Description
Public accountability for Britain’s use of military force is problematic. Official oversight mechanisms, including inquiries and freedom of information, are criticised as ineffective due to a culture of official secrecy, exemplified by complaints regarding the discovery of secret files on colonial violence or the government's refusal to disclose its targeted killing policy. Our analysis transcends the question of whether the state has sufficiently revealed itself and instead explains how archival processes produce distinct forms of knowledge. Selecting case studies from various official inquiries into Britain’s use of force since 1900, we trace how official archives always already imposed ways of thinking and a hierarchy of experience about war. Exposure is never neutral. No matter how transparent an inquiry’s hearings and records are, archives preconfigure who and what is heard, which is then amplified by historians. This occurs through a preoccupation with high politics, establishment voices, and classified evidence that reflects societal prejudices of race, gender, and class. We highlight how age, technology (including email and WhatsApp), human carelessness, and even intentional destruction shape the archives of war. We suggest how these limitations could be overcome to promote dialogue about Britain's role in a just international order.
