| |
Two civilizations at war - with
themselves
By Mushahid Hussain
ISLAMABAD - The unprecedented diversity of
Saturday's worldwide protests against war on Iraq is
symptomatic of a growing realization that the United
States is apparently determined to go to war, while the
rest of the world - or at least international opinion -
is determined to resist the war option with equal
vehemence.
The protests, in up to 60 countries
around the world, are unique in that they have begun
even before a war is under way. This probably makes the
upcoming conflict with Iraq the most unpopular war in
modern history.
What is even more significant is
that the West is seeing its most serious split since
1966, when French President Charles de Gaulle chose to
opt out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's
military wing and part company with the United States
and European alliance partners, to forge detente with
the Soviet Union.
Iraq has already contributed
partly or substantially to influencing election results
in such diverse countries as Germany, Turkey and South
Korea, spawning anti-US sentiment and strengthening
political parties critical of Washington's world view.
In the Muslim world, there have been a number of
conspiracy theories focused on linking US policy to oil
(occupation of a country that has 12 percent of the
world's oil reserves) and Israel (supporting the
political and military ambitions of the Middle East's
only nuclear weapon power).
The protests, from
Tokyo down to tiny Fiji, reflect a growing popular
sentiment reflecting three realities. Instead of the
much talked-about "clash of civilizations" between the
West and the Muslim world in the aftermath of September
11 the world is witnessing a new fault line that was
unthinkable just a few months ago - a clash within the
West between an aggressive assertion of US might and a
vocal assertion of European solidarity.
At stake
are not just the claims to future oil royalties in a
post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, but the very shape of world
order: whether it will be fashioned entirely by the US -
the "new Rome" - in its imperial overreach, or by the
rule of law and the UN charter with the support of
European powers, China, Russia and sections of the
Muslim world.
The language used by detractors is
reminiscent of the harsh conflicts in the Cold War
between ideological adversaries in Washington and
Moscow. This time, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
has likened Germany to US arch-enemy Cuba, while there
have been calls in the mainstream US media to strip
France of its veto in the UN Security Council and
denunciations of European "ingratitude" in the US.
Even NATO is no longer the US handmaiden it was
presumed to be in a world where what Washington said,
usually goes. By delaying military aid to NATO member
Turkey, the European anti-war troika of Germany, France
and Belgium punctured the balloon of a monolithic West
that was flying high after September 11.
Another
significant transformation is that the emotional
outbursts of anti-US views in random rallies have now
given way to institutional resistance to the US policy
on Iraq. Containing manifestations of US military might
within the contours of a United Nations or NATO is not
something for which the Bush administration had
bargained.
Three kinds of signals emanate from
these developments. First, this "clash within the West"
has clearly replaced the "clash of civilizations". As
the dominant faultline in the US-led war on terror, this
clash within has presented the US with its most serious
political and diplomatic challenge since the Cold War
ended in 1991 with the collapse of communism and breakup
of the Soviet Union.
As a consequence of this,
the future of NATO and the role of the United Nations
have both been brought into question. Second, these
developments are indicative of growing anti-US sentiment
that is taking various forms, from conspiracy theories
in the Muslim world to unease in Europe regarding the
"might is right" premise promoted by Washington.
For instance, even in solidly pro-US Australia,
the upper chamber handed down a defeat for the ruling
party on Iraq. And even as Prime Minister John Howard
was in Washington expressing solidarity with US
President George W Bush in the White House, large
protests were erupting in his own backyard. It is,
perhaps, a sign of a new global coalition that
incorporates the globalization protestors plus the
anti-war peace movement and the Christian clergy,
particularly the influential Catholic church.
Third, as a consequence, the Bush administration
is now relying on a combination of military measures
backed by harsh rhetoric and a desire to take unilateral
initiatives that have no diplomatic backing. Hence, US
unilateralism is boxed into a bunker of pragmatism where
tactical, ad hoc reactive policies have replaced a
strategic ideological vision that was initially evident
after September 11 and for most of 2002 on the war on
terror.
This is behind the dichotomy in the
treatment of Iraq and North Korea, although both have
been presumed guilty in Washington's eyes of the same
transgression: the seeking of weapons of mass
destruction. This is also responsible for the confusion
over the efficacy of a second UN resolution on Iraq, or
the lack of substantive evidence linking Iraq to
al-Qaeda.
A couple of positive aspects need to
be noted on this count. The clash within the West has
defused tensions between the Muslim world and the West.
If the strongest resistance to US policies on Iraq is
coming from European Christians, surely those seeing the
situation as a clash of Christian-Muslim civilizations
are on a weak footing. And if the focus is on an
institutional structures like the United Nations to
resolve questions of war and peace, then it augurs well
for those who feel any new world order ought to be based
on respect for the rule of law, rather than the law of
the jungle.
The key question is how much this
shift in international opinion will influence, first, US
public opinion, and later, US policy toward Iraq as well
as the conduct of the war on terror.
(Inter
Press Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
