- News>
- Newspapers
Is this the clash of civilisations?: Asian Age
New Delhi, Apr 10: `Is the war in Iraq the clash of civilisations?` My answer to that question is, `Not yet, but there is every possibility of the war leading to that.` Saddam Hussein`s adventure of invading Kuwait in 1991 was a naked aggression which only a megalomaniac could have thought of. So was also his earlier eight-year war with Iran.
New Delhi, Apr 10: ‘Is the war in Iraq the clash of civilisations?” My answer to that question is, “Not yet, but there is every possibility of the war leading to that.”
Saddam Hussein’s adventure of invading Kuwait in 1991 was a naked aggression which only a megalomaniac could have thought of. So was also his earlier eight-year war with Iran.
The knock-out punch for Iraq in Gulf War I was dealt by the Christian powers of the West, but neither Iraq nor any other Islamic country had tried to give it the colour of a civilisational conflict obviously because it was a war between two Islamic neighbours. Iraq at that time had received no sympathy or support from any Islamic country. In fact, the role of the US then was seen by all Islamic countries as that of a gallant defender of small nations against aggression by an over-ambitious neighbour. The US of course had a big stake in the stability and territorial integrity of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia because of their immense oil resources. As was sarcastically said at that time, the US would not have gone to the rescue of Kuwait if it was only a country producing dates as in the past and not oil.
However, the perception about the United States by the Islamic countries started changing rapidly in the decade of the Nineties for a variety of reasons. The failure of the western powers, particularly the US, in recognising the legitimate rights of the Palestinians had caused intense resentment among all Islamic countries and particularly among the Arabs. The rise of religious fundamentalism and its corollary, terrorism, in Islamic countries was seen by many Muslims as an expression of anger for the insensitiveness of the western powers and the Israelis to the legitimate demands of the Palestinians. Some oil rich countries, notably Saudi Arabia, used this atmosphere of anti-western sentiments in Islamic countries as an opportunity to promote their own orthodox version of Islam in several Muslim countries.
This type of “back to Islam” approach inevitably led to the hardening of the perception among most Muslims that the West was the enemy of Islam and thus the spectre of the clash of civilisations which till then had only lurked in the background began to appear in front and as real. The dominance of the US as the sole super power of the world had also started rousing strong sentiments of fear and hostility against it in Islamic countries and the US soon became the Satan in their imagery. The leading role played by the US in ridding Afghanistan of the deadly poison of Talibanism, though welcomed by many Muslims, became another factor in strengthening the feeling among the fundamentalist sections that the US was out to weaken the influence of Islam in the modern world.
Memories of the crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries when Christian Europe did its worst to humiliate the Muslims, ridicule their religion and drive them out by use of military strength from the territories held by them in the Holy Land got revived in the post-Taliban era and the cry of “Islam in danger” started becoming loud in many parts of the Islamic world. Osama bin Laden and his band of religious fanatics, though vanquished in the battlefield, could not be eliminated and they soon became icons in the fundamentalist theology. Extreme orthodoxy became respectable and even a religious duty for many Muslims, particularly among the youths. Changes were noticed even in the dress and manners of the young men and women in the Islamic countries and beard for men and burqa for women became symbols of Islamic identity. The mullahs started acquiring political strength in many countries and a power to reckon with for deciding who should form the government and what form of government it should be. Ambitious political leaders and generals who had seized power for themselves through fraudulent elections or coups started assuming the role of defenders of Islam as they found such policies helpful for their political survival.
General Musharraf in Pakistan started supporting and sponsoring acts of terrorism even against innocent women and children in Kashmir describing such horrendous crimes as “freedom struggle” in Kashmir. Just like the fanatic crusaders of medieval years who marched into Muslim-held territories with the religiously intoxicating battle cry of “Deus Volt” or “God wills it,” the modern jihadis of Islam raised the battle cry “God is Great” while butchering innocent people for no fault of theirs. The US soon became for them the main patron and perpetrator of what they saw as the new anti-Muslim Crusade. The proclaimed policy of the US to wage a global war against terrorism after the tragic events of 9/11 and the strong action it started taking against suspected terrorists within its territories were seen as a part of America’s new war against Islam. By the close of the last decade of the 20th century the mood of Muslims in most parts of the world turned into one of implacable hostility and hatred against the US and its western allies.
It is in this background that one has to assess the impact of the war launched by the US-UK coalition against Saddam Hussein in March 2003. Saddam had been a hated tyrant in the eyes of most Muslims ever since his aggression against Kuwait in 1991. Even the harsh sanctions enforced over Iraq under the authority of the UN which had caused enormous hardship to the Iraqi people had been approved by most Islamic countries as necessary to defang Saddam. The charge raised by the US against Saddam that he had built up a huge stock of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to be used against other countries had been generally accepted by the Islamic countries, but when the weapons inspectors reported that they could not get any tangible evidence of the existence of WMD in Iraq, most countries started veering round to the view that enough was enough as punishment for Saddam and that there was no justification for a war to destroy him and his regime.
However, the US-UK alliance showed scant respect for any suggestion of softness for Saddam Hussein. It did not even bother to get the fig leaf of a UN resolution when it launched its all out war against Saddam which people have been watching round the clock with great shock and horror on the TV screens in their living rooms. These scenes of mayhem and destruction in Iraq have now convinced many Muslims that these are nothing but a part of the war on Islam by the Christian powers of the West. Saddam has now emerged from being a despised dictator to becoming the symbol of honour of Islam.
The Muslims had not been overly impressed by the fact that some of the major Christian powers like Germany, Russia and France had expressed strong opposition to the war launched by the US-UK alliance. On the other hand, they have now taken note of the fact that these countries are now showing their readiness to accept the realities of the battlefield. The foreign minister of Germany, Joschka Fischer, in his statement a few days ago had said that Germany was now interested only in seeing a speedy end to the war and was not against a regime change in Iraq.
Similar sentiments have been expressed by President Vladimir Putin of Russia also. Even the criticism from Paris has become more subdued of late. The statements of some senior spokespersons on behalf of the US government that Americans who had given their “life and blood” to liberate Iraq have the right to decide what they should do and how long they should stay in post-war Iraq have served to further convince the Islamic countries that this is a war for occupation and not liberation. The cumulative effect of all these developments is that more and more Muslims are becoming convinced that what is happening in Iraq is really the clash of civilisations.
The responsibility for removing such perceptions lies mainly with the US as the principal partner of the coalition against Iraq. It is now up to the US to prove that such fears and perceptions are unfounded and unjustified and to take appropriate steps to prevent escalation of the rift which has already set in between the Christian West and the Islamic world. The question now is whether the US will demonstrate its capability for this level of statesmanship and prevent its victory in the battlefield from becoming the greater calamity of a real clash of civilisations.
Bureau Report
However, the perception about the United States by the Islamic countries started changing rapidly in the decade of the Nineties for a variety of reasons. The failure of the western powers, particularly the US, in recognising the legitimate rights of the Palestinians had caused intense resentment among all Islamic countries and particularly among the Arabs. The rise of religious fundamentalism and its corollary, terrorism, in Islamic countries was seen by many Muslims as an expression of anger for the insensitiveness of the western powers and the Israelis to the legitimate demands of the Palestinians. Some oil rich countries, notably Saudi Arabia, used this atmosphere of anti-western sentiments in Islamic countries as an opportunity to promote their own orthodox version of Islam in several Muslim countries.
This type of “back to Islam” approach inevitably led to the hardening of the perception among most Muslims that the West was the enemy of Islam and thus the spectre of the clash of civilisations which till then had only lurked in the background began to appear in front and as real. The dominance of the US as the sole super power of the world had also started rousing strong sentiments of fear and hostility against it in Islamic countries and the US soon became the Satan in their imagery. The leading role played by the US in ridding Afghanistan of the deadly poison of Talibanism, though welcomed by many Muslims, became another factor in strengthening the feeling among the fundamentalist sections that the US was out to weaken the influence of Islam in the modern world.
Memories of the crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries when Christian Europe did its worst to humiliate the Muslims, ridicule their religion and drive them out by use of military strength from the territories held by them in the Holy Land got revived in the post-Taliban era and the cry of “Islam in danger” started becoming loud in many parts of the Islamic world. Osama bin Laden and his band of religious fanatics, though vanquished in the battlefield, could not be eliminated and they soon became icons in the fundamentalist theology. Extreme orthodoxy became respectable and even a religious duty for many Muslims, particularly among the youths. Changes were noticed even in the dress and manners of the young men and women in the Islamic countries and beard for men and burqa for women became symbols of Islamic identity. The mullahs started acquiring political strength in many countries and a power to reckon with for deciding who should form the government and what form of government it should be. Ambitious political leaders and generals who had seized power for themselves through fraudulent elections or coups started assuming the role of defenders of Islam as they found such policies helpful for their political survival.
General Musharraf in Pakistan started supporting and sponsoring acts of terrorism even against innocent women and children in Kashmir describing such horrendous crimes as “freedom struggle” in Kashmir. Just like the fanatic crusaders of medieval years who marched into Muslim-held territories with the religiously intoxicating battle cry of “Deus Volt” or “God wills it,” the modern jihadis of Islam raised the battle cry “God is Great” while butchering innocent people for no fault of theirs. The US soon became for them the main patron and perpetrator of what they saw as the new anti-Muslim Crusade. The proclaimed policy of the US to wage a global war against terrorism after the tragic events of 9/11 and the strong action it started taking against suspected terrorists within its territories were seen as a part of America’s new war against Islam. By the close of the last decade of the 20th century the mood of Muslims in most parts of the world turned into one of implacable hostility and hatred against the US and its western allies.
It is in this background that one has to assess the impact of the war launched by the US-UK coalition against Saddam Hussein in March 2003. Saddam had been a hated tyrant in the eyes of most Muslims ever since his aggression against Kuwait in 1991. Even the harsh sanctions enforced over Iraq under the authority of the UN which had caused enormous hardship to the Iraqi people had been approved by most Islamic countries as necessary to defang Saddam. The charge raised by the US against Saddam that he had built up a huge stock of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to be used against other countries had been generally accepted by the Islamic countries, but when the weapons inspectors reported that they could not get any tangible evidence of the existence of WMD in Iraq, most countries started veering round to the view that enough was enough as punishment for Saddam and that there was no justification for a war to destroy him and his regime.
However, the US-UK alliance showed scant respect for any suggestion of softness for Saddam Hussein. It did not even bother to get the fig leaf of a UN resolution when it launched its all out war against Saddam which people have been watching round the clock with great shock and horror on the TV screens in their living rooms. These scenes of mayhem and destruction in Iraq have now convinced many Muslims that these are nothing but a part of the war on Islam by the Christian powers of the West. Saddam has now emerged from being a despised dictator to becoming the symbol of honour of Islam.
The Muslims had not been overly impressed by the fact that some of the major Christian powers like Germany, Russia and France had expressed strong opposition to the war launched by the US-UK alliance. On the other hand, they have now taken note of the fact that these countries are now showing their readiness to accept the realities of the battlefield. The foreign minister of Germany, Joschka Fischer, in his statement a few days ago had said that Germany was now interested only in seeing a speedy end to the war and was not against a regime change in Iraq.
Similar sentiments have been expressed by President Vladimir Putin of Russia also. Even the criticism from Paris has become more subdued of late. The statements of some senior spokespersons on behalf of the US government that Americans who had given their “life and blood” to liberate Iraq have the right to decide what they should do and how long they should stay in post-war Iraq have served to further convince the Islamic countries that this is a war for occupation and not liberation. The cumulative effect of all these developments is that more and more Muslims are becoming convinced that what is happening in Iraq is really the clash of civilisations.
The responsibility for removing such perceptions lies mainly with the US as the principal partner of the coalition against Iraq. It is now up to the US to prove that such fears and perceptions are unfounded and unjustified and to take appropriate steps to prevent escalation of the rift which has already set in between the Christian West and the Islamic world. The question now is whether the US will demonstrate its capability for this level of statesmanship and prevent its victory in the battlefield from becoming the greater calamity of a real clash of civilisations.
Bureau Report