Islam in Global Order

Published in Middle East Affairs Journal (Winter/Spring 1995), Vol. 2, pp. 204-230.

The collapse of the Soviet Union marked the beginning of a new era in world politics, an era labeled, since the former United States President George Bush used the term in late 1990, “New World Order.” The New World Order has been advertised by Western policymakers, particularly in Washington and London, as a peaceful order in which the rules of international law prevail and in which the principles of right and justice are implemented by the collective action of the world community, represented by the United Nations Organization and its numerous organs.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it examines the nature of the global order that emerged after the demise of the Soviet Union, and explores the extent to which the claim of an order based on law and justice is in force. I contend that the principles of right and justice are checked by, and subordinated to, the paramount concern of Western policymakers: national interests. Second, the paper proposes a number of measures that Muslim communities can employ to counteract the negative effects of the new global regime, and to utilize the opportunities it has opened up.

The present world order may be traced back to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, which marked the end of political unity based on shared beliefs and moral commitments. With the demise of transcendental and hence transnational unity, the nation-state became the basic unit in the European state system, and national interest became the paramount value guiding the actions of Western political leaders. However, the nation-state system did not become entrenched and commonly recognized among Europeans until World War I. By the end of the First World War, the League of Nations was established as the first global organization. Yet rather than facilitating cooperation among nations to prevent aggression; the League soon became an instrument of the Great Powers. It was manipulated by colonial powers, most notably Britain, France and Japan, and was used to legitimate expansion and aggression. The League gave Britain and France formal mandate over much of the Middle East, and gave Japan similar mandate over former German colonies in Southeast Asia.[1]

The expansion of Western powers to Africa and Asia throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was a crucial step towards the globalization of European practices. The colonial era allowed the West to recreate the non-Western world in its own image. Consequently, the European nation-state system was globalized, and nation-states proliferated. World War II put an end to the League of Nations and the international regime it created, but gave birth to another international organization, the United Nations.

The United Nations was established in April 1945 by fifty states, led by the victors of the Second World War: The United States, Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the Republic of China. The membership in the United Nations continued to grow over the years as more colonies achieved independence. The establishment of the United Nations and its continual expansion marked not only the globalization of the European nation-state system but also the emergence of an international regime governed by the permanent members of the Security Council.

The establishment of the United Nations was, undoubtedly, an important landmark in the globalization of the West, for it signified the extent to which it was able to maintain the international system it had created. Nevertheless, the globalization of the West was not complete, for the Western model of international order was challenged by a rival order propounded by the socialist world, under the leadership of the Soviet Union. Initially, the socialist movement envisaged a world order based on common commitments and shared interests, thereby rejecting nationalist exclusivity and exploitative practices in the name of national interests. However, the socialist movement failed to provide a workable and just model capable of actualizing its universalistic claims. Soon the socialist vision was corrupted by nationalist practices, and by the excessive use of force and compulsion to achieve socialist objectives.

The ideological differences and conflicting interests of the Soviet Union on the one hand and the United States and its European allies on the other prevented either of the two rivals from achieving full domination of world politics, and allowed less powerful nation-states to play one against the other to achieve a degree of autonomy. However, with the demise of the socialist bloc and the breakup of the Soviet Union, the system of bipolarity came to an end, and the last obstacle in the face of Western globalism and hegemony was removed. Today, the United States and its allies stand triumphantly at the helm of a centrally regulated and controlled international order.

In short, throughout all the turmoil and changes in world politics over the last three centuries, one thing persisted: the drive to establish a global order based on Western ideals and values. Today, the West seems to have achieved its centuries-old dream of a unified international regime. With the exception of a few pockets of resistance here and there, the world appears to have accented the political, economic, and social forms generated in the womb of Western culture. The question arises here: what is the nature of the present global order? Addressing this question is the task of the next section.

In the months just following the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism, Western leaders began to proclaim the onset of what they called the “new world order,” a world of peaceful coexistence among the nations and one in which interstate relations would be based on the rules of international law, administered by the United Nations. It would henceforth be possible, we were told, for the United Nations and international law to operate in the way they were envisaged, since the anti-system forces of socialism had disappeared and no longer threatened the stability of the international order.

Undoubtedly, the proclamation of a global order with the noble aims of preventing aggression and ensuring equitable interaction among political communities was an important development in world politics. But is the world actually moving toward such an order? The Gulf War was presented as a model for international cooperation, under the auspices of the United Nations, to counter aggression. Indeed, as soon as the advent of a New World Order was announced by George H. Bush, the United Nations, through its Security Council, condemned the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and vowed to stop the aggressor and force it to roll back. The United States and its European allies volunteered to send their forces to fight for the rights and self-determination of the Kuwaiti people. The result was that not only was Iraq forced to withdraw from Kuwait, but its economic infrastructure and military programs were completely destroyed, and its people were reduced to poverty. Global unity, under the leadership of the United States and its European allies, it was presumed, would serve to deter any aggressor-to-be under the new global regime.

But in less than a year after the conclusion of the Gulf war, a new aggression surfaced, this time in the Balkans. The Serbs embarked on a genocide campaign against a formal member of the United Nations, the newly independent Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. But this time the pattern of dealing with an aggressor, one that committed far more atrocities than were committed by the Iraqi army, was completely different. For this time the aggressor was allowed to go on violating and killing civilians, and acquiring territories by force. This time the world did not come to the rescue of the victims of aggression but denied them the right of self-defense by imposing an arms embargo on Bosnia. Today the United Nations sponsored negotiations among the warring parties in Bosnia aim at dismantling a full-fledged member of the United Nations and dividing its territories along ethnic lines. With the war in Bosnia, it became obvious that dealing with aggression is not simply a matter of implementing a universal set of norms, but is subject to the important consideration of the national interests of primary international actors.

The lesson of Bosnia is clear: The new global regime is not one in which the interaction of political communities is based on universally accepted norms which guarantee equitable resolution of conflict among nations, but a regime in which the interests of the great-powers would have to be accommodated first before international law can take effect. Indeed, the very structure of the United Nations facilitates the subordination of international law to the national interests of the permanent members of the Security Council, who are empowered with a veto prerogative. Once again, the possibility of an equitable world order based on legal norms is denied mainly by Western powers, which continue to insist on the supremacy of national interests, the biased structure of the United Nations, and the selective application of international law. These three factors put developing countries, in general, and Muslim countries, in particular, at great disadvantage. In fact, recent developments in world politics show that the post-Soviet international regime poses greater challenges to Muslim communities.

Increasingly, Islam is being portrayed by Western political and intellectual leaders as a source of threat to Western civilization. Former States Vice President Dan Quayle, for example, in an address before the United States Naval Academy in early 1991. warned his audience that the end of the Cold War did not put an end to external threats a new against the United States, and called upon them to maintain a watchful eye on the forces of Islamic fundamentalism. As he put it: “We have been surprised this past century by the rise of communism, the rise of e the Nazism, and the rise of radical Islamic radicalism... I am sure we will be surprised in the future. Though we may be surprised, let us always be prepared.”[2]

Similarly, in a recent article, Samuel Huntington, a leading Harvard scholar, raised the specter of civilizational war between Western civilization on the one hand, and Islamic and Confucian civilizations on the other.[3] To handle the Confucian-Islamic threat. Huntington proposed that the West should strive to limit the expansion of the military strength of Confucian and Islamic states; to moderate the reduction of Western military capabilities and maintain military superiority in East and Southwest Asia; to exploit differences and conflicts among Confucian and Islamic states; to support in other civilizations groups sympathetic to Western values and interests: to strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western interests and values and to promote the involvement of non-Western states in those institutions.[4]

But Huntington, and other Western leaders who talk of an Islamic threat, being a student of history, should know better than anybody else that Islam is not a threat to Western society, but only to Western political and cultural interference in their region and their internal affairs. For fourteen centuries Islam has tolerated and recognized the rights of other cultures, and their ways of life. Jewish, Christian, Hindu and other cultures existed and flourished within, and alongside, Islamic civilization. In fact, it is Islam, and its right to assert its values and institutions, which continues to be threatened by the West.

Today, the right of Muslim peoples to assert their Islamic values and protect their collective interests against Western exploitation and dominance over their region is being condemned and suppressed under the guise of fighting “Islamic fundamentalism.” If any group should be alarmed by the most recent development in international politics, it should be the Muslims. This is because Western powers seem to be determined to deny them their rights to improve their political and economic conditions while maintaining their Islamic identity. It is not difficult to see that Western policymakers make no distinction between radical Islamic groups who use force and violence to achieve their goals, and reformists, who resort to peaceful and democratic means. And so while the West supports democracy in Eastern Europe and South America, it stands behind the military dictatorship in Algeria, to deny the Islamic movement there the opportunity to form a government. Indeed, the phenomenon of Islamic radicalism, itself is not completely independent of Western powers’ policies towards Muslim countries. By supporting military regimes, which deny people the right of self-expression and political participation, the West is contributing to the rise of radicalism in Muslim countries. Western apprehension towards Islam has reached a paranoiac proportion, as the handling of the Bosnian crisis by European nations has shown. Bosnia has been punished, as some Western observers have noted, because of its Islamic heritage,[5] even though Bosnian Muslims have been among the most Westernized peoples of the Balkans.

The notion of a global order based on a set of universal principles, governing interaction among political communities in order to prevent aggression and protect human dignity, must be welcomed and supported by all Muslims. For such an order is in conformity with Islamic ethos and aspirations, which aim at ensuring that equity and justice prevail throughout the world, without denying peoples the right to organize their communities in accordance with their own values and beliefs. Muslims’ misgivings and concerns about the current global order are not directed at the call for a universal application of international law, but rather at the lack of it. That is, Muslims are alarmed and concerned about recent developments because of the lack of political will in Western capitals to commit themselves to the rules of international law. It is quite apparent that the West has been willing to support international law only when it does not conflict with the national interests of Western powers, or when supporting it helped advance Western interests. Thus, the West supported democracy in Eastern Europe and Russia because the triumph of the forces of democracy there meant the demise of an old rival and adversary, yet it stands behind military dictatorship in Algeria because doing so is deemed to be in the national interest of Western states.

The continued subordination of international law to national interest in post-Soviet global politics has serious implications for Islam and Muslims. First, because the industrial countries of the West depend heavily on the resources of Muslim countries, most notably petroleum, the national interests of the West are in direct conflict with those of many Muslim countries. Thus the West has always resented any cooperation among oil-producing countries that leads to higher oil prices. Western interests, therefore, lie in preventing cooperation and unity of action among oil-producing states, the majority of which are Muslim. The situation is further complicated by the fact that Western policy toward Muslim regions coincides with that of Zionism. The latter sees any growth in power, or increase in cooperation, among Muslims as a direct threat to the national security of the state of Israel. Second, since Islam is a powerful catalyst for unity among Muslim peoples, and because Islamic groups aspire to assert the independent will of the Muslims, Islam has been viewed unfavorably by Western policymakers and various interest groups, most notably pro-Israeli and ultraconservative groups. Islamic political potentiality has given rise to a vicious campaign in the Western media aimed at defaming, discrediting, and misrepresenting Islam.

Evidently, the aspiration of Muslims to develop their societies in ways that lead to political unity and the assertion of Islamic identity is in direct conflict with the currently prevalent attitude among powerful interest groups in Western capitals. The clash of interests between an expansionist Western policy and Islamic reform poses a great challenge, one that calls for serious thinking and planning on the part of Islamic leadership.

To begin with, concerted action is, by its very nature, a challenge based on the principles of Islam and guided by its concerns. At least three reasons may be cited as grounds for this assertion. First, Islam is a moral force, which can command the respect and devotion of the majority of Muslims and, in so doing, bring about an equitable order that allows the actualization of the Islamic ideals without denying others the right to coexist with their Muslim compatriots. Second, Islam provides a basis for action that transcends the nation-state and national boundaries and hence brings unity of action and purpose to vast regions. Without this solid and deeply-rooted unity, the growth and development of many Muslim societies is doubtful. Third, Islam can mitigate the exclusive nature of national interests and the obsession with domination and control through its universalistic inclinations and moral concerns, thereby contributing to the formation of a global order based on universal laws.

Indeed, it is because of the capacity of Islam to mobilize people against the forces of domination and exploitation that the latter have embarked on a vicious campaign aimed at defaming Islam and its adherents, while continuing to use the international state system to prevent the emergence of Islamic leadership and to hinder the growth of cooperation among Muslim countries.

It should have become clear by now that the challenge facing Muslim development emanates from the combination of three factors:

1. Islamic ethos, which envisages a model of society contradicting, in some aspects, the model advanced by Western liberalism.

2. Western resistance to any model of modernization based on cultural and social forms other than those established by the West.

3. The gross imbalance between Muslim and Western powers, allowing the latter to suppress Muslim aspirations and hinder their efforts.

To meet this challenge, a concerted action on the part of Muslim communities and countries has to be undertaken. The action must aim at achieving two objectives:

1. Promoting interrelationships among Muslim societies in ways that could both develop skills and conditions, and strengthen the spirit of the ummah and cooperation within it,

2. Cooperating with all groups and individuals who aspire to build more equitable relations among political communities, and expose the follies of power-hungry groups and individuals.

To achieve the above objectives, the following priorities should be pursued: (1) strengthening the organs of civil society in Muslim countries; (2) cooperating with non-Muslim individuals and groups who share the Islamic vision of a just global order; and (3) establishing and supporting research and strategic studies centers.

The post-Soviet era is, undoubtedly, the most advanced stage in the s the globalization of the West. With the demise of the socialist power, set out initially to check Western imperialism, the West has acquired, under the leadership of the United States, global hegemony. As a result, developing countries are increasingly vulnerable to Western pressure and manipulation. This is especially so for Muslim countries in Africa, as well as in Central, South and Southwest Asia. The economic conditions of most Muslim countries, and their dependence on Western economic assistance, make them susceptible to Western manipulation. Economic dependency of Muslim governments on the West has both retarded economic development and hindered political unity and cooperation among Muslim countries.

Paradoxically, as Western powers begin to attain global political hegemony, they are increasingly losing their capacity to manipulate internal conditions of Muslim countries. On the one hand, the governments of developing countries find themselves unable to single-handedly manage the affairs of increasingly complex societies. On the other hand, Western governments are losing their ability to continue supporting unpopular regimes. With the transfer of capital and technology to non-Western regions, the West is losing its economic and technological monopoly, and is hence forced to share global economic resources with others. At the same time, the staggering deficits of the United States government will make it increasingly difficult to maintain its economic commitment to overseas programs.

The reduction in the capacity of national governments to cater to the needs of their societies opens the opportunity for non-governmental organizations and business corporations to assume more prominent roles in shaping the internal conditions, and determining the direction of change, of Muslim societies. Muslims should, therefore, seize the initiative and cooperate through the establishment of cultural and economic domestic and transnational organizations, which should aim at increasing moral and political awareness among Muslim peoples, strengthen their social and educational ties, and improve the technical skills and economic powers of Muslim society.

2. Opening channels of communication and cooperation with Western intellectual and political leaders critical of Western-centric foreign policy.

Not everyone in the West is in favor of a foreign policy guided by material and short-term interests, while blind to moral concerns and commitments. This is more so in the United States where political leaders are forced to articulate their foreign policy objectives more in terms of moral values and less in terms of power interests. In the showdown leading to the Gulf War, former United States President Bush continued to justify U.S. involvement in the Gulf conflict by citing human rights concerns. But even then, the United States Congress committed American troops to the Gulf War with a split decision, despite the powerful influence of the pro-Israeli lobby which viewed the war as an opportunity to roll back the growing military power of Iraq.

The same thing can be said with regard to the debate taking place within American intellectual and political circles concerning the position which the United States should take vis-à-vis Islam. A number of Western thinkers, such as John Esposito and Louis Canton, have expressed a sympathetic and positive stance towards Islam and Islamic reform. Similarly, American policymakers are still divided in their views of Islam. The split within the American administration was revealed in a seminar held by the World and Islam Studies Enterprise. Peter Bechtold, of the Foreign Service Institute, quoted senior officials in the State Department as saying:

The United States is not opposed to Islam. One of the dumbest things that we could do would be to become the enemy of Islam or vice versa. We have to do everything to avoid that. Nor is the United States opposed to people organizing themselves religiously, whether that is Jewish fundamentalism, Muslim fundamentalism, or Christian fundamentalism. However, we are opposed to radical interpretations and to the export of views upon a people who do rot want to have them exported into themselves.[6]

Although the qualifications of “radical interpretation” and “export of views in the above statement detracts from the strength of the initial assertion, the statement reflects the concerns articulated within the United States administration not to take an antagonistic position against Islam.

The fact that there is still openness towards Islam in certain intellectual and political quarters of Western society should motivate Islamic organizations, both in the Muslim world and in the West, to establish contacts and to cooperate with those who are committed to a world in which the dignity of human beings and their right to exercise their values and beliefs are truly respected.

3. Establishing and supporting research and strategic studies centers committed to exposing the follies of a power-centered approach to world politics and promoting an alternative based on the principles of right and justice.

Western leaders’ ability to carry out a foreign policy whose outcome is the exploitation and abuse of non-Western people has been possible partly because of intellectual activities aiming at providing justification to power centric and imperialistic foreign policies. Many of these justifications present the demeaning and violent measures used by Western powers to attain their objectives as a necessary evil.

Most recently, a number of Western scholars and institutions have embarked on a campaign aiming at defaming Islam and its adherents. In this campaign, contemporary Islamic movements have been painted in unfavorable colors and a policy of aggression and intervention against Islamic organizations and “states” has been justified. The now widely-read article by Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations,” is a case in point. The article, which is the product of the Olin Institute’s Project on “The Changing Security Environment and American National Interests,” mourns the diminishing ability of the West to dominate and manipulate non-Western peoples, warns against a “Confucian-Islamic” military alliance, and calls upon Western governments “to moderate reduction of Western military capabilities and maintain military superiority in East and Southwest Asia.”[7]

There is a great need for establishing research and strategic studies centers to generate interest in analyzing the human condition from an Islamic perspective, and to cater to the intellectual and strategic needs of Muslim communities. Very few research and strategic studies centers committed to the ideal of Islam exist today, and none of them has been developed to full capacity. Most suffer from shortages in researchers and funds and are therefore in need of scholarly and financial support. Yet unless those who adhere to the vision of Islam can develop their intellectual capabilities of persuading others, articulating effective models, and anticipating trends, Muslim societies will continue to live at the mercy of self-interested global powers.

It can be concluded, in light of the foregoing discussion, that given the nature of the underlying international norms and the power structure of world politics, the establishment of an equitable global order is untenable. Normatively, the principle of national interest has been paramount in guiding the actions of primary powers since the emergence of the nation-state system and has always had an overriding power over the principles of right and justice. Structurally, the internal organization of the United Nations gives the permanent members of the Security Council the power to veto any decision which conflicts with their national interests and hence exempts them from the rules of international law.

It follows that the establishment of an equitable order requires drastic normative and structural change in world politics. Here Islam can play a crucial role. First, Islam is essential for bringing about unity of action and purpose among various Muslim communities, and hence for correcting the current imbalance of power between Western and Muslim countries. Second, Islam, as a system of universal values and beliefs, has the capacity to counter the negative effects of nationalist exclusivity and obsession with power, currently predominant in world politics.

But in order for Islamic norms and values to influence practical conditions, they have to be conveyed through institutions and organizations. Since the Western-centric international system is bent on denying Islam its vital role, Muslim strategy should naturally put less emphasis on affecting the state structure and more on nourishing civil society and non-governmental institutions.

NOTES

[1] See J.M. Roberts, Europe 1880-1945 (London: Longman, 1989), pp. 321-49. Out of the 32 nations that constituted the League, 22 were non-European.

[2] Newsweek, February 1991.

[3] Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 72 (Summer 1993), pp. 22-49.

[4] Ibid., p. 49.

[5] In a paper presented at the International Islamic University in late August of 1993, Fredrick Denny linked the European Community’s reluctance to stop Serbian aggression to the religious identity of Bosnian Muslims.

[6] Proceedings of the seminar were published in a book edited by Arthur L. Lowrie, Islam, Democracy, the State and the West (Tampa, Florida: The World and Islam Studies Enterprise, 1993), p. 74.

[7] Huntington, p. 49. The agitating tone of the article against Islam is quite apparent. Huntington proclaims that “Islam has bloody borders”, without explaining the fact that more often than not Muslims have been the victims of violence.