A world divided: mapping border fences globally | News | Archinect



Metáforas de la frontera / elblogdefarina

A veces las metáforas nos pueden. Sobre todo si nuestra profesión obliga a que nos entiendan y el tema a tratar es complejo. Entonces recurrimos a simplificar las cosas buscando analogías y trasponiendo ideas y conceptos. En concreto, una de las cuestiones relacionadas con la organización del territorio a la que más solemos recurrir para poder abordar un análisis “asumible” de la realidad, es su subdivisión en unidades. Se hace en planeamiento, se hace en paisaje, se hace en urbanismo. De forma que lo primero que intentamos es trocear el territorio, dividirlo en zonas y, entonces, vamos (trozo a trozo) estudiándolos por separado. Para ello, claro está, resulta necesario establecer límites. Surgen así fronteras, más o menos naturales, que podrían (o no) relacionarse con el concepto que todos tenemos en la cabeza cuando hablamos de fronteras. Es decir, por ejemplo: estados nacionales, autonomías o municipios.

Intentando superar una frontera no metafórica, Melilla  lavanguardia
Pero esto no quiere decir que no existan fronteras, que no existan bordes que marcan territorios. Y no sólo bordes administrativos o ecológicos, sino también bordes culturales aunque estos tengan mucho de metáfora. El hecho de que Hannerz ponga el énfasis en lo que llama “transnacional” (o global) no quiere decir que esté desapareciendo “lo local”. Es más, en su libro Conexiones transnacionales demuestra que la cultura se produce mediante experiencias personales que se generan localmente. Y que lo global sólo se introduce en lo local si es posible hacerlo comprensible reduciéndolo al ámbito más familiar. De forma que lo local termina imponiéndose a lo global. También parece que los dos extremos en los que puede moverse esta combinación de metaculturas, la homogenización completa y la balcanización extrema, no llegarán previsiblemente a producirse nunca. De lo que no hay duda es que las fronteras administrativas son las más claras y, frecuentemente, las más absurdas. Que las fronteras ecológicas incluyen frecuentemente amplias zonas de transición y que suelen evolucionar de forma lenta, mientras que en el momento actual las fronteras culturales son casi sólo metáforas de fronteras ya que, salvo casos excepcionales, incluyen siempre una mezcla de cultura común y culturas específicas (del lugar o no).
+ artículo publicado en elblogdefarina

Instead of Re-Drawing the Map, Let’s Transform Our Borders / Pacific Standard


• December 26, 2014 • 2:00 PM

Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. (Photo: i_pinz/Wikimedia Commons)

With borders around the world constantly in dispute, it’s easy to think that the solution might be simple. But it’s time we focus on transforming how we think about borders, rather than simply re-drawing them.

Should we re-draw our borders? This question keeps coming up whenever societies or groups of people face existential national threats or serious challenges to systems or institutions that organize society. These days, the question surfaces most often in response to anxieties generated by the fear of global conflict, environmental change, and growing populations of migrants and displaced persons. Given that state borders—from a divided Germany to contemporary Israel—take varying forms and mean different things to different people at different times in history, any attempt to re-draw state borders is bound to unleash even more complex problems. A more helpful approach would be to transform borders rather than re-draw new ones or keep existing ones as they are.

In order to transform borders, however, we must first understand humanity’s appetite for them in the first place—which does require us to examine the future of state boundaries. For most people, borders have three critical functions: to help create order by delineating spheres of authority; to protect those living inside clearly demarcated territories from outsiders; and to ensure proper control and management of citizens and natural resources. These functions trace back to the beginning of human sedentary existence, where they gained concrete expression through the building of walls, to today’s iterations, where electric fences and checkpoints proliferate.

Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, the future of state borders hinges upon fundamental changes on notions of state sovereignty.

Some thinkers predict that the power of globalization will destroy the significance of state borders, leaving behind a “borderless world,” where trade flows freely. That vision has not come to pass: globalization has also resulted in more borders being drawn than erased, such as in the former Yugoslavia, where the allegiance of individual regions with either Europe or Belgrade rendered borders both increasingly significant and dangerously unstable. Whenever the border—a common marker of territory—is under threat or stress, governments do everything in their power to defend it. No wonder that borderlands are often sites of deadly encounters between state security forces and those threatening the sovereignty of states.

Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, the future of state borders hinges upon fundamental changes on notions of state sovereignty. An alternative future of state borders is possible when the territory under a sovereign state is re-defined to promote inclusivity. Cross-border arrangements seem to hold prospects for a progressive future in which borders continue to exist but derive new meanings and purpose.

Take the creation of transnational regions, most of which try to re-define state borders to create an entirely new space in which people from various states could share some form of common citizenship. No region is perfect, but regional constructions have been proven effective at transforming borders before. For example, in 2014, the European Union has brought 28 states into a jointly managed regional entity where original state borders now appear like subnational ones. Had Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda followed former Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere’s proposal in the early 1960s to integrate the three countries into one regional polity, a “new East Africa” transcending colonial borders could have been created.

Here in southern Africa, the regional community has not yet reached the stage of political union, but is embracing cross-border arrangements in the domain of nature conservation. This development points to two promising avenues for transforming state borders. First, they inject nature back into the border discussion. They bring back nature into ideas of borders. The relationship between nature and borders has a long history. Kingdoms were delimited by topographical features to make them—and the authority of kings and queens—look natural and unquestionable. Going back to ancient historical regimes in China and Mesopotamia, rivers and mountains formed the template on which borders were drawn, and these features abound in current maps showing state borders.

At the same time, natural features do not, on their own, form borders. Instead, borders exist because humans create them—often with disastrous results. Second, cross-border efforts at nature conservation can also demonstrate practical steps we can take to transcend colonially inscribed state borders in Africa and other regions. The urgency of environmental changes are waking us up to the reality that melting glaciers and pollution don’t need a passport to alter the landscape or wreak havoc across borders. Because environmental problems call for cross-border efforts for resolution, they offer a microcosm for the study of the political and philosophical difficulties posed by state borders and a potential model for future post-colonial transformation based on both nature and culture.

Nation-states are incredibly complex entities to transform all at once not least because they are pillars of a world system on which notions of world order are built.

One recent and specific example is the establishment of southern African peace parks: cross-border nature conservation projects operating across the borders of two or more states. These projects, such as the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park on the border between South Africa, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, demonstrate some of the practical ways by which state borders can be transformed. The Great Limpopo and other cross-border spaces, like Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area, empower sovereign nations to allow their borders to cease to function as barriers. These parks free wildlife—initially fenced into one state’s territory—to roam across state borders, making them a transnational asset rather than a national one. The fences come down and wildlife moves undisturbed while each state retains its sovereignty. Thus, a transnational entity is created without undoing the maps of the states involved.

This cross-border idea offers us direction in imagining what state borders might become in the future and invites us to think about conditions under which border transformation could be possible for citizens as well as wildlife. One of these directions should be correcting the errors of the past where humans use natural features to create barriers. These features should now be seen as theaters of opportunity for borderland communities who share rivers, mountains, and the like. It is bizarre, and even a recipe for conflict in places such as Kashmir or the border between Ethiopia and Kenya, to fence off rivers in the name of state sovereignty when water is such a basic human need and right. A second necessary direction is to think carefully about an appropriate scale at which the idea of inclusive borders could be successfully pursued. Nation-states are incredibly complex entities to transform all at once not least because they are pillars of a world system on which notions of world order are built. The cross-border idea suggests possibilities for using micro-regions—small-scale regions that transcend international borders—to build confidence on inclusive borders. It is in these micro-regions that border transformation is likely to succeed and also have material meanings for, and effects on people living at the edge of the state.

+artículo publicado en Pacific Standard

The Great Wall of Saudi Arabia: KSA Planning 600-mile Anti-ISIS Wall / Architizer

ISIS (aka ISIL, The Islamic State) is a force to be reckoned with, a rebel group that has their sights set on altering the geopolitical landscape forever. They’re just as likely to provoke the US or Russia, but they are probably more of an immediate threat to their neighbors in the region, mostly the countries that border Iraq and Syria.

Saudi Arabia in particular has been threatened by ISIS, because the holy mosques of Mecca and Medina are located within the Saudi borders, and if ISIS wants to establish something that resembles the Caliphate, they will need to take over Saudi territory. ISIS has already destroyed many monuments, bothChristian and Islamic, so there is no telling what they might do if they reach Mecca.

Infographic via Graphic News

In an effort to defend themselves from a potential assault, the Saudis have decided to build a state-of-the-art border wall along their border with Iraq. As the infographic above shows, it is a better, more technologically sophisticated version of the Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall, and the imaginary U.S.-Mexico Border Wall. The 600-mile wall and ditch combo is made of a sand trench and two chain link fences 320 feet apart with a concertina fence in between. There will be underground sensors and watch towers with radar and helipads. The defenses also include night-vision equipment, rapid response vehicles, and communications networks, as well as an additional 30,000 troops from Riyadh.

This is not the first border wall that Saudi Arabia has built: They also erected a fence along their 1,000-mile border with Yemen. It is unclear what will happen with this wall, but it could very well be the 21st-century version of the Great Wall of China.

Via The Telegraph

+artículo publicado en architizer

Fronteras y cuerpos desplazados: diálogos inter-epistémicos / UNIA

Sobre fronteras y cuerpos desplazados: diálogos inter-epistémicos, un proyecto en el que se abordan y cruzan tres ejes temáticos que han sido claves en el programa de UNIA arteypensamiento: los espacios fronterizos y las migraciones en la época de la hipermovilidad; los modelos territoriales sostenidos por dinámicas de acumulación y privatización de lo público; y el giro performativo en relación al género y a las sexualidades no normativas. Desde la web de UNIA se puede acceder a los audios de las conferencias, debates y presentaciones de libros que se llevaron a cabo en el marco de estas jornadas.

DIÁLOGO I. Acumulación capitalista y externalización de la frontera Sur de Europa

DIÁLOGO II. Decolonizar el conocimiento desde prácticas artísticas y educativas

DIÁLOGO III. Crítica decolonial e interseccional en los estudios de inmigración, trabajo doméstico y trans*exualidades

DIÁLOGO IV. Las fronteras como laboratorios

+ artículo publicado en UNIA arteypensamiento