Can the war on terrorism justify an Empire politics?

Résumé du document

National Strategy for Combating Terrorism - The terrorist attacks of Sept 11 were acts of war against the USA and its allies, and against the very idea of civilized society. No cause justifies terrorism. The world must respond and fight this evil that is intent on threatening and destroying our basic freedoms and our way of life. Freedom and fear are at war. The enemy is not one person. It is not a single politcal regime. The enemy is terrorism ? premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatants targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents who strive to subvert the rule of law and effect change through violence and fear.

Extraits

[...] The United States does not form the center of an imperialist project. Imperialism is over. The US does indeed occupy a privileged position in Empire. Lack of boundaries, rules over the entire “civilized world”. juridical categories and universal ethical values as an organic whole Global concert under the direction of a single conductor, a unitary power that maintains social peace and produces its ethical truths. In order to achieve these ends, the single power is given the necessary force to conduct, when necessary, “just wars” at the borders against the barabarians and internally against the rebellious. [...]

[...] Can the war agaist terrorism justify a policy of empire ? Terrorism brevity of the appellation, 9/11, points out the unqualifiable by recognizing that we do not recognize or even cognize that we do not yet know how to qualify, that we do not know what we are talking about” Derrida How to define “terrorism” ? Do we need a definition of terrorism ? “Illicit act which creates a disturbance in the public order as defined by the international community, by using serious and indiscriminate violence in order to generate an atmosphere of terror with the aim of influencing political action” (Jean-Marc Sorel, “Some Questions About the Definition of Terrorism”, European Journal of International Law, vol no 2003) “Global terrorism is extreme both in its lack of realistic goals and in its cynical exploitation of the vulnerability of complex systems” (Habermas) 09/11 gave way to a universal declaration of war against terrorism and legitimated a new exceptionnalism expressed in the National Security Strategy of the USA of september 2002. [...]

[...] In the long run, they are irreconciliable with democracy. Even more, a state which has security as its sole task and source of legtimacy is a fragile orgnaism, it can, according to Agamben, always be provoked by terrorism to become itself terroristic. In the end, security and terror may form a “single deadly system” in which they justify and legitimate each other's action . The notion of security is everywhere in our societies. However, this notion of security seems so evident that we don't even question ourselves on its meaning and implications. [...]

[...] Distinguish between and threats. Security as an essentially contested concept. Dillon : Security is engendered by fear and requests coutermeasures to control, eliminate and neutralize this fear. It tells us what we should be afraid of and seeks to proscribe and punish what puts us into danger. Security and speech : Waever Waever shows that security doesn't rely on an external reality but rather establishes a situation of security by itself. How ? By the practice of discourse, by the speech act. [...]

[...] Theory inspired by imperial Rome. Expansiveness of the immanent concept of sovereignty is inclusive, not exclusive. When it expands, this new sovereignty does not annex or destroy the other powers it faces but on the contrary opens itself to them, including them in the network. Expansive tendency of the democratic republic. Empire can only be conceived as a universal republic, a network of powers and counterpowers structured in a boundless and inclusive architecture. Its space is always open . Immanent idea of peace Production of international juridical norms that raise up the power of the hegemonic actor in a durable and legal way. [...]