Interpretation from Arabic
At the outset, I should like to express my appreciation to Sheikha Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa, President of the General Assembly, for convening this important meeting to consider the question of civilizations and the challenge for peace. The meetings held yesterday and today have been extremely useful in view of the high stature and expertise of the participants and panelists on this subject. I thank them sincerely for the rich and enriching analyses provided by their remarkable intellects.
The question at hand is of great importance in today’s world, which is awash in issues and problems and is in a general state of uncertainty that has cast a dark shadow over the stability of international peace and security. It is both necessary and desirable to continue to debate this important question at the global level and to accord equal time and status to the various points of view in order to find ways to establish and consolidate peace.
However, the instability of the world situation, the fits and starts on the march to democracy, the decline of genuine concern for respect of human rights, the widespread policies of double standards, and even the deliberate and public disregard for many bases of international law have all led to a state of international instability and disruption, the consequences of which are currently evident.
It is only natural that such policies have met with rejection and resistance, which have in turn led to a political conflict – a conflict of interests, a conflict for hegemony, a conflict over the formation of the new world following upon the end of the cold war. The famous hypotheses concerning the clash of civilizations and the end of history have neither persuaded the world nor found a global consensus on their substance. Momentous events have followed, foremost among which were the events of 11 September 2001, which contributed to the creation of a trend – initially American, then global – of opposition to terrorism as a threat to stability, the lives of peoples, and all societies, impeding their progress and welfare.
I believe that, at that point, the world had reached a unique consensus and unified position against international terrorism. That could and should have been used and built upon to strengthen and maximize the world’s collective interest in facing down terrorism, protecting societies, reaffirming the rule of law, respecting human rights and proceeding to build the world of the twenty-first century.
Events did not develop as they should have, however. First, the policies and interests of the greater Powers have sought to subordinate the concept of mutual interests to their own definitions and interpretations. Indeed, the consensus was broken – literally nipped in the bud.
Secondly, matters were even further complicated by the fact that extremist forces and circles at the religious and political levels have managed to impose their highly conservative agenda. That converged with the interests of the extremist forces on the other side. Wars erupted, blood flowed, and the fight against terrorism was left hanging in mid-air. I am not certain whether such policies have defeated terrorism or strengthened it further.
Thirdly, as a result of the two aforementioned points, a grave intellectual and political misunderstanding has arisen with respect to identifying the responsibility for everything that has taken place. Is it the responsibility of the erroneous policies and double standards of the greater Powers that claim the sole leading role in managing the world – as many political circles maintain – or is it the responsibility of Islam and Muslims, as certain well-known conservative circles claim? The conflict quickly developed into one between the West and Islam and is euphemistically or politely called the clash of civilizations.
I listened yesterday to Reverend Trond Bakkevig say that the expression “Islam versus the West” is imprecise. While agreeing with him and with the statement made this morning by Mona Siddiqui concerning the aptness of the expression, I would note that the expression is highly indicative of the nature of the problem or at least a large part thereof. It is high time for us to call things by their names, to stop turning a blind to the facts of the situation and to stand up to them boldly and objectively.
We do not see a clash of civilizations. We do not see that all civilizations are clashing with each other. The issue pertains mainly to certain Western circles and their position vis-à-vis Islam. Allow me to reiterate the Reverend Mr. Bakkevig’s assertion that neither the entire West nor all Muslims are parties to that conflict. That is true, but the issue has found its way into the discourse of very high-level religious authorities and political officials in some Western countries, who have spoken in an extremely negative way of Islam or Muslims without bothering to consider the writings of Muslim scholars and writers on the same issue. That was rightly reiterated yesterday by Professor Keshavarz-Karamustafa.
Yes, we are witnessing a wave of Islamophobia, and for those who object to that term, I would say that we are witnessing a wave of animosity towards Islam that is growing and destroying the fabric of human relations between peoples and societies in various parts of the world, as Professor Mohamed Arkoun noted yesterday. The wave deliberately harks back to events of centuries past, with all their negative aspects, in order to recycle them against Islam and Muslims, particularly on the part of extremely conservative political figures of the West and those who, alongside them, advocate a narrow, aggressive interpretation of religion mixed with religious fantasies and hallucinations.
On another level, that extremism has been allowed to find its way to the surface in an attempt to push matters towards an Islamic-Christian conflict. I would refer in that respect to the deep-seated feelings towards Islam in certain parts of Western thought that may date back to the Crusades. Once again, it is a matter that must be addressed very openly and frankly. Every party should shoulder its share of responsibility. We do not live in the times of Richard Lionheart or Saladin. We live in the twenty-first century, and the revival of such feelings is truly dangerous.
Furthermore, the strong feelings of animosity, frustration and anger that threaten stability and the prospects for peace are not far removed from the policies pertaining to the question of Palestine, the injustice meted out to the Palestinian people, and the shameful, unreasonable and unacceptable political, legal and moral bias in favour of Israel’s policy and occupation of Arab territories. Like many others, I believe that this question is central to the causes of unrest and instability in the Middle East, the Arab and Muslim worlds, and throughout the planet. They will not end without a just solution to that issue.
The problem has raised an unprecedented challenge. The current and ongoing policy of bias will further fan the flames of conflict, because the other party will not succumb to the illusions of hegemony and control of the Arab world or the sabotaging of the Islamic world; indeed, it will resist and engage in a battle that it knows may go on for decades. We can only imagine the repercussions of that on regional and international stability.
As to the relative strength of one party over another, it is, as I have said, relative and most likely time-bound. Reason and wisdom must therefore be called on in an attempt to solve the problem in a just and equitable manner as soon as possible. The conservatives and extremists may find it difficult to assist in that attempt; they may even oppose it because it does not jibe with their theory of unleashing chaos, which some have tried to qualify as constructive. Reason, wisdom and joint action could have an important role to play in militating for and insisting on the importance of a just and timely solution to the question of Palestine.
The paper circulated by the General Assembly concerning this meeting requests that we propose specific actions and suggestions to address the current situation. I propose that we remain acutely aware that the question of civilizations before us today is first and foremost political in nature. It has led to wars and threatens international peace and security. I propose that we, at this meeting, recommend that the Security Council consider the international situation resulting from the hypothetical clash of civilizations and its challenges and repercussions, as well as ways of addressing it. The Security Council has addressed the issue of global warming, and it is inconceivable that it not address the question of the clash of civilizations.
It is certainly not sufficient for us to express our good intentions towards the holding of a constructive dialogue among civilizations or of a dialogue such as that being held today. We must instead take concrete steps to end all conflicts. We must not accept, for instance, the idea that contempt for religions or cultures falls under the rubric of freedom of expression. It is a provocation that seeks to generate violent reactions in order to exploit them immediately or in the future.
That brings me to another example concerning anti-Semitism. The General Assembly has criminalized anti-Semitism and European countries have enacted laws regulating it. Why has the debate stopped at anti-Semitism? Why has no attention been paid to the animosity directed towards Islam and other cultures? I propose that our meeting recommend the need to criminalize contempt for religions, because such views could lead to an explosion in relations among peoples. This is a very opportune moment to recommend that the General Assembly criminalize contempt for religions if we hope to see our world moving towards peace. That is the second proposal I have made with a view to ensuring that our meeting achieves concrete results, and it should be carried out in the same vein as the criminalization of anti-Semitism.
I believe that we have said nearly everything we can at this meeting and in various capitals. Things have not changed at all. These meetings are held among the intellectual elite, whose members respect and coexist with each other and mutually enrich each other’s thinking. They do not see the animosity or clash between religions or peoples. The problem does not lie here – it lies in the street. The problem lies in poverty and in ignorance in all its forms, as Professor Arkoun pointed out. The problem lies in the misery and torture of people and in disregard of their interests. The problem lies in real conflict and reciprocal violence, which take a toll in the lives of thousands of innocent young people and which destroys countries as a whole. Iraq is one example; Afghanistan is another. Those two examples probably say it all.
The sense of injustice; the burden of pressures, imposition and occupation; policies of discrimination; the renunciation of agreed values, as noted by the President of the General Assembly yesterday; the flouting of international law; the failure to protect human rights and the application of double standards thereto have created an atmosphere of tension throughout the world, and in the third world in particular. They have led to a conflict that is a clash not of civilizations, but rather between the advocates of hegemony and those who seek a new, different world, even if it must be achieved through what may be called a clash of civilizations. The key is for us to make pluralism a source of strength. We must not exploit it as a way to win points here or there, as the Secretary-General said yesterday.
In conclusion, respect for human rights and all freedoms without distinction on the basis of faith, color or thought is the way to create a new world. The insistence of some on fanning the flames of the clash of civilizations and on believing the theory of the end of history – despite the fact that its own proponents have renounced it – is the road to hell. It is the road to an unstable world that will have no victor or vanquished and where all will lose. The events of the first years of this century are clear proof of that and of a return to global jahiliya – the age of ignorance.