|
Now
we know: there need be no clash of
civilizations
By
Jonathan
Power
April 27, 2003
LONDON - So far so good, at least on the wider level.
While internally Iraq seems on the edge of chaos, the
much heralded clash of civilizations between the Muslim
and Judaeo-Christian worlds has yet to become apparent.
We have anger and despair aplenty in the Arab and Muslim
worlds. But very little rushing to the standard and there
was no great pilgrimage of warriors to join the fight, as
happened when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan twenty
years ago, and then, having driven the Red Army out, were
left to ferment in that mountainous redoubt. With the
armaments supplied by the CIA the mujahidin were
transformed into Al Qaeda that became, for a relatively
brief moment as these things go, 'the greatest threat to
the homeland that America has ever known.'
Nevertheless a 'Cold War' between much of the Muslim
world and the West is certainly in full swing. Winston
Churchill who coined the phrase 'Iron Curtain'was not the
inventor of the 'Cold War'. That, 'La Guerra Fria' was
the term used by thirteenth century Spaniards to describe
their complicated and uneasy relationship with the
Muslims of the Mediterranean.
Islam has been from its inception a warrior nation. In
this it is little different from Judaism but different
from Christianity that began as a pacifist religion until
it was hijacked by the Roman empire and later the more
worldly interpretations of St Augustine and St Thomas
Aquinas. One can often get the feeling when travelling in
the Arab world that once Islam regains the prowess it
wielded in the twelfth century there will be voices
within demanding to confront the West at every point. We
have seen only the beginning of what could come, as
economies strengthen, educational achievement spreads and
as military hardware is acquired.
This is how many observers read it. I don' share their
pessimism. Much of this inflated description of the
'enemy' is based on hunches even bigger than those that
thought that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled Iraq to the
ceiling with weapons of mass destruction.
There is a process, especially 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. As for
the clash of civilizations it should be apparent by now,
and the second Gulf war has made it clearer than ever,
that the Islamic world is not that homogeneous and is
riven by fault lines, even as it shares one important
historical experience- the imposition of western culture,
first by force of arms and more recently by the twin
influences of the market place and economic
modernization. Moreover, unlike Western and Sinic
civilization, it does not possess a core state of
overwhelming influence and power around which the others
can rally and identify. Egypt thirty years ago tried that
role and was found wanting. Saudi Arabia, rich as it is,
at the end of the day is nothing more than a pilgrimage
point.
Over the last two years, despite the rhetoric, the
bluster, the wishful thinking, the conspiracy theories
that linked Israel to the September 11th atrocity, there
is no great well of sympathy in the Islamic world for
Osama bin Laden or, come to that, Saddam Hussein. Bin
Laden, as the war historian Michael Howard wrote in
Foreign Affairs, is about as representative of Islam as
is the Northern Ireland firebrand, Ian Paisley,
representative of Christianity
Yet just as Paisley exerts a profound influence on the
politics of his homeland so does bin Laden on his. Now he
is perhaps about to win the prime aim of his twenty-year
campaign for the removal of American troops from sacred
Saudi soil. It would make sense if Saudi Arabia goes
ahead with its intention without second thoughts: it will
undercut Al Qaeda and it will make the task of keeping a
sense of equilibrium at home that much easier.
In his book 'The Clash of Civilizations' Harvard
professor Samuel Huntington made a grave error- to see
the appeal of the West, which he fears is being rejected
by the Islamic world, in terms of modern culture and
contemporary financial priorities. What he missed is the
impact that spreading notions of human rights are having
deep within the Islamic world, as they are
everywhere.
Islam, as Christianity before it, is evolving at a
rapid pace. St Thomas Aquinas advocated putting heretics
to death and the protestant reformer Jean Calvin had one
outspoken dissident executed And it is only a generation
ago that political observers used to note that the
Catholic countries of southern Europe and Latin America
were constitutionally and philosophically unable to take
to democracy. But Islam is changing very fast. It is more
than beginning to think about democracy.
If the Islamic world is as potentially dangerous as is
suggested then the best long-term counter weapon is not
added security in the western world or war-making but
removing the main cause of friction- America's over
dependence on Middle Eastern oil, American soldiers based
in Saudi Arabia and the lack of a viable homeland for the
Palestinians- together with the vigorous and credible
pursuit of human rights, the backbone of freedom for
people of every religious persuasion.
I can be reached by phone +44
7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Copyright © 2003 By
JONATHAN POWER
Follow this
link to read about - and order - Jonathan Power's book
written for the
40th Anniversary of
Amnesty International
"Like
Water on Stone - The Story of Amnesty
International"
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
 
|