Conference Cites a Growing Gap in Muslim-Western Relations By Michael Shank Richmond Times-Dispatch[WEBSITE VERSION] Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Last week in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia's Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, suffering internal political setbacks and susceptible to overthrow by opposition, hosted a major tete-a-tete on the growing gap between the Muslim world and the West. The prime minister is a moderate; his agenda was laudable: to strategize sensible solutions to bridge the divide between Islam and countries considered quintessentially "western," with particular emphasis on the United States, the European Union, and Australia.
That the word "divide" was from the onset divisive -- as the Malaysian government preferred the softer-toned "gap" -- was emblematic of the troubles in convening any kind of consensus on conciliatory measures. To me, one of the Western few invited, it quickly became apparent in KL that the divide is deeply entrenched and any bridge-building requires a radically different approach than either the West or the Muslim world seems ready to muster.
At Badawi's beckoning, the Muslim world's representation at this dialogue was no doubt formidable. Former ambassador to the U.S., nephew of King Abdullah, and head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence service, Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud sat prominently at the forum fore, flanked by Pakistan's former Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference (governing 57 Islamic states) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. From the West, former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Bondevik was perhaps the most noteworthy of notables, with France, Spain, Australia, and Britain sending assembly speakers, ambassadors, parliamentarians, and undersecretaries, respectively. America's ambassador to the OIC, Sada Cumber, had intended to come to KL but was waylaid at the last minute.
Given the presence of such political heavyweights at the table, one might imagine that talk would be fully fluff with little substance and ample pomp and circumstance. Naturally, and not surprisingly, this occurred. The Malaysian government, like any self-respecting Southeast Asian nation, knows how to host with honorifics -- and Hotel Shangri-La, certainly, was sufficiently glam. But despite the governmental gloss, the discursive meat of the matter was meted out. Prior to Badawi's call for accountability from both parties, Western and Muslim, the dignitaries denoted a certain level of indignation ill-suited for the summoning of solutions.
Here lies the rub. Too often Western and Muslim leaders take issue with the other's house, as disorderly as it may be, without first getting their own house in order. The West is quick to call foul on Islamic republics' stance on civil liberties, human rights, and religious fundamentalism, while Muslim leaders decry Western interventionist inconsistency in promoting freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East. From conflicts over the pace and progress of democratic reforms to religious demagoguery routing Palestinian-Israeli relations, the finger-pointing is persistent -- with little listening from either leadership.
Internal housekeeping then is in order. For the West, it must lead by example. To be taken seriously in the Muslim world vis-a-vis the protection of civil liberties and human rights, cases like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib must never happen. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling ensuring habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees is a step in the right direction.
However, if the U.S. wants to effectively promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East, more difficult steps are required. American allies in the Muslim world -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and even Pakistan -- must be subject to the same rigorous rigmarole that Syria and Iran receive. No amount of "war on terrorism" waxing by Washington can justify a quiet voice on the curtailment of women's rights in Riyadh or the occasional martial law by coup-installed Pakistan President Musharraf. Consistency is critical and anything less will be roundly rejected in the Muslim world.
For the Muslim world, the work is of equal weight. On this, Badawi may well be showing the way. Islamic republics, according to Badawi, can and should be modern, democratic, and tolerant. Quick to promote good governance that is, in his words, "fair and just to all, irrespective of race or religion," and to condemn extremism, noting that "Islam abhors terrorism," Badawi is ever watchful over the welfare of his "multireligious and multiracial society." Kuala Lumpur's diverse population is testament to this creed: a city characterized by women clad in either veil or the shortest of Versace skirts. The contrast is compelling and serves as a tenable template for a more tolerant society.
Either way, there is cleanup needed first on the home front, before Muslim-West talks in Malaysia can measure some modicum of success. The simultaneous coordination of internal assessments would be a sound start. Amending past wrongs would go even further in bridging the divide. (Australia's recent introspection into its colonial past and concomitant apologies set an excellent precedent here.)
Short of these steps, one can expect more finger-pointed pontificating, more defensiveness, and an evermore unbridgeable gap. The time is now to look within and come clean.
Michael Shank is an analyst at George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. Contact him at (703) 993-3655 or http://michaelshank.net.