The head of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, has made an unusually public statement for a man and indeed an agency that usually remains invisible.
[...] Mumbai, Mexico City and Jakarta, saying they had become partially ungovernable. He noted the rise of private security firms to protect wealthier residents in sealed communities or to support the army, as in Iraq. “The increasing privatisation of core state responsibilities in the military and security areas carries with it the danger – even in Western states – of the erosion of the state’s monopoly on the use of force,” Uhrlau said.[...] “Some states are now only partially able to carry out their original core responsibilities – protecting their people from violence,” Uhrlau said. This could lead to the destabilisation of entire regions and promote international terrorism, he warned. Afghanistan provided a good example of how a “failed state” had provided a base for the al-Qaeda network, Uhrlau said. Europe had its own problems, particularly in the Balkans, where the causes of conflict were “far from overcome.”
Sounds like someone bought him a copy of Brave New War. I’ve discussed ungoverned spaces before here at Coming Anarchy, and said they are defined as “a physical or non-physical area where there is an absence of state capacity or political will to exercise control.” While the post focuses on failed and failing states, cities are no less relevant. Indeed, ungoverned spaces exist in every ghetto around the globe whether in Los Angeles, Paris or Lagos. As militaries focus more on urban combat, it is indeed time for our intelligence agencies to focus more on urban intel collection and that means focusing more on HUMINT and less on fancy new toys.

Comments to this entry
Dan tdaxp
November 3, 2007
9:57 pm
jim
November 3, 2007
10:39 pm
On the one hand, we have the forces of chaos like rising populations, ethnic and religious diversity, and narco-gangs. On the other hand we have the forces of order like surveillance technology and managerial organization.
In giant cities like Mexico City the pendulum has swung towards chaos, but it seems plausible this will just push the State to employ more high-tech means of enforcing order.
The surveillance society is being rolled out in the richest cities first: London, NYC, Chicago, etc. But the technology and techiques will come down in price and availability. Within 20 years Mexico City will likely have 24-7 surveillance. A problem neighborhood will have networked, digital cameras sprinkled liberally throughout, with software capable of tracking people and cars -- and backtracing the movements of any people or vehicles involved in a disturbance.
A slide towards disorder produces a reaction from the State back toward order. How many states from a 100 years ago would qualify as "failed states" today? The amount of control we expect a modern state to enforce is so much greater than before.
tony
November 4, 2007
3:46 pm
El Jefe Maximo
November 5, 2007
7:20 pm
That said, the Constitutional structure and laws of the United States, and of the several states, do order and regulate the acceptable use of violence, e.g. the right to bear arms; as well as home defense of life or property with violence are in varying degrees legal, but it is not legal to use the same arms or the same violence to create police no-go zones, or to engage in acts defined as criminal by the law. In this sense, the State retains a monopoly on the use of force, as well as the legal power to say (within Constitutional norms) -- what the lawful use of force is.
Constitutional hair-splitting aside, the head of the Bundesnachrichtendienst is onto something.
Filium Lucae
November 19, 2007
1:46 am
The question is, what will happen with a bunch of autonomous security agencies/entities within a city if their interests begin to conflict.
A citizen has a right to protection, and any nation will attack another nation that infringes on their own citizen's safety, what about a client?