|
Interfacing
different logics and codings of transnational space and power
Networked logics (of power)
Information technologies are producing a networked logics which
scans the whole globe for it's own further development and "links
up what it needs for it's programmes goals - and only what it needs"
(Castells 2002, 270). On the one hand this network logics produces
a potential of cooperation on the other a potential of the total
control of culture. In the second logics it is inscribing the public
sphere with processes of exclusion and inclusions, with marginalisations
of people and territories, it is scanning, filtering, detecting,
targeting, profiling, zoning. It supports the fragmentation of society
and an intensification of production of radical differences of wealth
and education in a violent global context.
|
Transnational, indefinite territories
Global information technologies are pro-ducing new territorial principles
of order , new logics of space. These new constituting territorial
logics are produced by forms of transnational power. Transnational
sovereignty invents indefinite spaces, zones in which legal status
can be suspended, in which citizenship is invalidated, in which the
assumption of innocence is thrown away, in which representation is
denied.
Unlawful logics
Thus these new indefinite territories of power are often outside the
law, outside the protocols governing civilized conflicts, and often
produces more and more NON-public spheres. On the other hand : Identity
via exclusions of unlawful persons : "Western" and European civilization
seeks to define itself over and against a population understood as,
by definition, illegitimate. Transnational power is characterized
by connecting extraterritorial sovereignty with bio politics (forms
of power ordering over the life and the body)
Extraterritorial logics
Exterritoriality describes a logics of space which is outside of the
state and it's law system but are yet controlled by the referring
state power and sovereignty. Exterritoriality performs logics of Inclusive
exclusion:
|
On
one hand sovereign power segregates and excludes , on the other it
includes and occupy the excluded. Thus it enables an occupation of
transnational space and an Extension of power, exterritorial to the
national state but within a territory of a world public, there lies
the chance for the engagement of the public. Examples for extraterritorial
spaces are Guantanamo and aircraft carriers used as detainment camps,
military bases of Bagram excluded from the world public, islands like
the British military base Diego Garcia, (total isolated 1500km away
from the next territory), islands north of Australia mainland figuring
as detention camps for boat people, the actual envisioned European
detention camps in Libya, Morocco for African Migrants and Asylum
seekers trying to entering Europe. These camps are examples that the
new sovereign is not longer ordering the norms of law and the forms
of life in a through borders defined territory but is using extraterritories
as elements for constituting power. All these detention camps are
test fields for parallel law systems and parallel sovereignties.
State
of exception
manifests in different forms of extrateritoriality. It has become
the regulator of democratic spaces. It is defined by the law which
includes the form of the bare life through its own suspension.
|
A
recent example is military order of the US president over "Detention,
Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"
after Sept.11 The state of emergency with suspended law is not only
inherent to law and power, it is their pre-condition.
Moving border logics
Sovereignty is emerging from borders and is imposing borders. The
function of the border
is a demarcation from external enemies and a criminalization of inner
enemies. The border is par excellence the location where the controls
and guarantees of the law systems are lifted, it is the undemocratic
condition of the democracy. Borders are no longer the external borders
of democracy, which functioned as protective walls for civil rights
which had no contact direct with the life of citizens They move now
into the centres , into the global cities. Control of persons taking
no longer place on border lines, but in often invisible detention
zones inside cities, in urban areas functioning as filtering facilities.
Imperative: Democratising of borders, putting collective control on
them, under the sovereignty of people.
|
|
|
|