25 - 31 October 2001
Issue No.557
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 25 - 31 October 2001 Issue No.557 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Science, technology and politics
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed discusses how the three interact in the age of global terrorism
Shortly before the events of 11 September, I received an invitation from the Amman-based Abdel-Hamid Shauman Foundation to take part in a seminar in the Jordanian capital, held as scheduled on 20 and 21 October, on the theme of "Science, Technology and Political Development." What intrigued me was that although the three items on the agenda of the seminar -- science, technology and politics -- are well-defined and readily identifiable notions, they are seldom dealt with together. The field of science covers that of scientific discoveries; technology deals with the implementation of such discoveries for the welfare of human race. But politics deal rather with relations between human beings themselves -- a field not obviously related to science and technology per se.
Still, it is interesting to investigate the relationship between the three notions. Science is concerned mainly with man's knowledge of the objective reality around him, of what is often described as "nature," while politics cover the field of man's relationship with his fellow man. As to technology, for a long time throughout history it was regarded as a field that was quite distinct from science, as scientific discoveries rarely found direct and immediate application in any specific field of technology. Often whole centuries would separate a scientific discovery from its technological application in a given industrial field. But whatever the distance separating achievements in science from those in technology, the distances were still greater when it came to the relationship of either with politics.
But things changed dramatically in the 20th century. As scientific discoveries increased and followed each other at an ever-accelerating pace, the time lag between scientific discoveries and their technological implementation decreased accordingly. The two fields now appear organically linked. And as technological applications affect every walk of life, politics too have come to be closely related to science and technology in a variety of ways. This linkage manifests itself most clearly in the field of the Information Revolution. Thanks to radio, television, computers, modems, fax machines, mobile telephones and artificial satellites, as well as other breakthroughs in the field of electronics, distances -- in terms of both time and space -- have practically disappeared between the occurrence of any given event and people's awareness of its occurrence. Moreover, news is no longer uni-directional, with a given source which emits news and a given number of individuals who receive it. Information is becoming more and more interactive, and, as such, is simultaneously aimed in a multitude of directions. It is against this backdrop that last month's terrorist attacks were unleashed on New York and Washington. This unprecedented event revealed new dimensions in the relationship between science, technology and political development.
The attacks were a chilling reminder that the achievements of technology are no longer monopolised by the happy few now dominating the unipolar world order and that the initiative has passed over to parties who dare deploy the achievements of modern technology to further their own agenda. All the more so when these parties are ready to sacrifice their own lives in the process, as was the case on 11 September.
The most critical issue involving science and technology is that the opportunity now exists for anybody to take advantage of their accomplishments, at a time humanity is still divided between a minority for whom these accomplishments are readily available and a majority denied access to their benefits. Thus, some will use the opportunity they are given to build, while others will use it as a weapon to highlight the injustice inflicted on them, and to destroy. This is the problematic of terrorism.
Terrorism is no longer an accidental, marginal or regional issue but has now become a global epidemic eroding the very foundations of the world order. It is not by eradicating this or that group of terrorists that terrorism can be eradicated. These groups are merely symptoms of a disease that needs to be treated in a more holistic fashion by addressing its root causes, or the reasons why anyone would choose to resort to such extreme measures in the first place. These reasons have more to do with the present world order than they do with the terrorists themselves.
What happened on 11 September opened a new era in the world's assessment of and relationship with terrorism. Before that date, it was possible to see the phenomenon as no more than a nuisance, an aberrant form of behaviour displayed by a disgruntled few, certainly not as important enough to challenge world order itself. That all changed with the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, as it became clear that, with the advent of the new millennium, the world had entered a new era marked by growing disorder. The new century was supposed to bring people closer together in the context of globalisation; instead, it has elevated the phenomenon of terrorism from a marginal issue to one that is threatening the structural underpinnings of the global system. The most dangerous aspect of the 11 September attacks is less the actual damage they inflicted than the promise they carry of more and worse attacks to come, now that terrorists realise they are capable of carrying out such feats successfully.
What is true in general is true for the Middle East, where a number of critical problems remain unresolved, in particular. First and foremost, there is the Palestinian problem. For a long time Washington was more interested in avoiding a clash with Israel than in pressing for a just and equitable resolution of the problem. Then there are problems arising from a strong sense of grievance in the Islamic world, which feels that it has been subjected to frustrations and humiliations that can no longer be tolerated. The world system before 11 September did not reflect the balance of forces correctly. Behind the apparent balance, there were hidden repressed forces whose sudden eruption on 11 September highlighted a pressing need for fundamental change.
Terrorism is not just criminal in nature; it also has a political dimension. It is an expression of the fact that a considerable sector of the global community feels totally alienated and helpless in the face of forces over which it has no control, and that the only way to have an impact on the course of events is to deprive others of their right to live. This is all the more true for individuals ready to go so far as actually to commit suicide to achieve their aims. While attributing itself to globalism, the world system has failed to develop feelings of solidarity between human beings stronger than the reasons that divide them and keep conflict so acute. This is a tragedy that has not gone away despite all the progress achieved in science and technology. This tragedy will not be overcome as long as the defects and loopholes in the world system remain unaddressed.
This takes us to a problem of particular importance. Modern technology has reached levels of accuracy and perfection that should by rights project a feeling of certainty. The new American administration's central project involves building an anti-missile defence system that can hit incoming missiles after takeoff and before they reach their target. But despite these and other remarkable achievements of modern technology, science today is far from being based on irrefutable certainties. As veteran scientist Karl Popper put it, science is "what can be proved to be wrong." Scientific progress in the past was identified with the continuous accumulation of knowledge and the corresponding shrinking of what was not known. Now we tend to see scientific development otherwise: the more we know, the wider the field of things we come to discover that we do not know. As science progresses in absolute terms, it regresses in relative terms. This engenders doubt and confusion -- in short, feelings of uncertainty that clash with our previous feeling of certainty and self-assurance.
And what applies to science and technology can also apply to the field of politics. There are two poles -- not only one -- in the present so-called "unipolar" world order: one headed by the United States, which is said to represent "legitimacy," and another in rebellion against it, whose most radical expression is terrorism. Which of the two poles is more likely to overcome and contain the other?
There is no guarantee that legitimacy will emerge victorious from the confrontation. While the pole headed by the US will almost certainly prevail, there are fears that its quest for victory will affect its character as the pole of legitimacy negatively, and force it to indulge in practices not very different from those followed by the opposite pole. This will mean the defeat of global legitimacy, despite the fact that the pole that attributes itself to that quality will eventually appear as the victor. That is why values and modes of conduct should take precedence over this or that specific great power acting on the world scene. That is also why bipolarity in our present world has to be overcome and why humanity, in order to survive, can no longer tolerate the injustices and inequities now marring the world order.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page