Terrorism and Territory in the Era Of Globalisation | Sunita Samal

Abstract: In number of ways, the war on terror has important of Lefebvre’s suggestion that space is the ultimate locus and medium of struggle and therefore a crucial political issue. It claims that there is the politics of space because space is political. While geographers have concentrated on the spatial aspect generally there has been arguably been less emphasis on explicitly territorial aspects. Considering the interrelation of the spatial dimension of politics and political dimension of space provides an important frame for understanding the ‘war on terror [1]’.

Introduction: The linkage between terror and territory has argued that territory is formed both from the Latin ‘terra-land’ or ‘terrain’ and also from which people are warned. Thus, ‘territory and terror’ share common roots. Territory is an important and neglected issue which demands sustained interrogation. It moves from initial events to look at how they were explicitly territorialized and indicates the territorial dimensions of geographical imaginaries of threat and the practices of retribution [2].
Non-territorial Networks: The article engages with the relation of territory and terror through following main angles. First is the relation between terrorist training camps and the absence of sovereign power over territory in particular. Second is, for example, portrayal of al-Qaeda and militant Islam more generally as a de-territorialized organization. Third is the territorial responses are studied, particularly looking at the way the international legal term of territorial integrity with dual meaning of territorial preservation and and territorial sovereignty are under increased threat [3].

It did not take long after the events of terrorist attack in US on September 11, 2001 for the US to work out who was going to pay. In the view of Antony Seldon, British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s biographer when told that ‘Force could not be used purely for retribution’. George Bush, the then President of America said ‘I do not care what international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass’ [4]. On Sept.12, 2001 Bush said that the deliberate and deadly attacks which were carried out yesterday against our country were more than act of terror. These were acts of war.

The sovereignty of US was not only option, but one that marked the political events that followed and has regularly characterized US projection of its power. On the day of attack, President Bush declared that he had directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice. He proceeded to say that we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them [5].

What this enabled was the way to target states with a de-territorialized threat—the network of al Queda or global Islamism—was re-territorializing in Afghanistan and later Iraq. The first was a performance of sovereignty through which the ruptured space of Afghanistan could be simulated as a coherent state. The second was a performance of territory through which the fluid networks of al-Queda could be fixed in a bounded space. As Gregory continues there is the requirement of re-territorialization of non-territorialization network [6].

Agamben’s analysis of camp, particularly in his book ‘Homo Sacer’ has proved a valuable model for analysis of some of the spatial issues in the war on terror’ this is largely been focused on Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib [7].

Encounter between Sovereignty and Territory: However, the issues Agamben raises about the relation between sovereign power and space can be used more broadly in an analysis of territorial issues, particularly in terms of relation between sovereignty and territory in globalized era. He declared that the camp is the space which is opened when the space which is opened when the state of exception begins to become the rule. In the camp, the stage of exception, which was essentially a temporary suspension of ordinary on the basis of factual state of danger, is now given a permanent spatial arrangement which as such nevertheless remains outside the normal order [8].

What is crucial to remember is that Agamben’s point is both historically precise and geographically bounded. His important claim concerning the relation of sovereign power to its location, can be broadened as he suggests, but it is essential to introduce both historical and geographical specificity into any way in which it is used as a model for other spaces.

Various clauses of the UN Charter, along with Security Council and General Assembly resolutions have continually stressed not to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state [9]. The relation between sovereignty and territory has been weaken in globalized era though the international political system has been structured around three central tenets. The notion of equal sovereignty states; internal competence for domestic jurisdiction; and territorial preservation of existing boundaries.

The norms of the United Nations have been established on the basis that preservation of the territorial status quo and the strong link between sovereignty and territory is important for global stability. In the era of globalization these norms have come under pressure. International intervention is justified in the context of ‘war on terror’ activities within state territory have implication that go beyond the question of human rights. The two instances of interfering in the domestic jurisdiction of other states are the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and allowing terrorist groups to operate within the territory. What this means is that states with nominally preserved borders but ineffective territorial control within them leave a vacuum that other groups may be able to utilize. Afghanistan both before the 2001 invasion and Iraq in 2003 have become the most in focus in globalization era. This is therefore a question not merely of the preservation of territorial extent but have effective control within it.

Several commentators pointed the way which failed state are hospitable to and harbor non-state actors like warlords and terrorists. Such ‘Black holes’ and ‘gray zones’ understood as geographical areas and social contexts where the rule of law does not run. It creates numerous potential problems.

The US National Defense Strategy makes this clear in the following statement that the absence of effective governance in many parts of the world creates sanctuaries for terrorists, criminals and insurgents. Many cases unwilling to exercise effective control over their territory or frontiers and thus living areas open to exploitation. The US National Military Strategy declares that it will work to deny terrorists safe haven in failed states and ungoverned region. If states fail to exert effective control, then there is the danger that their borders become porous too and that problems get exported to the neighbour or further field [10].

The imagined geographies of al-Qaeda for example Afghanistan blurs the boundaries between outside and inside only partially grasp the nature of its construction as a real and imagined opponent. The territorial issues tend to be underplayed not merely in terms of the bases in which they operate, but also in terms of the wider issues of territorial control by non-state organizations. They should, therefore, caution us against seeing al-Qaeda in non-territorial terms or indicative of some wider deterritorialization. Indeed, the territorial strategies of al-Qaeda would repay careful attention. This territorial aspect would include but are clearly not limited to the Israel/Palestine conflict, Russia/ Chechnya, India/ Pakistan have now been joined by Lebanon now [11].

After the invasion, Iraq’s borders are nominally still intact although the ability of the government or indeed the occupying forces to exercise a monopoly of physical violence which is legitimate or not, within those borders is profoundly compromised. In addition, borders with Iran and Syria are porous in a way they never were before. A similar argument could be made for Afghanistan following the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban. While the Taliban were not able to occupy all of Afghanistan before 2001, Hamid Karzai is not able to exercise power much beyond Kabul today and the Afghanistan/Pakistan border in particular is equally far from secure.

For Bush, Iraq remains the key in US ‘War on Terror’ that became war against humanity for terror. There is of course a purpose to portraying al Qaeda or Islamic terrorist organizations more generally from Chechnya to Pakistan, from Libya to Philippines allows the US to legitimate any punitive action it might take anywhere at any time.

Sovereignty and Globalization: For Cooper [12], there is a direct consequence both of globalization which has eroded, the distinction between domestic and foreign events. It makes interference which used to take place only in unusual circumstances more common.

In the Bush expansion of the ‘empire of liberty’—yet another temporal spatial/ political maker—it can no longer respect the sovereignty of any state that harbors terrorists. Self-defense was part of justification in Afghanistan and this was effectively endorsed by United Nations Security Council. Possession of weapon of mass destruction and links to terrorist groups that may be used against United States.

Ex-US President Bush ‘Axis of Evil’ speech explicitly noted North Korea, Iran and Iraq suggested that states like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. It is also revealing that the intervention in Iraq has made both Britain and US unable to act as honest brokers in any mediation in the Israel/ Lebanon conflict.

US or other dominant powers have violated the territorial integrity of other states but the current conjecture is somewhat different. It is one where territorial preservation is seemingly paramount and yet at the same time there is a concerted argument against territorial sovereignty rather than its practical violation.

Yet, this goes beyond the much-vaunted spread of democracy, but shows the linkage to wider global economic concern. This is the relation of the connected and disconnected an imagined geography where economic disconnection is viewed as a security issue, a political threat. Many times US and its allies claim an unlimited right to undermine absolute sovereignty when ever their vital interests are threatened. The overall strategy in Middle East can be grasped by the claim that it is all about oil. This essence of globalization is that it erodes. Yet, this erosion does mean that things are thrown into continual flux. Rather than a process of simple deterritorialization, there is a concomitant process of reterritorialization.

Conclusion: Many times, in the situation of war or internal disturbances, if people loose then they are treated as terrorists and if they win then they are treated as freedom fighters. Territorial integrity is challenged by both non-state actors and by intervention. The stress on territorial preservation is enforced most strongly at the very time territorial sovereignty is disrupted. Are terrorist organizations a self-determination movement? Sovereignty equality and territorial integrity are little more than myth or not is a million-dollar question.

(Author: Sunita Samal, Political commentator and author of multiple books including ‘Human Rights and International Order in the Context of Liberalism, Civil Society and Rule of Law’ Published by Asian Press Books, Kolkata. (2023))