#7
Novaya Gazeta
No. 77
October 22-24, 2001
THE WAR IS WON BY THOSE WHO STAY OUT OF IT
America can't win this war, but neither can the Islamic world
Author: Boris Kagarlitsky
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
A LOOK AT THE IDEAS BEHIND THE WAR ON TERRORISM - FROM BOTH SIDES, AND FROM RUSSIA'S PERSPECTIVE. THE WEST HAS CREATED A NEW ENEMY, FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES AS WELL AS FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES. THIS WAR IS ESSENTIALLY UNWINNABLE, SINCE NO ONE CAN DEFINE WHAT "VICTORY" OUGHT TO MEAN HERE.
Twenty years ago, no one had heard of a "clash of civilizations". The idea of a conflict between Islam and Christendom seemed like an archaic echo of the Middle Ages.
The rise of "politicized Islam" paralleled the decline of national liberation movements. The first signs of this decline were observed in the mid-1970s, and the Soviet Union played a role there - the develoment models it exported didn't work, so even more discontent was generated among the people, now directed not at the colonial powers, but at their own national governments.
All around the world, "structural reforms" according to the IMF's prescription have led to rising poverty and hatred of the West. We in Russia complain about the IMF and our "radical liberals". But what's happened in Russia seems like minor mischief compared to what similar reforms have done to the Third World. At least there hasn't been mass starvation in Russia.
A protest movement requires an ideology. Radical Islam filled the vacuum. Democratic socialists need to prove that they can offer an alternative which will not repeat the unhappy experience of the USSR, but is still realistic. But those who preach politicized Islam don't have to prove a thing. The more people live in poverty and degradation, the greater the audience for the "Islamists".
That's in the East. Meanwhile, the West had its own reasons for proclaiming the "clash of civilizations" as the slogan of the day. In the wake of two world wars, fascism, and the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima, any talk of the superiority of Western civilization seemed a trifle awkward. Colonialism was viewed as Europe's shame. Kipling's "white man's burden" was only quoted as an example of reactionary thinking. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, everything changed.
Not only the defense sector found itself short of work when the Cold War ended. Very many politicians, ideologues, and analysts who directly or indirectly serviced the Western establishment were also affected. A new enemy was needed.
The search for an enemy had another purpose as well. Fighting all together consolidates a society. During the Cold War years, Western democracies consolidated under the anti-communism banner. But communism wasn't just an external threat; it also appealed to the idea of social justice, so the Western ruling classes could only successfully neutralize it by making some substantial social concessions. A social compromise was required: strong unions, high wages, full employment, benefits for the poor, accessible education, etc. With the fall of the Soviet Union, all this lost its purpose. If capitalism isn't under threat, why should it make all these concessions?
So the demolition of the "social state" began. Millions of immigrant workers came to the West - not only doing the jobs which "natives" don't want, but also competing on the labor market, driving wages down. The conflict escalated, peaking in 1999-2001 when anti- globalization activists rocked Seattle, Prague, Quebec, and Genoa.
At this point it was discovered that the "clash of civilizations" was a very timely idea indeed. Once again, society can be consolidated against an external enemy. What's more, this can be done without making any social concessions.
After World War II, the consolidation of Western society followed progressive principles - social compromise, expansion of democracy. Now it's following reactionary principles. No social concessions are being demanded in Western nations. The enemy is external. Most crucially, the enemy is "incomprehensible". The enemy not only speaks a different language, but lives according to different logic. The absolute evil of "Islamism" justifies any form of "relative" or "lesser" evil within the framework of "humane European culture". Automatically, millions of immigrants in effect become social outcasts.
It might be argued that Russia has been lucky this time, just for a change. We haven't been directly drawn into the conflict. However, we're only relatively lucky. The new war being waged by the United States in the East is aimed against Russia's interests almost as much as the interests of the terrorists.
The increasing American presence in Central Asia is very real. The stronger the American influence, the weaker the Russian presence. The United States has many times the resources of Russia - both financial and military. The only consolation is that the Americans have entered the region in support of undemocratic, repressive regimes. The dictatorships in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan won't last forever. There will be protests against poverty and lack of civil rights. Maybe it's better this way: protests against local regimes in Central Asia will be accompanied by anti-American slogans, not anti- Russian slogans.
US policy in the region will inevitably provoke many internal conflicts, uprisings, and civil wars. There will be millions of victims. From Uzbekistan to Pakistan, incumbent regimes - with US support - will find themselves drawn into bloody confrontation with their own citizens. It seems that Bush has decided to go with Lenin's idea: turning an imperialist war into a civil war.
Maybe it will be possible to soften or postpone the economic crisis in the West; but the price will be too high. The global economy won't escape upheavals, though these might come in a slightly different form and at a different time. After all, World War I didn't prevent the Great Depression, only postponed it.
The history of major wars is instructive. Those who start the conflict rarely win. Each major war ended with the collapse of an empire. And now the world has only one empire left.
An American victory in this new conflict is impossible, if only because no one can define "victory" in this case. The proclaimed goal of "totally eradicating terrorism" is unachievable, if only because despite the effectiveness of various retaliatory strikes, a major war will only facilitate an unprecedented growth of public support for terrorism. If "victory" is understood to mean military occupation of Afghanistan and a few other Islamic nations - well, as they say, going in is easy, but getting out...
America can't win; but neither can we speak of a victory for Islam, let alone terrorism. Islam will maintain and even increase its influence in the East, but there will be no Islamic world order. The Muslim world is only seeking to protect its traditional values against the advancing consumer society. It's a religion, after all - not a political or economic ideology.
In World War I, and to some extent in World War II, the United States was the one "standing by and laughing", watching Europe's agony from across the ocean. Now America itself is at the center of the conflict, even if the main events take place in Asia and Africa. Neither is Russia in the most favorable position. First of all, we're too close to where the events are happening; secondly, Russia after a decade of reforms is too weak. China has a much better chance of deriving some benefits from what is now taking place.
(Translated by P. Pikhnovsky)
Next Article