144 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 22:2

Fifth Seminar on the Middle East
Studies of the Middle East and the Islamic world have developed consider-
ably in Argentina over the last 10 years because, among other reasons, this
country was targeted twice by terrorists who still remain unknown: The
Embassy of Israel was bombed in 1992, and the central headquarters of the
Jewish community (AMIA) was bombed in 1994. Given that even today
we do not know who carried out these attacks and why, the topic of the
Middle East has acquired a public dimension that it did not have before. In
fact, these actions led to the creation of university study centers and chairs
dedicated to the study of the Arab and Islamic worlds.1 However, their aca-
demic output is still in the initial stage. 

On 10-11 November 2004, the Fifth Seminar on the Middle East confer-
ence took place at the Universidad Nacional de La Plata (UNLP), in La Plata,
Argentina. The Department of the Middle East of the UNLP’s Institute of
International Relations organizes this conference every 2 years, since it is one
of the few universities that has a specific department dedicated to Middle
Eastern studies. Moreover, it is the only one that has, since 1997, consis-
tently managed to bring Argentine academics together to share ideas and dis-
cuss the contemporary reality of the Middle East and the Islamic world.

During this conference, articles were presented on a wide range of
themes, always searching for the best way to link together the most relevant
events of contemporary reality. For this reason, in 2002 the focus was on
the implications of the 9/11 tragedy. The current conference concentrated
on the war in Iraq, a logical continuation of the discussion in 2002.

Professors from 14 Argentine universities, as well as from Spain, the
United States, and Mexico, participated in the panels. The first panel ana-
lyzed Islamic thinking and practice after 9/11. Augustín Galli (University
of Buenos Aires [UBA], Argentina) laid out the evolution of Islamic move-
ments in Algeria. Damián Setton (UBA), who is investigating the various



religious communities in the cities of Iguazú, Foz De Iguazú, and Ciudad
del East (where the borders of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay meet in the
“Triple Border”), explained that all accusations that these locales are cen-
ters of Islamic terrorist activity are false claims based more on political con-
siderations than on reality. 

Enrique Herszkowich (UBA) focused on the debates that have taken
place, ranging from the collision of civilizations and multiculturalism to the
universal understanding of human rights. Pedro Brieger (UBA/UNLP)
explained the development of al-Qaeda as a nontraditional Islamic move-
ment that has clearly differentiated itself from those Islamic movements
that, as political formations, seek political power through mass popular sup-
port within the borders of one country.

Two panels discussed American–Iraqi relations and the process of Iraq’s
post-war reconstruction, a topic that has raised quite a few debates about the
American intervention and the real chance of establishing democracy there.
As was also the case in the 2002 conference, the participants adopted a crit-
ical tone toward American political unilateralism in the Middle East, the
doctrine of preventive war, and the ensuing demonization of Islam.

James Quirk (Loyola College in Maryland, USA) raised the point that
coercive democratization by means of foreign occupation has not been a
novel idea since the days of post-World War II Germany and Japan.
Professor Dergghoukassian (Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina) argued
that the Greater Middle East project is, in essence, neo-Wilsonian and needs
to include an economic and military compromise on the part of the United
States. However, given the international situation, it will fail. These state-
ments were criticized by several presenters, who questioned the doctrine of
preventive war and the unipolar design of the premier global power,
because, as Renée Isabel Mengo (Universidad de Córdoba, Argentina)
pointed out, unilateralism and military power cannot reproduce their mod-
els of society and culture. According to Patricia Kreibohm (Universidad de
Tucumán, Argentina), since 1941 the United States has undertaken three
grand global crusades (viz., against Nazism, communism, and terrorism),
the last one of which has the least amount of legitimacy and has provoked
questioning about its global leadership.

Juan Aníbal Gonzalez pointed out that the geostrategic objective of
invading Iraq was part of a global project designed to assert control over the
region’s petroleum resources. Susana Adamo and Miriam Jaime (both of
Universidad de Salta, Argentina) insisted that the United States has started an
era of permanent war and “infinite justice” by ignoring international conven-

Conference, Symposium, and Panel Reports 145



146 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 22:2

tions and laws. Zidane Zeraoui (Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico)
presented an article on the Kurdish problem, in which he asserted that the
next Iraqi regime will also have authoritarian characteristics and will disre-
gard the Kurds’ aspirations for a federal – or even an independent – state.

One of the most outstanding panels was the one on the Palestinian-
Israeli conflict and the new international reality produced by the American
invasion of Iraq. According to Emanuel Pfoh (UNLP), reinterpreting the
history of both peoples is key to establishing their legitimate claims to the
disputed territories. Nevertheless, Julia Hoppstock (Universidad de San
Andrés) stated that the negotiations depend upon the existence of a “mutu-
ally hurting stalemate” that strengthens the leaders’ acceptability. Valeria
Frediani (UNLP) analyzed the conflict from the perspectives of the wall
being built by Israel, a legal opinion based upon international law, and the
intervention of the International Court of Justice.

The final panel consisted of two reports that analyzed Iran and Shi`ism
as being at the root of the American invasion of Iraq. Luciano Zaccara
(Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain) suggested that the government in
Tehran has benefited the most from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq by its
neutral posture and collaboration with the United Nations. He discussed the
paradox that the declared enemy of the Islamic revolution has eliminated
two political regimes that, at that time, were also at odds with Iran. Pable
Wehbe (Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto, Argentina) analyzed the
American invasion of Iraq in light of the expectations of the Shi`ah major-
ity to shape a government based upon the western idea of “one man – one
vote” and the illusion of devising a political system similar to that of Iran.

In the concluding session, the participants agreed on the necessity of
maintaining, on a regular basis, these sessions organized by the Institute of
International Relations’ Department of the Middle East, as well as the
importance of increasing communication with academics in other coun-
tries, especially with those in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Endnote

1. See Pedro Brieger and Enrique Herszkowich, “The Muslim Community in
Argentina,” The Muslim World 92, nos. 1 and 2 (spring 2002): 157-68.

Pedro Brieger
Chairperson, Department of the Middle East

Institute of International Relations, Universidad de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina
(trans. by Jay Willoughby [AJISS] and Roberto Marín-Guzmán [University of Costa Rica])