Is the World Heading to a Clash of Civilizations or Disorder?

By Sami Amin El-Masry, Montreal

February 04, 2006

Addressing an international security conference recently held in Germany, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alleged that ''The Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism,'' hence he urged western countries, by saying: ''The world does not want, and must work together to avoid, a nuclear Iran.''

In response to Rumsfeld's speech calling Iran a state sponsor of terrorism, Tehran called U.S. leaders ''terrorists'' and said the White House, not Iran, represents the ''axis of evil'' in the world, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Rumsfeld also appealed to allies to increase military spending to defeat a ''global extremist empire'' that threatens Europe as much as the United States. He said Islamic militants are on the move and must be checked.

''They seek to take over governments from North Africa to Southeast Asia and to re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent,'' he said. ''They have designed and distributed a map where country borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist empire.''

Rumsfeld painted a stark picture of a lengthy war against terrorism, saying terrorists hope to use Iraq as the ''central front'' by turning it into a training and recruitment area like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

He warned that ''a war has been declared on all of our nations'' and said their ''futures depend on determination and unity in the face of the terrorist threat.''

Rumsfeld and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke on the second day of the 42nd annual Munich security conference, a gathering that defence experts and policy-makers traditionally use for frank exchanges.

This year's conference is focused on the trans-Atlantic relationship between the United States and Europe.

Likening the war on terror to the Cold War, Rumsfeld said it could be won if countries persevered.

''Freedom prevailed because our free nations showed resolve when retreat would have been easier, showed courage when concession seemed simpler and more attractive,'' he said.

Still, he pointed out that the United States spends 3.7 per cent of its gross domestic product on national defence while 19 of the 25 other NATO countries spend less than two per cent.

Germany, which spends 1.4 per cent of its GDP on defence, has been under pressure to step up its funding.

''It's always easier for all of us to use our scarce tax dollars to meet some of the desires and appetites we have at home,'' Rumsfeld said. ''But unless we invest in our defence and security, our homelands will be at risk.''

Merkel said Germany was willing to be more active on the international stage but warned that budget restraints would continue to limit her country's defence spending.

French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie backed Rumsfeld's call for more defence spending, calling it ''indispensable.''

''Everyone has to be aware that they have to take their responsibility,'' she said.

The War on Terrorism!

Now, while the USA and its allies are waging what is called a war on terrorism, Muslim masses all over the world took to the streets in violent demonstrations against western countries, particularly Europeans, issuing death threats and attacking foreign embassies, in response to caricatures deemed offensive to Islam!  With this, Arab and Muslim official condemnations have been issued by governments, many of which demanded an apology form the west and boycotted Danish goods. 

Most western writers and political analysts saw in the Muslim reaction an exaggerated response, blown out of proportion to mere caricatures. Others interpreted Muslim worldwide wild fury as a sign of a clash of two civilizations: one that believes in freedom of expression among all freedoms and liberties and another civilization that cannot cope with modernity and mixes religion with politics.

So, where the world is going from here? Is it true that we are heading into a “clash of civilizations” as Donald Rumsfeld has affirmed, which Samuel Huntington had initially foretold in 1992?  

Or, is what Bassam Timi, a Muslim scholar in international relations, wrote in 1998 is now unfolding? In his book, The Challenge of Fundamentalism: Political Islam and the New World Disorder, University of California Press, he argues:

“ … that Islam has become the West’s leading challenge for one simple reason: in contrast to those of Hinduism, for example, Islamic perspectives are not restricted to national or regional boundaries.” (p. 15)

“Islamic fundamentalists do indeed attack the West, believing, fervently that the world is already witnessing its decline and that they will therefore be in a position soon to proclaim a new order to supplant the discredited Western world order. Their view of a new order is based, so they say, on the political tenets of Islam, certainly as interpreted by them. One need not be an expert on Islamic movements to know how weak and divided these movements are, in relative terms, and to infer from their weakness their inability to bring about the new world order they proclaim with such electrifying rhetoric. To be sure, fundamentalists can engineer frightening levels of terrorism and otherwise throw the streets into turmoil, but it is difficult to imagine the diverse and rival Islamic fundamentalist movements coming together long enough to create a new order. … addressed here as the new world disorder.” (p.3)

Still, despite this projected “new world disorder” to be brought about by fundamentalists, Tibi agrees in theory with Huntington and Rumsfeld, as he says: “Islamic fundamentalists challenge and undermine the secular order of the body politics and aim to replace it by a divine order, the so-called hakimiyyat Allah. The order they envisage is not simply a domestic one, but the foundation for the new world order they expect to mount in place of the existing one.” (xi)