This article examines the field of counterterrorism and race in the context of International Relations (IR) scholarship. The article identifies noteworthy texts for examining situated knowledge and individual experiences of counterterrorism as a form of IR-relevant inquiry. Drawing on the fields of postcolonialism, sociology, and legal and terrorism studies, this paper identifies the real-world challenges that academics of counterterrorism and race are responding to, the analytical frameworks they utilise, and the key questions they collectively pose for IR. The article finishes by presenting the problem of how to reconcile two understandings of race: one, upheld by those with state-endorsed counterterrorism knowledge with more academic understandings of race, and another disconnected from a wider politics and submerged in colonial/imperial histories.

This article situates the subject of the academic–practitioner (AP) exchange within an International Relations-orientated critique of the imperial dynamics of counterterrorism practices and racial subjugation. It uses an analytical framework that upholds the significance of racial hierarchy to knowledge production. A key contribution of this article is to situate the AP nexus within the circumstances of liberal democratic counterterrorism regimes, to demonstrate how race becomes meaningful to the knowledge that is produced about Islamophobia. The main argument of this article is that in present policy debates concerning the existence of systemic racism, one of the mechanisms enabling counterterrorism practitioners to regulate the AP exchange is that of institutionalized whiteness. Exploring two scenarios of AP exchanges in the United Kingdom and Canada, where counterterrorism practitioners were challenged to reconcile with academic explanations of Islamophobia as a systemic issue, this article uses colour-line inspired critiques of white logic to identify instances where anti-racist knowledge was subjugated in the name of imperialism. The article finds that in each scenario discussed, practitioners demonstrate trajectories of white logic by contesting the suitability of anti-racist knowledge put forward by academics, on the basis of racial hierarchy and self-aggrandizement. It concludes by discussing how a lack of practitioner–academic consensus continues to affect the dissemination of knowledge concerning systemic racism, thus prompting considerations of what this means for an anti-racist future.

This is an eight-page reflection piece on gatekeeping in IR knowledge production and the politics that goes into presenting national racial contestations as issues unworthy of international study and consideration. Premised on a personal experience of scholastic rejection, this commentary is a reflective intervention concerning the state of the field and the imperial connotations of methodological disciplinarity – the process in which IR research is restricted within disciplinary borders because of scholastic endeavours to keep the discipline pure. Here, using anti-imperial thought, I press for deeper consideration and re-evaluation of how academics come to decide which experiences of the world should be deemed worthy of global recognition and where the boundaries of IR should come to an end.

Motivated by Kundnani's [Kundnani, The Muslims Are Coming! (London, 2015), 10] commentary that racialization within counterterrorism politics reflects “an imperialist political culture,” this article theoretically engages with and expands from the political moment that was Muslim counterterrorism policymaker Baroness Sayeeda Warsi speaking at the launch of Runnymede's Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us All (A 20th Anniversary Report) in 2017. Noting Warsi's appeal to political blackness made during her speech contesting state-sponsored Islamophobia, it is argued that embedding Warsi's rhetoric in a wider analytical framework organized around black-centric traditions prompts a wider conversation about the intricacies of racism within Britain and its international underpinnings. Inspired by the arguments of Aydin [Aydin, The Idea of the Muslim World (Cambridge, 2017)] and Narayan [Narayan, “British Black Power,” The Sociological Review 67 (2019): 945–67], this article examines what it means for both immediate and conceptual resistance to Islamophobia if it and its racialization are considered as part of a wider global history of Muslims engaging in “black” as a mode of imperial resistance. By examining the relationship between anti-imperial blackness and Muslimness, this article offers a unique angle to understand the presence of the international, as several groups across the world endeavor to resist the racism of national security regimes. Motivé par le commentaire de Kundnani (2015, 10) selon lequel la racialisation au sein des politiques de lutte contre le terrorisme refléterait « une culture politique impérialiste », cet article s'engage et se développe sur le plan théorique à partir du moment politique qu'a constitué le discours qu'a prononcé la baronne Sayeeda Warsi, législatrice en charge de la lutte contre le terrorisme musulman, lors du lancement du rapport marquant le 20e anniversaire du rapport Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us All du think tank Runnymede en 2017. Tenant compte de l'appel de Warsi à la « blackness » politique lors de son discours contestant l'islamophobie soutenue par l’État, cet article affirme que l'intégration de la rhétorique de Warsi à un cadre analytique plus large organisé autour des traditions centrées sur les « Noirs » invite à un débat plus large sur les complexités de l'antiracisme britannique et international et son détachement problématique des histoires anti-impérialistes. Il s'inspire des arguments d’ Aydin (2017) et de Narayan (2019) et examine ce que cela signifie pour la résistance immédiate et conceptuelle à l'islamophobie si celle-ci et sa racialisation sont considérées comme faisant partie d'une histoire globale plus large de musulmans s'engageant en tant que « noirs » comme mode de résistance à l'impérialisme. Examinant la relation entre la « blackness » anti-impérialiste et la musulmanité, cet article offre un angle unique pour réfléchir à la solidarité antiraciste tandis que plusieurs groupes du monde entier s'efforcent de résister au racisme des régimes de sécurité nationale. Este artículo está motivado por el comentario de Kundnani (2015, 10) de que la racialización dentro de la política antiterrorista refleja “una cultura política imperialista” y en él se detalla de manera teórica el momento político que supuso la intervención de la baronesa Sayeeda Warsi, responsable de la política antiterrorista musulmana, durante el lanzamiento de la islamofobia de Runnymede, y se extiende a partir de entonces: Continúa siendo un desafío para todos (informe del vigésimo aniversario de 2017). Al señalar la apelación de Warsi a la negrura política que hizo durante su discurso en el que impugnó la islamofobia patrocinada por el estado, se argumenta que incorporar la retórica de Warsi en un marco analítico más amplio organizado en torno a las tradiciones centradas en la población negra da lugar a una conversación más general sobre las complejidades del antirracismo tanto británico como internacional y su problemático desapego de las historias antimperialistas. Este artículo está inspirado en los argumentos de Aydin (2017) y Narayan (2019), y en él se examina lo que significa para la resistencia tanto inmediata como conceptual a la islamofobia si esta y su racialización se consideran parte de una historia global más amplia de musulmanes que se involucran en cuestiones de “negros” como un modo de resistencia imperial. Al examinar la relación entre la musulmanidad y negrura antimperial, en este artículo se detalla un punto de vista único para reflexionar sobre la solidaridad antirracista, ya que varios grupos en todo el mundo se esfuerzan por resistir el racismo de los regímenes de seguridad nacional.

No abstract