Thomas Barrack and the Discourse of Western Guardianship:

Thomas Barrack and the Discourse of Western Guardianship: A Critical Reading through Orientalism, Neocolonialism, and Political Racism

Introduction

The statements made by Thomas Barrack, the U.S. Special Envoy to Syria and U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, represent a telling example of the transformation of colonial discourse from overt military domination into a “soft” rhetorical form that cloaks hegemony in the language of “realism,” “stability,” and the alleged “inapplicability of democracy.” This article seeks to deconstruct this discourse as a reproduction of political Orientalism (Edward Said), a manifestation of the logic of neocolonialism (Kwame Nkrumah), and a practice of political racism that divides human beings into those deemed “fit to govern” and those deemed “unfit,” with a structural exemption granted to Israel.

First: Political Orientalism and the Denial of Democratic Capacity

Edward Said defines Orientalism as a knowledge–power system that produces “the East” as inferior, irrational, and incapable of self-rule. Within this framework, Barrack’s statements about Iraq and the Iraqi parliament function as a pathological rather than historical diagnosis: paralysis is not presented as the outcome of an occupation that destroyed the state, but as evidence of the “Oriental” subject’s failure to practice democracy.

This denial of political capacity is reinforced by the promotion of “benevolent monarchy” as a more suitable model for the region. This is not a comparative analysis of systems of governance, but a hierarchical value judgment that reproduces a binary: • West = rationality / democracy • East = chaos / need for guardianship

Most revealing is the Israeli exception. Israel, despite being a settler-colonial replacement state, is granted the certificate of “democracy,” while democratic capacity is withdrawn from the peoples of the region. This exception can only be understood as institutionalized political racism, in which the value of democracy is determined by the identity of the actor rather than by actual practice.

Second: Neocolonialism and the Logic of “Obedience in Exchange for Legitimacy”

Kwame Nkrumah defines neocolonialism as the continuation of domination through indirect tools: economics, sanctions, international legitimacy, and the reengineering of ruling elites. Within this framework, Barrack’s approach to Syria offers a paradigmatic example: • The new Syrian leadership is granted an open-ended grace period to address sensitive files (foreign fighters, elections, political restructuring). • By contrast, the former Syrian state was strangled by Caesar Act sanctions, with society as a whole subjected to deprivation under the slogan of “political transition.”

The difference is neither moral nor legal, but purely political:

Compliance equals legitimacy; resistance equals punishment.

This logic reveals that democracy is not an end goal, but a negotiating tool—suspended or activated according to the degree of integration into the Western system. Here, neocolonialism appears as the management of populations through economics and politics rather than through direct occupation.

Third: Structural Political Racism and the Israeli Exception

Political racism is not based solely on color or race, but on the normative political classification of human beings.

In Barrack’s discourse: • Hereditary monarchies are deemed suitable for Gulf societies. • Iraq is condemned through its parliament. • Syria is granted a chance—if it obeys. • Israel is exempt from all standards of criticism.

This classification does not stem from an objective evaluation of political systems, but from the position of these entities within the imperial hierarchy. “Political realism” thus becomes a linguistic cover for a racist stratification that grants full sovereignty to some, while reducing the sovereignty of others to a conditional privilege.

Fourth: Borders, Sovereignty, and the Reproduction of the Sykes–Picot Logic

Barrack claims to criticize the Sykes–Picot Agreement, yet this “critique” does not stem from the right of peoples to self-determination, but from the logic that says:

We are the ones who drew the borders, and we are the ones who reinterpret them.

His statements about “uniting Syria and Lebanon” clearly expose this logic. Even when praising Lebanese leadership, he treats Lebanon as an entity that can be dissolved within larger regional arrangements—namely, absorbed into Syria. This is not a mere verbal slip, but an extension of a vision that treats sovereignty as an administrative function rather than a historical or legal right. Despite widespread criticism, he neither retracted his remarks nor offered an apology.

Here, Orientalism intersects with neocolonialism:

Borders are not sacred when they obstruct Western interests, but they become “international legitimacy” when they serve them.

Fifth: Recognizing Occupation as a “Colonial Mandate” Without Accountability

Barrack’s admission that the occupations of Iraq and Libya were “colonial” is among his most dangerous statements—not because it represents radical critique, but because it is recognition without consequences. In postcolonial studies, this form of acknowledgment functions to close the file rather than open it: • No apology • No compensation • No accountability • No dismantling of the structures of domination

Colonialism is reduced to “a phase in which mistakes were made,” rather than a crime whose economic, political, and social effects remain ongoing.

Theoretical Conclusion

Thomas Barrack’s discourse cannot be understood as a “critical shift” in U.S. policy. It must instead be read as a formal transformation in the language of hegemony.

It is a discourse that is: • Orientalist in its denial of popular political capacity • Neocolonial in its instruments • Politically racist in its exceptions

In this discourse, democracy is not a right, sovereignty is not a principle, and borders are not fixed realities; they are variables managed from the center of power. This is precisely the essence of colonialism when it sheds the military uniform and dons the suit of the diplomat.