著者

松尾 昌樹

出版者

宇都宮大学

雑誌

宇都宮大学国際学部研究論集 (ISSN:13420364)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.24, pp.65-81, 2007-10

---

Imamate of Oman was constructed in the series of arguments of the United Nations, the Question of Oman, in which representatives of Arab, Asia-African and communist countries criticized the British aggression against Oman. At the first stage of its arguments, Arab representatives insisted that the Imamate is the only one sovereign state of Oman. The position of Arab representatives representing Omani people was authorized by pro-Arab countries in spite of the lack of coincidence of their contents of representation of the Imamate with descriptions on the historical work written by Salimi, asserted as authentic source of historical information by Arab representatives themselves. Although this could be criticized from positivism of history, such arbitrary use of historical source is common in the construction of a national history. It should be treated not as inaccuracy but as a vestige of constructing efforts of the history of the Imamate. Apart from historical matter, arguments of Arab representatives about Oman contain so many contradictions such as the definition of the area governed by the Imamate whether it contains coastal area governed by the Sultanate of Muscat, or area governed by the trucial sheikhs, Dhofar region or whole these areas. At the second stage, Arab discourse was disconstructed through the visualization of groups of these regions potentially advocatory of their sovereignty. The Imamate lost its position advocating only one sovereignty over Oman. The focus of the Question of Oman changed from establishing the sovereignty of the Imamate to the liberation of colonized Oman. Finally the Imamate was disconstructed and fell into the oblivion. Here we can find structural power determining frames to represent groups as potentially sovereigns. Elements constructing this structure are subalternity and nationalism, not "accuracy" nor consistency of the contents of representation.