World Congress for Middle Eastern Studies

Barcelona, July 19th - 24th 2010

 < NOT_DEFINED backto SUMMARY OF PANELS

West Asian Dynamics: States, Political Movements and Imperial Projects (147) - NOT_DEFINED activity_field_Panel
 

· NOT_DEFINED date: TUE 20, 5.00-7.00pm

· NOT_DEFINED institution: University of Hawaii, Manoa (Hawaii)

· NOT_DEFINED organizer: Ibrahim G. Aoudé

· NOT_DEFINED sponsor: International Association of Middle Eastern Studies (IAMES)

· NOT_DEFINED language: English

· NOT_DEFINED description: This panel discusses imperatives of U.S. empire and regional states relations with one another and with empire. The dynamics of political grassroots movements and resistance to imperial projects are central to understanding interstate relations and the U.S. imperial project in a global context.

Chair: Ibrahim G. Aoudé (University of Hawaii – Manoa)

Paper presenter: Gulden Ayman (Associate Professor of International Relations at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey), “The Iranian Nuclear Program and Turkey”
This paper aims at examining Turkish perceptions and questioning the role played by Turkey in this crisis with an emphasis given to the broader context of two countries’ relations. It begins with an analysis of threat perceptions and elaborates on the close relationship between threat, capacity and intent. According to the main argument Turkey is not disposed to perceive a direct threat to its security because of Iranian nuclear program. Nevertheless it is asserted that Turkey’s uneasiness is much more related with the possible consequences of Iran’s power rise than its nuclear program. The author advocates that the relative power symmetry and the developing relations between Turkey and Iran in the security sector as well as in the field of economy and trade not only alleviates threat perceptions but also makes soft balancing (through political, diplomatic and economic means) a feasible and a preferable option for Turkey. The paper concludes with highlighting the difficulty that Turkey may face if tougher sanctions applied to Iran.

Paper presenter: Seif D’ana (Assistant Professor of Sociology at University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Wisconsin, USA), “Hizbollah’s War of Position and the Arab-Islamic Revolutionary Praxis. An Arab Perspective”
This paper investigates the rise of what it calls the Hizbollah phenomenon, a political manifestation of a theological trend that it traces to a rational tradition in the Islamic thoughts, which currently represent the antithesis of political neo-liberalism. Focusing primarily on analyzing the speeches and statements of Hizbollah’s Secretary General Sayyad Hassan Nassrallah, it argues that underlying Hizbollah’s success is its ability to invent an Arab-Islamic revolutionary praxis; a native Arab-Islamic revolutionary theory coupled with a unique warfare paradigm.

Paper presenter: Laura J. el-Khoury (Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Wisconsin, USA), “The militarized discourse: legitimizing empire’s violence and constructing the enemy”
In the “war against Terrorism” new terminology appeared like “operation desert storm”, “collateral damage,” or “mission accomplished” in relation to the occupation of Iraq or “we will kill them and bomb them” in relation to Gaza and Lebanon during 2006 war on Lebanon, and 2009 war on Gaza. These terms are embedded in an ideology of terror while glorifying the occupier’s mission. The military occupation of two deeply militarized nations like the US and Israel often use a language that is crafted carefully to dictate the politics of no resistance amongst their communities and people to the point that fear is conflated with patriotism. The words used retain meaning and reveal a culture's understanding of the world, attitudes toward it, and sometimes serve as predicates to action (Vicki Gray, 2006). This paper aims at exploring the effects of militarizing language that left an indelible mark subtly on the structure and function of non-western nations, like Palestine and Iraq. First, western hegemony negates the non-west/occupied person’s humanity. Second, the militarized language displays force and negates them further. Thirdly, which is the core of our study, militarized language causes damage to society’s memory and language. Therefore, we study the collective consensus on basic social norms and standards to measure how far they have been destroyed over a lengthy period of militarization. This is a discourse analysis that takes into account mental representations and processes, in which meaning is assigned by language users to mental models of knowledge (see Van Dijk, 2000). ‘Terrorism’ stages the theater of war, by force and of necessity, inside the realms of everyday life and everyday imagination and everyday fear. But the purportedly distinguishing features of ‘terrorism’ – that civilians are the direct target of attack, and that the attacks are designed to create extreme fear and terror in the broader population – are, a routinely practiced, planned for feature of 20th century warfare (Orr, 2004). How is militaristic discourse imbued in Palestinians and Iraqi people, and constructs them.

Paper presenter: Michael Humphrey (Professor and Chair of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia), “Transnational Justice and Transnational Governmentality in Lebanon”
This paper explores the role of international law in seeking to fortify the Lebanese state through the establishment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon under the Security Council resolution 1664 (2006) in 2006. The Tribunal is a hybrid of the International Criminal Court created to investigate the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others in a car bomb in Beirut on 14 February 2005. The paper explores the role of the Special Tribunal in the broader context of transitional justice in Lebanon, how the impact of the civil war on Lebanese social and political life was managed including amnesties, the failure to account for the disappeared, limitations of the justice system and the manipulation of constitutional and electoral procedures. It argues that the Special Tribunal is an expression of transnational governmentality and the re-scaling of sovereignty. In the Lebanese case the reach of international law was solicited by a section of the political class who wanted to recover sovereignty through Special Tribunal to challenge impunity of a series of political murders which prominent politicians, journalists and intellectuals. The uses the lens of the Special Tribunal to understand the contemporary character of Lebanese state sovereignty.

Paper presenter: Ibrahim G. Aoudé (University of Hawaii – Manoa), “Global Shifts, the Imperial Project and Resistance In West Asia and North Africa”
The past thirty years have witnessed qualitative shifts in the global political economy. The Iran-Iraq war, the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the subsequent demise of the PLO as a liberation movement, the first Intifada, the second Gulf war, the demise of the Eastern Bloc and the USSR, 911, and the occupation of Iraq are both causes and consequences of those global shifts. Those recent developments ushered in the neo-liberal state across the globe and brought about the demise of “old world” political movements. The imperial project, which still has the same strategic goal of global domination, had to adapt to the new realities of the global political economy. Meanwhile, resistance to empire has taken different forms and has scored some successes. However, resistance movements leave much to be desired in regards to mass mobilization on a large scale. This paper attempts to explore the dynamics of the imperial project and the resistance it has created. It will advance a tentative analysis of what might be impeding the resistance from realizing its full potential.