BIOPOLITICAL BODIES AT THE GREEK-TURKISH BORDER - GIORGOS LITSIS - DIVA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Biopolitical bodies at the Greek-Turkish border
Giorgos Litsis
Works by Salameh
International Migration and Ethnic Relations
Bachelor Thesis 15 Credits
Spring 2020: IM245L
Supervisor: Anders Hellström
Word Count: 12,207
Abstract On 27 February 2020, Erdogan announced that he would open the Turkish border, allowing refugees to cross into Europe. Greece’s response was the deployment of military forces and the suspension of asylum applications. This study theoretically draws heavily upon Giorgio Agamben’s work on biopolitics by analyzing discourses conducted by three representatives of the Greek government. It illustrates how the New Democracy party represents the arrival of asylum seekers at the Greek-Turkish border and investigates the rationale it developed regarding the implementation of the exceptional measures. The portrayal of asylum seekers as an ‘asymmetrical threat’ activates the biopolitical machine and through the exception, the sovereign exposes its raw power over the bodies of refugees, and the management of death becomes sovereign’s absolute objective. Consequently, the exception becomes indistinguishable from the norm and expands beyond the Greek-Turkish border, rendering those who dispute the Greek government’s practices as a potential homo sacer. Keywords: Biopolitics, state of exception, bare life, homo sacer, borders
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................... 2
Research Problem........................................................... 3
Aim and Research Questions ......................................... 4
Historical Background.................................................... 5
Literature Review ............................................................. 7
Theoretical Framework.................................................. 12
New Democracy’s Migration Policy .............................. 19
Methodology .................................................................... 22
Description ............................................................................... 23
Interpretation ............................................................................ 23
Explanation ............................................................................... 24
Constructivism…...................................................................... 24
Material… ................................................................................. 25
Analysis............................................................................ 26
Stelios Petsas ............................................................... 26
Kyriakos Mitsotakis ..................................................... 30
Constantinos Bogdanos................................................ 35
Conclusion ....................................................................... 38
Bibliography.................................................................... 40
Appendix 1.1 ................................................................... 44
Appendix 1.2 ................................................................... 45
1Introduction
A great deal is being written and said about the border protection policy, especially after
the ‘long summer of migration’ in 2015 were approximately 1.3 million asylum seekers,
applied for asylum in Europe, constituting one-tenth of all asylum applications (11.6
millions) Europe has received since 1985 (Pew Research, 2016). The ongoing wars,
repressive regimes, and extreme poverty force entire populations to seek safety and a
minimum standard of living in Europe. Europe’s response is the escalation of a dreadful
border policy in the name of security, leading to a colossal decay of the traditional
European values such as humanistic thinking, democracy, and human rights (Davitti,
2018, p.1).
A conspicuous incident through which the decomposition and violation of human
rights and can be highlighted took place at the Greek-Turkish border of Evros. Turkey’s
President Erdogan declared on 27 February 2020 that he would ‘open the Greek-Turkish
border’ abrogating the 2016 EU- Turkey agreement under which Turkey had to prevent
asylum seekers from crossing the border into Greece (Enria & Gerwens, 2020). The
resultant of Erdogan’s announcement was the mobilization of thousands of asylum
seekers and migrants at the Greek-Turkish border hoping to enter Europe. In response,
the Greek government took some extraordinary measures. Initially, they deployed police
and military forces using violence to impede asylum seekers from crossing its borders
afterward they suspended the asylum application for at least one month and assured that
they would deport those who enter the country ‘illegally’. On top of that, some Greek
residents formed civilian patrols functioning as the third ‘defense line’ behind the police
and the military, with the consent of the government (Connor, 2020).
The current thesis examines the events that unfolded at the Greek-Turkish border
by using Agamben’s biopolitical theory. Agamben argues that the raw power of
biopolitics gets exposed when the sovereign declares a state of exception, a process that
suspense the rule of law and reduces human beings to bare life, which is life stripped of
form and value (Diken & Laustsen, 2002, p.291)
2Research Problem
The events that unfolded at the Greek-Turkish border illustrate an obvious contradiction
regarding the implementation of fundamental values. More specifically, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right of individuals to seek asylum in other
countries, the right to non-refoulement as outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention
(Hirsch & Bell, 2017, p.2), and the Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention on
Human Rights prohibits collective expulsions of aliens. Nevertheless, the majority of EU
member states disregarded all the above mentioned legal procedures and concurred the
profound violence practiced toward refugees at the Greek-Turkish border (Enria &
Gerwens, 2020). Seemingly, nation-states, in their effort to tackle, either fictitious or real
threats, implement exceptional measures that are incompatible with the values, principles,
and legal framework of modern liberal democracies. (Obaretin, 2018, p.1). Thus,
Agamben’s biopolitical approach sheds light on such obscured contradictions by
revealing the foundational structure not only of the sovereign nation-states but of Western
politics.
3Aim and Research Questions
The application of border security policies, as a response to the refugee and migratory
issue, has generated an endless source of 'crisis discourse' through which powerful
institutions and actors foster, in order to legitimize or delegitimize policy changes. The
present research aims to analyze discourses conducted by prominent members of the
Greek government, in order to illustrate how the asylum seekers were represented by the
New Democracy leading party and to explain through the biopolitical perspective, the
implementation of the exceptional measures, at the Greek-Turkish border, and the
asylum system.
Two main research questions have been constructed in order to provide an answer to the
previously stated research aim:
• How did the New Democracy party represent the asylum seekers at the Greek-
Turkish border of Evros?
• How can the exceptional measures implemented at the Greek-Turkish border and
the asylum system be understood by a biopolitical perspective?
4Historical Background
The increased arrival of asylum seekers in Greece, since the early 2000s, through the
Greek-Turkish borders of Evros has led to the implementation of exceptional border
policies. In 2012, the New Democracy party announced its plans regarding the erection
of a migrant deterrent fence in order to seal the entire borderland (200km) between
Greece and Turkey. Eventually, the government’s plan received extensive criticism;
therefore, the right-wing party fortified only the ‘12.5km, ‘vulnerable’ land section of
the demarcation line which did not follow the natural barrier of the river’ (Bliatka, 2016,
p.37). The fact that this land section was for asylum seekers, a relatively secure and easy
passage to enter Greece, was the most crucial argument for the construction of the fence.
The vulnerable section of the Evros Border by PanchoS, 2015, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greece–
Turkey_land_border.svg.
Furthermore, during the construction of the fence the Greek government, in its effort to
decrease the influx of migrants to the maximum, launched the ‘Operation Aspida’
(Shield), which included the deployment of 1800 Greek security forces at the Evros
border (Grigoriadis & Dilek, 2019, p.179). Operation Aspida was not the only
exceptional policy that intensified the militarization of the borders, in early 2006 a similar
5action with common aims came into force by the EU border agency Frontex under the
name Joint Operation Poseidon (Tselepi et al., 2016, p.51). In 2010 Frontex once more
deployed 175 guest officers from EU member states, ‘under the auspices of the first
Rapid Border Intervention Team (RABIT) operation’ (Vaughan-Williams, 2015, p.4).
The Human Right Watch in 2011 published a report titled ‘The EU’s Dirty Hands’ after
the investigation of the RABIT deployment in Evros (Bliatka, 2016, p.60). More
specifically, the findings of the research revealed human rights violation such as the
apprehension and the transportation of migrants to detention centers and police stations
where brutality, violence, and practices of dehumanization were widely known to take
place (ibid., p.60). Additionally, the erection of the fence was part of diverse surveillance
technologies such as thermos-vision vans, helicopters, thermal cameras, patrol units,
radar surveillance systems, etc. Hence, the implementation of advanced technologies has
transformed the Greek-Turkish border into controllable spaces since the absolute purpose
is to prevent the advent of migrants and asylum seekers (Topak, 2014, p.815).
The aforementioned exceptional practices are merely the latest manifestations in a
long history of border militarization in the region. For instance, the Greek Army, in
response to Turkey’s military invasion in Cyprus in 1974, planted thousands of
landmines at the Greek-Turkish borders in Evros. Subsequently, land mines became the
main cause of injury and death for migrants until 2009, when the Greek government
decided to remove them (Tselepi et al., 2016, p.51) Moreover, the belligerent history
between Greece and Turkey has generated neo-orientalist conceptions, ‘of migrants
coming through the Evros border by association with the ‘threat from the East’ (Bliatka,
2016, p.54). This conflation is evident in the implementation of another exceptional
measure; the 30 meters wide, 130km long and 7 meters deep moat constructed in 2012 by
the Greek government. Even though the moat was constructed as part of the defensive
strategy against the advanced tanks of the Turkish army, in the public debate (e.g., media)
has been highlighted as an essential barrier for asylum seekers (ibid.).
On the one hand, the militarization of the Greek-Turkish border has led to a
considerable decline regarding the arrival of asylum seekers. On the other hand, the
devastating consequences are the increased number of deaths since migrants choose
alternative and more dangerous routes to cross the borders. It is estimated that between
62000 and 2019, more than 1500 people have died in their effort to enter Greece through
Evros. The principal causes of death are drowning and hypothermia (Pavlidis & Karakasi,
2019, p.3)
Literature Review
Several border researchers have dealt with Giorgio Agamben’s significant work on
biopolitics. His valuable concepts: the state of exception and homo sacer have shed light
to obscured aspects concerning, ‘the margins of nation-states where the tensions of
sovereignty and state security are both geolocated and visibly acted out on a daily basis’
(De León et al., 2015, p. 452). Borders represent spaces in which exception becomes the
norm, paving the way to practices that violate fundamental human rights. The succeeding
paragraphs pursue to illustrate biopolitical practices and representations of refugees at
various borders across the world.
Firstly, Davitti (2019, p. 25) uses the Agambian biopolitical perspective, to depict
the European refugee ‘crisis’ by illustrating how EU officials appropriate the
humanitarian discourse to justify the implementation of extraordinary measures, at the
European borders (ibid.). While the refugees arriving at the Southern borders of Europe
are portrayed as a humanitarian emergency, in parallel, the same refugees, are depicted
not only as a threat to national security but also as a threat to cultural identity and the
economic security of EU member states (ibid., p. 9). Moreover, the study uses
Agamben’s concept state of exception to highlight the necessity to reconsider how
borders are defined and applied (e.g., externalized) in the European refugee ‘crisis’. The
author argues that Europe’s borders have become liquid, meaning that they are
‘characterize by non- linear (externalized and outsourced) enforcement infrastructures’
(ibid., p. 4). There are physical and legal infrastructures; the physical infrastructures are
fortified walls, militarized borders or spaces of confinement intending to extend Europe’s
borders beyond its geographical confines by deflecting the arrival of migrants, ‘towards
pre-established processing ‘hotspots’ in Greece and Italy, or to countries of transit or
origin in exchange for so-called development aid’ (ibid., p. 3). The purpose of the legal
7infrastructures is to circumvent international obligations by introducing concepts such as
‘safe third country’ or ‘voluntary returns’. Daria uses the infrastructures mentioned above
as the legal and physical embodiment of the state of exception (ibid., p. 4-5). Most
importantly, the article uses Agamben’s work on biopolitics, to support that the reason
why refugees are abandoned in atrocious conditions is not random but inscribed to the
continuous measures fostered by the EU member states (ibid., p.1).
Secondly, Dines et al. (2015, p. 431) draw on Agamben’s work in order to explore
how the media and the political system have modified Lampedusa into a spectacle of bare
life that impacts all migrants negatively across Italy. They also argue that Lampedusa, the
last decades, has been transformed into a border zone (ibid.). Specifically, they explain
that Lampedusa should be understood as a strategic space governed by national and
supranational institutions (e.g., Frontex, UNHCR) where the production of crossings and
deaths takes place (ibid., p. 431). Lampedusa became Italy’s operational base and for
asylum seekers was actually separated from the rest of Italy since asylum seekers
intercepted at sea were detained or returned to Libya, stripped of their right to apply for
asylum (ibid., p. 433). Therefore, the island turned into a border zone in which detained
migrants were ‘considered to be outside Italian territory’ (ibid.). The transformation of
Lampedusa into a border zone is hugely connected with the production of bare life since
migrants experience inhumane conditions in their effort to enter Europe (ibid., p. 434).
Bare life here is understood as a public spectacle since powerful actors (e.g., government,
media) adopt an exclusionary narrative by portraying migrants as an invasion and a
potential threat (ibid., p. 439) in order to normalize the distinction of the qualified life of
the citizen, and the desperate bare life of the migrant (ibid., p. 437- 438). Consequently,
the appalling conditions of migrants in Lampedusa function as a warning to the other
migrants throughout Italy to reduce their expectations, ‘and, in doing so, produce labor
power as a cheap commodity that is adaptable to different conditions’ (ibid., p. 441). The
article also underlines whether the transformation of Lampedusa, into a place where bare
life prevails, reflects a state of exception taking place at the border zones across Europe,
or it might be a sign heralding a pervasive ‘European apartheid’ (ibid, p. 432).
Additionally, a critical study by Topak (2013, p. 815) examines the biopolitical
surveillance techniques at Greek-Turkish borders. It supports that border zones are
8biopolitical spaces with severe control practices where migrants face the risk of injury or
death (ibid.). Border zones operate in a similar way as liminal spaces where ‘human
rights are suspended and, migrant bodies exist only insofar as they can be excluded at any
time by border practices’ since refugees are portrayed as a threat (ibid, p. 820). He also
mentions Agamben’s valuable contribution on biopolitics since his work illustrates how
the suspension of human rights by the sovereign power generates bare life or the
biopolitical body. Without the suspension of human rights at the borders, the
implementation of advanced militarized technology would have been impossible.
Moreover, the paper argues that even though the decay of fundamental rights exposes
migrants to bare life, they continue to challenge the biopolitical regime by crossing the
borders.
Another paper by Topak et al. (2015, p. 885) analyzes the implications of the
Beyond the Border (BTB) agreement in 2011, concerning the US-Canadian border, that
led to the expansion of the digital surveillance (ibid.). The BTB agreement envelopes
new forms of border surveillance, such as biometric data collection and information
sharing and pre-emptive profiling of travelers (ibid., p. 880). The article uses Agamben’s
biopolitical perspective of sovereign exception, in order to argue that the security
measures mentioned above violate border crossers’ human rights (ibid.). Moreover, the
article explains that although all social categories are at risk of experiencing the
potentiality of the sovereign’s exception, some individuals are more exposed to the power
of the sovereign. That happens due to social disparities that are essential on how
sovereign exception functions over different groups (ibid., p. 883). Specifically, some
individuals with ‘unprivileged’ sociocultural backgrounds, for instance, refugees,
unskilled migrants, or permanent residents with a Muslim background, are
disproportionately affected by the current border security policy (ibid., p. 880).
According to Agamben, sovereign power always maintains the possibility to suspend
human rights by declaring a state of exception. Similarly, the BTB agreement is
understood as an aggregation of exceptional security practices that have become the
norm, ‘and diverse groups are being subjected to surveillance without any localised
focus; including, before, at, and beyond the border’ (ibid., p. 883). Thus, the insights
provided by Agamben’s theoretical framework are valuable to illustrate that increased
9security leads to human rights violation, namely, the right to privacy, the presumption of
innocence, the right to claim asylum (ibid, p. 890-891).
Stratton (2002, p. 677) argues that the considerably increased anxiety in Australia
concerning asylum seekers is vitally linked with the reformation of Australia as a
neoliberal state (ibid.). An essential element of the neoliberal state is the decay of the
power of law; the importance of the juridico-legal order of a state is disregarded, ‘in favor
of politically motivated decision- making’ (ibid, p. 685). The goal of the neoliberal state
is to improve the capitalist market by rendering legal processes and moral criteria at
stake, in the name of capital accumulation and profit (ibid.). Consequently, the
‘character’ of the border changes because economic determinations are shaping it. Low
skilled asylum seekers are represented as unwanted since they have no value for the
socioeconomic system of a neoliberal state; on the contrary, those that are highly skilled
are included because their skills are needed (ibid.). Hence, ‘in economic terms, then, we
can say that the border brings order to capitalism’ (ibid., p. 681). Using Agamben’s
concepts, the study illustrates how a series of practices, such as detention centers and
military operations, have transformed Australia’s borders into a permanent state of
exception where legal processes are circumvented.
A study conducted by Phillips (2009, p. 139) investigates the biopolitical war
performed at the Australian border under the name Operation Relex. The operation aimed
to prevent asylum seekers from entering Australia by boat (ibid.). Phillips supports that
Australia’s war on asylum seekers is biopolitical because it tries to manage the life of the
nation by exercising control over who enters the country. The outcome of this control is
to construct certain bodies as ‘bare life’- that is, life without political rights (ibid., p. 132).
However, the remarkable contribution of the study is that it distinguishes the different
ways in which female and male bodies are reduced to the Agambian notion of bare life.
Women and children are constructed as passive, docile bodies, deserving compassion,
and men are perceived as potential ‘terrorists’, dangerous, and capable of being exposed
to death. Even though women and children are represented as innocent, deserving
humanitarian aid, they are also exposed to death. But their death is manufactured as
lamentable ‘collateral damage’ while men’s deaths are necessary (ibid., p. 136). To sum
10up, Phillips elaborates on the concept of bare life in order to illustrate the different ways
in which female bodies and males bodies are exposed to death.
Finally, the ‘global war on terror’ has facilitated the expansion of exclusionary
discourses and securitized processes leading to extremely violent security tactics that
undermine fundamental rights (Jones, 2009, p.879). Jones (2009) argues that scholars in
pursuit of comprehending the fragile relationship between the power of the sovereign
states and individual rights have drawn on Agamben’s concept ‘the state of exception’
(ibid.). More specifically, Jones supports that borderlands are a strategic space for
inquiring the relationship between securitization processes and the state of exception
because ‘political borders are the symbolic markers of the limits of a sovereign’s
authority’ (ibid.). Therefore, in his study investigates the securitization of the borderland
between Bangladesh and India and illustrates the exceptional measures implemented by
the Indian security forces, in order to impede potential terrorists to enter the country
(ibid.). Terrorist attacks in the mainland of India in association with the enormous power
granted to border security forces have transformed the borderlands into a place where
Muslims from both India and Bangladesh, ‘live with constant suspicion, surveillance, and
the threat of government-sanctioned violence’ (ibid., p. 889). In addition, the ‘fiction of a
coterminous nation, state, and territory is exposed’ (ibid., p. 894) on a daily basis since
border crossers develop networks that do not suit the border management of the
sovereign power. As a result, Muslim borderland residents from both sides live in an
exceptional space where the ordinary law of the state is not implemented, and the Indian
security forces have the authority to reduce people to bare life without consequences
(ibid.).
The researches mentioned above provide a multidimensional illustration of
Agamben’s work on biopolitics, concerning the rising decay of fundamental rights at the
borders around the world, when the power of the sovereign state declares a state of
exception.
11Theoretical Framework
The concept of biopolitics has been enriched considerably by the insights of significant
intellectuals such as Michelle Foucault and Giorgio Agamben. In the succeeding
paragraphs, a brief description of the diversity of the concept and its development is
provided. Also, the contribution of the two thinkers is unfolded by placing more
emphasis on the latter because, in order to comprehend the Agambian biopolitics, a brief
inquiry of the Foucauldian biopolitics is imperative.
It is crucial to comprehend that biopolitics is a multidimensional and controversial
concept. Some scholars hold the belief that it is closely connected to racism and eugenics,
while others support that is bound to the democratic management of social life (Lemke,
2010, p.422). Miertzsch argues that biopolitics is extensively evident in texts of the ‘Old
Right’, but members of the ‘New Left’ have also employed it. For instance, it is used by
both opponents and proponents of biotechnological progress by racists but also by
Marxists (ibid.). Consequently, divergent and plethora of meanings arise when people
refer to it. Thus, biopolitics, which ‘literally denotes a politics that deals with life’ (ibid),
is inherently contradictory because, in its effort to improve and optimize life, remains
attached with its apparent opposite, which is the destruction and the exclusion of life
(Topak, 2014, p.820)
According to Turda the term biopolitics was first used in an article published on
the 28th of December 1911 in The New Age by G. W. Harris (Obaretin, 2018, p.2).
However, the coinage of the concept is ascribed to Rudolf Kjellen, a Swedish political
scientist. Kjellen embraced the conviction that the state is a ‘living organism’ that
governs its soul and body, and understood culture, law, and politics, as ‘a variety of
formations of the same organic powers, which constitute the state and determine its
specific characteristics’ (Lemke, 2010, p.423). During the Nazi period, the perception of
the state as a ‘living organism’ prepared the ground for the legitimization of racism
leading, to the justification of racial hierarchies within society and the unequal treatment
of people according to their different ‘inherited biological quality’(ibid.). The president
of the Reich Health Department, Hans Reiter, in a speech in 1943, tried to elucidate the
foundations of the biopolitics by saying that, ‘the past, present, and future of
12each nation were determined by ‘hereditary biological’ facts’ (ibid). Consequently, the
Nazis used the concept of biopolitics to justify their racial and national policy, which was
based on biology (Obaretin, 2018, p.2).
In the 60s and 70s, the growing awareness of environmental issues among social
movements and political actors contributed to the emergence of another understanding of
biopolitics that its focal point was not the biological foundation of politics but the
regulation and solution of the global ecological problems (Lemke, 2010, p.427).
Therefore, biopolitics obtained new social meanings, which, according to Dietrich Gunst,
enveloped, ‘all areas that deal with health and population policies, with environmental
problems and the future of mankind’ (ibid.). The mid-70s saw the emergence of another
perspective of biopolitics alongside with the spectacular increase in biotechnological
innovations. Scientific findings such as the exchange of DNA across organisms or the re-
combination and isolation of genetic information revealed the actual vulnerable border
between society and nature. Hence, it became imperative to determine which
technological innovations were ethically acceptable and under what conditions.
According to Van den Daele biopolitics denotes, ‘the social discussion and regulation of
the application of modern natural science and technology to human beings that has lasted
for about two decades now’ (ibid.).
In Foucault’s work, the notion ‘biopolitics’ is not simply reduced to the
emergence of new technologies or the environmental crisis but indicates a historical
break, a discontinuity in the political order (ibid., p.429). The historical break occurred
because, for millennia, man remained what was for Aristotle ‘a living animal with the
additional capacity for political existence’ whereas Foucault argues that ‘modern man
becomes an animal whose politics places his existence as a living being into question’
(Edkins, 2000, p.5). The fundamental discrepancy that lies in the shadow of the two
statements is that in ancient Greece, there is a separation -known as the Aristotelian
distinction- between biological life (zoe) which was confined in the domestic sphere,
and political life (bios) which was the life of the polis; in the modern era, this separation
ceases to exist. Modernity signals the emergence of science; as a result, disciplines such
as biology, epidemiology, statistics, and demography made possible the incorporation of
the simple fact of life (biological life) into the mechanisms and calculations of the state
13power (ibid.). Subsequently, the once excluded from politics, biological life, entered into
the heart of modern politics. At this historical moment, politics became biopolitics (ibid.).
Additionally, Foucault claims that the shift of the political order paved the way to
modern methods of exercising power. Before the modern methods come to the fore,
Foucault analyzes the ‘traditional sovereign power’, which can be portrayed through the
Machiavellian prince, meaning that the ‘right in the west was the king’s right'. Therefore,
the sovereign’s endeavor to maintain domination over a given territory was possible by
achieving obedience. Inquest of this goal, the sovereign develops the legal or juridical
system, ‘[which] consists in laying down a law and fixing a punishment for the person
who breaks it’ (Wells, 2019, p.419). However, in the seventeenth century another form of
power emerged, Foucault named it discipline, its primary concern was the body and the
incorporation of it into systems of production. It was a disciplinary power that ‘targeted’
individuals in order to create ‘docile bodies’ (Whyte, 2013, p.26). In the eighteenth
century, the disciplinary power exercised on individual bodies led to a more sophisticated
form of power the ‘biopolitics of the population’ meaning that from then on the objective
was not the human body (individuals) but the population’s well-being (society as a
whole) (ibid.). Hence, the sovereign’s traditional power, the ‘right of the sword’, which
practically means the right to ‘take life or let live’ was gradually complemented by the
biopolitical power which its essential element is to ‘make live and let die’ (Perezalonso,
2010, p.4).
Foucault examined both the productive aspects of the power and the destructive
ones (e.g., totalitarian regimes), but eventually, he emphasized mostly at the positive
components of biopolitics (Topak, 2014, p.819). He conceived biopolitics, ‘as the
administration of bodies and the calculated management of life’ (ibid.), meaning complex
systems of coordination exerting indirect governance over populations with pastoral care.
Aiming to optimize human life in order to make the population more productive in terms
of goods, wealth but also for producing more individuals (ibid). Although Foucault
explored mainly the productive qualities of biopolitics, he did not disregard the negatives
ones completely. On the one hand, biopolitics is not directly linked with death as it
happens with the sovereign power; its purpose is to protect the biological well-being of
its population. On the other hand, those that are excluded from the state’s protection are
14in grave danger because they are perceived as a potential threat. Thus, Foucault argues
that the paradox of modernity is that, ‘at one and the same time it becomes possible both
to protect life and to organize a holocaust’ (Edkins, 2000, p.5).
Foucault conceptualized a genealogy of power, through which he presents a
brilliance illumination of the transformation of power throughout history. Investigates the
transition from one form of power to another; and argues that regarding the nation-states,
the power is practiced through the organization of life, whereas in the past, power was
executed under the severe punishment of the sovereign (Whyte, 2013, p.27).
Agamben’s theorization of biopolitics unfolds valuable insights that refute some
critical readings developed by Foucault. Firstly, the principal difference is that Foucault
conceives biopolitics as a modern phenomenon, while for Agamben, Western politics
since its inception, has been biopolitical because bare life has been included in polis
through its exclusion (Braun, 2007, p.6). More precisely, the Aristotelian distinction-
mentioned in the fifth paragraph- for Agamben is of exceptional significance because it
indicates the foundations of biopolitics:
The fundamental categorical pair of Western politics is not that of friend/enemy
but that of bare life/political existence, zoē/bios, exclusion/inclusion. There is
politics because man is the living being who, in language, separates and opposes
himself to his own bare life and, at the same time maintains himself in relation to
that bare life in an inclusive exclusion. (Agamben, 1998, p.8)
Consequently, he recognizes that Western politics were founded on the inclusive-
exclusion of bare life (Perezalonso, 2010, p.158). Modernity for Agamben did not signal
the advent of biopolitics, since politics have always been biopolitics, but blurred the line
that, for centuries, separated the biological life from qualified life.
Secondly, the two intellectuals hold different views about the relationship
between sovereign power and biopolitical power. Foucault treats sovereign power and
biopolitics as separate methods of power, even though he recognizes that biopolitics does
not fully replace sovereign power but penetrates and supplements it (Whyte, 2013, p.28).
Reversely, Agamben’s conclusion that politics has always been biopolitics denotes that
the latter is inherently linked with the sovereign power, and that constitutes the primary
function of the sovereign power. Hence, the sovereign’s decision generates, ‘an
expendable form of life banned from conventional juridical ^ political structures that
15Agamben refers to throughout his work as ‘bare life’ (Vaughan-Williams, 2010,
p.1079). The bottom line is that for Foucault, biopolitics concerns power relations
through which the organization of life is possible whilst for Agamben biopolitics is
connected to the sovereign power, which inevitably leads to the production of bare life.
The notion of inclusive-exclusion maintains that the distinction between political
life and the living animal is, at the same time, an implication of the former to the latter
(Whyte, 2013, p.29). Strictly speaking, inclusive-exclusion of bare life means a form of
life that is neither political life nor biological life but a ‘threshold of articulation that
enables the passage from one to the other’ (Whyte, 2013, p.20). Designates the fact that
subjects are included in the juridico-political system of the society because the sovereign
has the power to exclude them at any time. Hence, the inclusive-exclusion of bare life
generates an indistinct form of human being that is represented through the ancient figure
of homo sacer found in Roman law (ibid., p.30). According to Agamben homo
sacer is neither human nor divine but the embodiment of bare life. Homo sacer is
subjugated to a double exclusion: he can be killed with impunity; therefore, he is placed
outside the human law since killing him is not considered a homicide. He is also excluded
from the divine law because he can be killed but not sacrificed. The double exclusion is
also a double inclusion from the perspective that in so far as he can be killed, he is
included in the community, and though his unsacrificability, he belongs to God (Edkins,
2000, p.6). However, the figure of homo sacer is not confined to Roma law, Agamben
holds the belief that ‘concentration camp is the hidden matrix of the modern,
its nomos’ meaning that that the production of bare life is slowly diffused beyond the
boundaries of the camp (Diken & Laustsen, 2002, p.291). If today there is not any status
similar to homo sacer like in ancient Rome, it is because probably we are all
virtually homines sacri (Vaughan-Williams, 2010, 1079). After all, biopolitics has
penetrated people’s lives to such an extent that it is almost impossible to discern between
the political order and the living body.
Agamben conceptualizes the state of exception as the temporary suspension of the
juridical order when the state declares a situation of emergency, reducing human beings
to homo sacers (Downey, 2009, p.114). Initially, the state proclaims itself in a condition
of crisis (fictitious or real) after, through the executive power dominates over democratic
16institutions provoking the violation of fundamental rights by circumventing the normal
rule of law (Giordanengo, 2016, p.1). Carl Schmitt (German jurist and political theorist
affiliated with Nazism), claims that the state of exception is not simply the suspension of
law in times of emergency but the nucleus of the sovereign power. Agamben engages
with Schmitt’s work and develops it; in particular, he argues that the state of exception is
not merely a legal mechanism but the genuine way in which law captures life (Whyte,
2013, p.48). He aims to highlight the politicization of life, which occurs with the growing
inscription of it within the political order (Perezalonso, 2010, p.12). A theory of the state
of exception, he states, is ‘the preliminary condition for any definition of the relation that
binds and at the same time abandons the living being to law’ (Whyte, 2013, p.48). In
some sense, the state of exception is an exploration of the various ways in which the
lethal instrument of exceptionalism operates (Damai, 2005, p.258). In biopolitics, the
operation of exceptionalism, is exerted on bodies that are perceived as incapable or
undesirable of integration into the political system (ibid., p.256).
The paradoxical relation of the sovereign with the juridical order relies on the fact
that the former is simultaneously inside and outside the legal order. It cannot be entirely
inside since the sovereign decides about the exception and the suspension of the juridical
order, but also it cannot be completely outside because the sovereign defines the borders
of the normative order (Whyte, 2013 p.54). This contradiction blurs the distinction
between the rule of law and anomie; hence decisions taken by the sovereign about life
and death become utterly arbitrary. Consequently, Agamben reasons that the exception is
the structure of sovereignty but also a zone of indistinction in which the individual finds
him/herself constantly inhabiting in a threshold between ‘zoe and bios, law and violence,
citizen and refugee, survivor and victim – or, to gloss Primo Levi, the drowned and the
saved’ (Downey, 2009, p.114). Agamben aptly explains that the state of exception,
although it is declared as a temporary suspension of the rule, eventually becomes the rule.
For instance, the Nazi regime that used an article from the Weimar constitution to justify
the suspension of fundamental rights may be deemed a state of exception that lasted
almost twelve years (Giordanengo, 2016, p.1). When the state of exception becomes the
norm, the concealed cornerstone of the sovereign is exposed, a process that is not
17indicative only in totalitarian regimes but also lies in the foundation of the liberal
democracies (Obaretin, 2018, p.1)
Agamben criticizes Western politics in its entirety since he identifies the
separation between life and politics that relies on its foundations as the key political
problem. However, the decomposition of the Western political tradition and the
politicization of life should be perceived as incentives for political action. He argues that
the current circumstances are generating a new figure of the subject along with the new
figure of domination (Whyte, 2013, p.22). More precisely, a subject that emerges from
the ruins of the border zone between life and politics. The emerging subject will not
foster a substantive identity; as a result, it will be impossible to be represented by a state
or to create societies based on exclusion. Instead of bare life, the subject will enjoy a
‘form-of-life’, meaning a united life and not a life lived through a distinction zeo/bios.
The hope of Agamben can be located in a phrase from Marx, also cited by Debord, ‘the
desperate situation of society in which I live fills me with hope’ (ibid.).
18New Democracy’s Migration Policy
New Democracy won the national elections on 7 July 2019 and became the leading party.
One of its primary concerns was the implementation of harsher asylum policy.
Subsequently, the first change that indicated New Democracy’s hostile approach,
concerning migration and refugee policy, came only 48 hours after the elections, when
the right-wing party decided the dissolution of the Ministry of Migration, transferring the
administration of migration to the Ministry of Citizen Protection (the police)
(Stamatoukou, 2019). This shift signified that the refugee issue for the Greek government
was mainly a matter of security rather than a matter of protection and integration.
Nevertheless, the constant arrival of asylum seekers obliged the Greek government to
re-establish the Ministry of Migration, on 15 January 2020 (Ekathimerini, 2020).
Moreover, the Minister of Labor and Social Affairs decided to block the issuing
of social security numbers to asylum seekers, depriving them of the right to free
healthcare. However, this decision changed as well, on 31 January 2020, when the
government decided to grant a temporary health care number to asylum seekers valid for
at least six months (Ekathimerini, 2020). Additionally, a new law that aimed to speed up
the procedures for the new asylum applicants came in force at the beginning of 2020.
Many organization such as the Danish Refugee Council expressed their objections
arguing that the fast track procedure violates applicants’ rights. Their objections became
even more urgent when the applications of 28 sub-Saharan asylum seekers were rejected
without the conduction of interviews as the law requires. The decision of the rejection
was based on ‘the grounds of lack of translators, which is against all relevant provisions
for asylum’ (Krithari, 2019).
Before the incidents at the Greek-Turkish borders take place, tensions regarding the
refugee issue were already present at the Aegean islands (Lesbos, Chios, Samos). The
number of asylum seekers in islands increased the last year (2019) drastically. Approximately
74,000 people came to Greece, whereas 40,000 of them are stuck on the islands, in facilities
that can host 6,000 people (Smith, 2020). Asylum seekers live in tents exposed to rain and
cold, whereas, most of the time, they do not have access to electricity, heating, or water
(UNHCR, 2020). Violence has skyrocketed, especially in Moria camp, where women do not
visit the toilets at
19night because they might be sexually abused; therefore, they are obliged to wear diapers
(Boffey & Smith, 2019). The medical condition of many children is worsening because they
are forced to live in tents in unhygienic conditions, even though, they suffer from diseases
such as heart disease, asthma, diabetes with no access to the appropriate medication
(Doulgkeri, 2020). On the other hand, the primary demand of the islanders from the
government was the decongestion of the overcrowded reception camp because they believe
that they suffer the most not only in Greece but also in Europe regarding the refugee issue.
However, the plan of the government was not the decongestion but the building of new
closed pre-removal detention centers on the Aegean islands (e.g., Lesbos, Chios) and the
shutdown of the overcrowded open camps. The islanders viewed the closed detention camps
as a kind of ‘prison’ and resisted strongly to the government’s decision. Reversely, New
Democracy in order to impose its plans sent the riot police; as a result, violence escalated
drastically (Smith, 2020).
On 27 Thursday, 2020, Erdogan announced that Turkey would no longer prevent
refugees from crossing the border into Greece. The announcement occurred after the
death of 34 Turkish soldiers in Syria’s Idlib and the rejection of Turkey’s request for
support by NATO and Europe (Amnesty International, 2020, p.4). Greece conceived
Turkey’s actions as a threat to its security and initiated the deployment of police and
military forces at the borders. The border turned into a heavily militarized space; Greek
forces used extensively tear gas, and many asylum seekers reported to NGO’s the use of
live ammunition, ‘both firing into the air and in their direction, as they attempted to cross
the border’ (ibid., p.8). The government also passed an emergency legislative Act and
suspended the new asylum applications (ibid., p.4). Following the change in asylum law,
those entering Greece were persecuted for illegal entry and faced up to four years in
prison (ibid., p.13). It is essential to highlight that the events that unfolded both at the
Greek islands and the Greek-Turkish border facilitated the development of xenophobic
violence against NGOs, refugees, and journalists (ibid., p.15). For instance, on March 1,
some islanders prevented the disembarkation of a dinghy carrying 50 refugees in Thermi
port (Lesbos).
Giorgos Christides, a journalist from Der Spiegel, was also attacked because he wanted to
report the incident. More specifically, he argued:
20When I tried to report on what was happening and to record the scene on my
phone, I was threatened, pushed and shoved by locals on the dock. A policeman
on duty at the scene saw the incident but failed to intervene. I complained to him
but I was told ‘don’t provoke them. (Amnesty International., p.16)
The hostile socio-political situation concerning the refugee issue had numerous
consequences; the most detrimental was the confirmed death of three people and the
injury of many. Two refugees that managed to cross the border were shot dead on Greek
territory, and a child was drowned on 2 March after a dinghy capsized off Lesvos. (ibid.,
p.9-15).
21Methodology
Critical discourse analysis (henceforth CDA) is a branch of discourse analysis and
examines the various ways in which language consolidates ideologies, influences
political speeches, and preserves or challenges social inequalities. Fairclough (2015,
p.46) argues that the ‘critical’ component of discourse analysis might shed light on
concealed meanings within texts; as a result, those who are socially unprivileged might
be benefited. Fairclough holds the belief that using the language as a means to raise the
general consciousness concerning social exploitation might be a step closer to social
emancipation. The main target of analysis should include political discourses because
language is used as a tool to persuade or legitimate questionable practices (Fairclough et
al. 2011, p.402). Moreover, according to Fairclough and Chiapello:
CDA is analysis of the dialectical relationships between discourse (including
language but also other forms of semiosis, e.g. body language or visual images)
and other elements of social practices. Its particular concern (in this approach) is
with the radical changes that are taking place in contemporary social life, with how
discourse figures within processes of change, and with shifts in the relationship
between discourse/semiosis and other social elements within networks of
practices.(Chiapello & Fairclough, 2002, p.185-186)
A particular characteristic regarding CDA is that its approach is not impartial; researchers
that choose to apply this method explicitly place themselves next to the socially
disadvantaged people (Fairclough et al. 2011, p.395). However, this does not imply that
CDA lacks scientific credibility, considering that those applying CDA have the
responsibility to reflect on their political beliefs, on their position as researches, and their
position as part of the social issues they explore.
There are various approaches related to CDA; this paper uses Fairclough’s three-
dimensional model as a useful tool for the research because this approach provides deep
insights; it envelopes analyses of the text, of the broader context of the text, and also of
the social circumstances that produced the text (Fairclough, 1992, p.4). More specifically,
Fairclough conceives social phenomena to be extremely linked to linguistic phenomena;
22therefore, when a discourse is analyzed is not treated merely as a text but as the
correlation between text, interactions, and social conditions (Fairclough, 2015, p.56).
Thus, Fairclough’s three-dimensional model: description, interpretation, and explanation
provide a useful toolbox for my analysis since the production of a text, can be analyzed
through many angles.
Description
Description involves the analysis of the text through the vocabulary, expressive,
relational, and experimental values of words, the use of metaphors, and different
grammatical features (Fairclough, 2015, p.129-130). However, the application of all the
‘tools’ that the first dimension provides is not possible in the current paper. Therefore, the
‘tools’ used for the application of the first dimension are overwording, transitivity, and
modality. More specifically, overwording analyzes the vocabulary of the text by
examining the frequency with which some keywords are used. Therefore, overwording
provides insights regarding the ideology that prevails in a text and how words are used to
describe reality (Fairclough, 2015, p.131). Transitivity investigates ‘how a writer
represents who acts (who is agent) and who is acted upon (who is affected by the actions
of others)’ (Figueiredo, 1999, p.101). Transitivity illustrates how the subject that has
produced a specific text views the world, and many critical analysts use it as a tool to
unveil the connection between ideology and language that most of the time is implicit or
even not included in the text (ibid.). Modality examines to what extent the author of a text
agrees or is certain with what is mentioned in the text. This technique helps to
comprehend not only what is explicitly stated in a text but, most importantly, what is
implicitly understood (Boréus, & Bergström, 2017, 223p.).
Interpretation
The second dimension uses common-sense knowledge and intertextuality. The latter
examines which other texts have been used by the author in order to produce his own
text. In other words, intertextuality illustrates the links that texts have with other texts.
Therefore, the second dimension involves the process of text production (Leitch &
23Palmer, 2010, p.1198). This process is to some extent already determined since the
creative potentialities of the author during the production of a text are restricted by norms
and social structures (Fairclough, 1992, p. 80). Furthermore, ideology and discourse most
of the time are connected because ideological concepts and conclusions are used as
‘common-sense’, especially in political discourses in order to maintain the existing power
relations (Fairclough, 2015, p.101). Subsequently, common-sense knowledge is created
by dominant agents who practice their power in a given society. It is used in the current
paper in order to illustrate how sometimes the ‘abnormal’ might be presented by the
political discourse as normal, thus as common-sense knowledge.
Explanation
Explanation is the third dimension and is essential since it explains the power relations.
The purpose of this dimension is to acknowledge the existing relations of power,
therefore, conceives discourse as part of social processes. Thus, the primary focus is to
comprehend through which power relations discourses are shaped and subsequently what
the effects are (Fairclough, 2015, p.173).
Constructivism
Furthermore, this research adopts a constructivist approach, more specifically,
constructivism is a significant methodological perspective and supports that people
observe things differently and what they observe, ‘is determined by a complicated mix of
social and contextual influences and/or presuppositions’ (Moses et al. 2012, p.9).
Acknowledges the significant role of the observer and society in constructing the norms
or institutions that social scientists study. The ontological position of Constructivism
argues that we do not ‘experience’ the world objectively and that there is not a Real
World but different perceptions about the world and that the world is a human
construction (Moses et al. 2012, p.199).
24Material
The current thesis in order to answer the two research questions analyzes the speeches
conducted by three prominent members of the New Democracy party. More specifically,
the statement of the government spokesman Stelios Petsas is analyzed. The speech was
conducted on 1/3/20 when the tensions regarding the incidents at the Greek-Turkish
border had skyrocketed. The reason why I choose this speech is because firstly, it was
conducted by the government spokesman, therefore, represents to great extent the general
position of the party. Secondly, because in this speech he mentions all the exceptional
measures taken by the Greek government, thereby, it is important to analyze the extra-
ordinary measures through the biopolitical perspective. Moreover, two speeches
conducted by the Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis are used. The first was conducted
in Evros on 3/3/20, and I choose it for my analysis because the heads of the EU
institutions were also present, the second discourse is an interview on CNN TV on
6/3/20. Constantinos Bogdanos is the third politician and I choose him because his
speeches are useful to comprehend how the sovereign functions. The analysis uses two
speeches the first is an interview conducted on Skai tv at 1/3/20, and the second speech
was held in the parliament at 11/3/20. The speeches conducted by Stelios Petsas and
Kyriakos Mitsotakis are already available in English; Stelios Petsas’ speech is available
in government’s webpage whereas Mitsotakis’ speech is available at his official
webpage. The speeches of Bogdanos are in Greek, therefore, a translation was needed.
Subsequently, in order to enhance the credibility of the translation I sent them to an
official translation center. The translation is available in the appendix and the original
speech which is in Greek is cited in the references. Moreover, in the analysis the theory
of biopolitics is applied in the three-dimensions of the Critical Discourse Analysis.
25Analysis
Stelios Petsas
Description
The most frequently used words in the speech conducted by the government’s spokesman
Stelios Petsas are ‘country, borders and security’ used 5, 4, and 4 times respectively. The
,‘country’ indicates Greece, the word ‘borders’ the margins of Greece that are perceived
to be under threat and the word ‘security’ represents the extraordinary measures (e.g.,
deployment of military forces) taken for the protection of the borders. The transitivity in
the text is evident since Turkey is responsible for instigating the massive movement of
people at the Greek- Turkish borders (Petsas, 2020). Also, the modality in the text is
high, particularly when he warns refugees not to cross the borders, ‘it has been made
clear by the Greek side that absolutely no cross over is allowed’ (ibid.).
Interpretation
When it comes to intertextuality Petsas, firstly mentions the violation of the EU-Turkey
agreement by Turkey. Secondly, by describing the massive gathering of refugees at
Greek borders as a threat to national security, he argues that the international law
concerning the right to asylum cannot be applied in this exceptional case. (ibid).
Subsequently, the Greek National Security Council declared some exceptional measures-
the next paragraphs illustrate them in detail- and requested the notification of the
extraordinary measures by the Council of Minister of Foreign Affairs of European Union
and the activation of the Article 78 paragraph 3 which states:
In the event of one or more Member States being confronted by an emergency
situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the
Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt provisional measures for
the benefit of the Member State(s) concerned. It shall act after consulting the
European Parliament. (Ovádek, 2017).
26You can also read
