Discussion of Whether or Not Cultural Conflict is on the Increase in the Third World

by Dawn Hunt

 

 

This essay will open with highlighting the differences in the attitudes of the West and Middle East and how each society views one another.  Also, it is worth stressing that the differences and clashes of societies in this essay will be that of the West and Middle East, since there has been so much documented friction and trouble between these two societies, as opposed to the West and other parts of the Third World.

 

After all, there are many areas in the Third World where societies are very different, yet they do not clash with so many sparks and repercussions as the West and Middle east.  

 

Another valid point worth drawing attention to is that “there are different ways in which the world has been divided.  The division between the affluent North and significantly poorer South is very obviously economic.  On the other hand, the division between West and East hinges on cultural, religious and of an ideological nature” (Huntington 32).

 

There are many stark differences in culture how the West perceives someone from the Middle East and vice versa.

 

There is a lot to be said for the West and its attitude towards the Third World in general, more specifically, its arrogant perception of the Middle East.

 

“The West still views the Middle East as culturally inferior, backward and undemocratic.  In the words of R. Stephen Humphries, they are all alike.  From the dour ghostly smile of a terrorist to the high-ranking Muslim cleric, they fill the air with cries of revenge and terrorising threats…” (Gerner 384).

 

Unfortunately, these sentiments spring from decades of images on our TV screens of perhaps hijackings by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) terrorist attacks by Middle Eastern militants or more recently, a chilling message from the likes of al-Qaeda via the Arab TV station al-Jazeera.  We remember the calls by President Reagan in the eighties for the Iranians to release the fifty American hostages, but can we ever recall a positive account of some one from the Middle East in a more humanitarian perspective?

 

Since independence, the Middle Eastern states have endured a catalogue of instabilities.  There have been numerous wars and uprisings, from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, to the Iranian revolution of 1979. The ethnicity varies from state to state, but on the whole “they are extremely proud of their achievements, language, culture and their belief in Islam” (Lindsey, Ch. 13).

 

On a positive note, the oil-rich states, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, have turned their newfound wealth into building on their infrastructure, improving education and healthcare standards.  Above all, throughout the Middle Eastern states, they have created a system of bourgeois classes.

 

Since independence, the Middle East, like other parts of the Third World, has had to reassert its identity especially with the spread of globalisation.

 

Against the backdrop of debate over the reason for the recent resurgence of Islam, I strongly agree that “the recent resurgence of Islam is both an assertion of identity and reactionary” (Burgat, 126).

 

Just as we in the West see Arabs and Islam in a negative light, they, too, have a distorted view of us.

 

For example, “they see Westerners as always in a hurry to get things done. Rather than having an interest in the well-being of the whole, they see Westerners as selfish, individualist and placing value on material and economic gain.  Rather than choosing to live their religion, Westerners only worship one morning a week and let their women run wild, with little regard for family values” (Lindsey, Ch.13).

 

It is hard to ignore the isolationist attitude taken on by the West, especially since the collapse of communism and the U.S. emerging as the one remaining super-power. The U.S. has been the epicentre for Western hegemony, adopting more and more of a unilateral approach to foreign policy throughout the nineties.  Its us and them stance towards the rest of the world has very clearly and obviously prompted people to question its leaning towards big business, instead of signing up to key initiatives, most notably the Kyoto Agreement. 

 

With major anti-capitalist protests both in Seattle and Prague in recent years, there seems to have been a marked beginning to Western decline. People have started to educate themselves through things like the internet and the work of non-state actors, such as NGOs, as to the widening gap between the haves and have knots, rich and poor and most especially, governments and the people. 

 

Since the end of the Cold War, we have entered into a stand off between ideals, i.e., democratic verses non-democratic, the Christian righteous and Islamic extremism, globalisation verses a resurgence in national identity.  Not to mention corporate exploitation verses indigenous uprising, thus reclaiming their languages and traditions.

 

In spite of globalising trends, “between 1958 and 1992, Western languages were on the decline from 24.1% to 20.8%.   English only remaining as a convenient tool for universal communication” (Huntington, 58-60).

 

Terrorism has been on a steady increase throughout the nineties, from an attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, to other attacks on mainly U.S. targets and installations in the years that followed.  The terrorists have always been of Middle Eastern or non-Western origin.  Also, since these attacks have been of high profile in the Western media, there is a gross misconception that “Western democracies are only ever targeted, leading people to believe that there could be no such thing as Western terrorism” (George, Ch. 4).

 

 In his book Western State Terrorism, Alexander George highlights just a few case studies of Western-backed terrorism.  This book highlights the campaign of terrorism by the Salvadoran army on its own people. 

 

In this example, like in many others, the terrorist themselves might not have been from the U.S. directly, but the money and agents in the weapons used to kill civilians were directly supplied by both the U.S. and Israel. According to this text, even an American soldier testified that what was being shown in the media was a lie, because what was really happening could be called an example of genocide.  In the case of El Salvador, no one would think to suspect the C.I.A. of any corrupt wrongdoing, but it was clearly the case that the intelligence surrounding the resistance was fabricated.

 

More often than not, the U.S. or other Western states have overreacted with extreme counterterrorist measures, as we witnessed in the eighties when President Reagan pounded Colonel Gadhaffi’s base in a response to terrorist activities carried out by Libya.  In this way, “when the liberal state over-reacts to counter terrorism, it runs the risk of having adverse affects” (Chalk, 98).

 

There are several examples of terrorism perpetrated by the West in a bid for economic gain or to further its power in the world, just as there   are countless reasons for animosities towards the West throughout the Third World.  Both the IMF and World Bank plunging Third World nations  into hopeless states of indebtedness, while the Western countries enjoy booming economies for years at a time.  The sheer power that mostly the U.S. has yielded, not just through post Cold War unilateralism, but Western terrorism… 

 

“The term terrorism itself was coined to describe the will to induce fear and anxiety within a society.  The act of terrorism itself is a violent resistance to the state or used by the state, to obtain its own objective.  We are led to believe that all terrorists are irrational madmen; however, terrorism mostly springs from an ideology or objective which has its own reasoning, whether liberal states agree or not” (Crenshaw, 379-380).

 

Three years ago, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, President George Bush stated, “You are either with us or with the terrorists”, i.e. taking the narrow view that if you are not with us you are against us and we will wipe out anyone who opposes us.  The U.S. coined the phrase “the war on terror,” just as Osama Bin Laden declared Jihad (holy war) on the West. 

 

There is no getting away from the fact that the U.S., the leading country of all other Western societies, has slipped from being an admired, well-respected leader, to the most hated nation on Earth.

 

There are countless examples of the U.S. going against its own self-styled principles in the name of its own self interests.  For example, to fund and support the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, just for the sake of directly opposing the Soviets.  This has happened a number of times throughout the last century, and when the regime suddenly turns on the U.S., as the Taliban did by harbouring Osama Bin Laden, the U.S. stands on a moral high ground to justify carpet-bombing them out of power, demonising them, further fuelling the cycle of hate between two societies and cultures.

 

In closing, it could simply be said that the “war on terror” could be code words for a campaign strategy for the war on non-Western, non-democratic societies.  With religion making a marked come back on both sides of the cultural divide, both George Bush and Osama Bin Laden have made it a point of using God/Allah as a precursor for waging war and terrorism.

 

Both British and especially U.S. foreign policy is riddled with double-standards. In Ziauddin Sardar and Marrylwyn Davies’ book Why Do People Hate America they highlight a catalogue of double-standards.  The fact that America constantly urges other nations to be more democratic is now considered empty hot air by anyone with any amount of political awareness.   Despite the fact that, as we saw in the presidential elections of 2000, the most non-democratic means of getting George Bush in to power were exercised as large sections of the electorate cast votes that were rendered invalid.  The U.S. often interferes in the elections of other countries, backing a favoured candidate, instead of simply standing back and letting the democratic process prevail in a Third World country.  As Sardar and Davies point out, there is a constant reference to “rogue states” by both the U.S. and British governments, yet with the likes of Cuba, China, Russia, and others combined, they still wouldn’t match the military might and supremacy of that of the U.S. military. 

 

Carpet bombs weighing several tons are no match for the Jihadist simply armed with his will and maybe a rocket-propelled grenade.  In making this point, what we in the West call a terrorist or insurgent may simply be a viable resistance to Western ideology, power and will.  An Iraqi or Palestinian will willingly stand up and fight or even die for his land, culture, way of life and strong religious beliefs.

 

The double-standards and arrogant attitudes do not stop with the U.S. alone, but they do ripple throughout the West.  Tony Blair has said more than once that the British government will stand shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. in the war on terror.  Also, in another example of answering terrorism with terrorism—if terrorism means to spread fear and anxiety, we can quite easily say our leaders are terrorists. 

 

They have continued since September 11^th, to use tactics to raise fear and anxiety among people.   Under the guise of the possibility of a terrorist attack, security measures have tightened around key government buildings.  Now there is talk in the media of using identity cards. As the noose tightens, these knee-jerk measures will infringe on the very civil liberties that the liberal state promotes. Not to mention the fact that our leaders have become so paranoid of the monsters and demons of mainly Islamic societies that they are making fools of themselves and of us ordinary citizens.

 

In the Middle East, the people and children are not urged to fear the West, but simply to hate it.  In Palestine, a child as young as eight can aspire to become a suicide bomber, due to the hatred for Israel.     

 

In a recent article published in The Guardian, war photo-journalist Kevin Sites wanted to explain his reasoning for documenting and filming a U.S. Marine shooting a wounded Iraqi.  He explained how he spoke to several people following the incident, including a commanding officer of the Marines, who was quoted as saying, “We’re the good guys.  We’re Americans.  We’re fighting a gentlemen’s war here, because we don’t do beheadings.  We do not come down to the same level as the people we are combating.”

 

This statement says it all!  Until arrogant, supremist attitudes like that of the commanding officer are changed, the clash between societies can never be overcome.

 

 

Click here to return to Dawn’s Rants