der deutschen Literaturgeschichte.

Der Vulkan ist ein facettenreiche Erzählung der Emigrantenszene auf vielen, wechselnden Figuren aufbauend, welche sich untereinander austauschen oder doch zumindest indirekt Kontakt besitzen. Mann betont klar die politische, selbstgewählte Emigration, welches sich unter anderem in seinem Antidot dem älteren Juden, welcher 'keinesfalls [...] zu denen gehören [möchte], die im Ausland sitzen und ihre Heimat beschimpfen', niederschlägt. Er redet nur selten von der Emigration der niederen sozialen Schichten und noch weniger von der angsterfüllten nicht politisch bewussten Emigration.

Sein Roman ist ein Zeitbild dieser gebildeten deutschen Emigranten, welche mich in ihrer Gruppenbildung an Franz Hessels Pariser Romanze erinnerten. 'Man blieb unter sich, sprach immer deutsch miteinander.' Manns Roman ist teilweise etwas langatmig in seinen religiös-philosophischen Diskussionen, welche nicht immer überzeugen und mir zeitweise als reine Abstraktion erschienen. Aber dann, ist 'das Einfache ist stets nur der Vereinfachte' und wie kann ich dem wiedersprechen?

Schließlich ein interessanter Einschub. Meine Wahrnehmung der Einwanderung in die USA, von Ellis Island, der Freiheitsstatue had very much been constructed on an US-centric glorified perception of its immigration past. Das folgende Zitat erschütterte diese Wahrnehmung in its foundation:

Auch auf dich haben wir nicht gewartet! spricht die Freiheits-Statue: irgendein Emigrant und armer Kerl hatte einmal behauptet, diese entmutigenden Worte können man der großen Dame, Lady Liberty, von der Stirne ablesen...vielleicht wurde er gleich zurückgeschickt, deportiert oder mußte mindestens für mehrere Tage auf jene gräßliche Insel, Ellis Island genannt, wo man verdächtige Fremde wie Zuchthäusler traktierte -: davon hatte Abel viel des Schlimmen gehört.

Some serious food for thought on how immigration into the US was perceived by its protagonists not the country which they constructed or their well-off great-grandchildren.

Der Vulkan mit all seinen Fehlern gibt ein aufschlußreiches Bild derjenigen wieder welche vorm Nationalsozialismus flohen, dieser 'miserable[n] Berliner Kopie einer schlechten Römischen Erfindung.'

Enfances tunisiennes

Un recueilli de textes courtes des auteurs tunisiens sur leur enfance dans le tunisien a été mon cadeau de départ de la France. Une autre manière de le voir serait de le décrire comme mon introduction dans la littérature tunisienne. Un tel format de collection a des défauts ainsi qu'avantages. A la fois il permet au lecteur de se mettre en contact avec plusieurs auteurs dans un seul livre ce qui lui fait possible de développer plus d'une vue globale et au même temps il rend le lecteur frustrant à cause du fait qu'aucun texte soit développé plus longue mais qu'ils ne paraissent comme un goûter se dissipant vite.

Enfances tunisiennes pour moi c'était surtout une présentation fascinante d'une société non-occidentale - la première dans laquelle j'essaie de vivre vraiment. Pour exemple : la deuxième guerre mondiale, l'occupation allemande, a été vécu bien différente que l'arrogante perception européenne nous veut faire croire. Mais au même temps ces auteurs ou beaucoup d'entre eux - sans doute parce que cette collection reste quand même occidentalisé si arabe et musulman au même temps, comme la Tunisie en général j'ai l'impression - ont développé une histoire d'amour avec la langue français qui n'est peut-être même pas possible pour un français.

Finalement j'ai beaucoup retenu de ce livre en terme des idées, des auteurs et des sujets à explorer dans l'avenir. Peut-être en arabe? Je rêve sans doute mais cela n'est-il pas le but de la littérature?

Ce sont les autres qui vous font remarquer que vous êtes étranger.

Attribué ici à Edmond Jabès. W.E.B. DuBois et son veil ainsi que son double consciousness exprimait une pensée similaire.

Quoi de plus antagonique en effet que le français lu et écrit qu'on apprenait en deuxième langue à l'école en Tunisie et le français, le vrai en somme, qui s'écrit et se parle en France. L'un n'est pas l'autre, l'autre n'est pas l'un.

Toutes ces questions d'identités et de langues me fascine de plus en plus ces dernières années parce que - adaptant Robert Cooper - "we are post-modern individuals living in a - mostly - modern world. What, then, should we do?" Mais cela est un autre sujet à explorer une autre fois.

Fault Lines

As futile as trying to read up on political, literary and historical issues already is, I also like to read the occasional economic book. In fact I wish I had more time to simply read all the books that I've already bought or plan on acquiring in the future, but that's a different story for another day. Raghuram Rajan's Fault Lines - How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten The World Economy was possibly the economic analysis that received the most public attention in 2010. As the title states, Rajan offers up a number of economic and political fault lines that brought about the financial crisis. These fault lines are far from being resolved today and thus hold the potential of contributing to another bubble and the ensuing crash.

Rajan as an (Indian-)American economist is a believer in the ultimate superiority of the market economy of course, yet this just lends further credence to his observations of the defaults of the American system. Thus he exposes the extreme rise of income inequality coupled with the lack of a social safety net in the United States as a fault line for the economy there - and in extension the world - because of resultant the political need to push for easy credit in order to sustain consumption of poorer households. Similarly, the urgent need for the quick creation of jobs in the United States versus Europe -where social assistance makes higher unemployment rates much more politically sustainable - in combination with the kind of job-less recoveries that emerged in the 1980s creates political incentives for expansionary monetary policy. Both of these political forces arising out of the peculiar situation of the - almost pre-modern - American social system hold the potential of creating future bubbles that then will inevitably burst. Rajan sees these - in combination with a few others of course - as the underlying basis of the sub-prime crisis.

Politicians favor access to easy credit as a means to overcome rising inequality. [...] The weak safety net and the emergence of jobless recoveries imply that the American electorate has far less tolerance for downturns than voters in other industrial countries [...] In an attempt to induce recalcitrant firms into creatin jobs, both the government and the Federal Reserve, especially the latter, ended up aiding and abetting a house price bubble and the financial crisis.

Rajan also finds an international component of this fault line of easily available credit.

Somewhat ironically, the developing country central banks did to the United States what foreign investors had done to them in their own crisis.

They pushed easy credit into the US due to their desire to build up reserves following their experiences in the Asian financial crisis of the 1990s and in that way helped construe the bubble that just blew up in all of our faces.

I am far from giving this book and its overview of the American and global politico-financial interactions justice of course. Let it suffice to say that the above-described mechanism is still in place today and to some extent has even been reinforced with the Fed as expansionary as ever - and far more so in relative terms than say the ECB - and income inequality - I assume - only having risen even more due to the crisis. Rajan is an astute, optimistic Cassandra - as little sense as that makes - and his book gave me a much better understanding of the forces behind the crisis we just experienced and the ones we will be facing in the future.

What's in a Name?

A semi-Western coalition of states is warring against troops loyal to Gaddafi in Libya - Operation Odyssey Dawn. An elite force of American special ops takes out Osama Bin Laden in his - relatively comfortable - hideout in Pakistan - code name: Geronimo. I admittedly am coming a little late to this, but surly I am not the only to pause at the seeming lack of historical/cultural awareness of the people naming these missions.

If nomen est omen then Operation Odyssey Dawn has to be the beginning of a long, adventurous and dangerous mission with a doubtful, if finally happy, ending. After all, Odyssey after leaving Troy erred through the Mediterranean for ten years only to arrive in Ithaca to a home beset by quarreling suitors looking to wed his supposed widow. While potentially a rather accurate description, is that really the message the leaders of said new coalition of the willing want to convey to us?

The equation of Geronimo with Osama Bin Laden in turn hints at a shocking historical ignorance or at least misunderstanding of American history. Who was Geronomio? A legendary leader of the Apache in the South-Western United States and Mexico he fought efforts by thousands of US troops to relocate - effectively imprison almost exterminate - his tribe for years. Basically he resisted occupation of the traditional lands of his people by the imperialist forays of white American settlers supported by military force. Geronimo and his people were lied to, treaties with them were broken, their miserable existence on the reservations would most likely be called genocide today. Again, is this really the message that the US military wants to convey to us, whom they want to equate Osama Bin Laden with?

A Letter to America

Dear Uncle Sam,

so you have killed Osama Bin Laden, taken him out in an impressive - most likely - unilateral covert operation. Navy Seals flying into Pakistan, just a few miles outside of Islamabad, storming into a heavily secure compound and leaving dead behind Bin Laden's son, two of his couriers and an unspecified woman. The 'bad-asses who killed Bin Laden' as BusinessInsider calls them, really seem like the personification of hyperreality, James Bond or Matt Damon in the Bourne Identities.

Now, what I don't understand are three aspects of this hit and its reception:

Firstly, why do people turn out and celebrate it the way they would a victory of their baseball team?

Fans called it out at a Mets-Phillies game at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia: “U-S-A! U-S-A!” In Columbus, Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch reported that more than 1,000 people came out on the Ohio State University campus to share that same call. “U-S-A! U-S-A!”

More than two hours after President Obama’s address, a boisterous crowd of at least 1,000 people had gathered in front of the White House echoed that chorus (“U-S-A! U-S-A!”), while climbing trees, smoking cigars, and cheering loudly.

Why would you celebrate the death of someone? Irrespective of what Bin Laden has done, why should his death be the cause of celebration? Satisfaction maybe, content, closure, but celebration?

Secondly, according to President Obama 'just has been done' with the killing of Bin Laden. I don't know about you Uncle Sam, but for me justice is something involving lawyers, courts, judges, fundamental judicial rights and all that. It is not sending in a commando with the order to kill. If this is justice, it is a biblical variety (an eye for an eye...) that I would have thought the enlightenment had gotten rid for us.

Which brings me to my third and last point. Why did you send a team with such a narrowly defined order? Why did you not try to capture him? Put him on trial to show the world who and what he is: A mass murderer who has not dared to fight (and die) himself since at least Afghanistan in the 1980s (and even for that period his myth as a warrior most likely overshadows the boring reality of a moneymaker). You could have exposed him as fake, as just another hypocrite, as just a - cruel, but still - human being worthy of punishment. The world would have seen you as the better man, as the one who chooses the path of the right over the righteous one. Even from a realpolitik point of view Bin Laden's exposure would have contributed to your image in a way that a covert operation and a body dropped in the sea never will.

Bin Laden is dead thus and while the strategic importance of this event seems to negligible, it serves as a reminder of what mystifies me about you sometimes. 'Today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country.' Obama said yesterday. Really? The killing of a run-down, hiding, aged terrorist? Aren't there thousands of other exponents that make the US great? The great American writers - Faulkner, Hemingway, Poe, Twain. The musicians - Muddy Waters, Hank Williams, Bob Dylan and countless others. Take the excitement of an NBA playoff field if you want a low-brow example, Chris Paul in a losing effort, Memphis' team game, Kevin Durant, even Kobe in his indomitable, ever-burning desire.

This whole thing confuses me. And don't take me wrong - even though I know some of you will - I'm not really judging, I just don't understand.

Sincerely,

Benjamin Thomas Sutpen