Clash Of Civilizations

Is 9/11 a Manifestation of The Clash of Civilizations? Book Review of Samuel Huntington’s (1996) The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order Unpublished paper by Amira Sariyati Firdaus (2002) This paper was written to fulfill course requirements for the course ‘International Communication’ at the Center for Media and Communication Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

INTRODUCTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION

This essay will attempt to put into current perspectives Samuel Huntington’s theory that the world is facing a ‘Clash of Civilizations’. It will focus on the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world after the tragic terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 (9/11). I will begin by summarizing certain important concepts and points made in Huntington’s 1996 publication of The clash of civilizations: Remaking of world order. This will be followed by a lengthy discussion of how the post 9/11 world supports Huntington’s thesis of serious a clash between the West and the Muslim world. The essay’s conclusion will explain that despite its vital role as the turning point of history, 9/11 is not really the watershed that signifies the division the West and the Muslim world. Finally, I will discuss the profound implications of post 9/11 developments on the coming world order. 2.0

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

2

2.1

Civilizations

According to Huntington, a civilization is the ultimate grouping of human beings based on shared values, histories, culture and a multitude of other common characteristics

that

transcend

geographical

boundaries.

Islamic

civilization

encompasses peoples in Southeast Asia, different cities across Europe, isolated territories in China and Russia, and throughout the Americas. Similarly, Western civilization is not just peoples of Western Europe, but also Australia, South Africa, and of course, the United States, the manifestation of modern Western civilization. Huntington hypothesizes that the new millennium will be characterized by deep differences between different civilizations, and these differences will lead to conflicts that may eventually change the world order from a Western-dominated world to one where regional, ethnic, and religious affiliations will create blocs that are somewhat at odds with one another. Huntington sees the Muslim world as one of the greatest challengers to Western hegemony. Western and Islamic conflicts are about intercivilizational differences. Huntington delineates these issues to be about Islamist terrorism, Western intervention, weapons proliferation, control of oil, human rights, democracy and immigration. (Huntington 1996: 212) Events following 9/11 highlight some of these bitter issues. The main issues are of course Islamist terrorism and Western hegemony. Along the lines of these two issues, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and control of oil wealth are also defining Muslim – Western conflict. 2.2

The Islamic Resurgence and identification with the Muslim Ummah

Huntington believes that Muslims all over the world are becoming increasingly Islamic as they begin to see Western norms and ideals as an imposition on Islam as a way of life. This Islamic Resurgence encompasses all aspects, from practicing rituals (like prayers, fasting, abstaining from alcohol), to mobilizing Islamic welfare organizations to the setting up of Islamically-compatible social institutions such as Islamic banking and syariah courts.

3

On the every day basis, Islamic Resurgence in these spheres are very much apparent, and probably are not considered as mortally very threatening to the West (although Islamic banking and business practices may be taking over certain economic niches formally dominated by Western-style institutions).However, resurgence in identification with the Muslim Ummah is the most critical sphere of Islamic revival in terms of civilizational clashes. Insofar as this Islamic Resurgence is occurring on a mainstream level, and not just among fundamental Muslims or Islamists, it demonstrates a universal Muslim consciousness of their Islamic identity. This identification with the Muslim Ummah sensitizes the Muslim to both the plight of Muslims in other lands, and also to the corrosion of Islamic values in the face Western cultural hegemony. Hence the magnetic pull that empowers individuals to defend his Muslim brothers and Islam as a way of life.

2.2.1

Identification with the Ummah as driving force behind jihad

The transnational nature of Muslim terrorists is something that Huntington credits the global Islamic Resurgence to. He sees the Muslim identity as being more important than national or ethnic identification. The Afghan war prior to the Cold War began this tide of Muslim military marshals, or mujahiddeen, volunteering to fight in the name of Islam. Beyond the Cold War, such fighters have defended Muslims in Bosnia, Chenchnya, the Philippines, and elsewhere where Muslims are being attacked by nonMuslims. Grouping of different nationals is also the hallmark of al-Qaeda, and explains the alleged links between al-Qaeda, Jemaah-Islamiyah (JI) and Abu Sayaf. This realization for the need of a Muslim military, of course is also driven by a deep commitment to the Muslim Ummah that crosses ethnic and national boundaries, and even supplants the family unit as men and boys willingly leave their countries, their jobs and their families for jihad.

3.0

BEYOND 9/11

4

3.1

The War On Terror

Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September, the US government headed by President Bush, began a massive operation to combat terrorism; the War On Terror. The parameters of this war are purposely unmarked so that it will have no spatial restriction, time limit or specific adversary. The agenda of the war against terror was not simply the hunt for those deemed responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but the total elimination of any possible future threat to American interests, proven or otherwise. The war against terror gives the United States free reign to strike anyone and anywhere it wants. Two years into this war has seen two Muslim countries attacked, two Muslim governments overthrown, hundreds of Muslim men held in limbo in the tightest security facility in the world, thousands more imprisoned in their own countries, and thousands upon thousands of Muslims homeless, impoverished, traumatized, maimed and dead. If nothing else proves it, the War On Terror certainly proves that the US has its hands full striking the Muslim world. And even in the two decades leading up to this war, the US conducted over 17 military operations against Muslim states, groups and individuals, more than against any other target (Huntington 1996: 217). 3.2

Muslim fundamentalists: Guilty till proven innocent

Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, even as rescue work was still underway, hence exhaustive investigations were not yet possible, fingers began to point at fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, and more specifically at Osama bin Laden and his international al-Qaeda network. That many in the US administration and the media are familiar with Huntington’s views on the civilizational clash between Islam and the West is highly probable. Perhaps Huntington’s thesis is a self fulfilling prophecy, directing the CIA, FBI and Pentagon to reflexively place responsibility on Muslim terrorists. Or perhaps, the instinctive finger-pointing merely strengthens Huntington’s thesis that the West sees the Muslim world as a great threat. But that is beside the point.

5

The point to be made here is that Muslim fundamentalism was not given the benefit of the doubt. The now forgotten Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 is a case in point. Muslim fundamentalist were immediately held responsible, although later investigations revealed that it was the work of an extremist American. Furthermore, the great American principal of justice that deems criminal suspects ‘innocent till proven guilty’ is simply nonexistent when it comes Muslim fundamentalists. While legally speaking not much can be said about a Muslim who knowingly plans and executes terrorist attacks against civilians and admits guilt as in the case of the Amrozi brothers in the Bali bombing, the American habit of lumping all fundamental Muslims as terrorists is very disturbing. (A case in point is the pressure on Indonesia to act against cleric Abdul Bashir whose connections to the Bali bombing are simply nonexistent.) It does, however, prove the point that there indeed exists prejudice on the part of the West with regards to Muslim fundamentalists. And to the greater extent that non-Muslim terrorists are rarely, if ever, branded as Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Confucian-terrorists, it also reflects an inherent Western animosity towards Islam. This indiscriminate association of terrorism with Muslims highlights the conflict between the West and Islam. 3.3

American policy towards Islam and American perception of Islam

Despite frequent lip-service that the US is not waging a war against Islam, but only against Muslim terrorists, Western action following 9/11 spell a different policy; deadly military action against legitimate Muslim governments (secular in Iraq and Islamic in Afghanistan), detainment without trial of Muslims by the US, discriminatory immigration procedures against Muslims. 3.3.1

Open criticism of Muslim regimes

Besides these policies, the US is also openly critical of many Muslim regimes, especially those less friendly to American policy such as Syria and Iran, charging them to be either harboring terrorists or even financing them (thus legitimizing US talk of possibly effecting regime change in these countries).

6

Even Muslim allies have not been spared the brunt of American criticism. Pakistani and Egyptian governments for example are criticized for being inefficient and corrupt and thus causing massive dissatisfaction among its citizens who in turn support local fundamentalist Islamic movements, a political development that the US is not happy about because of their possible links to terrorist groups. Another case in point is Saudi Arabia. The US believes that 9/11 was the indirect result of the Saudi government’s leniency towards its fundamentalists, allowing their hatred of ‘Western infidels’ to reach the masses through religious sermons and education. The US also charges the Saudi government of allowing funds to reach these fundamentalist groups to finance their terrorist activities. Dore Gold exemplifies this American condemnation of the Saudi ruling house in his critically acclaimed book Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia supports the new global terrorism. 3.3.2

Criticism of Islam as a religion is politically-correct

Furthermore, criticism is not only leveled at Muslim terrorists and permissive Muslim governments, open criticism of Islam itself is not considered politically incorrect or inappropriate. Gold considers the puritanical sect of Islam, Wahabism, as being the ideological driving force behind terrorism against non-Muslim targets. While he at least makes a distinction between Wahabism and the rest of Islam, the fundamental idea he proposes is that Muslim fundamentalists commit terrorist acts because it is called for by Islam. It is an idea that many others share. Former Muslim Imam turned Christian missionary, Mark A. Gabriel claims that the core teachings of the Islam makes in mandatory for every Muslim to join the jihad to rid the world of un-Islamic people and practices. Journalist Mark Steyn links all Muslim terrorist acts to an intolerant belief system. International relations analyst, Michael Gilbert concluded that Muslim terrorists shape their principles and beliefs from the Quran Thus despite US insistence that it is not fighting a war against Islam, whatever war that it is waging against terrorism is grounded in its disapproving depiction of Muslims, Muslim governments and Islam in general.

7

3.4

War against terror and American double-standards

During the unfolding of the events of 9/11, American media, backed by President Bush, perpetuated the idea that the hijacking of the four planes to crash into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and possibly the White House, was an attack on America. And thus it was an attack on the cherished American ideals of freedom, democracy pluralism, the free market and liberty. An attack against such ideals, they reasoned was in fact an attack on humanity itself, and thus the terror attacks were dubbed a ‘War against humanity’. There are two points to be made concerning this. Firstly, equating American iconic buildings with humanity underlines American arrogance. Secondly, not similarly equating Afghan deaths with death of humanity, underlines American disregard for other ways of life.

3.4.1

American arrogance

Although the deaths of thousands of innocent people, with quite a number citizens of countries besides the US, is indeed lamentable, it is highly inappropriate that US response to those deaths, to the ‘war against humanity’, was to launch a military operation in Afghanistan that would result in the deaths of several thousand more innocent people. It is partly arrogance that to ‘preserve the American way of life’, there is no crime in destroying lives, buildings, amenities, agricultural land, the economy and basically the complete structure of another nation, which are all simply considered as ‘collateral’. It is also arrogance that the US placed responsibility of civilian casualties from US military bombing, on the shoulders of the Taliban for not handing over Osama while at the same time demanded an official apology from Saudi Arabia for the private actions of 15 of its private citizens (15 of the 19 men implicated in 9/11 were young Saudis). 3.4.2

American apathy

Besides sheer American arrogance, more profoundly, the US’s response to the ‘war against humanity’ emphasizes the fact that the US has double standards in defining

8

‘humanity’. Clearly, the Afghan way of life, Afghan livelihood, and for that matter, their very lives are in no way comparable to that of people in America. That is why the US had no qualms in bombing Afghan villages in search of al-Qaeda members, who in all likelihood knew nothing about 9/11 anyway. This disregard for Muslim life is even more apparent in the recent US unilateral invasion of Iraq, and is also exemplified in US support for Israeli policies of target -killing Palestinian leaders (which also results in the deaths of civilians). Ultimately, it implies an American apathy to Muslim lives. Huntington’s thesis on the clash of the West and Islam holds true in the US’s double standards on precious lives and not-so-precious lives. 3.5

The War against terror intensifies Islamic Resurgence

Huntington has argued that part of the driving force of the Islamic Resurgence in the 1980’s was the decline in Western economic power and cultural allure. Economically, the oil boom of the 1970’s gave the Muslim world a sense of power and worth as compared to the West. At the same time, the breakdown of morality arising from Western cultural influences made the Western culture not as appealing as it used to be. Thus Muslims began to see Islam as a culture far superior to Western decadence. With this came the desire to assert Islam economically, politically and culturally. This may still hold true today, but a more jolting driving force is powering Islamic Resurgence in the post 9/11 world. 3.5.1

Muslim fury fueling Islamic Resurgence

The intense hunt for Osama before conclusive evidence of his involvement in 9/11 has turned him into an overnight underdog hero among Muslims who either believed in his innocence or who simply celebrated the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The Westernpressured persecution of Abdul Bashir in the aftermath of the Bali bombing, the recent American support of Israel’s policy of eliminating Yassr Arafat and to an extent even the American hunt for Saddam and the controversial treatment of his dead sons’ bodies have fuelled Muslim fury.

9

At the same time, the plight of Afghans and Iraqis who suffer the aftermaths of American air strikes and continuing ground battles, and the plight of the Palestinian people under American-backed Sharon also feed Muslim rage against the US specifically, and the West generally. This collective anger stems from Muslim identification with the greater Muslim Ummah. And also cyclically reinforces identification with the Ummah and the greater Islamic Resurgence. Muslims are beginning to realize the need for solidarity. Jihadis have long banded together, and now Muslim governments are making an effort to work as one. 3.5.2

Islamic Resurgence in the realm of international politics

Although concrete results are still elusive, inter-governmental meetings have taken place to either present a common stand against Western military action, or to work on securing a more level ground for Muslims to compete in global politics and economics. Meetings such as the World Islamic Multaqa and the informal Muslim leaders meeting at the end of the 13th NAM summit are reactions to Western actions and policies following 9/11. These meetings, among others, signifies an Islamic Resurgence in the realm of international politics. 3.6

Intracivilizational discord among Muslim states

Despite this seeming Muslim solidarity however, discord still defines the relationship among Muslim nations in the post 9/11 world. 3.6.1

Muslim vs. Muslim actions

As a matter of policy, many Muslim nations have agreed with the need for a war against terrorism. Under pressure or in hope of favor, some Muslim governments and groups have even joined forces with the US-led Western coalition in combating other Muslims. This was true immediately following 9/11 when Pakistan and Iran among others, allowed Western nations to use their countries as bases to launch an attack on

10

the Taliban in Afghanistan, and when the Northern Alliance battled the Taliban. This was also true over a year later when several Gulf states allowed the US to use their countries as bases to launch an attack against Saddam’s regime in Iraq, and Kurds battled Iraqi Arabs. This was also true in between and after these two short but bloody wars. Southeast Asian Muslim governments, despite strong official opposition against USled attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq have openly and willingly collaborated with the US on anti-terrorists measures such as the setting up of an anti-terrorists center in Kuala Lumpur recently, and Indonesia’s detainment of suspected JI members. The ensuing death penalty on the mastermind of the Bali attack, and the 4-year prison term of the supposed leader of the JI underscore Indonesia’s commitment to fight terrorism that targets Western interests. It may be noted that Indonesia’s history has seen other senseless violent acts committed against civilians, but intensity on finding and punishing the perpetrators are comparably lower than with al-Qaeda linked – JI suspects. Identification with Muslim brethren clearly takes a backseat when it comes to terrorists. Even the notion of non-intervention is taking a backseat when Muslim governments allow their captured terrorist suspects to be questioned by US FBI agents. There is dwindling notion of ‘we’ll punish our own criminals ourselves, thank you.’ 3.6.2

Muslim inaction in the face of Western attacks

Even in matters that inflame Muslim fury, there is no real and concerted effort among Muslim peoples, let alone Muslim governments, to take action. While Muslims world wide were aghast with the inhumane and unwarranted detention of supposed Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Guatanamo Bay, nothing has been done to free these men, or even to ensure their fair treatment. Similarly, despite huge protests against military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and huge concern over civilian toll of these military operations, nothing has been done to effectively prevent the bombardment of Afghan and Iraqi citizens. No transnational Muslim military operation has been undertaken, no sanctions, economic or otherwise, have been held. On the contrary, as mentioned

11

above, Muslim nations are used as military bases for these attacks, and certain Muslim groups have also joined the fighting on the side of the US-led ‘coalition’. While Huntington’s thesis of a clash between the West and Islam is evident, so is his thesis on intracivilizational clashes within the Muslim world. 3.7

Western cohesion

While one might be tempted to explain inaction and discord among Muslim nations as being an international norm affecting even Western states, there is a fine distinction to be made between Muslim and Western states; the War against terror has yet to see a Western nation join Muslim fighters in battling another Western force. To be fair, not all Western nations are always in full agreement with American policies toward Muslim nations and Muslims. Traditional American ‘allies’ like France, Russia, Germany and even to a small extent, Canada, among others have voiced great opposition to a unilateral American operation to militarily bring about regime change in Iraq. However, this opposition comes only in the form of rhetoric protests. No European military coalition was dispatched to Iraq to prevent American invasion, and no meaningful UN sanctions were implemented against the US. Furthermore, Western condemnation of the American attack on Iraq has dwindled since the six months that the US has proved victorious, and nations formally critical of the US are mending fences. Huntington stresses that in the clash of civilizations, countries will band with other countries of the same civilization. When disagreements occur concerning countries of other civilizations, in the end, ‘kin’ will stand by ‘kin’. 3.8

A short note on Western might and terrorism

In mentioning possible military action or economic sanction against the US, either by a Muslim or a Western state, it cannot be ignored that a very possible deterrent is the strength of the American military, and the global tentacle of the American economy.

12

Huntington points out that it is the comparative strength of the West, as individual states and as a civilization, and the comparative weakness of the Muslim world that make terrorism the only possible strategy of any violent clash with the West. The trial of the Bali bombing suspects exemplifies this in a chilling way. As the ‘Smiling Bomber’ claims, the deaths of the 200 Western tourists avenges the deaths of thousands of Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Chechnya and else where at the hands of non-Muslims. The impossible task of delivering a striking blow to the American, British, Australian, Indian and Russian militaries was met by attacking non – Muslim civilians. Again, events following 9/11 support Huntington’s thesis that weakened civilizations resort to unconventional tactics when in conflict with stronger civilizations. Huntington, in fact, even singles out the Muslim world as a civilization that is mired with terrorist activities. 3.9

Clash of ideologies: Western universalism vs. Islam as a way of life

Perhaps the most fundamental clash between the US and Islam lies in the valuesystem espoused by both. On explicating the war on terror, Michael Gilbert highlights the justification for war on both sides, and points out that while the West wants to defend its ideals, the Muslim world also wants to defend Islamic ideals from being corrupted. The US sees (or illustrates) 9/11 as an attack on all the cherished American ideals by people who do not value democracy, freedom and secularism. And hence it has not only a right to response, but even a moral obligation to declare a war against terrorism. It is defending people who value those ideals from future attacks from people who abhor those ideals. Muslims, or rather Islamists, on the other hand, see the war on terror as an unwarranted attack on weakened Muslim nations and as unjustified harassment of Muslims in America and Europe. Not only that, greater American intervention in the

13

affairs of sovereign Muslim states is also seen as an extension of American imperialism meant to challenge Islam as a way of life. Most threatening, perhaps, is the American effort to pressure Muslim governments to change the curriculum of Islamic studies. The US is unhappy with the numerous privately run religious schools in Pakistan and as well as with the state approved Islamic curricula in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan’s religious schools are considered to be breeding grounds for Muslim terrorists, while Saudi Arabia’s textbooks openly support the call to jihad to kill infidels. (Note that these facts were highlighted by Western journalists and officials such as Thomas Friedman and Dore Gold) While not all Islamic schools share the same ideology or curricula, Islamic education is still essentially the Quran – whose contents are sacred beyond words, and the Prophet’s Hadiths – highly revered and greatly consulted. To question the Prophet is deplorable, and to interfere with the words of God is sacrilege. Some Muslims find it highly offensive when other Muslims interpret the Quran differently (hence the divisions among moderates, extremists, fundamentals and secularists, not to mention the different mazhabs), it is even more unacceptable for non-Muslims to interfere with Islamic teachings. Huntington points out that the West’s ideological domination of the rest of the world arises from the notion that Western values are universal. The West sees the adoption of pluralism, democracy, and the free market as signs of modernity. It also sees itself as the defender and champion of these ideals which it seeks to export to other civilizations. The West’s opinion that its values are universal leads it to impose those values upon others who may find them conflicting and alien. The Muslim world is one civilization whose concept of ideals differs from the West. Western ideals emanate from the rights of the individual, and stress the notion of choice. Muslim ideals are firmly grounded in the Quran and the Hadiths, and emphasize the rights of the Ummah, and most importantly complete submission to God.

14

The conflict between these two competing ideologies manifests itself in the greater clash between the West and the Muslim world. Much of the American way of life belies the ideals of individual rights, pluralism and the like, while Islam as a way of life is practiced upon the foundation of supplication to God, and striving towards the greater good of the Ummah. Imposition of Western ideals upon true Muslim lives threatens Islam as a way of life. 3.10

The media clash of civilizations

While Huntington did not give much attention to media in his discussion of the clash of civilization, his discourses on indigenization (i.e. the Islamic Resurgence) and civilization rallying elucidates the contradicting slants on the war on terrorism in Western and Muslim media. Indeed Edward Said proves Huntington’s thesis of a Western – Islamic clash by pointing out that the global media, dominated by the US depicts Islam and Muslims in a way that would best serve US interests, whatever they may be at any given time. Despite the impression of fair and balanced coverage in giving air time and news hole to Muslims, overall coverage of Muslims has been negative. From the oil crises of the 1970’s to the First Gulf War, American media paints a terrifying monolithic image of Islam and Muslims that portray Islam as an outdated religion with intolerant and violent adherents. As the greatest of kin to the American government, American media rallies behind American foreign policy of making Islam the enemy. (Said 1997) This practice of vilifying coverage of Islam continued with the unfolding of the events following 9/11. The spot light was on Islam and Muslims, and much of this spotlight focused on extremist Muslims, with little more than lip-service to the glory of Islam as a peace-loving religion. Carrying the clash of civilizations into the realm of international media, the Muslim world hit back at Western media through al –Jazeera, most notably in its coverage of Iraq and Palestine. It is clear that al – Jazeera follows Huntington’s pattern of identification with and rallying behind the Muslim Ummah.

15

4.0

CONCLUSION

4.1

9/11 a watershed?

A valid question considering that 9/11 has made the world a frightening place to live in. It is frightening to the Western man because terrorists seem to be lurking in every corner. It is frightening to the Muslim man because the war against terrorism may well reach his neighborhood. It is frightening to the non-Muslim non-Western man because he might just be caught in the middle. And it certainly proves Huntington’s decade old thesis; Islam and the West are at war. Long before 9/11, Huntington outlined the tensions between these two civilizations based on prior Muslim – Western relationships. The post 9/11 world merely verifies Huntington’s thesis on Western domination, Islamic Resurgence, civilization rallying of kin countries, intra-civilization clashes, and several other hypotheses. And it is precisely the fact that Huntington’s thesis dates back at least to 19931, that disputes the notion of 9/11 being the turning point of history. Rather, 9/11’s role in the remaking of world order is merely that it makes plain the formally more implicit tensions between the West and the Muslim world. 4.1.1

9/11 merely highlights the Western – Islamic clash

The United States was the only superpower left after the Cold War, and 9/11 merely witnesses the intensification of American supremacy. Similarly, Islamic terrorism had always been high on Western agenda, and 9/11 merely nudged it to the very top of Western agenda. Likewise, Western apathy to the massacre of Muslims was evident long before American air strikes on Taliban Afghanistan and Iraq. Regime change in these two countries is but a continuance of the Western engineered changes that have 1

The clash of civilizations: Remaking of world order is based on an article produced by Huntington for a Harvard University study on “The changing security environment and American national interests” in the summer of 1993. It must also be noted that although Islam is a major theme in his thesis, Huntington also pays significant attention to Sino (Chinese) civilization’s possible clash with the West.

16

plagued Palestine (the setting up of Israel) and Iran (the setting up of the Pahlevi dynasty), not to mention the arbitrary drawing of borders in the Middle East by 19th century Western colonial masters. 4.2

Introspection

This discussion on the clash between Western civilization and the Islamic world has been slanted in sympathy to the Muslim world, yet such a discourse is not complete without acknowledging the various terrorist attacks against Western interests perpetuated in the name of Islam, especially those in the last two years. Given the ferocity of these attacks, and their indiscriminate civilian targets, it is hardly surprising that the West should views Islam as a threat. This perception of Islam as a threat is descriptive not only of the American government, but also the American people. A 1994 survey of 35,000 Americans supports this point (Huntington 1996: 215). It would hardly be presumptuous to assume that beyond 9/11, this holds even truer. 4.2.1

Muslim terrorists really do commit acts in the name of Islam

Even though one may reason away Palestinian suicide bombers, and even if the unlikely theory that 9/11 was a Mossad - CIA conspiracy holds true, what have Muslims to say about subsequent violence committed against Western civilians? The Bali bombing, the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl, and the Marriott bombing have all been sanctioned by one Muslim group of another, and apparently, all in the name of Islam. While great PR efforts are made highlight that terrorism goes against the principles of Islam, these efforts are slapped in the face by extremists who thump the Quran and cry God is Great in performing their terrorist versions of jihad and by their adoring masses who celebrate these attacks. Just as the Northern Alliance battled the Taliban, and the Kurds battled the Iraqis, the only sure thing that can be said about Islamic terrorism is that it points to a

17

fundamental and unfortunate discord within the Muslim Ummah; a self-injuring intracivilizational clash of Islamic ideologies. 4.2.2

Islam is powerless if competing Islamic ideologies are not reconciled

As of 1996, Huntington was still unable to see a core Muslim state that has the military might, economic wealth and political clout to lead the Muslim world in the new world order. Even if such a nation were to exists, Islamic civilization would not be able to stand on equal footing with Western civilization. As the core state of the West, the US is able to maintain both Western and American hegemony not just because of its military, economic and political strength, but because the West is not mired in intracivilizational discord. Until and unless Muslim governments are able to stand united, and are able to convert the minds of extremist, fundamental, moderate and secular Muslims either to collectively denounce terrorism, or even conversely to collectively embrace terrorism, despite our numbers, and our oil, the Muslim Ummah will remain the underdog, or worse, the pariah in the new world order. 4.3

Remaking of world order

Yet Huntington predicts that the new world order will be defined by blocs of different civilizations; perhaps Western, Islamic and Sino, resulting from the decline of Western hegemony. Huntington theorizes that despite its currently unrivaled economic, political, technological, and military might, Western power is facing a process of relative decline that will see other regions slowly but surely rivaling the West. He sees Western decline as a discontinuous process, whereby “reassertions of Western power (will follow) manifestations of Western weakness” (Huntington 1996: 83). 9/11 has indeed served as a catalyst to reinforce Western, and particularly, American might, as never before witnessed by history. Nowhere in the near future can there be a power to rival the US. However, this mega-assertion of American strength may itself be a catalyst to the other civilizations. Undoubtedly, concerns over personal

18

security in a unipolar world would step up the search for allies among non Western states and increase defense budgets; Taliban Afghanistan and Iraq should well serve as a lesson that under threat of American military strikes, no one will help. North Korea openly admits to developing nuclear weapons. Pakistan and China are thought to be in secret cooperation on nuclear testing. Australia, Japan and the Philippines are all scrambling for joint US military exercises. Even Malaysia is stepping up military recruitment; despite reassurance that retired military personnel need to replaced, one cannot help but look beyond Malaysian shores. Perhaps 9/11 was the excuse that the US has been looking for to exercise its military capabilities and frighten the world into acquiescence with American domination. And what better excuse could there be than to flush out Islamist terrorists at odds all infidels, and to destroy the WMD’s in the secret arsenal of a bloodthirsty tyrant (who also happened to be a Muslim)? Reassertion of American might through the war against Muslim terror seems to be the new world order. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Civilisations: Mortal enemies. Documentary. Discovery Channel, ASTRO. (9 September 2003) Civilisations: The roots of conflict. Documentary. Discovery Channel, ASTRO. (9 September 2003) Farish A. Noor. 2003. What are you up to, George? Impact International, Jan – Mar: 48 – 49. Friedman, T.L. 2002. Longitudes and attitudes. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux. Gabriel, M.A. 2002. Islam and terrorism. Florida: Charisma House.

19

Gold, D. 2003. Hatred’s Kingdom. Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc. Huntington, S.P. 1993. The clash of civilizations. An article produced for Harvard University’s Olin Institute project on “The changing security environment and American

national

interests”.

(online)

http://www.lander.edu/atannenbaum/Tannenbaum%20courses%20folder/POLS %2010... (9 September 2003) Huntington, S.P. 1996. The clash of civilizations: Remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster. Khalid Baiz. 2003.

To Baghdad with love: Bombs, bread and hyperbole.

International Impact, April. Khalid Baiz. 2003. Beyond Baghdad: Islamic Ummah. International Impact, April. Liagin, E. 2003. ‘Shock and Awe’ as foreign policy. Impact International, May. Mustaffa Iqbal. 2003. Welcome to the new empire. International Impact, May: 8. Muzaffar Iqbal. 2003. For every Pharoah, a Moses: Meanwhile, a question for humanity. International Impact, June - July: 8. Muzaffar Iqbal. 2003. The road to freedom: Total faith and total self reliance. International Impact, June - July: 8. Said, E.W. 1997. Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. New York: Vintage Books. Snookhdeo, P. 2003. How television creates terrorists. The Spectator, 31 May. Steyn, M. 2002. The triumph of American values. The Spectator, 7 September.

20

Steyn, M. 2003. They want to kill us all. The Spectator, 19 October.