[Extra]territoriality: Chris Johnson

[Extra]territoriality Chris Johnson, HTS 4.

The Robinson Institute, Patrick Keiller

“The flood had made, the wind was nearly calm, and being bound down the river, the only thing for it was to come to and wait for the turn of the tide… The sea-reach of the Thames stretched before us like the beginning of an interminable waterway. In the offing the sea and the sky were welded together without a joint… A haze rested on the low shores that ran out to the sea in vanishing flatness.”1

park, barbecue and picnic areas, as well as an array of paths and hides from which visitors will be able to observe the wildlife.6 The source of all that earth, which amounts to more than the equivalent weight of thirty Queen Mary 2 transatlantic ocean liners7, is London. More specifically, the displaced soil removed to make way for the extensive £14.8 billion Crossrail project.

The digging commenced in spring 2012 when the first two (out of eight) 7.1m diameter earth pressure balanced tunnel boring machines (TBMs) began their double-barrel, 21km scrape to connect the east and west sides of the city.8 Bridging the gaps between Royal Oak, Farringdon, Pudding Mill Lane, Plumstead, Limo, Stepny Green, Victoria Dock, and North Woolwich, sending a constant stream of soil via freight train to Northfleet where awaiting cargo ships are loaded and bound for Wallasea Island.9

An intertidal marsh at Wallasea Island.

The Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project is an ongoing “landmark conservation and engineering scheme,”2 begun in 2012 by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), which, upon completion, will be Europe’s largest new nature reserve3. It plans to restore intertidal coastal marshland conditions to the nearly 1,500 acre site, Wallasea Island, which is part of the Thames estuary at the intersection of the River Crouch and the River Roach. Natural marsh conditions ceased to exist on the island almost 400 years ago,4 and has since been used as farmland. Sustained by a seawall around the perimeter of the island and a system of irrigation channels, crops today grow from soil that is 1m below sea level. The project involves removing the surrounding seawall and bringing 4.5 million tonnes of new earth to the island. This earth will be distributed in a “natural” composition that aims to encourage both the development of salt marsh conditions as well as a community of endangered and migratory birds, which once flourished on the island5. In addition to the anticipated new natural conditions, the bird sanctuary will include a visitor center, visitor car

Two TBMs being prepared for digging.

24-hour-a-day work is required on Wallasea Island in order keep up with the continuous earth transfer that is produced by the construction of the forthcoming train service that will “bring an extra 1.5 million people to within 45 minutes of central London.”10 To accommodate the arrival of cargo ships, a new jetty, comprised from two 800 tonne, 15m wide pontoons, was built. The jetty can accommodate two 90m, 2,500 tonne ships simultaneously, and, with two unloading machines per pontoon, can unload 10,000 tonnes of material, or four ships

worth, in a day. Unloaded material is placed directly from the ships onto a flexible, 800m conveyor belt designed to adapt to 6m tidal sways that occur on the island. The conveyor takes the earth to a holding point until it is distributed on site by trucks.11

Reviewing the legal definitions of these themes seems to suggest a more symbolic rationale rather than the pragmatic. According to the U.K. Land Registry, “the word ‘boundary’ has no special meaning in law.”12 It distinguishes legal boundary and physical boundary as two separate entities that share common characteristics. For instance, a legal boundary is an imaginary or invisible limit with “no thickness or width and is rarely identified with any precision either on the ground or in conveyances or transfers.”13 A physical boundary is a “physical feature that we can see such as a fence, wall or a hedge, which may, coincidentally, also follow the line of a legal boundary. The legal boundary may run within the physical boundary structure but it might just as easily run along side one particular side of the structure, or include all or any part of an adjoining roadway or stream.”14

Two cargo ships being unloaded at Wallasea Island.

By suspending pragmatic logic, and adopting purely symbolic reason, it is a curious gesture to laminate the earth from a city onto the earth of a rural area with the ambition to regenerate natural conditions. At what point below the surface of the ground does a place stop being that place?

Does it vary depending on the depth of those features or structures that connect to the surface? It could be argued that the act of digging the Crossrail tunnels is, in fact, claiming new territory for the city.

It is producing new spaces and new passageways through which the city can be traversed and understood. Simultaneously, the excavated soil is used to create a new landscape that will function as an ecosystem, habitat, and tourist attraction. Thus, the question of where the edge of London stops and another territory, in this case Wallasea, begins becomes pertinent.

The distinction between places is even more peculiar when considering the affects of tides and erosion on these laminated soils. If the separation of soil is understood as a border, over tidal changes and seasons this boundary would blur and mix and be constantly redefined.

Wallasea Island

In terms of foreshores and tidal rivers (of which Wallasea Island is surrounded), it states “the boundary of land adjoining the sea lies at the top of the foreshore (the land lying between the high and low watermarks of a mean average tide between spring and neap tides). The boundary may move gradually, as the line of the high water mark moves naturally over the years. However, in the case of a sudden substantial accretion of land or conversely an encroachment by the sea, the ownership of the area of land affected will not change.” 15Further, with regard to subsoil, “there is a presumption that the land includes both the airspace above (to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land) and everything under the soil.”16

As you can see there is a rather blurry picture of what constitutes a legal boundary, and many ways to interpret the rules that exist. Not that anyone would, but, in the case of Wallasea Island, territory distinctions would be impossible to recognize. It is amusing, however, to consider what, if not terra itself, marks territory.

–

nature seem to be a popular theme in our time. Are we delusional or deceived, or both?

The new embassy will be opened sometime after 2017, and the fate of the current embassy building has not yet been made public, but what is clear is that the U.S. will have to pay to revert the surrounding area to its original state after making major security enhancements to the building and neighboring area.

The design for the new American Embassy in London

The current American Embassy in London

On 2nd October, 2008 the Embassy of the United States in London announced that it would be moving from their current location, 24 Grosvenor Square, upon completion of a new purpose-built compound south of the River Thames as a part of the Nine Elms regeneration project that surrounds the Battersea Power Plant.17 Designed by American architecture firm Kieran Timberlake, the new high security embassy building sits in the center of a 4.9 acre brownfield site and boasts major security upgrades despite the absence of perimeter walls or fences, 45,000 square meters of space over 12 floors, the ability to house 1,000 members of staff, a series of gardens, and a castlestyle moat.18 According to the architects, “security requirements are achieved through landscape design—such as the large pond, low garden walls with bench seating, and differences in elevation that create natural, unobtrusive barriers.”19 How strange that arguably one of the most advanced and secure buildings in the world is presented as a series of gardens, and a product of landscaping. The illusions of accessibility and

After the September 11th terrorists attacks and the start of the subsequent War on Terror, U.S. embassy security around the world was substantially increased due to fears that they may become targets of future terrorist attacks. The embassy in London was no exception. £8 million was spent on not-sosubtle modifications to the embassy building and surrounding areas much to the displeasure of the near-by property owners and occupiers. The modifications included a 30-meter security perimeter, the erection of 6 foot high blast walls, the installation of raised concrete flower beds, moveable bollards to thwart the threat of a vehicle borne bomb, the building of two extra screen facility pavilions put in place against suicide bombers, and transforming the road that passed in front of the building into a pedestrian-only route.20 These alterations caused outrage from Londoners who, as the New York Times reported, saw it as the “desecration of one of the city’s loveliest (and most expensive) neighborhoods… as well as reduced property values over safety concerns.”21 It is not unreasonable to assume

that these factors led to, or at least expedited, the desire to move locations.

The present embassy was designed by the famous Finnish American architect, Eero Saarinen.

When it opened in 1960 it was only a short walk from the previous embassy location on the opposite side of Grosvenor Square. At the time of its conception, design, and construction, the U.S. was in the midst of the Cold War, and was keen for their new embassy to embody the antithesis to its Soviet adversary. So they took this opportunity to use “art and architecture as tools of propaganda.”22 The design of the building reflected this in its “effort to project a progressive cultural image abroad…One entry led straight from the street up a broad staircase to a public library and an art gallery that showcased postwar American artists like Jackson Pollock, Lee Krasner, Helens Frankenthaler and Philip Guston. (A longtime embassy employee remembers that security was so lax in the early days that a single guard stood at the door, supporting himself with a cane.)”23 However, this image slowly waned as the need for more space increased, and, after 9/11, was completely abandoned.

The U.S. has a long standing history of viewing its embassies as not only symbols of its own political identity and agenda (for example Kieran Timberlake have declared their new design “reflects the core values of democracy – transparency, openness, and equality.”24), but also as American territories. While this is false in the eyes of the international law, it doesn’t prevent the U.S. from taking action as if it were true.

On the 11th anniversary of 9/11, islamic militants attacked the U.S. embassy and nearby compound in Benghazi, Libya, which left 4 American citizens dead including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Outrage followed, with many politicians calling for a full scale investigation, including one Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick who said, “An attack on an American embassy is an attack on American soil.

These are acts of terrorism and aggression against the United States and they must be answered. The American people expect that those responsible will be held accountable for their actions.”25 There are many examples of the U.S. tendency to claim territory or legal exemption at will. Take the U.S. drone program26, for instance.

Or, if you like, the declaration by the U.S. that embassy employees do not have to pay congestion charge in London.27 Further, that the U.S. will not pay VAT on construction costs for their new embassy.28 However, it is not my intention to take a moral position or cast judgement against this. It is simply to point out the strangeness of moving

embassy locations when American soil has already been declared. Or perhaps when you so easily exercise indifference toward international law that shifting the borders of your territory is inconsequential?

Opening of the Vienna Convention, 1961

In April, 1961, A few months after the American diplomatic mission moved into their new embassy building at 24 Grosvenor Square, the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities took place at Neue Hofburg in Vienna as a part of a larger meeting known as the Vienna Convention.29 The groundwork for this meeting was years in the making, with initial plans to make protocols about diplomatic intercourse and immunities set forth in 1949 during the first session of the International Law Commission.

The result of this meeting was a treaty, ratified by 190 countries, which defined a framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries. It specifies the privileges of a diplomatic mission that enable diplomats to perform their function without fear of coercion or harassment by the host country. This forms the basis for the concept of diplomatic immunity : “The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving state may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission…The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution…The person of a

diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention…The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission.”30 The protocols outlined in the meeting are considered the foundation on which modern international relations are based.

However, as is the case with any law or treaty, there are events that lead to amendments to these rules. In London, for example, there have been several such incidents. In 1984, during a protest outside the Libyan embassy a British police officer was shot and killed from a gun that was determined to have been fired from within the embassy. In the aftermath, Metropolitan Police surrounded the Libyan embassy for 11 days, but could not enter due to provisions laid out in the Vienna Convention. As a response to the siege of their embassy, Libyan police forces surrounded the British embassy in Tripoli. Finally, an agreement was made with Libyan embassy staff to allow them safe passage out of the country without investigation or prosecution.31 Several years later, a government review of the law of diplomatic inviolability following the events that took place at the Libyan embassy resulted in the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987. This allows the government to strip a place, persons, or property from their diplomatic status in cases of emergency in order to investigate or prosecute : “In no case is land to be regarded as a state's diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of any enactment or rule of law unless it has been so accepted or the secretary of state has given that state consent under this section in relation to it; and if — (a) a state ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post; or (b) the secretary of state withdraws his acceptance or consent in relation to land, it thereupon ceases to be diplomatic or consular premises for the purposes of all enactments and rules of law….

The secretary of state shall only give or withdraw consent or withdraw acceptance if he is satisfied that to do so is permissible under international law… … shall have regard to all material considerations, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection — (a) to the safety of the public; (b) to national security; and (c) to town and country planning.”32

Since this Act was made it has only been used once, under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises (Cambodia) Order 198833, when the government needed to remove squatters from the Cambodian embassy because, after 12 years of continuous occupation, they would have gained the legal title to the building. But, until recently, the use, or threat of use, of the act has not occurred.

Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy

In August 2012, the government of Ecuador granted asylum to Julian Assange34, the founder of Wikileaks, at their embassy in London invoking the existing Diplomatic Asylum rules as outlined in the Organization of Americas (OAS) Treaty on Diplomatic Asylum made in 1954. This treaty gives power to diplomatic missions to grant asylum to individuals who are “being sought by persons or mobs over whom the authorities have lost control, or by the authorities themselves, and is in danger of being deprived of his life or liberty because of political persecution and cannot, without risk, ensure his safety in any other way.”35 However, in response to this announcement, the British embassy in Quito, Ecuador wrote to the Ecuadorian government, “You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy.”36 As yet, the British have not acted on this threat, and he remains isolated in the embassy.

Assange exists in a legal and existential limbo – marooned, stateless, on an island of

exemption. Forced to imprison himself in order to not be imprisoned because his creation, Wikileaks, revealed acts by states beyond their geographical and legal territories (ie : the Manning U.S. military cables & the Snowden N.S.A. revelations). Now, ironically, he is subjected to the same behavior he aimed to reveal : liberal use of extraterritorial jurisdiction (ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries).

Upon his entry into the embassy, it was revealed that police had been instructed to immediately arrest Assange if he were to step out of the Ecuadorian embassy.37 This is due to a European arrest warrant filed by the government of Sweden because he is wanted for questioning in response to allegations of sexual misconduct.38 Assange has said he would come to Sweden if the government would guarantee he would not be extradited to the U.S. – A guarantee that Swedish authorities refuse to grant.39 –

Distinction of territory is becoming increasingly ambiguous. National borders, legal limits, and boundaries of privacy (among others) are not rigid. The spaces we inhabit – public, private, virtual, etc. – are superimposed, fragmented, saturated, and collected constantly. Like the tidal effects on the London earth-veneer and the Wallasea Island soil beneath it, the borders of territories of all kinds in our lives are impossible to distinguish and are constantly redefined.

Institutions of governance have claimed jurisdiction over these zones. Justified by a perpetual state of crisis (terrorist threat levels, economic collapse, climate change, etc.) world powers permanently act outside of their legal restrictions– in a “state of exception.”40 Culture has developed to embrace these new means of navigation, expression, and mutual awareness. This is not to say that this is a bad thing.

The vast majority of us contribute and support this behavior. A passionate journey toward a horizon whose departure point we have already begun to forget, and whose destination is the journey itself.41 We live in the limit, an extra territory, which "from moment to moment, never ceases to change its content, its form, its face, its identity.”42 “In this precise but neutral place, the observer and the observed take part in a ceaseless exchange. No gaze is stable, or rather, in the neutral furrow of the gaze…subject and object, the spectator and the model, reverse their roles to infinity.”43

1

Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness, (NewYork : AlfredA.Knoff 1993), 1.

2

”About Wallasea Island.” Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. December 2014. http:// www.rspb.org.uk/discoverandenjoynature/seenature/reserves/guide/w/wallaseaisland/about.aspx.

3

Ibid.

4

Ibid.

5

“Overview.” Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. December 2014. http://www.rspb.org.uk/ whatwedo/campaigningfornature/casework/details.aspx?id=tcm:9-235089.

6

Ibid.

7

“RMS Queen Mary 2.” Wikipedia. October 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Mary_2.

8

"Meet our giant tunneling machines…” Crossrail. Transport for London. December 2014. http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/ tunnelling/meet-our-giant-tunnelling-machines/.

9

Ibid.

10

"Discover the crossrail route." Crossrail. Transport for London. December 2014. http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/.

11

“Wallasea Island Jetty Completed As Crossrail Helps RSPB Shape Europe’s Largest New Nature Reserve.” Crossrail. Transport for London. December 2014. http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/wallasea-isl-jetty-completed-as-crossrail-helps-rspb-shapeeuropes-largest-new-nature-reserve.

12

"Practice guide 40: Land Registry plans, supplement 4, boundary agreements and determined boundaries." Land Registry. gov.uk. December 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/boundary-agreements-and-determined-boundaries/practiceguide-40-land-registry-plans-supplement-4-boundary-agreements-and-determined-boundaries.

13

Ibid.

14

Ibid.

15

Ibid.

16

Ibid.

17

“U.S. Takes First Steps Toward Embassy Relocation.” Press Release, Public Affairs Section. Embassy of The United States London, UK. October 2008. https://web.archive.org/web/20081005223817/http://www.usembassy.org.uk/ukpapress84.html 18

“A New Fort, er, Embassy, for London.” Architecture Review, Art & Culture. New York Times. February 2010. http:// www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/arts/design/24embassy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

19

“Embassy of The United States, London.” Projects. Kieran Timberlake. December 2014. http://www.kierantimberlake.com/pages/ view/88.

20“A

New Fort, er, Embassy, for London.” Architecture Review, Art & Culture. New York Times. February 2010. http:// www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/arts/design/24embassy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

21

Ibid.

22

Ibid.

23

Ibid.

24“Embassy

of The United States, London.” Projects. Kieran Timberlake. December 2014. http://www.kierantimberlake.com/pages/

view/88.

25

“Statement from Congressman Fitzpatrick On Attacks On U.S. Embassies.” Issues: Foreign Affairs, Media Center. Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick. September 2012. http://fitzpatrick.house.gov/press-release/statement-congressman-fitzpatrick-attacks-usembassies.

26

“Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits, human rights groups say.” National Security. Washington Post. October 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/drone-strikes-killing-more-civilians-than-us-admits-human-rightsgroups-say/2013/10/21/a99cbe78-3a81-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html.

27

“Diplomats owe £67m in London congestion charge fines.” News UK. BBC. July 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23266149.

28

“US asked for VAT waiver on London embassy.” Taxes and Spending, Politics, News. The Guardian. November 2010. http:// www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/30/us-vat-waiver-london-embassy.

29

United Nations, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.

30

Ibid.

31

“1984: Libyan embassy shots kill policewoman.” April 2005. On This Day. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/ stories/april/17/newsid_2488000/2488369.stm.

32

“Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.” legislation.gov.uk. December 2014. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46.

33

"The Diplomatic and Consular Premises (Cambodia) Order 1988.” UK Laws. December 2014. http://uklaws.org/statutory/ instruments_01/doc01482.htm.

34

“Ecuador grants asylum to Julian Assange. (Press conference).” Wikileaks Press. August 2012. http://wikileaks-press.org/pressconference-with-foreign-minister-ricardo-patino-aroca-ecuador-grants-asylum-to-julian-assange-english-translation/.

35

“Convention On Diplomatic Asylum.” Multilateral Treaties. Department of International Law. Organization of American States.

December 2014. http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-46.html.

36

“Julian Assange: can Ecuador's embassy be stripped of its diplomatic status?.” The Guardian. August 2012. http:// www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-diplomatic-status-ecuador-embassy.

37

"Arm of the law reveals Julian Assange arrest tactics." Media. The Guardian. August 2012. “http://www.theguardian.com/media/ 2012/aug/24/julian-assange-arrest-tactics.”

38

“Julian Assange: Swedish court rejects appeal to lift arrest warrant.” Media. The Guardian. November 2014. http:// www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/20/julian-assange-appeal-arrest-warrant-swedish-court.

39

Ibid.

40

Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception. (Chicago : University of Chicago Press 2005), 6.

41

J.G. Ballard, Report from an Unidentified Space Station, The complete Short Stories: Volume 2. (London : Fourth Estate 2011), 640.

42

Michel Foucault, Las Meninas, The Order of Things. (New York : Rutledge Classics 2002), 5

43

Ibid.