An Anarchist Analysis of the Detention of Immigrants and War, post
9-11
by Zen Dochterman
The War on Terror is the world's latest state of emergency. Why, long
after the ebb of the attack, after the capture of hundreds of suspected
terrorists, after the (non-terrorist) threats in Iraq, Syria, and North
Korea have been bombed or lulled into extinction, can't we say we have
reached normalcy again? Threats will continue to exist so long as American
hegemony continues, and today such threats seem no more imminent than
in the hijacking- and car bombing-laden 70's and 80's. The War on Terror
is no longer a shift in foreign policy aimed to fight a supposed threat.
Nor is it simply an economic expansionist effort on the part of the
U.S. elite or its corporations. It is a systematic erasure of the category
of normalcy that allows for force to replace legality. The first casualty
of this expanded use of force is what we once took to be the "political".
The new deployments of power post-911 provide the legal justifications
for an extreme intensification of control over immigrants, asylum seekers,
and non-whites the world over.
The State has assumed extensive control over a number of areas previously
inaccessible to it or considered untouchable by international legal
standards. The Bush regime has done everything to increase its capacity
to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists and immigrants (solely on
the basis of being immigrants from Moslem countries). It has taken measures
to collect information without probable cause and suspend privacies
(Patriot Act), as well as to try prisoners of war in military tribunals
(Military Order on Detention and Treatment of Certain Non-Citizens in
the War Against Terrorism). It has extended regulation of surveillance
into the libraries and other institutions (Patriot Act). The State legitimates
these ends by instantiating a state of emergency that justifies every
use of force. Not to use such force would "endanger" national
security. Giorgio Agamben described this shift in sovereign power as
the moment when "the state of exception thus ceases to be referred
to as an external and provisional state of factual danger and comes
to be confused with juridical rule itself" (138). The ultimate
aim is to mask the "political" aspect of America's wars, legal
changes, and detainments behind the veneer of "protection".
For citizen to question political choices becomes a matter of suggesting
that they do not value the "safety" of "security"
of their country.
Force, beyond all law, is the basis of all law. It may be said that
in its "normal" deployment, force is supposed to uphold law
rather than be a law unto itself. However, this analysis misses the
point. Force can only be exerted when the law is suspended. Cops can
only arrest and beat people because they are beyond law. Or better,
during revolutionary times, the military steps in to show that State
power rests upon a violence that both exceeds and circumscribes the
political order. Legitimized force is thus the privilege of the state.
The "legitimized" use of force - and what constitutes that
legitimacy - is spreading in new and unprecedented ways and infecting
ever more innocuous areas of our existence.
The question anarchist and other radicals should be asking is not, "what's
happening to our civil liberties?". This implies that we once had
them and only want a nicer administration to restore them. Rather we
should be asking how state-monopolized force is deployed and for whose
protection. "Our" civil liberties or "our" human
rights already implies that there are those who lack them, who can be
stripped of them and only lent such rights through a certain type of
government. To demand the restoration of civil liberties and of human
rights as self-is an inevitable struggle that I have no doubt will benefit
those most hurt by the current order. However, such reformism does nothing
to undermine the order that can decide whose civil liberties to protect.
In fact, it must be argued that it is only by stripping a great number
of people of such rights that the political rights of others (citizens)
can be ensured. Thus, operating within the discourse of civil liberties
or human rights is a necessarily self-defeating project. Change must
be more all-pervasive.
Agamben differentiates between the two ancient Greek words used to describe
life, bios, in the sense of one's political/legal existence, and zoe,
the pure biological being, or "bare life". The detainments
of hundreds of immigrants in detention centers around the country, the
indefinite imprisonment of "enemy combatants" and terrorist
suspects at Guantanomo Bay demonstrate the racial character of this
body without civil liberties or political rights, this bare life. Agamben
argues that "[t]he camp is the space opened up when the state of
exception begins to become the rule" (168-9). The camp, such as
that at Guantonomo Bay, can "protect" the public by removing
potential threats from the social realm, in a space beyond legality.
It is precisely this extra-legal space in which sovereign force operates
and it is the body of the immigrant on which it acts. 9-11 has provided
a convenient excuse for the State to refine its demographic controls
and shatter every guideline for the treatment of refugees outlined in
Geneva Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
(see the July 8th, 2002 letter from Guenet Guebre-Christos of the UNHCR
to Edward Kennedy regarding the illegalities of the Department of Homeland
Security or the April 15th letter to Rebecca Sharpless of the Florida
Immigrant Advocacy Center regarding selective detainment and detainment
as an immigration deterrent).
Besides Giorgio Agamben, Alain Joxe offers ways to understand the liquidation
of the political in our times and the new movement towards an expansive
sovereign force. In Empire of Disorder, he envisions a new state in
which "military rationality, its political source, would disappear,
replaced by something else, by a technique for constant management of
a calculated massacre as an act at directly regulating, not politics...but
demographics and the economy" (12). The new empire has the goal
of "regulating disorder by means of financial norms and military
expeditions and has no intention to occupy conquered territories"
(14), thus refusing to provide some form of "protection" against
armed groups, crime, and civil war. Witness post-war Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is not to say that a neo-colonialism based on occupation rather
than indirect rule is preferable. Instead we must see the ways in which
the American empire erodes state protection abroad while refusing to
provide it, leaving this task to the U.N. or N.A.T.O., or often worse,
local racquets and armed groups.
We may also notice that in Joxe's formulation the empire sets itself
primarily to regulating "demographics and the economy". This
allows us a point of entry for uniting Foucault's and Agamben's notions
of biopolitics with a more traditional Marxist/anarchist economic analysis.
For Foucault, biopolitics begins during the 18th century as the regulation
of the species life of human beings, their "propagation, births
and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy, longevity"
(History of Sexuality, 139). He notes the role of demographic information
and population control as essential factors in the deployment of biopolitics.
If we take Joxe's claim seriously about the demographic controls carried
out by empire, we can see in the present moment the rearticulation of
biopolitics, formerly in the hands of medical institutions and bureaucrats,
by the war machine itself. Policing instances of ill health, sordid
living conditions, human rights violations, and "rogue states"
become an affair of the American state, the U.N., and N.A.T.O. as well
as the N.G.O.s that follow quickly after them. The civil wars that empire
produces (as in the Phillipines), now often melded into the rubric of
"terrorism", thus provide more instances for America to go
to war and regulate population flows and the material conditions of
life, Westernizing what it can in the process.
Agamben's concern with the zoe (bare life) of the immigrant and refugee
takes on a double significance. Empire's wars and global capital will
increasingly displace people and provide for violations of so-called
"human rights"; however, it is such displacement that comes
to be the concern of the war machine itself. This type of analysis helps
to explain the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which without
a clear short-term economic benefit (who thought Iraq would be "manageable"
within a few months?) have more to do with extending empire's capacity
for biopolitical control. When N.G.O.'s and humanitarian institutions
step in to occupied countries, the biopolitical regulation of "births
and mortality, the level of health and life expectancy" swings
into full effect. Introducing such seemingly innocuous organizations
can radically alter the bureaucratic and at times, the cultural constitution
of a country, and must be seen as the first step in neo-colonialist
projects by the West. This central fact illuminates the otherwise mysterious
bombings of the U.N. buildings and attacks on health workers in Iraq.
These attacks send the message that it is not a question of one master
or another, however benign, but a total rejection of the system of global
neo-colonialism in both its military and bureaucratic guises. Thus,
sovereign force, manifest in the U.N., N.A.T.O., the American military
and carried out by N.G.O.'s, humanitarian organizations and "peacekeeping"
groups comes to have a direct relation to the bare life (zoe) of the
people of other nations, their living standards and their health. This
is a biological infection of the "outside" of Empire by Empire.
If globalization creates population flows and if such a radical transgression
of national boundaries is a threat (rather than the act of "victims"
with nothing left to do) to capital, perhaps the wars abroad and the
war on immigrants in America through post 9-11 policy should be seen
as two ways of denying the mobility of the thousands who escape the
death of sedentary existence. But nomadism is vaster than a logic of
simple escape. It is the glitter of Paris, New York, London. It is trains
and drunkenness, the omnipresence of mortality and the surrender to
chance. It is the elsewhere of possibility. It is what must be fought
for in an age when globalization breaks down economic barriers to national
sovereignty, but does nothing to undermine nations' monopoly on the
legitimate use of force.
Our first effort must be to insist on the normalcy of this world. This
will be a shock to both the left and the right. We are not in a state
of exception, an emergency. First there have always been attacks on
American interests; these are no more present today than in the past.
Second, we are inhabiting a world of rampant force and violence. The
right of the State (here I do not exempt Europe from the equation) to
monopolize force has always preceded this way under capital. To pathologize
it implies curing it rather than annihilating it. Our second effort
must be to fight for the destruction of all barriers to free movement.
It seems today we are further off from this goal than ever. However
we need to reintensify our attacks on the use of force to detain and
arrest people without cause, as the scale of such arrests is particular
to the last two years. This will be the jumping point for a critique
of the Statist appropriation of legitimized violence. As its most obvious
and pernicious form, immigration policy is our best point for attack.
It also provides the opportunity for trans-national alliances. Such
alliances across national boundaries exist already, in a spectral and
soon-to-be realized form.