ANTIATLAS DES FRONTIERES COLLOQUE INTERNATIONAL
Aix-‐en-‐Provence, 2 October 2013
Which (de)materializa>on for
interna>onal borders?
Pr. Stéphane Rosière
Université de Reims Champagne-‐Ardenne (France) Université Matej Bel (Banska Bystrica, Slovakia) ;
Directeur de la revue en ligne L’Espace poli-que
IntroducNon • Contemporary internaNonal borders undergo a
paradoxical process of materializaNon/dematerializaNon. • -‐ DematerializaNon (deleNon, virtualizaNon) has various
spaNal significances : delinearizaNon and disseminaNon. • -‐Paradoxically, a materialisaNon process (symbolized by
‘border barriers’ i.e. walls or fences) is also going on.
• Connected quesNons : Are these processes contradictory? What is the efficient border in terms of control?
2
Common (western) representaNons of (de)materializaNon
3
The immaterial border : the good border, Here as imagined by Uderzo…
The material border : the bad one
Symbolic dimension is important, the word ‘wall’ is not considered cool…
Content
• 1. A materializaNon disconnected from armed conflicts
• 2. TechnologizaNon of control and its consequences
• 3. From « securitary conNnuum » to border disseminaNon
4/23
1. Materializa>on disconnected with armed conflictuality
• Most of the up-‐to-‐date ‘materializaNon’ of internaNonal
borders is disconnected from armed conflicts but linked with flows (migraNons). Human beings are the problem…
• About 75% of contemporary border barriers are erected between countries having good mutual relaNons (USA/Mexico, EU and NEP countries, etc.);
• About 25% of border barriers are directly connected with armed conflicts (Marocco, Kashmir, Israel/PalesNne).
5
Contemporary Border barriers The growing success of mulNscalar ‘teichopoliNcs’, poliNcs of territory
enclosure (Ballif & Rosiere, 2009) within ciNes or around states
6 22 620 km of border barriers
Context : a reducNon of ‘classical’ territorial conflicts in spite of the growing number of states
(Rosière, 2011)
7
A global trend : the ‘semlement of border’ / « règlement frontalier » (Foucher, 2007). InternaNonal borders are less
2. TechnologizaNon of borders and its consequences on (de)materilizaNon
• Increase of flux is one of the most prominent characterisNc of globalizaNon and implies a growing pressure on borders (more controls).
• This situaNon underlines the old contradicNon between circulaNon and security (Gommann 1973).
• ‘TechnologizaNon' of borders surveillance appeared to be the best soluNon to solve this contradicNon.
• The 'technologizaNon' of borders can be connected with a more general ‘technologizaNon’ of security (Ayse Ceyhan, 2008).
8
2.1. TechnologizaNon of borders and technologizaNon of security
• TechnologizaNon of security, « i.e. the making of technology the centerpiece of security systems and its percepNon as an absolute security provider, started in the US in the 80’s and has since been expanded to the EU and to almost all developed countries. » (Ceyhan, 2008)
• This dynamic bounds together civilian and military logics: • -‐ ‘militarizaNon’ of civil borders and ‘civilianizaNon’ of military lines (see Shira Havkin, 2011)
• -‐ MilitarizaNon mostly means growing use of military technologies.
9
2.2. ‘DemateralizaNon’ technologies : smart borders and virtual borders
‘Smart borders ’ : Automated Border Crossing (ABC) – here in Sciphol — a way of making border crossing process faster and smoother… for the EU’s ciNzens.
The use of these technologies must be connected with liberal ideology (to employ less state agents and offer big firms new markets).
The symbolic dimension must not be neglect : the machines are not invisible (the fear is a component of the process). 10
‘Integrated’ border systems Every ‘Integrated’ border system includes various technologies interconnected at three different scales: • -‐Command control & intelligence at naNonal level, • -‐Regional command level, • -‐Local level (terrain).
Border Integrated Management (BIM) implies : -‐ coordinated surveillance -‐ connecNon with huge (biometric, administraNve) databases and direct access to visa-‐issuing authoriNes (disseminaNon, or ubiquitous process)
11
Integrated border systems : invisible networks
12 Integrated Security System on Romanian Serbian Border. A MulNlevel / mulNscalar management URL : hmp://www.miratelecom.ro/en/security/reference-‐projects/integrated-‐security-‐system-‐on-‐the-‐danube-‐romanian-‐serbian-‐border.html
Virtual fence • A theoreNcally invisible
border based on video surveillance, sensors, radars, drones, etc.
• Here a physical barrier assists telesurveillance
• Expensive systems (More developped countries)
• The physical barrier is one element of the ‘virtual’ fence
13
DematerializaNon implies thet contemporary border guards spend long periods in
front of screens.
14
In such contexte, human beings are dematerialized.
3. From ‘security con>nuum’ to border dissemina>on
• Didier Bigo labelled the concept a ‘security conNnuum’ (1996) linking together very different acNviNes: terrorism, trafficking, and illegal migraNons.
• Since the 80’s, undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers are considered as a threat in terms of security.
• The ‘security conNnuum’ focuses on all Clandes-ne Transna-onal Actors: « nonstate actors who operate across na-onal borders in viola-on of state laws and who aBempt to evade law enforcement efforts. » (Andreas 2003)
• Into this frame border (line or checkpoints) is only an element of control among others.
15
3.1.Which gradient of (de)materiality?
• It is rather difficult to conceptualized border according to some linear gradient of (de)materiality (+ or -‐ , or binary 0/1)
• At the contrary, materializaNon and dematerializaNon are owen complementary (slide 13 of the virtual fence).
• The dematerializaNon does not mean less « barriers » on the terrain.
• Various forms of virtual control assist various forms of physical control and materializa>on.
16 16
For long, boundary stones materialized an approved, and pacified demarcaNon line.
17 Polish / Belarus border, photo S. Rosière, 2010.
3.2. Asymetrical borders and asymetrical materiality
Asymetry is a usefull tool to conceptualize borders (Foucher 2007, Ritaine 2009)
Asymetrical (de)materializaNon: the case of Nexus program
19
Nexus on the US/Quebec boundary
By waving a photo ID that includes an Radio Frequency IdenNficaNon tag at border inspecNon, the informaNon stored on the card is analyzed by CBPinspectors who verify that the card holder is an approved frequent traveler.
Portable RFID readers
20
Conclusions • We are not living a dematerilizaNon process of borders but a simultaneous process of materializa>on and dematerializa>on.
• The efficiency of border systems must be discussed (in a Nme of funds shorNng). What is the real aim of virtual border or walls? To produce a new ‘Lumpenproletariat’? (Nicola Mai)
• Beyond the objecNves, the symbolic dimension of borders remains essenNal. A wall is first of all a symbol. We can stress that a exagerated dematerializaNon could be counter-‐producNve.
21
What is visible can produce fear
22
• AMILHAT-‐SZARY, A.-‐L., GIRAULT, F., (2011), "FronNères mobiles : présentaNon du colloque BRIT XI", [En ligne] hmp://www.unige.ch/ses/geo/britXI/index/BRIT_ProgramFinal__.pdf
• ANDREAS, P., (2003), “Redrawing the line. Borders and Security in the Twenty-‐first Century”. Interna-onal Security (28) 2, 78-‐111.
• ANDREAS, P., (2001), Border games. Policing the US-‐Mexico Divide. Ithaca, London: Cornell UniversiNes Press • BIGO, D., (1996), Polices en réseaux, l’expérience européenne. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po. • CEYHAN, A., (2008), TechnologizaNon of Security: Management of Uncertainty and Risk in the Age of Biometrics.
Surveillance and Society (5) 2, 102-‐123 • DAVID, Ch.-‐P., VALLET, E., 2012, « Du retour des murs frontaliers en relaNons internaNonales », Etudes
interna-onales, « Le retour des murs en relaNons internaNonales », vol. XLIII, n°1, 5-‐27. • DOLLFUS, O., (2007), La mondialisa-on. Paris, Presses de Sciences-‐Po. • FOUCHER, M., (2007), L’obsession des fron-ères. Paris: Perrin. • GOTTMANN, J., (1973), The Significance of Territory. Charlomesville: University Press of Virginia. • HAVKIN, Sh., (2011), La privaNsaNon des checkpoints: quand l'occupaNon militaire rencontre le néolibéralisme. In
S. Lame-‐Abdallah & C. Parizot, Arles, Actes Sud, 51-‐72 • MUELLER, J., (1989), Retreat from Doomsday: the Obsolescence of Major War. New York: Basic Books. • POPESCU G., (2011), Bordering and Ordering the Twenty-‐first Century: Understanding Borders, Rowman &
Limlefield. • RAZAC, O., (2000), Histoire poli-que du barbelé. Paris: La Fabrique. • RITAINE, É. (2009), « La barrière et le checkpoint : mise en poliNque de l’asymétrie ». Cultures & Conflits, n° 73,
15-‐33 [En ligne] hmp://conflits.revues.org/index17500.html • ROSIERE S., (2012), « Vers des guerres migratoires structurelles ? » Bulle-n de l’Associa-on de géographes
Français, Dossier : Risques et conflits, vol. 89, n°1, 54-‐73. • ROSIÈRE, S., (2010), « La fragmentaNon de l’espace étaNque mondial. » L'Espace Poli-que [En ligne], 11 | 2010-‐2,
mis en ligne le 16 novembre 2010, Consulté le 28 novembre 2012. URL : hmp://espacepoliNque.revues.org/index1608.html
• SAADA Julien, (2010), "L’économie du Mur : un marché en pleine expansion". Le Banquet. Centre d’étude et de réflexion pour l’acNon poliNque (CERAP), n° 27, 59-‐86
• SPARKE, M. B. (2006). "A neoliberal nexus: Economy, security and the biopoliNcs of ciNzenship on the border". Poli-cal Geography (25) 2, 151-‐180.
23