Khalili's
chapter in question is about an undesirable byproduct of the
not-always-"smooth functioning of imperium." In her piece,
Khalili does not analyse why countries engage in imperialistic
tendencies, but rather how one aspect of empire manifests itself: the
imprisonment of some of its subjects in order to maintain empire, and
how proxies are employed to reduce costs of domination and to
dissipate blame for or to hide violations. Hiding violations is
specially important in a world were colonialism is supposedly
extinguished, and where human rights violations are, if not
eradicated, fought against actively by an international community of
individuals and of nations – which for moral integrity supposition
would not engage in such violations itself. Khalili's focus is in
Israeli domination of Lebanon and of American war on terror, but her
analysis can be extended to other situations.
"The
early imperialists had it easier.", contemporary imperialists
must think. Dominating in the past had its challenges, but it did
not include juggling public opinion. Convincing oneself of the
morality of the enterprise was easier too. Managing empire while
keeping a good conscience involves shutting up voices, rendering
revolts, violations and prisoners invisible, and downplaying leaks of
information. Khalili shows us many of the instruments employed in
this quest: "careful wording" of discourses and policy
explanations, legal manipulation, and the use of proxies to do most
of the dirty work. A shortcoming in Khalili's piece is that even if
she succeeds at showing how empire employs proxies, she does not
excel at showing how the relationship between proxies and empire can
be tumultuous (perhaps it was Khalili's choice not to consider this
for the piece.)
Khalili's
piece is reminiscent of Taussig's piece in more than one instance.
In one passage, Khalili writes: "any rational or economic
calculation about detainees was simply subordinated to the intense
desire for revenge against foreign fighters." She joins Taussig
in his effort of dispelling the oversimplifications made by
traditional historiography when considering imperialism. Just as
Taussig does, Khalili considers imperialism as more than a
relationship of domination; it is instead a seam of encounter."
In this line where two or more cultures meet, hierarchies of gender
and race are reinforced. Khalili considers this a deliberate
reinforcement. I'm not that sure if that is true. It may be
something intrinsic to the enmeshment of two cultures, not a foreseen
objective.
Khalili's
most important achievement, though, is her blurring of the line
between sovereign states and the so-called terrorists. One official,
she quotes, said that "[the law] is how we distinguish ourselves
from the terrorists themselves. They act against the law, by
violating and trampling it, while in its war against terrorism, a
democratic state acts within the framework of the law and according
to the law." But Khalili tells us that the law "is not the
equitable distribution of justice, but the basis of the
legitimization of power." Through the flexibility of the law,
and the use of proxies, sovereign states can engage in immoral
activities characteristic of terrorists. Or perhaps what
characterizes terrorists is not their immorality, but as the official
said, their lawlessness, and the states are just as immoral. (And if
we consider that the state creates its own law, and that any social
group has its own laws, even if they are not considered the
legitimate-written Law, it becomes more difficult to differentiate
between terrorists and sovereign states.) Or perhaps these states
are not as democratic as they claim to be.
The quest
for invisibility is a further indication of the moral dubiousness of
the actions some states engage in. Even if courts are pursuing the
truth, mechanisms of censorship and classification are in force to
stop the truth from being found. Whistle-blowers are prosecuted,
organizations that seek to make policy transparent are forbidden to
exist, and their staff is also prosecuted. Governments, though, do
all of this within the limits of the law. If law can not be trusted
as good, what can?
No comments:
Post a Comment