The Multidimensionality of Regions in World Politics by Paul J Kohlenberg & Nadine Godehardt

Author:Paul J Kohlenberg & Nadine Godehardt [Kohlenberg, Paul J & Godehardt, Nadine]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781000168600
Goodreads: 52807442
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2020-09-02T00:00:00+00:00

6 The persistence of the “Middle East” as a geopolitical invention of security

“Denial of coevalness”

Pinar Bilgin

1. Introduction

As they begin their research, students of the Middle East are advised to define the/ir “Middle East.” This is because, they are told, borders in/of the Middle East are not “natural.” Cue political geographers: there are no “natural” borders as such; they “are complex human creations that are perpetually open to question” (Agnew 2008, 176). The more historically oriented minds would concur, maintaining that the apparent “naturalness” of boundaries in “Europe” (with which the boundaries in/of the Middle East are often compared) exist only in popular imagination and do not bear scholarly scrutiny (see, Halperin 1997).1 “Geography is, first and foremost for waging war” remarked Yves Lacoste (1998 [1976]), highlighting the historical centrality of wielding military power in the production of geographical knowledge. The point being, if borders in/of the Middle East are in question, there is no room for exceptionalism; the Middle East is a “geopolitical invention of security” just like many other regions.

That said, in present-day world politics, the Middle East exhibits characteristics that distinguish it from some other regions that have evolved into security communities (“Scandinavia” and “Western Europe”), non-war groupings (“South America” and “Southeast Asia”) or free trade areas (“North America”). While the Middle East came into being as a “geopolitical invention of security” just like any other region, unlike some others it has never become anything other than that.

Africa may be seen as another exception to the mentioned trends. Then, historically, the African Union has exhibited stronger resolve against top-down, military-focused solutions to security problems when compared to the Arab League. The latest instance of the difference between the two regional organisations was exhibited during the Arab uprisings, where the African Union refused to sanction the NATO-led intervention in Libya in 2011, the Arab League did not (for a discussion, see Grovogui 2011).

This is not to invoke Middle East exceptionalism, but to call for a fresh take on regional politics in/of the Middle East. While geography is about “will to power disguised as will to map” (Gregory 1995, 448), in some others parts of the world such “will to power” has taken non-military and/or non-violent forms. Hence the puzzle of this chapter: the persistence of the Middle East as a geopolitical invention of security.

In what follows, I submit that the Middle East has persisted as a geopolitical invention of security, because the top-down, military-focused and outwards-directed approach to security that gave the region its shape in the late 19th century has prevailed during the 20th century and beyond. Even as they responded to 21st-century dynamics, external powers and their local allies have temporalised difference and spatialised time, “denying coevalness” (Fabian 1983) to this part of the world. Following anthropologist Johannes Fabian (1983, XI), I understand “denial of coevalness” as a process through which “the Other’s empirical presence turns into his [sic] theoretical absence.” By way of temporalising difference and spatialising time, those others residing in/originating from other parts of the

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.