Understanding Of Securitization By Breaking Down Discourse

Many citizens expect protection from threats foreign and domestic, and to do so in a

Leonard Beaton similarly argued for the need to expand conceptions of security outward from the limits of parochial national security to include a range of systemic considerations. Likewise, Stanley Hoffman argued for the need to begin ‘turning national security into an aspect of world order policy’. Hedley Bull argued against excessive self-interest in approaches to national security, and for a broader view in which common interest and linkage among securities receive greater attention. More generally, Krause and Nye observed that ‘neither economists nor political scientists have paid enough attention to the complexity of the concept of security, including its instrumental role in the enhancement of different values’. The Brandt Commission called for a new concept of security that would transcend the narrow notions of military defence and look more towards the logic of a broader interdependence. The common theme underlying these voices was that a notion of security bound to the level of individual states and military issues is inherently inadequate.

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

terms of demography and territory in the Ethiopian state, were targeted for destruction, and instead forced to glorify the identities and cultures of the oppressive group (xxx, xxx).

Security can be a tool to rationalize, legitimize, marginalize violence (keeping minority groups in their place) which could in turn reinforce systemic inequalities present in society by turning a blind eye to context. This dichotomy serves as a platform for other invalidation ideologies that works on the continuum of fear that can divide into categories of “us” and “them”, which are then used to send us messages about who is a threat, and leads to constructions of what individuals who are not able to stand up for themselves. The death of Ashley Smith illustrates how the range of oppressive structures were responsible for the persistent and severe denials of her fundamental rights. In this context, we can see that the state has both the means to violate and protect human rights.

Another element of the strategy is untwisting the “spiral of violence”. The classic mechanism, which assume the existence of cycles of suicide terrorism activity in a “action-repression-reaction” it is aimed at lowering the public support for the government, and increase it for the terrorists. By curried out the suicide terrorism attacks, the intension and aim of the terrorists is to hit the repressive actions of the authorities not only in themselves but also in the group indentified with them and/or their supporters (a specified ethnic group, religious, social or the entire society). As a result, this process has lead to massive social explosion directed against the government. Such a model of strategy for terrorism has been used by most of the leftist groups in Europe in the nineteenth century, and in the

After the events that took place in 2001, the idea that Western Countries declared “war on terror” was proposed and a new awareness of Islam emerged.

The first argument supporting the statement that national security is more important than protection of individual rights is the increased threat of terroristic attacks, which are very dangerous, carefully planned, locally targeted and generously funded

Ever since September 11, 2001 Americans along with the majority of the world’s population have been skeptical of Muslims. It’s a sad reality but it’s hard for people to think of a Muslim without linking them directly to terrorism. But these assumptions aren’t totally out of the blue—the Muslim’s religion, Islam, teaches a low tolerance for other religions and the Islamic government has no separation of church and state, so it’s only normal to assume that their government shall have a low tolerance as well—some however, immediately translate this into terrorism. Through the Islamic government and religion, relations with foreign countries, and separation amongst themselves it can be concluded that Islamic Fundamentalism is clearly a threat

securiness; the ruptures with everyone else translated to violence, felonies, terrorism, wars, and otheres; have no other cause but the fontal ropture of the One who

In the days after September 11, 2001, American leaders rushed to portray Islam as a peaceful religion that had been "hijacked" by a fanatical band of terrorists. One hopes that these assurances were merely tactical—that nobody was meant to believe them and that they were meant to assure the Muslim world that the inevitable American

All these important questions about terror and insecurity are a considerable part of the subject of international politics. In this regard, scholars have dedicated decades for understanding the relations between states in political, economic, social, and other

This paper will consider the positionality of Tuma in relation to the post-colonial Ethiopian state and his use of stereotypes in the prologue and stories in The Case of the Socialist Witchdoctor (Tuma: 1993). The book is divided into two sections, the former highly satirical and the latter rather serious. The paper will consider a quote by Ogude: “If in the prologue Hama Tuma introduces us to a variety of stereotypes about Ethiopians as survivors with the endurance of a beast, in the court trails the stereotypes are revised if not altogether subverted” (Ogude 2000:95). The paper starts off with a dissection of Tuma’s mockery of the state in a brief look at the satire in “The Case of the Socialist Witchdoctor” and further draws on a Freudian understanding of the unconscious and the role it plays in the novel, based on the critique of the state in “The Case of Criminal Thought.

Security is a central concern in the study of international relations (IR). Yet despite being the focus of considerable scrutiny, few agreed conceptions of security exist (Buzan, 1991; Huysmans, 2006; Terriff et al., 1991; McSweeney, 1999; Morgan, 1992; Croft 2012; Smith 2000). Buzan even goes as far to posit that the very conception of security is “essentially contested” and thus poses an unsolvable debate (Buzan, People, states and fear; Little, ideology and change, p35). These disagreements have created rifts in the security community over what can be threatened and indeed what can even be considered a threat. Part of the complexity to the subject is derived from the numerous opposing and often contradicting theoretical perspectives within international relations itself, of which security is a sub-field (Terrif et al. 1991 – Security studies today). This paper thereby seeks to trace the various theoretical strands of security studies with the hope of elucidating how and why Islam, and Muslims immigrants have been increasingly portrayed as a threat and ‘Otherised’ in Britain.

The security dilemma is a fundamental concept in IR originate in John Herz’s writing provided the definition of security dilemma back in 1951 “a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity to others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening” (Herz, 1950: 157) which is a classic definition heavily associates with realism. In international system, where there are no world governments or police to provide security for states as a result state exist in an anarchy and the only way to ensure their own security is through self-help. In short, security dilemmas caused by anarchy, however, in this essay,