Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Event Review

Event Review

Event Review – London’s Nuclear Week: The Future of Nuclear Arms Control

by Orion Noda

(Photo credit: @UKPONI, 29 November 2019)

In the last week of November 2019, London hosted three insightful events sharing an overarching theme: Nuclear Weapons. On 26 November, King’s College London’s (KCL) Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS) brought together three experts to discuss the future of the global nuclear order, ultimately posing the question: are we on the precipice of peril? The panel was chaired by Professor Wyn Bowen, head of KCL’s School of Security Studies, and it featured Dr Heather Williams (lecturer from the CSSS), Shatabhisha Shetty (Deputy Director of the European Leadership Network), and Marion Messmer (co-director of the British American Security Information Council, BASIC).

On 28 November, KCL teamed up with British Pugwash for a screening of the documentary “The Beginning of the End of Nuclear Weapons”, followed by a lively debate between Dr Lyndon Burford, a post-doctoral candidate at KCL and supporter of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and Paul Ingram, Senior Fellow at BASIC and a friendly sceptic of the TPNW. The debate was chaired by Dr Salma Shaheen, from KCL’s Department of War Studies.

On 29 November, RUSI and BASIC co-organised a workshop entitled “Beyond 2020”, focusing on the expectations for the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference of 2020 and the overall future of the global nuclear order. The day-long event brought together young scholars, activists, and technicians to share their views on the future of non-proliferation and disarmament, and to propose ideas to make progress in the nuclear arena. Despite being focused on interactive group discussions, the workshop was kicked-off by expert briefings from Jamie Kwong (PhD candidate at the CSSS), Lord Hannay of Chiswick (GCMG), and Dr Dan Plesch (SOAS’s Centre of International Studies and Diplomacy).

Each event had its own specific scope, but all shared the same overarching theme: the future of nuclear weapons and arms control. On CSSS’s panel, it was interesting to see how each of the speakers brought avenues for discussion alternative to the NPT. Dr Williams mentioned the (surprisingly) US-led initiative “Creating an Environment for Nuclear Disarmament” (CEND), consisting of informal talks in order to overcome the technicalities that seem to dominate nuclear arms control talks and the NPT Review Conferences. The distinguishing feature of CEND is the fact that it includes States that are not usually at the table, such as Israel, India, and Pakistan – all non-signatories of the NPT.

Shatabhisha Shetty’s talk focused on the P5 process, an initiative based on transparency and confidence-building measures between its members. It seeks to create a more amicable environment between the involved parties to work on matters of non-proliferation, nuclear risks and disarmament. Despite a hiatus of two years (2017 and 2018), the P5 process returned to the agenda in 2019 due to an initiative from China. Currently, the scope of the P5 process is to further develop a glossary of terms, which would standardise the members’ understanding of nuclear terms. Yet, critics argue that the P5 process should focus on more pressing matters, and that the glossary of terms is merely a distraction or a waste of time. For instance, disarmament (one of the pillars of the NPT) has been stagnating for years, creating a sense of frustration from non-nuclear weapons states: if the P5 do not hold up their end of the bargain, why should non-nuclear weapons states hold theirs?

Marion Messmer talked about the progressive work that BASIC has been involved with, together with the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Stepping Stones approach seek to create small goals and milestones that, despite being short of the more ambitious and pressing goals of the NPT, already spurred some progress, however small.

Resonating with Marion’s talk, Paul Ingram’s scepticism over the TPNW stems from the hasty and untimely factors of its arrival. Despite being an activist and working towards a non-nuclear world, Ingram mentioned how the introduction of the TPNW at this stage might eclipse the NPT , which is already struggling. The argument is that by putting forward a legally binding treaty to ban nuclear weapons at a time when negotiations around arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation are fragile might be overwhelming for nuclear weapons states. Instead, he argued that the way forward is through phases, and the Stepping Stones approach, which he has been involved with through his work at BASIC, is the most appropriate strategy.

In contrast to this argument, Dr Lyndon Burford believes that the TPNW does not tamper with the NPT. Both serve different purposes, and both should be proposed and get all the attention they can. Lyndon brought to the debate the necessity of involvement of non-State actors, such as technicians, activists, and the civil society in general. The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) put anti-nuclear activism in the spotlight, creating a setting for further progress in the non-proliferation and disarmament agendas.

After being exposed to these insightful contributions and debates, RUSI and BASIC’s workshop was the perfect ending to this series of nuclear-related events. The workshop allowed conference participants to take initiative, voice concerns and propose solutions to the gloomy views on the future of nuclear arms control. The initial expert briefings by Jamie Kwong, Lord Hannay of Chiswich, and Dr Dan Plesch provided a well-rounded introduction to the debate, which presented a different topic from other featured events: the role of the UK in shaping the future of the global nuclear order.

(Photo credit: Orion Noda)

Throughout the day, much was discussed in terms of our concerns and hopes regarding the future of nuclear arms control, the UK’s role in it, and ideas to move forward. A clear consensus amongst the groups was the deep concern over the development and integration of new technologies to nuclear weapons – particularly artificial intelligence (AI), echoing a point raised by Dr Williams in the CSSS event. Amongst these young leaders – ranging from Master students to teaching fellows, technical experts, policy analysts, and activists – the removal of the human component and integration of a raw and deeply flawed AI system to nuclear weapons is something that must be immediately addressed. Proposed ways for that included increased engagement from the public and raised awareness about the dangers of creating a real-life doomsday machine.

Much was discussed also about the UK’s role, as a member of the P5, in exercising active leadership in breaking the stalemate of nuclear arms control. Nevertheless, our the participants’ prospects are not the most optimistic, particularly after Lord Hannay of Chiswick brought to our attention the lack of a clear position on nuclear policy from the UK’s candidates. With the Review Conference taking place in April and May 2020just around the corner, whoever occupies 10 Downing Street will have limited time to prepare. Furthermore, the UK’s current political situation threatens its leadership status in contributing to the NPT goals: the withdrawal from the European Union would likely lead to an approximation with the US, putting in check the UK’s credibility in impartially leading nuclear disarmament talks. Nevertheless, the workshop also produced a few ideas of what the UK can do to promote the NPT goals. These included a ‘no first use’ declaration and categorisation of its nuclear capabilities as measures of last resort, and reinforced commitment (not only from the UK, but from all NPT parties) to the NPT and its goals, despite the unlikelihood of a consensus document being produced at the end of the Review Conference in 2020.

On the overall future of the global nuclear order, the participants had an interesting and much-needed discussion on the special status of nuclear weapons: why have the bans on other weapons of mass destruction achieved relative success compared to nuclear weapons? Why is there such a stigma on nuclear weapons? There is a dire need to analyse the symbolism behind nuclear weapons to understand what drives its politics. To move away from the perception of nuclear weapons as symbols of status, prestige, modernity, and civilisation is to move forward in the quest for diminishing – and eventually eliminating – States’ reliance on nuclear weapons. It is the next generation of leaders’ task to de-mythify nuclear weapons and to call them what they really are: inhumane harbingers of doom.

Orion is a doctoral researcher currently at the Department of War Studies – King’s College London. He joined the Department of War Studies in 2019, as part of the Joint PhD-programme between King’s College London and the University of São Paulo, his home institution. He holds an MA (Hons) in International Security from the University of Groningen and a BA in International Relations from the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, with a period at the Sorbonne University – Paris XIII. You can follow him on Twitter @orionoda

Event Review — The Future of UK Grand Strategy

By Harrison Brewer

4 January 2019

Georgina Wright, Cllr. Peymana Assad, and Dr. Charlie Laderman spoke at a Strife-PS21 event, which was moderated by Peter Apps (left to right). (Image credit: Kayla Goodson)

 

Strife and PS21 joined forces to present a fascinating panel discussion on the future of the UK’s grand strategy. We live in an uncertain world that gets more uncertain by the minute, as the United Kingdom flails around Brexit, Trump’s America turns away from Europe, and Europe looks to redefine what it means to be in the Union. All the meanwhile, the UK avoids the aging imperialist elephant in the room: who are we, what are we doing, and how can we do it? PS21 brought in an expert, an academic, and a practitioner to help disentangle the UK’s approach to grand strategy in the 21st Century.

Dr. Charlie Laderman, a lecturer in International History at King’s College London, first explained his definition of grand strategy, believing it to be the intellectual architecture that forms foreign policy. It is a historically British concept — although Dr. Laderman questioned whether Britain ever got it right — and is predicated on balancing peacetime goals with war and using limited resources to achieve a state’s goals. Dr. Laderman suggested that British foreign policy experts have a ‘maddening pragmatism’ that is borne out of Britain’s historical pole position in global politics but argued that it is imperative for the UK to break out of this mould and to reassess.

The UK has long been perceived as the facilitator and bridge between the US and Europe, but this relationship is at risk. Trump’s de-Europeanisation policy and Merkel’s and Macron’s attempts at firming the bonds of European fraternity leave the UK out of the loop post-Brexit; therefore, Dr. Laderman believes the UK must engage in the business of trade-offs. Britain must consider how it can use its limited yet still formidable capabilities in defenCe, soft power, and international development to continue to be a reliable partner, as well as a global player. Lastly, Dr. Laderman noted that the UK needs a stable EU in order to thrive. Therefore, despite leaving the union, the UK must look to fortify it relationships with EU states and support the EU as best as it can.

Cllr Peymana Assad, a defence and international development expert, as well as a local councillor in the London Borough of Harrow, discussed how the UK must address its relationship with its imperialist and colonialist past to improve its foreign policy. Assad underlined the need for the UK to champion equality in its foreign policy, acknowledging that the UK could use soft power to correct some of its mistakes made under colonialism. Assad referenced her work in Afghanistan and recalled a conversation she had with Afghan tribal leaders about the Durand Line, the internationally accepted border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghan people were absent in this international decision-making process, she noted, which showed a disregard for the people directly affected by this decision. She argued that the UK’s grand strategy needs to be founded on principles of equality for all actors, both international and local, and it needs to address Britain’s imperial history and the suffering it caused.

To summarise, she stated the focus should be on the following points:

1) The key to establishing ourselves in the world is seeing all as equals. In order to do this, we must understand the real impact of colonisation and imperialism on the countries we left behind, and we must understand how some of those actions of the past haunt us today.

2) The UK needs to consider and seek opportunities with non-western powers like China and India, but also continue to facilitate between European and other allies, such as the United States — it’s too important not to do both. We should not solely focus on Europe.

3) Britain must use its soft power and understand that the world has changed; we can command more influence through art, culture and education by way of exchange and scholarships. India currently leads through music, film and education, for example in the South Asian region.

Finally, Assad stated that in order to achieve this, we need to bring the British public with us, on the ride and convince them, that engaging with Europe and the non-western world, brings us benefits and also stops us being swallowed up in a world of constant changing super powers.

Georgina Wright, a research associate in the Europe Programme at Chatham House, began by stating that British foreign policy must be separate from the Brexit process. Britain has a privileged position in global affairs — it is both one of the leaders in official development assistance and a strong partner of both the US and the EU — and the UK should not forgo this position as a consequence of Brexit. Rather than turning further inwards, the UK should take the opportunity to engage more meaningfully and extensively with its allies. This change, however, must be managed carefully and swiftly to prove the UK’s commitment to the international community.

Wright outlined three risks the country faces post-Brexit: a more inward-looking Britain that is fully consumed by Brexit; incoherent external policy that is driven commercially rather than politically; and a failure to grapple with the changing international context, evidenced by the rise of China and Russia, as well as rising levels of inequality and popular insurgency.  Wright then proposed five areas the foreign office should focus on to form its foreign policy. First, the foreign office needs to clearly articulate the vision for Global Britain. Second, the UK must figure out how to do more with less and avoid commitment without impact. Third, without the stage of European Union politics for alliance building, the UK must prioritise how it uses the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and where. Fourth, the government must mobilise the entire British population, not just London, behind any grand strategy to ensure its success. Finally, the foreign office needs to be consistent. Wright ended by pointing out that Brexit will only become more intense with trade negotiations on the horizon and a plethora of actors and interests that will need to be balanced at home and abroad. Above all, the UK needs to ensure that it builds a strong, deep partnership with the EU despite its departure.

Editor’s note: This event review was also published by PS21. 

Harrison Brewer is pursuing an MA in Conflict, Security, and Development. He recently graduated from McGill University in Montréal, Canada with a degree in Classics, Political Science, and Art History. Harrison has previously worked for Deverell Associates, a security consultancy firm in London, specialising in crisis preparedness and leadership training. He is now working for Boxspring Media, a tech-driven learning disruptor for corporate firms. Harrison’s interests include strategic analyses of paramilitary violence in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa with a focus on gendered violence, insurgency patterns, and conflict simulation. Harrison has designed and produced a simulation modelling the urban warfare of the Iraqi Army’s campaign for Mosul in 2016-2017 that is being developed for commercial use. You can follow Harrison on twitter at @_HarrisonBrewer.

Op-Ed — Unboxing Freedom of Speech

By Eve Gleeson

29 November 2018

Joanna Williams spoke at the launch of the Endangered Speeches series on 13 November 2018. (Image Credit: Eve Gleeson)

 

Editor’s note: This is an opinion-editorial piece written in response to the Endangered Speeches event review published on 27 November 2018. The views expressed in this post are the views of the author and are not the views of Strife.

 

On 13 November 2018, Joanna Williams, an author, commentator, and head of education and culture at the think tank Policy Exchange, was the first guest speaker of the Endangered Speeches talk series hosted by King’s College London’s Department of War Studies and mediated by department head Professor Michael Rainsborough.The event incited uproar on King’s campus; several campus groups called for Williams’ no platforming due to some of her rhetoric.

I had the opportunity to attend the event and interview Williams. Here, I share my reactions to some of her statements. The points in this piece correspond with those in the event review but include my opinion rather than an objective summary.

 

  1. There is a difference between harsh words and physical violence. 

What do we do when we prohibit speech? Many liberal democracies are seeing the condemnation of ‘socially unacceptable’ or ‘radical’ positions on critical issues.‘Darkness allows these bad ideas to fester and germinate,’ Williams said. She argued that when these perspectives are out in the open, we have the opportunity to address them.  I do not worry about the free expression of these ‘radical’ ideas, but I do worry about the moment when these ideas become so widely expressed that they are also widely adopted.

 

  1. Universities are censorious and protective liberal havens.

As an American master’s student at King’s College London, I’ve only experienced two months of the British education system. I can attest that there are many American professors that fully welcome different perspectives and encourage students to look beyond their initial assumptions. Surely, there have been problems across America and the UK regarding universities inviting contentious speakers to campus, with an outpour of dissatisfaction from a variety of student groups.

That being said, I have found that in the US the ‘censorship’ on university campuses is not practiced by the university itself but by students and groups who see themselves as representative of the university’s values. In the administration, there is less outspoken partisanship, if any at all.

 

  1. If you disagree with someone who has a platform, go to the event and criticize them. Don’t stay at home.

I could not agree more with Williams on this point. It was disappointing to hear so much backlash the day of the event, and then to see that very few of these opponents attended when the time for questions rolled around. In reaction to Williams’ writing that have allegedly dismissed entire demographics, The Student Union framed their dissent around being active proponents and protectors of vulnerable students. The event, however, was objectively civil and discussion was highly encouraged. It would have been nice to hear the views of the dissidents who had made their voice so audible earlier in the day.

 

  1. Universities are insulated and politically homogeneous.

Williams argued that universities are left-leaning because of self-selection bias, perception of students as vulnerable, and perception of students as a customer who must be satisfied. In her defence, according to a 2012 study by the American Association of University Professors, right-of-center papers do tend to be subject to higher scrutiny; however, there are likely multiple other trends at play here.

A study done by the Pew Research Center showed that left-leaning individuals tend to be more educated than right-leaning and independent voters. This goes for the UK as well, as noted in an article published by The Conversation, which also noted that academics who have chosen the field do so partially because it ‘involves teaching the next generation, plenty of bureaucracy, and different risk and reward structures from other industries graduates may gravitate towards’.

A 2017 study by the Adam Smith Institute found that ‘the left-liberal skew may be partly explained by openness to experience; individuals who score highly on that personality trait tend to pursue intellectually stimulating careers like academia. And within the top five percent of IQ, openness to experience predicts support for left-wing parties’. The previously mentioned AAUP study also had a similar finding: ‘students’ underlying preferences appear to lead more liberals into advanced degrees, thus creating a fairly large ideological gap’.

Most studies I reviewed admitted that partisanship depends on the field, with humanities, social sciences, and arts academics swaying left and a partisan balance remaining in mathematics, sciences, and engineering. The studies also discussed the consequences of this imbalance, some of which Williams stressed as well, such as discrimination against conservative people and ideas, biased research and publications, and double standards.

 

  1. There is a harmful connection between language and identity, in that words can dismiss entire demographics.

Maybe this isn’t the case for Williams or Rainsborough, that their identity is easily dismissed. In agreement with the two, I do think that many people have a vulnerable sense of identity. Yes, sense of identity is vulnerable for many groups who have been oppressed and whose legitimacy as society members is often questioned. This language is threatening not because it offends us, but because it demonstrates how people in our own society think about fellow citizens. Language reflects ideas. Those ideas can threaten someone’s livelihood.

 

  1. Politics is no longer a question of opinion, but a question of morality. Those who can more readily demonstrate their suffering have more clout.

I do think some minorities will have a more accurate perspective on what it is like to be a minority and the problems they are facing. Because it is a matter of their livelihood, they have a right to be understood on behalf of morality.

It is like players on a baseball team discussing problems the sport is facing. The baseball players will be taken seriously because they play the game every day. If a hockey player, on the other hand, were given a platform to discuss these same baseball issues, the hockey player would not be taken as seriously. The hockey player is by no means barred from discussing baseball, and they may have meaningful things to say about baseball, but the players on the baseball team do have more weight, and for good reason — it concerns their entire career.

 

* * *

I found Williams’ claims to be well-formulated and intelligible, yet sometimes more based on personal conviction than objectivity. She was welcoming of alternative perspectives, though I wish more had been offered. Though I disagree with an array of things she proposed, she spoke with carefully chosen words and phrases and was well-received by the audience.

My interview with her really pushed at where freedom of speech stops and hate speech begins. According to Williams, there is no difference.

I think labeling some speech as ‘hate speech’ is more often used as a way to identify speech that is not conducive to a cohesive culture with common values. Such a culture is necessary, especially in diverse societies, because it creates a way for a country to cater to the largest amount of people in their society, not only a select group.

For me, the problem is not about the words themselves. It is about spreading toxic ideas, like that climate change is not real. These ideas can have real consequences on society. For example, anti-Semitism has existed for centuries, long before the Nazi movement was born. If this rhetoric towards Jews had been prevented from circulating and escalating, and if Nazis had been prevented from actively spreading horrible things about Jews — if they were denied a platform — perhaps those ideas wouldn’t have been so widely adopted.

When opinions become so toxic that they can change normative expectations in a society and go so far as to endorse attacks on other people, then a line should be drawn to prevent those convictions from becoming more than just speech.

Plenty of American alt-right groups have been banned from social media platforms. This is not just because their speech is considered hateful, but because they have used social media as a tool to turn their hateful speech into hateful action, as was the case for the Charlottesville Massacre in the summer of 2017.

The issues entailed in the phrase ‘culture wars’ are not ubiquitous. It has been my experience that productive bipartisan discussion can and does happen often in academia. I have changed my mind in both directions, toward and away from left-wing thought, many times since beginning university. My professors welcome alternative perspectives, and they push students to fully develop convictions before making sweeping claims.

That being said, issues still remain. Student have a lot of work to do to truly open our minds beyond what is put in front of us. That was my main takeaway from Williams’ discussion. As envoys of knowledge, professors, students, and researchers have both the opportunity and responsibility to draw from a variety of ideas in order to produce work that truly has merit. We have the obligation to criticize ideas with which we do not agree, not to back into a corner for fear of being wounded. Being closed minded just does not cut it anymore.

Eve Gleeson is a master’s student in International Relations at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, as well as the Communications Manager of Strife. Her courses focus on security challenges in the evolving global context, including cyber threats, nuclear and biological programs, and security in new states. Eve holds a BA in International Studies with a focus on conflict and security from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. You can find her on LinkedIn and on Twitter @evegleeson_.

 

Event Review — Endangered Speeches with Joanna Williams

By Eve Gleeson

27 November 2018

Joanna Williams spoke at the launch of the Endangered Speeches series on 13 November 2018. (Image Credit: Eve Gleeson)

 

Joanna Williams, an author, commentator, and head of education and culture at the think tank Policy Exchange, was the first guest speaker of the Endangered Speeches talk series hosted by King’s College London’s Department of War Studies and mediated by department head Professor Michael Rainsborough.

The 13 November event became the center of controversy as several campus groups called on the Department of War Studies to cancel the event. Williams, however, would argue that the multiplicity of King’s student groups who called for her no platforming were exactly the individuals trying to wish away ideas they didn’t agree with — the kind of individuals she strongly disagrees with.

Williams is infamous for her free speech platform. In other words, she is highly critical of the attempt to transform public spaces, such as university campuses and social media platforms, into safe spaces. Here are a few takeaways from the event:

 

  1. The differentiation between harsh words and physical violence. 

Words aren’t violent, she argued, making the case that we often perceive language in its capacity to wound, to offend. She stressed the important differentiation between acts of violence and speech that may be considered hateful, and noted that the ‘mental health epidemic’ (which she argued is wildly overstated) is a symptom resulting from the bizarre confounding of the two. She also argued that children and college-age students are thought to be vulnerable, easily affected by words, and in need of emotional protection.

 

  1. Universities today are censorious.

Both Williams and Rainsborough argued that when you try to say something controversial on a university campus, you receive backlash because the university is inundated with homogenous liberal thought. In an effort to protect their students and serve them as a customer to whom they provide a service, universities have adapted into one-laned thought havens rather than centres of intellectual risk-taking. Williams also endorsed the idea of a professor being able to say ‘white people are the best’ in a classroom setting, without consequence, given that fellow academics and students may respond with a counterargument.

 

  1. If you disagree with someone who has a platform, go to the event and criticize them. Don’t stay at home.

In response to statements issued by the King’s College London Student Union and the Intersectional Feminist Society calling for her no platforming, Williams emphasized that ‘making the argument of no platforming becomes an end in itself … It implies that giving someone a platform endows them with a particular power, status and influence to brainwash … [That’s] actually saying something really terrible about your audience’.

 

  1. Universities are insulated and politically homogeneous.

Williams provided a series of claims for why she believes universities in the 21st century are left-leaning. First, she argued that university staff recruit in their own image and praise work they agree with. Second, she emphasised the increasing perception of students as more vulnerable and emotionally fragile than the rest of the population. Rainsborough argued that this comes from questionable parenting techniques. Next, Williams postulated the student as a consumer whom the university, which is then providing a service, must satisfy. For this reason, universities stop serving as a beacon of intellectual risk-taking.

 

  1. There is a harmful connection between language and identity.

Williams argued that the idea that language constructs identity implies a very vulnerable sense of identity if it can be so readily dismissed through language. She finds the idea that words can dismiss entire demographics to be ‘slightly odd’.

 

  1. Politics is no longer a question of opinion but a question of morality.

Williams posited that we no longer focus on which policy works better. Instead, we deem one policy moral and the other amoral. Any debate and challenge, then, is perceived as more dangerous. Williams also argued that ‘people who can demonstrate their suffering are those who morally appear to be the most pure and deserving of a platform, a voice — that their words carry more weight’.

  * * *

Undergraduates, master’s and PhD students, as well as many professors and professionals who work in journalism or research, attended the event. The audience was active in posing questions for Williams; the question and answer session lasted just as long as the talk, clocking in at an hour each. Despite backlash from student groups earlier in the day, the discussion between Williams and the audience was civil and productive. She remained after the event to speak with those who had questions and even autographed one student’s book.

Eve Gleeson is a master’s student in International Relations at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, as well as the Communications Manager of Strife. Her courses focus on security challenges in the evolving global context, including cyber threats, nuclear and biological programs, and security in new states. Eve holds a BA in International Studies with a focus on conflict and security from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. You can find her on LinkedIn and on Twitter @evegleeson_.

Art, conflict, and the everyday – Traces of War launch event

By: Laurie Benson

DSC_0569
Ribbons I, 2015. 6 bars made of various Siachen soldier’s clothing, sponge and wood. Photo credit: Baptist Coelho, Project 88, Mumbai; LAMO, Leh.

Wednesday 13th April marked the launch of the Leverhulme Artist-in-Residence hosted by the Arts and Conflict Hub and Research Centre in International Relations, Department of War Studies, King’s College London. The residency features the artist Baptist Coelho who introduced his artistic practice at the event. An exhibition entitled ‘Traces of War’ will be held in November 2016 at the Inigo Rooms. Co-curator Cécile Bourne-Farrell stressed that the exhibition is an exploratory process to ‘recalibrate our vision’, not by transcending, but engaging with the everyday experiences of war and its locations. This article explores certain themes prompted by the upcoming exhibition and discussions, namely in terms of commemoration, the everyday, and the role of artists and art in conflict.

 

Screen Shot 2016-04-21 at 15.25.52
Left to Right: Baptist Coelho, Vivienne Jabri, Cécile Bourne-Farrell. (Photo Credit: Xenia Zubova)
IMG_5106
Council Room, King’s College London, Strand Campus. (Photo Credit: Laurie Benson)

Baptist’s presentation took the audience on a journey from locations in India and Pakistan, to the living rooms of ex-British soldiers, and memorial sites in Brighton. Since 2006 he has engaged with the India/Pakistan conflict though a project entitled Siachen Glacier, exploring the extreme conditions experienced by soldiers on the border-located glacier battlefield. Notable pieces have included Ribbons I (2015) and “I long to see some colour…” (2009) an installation piece in which empty photo frames in a soldier’s rucksack suggest that what is not visible can still be present. From tales recounted to the artist embedded with the soldiers, the claustrophobic white landscapes of the glacier framed their reality day in, day out. So often saturated by the CNN-bannered news imagery or fluorescent aerial drone aesthetics, Baptist’s work and its realisation in the gallery space also stresses the banal palettes of conflict.

 

DSC07121 edited
“I long to see some colour…”, 2009. Installation with soldier’s nylon rucksack and 70 photo frames. Photo credit: Baptist Coelho; Project 88, Mumbai; Visual Arts Gallery, Delhi. Collection: The Lekha and Anupam Poddar Collection

Working in mixed-media, from installation and photography to video, his practice draws on different textures, archival maps, booklets, interviews, and recently, gauge bandages. His aesthetic engagement prompts the viewer to consider the co-presence of different narratives; of what gets counted or not. Conflict involves human lives, bodily disposition, struggle, and the day-to-day. Focusing on objects juxtaposed in a cold display cabinet, for example, alludes to the proximity and distance of conflict and its display. How and through what frames is conflict viewed? What does an audience expect to see? What are the ethical and political implications of visibility and what is naturalised?
The role of the artist in conflict and politics has long been theorised, contested, and marketed. Art has been drawn upon to illustrate the horrors of war by academics, critics, and philosophers alike. Picasso’s Guernica is one of the most commonly cited examples. But perhaps what is also at stake is the practice, the doing. Artistic methods of researching and visualising intervene as much as they reveal; ways of working are potentially disruptive. They are also relational. Art is curated, exhibited, funded, viewed, and reviewed in contexts with audiences bringing their own frames of reference, expectations, and experiences in these processes of meaning-making. As Theodor Adorno reminds us, art works are both aesthetic and ‘social fact’.

Memories and traces of the past surface in the present, from war memorials, literature, film, and art, to personal stories passed through generations, and community claims left unrecognised in (re)articulations of the nation. How and what gets commemorated- its performance and symbolic cache- are political, intersecting the private and public. Public sites, for example museums and their collections, are not neutral but institutional spaces with bordering practices that intersect personal histories and official narrative. Baptist stresses engaging with the archive as a central part of his artistic research. The archive is active, not a relic of the past, but rather history in the present. An upcoming art project will look at the commemoration in a Brighton community for an Indian soldier fighting under the British in World War One. The recent controversies over the statue of Cecil Rhodes exemplifies the ongoing question of how a nation deals with its colonial past and what, and whom, are considered to belong. Judith Butler speaks of the ‘derealisation of loss’, of the politics and hierarchy of human experience, but Baptist’s work also suggests the possibility of thinking differently through and with art and its politics.

 

 

The exhibition supported by King’s Cultural Programming entitled ‘Traces of War’ will be held in the Indigo Rooms, from 26th October to December 2016.It is being curated by Professor Vivienne Jabri, Department of War Studies, and Cécile Bourne-Farrell. The exhibition will feature work by prominent artists, Jananne Al-Ani and Shaun Gladwell as well as pieces by Baptist as-yet exhibited in the UK. The residency, featuring the artist Baptist Coelho, is being supported by the Leverhulme Trust and the Delfina Foundation.
Laurie Benson is a PhD Candidate in the Department of War Studies

 

For more information about the artist please check:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/baptist/index.aspx 

 

Additional Information & Media:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/news/newsrecords/Baptist-Coelho-launch-marks-Traces-of-War-exhibition.aspx