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
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS