Who Speaks for Islam? Who Speaks for the West
continued
The next question was posed by Terence Taylor, Director of the International Council for the Life Sciences, who reminded the panelists that certain major powers had not been discussed in the debate, namely China, India, South Korea, and Japan. Are these countries part of the West, he asked? Would it not be more productive to think of a multi-polar debate as opposed to a two-sided one? He then noted the preponderance of politics in intercivilizational dialogue. Even in the heretofore neutral realms of science and technology, politics are intruding through non-proliferation policies.
Ambassador Akram replied that the focus of the discussion has been on Islam and the West because the critical issues of today revolve around these two poles. Yet this should not exclude the necessity of dialogue with other civilizations. For Pakistan, dialogue with India is particularly essential.
Ambassador Zarif agreed that dialogue is not necessarily a two-party situation and should be as inclusive as possible. With regard to science and technology, he replied that functional theories suggesting a web of interaction that would supersede politics can no longer be considered relevant in this day and age.
Mustapha Tlili joined the discussion, noting that the major clash today is between the Muslim world and the West. The Muslim world is going through a tremendous historical transition – a reawakening, if you will, to the world scene. There is debate within the Muslim world over core values and how to approach modernity. The West has a partnership role to play in these intra-Islamic debates, offering mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation.
Ambassador Zarif disagreed, asserting that the major crises we are facing today need not be described as emanating from an anomaly or a transition. Consider the crisis in Iraq, he said, which was initiated not by the Muslim world but by Western powers that believed their values could be exported through war and violence. There are important debates occurring in the Islamic world on gender bias and ijtihad, but the major debates with the most serious implications are taking place in the West over the role of pre-emption, international law, and the use of force.
Ambassador Pierce elaborated on Mustapha Tlili’s point, by clarifying that the debates happening in the Islamic world are concerned with fundamental questions of philosophy, while those taking place in the West are centered on questions of politics and security. She noted that there was a post-9/11 commonality of views between the West, Syria, and Iran on what the Afghanistan region needed to be stabilized, which reflected a similarity in national security interests. How, she asked, did we diverge? Ambassador Zarif pointedly responded, “Axis of evil.”
Isobel Coleman agreed that there are profound discussions going on in both the Muslim and Western worlds. In the West, from a geo-political sense, the breakup of the USSR was a momentous event with which the United States is still coping. There is always a tendency within the politico-military establishment to search for enemies, and this search has now shifted to terrorists, specifically those from the Islamic world. These are unsettled times during which important global realignments are occurring—between the United States and Europe, and the United States and India and China. As the world’s lone superpower, the United States now bears the brunt of the grievances and feelings of injustice formerly directed by Muslims toward European colonial powers.
John Brademas, President Emeritus of New York University, spoke next and asked the panelists to comment on his idea to create a consortium of universities in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and the Middle East that would focus on the study of Islam and organize exchanges, symposia, and conferences to promote understanding of each side’s faiths and traditions. In response, Ambassador Zarif emphasized the importance of education, but cautioned against education that promotes distance rather than understanding. A consortium that would encourage exchange is a welcome opportunity, he said, with the understanding that both sides are seeking a realistic picture of the other rather than seeking to create appealing perceptions of the other. Ambassador Akram added that if the idea is to work, the politics of selecting the people who are admitted to the United States must be closely examined. An objective selection reflecting the diversity of views held in the Muslim world is necessary for genuine dialogue.
Ambassador Akram then expressed his disagreement with Isobel Coleman over the locus of the problem between the Muslim and Western worlds, which he believes runs deeper than political issues. There is a difference between being powerful and dominant, he said. The United States is powerful, but if the U.S. government was to adopt policies consistent with international law, he claimed, the Islamic world would no longer harbor the same grievances. He also reiterated that the resolution of longstanding political issues through policy change would be a major breakthrough in Muslim-Western relations.
With only limited time remaining in the debate, Lisa Anderson fielded several questions from the audience before turning to the panelists for their comments. Karl Meyer, Editor of the World Policy Journal, asked whether it was true that the United States had barred Iranian journalists from accompanying President Ahmadinejad during his visit to the United Nations in September, and if so, who made the decision? A NYU student raised the point that much of the discussion had focused on the conflicts in the Middle East, but do these conflicts speak to the identity of all Muslims? Another audience member suggested that there was a tendency in the United States to characterize any anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world as “Islamist” and therefore alarming. Why, he asked, is there not the same reaction to populist, anti-American feelings in Venezuela and elsewhere in Catholic South America? The final question was posed by an audience member who described himself as a proud American, but considers the United States to be a “spoiled ignorant child.” How, he asked, can the United States learn to become a humble leader of nations?
Ambassador Akram responded first and affirmed his belief in the essential goodness of the American people. Many elements come into play in determining policy, good or bad, he said. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, the United States became the sole superpower, and power corrupts. The real question is: why have the checks and balances intrinsic to the American political system not worked in the last few years?
Isobel Coleman asserted that very strong feelings of anti-Americanism exist around the world, and pre-date the administration of George W. Bush. This is partly driven by the fact that the United States is the sole superpower. Anti-American feelings, although they may abate, will not disappear with the election of a new administration. In response to the question regarding the lack of concern about anti-Americanism in Catholic South America, the simple answer, Coleman said, is that Venezuelans have not committed acts of terror in the name of their religion. She took issue with the comment on American ignorance, particularly with regard to the Islamic world; for instance, Oprah Winfrey, who is a news source for 50 million Americans, has done ten shows centering on Islam. Her 12-year old son, she added, is learning about Islam in school. People in the Middle East and South Asia are just as ignorant about the West as Americans are about the Islamic world.
Ambassador Zarif responded that Americans used to feel that they did not need to know about the rest of the world but 9/11 changed this. In response to the question about journalists denied visas to travel with the Iranian president, this was indeed true, he said. There are no Iranian journalists in the United States except for two who are restricted to New York and who have “crew visas,” which bar them from registering their children in American schools. This hurts the United States, he said, because it prevents the realities of American life from being reflected in Iran. Moreover, no single American government official has granted an interview to the Iranian media.
Ambassador Pierce spoke last, cautioning that Americans who think the United States is uniquely ignorant do their country an injustice. It is the opposite qualities of free debate and dynamism that draw so many to the United States, she said. She noted her agreement with the audience member who pointed out the limitations of focusing on the Middle East when speaking of the broader Islamic world. In all societies, she claimed, we tend to think of people in groups and are hard-pressed to recognize them as individuals. Finally, with regard to the American history of isolationism, Ambassador Pierce emphasized that it would be universally beneficial to spur further American engagement with the world.
Lisa Anderson then thanked the panelists and audience, bringing the evening to a close.
Back to the top.
Recent Event ...
U.S.–Muslim Engagement Project Report Published: “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World” September 24, 2008, at the National Press Club, Washington D.C.
Donate Now
How to make a tax-deductible donation to The Center for Dialogues
Donate
