In the Cold War era, the global confrontation was basically ideological. Two radically different socio-political blueprints were pitted against each other: democracy and capitalism on the one side, one-party-rule and communism on the other. The opponents, then, were two superpowers and their allies -- all sovereign states. Today, the nature of the global confrontation has altered dramatically.
Many conflicts have become religious and the nature of the combatants has changed. On the one side of the divide stand those governments that profess to fight for democratic and liberal values, the other side is taken up by religious fundamentalists. The "democrats" represent sovereign states, the religious fighters are organized in informal networks, movements and insurgency groups.
The new international order seems far less orderly than the one left behind a decade and a half ago. The premature, if not naive assumption that the collapse of the Soviet Union would herald "the end of history" is constantly and brutally refuted in many parts of the world. Compared with the state of world affairs today, the Cold War-era resembles a period of international tranquility.
One of the striking (and also disturbing) features of the new world "disorder" is that the US has not found a successful recipe to deal with Islamic extremism. On the contrary: Much of what Washington has been doing in the past two years has played into the hands of the extremists.
All along, those opposing the war in Iraq have argued that military aggression and occupation are counterproductive and strategically wrong. Interestingly, this contention is now seconded in a report by the US Defense Science Board, an advisory panel of the Pentagon that says the US is failing in its long-term strategic efforts: "In stark contrast to the Cold War, the US today is not seeking to contain a threatening state empire, but rather seeking to convert a broad movement within Islamic civilization to accept the value structure of Western modernity -- an agenda hidden within the official rubric of `War on Terrorism.'"
According to the report this is a strategic mistake. Unfortunately, the military confrontation in the Arabian deserts and the underlying clash of Western modernity versus fundamentalist rejection of this world view has had negative repercussions throughout the globe. These are felt everywhere Muslims and Christians live side by side.
With its large Muslim minorities from Northern Africa and Turkey, Western Europe is a case in point. Ironically, the Netherlands, arguably the most liberal of all countries, has become a battleground of what journalists term a "clash of cultures."
The brutal killing of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in early this month by a zealous Muslim immigrant has provoked a violent backlash in the form of bombings, fires and vandalism at numerous mosques. All this has occurred in a country thus far considered a haven of religious peace and tolerance.
During a recent trip to Europe I could sense the collective agitation. To say the Dutch are in a state of collective shock is no exaggeration. Some argue the relationship between Christian majorities and Muslim minorities may never be the same again.
"The future integration of its Muslim populations is the subtext to just everything Europe thinks and does these days," says a US commentator in the Netherlands. Most discussions in Europe related to the Muslim issue have two common denominators.
First, Europeans see the events in the Netherlands as a reminder that the government's immigration policies have failed to reach their primary objective -- the integration of the newly arrived Muslims as citizens with equal rights and obligations. Today, many Muslim immigrants are without jobs, many don't speak the local language and remain culturally alienated and segregated in what German observers term "parallel societies." These Muslim "enclaves" in Western countries have become breading grounds for Islamic fundamentalism.
While a lack of opportunities for integration is one aspect, the unwillingness on the side of many Muslim immigrants to become a part of the social mainstream is another.
"We Muslims lack a theology of integration," says Mohammed Aman Hobohm, a leading member of the Central Committee of Muslims in Germany.
According to Hobohm, the Koran offers no guidelines to Muslims on how to behave in non-Muslim environments.
Recent developments in Holland pose fundamental challenges to European societies and political classes. Everyone seems to agree the state must defend the citizens against attacks from religious and other fanatics. But just how far should and may the liberal state go to curb illiberal behavior?
In Europe, this has become more than a question of police tactics. There is a general consensus that more should be done to integrate the Muslim minorities into the European mainstream.
But this policy -- from a liberal vantage point -- has limitations: At what stage does a well-intended policy aimed at integrating a religiously and culturally different group become coercive and oppressive -- and thus incompatible with the underlying liberal principles of religious tolerance and acceptance of diversity? This is a political tightrope walk for all governments concerned, and thus far no side has come up with a clear cut response.
Ironically, all this is happening in a highly secular environment in which the separation of church and state is not the exception but the rule. Regarding the role of religion in public life and politics, Western Europe and the US are poles apart.
The re-election of US President George W. Bush is but one indicator of the political power of religion in the US. In this regard, Europe is still rather different. Some even say recent trans-Atlantic alienation is also caused by differing perceptions on religion.
But here, too, Europe may well be in for some change. Many Europeans are asking whether their secular societies are not in need of more religion. In light of the growing problems of the modern welfare state and rampant materialism, those advocating metaphysical restoration seem to be on the rise. For them, more religion is the answer to widespread nihilism in European societies.
Ronald Meinardus is the resident representative of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in the Philippines and a commentator on Asian affairs. Send comments to liberal@fnf.org.ph
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS