Time in the
shadows
In the
article “Invisible prisoners, proxy-run prisons: Confinement in
Counterinsurgencies” Laleh Khalili elaborates on the use of proxies by
imperial or military power in the course of occupation, conflict or conflict
management. Whether it is the Israelis use of the SLA in the occupation of
Lebanon or the US’ use of “host-nation” facilities. There are several aspects
that could be elaborated from this.
The first
point is the qualitative shift in the transition from colonialism to imperialism:
A time where the export of capital – in contrast to the former export of
commodities – has become the main objective without having the direct control
of the post colonies. But there is one issue: in a time where the ultimate goal – in the words of the Israeli social anthropologist Jeff Halper – is
to ensure the flow of capital and resources to the center, where the
global elites have to keep "surplus population"
permanently pacified, and also ensure their own middle class from those
who pacified – within the framework of rule of law and
legitimacy with its own population (my rem.), what are the most effective
means?
Khalili
argues that we see the elaborate use of proxies – subagents in the assignment
of the contractor – as a mean of legitimation. That is, conducting possible war
crimes and disregard of international law as one simultaneously abdicate any
responsibility for the deeds themselves (“It was the Afghans who had run the
prison of foreign property, so the CIA had no legal liability and the US
government no jurisdiction” p. 118). Of course this has several racial
implications, not only for the contractor and its agents, but also for the way
we perceive the implementation and nature of war.
The first
and most elaborate point is the “orientalization” and racialization of the Other. As Khalili describes one sees, in the use
of proxies, reinforced civilizational hierarchies that goes back to the age of
British colonialism in Africa. The breach of international law, the degree of
barbarism etc. is not only a result, but also the character and symptom of the
other which happens because they are not us (whether it is the KAR
regiments, the SLA or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan). The racialization
is of course not just to avoid any responsibility but also for sustaining the
hegemony and control over the seemingly “uncontrollable” other’s subagents. The same applies for the use of gender where not only the
subagents are dehumanized for the maintaining of their submissiveness, but also
where one sees that the contractor’s civilizational mission and self-image is
preserved.
There is, however, one point that Khalili does not discuss (nor should
she be criticized for it since it is not her topic): the use of proxies and the
hollowing of rule of law is not just something mainly limited to the rule of
law and the conduct of it, but also for the rule of law in general. The regime
of invisibility that is “de facto stripping of a detainee of legal personhood”
is pushing boundaries of what we see and regard as normal. Not only is the
conduct of war an occupation affected, but we do also see a normalization and
acceptation of the setting aside of the rule of law in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment