Home » War Crime
Category Archives: War Crime
The future of criminology
If you have an alert on your phone then a new story may come with a bing! the headline news a combination of arid politics and crime stories. Sometimes some spicy celebrity news and maybe why not a scandal or two. We are alerted to stories that bing in our phone to keep ourselves informed. Only these are not stories, they are just headlines! We read a series of headlines and form a quick opinion of anything from foreign affairs, transnational crime, war, financial affairs to death. We are informed and move on.
There is a distinction, that we tend not to make whenever we are getting our headline alerts; we get fragments of information, in a sea of constant news, that lose their significance once the new headline appears. We get some information, but never the knowledge of what really happened. We hear of war but we hardly know the reasons for the war. We read on financial crisis but never capture the reason for the crisis. We hear about death, usually in crime stories, and take notice of the headcount as if that matters. If life matters then a single loss of life should have an impact that it deserves irrespective of origin.
After a year that forced me to reflect deeply about the past and the future, I often questioned if the way we consume information will alter the way we register social phenomena and more importantly we understand society and ourselves in it. After all crime stories tend to be featured heavily in the headlines. Last time I was imagining the “criminology of the future” it was terrorism and the use of any object to cause harm. That was then and now some years later we still see cars being used as weapons, fear of crime is growing according to the headlines that even the official stats have paused surveying since 2017! Maybe because in the other side of the Atlantic the measurement of fear was revealed to be so great that 70% of those surveyed admitted being afraid of crime, some of whom to the extent that changes their everyday life.
We are afraid of crime, because we read the headlines. If knowledge is power, then the fragmented information is the source of ambiguity. The emergence of information, the reproduction of news, in some cases aided by AI have not provided any great insight or understanding of what is happening around us. A difference between information and knowledge is the way we establish them but more importantly how we support them. In a world of 24/7 news updates, we have no ideological appreciation of what is happening. Violence is presented as a phenomenon that emerges under the layers of the dark human nature. That makes is unpredictable and scary. Understandably so…
This a representation of violence devoid of ideology and theory. What is violence in our society does not simply happens but it is produced and managed through the way it is consumed and promoted. We sell violence, package it for patriotic fervour. We make defence contracts, selling weapons, promoting war. In society different social groups are separated and pitted against each other. Territory becomes important and it can be protected only through violence. These mechanisms that support and manage violence in our society are usually omitted. A dear colleague quite recently reminded me that the role of criminology is to remind people that the origins of crime are well rooted in our society in the volume of harm it inflicts.
There is no singular way that criminology can develop. So far it appears like this resilient discipline that manages to incorporates into its own body areas of work that fiercely criticised it. It is quite ironic for the typical criminology student to read Foucault, when he considered criminology “a utilitarian discipline”! Criminology had the last laugh as his work on discipline and punishment became an essential read. The discipline seems to have staying power but will it survive the era of information? Most likely; crime data originally criticised by most, if not all criminologists are now becoming a staple of criminological research methods. Maybe criminology manages to achieve what sociology was doing in the late 20th century or maybe not! Whatever direction the future of criminology takes it will be because we have taken it there! We are those who ought to take the discipline further so it would be relevant in years to come. After all when people in the future asked you what did you do…you better have a good answer!
Share this:
25 years of Criminology
When the world was bracing for a technological winter thanks to the “millennium bug” the University of Northampton was setting up a degree in Criminology. Twenty-five years later and we are reflecting on a quarter of a century. Since then, there have been changes in the discipline, socio-economic changes and wider changes in education and academia.
The world at the beginning of the 21st century in the Western hemisphere was a hopeful one. There were financial targets that indicated a raising level of income at the time and a general feeling of a new golden age. This, of course, was just before a new international chapter with the “war on terror”. Whilst the US and its allies declared the “war on terror” decreeing the “axis of evil”, in Criminology we offered the module “Transnational Crime” talking about the challenges of international justice and victor’s law.
Early in the 21st century it became apparent that individual rights would take centre stage. The political establishment in the UK was leaving behind discussions on class and class struggles and instead focusing on the way people self-identify. This ideological process meant that more Western hemisphere countries started to introduce legal and social mechanisms of equality. In 2004 the UK voted for civil partnerships and in Criminology we were discussing group rights and the criminalisation of otherness in “Outsiders”.
During that time there was a burgeoning of academic and disciplinary reflection on the way people relate to different identities. This started out as a wider debate on uniqueness and social identities. Criminology’s first cousin Sociology has long focused on matters of race and gender in social discourse and of course, Criminology has long explored these social constructions in relation to crime, victimisation and social precipitation. As a way of exploring race and gender and age we offered modules such as “Crime: Perspectives of Race and Gender” and “Youth, Crime and the Media”. Since then we have embraced Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality and embarked on a long journey for Criminology to adopt the term and explore crime trends through an increasingly intersectional lens. Increasingly our modules have included an intersectional perspective, allowing students to consider identities more widely.
The world’s confidence fell apart when in 2008 in the US and the UK financial institutions like banks and other financial companies started collapsing. The boom years were replaced by the bust of the international markets, bringing upheaval, instability and a lot of uncertainty. Austerity became an issue that concerned the world of Criminology. In previous times of financial uncertainty crime spiked and there was an expectation that this will be the same once again. Colleagues like Stephen Box in the past explored the correlation of unemployment to crime. A view that has been contested since. Despite the statistical information about declining crime trends, colleagues like Justin Kotzé question the validity of such decline. Such debates demonstrate the importance of research methods, data and critical analysis as keys to formulating and contextualising a discipline like Criminology. The development of “Applied Criminological Research” and “Doing Research in Criminology” became modular vehicles for those studying Criminology to make the most of it.
During the recession, the reduction of social services and social support, including financial aid to economically vulnerable groups began “to bite”! Criminological discourse started conceptualising the lack of social support as a mechanism for understanding institutional and structural violence. In Criminology modules we started exploring this and other forms of violence. Increasingly we turned our focus to understanding institutional violence and our students began to explore very different forms of criminality which previously they may not have considered. Violence as a mechanism of oppression became part of our curriculum adding to the way Criminology explores social conditions as a driver for criminality and victimisation.
While the world was watching the unfolding of the “Arab Spring” in 2011, people started questioning the way we see and read and interpret news stories. Round about that time in Criminology we wanted to break the “myths on crime” and explore the way we tell crime stories. This is when we introduced “True Crimes and Other Fictions”, as a way of allowing students and staff to explore current affairs through a criminological lens.
Obviously, the way that the uprising in the Arab world took charge made the entire planet participants, whether active or passive, with everyone experiencing a global “bystander effect”. From the comfort of our homes, we observed regimes coming to an end, communities being torn apart and waves of refugees fleeing. These issues made our team to reflect further on the need to address these social conditions. Increasingly, modules became aware of the social commentary which provides up-to-date examples as mechanism for exploring Criminology.
In 2019 announcements began to filter, originally from China, about a new virus that forced people to stay home. A few months later and the entire planet went into lockdown. As the world went into isolation the Criminology team was making plans of virtual delivery and trying to find ways to allow students to conduct research online. The pandemic rendered visible the substantial inequalities present in our everyday lives, in a way that had not been seen before. It also made staff and students reflect upon their own vulnerabilities and the need to create online communities. The dissertation and placement modules also forced us to think about research outside the classroom and more importantly outside the box!
More recently, wars in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia have brought to the forefront many long posed questions about peace and the state of international community. The divides between different geopolitical camps brought back memories of conflicts from the 20th century. Noting that the language used is so old, but continues to evoke familiar divisions of the past, bringing them into the future. In Criminology we continue to explore the skills required to re-imagine the world and to consider how the discipline is going to shape our understanding about crime.
It is interesting to reflect that 25 years ago the world was terrified about technology. A quarter of a century later, the world, whilst embracing the internet, is worriedly debating the emergence of AI, the ethics of using information and the difference between knowledge and communication exchanges. Social media have shifted the focus on traditional news outlets, and increasingly “fake news” is becoming a concern. Criminology as a discipline, has also changed and matured. More focus on intersectional criminological perspectives, race, gender, sexuality mean that cultural differences and social transitions are still significant perspectives in the discipline. Criminology is also exploring new challenges and social concerns that are currently emerging around people’s movements, the future of institutions and the nature of society in a global world.
Whatever the direction taken, Criminology still shines a light on complex social issues and helps to promote very important discussions that are really needed. I can be simply celebratory and raise a glass in celebration of the 25 years and in anticipation of the next 25, but I am going to be more creative and say…
To our students, you are part of a discipline that has a lot to say about the world; to our alumni you are an integral part of the history of this journey. To those who will be joining us in the future, be prepared to explore some interesting content and go on an academic journey that will challenge your perceptions and perspectives. Radical Criminology as a concept emerged post-civil rights movements at the second part of the 20th century. People in the Western hemisphere were embracing social movements trying to challenge the established views and change the world. This is when Criminology went through its adolescence and entered adulthood, setting a tone that is both clear and distinct in the Social Sciences. The embrace of being a critical friend to these institutions sitting on crime and justice, law and order has increasingly become fractious with established institutions of oppression (think of appeals to defund the police and prison abolition, both staples within criminological discourse. The rigour of the discipline has not ceased since, and these radical thoughts have led the way to new forms of critical Criminology which still permeate the disciplinary appeal. In recent discourse we have been talking about radicalisation (which despite what the media may have you believe, can often be a positive impetus for change), so here’s to 25 more years of radical criminological thinking! As a discipline, Criminology is becoming incredibly important in setting the ethical and professional boundaries of the future. And don’t forget in Criminology everyone is welcome!
Share this:
A review of In-Extremis: The Life of War Correspondent Marie Colvin
Recently, I picked up a book on the biography of Marie Colvin, a war correspondent who was assassinated in Syria, 2012. Usually, I refrain from reading biographies, as I consider many to be superficial accounts of people’s experiences that are typically removed from wider social issues serving no purpose besides enabling what Zizek would call a fetishist disavowal. It is the biographies of sports players and singers, found on the top shelves of Waterstones and Asda that spring to mind. In-Extremis, however, was different. I consider this book to be a very poignant and captivating biography of war correspondent Marie Colvin, authored by fellow journalist Lindsey Hilsum. The book narrates Marie’s life before her assassination. Her early years, career ventures, intimate relationships, friendships, and relationships with drugs and alcohol were all discussed. So too were the accounts of Marie’s fearless reporting from some of the world’s most dangerous conflict zones, including Sri-Lanka, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Hilsum wrote on the events both before Marie’s exhilarating career and during the peak of her war correspondence to illustrate the complexities in her life. This reflected on Marie’s insatiability of desire to tell the truth and capture the voices of those who are absent from the ‘script’. So too, reporting on the emotions behind war and conflict in addition to the consistent acts of personal sacrifice made in the name of Justice for the disenfranchised and the voiceless.
Across the first few chapters, Hilsum wrote on the personal life of Marie- particularly her traits of bravery, resilience, persistence, and an undying quest for the truth. Hilsum further delved into the complexities of Marie’s personality and life philosophies. A regular smoker, drinker and partygoer with a captivating personality that drew people in were core to who Marie was according to Hilsum. However, the psychological toils of war reporting became clear, particularly as later in the book, the effects of Marie’s PTSD and trauma began to present itself, particularly after Marie lost eyesight in her left eye after being shot in Sri-Lanka. The eye-patch worn by Marie to me symbolised the way she carried the burdens of her profession and personal vulnerabilities, particularly between maintaining her family life and navigating her occupational hazards.
In writing this biography, Hilsum not only mapped the life of one genuinely awesome and inspiring woman, but also highlighted the importance of reporting and capturing the voices of the casualties of war. Much of her work, I felt resonated with my own. As an academic researcher, it is my job to research on real-life issues and to seek the truth. I resonated with Marie’s quest for the truth and strongly aligned myself to her principles on capturing the lived experiences of those impacted by war, conflict, and social justice issues. These people, I consider are more qualified to discuss these issues than those of us who sit in the ivory towers of institutions (me included!).
Moreover, I considered how I can be more like Marie and how I can embed her philosophies more so into my own research… whether that’s through researching with communities on the cost-of-living crisis or disseminating my research to students, fellow academics, policymakers, and practitioners. I feel inspired and moving forward, I seek to embody the life and spirit of Marie and thousands of other journalists and academics who work tirelessly to research on and understand the truth to bring forward the narratives of those who are left behind and discarded by society in its mainstream.
Share this:
Let us not forget
Yesterday marked the 80th anniversary of the D Day landings and it has seen significant coverage from the media as veterans, families, dignitaries, and others converge on the beaches and nearby towns in France. If you have watched the news coverage during the week, you will have seen interviews with the veterans involved in those landings. What struck me about those interviews was the humbleness of those involved, they don’t consider themselves heroes but reserve that word for those that died. For most of us, war is something that happens elsewhere, and we can only glimpse the horrors of war in our imaginations. For some though, it is only too real, and for some, it is a reality now.
I was struck by some of the conversations. Imagine being on ship, sailing across the English Channel and looking back at the white cliffs of Dover and being told by someone in charge, ‘have a good look because a lot of you will never see them again’. If knowing that you are going to war was not bad enough, that was a stark reminder that war means a high chance of death. And most of those men going over to France were young, to put it in perspective, the age of our university students. If you watched the news, you will have seen the war cemeteries with rows upon rows, upon rows of headstones, each a grave of someone whose life was cut short. Of course, that only represents a small number of the combatants that died in the war, there are too many graveyards to mention, too many people that died. Too many people both military and civilian that suffered.
The commemoration of the D Day landings and many other such commemorations serve as a reminder of the horrors of war when we have the opportunity to hear the stories of those involved. But as their numbers dwindle, so too does the narrative of the reality, only to be replaced with some romantic notion about glory and death. There is no glory in war, only death, suffering and destruction.
The repeated, ‘never again’ after the first and second world war seems to have been a utopian dream. Whilst we may have been spared the horrors of a world war to this point, we should not forget the conflicts across the world, too numerous to list here. Often, the reasons behind them are difficult to comprehend given the inevitable outcomes. As one veteran on the news pointed out though ‘war is a nonsense, but sometimes it’s necessary’.
The second part of that is a difficult sentiment to swallow but then, if your country faces invasion, your people face being driven from their homes or into slavery or worse, then choices become very stark. We should be grateful to those people that fought for our freedoms that we enjoy now. We should remember that there are people doing the same across the world for their own freedoms and perhaps vicariously ours. And perhaps, we should look to ourselves and think about our tolerance for others. Let us not forget, war is a nonsense, and there is no glory in it, only death and destruction.
Share this:
Civilian Suffering Beyond the Headlines
In the cacophony of war, amidst the geopolitical chess moves and strategic considerations, it’s all too easy to lose sight of the human faces caught in its relentless grip. The civilians, the innocents, the ordinary people whose lives are shattered by the violence they never asked for. Yet, as history often reminds us, their stories are the ones that linger long after the guns fall silent. In this exploration, we delve into the forgotten narratives of civilian suffering, from the tragic events of Bloody Sunday to the plight of refugees and aid workers in conflict zones like Palestine.
On January 30, 1972, the world watched in horror as British soldiers opened fire on unarmed civil rights demonstrators in Northern Ireland, in what would become known as Bloody Sunday. Fourteen innocent civilians lost their lives that day, and many more were injured physically and emotionally. Yet, as the decades passed, the memory of Bloody Sunday faded from public consciousness, overshadowed by other conflicts and crises. But for those who lost loved ones, the pain and trauma endure, a reminder of the human cost of political turmoil and sectarian strife.
Fast forward to the present day, and we find a world still grappling with the consequences of war and displacement. In the Middle East, millions of Palestinians endure the daily hardships of life under occupation, their voices drowned out by the rhetoric of politicians and the roar of military jets. Yet amid the rubble and despair, there are those who refuse to be silenced, who risk their lives to provide aid and assistance to those in need. These unsung heroes, whether they be doctors treating the wounded or volunteers distributing food and supplies, embody the spirit of solidarity and compassion that transcends borders and boundaries.
But even as we celebrate their courage and resilience, we must also confront our own complicity in perpetuating the cycles of violence and injustice that afflict so many around the world. For every bomb that falls and every bullet that is fired, there are countless civilians who pay the price, their lives forever altered by forces beyond their control. And yet, all too often, their suffering is relegated to the footnotes of history, overshadowed by the grand narratives of power and politics.
So how do we break free from this cycle of forgetting? How do we ensure that the voices of the marginalized and the oppressed are heard, even in the midst of chaos and conflict? Perhaps the answer lies in bearing witness, in refusing to turn away from the harsh realities of war and its aftermath. It requires us to listen to the stories of those who have been silenced, to amplify their voices and demand justice on their behalf.
Moreover, it necessitates a revaluation of our own priorities and prejudices, a recognition that the struggle for peace and justice is not confined to distant shores but is woven into the fabric of our own communities. Whether it’s challenging the narratives of militarism and nationalism or supporting grassroots movements for social change, each of us has a role to play in building a more just and compassionate world.
The forgotten faces of war remind us of the urgent need to confront our collective amnesia and remember the human cost of conflict. From the victims of Bloody Sunday to the refugees fleeing violence and persecution, their stories demand to be heard and their suffering acknowledged. Only then can we hope to break free from the cycle of violence and build a future were peace and justice reigns supreme.
Share this:
Feminism, Security and Conflict
Content warning: this blog post mentions feminist theory in relation to issues of rape, genocide and war.
Recently I had the opportunity to do a deep dive into feminist contributions to the field of international relations, a discipline which of course has many parallels and connections to criminology. Feminism as a broad concept often is viewed from a human rights perspective, which makes sense as this is probably the area that is most visible to most people through progressions in the field of political participation, reproductive and sexual rights and working rights. A lesser known contribution is feminist theory to international relations (IR), specifically, its practical and theoretical contribution to security and conflict. This blog post will give a whistle stop tour through the exploration I conducted concerning the themes of security, conflict and feminism. Hopefully I can write this in a way everyone finds interesting as it’s a fairly heavy topic at times!
Security
Within IR, security has usually been defined on a more state-centric level. If a state can defend itself and its sovereign borders and has adequate (or more than adequate) military power, it is seen to be in a condition of security according to realist theory (think Hobbes and Machiavelli). Realism has taken centre stage in IR, suggesting that the state is the most important unit of analysis therefore meaning security has generally taken a state-centric definition.
Feminism has offered a radical rejuvenation of not only security studies, but also the ontological principles of IR itself. While the state is preoccupied with providing military security, often pooling resources towards this sector during times of international fragility, welfare sectors are usually plunged into a state of underfunding- even more so than they usually are. This means that individuals who depend on such sectors are often left in a state of financial and/or social insecurity. Feminism focuses on this issue, suggesting women are often the recipients of various welfare based services. The impact of wartime fiscal policy would not have been uncovered without feminism paying attention to the women typically side-lined and ignored in international politics. So while the state is experiencing a sense of security, its citizens (quite often women) are in a feeling of insecurity.
This individualisation of security also challenges the merit of using such a narrow, state-centric definition of security, ultimately questioning the validity of the dominant, state-focused theory of realism which in IR, is pretty ground-breaking.
Conflict
I’d say that in nearly all social science disciplines, including politics, economics, sociology, IR and criminology, conflict and war is something that is conceptualised as inherently ‘masculine’. Feminist theory was one of the first schools to document this and problematise it through scholarship which interrogated hegemonic masculinity, ‘masculine’ institutions and the manifestations of these things in war zones.
Wartime/ genocidal rape is unfortunately not a rare behaviour to come across in the global arena. The aftermath of the Yugoslav wars and the Rwandan genocide is probably some of the most reported cases in academic literature, and this is thanks to feminist theory shining a light on the phenomena. Feminism articulates wartime/ genocidal rape as constitutive of the dangerous aspects of culturally imbedded conceptions of masculinity being underscored by power and domination and being legitimised by the institutions which champion dangerous elements of masculinity.
Practically, this new perspective provided by feminism has altered the way sexual violence is viewed by the mainstream; once a firmly domestic problem, sexual violence has been brought into foreign policy and recognised as a tactic of war. This articulation by feminist theory is absolutely ground breaking in the social science world as it shifts the onto-epistemological focus that other more conventional schools have been unable to look past.
Share this:
Festive messages, a legendary truce, and some massacres: A Xmas story
Holidays come with context! They bring messages of stories that transcend tight religious or national confines. This is why despite Christmas being a Christian celebration it has universal messages about peace on earth, hope and love to all. Similar messages are shared at different celebrations from other religions which contain similar ecumenical meanings.
The first official Christmas took place on 336 AD when the first Christian Emperor declared an official celebration. At first, a rather small occasion but it soon became the festival of the winter which spread across the Roman empire. All through the centuries more and more customs were added to the celebration and as Europeans “carried” the holiday to other continents it became increasingly an international celebration. Of course, joy and happiness weren’t the only things that brought people together. As this is a Christmas message from a criminological perspective don’t expect it to be too cuddly!
As early as 390 AD, Christmas in Milan was marked with the act of public “repentance” from Emperor Theodosius, after the massacre of Thessalonica. When the emperor got mad they slaughtered the local population, in an act that caused even the repulson of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan to ban him from church until he repented! Considering the volume of people murdered this probably counts as one of those lighter sentences; but for people in power sentences tend to be light regardless of the historical context.
One of those Christmas celebrations that stand out through time, as a symbol of truce, was the 1914 Christmas in the midst of the Great War. The story of how the opposing troops exchanged Christmas messages, songs in some part of the trenches resonated, but has never been repeated. Ironically neither of the High Commands of the opposing sides liked the idea. Perhaps they became concerned that it would become more difficult to kill someone that you have humanised hours before. For example, a similar truce was not observed in World War 2 and in subsequent conflicts, High Commands tend to limit operations on the day, providing some additional access to messages from home, some light entertainment some festive meals, to remind people that there is life beyond war.
A different kind of Christmas was celebrated in Italy in the mid-80s. The Christmas massacre of 1984 Strage Di Natale dominated the news. It was a terrorist attack by the mafia against the judiciary who had tried to purge the organisation. Their response was brutal and a clear indication that they remained defiant. It will take decades before the organisation’s influence diminishes but, on that date, with the death of people they also achieved worldwide condemnation.
A decade later in the 90s there was the Christmas massacre or Masacre de Navidad in Bolivia. On this occasion the government troops decided to murder miners in a rural community, as the mine was sold off to foreign investors, who needed their investment protected. The community continue to carry the marks of these events, whilst the investors simply sold and moved on to their next profitable venture.
In 2008 there was the Christmas massacre in the Democratic Republic of Congo when the Lord’s Resistance Army entered Haut-Uele District. The exact number of those murdered remains unknown and it adds misery to this already beleaguered country with such a long history of suffering, including colonial ethnic cleansing and genocide. This country, like many countries in the world, are relegated into the small columns on the news and are mostly neglected by the international community.
So, why on a festive day that commemorates love, peace and goodwill does one talk about death and destruction? It is because of all those heartfelt notions that we need to look at what really happens. What is the point of saying peace on earth, when Gaza is levelled to the ground? Why offer season’s wishes when troops on either side of the Dnipro River are still fighting a war with no end? How hypocritical is it to say Merry Christmas to those who flee Nagorno Karabakh? What is the point of talking about love when children living in Yemen may never get to feel it? Why go to the trouble of setting up a festive dinner when people in Ethiopia experience famine yet again?
We say words that commemorate a festive season, but do we really mean them? If we did, a call for international truce, protection of the non-combatants, medical attention to the injured and the infirm should be the top priority. The advancement of civilization is not measured by smart phones, talking doorbells and clever televisions. It is measured by the ability of the international community to take a stand and rehabilitate humanity, thus putting people over profit. Sending a message for peace not as a wish but as an urgent action is our outmost priority.
The Criminology Team, wishes all of you personal and international peace!
Share this:
What value life in a far-off land?
Watching the BBC news and for that matter any other news broadcast has become almost unbearable. Over the last three weeks or so the television screen has been filled with images of violence, grief, and suffering. Images of innocent men, women and children killed or maimed or kidnapped. Images of grieving relatives, images of people with little or no hope. And as I watch I am consumed by overwhelming sadness and as I write this blog, I cannot avoid the tears welling up. And I am angry, angry at those that could perpetuate such crimes against humanity. I will not take sides as I know that I understand so little about the conflict in Israel, Gaza, and the surrounding area, but I do feel the need to comment. It seems to me that there is shared blame across the countries involved, the region, and the rest of the world.
As I watch the news, I see reports of protest across many countries, and I see a worrying development of Islamophobia and Antisemitism. The conflict is only adding fuel to the actions of those driven by hatred and it provides plenty of scope for politicians in the West and other countries, to pontificate, and partake in political wrangling and manoeuvring before showing their abject disregard for morality and humanity. The fact that Hamas, as we are constantly reminded by the BBC, is a proscribed terrorist organisation, proscribed by most countries in the west, including the United Kingdom, seems to give carte blanche to western politicians to support crimes against humanity, to support murder and terrorism. How else can we describe what is going on?
The actions of Hamas should and quite rightly are to be condemned, any action that sees the killing of innocent lives is wrong. To have carried out their recent attacks in Israel in such a manner was horrendous and is a reminder of the dangers that the Israeli people face daily. But the declaration by Israel that it wants to remove Hamas from the face of the earth would, and could, only lead to one outcome, that being played out before our very eyes. The approach seems to be one of vengeance, regardless of the human cost and regardless of any rules of war or conflict or human dignity. How else can the bombing and shelling of a whole country be explained? How else can the blockading of a country to bring it to the brink of disaster be justified? How do we explain the forced migration of innocent people from one part of a country to another only to find that the edict to move led them into as dangerous a place as that they moved from? There seems to be a very sad irony in this, given the historical perspectives of the Israeli nation and its people.
We don’t know what efforts are going on behind the scenes to attempt to bring about peace but the outrageous comments and actions or omissions by some western politicians beggar belief. From Joe Biden’s declaration ‘now is not the time for a ceasefire’ to our government’s and the opposition’s policy that a pause in the conflict should occur, but not a ceasefire, only demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for the plight of Palestinian people. If not now, at what time would it be appropriate for a ceasefire to occur? It seems to me, as a colleague suggested, politicians and many others seem to be more concerned about accusations of antisemitism than they are about humanity. Operating in a moral vacuum seems to be par for the government in the UK and unfortunately that seems to extend to the other side of the house. Just as condemning the killing of innocent people is not Antisemitic nor too are the protests about those killings a hate crime. Our home secretary seems to have nailed her colours to the mast on that one but I’m not sure if its xenophobia, power lust or something else being displayed. Populism and a looming general election seems to be far more important than innocent children’s lives in a far off land.
The following quote seems so apt:
‘…. politicians must shoulder their share of the blame. And individuals too. Those ordinary citizens who allowed themselves to be incited into hatred and religious xenophobia, who set aside decades, sometimes centuries of friendship, who took up sword and flame to terrorise their neighbours and compatriots, to murder men, women, and children in a frenzy of bloodlust that even now is difficult to comprehend (Khan, 2021: 323).’[1]
If you are not angry, you should be, if you do not cry, then I ask why not? This is not the way that humanity should behave, this is humanity at its worst. Just because it is somewhere else, because it involves people of a different race, colour or creed doesn’t make it any less horrendous.
Khan, V. (2021) Midnight at Malabar House, Hodder and Stoughton: London.
[1] Vaseem Khan was discussing Partition on the Indian subcontinent, but it doesn’t seem to matter where the conflict is or what goes on, the reasons for it are so hard to comprehend.
Share this:
Protect international law
In criminological discourses the term “war crime” is a contested one, not because there are no atrocities committed at war, but because for some of us, war is a crime in its own right. There is an expectation that even in a war there are rules and therefore the violation of these rules could lead to war crimes. This very focused view on war is part of a wider critique of the discipline. Several criminologists including, Ruggiero, DiPietro, McGarry and Walklate, to name a few, have argued that there is less focus on war as a crime, instead war is seen more as part of a metaphor used in response to social situations.
As far back as the 1960s, US President Johnson in his state of the union address, announced “The administration today here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America”. What followed in the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act, was seen as the encapsulation of that proclamation. In some ways this announcement was ironic considering that the Vietnam war was raging at the time, 4 years before the well documented My Lai massacre. A war crime that aroused the international community; despite the numbers of soldiers involved in the massacre, only the platoon leader was charged and given a life sentence, later commuted to three and a half years incarceration (after a presidential intervention). Anyone can draw their own conclusion if the murder of approximately 500 people and the rape of women and children is reflected in this sentence. The Vietnam war was an ideological war on communism, leaving the literal interpretation for the historians of the future. In a war on ideology the “massacre” was the “collateral damage” of the time.
After all for the administration of the time, the war on poverty was the one that they tried to fight against. Since then, successive politicians have declared additional wars, on issues namely drugs and terror. These wars are representations of struggles but not in a literal sense. In the case of drugs and terrorism criminology focused on trafficking, financing and organised crimes but not on war per se. The use of war as a metaphor is a potent one because it identifies a social foe that needs to be curtailed and the official State wages war against it. It offers a justification in case the State is accused being heavy handed. For those declaring war on issues serves by signalling their resolve but also (unwittingly or deliberately) it glorifies war as an cleansing act. War as a metaphor is both powerful and dangerous because it excuses State violence and human rights violations. What about the reality of war?
As early as 1936, W.A Bonger, recognised war as a scourge of humanity. This realisation becomes ever more potent considering in years to come the world will be enveloped in another world war. At the end of the war the international community set up the international criminal court to explore some of the crimes committed during the war, namely the use of concentration camps for the extermination of particular populations. in 1944 Raphael Lemkin, coined the term genocide to identify the systemic extermination of Jews, Roma, Slavic people, along with political dissidents and sexual deviants, namely homosexuals.
In the aftermath of the second world war, the Nuremberg trials in Europe and the Tokyo trials in Asia set out to investigate “war crimes”. This became the first time that aspects of warfare and attitudes to populations were scrutinised. The creation of the Nuremberg Charter and the outcomes of the trials formulated some of the baseline of human rights principles including the rejection of the usual, up to that point, principle of “I was only following orders”. It also resulted in the Nuremberg Code that set out clear principles on ethical research and human experimentation. Whilst all of these are worthwhile ideas and have influenced the original formation of the United Nations charter it did not address the bigger “elephant” in the room; war itself. It seemed that the trials and consequent legal discourses distanced themselves from the wider criminological ideas that could have theorised the nature of war but most importantly the effects of war onto people, communities, and future relations. War as an indiscriminate destructive force was simply neglected.
The absence of a focused criminological theory from one end and the legal representation as set in the original tribunals on the other led to a distinct absence of discussions on something that Alfred Einstein posed to Sigmund Freud in early 1930s, “Why war?”. Whilst the trials set up some interesting ideas, they were criticised as “victor’s justice”. Originally this claim was dismissed, but to this day, there has been not a single conviction in international courts and tribunals of those who were on the “victors’” side, regardless of their conduct. So somehow the focus changed, and the international community is now engaged in a conversation about the processes of international courts and justice, without having ever addressed the original criticism. Since the original international trials there have been some additional ones regarding conflicts in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The international community’s choice of countries to investigate and potentially, prosecute has brought additional criticism about the partiality of the process. In the meantime, international justice is only recognised by some countries whilst others choose not to engage. War, or rather, war crimes become a call whenever convenient to exert political pressure according to the geo-political relations of the time. This is not justice, it is an ad hoc arrangement that devalues the very principles that it professes to protect.
This is where criminology needs to step up. We have for a long time recognised and conceptually described different criminalities, across the spectrum of human deviance, but war has been left unaccounted for. In the visions of the 19th and 20th century social scientists, a world without war was conceptualised. The technological and social advancements permitted people to be optimistic of the role of international institutions sitting in arbitration to address international conflicts. It sounds unrealistic, but at the time when this is written, we are witness to another war, whilst there are numerous theatres of wars raging, leaving a trail of continuous destruction. Instead of choosing sides, splitting the good from the bad and trying to justify a just or an unjust war, maybe we should ask, “Why war”? In relation to youth crime, Rutherford famously pondered if we could let children just grow out of crime. Maybe, as an international community of people, we should do the same with war. Grow out of the crime of war. To do so we would need to stop the heroic drums, the idolisation of the glorious dead and instead, consider the frightened populations and the long stain of a violence which I have blogged about before: The crime of war
Thoughts from the criminology team 
