Radical West, Radical Islam Impact and Implications in International Relations.doc

radical west, radical islam: impacts and implications in international relationsdr. arsalan ghorbani department of political sciencestehran tarbiat moalem university- iran abstract after the 9/11, international relations characterized by terror and violence. this paper argues the main reason for this entity is radicalism, both in the west and in the islamic world. these two have many similarities. they see everything black or white, they do not want to understand, they are disabling to negotiate and compromise, they use violence, terror and military invasion to reach their objectives. to avoid more casualties, both moderate west and moderate islam should reject radicalism. muslims and the west, through dialogue and negotiations, should try to understand each other and to settle their differences.islam and the west: from discord to understanding judaism, christianity and islam all trace their origins back at least to the old testament prophet abraham. each of these three religions venerates him. each of these abrahamic faiths has similarities with the other two, and each historically has produced civilizations and societies with recognizably similar characteristics. not only is islam not an enemy of the west, but it, like judaism, is part of the larger civilization as the contemporary west know. in fact, the west stops at the indus, not at dardanelles. today islam is part and parcel of the west, just as the west is part and parcel of islam. what occurred on september 11 was first and foremost an attack on islam itself. specifically, that criminal operation as an attack on the values of compassion, beneficence and mercy that pervade the quran and that historically have characterized the practice of islam. we all must read fatiha, the eight opening lines of the quran. there, we find compassion and mercy mentioned a total of four times.although we read chapter 5, verse 32 of the quran: “we prescribed.that whosoever kills a person, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all mankind. and whosoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the lives of all men.” if we consult additional portions of the quran, we understand that the planned operation only could have been undertaken by muslim apostates. to the extent that the quran endorses war at all, it endorses only defensive combat designed to protect islamic community in the most dire of circumstances. no faithful muslim possibly could justify the operation of september 11 within that limitation. for almost a decade muslim religious leaders and public figures have been sponsoring international conferences designed to demonstrate the fallacy of any notion of islam being an enemy of the west or the likelihood of any clash of civilizations. those who persist in merchandising notions of islam being an enemy of the west should know that there is an almost universal rejection of this idea in the muslim world itself. such writers mislead western public opinion and alienate muslims everywhere who otherwise might be only too glad to be friends with the west. rather than any antipathy emerging from islam, american and other westerners should recognize that anger toward the united states in the muslim world emanates primarily from the rage at specific american policies and u.s. partiality to israel at the expense of palestinians. if the contemporary tendency to depict islam as an enemy of the west is unconscionable, it also is understandable. so is the popular receptivity to this perverse idea that characterizes western culture. the roots of this disposition reach back at least as far as the crusades. the western conviction of an alien and menacing islamic “ other” was solidified by the centuries of war between the ottoman empire and western and central europe. it was exacerbated by european colonialism and the christian missionary enterprise of the 14th century and the evangelical revival today, and it currently flourishes as a result of the serious challenge that the islamic revival presents to the long- term viability of the state of israel, it is not by chance that those most frequently proclaiming that islam is an enemy of the west are themselves fervent partisans of israel or israelis themselves. islam is in no way a challenge to the west, but in its political form it may well present a threat to israel. if so, that is israels problem, not the west ones. israel can mitigate any islamic threat only by dealing justly with all its neighbors, and most specifically with the palestinians. developing an effective policy response to global problems such as terrorism needs re- examination of fundamental assumptions about the islamic world and its relationship to the west . three ideas compete to define this relation. based on the first idea, the idea of confrontation, westerns and muslims share few common values, and are entrapped by an intensifying “clash of civilizations” with deep historical roots. in this “ us versus them” or “ black and white” story of conflict, opposition between contrary civilizations can be resolved only through the political defeat an cultural assimilation of one civilization by the other. in the present context of mistrust, conflict and insecurity, it is to mistake the dominant narrative of western-islamic relations as the only narrative. this idea is repeated by those who argue that the most important lessons for dealing with contemporary problems can be found in historical analogies to epic struggles against implacable foes. for example, some muslims proclaim that the us and israeli predominance in the middle east differs little from the crusader occupation of the eastern mediterranean between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. for their part, some people in the west compare the current situation with the world war ii or cold war demanding responses such as those used to roll back fascism and communism. does not matter which side narrate this idea, such narratives of epic confrontation promote conflict escalation as the only viable strategic response to present challenges. the second idea as the idea of compatibility- argues that present problems in relations between the islamic world and the west represent the tragic but not inescapable outcome of a complex historical process. islam shares a significant cultural heritage with the west, and can respond to the challenges of the modern world if given a chance to do so. the islamic civilization is not an “exceptional” case among world cultures, uniquely predisposed to conflict or resistant to democracy. the human common denominators that unite the islamic historical experience with the historical experiences of other world cultures are far more significant than the differences, and the problems of muslims may be understood in terms that are similar to those used to explain challenges of political, cultural, and economic development faced by other peoples. those people who believe to the second idea, argue that islam and the west are joined by common roots within the judeo-christian and hellenic cultural continuum. classical islamic civilization grew to maturity in the fertile crescent- the birthplace of western civilization- and was constructed out of arab, biblicist, and hellenic cultures. this civilization also cast a wider net by integrating persian and central asian as well as indian components within its cultural synthesis, becoming a bridge between east and west. the fact that so much has been integrated within islamic cultures indicates that islam is not only a theological doctrine, but also a historical dynamic. today puritanical wahhabi tendencies compete with progressive and reformist trends supporting democratic change, as well as with more traditional patterns of faith and belief that have proven far more tolerant of religious and cultural diversity than is generally acknowledged. ironically, those who claim to defend islam by rejecting pluralism negate the genius of islamic civilization, which manifested greatness by harmonizing islamic precepts with diverse intellectual and cultural influences. as many scholars accounts have effectively demonstrated, the historical openness of islamic culture has often surpassed that of christian europe. in spain, the centuries of muslim rule between the arrival of abdulrahman in 711 and the fall of granada in 1492 generated remarkable artistic and scholastic achievements through a symbiosis of islamic, jewish, and christian cultures, and provided conduit through which aristotelian philosophy returned to the european intellectual milieu. this analysis provide useful guidance for distinguishing between islamic “terrorism” a destructive and anti-pluralist reaction to perceived external threat and islamic “ re-newalism”, a reformist movement to revitalize the community from within. where violent islamic movements attribute the ills of islamic civilization almost exclusively to foreign infiltration and internal diversity of opinion, islamic re-newalist accept responsibility for internal sources of malaise, and seek to adapt islamic culture in ways that might help muslim meet modern problems more effectively.based on this idea, radicalism in the islamic world stem from deep feelings of powerlessness fostered by governmental corruption, autocracy, inequality and subservience to foreign masters. western actions that help to restore this sense of security by collaborating to correct shared problems and provide muslims with a sense of political efficacy might inspire creative thought and action. the third idea - the complementarily idea is a new one, seeking to create a framework for understanding how islam and the west might coexist peacefully without renouncing their cultural distinctiveness. the foundation of this story renounces triumphalism on the part of any culture. triumphalism- the assertion by one culture of absolute superiority on all indices of progress and enlightenment leads not only to hubris and destructive polaralization, but also to rejection of the most vital source of cultural dynamism: openness to what the “other” has to offer. no scope fore learning remains; “foreign” cultures must be rejected and defeated. in contrast, a relationship between civilizations that accommodates and even values cultural differences provides an indispensable foundation for fostering mutual respect and enduring cooperation. according to this idea, the “clash of civilization” is actually a “clash of symbols”. complex belief systems are being reduced to politicized symbols that can be used to reject the muslim or non-muslim “other” and impose conformity upon populations who may or may not accept “muslim” or “western” as an exclusivist identity. westerners, for example, are finding “overdressed” women, headscarves, turbans and other symbols of islamic religious expression repellent, just as fundamentalist muslims have seen in blue jeans, “underdressed” women, and other manifestation of western culture explicit anti-islamic statements. acting on common interests and values, however, will require a new approach to dealing with our differences, founded upon a vision that will enable us to achieve fuller engagement across the boundaries of culture and religion. by using this idea, we can transcended the most destructive idea in contemporary islamic- western relations: the idea that peace can not be achieved so long as significant cultural differences persist.us foreign policy over the five decades since truman made his declaration of the fundamentals of us foreign policy, the principles continued to shift from one based on freedom and self- government, to principles concerned mainly with us economic and geopolitical interests. us foreign policy has been practiced in effects by three cardinal principles:us should promote freedom and democracy in other regions of the world, since this is the only defensible moral ground on which the projection of us military power can be justified. us moral concerns for freedom and democracy must be curtailed by the national interests of the united states, which fundamentally take the form of economic and geopolitical us concerns. to harmonize principles 1 and 2, the us must adopt the principle of selective engagement which align us moral to economic concerns, and hence subordinate the former to the latter .the us foreign policy subordinates the universal principles of right and justice to the national interests of the united states, and which refuses the united nations and its resolutions to a convenient instrument to be invoked only when it serves the us interests. unfortunately, american strategy for counteracting terrorism and building international security lack both coherence and a credible strategy for implementing americas best values. bush administration rarely understands the flashpoints and firebreaks in american- islamic relations. while on strand of us policy projects official messages of goodwill toward muslims and seeks to advertise american values through public diplomacy, the bush administration has mostly redressed problems of international terrorism and weapons proliferation unilaterally, through intimidation and projection of military power. instead of a proactive agenda to strengthen global governance and deal with terrorisms root causes, bush has produced a reactive foreign policy whose bellicosity to do what al- qaida could not : convince the worlds muslim that us policy really does oppose their interests and values. where many americans see policies animates by ideological consistency and even moral clarity. muslims see double standards and moral bankruptcy. the resulting perceptual gap and the demonstrable hardships experienced by palestinians and occupied iraqis has fed a deep cynicism about american policies. us concerns about irans atomic weapons is not regarded as credible given past us indifference to use of weapons of mass destruction against iranians and kurds, not to mention the way the american non-proliferation agenda seems driven more by power politics and a containment policy of selective proliferation than by any consistent set of principles. reports that neoconservative policy elites at the department of defense are drafting plans to reshape the political geography of the middle- east also arouse deep concern about american intentions. the influence of all consistent advocates of hard line policies toward palestinian and the broader arab world provoke considerable anxiety. in light of these perceptions, americans should not be surprised that most middle easterners view the war to “liberate” iraq as actually a campaign to subjugate arabs and muslims, within the well-established tradition of western imperialism. from a muslim standpoint, official american pronouncement of respect for islam are much easier to explain away than policies that instead manifest either a deliberate bias or an inability to comprehend the needs, aspirations, and fears of others. after all, it is politically expedient for american leaders to profess respect for islam and for muslim values. an official pronouncement of intolerance in the wake of september 11 would legitimize violence against arab and muslim americans, with significant consequences for american interests. in many parts of the world, and particularly in the middle- east, america is associated not with freedom and democracy but with suppressive and autocratic regimes; for the last fifty years, successive us governments have stood behind self- appointed leaders, providing them with financial and military support, as well as security and political advice. far from being the guardian of freedom and democracy, the us is often seen as the power behind military regimes and brutal dictators. one clear example is us involvement in iran. the cia was directly involved in engineering the military coup that removed democratic nationalist government of dr. mohammad mosaddeq, and installed mohammad reza shah regime in iran in 1954. despite his abuse of civil liberties of his people, and his extensive use of state security