The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal ...

The dangers of a unipolar world 151
universalism produced by the generalization of one single system. He was,
however, too aware that such a pseudo-universalism was a much more likely
outcome than the pluralism he advocated. And unfortunately his fears have been
confirmed since the collapse of communism.
Since 11 September 2001, Schmitt’s reflections on the status of a ‘post-statist
politics’ and the dangers of a unipolar world have become more relevant than
ever and I believe that they can help us grasp the nature of terrorism. As Jean-
François Kervégan has suggested, they allow us to approach the question of terrorism
in a very different way from the one currently accepted, that is, as the
work of isolated groups of fanatics (Kervégan 2002). Taking our bearings from
Schmitt, we can see terrorism as the product of a new configuration of the political
which is characteristic of the type of world order being implemented around
the hegemony of a single ‘hyper-power’.
I agree with Kervégan that Schmitt’s insights about the consequences of a
unipolar world order are extremely illuminating for an understanding of the phenomenon
of terrorism. It is certainly the case that there is a correlation between
the now unchallenged power of the US and the proliferation of terrorist groups.
Of course in no way do I want to claim that this is the only explanation. Terrorism
has always existed, due to a multiplicity of factors. But it is undeniable that
it tends to flourish in circumstances in which there are no legitimate political
channels for the expression of grievances. It is therefore no coincidence that
since the end of the Cold War, with the untrammelled imposition of a neo-liberal
model of globalization under the dominance of the US, we have witnessed a
significant increase in terrorist attacks. Indeed the possibilities of maintaining
socio-political models different from the Western one have been drastically
reduced and all international organizations are more or less directly under the
control of Western powers led by the Americans.
Even liberal theorists like Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss, who argue in
favour of a cosmopolitan order, acknowledge the link between terrorism and the
present world order when they say:
[w]ith the possibility of direct and formalized participation in the international
system foreclosed, frustrated individuals and groups (especially
when their own governments are viewed as illegitimate and hostile) have
been turning to various modes of civic resistance, both peaceful and violent.
Global terrorism is at the violent end of this spectrum of transnational
protest, and its apparent agenda may be mainly driven by religious, ideological
and regional goals rather than by resistance directly linked to globalization.
But its extremist alienation is partly, at the very least, an indirect
result of globalizing impacts that may be transmuted in the political unconscious
of those so afflicted into grievances associated with cultural injustices.
(Falk and Strauss 2003: 206)
Falk and Strauss believe that the solution to our present predicament lies in a
‘democratic transnationalism’ whose core would be constituted by a Global