by Adele R
Originally published in Currents October/November 2004

Is there now, or about to be, a “clash of civilizations”? Are we involved in a religious war – Jews and Christians against the Muslims? A group of high-level thinkers from both the American and Arab worlds definitely do not think so. Nonetheless, a panel discussion in August at the Bucerius Law School (the kick-off for the fourth annual, two-week Bucerius Summer School on Global Governance 2004) made it quite clear to the audience that we have serious problems – not only with a skewed perception of America in the world today, but with American and Western perceptions of the priorities of the Arab and Muslim world – even among the most informed members of both societies.

The five-member panel included Richard Perle, an outspoken hawk and former advisor to Donald Rumsfeld, now with the American Enterprise Institute; Abdel Bari Atwan, chief editor of the influential London-based Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arab, also a man not known for soft-spoken rhetoric; Professor Harald Mueller, executive director of the Peace Research Institute in Frankfurt; Charles A. Kupchan, professor of international relations at Georgetown University; and the Al Jazeera correspondent to the United Nations in New York, Abderrahim Foukara. The title of the discussion, moderated by Die Zeit Editor-at-Large Theo Sommer, “Making the World Safe for Democracy: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence,“ was clearly a misnomer. All the panel members dismissed out of hand the idea of a “clash of civilizations”. But a wide divergence in mutual understanding often became explosive.

The Iraq war, a major concern for voters in the upcoming election, has, as I write this in mid-August, taken a backseat in the American press to the Olympics, the presidential race, Kobe Bryant, and so on. Nonetheless, this is the story that grips the Arab world. For example, when asked why Arab nations appear to be waiting for the West to solve the desperate situation in Dafur, Sudan, instead of being involved themselves, editor Abdel Bari Atwan elicited an angry response from the audience by replying: “We are too busy with Iraq.“ And Al Jazeera’s Abderrahim Foukara, though a more moderate voice, confirmed Atwan’s position. According to Foukara, every other concern for Muslims in Arab nations and in Europe has receded into the background. That includes even the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the murder of dark-skinned Muslims in their own Muslim country of Sudan. (Only the American Congress has accepted the label of genocide.)

Atwan twice insisted that the war in Iraq was begun to “humiliate Muslims and Arabs” and also repeated the more commonly heard supposition that the war was waged “solely for Israel and oil” and not to promote democracy. He reported that 18,000 Iraqis have been killed so far and over 60,000 wounded, one fourth of them permanently paralyzed. (Figures on Iraqi victims have never been released by a western government, and it is difficult to check the accuracy of Atwan’s figures; but none of the other panel members questioned them.)

Harald Mueller of the Peace Institute in Frankfurt also raised eyebrows and drew Perle’s wrath. Mueller said that although he felt there was no problem between the mainstream West and mainstream Muslims, the threat to peace comes from three sources:

• Osama bin Laden, who sees himself as absolute good against absolute evil empowered by God to create a religious Muslim state vs. George W. Bush, who sees himself in a war of good vs. evil empowered by God to create a hierarchical order run by the American government.
• A clash between radical Islamists and the establishment in Arab countries – i.e., those who want no change, vs. those moderates who do.
• Western mainstream thought, which prefers a world order based on the U.N. and international law vs. George Bush.

Richard Perle took exception with Mueller for supposing “a moral equivalency” between Bush and Bin Laden (Mueller had “preemptively” denied that was his intention in his remarks). He also stated that President Bush does not believe his powers evolve from God, but from the Constitution. Then he demanded proof that the U.S. has as its goal “hierarchical imperialism”. (By this time, the largely German audience was rolling its eyes.) He declared that the terrorists will attack again and far worse than on 9/11, that it is not extremist to want to protect the country, that the U.N. is not in any position to defend the citizens of any country including Muslims – see Bosnia and Kosovo – and that the U.S. has the right to defend itself however it sees fit.

Another gap in perceptions was suggested by both Georgetown Prof. Charles Kupchan and Foukara on a point which may seem self-evident to most Americans: the impact of September 11th on the American psyche. Kupchan described the effect as having “knocked America out of its saddle” (Perle vehemently opposed this description), resulting in a sudden absence of checks and balances in Congress and the justice system, the disappearance of serious political opposition, and the strong move to the right instead of a centrist foreign policy that had served America so well since the Second World War. Kupchan believed the decision to attack Iraq to be the “biggest mistake ever made in U.S. history.“ The only positive thing he could say was that finally there seemed to be discourse in America, which may lead the country back to its centrist course.

Foukara said that Arabs had no concept of the emotional shock caused by 9/11 and underestimate completely how it has affected Americans. But Foukara added that Americans and the West also underestimate the effect on the Muslim world of years of U.N. sanctions on Iraq (which Atwan described as having killed one and a half million Iraqis.)

One of the more difficult problems with what Kupchan called the “war of perceptions” was revealed by the Al Jazeera correspondent in describing Arab satellite media: “It’s about commercialization of sentiment to lock in your audience,” (playing to the crowd rather than reporting objectively). On the American side, an “ask-no-questions-patriotism” supported both the war and the Bush administration, and that sold airtime. The Arabs, who clearly learned a thing or two from the Americans, discovered that moderation in reporting doesn’t do it. The only way to grab their audience is to hammer away at anti-American sentiment. “It is nearly impossible,” Foukara said, “to get a balanced story on the air”.

Raising a considerable number of eyebrows in the Law Center audience, Mr. Perle reiterated his position stated in his book, The End to Evil, that international law and its institutions such as the U.N., are virtually useless. “America has the right to protect itself preemptively and unilaterally,“ he said. “Had America wanted to attack Afghanistan on September 10th no country would have supported the action.”

Except for Atwa, there was consensus among the other four panelists that Arafat is the major hindrance to peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And two members – Perle and Mueller – said that even bringing peace to the Mideast would not solve much.

Perle, Kupchan, Mueller and Foukara all said they did not expect a great difference in American foreign policy if Kerry wins the election. Kupchan thought there would be a move to the center and towards international cooperation again, but that it is a different world today. “The Atlanticists in Europe and the East Coast liberals who controlled the government in the U.S. after WWII are disappearing. Schroeder’s (anti-American) stance at the U.N. before the Iraq war would never have happened with Kohl.” (Note: It’s highly unlikely that Kohl, an Atlanticist like most of his generation, would have ever opposed the U.S.)

At the end of three absorbing hours, it was an Israeli woman in the audience, Professor Yael Metser, vice president of the University of Haifa, who injected a momentary flash of hope into the gloom of the auditorium. She movingly described her transition as a leader of the Israeli peace movement to her view today of the utter impossibility of any dialogue with the Palestinians under Arafat. But, she said, she believed in efforts like the Bucerius Summer School and panel discussions like the one we were attending, and, with a catch in her voice, said she still hoped that someday we would have a world where her children and Mr. Atwan’s children could meet and talk without hatred.