According
to a USA Today report [12/10/2002], one of
the effects of post-9/11 war on terrorism
is a significant rise in the membership of
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a controversial
organization that defends civil rights in
many cases, popular and unpopular. It has
been a one year surge of 22%, an unprecedented
rise in the organization's 82 year history.
While terrorism has been a global reality,
with which the rest of the world more or less
is all too familiar with, United States has
been quite successful as well as fortunate
in keeping terrorism off its shore. While
its streets might have plenty of crime and
violence, news of terrorism was primarily
heard in the context of other continents,
including major countries of Europe, such
as United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and so on.
We in America have enjoyed a prolonged period
of domestic security, save for its thugs,
gangs and criminals.
9/11 was a watershed event, robbing the country
of its sacred sense of domestic security.
Thus, the reaction of those in charge of policing
and security is quite understandable. However,
we all know that extremism in any such respect
does not yield any positive result.
Before delving into the issue of reactive
extremism, let us also highlight another aspect
of American and global reality. Just this
month, a truckful of illegal immigrants were
found dead in Texas, who were seeking a fresh
life in America, but died probably gasping
for the last breath of air. Other illegal
persons jumping ships and boats near America's
coasts is an all too familiar a scene to America
and the world.
Admittedly, this country is the land of immigrants.
While many other countries in the West have
seen significant migration to their countries,
no other country, like America, has been such
a melting pot of people from around the world
and continues to attract people in droves
on a regular basis. This steady attempt to
come and become a part of the legendary American
dream does pose serious legal, economic, political,
demographic and security-related challenges.
However, failure to properly understand or
appreciate this attraction, especially by
the American leaders, policy makers and administrators,
is bound to undermine this country's special
disposition and heritage of immigration and
civil liberties.
People want to come to America for various
reasons, a primary one of which is economic
prosperity. But to define or describe this
attraction in terms of wealth and prosperity
would be underestimating as well as devaluing
the aspirations that bring these people to
the shores of America. America attracts professionals
and academics as it offers them opportunities
to seek to realize their full potential. It
attracts refugees and other persecuted people,
who seek an overall better life away from
persecution and suffering. Working people
come here to get a share of the American pie
of unprecedented wealth and prosperity. The
reality is that, whether it is acknowledged
or not by the immigrants, most of them come
here for more than just economic reasons.
They like the general peace and security of
life, rule of law, civil liberties, democratic
environment and institution. Yes, in each
of these categories, there can be serious
criticisms about shortcomings of America and
the life in this society. But the fact remains
that despite these shortcomings, it has something
unique and precious to offer that continues
to attract people from around the world, the
magnitude of the stream of which is unique
and unparalleled.
In a more reductionist terms, civil liberties,
rule of law and economic prosperity/opportunity
are the pivotal attractions of America and
that's what the founding fathers of this country
dreamed of and toiled for.
9/11 poses special challenge to America, because
much of the political and military violence
around the world to which America is, directly
or indirectly, a key contributor, so far largely
has been outside America. Since the World
War II, whether in the context of Korean War,
Vietnam War, or Gulf War, no bombs or missiles
fell on America. Modern media and communication
technology allows the people of America to
watch the horror of wars as well as the prowess
of American military, but American people
and its land are far removed from that reality.
Thus, like they watch through the windows
of TV or computer screen, the reality of horror,
violence and suffering to them is, in some
sense, no more than just virtual reality,
to which their emotions and conscience are
not functionally connected.
For reasons that are good or bad, right or
wrong, those who dislike America, its foreign
policy and it role in the global context,
they now seem to have come to the understanding
that in pursuit of their agenda, they must
bring the reality directly to America and
take away the precious sense of domestic security,
from which vast majority of the world's population
are deprived.
The challenge of 9/11 is special because America
can't take domestic security as business as
usual any longer. The fringe extremists, who
hate America, have already made their message
known; loud and clear. However, if the pursuit
of security itself becomes hostage of America's
own extremity in regard to its precious civil
liberties, then the attackers have scored
another crucial victory.
In this regard, a self-critical approach is
a must. There are many in the Muslim world,
including Muslims in America, who seem to
see and define all their problems in terms
of external factors. It is all too common
human tendency to find someone or something
else to blame, rather than ourselves. The
tendency is quite typical of both the powerful
and the powerless.
Since 9/11 became tied with a number of extremist
Muslims, scrutinizing the pertinent issues
from an Islamic perspective is very important.
An important milestone in the decline of the
Islamic civilization was the dismemberment
of the last ceremonial/institutional chord
of unity, the Ottoman Caliphate (btw, the
use of the word Caliphate/Khilafah in this
case is inappropriate). Since then the Muslim
world was colonized aggressively and brutally,
and it disintegrated into 42+ nation states,
often only as nominally independent countries.
The Muslim countries aspire for a more functional
and dynamic society, where the common aspirations
of people can be successfully and effectively
pursued. However, both for internal and external
factors, the Muslim world is currently dysfunctional,
disoriented and also entrapped in a very divisive
struggle. The sense of helplessness and frustration
is emboldening and empowering the fringe extremism.
The existing political powers, often implanted,
patronized and even protected by the West,
are at odd with the interest of their own
people.
Unless the Muslim mass organize themselves
to rejuvenate their lives in a positive manner
in accordance with their faith as well as
the demands of our contemporary modern times,
the tension and conflict will only widen and
worsen. One of the real problems and obstacles
for the Muslim world is that the global corridors
of power, led by the sole surviving superpower
of the world, is afraid of democracy in the
Muslim countries, as the experience has shown
that the real and immediate beneficiaries
of democratic change in the Muslim world are
the Islamic voices.
This has created a serious rift and disconnect
between the USA and the West on one hand and
the Muslim world on the other, because the
west, the supposed champion of democracy,
is unwilling to let democracy evolve and function
in the Muslim world. Well, isn't this an example
of finding someone else to blame? Partly,
that is true. While countries, such as USA,
is playing an adversarial role in this context,
a conscientious and self-critical approach
warrants that Muslims recognize that they
have serious problems that are internal to
themselves and rooted within, which goes back
even long before the west surfaced as the
dominant civilization. Those who want to see
solutions to their problems in the Muslim
world by merely blaming the West and targeting
them for all their disappointment, frustration
and anger are simply deluding themselves in
thinking that it would bring any meaningful
or fundamental change in their own society.
Therefore, while external factors responsible
for the maladies of the Muslim world must
be identified, recognized and dealt with,
it is critically important that Muslims first
examine their problems in their internal context.
They must remember that whatever the external
factors are, a positive and determined pursuit
for liberty, justice and prosperity can't
be suppressed or thwarted by others permanently.
Americans themselves could have heaped all
the blames on the British colonial power,
but their committed pursuit of freedom and
liberty did finally overpowered the GREAT
Britain. The start of the solution lies within,
not outside.
Whether there is an evolving clash or dialog
between the West and Islam at the civilizational
level, or whether we actually desire and facilitate
such clash or dialog to be realized, the future
of the West and Islam have become integrally
related. The West can't simply ignore or suppress
Islam in an Islam-o-phobic fashion. Nor the
Muslim world can ignore the West in a West-o-phobic
manner. Either try to establish mutual common
grounds for the sake of the humanity or the
path of confrontation would be a foregone
conclusion.
In this context, the role of the American
Muslim community remains critically important.
Recognizing this role, even the US government
is trying to project to the Muslim world the
presence of Muslims in this pluralistic society,
especially in an attempt to show that the
Muslims in America are doing quite well, like
the rest of the society. Like many in the
Muslim world, many Muslims in America might
also have a love/hate relationship with America.
They like the economic prosperity here, and
they are both beneficiaries of and contributors
to that prosperity in America. But more importantly
they also like and enjoy the freedom and civil
liberties in general in this country. Yet,
it is not uncommon for Muslims in America
to disagree with and even detest the role
of the United States in the global arena,
especially as it affects the Muslim world.
As Muslims must approach these issues in a
self-critical manner in regard to themselves
and their internal problems, they must not
also be West-o-phobic and the same should
apply to their attitude toward the United
States. This is especially because there isn't
really one America. Rather, there are "two
Americas", as in the words of the late
U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright. In his
highly acclaimed and deeply insightful book,
The Arrogance of Power, he writes: "THERE
ARE TWO AMERICAS. One is the America of Lincoln
and Adlai Stevenson; the other is the America
of Teddy Roosevelt and the modern superpatriots."
[p. 245; the emphasis is by Sen. Fulbright]
While this essay's rather limited scope can't
deal with the overall issue of power and arrogance,
the thoughts and analysis of Sen. Fulbright
are truly valuable for better understanding
an ongoing struggle within America herself.
If Muslims themselves don't recognize and
understand the nature of this struggle, then
in a West-o-phobic manner chanting marg bar
amrika (Death to America, in Farsi) and then
seeing some misguided, fringe groups - riding
on that anger in the Muslim world - delivering
death to the doorsteps of America, especially
to the innocent people, should not be unexpected.
There is another reciprocity in regard to
West-o-phobia: Islam-o-phobia. One phobia
mutually feeds the other.
Sen. Fulbright's perspective on "the
two Americas" is quite illuminating.
In his view, "One is generous and humane,
the other narrowly egotistical; one is self-critical,
the other self-righteous; one is sensible,
the other romantic; one is good-humored, the
other solemn; one is inquiring, the other
pontificating; one is moderate, the other
filled with passionate intensity; one is judicious
and the other arrogant in the use of great
power." [p.245]
Just like the West can't lump Muslims and
Islam into one monolithic entity, except to
its own detriment of alienating and frustrating
those vast majority of Muslims who endear
prosperity, freedom, justice and decency,
Muslims can't also treat America as a monolithic
entity. If they do, then they are also dismissing
and alienating that America, which is generous
and humane, self-critical, sensible, good-humored,
inquiring, moderate and judicious. This is
the America that most people love. This is
the America that has drawn and continues to
draw people, including the immigrant Muslim
community here, from around the world.
If there is any problem, it is with the other
America. The America of Super-patriotism,
which in Sen. Fulbright's view is "narrowly
egotistical; ... self-righteous; ... romantic;
... solemn; ... pontificating; ... filled
with passionate intensity; arrogant in the
use of great power." There are great
many Americans - the conscientious and self-critical
ones - including persons such as Sen. Fulbright,
who do not like this America. This is the
America that is also repudiated and hated
around the world.
In the context of the War against terrorism
and the Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL; the
originally proposed acronym, but not adopted
as the OIL connection would have been too
obvious), if the word "crusade"
slipped through the mouth of President Bush,
which was quickly corrected and never to be
uttered by him again, it was no coincidence.
More than 30 years ago, Sen. Fulbright pointed
out: "The inconstancy of American foreign
policy is not an accident but an expression
of two distinct sides of the American character.
Both are characterized by a kind of moralism,
but one is the morality of decent instincts
tempered by the knowledge of human imperfection
and the other is the morality of absolute
self-assurance fired by the crusading spirit.
... The crusading puritan spirit has had a
great deal to do with some of the regrettable
and tragic events of American history. It
led us into needless and costly adventures
and victories that crumbled in our hands."
[p.245/p.251]
More importantly, "America, in the words
of John Quincy Adams, should be 'the well-wisher
to the freedom and independence of all'",
Sen. Fulbright, continues [p.258]. But the
reality is that not only that America, the
super-patriot one, has not been the well-wisher
to the freedom and independence of all, but
also it has been systematically and actively
subverting democracy and democratic spirit
in many parts of the world.
This other America of super-patriots is a
war-mongering one. In his book, Pentagon Propaganda
Machine, Sen. Fulbright writes: "It seems
to me we have grown distressingly used to
war. For more than fourteen of the past twenty-eight
years we have been fighting somewhere, and
we have been ready to fight almost anywhere
for the other fourteen. War and the military
have become a part of our environment, like
pollution." [p.11]
This super-patriotism also goes with an incessant
propaganda as America as a victim. The rest
of the world is jealous of its success and
glory! The Barbaric other knows and understands
only one language: the force, mighty force!
It is this kind of attitude and perspective
- reminiscent of McCarthyism - where the zeal
to fight authoritarianism or communism manifests
itself as a ghost of its opponent, to suppress
dissent for the sake of national security
- the holy cow. This other America doesn't
quite seek a solution to problems; rather,
in the guise and name of trying to solve a
problem, it attempts to extract further mileage
for its agenda and mission of superpatriotism.
Sen. Fulbright wrote in the context of the
Vietnam war, more than three decades ago.
What he dubbed as super-patriotism has reached
super-pitch, as demonstrated in the unilateral,
preemptive war to remove America's former
bedfellow Saddam Hussein and his monstrous
regime. The world was given the excuse that
Saddam regime was a threat to the United States,
as it has weapons of mass destruction, which
might be made available to those terrorists
that might target America and/or Americans.
That no weapons of mass destruction were found
in the post-war Iraq should not come as a
surprise.
During the months before the war against Iraq,
as David Albright, the director of ISIS and
a scientist with first-hand experience of
Iraq's nuclear weapons program as a member
of the International Atomic Energy Agency's
inspection team, disclosed that there was
a debate within the US scientific community
about the government's claims but added that
the Bush administration had clamped down on
such discussion.
Terrorism, especially that indiscriminately
targets innocents to advance its agenda, is
an affront to the humanity and there should
be a global compact against such acts and
agendas. However, there is also a misplaced
emphasis on the part of the United States.
As much resources and energy as are being
allocated against the acts of fringe extremists,
there is disproportionate negligence to building
bridges with the vast majority of Muslims,
who themselves should be and are needed to
be at the forefront of containing the fringe
elements. As Graham Fuller, a former political
scientist with Rand and a former Vice Chairman
of the National Intelligence Council at the
CIA, and co-author Ian Lesser point out in
A Sense of Siege: The Geopolitics of Islam
and the West that there is a sense of siege
on the part of the Muslim world, which is
important for the West in general and the
United States in particular to recognize and
understand. It is a fact that "Many more
Muslims have died at Western hands over the
past century than westerners have ever died
at Muslim hands.” [p. 43; emphasis added]
This is even truer in the case of the United
States. Consequently, as Muslims should be
called upon to be objective and engaging in
their attitude toward the West and USA, the
same goes for the West toward the Muslim world
as well. As “Most Muslims are convinced
that Western policies are consciously dedicated
to weakening Muslim power wherever it arises”
[p. 43], the West too needs to do better to
convince the Muslim world otherwise, not through
clever rhetoric and powerful media manipulations,
but through actions. If “The West is
seen to be comfortable only with a supine
Muslim world,” [p.43] the Muslim world
can’t be expected to settle for such
expectation and desire of the West.
The overreaching profiling of Muslims and
Arabs, the indiscriminate closure of Muslim
charities, the Patriot Act that immensely
broadens the power of the law enforcement
agencies to get the nation Ashcrofted are
all indicative of the super-patriotism that
is militaristic on its foreign front and overly-protective
in the domestic front. Sen. Fulbright warned
several decades ago: "This militarism
that has crept up on us is bringing about
profound changes in the character of our society
and government-changes that are slowly undermining
democratic procedure and values." [p.11]
In 1947, Einstein expressed his deep concern
about this military mentality, particularly
of the United States, in The American Scholar.
According to him, America had a transformation
of its mentality in the aftermath of the World
War II. "The characteristic feature of
the mentality is that people place the importance
of what Bertrand Russell so tellingly terms
'naked power' far above all other factors
which affect the relation between peoples.
... I must frankly confess that the foreign
policy of the United States since the termination
of hostilities has reminded me, sometimes
irresistibly, of the attitude of Germany under
Kaiser Wilhelm II, and I know that, independent
of me, this analogy has most painfully occurred
to others as well. ... In our time the military
mentality is still more dangerous than formerly
because the offensive weapons have become
much more powerful than the defensive ones."
Well, these thoughts of Einstein are more
than half-a-century old, but they are only
ever more relevant to our challenging times.
This Patriot Act, a clear manifestation of
super-patriotism of the other America, is
being called by many "Constitution Shredding
Act" or "Ashcroft out of control
Act", because without meaningfully adding
to the ability of law enforcement or intelligence
to bring terrorists to justice, its provisions
do much to undermine the Constitution and
violate the rights and civil liberties of
both immigrants and American citizens alike.
Karen Schneider, a columnist of American Libraries,
described The Patriot Act as "the last
refuge of a scoundrel". As a librarian,
she is concerned about the pernicious scope
of this Act that also covers the libraries
and their usage.
Indeed, the super-charged Ashcrofting of America,
in keeping with the McCarthy era, might be
pushing the country toward a false and counterproductive
trade-off, as argued by David Cole, professor
of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University.
In "Trading Liberty for Security after
September 11, he comments: "... many
have argued that we may need to sacrifice
some of our liberty in order to purchase greater
security. But for the most part what we have
done since September 11 is not to make the
hard choice of choosing which of our liberties
we are willing to forego, but rather to sacrifice
their liberties—those of immigrants,
and especially of Arab and Muslim immigrants—for
the purported security of the rest of us.
This double standard is an all too tempting
way to strike the balance—it allows
citizens to enjoy a sense of security without
sacrificing their own liberty, but it is an
illegitimate trade-off. It is likely to be
counterproductive, as it will alienate the
very communities that we most need to work
with as we fight the war on terrorism. And
in the end, it is a false trade-off, because
what we do to immigrants today often creates
a precedent for what we do to U.S. citizens
tomorrow." [Foreign Policy in Focus,
September 2002; emphasis added]
According a Boston Globe report [Nov. 24,
2002], an Iraqi professor at the University
of Massachussetts at Amherst was interrogated
by FBI for not any report of any threat posed
by the professor, but a report that he held
anti-American views. Since when harboring
anti-American views has become a crime, asked
75 members of UM faculty, who vehemently protested
this incident, and characterized the involvement
of the University administration as violation
of academic freedom and vowed to vigorously
pursue this matter further. Harassing people
for their views, without any evidence or even
credible threat, is undermining the very America
itself, and it would add to the alienated
pool of immigrants among Muslims and Arabs
in particular.
Just like Muslims have an internal struggle
to clear themselves from tendency and agenda
of the extremist fringe, the voice of which
is more boisterous than the vast majority
of Muslims, the two Americas are having their
own struggle. These two struggles are not
quite unrelated. All those people who have
become members of ACLU in recent years are
not merely Muslims, Arabs or immigrants. Many
other Americans, who are better informed or
increasingly more concerned about the erosion
of democratic values and spirit of America
and the rise of super-patriotism, are also
finding it very important to stand up for
the America that Sen. Fulbright describes
as America of Lincoln and Adlai Stevenson
- the America that is supposed to be 'the
well-wisher to the freedom and independence
of all'.
Writing about "Terror at the Crossroad"
on MSNBC.com [May 20, 2003] and sharing some
examples of some moderate Islamic voices,
columnist Ira Rifkin posed the question: “Will
Muslim moderates finally speak out against
extremists?" But the question can also
be turned around and it can be asked: Is the
U.S. media establishment doing its due share
in reciprocating the positive and constructive
effort of mainstream Muslims in USA and elsewhere
to get their messages across? Such people
are often brought to the media outlets, primarily
to elicit repudiation of the extreme trends,
but there is hardly any opportunity given
to them to articulate their views on a myriad
of contemporary issues, whether those are
palatable to the U.S. government or not.
The U.S. government policies, especially of
the super-patriot line, continues to neglect,
undermine, stifle and alienate the Islamic
voices of conscience and enlightenment both
in the United States and elsewhere. The same
is done by the U.S. media that disproportionately
highlights the extreme fringe, while ignoring
the mainstream voices that can make a positive
difference. Islam of the fringe, as Fuller
and Lesser argue, “… is only strengthened
when it is referred to repeatedly and publicly
by top officials as a major threat”
[p. 173].
In valuing and seeking freedom and independence
of ALL and forging mutually respectful and
cooperative partnership toward that goal might
be the common ground on the basis of which
all conscientious and conscious people can
attempt to build bridges for a better future.
That is also the spirit behind the following
verses of the Qur'an: "..help (cooperate)
one another in matters of Birr (virtue and
goodness) and Taqwa; and do not help (cooperate)
in Ithm (sin) and transgression...."
[5/al-Maida/3] "To each is a goal to
which Allah turns him; then strive together
(as in a race) towards all that is good."
[2/al-Baqara/148]
The world wishes and hopes that the struggle
of the two Americas resolve in favor of the
Lincolnian one. That is a struggle of the
Americans in general. American Muslim community
also has a positive role to play in this regard.
Self-critical Muslims, everywhere, should
ponder and consider: instead of "Death
to ..." this or that, can we chant and
adopt a message, program and principled position
of mutual help and cooperation in all that
is good?
[Dr. Farooq is an associate professor of economics
and finance at Upper Iowa University, USA.
Personal Homepage: http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm;
email: farooqm@globalwebpost.com.]
|
