The European Union at the Horn of Africa: The Contribution of Critical Geopolitics to Piracy Studies
| Author | Basil Germond |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2012.00191.x |
| Published date | 01 February 2013 |
| Date | 01 February 2013 |
The European Union at the Horn of
Africa: The Contribution of Critical
Geopolitics to Piracy Studies
Basil Germond
Lancaster University
Abstract
Critical geopolitics highlights the construction of threats, space and identities along an inside-outside line, and the
subsequent normalization of the practice of power projection beyond one’s own external boundary so as to obtain
security within. When applied to the EU’s response to piracy at the Horn of Africa, this approach allows understanding
the role of geographical representations and the subsequent normalization of power projection activities as a
response to piracy. Ultimately, this article demonstrates that the EU’s geopolitical discourse and power projection
activities transcend the somewhat benign image given by the Union as a civilian or normative power, although
geopolitical interests and global governance principles are not incompatible.
1. Critical geopolitics: constructing space and
normalizing power projection
Framed within post-structuralism, critical geopolitics
seeks to research and unveil the link between the pro-
duction of geographical knowledge (i.e. the spatialization
of world politics) and the power to define (i.e. the con-
struction of ‘one’ world (and ‘one’ truth) and its naturali-
zation). Geraroíd Ó Tuathail and John Agnew, two
pioneering scholars in the field, conceptualize geopolitics
‘as a discursive practice by which intellectuals of state-
craft ‘‘spatialize’’ international politics in such a way as
to represent it as a ‘‘world’’ characterized by particular
types of places, people and dramas’ (1992, p. 192). In
other words, ‘geography is not a natural given but a
power-knowledge relationship’ (Ó Tuathail, 1996, p. 10).
Studies framed within critical geopolitics aim to analyze
the representation of space and to pinpoint the
construction of threats and identities along an insi-
de ⁄outside line. They demonstrate that the ‘inside’ is
systematically represented as the ‘realm of peace
and stability’ and the ‘outside’ as the ‘realm of war and
insecurity’.
Scholars have shown that (national) identities ‘are con-
structed through practices of othering’ (Diez, 2004, p.
320); we know who we are because we know who we
are not. Critical geopolitics claims that identities are also
structured along an inside ⁄outside line and mutually
constructed around the dichotomy between ‘here’ and
‘there’, ‘home’ and ‘abroad’, ‘domestic’ and ‘foreign’, ‘us’
and ‘them’. The point is that an external ‘other’ is con-
structed along geopolitical lines, which is ‘integral to the
constitution of a political identity’ (Devetak, 2009, p.
200). This spatialization of identities along binary geo-
graphical representations is instrumental in creating cat-
egories and hierarchies. Indeed, the ‘reality’ is
constructed in such a way that the ‘inside’ is systemati-
cally represented as ‘stable’ and the ‘outside’ as ‘unsta-
ble’. Moreover, many ‘uncertainties’ about the security of
the ‘inside’ seem to result from the ‘instability’ of the
‘outside’. This hierarchization of space naturalizes the
idea that ‘danger’ is ‘out there’ and that something must
be done to cope with this ‘danger’ or, in other words, to
protect the ‘inside’ from the ‘outside’.
In sum, geographical representations contribute to the
dominant ‘discourse of danger’ characterizing both inter-
nal and world politics (e.g. discourse on immigration),
which normalizes the adoption of ‘exceptional measures’
(e.g. restrictive immigration laws and reinforced border
controls), as so-called security issues ‘must’ be treated by
security (or even military) remedies. Whether this construc-
tion and its practical implications are conscious or not is
still subject to debates within the field. Studies have shown
that the dominant discourse of danger coupled with a cer-
tain geopolitical discourse (notably in Europe and the US)
legitimate a practice of power projection beyond one’s
own external boundary (e.g. Germond, 2011a).
Using the EU’s response to piracy at the Horn of Africa
as a case study, this article highlights the link between
Global Policy Volume 4 . Issue 1 . February 2013
ª2013 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Global Policy (2013) 4:1 doi: 10.1111/j.1758-5899.2012.00191.x
Special Section Article
80
To continue reading
Request your trial