Extract from ContExploration.net
|
extract document nr |
8013 |
|
local link |
http://contexploration.net/extracts/8013.htm |
|
remote link |
http://www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk/archives/000854.html |
|
title |
“Not a Clash
between Civilisations, but a Clash about Civilisation” |
|
date published |
21.03.2006 |
|
author |
Tony Blair |
|
source |
Speech by the Prime
Minister to the Foreign Policy Centre and Reuters, London |
|
further reading from
author |
|
Speech by Prime
Minister Tony Blair to the Foreign Policy Centre and Reuters, London
21 March
2006
Over these
past nine years, Britain has pursued a markedly different foreign policy. We
have been strongly activist, justifying our actions, even if not always
successfully, at least as much by reference to values as interests. We have
constructed a foreign policy agenda that has sought to link, in values,
military action in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq with diplomatic
action on climate change, world trade, Africa and Palestine. I set out the
basis for this in the Chicago speech of 1999 where I called for a doctrine of
international community, and again in the speech to the US Congress in July
2003.
The basic
thesis is that the defining characteristic of today’s world is its
interdependence; that whereas the economics of globalisation are well matured,
the politics of globalisation are not; and that unless we articulate a common
global policy based on common values, we risk chaos threatening our stability,
economic and political, through letting extremism, conflict or injustice go
unchecked.
The
consequence of this thesis is a policy of engagement not isolation; and one
that is active not reactive.
Confusingly,
its proponents and opponents come from all sides of the political spectrum. So
it is apparently a “neo-conservative” ie right wing view, to be ardently in
favour of spreading democracy round the world; whilst others on the right take
the view that this is dangerous and deluded – the only thing that matters is an
immediate view of national interest. Some progressives see intervention as
humanitarian and necessary; others take the view that provided dictators don’t
threaten our citizens directly, what they do with their own, is up to them.
The debate
on world trade has thrown all sides into an orgy of political cross-dressing.
Protectionist sentiment is rife on the left; on the right, there are calls for
“economic patriotism”; meanwhile some voices left and right, are making the
case for free trade not just on grounds of commerce but of justice.
The true
division in foreign policy today is between: those who want the shop “open”, or
those who want it “closed”; those who believe that the long-term interests of a
country lie in it being out there, engaged, interactive and those who think the
short-term pain of such a policy and its decisions, too great. This division
has strong echoes in debates not just over foreign policy and trade but also
over immigration.
Progressives
may implement policy differently from conservatives, but the fault lines are
the same.
Where
progressive and conservative policy can differ is that progressives are
stronger on the challenges of poverty, climate change and trade justice. I have
no doubt at all it is impossible to gain support for our values, unless the
demand for justice is as strong as the demand for freedom; and the willingness
to work in partnership with others is an avowed preference to going it alone,
even if that may sometimes be necessary.
I believe
we will not ever get real support for the tough action that may well be
essential to safeguard our way of life; unless we also attack global poverty
and environmental degradation or injustice with equal vigour.
Neither in
defending this interventionist policy do I pretend that mistakes have not been
made or that major problems do not confront us and there are many areas in
which we have not intervened as effectively as I would wish, even if only by
political pressure. Sudan, for example; the appalling deterioration in the
conditions of the people of Zimbabwe; human rights in Burma; the virtual
enslavement of the people of North Korea.
I also
acknowledge – and shall at a later time expand on this point – that the state
of the MEPP and the stand-off between Israel and Palestine remains a, perhaps
the, real, genuine source of anger in the Arab and Muslim world that goes far
beyond usual anti-western feeling. The issue of “even handedness” rankles
deeply. I will set out later how we should respond to Hamas in a way that
acknowledges its democratic mandate but seeks to make progress peacefully.
So this is
not an attempt to deflect criticism or ignore the huge challenges which remain;
but to set out the thinking behind the foreign policy we have pursued.
Over the
next few weeks, I will outline the implication of this agenda in three
speeches, including this one. In this, the first, I will describe how I believe
we can defeat global terrorism and why I believe victory for democracy in Iraq
and Afghanistan is a vital element of doing that. In the second, I shall
outline the importance of a broad global alliance to achieve our common goals.
In the third, in America, I shall say how the international institutions need
radical reform to make them capable of implementing such an agenda, in a strong
and effective multilateral way. But throughout all three, I want to stress why
this concept of an international community, based on core, shared values,
prepared actively to intervene and resolve problems, is an essential
pre-condition of our future prosperity and stability.
It is in
confronting global terrorism today that the sharpest debate and disagreement is
found. Nowhere is the supposed “folly” of the interventionist case so loudly
trumpeted as in this case. Here, so it is said, as the third anniversary of the
Iraq conflict takes place, is the wreckage of such a world view. Under Saddam
Iraq was “stable”. Now its stability is in the balance. Ergo, it should never
have been done.
This is
essentially the product of the conventional view of foreign policy since the
fall of the Berlin Wall. This view holds that there is no longer a defining
issue in foreign policy. Countries should therefore manage their affairs and
relationships according to their narrow national interests. The basic posture
represented by this view is: not to provoke, to keep all as settled as it can
be and cause no tectonic plates to move. It has its soft face in dealing with
issues like global warming or Africa; and reserves its hard face only if
directly attacked by another state, which is unlikely. It is a view which sees
the world as not without challenge but basically calm, with a few nasty things
lurking in deep waters, which it is best to avoid; but no major currents that
inevitably threaten its placid surface. It believes the storms have been
largely self-created.
This is the
majority view of a large part of western opinion, certainly in Europe.
According to this opinion, the policy of America since 9/11 has been a gross
overreaction; George Bush is as much if not more of a threat to world peace as
Osama bin Laden; and what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else in
the Middle East, is an entirely understandable consequence of US/UK imperialism
or worse, of just plain stupidity. Leave it all alone or at least treat it with
sensitivity and it would all resolve itself in time; “it” never quite being
defined, but just generally felt as anything that causes disruption.
This world
view – which I would characterise as a doctrine of benign inactivity – sits in
the commentator’s seat, almost as a matter of principle. It has imposed a
paradigm on world events that is extraordinary in its attraction and its scope.
As we speak, Iraq is facing a crucial moment in its history: to unify and
progress, under a government elected by its people for the first time in half a
century; or to descend into sectarian strife, bringing a return to certain
misery for millions. In Afghanistan, the same life choice for a nation, is
being played out. And in many Arab and Muslim states, similar, though less
publicised, struggles for democracy dominate their politics.
The effect
of this paradigm is to see each setback in Iraq or Afghanistan, each revolting
terrorist barbarity, each reverse for the forces of democracy or advance for
the forces of tyranny as merely an illustration of the foolishness of our ever
being there; as a reason why Saddam should have been left in place or the
Taliban free to continue their alliance with Al Qaida. Those who still justify
the interventions are treated with scorn.
Then, when
terrorists strike in the nations like Britain or Spain, who supported such
action, there is a groundswell of opinion formers keen to say, in effect, that
it’s hardly surprising – after all, if we do this to “their” countries, is it
any wonder they do it to “ours”?
So the
statement that Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine or indeed Chechnya, Kashmir or
half a dozen other troublespots is seen by extremists as fertile ground for their
recruiting – a statement of the obvious – is elided with the notion that we
have “caused” such recruitment or made terrorism worse, a notion that, on any
sane analysis, has the most profound implications for democracy.
The easiest
line for any politician seeking office in the West today is to attack American
policy. A couple of weeks ago as I was addressing young Slovak students, one
got up, denouncing US/UK policy in Iraq, fully bought in to the demonisation of
the US, utterly oblivious to the fact that without the US and the liberation of
his country, he would have been unable to ask such a question, let alone get an
answer to it.
There is an
interesting debate going on inside government today about how to counter
extremism in British communities. Ministers have been advised never to use the
term “Islamist extremist”. It will give offence. It is true. It will. There are
those – perfectly decent-minded people – who say the extremists who commit
these acts of terrorism are not true Muslims. And, of course, they are right.
They are no more proper Muslims than the Protestant bigot who murders a
Catholic in Northern Ireland is a proper Christian. But, unfortunately, he is
still a “Protestant” bigot. To say his religion is irrelevant is both
completely to misunderstand his motive and to refuse to face up to the strain
of extremism within his religion that has given rise to it.
Yet, in
respect of radical Islam, the paradigm insists that to say what is true, is to
provoke, to show insensitivity, to demonstrate the same qualities of purblind
ignorance that leads us to suppose that Muslims view democracy or liberty in
the same way we do.
Just as it
lets go unchallenged the frequent refrain that it is to be expected that Muslim
opinion will react violently to the invasion of Iraq: after all it is a Muslim
country. Thus, the attitude is: we understand your sense of grievance; we
acknowledge your anger at the invasion of a Muslim country; but to strike back
through terrorism is wrong.
It is a
posture of weakness, defeatism and most of all, deeply insulting to every
Muslim who believes in freedom ie the majority. Instead of challenging the extremism,
this attitude panders to it and therefore instead of choking it, feeds its
growth.
None of
this means, incidentally, that the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan was right;
merely that it is nonsense to suggest it was done because the countries are Muslim.
I recall
the video footage of Mohammed Sadiq Khan, the man who was the ringleader of the
7/7 bombers. There he was, complaining about the suppression of Muslims, the
wickedness of America and Britain, calling on all fellow Muslims to fight us.
And I thought: here is someone, brought up in this country, free to practise
his religion, free to speak out, free to vote, with a good standard of living
and every chance to raise a family in a decent way of life, talking about “us”,
the British, when his whole experience of “us” has been the very opposite of
the message he is preaching. And in so far as he is angry about Muslims in Iraq
or Afghanistan let Iraqi or Afghan Muslims decide whether to be angry or not by
ballot.
There was
something tragic, terrible but also ridiculous about such a diatribe. He may
have been born here. But his ideology wasn’t. And that is why it has to be
taken on, everywhere.
This
terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds
of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core. By
this I don’t mean telling them terrorism is wrong. I mean telling them their
attitude to America is absurd; their concept of governance pre-feudal; their
positions on women and other faiths, reactionary and regressive; and then since
only by Muslims can this be done: standing up for and supporting those within
Islam who will tell them all of this but more, namely that the extremist view
of Islam is not just theologically backward but completely contrary to the
spirit and teaching of the Koran.
But in
order to do this, we must reject the thought that somehow we are the authors of
our own distress; that if only we altered this decision or that, the extremism
would fade away. The only way to win is: to recognise this phenomenon is a
global ideology; to see all areas, in which it operates, as linked; and to
defeat it by values and ideas set in opposition to those of the terrorists.
The roots
of global terrorism and extremism are indeed deep. They reach right down
through decades of alienation, victimhood and political oppression in the Arab
and Muslim world. Yet this is not and never has been inevitable. The most
remarkable thing about reading the Koran – in so far as it can be truly
translated from the original Arabic – is to understand how progressive it is. I
speak with great diffidence and humility as a member of another faith. I am not
qualified to make any judgements. But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a
reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins,
rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later. It is
inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is
practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and
governance.
Under its
guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or
pagan lands was breathtaking. Over centuries it founded an Empire, leading the
world in discovery, art and culture. The standard bearers of tolerance in the
early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in
Christian.
This is not
the place to digress into a history of what subsequently happened. But by the
early 20th century, after renaissance, reformation and enlightenment had swept
over the Western world, the Muslim and Arab world was uncertain, insecure and
on the defensive. Some countries like Turkey went for a muscular move to
secularism. Others found themselves caught between colonisation, nascent
nationalism, political oppression and religious radicalism. Muslims began to
see the sorry state of Muslim countries as symptomatic of the sorry state of
Islam. Political radicals became religious radicals and vice versa. Those in
power tried to accommodate the resurgent Islamic radicalism by incorporating
some of its leaders and some of its ideology. The result was nearly always
disastrous. The religious radicalism was made respectable; the political
radicalism suppressed and so in the minds of many, the cause of the two came together
to symbolise the need for change. So many came to believe that the way of
restoring the confidence and stability of Islam was the combination of
religious extremism and populist politics.
The true
enemies became “the West” and those Islamic leaders who co-operated with them.
The
extremism may have started through religious doctrine and thought. But soon, in
offshoots of the Muslim brotherhood, supported by Wahabi extremists and taught
in some of the Madrassas of the Middle East and Asia, an ideology was born and
exported around the world.
The worst
terrorist act was 9/11 in New York and Washington DC in 2001, where three
thousand people were murdered. But the reality is that many more had already
died not just in acts of terrorism against Western interests, but in political
insurrection and turmoil round the world. Over 100,000 died in Algeria. In
Chechnya and Kashmir political causes that could have been resolved became
brutally incapable of resolution under the pressure of terrorism. Today, in well
over 30 or 40 countries terrorists are plotting action loosely linked with this
ideology. Its roots are not superficial, therefore, they are deep, embedded now
in the culture of many nations and capable of an eruption at any time.
The
different aspects of this terrorism are linked. The struggle against terrorism
in Madrid or London or Paris is the same as the struggle against the terrorist
acts of Hezbollah in Lebanon or the PIJ in Palestine or rejectionist groups in
Iraq. The murder of the innocent in Beslan is part of the same ideology that
takes innocent lives in Saudi Arabia, the Yemen or Libya. And when Iran gives
support to such terrorism, it becomes part of the same battle with the same
ideology at its heart.
True the
conventional view is that, for example, Iran is hostile to Al Qaida and
therefore would never support its activities. But as we know from our own
history of conflict, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change.
Fundamentally, for this ideology, we are the enemy.
Which
brings me to the fundamental point. “We” is not the West. “We” are as much
Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. “We” are those who believe in religious
tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights
administered by secular courts.
This is not
a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation. It is the
age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see
opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between
optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other. And in
the era of globalisation where nations depend on each other and where our
security is held in common or not at all, the outcome of this clash between
extremism and progress is utterly determinative of our future here in Britain.
We can no more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate
changing around us. Inaction, pushing the responsibility on to America,
deluding ourselves that this terrorism is an isolated series of individual
incidents rather than a global movement and would go away if only we were more
sensitive to its pretensions; this too is a policy. It is just that; it is a
policy that is profoundly, fundamentally wrong.
And this is
why the position of so much opinion on how to defeat this terrorism and on the
continuing struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East is, in my
judgement, so mistaken.
It ignores
the true significance of the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is:
given the chance, the people wanted democracy. OK so they voted on religious or
regional lines. That’s not surprising, given the history. But there’s not much
doubt what all the main parties in both countries would prefer and it is
neither theocratic nor secular dictatorship. The people – despite violence,
intimidation, inexperience and often logistical nightmares – voted. Not a few.
But in numbers large enough to shame many western democracies. They want
Government decided by the people.
And who is
trying to stop them? In Iraq, a mixture of foreign Jihadists, former Saddamists
and rejectionist insurgents. In Afghanistan, a combination of drug barons,
Taliban and Al Qaida.
In each
case, US, UK and the forces of many other nations are there to help the
indigenous security forces grow, to support the democratic process and to
provide some clear bulwark against the terrorism that threatens it. In each
case, full UN authority is in place. There was and is a debate about the
legality of the original decision to remove Saddam. But since May 2003, the MNF
has been in Iraq under a UN resolution and with the authority of the first ever
elected Government. In Afghanistan throughout, UN authority has been in place.
In both
countries, the armed forces and police service are taking shape so that in time
a democratically elected government has, under its control, sufficient power to
do the will of the democratic state. In each case again, people die queuing up
to join such forces, determined whatever the risk, to be part of a new and different
dispensation.
Of course,
and wholly wrongly, there are abuses of human rights, mistakes made, things
done that should not be done. There always were. But at least this time,
someone demands redress; people are free to complain.
So here, in
its most pure form, is a struggle between democracy and violence. People look
back on the three years since the Iraq conflict; they point to the precarious
nature of Iraq today and to those who have died – mainly in terrorist acts –
and they say: how can it have been worth it?
But there
is a different question to ask: why is it so important to the forces of
reaction and violence to halt Iraq in its democratic tracks and tip it into
sectarian war? Why do foreign terrorists from Al Qaida and its associates go
across the border to kill and maim? Why does Syria not take stronger action to
prevent them? Why does Iran meddle so furiously in the stability of Iraq?
Examine the
propaganda poured into the minds of Arabs and Muslims. Every abuse at Abu
Ghraib is exposed in detail; of course it is unacceptable but it is as if the
only absence of due process in that part of the world is in prisons run by the
Americans. Every conspiracy theory – from seizing Iraqi oil to imperial
domination – is largely dusted down and repeated.
Why? The
answer is that the reactionary elements know the importance of victory or
defeat in Iraq. Right from the beginning, to them it was obvious. For sure,
errors were made on our side. It is arguable that de-Baathification went too
quickly and was spread too indiscriminately, especially amongst the armed
forces. Though in parenthesis, the real worry, back in 2003 was a humanitarian
crisis, which we avoided; and the pressure was all to de-Baathify faster.
But the
basic problem from the murder of the United Nations staff in August 2003
onwards was simple: security. The reactionary elements were trying to de-rail
both reconstruction and democracy by violence. Power and electricity became
problems not through the indolence of either Iraqis or the MNF but through
sabotage. People became frightened through terrorism and through criminal
gangs, some deliberately released by Saddam.
These were
not random acts. They were and are a strategy. When that strategy failed to
push the MNF out of Iraq prematurely and failed to stop the voting; they turned
to sectarian killing and outrage most notably February's savage and blasphemous
destruction of the Shia Shrine at Samarra.
They know
that if they can succeed either in Iraq or Afghanistan or indeed in Lebanon or
anywhere else wanting to go the democratic route, then the choice of a modern
democratic future for the Arab or Muslim world is dealt a potentially mortal
blow. Likewise if they fail, and those countries become democracies and make
progress and, in the case of Iraq, prosper rapidly as it would; then not merely
is that a blow against their whole value system; but it is the most effective
message possible against their wretched propaganda about America, the West, the
rest of the world.
That to me
is the painful irony of what is happening. They have so much clearer a sense of
what is at stake. They play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the
envy of many a political party. Every act of carnage adds to the death toll.
But somehow it serves to indicate our responsibility for disorder, rather than
the act of wickedness that causes it. For us, so much of our opinion believes
that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was so wrong, that it is reluctant to accept
what is plainly right now.
What
happens in Iraq or Afghanistan today is not just crucial for the people in
those countries or even in those regions; but for our security here and round
the world. It is a cause that has none of the debatable nature of the decisions
to go for regime change; it is an entirely noble one – to help people in need
of our help in pursuit of liberty; and a self-interested one, since in their
salvation lies our own security.
Naturally,
the debate over the wisdom of the original decisions, especially in respect of
Iraq will continue. Opponents will say Iraq was never a threat; there were no
WMD; the drug trade in Afghanistan continues. I will point out Iraq was indeed
a threat as two regional wars, 14 UN resolutions and the final report of the
Iraq Survey Group show; that in the aftermath of the Iraq War we secured major
advances on WMD not least the new relationship with Libya and the shutting down
of the AQ Khan network; and that it was the Taliban who manipulated the drug
trade and in any event housed Al Qaida and its training camps.
But
whatever the conclusion to this debate, if there ever is one, the fact is that
now, whatever the rights and wrongs of how and why Saddam and the Taliban were removed,
there is an obvious, clear and overwhelming reason for supporting the people of
those countries in their desire for democracy.
I might
point out too that in both countries supporters of the ideology represented by
Saddam and Mullah Omar are free to stand in elections and on the rare occasions
they dare to do so, don't win many votes.
Across the
Arab and Muslim world such a struggle for democracy and liberty continues. One
reason I am so passionate about Turkey’s membership of the EU is precisely because
it enhances the possibility of a good outcome to such a struggle. It should be
our task to empower and support those in favour of uniting Islam and democracy,
everywhere.
To do this,
we must fight the ideas of the extremists, not just their actions; and stand up
for and not walk away from those engaged in a life or death battle for freedom.
The fact of their courage in doing so should give us courage; their
determination should lend us strength; their embrace of democratic values,
which do not belong to any race, religion or nation, but are universal, should
reinforce our own confidence in those values.
Shortly
after Saddam fell, I met in London a woman who after years of exile – and there
were 4 million such exiles – had returned to Iraq to participate in modern
politics there. A couple of months later, she was assassinated, one of the
first to be so. I cannot tell what she would say now. But I do know it would
not be: give up. She would not want her sacrifice for her beliefs to be in
vain.
Two years
later the same ideology killed people on the streets of London, and for the
same reason. To stop cultures, faiths and races living in harmony; to deter
those who see greater openness to others as a mark of humanity’s progress; to
disrupt the very thing that makes London special would in time, if allowed to,
set Iraq on a course of progress too.
This is,
ultimately, a battle about modernity. Some of it can only be conducted and won
within Islam itself. But don’t let us in our desire not to speak of what we can
only imperfectly understand; or our wish not to trespass on sensitive feelings,
end up accepting the premise of the very people fighting us.
The
extremism is not the true voice of Islam. Neither is that voice necessarily to
be found in those who are from one part only of Islamic thought, however
assertively that voice makes itself heard. It is, as ever, to be found in the
calm, but too often unheard beliefs of the many Muslims, millions of them the
world over, including in Europe, who want what we all want: to be ourselves
free and for others to be free also; who regard tolerance as a virtue and
respect for the faith of others as part of our own faith. That is what this
battle is about, within Islam and outside of it; it is a battle of values and progress;
and therefore it is one we must win.
--
Return to ContExploration.net