A “New Middle East” Following 9/11 and the “Arab Spring” of 2011?—(Neo)-Orientalist Imaginaries Rejuvenate the (Tempor
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
laws Article Article A“NewA Middle “New Middle East” East” Following Following 9/11 9/11 and and the the “Arab “Arab Spring” Spring” of of 2011?—(Neo)-Orientalist Imaginaries Rejuvenate the (Temporal) 2011?—(Neo)-Orientalist Imaginaries Rejuvenate the Inclusive Exclusion Character of Jus Gentium (Temporal) Inclusive Exclusion Character of Jus Gentium Khaled Al-Kassimi Khaled Al-Kassimi Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada; [email protected] Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada; [email protected] Abstract: The resurgence of a deterministic mode of representation mythologizing Arabs as figuring (threatening)Abstract:Saracen Theby judgingresurgence their of a epistemological deterministic mode commitments of representation as hostile mythologiz to Enlighteneding Arabs as reason- figuring based ideals(threatening) is demonstratively Saracen by identifiable judging their after epistemological 9/11, and more commi sotments following as hostile the Arabto Enlightened uprisings rea- son-based ideals is demonstratively identifiable after 9/11, and more so following the Arab uprisings in 2011, when we notice that the Arab in general, and Muslim in particular, was historicized as in 2011, when we notice that the Arab in general, and Muslim in particular, was historicized as the the “new barbarian” from which (liberal-secular) Westphalian society must be defended. Such “new barbarian” from which (liberal-secular) Westphalian society must be defended. Such neo-Ori- neo-Orientalistentalist representations representations disseminate disseminate powerful powerful discursive discursive (symbolic)(symbolic) articulations articulations (i.e., (i.e., culture culture talk) talk) —in tandem—in tandem with thewith (re)formulation the (re)formulation of legalof legal concepts concepts and and doctrines doctrines situatedsituated in in jus jus gentium gentium (i.e., (i.e., sovereignty,sovereignty, immanence, immanence, and pre-emptiveand pre-emptive defense defense strategy)—legally strategy)—legally adjudicating adjudicating aa redemp-redemptive tive war ostensiblywar ostensibly to “moralize” to “moralize” a profane a profane Arabia. Arabia. Proponents Proponents of neo-Orientalism neo-Orientalism define define their their philo- but,( ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ .philosophicalsophical theology theology as not as simply not simply incompatible incompatible with with Arab Arab epistemology epistemology (Ar but that Arab-Muslimsthat Arab-Muslims are an are irreconcilable an irreconcilable threat threat to Latin-European to Latin-European philosophical philosophical theology,theology, thus, thus, ac- accentuatingcentuating that neo-Orientalism that neo-Orientalism is constituted is constituted by an by ontological an ontological insecurity insecurity constituting constituting Arab-Arab-Is- lamic philosophical theology as placing secular modern logic under “siege” and threatening “civil Islamic philosophical theology as placing secular modern logic under “siege” and threatening “civil society”. This legal-historical research, therefore, argues that neo-Orientalism not only necessitates society”. This legal-historical research, therefore, argues that neo-Orientalism not only necessitates figuring the Arab as Islamist for the ontological security of a “modern” liberal-secular mode of Be- figuring theing, Arab but as that Islamist such essentialist for the ontological imaginary security is a cult ofuralist a “modern” myth that liberal-secular is transformed mode into a oflegal Being, differ- but that such essentialist imaginary is a culturalist myth that is transformed into a legal difference Citation: Al-Kassimi, Khaled. 2021. ence which proceeds to argue the necessity of sanctioning a violent episode transforming a sup- which proceeds to argue the necessity of sanctioning a violent episode transforming a supposed A“New Middle East” Following 9/11 posed lawless “Middle East” receptive to terror, into a lawful “New Middle East” receptive to rea- and the “Arab Spring” of 2011?— lawless “Middleson. This East” sacrilegos receptive process to terror, reveals into the a“inclusive lawful “New exclusion” Middle temporal East” ethos receptive of (a positivist) to reason. jus (Neo)-Orientalist Imaginaries This sacrilegosgentium process which reveals entails the maintaining “inclusive a exclusion”supposed unbridgeable temporal ethos cultural of (agap positivist) between a jus (universalized) gentium Rejuvenate the (Temporal) Inclusive which entailssovereign maintaining Latin-European a supposed subject, unbridgeable and a (particularized) cultural gap Arab between object a (universalized)denied sovereignty sovereign for the co- Exclusion Character of Jus Gentium. Latin-Europeanherence subject, of Latin-European and a (particularized) epistemology. Arab object denied sovereignty for the coherence of Laws 10: 29. https://doi.org/ Latin-European epistemology. Keywords: arab philosophical theology; arab comprador; culture talk; despotism; islamist winter; 10.3390/laws10020029 Montesquieu; new beginning; international law; latin-european philosophical theology; vitorian Keywords: Arab philosophical theology; Arab comprador; culture talk; despotism; Islamist Winter; moment; Tocqueville Received: 23 March 2021 Montesquieu; new beginning; international law; Latin-European philosophical theology; Vitorian Accepted: 12 April 2021 moment; Tocqueville Published: 15 April 2021 The Heads of State or Government rejected the use, or the threat of the use of Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral armed forces against any NAM [Non-aligned movement] country under the with regard to jurisdictional claims in The Heads of State or Government rejected the use, or the threat of the use of armed forcespretext against of combating any NAM terrorism, [Non-aligned and rejected movement] all attempts country by certain under countries the to published maps and institutional affil- use the issue of combating terrorism as a pretext to pursue their political aims pretext of combating terrorism, and rejected all attempts by certain countries iations. against non-aligned and developing countries and underscored the need to ex- to use the issue of combating terrorism as a pretext to pursue their political ercise solidarity with those affected. They affirmed the pivotal role of the United aims againstNations non-aligned in the international and developing campaign countries against andterrorism. underscored They totally the needrejected to exercisethe solidarity term “axis with of evil” those voiced affected. by a certain They affirmed State to target the pivotal other countries role of theunder United Nations in the international campaign against terrorism. They totally Copyright: © 2021 by the author. the pretext of combating terrorism, as well as its unilateral preparation of lists Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. rejected theaccusing term “axis countries of evil” of voicedallegedly by supporting a certain Stateterrorism, to target which other are countries inconsistent This article is an open access article under thewith pretext international of combating law and terrorism, the purposes as well and as itsprinciples unilateral of the preparation United Nations of distributed under the terms and lists accusing countries of allegedly supporting terrorism, which are inconsistent conditions of the Creative Commons with international law and the purposes and principles of the United Nations Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Charter. These actions constitute on their part, a form of psychological and Laws 2021, 10, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/laws creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ political terrorism —Final Heads of Sates Document (XIII) of the Non-Aligned 4.0/). Movement (2003) Laws 2021, 10, 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10020029 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/laws Laws 2021, 10, 29 2 of 33 Bernard Lewis, the doyen of modernising Orientalists, asked some decades ago “What went wrong?” in the evolution of the countries in the Arab world. His response to his own question was that Arabs were burdened with a cultural inability to overcome traditions bestowed by Islam that prevented neoliberal economics and Western technologies from providing their societies with the supposed miracles of modernisation...Undoubtedly, the most flawed feature of Lewis’ contribution to the neocon effort to restructure the Middle East when they were in control of American foreign policy was its arrogant imperial contention that Arab peoples are not capable of making their own history, and that they will be better off if they allow the West to do it for them, including by periodic military interventions —Richard Falk (2013) 1. Introduction As we enter the second decade since the terror attack in Manhattan took place on 11 September 2001, and a decade since the Arab uprisings of 2011, it is becoming in- creasingly clear that the terror of that day has been hijacked into a casus belli for endless privatized pre-emptive/preventative wars using sovereign sponsored agents of terrorism (Al-Kassimi 2019, 2020). This is coupled with “modern” sectarian geostrategic objectives seeking to redraw and re-engineer Arabian geography and demography populating ab- stract colonial borders thereby transforming the region into a modern, sociable, and civil “New Middle East” (Kumar 2012, p. 233). According to (Kumar 2012, p. 43), and Gopal and Lazarus(2006) , the pre-emptive and preventative legal doctrines developed after 9/11