The Neo-Internationalism After 9/11

After 9/11, the international order has failed in terms of security when the world super power became under attack followed by many other attacks throughout the world. This incident indicates a new nature of the international dangers and threats exceed the 'state borders' and the related international norms and standards. Furthermore, the 'internal affair,' the extremely important term in the international relations is subject to re-identifying because the internal situation is no longer just an internal concern and, thereby, an internal affair, it becomes an international concern too in the post-9/11 reality. Then, what I call the 'Neo-Internationalism' is sought and called for. This 'Neo-Internationalism' represents a state of international relations in which the democratic interventionism is required and legitimate for the international security and prosperity, and for forming an international order can cope with the international challenges and maintain the international security, peace and prosperity.

I think of the international order as an ultimate guarantee of the international democratic peace, when the freedom and democracy replace the 'chaos' of the post-cold war international order. I know that the very nature of the 'international order' enables the international order to maintain an existing democratic peace rather than to impose it. But, however, the international order may give the international acknowledgement to the worldwide aspirations for democracy and freedom besides the auxiliary and supporting institutions for the democratic transformation.

Promoting freedom and democracy in the world, especially in the authoritarianism's heaven the Middle East, the region that still lives the era of the cold war and the Soviet legacy, has become of the U.S. national security after 9/11 to tackle the international terror and its nourishing structure and environments around the world. And so I read the intervention in Iraq and the democratic pursuit in the Middle East. The success of promoting freedom and democracy in the Middle East has a key effect on the probabilities of the emergence of a new international order acknowledges the international right to freedom and democracy and supports, in some ways, their promotion.

Middle East Democratization

I think that to reform the Middle East we have primarily to change the regional status quo and the geopolitics of the Middle East. This objective needs to be accomplished an international effort rests on the international standards which normally compiled by the international order, considering the fact that the post-cold war international order is neither designed nor provided for this task. The way is paved for this process after the necessary change in Iraq.

Any change at the level of the international norms and conduct needs to be preceded with preliminary and justifying thought and discourse supported by the international powers. This process is what I think is under way through the current American efforts along with the Bush's Forward Strategy of Freedom.

The reform of the Middle East, in my view, has two pillars, the civil society in the Middle East and the international policies—the international relevant input. Without any of those, I think this task is unrealistic.

After the liberation of Iraq and along with the Bush's Forward Strategy of Freedom, the Arab region has been witnessing a new kind of political phenomena concerning the political life, democratic rights and human rights. Some scholars call this political phenomenon the Arab spring.

I think that the key point of this phenomenon is the end of stagnancy in the political life, and therefore, the change in the status quo at the political, social and intellectual levels. This status quo is the effect of the political authority, which is mainly backward, ignorant and authoritarian. It intends this status quo and maintains it with stagnancy using the authoritarian violent means to preserve its monopoly of political power whatever the costs are.

This stir is indispensable for the political change and democratization in the region, which did not ever experience but authoritarianism. The entire political system in the authoritarian Arab state rests on violence and stagnancy, the absence of any pillar of these would reshape the political system and put the authority at awkward challenge to cope with that. The regime here may resort to violence to restore its stability in governance. The international environment and the international input into the situation would determine the fate of the regime's pursuit.

We do not have yet the sufficient expertise and scientific knowledge to predict on the future and processes of the resulted political change and effects in the Middle East. It is indispensable to observe the realities and developments of this Arab political phenomenon for conceiving an insight into political change in the Middle East. I think that Egypt is an important paradigm of the normal and evolutionary political change. We need to observe carefully the developments in Egypt at the domestic and international levels.


Nassim Yaziji's Neo-Internationalism

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home