COMMENTARY
How the 'Holy Warriors' learned to hate

By Toufiq A. Siddiqi

Catchy titles are good for marketing books but unsatisfactory as bases for making and implementing policies.

It has been more than a decade since Samuel Huntington's article on a "Clash of Civilizations" was published in Foreign Affairs, and an expanded version was published as a book. Both make a number of controversial conclusions, but the one that has possibly drawn the greatest attention is the author's thesis that global politics in the future will be dominated by clashes between different global cultures, mainly Western, Islamic and Asian. Some are using this as a justification for military action by claiming that since such clashes are inevitable, the West should take action now, when the Islamic and Asian civilizations are militarily still weaker.

The doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, although couched in terms of fighting terrorism, was actually enunciated more than a decade ago, when terrorism was not yet a major policy issue, and is one manifestation of the "Clash of Civilizations" perspective.

But there is no imminent or unavoidable "clash of civilizations." Extremists in each civilization have been trying to hijack the "silent majority" in the mainstream population and promote clashes to achieve their own goals.

Individual countries and the international community need to take measures to resist such provocations, and while taking action against terrorists, not ignore societal problems that provide the extremists with fertile grounds for recruitment.

Key beliefs are universal

What do we actually mean when we talk about civilized or uncivilized behavior? Civilizations are usually based on religious beliefs, history and philosophies that enable societies to function effectively. They include a series of do's and don't's that come from a supreme entity, referred to variously as God, Allah, Jehovah, etc.

All of the world's major religions and civilizations have fairly similar value structures, though they elaborate on these in different ways. Some of these beliefs and values are:

• Human beings are not the ultimate form of life in the universe. There is a Creator that is all-powerful, merciful, wise, etc.

• There is no justification for killing or hurting innocent people.

• People should help the needy and those less fortunate than themselves.

• Societies have the right to defend themselves but not to initiate unprovoked aggressive actions against others.

Given these commonalities, it is difficult to figure out why civilizations would conflict with each other. With a few exceptions in the distant past, major wars have not taken place because of inherently incompatible differences between civilizations, but because kings and despots have used the concept of the evil foreigner to acquire more land or wealth for themselves and their supporters.

This was true a thousand years ago and is still the case today. It is a persistent danger that we must guard against, particularly in an era where disinformation, as well as information, can be spread so easily and rapidly, and where weapon systems have essentially global reach.

Misappropriating religion

In the United States, the population at large has become aware of "Islamic" extremists only since they started attacking American targets in the past two decades. But they have been attacking their fellow citizens for decades in Islamic countries including Egypt, Pakistan and Algeria. "Christian" extremists have been waging war against each other in Ireland for more than half a century, and one hopes the current peace will hold.

A "Hindu" extremist assassinated Mahatma Gandhi for preaching peace and tolerance, and a "Jewish" extremist assassinated Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin for trying to make peace with the Palestinians. I use quotation marks to indicate that these religions do not preach the values demonstrated by the extremists, who use them to justify their actions.

Extremism is not monolithic

Technological advances, particularly in communication and transportation, have made it possible for extremists in all civilizations to expand their horizons from their immediate surroundings to the world at large. We shall focus here only on extremists in the Arab Middle East, Israel and the United States, many of whom seem determined to expand the impact of their activities by provoking a wider clash involving nation states and civilizations.

The extremists in each of these civilizations are not monolithic, either in terms of their modus operandi or goals. In the Arab Middle East, for example, many state their goal as the overthrow of monarchs put in by the colonial powers during the 20th century to guarantee the supply of oil at low prices to the industrialized countries. These monarchs are seen as having frittered away the wealth that came to the countries from the sale of oil, with only a small amount being used for the future welfare of the countries.

There is a widespread perception in the West that Islam and democracy are incompatible. It is not well known that the immediate successors to the Prophet Muhammad as leaders of the Muslim world (the caliphs) were democratically elected by their peers. It was only later, after the spread of Islam to North Africa and the Atlantic in the west, and to Malaysia and Indonesia in the east, that it became physically impossible for a central authority to centrally elect leaders.

The importance of the caliphs gradually declined in comparison with that of the reigning monarchs in different parts of the Muslim world.

A number of extremist groups are intolerant of branches of Islam other than their own, as well as of all other religions. Examples of these are the groups that attack Shia (also referred to as Shiite) and Sunni mosques and leaders in Iraq and Pakistan. In common with extremists in other religions, they believe they have the only way to salvation, and it is their duty to bring the one true faith to others.

A large group of extremists traces its origin to the creation of modern Israel. While it is possible that some people may be born extremists, most of them are created only when conditions are favorable.

Two generations of Palestinians, for example, have been born and grew up in occupied territories where many have lost their homes, land and livelihood. Their plight has steadily worsened. After a brief period of interest by the world community, they now feel neglected and left to their fate. Such conditions provide fertile grounds for recruitment by extremists.

Most Palestinians and Israelis would like to live in peace and dignity with each other. However, there are extremists not only among the Palestinians, but also in Israel, who make it difficult. Most Israelis are descendants of people who have been persecuted for centuries in European countries simply because they were Jews, culminating in the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Third Reich. They would like to live in a country where they constitute a majority, and where they can practice their religion without harassment.

A small minority would like to go much beyond this, and claim lands where Jews may have lived 2,000 years ago. Some of them become extremists in their desire to remove those whose ancestors have lived on these lands for only a few hundred years. This has led to the establishment of settlements in the middle of almost exclusively Palestinian populations. When the Palestinians resist, settlers don't have to take action themselves, but can call on the Israeli military to take armed action.

The United States has served as a beacon of hope, freedom, opportunity and optimism to the world since its independence more than 200 years ago. It has been a major force against colonialism and for global cooperation and tolerance.

As in all societies, it has had its share of extremists, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis, but their influence on mainstream America has been small. In recent years, however, U.S. supporters of the extremist Israeli parties appear to have acquired control over the formulation of options for U.S. Middle Eastern policy.

Many of these individuals are a part of the larger umbrella group of "neo-conservatives" and occupy senior civilian positions in the Department of Defense and on the Defense Policy Advisory Board. Implementation of the policies they advocate, such as pre-emptive wars, has made it easier for Islamic extremists to recruit in many countries.

Surrounded by countries that were hostile to its creation and initial expansion, it is understandable that Israel feels the need to have the United States, the strongest military power in the world, as its defender.

A question that needs to be answered is what the United States is being asked to defend — the internationally recognized border of Israel, perhaps with some minor adjustments, or the continued occupation of Palestinian territory?

The extremists in the Arab world and in Israel would like nothing better than for the United States to continue to take actions that would provoke growing alienation between the United States and the Muslim countries, and thereby continue to give them fertile grounds for recruitment.

The roots of terrorism

While fighting the current war on terrorism, we also need to address some of the basic causes that give rise to extremism. Prominent among these are poverty, humiliation, alienation, lack of education and dim prospects for a better future. This is a growing challenge not only in the Middle East but in many parts of Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Even in some of the more affluent countries, the gaps in income and education between the haves and have-nots are widening.

Even a superpower like the United States cannot occupy all countries where possible extremists might be producing weapons of mass destruction. We will need the cooperation of the individual countries to prevent the manufacture of such weapons, some of which are relatively easy to conceal.

International crises and domestic election cycles frequently put pressure on countries for instant cooperation rather than addressing the long-term needs of other countries as well as ourselves.

We need to address these long-term needs with the same sense of urgency as the immediate goals to prevent the rapid growth of extremists in all civilizations.

We should recognize that the overwhelming majority of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and people of other faiths have no difficulty getting along with each other.

Relatively small groups of extremists in each of these have their own agendas to provoke clashes between countries or civilizations.

Poverty, a lack of a well-rounded education, freedom from oppression, reduction of economic and social inequities and a lack of a place that can be called home are among the important factors that civilizations need to address urgently if the 21st century is to be one of peace and progress rather than one of fear and hatred.

Toufiq A. Siddiqi grew up in India and Pakistan and has worked on energy and environmental policies for most of his professional life. He was a senior fellow at the East-West Center for 17 years and an associate professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University before that. These views are his own.