The institutional incompleteness of empire

Abstract

Afghanistan's territory and populations have long been crucial nodes for the assertion of regional and global projects of domination. In order to gain analytical insight into the identity and dispositions of such projects, the paper studies one significant episode of intervention over Afghan populations: the three-decade long protection and assistance practices in support of Afghan refugees in Pakistan. The paper has three objectives. First, it highlights the enabling aspects of Afghan refugee movement, that is, as constitutive and generative of complex politico-institutional orders and of social hierarchies, at a variety of scales. Second, it locates the analytical understanding of such orders and hierarchies within academic narratives that postulate a relation between refugee interventions and imperial politico-institutional orders. Third, it challenges some of the analytical tenets of such narratives by foregrounding the incompleteness and overlap of such institutional orders. On these bases, the article offers a nuanced and contextualized understanding of ‘imperial order’ as a form of rule that is premised on the continuous attempt to establish hierarchies out of a context of institutional disorder.

Keywords:

• Afghan refugees
• Pakistan
• empire
• imperialism
• institutions

Acknowledgements

An early version of this paper was first presented at the workshop ‘Invocations of Empire’ held at SOAS in March 2006. I am grateful to all participants for the precious feedback and especially to Rashmi Varma and Subir Sinha, who organized it and who provided valuable inputs and support since then. I also want to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments and Madeleine Reeves for her valuable suggestions and immense help throughout the process of writing this paper.

Notes

See also Arrighi (2005a, 2005b), Mann (2003), Mabee (2004).

See, for example, Mallaby (2002), Ignatieff (2003), Cloud (2004) and Harvey (2004).

The current, and most widely used, refugee definition contained in the relevant 1951 UN Convention, in itself an extension and codification of Art. 14 of the Human Rights Declaration asserting the right to seek asylum.

Using the same premises, but reverting their implications, advocates of empire see in human-rights violations, lack of democracy, the threats posed by failed and rogue states, and the consequent ‘forced’ displacement of populations, the exceptional bases upon which to invoke a ‘new imperialism’, based on democracy, free trade and human rights (see for example Cooper [2002], Ferguson [2004], Bussmann and Schneider [2007]). As these invocations have been tamed by the change in US administration and recent political and economic events, these narratives are not discussed here.

See also Hardt and Negri (2002b).

A third ground, that is their inability to capture refugees' experiences, selective benefits and influence in shaping such manifestations is not explored here in any detail.

See for example Duffield (2001), Chandra (2004) or di John (2008) for an overview.

Fieldnotes, but see also SHARP (2002a, 2002b, 2003).

Cf. Lemke (2001, p. 191), Xavier Inda (2005, p. 8) and previous section.

cf. Foucault, in Rabinow and Rose (2003, p. xviii)

There are about 600 refugees and 1000 asylum seekers of non-Afghan nationality, as detailed on the UNHCR Pakistan's website (http://un.org.pk/unhcr/about.htm) [Accessed 7 June 2011).

Field notes. This is not an uncommon assertion within refugee studies' debates: cf. Shacknove (1985), who offers a definition of refugees premised on the notion of ‘basic needs’, regardless of border-crossing; or Warner (1992) who makes the argument that ‘we are all refugees’ by challenging refugee law's idea of belonging to a ‘community’ or a ‘place’ as the natural condition of being; see also Agamben (1995).

For instance, the Ministry of Health has contributed to Afghans' assistance through the Project Directorate Health; see Novak (2007).

So-called Solidarity NGOs were mainly European-based organizations that supported the Jihad against the Soviets in various ways, including through humanitarian relief; cf. Schmeidl (2002, p. 26).

Cf. notions of governmentality in Miller and Rose (1990) and Lippert (1999).

Though see n. 6.

‘A durable solution for refugees is one that ends the cycle of displacement by resolving their plight so that they can live normal lives. Traditionally, one of three durable solutions are pursued’: voluntary repatriation, local integration or resettlement to a third country (UNHCR 2005a, p. 137).

This clearly includes refugees themselves. Once again, the relation between Afghan refugees as an object of thought and as a concrete group of people are not discussed here in any detail. See n. 6.

Field notes.

See Centlivres (1993, p. 28), for a different take.

Field notes; see also below.

Though see note 6.

Field notes.

Cf. Kandiyoti (2000).

Though see n. 6.