|
We
Have Entered the Era of the Second War of
Civilisations
By
Mahdi
Elmandjra
Professor, University of Rabat
TFF
associate
March 24, 2003
"There will be another war, a second war of
civilisations." It is with those terms that I had
predicted the current situation in a
declaration that I had made on October 6, 1990 on
Radio France International. And today I am stating it
again "yes, the second war of civilisations has already
begun."
What does a war of civilisations mean? How does one
determine the dimensions of such a confrontation and
evaluate the mechanisms and means that the belligerents
intend to exploit in order to attain their objectives?
There are many sayings that history has classified in the
proverb category or simply in the category of the
imagined words that sum up the wisdom of the Peoples
through the expressive strength of popular language and
its everlastingness in the collective memory through the
different centuries. There is a saying in Morocco that
reflects the present situation in the world: "I gave him
the skills and the ability; as soon has he had learned
the trade, he evicted me and slammed the door on me."
Why had I quoted this particular proverb? It is
because Bin Laden is a product of the C.I.A., one of its
pupils who received education and financial support
during the war between Afghanistan and the ex-Soviet
Union. But after that the Americans had obtained what
they wanted and did not need Bin Laden anymore, the
latter followed the path of another proverb that says:
"who brings a whip will get whipped (by that same
whip)."
So today we are enduring the effects of the first war
of civilisations of which everyone is aware of the main
objectives and repercussions. The effects of the current
war of civilisations can only be assessed after at least
a decade because mutations are generally perceivable
after long periods of time. The monopoly of power and its
hegemony in the world as we have known it during the
first war of civilisations should no longer exist in
three or four years.
We will live in a world of plurality due to this
paradoxical change from the age of information to the
coming age of spying through traditional means just like
in the "biaa" era in Morocco when "merchants" (or
"indicators" according to the conventional appellation)
were selling oral information.
In history, a rumour has never been a basis on which
one takes important decisions. But up to now George
Walker Bush has not presented any reliable proof that
justifies the responsibility of Bin Laden in what
happened. The danger that is currently hanging over us
and that these events have uncovered does not stem from
the term "terrorism" but from the fear that reigns in
that climax of suspicion, in a world where decisions are
taken arbitrarily without any information, any valuable
knowledge and following the "you are on my side or on the
opposite one" philosophy. This is where the real danger
lies. During the first war of civilisations, what we had
was a post-imperialist dictatorship. What we are living
in the second stage (the current period) can be
considered like a sort of neo-fascism, an international
fascist alliance exploited by the governments and state
leaders of the Third World who oppress their own People.
This explains why certain Arab states characterised by a
widening gap between their political elite and their
People are so keen to support the Americans.
Now we are allowed to ask ourselves: whatever happened
to the million of people who took over the streets of
Rabat to denounce the war against Iraq? Whatever happened
with that simmer on the Arab boulevard? Where have the
associations of civil society gone? It is fear. Like I
have written in my latest work "The Intifada of the
'humiliocracy', we are entering a period that I call the
'phobiacracy' era, an era in which fear reigns.
'Phobiacracy' is no longer a feature of the Southern
countries. It has become one of the prominent factors in
international relations today. In my opinion, one cannot
interpret a single fact associated with international
relations outside the context of fear, a context that has
become the basic reference to evaluate changes from
whichever nature.
In Islamic architecture, the saying "Allah is the only
victorious" can often be seen indifferently written on
the walls of mosques or other sites. For several decades,
the United States believed that they were strongly
protected and immune from all defeat. The belief that it
is impossible to dethrone the giant was engraved in the
rather legendary American imaginary. But what happened in
a few seconds time cost the Americans the loss of
hundreds of billions of dollars: the disintegration of
the haughty and tyrannical image of a titan who believed
that he was invincible.
I strongly believe that the United States' persistence
in accusing Bin Laden is primitive from a military and
strategic perspective. The Americans are aware that the
best way to condition or perhaps "shape" the public
opinion rests in the diagnosis of the matter. If one sets
certain ideological or policy guidelines from the starts,
one is sure to obtain the results wished for. That is
what is somehow called in psychology "the fixation",
which consists of putting the objective under the light
in a highly concentrated and precise manner. It is an
operation in which the media play an essential and
perilous role.
In that respect, it is a shame that the Arab media
have adopted the American scenario in all its details and
considerations. For example, the written press at home,
which is already known for its "French orientation", has
been subjected to the game of the "new war" with its
preconceived attitudes and its prejudices. If one
contrasts a newspaper in Arabic with one in French, one
will find a difference so pronounced that it is possible
to wonder if both daily papers belong to the same
political party and if they adopt the same values. This
difference is partly due to what I had called
"imperialism of civilisation" or post-imperialism. And I
would add to that list what I have mentioned earlier
"neo-fascism".
The media dimension of an event such as September 11
2001 is very dangerous. Take for example the actions of
CNN in this particular context. It played the role of the
Ministry of Foreign affairs, of the Pentagon and of the
official representative of the White House in addition to
its immediate impact on the international press and media
in general. It has done so through the information and
images that it had drawn according to a scenario created
in a way that it could be adopted by the international
media discourse (including the Arab media).
It is true audio-visual terrorism. The quick passage
of the headline "American under attack" to "America at
war" and then to "War against terror" followed by the
misleading concept of "justice without frontiers", which
was soon abandoned and replaced by the only true and
infinite justice of God. Then came the mobilisation of
the military arsenal, the departure for Afghanistan, and
the fact that Bush junior spoke of "Crusades", a
declaration that he tried to rectify later on using the
same language as his father, of whom we quote the
formulation "American style of life" and that the son
turned into "American way of life". This is all to say
that if wars in developed countries rest in values the
American foreign policy is delimited by a system of
clash, of conflicts.
In contrast with Samuel Huntington, famous for his
work "The Clash of Civilisations" (I was actually the
first to come up with the concept of "first war of
civilisation"), my approach is rather one of forecast or
prevention. If we want to avoid the clash a dialogue
between the North and the South is essential. As Ibn
Khaldoun has previously written, the term "war of
crusades" as used, although rather temporarily, by George
W. Bush in his discourse implies that the victorious
imposes his values and very language to the defeated.
This currently applies to the countries of the Southern
hemisphere and also to the system of the United Nations,
which is obviously becoming obsolete.
It is one of the greatest paradoxes that the Security
Council unanimously agreed (unusually quickly) to apply
article 51 of the UN Charter that authorises the use of
force for legitimate self-defence. The same goes for NATO
which for the first time in its history made use of
article 5 of its Charter that refers to the principle of
self-defence. It is as if the decisions of the UN were
inspired by those of NATO.
Kofi Anan is in the process of truly burying the
United Nations at a time when the United States still
have not paid their contribution to the UN (1321 millions
at the end of 2000). The general credibility of the
United Nations and of the system of international
organisations is in constant decline.
The situation is the same in the Arab countries: the
representative organisations (governmental or
non-governmental) have also lost some of their
credibility. This in turn reduces organisations such as
the League of Arab States and the Organisation of the
Islamic Conference to vain speeches and useless tours of
tourism in planes and stays in luxury hotels.
All I can say to those organisations is that the
Peoples have understood the game and that if things do
not change and the situation is not improved what will
happen is worse than what is happening now.
Every soul is precious to the Master of the Universe,
whether it is the souls of innocent Americans, of victims
of the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, of the victims of the
embargo in Iraq, in Palestine, in Somalia or of the
murders of the innocents in Algeria and Vietnam. All the
innocent victims will have a place in our memories, not
without bitterness and regrets. And the present war will
only add up new souls on the list of victims who die in
the indifference of the international community.
It is really a shame that all that is happening for
mere oil interests or for the undeclared aim of
preventing a so-called nuclear balance that would
jeopardise eventual interests.
It is also regrettable to associate Islam with
terrorism as if the 1500 millions of Muslims in the world
were terrorists.
Islam is the religion of the future. It is also the
civilisation of the future. If we consider the
demographical increase that the Islamic countries are
currently experiencing, Muslims will represent 40% of the
world's inhabitants at the end of the century.
I am a disciple of Gandhi, strongly attached to the
philosophy of non-violence and tolerance in its ethic. As
it can be observed in my writings and by the prize that I
have established, the "Prize of Cultural Communication
North-South", I am a man who has been since a long time
calling for a cultural dialogue and for a dialogue
between civilisations.
We assume at least two thirds of the responsibility.
The fact that we are disinterested in what we call civil
society and above all in our Peoples to whom we do not
guarantee the context for a decent life, freedom,
democracy and human rights. The international community,
governmental organisations and non-governmental
organisations manifest a total absence in the face of the
hegemony of power.
One of the essential characteristics of "prospective"
as a science is the predominance of hope when making
previsions about the future despite the pessimistic
results of the present. Changes can only be assessed in
fifty or sixty years. This slice of life is not much in
the history of human civilisation. In any case, progress
will not be achieved with bombs, war planes and betrayal
but with transparency and the convergence of efforts.
The coming victory must find its legitimacy in our
faith in the great principles and in good intentions.
Actions must be characterised by hard labour and
seriousness. As for the so-called "Operation Noble
Eagle", it can only be perceived as the beginning of
decadence. When a powerful one feels a few weaknesses it
tries by all means to hang on to whatever that will help
him to stay the strongest. This is exactly what happened
when Bush and his government took the decision to go to
war and certain European countries let themselves go in
the whirlwind of the decision.
We have entered in a stage that marks the beginning of
the end of an empire. Only God is eternal.
(Translation of an article published in Arabic in
ESSAHIFA September 28 2001, Casablanca)
©
TFF & the author 2003
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|