31 Jan. - 6 Feb. 2002
Issue No.571
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 31 Jan. - 6 Feb. 2002 Issue No.571 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
The first of these is justice
Kamal Abul-Magd* asks an age-old question, and finds new answers are possible
Because it sensed the need for a world order founded upon a new code of ethics, formulated and voluntarily ratified by all nations, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution declaring 2001 a year of dialogue between nations. Acting upon this resolution, which had evolved from a proposal submitted by President Mohamed Khatami of Iran and actively backed by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the UN secretary-general created a 20-member committee of eminent persons, and charged it with drafting a detailed charter calling for a dialogue of civilisations as the only possible means of preventing cultural conflict. After a year of research and deliberation, the committee completed its task. The document it drew up was to be presented to General Assembly on 4 December, but 11 September intervened. There is no end in sight to its repercussions.
Striving to create a new world order through universal dialogue extended beyond the scope of the UN to include hundreds of conferences and seminars. Participants invariably expressed their anxieties over certain detrimental effects of globalisation, and the prospect that a single superpower's hegemony would exclude the weak from effective participation in the management of global affairs. The participants aspired to a new global order based on the principle of inclusion, entitling all peoples to defend their rights, interests and freedoms through a universally recognised code: mutual recognition and respect. They further resolved to ensure the effectiveness of the international legal system, undermined by the illegal behaviour of certain nations and their monopoly on international decision-making. A system of checks and balances is a fundamental element in the realisation of peace and justice.
This is how the world stood on 11 September. The nightmarish event that claimed thousands of innocent lives triggered violent reactions, some logical and understandable, others rash and pandering to the overwhelming popular demand for revenge. These reactions acquired momentum without careful consideration of their repercussions. Suddenly, the US declared war on terrorism and the rest of the world was faced with an ultimatum: either join the fight or risk being lumped with the terrorists. Then followed the massive military offensive against the Taliban, for which a fragile international coalition was hastily hammered together to support the US. The countries that joined this alliance did so for many reasons. Above all, they realised, most based on actual experience, the peril of the spread of international terrorism. They also sympathised with the US's understandable desire for revenge. This humanitarian commiseration was so profound, indeed, that the alliance's members felt obliged to stop urging the US government to think before it acted and to clarify the goals and potential effects of the military operation.
These developments coincided with increasing scepticism in international opinion regarding the legitimacy of the strike against the Afghan people and the possibility, emphasised by US officials, that military operations could extend to other nations that host terrorists and fail to assist the US in eliminating them. Such scepticism was voiced throughout the Arab and Islamic world, by close US allies, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and more indifferent regimes, like Indonesia, Malaysia and Iran. Similar doubts began to affect some Western countries, even though the major European nations sent forces to take part in the operations. As the war dragged on without clear objectives or specific time frames, and as the death toll of innocent Afghan civilians rose, the international coalition began to fracture. Governments had to respond to the growing segment of public opinion that condemned the bombardment of innocent civilians and feared the war would expand to target nations pinpointed by the US alone.
Three elements of the post-11 September situation will have serious repercussions for the global order and the future of the dialogue between civilisations.
First, Arabs and Muslims were held somehow responsible for the growth of terrorism, while Islam was rediscovered as a religion that espouses violence, fosters terrorism, and is thus the primary foe of Western culture. Suddenly Arabs and Muslims had to prove their innocence, yet were rarely offered the opportunity to do so. Suddenly Islam -- only yesterday a fundamental partner in the quest to build a new world based on cooperation, communication and the exchange of expertise -- became suspect. Amidst the media's clamour, the passions that overwhelmed reason and the stridency with which all fanatics speak, the tolerance that characterises the Muslim faith was forgotten. All Arabs and Muslims were marked as accomplices in the violence and bloodshed perpetrated by a small fringe: acts anathema to the explicit teachings of Islam and its ethical system, which holds that the end does not justify the means.
Second, human rights and civil liberties suffered an alarming setback as governments instituted a sweeping range of security measures. For 200 years, the US has boasted of the legal protection it offers citizens and foreigners alike. Almost immediately after 11 September, concerns for constitutional and legal guarantees of civil liberties evaporated as "security considerations" became paramount.
The setback to human rights in the US may well spread to other nations that have been less accommodating of human rights. America has given many governments a new pretext to justify repression and legislate for harsher clampdowns on their citizens. Although it has been stressed that the encroachment on human rights is only temporary, the experience of the Arab and Islamic world in particular indicates that only a small distance separates temporary from permanent.
Third, the crisis precipitated by the events of 11 September has shown more glaringly than ever that the world's major power sets itself above the legal framework that governs international relations, and claims unfettered freedom of action. This power will have the ultimate say on any international issue; its biases will shape the outcome of many disputes. The UN, supposedly the embodiment of international legitimacy and the sovereignty of law, has been reduced to a mere façade for decisions and actions the US takes. In Afghanistan, the US, with the UK in tow, agreed in advance upon a certain course of action, then summoned the UN to confer a gloss of legitimacy on this decision.
Blatant double standards on the Middle East issue also stirred intense anger among Arabs and Muslims who believed that the US supported them in the battle against communist expansion and in their calls for democracy, freedom and the sovereignty of law. In Europe, too, there is growing bitterness at Washington's monopoly over attempts to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict, augmented by the belief that Washington is politically unqualified to achieve more than a fragile solution due to its flagrant pro-Israeli bias.
Although there was no direct relationship between the Palestinian situation and the events of 11 September, Washington's persistence in ignoring the abuse of Palestinian rights and freedoms is directly responsible for generating violence in this region. The war against terrorism should also target the state terrorism perpetrated by the current government of Israel and condoned by US officials.
So what sort of world do we, as Arabs and Muslims, want? Certainly, we want a world vastly different from the existing order: a world ruled by law, not by force. An international order must be governed by binding legal principles. Such a system can only come about, in practical terms, through the establishment of a governing body founded upon an international social and political contract. Yet the UN is no longer equipped to fulfil the aims for which it was established, at least in the political realm. It can no longer intervene in disputes where the US or its allies are involved -- and, since the US's interests cover the globe, the UN finds its scope of action severely limited. Can the peoples of the world draw up a new social contract that will be more just and effective in preventing or resolving international disputes? As we confront a common threat, can we not compel the US to participate in creating a new world order while relinquishing some of its former privileges?
The repercussions of the current crisis may well provide an incentive, emanating from the shared belief that mutual interdependence alone ensures world security, and that a new international order must be governed by the rule of law.
Of course, the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction in possession of some international and regional powers will inevitably hamper efforts in this direction; but the test explosions conducted by India and Pakistan demonstrate the impossibility of imposing a monopoly on the possession of such weapons. Relative parity will serve as sufficient deterrent, and will thus facilitate the elaboration of a consensus; for the global order's provisions must apply to all without discrimination between strong and weak. That will be the best guarantor of international peace.
We also want a world founded on plurality and participation. "Globalisation" has been touted as the key to prosperity for all; but the global economic order serves the industrialised nations, and has allowed them to control developing nations more than ever before. Globalisation in practice provides the most powerful argument in favour of plurality and participation in the decisions that will shape humanity's future. Faith in diversity is indispensable to the enrichment of human civilisation. When this conviction becomes entrenched among all peoples, rulers and ruled alike, the relationship with the "other" will be determined by the imperative of perpetuating diversity and interacting with diverse peoples. Amicable rivalry will supplant confrontation, and competition to do good will replace conflict.
Naturally, human "conflict" will never cease. What is essential for the future of mankind is to eliminate the perception of the Other as the enemy, a perception that has heaped the horrors of war upon us for millennia. Rigid nationalism is meaningless today; all the peoples of the world must unite against the dangers that confront them all. Vanishing borders and the revolutions in communications and transport have rendered these dangers "transcontinental," just like goods, ideas and services. Terrorist violence, for instance, has bred a virtually universal sense of insecurity and dread.
The culture of dialogue is the alternative to the culture of conflict. It emanates from faith in human freedom; for freedom is the moral foundation of the right to differ, and to express this difference.
We want a world in which a universally accepted ethical system prevails. The great progress mankind has achieved in science and technology has not gone hand in hand with the development of a moral framework governing the access to and use of the marvelous fruits of this technology. Science and technology are still turned to unethical ends, and used to advance narrow interests at the expense of the majority.
Now that borders and barriers between peoples and nations are virtually vestiges of the past, a global ethical consensus is necessary. Four fundamental values must be revived and promoted as the cornerstones of the international order to which we aspire.
The first is justice. Iniquity in national and international affairs generates anger and violence. The second is mercy, which Western cultural consciousness all but disregards. Islam, in contrast, cherishes this value; two of God's names -- the Merciful and Compassionate -- are invoked before every Qur'anic chapter. Generosity, the third value, refers to fellowship and cooperation. The culture of giving is an integral feature of Muslim societies, which is why we can help promote efforts to formulate a new global charter that delineates universal duties and responsibilities along with rights and freedoms. The fourth value is family. In the family, individuals learn what it means to need one another and to experience companionship. They also learn the moral espoused by all divinely revealed religions: Love thy brother before thyself -- a value that embraces society and the whole of humanity.
The divinely revealed religions are the primary source of inspiration for these values, beginning from the individual's duty before God. Therefore, intellectuals and the clergy can play a major role in bringing about the transition to a more ethical world order. Nevertheless, in so doing, they must abide by several principles.
First, they should seek to emphasise religious harmony, avoiding the rhetoric of conflict and hate. Second, they must be lenient and empathetic in guiding people toward compassion and charity, as browbeating tends to have the opposite effect. Third, they should ensure that people never lose sight of higher humanitarian aims.
The events of 11 September must not obstruct the creation of this new world order. Perhaps from that appalling catastrophe we can salvage a glimmer of wisdom that will light our path to a more just, merciful and peaceful world.
* The writer is Arab League commissioner for dialogue of civilisations.
© 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