Biopolitical bodies at the Greek-Turkish border

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.

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

Introduction

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)

Research 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.

Aim 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?

Historical 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

action 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

2000 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

infrastructures 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

biopolitical 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

security 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

up, 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.

Theoretical 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

each 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

power (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

in 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

Agamben 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

institutions 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

indicative 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.).

New 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

night 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:

When 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).

Methodology

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;

therefore, 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 &

Palmer, 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).

Material

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.

Analysis

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).

The common-sense knowledge produced from the text is the Greek government’s endeavor, initially, to represent migrants and refugees as a threat to national security and, most importantly, to find the legal basis to justify its exceptional measures.

Explanation

On February 27, 2020, the Turkish government announced that it would no longer impede refugees from crossing into Europe. Three days later, Greek government’s spokesman Nikos Petsas declared that the arrival of refugees at the Greek-Turkish borders constitute, ‘an active, serious, unusual and asymmetric threat to the country’s national security’ (Petsas, 2020) paving the way to the implementation of exceptional measures. Agamben conceives the state of exception as an extraordinary situation in which the sovereign declares the temporary suspension of the legal order, due to a real or fictitious crisis, that threatens the state’s security (Giordanengo, 2016, p.1). Subsequently, the Greek government acknowledged the potential entry of refugees as an act of intimidation that posed its sovereignty into grave danger. More specifically, Petsas stated that ‘this relocation of people has nothing to do with international law regarding the right of asylum, which concerns only individual cases’ (Petsas, 2020) because of its massive nature and its coordination by Turkey. Therefore, the sovereign, which is the Greek government, declares a state of exception and, through the executive power circumvents democratic processes, violates the normative framework in the name of the national security, producing bodies that can be killed but not sacrified (Giordanengo, 2016, p.1).

On March 1, the Greek National Security Council decided the implementation of the following exceptional measures: I) The deployment of police and military forces at the borders, in order to impede refugees to cross the border. This exceptional measure exposes the raw force of the sovereign that most of the times is hidden under the veil of the liberal democracy (Obaretin, 2018, p.1). The militarization of borders aims to upgrade the deterrence of border-crossings to the maximum by criminalizing migration and the right to seek asylum. On the one hand, it violates the principle of non-refoulement and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. On the other hand, unleashes unprecedented violence over the bodies of refugees by normalizing the distinction between qualified life (citizens life) and bare life (refugees life) (Vaughan-Williams,

2010, p.1079). II) The temporary suspension of the asylum applications, a decision that according to Gerry Simpson, associate director of the Human Rights Watch is unlawful. Agamben argues that the application of the law has its roots both in the production of bare life, and in its capacity to incorporate what is ‘outside through a decision that is not contained in the law’ (Whyte, 2013, p.61). The inclusive-exclusion of bare life designates the fact that people are included in society by virtue of an exclusion that exposes them to the sovereign’s power (ibid., p.29). More specifically, the force of law originates from the sovereign’s ability to sustain a connection with what is outside the law, a process that is achieved through the enforcement of the state of exception (ibid., p.60). The suspension of the asylum applications is the inclusive-exclusion of bare life, since bare life is conceived as a ‘constitutive outside which must be captured within law in the form of the state of exception’ (ibid.). III) Announced the deportation of non-registered migrants that entered the country ‘illegally’. For the sovereign, migrant bodies exist to the extent that they can be excluded at any time. For instance, in Greece, migrants constitute a useful labor force for the economy, but when the exception becomes the norm, migrants enter into a zone of indistinction; sovereign has the authority to decide over their lives by violating universal values (ibid., p.51). More specifically, even though refugees at the Greek–Turkish border were subjected into brutal violence, the labor shortage in the agricultural sector caused by the corona-virus a month later obligated the Greek government to suggest refugees that live at camps as potential workers (European Commission, 2020). IV) Requested the deployment of the RABIT team for guarding the country’s external borders, a request that was approved by the FRONTEX. V) Also, requested the initiation, ‘of the procedure referred to in Article 78 paragraph 3 of the Treaty of the European Union in order to take provisional measures in favor of the Hellenic Republic’ (Petsas, 2020). The implication of the exception is not merely confined in its ability to suspend the rule of law but, most importantly, the exception which is inherently linked to sovereignty, ‘defines the condition of possibility for the law to exist’ (Giordanengo, 2016, p.1). This is how it can be explained that the Greek government, even though, suspends the normal law, a process that can be perceived as unlawful, at the same time is not completely outside the law because the legal basis for the implementation of the exceptional measures can be found in the Article 78 paragraph

3 of the Treaty of the European Union. The exception is necessary for the creation of the law but also constitutes the very mechanism that suspense the law (Whyte, 2016, p.61).

The refugee ‘crisis’ that stimulates the sovereign to unleash tremendous violence over the bodies of refugees and to create bare life, is merely a manifestation of a problem that is much more complicated and deeper. Agamben argues that the root of the problem is that liberal democracies are inherently biopolitical because Western politics, since its inception, has been founded on the inclusive-exclusion of bare life. Therefore, refugees, marginalized groups, people without rights are not merely a trivial consequence of the juridico-political system but an essential element that is foundational for the existence of contemporary politics. Hence, it is not, ‘identity or belonging but exclusion, not the rule of law but the state of exception that founds sovereign power and constitutes a political community’ (ibid.). Agamben’s critical insights go even further when he argues that:

Politics has suffered a lasting eclipse because it has been contaminated by law, seeing itself, at best, as constituent power (that is, violence that makes law), when

it is not reduced to merely the power to negotiate with the law. (ibid., 48)

The grave outcome of the exceptional measures reveals the primary activity of the sovereign power, which is the reduction of certain categories of people into homo sacers. At the Greek Turkish borders, refugees and migrants embody the figure of homo sacer since they can be killed with impunity (Damai, 2005, p.258). It becomes obvious that the implementation of extraordinary measures at Greek borders concerns the management of death because when the normative framework gets replaced by the exception, the human body turns into killable body (Ajana, 2005, p.10). Thus, the militarization of borders, the suspension of fundamental rights, which lead to the production of killable bodies, have transformed the Greek-Turkish border into biopolitical borders.

Kyriakos Mitsotakis

Description

The overwording, modality, and transitivity of the text will be analyzed. Regarding the overwording, the word ‘people’ is used 21 times out of 26 in order to describe refugees, and five times the word is referring to Greek people. Most of the time, refugees are described as massive numbers of desperate people used by Turkey in order to achieve its geopolitical goals. Greek people are described as ‘united’ because they confronted Erdogan’s threats by preventing the entry of refugees and, at the same time, as victims, ‘Greek people, whose safety, properties and social peace are already threatened’ (Mitsotakis, 2020a). When it comes to transitivity, Mitsotakis openly accuses Turkey and sometimes Erdogan in personal as responsible for systematically assisting thousands of migrants in crossing the Greek-Turkish border by arguing that, ‘Turkey has become an official migrant smuggler’. The modality in the text has an extremely high affinity since Mitsotakis is not leaving space for different interpretation concerning the events that took place at Evros border, especially when he uses the word ‘truth’ in an explicit manner, ‘There is only one truth: Turkey carries out its threat and attempts to send tens of thousands of desperate people illegally in Greece, asking for a quid pro quo’ (ibid.).

Interpretation

In this section, the intertextuality and the common-knowledge of the text will be analyzed. Regarding intertextuality, Mitsotakis is referring to EU-Turkey statement three times in order to support that Turkey violates it, and therefore the agreement is ‘dead’. Moreover, in an effort to argue that all actions conducted by Greece are lawful he mentions that, ‘we are fully in line with EU and international law’(ibid.) However, he is vague because he does not mention which article, specifically, of EU and international law constitute Greece’s action lawful. The common-sense knowledge produced by the text is that Greece acknowledged Turkey’s operation to open its borders as an act of intimidation. Subsequently, the Greek prime-minister uses words such as ‘blatant attempt,

asymmetrical threat, provocation, blackmailed’ when he wants to describe the arrival of thousands of refugees at the Greek-Turkish border. More specifically, he argues that Turkey wants to threaten Greece in order to promote its geopolitical agenda; therefore, Erdogan ‘used desperate people’ by sending them at the Evros border. This evaluation of reality victimizes Greece and targets not only Turkey but also the ‘means’ it uses, which in this case are refugees. Thus, words such as ‘blatant attempt, threat, and provocation’ are used frequently in order to construct a reality that will legitimize morally and legally extraordinary measures.

Explanation

The analysis starts firstly by illustrating, in-depth, the representation of refugees by the Greek prime-minister. Secondly, it analyses the speech by a biopolitical perspective in order to comprehend the exceptional measures taken at the Evros border and the asylum system.

Refugees are represented as hopeless people, and many times are deprived of their humanity and reduced to objects. More specifically, Mitsotakis describes them as ‘instruments’ and ‘pawns’ in a geopolitical game instigated by Turkey. The negative representation escalates when he continues the representation as ‘people of unknown origin and unknown purposes at the forefront’ (Mitsotakis, 2020a) that practice violence in their effort to enter Greece. The portrayal gets warlike when he uses military terms such as ‘asymmetrical threat’ orchestrated by Turkey against Greece. Their presence at the Greek-Turkish borders is perceived by the sovereign, as a threat to the well-being of the Greek nationhood. Thus, refugee bodies are represented as the ultimate enemy, and violence on them is permitted since they are stripped of any human value.

Subsequently, the representation of refugees as a ‘weapon’ against Greece paves the way to the sovereign (the Greek state) under the guise of an ‘asymmetrical threat’ to declare a state of exception and to justify policies and practices that would have been inconceivable. Mitsotakis, for instance, openly admits the politicization of biological life when he recognizes the use of ‘non-excessive violence’ on refugees:

Now, in terms of methodology and methods that we use, we have not used any sort of excessive force and we are always reacting, we are never initiating, in terms of

responding to the provocations that have taken place at the border. (Mitsotakis, 2020b)

For Agamben, the production of the suffering figure homo sacer and the condition of bare life in which he/she is entrapped is not abnormal but the constitutive foundation of Western biopolitics. In particular, he argues that ‘every society – even the most modern – decides who its “sacred men” will be’ (Downey, 2009, p.115). Hence, the violent

incidents that unfolded at the Greek-Turkish border brought to the fore the brutal nature of the biopolitical sovereign and exposed its killing machine over the bodies of homo sacers. Another rationale behind the operations at the Greek-Turkish border by Mitsotakis can be found in the following sentences:

Besides, only a state can offer help to the persecuted, but there is no state without safe borders.

And

After all, help to those in need can only be provided by a state. But there can be no state, unless its borders are secure. (Mitsotakis, 2020a)

The paradox is not only that he recognizes some people as persecuted, whereas his main position is that this is not a refugee problem but an ‘asymmetrical threat’. The great contradiction is that according to Mitsotakis, on the one hand, a safe state is the one that has safe borders; therefore, a state with safe borders can offer help to persecuted. On the other hand, when refugees try to enter Greece are perceived as a threat. Thereby, a state in order to have safe borders should persecute the persecuted, meaning it should create its own ‘sacred men’ that can be killed but not sacrificed. The Agambian perspective provides the necessary tools to shed light on this contradiction. The state of exception is not just the distinction of what is inside and outside the legal order but the ‘tracing of a threshold between the two’ (Edkins, 2000, p.6). The sovereign blurs the distinctions that seem to be obvious, constituting itself as a temporary friend but also as a potential enemy at the same time (Salter, 2007, p.10). Thus, the sovereign has the power to construct refugees either as persecuted or as a threat rendering them constantly in a ‘zone of