Exposing the binding chains of discursive bondage

Abstract

An assessment of Catherine Charrett's critique of the European Union's response to the unexpected Hamas victory in the Gaza elections of 2006. By reliable accounts, the elections were monitored and validated by trustworthy observers, and yet the results were not respected by the European Union, as well as by the United States and Israel governments through its insistence that Hamas was a terrorist organization that was unqualified to compete in elections although urged to do so by high government officials in Washington. The puzzle explored by Charrett was to understand what explains this behavior by EU bureaucrats of going against their own perceptions of the elections, and side with policies of invalidation. Rellying on sophisticatedd and innovative methodologies involving the dependence of bureaucrats on the views of their superiors often shaped by political pressures and calculations as in this instance exposes what happened and why. In effect, the relevant officials in Brussels went along with a process they knew was misleading because otherwise their career, and even their employment, would be put at risk. This wider political push to invalidate the Hamas victory was a matter of the influential U.S. and Israeli governments giving priority to their strategic interests in retaining a terrorist identification for Hamas that justified treating it as a criminal organization and punishing the people of Gaza for voting in favor of terrorism. Charrett on the basis of her direct contact with Palestinians living in Gaza, including Hamas leaders, concluded that this more radical Palestinian organization was prepared to renounce violence and seek to reach its goals by way of politics and diplomacy. As ensuing developments have illustrated, the refusal to accord Hamas with the benefits of its electoral victory has produced years of suffering for the civilian population of Gaza and periodic breaches of international law. Charrett connects the dots to give us insights into why the EU contradicted its own values and practices in this instance. The methods she applies has wide application to other substantive contexts.