Issue No. 605
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
26 Sept. - 2 October 2002 Issue No. 605 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Alternative coalitions
The poor, the rich: they are two worlds the interface between which has yet to emerge, argues Sayyid El-Bahrawi
The strikes on New York and Washington delivered a powerful blow to two major concepts governing the contemporary world: Western ethnocentrism and globalisation. The interrelationship between these concepts in thought and practice in the contemporary West has generated a system of values, beliefs and interests, a way of looking at the self and the other; at the past, present and the future; at the world. The affinity between these two concepts is strong enough to resist their inherent contradictions. If, at times, Western centrality has appeared to conflict with certain values of capitalism, and its "globalised" extension, such as democracy, equality and human rights, events prior to 11 September (the history of colonialism) and post-11 September (the war against terrorism) have demonstrated the superficiality of such contradictions.
Western centrality emanates from Europe's self-image as the model of civilised man in juxtaposition to others -- savages who need to be civilised. The annals of history are replete with accounts of colonialist missions civilatrices, which have more often than not assumed a violent form. However, no such colonialist venture was as brutal as that waged against native Americans, for which reason the American espousal of Western centrality has, from the outset, manifested itself with an absolutism that has extended to the annihilation of the other. That is, naturally, if the "other" refused tutelage in civilisation, which is to say, refused to enter into servitude.
Suddenly 11 September shook the US- European self-image, severely enough to jeopardise an entity and ontology that have existed for centuries without real threat. Western armies suffered numerous defeats over the past centuries, but such defeats occurred abroad and not in the very heart of the "civilised" world. Herein lies the significance of the blow to the second concept: globalisation. Globalisation, here, should be taken in its broadest sense -- a political concept signifying the drive to create a global market with its centre and controlling force located in the West. New York and Washington occupy the pinnacle of the "new globalised world", and the perpetrators of the attacks of 11 September targeted the World Trade Center and the Pentagon precisely because of their symbolic value.
Despite the mysteries that envelop this operation -- and I do not deny that it could have been masterminded by Bin Laden, though this is by no means certain -- it is the speed with which Washington attributed blame and moved to punitive action that is significant. That action has so far occurred on two fronts: in Afghanistan, against Bin Laden and Al-Qa'eda, and in Palestine, in which not only US weapons, but US political, economic and cultural pressures were brought to bear.
This speed indicates the intention to exploit the post-11 September mood to the full and wage full-scale war on forces the US and Europe deem a threat to their control over the sources of wealth.
Political-economic analysts have long referred to "brute" capitalism. The word was used metaphorically to describe a mode of economic behaviour, with its political, cultural and, sometimes, ideological, projections. Now the attribute applies literally because capitalism's prime instrument has become military force and its ultimate aim is not merely domination but the obliteration of the "other", simply for being "other". If that "other" does not accept absolute assimilation, not into the Western model of civilised man but into the role the West has devised for him -- ie absolute dependency -- then his fate is sealed. He must be annihilated to ensure the perpetuation of the European way of life and the European concept of civilisation.
This is the Weltanschauung that has given rise to the dualisms good versus the "axis of evil", might with right versus terrorism, civilisation versus barbarism. But what the Europeans call civilisation has itself become evil, terrorist and barbaric while those to whom they have ascribed these attributes are, in reality, poor, weak, downtrodden peoples, subjugated both by the forces of globalisation and by rulers subordinate to the US. Of course, terrorist groups do exist, in both the East and West, but their terrorism pales in comparison to that perpetrated in the material interest of transnational companies and arms manufacturers, merchants and brokers.
A nebulous world emerged following the collapse of the Soviet bloc, a world that, despite predictions to the contrary, is again split in two: on one side are ordinary people, the weak, oppressed, and the poor, on the other the voraciously greedy who own everything yet still want more. The latter subscribe to an ideology of absolute individualism while the former ask only for the minimum needed to support a secure and dignified life. The underprivileged are weak in the balance of power, but they far outnumber the privileged, and their numbers will multiply, which is why strategists and opinion pundits on the other side seek to form a military, economic and ideological coalition of "civilised" nations against "barbarians".
But history is shaped by all human beings, not just the oppressor. And the conflict between the two camps -- the oppressor, the oppressed -- is destined to sharpen as each adopts the means at its disposal, including warfare. While the weaker camp does not possess fighter planes, tanks and nuclear weapons, it does possess free will and purpose. It also possesses the power of supreme sacrifice, or martyrdom, the power that destroyed the twin towers in New York, a power neither the US nor Israel knows how to confront.
If the globalisation coalition is unifying the forces and ideologues of capitalism, so too is the coalition of the underprivileged striving to unify the forces of the people, in all their political and ideological diversity: leftists, greens, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and simply devout humanitarians. The forces of the first coalition are being rallied to defend Western centrality and its monolithic concept of globalisation, as a consequence of which we can expect the evanescence of deconstructionist philosophies in favour of philosophies that aim to generate a uniform West in juxtaposition to "terrorism". These philosophies are certain to be rabid in their defence of globalisation and capitalism. The opposing coalition has yet to coalesce ideologically but it has a wealth of resources and human legacies to draw on.
The advocates of the "global village" placed great store in globalised media such as the Internet and satellite television networks to promote Western cultural values. But this technology has benefited all mankind, including globalisation's opponents. The anti-globalisation demonstrations in Seattle and elsewhere were, after all, arranged over the Internet. Laws passed in the US, following 11 September, though, have paved the way for formidable restrictions on this service, as well as for tighter surveillance. Consequently, the freedom of access to and exchange of information has not only been curtailed but threatens to become more so. The technology is falling increasingly under the control of the dominant forces: the proponents of globalisation and corporate capitalism. And it is not enough for opponents of globalisation to be aware of this phenomenon; they must look for alternatives. Such alternatives are available in the fertile cultural wealth of diverse peoples: they must be developed and crystallised through constructive and creative interchange.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| 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 |
