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:
Hello everybody. Just had a good meeting with Governor Perry, local officials, and faith leaders to talk about the steps that we have taken and that we need to take to address the humanitarian situation on the border. And I want to thank everybody who's been involved for taking the time to talk to me. It's important to recognize two things. First the surge of unaccompanied children and adults with children are arriving at one sector the border and that's the Rio Grande Valley. Second, the issue is not that people are evading our enforcement officials, the issue is that we are apprehending them in large numbers. And we're working to make sure that we have sufficient facilities to detain, house, and process them appropriately while attending to unaccompanied children with the care and compassion that they deserve while they are in our custody. While we intend to do the right thing by these children, their parents need to know that this is an incredibly dangerous situation and it is unlikely that their children will be able to stay. And I've asked parents across Central America not to put their children in harm's way in this fashion. Right now there are more Border Patrol agents and surveillance resources on the ground than at any time in our history and we deport almost 400 thousand migrants each year. But as soon as it became clear that this year's migration to the border was different than in past years, I directed FEMA to coordinate a response at the border. Members of my cabinet, my staff made multiple trips to facilities there and we're also addressing the root of the problem. I've sent Vice President Biden, Secretary Kerry, and Secretary Johnson to meet with Central American leaders as well as working with our international partners to go after smugglers who were putting their kids lives at risk. And earlier this week Mexico announced a series of steps that they're going to take on their southern border to help stem the tide of these unaccompanied children.
Last week I sent a letter to Congress asking them to increase penalties on smugglers and give us flexibility to move migrants through the system faster. Yesterday I asked Congress to fund these efforts. About half of the resources would go to border security, enforcement, and expedited removal of people who don't qualify for a humanitarian claim. About half would go to make sure we're treating children humanely. We would also make investments to further tackle the root problems in Central America. So right now congress has the capacity to work with us, work with state officials, local officials, faith-based groups, and not-for-profits who are helping to care for these kids. Congress has the capacity to work with all parties concerned to directly address the situation. They've said they want to see a solution. The supplemental offers them the capacity to vote immediately to get it done. Of course in the long run the best way to truly address this problem is for the House of Representatives to pass legislation fixing our broken immigration system which by the way would include funding for additional thousands of border Patrol agents something that everybody down here that I've talked to indicates is a priority. If the Senate passed a common sense bipartisan bill more than a year ago, it would have strengthened the border, added an additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents. It would have strengthened our backlogged immigration courts. It have would put us in a stronger position to deal with this search, and in fact prevent it. So let me just close by indicating the nature the conversation that I had with Governor Perry, which I thought was constructive. Governor Perry suggested four specific areas of concern. He was concerned about how many Patrol agents were directly at the border, he was concerned that some of the positioning of Border Patrol agents is too far from the border to be effective in deterring folks from coming in as opposed to simply apprehending them. I indicated to him that what he said sounded like it made sense and that in fact if we passed the supplemental we would then have the resources to carry out some the very things that he's requesting. On a broader policy level, he indicated concern that right now kids who come to the border from Mexico are immediately deported, but because it's non-contiguous folks were coming from Central America have to go through a much lengthier process. I indicated to him the part of what we're looking in the supplemental is some flexibility in terms of being able to preserve the due process rights of individuals who come in, but also to make sure that we're sending a strong signal that they can't simply show up at the border and automatically assume that they're going to be absorbed.
He also expressed concerns about how the immigration judicial system works. How the administrative processing works how long it takes and the fact that oftentimes people appear are then essentially released with a court date that might be six months out, or nine months out and a sizable number not surprisingly don't show up. I indicated to him that if we had more administrative judges, more administrative capacity, we can shrink those wait times. This administrative practice predates my administration and in fact has been going on for quite some time and a lot of it has to do with the fact that there's not enough capacity both in terms of detention facilities but also in terms of judges, attorneys, space, in order process these things more quickly and expeditiously. So the bottom line is actually that there's nothing that the Governor indicated he'd like to see that I have a philosophical objection to. I've asked Jeh Johnson to contact his head of Health and Human Services when he comes down for the sixth time at the end of this week to coordinate and make sure that some other suggestions that the governor has are technically feasible and what kind of resources might be needed.
But what I emphasized to the governor was the problem here is not a major disagreement around the actions that could be helpful in dealing with the problem. The challenge is, is Congress prepared to act to put the resources in place to get this done? Another way of putting it and I said this directly to the governors is, are our folks more interest in politics or the more interest in solving problems? If they're interested in solving the problem then this can be solved. If the preference is for politics then it won't be solved. And I urged the governor to talk to the Texas delegation which is obviously at the heart of the Republican caucus both in the house and has great influence in the caucus in the Senate. If the Texas delegation is in favor of this supplemental, which by the way does not include its some things that I know many of them object to around dealing with undocumented workers who've been in this country for quite some time. This is just a very narrow issue, the supplemental, in terms of dealing with the particular problem we have right now. If the Texas delegation is prepared to move this thing can get done next week. We can have more Border Patrol agents on the border as the governor's request, we can shorten the time tables for processing these children or adults with children as the governor thinks is important. We can make sure that some of the public health issues that were raised in the meeting that I just had are addressed so that we've got enough folks vaccinating, checking on the health status of these children to make sure that not only are they safe but also our communities are safe. The things that the governor thinks are important to do would be a lot easier to do if we had this supplemental. It gives us the resources to do them. So the only question at this point is, is why wouldn't the Texas delegation and the other republicans were concerned about this not want to put this on a fast track in get this on my desk so I can sign and we can start getting to work. I suggested the governor years I suspect some influence or the Texas delegation that might be helpful to call on them to pass a supplemental right away.
Final point I'll make is I just want to thank some of the faith-based group that I just met with as well as mayors, commissioners, local officials. Dallas has been incredibly compassionate looking at some sites some facilities in which they can accommodate some of these children. And I indicated in hearing the stories of churches that are prepared to not just make donations but send volunteers to help construct some of these facilities or fix them up and their willingness to volunteer and in providing care and assistance to these children. I, I told them thank you because it, it confirmed what I think we all know which is the American people are an incredibly compassionate people and when we see a child need we want to care for them. But what I think we all agreed on is, is that the best thing that we can do is to make sure that the children are able to live in their own countries safely. And that's why it's going to be important even as we saw the short term problem here for us to be able to direct attention and resources and assistance as we're doing but not at a sustained and high enough level back in Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador and other places so that parents don't think that somehow it's safer for their children to send them thousands of miles just so that they don't get harmed.
With that I'll take a couple of questions.
WOMAN (asking question): There are increasing calls not just from republicans also from some democrats for you to visit the border during this trip. Can you explain why you didn't do that and do you see any legitimate reason for you to actually do that at some point or do you think those calls are more about politics than anything else?
Jeh Johnson has now visited at my direction the border five times. He's going for his sixth this week. He then comes back in reports to me extensively on everything that's taking place. So, there's nothing that is taking place down there that I am not intimately aware of and briefed on. This isn't theater, this is a problem. I'm not interested in photo-ops, I'm interested in solving a problem. And those who say I should visit the border, when you ask them what should we be doing, they're giving us suggestions that are embodied in legislation that I've already sent to Congress. So it's not as if they're making suggestions there we're not listening to in fact the suggestions of those who work at the border, who visited the border, are incorporated in legislation that were already prepared to sign the minute it hits my desk. There's a very simple question here and that is Congress just needs to pass the supplemental. There's a larger issue that I recognize involves a lot of politics which is why aren't we passing comprehensive immigration reform which would put an additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents and give us a lot of additional authorities to deal with some of these problems. That should have been done a year ago, should have been done two years ago. It's got caught up in politics and and I understand that. One of the suggestions I had for Governor Perry was that it would be useful for my Republican friends to rediscover the concept of negotiation and compromise. The Governor's one concern that he mentioned to me was is that setting aside the supplemental I should go ahead authorize having National Guard troops surge at the border right away. And I what what I told him as we're happy to consider how we could deploy National Guard down there, but that's a temporary solution that's not a permanent solution. And so why wouldn't we go ahead and pass the permanent solution or at least a longer-term solution. and if the Texas delegation said a for us to pass a supplemental we want to include a commitment to your going send National Guard early be happy to consider it. So, so that that this should not be hard to at least get the supplemental done. The question is are we more interested in politics or are we more interested in solving the problem. If we're interested in solving the problem then there's actually some broad consensus around a number of the issues. There may be some controversies and differences between Democrats and Republicans on some of the policy issues, but on a whole bunch of this stuff there's a pretty broad consensus. Let's just get that done. Let's, let's do the work.
MAN (asking question): Mr. President, the Governor gave indication that you would ask the Texas delegation to get behind the supplemental and it sounds like you are concerned that the supplemental will fall victim to partisan politics.
Well, the uh, I think it's fair to say that these days in Washington everybody's always concerned about everything falling victim to the partisan politics. You know, if, if I sponsored a bill declaring apple pie American, it might, it might fall victim to partisan politics I get that. On the other hand this is an issue which my Republican friends have said it, it's urgent we need to fix it. If that's the case then let's go ahead and fix it. As I indicated Governor Perry, you know, he suggested well maybe you just need to go ahead and act and that might convince Republicans that they should go ahead and pass a supplemental, and I had to remind him I'm getting sued right now by Mr. Banier apparently, for going ahead and acting instead of going through Congress. Well here's a good test case. This is something you say is important as I do. This is an area that you have prioritized, as I have. Don't wait for me to take executive actions if when you have a capacity right now to go and get something done. I will sign that bill tomorrow we're going to go ahead and do what we can administratively, but this gives us the tools to do many other very things that Republicans are seeking. At the same time I will just repeat that if we got a comprehensive bill done it doesn't just solve this problem for a year, it solves it potentially for twenty years and I would urge those who so far at least have failed to to act on the comprehensive bill to take another look at it.
MAN (asking question): It doesn't sound like you got any promises.
I didn't get any promises, but it was a constructive conversation I just want to emphasize that you know it I, I think that it was a good exchange of ideas. And he did have some specific suggestions in terms of how we align border agents that I've asked Jeh Johnson to take a look at because I, I think there may be ways in which we could use the resources that we already have more effectively than we're currently doing. And I think it is important that we make sure we've got a strong federal-state collaboration on the issue.
I'm going to take just two more questions then I got to move on.
WOMAN (asking question): Mr. President, Governor Perry put out a statement shortly before you spoke saying that he pressed, his verb, you to secure the border. Does that statement in any way indicate that he is interested in compromise?
I'm interested in securing the border. So, as I explained, as far as I could tell the only disagreement I had with Governor Perry was is that he wanted me to go ahead and do it without Congress having to do anything. We'll do what we can administratively. I think the useful question, not simply for the Governor, but for John Maynard, Mitch McConnell, and the other members the Texas Delegation is why wouldn't you want to go and pass a bill to give us additional resources to solve the very problem that you say is urgent. Jackie.
JACKIE: Mr. President, There's been a number of Republicans who have said that [INAUDIBLE] had deferred action executive order from 2012 that you signed is to blame, that it was an invitation, that these other children are now taking up on. What do you say to that?
You know, if you look at the pattern of immigration into our country, we're at actually a significantly lower level in terms of overall immigration flow illegal immigration flow then we were when I took office. I think that the challenge we have that has really caused a spike is the significant security challenges in the Central American countries themselves and to the fact that you got smugglers are increasingly recognizing that they can make money by transporting these folks often in very dangerous circumstances to the border and taking advantage of the compassion on the American people. Recognizing that we're not going to simply leave abandoned children who are left at our doorstep, but that we've got to care for them and provide for them some basic safety and security while we determine where we can, where we can send them. You know, I think one of the most important things that we're going to have to recognize that this is not going to be a short term problem this is a long-term problem. We have countries that are pretty close to us in which the life chances of children are just far, far worse then they are here. And parents, who are frightened or misinformed about what's possible are willing to take extraordinary risks on behalf of their kids. The more that we can do to help these countries get their acts together then the less likely we are to have a problem at at the borders. and and the fact of the matter is is the Dhaka in comprehensive immigration reform generally, would allow us to reallocate resources precisely because all the budget of DHS instead of us chasing after families that it may have been living here for five or 10 years and have kids were US citizens and are law-abiding, say for the fact that they didn't come here legally. If, if they have to earn citizenship, paying taxes, learning English, you know, paying a fine, going to the back to the line, but they are no longer a enforcement priority. That suddenly frees up a huge amount of resources to do exactly the kinds of things that many Republicans for for us to do and that we've tried to do within resource limitations we have. Alright, thank you everybody. Appreciate it.
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):
The standoff between China and Japan over disputed islands in the East China Sea brings the two sides closer to armed conflict than at any time since the second world war. After the war the islands known as the Senkakus in Japan and the Diaoyu Islands in China were under American administration until they were 100 back to Japan in 1972. Japan says they have long been its territory and admits no dispute claiming also that China only started expressing an interest when it began to seem that oil and gas might lie under the sea. But China says they have always been part of China just what it says about Taiwan which also claims the Diaoyus. This is the most active and dangerous dispute, but not the only one in which Japan is embroiled. It was furious in 2012 when South Korea's president Lee Myung-bak visited the island South Koreans call Dokdo and Japan claims as Takeshima. It is a mirror Japan's dispute with China. South Korea is in control.
Then there are what Japan calls its northern territories. Occupied by the Soviet Union in the dying days of the war, these islands the southernmost four of the curel chain are still administered by Russia. Because of the dispute Japan and Russia have yet to sign a peace treaty ending the second world war. Maritime claims in southeast Asia even more complex and competition is made more intense by speculation that the South China Sea might be hugely rich in oil and gas. China, Taiwan, and Vietnam all say they have sovereignty over the Paracel Islands controlled by China since it evicted the Vietnamese from them in 1974. To the south the same three countries also claimed the Spratly archipelago, but there and elsewhere in the sea the Philippines also has a substantial claim. Malaysia also claims some islands even tiny Brunei has an interest.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS and its tribunal, is one form for tackling these disputes. But UNCLOS cannot rule over territorial disputes, just over the territorial waters and exclusive economic zone the owners a habitable islands are entitled to. And the claims of China and Taiwan may have nothing to do with UNCLOS. They point to a map published in the 1940s, showing a big U-shaped, 9-dashed line around the edge of the sea. That they say, is historically all China's. This has no basis in international law, and China often fails to clarify whether its claims are based on the 9-dashed line or claims to islands, rocks, and shoals. That lack of clarity alarms not just its neighbors and rival claimants, but the United States which says it has its own national interest in freedom navigation in a sea through which passes a huge chunk of global trade.
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”:
Africa is a wealthy continent in terms of natural resources. However, it is rarely the African countries or the local communities who benefit from the wealth. Multinational companies are increasingly seizing control and ownership of African resources and the oceans are no exception. This is called ocean grabbing. Ocean grabbing means that the control of fish stocks that historically been of benefit to the local fishing communities are suddenly taken over by multinational companies and other power factors. For instance, through privatization of the oceans. As a result, small scale fishers lose their access and rights to resources and pawn, which their livelihood has traditionally depended on without ever being heard or included in the decision making process. Ocean grabbing has severe environmental and social consequences. In the pursuit of profit, overfishing reduces the biodiversity of the oceans. Industrial fisheries cause large amounts of bi-catch that end up as trash instead of food, and the money ends up in the hands of few while the local communities suffer the consequences: pollution, unemployment, poverty, and food insecurity. Ocean grabbing creates an unjust redistribution of the ocean resources with few winners and many losers. But fighting against ocean grabbing can pay off.
Take South Africa for example. When the government issued the privatization of the fishery resources, 45,000 small scale fishers lost access to the sea overnight while the large scale industry took over a majority of the countries fishery resources. But the local fishers joined forces and in the fight for their rights to the ocean's resources and through a difficult struggle over several years they succeeded in getting the government to listen to their rightful claims.
Worldwide, 800 million people depend on a small scale fishery, but ocean grabbing is gathering speed and threatening small scale fisheries and communities all over the world. With inspiration from South Africa, small scale fisheries are joining forces in an international network in order to fight against the global privatization push, so that the sale of our commons can be stopped before it's too late. Our oceans are not for sale. Let's stem together and support the fishers people's fight for a fair distribution of the ocean's resources.
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/