3 - 9 January 2002
Issue No.567
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 3 - 9 January 2002 Issue No.567 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Torment and transformation
The writing was already on the wall last year: the turmoil that marks the end of 2001 is extraordinary in scale, but not in essence, argues Gamil Mattar*
This is it: the end of 2001. It has brought to the fore all the contradictions of our modern history. It has laid them bare for all to see. This was the year when political and intellectual elites fumbled, cracks riddled doctrinal facades, and a flurry of antiquated ideologies -- fascism, racism, religious fanaticism, nihilism and opportunism -- took centre stage in international politics. Panic was rampant everywhere.
And yet the astounding thing about this year was that there was nothing truly astounding about it. Yes, some brainwashed, or perhaps brain-dead, individuals committed one memorable atrocity. But even then, the one surprising thing about the 11 September crime was not its occurrence but its incredible scale. Some act of tremendous evil was bound to happen: that much was fairly predictable. Since last year, observers and officials, including friends of America and the West, spoke of pent-up anger, and warned of the consequences.
The anger of ordinary people has become a constant feature of the international scene. It has become quite common for ordinary individuals not belonging to political parties or religious groups -- homemakers, security guards, taxi drivers -- to challenge the United States, the world's greatest country, criticise its policies, and blame it for the deterioration in their economic and political fortunes.
Ordinary men and women are angry with Washington. They are angry because US politicians are imposing their unilateral visions worldwide, regardless of the consequences. What no one imagined, though, was that one individual was plotting an act of unimaginable brutality against innocent civilians in the United States -- and that the world's greatest power would launch a global war against that individual.
However tumultuous this year has been, it was, in a sense, only a sequel to past events, a twist not altogether unforeseen. The writing was already on walls from Seattle to Geneva, Prague to Genoa, Bangkok to Djakarta, Melbourne to Durban. Anti-globalisation demonstrations told the world that something is wrong, that entire societies have knelt a little too low, and that globalisation requires reform. In particular, the United States needed to review some of its policies and practices. Other governments were advised to relieve the pressure on their people and give them more freedom.
There was also the matter of the Intifada, which erupted after the Palestinians realised Clinton was only teasing when he invited Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak to Camp David for talks on a final settlement, mere weeks before his term ended. Did weariness beset them at the end of a journey of lies and deceit, in which Dennis Ross, US envoy to the Middle East, played the main role? Ross brought peace efforts to a juncture where unjust peace or military confrontation were the only two options available, and Sharon took it from there, setting the Intifada aflame.
The remarks Dennis Ross has made since his Middle East mission days have confirmed, to those who still harboured shreds of doubt, that the man was less a peace envoy than a collaborator in deception that undermined the US's credibility as a peace broker. That the Clinton administration, fully aware of Ross's staunch pro-Israeli views, selected him as a regional go-between is mind-boggling.
As demonstrators took to the streets in support of the Intifada, Arab governments found themselves on the defensive. Most were already grappling with a bewildering range of political and economic woes. As the United States pressured these governments on human rights, democracy, and transparency, the Arab street was clamouring for more action on Palestine and less submission to the United States.
The Republican victory in the US presidential elections brought no tangible improvement. George W Bush made no encouraging signs. His policies, the missile shield in particular, suggested he was taking a hard line on foreign policy and indulging a predilection for the use of military force.
East Europe, Russia, and China were among the first to express concern. Still, no one was reluctant to open dialogue with the new administration. Recession was looming, and everyone feared that a further slowdown in the US economy could spell global disaster. The United States is the locomotive of international growth, and its economic woes could undermine international stability. Many also expressed worry over the rise of fundamentalism in the United States and the extremism that brought chaos in Waco, Texas, and Oklahoma City.
The worries were justified. The statements of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell after 11 September are frighteningly similar to remarks made by a prominent fundamentalist in the Arab world following the 1967 defeat: both attributed a disaster to society's departure from the ways of God, which had brought down divine punishment. Murder and mayhem, once again, brought joy to fundamentalist hearts. To think that such seemingly opposed ideologues would one day converge is frightening; that they would one day find a way of collaborating is even more so.
Initially, it had seemed possible that the catastrophe off 11 September would bring about enlightenment, make some people in Washington wiser. In the past, Americans have exhibited some ability to analyse and understand crises. They realised that inner-city crime is related to poverty, that drug trafficking has social causes beyond organised crime. America, therefore, has been able to do something about these two problems. It was even able to combine domestic and foreign measures to fight drugs. But then, America has always been more comfortable dealing with the external aspects of its problems than with the domestic ones.
In the aftermath of 11 September, the United States, particularly intellectuals and opinion makers, engaged in some soul searching and objective criticism. But in days, attempts at a sober assessment of the situation had screeched to a halt. Perhaps fear for national unity or for the morale of troops getting ready for a war in Afghanistan was the cause of this reversal. Perhaps US public opinion was growing wary of a long, complex, and costly war effort. Soon enough, US analysts began focusing on glamourising the war. US Writers emphasised the growing schism between the United States and Arab and Muslim societies. And US commentators gave their stamp of approval to Ariel Sharon's twisted version of Middle East reality.
So the cycle of mistrust went on. The gap between the US's vision of the world and what the rest of us see is wider than ever before. Once again, Americans are making arrogant statements about rearranging the world, and non-Americans are pleading for reason.
The US's reach is longer than ever before, its blows are heavier, and its treatment of the poor and unfortunate is growing more merciless. In return, the initial outpouring of global sympathy is receding, leaving renewed antipathy in its wake -- not just in the Arab world, but also in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere.
There is growing unease with America's tendency to neglect causes and focus on symptoms, not to mention its refusal to believe that the original cause for international mayhem lies deeper than the surface. The woes that need immediate attention are not being addressed: runaway globalisation, unfettered capitalism, scorn for national liberation movements, the horrors committed by Israel... US foreign policy has addressed none of these crises. Not one is on the current administration's agenda. Argentina, which adhered zealously to the values the US advocates, is in shambles, and the US is doing nothing to help. Then again, why should it?
In 2002, the United States will need more than brute force to confront international terror. Many countries are sceptical about the US definition of terror -- if such a definition exists. There are also doubts about the US's war against terror, which will be long, rambling, and open-ended. The campaign is bound to lose support unless it takes on clarity and definition.
The past year started in anger, and ended in more of the same. Nowhere is this more true than in the Middle East, where the US has failed to do anything to make Israel withdraw -- a mission it can accomplish without firing a single shot -- from all the occupied territories. Such a withdrawal would only be in accordance with UN resolutions to which the United States is committed. Anger is likely to increase in the Middle East; and the gates of American revenge, once opened, will be hard to close.
Anger is also likely to rise if Americans, and Westerners in general, insist on "modernising" Islam. Key commentators have accused Islam of providing fertile soil for terror. Others, seemingly unaware of the enormity of their suggestion, proposed changing Islamic "texts." Other writers and politicians have made the mistake of reducing the problem of terror to a formula for updating Islam. That these discussions are even taking place betrays a deep-seated ignorance of Islam, at best. At worst, it is an expression of a more hideous reality, which could be the harbinger of a religious war as merciless as it is unnecessary -- a war that can be in no one's interest.
The continued assault on human rights in the United States and other Western nations is another cause of concern. The emerging picture of detentions without trial and military courts is hardly reassuring. Nor is America's new image as a country that discriminates against people on the basis of their ethnicity, opinion, and creed.
Many still entertain hopes that security and justice will prevail, that America's constitutional principles and basic values will remain in force, or be restored. Even those who once felt that the universality of values could jeopardise their power are realising that humanism, transparency and freedom of expression are ultimately less costly than the ongoing US war against terror.
* The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.
© 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