Silver LininfCurrent dilemma and the West share of responsibility [Archives:2006/936/Opinion]

Mohammed Hatem Al-Qadhi
[email protected]
In the Silver Lining column of last week, I wrote about the exaggeration of the Muslims in their conception about the West and its conspiracy against them; how much it is working to pervert their youngsters through some cultural programs. I also talked about the important role public diplomacy can do to bridge the gap between the West and Muslims.

I received a good feedback from readers, particularly from the US. They have been very supportive of the idea of public diplomacy as a key element in the dialogue that can take us away from the impasse we are going through. One of my diplomat friends here in Sana'a told me that he was expecting another article giving the West their share of criticism and their responsibility for the current lack of understanding with the Arabs and Muslims. Some might understand that I have been very harsh in criticizing the Arabs and Muslims, holding them accountable for the ongoing problem, neglecting the West responsibility which my Western friend talked about, as if he was reading my mind that another article would talk about this issue.

I know the West is partially responsible of the plight we are going through and can do a lot to bridge the gap and understand our reality in a better manner. The West is to bear its share of responsibility for those people who have been brought up and educated to think confrontation is the only way out in the fight with the West. Let me tell you how. The West, mainly the US, mobilized the young Muslims to fight against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They were considered heroes in the great battle for Islam victory and once the task was over, they turned into terrorists being hunted down wherever they went. They were pregnant with Jihad ideology and it was not easy for them to forget it all of a sudden. They had no choice but to confront in their own countries plagued with tyranny and absence of freedom and democracy. Egypt was the first to confront with the Jihadists while the international community was watching the trauma. The congestion grew up and the result is the current dilemma of terrorism acts we see everyday here and there. We now see horrible scenes of human throats being cut on camera as if they are hens.

The West has not realized the sensitivity of the Palestinian cause, being a focal point of concern to all Muslims. I once was talking with a Western diplomat about the Middle East conflict; he was surprised that the Palestinian problem was inviting the interest of all Muslims. He said it was the business of the Palestinians only and that others have nothing to do with it. The West is being heedless to the religious sensitivity of the Palestinian cause and what Jerusalem means to all Muslims and how this issue can be manipulated by the extremists to justify their ideology of confrontation.

In this way, the West has helped in the emergence of some extremist groups, demanding confrontations with the whole West, and giving a religious ground for this conflict. The result is a strong support among the public, including intellectuals for the Jihadist ideology of Bin Laden, al-Zawaheri, al-Zerqawi and many others.

The West supported dictatorial and tyrannical regimes, giving no attention to their abuse of human rights and freedoms. It neglected calls for democratization and modernization pronounced by some leftists and reformers. These regimes have even manipulated the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a pretext to get armed at the expense of development. They even now put conditions that reform can take place after the Middle East conflict is sorted out. In this way, you can see how the Palestinian cause is being manipulated by these tyrannical regimes in an ugly manner. I am myself not convicted that development in all Arab countries should be halted because of the Palestinian issue.

However, when the September 11 terrorist attacks had taken place, the West realized the grave danger of tyranny and dictatorship in producing extremism, violence and terrorism. It has also realized that terrorism of such Muslim youngsters will hit it in the bud, maybe before it hits some Arab or Muslim countries. It has understood the jeopardy of the absence of democracy and public participation on the future of these countries and that of the West itself. The West has to consider its ethical responsibility towards these peoples. I know that the West is driven by its own interests but part of its interest now is the support of these peoples to democratize and liberalize. It has to work towards initiating dialogue with the Muslim countries so as to understand Muslims better.

As I said in my article of last week, dialogue is the only way to understand each other closely. This dialogue should go beyond the official diplomacy to public diplomacy, going far away from closed rooms and workshops whose outcomes usually do not reach the masses, the prime target of this dialogue. It should be open and reach as many people as possible, utilizing all sorts of media to address the public and targeting various aspects of mutual interest.

This sort of multi-faced dialogue will succeed only if we are proactive, capable to present our views in a rational manner to people who have been brought up to think rationally and pragmatically. When we go to dialogue, we have to be satisfied that it is for the interest of both the West and us. The purpose of the dialogue is mutual understanding. Otherwise, extremists will be more resistant and reluctant to such initiatives, imaging it as another way the West is using to influence and control. It should primarily target the religious leaders who should be convinced with the dialogue principle and its urgency to calm down the tension and repress confrontations mongers in order to live in peace and harmony.

By and large, dialogue is not the mere responsibility of the West which is scared of the danger of terrorism that can hit it at home. It is not also our business only. It is rather a two-way process for we both need understand one another and should work to that end.
——
[archive-e:936-v:14-y:2006-d:2006-04-10-p:opinion]