國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
security measures may contribute to the process of curbing civil liberties and comparing different Olympic hosts regarding this matter, represents a strategy that will enable the current researcher to gain new insights.
While a plethora of civil liberties exist and since their formulation and extent vary from country to country, it may be first necessary to set a focus on particular civil liberties that will be examined. That is, selecting those that are most relevant in accordance with the two selected cases and the subject of security measures and international sporting events. Based on the
author's observations of the two cases, particularly the right to privacy, the right to restrictions on government surveillance, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of movement play an
important role with respect to the security measures taken in Beijing and Sochi. Hence, these four components will be given particular attention during the creation of an analytical framework and the subsequently conducted analysis.
1.4. Analytical Framework and Research Method
The systematic plan for the conduct of this study follows the principles of a predominantly qualitative analysis and hence will thoroughly examine data stemming from a variety of different reports. Sources that will assist the researcher to generate an in-depth comparative analysis between the two selected cases, and thus will foster a better understanding of the subject, include but are not limited to, accounts of the respective governments, the reports issued by the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) as well as media and press releases.
The analytical perspective chosen particularly for the analysis of the two research questions guiding this study, is an interdisciplinary one. It is comprised of the utilization of the
securitization approach of the Copenhagen School and the so-called Critical Application of Securitization Theory (CAST) on the basis of, among others, Charrett (2009). By combining the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
two approaches, the author believes that a more comprehensive and increasingly informed picture of the Chinese and Russian securitization process, as well as the carried out actions to eliminate the presumed existential threat, may emerge. That is, as it allows not only to understand how governments convince the related audiences of the existence of an existential threat and how they implement the selected security measures through the utilization of the securitization approach.
But also enables the researcher to analyze the given policy implementations and measures themselves through the insights provided by the Critical Application of Securitization Theory. It is only after those two aspects have been thoroughly analyzed and (hence research question 1 has been answered)13, that this study can then approach its second research question. A question concerned with whether or not the actions taken by the Chinese and Russian governments are reasonable, particularly in the light of possible reductions in civil liberties and personal freedom in order to ensure security.
Ultimately, this thesis follows a three dimensional approach, whose stages will be further introduced one by one in the following paragraphs. The securitization approach – representing
the first stage - will be applied in order to assess the various speech acts generated by Chinese and Russian officials, the respective governments, the IOC, and by the media. For this purpose, identified press releases, media articles and official reports related to the manufactured security discourse in the forerun of the Beijing and Sochi Olympics will be carefully examined through a form of textual analysis. This is done with the objective to understand how and under what circumstances they have ‘produced’ the impression of a security threat surrounding the Olympic Games. In that sense and under these premises, security here has to be comprehended as a
13 Those two aspects, namely what are the imposed security measures and how are they being successfully
implemented with the acceptance of the audience, represent the answer of the first research question posed in this paper.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
practice that is self-referential. It is noteworthy to point out that once something is successfully thematized as a security issue, it does not really matter whether this threat is real or not. The mere perception of its existence is the crux of the matter. Securitizing an issue nevertheless requires the persuasion of the targeted audience. Therefore, speech acts are of prime importance. Eventually, through this investigation, it can thereby be revealed how the governments have legitimized the application of their intended extraordinary security measures. In a nutshell, the securitization approach or securitization stresses that speech acts can be tools to securitize a specific referent object. Meaning, to label it as being in danger of an existential threat (securitizing move) and hence calling for extraordinary measures (change in behavior for security practice). When the relevant audience is convinced through those speech acts, the measures (that would under normal conditions be unacceptable) are being taken into action (cf. Buzan, Waever, and Wilde 1998, p.
21). One has to keep in mind that these so-called extraordinary measures however, often involve breaking rules and not following the original outlined procedures (cf. Diskaya 2013).
Eventually, the securitization approach functions as a tool to assess the first out of the three constructed stages that may eventually lead to infringements on civil liberties. In fact, according to the analytical framework designed for the purpose of this current study, the securitization process - the persuasion of the audience of an impending existential threat – represents the
foundation that successfulyl paves the way for the succeeding second and third stage.
The Critical Application of Securitization Theory (CAST) approach, on the other hand, will be employed to study and dissect stage two and three. That is, in order to deconstruct the institutional power of the securitizing actor, to cast doubt on and challenging institutions, to address dissident security voices, and to analyze the observed exceptional security arrangements themselves critically. These security arrangements have been categorized into two separate
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
categories (stage 2 and stage 3) after the researcher had initially evaluated the measures carried out by the Chinese officials in a pilot study. Thus, including the aforementioned category of the securitization process (stage 1), this study operates with a total of three distinct divisions to structure its analysis (see figure 1.1 below). One sub-category within the CAST approach has been labeled “technologicalization” (stage 2) and is highly concerned with the infringements on
civil liberties such as the right to privacy, the freedom of assembly, and the right to restrictions on government surveillance. To define and operationalize the technologicalization category, it can be stated that all aspects related to high-tech applications, for the purpose of data collection, the dispersal of protests and surveillance fall within this category. These applications, such as surveillance cameras, basically serve twofold functions. First of all, they are used to detect possible security risks. Secondly, and probably more surprisingly, they also regulate the behavior of the observed. That is, once individuals believe that they are being watched (whether this is actually the case or not does not really play a role) they will control their own behavior. In that sense, as Fussey et al. notice, surveillance through the use of large numbers of surveillance cameras has become an effective key feature of Olympic security in order to control the masses (2016, p. 177).
The last category (stage 3), on the other hand, has been termed “warfare during periods of peace”. This component includes the amplified military presence in areas where they would
traditionally not be found, such as international sport events. That is to say, the researcher defines this element as the utilization of armed forces, their military techniques and strategies, which have left their rough imprints on the Olympic ground in recent years. Additionally, this extensive military presence is further used to establish security zones, which then, in turn, limit the peoples’
freedom of movement. Noteworthy is, that by applying CAST, the researcher is also able to discuss the voices calling for resistance against these processes, and the acts taken in order to
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
counter the procedures.
Figure 1.1 Analytical Framework: The 3 Elements of Infringements on Civil Liberties
Through the elaborations presented in this section, the author hopes to have sufficiently demonstrated the valuable insights that can be gained through the addition of the CAST
theoretical framework to the theoretical research approach of this present empirical study. In the next segment, the applicability of the generated analytical framework will be demonstrated with regards to the intended comparison between the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2014 Sochi Olympics. That is to say, the established 3 stages/categories (1. The securitization process, 2. Technologicalization, 3. Warfare during periods of peace) will be filled with specific data and information from the selected two Olympic events and consequently analyzed and compared.
Thereby, it may be revealed that the exceptional nature of the Olympic Games helps governments to justify extraordinary and often times illiberal security measures. Since the security measures taken will subsequently be identified and examined in the course of this study, the author will be
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
able to assess whether the balance between security and civil liberties has been preserved. At the same time, through this study, individual strategies and implemented security measures by the respective governments can be held accountable for their achievements as well as their negative side effects (for instance benefitting certain stakeholders or causing a misbalance in favor of tight security).