The "holy war"” “” “

If there is truly a holy war to be fought, it is the struggle for dignity, in the name of universal brotherhood “It’s not a conflict between Oussama Ben Laden and the United States, but between Islam and the West!”. His name is Muhammad, he’s a 25-year-old Afghan, met by the special correspondent of Le Croix as he left a shop in Peshawar, in Pakistan, on 8 October 2001. Good Moslem that he is, Muhammad is ready to leave for his country in the event of an American invasion, to fight “the jihad”, the holy war. On the very same day, the British Prime Minister told the estimated 40 million Arab TV viewers of the Al-Jazira network that this is “a war against terrorism, not a war against Islam”. Tony Blair against Muhammad, George Bush against Ben Laden, crusade against jihad: how should this war be described? Many commentators in the West over the last month have had recourse to the theory of Samuel Huntington on the “conflict between civilizations” which is destined, according to the Harvard professor, to characterize the development of international relations at this start of the new millennium. Some recognize in him a visionary virtue: Muhammad would end up being proved right and Tony Blair wrong. Others deny him any competence and fear that so manicheist a vision of the future does nothing but generate further violence. Would it not be more prudent to reject both these clichés? It is wrong to encapsulate Islam in a single homogeneous world view that would tie this religion in an ontological way to the various forms of fanaticism that represent its violent fringe. It is equally stupid to reduce the whole of the West to a neo-laissez-faire expansionist logic, and even more so to see in it the seal of Christianity. In the same way, it is misguided to reduce everything to a supposed “conflict between civilizations”, or – contrariwise – to repudiate any ideological dimension of the conflict in course. We need to renounce reductive slogans, both on the one side and on the other, and the too easy game of opposing the one to the other. How then are we to describe the times in which we are living? By assuming the thankless task of reflecting on their complexity and at the same time by paying due attention to their nuances. Let’s take three characteristic dimensions. – Globalization. It is situated at the very heart of the current crisis. It is in reaction against Western expansionism and the globalization of trade (of which the United States is the master and the World Trade Center was the symbol) that the attacks of 11 September were launched. Now, this logic is far from creating unanimous consent in the West:: the ever more violent demonstrations on the occasion of international summits (think of the recent disturbances in Genoa) are striking proof of this. – The characterization of the conflict. Both George Bush and Oussama Ben Laden see in it a struggle of “good” against “evil”. Each declares himself to be the defender of the former, and hence feels himself invested with the mission to eradicate the latter. Such a perspective inevitably falls into the trap of the logic of war: the two protagonists have been unable to avoid it, speaking openly of either a “crusade” (Bush) or of a “jihad” (Bin Laden). In this case too, we need to steer clear of clichés frought with so strong a homicidal potential. – What’s at stake in this conflict. Given there is a conflict, we need to overcome it. But we also need to remain clear-sighted and reasonable. We must avoid profiting from an ideological conflict for political and economic advantages. The bottom line, which must not be overstepped, is clear in this case: namely, the need to protect the interests of the poorest persons and peoples. Contrary to what is stated by another over-exploited cliché, the present conflict is not even a war of the poor against the rich. Nonetheless, the finest victory that the partisans of freedom could achieve consists in finally learning to share their wealth with the disinherited. Only in this way will the world escape the pitfalls of this crisis that has already exposed it to scenes of such horror. There is no conflict of civilizations. Rather, the whole of our so-called civilized world must continue to feel the shock that stunned it, on 11 September. It should do so by renouncing its perception of itself as being masters of the world or, what is worse, its placing God at the service of this pernicicious claim; and by assigning a more rightful place to all the human beings, whatever their horizon and their religion, who continue not to have a place at our table. If there is truly a holy war to be fought, it is the struggle for this dignity, in the name of the universal brotherhood of all the children of God. Michel Kubler Editor in chief of the daily “la Croix” (Paris)