|
The Next Clash of Civilisations?
The real battle is not between the West and Islam,
but between the world's elite and the growing movement
against it
OpenDemocracy, January 2002
'Hey mister!' the voice has good-natured mockery in
it. I am the only white man in the market, probably
the first for months, and a natural target. 'Hey mister!
You wanna buy t-shirt?' The young Indonesian is grinning
at his own wit, and holding up a black top with a huge
print of the world's most famous terrorist on it. 'Osama',
it reads, 'is my hero'.
Two weeks before, and thousands of miles away from
that Indonesian street market, demonstrators gather
in Johannesburg for a march against the Afghan war.
Maybe a dozen of the few hundred present are Muslims,
but they are not the ones holding the posters and wearing
the t-shirts that say 'Osama: innocent until proven
guilty', 'America: world's number one terrorist' and,
again, and disturbingly, 'Bin Laden is my hero'.
A town square in central Bolivia; not a noted stronghold
of Islamic fundamentalism. Dozens are gathered around
two head-high sandwich boards which have been planted
on the pavement. They are covered in pictures of the
carnage left by the World Trade Center attacks. 'America',
reads the script at the top, 'you reap what you sow.'
In the few months before and since the September 11th
attacks, I have travelled through six countries, on
four continents, all classified to some degree or another
as 'developing', only one (Indonesia) strongly Islamic,
and in all I have seen similar scenes played out. In
all, I have seen and heard intelligent people driven
by some hatred of the West and of America, symbol of
its power, lauding, defending or justifying the actions
of a mass murdering Saudi millionaire who they had probably
never heard of last August, and still know next to nothing
about.
Perhaps you think you know this already. Perhaps those
pictures of people across the Islamic world apparently
celebrating on September 11th have made it clear to
you that the anger at America and its allies runs deeper
than imagined. Or perhaps the notion of the citizens
of poor, ex-colonies - still suffering while the West
wallows in affluence - turning to someone, anyone, who
defies the New World Order doesn't surprise you. Perhaps
we all like to stick two fingers up at the school bully
when we think he's not looking. Perhaps it's no big
deal.
Or perhaps, like the US president, the director-general
of the WTO, the British prime minister and many others,
you think this is primarily an economic problem. Perhaps
it represents an understandable, if not justifiable,
reaction to the hogging of economic hegemony by the
West. Perhaps you think that what these people, these
misled supporters of a fundamentalist killer, need now
is more market access, more exports, more jobs in maquiladoras,
more credit, more televisions. Perhaps you believe in
what the US trade representative Robert Zoellick calls
'countering terror with trade'; an extension of the
American journalist Thomas Friedman's famous 'golden
arches theory of conflict prevention' (no two countries
with a McDonalds restaurant have ever gone to war: ergo,
globalisation is a force for peace. Apparently, he was
serious.)
And perhaps you're right. Perhaps too, though, this
undercurrent of resentment and hatred which people all
over the world continue to feel for the West and all
that it represents is something more than that. Something
deeper. Something that neither showers of money nor
showers of bombs can solve. If so, what?
Generalising about half the world is clearly a mug's
game, but it may be, still, that this has something
to do with an aspect of globalisation, and the opposition
to it, which is rarely mentioned, but which may even
be the key to the whole puzzle: something called culture.
Something which is mostly unseen, taken for granted,
ill-defined, until it is threatened, and which then
has the power to create more discord, rebellion and
opposition than mere economics ever could.
Samuel Huntingdon must be rubbing his hands. His 'clash
of civilisations' thesis has been given a new lease
of life since September 11th. 'Is it true?' asks the
breathless voice of the global chattering classes. 'Is
western capitalism, and its faithful retainer, liberal
democracy, destined to plunge into conflict with an
implacable foe which cannot be won over by new trade
rounds, representative democracy, broad band internet
connections and 24-7 cash machines? Was it not, after
all, the End Of History?'
Some of us, in what is unsatisfyingly termed the 'anti-globalisation'
movement, have been talking about a clash of civilisations
for years. Not in those terms, though, and not of a
clash between Islam and the West (this movement has
never had a footing in the Islamic world; which in itself
raises questions about how truly 'global' it is). Instead,
we have talked about a clash of worldviews - of cultures
- that has been sparked by the new wave of corporate
capitalism unleashed over the last two decades. This
clash is between two distinct forces.
One is a fundamentally materialistic worldview, driven
by multinational companies, politicians and their handmaidens
in multinational agencies like the World Bank, WTO and
IMF. It sees people as consumers, nations as markets,
the natural environment as a bundle of resources ripe
for profitable extraction and unique, ancient cultures
as demographics. The other is a vast, massing, often
confused but potentially hugely powerful collection
of opponents, numbering tens of millions around the
world, who see life in quite different terms.
This may represent a real clash of civilisations; a
clash between the destructive, homogenising force of
the West's capitalist economic model, and the diverse,
varied, hectic alternatives that every day are destroyed
by it. And this clash is what leads many people across
the world - people with no connection to Islam or support
for the ultimate objectives of Bin Laden - to jump for
joy at the horrific humbling of the USA. It doesn't
make them right. But it does mean that the West and
its increasingly smug politicians had better start realising
what they are up against, before their whole edifice
comes tumbling down.
Do I exaggerate? Again, perhaps, but there is reason
to think not. Since July last year I have been visiting
centres of resistance to the global economy all over
the world. Ostensibly there is no obvious connection
between black South Africans in Soweto, tribal people
in West Papua, indigenous rebels in Mexico, urban trades
unionists in Bolivia, anti-dam campaigners from India
and landless farmers in Brazil. What ties them all together,
though, is that idea of culture. Partly a defence of
their traditional cultural values which are so alien
to the West; close communities, shared land, utterly
different conceptions of nature, work, family, which
the global economy destroys in order to thrive. But
also, more broadly than this, a collection of values
which might be called a global culture of resistance
- values which link these people to the protesters on
the streets of Seattle, Prague, Genoa, and Brussels.
Values which underpin the anti-globalisation movement,
and make it stronger than most in the West imagine it
to be.
What might these values - this alternative culture
- be? There is no roadmap, but some themes are clear.
Opponents of the neoliberal machine believe in diversity
- cultural, individual, ecological, economic - over
homogeneity. They believe that one global model can
never fit all, and talk, in the words of Mexico's Zapatista
rebels, of 'a world in which many worlds can fit'; the
precise opposite of the McWorld that globalisation is
imposing. They believe in certain common aspects of
life which cannot and should not ever be commodified
or privatised by global economic interests; water, agriculture,
the airwaves, the atmosphere, traditional knowledge,
biological diversity, gene lines and more; a concept
some call the 'global commons'. They believe in communities
exercising their own form of democracy and gaining genuine
control over their land and resources. They reject centralisation
and tend to be suspicious of both big government and
big corporations, and of traditional ideologies, left
or right. All this they sum up in their most well-worn
slogan: 'our world is not for sale.'
This, everywhere I have been, is the rallying cry of
the many diverse people and movements that represent
the growing opposition to an economic model which is
eating them alive. It represents a frustration felt
by millions, and may provide an alternative to celebrating
mass murder as the only outlet for kicking back at the
West. This is a new culture in the making; a global
culture, formed of many, many older ones, which is heading
straight towards the culture of neoliberalism at breathtaking
speed.
It looks, to me, like the beginning of a real clash
of civilisations. How, where and with what effect that
clash will happen will be determined by the actions
of both sides. But it will.
|
|