Misperceptions all round

Misperceptions all round

By Anak Agung Banyu Perwita

ADELAIDE, Australia (JP): The terrorist attacks in the United
States last week has provided a new dimension to the political
relationship between the West, particularly the U.S., and the
signs of a reemergence of global political Islam in the post-Cold
War era. This era has enabled the emergence of culture and
religion as a new mainstream in global interactions. Religion is
even seen to pose a serious threat to international relations.

The revival of political Islam has become a significant
ideological force in the third world, particularly in the Muslim
world.

The West is convinced that the collapse of communism and the
disintegration of the Soviet Union indicates a significant
emergence of Islam and Islamic potentials in international
relations. This has explained the West's animosity toward Islam
as a religion, or toward "politicized Islam", related to Islamic
awareness. Hence, Islam is considered by the West as the
confronting force leading to the appearance of political Islamic
culture, the new danger in the wake of the demise of Communism.

More importantly, it is perceived by most western countries as
a new threat to world order, replacing the "Soviet threat" as the
principal strategic threat. The Islamic threat is not only seen
to be political, but also demographic and socio-religious.

This "Islamophobia" basically stems from a lack of
understanding about political Islam. Since Islam does not
separate religion and politics, the reassertion of Islam in
politics has been misinterpreted as "Islamic fundamentalism".

In the West, this term connotes terrorist activities,
radicalism, militancy and violence. As the scholar Anoushiravan
Ehteshami argued, the term "Islamic fundamentalism" has been
evaluated from three different perspectives.

First, it can be seen as "a response to the crisis (economic,
political and security) confronting the nation states in the
Middle East".

The second perspective, which is championed by Samuel
Huntington, links the rise of Islamic fundamentalism to a "clash
of civilization".

Huntington writes that the "central axis of world politics" in
the post-Cold War era "will be the interaction of Western power
and culture with the power and culture of non-Western societies
(Islam)". A conflict between civilizations is seen to be
replacing the former Cold War ideological battles.

The third perspective is the linking of fundamentalism to
political Islam, which is associated with the goal and political
program of establishing a worldwide Islamic order.

This goal is said to have been pursued on two related levels:
challenging the status-quo within Muslim countries and increasing
the transnational network of interactions to establish a "pax-
Islamica" (Islamic peace) across the Muslim world.

Misinterpretation of political Islam, then, led to the
perception that in the post-Cold War era, the global conflict is
between the Muslim world and the West.

Surprisingly, some Islamic states seem to confirm Western
perceptions of the Islamic threat by affirming that they will
replace the Soviet Union as the major challenge to the West. Some
Islamic states see their primary task as resisting growing
Western influences on the institutions, policies and, more
importantly, the identity of the Muslim societies "from the
symptoms of Westoxification and socio-cultural contamination".

Hence the West's perceptions of and attitude toward the Muslim
world -- particularly in the U.S. -- have been ambiguous. U.S.
foreign policy makers are divided regarding the Islamic threat.
On one side, there is a belief that Islamic fundamentalism is
virtually the new communism and consequently must be opposed with
whatever means necessary to contain it.

On the other side, the issue is violence and extremism.
Another scholar argues that Americans are in two camps regarding
this issue, namely: confrontationalist and accommodationist.

These two approaches on coping with Islamism differ in three
aspects, namely: their analysis of the underlying factors that
created the Islamist movement; their assessment of whether these
groups pose a threat to the West; and in the policies that they
claim should be implemented to cope with the Islamist movement.

The first camp, which consider political Islam a radical
utopian ideology, believe that, given the significance of the
Islamic menace to the U.S. which could threaten its strategic
interests, the potential political power of Islam should be
battled and defeated.

Some U.S. politicians note that the U.S. should pursue a
coherent strategy for fighting Islamic fundamentalism.

The Islamist movement should not be regarded as a set of
religious activities engaged in politics, but as one involving
political activists who express their pursuit of power in
religious terms. From this perspective, containment and
confrontation is the only realistic way for the West to deal with
Islamism.

Those in the "confrontation" camp call on the U.S. not to
press its Muslim allies, particularly its Middle Eastern friends,
to make concessions on human rights and democratic reforms, but
to maintain the Islamic authoritarian regimes which they believe
can help the U.S. neutralize political Islam.

Meanwhile, the "accommodationist" camp contends that the
Islamic threat has been exaggerated by fears of the spread of
Iran's Islamic revolution.

The significant revival of Islam has emerged in the last two
decades. This revival was mainly motivated by the lack of
economic and social opportunities, and a desire for political
freedom. Therefore, the West needs to help eradicate economic
deprivation, social tensions and political corruption in the
Muslim world.

Conducting "constructive engagement" with the Muslim world
would reduce mutual suspicion and foster mutual understanding
respectively. Western countries should make a distinction
between Islamic movements and militant activities, particularly
as Islamic movements in some parts of the world are known to lack
sufficient military and economic-industrial strength to threaten
the U.S. or any major Western countries.

Furthermore, the movements, both in religious and political
fields, are neither monolithic nor form a coherent political
force. Moreover, they are collections of religious responses to
specific sociopolitical conditions in particular countries. They
even have conflicting national interests and priorities, as the
scholar J L. Eposito argues.

Generalization of the Islamic world could then even become a
political fiasco for the West's interests. Those in the
"accommodationist" camp propose a clear and consistent policy to
encourage democratization in the Muslim world and to build
meaningful cooperation with them.

Conflicts between the West and the Muslim world are largely
due to the inconsistent policy of the U.S. which has supported
corrupt, repressive "friendly tyrants" in the Islamic world
through its long history of economic and military intervention.
Tensions between Islam and the West, therefore, do not come from
a theological perspective.

The writer is a Ph.D candidate at the Asian Studies department
of Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, and lectures on
international relations at the Parahyangan Catholic University in
Bandung, West Java.