Clash of politics
Civilisations may differ, but their differences are benign, even positive. Current conflicts, writes
Mustafa El-Feki*, are about politics not civilisations
Human relations are in essence based on communication and complementariness -- integration even. Human societies evolved in a context of mutual cooperation and communal consensus. Civilisation, after all, is a human storehouse from which nations draw their thinking and tradition, their values and conduct. Politics, meanwhile, is an expression of extant interests; the interplay of pressures that can turn might into right and shackle the enfranchised in chains of misery.
Civilisation, as a term, is associated with refinement of purpose, with nobility of goals. Whereas politics is often disassociated from morality, a domain in which ends justify the means, as Machiavelli pointed out. Let us examine the circumstances of our region to see if current politics reflect the civilisations we have and the values they inspire. Are we faced with a conflict of civilisations or of politics? Let's go over the facts.
First, historic relations between major civilisations are ones of openness and continuity, not clash and abhorrence. Islam, for example, was a body of civilisation, even more so than a religion. It spread its culture to the continents of the old world, before moving on to the new world with the immigrant communities of the past two centuries. The theoretical basis of Islam, meanwhile, was distorted to the point when some of its followers became imbued with a spirit of isolation and xenophobia. The latter phenomenon has much to do with the advent of Western imperialism on the Muslim East. One may recall here the disbelief with which Abdel-Rahman El-Gabarti, the leading Egyptian historian at the time, greeted Bonaparte's campaign two centuries ago. Writing with an evident sense of shock, El-Gabarti was not antagonistic towards French culture, but puzzled by how different it was from the Egyptian customs of the time.
Rifaa Rafie El-Tahtawi, an Azhar-trained religious scholar, returned from his Paris sojourn in the second quarter of the 19th century to extol Western civilisation and French life, and there is not a trace of hatred or fanaticism in his writing. Mohamed Abdou, eminent social and religious reformer, once said that he left at home Muslims without Islam and found in France Islam without Muslims. Voicing admiration of Western morality, he concluded that Western honesty and probity were in line with the true teachings of Islam.
Second, orientalism as a whole reflects the gravitational pull experienced by Western historians and thinkers in the course of their studies and writings about the orient, and the fascination they had of the variety of Islamic, Arab, and other oriental societies. Some orientalist writings contained, undeniably, a dose of pernicious venom, of resentment of Islam as a religion, a civilisation, and way of life. But it would be unfair to generalise on that matter. Orientalism as a whole represents a high level of Western interest in the East and a desire to co-exist with it. This is evidence that cultural continuity, not isolationism, is the essence of relations among nations.
Third, what we have witnessed over the past few years, in terms of growing fanaticism and the emergence of ethnic and religious sectarianism, is a phenomenon less linked to the cultural basis and intellectual traditions of civilisation than to the conflict of interests and disparity of policies. Let's examine the most recent of such occurrences: the rise of the religious right that controls the current US administration.
The religious right has a messianic interpretation of the New Testament. Were we to look for an interpretation for such ideology we would find that the mantle it has adopted, the umbrella it works under, and its allegations of cultural and religious policies, are non-existent in reality. The essence of difference lies in the conflict of interests and the disparity of politics, starting from the appetite to control the richness of the Gulf and the Middle East, to the absolute commitment to Israel's security, to the desire to tighten the grip of US domination on today's world. Also, the desire to create a new political map -- a new order. These are things that Washington has sought over the past two decades, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union brought the Cold War to an end.
Fourth, the eagerness with which easterners, Muslims and non-Muslims, travel to Western cities, and the admiration they hold for the progress and lifestyle they observe in these cities confirm the ongoing fascination among civilisations. Disparity is an element of attraction, not repulsion. Add to this the love westerners have for the desert, their adoration of Arab culture and enchantment with the old neighbourhoods of Muslim cities. Note also the attachment of new generations of Arab and Muslims, along with other nations of the South, to centres of international research in the North, and their keen interest in the scientific and technological progress achieved in the US, Europe, and Japan. Not a trace of rejection or repulsion here. I am convinced that disparity generates harmony among civilisations. A sense of bonding follows the early sense of puzzlement. Curiosity breeds admiration.
Fifth, one is not to deny the existence of centres of rejection, of pockets of hatred, of a spirit of fanaticism emanating from accumulated hostility. But these centres and pockets are -- thankfully, perhaps -- equally distributed among all cultures without exception. They are not the exclusive property of one culture or nationality. I would challenge all interpretations that generalise and pigeonhole, that point the finger at certain civilisations and religions without historic proof or conclusive evidence. The Arab and Islamic civilisation has come under a ferocious and unjustified assault following the 11 September events. But the Taliban and Al-Qa'eda, not by a long stretch of the imagination, are hardly representative of Islam or Muslims.
To reiterate, civilisations do not clash, politics do. Cultures interact, interests collide. Only a few years back, the US went to war against Christian Serbs to protect a dominantly Muslim Kosovo.
The question, therefore, is one of politics, not religion. Taking a close look at current international affairs, one has to conclude that chronic problems and emerging disputes are basically the outcome of regional ambitions, expansionist policies and the drive to control natural resources. Conflicts do not emerge because the doctrinal baggage of civilisations is too harsh but because political adventurism is.
Wars are fought because of unmistakable ambitions. The latter are then clothed in cultural and religious guise to mask their true intentions, to entice public support. This is the story of current conflicts. Israel is a clear example of how interests and ambitions are sanctified by religious coating, soaked in historic allegations. Israel is acting in full awareness and intentional malice. And it has found someone to support its occupation of other peoples land, justify its aggression on other nations and tolerate its violations of the rights and sacred sites of Arabs and Palestinians. This is happening within a context in which power is imbalanced, international events are used as a pretext and terror and legitimate resistance are intentionally equated. The events we see around us are the outcome of national ambitions, of a clash of politics, not civilisations.
* The writer is chairman of the foreign affairs committee at the People's Assembly.
