DOHA,
QATAR,
19TH FEBRUARY 2006
LEADERS ROUNDTABLE ON
“POLICY, FAITH AND CHANGE IN AN AGE OF GLOBALIZATION”
PRESENTATION OF HRH PRINCE EL HASSAN BIN TALAL
I. Dangers
of Perennial Conflict: The “Long War”
Our primary purpose at this forum is to establish where we have come
since 9/11 and ask ourselves where we can go. Since that fateful
day, the world has entered a hard security paradigm which is now the
dominant concept in international relations.
Clausewitz famously described war as the continuation of politics by
other means. But now, it seems, this maxim has been inverted.
Following on from the “war on terror”, we are now confronted with
the prospect of a “Long War” which will last decades and affect all
of humanity. The law of war now seems to be the default state of
human relations; we have as yet no law of peace.
And so, after 45 years of Cold War – or more accurately “proxy war”
– 9/11 was in retrospect the spark that ignited the “Long War”, as
the Pentagon now frames it. The basic idea seems to be that
trans-national terrorism is the new –ism that replaces the fallen
ideologies of communism and fascism, and may take just as long to
defeat.
One real danger here is lending specious legitimacy to fragmented
and disparate groups with little more than violent tactics in
common. If we elevate terrorism from modus operandi to
ideology, we actually risk perpetuating and increasing the threat. A
war without conceivable end may well end up acting as the most
effective jihad recruiting agent there could be. In that case, is
this war against an abstract enemy really winnable in any final
sense?
This
dangerously open-ended rebranding of the global contest shows us
that the “war on terror” is now seen not as the exception but as the
rule. But meeting here in Qatar this weekend, as so-called American
and Muslim leaders, we must ask ourselves: have we returned to some
primordial state of perennial conflict, and if so, what are the
consequences for our shared human environment?
Some say that this war
is really just a campaign against Islam and Muslims. That is not my
position. The perceived divide in this world is not between Muslims
and the rest, but between inclusion and exclusion. It is by
merely attempting to keep the lid on the simmering discontent of
those excluded from the benefits of globalization, rather than
dealing with the underlying issues, that we are fuelling this
long-term conflict.
If we continue to view East-West relations through the prism of hard
security, our attempts at reconciliation and mutual understanding
stand little hope of success. Soft security – helping the poor and
vulnerable to live with human dignity and hope – is essential in
today’s world. If we can integrate the necessity for hard security
with the wisdom of soft security, then we can create a win-win
situation for all.
The “Long War” doctrine does show that lessons have been learned,
such as the need for greater understanding of different cultures and
societies. And of course, we do need to think in a coherent,
long-term way about strategy and security. But that depends on what
we mean by these terms. That is why my focus is on human security
as the key to better relations.
II. Human Security: The Key to Better Relations
The challenge before us all is to ensure that the effects of
technological development, social change and globalization do not
disenfranchise sections of our societies. I believe we must face
this challenge with unity and cohesion, drawing strength from our
faith and shared values. If we succeed, then we will isolate and
defeat those self-interested privatisers of religion and war who
claim to represent the oppressed.
Our future wellbeing depends on an integrated approach to humanity
and security, which necessarily includes the voiceless victims, or
the “silenced majority”. Some would call this viewpoint idealistic;
I would call it necessary.
Intimate involvement of peoples in their own futures is a must. Only
by making citizens into stakeholders in their environment can we
give concepts like “civil society”, “democratization” and “good
governance” real meaning. Moreover, good governance not only within
states, but also between states and within regions, provides the key
to unlocking human and environmental development potential.
Disenfranchised Muslims ask whether there is one law for them and
another for everyone else, or whether we are all equal citizens. But
whether Muslim or non-Muslim, the human being is fundamentally the
agent of change. We must allow the power of ideas to prevail over
vested interests.
The Helsinki Process and the Barcelona Process of Euro-Mediterranean
Dialogue may not have proved unqualified successes, but they did
usefully delineate three interconnected categories of human
relations: security (basic and current), economy, and culture. I
believe we should try to integrate these three categories into a
coherent strategy in which culture is not merely an afterthought but
is recognized as increasingly significant.
When it comes to economy, are we simply talking about short-term,
profit-making investment, or can we take a human-centric approach to
improving the social quality of life by providing opportunities for
public participation? Do we just want to build a new generation of
shining skyscrapers across this region, or do we want to use our
immense natural resources to build a fund for future generations, as
the Norwegians – the blue-eyed oil sheikhs – are doing?
Regionally, we have to ask ourselves: what has investment done so
far in West Asia? Can we not have investment in the context of
partnerships, promoting the common good, and a contract of
generations? There are around a trillion dollars sitting in this
region’s bank accounts, yet there is hardly any investment in
people, hardly any vision for the future of our human and natural
environment. How are we going to deal with the 2005 World Bank
Report’s warning of the need for a 100 million job opportunities
across MENA over the next two decades? I need hardly remind you
that, aside from being a human tragedy, millions of unemployed and
disillusioned people are a major security threat.
It is in that context that I have been supporting proposals like the
Global Marshall Plan Initiative (GMPI) as a way out of this
quandary. We have to establish global commons and regional commons
in order to develop policies that transcend our various brand names
and work towards supranational objectives.
In a neighbourhood where states deal unilaterally with the global
superpower, there is a clear lack of institutional responsibility
and regional coherence. Before we embark on ties with the WTO, for
example, what about improving ties with each other? The radius of
conflict in the East Mediterranean involving five different nations
is a mere 70km. Isn’t it time to forget our bilateral squabbles and
forge a meaningful regional identity?
III.
Democracy and Islam after Hamas
I agree absolutely with Nathan Sharansky when he says that the Arab
world needs democracy. But the question is: will this be democracy
top-down or bottom-up? It is not a commodity that can simply be
imported. Change has to come organically from within the region
itself, not be dictated from outside.
In that sense, the Hamas victory may indicate progress rather than
impasse. Whatever we think of Hamas’ current position – and there
are signs it may eventually soften – the recent Palestinian
elections are further evidence, if it were needed, that Arabs want
to embrace democracy.
In the context of the strange mix of autocracy and ideological
extremism that contributed to 9/11 and other atrocities, the United
States faces a tough choice. It can side with authoritarianism and
risk losing further credibility among the millions who want to
believe that it means what it says about democracy, or it can try to
win round fairly-elected governments whose agendas may very well
contradict United States’ interests.
There is no ideal short-term solution to the question of Islamist
victories at the ballot box. But I think there remains a potential
win-win scenario here. After all, only through genuine participation
will radical organizations ever become moderate enough to understand
the political realities of dialogue and compromise. If “Islam is the
solution”, we should put it to the test. Postponing democracy will
only fuel more radical strains who are the first to benefit from the
inevitable outbreaks of anger and violence.
But lest we forget, democracy is about far more than winning
elections. It is at bottom a political culture of understanding and
negotiation which must resonate at a grassroots level. At this time,
populism is on the rise and secularism is on the retreat.
Nevertheless, movements like the Middle East Citizens’ Assembly,
modelled on the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly that helped end the Cold
War, are emerging. If these transitions are managed wisely and
supported in an engaged and constructive manner, we might begin to
see the rise of moderate Muslim democrats like their Christian
democrat counterparts in Europe and the United States. I welcome
Karen Hughes’ “4Es” – education, empowerment, engagement and
exchange – but we must be careful that this does not turn into a
monologue about the need for dialogue.
I call, then, for deeper non-governmental and civil society
networking in order to understand each others’ soft power. Our
societies’ think-tanks and institutes should establish joint
projects and agreements to share their expertise. Media
organizations, too, should exchange more good-quality opinions
across national and continental boundaries, as well as invite
reporters and editors to take up visiting appointments.
We hope to see West Asia/Africa getting closer to South and East
Asia through a process of joint effort so that relations develop not
only on the basis of oil, but also the rich cultural heritage – the
federation of cultures – in our regions. This approach should expand
the space for resolving urgent issues like environmental security,
the Palestinian-Israeli peace process and the reconstruction of
Iraq.
IV.
Globalization of Media and the Caricaturing of Communities
The age-old rule for the coexistence of civilizations – “When in
Rome, do as the Romans do” – no longer applies. For where or who
actually is Rome? The global process of interaction, with mass
migration and the information revolution, means there is no longer a
separate Rome, London or Doha as there once might have been. Peoples
and cultures are profoundly interwoven and a new “glocal”
hyper-culture is emerging.
As competing cultures vie to promote their norms, we realize that
familiarity does not always breed respect. In the media these norms
become foreshortened and caricatured. Democracy becomes associated
with war, and Islam becomes tainted with the image of the mad
mullah.
The stable modus vivendi of traditional mixed societies, who
lived and worked side by side without external pressures, is
history. In its place comes a fragile process of mobile, fast-paced
interaction. Such a reality requires robust and versatile education
schemes that teach both shared values and the value of difference.
That is why my proposals include a call for deeper educational links
between Western and Islamic countries, perhaps along the lines of
the Socrates, Erasmus and Minerva exchange programs. The most
effective way to create an appreciation for shared humanity
regardless of race or creed is to provide the individual with
experience of common thinking and feeling, as well as an
appreciation that difference does not preclude co-operation towards
shared goals. Student and cultural exchanges proved their worth
during the Cold War, and should now be supported by a fund combining
government and private donations.
The irony is that despite the free flow of information, or perhaps
because of it, our communities remain poorly informed about other
creeds and peoples. Today’s instant communication is both a blessing
and a curse. It allows us greater freedom, greater potential for
interaction and awareness, yet it also spreads hatred and
misunderstanding like wildfire. Conversely, trust and mutual
security can only be built on a clearly non-violent morality
combined with a personal certainty that basic agreements are shared
with the other.
In this global information blogosphere, words and images take on
uncontrollable lives of their own. Latent tensions are instantly
inflamed through networked transfer from one cultural context to
another, simply because discrete entities like culture and nation no
longer exist. Once messages of hate are published, they are part of
a global free-for-all, open to manipulation by any number of
interpretations and agendas.
In this dangerous context the offensive and irresponsible Danish
cartoons ignited the fuse of Muslim indignity. The cartoon offence,
and the reactions it provoked, must be understood in light of the
increasingly tense atmosphere in our region. The ignominy of the
Iraqi and Palestinian occupations and the humiliation of Abu Ghraib
and Guantanamo are ever-present additions to the myriad of social
and economic issues facing Muslim peoples today. This was a
provocation too far.
At the same time, the furore was clearly exaggerated and exploited
by some regional leaders in order to serve their own agendas. It was
a timely occasion to display an opportunist brand of Islamic
legitimacy and cultivate a sense of populist solidarity with their
indignant publics.
In fact, the cartoon issue is not a debate between polar opposites
of Islam and freedom of expression. The cartoons were not about free
speech; they were about facile stereotyping and name-calling. In
short, they were confirmation that the hate industry is still in
good health.
I’m sure my Muslim friends and colleagues here today will agree that
freedom, exercised responsibly, is a core value of our faith, just
as it is an essential principle in any democracy. But freedom is not
a static value; it has to evolve just as the world around us is
changing. It is certainly not illiberal in such a context to subject
media output to consistent review.
So how do we balance
free speech and mutual respect in this confused world? First of all,
not by fighting fire with fire. How easily the basic rule that two
wrongs do not make a right is forgotten. The vicious circle of
incitement, anger and reprisal stands before us, with hardliners and
extremists on all sides locked in a strange alliance. It is up to
the so-called moderates – perhaps the real radicals – to steal back
the initiative.
What we need is civilized platforms, particularly through the media,
on which Muslims can debate not only with non-Muslims, but also with
their fellow Muslims. I am a Muslim, and so, allegedly, is Osama bin
Laden, but what do we have in common? Where is the civilized
framework for disagreement? Where is the recognition that most
Muslims are just as angry with jihadist agents provocateurs
as they are with the Danish cartoonists?
Suddenly people are once again talking about interfaith and cultural
dialogue, as if these were new concepts. Clearly we are more in need
of such dialogues than ever. Right now, however, they are suffering
from being too removed from people’s feelings. Dialogues can all too
easily move along one way while waves of mass popular sentiments
move the other.
We need cultural affinity both between and within cultures. On a BBC
phone-in show on the cartoon issue a few days ago I had to remind an
irate Afghan caller that when the Taliban decided to dynamite the
Bamiyan Buddhas, the UN did not send religious authorities such as
the Sheikh of al-Azhar, but European and Japanese diplomats, who had
almost no cultural affinity. “But the Taliban were not Muslims”, he
insisted. “That’s not how it appeared to the rest of the world”, I
said.
The real dividing line is not between Muslims and non-Muslims, but
between moderates and extremists on both sides,
between those who believe in the “Ethics of Sharing”, as the
Declaration of European Muslims – and my thanks and respect to
Mustafa Ceric – calls it, and those who hold on to outdated
exclusionist beliefs.
The men and women of reasoned dialogue have no difficulty getting
on; it is the purveyors of hatred who must be taken on and defeated
on their own specious terms.
If reason prevails, it will be because Muslims prevail over their
own extremists and privatisers of religion. Non-Muslims have a vital
role to play here. Whether through more consistent foreign policies
in Iraq, Iran and Israel/Palestine, or through wiser domestic
policies on immigration, education and employment, the key factor of
cultural sensitivity can be harnessed to mutual benefit. And there
is absolutely no need to compromise on the essentials of free
societies.
I’m well aware that the United States suffers from an image problem
in the Islamic world – Professor Telhami’s statistical studies
attest to that. But the same studies, and others, also show that
Muslims overwhelmingly believe in modern, democratic values. They do
not object to what the United States is, merely to what it is doing
in the Islamic world.
Public diplomacy strategies are important, but they cannot mask a
deeper problem of understanding;
it is policies themselves that are important. We have to work
to narrow the gap between rhetoric and reality. That said, the
Islamic world is clearly in need of a better public diplomacy
strategy, as a counterweight to the continued misinformation and
distortions that are so easily available today.
V. The role of faith
The main issues, then, are political, but the religious dimension
cannot be ignored. Many people today see faith as inescapably part
of the problem rather than the solution. But in such a complex and
ambiguous time, do we not need the voices of reason and faith to
complement each other and help us to make sense of our world? I hope
this is a point on which we can all agree, whether we are American
Christians or Arab Muslims, or for that matter American Muslims and
Arab Christians, or none of the above.
But we must be realistic. What we see today is an unprecedented
challenge to traditional religious values – not just in Islam but in
all our inherited traditions. Moderate Islam must respond to this
challenge in a strong and positive way without undermining its own
enlightened premises, in the same way that political leaders face
the daunting task of maintaining security without compromising human
values.
The line between religion and politics is becoming increasingly
blurred; it is in everyone’s best interests to elevate our cherished
religious values above the mundane sphere of politics.
The self-appointed cyber-sheikhs of the virtual jihad are exploiting
the benefits of modernity to undermine legitimate authority. It is a
strange paradox that this development is sometimes viewed as a
democratization of Islam. But let me be clear: there is nothing
democratic – or indeed Islamic – about beaming
gruesome executions live around the world on obscure websites. This
is not the kind of equal opportunity that we are striving for.
So what can we do? First of all, we urgently need to re-establish
moral authority before it is too late. We must not stumble out of
the Cold War only to fall into a “cold jihad”. Kissinger once asked
what the address of Europe was. Well, the address of Islam is Mecca,
birthplace of Islam and centre of the four schools of Sunni
orthodoxy. The centre of moral authority for Shiite Islam is Najaf;
and the holy city of Jerusalem is the touchstone of our shared
Abrahamic tradition. So I ask you: isn’t it time to hold conferences
in Mecca and in Najaf to establish for the 21st century
what is Islamic and what is not, in order to reaffirm the legitimate
space to reject terrorism as utterly anathema to our faiths?
|