Throughout the so-called "war on terror," the notion of a "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West has usually been dismissed as politically incorrect and intellectually wrongheaded. Instead, the most common interpretation has been that the world has entered a new era characterized by conflict within a particular civilization, namely Islam, with fundamentalist Muslims as much at war against moderates as against the West.
The strategic conclusion derived from such an analysis is clear, ambitious and easily summarized: democratization. If the absence of democracy in the Islamic world is the problem, bringing democracy to the Middle East would be the solution, and it is the historical duty of the US, as the most powerful and moral nation, to bring about that necessary change. The status quo is untenable. Implementing democracy, with or without regime change, is the only alternative to chaos and the rise of fundamentalism.
But practice has fallen short of theory. Iraq may be on the verge of civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. Iran under a new and more radical president is moving irresistibly towards possessing a nuclear capacity. A free electoral process brought Hamas to power in Palestine, and the unfortunate episode of the Danish newspaper cartoons illustrated the almost combustible nature of relations between Islam and the West.
These developments are paving the way to new interpretations. Rather than a "clash of civilizations," we might instead be faced by multiple layers of conflict, which interact with each other in ways that increase global instability.
Indeed, it appears that the world is witnessing a triple conflict. There is a clash within Islam, which, if the violence in Iraq spreads to neighboring countries, risks causing regional destabilization. There is also a clash that is best described not as being between Islam and the West, but between the secularized world and a growing religious one. At an even deeper and atavistic level, there is an emotional clash between a culture of fear and a culture of humiliation.
It would be a gross oversimplification to speak, as some are doing, of a clash between civilization and barbarism. In reality, we are confronted with a widening divide over the role of religion, which runs between the West (with the US being a complicated exception) and much of the rest of the world (the most notable exception being China), but particularly the Islamic world.
The divide reflects how religion defines an individual's identity within a society. At a time when religion is becoming increasingly important elsewhere, we Europeans have largely forgotten our religious past, and we have difficulty understanding the role that religion can play in other peoples' daily lives. In some ways, "they" are our own buried past and -- with a combination of ignorance, prejudice and, above all, fear -- "we" are afraid that "they" could define our future.
We live in a secular world, where free speech can easily turn into insensitive and irresponsible mockery, while others see religion as their supreme goal, if not their last hope. They have tried everything, from nationalism to regionalism, from communism to capitalism. Since everything has failed, why not give God a chance?
Globalization may not have created these layers of conflict, but it has accelerated them by making the differences more visible and palpable. In our globalized age, we have lost the privilege -- and, paradoxically, the virtue -- of ignorance. We all see how others feel and react, but without the minimal historical and cultural tools necessary to decipher those reactions. Globalization has paved the way to a world dominated by the dictatorship of emotions -- and of ignorance.
This clash of emotions is exacerbated in the case of Islam. In the Arab world, in particular, Islam is dominated by a culture of humiliation felt by the people and nations that consider themselves the main losers, the worst victims, of a new and unjust international system. From that standpoint, the Israel-Palestine conflict is exemplary and has become an obsession.
It is not so much that Arabs and Muslims really care about the Palestinians. On the contrary, the Islamic world left the Palestinians without real support for decades. In reality, for them the conflict has come to symbolize the anachronistic perpetuation of an unfair colonial order, to represent their political malaise and to embody the perceived impossibility of their being masters of their destiny.
In the eyes of the Arabs and some other Muslims, Israel's strength and resilience is a direct consequence of their own weakness, divisions and corruption. The majority of Arabs may not support al-Qaeda, but they do not oppose it with all their heart. Instead, there is the temptation to regard Osama bin Laden as a type of violent Robin Hood, whose actions, while impossible to condone officially, have helped them to recover a sense of Arab pride and dignity.
Here, perhaps, is the real clash of civilizations: the emotional conflict between the European culture of fear and the Muslim, particularly Arab, culture of humiliation. It would be dangerous to underestimate the depth of so wide an emotional divide, and to recognize its existence is the first step to overcoming it. But that will be difficult, for transcending the emotional clash of civilizations presupposes an opening to the "other" that neither side may yet be ready to undertake.
Dominique Moisi, a founder and senior adviser at IFRI (French Institute for International Relations), is a professor at the College of Europe in Natolin, Warsaw.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
RSS