|
There
need be no "Clash of Civilization"
By
Jonathan
Power
June 13, 2002
LONDON - President George Bush has bequeathed the world a
great sense of insecurity. Since he delivered his dose of
inflated hyperbole at his State of the Union address we
are left to wonder if the rest of his presidency is going
to be a constant reminder of that state when "every road
towards a better society is blocked, sooner or later, by
war, threats of war, preparations for war," as Aldous
Huxley warned us it would be 70 years ago.
"If you want peace, prepare for war" advised
Clausewitz, and today's inhabitants of the White House,
convinced self righteously that the mailed fist will cow
the infidel and the wicked, take Clausewitz all too
literally, convinced that their bombs will persuade those
underneath to bow to superior force. It can happen. Nazi
Germany was blitzed into oblivion. Japan was nuclear
bombed into capitulation.
More recently, Iraq was dissuaded from taking over
Kuwait and Milosevic sued for peace in Kosovo. Yet apart
from the argument, a powerful if underused one, that in
most situations of conflict there is an alternative way -
as most successfully Bill Clinton showed with the
effective de-fanging of the would-be nuclear teeth of
North Korea - there is the real danger that Bush is
walking us into the trap of "The Clash of
Civilizations".
Whilst the bombs were dropping on Afghanistan I
decided to re-read Samuel Huntington's political
masterpiece. Often misrepresented as a call to arms in
defence of the vulnerability of Western civilization, it
is towards its end a cautionary tale with Huntington
arguing how a world war between the West and the Islamic
World backed by China can be avoided.
But along the book's way Huntington does remind us how
close to the surface lies the enmity of the Islamic world
towards the West. And he underscores, throughout much of
its history, how militant on the battlefield has been the
Islamic cause.
Once Islam regains the prowess it wielded until the
twelve century, when its decline relative to the West
began, it will seek to confront the West at every point.
We see only the beginnings of this now as oil wealth in
particular builds up the strength of many Islamic
societies.
But it is nothing to what we may see over the next
thirty years as economies strengthen, educational
achievement spreads and as military hardware is acquired.
Whether dictatorial or democratically led, argues
Huntington, the feelings of the masses are so strongly
anti-western the leadership can only head in one
direction - confrontation with the supposedly Christian
West.
Yet there is a process in American political discourse
that tends to overstate dangers. The most egregious
example was Vietnam with its theology of falling
dominoes. Similarly, in retrospect it is quite clear that
the menace of Soviet military strength was overstated
almost to the point of ludicrousness.
Huntington's grave error is to see the appeal of the
West- which he fears is being rejected in the Islamic
world - in terms of modern culture and contemporary
financial priorities.
What he misses is the impact that the spreading
notions of human rights are having, deep inside the
Islamic world, as they are everywhere. While it is true
that in its present form the human rights cause is
primarily a Western construct it is not true, as
Huntington, argues that the Islamic world has for the
most part shunned it. He passes over the influence played
by many Islamic nations when the path-breaking UN
documents on human rights were written.
As Professor Susan Waltz of Michigan University has
uncovered, it was not Eleanor Roosevelt who authored the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Rather it was a
group of small countries and non-governmental
organisations that pushed it through the UN labyrinth
with delegates from many Muslim countries making many
substantive contributions. Moreover, the Muslim
delegations clearly understood all the human rights
documents to be universally applicable and they made
compelling arguments and applied concerted effort to that
end.
If the Islamic world is as potentially dangerous as
Huntington suggests then the best long-term
counter-weapon is not arms but the pursuit of human
rights. This is what will impress the oppressed rank and
file and, as we know from watching democratic
Hindu/Muslim India or democratic Moslem Bangladesh or
democratic Confucian Taiwan rings very deep bells inside
society.
Democratic societies that practice human rights do not
go to war with each other. But to be effective the West
itself has to be credible on the human rights front,
which means among other things in the news right now,
honouring the Geneva Conventions, abolishing capital
punishment, supporting financial reform of electioneering
and, not least, supporting the International Criminal
Court.
I can be reached by phone +44
7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Copyright © 2002 By
JONATHAN POWER
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
 
|