In this lesson, we focus upon the geopolitics of networks. After discussing the term meta-geography and its connection to the geopolitics of globalization, we will further delve into a geopolitical perspective on transnational social movements as well as terrorism. We end with thinking about how these concepts apply to our selected country of research.
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 6 of Flint, C. (2016). Introduction to geopolitics (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
(T)he geopolitics of the world is one in which the construction of territorial entities, such as states, has always occurred in conjunction with the construction of networks to enable flows across the globe. The construction of networks and maintaining flows within them is no less a form of geopolitics than the construction of states and the practices of their geopolitical codes. - Flint, 2016, p. 177
Meta-geography: the “spatial structures through which people order their knowledge of the world” (Lewis and Wigen, 1997, p. ix; Beaverstock et al., 2000; quoted in Flint, 2016, p. 179). For example, Flint notes that Anglo-American geography has impacted modern geopolitics with its dominant framework that sees the world as a mosaic of nation-states. Thus, the unit of analysis, where power is purported to reside, is within the established nation-state.
However, contemporary globalization and the transnational networks and flows of goods, money and people across boundaries, create new and important non-state actors (i.e., banks, businesses and groups of refugees). As such, power is not merely about controlling territory. It is also embedded in a geopolitics of controlling movement (of people, commodities, etc.) and creating networks of opportunity or advantage across political boundaries.
As Flint identifies, “Networks are inherently neither good or bad: they are political constructs used for political ends” (2016, p. 184). And so, we turn our attention to two of the many forms in which networks can exist in our contemporary worlds: 1)Transnational Social Movements, and 2) Terrorism.
Transnational social movement, a collectivity of groups with adherents in more than one country that is committed to sustained contentious action for a common cause or a common constellation of causes, often against governments, international institutions, or private firms.
Prominent examples of transnational social movements include the antiglobalization movement and the movement against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). A narrow definition of the concept emphasizes its differences from international nongovernmental organizations and transnational advocacy networks, which are generally more institutionalized and professionalized and more frequently funded or promoted by particular states or international organizations. A broader conception of transnational social movements includes or focuses on other types of transnational actors and posits a causal relationship between globalization and the development of transnational activism. Accordingly, this broader view affords transnational social movements a greater role and influence in national and international systems of governance, where their primary achievements are the creation, strengthening, implementation, and monitoring of international norms.
- "Transnational Social Movement." [1] Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 16 Oct. 2014.
Transnational social movements were established and organized as a result of four related changes or trends (seen as components of contemporary globalization that have intensified in recent decades):
Five ways in which transnational social movements are able to alter the existing political landscape:
These five themes identified by Kriesberg (1997) explicitly recognize the importance of geographic scale. Smith (1997) highlights three scales of particular salience: individual (e.g., people holding a rally to highlight an issue for the general public); state governments (e.g., writing letters to state leaders and politicians), and intergovernmental institutions (convening or participating in an international convention).
Flint identifies the “anti-globalization movement” as a strong example of the fluidity and diversity of transnational social movements. This movement is non-hierarchical, not bound to any particular territory, and has a flexible and fluid agenda. It continually changes its methods/tactics of protest and engagement as well as its goals as they get feedback, direction, friction from their diverse membership. Flint explains that they are also known as the “Movement of Movements” to which I will add that many scholars also refer to the movement as the “global justice movement” (rather than the anti-globalization movement—as they are not necessarily “anti-globalization” so much as “anti” globalization-as-we-see-it-now). Nonetheless, as Flint consistently uses the “anti-globalization movement” terminology, I will continue to refer to it as such. I did think it was important to point out that this is somewhat of a misnomer—lest we get confused about the goals of the movement because of the title.
The anti-globalization movement is an umbrella for a large eclectic group of interests including the environment, gender justice, economic justice, and so forth. There is no one governing body for the anti-globalization movement—which has been identified as a weakness by those who oppose the agenda(s) or have been caused frustration by those who share the same agenda, but are more state-centric. However, proponents of the anti-globalization movement claim that its fluidity is one of its strengths—allowing it to quickly and continually adjust to the dynamic nature of economic globalization. The networks of connectivity engaged with the anti-globalization movement covers a large geographic territory and a diversity of topics. Table 6.1 and Figure 6.2 (p.188 of Flint) highlight this diversity through an analysis of participants at the World Social Forum.
George Konrad (1984) proposed an idea to counter the military build up during the Cold War. He asserted that the idea of “antipolitics” could/should challenge the nuclear militarism of the US and Soviet Union. His vision of antipolitics rejected state-based politics and created alternative movements that crossed international boundaries in order to form communities of people with shared goals and values, which was, perhaps, a precursor to transnational social movements and the central role of peace movements within the World Social Forum.
Flint distinguishes between positive and negative peace, where:
Positive peace requires identifying inequitable economic and social structures, transgressions of the natural environment, and attitudes of racism, homophobia, sexism, and religious fundamentalism; and creating means to transform these structures and create dialogues of mutual understanding between individuals, states, and social groups.
Three basic categories of peace can be related to scale:
In relation to geopolitics and negative peace (lack of violence), the latter two categories (social and collective peace) connect to peace within a state (i.e., absence of civil war or social disorder) and peace between states (absence of war between states).
If we focus on positive peace, we must draw our attention to the engaged process(es) and constant energies required to achieve and maintain a state of well-being. Such a goal requires active engagement at all scales—from the individual to the local to the global. See the peace pyramid (figure 6.4) on p. 170 of Flint. Adolph (2009) proposed this pyramid as a reflection of the three scales of transnational social movement activity discussed earlier: individual, states and intergovernmental institutions.
As you review this pyramid and the discussion of the pyramid on pp. 170-171, think about how these scales are interconnected, as well as how much agency any individual or collective group has to control various factors aiding their quality of peace.
Looking over the section on Flint (2012) pp. 171-175 (peace movements in time and space), note some of the general conclusions that are drawn from Herb’s (2005) geographic interpretation.
Throughout history, the world has known political violence and war. For centuries, political and religious thinkers from many traditions have wrestled with two key questions. When is the use of force acceptable? What principles govern how force may be used? These two questions are central to something known as just war theory.
These two questions and the concepts of just war theory may also be useful in considering terrorism. In past debates about terrorism, some have suggested that one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Are these terms merely labels that have to do with whether one agrees or disagrees with the cause? Or, is the distinction based on more concrete and objective grounds?
Today, just war theory underlies much of accepted international law concerning the use of force by states. International law is explicit about when states may use force. For example, states may use force in self-defense against an armed attack. International law also addresses how force may be used. For example, force may not be used against non-combatants. Despite these laws and norms, there are those who oppose the use of violence under any circumstances. For example, this commitment to non-violence led Mohandas Gandhi to build a movement of national liberation in India organized around the practice of non-violent resistance.
Over the years, the international community has been working to better define the rules of war. The Geneva Conventions established in the aftermath of World War II introduced new internationally accepted regulations on the conduct of war between states. These rules protect non-combatants, govern the treatment of prisoners of war, prohibit hostage-taking, and respect diplomatic immunity.
In addition, the concept of proportionality - long a part of just war theory - has gained new importance as the weapons of war have become increasingly destructive. Proportionality argues that it is wrong to use more force than is necessary to achieve success.
After the Second World War, the use of violence in struggles for self-determination and national liberation fueled a new aspect of the debate on legitimate use of force - the differences between freedom fighters and terrorists. For example, newly independent Third World nations and Soviet bloc nations argued that any who fought against the colonial powers or the dominance of the West should be considered freedom fighters, while their opponents often labeled them terrorists.
Following the violence at the 1972 Munich Olympics, U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim called on the General Assembly to discuss measures to prevent terrorism. Waldheim's suggestion provoked furious debate over the nature of terrorism and the role of armed struggle in national liberation.
...all liberation movements are described as terrorists by those who have reduced them to slavery. …[The term] terrorist [can] hardly be held to persons who were denied the most elementary human rights, dignity, freedom and independence, and whose countries objected to foreign occupation. - U.N. Ambassador from Mauritania Moulaye el-Hassan
Critics countered that this argument was misleading because it failed to consider the issue in its entirety. What mattered was not the justness of the cause (something that would always be subject to debate) but the legitimacy of the methods used. The ends, they argued, could not be used to justify the means.
During the U.N. debates on terrorism, some argued that the methods of violence used by states can be morally reprehensible and a form of terrorism.
...the methods of combat used by national liberation movements could not be declared illegal while the policy of terrorism unleashed against certain peoples [by the armed forces of established states] was declared legitimate. - Cuban Representative to the U.N.
By the late 1970s, significant portions of the international community (though not the United States) had decided to extend the protection of the Geneva Convention to include groups participating in armed struggle against colonial domination, alien occupation, or racist regimes; and to those exercising their right of self-determination. The significance of this change is that it seemed to extend legitimacy to the use of force by groups other than states.
The events of September 11 and the subsequent war on terrorism have led us to consider important questions concerning the use of force. When is force justified? What is a terrorist? How does a terrorist differ from a freedom-fighter? Who decides?
The excerpt above highlights what Flint explains—that “the definition of terrorism is, at best, contested and, perhaps more fairly, unclear” (p. 191). Nonetheless, Flint uses the table on p. 193 to discern three important geographic elements of terrorism. First is the symbolic nature of terrorist actions in targeting particular places or buildings. Second, the goal of terrorism is to expand the geographic scope of a particular conflict in a manner that (they hope) benefits their cause. Third, terrorists claim to be performing political altruism—they believe they are speaking for or serving a marginalized or oppressed group.
Furthermore, the PBS excerpt highlights the challenge of representing terrorism—labeling some people or actions “terrorist” and others “non-terrorist”. Here, Flint highlights the scale of analysis… if only a few people or actions are identified to be terrorist, then that is a sub-national scale and absolves or excludes state-sponsored violence from being seen as “terrorist”.
Four historic waves of terrorism:
Going back to the text (pp. 197-202), be familiar with the evolution of terrorism, their goals, strategies, and actions through these four historic waves.
Please read the following articles before completing the blog assignment.
Please visit the Lesson 6 Module in Canvas for a detailed description of the assignment, including due dates and submission instructions.
You should now be able to:
You have reached the end of Lesson 6! Double-check the Lesson 6 module in Canvas to make sure you have completed all of the activities listed there before you begin Lesson 7.