>As I read this
>text it was easy for me to identify - Berlin I think is one of these
>global cities, if I understand correctly what she means. But it sounds,
>well, hmmm, I dunno -
too celebratory?
>in any case I think the de-nationalized zones (a
>phrase which brings other associations to the german-tuned ear) of these
>global cities depend on the quite nation-state-supported border police, as
>anyone who's seen the labyrinthine subbasements of the brussels airport can
>tell you.
this was what I was thinking also. when she writes: "There is an incipient unbundling of the exclusive authority over its territory we have long associated with the nation-state.", it strikes me that the state is not really defined in such a way as to give it any reality other than the one plotted according to the line of 'global<----> national', or perhaps more accurately, 'global =/= national' [that's the best 'does-not-equal' sign I can do in text, btw]. I'm not at all sure that this is the case, especially inasmuch as the state, indeed the nation-state, can be thought of, or even emerged historically, outside the global (or imperial) economy.
with 'de-nationalised zones' you would be associating the occupation of German territory by the allied militaries? is that what you mean?
and, I too was thinking of the stringent controls on borders, which I think is the counterpart to this globalisation (of capital). have you got any info/material on the situation at Brussels airport? I've only ever come across glimpses of info, and I'd be appreciative of anything, including your own analysis/comments.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au