Dual Securitization of Public Space in Relation to Sport Mega Events

• Název práce v češtině: Dvojitá sekuritizace veřejného prostoru ve vztahu k velkým sportovním událostem
• Název v anglickém jazyce: Dual Securitization of Public Space in Relation to Sport Mega Events
• Klíčová slova: sekuritizácia, verejný priestor, profilovanie, sledovanie, militarizácia, športová udalosť, diskurz, normalita, mestská bezpečnosť, mestá
• Klíčová slova anglicky: securitization, public space, profiling, surveillance, militarization, sporting event, discourse, normality, urban security, cities
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2012/2013
• Typ práce: diplomová práce
• Jazyk práce: angličtina
• Ústav: Katedra mezinárodních vztahů (23-KMV)
• Vedoucí / školitel: prof. PhDr. RNDr. Nikola Hynek, Ph.D., M.A.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem
• Datum přihlášení: 08.02.2013
• Datum zadání: 08.02.2013
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 24.06.2014 00:00
• Místo konání obhajoby: IPS FSV UK, U kříže 8/661 158 00 Praha 5 – Jinonice
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 05.05.2014
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 24.06.2014
• Oponenti: doc. PhDr. Ondřej Ditrych, M.Phil., Ph.D.

Seznam odborné literatury

SOURCES
In my critical analysis of contemporary urban securitization, a publication titled Research Methods in Critical Security Studies edited by Salter and Mutlu (2013) provides a useful methodological framework with a number of short chapters outlining various research designs (topics such as speech act theory, behavioral profiling, securitization of infrastructures, targeted killings, non-lethal weapons, etc.). I will also draw on lectures of Michael Foucault at College de France 1977-1978, published in 2007. Elements of securitization of cities and individuals within them can be found in cases back from the 18th century. Furthermore, Foucault analyzes in depth what he calls disciplinary normalization, a process in which a model of conduct is constructed and subsequently brings people, movements and actions to conformity with it. I will be arguing that this normalization is a precondition of one’s liberty and safety in a public space. Tools used by various governments in preparation for prestigious sporting events might seem similar, but in fact they differ in terms of focus and profoundness. I will try to analyze and explain similarities and differences between the chosen case studies.
The above mentioned Stephen Graham’s book on The New Military Urbanism published in 2010 compiles extraordinary amount of empirical evidence of contemporary urban securitization. References to it will be made in discussion of NMU concept, its theoretical basis, as well as its material implications.
Jon Coaffee has researched spatial implications of security measures in Britain in general, and London in particular. Of his many books, Securing and Sustaining the Olympic City (2011) is useful in understanding what factors have led to London’s securitization and how extraordinary measures have changed the city’s layout overtime. His concept of urban resilience as an ability of a city to anticipate, plan for, manage and mitigate impacts of large scale disruptions is applicable to global cities around the world. London’s preparations for the 2012 summer Olympic Games served as a powerful impulse for further securitization, which has been reflected upon by many other scholars in Britain and beyond.
Ulrich Beck’s research on risk society proves that risk as such is unavoidable and unpredictable (Risk Society, 1992). As a consequence, societies must learn to accept and adapt to risks in order to function. In the post 9-11 period, Beck linked his original theses to terrorism, above all arguing that contemporary terrorism is uninsurable by private companies.
Of academic journals to be consulted, the one I find the most adequate for my particular topic is City, especially volumes from August and October 2012 which focus on security implications in London due to the Games and militarization of cities in relation to mega sporting events with the case study of Rio de Janeiro, respectively. Securitization of city spaces is a central topic to the August 2011 issue of this journal, with special focus on security measures and their implications ten years after the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beck, Ulrich (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage.
Burgess, J. Peter, ed. (2010) The Routledge Handbook of New Security Studies. London: Routledge.
Buzan, Barry; Ole Waever, Jaap de Wilde (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Coaffe, Jon; David Murakami Wood, Peter Rogers (2009) The Everyday Resilience of the City: How Cities Respond to Terrorism and Disaster. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
Coaffee, Jon (2009) Terrorism, Risk and a Global City: Towards Urban Resilience. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Group.
Coaffee, Jon (2011) Securing and Sustaining the Olympic City: Reconfiguring London for 2012 and Beyond. Burlington: Ashgate
Evans, Peter B., ed. (2002) Livable Cities? Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Foucault, Michael (1997) Society must be defended: Lectures at the College de France 1976 – 1976. New York: Picador
Foucault, Michael (2007) Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France 1977 – 1978. New York: Palgrave Macmillian
Graham, Stephen (2010) Cities Under Siege: New Military Urbanism. London: Verso Books.
Graham, Stephen, ed. (2004) Cities, War, and Terrorism: towards an urban geopolitics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Graham, Stephen, ed. (2010) Disrupted Cities: When Infrastructure Fails. New York: Routlege.
Krahmann, Elke (2010) States, Citizens and the Privatization of Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salter, Mark B.; Can E. Mutlu, eds. (2013) Research Methods in Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. New York: Routlege

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

DUAL SECURITIZATION OF PUBLIC SPACE IN RELATION TO SPORT MEGA EVENTS
Urban security governance and new military urbanism from Beijing to Rio de Janeiro

The goal of the thesis is to analyze dual securitization of public spaces in contemporary cities, its roots in Foucauldian governmentality and disciplinary normalization and its understanding in context of different political regimes. I will explore in depth the concept of the New Military Urbanism recently developed by numerous authors, most notably Stephen Graham in a book with the same title. The New Military Urbanism (2010) is based on the argument that city spaces of developed nations are being securitized to an unprecedented degree. Techniques of surveillance and control traditionally deployed to control urban populations in formerly colonized territories are, in words of Coaffee, “coming home”. In the process, military techniques developed in line with RMA are used by law enforcement agencies to police the public spaces by monitoring, profiling, targeting and (in extreme cases) exterminating individuals who are deemed malign (such as potential criminals, terrorists, non-conformists, etc.) The key word here being potential, as these strategies are largely preventive or pre-emptive, designed to prevent actual materialization of a given threat. I argue that the requirement of normality can be interpreted via Foucauldian disciplinary normalization. Conforming to certain behavioral, social, discursive and other standards is a precondition of free movement within public space, especially when stakes get high in preparation for a prestigious international event. As a result, cities become increasingly fragmented public spaces and fail to serve all members of society. This fragmentation goes hand in hand with integration of international flows of finance, goods, people and information among contemporary cities, which makes them more vulnerable to disruptions.
It is what I understand as dual securitization of public space and individuals within it: on one hand, public spaces and people in them are understood as threats to be put under constant surveillance, profiled and forced to constantly prove their normality and identity in order to move freely. Probability that there might be a dangerous individual among them, however small, makes all of them suspicious and subject to constant monitoring and identity checks. On the other hand, and quite ironically, public spaces and present individuals are deemed referent objects as such – the threatened value that is to be protected from a potential risk (be it criminality, all forms of physical abuse, terrorism, etc.). As a result of today’s urban securitization, urbanities (audience) agree to undergo extraordinary security measures and partially give up their liberties on basis of their own security. Thus, actors of securitization attain their goals (proliferation of private security industry, public expenditure in technology of surveillance, profiling, biometric recognition, construction of physical barriers – in words of Coaffee, of defensive urban landscape), contributing to culture of control and fear within societies.
The trouble is that, regardless the securitization discourse of the media, politicians or private security industry, risk of terrorist attack or any event compromising citizen security is simply unavoidable. According to Beck, all urban spaces are simply uninsurable, as in the “risk society” nobody is fully immune to physical harm or property loss. Risk is distributed unequally within the city, with low class residents exposed much more to it than their better off fellow citizens. Furthermore, as statistics and recent media reports indicate, the lone wolf type of attacks is likely to increase, which is virtually impossible to predict and prevent. Thus, effectiveness of the securitization approach in fight against terror can be seriously questioned.
The fact that cities are increasingly securitized can hardly be called into question, given ample empirical evidence in both global North and South. Nevertheless, I would be careful in using the word “new” to brand what Graham calls military urbanism. As new it can indeed be understood in terms of technology employed and the scope of the measures, which, as the world is urbanizing, is bound to increase and in fact does. However, as he argues, the security-centered measures traditionally employed in colonized lands are coming back to Western cities (Foucauldian boomerang). Also, what is not new is urban securitization as such, tools to control and discipline the population, to force it into conformity or punish it, and, above all, require normality (in what Foucault calls disciplinary normalization). It is this process which has been going on forever. With a certain simplification, we can say that cities were themselves products of fear; with issues like war, violence, rational and irrational fear and anxiety contributing to their very creation. Cities were in a way based on control, power, its absence and subsequent fear, as always some people were less powerful and more different, defiant and thus, subject to control, than others. What is new about the new military urbanism is the technology and scope, perhaps academic attention to contemporary urban securitization, but not this process as such. Foucault illustrates securitization of cities and surveillance techniques employed to control their civilian population on examples from as early as the 18th century. He proves that phenomena such as spatial segregation, restriction of access, control of public space and profiling of individuals within it was taking place centuries before theorists of New Military Urbanism published their theses.
OPERATIONALIZATION
I plan to use Foucault’s understanding of governmentality and normalization of an individual to challenge the newness of some aspects of Graham’s military urbanism. My argument is that his “new” trends in urban securitization can be traced back to traditional disciplinary normalization of (urban) population. High-tech surveillance and profiling techniques are contemporary expressions of a continuous desire of governments to command and police public spaces. Thus, securitization of contemporary cities can be understood as a new development stage of urban control practices (made possible by new technology) rather than a new process as such.
To prove the successful dual securitization of cities and citizens for their own sake, one needs to look at spatial implications of this process in cities, as well as at techniques of urban control which have been increasingly militarized and which are based on profiling of individuals. Techniques employed by state / local governments in preparation, during and after major sport events reflect different government rationalities. Some of their aspects are strikingly similar, regardless of whether the event takes place in the global North or South. Tools used for surveillance and profiling are provided by top military technology companies and in many cases continue to fulfill the normalization function in the aftermath of the event. Role of civil society, minority groups, poor and marginalized varies and so does the governments’ approaches towards them. Foucauldian governmentality and disciplinary normalization will be used to explore similar/identical means employed by various political regimes in different countries. Although their goals are seemingly identical, that is, to ensure normalization in the name of security, in practice they vary in terms of direction and depth. A series of three case studies will allow me to analyze similarities and differences between government rationalities (and related political projects).
CASE STUDIES
In chronological order, Beijing will be the first case study to explore government-imposed security measures in connection to the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. With more than 100 thousand security personnel and three times as many security “volunteers”, the Chinese Olympics set a threshold unlikely to be overreached in years to come. Deaf to international criticism of its handling of human rights issues, China made the success of the Olympic Games a priority. Compromising rights of citizens as many of them were evicted from their homes without adequate reimbursement, creating a “ring of steel” of traffic control in the capital, hurting investments and business due to restrictions and cracking down on dissent was all part of the wider Olympic security strategy. As a result of this prestige-centered and insensitive place-marketing approach, the Olympics earned a label “Paramilitary Games” (Coonan and Osley), costs to the city layout and environment were enormous, and many of the Olympic sites in greater Beijing now decay unused by its citizens.
South Africa serves as another relevant case study of governance related to prestigious sport events. The traditionally socially polarized nation is indeed a good example of implications of military urbanism. When Johannesburg hosted the FIFA World Cup in 2010, urban securitization was unprecedented, even with its apartheid past taken into account. Security measures used were predominantly militarized and the World Cup preparations served as a training ground for South African law enforcement agencies to stay in place also after the event was over. Employment of military techniques to police urban spaces has become a norm, and indeed has not contributed to good governance and healthy civil society in South Africa.
In London, widespread militarization of public space, surveillance and residential fortification took place in the name of security, with use of top-notch security technologies. The organizers prevented any attack on soft targets during the Games, with the biggest mobilization of the British armed forces since WWII. This process moved London one step closer to a completely militarized city, impacts of which have not been researched to a sufficient degree. Like in the previous cases, the wide array of the security measures employed can be understood as a shift towards a society where discourse of urban risk, control and fear determine public expenditure in interest of private security firms. This has serious implications in terms of legitimacy and accountability in connection with use of force and privacy issues. However, London Olympics was indeed different from Beijing, as the British Olympics-related development was people-centered. The process of planning the Olympic facilities was conducted with development of the worse-off parts of the city in mind. Sporting sites and residential buildings were to be used to citizens’ benefit after the Olympics were over.
The next global city to host prestigious sporting events in future is Rio de Janeiro. The FIFA World Cup of 2014 and the Olympic Games of 2016 are to take place here, with security implications similar to those we have witnessed in the previous cases. Since the events are still in preparation, I will limit myself to lay out some prospects and discuss possible scenarios bearing in mind the colonial legacy, the favela phenomenon and the prestige-centered approach the local government’s actions have indicated thus far.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Empirical data will be drawn predominantly from newspaper articles and media reports. In addition, a number of scholarly articles from journals in fields of political science, security studies, architecture, planning and environmental studies, social geography and urban geography will be used to provide examples of urban militarization in connection to mega sporting events. I will also base my findings on reports and policy papers by United Nations, various nongovernmental organizations, and websites (academic, corporate, governmental, etc.).
The data will be analyzed in the light of Foucauldian governmentality and disciplinary normalization to reveal similarities and differences among the studied cities to have hosted a major sporting event. Dual securitization of public space will be proved by focusing on rising costs of security measures, employment of private security industry, material, social, political and economic implications of the security measures, impact on civil society, usage of sporting sites and employment of restrictions in the aftermath of the events.