Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:53:41.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecologies of ‘Dead’ and ‘Alive’ landmines in the borderlands of Myanmar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2021

Francesco Buscemi Open the ORCID record for Francesco Buscemi [Opens in a new window]
Francesco Buscemi*
Affiliation:
Institute of Law, Politics and Development – Emerging Research on International Security (ERIS) Research Group, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy
*
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article deals with a question foregrounded by historian Willem van Schendel in his seminal 2002 article ‘Geographies of Knowing, Geographies of Ignorance’: how do arms, arms flows, and associated regulatory practices reshape the geometries of authority and power in borderlands? The rich transdisciplinary literature on borderlands has fruitfully deployed van Schendel's insights to re-spatialise areas and states but has devoted scant attention to such question. Drawing from ‘new materialist’ scholarship in IR and the concept of scale in political geography, the paper argues that fluid and fractionally coherent combinations of weapons as technical objects that come from somewhere, rationalities, and techniques of arms control reproduce multiple scales of territorial authority and struggles over scaled modes of governing violence in borderlands. Such struggles of scales and about scale constantly reconfigure the territorial arenas of authority on violence at the edge of the state. Based on fieldwork in Ta'ang areas of northern Shan State, Myanmar, the article develops an empirical analysis of encounters between explosive devices/landmines and the subjects and spaces they target. Delving into the processes and practices of ‘making’ and controlling the ‘landmine’, I find that different socio-political orders confront themselves through rationalities, techniques, and practices of humanitarian arms control via which they navigate/jump across scales, forge new ones, or mobilise multi-scalar alliances. Different types of ‘dead’ and ‘alive’ landmines nonetheless defy these attempts at rescaling territorial authority over violence by acting in unforeseen manners at the scale of their own ecologies of violence.

Keywords

Arms controlborderlandslandminesMyanmarscaleweapons
Type
Research Article
Information
Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica , Volume 52 , Special Issue 2: Reaching for allies? The dialectics and overlaps between International Relations and Area Studies in the study of politics, security and conflicts , July 2022 , pp. 217 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Società Italiana di Scienza Politica

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, I and van Schendel, W (2005) Illicit Flows and Criminal Things: States, Borders, and the Other Side of Globalization. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Agnew, J (1997) The dramaturgy of horizons: geographical scale in the ‘Reconstruction of Italy’ by the new Italian political parties, 1992–95. Political Geography 16, 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baud, M and Van Schendel, W (1997) Toward a comparative history of borderlands. Journal of World History 8, 211–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beier, MJ (2011) Dangerous terrain: re-reading the landmines ban through the social worlds of the RMA. Contemporary Security Policy 32, 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourne, M (2012) Guns don't kill people, cyborgs do: a Latourian provocation for transformatory arms control and disarmament. Global Change, Peace & Security 24, 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousquet, A, Grove, J and Shah, N (2017) Becoming weapon: an opening call to arms. Critical Studies on Security 5, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bousquet, A, Grove, J and Shah, N (2020) Becoming war: towards a martial empiricism. Security Dialogue 51, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, N (2004) New State Spaces. Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, D (2017) Inside the Karen insurgency: explaining conflict and conciliation in Myanmar's changing borderlands. Asian Security 14, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buscemi, F (2021) The art of arms (not) being governed: means of violence and shifting territories in the borderworlds of Myanmar. Geopolitics 0, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, MP (2003) Making Enemies. War and State Building in Burma. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Cresswell, T (2004) Place. A Short Introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
De Larrinaga, M (2016) (Non)-lethality and war: tear gas as a weapon of governmental intervention. Critical Studies on Terrorism 9, 522–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enomoto, T (ed.) (2020) Weapon Taboos: Genealogies of Pariah Weapons. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Hyouronsha [禁忌の兵器–パーリア・ウェポンの系譜学].Google Scholar
Goodhand, J (2011) War, peace and the places in between: why borderlands are central. In Pugh, M, Cooper, N and Turner, M (eds), Whose Peace: Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Peacebuilding. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 225–244.Google Scholar
Graham, S (2005) Switching cities off: urban infrastructure and us air power. City 9, 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, D (1995) Imaginative geographies. Progress in Human Geography 19, 447–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, D (2011) From a view to kill: drones and late modern war. Theory, Culture & Society 29, 188–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grove, J (2016) An insurgency of things: foray into the world of improvised explosive devices. International Political Sociology 10, 332–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, E (2017) Scaling struggles over land and law: autonomy, investment, and interlegality in Myanmar's borderlands. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 82, 225–236.Google Scholar
Korf, B and Raeymaekers, T (eds.) (2013) Violence on the Margins: States, Conflict, and Borderlands. London, UK: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuletz, V (2001) Invisible spaces, violent places: cold war nuclear and militarized landscapes. In Peluso, N and Watts, MJ (eds), Violent Environments. New York: Cornell University Press, pp. 237–260.Google Scholar
Landmine & Cluster Munition Monitor (2004) 2004 Myanmar/Burma Country Report.Google Scholar
Landmine & Cluster Munition Monitor (2019) 2019 Myanmar/Burma Country Report.Google Scholar
Law, J (2002) Aircraft Stories. Decentring the Object in Technoscience. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Law, J (2008) Actor-network theory and material semiotics. In Turner, BS (ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp, 141–158.Google Scholar
MacLean, K (2016) Humanitarian mine action in Myanmar and the reterritorialization of risk. Focal – Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 74, 83–96.Google Scholar
McCracken, D (2001) Thailand: the land of smiles (until you take your first step). Journal of Mine Action 5, 60–63.Google Scholar
Meehan, P (2011) Drugs, insurgency and state-building in Burma: why the drugs trade is central to Burma's changing political order. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 42, 376–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mkutu, KA (2008) Guns and Governance in the Rift Valley: Pastoralist Conflict and Small Arms. Oxford: James Currey.Google Scholar
Picard, M, Holtom, P and Mangan, F (2019) Trade update 2019. Transfers, transparency, and Southeast Asia spotlight. Available at http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/S-Trade-Update/SAS-Trade-Update-2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Sadan, M (2013) Being and Becoming Kachin: Histories Beyond the State in the Borderworlds of Burma. Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagawa, T (2010) Automatic rifles and social order amongst the Daasanach of conflict-ridden east Africa. Nomadic Peoples 14, 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagawa, T (2018) Arms availability and violence in the Ethiopia-Kenya-South Sudan borderland. History of Global Arms Transfer 6, 39–44.Google Scholar
Scott, JC (2009) The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Selth, A (2000) Landmines in Burma. The military dimension. Burma Debate VII, 10–20.Google Scholar
Simala, KI and Amutabi, W (2005) Small arms, cattle raiding, and borderlands. In Abraham, I and Van Schendel, W (eds), Illicit Flows and Criminal Things: States, Borders, and the Other Side of Globalization. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 201–225.Google Scholar
Swyngedouw, E (1997) Ch.6, Neither glocal nor local. "Glocalization" and the politics of scale. In Cox, KR (ed). Spaces of Globalization. Reasserting the Power of the Local. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 137–166.Google Scholar
van Schendel, W (2002) Geographies of knowing, geographies of ignorance: jumping scale in Southeast Asia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20, 647–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, M (2018) Frontiers: authority, precarity, and insurgency at the edge of the state. World Development 101, 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weng, L (2008) Armed insurgents in Burma face shortage of ammunition. The Irrawaddy, 22 December 2008. Available at http://www.irrawaddy.org/highlight.php?art_id=14829 (Accessed 21 December 2020).Google Scholar
Woods, K (2011) Ceasefire capitalism: military–private partnerships, resource concessions and military–state building in the Burma–China borderlands. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38, 747–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, K (2018) Rubber out of the ashes: locating Chinese agribusiness investments in ‘armed sovereignties’ in the Myanmar–China borderlands. Territory, Politics, Governance 7(1), 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar