Two strategies for diffusing tension in the Middle East

Two strategies for diffusing tension in the Middle East

This paper argues that the Middle East as an analytical or geopolitical ‘concept’ has become too problematic. Prophylactic measures centre on two strategies. The first is the ‘dissolution’ of the Middle East based on differentiated continental association. Here, Turkey and Iran are part of Europe and Asia respectively, while the rest of the Middle East—including Israel—becomes part of a ‘Greater Africa’. This reclassification ensures accentuating the difference between different parts of the Middle East, to the end of reducing tension between these parts. The other strategy is based on polycentricity. The paper argues for more emphasis on polycentric constitutional orders in the spirit of Spinoza’s understanding of sovereignty. This vision necessitates international treaties to underwrite charter cities as the dominant governance structure in the Middle East. Sovereignty, as envisaged by Spinoza, is the key proposition for peace in the Middle East, given this sovereignty’s subsidiarity between different organisational scales (the local, national, and global). The Middle East is made of a rich mosaic of religions and ethnicities that is especially amenable to such orders. A lasting peace in the Middle East requires relinquishing the nation-state model in favour of small, non-contiguous, jurisdictions connected in loose confederal structures within the cultural milieu of different continents. Syria and Iraq are ideal for implementing this new subsidiarity approach.

Files associated with this item cannot be displayed due to copyright restrictions.