|
|
| |
SPEAKING
FREELY
A dogma of
everything
By Habibul Haque Khondker
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online
feature that allows guest writers to have their say.
Please click here if you
are interested in contributing.
This is
in response to Thomas Friedman's article titled "A
theory of everything" published in Sunday's New York
Times.
There cannot be a theory of everything. A
theory that tries to explain everything becomes a dogma,
not a theory. In my view Thomas Friedman's theory is
flawed because the premises on which his theory is based
are flawed.
Premise 1
Why do they (the
Muslim world) hate us? This was a wrong question to
begin with. The September 11, 2001, attacks were
launched by a group of disgruntled people (yes, by
religion they were Muslims) who did not represent any
organized "they", be it the Muslims of the world or even
the Arab Muslims. Non-Arab Muslims were not involved in
the attack and their response to the tragedy was quite
similar to the responses that came from elsewhere. The
responses of the Muslims in the immediate aftermath of
the September 11 attacks were mixed, ranging from some
people being very happy (dancing on the streets in the
West Bank) to expression of sympathy (candlelight vigil
in Tehran). Nobody knows for sure what went into the
heads of the attackers of the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. So far what we have are nothing better than
conjectures.
A large number of Muslims are
critical of US policy toward Palestine and they are at
various levels of anger, anguish and frustration. Not
all Muslims are as mad with anger that they will carry
out suicidal missions. So a better-formulated question
would be, Why are some Muslims so angry with the United
States to the extent that they would blow themselves up
to harm the US? Their psychology is not unlike that of
the radical groups in Palestine. I think the key word
here is "anger" and not "hatred". The hatred theory was
invented by President George W Bush or his
speechwriters. There are surely some super-angry men;
fortunately not all Muslims are super-angry.
I
agree with Friedman that the 1990s version of
globalization had the distinct American imprint with
such icons of Americanism from Nike shoes to McDonald's
and Coca-Cola worldwide. There was resentment as there
was adoration of these icons. Hollywood movies became
global not because US marines forced people around the
world to watch the movies. They were great movies. Why
do people of the world embrace American medicine or
science or the Internet? They are the best in the world.
Where can we find someone as smart as Michael Moore or
the creators of The Simpsons? Maybe some people
were jealous of the achievements of the Americans, but
most people admired and wanted to partake in those
achievements. There was no reason to be angry just
because Karim Andul Jabbar was a better basketball
player or Tiger Woods was a better golfer. People like
good games. They are pissed off when the games become
unfair. If the rules of the game are fair, there will
not be any resentment. The anger thesis is wrong. There
is, however, resentment with unfairness. And that
resentment was quite universal, cross-cutting national,
religious and geographical boundaries.
Premise 2
"Why does everybody else
hate us?" This is again a flawed premise. During the
Iraq war, the United States had its allies. The world
was divided between unilateralism vs collective
response. People outside the US were critical of the US
administration, the neo-cons, the Republican Party, the
hawks of the Pentagon. They often turned to some
American critics of American policy. Many people saw the
point of US unhappiness with Iraq. Many agreed that
Saddam Hussein was not worth defending with his terrible
record. But the Muslims were hurt by the perceived US
arrogance of unilateralism. Some US officials were ready
to go to war even without British participation. Such
was the height of unilateralism.
Many Muslims
were divided, just like Christians or Jews or Americans
or Bangladeshis, on the issue of the Iraq invasion. Some
thought that it was against international law and held
on to the principle of national sovereignty. Others saw
it as a civilizational war. Many were ambivalent. Some
people were pragmatic; others were concerned with the
moral and ethical consequences. How can we ignore this
diversity of views and opinions? Some of the most
articulate critics of US policy were not Muslims. They
were Jews, Christians, Americans, Indians, Australians,
etc. One of the most strident critics was Arundhati Roy,
the Indian author and activist. I have talked to people
from various countries, from various walks of life, and
I have searched carefully newspapers, opinions, etc. In
my estimate, the majority of the people on the planet
were against the US-led invasion of Iraq and the war
made them angry not at US society as such, but at the
hawkish groups misusing the US preeminence to a
shortsighted objective. US-led globalization has no
serious or organized opposition, notwithstanding
anti-globalization demonstrations. The US has loyal
supporters in the capitalist class all over the world,
just as there are critics of US capitalism in the
streets of Seattle, where the overwhelming majority were
US citizens, as well as elsewhere. The most interesting
feature of globalization has been the messing up of
geography. We cannot neatly divide any more "us" versus
"them". The leftover class conflict is diffused
everywhere.
"Us" versus "them" analyses are
gross simplifications. They are wrong. The majority of
people, in my opinion, were sad at seeing the
destruction of the World Trade Center and they were also
sad to see the collapse of Iraqi society due to the war
and are worried about the reckless war of words against
Iran. James Jesudason, a friend and a fellow
sociologist, says an equally compelling question for the
researchers to pursue, in so far as the hate game is
concerned, is: "Why does the US hate the Muslims?"
I have a simpler theory. People as such prefer
right over wrong. There is a global ethics. That human
beings are ethical is evident in the fact that most
people do not find it justifiable that the war on Iraq
was based on the allegations of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). At the same time, many of the critics
of war will be convinced that the war was justifiable if
WMD are found. I will bet that most people will not
share the position that the US is powerful so we should
hate the US, as they will not endorse the position that
we should support the US because it is powerful. People
make moral choices most of the time. And many thinking
people are often ambiguous in their responses. They say
something like: "Yes, it is good that Saddam is ousted,
but I feel sorry for the children of Iraq or all those
who were killed on both sides. Ideally, the world should
make sure that Saddams are not created in the first
place, etc."
Habibul Haque Khondker is
a sociologist and these are his personal remarks.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online
feature that allows guest writers to have their say.
Please click here if you
are interested in contributing.
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
