In this lesson, we focus on the politics of the geographic boundaries of states and how this ties with the processes of territorialization, deterritorialization, reterritorialization and constructions of national identity contained therein.
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
Please see your Canvas course space for a complete listing of this lesson's required readings, assignments, and due dates.
If you have any general course questions, please post them to our Course Questions Discussion located in the General Information Module in Canvas. I will check that discussion forum regularly to respond as appropriate. While you are there, feel free to post your own responses and comments if you are able to help out a classmate.
Please begin by reading Chapter 5 of Flint, C. (2016). Introduction to geopolitics (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Boundary: the dividing line between political entities/the “line in the sand”.
Border: refers to that region contiguous with the boundary, a region within which society and the landscape are altered by the presence of the boundary.
Borderlands: the two borders either side of a boundary can be viewed as one borderland.
Frontiers: the process of territorial expansion in what is deemed (usually falsely) as “empty” areas, e.g., the American Frontier.
Watch Boundaries and Borderlands [1](by Annenberg Learner) for an exploration of the US and Mexico boundary and borders (28 minutes).
As you watch the film, think about the terms listed above (boundary, border, borderland, and frontier). While the definitions give us abstract understandings of the terms. How does the case study of Ciudad Juarez (Mexico) and El Paso, TX (USA) help us better understand the terms and their implications for the people who live on either side of a boundary? Using the case study of the US-Mexico boundary and border highlighted in the film, think of examples for each of the aforementioned terms.
Territorialization: The way that territory is used to enable politics. The next lesson will discuss flows between spaces. In this lesson, we will cover boundary formation and management as a territorial process—and how nation-states or non-state actors direct or contest this process of territorialization.
Deterritorialization: The way in which what is believed to be a coherent nation-state loses its ability to enact the despotic and infrastructural forms of power introduced previously (in other lessons/chapters). These entities are often referred to as “failed states” and are identified as security threats. Failed states have largely lost the ability to govern effectively across the whole of their territorial extent. Furthermore, failed states are often unable to provide basic services (especially education and health care) and are ill-equipped to provide order or security for the population. Flint gives the examples of Somalia and Yemen as often cited failed states. A more recent example of a failed state might be Syria (and Iraq). It can be argued that the current civil war in Syria and the overwhelming presence of ISIS (also known as ISIL or the Islamic State) call to question the central government's ability to effectively govern the territory, or provide basic services or security to its people. This leads us to the concept and term, reterritorialization
Reterritorialization: While Flint provides examples of reterritorialization at a regional scale with the example of the creation of the European Union (EU), we can also see the practice of reterritorialization operationalized at a smaller scale. Essentially, reterritorialization happens in contrast to deterritorialization. Reterritorialization is the restructuring of a place or territory that has experienced deterritorialization. So, as the Syrian government under Basher al-Assad struggles to stay in power (against both moderate rebels, like the Free Syrian Army, supported by the US government as well as its battles against ISIS over Syrian territory and people), opposition groups have increasingly gained ground throughout Syria. The following three articles highlight some of the process of reterritorialization in portions of Syria under ISIS.
The following articles provide specific examples of the ways in which ISIS has been able to control infrastructure and distribution of basic services and utilities, collect taxes, and enforce its own strict laws and regulations in the regions it controls. Such an example sheds light on how territorialization is a process that is/can be contested. Further, it illustrates the role non-state actors can have in processes of deterritorialization as well as reterritorialization.
In a Syrian City, ISIS Puts Its Vision Into Practice [2] (NY Times)
A guide to how the militant group overrunning Iraq wins hearts and minds [3] (The Atlantic)
(Article from the NY Post [4])
Flint identifies four categories of grievances that can ignite a boundary conflict. Those four categories are: identity, demarcation of boundaries, control of natural resources, and security. The textbook provides a great general analysis of a fictitious state called Hypothetica. Using the example of Hypothetica, Flint goes through each of the four categories of grievance to highlight how they become points of contention leading to geopolitical boundary conflicts. After his fictitious example, he then details the geopolitical history of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
As you review the case study, note how identity, demarcation, resources, and security are engaged with and utilized over the history of the conflict. Who are the key actors involved in the conflict? What issues are at the center of the conflict? What has been the process of territorialization, deterritorialization, and reterritorialization for each actor(s)? What continue to be the main sticking points of the conflict? What are the possibilities for making peaceful boundaries?
Flint notes that a focus on boundaries (the line in the sand) may work to perpetuate conflict as boundaries definitively establish what is/isn’t part of a state’s territory and who is/isn’t a member of its citizenship. Thus, he shifts our focus to an approach that may be more productive: a focus on borders and borderlands as trans-boundary spaces of interaction. A focus on these spaces (versus a line) might open the opportunity for mutual control, use of resources, and joint economic activity along borders/borderland regions.
Of course, in order to establish a peaceful collaboration along borders, political goodwill among the parties is fundamental.
Flint (2016, p. 159-160) points to five conditions that are necessary to facilitate a peaceful trans-boundary interaction:
Likewise there are five key processes that shape a borderland (Flint, 2016, p. 160-161):
Geopolitics of identity, integral to the establishment of a trans-boundary borderland, challenge the importance of the hyphen in nation-state. These borderlands highlight a geography of cultural groups that do not lie neatly within state boundaries, but often spill over territorial lines—woven together across the globe in networks of migration and cultural associations that intersect state boundaries.
How is the process of establishing and maintaining boundaries an important part of geopolitical practice?
Let's use the following videos to examine the US-Mexico Border, boundaries and borderlands, and issues connected to the US geopolitical code:
Most of us are somewhat familiar with the ongoing issue of undocumented migration from Mexico and Central American across the US border. In the above video, President Obama discusses some of the more recent (Summer 2014) issues pertaining to movement of unaccompanied minors across the US-Mexico border.
Visit the CBS News Website [5] to view this video.
However, beyond the movement of unaccompanied minors (and/or their parents) from Mexico, Central and South America into the US for jobs and other opportunities, we should understand that that isn’t the only issue of concern on or around our borders. So, with this in mind, what are some of the various issues brought up in this 2-minute video (regarding Homeland Security)? As you watch, think about how these issues relate to the US geopolitical code. How is the process of establishing and maintaining boundaries an important part of geopolitical practice?
Watch the following video on East Asia’s maritime disputes (The Economist):
Similar to the examples in the text, the examples in the short clip illustrate how “territorial disputes over maritime boundaries are an intersection of material practices aimed at exploitation of natural resources and representations of the dispute that reference longstanding nationalist beliefs.” (Flint, 2016, p. 172)
How might these territorial disputes be tied to a country’s geopolitical code? How are discourses of national interest, identity and patriotism engaged to stake their claim on maritime territories?
Here is another short video clip on “Ocean Grabbing”:
This clip focuses less on territorial disputes made between countries and more on the privatization of the ocean which results in the exclusion of small scale fishermen and communities that rely on these smaller scale operations for their lives and livelihoods. The short clip highlights a multiple actors including fishermen and their communities, the national government, as well as multinational corporations. Although they focus on how national policy is used to privatize Ocean resources at the national scale, they also point out how this is a global trend.
You should now be able to:
You have reached the end of Lesson 5! Double-check the Lesson 5 module in Canvas to make sure you have completed all of the activities listed there before you begin Lesson 6.
Links
[1] http://www.learner.org/series/powerofplace/page2.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/world/middleeast/islamic-state-controls-raqqa-syria.html?_r=0
[3] http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/the-isis-guide-to-building-an-islamic-state/372769/
[4] http://nypost.com/2014/09/04/isis-builds-government-in-northeast-syria/
[5] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/homeland-security-says-terrorists-havent-crossed-us-mexico-border/