'At the edge of an inter-civilisational war'

The attacks on the United States have enlivened the notion that the world is on the brink of a global conflict rooted in a 'clash of civilisations.' spoke to Omayma Abdel-Latif about American perceptions of the tragedy
A professor of international law and practice at Princeton University for almost four decades, has written extensively about the new world order and the place of Islam within it. Currently the honorary vice president of the American Society of International Law, the 70-year- old academic has been a member of a number of international inquiry commissions including that sent to Kosovo. In February, he was selected by the UN Commission on Human Rights, along with two other experts in international law, to investigate Israel's human rights violations in the occupied territories.
How would you evaluate the discourse about the 11 September attacks and the way the American political leadership is handling them?
The shock effect of the event was so great as to create a very primitive response that both tried to explain it in some comprehensible way, but also to mobilise the most powerful possible distinction between ourselves as the victims and those who perpetrated the act. The effort to do this led to emphases such as: 'we are civilised, they are barbarian; we are innocent, they are guilty; we are good and they are evil.'This provided the moral foundation for the use of whatever force is available in order to destroy this challenge to the identity and power of the US and the West in general.
In the US, there is no access to any alternative narrative that would provide for another explanation. [...] [The narrative used] could be interpreted as a shock effect, a search for unity and a way of establishing an identity that goes beyond the US to say that it is not just Americans in the United States who were the target, but the West as a whole. There is a historical memory associated with crusade and with a general attitude towards Europe and, by extension, the US, as a centre of civilisation besieged by more primitive forces, the 'barbarians at the gates.' That mentality has unfortunately resurfaced during the crisis.
Who is the United States fighting against?
On the one level, terrorism is very vivid. It involves the use of violence against civilians in a manner that is outside any normative framework. [...] There has been a rush to judgement, naming Osama Bin Laden as the mastermind, but there is no convincing evidence that he even had knowledge of this event except for a vague prediction he made three weeks ago when he said that there would soon be some unprecedented attacks on American interests in the world. This is hardly a convincing connection with this specific event.
I don't know what the thinking of those planning the retaliatory strategy is, but from the little that has been said there is an insistence that this is the beginning of a protracted war that the forces behind 11 September's events brought about.
Given the mood of anger and thirst for revenge there is a near consensus that this is the time for the US and the West to seek to destroy all the forces in the world that they regard as hostile to themselves.
Does that mean that groups like Hamas, the Islamic Jihad in Palestine, or the Hizbullah in Lebanon could be potential targets for this policy?
Certainly the general language that is used these days in this country suggests a very broad conception of who is responsible for this challenge to American primacy and who should pay the price for this challenge.
Do you believe that the US will seek legitimacy from international bodies or that it will act unilaterally?
Despite the earlier unilateralism of the Bush administration it now feels the importance of gaining as much legitimacy for the use of force as possible. Therefore, I think the most relevant model is that of the Gulf War when the US made use of the UN structure, and even of sympathetic or dependent governments in the Arab and Islamic world.
This time, it wants to create a globally coordinated collective undertaking that legitimises whatever it seeks to do. It will use these international institutions, but at the same time it will retain for itself unilateral control over the extent and nature of the force that it is eventually used.
Many commentators and observers said that the US's unjust foreign policy -- particularly in relation to the Middle East -- was the chief reason behind such attacks. How would you assess such an argument?
I agree that the US's foreign policy is one of the motives behind such atrocities, however it is necessary to understand that this view is completely missing from the American response -- by the political leadership, Congress, the media and by the general public. There is no willingness to question why the attacks occurred except on a local level, such as at universities. At the national level there has been war rhetoric successfully orchestrated by the political leadership and by the media and there is not that kind of critical questioning about our own responsibility for generating hostility and hatred.
In the Middle East, anti-American sentiment has its roots in the handling of the Palestinian struggle and is connected with the significance of oil and tension between Islam and the West.
I tend, however, to see that the roots of this discontent are much broader. The anti-globalisation movement is hostile to what is seen as the role of American leadership in creating a very unjust dangerous world.
In your description of George Bush senior's conception of the new world order you stated that it has been politically constructed by the West to restrict drastically, if not exclude, meaningful participation by the Muslim world. How do we account for US Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to include Muslim countries in the would-be global alliance against terrorism?
I think it is an opportunistic inclusion to the extent that it is helpful in mobilising as broad an alliance as possible. The attack and conflict are expressed in civilisational terms, while at the same time there is an effort to globalise a multi-civilisational alliance that includes Islam. It is a very shallow and limited effort at inclusion that will not really affect the way the world is organised.
What are your views on writings, particularly in the American press, which speak of the new world order in terms of 'a clash of civilisations'?
I believe that we might be at the edge of an inter- civilisational war -- a war of a potentially extraordinary magnitude. This war -- if it takes place -- will literally be without an end or military solution. It is a very frightening point in history, and one for which our government lacks the moral and the political imagination to understand either the roots of the conflict or the means by which to respond in a way that is more positive and healing.
Will we witness scenarios in which the West pits itself against Islam?
I think it is a real possibility that we have to guard against. But there are two factors that are somewhat encouraging; the first being the existence of a large minority population representing the 'enemy civilisation' within the countries mobilising for this kind of war. And those who are mobilising are genuinely eager to avoid an internal process of ethnic and religious conflict and hostility. There is definitely an effort to say that Arab-Americans and Islam are not responsible and we must punish any act of vengeance directed against individuals within these countries. The experience of the mistreatment of the Japanese-Americans in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor is very much on the minds of those who are orchestrating this policy.
The second positive element is the need for legitimacy. Partners and allies make it possible for other governments to act in a restraining manner towards the US. There are indications on the part of some European countries that the US will not be given a blank check in pursuing its conception of retaliatory force.
Do you think the US political leadership has done enough to protect this minority?
In the background there is a sense that being too focused on the protection of Arab-Americans is in some sense inconsistent with mobilising for war, which is the main preoccupation of the American leadership at present. The main message is Americans must fight hostile forces around the world and it will be a difficult war but it is one that is necessary and has strong moral foundation.
So it is correct that not enough has been done to really give credibility to the sentiments of trying to protect Arab-Americans and Muslims from a religious and ethnic backlash domestically.
Where do you think Israel fits in these scenarios?
Israel's relative position is strengthened with respect to it being even more exempt than it had been from serious criticisms and from any kind of effort to control the way in which it responds to the Intifada and to the Palestinian resistance. Israel seems to be enjoying a blank check for these operations and puts itself successfully in the role of being a kind of mentor to the US about how to deal with the same threat but on a global scale. The view from here is that the US seems willing to accept that kind of Israeli influence at this stage. This is particularly disturbing because the government of Israel is in the hands of an extreme right-wing leader with a record of militarism and abuse of human rights which is a serious concern even aside from this new situation.
On the European front, I believe there was beginning to be a serious questioning about the way in which Israel was handling the Palestinian situation. Whether that questioning is sufficiently strong to pose a challenge to the American leadership is somewhat doubtful.
Recommend this page
Related stories:
The fear within
The search for vengeance
A Crusade of the mind
See THE FALL-OUT
In this together 13 - 19 September 2001
Beyond the seventh veil 13 - 19 September 2001
US attack 13 - 19 September 2001
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor