Mustapha Kamel El-Sayed* explores alternatives to conventional views of relations between the Muslims and the West In debates about Islam and the West relations between the two have often been presented as necessarily hostile. Such a belief stems, in the West and in Muslim countries, from contradictory assumptions about the "other". In Muslim countries the perception is based on the assumption that the West, economically and militarily powerful, is interested only in dominating the Muslim world, and that Islam, as a central component of the culture of Muslim countries, is seen by the West as a rejection of Western values and beliefs. Hence the West is determined to obliterate its influence, either through Christian missionary activities, or indirectly by disseminating Western values in Muslim countries. In the West the perception is based in turn on the assumption that Islam is a religion that seeks universal hegemony. According to this view Muslims have sought to achieve this hegemony in the past through warfare; currently their rejection of the West drives some of their young people to engage in terrorist acts against Western countries and interests, as well as against manifestations of Western superiority. Advocates of such beliefs commit two methodological errors: namely that the West and the "Orient" are two compact entities, with each being understood as internally homogeneous, and that all Westerners and "Orientals" are driven only by their own cultures, of which religion, ie Christianity and Islam, are the central components. Although it is easy to dismiss such beliefs as basically simplistic and erroneous, they continue to inspire debates on the subject, in both the Muslim world and the West. The support of former Communist countries for national liberation movements in Arab and Muslim countries did not change assumptions about Western homogeneity since Communist regimes were actively secular, characterising religion as an "opium of the masses". The Soviet military presence in Afghanistan further confirmed the view that all Western countries, Communist and non-Communist alike, were opposed to Islam and intent on dominating Muslim countries, support by the US and other Western countries of Muslim armed resistance to the Soviet presence in Afghanistan notwithstanding. This support, as well as opposition by some Western governments to the Israeli occupation of Arab territories or the US war on Iraq, has been interpreted as dictated by the economic and strategic interests of the countries that adopted such positions. This divergence of positions among Western countries was further seen as a manifestation of competition among these countries for control over Arab and Muslim peoples. A brief examination of the history of relations between Western and Muslim countries in the last century reveals that, to the contrary, several Muslim countries maintained close and friendly relations with major Western countries. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia, Morocco and Gulf countries, Nigeria and Senegal -- both of which have majority Muslim populations -- count among such states. This examination will also reveal that radical Islamic groups did receive the support of Western governments when they were fighting enemies of the West, as was the case in Afghanistan even after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1990. Such facts were easily overlooked in the aftermath of 11 September 2001 and the US administration's reaction to the events of that day, particularly the declaration by President George W Bush of the US War on Terror, and his statement that the US would determine its relations with other governments in light of the positions they adopted towards this "war". He offered other countries one of two choices: either support the US in this war or else be considered among the enemies of the US. This confirmed the view of those in the Muslim world who believe in the West's hostility to Islam since the sources of terrorist threats, according to the US president, are all Muslim governments and groups. Under these conditions, preceded by the publication of Samuel Huntington's book on the clash of civilisations, a large number of intellectuals in Muslim countries, as well as important sections of public opinion, continued to believe in continued US hostility towards Islam as a religion and culture. Such a perception of relations between the West and Islam is far too simplistic and ahistorical. Moreover, it is not in the interest of Muslim countries and peoples to maintain such a perception as it deprives them from the support they could get from important sections of Western public opinion which have demonstrated solidarity with their "just" causes. Examples abound of the solidarity of sections of Western public opinion with the "just" struggles of Muslim peoples. National liberation movements in the South in general, including Muslim countries, did meet with a sympathetic response by significant sections of Western public opinion. When Britain, France and Israel launched their tripartite aggression against Egypt in October 1956 over Gamal Abdel-Nasser's nationalisation of the Suez Canal Company, large anti-war demonstrations in London were among the causes that led to the end of military operations and the later withdrawal of troops from Egypt. Brutal methods used by French troops in Algeria led several French intellectuals, including Jean-Paul Sartre, the most prominent French philosopher of the 20th century, to declare openly their condemnation of this "dirty war" and their solidarity with the Algerian people. More recently, this solidarity with Muslim countries was expressed with respect to two predominantly Muslim peoples, namely those of Palestine and Iraq. Dozens of European and American young people, members of the Christian Peacemakers team and the International Solidarity Movement, went to the West Bank and Gaza to demonstrate their sympathy with the Palestinian people in their uprising against Israeli occupation troops. When Israeli troops surrounded the offices of Yasser Arafat in Ramallah these young people formed a human shield around and even inside his residence to deter Israeli troops from arresting and deporting him. These "internationals" did not mind the enormous risks encountered under Israeli occupation, and quite a number of them did sacrifice their lives. When it became certain that the US administration was planning to launch a war against Iraq an international anti-war movement quickly took shape and found its largest following in Western countries, particularly those the governments of which declared their support for the war, namely the US, UK, Spain and Italy. The movement, which continued to organise large scale demonstrations until the first week of the war, has galvanised the enthusiasm of millions of people, making it the largest anti-war movement the world has known. These two types of solidarity action with Arab and Muslim peoples are a reminder that not all Western people adopt hostile attitudes towards Muslims, and that some of them, even many of them, are willing to engage in collective protest action and to take risks in defending what they consider to be a just cause. These two cases are also relevant because they are usually taken by Arab and Muslim commentators to demonstrate that it is not only Muslim peoples who are targeted by the hostile acts of the West. There is no exaggeration in the claim that the worldwide protests against the US war against Iraq was the largest anti-war movement in history. Compared to the Vietnam War protests it was much larger in scope and more innovative in its methods. Moreover, the protests started before the war broke out and continued, though on a smaller scale, after the end of the war. There are also signs that the organisers of this movement are considering ways of reviving the protest and improving its effectiveness. Those who publicly protested in the West against the war on a predominantly Muslim people outnumbered those who did so in Arab and Muslim countries. Christians, Catholics and Protestants, were much more numerous than Muslims. Some Jews, and even Israelis, also participated. The movement was indeed worldwide in scope and was not limited to Western countries. According to a statement by one of the organising committees, supported by several media reports, the last (April 2003) wave of solidarity actions with the Iraqi people took place in: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Myanmar, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haifa in Occupied Palestine, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Macedonia, Mexico, Morocco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Russia, Scotland, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela and Yemen. No less than 26 countries out of the 55 included in the list are Western. More significant still is the fact that the largest protest actions took place in Western countries, particularly in countries that were planning to undertake military action against Iraq, or countries whose governments were known to support such action. The peace movement was coordinated in each country by a coalition of several groups opposed to the war on Iraq. Two trends dominated the composition of such coalitions in Europe and the US, namely the anti- globalisation movement and peace activists. In the US the major organising committees were the International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) and UFPJ (United for Peace and Justice), while the Stop the War Coalition was the major coordinating committee in the UK and other European countries. In other countries a host of groups joined the protest movement, though it is difficult to classify them, as the movement was politically heterogeneous. Although the movement tended in the US to be made up largely of white middle class and young people, a labour component was present in the US as well as in Western Europe, though in much larger numbers in the second. A workers' group known as "US Labor Against War", a coalition including at least five major national unions, three state labour federations and many local and labour councils took the initiative of inviting over 200 unions from five continents, representing over 130 million workers, to declare their opposition to the war. They issued a statement in February 2003 saying no convincing link existed between the terrorist acts of 11 September and Iraq, nor evidence of any immediate threat from weapons of mass destruction. In the US groups actively involved in the protests included Black Voices for Peace, the National Lawyers Guilds, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and 38 city councils. In the UK the mobilisation included trade unionists, students, members of parliament, political leaders, intellectuals and Christian clergy and Muslim groups. One would have expected Middle East specialists to be present among the leaders of the movement. They were present at a local level but not in national or international command posts. In terms of religious affiliation the movement included people of almost all faiths. The World Council of Churches was present in protest actions in the US as well as American Roman Catholic Bishops. Prominent Christian figures including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope were also opposed to the war. Some Jewish groups were also present in marches in the US and the UK, notably the Jewish Voice for Peace in San Francisco and New York, and the Jewish magazine Tikkun, published in New York. Three rabbis were among 100 people arrested in December 2002 in New York as they were trying to block the US mission to the United Nations to protest what seemed then only a possible war on Iraq. Muslim groups were present in marches that took place in the US and Europe. Several speakers at the Hyde Park rally organised in London on 12 April 2002 were British Muslims. The Hindu and Buddhist faiths were represented next to Christians and Muslims in protest actions that took place in Asia. The movement was innovative in its methods. It was a truly worldwide movement. One date would be fixed for a worldwide action that would be communicated to sympathisers in all countries through the Internet and would thus be observed by rallies organised in all five continents on the same day. That was the case on 18 January, 15 February, 15 March and 12 April 2002. Teach-in classes would be organised by academic sympathizers with the movement. Old ladies calling themselves Grandmothers for Peace would walk the streets of some cities (St Paul in the US for example) singing peace songs and handing out leaflets. Weekly peace vigils became standing events in many US cities (Oakland, San José, and Fremont, California), in addition to ads in the press and the signing of appeals on the Internet to stop the war. Most of these groups had the occasion to declare their collective position in the statement that was issued at the end of a meeting of their representatives in Cairo on 1 December following the invitation of the Egyptian Popular Campaign to Confront US Aggression. In their joint statement they reaffirmed their resolve to stand in solidarity with the people of Iraq and Palestine and recognised that war and aggression against them was part of a US project of global domination and subjugation. The declaration started by analysing a situation characterised by capitalist globalisation and US hegemony, the absence of democracy in Arab countries which constitutes an obstacle along the path of their progress, opposition to war on Iraq and the importance of an international popular initiative of solidarity with the Iraqi and Palestinian peoples according to an action plan that included: condemning US military presence on Arab land; developing cooperation among popular organisations in the South; working towards cooperation with the international anti-globalisation movement of the North and South; promoting the unity of democratic forces and popular organisations in different parts of the world; adding Iraq and Palestine to the agenda of international progressive meetings including the World Social Forum in Porte Alegre; inviting Arab and international human rights organisations to evaluate humanitarian conditions in Iraq; sending human shields to Iraq; introducing boycotts of US and Israeli goods in solidarity campaigns with the peoples of Iraq and Palestine; electing a steering committee to follow up on the implementation of the Cairo Declaration. This peace movement, together with groups expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people, are manifestations of the complexity of Western attitudes towards Muslim countries. They demonstrate once again the presence of important sections of Western public opinion willing to support Muslim countries when they believe such countries have legitimate causes and aspirations worthy of support. In these two cases, the rights in question were the right to peace for the Iraqi people and the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people. If Arab peoples are looking for friends in the West, these peace and solidarity groups have demonstrated that they are friends of Arabs and Muslims when they stand for values shared by all mankind. Advocates of the notion of the inevitable clash of civilisations would hasten to object saying: well, but what was the relative weight of these groups? They would also question their motives in taking such positions, adding that despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in opposition to war in New York and San Francisco, in London, Madrid and Rome, public opinion in the US stood by the American administration in its resolve to wage war against Iraq. But surely it is better to have some friends in the West than to have no friends at all. And while it is true that such opposition did not dissuade the US and UK governments from their predetermined rush to war, it discouraged the Spanish and Italian governments, as well as other governments in Europe, from sending troops to take part in the war. Moreover the movement has not come to an end: its leaders are contemplating how to pursue their struggle against the US military occupation of Iraq, as demonstrated by the protest vigil at the US Embassy in Brussels on 26 June 2003, by manifestations of opposition to the war in the US during 4 July celebrations and by regular articles suggesting ways to improve the effectiveness of the movement. In Palestine activists from the International Solidarity Movement took part in protest actions against the "security fence". One of the lessons drawn by peace activists from these past months of mobilisation is the importance of forcefully condemning the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein's regime as well as the authoritarian methods of Yasser Arafat. Had this been done the movement would not have been seen as one--sided, a claim made by its opponents that perhaps deterred some sections of public opinion in Western countries from joining. Another lesson, particularly relevant in the US, is the need to reach out to other social and ethnic groups and not to be content with the white middle classes. For Arabs and Muslims the most important lesson to learn is to realise that they have friends in the West and that they should cultivate ties of friendship and cooperation with groups that defend human rights. Arabs and Muslims in the West did learn this lesson and they took an active part in the peace movement. It is now the turn of Arab and Muslim peoples in Africa and Asia to draw the same lesson and realise that a new wave of struggles for democracy, peace and justice in Arab and Muslim countries will elicit much support in the West. Democracy, peace and justice are universal values shared by all humanity, or at least by the vast majority of people. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University and director of the Centre for the Study of Developing Countries.
