New world order not so new

As we all know, the world in which we were born and which we knew, until only a decade and a half ago, was the world primarily dominated by the ideological divide between the free, democratic and capitalist West (led by the US and its allies) on one side and the totalitarian, despotic East (led by the former USSR) on the other.

We now know the final outcome of this half-a-century old “monumental struggle”. Communist totalitarianism has long been defeated and the free and democratic world triumphed spectacularly without any major armed conflict erupting between the two former super powers. Yes, there were a large number of regional and local conflicts - some would like to call them proxy wars - but direct confrontation was avoided. We were then promised a “new world order”, a world unified by our common liberal democratic freedoms - free market and economic prosperity and, indeed, inter-state co-operation.

Some prominent western thinkers and scholars of international relations have used this moment to pronounce their futuristic but conflicting paradigms of the world order. Well renowned American Professor Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the “end of history”. Borrowing from and commenting upon the earlier philosophical works on the Hegelian philosophy (as it was interpreted by the French philosopher and EU bureaucrat Alexander Kojeve) Fukuyama concluded in his book End of History and the Last Man that the world had reached its ideological end. Fukuyama claimed that liberal democracy was the final achievement of the human struggle proclaiming that humanity had reached its ideological end point.

According to Professor Fukuyama’s view, there will no longer be wars among nations once every country has adapted the same liberal principles and concepts. Simply, there will be no need for wars and armed confrontation, as all conflicts and differences will be resolved peacefully in dialogue and by way of diplomacy. This is, of course, a simplified view based on the assumption that liberal democracies do not fight each other.

As much as I admire Fukuyama’s work, this seems to be yet another utopian projection of an idealistic future - the future that we would all want, but reality is pointing in the opposite direction.

Professor Fukuyama did rightly predict the prevailing economic and political global trend that is taking place around the world (i.e. more countries are becoming democratic and they are also adopting the economic principles of free market, which its anti-globalisation critics call “neo-liberalism”). However, this does not mean that armed conflict has been eliminated. In fact, we could say the contrary is true.

It is also noticeable that some countries are reverting back to authoritarianism after they initially embraced democracy, Russia being a case in point. There are still authoritarian regimes that are refusing to surrender power and control to their own people: that is to the forces of democracy, liberty and human rights.

We are all aware of the misery and fear in which millions of people still live today. Consider Cuba, Zimbabwe, and North Korea as well as the vast majority of the Arab countries, including Iran, as a non-Arab Islamic theocracy where movements calling for democracy and reform are being suppressed as we speak.

Another prominent scholar, and indeed one of the foremost American political scientists, Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard University, became famous worldwide as he launched his own “grand thesis”. Professor Huntington claimed the opposite would be the case.

In his famous work Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, this senior intellectual authority claimed that conflicts among nations would not end as we witnessed the demise of the dissolution of Soviet communism. Huntington suggested that rather what will happen is that the basic nature of conflicts will change. He concluded that the future conflicts would no longer be ideological but rather cultural and civilisational in nature. Professor Huntington predicted the division of the world into seven different civilisations that, according to his view, will inevitably clash in the future.

Huntington identified the world of Islam as a major challenge to the established world order. He also claimed that Islam has “bloody borders”. Huntington mentioned the war in Bosnia in the context of a beginning of a clash of civilisations. Apart from “rising China”, Huntington contended, the world of Islam represents the major threat to peace and stability and the continuing prosperity and global dominating position of the world by the western civilisation led by the United States.

An equally important strategic scholar, Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski, provided analysis and suggested guidelines as to how this pre-eminent position of the West can be preserved. In his famous book titled The Grand Chess Board, American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, Professor Brzezinski concluded that world domination would belong to those powers that manage to successfully dominate and control the so called “world island”. By “world island” he meant the Euro-Asian land-mass, which contains the largest number of people and material resources.

If we now look back at world events that have been circulating in the mass media for some time now, I am sure we will be able to recognise that we are already living in these times. We can already identify some of the forces and dynamics these academics have foreseen. One might even say that there would have to be at least some correlation between these theoretical works and the world events we are presently witnessing.

Unfortunately, as we can see, the peaceful “new world order” we were promised in the aftermath of the dissolution of Soviet communism and its satellite empire has not been realised. As a result of this historic change, a strategic vacuum had been created which, in turn, produced many so called “fault lines”.

During the last 15 years we have witnessed many terrible nationalistic and ethnic conflicts. Many new states have been created from the ruins of former totalitarian empires - large ones such as the USSR and even Indonesia, or smaller ones such as Yugoslavia - to mention only the three major ones that come to mind. Suddenly, humanity became faced with new challenges, such as ethnic nationalism and, most recently, that of global terrorism, which features quite prominently as a major challenge to the peaceful global order. Global terrorism is often described as “Islamic terrorism”, given its proponents claim they want to re-create a so-called global “Islamic order” or Khalifat.

This was a quick glance at some of the global perspectives regarding conflict, peace and world order. Let me now turn to our local situation. We have recently witnessed our media largely preoccupied with discourses on ethnic riots, gang-wars, community harmony or disharmony, human security, terrorism issues and also Islam. A focus on Islam and Muslims, in fact, is taking prominent position in the debate, given the currency and global trends in relation to Islam and its linkages to global terrorism.

Let me make this very clear - what we are also witnessing is the manipulation of Islamic religion and civilisation for confrontational political ends. A small network of marginal, but rather vocal, dangerous, militant groups seems to have hijacked Islam, and perverted its message in the process: by committing terrorist acts, large and small, from 9-11 to Bali, to Jakarta, Istanbul, Madrid and London.

These terrorists are trying to promote their own narrow, selfish and immoral interests by attempting to persuade Muslims the world over that the only way of achieving justice and restoring the dignity and past “glory of Islam” is by confronting the West and engaging in an eschatological struggle between “good and evil”- and by killing an innocent civilian population.

These small groups of extremists symbolised by the al-Qaida terrorist network have been spreading fear and insecurity, endangering innocent human lives and threatening our harmonious coexistence in Australia.

These terrorists have deliberately created a climate of fear, hatred and distrust, both in the Muslim and Western worlds. As a direct consequence of their inhumane, devious and murderous activities many new measures have been instituted by various governments around the world, (including our own) in order to protect our security. These measures have also, to a certain extent, limited some of the freedoms usually connected with liberal democracies that we often take for granted.

Our own security is, after all, a most important human desire. It is a major task of our governments to protect both our peace and security.

As a community of peace loving and compassionate people of God, devoted to our religious beliefs and bound together by our common desires to spread love, peace and harmony, we understand these needs and will do our utmost to contribute as much as we can towards the enhancement of security and peace.

I would do a disservice to my own Muslim community if I do not mention, however, that there have been many incidents targeted against some Muslim members of the Australian community. We believe these incidents happen in every society. They are largely the result of misunderstandings and individual ignorance rather then having anything to do with the nature of our society or our government’s strategies.

It is my strong belief that the harmonious life, mutual respect and trust among various ethnic and religious communities in Australia cannot really be established exclusively by legislative measures. Racial, religious or ethnic vilification can always find its way by circumventing the laws. Only by actively engaging others in open dialogue and by working together and sharing our views to find a common ground, can we educate each other and try to eliminate suspicions and misunderstandings. Only then we will be able to move forward towards a more harmonious society.

Sometimes there are difficulties with the occasional negative stereotyping of Islam and Muslims in the media in Australia. This is not easy to avoid since our society is characterised by freedom of speech and a right to dissent. But blame for this state of affairs, however, should not be just levelled at the media. Muslims themselves should also take part of the blame.

One problem is that Muslims speak with many voices. Often their spokespeople are not able to articulate the issues in a way the ordinary Australian would be able to understand and appreciate. Those who can articulate issues are often inclined to support the global Islamic jihad and the creation of Khalifat - a marginal view, espoused by a small minority. Also, many Muslim community leaders are rarely theologically trained.

It is worth mentioning here that usually the most radical Islamist ideologues come from a science-based background (for example, doctors, engineers and so on) while the blame for this radicalism is levelled, often incorrectly, at the traditional Ulama (Muslim scholars).

There are also deep sectarian divisions within Islam itself. This is also reflected here in Australia, not only the divide between the majority Sunni community and the Shia minority, but also between the so-called jihadis - (those who support the global Islamic armed struggle against the West) and the ijtihadis (those who favour the rational and moderate approach including Muslim integration into western culture).

As Dr. Zia Rizvi, an Ambassador for Peace and spokesman for the First World Assembly of the Universal Peace Federation gathering in Seoul, Korea said:

We are convinced that it is important for the media to promote respect for all religions, their founders and their sacred teachings at all times. We are convinced that the inter-religious understanding and cooperation is a central prerequisite for durable peace. Any actions that promote disrespect, exaggerate misconceptions, or further prejudice, bigotry and misunderstanding of any religion are regressive and undermine the work for peace so dearly won by many. Universal Peace Federation (IIFWP)