International Law: Occidental Derivations And Persecution of Christians

On the 8th of July 2019, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt thanked the Bishop of Truro for his commissioned review on the persecution of Christians worldwide, and his concluding statements on the support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), or lack thereof. The review stated that the ‘geographic spread of anti-Christian persecution ’ was indicative of the severity of persecution, with 80% of religiously driven violence being against Christians. The review also brought to light the quiescence of the Western world. Verbal sanctions were often vague in denouncing the attacks but concise in matters concerning anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. The ambiguity, arguably purposeful, could be noted as Hunt and the Bishop emphasise the ‘post-colonial guilt’ that has beset Britain from taking action against violators of international law.

Ultimately, International Law has never ceased to remove its Occidental focus. But this is not the aim of ideologies inspiring decolonisation. The aim was to increase the narrow scope of the lens on the West, whilst removing the Western framework it has operated in. This would make the case for criticism, pluralism, an ontological and epistemological over-hall, and an anti-foundationalism of universalism within international law. The persecution of Christians, in light of Occidentalism, has been seen to be iconoclastic, with motivations to remove Western influence from Muslim-majority countries.

The aim of this paper is two-fold: to make the case for Occidentalism as the succeeding and governing ‘us/them’ rhetoric, and to provide evidence for Occidentalism through the widespread anti-Christian persecution in the Middle East and North African (MENA) countries. The first section of the paper will outline the Occidental derivations of International Law, examining Grotius and Vitoria, with a look at Anghie, and his observances of the colonial origins, nature and purpose of International Law. The second section will discuss the Occidentalist framework in which International Society and International Law now operate. This includes scrutiny of Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit’s text ‘Occidentalism’. In light of this postcolonial ‘othering’ phenomenon, the third section of the paper will trace the persecution of Christians and countries in violation of International Law. This paper will conclude with an assessment of the relativist impasse that is shaping International Law and the stagnancy of guilt regulated by the framework of Occidentalism.

Occidental derivations

The colonial legacy of International Law has been regularly brought to light and scrutinised since the start of decolonisation after WW2. The common axiom with which the colonial framework centres around could be interpreted as ‘jus gentium’ or ‘law of nations’, and this is embedded throughout the works of Grotius, and Vitoria.

The influence of Christian theology is evident in the works of Grotius. Due to limited scope, this paper will touch upon a few selected texts, amongst the diversely rich range. In De Jure Belli ac Pacis posited the universality of jus gentium, as marginally contingent on the Old and New Testament, but also the law of nations was binding to all states, regardless of a state religion. The ingratiation of theology with International Law has a long-debated history, of which Grotius debated the soteriological ends of law and not just the temporal regards. Whilst the contingency of Christian texts in De Jure Belli ac Pacis is overt, the reader achieves the sense that Grotius advocated the separation of jus naturale (natural law) from Christian mores in De Imperio. This is demonstrated in the argument of the legitimacy of judgment and quality of judgement. This means that the framework in which judgement was fabricated was crucially founded upon jus naturale. The conflicted debate between theology and International Law was evident throughout the unsteady manner of his texts. Many papers have shown little understanding of De Veritate and have read this radical account without acknowledgement to its anachronism, nor the symbiotic counterpart, De Jure Belli ac Pacis. As a result, anti-colonialists have a limited understanding and narrow scope in understanding jus naturale. This is because De Veritate displays Christian apologetics to jus naturale, whilst De Jure Belli ac Pacis discusses the non-Christian form of jus naturale. In this text, Grotius discusses law as normative, unbounded by the Christian utilitarian account as posited by De Veritate. Consequently, Grotius envisions law as a human obligation, backed by human reasoning, distinct from Christian theology and mores. Whilst God gave humans ‘law, external and internal warnings, together with threatenings and promises ,’ it was human jurisdiction that legislated and enforced the law, and therefore Christian mores were non-binding and Christian duties were optional. Contrary to Vitoria, Grotius’ distinguished divine positive law from jus naturale, and this works in contrast to the colonial legacy of Christianity which did not adhere to the ‘care of maintaining society in a manner comfortable ’, unless one argues that this was achieved only through the exploitation of non-Europeans, for which Grotius has neither condoned nor condemned.

The uniformity of European political thought canon as asserted by postcolonialists has created a ‘residual sense that the Christian faith is an expression of white Western privilege ’. This deficit in postcolonial theory, to account for Grotius and theorists who argued for the separation of soteriology and law, is hazardous to the Christians who must endure the aftermath of decolonisation and the rise of Occidentalism in International Society and Law.

The definition of ‘postcolonialism’ is contingent on it’s hyphenated or non-hyphenated nature. If the first, it refers to the period after colonialism. If the latter, it is a neologism, cultivated from various narratives, experiences and hopes. It is a revolutionary and anti-foundational discourse of the political, linguistic, cultural, economic and psychological. In essence, it is a ‘search for alternatives to the discourses of the colonial era ’. Postcolonial theorists, such as Franz Fanon and Edward Said are regarded as the founding fathers of this discourse. The application of this discourse in International Law has spurned the way for self-determination, sovereignty, the establishment of international recognition of the hierarchal structures created from colonial origins and the systematic exploitation of non-Europeans. The contemporary dialogue within International Law is hindered. Political correctness and post-colonial guilt are evident in the vague condemnations by Western leaders of the persecution of Christians in the MENA countries. The dialogue now exists in a postcolonial framework, Occidentalism driven.

Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth is emblematic in postcolonial theory. It marks a criticism of the theology of colonisation. Throughout this text, Fanon tangentially scrutinises Christianity and the Church as instruments of oppression and evangelisation as symbiotic with colonisation. If colonisation takes the animalising discourse, then ‘decolonisation is the veritable creation of new men ’ and this de-theologised and decolonised self is marked by cathartic violence. Fanon provides the example of Algeria in rationalising the potentiality of violence. The constant reference to violence begets the question of the morality of violence, it’s glamorisation and banalisation, and its necessity. The colonial rule was maintained through violence, thus, the language of the coloniser and the colonised would also be violent. Through violence, the political structure of the colony can be reformed, and the self is restored. Thus, cathartic. To the colonised, and the decolonised individual, the ‘other’ is the post-colonising individual. The ‘us-them’ rhetoric is pluralistic. And now the framework rests on Occidentalism, as opposed to Orientalism.

Said’s Orientalism details the Eurocentrism of political thought and reiterates the concept of ‘othering’. He states that Europe sees the Orient as ‘inscrutable ’, backward, unenlightened, and therefore, Orientalism was ‘a way of coming to terms with the Orient ’. In a passing comment that sought to be clandestine, Said stated that ‘nobody is likely to imagine a field symmetrical to [Orientalism] called Occidentalism’. However, Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit inspect the anti-Western rhetoric that has emerged from postcolonial theory and concludes that Occidentalism drove a ‘dehumanising picture of the West painted by its enemies ’.

Both Fanon and Said point to the continuing violence of the Occident-Orient in postcolonialism, albeit they fail to recognise the extreme extent of the anti-West sentiment that would be regulated in constant blame censure of the West to take responsibility and compensate for the actions of colonialists centuries ago. Whilst Said urged the reader that ‘the answer to Orientalism is not Occidentalism’, the characteristics of the latter is indefinable and insidious, hinting at neo-colonialism. This is because polemical texts arguing against anti-American sentiments are often aligned with a call to censor condemnation of US foreign policy. This paper’s criticism of Occidentalism may also be treated in the same regard; as a defence of colonialism, or a call for neo-colonialism in the name of humanitarian intervention. Conversely, this paper underlines the parallels in colonial and postcolonial thought and urges postcolonialism to expand the scope of its lens to include MENA countries where Islamic colonialism produced genocides, mass exodus, and linguistic and cultural assimilation.

Buruma and Margalit bring to light the Occidentalism of prominent Islamic political thinkers such as Sayyid Qutb, Abu-l-A’la Maududi and Jalal al-e Ahmed who point to the state of New Jahilyya. This translated to an ‘Age of Ignorance’ as a result of secular modernity and idolatry. For Islamic classical exegetes, the symbol of the Cross and Churches linked Christianity with idolatry, and Christians with shirk , the greatest sin in Islam, and therefore subjected to the derogatory term ‘Mushrikin’. Hence, the nature of Occidentalism is not just one of dehumanising imagery, anti-Western rhetoric and Islamism, but the extermination of idolatry, notably the Cross and the symbols associated with Christianity.

The Arabic letter ‘n’ stands for the pejorative: ‘Nasara’ or ‘Nazarene.’ During the reign of ISIS in Mosul, Islamists marked Christians homes with the Arabic letter, ‘ن’, in red. Derogatory terms such as these, and identifying markers, are a long tradition in the iconoclastic extermination of Christianity from the Middle East. In 2016, the European Union declared the persecution of Christians by ISIS as genocide. Following this, the US and Parliament recognised it as a genocide and denounced the actions. The iconoclasm of Islamism is evident in the bombing of Churches and ancient historical sites. For instance, ISIS had targeted and destroyed The Assyrian Green Church in 2014, which dates back to the 8th century. The Church had been a target of Islamists since it’s destruction in 1098. It had been a sanctuary to Christians in the Mongol Invasion in 1258, but many were slaughtered inside.

Persecution of Christians

International Law contains several covenants that enshrine the right to religious freedom. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was amongst the first to legally bind states that consented to the covenant in 1966. However, only 25 countries have not given their consent and many of the 168 countries party to the ICCPR have nullified the treaty as Islamic state law would have inevitable consequences on religious freedom. Along with the ICCPR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination are explicitly known as the ‘International Bill of Human Rights’ and therefore the foundations. The most notable of these Declarations is Article 18, which states that ‘everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion .’ This, controversially to many countries with apostasy laws, also includes the right to ‘change his religion or belief’. Despite countries that consider idolatry punishable by death, this Article enshrines the right to ‘practice, and worship… in public or private. However, many countries with Article 18 in their constitution, do so nominally only, without protection against unconstitutional laws. This includes Penal Codes that provide punishment for the defamation of religion. Apostasy laws and laws against the defamation of religion prevent the practice of Christianity in MENA countries where Christians face harsh restrictions.

This paper focuses on the persecution of Christians in MENA countries as a result of Islamist Occidentalism and the substantial degree to discrimination in the focused region as opposed to other regions. This is evident in the statistics gathered. The Christian population in Palestine decreased dramatically from making up 11% of the population, under Mandate, to 2% in 2012 . With the growth of religious conservatism in Algeria and Turkey, Christians have faced increased pressure with media ‘used to encourage Turks to view Christians as the enemy ’. Algerian officials have also cracked down on religious freedoms. In 2017, Algeria ‘closed churches and held legal proceedings against Christian clerics… while others have been fined because they imported Christian books .’ In Egypt, Copts face heavy persecution and ‘more than 200 were driven out of their homes in 2017 .’ Additionally, Islamists have targeted churches and homes of Christians, with Palm Sunday bombing in Tanta and Alexandria leaving 47 dead , and many fleeing at the hands of mob violence. In Iran, 114 Christians were detained in one week in 2018 and Christian leaders have been targeted. The persecution of Christians has long since been non-contingent on spatial or temporal factors. The Assyrian genocide by the Ottoman Empire is a historical case for the persecution of Christians in the Middle East at the hands of Islamism.

The Bishop of Truro has declared the persecution of Christians as not a recent phenomenon and has shown that ‘the decline… started in the early 20th century ’ with ‘millions of Christians… uprooted from their homes… killed, kidnapped, imprisoned and discriminated against.’ Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has noted in his speech following the review, that the ‘number of countries where Christians suffer because of their faith rose from 128 in 2015 to 144 a year later .’ The Bishop made the following recommendations to confront the urgent concern. He recommended ‘that we seek a new UN Security Council Resolution’ for governments to protect to Christians in MENA countries. He highlights the ‘vague language of general condemnation’ and advocates for the label ‘Christophobia’. This, again, lies antithetical to the label ‘Islamophobia’ that has prevailed in the scholarship of International Law with regards to the subject of Colonialism and Empire. The detailing of Christophobia has long since been evaded and unacknowledged in the discussion of the Ottoman Empire, the Caliphates and Muslim conquests. Arguably, as a result of the ambiguity of the term ‘Islamophobia’, which seemingly condemns criticism of the Islamic doctrine. The Bishop, additionally, recommends the establishment of ‘a John Bunyan stream of the Magna Carta Fund’ to help fund ‘trauma care for survivors’. Jeremy Hunt concludes his speech by stating that the UK ‘will not shirk its responsibilities’.

This paper adds the following solutions. As a result of Occidentalism, International Law and Society will be quick to condemn foreign policy in light of the guises of humanitarian intervention embarked on by the US in the War on Terror in the Iraq invasion and Afghanistan. For this reason, this paper urges Western governments to, firstly, uphold the 1951 Refugee Convention, which was backed and endorsed by 145 states. This ‘asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom ’. Violators of this non-refoulement must face sanctions. This leads the paper on to the second suggestion which is sanctioning violators of International Law. This includes sanction countries that have not condemned religious persecution and remain apathetic to violators. This paper offers such solutions as the UK is unlikely to sanction Saudi Arabia and refuse to back the Egyptian government as it would affect trade. However, Jeremy Hunt’s refusal to address these leads this paper to suggest that urgent action may not be acted upon, and fear and hesitation still govern the actions of the UK.

Conclusion

This paper had advocated the global sanctioning of countries that have made reservations under Article 18 and nullified covenants of International Law that ensure religious freedom and protection of minorities. This paper has examined the Occidental derivations of International Law and the colonial advocacy of Christian theologians, such as Francisco Vitoria. However, it stipulates that Grotius, albeit influenced to an extent by Vitoria, rejected claims of a Christian moral obligation in justifying colonialism, but advocating the separation of jus naturale and ecclesiastical authority. I have articulated the urgency of International Law to revise the postcolonial discourse that governs the framework, and the need to expand its scope to include the atrocities committed in MENA countries by centuries of Islamic Colonialism, and the continuing persecution of Christians as a result.

I have offered International Law and Society a basis to contest Christophobia, starting with adherence to non-refoulement covenant. This paper also suggests that readers studying postcolonialism do so with an understanding of the multivariate nature, origins and purpose of colonialism. This would aid readers to scrutinize texts, such as those offered by Anghie, in the academic curriculum and study of International Law, to provide a rebuttal to his claim that the War on Terror is simply an extension of colonialism. Such surface-level interpretations do not account for Islamism, and only naturalise the Islamic colonialism of MENA countries. This naturalisation lies antithetical to the excavation by postcolonial theorists and International Legal Theory in denouncing assimilation and providing reparations for its colonial roots.

This paper reiterates that it does not nullify the colonial roots of International Law and acknowledged the Eurocentrism foundations. Conversely, it argues that there is little academic literature, legislation, and covenants condemning the Occidentalism canon, yet many condemning the Orientalism canon of International Law. To offer legal pluralism as an alternative to universalism does very little. The encouragement of relativism based on non-European countries, but hold European political thought to monolithic structure, suggests an Occidentalist agenda. Cultural relativism and legal pluralism, if provisions and restrictions, are absent in International Law produces uncertainty and ambiguity, reservations and gives way to states nullifying ratified covenants and laws. International Law and covenants must be enforced, and violators held accountable if the persecution of Christians in MENA is to be alleviated. Post-colonial guilt and the guilt of European colonization need to be relieved and extracted from the ontological and epistemic framework of contemporary International Law and Society by recognising the progression of International Law, by recognising the numerous violators of International Law, identifying countries whose de facto practices are starkly different to de jure rulings, and holding them accountable through foreign intervention by states that have ratified covenants protecting religious freedom.