Archive

The Violent Image: Insurgent Propaganda and the New Revolutionaries Book Review

November 4, 2012 by Strife Staff

By Molly Berkemeier

Bolt, Neville, The Violent Image: Insurgent Propaganda and the New Revolutionaries (London: Hurst & Co., 2012).

Hardback RRP: £24.99

In The Violent Image: Insurgent Propaganda and the New Revolutionaries, Neville Bolt attempts to shine a light on the changing nature of Propaganda of the Deed (POTD) from its 19^th anarchical origins to its modern day co-option by global insurgents.

For Bolt, the proliferation of digital mass media in the 20^th century transformed POTD into a systemic tactic that can be exploited by modern insurgents. For the users of 2012 POTD the goal is to create a media event capable of enthusing the target population enough to bring about social transformation or state revolution. Modern POTD is at once military, tactical, political, communicative, and may be either strategic or opportune. For Bolt, it is the aftershock of the event, the so-called “lightning rod for collective memory” that changes the act into a communications tool and form of political marketing allowing insurgents to instantly connect with a global population (7).

The true heart of Bolt’s argument lies in his discussion of memory and narrative. He concludes that when used successfully, POTD transmitted by information media becomes a metaphor that triggers a collective memory or narrative of grievance that then fuses memory to identity. The role of the visceral image is paramount here, as the image alone possesses the symbolic capability allowing the message to be read by a universal audience. POTD becomes the insurgent’s central operating concept, providing a way to quickly communicate with an increasingly diffuse population.

The new revolutionaries of 2012 have demonstrated their ability to exploit the new media landscape and use POTD as a tool to communicate a narrative and gather support. The many uprisings nestled within the Arab Spring lend evidence to the importance of communication technologies and inflammatory images (pardon the morbid pun) for mobilizing support.

The crucial question for contemporary revolutionists thus concerns to what degree virtual collective action can be an alternative to violence: “Can images and ideas alone bring down governments?” (209). Given that a state is unlikely to willingly relinquish control to what it perceives as a rebellion, the crucial question is whether spontaneous mass action produced by POTD imagery can overcome or divide a states armed force. If insurgents are able to fracture a states military force through POTD alone, this could potentially provide a modern alternative to violent revolution.

Bolt claims POTD in the hands of 1878’s anarchists failed due to their inability to transmit their message to the population. It stands to see if 2012’s insurgents can overcome today’s problem of linking mass virtual mobilization to collective action, and whether or not a digital uprising can successfully bring about political and social change. Regardless, The Violent Image is a fruitful read.

Small Wars Permitting: Dispatches from Foreign Lands Book Review

November 4, 2012 by Strife Staff

By Amelie Sundberg

Lamb, Christina, Small Wars Permitting: Dispatches from Foreign Lands (London: HarperPress, 2008).

Paperback RRP: £8.99

Many of us who can’t seem to get enough of reading and writing about conflict are lured by the romanticized life of a war correspondent. Wouldn’t everyone like to travel to the far corners of the globe, witness history unfold itself in front of their eyes and in the process expose and vanquish the evils of our world by the stroke of our pen? The dream job. For me that is exactly what it has become – a dream, gathering dust in the face of other considerations such as a guaranteed decent wage and the reluctance to risk my life for an article that will be lining tomorrow’s dustbins. However, Christina Lamb’s Small Wars Permitting: Dispatches from Foreign Lands is a healthy dose of indulgence in the belief that maybe, one day, we could be as awe-inspiring as her.

Having won the Foreign Correspondent of the Year four times there is little doubt that Christina Lamb is a talented journalist. But after reading this book it is clear that she is also a surprisingly gifted storyteller. Personal memories are interspersed throughout this compilation of her reportage, chronicling not only her search for adventure but also her development as a writer with a concern for those whose everyday lives are disrupted by war. “To me the real story in war is not the bang-bang but the lives of those trying to survive behind the lines”(5).

Christina Lamb’s story begins in Pakistan. After attending Benazir Bhutto’s wedding in 1987 she managed to persuade the FT to let her return to Pakistan and pay her for whatever they published. She was only 21. Once there, in order to cover the Afghan resistance to Russian occupation Lamb smuggled herself into Afghanistan with the Mujahideen 14 times. She now felts that she fell in love with the Afghan war. It is difficult to not be impressed by the image of this English girl dining with Afghan tribesmen and riding on the back of Hamid Karzai’s motorbike. Clearly there is more to Christina Lamb’s book than the stereotypical journalistic bravado of hacks sipping whisky in exotic hotel lobbies.

As one of the few reporters to witness the battle for Jalalabad, Lamb is harrowed by the memory of driving past women and their injured children, who had mistaken her for a nurse, without offering to help. “It was the ugliest thing that I had ever done and made me realise what an ugly thing war is” (45). This exemplifies Lamb’s honest and modest writing style that sets her narrative apart. Many of her articles to follow dealt with untold issues of human rights and corruption. Forced to leave Pakistan in 1989 Lamb was later based in Brazil and South Africa. During this time, among many other issues she wrote about the murder of street children in Rio, Mugabe’s land reform and the oil curse of Nigeria.

After 9/11 Lamb was excited to return to Afghanistan to cover the Western ‘intervention’, but was quickly disillusioned by the regional destruction and oppression. Her tale of sewing-classes that acted as a cover for women’s education in Afghanistan is particularly enlightening. I was struck by how early on in the conflict Lamb voiced insights into the international political dynamics that many of us now only appreciate with the benefit of hindsight. In particular she criticises the ignorance of the US and British troops and holds that mistake as responsible for the escalating regional anti-Western sentiment.

Not only does Lamb open our eyes to the plight of others as a result of conflict in a candid and compassionate manner, she repeatedly demonstrates striking pluck and humour. One memorable scene takes place when journalists were stopped at the border into Iraq during the 2003 US invasion. Lamb managed to smuggle herself across by inserting her Land Cruiser in between a tank and APC, pretending to be part of the passing US convoy. One of the US vehicles was ironically named “Road to Paradise” (260). Still, two sobering events bring home the hardships that are part and parcel of her line of work. In 2006 she narrowly escaped death when the Taliban ambushed the British Parachute Regiment on a ‘Hearts and Mind’ mission in Afghanistan with whom she was reporting. And in 2007 she was on board Benazir Bhutto’s bus when it was bombed, luckily avoiding serious injury.

After reading Small Wars Permitting I have found myself a new heroine, and I am convinced that whoever reads her book will be cast under her spell. As for a career in journalism, I have to admit that I am quite relieved that I did not have to butter an inordinate number of sandwiches for my sons eleventh birthday party only hours after a close shave with death at the hands of the Taliban.

Runaway train: Can developing countries catch up with the modern world?

November 3, 2012 by Strife Staff

By Justyna Maciejczak

Have you ever wondered what the magical threshold that a developing country has to cross is if it aspires to become a part of the industrialised world? Is it possible that one day the majority of today’s developing countries will eventually be recognised by industrialised nations as their equals? Dear idealists and believers in social progress, sorry to burst your bubble, but this might never happen. The reasons for this are as follows.

The problem with development is that we concentrate our attention on the underdeveloped regions, forgetting that the process of development takes place in the industrialised world as well. What is more, if you compare the rates of development of the Third World countries and the West, you will see that the industrialised nations, being able to capitalise on previous discoveries in the area of science and technology, are moving forward at a much faster pace than the rest of the world.

To illustrate this dilemma of development, imagine two trains heading the same direction but following two separate tracks. Western civilisation is moving forward at breakneck speed, reaping the fruits of progress that had its origin in the Industrial Revolution and, relatively unhindered, continues today. Developing countries occupy the second train, which is moving forward, but, being burdened with colonial baggage, can’t accelerate its pace and stays behind.

This image is additionally complicated by the fact that there is no specific destination that both trains are trying to reach. If there was one, it would be called “the ultimate state of development”, but we all know that such thing does not exist.

It is true, that some countries are in a better situation than others. China, India and Brazil have made a huge progress towards development in recent decades. But let’s be honest, not every Asian, African or Latin American country has enough potential (be it human or natural resources, geographic location etc.) to enter the path of accelerated development. In fact, the perspective for developing world looks rather gloomy.

A paradox of development is this: as industrialised nations evolve, they also change their perception of what is “modern” and what is “obsolete”. Along with the change of perception, comes the change of standards applied in order to draw a distinction between “old” and “new”, “developed” and “backward”.

Today the common criteria used to evaluate a country’s stage of development are economic indicators and standard of living (HDI). But have you ever wondered how these criteria would look like in 20, 50 or 70 years? What if in 2050 the list of indicators of development will include criteria such as: quantity of notebooks owned by family, hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) used by nation or ability of the country to send their own satellite into space? How are today’s developing countries supposed to reach these standards? At this rate of development taking place in the industrialised countries, the South will never catch up with the North and will be always seen as a “backward” region.

This is one of the reasons why the friction between North and South continues. Many developing countries are struggling to enhance their economic and political performance, and as many indicators suggest, are quite successful in their attempts (for more information on African growth read “Africa’s hopeful economies: The sun shines bright”, available at http://www.economist.com/node/21541008). However, their success is overshadowed by a Western narrative, which, with its focus on country’s failures and unresolved problems, is predominantly negative.

In other words, no matter how much has been done to accelerate growth and stabilise situation in developing countries, it is never enough to match Western standards of development. Once country has been labeled as “developing”, it remains “developing” no matter its actual progress. This is a virtual “development trap”, an issue which should be given proper consideration if one wants to deal with the development gap.

Carrots or sticks? The future of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East

November 2, 2012 by Strife Staff

By Lorena Fortuno

The role of the United States: Changes in Middle East Foreign Policy

Since the early stages of the Cold War, one of the main policy goals of the United States has been to promote and maintain its influence in the Middle East in order to gain access to a stable oil market. Another, as Nicholas Kitchen said, has been to respond to significant domestic pressures by forming an ideological commitment to the state of Israel.

These interests have for many years led to a foreign policy strategy to prevent any hegemonic power, regional or extra-regional, from gaining control of the area, betting on a regional balance kept in place by deterrence, alliances and occasional interventions.

After the Cold War, the world witnessed a strengthening of extremist Islamic factions, mainly as a rejection – often violent – of the sustained rule of U.S. sponsored or tolerated authoritarian regimes in Middle East.

Following 9/11, the U.S. Middle East strategy adjusted to include G.W. Bush’s “War on Terror” and “Freedom Agenda” as a more aggressive plan to guarantee stability in the region as well as domestic security. Nonetheless this strategy backfired, as it created a great contradiction between nation-building and the pursuit of domestic interests.

The Obama Administration – An emerging doctrine?

After a highly interventionist approach from the Republicans, President Obama brought a new approach to foreign policy that, in George Freidman’s words, can be read as a symbol of maturity: he argues that foreign policy is made by reality, not policy papers or presidents.

The “Arab Spring” presented a further challenge for the U.S. leadership, but the Obama administration’s approach remained focused on national interest priorities, while still seeking to maintain influence through diplomacy and soft power.

Being a hegemonic power, the U.S. faces diverse and complex threats, but nonetheless Washington’s priority has been to manage or mitigate emerging conflicts in the Middle East by searching for a regional balance through diplomatic means, addressing strongly only those that challenge its main interests and otherwise leaving events to take their own course.

This position may be perceived as weak by some American allies and by voters and some factions within Washington, but as Friedman argues, this might be “less a form of isolationism than a recognition of the limits of power and interest”.

2012 Elections: Effects on Middle East Foreign Policy

Assuming there is an emerging doctrine and a new approach to world leadership and foreign policy, how much could it be affected by this year’s presidential elections?

Mitt Romney, Republican presidential candidate, recently implied during a speech at the Virginia Military Institute that the current administration’s strategy has led to a loss of American leadership and influence throughout the world and he maintains that if elected, his approach would be more military-based and active.

Arguing that allowing the balance of power and events to take its course only delays American intervention, Romney proposes what Friedman describes as “active balancing” to maintain and defend American interests abroad and reinforce national security.

But is this approach realistic? According to Romney, global resentment and anti-American sentiment fuel terrorism and anti-American groups. Could he intervene actively in Middle Eastern conflicts without intensifying these sentiments?

Would he be able to take a tougher approach towards preventing the buildup of Iran’s nuclear capability without creating further instability in the region?

What do you think?

Strife Journal

October 18, 2012 by Strife Staff

Special Issue I (2015)

Journal Full Issue (PDF)

Contingency as the ‘Missing Link’: A New Approach to Understanding ‘Change’ in U.S. Foreign and Security Strategy in the 21st Century – p. 1.
Oliver B. Steward

The U.S. Supply of Military Assistance to Iraq, post Mosul: Pursuing Interests at the Cost of Influence – p. 9.
Emma Scott

Explaining U.S. Distrust of China’s Military Modernization – p. 16.
Xiongxiong Zhang

Emerging Challenges to Unipolarity: U.S. Grand Strategy and East Asian Order – p. 24.
Ramesh Balakrishnan

Capitalist Development, China’s Rise and US State Managers: Explaining ‘Pivot to Asia’ with Marxists Lenses – p. 31.
Zeno Leoni

False Foes and Fruitful Friction: U.S.-Turkish Military, Defence, and Intelligence Relations during the Erdogan Decade – p. 40.
Ben Sollenberger

It’s the ‘Special Relationship’, Stupid: Examining Israel-US Relations Through the Prism of Israeli Territorial Withdrawals – p. 48.
Rob Pinfold

The United States Security Policy in Cyberspace after Snowden – p.
Andrzej Kozłowski

Professional Military Education as an Hegemonic Tool in U.S. International Security Policy – p.
Duraid Jalili

Issue #5 – May/ June 2015