FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Militarizing the Olympics

by BINOY KAMPMARK

We’ve been universally very much impressed with everything we’ve seen.  As far as I can see they [London’s police] have done an excellent job preparing all their forces.

— Commissioner Raymond Kelly, NY Police Chief, May 23, 2012.

Let this Orwellian madness commence.  As the Olympics approaches, London is facing the spectacle not merely of travelling chaos in the city’s Tube system but that of militarist mania.  Weapons and heavily armed personnel are being placed across the city in anticipation of potential attacks from any number of unspecified candidates.  In early April, Jules Boykoff argued that security officials have been “exploiting the Olympics as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to multiply and militarise their weapons stocks, laminating another layer on to the surveillance state” (Guardian, Apr 4).

As he rightly points out, the Olympic Charter itself prohibits any kind of “demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda” which hardly prevents a security state from demonstrating its pathological tendencies.

Indeed, there is much to suggest that London is leaving Beijing behind in terms of its use of dastardly devices in monitoring its populace, something already being accomplished well with an extensive network of CCTV cameras.  Numbers of those involved in the security business have ballooned – 12,500 police officers with 13,500 soldiers are participating in the Olympic exercise (Afghan deployments, it seems, can sod off), though there is much to suggest that these numbers veer towards the conservative.

The FBI is adding its complement, having expressed concerns previously that London was proving lax in providing sufficient security.  In November, the situation sparked a row which led to reports that 500 FBI employees and a thousand officials from the US were being deployed to the games.   Commissioner Raymond Kelly, New York’s Police Chief, however, is impressed, which should worry residents and Olympic visitors alike.  “It seems they really have a handle on just about any contingency that might take place” (Daily Mail, May 23).  As for the FBI, they were merely there in a “supportive” role.

Drone experiments will also be conducted – all in the name of peaceful purposes, of course.   Naturally, the tried and true British way is to legalise state intrusions in order to soften them for a law minded society.  “It is understood,” wrote Jeremy Taylor for The Independent (Nov 25, 2011), “that the Metropolitan Police has taken part in discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority over whether they can use small radio controlled devices in heavily built-up areas, as part of efforts to increase their number of ‘eyes in the sky’.”

The other angle taken by sly and paranoid officials is that unmanned vehicles might well be used by a terrorist organization to disperse a lethal agent.  The rationale here is that everyone is joining the drone game.  Lieutenant Colonel Brian Fahy went so far as to claim that unmanned drones controlled by fiendish terrorists would be repositories of poison (Daily Mail, May 5).  “An Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) can be put in a backpack.  They come in all sorts of sizes and it’s feasible they could be filled with something noxious and flown by remote-control.”  This is a touch rich coming from an army that has begun an expanded program to assemble and deploy Reaper Drones in Afghanistan.

Surface-to-air missiles have also found their ugly way to the tops of residential blocks – an encouragement for violence if ever there was one.  The deployment was legally challenged by residents of the Fred Wigg Tower in Leytonstone, east London, but failed to convince the judge in question that such militarized madness might actually incite a terrorist attack.

Marc Willers, the lawyer representing the residents, called the deployment in peace time “unprecedented”.  David Forsdick, representing the Defense Secretary and the Ministry of Defense, was admirably honest in his contempt for the residents’ fears – there was no statutory duty to consult them nor should they have any expectations of being consulted when it came to matters of national security (The Standard, Jul 10).

Ultimately, the man behind the mission is Chris Allison, the national Olympic security coordinator.  The security company being employed is the error prone G4S.  Allison’s fear lies less in terrorism per se than that grand old British habit of rioting.  Terrorism is the orthodox target – controlling the merry instincts of a disgruntled population is far more the likely object.

Even now, despite London’s ringed defenses, there are suggestions that this is a farce before it starts.  A whistleblower “Lee Hazledean” (better known as the director Ben Fellows), who apparently infiltrated the G4S company, claims that the security layering in London is a load of good, well concealed bollocks.  The most obvious fact was that Fellows could be admitted as an employee to begin with.  The personnel are ill-trained and specialists in incompetence (nothing new there).  According to Fellows, they aren’t averse to the occasional drug deal.

A man’s home is, according to British legal lore, his castle.  When it comes to placing surface-to-air missile on flat tenements in the name of protecting a discredited joke such as the Olympics, the old rule is conveniently abrogated.  With such powers as the London Olympics Games Act, a monster created in 2006, the infliction of violence is being given a green light.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 27, 2017
Anthony DiMaggio
Media Ban! Making Sense of the War Between Trump and the Press
Dave Lindorff
Resume Inflation at the NSC: Lt. General McMaster’s Silver Star Was Essentially Earned for Target Practice
Conn Hallinan
Is Trump Moderating US Foreign Policy? Hardly
Norman Pollack
Political Castration of State: Militarization of Government
Kenneth Surin
Inside Dharavi, a Mumbai Slum
Lawrence Davidson
Truth vs. Trump
Binoy Kampmark
The Extradition Saga of Kim Dotcom
Robert Fisk
Why a Victory Over ISIS in Mosul Might Spell Defeat in Deir Ezzor
David Swanson
Open Guantanamo!
Ted Rall
The Republicans May Impeach Trump
Lawrence Wittner
Why Should Trump―or Anyone―Be Able to Launch a Nuclear War?
Andrew Stewart
Down with Obamacare, Up with Single Payer!
Colin Todhunter
Message to John Beddington and the Oxford Martin Commission
David Macaray
UFOs: The Myth That Won’t Die?
Weekend Edition
February 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Exxon’s End Game Theory
Pierre M. Sprey - Franklin “Chuck” Spinney
Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia
Paul Street
Liberal Hypocrisy, “Late-Shaming,” and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump
Ajamu Baraka
Malcolm X and Human Rights in the Time of Trumpism: Transcending the Master’s Tools
John Laforge
Did Obama Pave the Way for More Torture?
Mike Whitney
McMaster Takes Charge: Trump Relinquishes Control of Foreign Policy 
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Decline of US and UK Power
Louisa Willcox
The Endangered Species Act: a Critical Safety Net Now Threatened by Congress and Trump
Vijay Prashad
A Foreign Policy of Cruel Populism
John Chuckman
Israel’s Terrible Problem: Two States or One?
Matthew Stevenson
The Parallax View of Donald Trump
Norman Pollack
Drumbeat of Fascism: Find, Arrest, Deport
Stan Cox
Can the Climate Survive Electoral Democracy? Maybe. Can It Survive Capitalism? No.
Ramzy Baroud
The Trump-Netanyahu Circus: Now, No One Can Save Israel from Itself
Edward Hunt
The United States of Permanent War
David Morgan
Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?
Pete Dolack
The Bait and Switch of Public-Private Partnerships
Mike Miller
What Kind of Movement Moment Are We In? 
Elliot Sperber
Why Resistance is Insufficient
Brian Cloughley
What are You Going to Do About Afghanistan, President Trump?
Binoy Kampmark
Warring in the Oncology Ward
Yves Engler
Remembering the Coup in Ghana
Jeremy Brecher
“Climate Kids” v. Trump: Trial of the Century Pits Trump Climate Denialism Against Right to a Climate System Capable of Sustaining Human Life”
Jonathan Taylor
Hate Trump? You Should Have Voted for Ron Paul
Franklin Lamb
Another Small Step for Syrian Refugee Children in Beirut’s “Aleppo Park”
Ron Jacobs
The Realist: Irreverence Was Their Only Sacred Cow
Andre Vltchek
Lock up England in Jail or an Insane Asylum!
Rev. William Alberts
Grandiose Marketing of Spirituality
Paul DeRienzo
Three Years Since the Kitty Litter Disaster at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Eric Sommer
Organize Workers Immigrant Defense Committees!
Steve Cooper
A Progressive Agenda
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail