In the Cold War era, the global confrontation was basically ideological. Two radically different socio-political blueprints were pitted against each other: democracy and capitalism on the one side, one-party-rule and communism on the other. The opponents, then, were two superpowers and their allies -- all sovereign states. Today, the nature of the global confrontation has altered dramatically.
Many conflicts have become religious and the nature of the combatants has changed. On the one side of the divide stand those governments that profess to fight for democratic and liberal values, the other side is taken up by religious fundamentalists. The "democrats" represent sovereign states, the religious fighters are organized in informal networks, movements and insurgency groups.
The new international order seems far less orderly than the one left behind a decade and a half ago. The premature, if not naive assumption that the collapse of the Soviet Union would herald "the end of history" is constantly and brutally refuted in many parts of the world. Compared with the state of world affairs today, the Cold War-era resembles a period of international tranquility.
One of the striking (and also disturbing) features of the new world "disorder" is that the US has not found a successful recipe to deal with Islamic extremism. On the contrary: Much of what Washington has been doing in the past two years has played into the hands of the extremists.
All along, those opposing the war in Iraq have argued that military aggression and occupation are counterproductive and strategically wrong. Interestingly, this contention is now seconded in a report by the US Defense Science Board, an advisory panel of the Pentagon that says the US is failing in its long-term strategic efforts: "In stark contrast to the Cold War, the US today is not seeking to contain a threatening state empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure of Western modernity -- an agenda hidden within the official rubric of `War on Terrorism.'"
According to the report this is a strategic mistake. Unfortunately, the military confrontation in the Arabian deserts and the underlying clash of Western modernity versus fundamentalist rejection of this world view has had negative repercussions throughout the globe. These are felt everywhere Muslims and Christians live side by side.
With its large Muslim minorities from Northern Africa and Turkey, Western Europe is a case in point. Ironically, the Netherlands, arguably the most liberal of all countries, has become a battleground of what journalists term a "clash of cultures."
The brutal killing of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in early this month by a zealous Muslim immigrant has provoked a violent backlash in the form of bombings, fires and vandalism at numerous mosques. All this has occurred in a country thus far considered a haven of religious peace and tolerance.
During a recent trip to Europe I could sense the collective agitation. To say the Dutch are in a state of collective shock is no exaggeration. Some argue the relationship between Christian majorities and Muslim minorities may never be the same again.
"The future integration of its Muslim populations is the subtext to just everything Europe thinks and does these days," says a US commentator in the Netherlands. Most discussions in Europe related to the Muslim issue have two common denominators.
First, Europeans see the events in the Netherlands as a reminder that the government's immigration policies have failed to reach their primary objective -- the integration of the newly arrived Muslims as citizens with equal rights and obligations. Today, many Muslim immigrants are without jobs, many don't speak the local language and remain culturally alienated and segregated in what German observers term "parallel societies." These Muslim "enclaves" in Western countries have become breading grounds for Islamic fundamentalism.
While a lack of opportunities for integration is one aspect, the unwillingness on the side of many Muslim immigrants to become a part of the social mainstream is another.
"We Muslims lack a theology of integration," says Mohammed Aman Hobohm, a leading member of the Central Committee of Muslims in Germany.
According to Hobohm, the Koran offers no guidelines to Muslims on how to behave in non-Muslim environments.
Recent developments in Holland pose fundamental challenges to European societies and political classes. Everyone seems to agree the state must defend the citizens against attacks from religious and other fanatics. But just how far should and may the liberal state go to curb illiberal behavior?
In Europe, this has become more than a question of police tactics. There is a general consensus that more should be done to integrate the Muslim minorities into the European mainstream.
But this policy -- from a liberal vantage point -- has limitations: At what stage does a well-intended policy aimed at integrating a religiously and culturally different group become coercive and oppressive -- and thus incompatible with the underlying liberal principles of religious tolerance and acceptance of diversity? This is a political tightrope walk for all governments concerned, and thus far no side has come up with a clear cut response.
Ironically, all this is happening in a highly secular environment in which the separation of church and state is not the exception but the rule. Regarding the role of religion in public life and politics, Western Europe and the US are poles apart.
The re-election of US President George W. Bush is but one indicator of the political power of religion in the US. In this regard, Europe is still rather different. Some even say recent trans-Atlantic alienation is also caused by differing perceptions on religion.
But here, too, Europe may well be in for some change. Many Europeans are asking whether their secular societies are not in need of more religion. In light of the growing problems of the modern welfare state and rampant materialism, those advocating metaphysical restoration seem to be on the rise. For them, more religion is the answer to widespread nihilism in European societies.
Ronald Meinardus is the resident representative of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in the Philippines and a commentator on Asian affairs. Send comments to liberal@fnf.org.ph
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
RSS