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
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS