See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316582934

The Global Making of Policing Postcolonial Perspectives, eds.

Book · May 2016

CITATIONS READS

10 296

2 authors, including:

Jana Hönke
University of Groningen
35 PUBLICATIONS   339 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jana Hönke on 29 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Global Making of Policing
Postcolonial Perspectives

edited by
Jana Hönke and Markus-Michael Müller

2016
Interventions Series
Routledge

This edited volume analyses the global making of security

institutions and practices in our postcolonial world. It offers
readers the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding
of the global making of how security is thought of and
practiced, from US urban policing, diaspora politics and
transnational security professionals to policing encounters
in Afghanistan, Palestine, Colombia or Haiti. It critically
examines and decentres conventional perspectives on
security governance and policing. In doing so, the book
offers a fresh analytical approach, moving beyond
dominant, one-sided perspectives on the transnational
character of security governance, which suggest a diffusion
of models and practices from a ‘Western’ centre to the rest
of the globe. The book brings together highly innovative,
in-depth empirical cases studies from across the globe and
will be of particular interest to students and scholars
interested in International Relations and Global Studies,
(critical) Security Studies, and other fields.

1
Table of Content

Chapter 1: The Global Making of Policing

Jana Hönke and Markus-Michael Müller

THE POST-COLONY AS A LABORATORY

Chapter 2: Capillaries of Empire: Colonial Pacification and the Origins of U.S. Global
Surveillance
Alfred W. McCoy

Chapter 3: Laboratories of Pacification and Permanent War: Israeli-U.S. Collaboration in the

Global Making of Policing
Stephen Graham and Alex Baker

Chapter 4: Beyond the Laboratory Thesis: Gaza as Transmission Belt for War and Security
Technology
Leila Stockmarr

SOUTH-SOUTH POLICING ENCOUNTERS

Chapter 5: Entangled Pacifications: Peacekeeping, Counterinsurgency and Policing in Port-

au-Prince and Rio de Janeiro
Markus-Michael Müller

Chapter 6: Associated Dependent Security Cooperation: Colombia and the United States
Arlene Tickner

POSTCOLONIAL TRANSNATIONAL SECURITY FIELDS

Chapter 7: Securing the Diaspora: Policing Global Order

Mark Laffey and Sutharan Nadarajah

Chapter 8: ‘British Cop or International Cop?’ Global Makings of International Policing

Assistance, 2000-2014
Georgina Sinclair

Chapter 9: A Translational Perspective on Police-building in Afghanistan: The Enactment of

‘Progress’ in the Implementation Gap
Lars Ostermeier

CONCLUSION

Chapter 10: Unpacking ‘the Global’

Pinar Bilgin

2
Chapter 1: The Global Making of Policing

Jana Hönke and Markus-Michael Müller

In October 2011, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) launched the

Airport Communication Programme (AIRCOP). Although funded by the European

Commission and the Canadian government, and working in close cooperation with Interpol

and the World Customs Organization, this project aims at strengthening cooperation and

intelligence-sharing within the realm of airport security and policing between Brazil and the

West African states of Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, and others. The stated objective is

to confront what UNODC refers to as the ‘Brazil–Africa Narco Nexus’ (Brune, 2011). As

such, the programme illustrates the global reach-out of contemporary policing.

Yet contemporary policing not only has a global reach. It is also globally made. In 2013, for

instance, Mike Katone, a police officer in Springfield Massachusetts, designed and

implemented a plan for the local police department to confront street gangs. Interestingly, he

modelled his plan after the counterinsurgency police practices he had encountered during his

time serving in the military in Afghanistan and Iraq. In an interview he explained the

following: “Insurgents and gang members both want to operate in a failed area – a failed

community or a failed state […]. They know they can live off the passive support of the

community, where the local community is not going to call or engage the local police”

(Washington Times, 2013). The policing of Springfield was hence made in Afghanistan just

as much as it was in the US. It is the analysis of this truly global making of policing that has

not yet received adequate attention in research or literature. It therefore stands at the center of

this book.

3
What we mean by the ‘global making of policing’ is the circulation of both policing

techniques and practices, which together lend to the global (re)making of policing within the

international realm. These processes of global making are much more complex than usually

depicted. Policing models and practices are not simply globalized, as is often assumed,

through diffusion from a supposed (liberal) centre to seemingly marginal spaces, in which

they get translated at best. Instead, core global and domestic police institutions and practices

are co-constituted by various actors and experiences from across the globe. Seemingly

marginal places in our postcolonial world have played a crucial role in these processes and it

is the goal of this book to make visible the often hidden presence of the margins – as an idea,

encounter and agent – in making policing a global reality.

More specifically, two arguments are presented. First, we argue that the liberal, ‘diffusionist’

narrative of the making of global policing silences the ‘illiberal’, violent side of liberal

ordering. Violence has always been part and parcel of liberalism: by way of constructing certain

‘others’ in such a way that policing them ‘otherwise’ appeared necessary. Illiberal practices are

not the result of a deformation of liberal governance by an ‘illiberal local’. Nor do they

necessarily indicate the emergence of a ‘post-liberal’ era. Instead, there is a violent side to

liberal global governance itself and hybrid practices emerge from the very idea that ex-centric

sites and populations need to be policed otherwise (Brogden and Ellison, 2012; Kienscherf

forthcoming; Laffey and Sutharan, this volume). ‘Homeland policing’, in turn, has been

actively shaped by such violent experiments and innovations that travel back from the

‘laboratories’ to the ‘metropole’.

But liberal global policing is not all-powerful, as some of the global governance and

governmentality literatures suggest; a perspective that would reproduce the idea that agency

4
was exclusively located in the ‘West’. On the contrary, the second argument we put forward is

that practices of global policing are dynamically coproduced; they are an outcome of entangled

histories. While these entanglements remain hierarchically structured, agents in the

“postcolony” (Mbembe, 2002) have shaped these processes.

In uncovering these processes that give reality to what we call the global making of policing,

we do not aim at presenting a new, all-encompassing theory. Rather, we consider the idea of

the global making of policing to be what Collier and Ong have termed a “loose-knit conceptual

orientation” (Collier and Ong, 2006: 5–6). The latter, instead of offering an overarching

theoretical framework, provides a coherent heuristic lens that ties the empirically rich case

studies in the chapters that follow together by offering an analytical orientation capable of

uncovering, rendering legible and understanding the complex realities and practices that

underpin the global making of policing in our postcolonial world.

Based on in-depth empirical research in ‘most of the world’ (Chatterjee, 2004) – that is the

postcolonial world outside but also within the ‘modern West’ – this book assembles a

collection of essays that coherently engage with this truly global making of contemporary

policing. The scope of the case studies ranges from the making of US policing in the

Philippines and the Gaza Strip, to the translation of knowledge produced in police missions

from Afghanistan to Germany, to emerging hybrid security assemblages around Tamil

diaspora communities and the travelling of urban pacification projects between Brazil and

Haiti. Together, the chapters offer innovative theoretical and empirical insights into the

entangled character and co-constituted nature of the apparatuses, practices, and forms of

knowledge of contemporary policing.

5
The remainder of the introduction proceeds as follows. We start with a discussion of existing

research on global policing and the origins of core policing institutions and practices and draw

out its limitations. After a critique of dominant, diffusionist conceptions of global policing,

we introduce alternative understandings of this process based on an engagement with

postcolonial studies, historiographies of (post)colonial policing and critical criminology,

various area studies’ research on policing, and other bodies of literature. This is followed by

methodological reflections and the introduction of three analytical perspectives through which

this book seeks to improve our understanding of the global making of policing. The first is an

investigation into the postcolony as a laboratory. The second features the multiplication of

metropoles and related ‘South–South’ policing encounters. The third revolves around the

postcolonial nature of transnational security fields and assemblages. The final section

introduced the sections and individual chapters of the book organised along these three

perspectives.

Rethinking Global Policing through Postcolonial Perspectives

Taking on the empirical and analytical challenge to uncover the complex processes that make

policing a global reality, the insights of the postcolonial literature act as our starting point.

Inspired by postcolonial ideas, we suggest a fresh analytical approach to seemingly old

questions; an approach that enables us to go beyond dominant, one-sided perspectives on

transnational security governance that propose a diffusion of models and practices from a

‘Western’ centre to other parts of the globe. Such perspectives omit much of the

experimenting and learning going on in the (post)colony that constitute policing practices

from Springfield to Kandahar and inform the most innovative – peaceful as much as violent

– aspects of global policing. The book demonstrates this relationship by highlighting the

multi-directional travelling of practices across the globe as well as the active agency and

6
participation of seemingly ‘marginal’ actors in producing and co-constituting what is

conventionally thought of as ‘Western’ policing practice, knowledge, and institutions.

The Western-centrism that informs much of contemporary International Relations scholarship

on international security and global policing is deeply related to a “foundationalist

decontextualization” (Steinmetz, 1999: 20). In this section, we elaborate on how and why an

analytical lens characterized by postcoloniality helps us to leave behind such Western-

centrism: through a re-contextualization that makes visible the seemingly hidden presence of

the ‘margins’ in contemporary forms of global policing. Following the call of Gurminder

Bhambra (2010) and others to recognize connected histories and international

interconnectedness, such empirical work allows to question dominant narratives as well as to

reconstruct conceptual categories (see also Vasilaki, 2013).

The issue of postcolonialism has received growing attention throughout the social sciences (for

overviews, see Ashcroft et al., 2007; Loomba, 2005; Young, 2003). Key to postcolonial

thinking is a critical “engagement with the role of power in the formation of identity and

subjectivity and the relationship between knowledge and political practices” (Abrahamsen,

2003: 197), with particular focus on the dichotomizing division of the world into the ‘West’

and the ‘Rest’ (Hall, 1992). The division is based on the assumption of an endogenous

development of the ‘West’. On this basis, “the social norms, structures, and values

characterizing the so-called Western societies [are taken] as a universal parameter for defining

what modern societies are and the processes of their emergence as the path to be followed by

other, modernizing countries” (Boatcǎ et al., 2010: 1).

In critically highlighting the underlying power/knowledge relations of such a dichotomizing

7
world view, postcolonial theory implies “an epistemological concern, namely to question the

universality of the categories of modern social scientific thought, and of the disciplines into

which it is divided; it is an epistemological challenge to, and critique of, existing disciplines,

including IR” (Seth, 2013b: 2). This epistemological challenge and critique has received

growing attention from within IR (Seth, 2013a; Millenium, 2011; Chowdry and Nair, 2002;

Slater, 2004; Ling, 2002; Paolini, 1999), contributing to awareness that the unquestioned

Western-centrism that informed the discipline since its beginnings produced an overly

Eurocentric conception of world politics (Hobson, 2012). As Hobson has shown in detail, from

its origins in the late 18th century, international theory has been informed by a Western-centric

reasoning that combined a form of scientific racism with a Eurocentric institutionalism. This

combination led IR theory “to parochially celebrate and defend or promote the West as the

proactive subject of, and as the highest or ideal normative referent in, world politics” (Hobson,

2012: 1).

Far from being a thing of the past, this problematic perspective still looms large in

contemporary IR debates. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the analytical and

epistemological problems stemming from Western-centric reasoning in IR have also become a

concern for scholars within the subfield of security studies. While growing, much more

awareness is required of the fact that long-cherished concepts, methods and theories were

nearly exclusively developed based on specific and Eurocentric narratives of ‘the West’.

Equally important, they are based on experience in (Western) European or North America,

which cannot always be adequately applied to the analysis of security governance elsewhere.

As Buzan and Hansen have argued in this respect, international security studies are “by birth

an Anglo–American discipline which has been based on a Western conception of the state.

This conception has arguably limited empirical and political relevance for major parts of the

8
non-Western world, where the drawing of colonial boundaries irrespective of local

communities and allegiances has produced a radically different set of political, economic and

cultural structures” (Buzan and Hansen, 2009: 19).

There have been a number of attempts to analyse the governance of (in)security, policing and

war through a postcolonial lens (see, for example, Muppidi, 1999; Krishna, 1999;

Agathangelou and Ling, 2004; Barkawi and Laffey, 2006; Porter, 2009; Barkawi and Stanski

2013; Hönke and Müller, 2012). While this literature is growing, the call for a “postcolonial

moment in security studies” (Barkawi and Laffey, 2006) has still not received the attention it

should. Where it has, in addition, contributions tend to remain somewhat theoretical or

concerned with the deconstruction of dominant knowledge. While this is absolutely crucial,

this book seeks to move beyond that by offering empirical research strategies and case studies

that uncover, and help to reconstruct, the global making of policing. By so doing we hope to

provide empirically grounded, conceptually and methodologically innovative contributions

for a truly global research agenda on policing and security.

To this end, and in order to overcome parochial forms of knowledge production, pushing

research towards “non-Eurocentric security studies” (Barkawi and Laffey, 2006: 330), we

argue, requires a further decentring of research on (in)security governance and policing. For so

doing, a deeper engagement with postcoloniality is critical and essential. The postcolonial

condition, or postcoloniality, refers to global interactions based on unequal power relations

(see Hönke and Müller, 2012: 387). While colonies have nearly disappeared, ‘coloniality’ and

the underlying geopolitics of knowledge can still be observed today (Mignolo, 2005; Hall,

1996; Gupta, 1998). As we have argued elsewhere, postcoloniality therefore designates global

power relations that are based on binary ‘us versus the inferior other’ constructions. Their

9
underlying recourse to civilization and modernization discourses legitimize Western

interventions that express “the privilege of possessing dominant categories of thought from

which and where the rest of the world can be described, understood, and ‘improved’” (Mignolo,

2005: 36, emphasis in original). In other words, the Western will to improve is based on a

particular polarized and hierarchical form of representation and knowledge production that

Coronil (1996: 57), following Said (1978), has called ‘Occidentalism’. He defines this as:

the ensemble of representational practices that participate in the production of

conceptions of the world which (1) separate the world’s components into bounded units;

(2) disaggregate their relational histories; (3) turn difference into hierarchy; (4) naturalize

these representations; and thus (5) intervene, however unwittingly, in the production of

existing asymmetrical power relations.

‘Improving’ the world, from colonial and imperial civilizing missions to more contemporary

forms of Western interventionist dealing with the postcolonial afterlife of Kipling’s ‘white

men’s burden’, has placed the police forces – as well as accompanying practices and

knowledge production from strategy to criminology – at the forefront of (post)colonial

projects of order-making. As a result, policing remains imbued with Orientalism; deeply

inscribed in self-imaginations, institutional memories, and practices. In analogy to what Porter

has termed ‘military Orientalism’, Western police forces institutionalized knowledge, ideas,

and practices that are based on categorizations of an ‘us’ vs. an inferior ‘other’ under the guise

of a ‘police Orientalism’ (Müller and Ostermeier, 2014). In similar ways as its military

counterpart, police Orientalism deeply influences how policing practitioners (and scholars)

“formulate what it means to be Western and non-Western” – “from morale to morality, tactics

to strategy, casualty tolerance to authority” (Porter, 2009: 2) – and, of course, in terms of the

10
‘targets’ of policing in and through such transnational encounters that constitute global

policing.

Thinking about the postcolonial condition thus implies rejecting the static analytics of

bounded units from which security institutions and practices originate and then diffuse

(Coronil, 1996; see also Mignolo, 2005). On the contrary, policing is an essentially

transnational and transcultural process (Hall, 1996: 247). This process involves shaping and

reorganizing entangled ‘local’ and ‘global’ power relations in formerly colonizing or

colonized societies as well as examining cases that do not have histories of direct colonization.

A postcolonial perspective therefore introduces a different reading of capitalist modernity in

that it emphasizes the centrality of entangled power/knowledge/practice fields through which

unequal power relations emerge and are transformed and challenged.

Therefore, in terms of geographic location, what Bhabha calls “ex-centric” sites (Bhabha,

1994: 6, 262) needs to be put on equal analytical footing with supposedly more central ones.

These serve as analytical vantage points from which to trace the global making of policing in

new ways. As Jean and John Comaroff have argued, “[t]o the degree that the making of

modernity has been a world-historical process, it can as well be narrated from its undersides

as it can from its self- proclaimed centers” (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2012: 6–7).

Importantly, such ex-centric sites are not just to be found in geographically faraway places.

Rather, these margins and the postcolonial power/knowledge relations that produce them as

marginalized spaces also characterize the relationship between indigenous people and the

majority of the society in settler colonies, such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

In the latter cases, colonial settler societies that gained political independence continue to

11
marginalize and discriminate against indigenous populations, inscribing postcolonial relations

into liberal democratic states that are marked by ongoing struggles over rights and recognition

of indigenous groups (Crosby and Monaghan, 2012; Grossman and Sparks, 2005; Johnson,

2011; Valverde, 2012). Similarly, governing migrant and/or diaspora populations and

communities inside liberal states fits the picture (Fassin, 2013: 53). Focusing on these

phenomena, the book argues, “enables recovery of the entangled global histories and

geographies through which security and insecurity are produced” (Laffey and Nadarajah,

2012: 405; also Hönke, 2013).

Global Policing

Policing is a core aspect of world politics. Broadly conceived, policing encompasses a set of

institutions, practices, technologies, and forms of knowledge that aim at establishing a

“regulatory power to take coercive measures to ensure the safety and welfare of the

‘community’” (Valverde and Dubber, 2006: 4). Today, this community often remains elusive

and is simultaneously constructed as being both ‘local’ and ‘global’. It is crafted in and

through policing practices, knowledge, and institutions that integrate local and global forces

into transnational fields. Such integration processes are directly embedded in power structures

related to “the capacity of the police to maintain and reproduce order” (Hardt and Negri, 2001:

17; see also Hills, 2009).

The actors and institutions operating in the transnational fields that populate the uneven

topography of global policing are far from homogenous. Nor are the resulting interactions and

outcomes the result of a harmonious collaboration. Conflict, competition, and resistance are

crucial aspects that shape global policing, as well as practices of appropriation, grafting, and

subversion. Portraying global policing as an activity of a “global police force” (Hardt and

12
Negri, 2001: 17) hence misses the conflicting plurality of the involved actors. Nevertheless,

while the “idea of a global police force is a chimera, […] global policing is a reality” (Bowling

and Sheptycki, 2012: 3; see also Bachmann et al., 2015).

Contrary to Bowling and Shepytcki, we argue that the global in global policing should not be

reduced to “the capacity to use coercion and surveillant powers around the globe in ways that

pass right through national boundaries” (Bowling and Sheptycki, 2012: 7). Nor is it in the

seemingly ungoverned “pockets of the global south” where the “flows” of global policing

stop (Bowling and Sheptycki, 2012: 126). Such perspectives, while being sensitive towards

the global dimension of policing, still reproduce the Western-centric perspective criticized

above. For one, they reflect the Western-centrism that still dominates much of mainstream

international security and policing research. They also underestimate the role played by these

‘pockets of the global south’ in the making of global policing and the “entangled transnational

histories of postcolonial (in)security governance” (Hönke and Müller, 2012: 387).

In fact, most standard accounts of the emergence of the modern police assume an endogenous

pattern of institution-building, causally related to decisively national variables, such as, for

instance, bureaucratic centralization processes, political participation and mobilization, the

existence of standing armies, and socioeconomic changes in Western Europe (see Reiner,

2010; Innes, 2003; Neocleous, 2000; Knöbl, 1998; Bayley, 1975). Such interpretations,

therefore, reproduce what Hobson has called the “Eurocentric big-bang theory of world

politics” according to which the “West is understood to have endogenously self-generated

through the Eurocentric logic of immanence” (Hobson, 2012: 139).

This logic of Western immanence is at odds with empirical findings of the rich historical

13
research on the impact of imperial and colonial policing on metropolitan developments, from

the “age of empire” (Hobsbawm, 1987) to our “colonial present” (Gregory, 2004). Ranging

from the composition of metropolitan policing and contemporary counterterrorism by British

colonial policing in Northern Ireland (Williams, 2004; Ellison and O’Reilly, 2008) to the

making of American policing in the Philippines (McCoy, 2009b, this volume) and Latin

America (Müller, 2015; Rosenau, 2014), these studies have demonstrated that colonial

territories and imperial encounters were veritable “laboratories of modernity” (Stoler and

Cooper, 1997: 5). As in other fields of modern governmental practices, imperial and

colonizing powers experimented with policing, social control, and surveillance-related

practices, knowledge, and technologies. In the guise of what Hanna Arendt (see also Foucault,

2003: 103; Graham and Baker, this volume) describes as “the boomerang effect of

imperialism on the homeland” (Arendt, 1973: 155), these experiments travelled back home,

thereby producing a cross-fertilisation (Sinclair, this volume; Sinclair and Williams, 2007)

between colonial and metropolitan policing practices and knowledge. These processes and

their effects characterize global security institutions and practices long after formal

colonialism and the age of empires came to an end (see also Brogden and Ellison, 2012: chapt.

1; McCoy, this volume, 2009a; Müller, 2015; Sinclair, 2006; Thomas, 2011; Williams, 2004;

Brogden, 1987).

This continuing legacy of such policing encounters has been demonstrated in a paradigmatic

way in Alfred McCoy’s (2009) detailed analysis of the entanglement of (post)colonial policing

and state formation in the United States and the Philippines. His work showcases the crucial

role of policing and surveillance technology within the mutually reinforcing patterns of

(post)colonial state formation and the emergence of surveillance regimes, knowledge

production, and security techniques and technologies in both countries. Freed from legal and

14
constitutional constraints, McCoy demonstrates how the US colonial administration in the

Philippines experimented with policing strategies and surveillance technologies that were later

reimported back home, thereby “making the Philippines a social laboratory for the perfection

of American state power” (McCoy 2009a: 106) – an ongoing process of security entanglements

from the beginning of the 20th century to the contemporary ‘war on terror’ (see also McCoy,

this volume).

Moreover, while, in light of these observations, global postcolonial policing entanglements

could easily be read as reducing postcolonies to the status of laboratories for external actors to

refine and modify policing practices, it is important to keep in mind the agency of seemingly

marginalized actors in postcolonies. The latter actively contribute to circulating technologies

and practices of policing, and appropriate, (re)negotiate, modify and externally promoted and

imposed policing models (Belcher, 2015; Hönke and Müller, 2012: 387–388; see the

discussions by Tickner and Bilgin in this volume).

These insights can be brought into a productive dialogue with postcolonial perspectives within

security studies. In fact, it seems that while historical policing research provides ample

illustrations of basic analytical claims made by postcolonial scholars, there has been strikingly

little interest in engaging with postcolonial ideas and concepts. Therefore, we claim that the

rich empirical findings from historians working on imperial and (post)colonial policing, and

the more abstract analytical and theoretical tools offered by postcolonial (security) studies,

which all stress the co-constituted character of global policing, can be combined to

‘provincialise’ (Chakrabaty, 2000) contemporary knowledge of global policing. This is

accomplished by rejecting its inherent Western-centrism and parochialism that perpetuates

epistemological boundaries. The latter, as Boatcǎ and Costa have argued in another context,

15
“so far have prevented the emergence of a global sociology of colonial, neocolonial and

postcolonial [policing] contexts” (Boatcǎ and Costa, 2010: 14).

The Global Making of Policing: Analytics for Studying Up, Across and In-between

From the above follows that alternative analytical perspectives are needed that better

recognize the entangled character of (policing) histories. Accordingly, the contributions to

this book all open up avenues for such research. Building on methodological reflections

developed in more detail elsewhere (Hönke and Müller, 2012), all contributions move beyond

dominant North–South perspectives on global policing. They all strive for a methodology that

engages multiple ‘metropoles’ and (post)‘colonies’, treating them as part of one, relational

field. Far from simply reflecting a one-way North–South governance diffusion as suggested

by Bowling and Sheptycki, the chapters reveal the much more complex and multidirectional

processes at play in the global making policing technologies and practices. They highlight the

distributed agency in the making of policing but also the hierarchy and violence inherent in

liberal global policing. As for the latter, it is for instance shown how some of the

entanglements that underpin the export-import business of global policing work according to

a veritable logic of laboratories: a number of sites in the postcolony indeed function as

laboratories of postmodern security governance; as sites in which technologies of control are

tried out that would not be at home, yet that then travel to Springfield and elsewhere shaping

e.g. domestic surveillance, urban policing or border controls in ‘the West’ (Coaffee and

Wood, 2006; Müller 2015; see McCoy, Graham and Baker, Stockmarr in this volume). In

order to do this, and without claiming to be the first nor alone “in refusing disciplinary

boundaries and decrying some of their effects” (Jessop and Ngai-Ling, 2001: 89), the chapters

offer distinctly transdisciplinary perspectives and integrate perspectives that are rarely

brought into a productive dialogue with each other, namely Criminology, International

16
Relations, Area Studies, History, and Science, Technology and Society Studies.

As argued throughout, where we ask questions from is crucial. It is also paramount to determine

what method(ologie)s we adopt to find and pursue these questions. In this regard, our

contribution ties in with recent efforts in IR to reflect and further explicate empirical strategies

and method(ologie)s for an international sociology of IR, a decolonizing of IR, and a critical

security studies (see, for instance, Vrasti, 2008; Sabaratnam, 2011; Hönke and Müller, 2012;

Aradau et al., 2015). As Aradau et al. (2015) recently re-emphasized, treating methods as

afterthoughts to theory already (re)produces a particular (political) practice of knowledge

production. Embracing a critical, reflexive approach to methods in their interplay with

methodology and theory opens up space for rethinking and theorizing the global making of

policing. Down-to-earth engagement with empirical case studies provides for a more fine-tuned

analysis than the prevailing metanarrative engagement with the postcolonial relationship

between empire(s)/metropole(s) and peripheries. We hope that this will contribute to

developing empirical research strategies for decentring and decolonizing our understanding of

the global making of policing, and international security more generally.

We suggest three analytical strategies that appear particularly useful in this regard. A first

analytical perspective that we would like to single out revolves around ‘laboratories’. The

laboratory refers to situations in which new, often exclusionary and violent technologies of

policing are being developed and tested with the active contribution of Western actors in

(post)colonies deemed in need of being policed differently. However, these modes and

technologies constitute policing in Springfield as much as in Afghanistan. They travel across

the globe and back to shape ‘homeland security’ in the metropole. An important channel for

such travelling back is the growing global economy around homeland security (see

17
Stockmarr, this volume). Such processes are also evident in the growing interest in the use of

drones (first massively deployed in the ‘war on terror’ abroad) for ‘domestic’ urban policing

and border enforcement in the United States (see Graham and Baker, this volume).

The second analytical axis revolves around ‘South-South’ security encounters and whether

these contribute to decolonising policing. Global policing is global in the sense that such

entanglements are not limited to North–South encounters, which continue to dominate most

research on transnational security governance. An example of South–South connections are

UN peacekeeping operations in which Southern countries like Bangladesh, India, and

Pakistan play an increasingly important role as personnel-providing nations (see, for example,

Krishnasamy, 2001, 2003). Latin American countries like Brazil and Guatemala have also

added to this trend with active participation in UN missions like the United Nations

Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH, see Müller, this volume) or the United Nations

Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) (on these issues,

see International Peacekeeping, 2010). South–South security transfers also take on more

commodified formson the growing global “market of force” (Avant, 2005), where private

military companies tend to recruit former military personnel from countries in the Global

South for security operations in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. Furthermore, about one-third

of the assumed 30,000 private military contractors part of the international intervention in

Iraq came from other countries than the United States and Great Britain. A substantial number

was in fact ex-military personnel from Latin America, leading one observer to call their

presence “Latin America’s hidden war in Iraq” (Foreign Policy, 2007). Hence, the global

character of global policing is also reflected in such entanglements identifiable within,

between, and across different postcolonies (Khalili, 2010; Müller, in this volume; Tickner, in

this volume). Questions to be explored are how global policing made in these encounters, a

18
making largely invisible so far; and whether these entanglements make for a different, perhaps

also a - as some have called for - more decolonial global policing?

Third, it is important to scrutinise how policing is made, performed, enacted, and shaped by

multiple actors and their everyday practices in global security assemblages, and how this is

shaped by the postcolonial condition. Security experts and practitioners operate as part of

transnational social fields in which what counts as ‘security problem’ and ‘standard practices’

are constantly (re)produced and shaped. “[T]ransnational professional guilds” (Bigo, 2011:

250) are crucial for tracing how ideas, technologies, and practices of policing are turned into

something global, but also for how these get made and transformed. The role of the postcolony

in these contexts requires more attention though. Many of he Bourdieu-inspired studies of

professional security fields have concentrated on Europe (but see Müller, 2014), or on

professional knowledge and routine practice as generated from traditional Weberian-state

military and police institutions or multinational Private Security and Military Companies.

This is, however, only part of the story and postcolonial insights help here to decentre and

sharpen critical attention to the postcolonial. The hybrid regime of policing practices prevailing

around the sites of multinational oil and mining companies is a case in point here. Far from ‘the local’

corrupting ‘global’ norms of corporate social responsibility, routine practices of producing order

by way of clientelist, indirect rule and physical coercion, alongside community engagement,

has been co-produced by African politicians and security agents with multinational companies

and commercial security professionals working with them (Hönke, 2013). A postcolonial lens

helps to shed light on how postcolonial hierarchies shape dynamics within these fields, but

also on how ex-centric sites and actors play a role in producing and shaping global policing

(Laffey and Nadarajah, Sinclair, this volume). Likewise, new transnational subjects deemed

problematic surface as transnational security assemblages evolve around diaspora (see Laffey

19
and Nadarajah in this volume). A postcolonial lens here captures the socially and

geographically dispersed agency in the global making of policing.

Contributions: Laboratories, ‘South-South’ Encounters and Postcolonial Transnational

Assemblages

Building on the above outlined understanding of the uneven yet entangled and coproduced

security topographies of our present, the following chapters offer alternative histories of the

making of global policing. They engage the theoretical and methodological issues developed

above through in-depth analyses of specific security encounters and processes of making

policing institutions and practices. By so doing they create space for constructing alternative

categories for making sense of our contemporary world, and overall hopefully contribute to

broaden and deepen postcolonial perspectives in security studies and IR more broadly.

The first set of chapters revolves around laboratories. Chapter two by Alfred W. McCoy traces

the origins of U.S. internal security back to America’s imperial conquest of the Philippines and

the related emergence of the U.S. as a global power from circa 1898. McCoy demonstrates

how, from the start of the U.S. occupation in 1898, the Philippines served as the site of a social

experiment in the use of police as an instrument of state power. At this periphery of empire,

freed from the constraints of courts, constitution, and civil society, the U.S. colonial regime

fused new information technologies, the product of America’s first information revolution, to

create what was arguably the world’s first full ‘surveillance state’. A decade later, these illiberal

lessons percolated homeward through the invisible capillaries of empire to foster domestic U.S.

surveillance during the social crisis surrounding World War I. These innovations have

persisted, in various forms, for nearly a century, informing robotic regimes and digital

surveillance today.

20
Looking at US-Israeli collaboration in urban policing, Stephen Graham and Alex Baker

explore in the third chapter, the connections between the militarisation of policing and

pacification within the United States – and the tightening connections between the parallel

efforts of the U.S. and Israeli militaries to reorganise themselves in ways that counter non-

state mobilisations in occupied cities during counterinsurgency campaigns. Opening up with

a discussion of recent controversies surrounding paramilitarised policing in places like

Ferguson, Missouri, the chapter connects these to a range of deep connections between US

and Israeli military ‘urban operations’ in Gaza. Discussions centre, in turn, on legal and

biopolitical issues; the role of Gaza as a ‘laboratory’; urban walling; drone operations; the

commercialization of ‘homeland security’ materiel; and, finally, joint economic ventures in

the blurring worlds of ‘homeland security’ and urban counterinsurgency operations.

From a different angle, Leila Stockmarr examines in the fourth chapter the export of security

practices from the Gaza showroom to the global homeland security economy. Israel’s

practices of policing in and around the Gaza Strip have created a model of security that is

exported to a variety of settings globally. Stockmarr traces how a growing industry of Israeli

security companies has developed a range of tools in cooperation with the Israeli military to

govern people and places with a minimum of human contact and friction. Based on the long-

term experience of settler colonial rule, this has turned Gaza into a security ‘laboratory’ for a

global market of policing. In drawing upon original empirical data collected at arms fairs and

interviews with producers of security technology in Israel, the chapter shows how logics of

control are transferred into exportable and commercialized homeland security products; the

‘Gaza experience’ being packaged in ways that fit other contexts not necessarily linked to

warfare and anti-terrorist enterprises. The global security market relies on such productions

21
of technologies of policing in localities such as Gaza, and it is hence argued that the

transnational movement of security logics and technology creates a tied connection between

warfare, border control and mundane policing. In this way, Israeli practices and private

companies’ involvement in Gaza provide input to a broader industry of inequality

management and pacification, which encompasses militaries, private security and police

forces on a global scale: a global making of policing.

The second set of papers moves away from the ‘laboratory’ settings above and zooms in on

newly emerging powers and the making of global policing in ‘South-South’ security

encounters, which have received very little attention in the policing literature so far. In chapter

five, Markus-Michael Müller examines the entanglement of pacification strategies between Rio

de Janeiro, Brazil and Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The chapter analyses attempts by the Rio de

Janeiro city government to implement a new community-oriented policing scheme, symbolized

by the creation of the so-called ‘Pacification Police Units’ (UPPs), in order to ‘pacify’ and

‘develop’ the city’s most marginalized urban areas for two mega-events (the 2014 Soccer

Championship and the 2016 Olympic Games). It is shown that the UPPs are directly inspired

by the experiences of the Brazilian peacekeeping efforts in Haiti within the context of

MINUSTAH (Mission des Nations Unies pour la stabilisation en Haïti) and the underlying

practices of counterinsurgent urban pacification efforts and ‘population-centric’ militarized

policing. In analysing the travelling of urban counterinsurgency policing practices between Rio

de Janeiro and Port-au-Prince this chapter illustrates how Brazil’s participation in the

MINUSTAH converted Haiti into a counterinsurgency laboratory. As these counterinsurgent

policing practices travel back and forth between Haiti and contemporary Rio de Janeiro, they

re-articulate a pattern of authoritarian Brazilian urban policing that was modelled upon the

French counterinsurgency approach in the Algerian war. Moreover, they also interact with the

22
domestic postcolonial legacies of Brazilian policing and its deeply embedded practice of

suppressing the racialized urban ‘other’. In tracing these postcolonial counterinsurgent policing

entanglements in the Global South, Müller demonstrates how ‘population-centric’ policing

contributed to the resurgence of torture, disappearances, and extralegal killings in ‘pacified’

Rio de Janeiro.

Moving us from Brazil and Haiti to Colombia, Arlene Tickner demonstrates in chapter six, that

the triangulation with the United States has become a key component of Colombian efforts to

export security regionally (to other Latin American countries) and globally (e.g.to West

Africa). The chapter analyses this new mode of ‘North-South-South’ security interaction

through the lens of ‘associated dependent cooperation’, which is characterized by the

continuation of asymmetry and non-zero sum interaction between the core and periphery.

Tickner shows that Colombia’s status as a security provider is premised on recognition of the

superiority of U.S. knowledge and efforts to gain favour within the core-periphery structure

rather than challenging it. However, by tracing how U.S. readings of security were transferred

first to Colombia and then re-exported, the chapter also illustrates the mimicry, and hence

Colombian agency, at play in asymmetrical international security cooperation.

The third set of chapter revolves around the making of global policing in postcolonial

transnational security assemblages. In chapter seven, Mark Laffey and Sutharan Nadarajah

explore the transnational security governance of diasporas as a window onto the global

making of policing. It starts from the observation that scholarly and policy research identifies

the diaspora as a key source of insecurity for the state. For example, diaspora is now

prominently linked to armed conflicts elsewhere as well as to the possibilities of foreign

danger while threatening to penetrate the domestic arena. Viewed in this way, the diaspora

23
prompts the production of forms of power/knowledge centred on securing the nation-state

and, by extension, international order. Using the Tamil diaspora in Britain as case study, it

argues that policing – understood as governance directed to the production of security – is

interwoven with and co-constituted by the challenges to order that policing articulates as

transnational threats and seeks to extinguish. Against accounts that situate the origins of such

knowledge and practice in Eurocentric diffusionist models of the international, the chapter

reveals the intimate relations between policing in the metropole and liberal order-making in

the periphery. All of this demonstrates the mutual implication of the ‘global’ and the ‘local’

and of ‘liberal’ and ‘non-liberal’ worlds.

Chapter eight then moves on to the global making of international police assistance. Georgina

Sinclair examines how deploying police to provide overseas assistance has markedly

increased since the mid-1990s. Focussing on the experiences of UK police officers

undertaking overseas missions from 1999 to 2014, she shows how the transfer of a ‘Western’

(in this case, ‘British’) policing style is confronted by other diverse police nationalities, many

originating from the global south. It is argued that international policing (assistance) in

practice has indeed started to move away from a north-south police dialogue to becoming a

global policing exchange. Through fieldwork and oral testimonies with UK police officers

professional-cultural exchanges have been identified described as a process of ‘exchange of

capacity’. It is argued that the international policing experiences gained by these officers when

working alongside multiple international police partners also reshapes police work at home.

The ninth chapter by Lars Ostermeier uses a translational perspective for analysing the global

making of policing, taking international police-building programmes in Afghanistan as an

empirical example. Analysing the performativity of processes of translation, it discusses how

24
‘progress’ in police-building programmes is enacted across transnational organisational and

cultural spaces. For doing so, it draws on interviews conducted in Afghanistan and Germany,

policy papers and academic studies. It is shown how through processes of translation, multiple

realities of ‘modern’ and ‘Western’ concepts of policing are interwoven with concepts and

empirical practices in use in Afghanistan. Challenging the presumed existence of fixed

policing knowledge that is available for transfer and implementation, it is argued that

knowledge about policing is simultaneously globalised and differentiated across multiple

levels and localities. These processes of translation enact ‘progress’ by constantly

reformulating concepts for police-building projects and their objectives - a process of a global

making of policing.

The conclusion by Pinar Bilgin discusses the contribution of this book to current debates in IR,

postcolonial and security studies. Bilgin puts particular emphasis on the relevance of what she

refers to as a ‘co-constitutive approach’ to the study the global making of policing. With its

focus on how actors from the Global North and Global South interact with and learn from each

other, while simultaneously getting transformed in the process, she argues that this perspective

allows to shed light on the roles played by both sides in the production of goods and ideas, and

their mutual transformation through this interaction. It is through such a perspective, she

concludes, that the hierarchical relationship between the core and the periphery, the agency

exercised by the latter, and the limits of that agency, can be assessed in a comprehensive way

that leads to a better understanding of the global making of policing from a postcolonial

perspective.

25
Bibliography

Abrahamsen, R. (2003). ‘African Studies and the Postcolonial Challenge’, African Affairs

102(407): 189-210.

Agathangelou, A.M. and Ling, L.H.M. (2004). ‘Power, Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of

Violence and Desire from September 11’, International Studies Quarterly 48(3): 517–

538.

Aradau, C., Huysmans, J., Neal, A. and Voelkner, N. (2015). Critical Security Methods. New

Frameworks for Analysis. London: Routledge.

Arendt, H. (1973). The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego: Harcourt.

Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G. and Tiffin, H. (eds) (2007). Post-Colonial Studies: The Key

Concepts. London: Routledge.

Avant, D. (2005). The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bachmann, J., Bell, C. and Holmqvist, C. (eds) (2015). War, Police and Assemblages of

Intervention. London: Routledge.

Barkawi, T. and Stanski, K. (2013). Orientalism and War. London: Hurst.

Barkawi, T. and Laffey, M. (2006). ‘The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies’, Review of

International Studies 32(2): 329–352.

Bayley, D.H. (1975). ‘The Police and Political Development in Europe’, in: Tilly, C. (ed.) The

Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, pp. 328–379.

Belcher, O. (2015). ‘Tribal Militias, Neo-Orientalism, and the US-Military’s Art of Coercion’,

in: Bachmann, J., Bell, C. and Holmqvist, C. (eds) War, Police and Assemblages of

Intervention. London: Routledge, pp. 109-125.

26
Bigo, D. (2011). ‘Pierre Bourdieu and International Relations: Power of Practices, Practices of

Power’, International Political Sociology (5): 225–258.

Bhabha, H.K. (1994). The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.

Bhambra, G.K. (2010). ‘Historical Sociology, International Relations and Connected

Histories’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23(1): 127–143.

Bilgin, P. (2010). ‘The “Western-Centrism” of Security Studies: “Blind Spot” or Constitutive

Practice?’, Security Dialogue 41(6): 615–622.

Boatcă, M., Costa, S. and Gutiérrez Rodríguez, E. (2010). ‘Introduction. Decolonizing

European Sociology: Different Paths towards a Pending Project’, in: Rodriguez, E.G.,

Boatcǎ, M. and Costa, S. (eds) Decolonizing European Sociology: Transdisciplinary

Approaches. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 1–12.

Bowling, B. and Sheptycki, J. (2012). Global Policing. London: Sage.

Brogden, M. (1987). ‘The Emergence of Policing – The Colonial Dimension’, British Journal

of Criminology 27(1): 4–14.

Brogden, M. and Ellison, G. (2012). Policing in an Age of Austerity: A Postcolonial Pers-

pective. London: Routledge.

Brune, N. (2011). ‘The Brazil-Africa Narco Nexus’, Americas Quarterly 5(4): 59.

Buzan, B. and Hansen, L. (2009). The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Chowdry, G. and Nair, S. (eds) (2002). Power and Postcolonialism in International Relations:

Reading Race, Gender and Class. London: Routledge.

Chatterjee, P. (2004). The Politics of the Governed. Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of

the World. New York: Columbia University Press.

Chatterjee, P. (1993). The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

27
Chakrabaty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe. Postcolonial Thought and Historical

Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Coaffee, J. and Wood, D.M. (2006). ‘Security is Coming Home: Rethinking Scale and

Constructing Resilience in the Global Urban Response to Terrorist Risk’, International

Relations 20(4): 503–517.

Collier, S.J. and Ong, A. (2006). ‘Global Assemblages, Anthropological Problems’, in: Ong,

A. and Collier, S.J. (eds) Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as

Anthropological Problems. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 3-21.

Comaroff, J. and Comaroff, J.L. (2012). Theory from the South: Or, How Euro-America Is

Evolving Toward Africa. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Coronil, F. (1996). ‘Beyond Occidentalism: Toward Nonimperial Geohistorical Categories’,

Cultural Anthropology 11(1): 51–87.

Crosby, A. and Monaghan, J. (2012). ‘Settler Governmentality in Canada and the Algonquins

of Barriere Lake’, Security Dialogue October 43(5): 421-438.

Dubber, M.D. and Valverde, M. (2006). ‘Perspectives on the Power and Science of Police’, in:

Dubber, M.D. and Valverde, M. (eds) The New Police Science: Police Power in

Domestic and International Governance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Ellison, G. and O'Reilly, C. (2008). ‘From Empire to Iraq and the “War on Terror”: The

Transplantation and Commodification of the (Northern) Irish Policing Experience’,

Police Quarterly 11(4): 395-426.

Fassin, D. (2013). Enforcing Producing Order. An Ethnography of Urban Policing.

Cambridge: Polity.

Foucault, M. (2003). Society Must be Defended. Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–6.

London: Allen Lane.

Foreign Policy (2007). ‘Latin America’s Hidden War in Iraq’, 11 October.

28
Gregory, D. (2004). The Colonial Present. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Grossman, M. and Sparks, C. (2005). ‘Unsettled States’, Postcolonial Studies 8(3): 235–241.

Gupta, A. (1998) Postcolonial Development: Agriculture and the Making of Modern India.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Hall, S. (1996) ‘When Was the “Post-Colonial”? Thinking at the Limits’, in: Chambers, I. and

Curti, L. (eds) The Post-Colonial Question. London and New York: Routledge, pp.

242–60

Hall, S. (1992). ‘The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power’, in: Hall, S. and Geiben, B.

(eds) Formations of Modernity. Oxford: Open University/Polity Press.

Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2001). Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hills, A. (2009). Policing Post-Conflict Cities. London: Zed Books.

Hobson, J.M. (2012). The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International

Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hobsbawm, E. (1987). The Age of Empire: 1875–1914. New York: Vintage Books.

Hönke, J. and Müller, M.-M. (2012). ‘Governing (In)Security in a Postcolonial World:

Transnational Entanglements and the Worldliness of Local Practice’, Security Dialogue

43(5): 383–402.

Hönke, J. (2013). Transnational Companies and Security Governance. Hybrid Practices in a

Postcolonial World. London, Routledge.

Innes, M. (2003). Understanding Social Control: Crime and Social Order in Late Modernity.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

International Peacekeeping (2010). Special Issue: South American Perspectives on Peace

Operations.

Jessop, B. and Ngai-Ling, S. (2001). ‘Pre-disciplinary and Post-disciplinary Perspectives’, New

Political Economy 6(1): 89–101.

29
Johnson, M. (2011). ‘Reconciliation, indigeneity, and postcolonial nationhood in settler states’,

Postcolonial Studies 14(2): 187–201.

Knöbl, W. (1998). Polizei und Herrschaft im Modernisierungsprozeß. Staatsbildung und

innere Sicherheit in Preußen, England und Amerika 1700–1914. Frankfurt am Main:

Campus.

Khalili, L. (2010): ‘The Location of Palestine in Global Counterinsurgency’, International

Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 41(2): 413–433.

Kienscherf, M. (forthcoming). ‘“A Struggle for Control and Influence”: Western

Counterinsurgency and the Problematic of Autonomy’, Moe, L.W. and Müller, M. M.

(eds) Reconfiguring Intervention: Complexity, Resilience and the Local Turn in

Counterinsurgent Warfare. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Krishna, S. (1999). Postcolonial Insecurities: India, Sri Lanka, and the Question of

Nationhood. Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Krishnasamy, K. (2003). ‘Bangladesh and UN Peacekeeping: The Participation of a “Small”

State’, Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 41(1): 24–47.

Krishnasamy, K. (2001). ‘Recognition’ for Third World Peacekeepers: India and Pakistan’,

International Peacekeeping 8(4): 56–76.

Laffey, M. and Nadarajah, S. (2012). ‘The Hybridity of Liberal Peace: States, Diasporas and

Insecurity’, Security Dialogue October 43(5): 403-420

Ling, L.H.M. (2002). Postcolonial international relations: Conquest and desire between Asia

and the West. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Loomba, A. (2005). Colonialism/Postcolonialism. London: Routledge.

McCoy, A.W. (2009a). ‘Policing the Imperial Periphery: Philippine Pacification and the Rise

of the U.S. National Security State’, in: McCoy, A.W. and Scrano, F.A. (eds) Colonial

Crucible. Empire in the Making of the Modern American State. Madison, WI:

30
 University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 106–115.

McCoy, A.W. (2009b). Policing America’s Empire. The United States, the Philippines, and

the Rise of the Surveillance State. Madison, WC: University of Wisconsin Press.

Mignolo, W. (2005). The Idea of Latin America. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Millenium (2011). ‘Special issue: Dialogue in international relations’, 39(3): 607–803.

Müller, M.-M. (2015.) ‘Punitive Entanglements: The “War on Gangs” and the Making of a

Transnational Penal Apparatus in the Americas’, Geopolitics 20(3): 696-727.

Müller, M.-M. (2014). ‘De-monopolizing the Bureaucratic Field: Internationalization

Strategies and the Transnationalization of Security Governance in Mexico City’,

Alternatives 39(1): 37-54.

Müller, M.-M. and Ostermeier, L. (2014). Decolonizing German Police Building: The

(Post)Colonial Afterlife of the Deutsch-Afghanische Freundschaft. Paper presented at

the conference ‘Policing Empires: Social Control, Political Transition, (Post-)Colonial

Legacies’, Bruxelles.

Muppidi, H. (1999). ‘Postcoloniality and the production of international insecurity: The

persistent puzzle of U.S.-Indian relations’, in: Weldes, J., Laffey, M., Gusterson, H.

and Duvall, R. (eds) Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities and the Production of

Danger. Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 119–146.

Neocleous, M. (2000). The Fabrication Of Social Order: A Critical Theory of Police Power.

London: Pluto Press.

Paolini, A.J., Elliott, A. and Moran, A. (eds) (1999). Navigating Modernity: Postcolonialism,

Identity, and International Relations. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Porter, P. (2009). Military Orientalism. Eastern War through Western Eyes. London: Hurst.

Reiner, R. (2010). The Politics of the Police. Fourth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

pp. 39–114.

31
Rosenau, W. (2014). ‘“Our Ghettos too, Need a Lansdale”: American Counter-Insurgency

Abroad and at Home in the Vietnam Era’, in: Gvener, W., Jones, C.D.M. and Smith,

M.R.L. (eds) The New Counter-Insurgency Era in Critical Perspective. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillian, pp. 111-126.

Sabaratnam, M. (2011). ‘IR in Dialogue, but Can We Change the Subjects? A Typology of

Decolonising Strategies for the Study of World Politics’, Millenium: 1–23.

Said, E.W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage.

Seth, S. (2013a). Postcolonial Theory and International Relations. London: Routledge.

Seth, S. (2013b). ‘Introduction’, in: Seth, S. (ed) Postcolonial Theory and International

Relations. A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, pp. 1–13.

Sinclair, G. (2006). At the End of the Line. Colonial Policing and the Imperial Endgame 1945–

80. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Sinclair, G. and Williams, C.A. (2007). ‘“Home and Away”: The Cross-Fertilisation between

“Colonial” and “British” Policing, 1921–85’, The Journal of Imperial and

Commonwealth History 35(2): 221–238.

Slater, D. (2004). Geopolitics and the Post-Colonial. Rethinking North-South Relations.

Malden: Blackwell.

Steinmetz, G. (1999). ‘Culture and the State’, in: Steinmetz, G. (ed.) State/culture: State-

formation After the Cultural Turn. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 1-49.

Stoler, A. L. (2009). Along the archival grain: epistemic anxieties and colonial common sense.

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Stoler, A.L. and Cooper, F. (1997). ‘Between Metropole and Colony. Rethinking a Research

Agenda’, in: Stoler, A.L. and Cooper, F. (eds) Tensions of Empire. Colonial Cultures

in a Bourgeois World. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 1–58.

Thomas, M. (2011). ‘Introduction: Mapping Violence onto French Colonial Minds’, in:

32
 Thomas, M. (ed.) The French Colonial Mind, Volume 2. Violence, Military Encounters,

and Colonialism. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press, pp. xi-liii.

Valverde, M. (2012). ‘The Crown in a Multicultural Age: The Changing Epistemology of

(Post)colonial Sovereignty’, Social & Legal Studies 21(1): 3-21.

Vasilaki, R. (2013). ‘Provincialising IR Deadlocks and Prospects in Post-Western IR Theory’,

Millenium 41(1): 3-22.

Vrasti, W. (2008). ‘The Strange Case of Ethnography and International Relations’, Millennium

37(2): 279–301.

Washington Times (2013). ‘Massachusetts police take Iraq counterinsurgency tactics to streets

to fight gangs’, 6 May.

Williams, R. (2004). ‘A State of Permanent Exception’, Interventions 5(3): 322–344.

Young, R. (2003). Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

33

View publication stats