Behind the risks normally associated with war and political violence–the wounds to bodies and the body politic- -are a much less visible series of actions with risks that are seldom assessed, actions capable of shaping global economic and political grids. Wars and, indeed, most politics and economics, rest upon a foundation made up of both legal and extra-legal activities. Hundreds of billions of dollars are made on unrecorded (extra-legal) weapons sales and hundreds of billions more are earned through the sale of resources to gain the hard currency needed to buy those weapons and to purchase all of the other supplies that a country at war requires, from medicines and food to industrial equipment and communications technology. If we were simply addressing illegal arms sales, assessing risk would be relatively straightforward. But the fact that countries at war depend upon the extra-legal as well as the legal to acquire the basic developmental infrastructure essential to their populations’ survival means that exploring the qualities and dangers of risk is much more complex and multifaceted: for example, how do we calculate the stakes of wide-scale profiteering from selling extra-legal pharmaceuticals to war-afflicted populations that do not have access to legal medicines? The sheer magnitude of the power and profits that accrue to the extra-legal (and the fact that analytical attention generally focuses upon illegal arms and drugs sales, while common commodities make up the bulk of the extra-legal—and represent unrecorded profits for legal enterprises) suggests that the systematic investigative invisibility surrounding these topics is purposeful–a form of political and economic prestidigitation or sleight of hand. This article investigates the dynamics of the extra-legal as it shapes political and economic processes in the world today.
As tension mounts during the build-up to the Orange marching season, which occurs each summer in Northern Ireland, the streets of many cities and towns are festooned with flags. The proliferation of Union Jacks, Irish Tricolours, Ulster flags and paramilitary banners adorning the streets symbolize loyalty and serve as sectarian markers of territory. In July 2002, however, something unusual happened: republicans started hoisting the Palestinian flag alongside their Irish Tricolours while, in neighbouring loyalist areas, the Israeli flag fluttered alongside the Union Jack and paramilitary banners. This paper suggests some reasons for this by focusing upon the concept of ‘fear’ in the context of the peace processes in Northern Ireland and South Africa. It begins by offering some thoughts on the phenomenon of Israeli flags flying in Belfast before moving on to consider briefly how the psychological and sociological literature generally treat the concept of fear (and risk). This leads to the argument that fear and the use of fear are unrecognized variables in popular discourses surrounding political negotiations and processes such as truth commissions. The paper analyzes the role of fear in the political transition process, a subject seldom dealt with in the academic literature, and examines the way that the concept of fear–like the suffering of victims of political violence–is politicized and depoliticized. The paper then concludes by trying to apply some of the ideas that it presents to the South Africa and Northern Ireland contexts and, particularly, to approaches to political risk-taking.