Issue No. 613
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
21 - 27 November 2002 Issue No. 613 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | |||
|
Overcoming mutual grievances
While the current gap between America and the Arab and Muslim world is discouraging, greater objectivity can bring us closer, says Hala Mustafa
Since the events of 11 September 2001, Arab and Islamic issues have acquired a certain urgency for US research and academic circles. Topics pertaining to Arabs and Muslims are the daily staple of major US papers, as well as a regular stimulus for commentators and columnists. A recent dialogue between American and Saudi intellectuals and academics, for instance, generated a level of media coverage that was unthinkable a few years ago.
This phenomenon is not confined to research and the media. US foreign policy is readjusting its priorities on everything Muslim and Arab. Likewise, Muslims and Arabs are following the nuances of US policy with more interest than ever before. People in our part of the world are intensely aware that they have become the focus of world attention, and they sense that the established norms of US-Arab relations are being adjusted, perhaps irrevocably. As tensions heighten, accusations fly, and as suspicions grow, the list of mutual grievances lengthens.
Perhaps all this is to be expected. The current change in US policy toward the Arab and Muslim world is taking place in extraordinary circumstances. The war against terror has thrown a shadow over the region, and the possibility of a war against Iraq offers more ominous prospects still. Uncertainty is widespread, and more of it is to come.
While the future can, perhaps, to a certain extent be predicted, many things still remain unclear. Yet, one thing, at least, is clear: the future of US-Arab and US-Islamic relations is vital. So vital, indeed, for everyone involved that the uncertainties will have to be addressed and differences sorted out.
Since the 11 September attacks, the United States has been concerned by what is sees as Arab and Muslim "hatred" towards America. Yet, it has somehow chosen to disassociate Arab and Muslim resentment from US foreign policy in the region, blaming this sentiment on Muslim militant groups, which tend -- due to their inherent ideology -- to be anti-Western in general and anti-American in particular.
Washington has also been critical of Arab and Muslim governments over their failure to address crucial domestic matters, such as economic reform, democratisation, development, the status of women, civil society and the freedom of expression. Arab and Muslim governments, the argument goes, have failed to clean up their domestic acts, and they are encouraging hatred of the United States in order to shift attention from their local problems. Some Americans have openly suggested that Arab and Muslim governments encourage extremism and violence for reasons of their own.
The United States has consistently dismissed the argument that it is its pro-Israeli policy that is behind much of the resentment directed against it. On the contrary, it claims that Arab extremists and radicals who oppose a peaceful settlement are undermining the region's prospects for peace and stability.
Washington was also not happy when some Arabs and Muslims questioned the real identity of the perpetrators of the 11 September attacks. And it has refused to take responsibility for the suffering of Arabs and Muslims in Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia. In the case of Iraq, Washington has blamed the regime for the population's ongoing ordeal. And, it claims that its interventions in Somalia and in other Muslim countries was for humanitarian purposes, a claim that is widely-disputed in the Arab and Muslim world. In a nutshell, Washington believes that Arabs and Muslims are their own worst enemy and that America should force them to mend their ways.
For their part, Arabs and Muslims remain suspicious of US policies and objectives. Their overwhelming sentiment is one of resentment and bitterness, for they see US policy as being inherently anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. Ever since the Cold War ended, goes this argument, America has been looking for a new enemy, and it has purposely cast the Arabs and Muslims in the role of the new global villains. The post-11 September confrontation, it has been suggested, would not have been that acrimonious had the perpetrators not been Arabs and Muslims.
The US bias towards Israel has also dominated the way Arabs and Muslims see America, both politically and culturally. And Arabs and Muslims are increasingly suspicious of US rhetoric on democracy, human rights and so-called "despotic regimes". In essence, the argument goes, what America really wants is to dominate the region and take control of Arab oil. This is the main aim of US policy in the region.
Arabs and Muslims have also expressed the fear that the United States will try to impose a certain political and cultural vision on the region, one that runs counter to local traditions. Moreover, the so-called "war against terror" may only lead to more extremism and political chaos in the region. It is US double standards, the argument goes, that have increased instability in the region and strengthened the hand of the militant groups.
The list of mutual grievances is long, instances of mistrust and misunderstanding abound, and the gap may widen further. It would be too much to try to go over every disagreement in detail, yet the problem as a whole has to be acknowledged by politicians as well as by writers. As is the case with any controversy, while some arguments are valid, others are the results of prejudice and stereotyping. Let us review some of the key points of disagreement.
The unravelling of the peace process and the continued escalation of violence in the Palestinian territories is a major cause of regional resentment of US policies. The Palestinian issue is a key component of contemporary Arab and Islamic life, and it will continue to be so for years to come. This is a fact, whether the United States deigns to acknowledge it or not.
US military intervention against regimes or against groups or individuals in other countries also poses genuine questions concerning the principle of national sovereignty. The limits to the interventions abroad carried out by the world's sole remaining superpower need to be clarified. Intervention must not be linked to "special cases". A coherent modus operandi needs to be stated and upheld.
US assertions about democracy, freedom and human rights too often contain an element of bias against Arab and Muslim culture. American writers in general see only one aspect of this culture, usually the extremist one. Indeed, some such writers see Arab and Muslim culture as inherently inconsistent with the liberal traditions of pluralism and tolerance. Worse, they often refer to pluralism and tolerance as part of the "American way of life". This assertion is grotesque: liberal values are common human values that have drawn upon the legacy of many cultures, including the Arab and Muslim one.
However, the Arabs and Muslims are as guilty of stereotyping as are certain people in the West and in the United States. One argument that has been asserted with alarming confidence, for example, is that the West, and foremost the United States, wants to "do harm" to Islam and Muslims. While it is true that some extremist views about Arabs and Muslims have been voiced in the United States and in other western countries since 11 September, these have not been part of the mainstream. To generalise from these views would be dangerous, for it can only reinforce mistrust and fuel misguided vengefulness.
Democracy, too, has become part of the ongoing debate, and, to make things worse, it has been described as a "US demand". The assumption here is that Arab and Islamic societies are by nature undemocratic, yet history says otherwise. Democracy has been the aim of modernisation efforts in the region for at least two centuries.
The question of the separation of church and state has also been repeatedly broached, but this is not particular to the Arab and Muslim region. Indeed, it was until quite recently part of the debate in Europe, and it is still part of US domestic debate on a number of issues, for example abortion and homosexuality. Some religious institutions remain part of European politics to this day, for example the Anglican Church in Britain and government involvement in church finance in the Netherlands. What Arab and Muslim societies are undergoing with regard to democracy and the separation of church and state is, therefore, not part of a unique historical experience, but is rather a common sign of development.
Indeed, the idea of reconciling Islam and modernity was a priority for key reformers in the Arab world, such as El-Tahtawi, Al-Afghani, Mohamed Abdu, Ali Abdel-Razeq and Taha Hussein, many of whom were traditionally educated as scholars of Al-Azhar in Cairo. These reformers never saw the West as an enemy to be annihilated; rather, they looked upon it as a friend to learn from.
Militant Islamist groups do not speak on behalf of all Arabs and Muslims. These groups are hostile not just to Western democratisation or modernisation, but also to their own societies and governments. The challenges they pose are not confined to their views on the West and the United States, even as these are the inevitable consequences of the modernisation of the Arab and Muslim worlds and should be addressed in that light.
A dialogue based on mutual understanding needs to emerge between the Americans and their Arab and Muslim interlocutors. This dialogue needs to find common ground of consent and to build upon it. In order to do that, the first step is to avoid unhelpful stereotyping, on either side.
* The writer is editor-in-chief of the quarterly journal Al-Dimoqrateya (The Democracy) issued by Al-Ahram
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
