This article was published in a slightly different version at Iran's View that includes a comment on Obama's first speech in an American Mosque in Baltimore on February 3, 2016.
Values and the West's double standards approach to ethical pluralism.
Values and the West's double standards approach to ethical pluralism.
Ethical pluralism is focused on individual
preferences in modern pluralistic societies.
It does not dictate what is ethical or what is not. It only creates a space for rational dialogue
on the diversity of values aimed at reaching a consensus within the limits of
reason. Ethical pluralism is practised
in the West for controversial moral issues like abortion, gay rights and
Euthanasia. Although laws are legislated in
these cases in some Western countries,
in many cases they do not constrain those who oppose them to live by
them. It is believed that ethical
pluralsim creates more tolerance and more freedoms for the individual. The
essence of ethical pluralism is that moral codes cannot be forced, they emerge
by consensus through a rational discourse and dialogue on values.
Within western societies, theorizing ethical diversity and pluralism requires a commitment to dialogue within the limits of reason in order to reach a consensus on values. I am referring here to the Habermasian theory of ethics for modern democratic societies, which Habermas calls ‘Discourse ethics’. These pillars of ethical pluralism are denied by the West when advancing its own set of values in non Western societies.
Within western societies, theorizing ethical diversity and pluralism requires a commitment to dialogue within the limits of reason in order to reach a consensus on values. I am referring here to the Habermasian theory of ethics for modern democratic societies, which Habermas calls ‘Discourse ethics’. These pillars of ethical pluralism are denied by the West when advancing its own set of values in non Western societies.
As such, Western moral values, having emerged by consensus, cannot be forced on other cultures and societies
who did not participate in the rational discourse leading to a consensus on these values. In most non Western societies, values are
anchored, not in individual preferences, but in community norms, elders’ wisdoms
and local laws, which ancient Greeks used to call ‘nomos’. Moreover, in most non Western societies, core values are transmitted between generations, not discussed in the public sphere, where they tend to play a cohesive social role in which the individual self identifies more with the community than with the ego.
There is a tension in the West’s approach to
values which allows the individual a greater space of liberty within Western societies but denies this liberty to individuals in other societies attached to
their traditions and the norms of their communities. In fact, there is a faulty assumption in the West that the individual Self in non-western societies is modeled on the Western Self, despite historical and cultural differences. This tension has become palpable with the
advent of the globalization of markets, cultures and ideas. The West stands as the promoter of one set of
values, its own, over others. In many
cultures, this tension is being tackled differently, either by total
assimilation, peaceful but active resistance, distrust and retreat, or violent resentful
extremism directed against the West in the case of Sunni Islam. Colonialism was built on the assumption that the colonized were different in humanity while globalization is built on the assumption that 'there is no such thing as society' (as Margaret Thatcher famously said) whereby only individuals detached from their historical and cultural roots exist as consumers having an infinite set of preferences determined by the markets.
Ethical pluralism, although unequally
practised by the West, is not part of the relations the West establishes with other
societies, where it is assumed that only individuals exist and that they must consume the product of the ethical consensus built by other individuals in the West. What
we have witnessed so far since 911 is the forcing and enforcing of Western
values through military campaigns, invasions and occupations preceded and
followed by violent backlashes from extremist fundamentalists. Post 911, international
relations have become a domain of confrontations thought to be confrontations of civilizations and values.
Many Muslims today live in communities,
societies and countries which emphasize traditional values and the supremacy of
the community over the individual. However,
Muslims are not the only ones who live in traditions which are antagonists to
Western values, but they are currently the main culture and religion to react and to be targeted by this confrontation of
values and it is mainly Sunni Muslims who are engaged in this confrontation.
A broken dialogue on values.
This is the reason why a dialogue on values is
urgently needed between the West and Muslims.
Some in the West as well as in Muslim countries do not believe in the
dialogue on values, firmly standing on both sides of the values divide, committed
to wars. But others, and they aren’t
many, believe in this dialogue. President Obama articulated his desire for dialogue with Muslims in his Cairo’s discourse early during his first mandate. But due to many factors, including America’s
previous war commitments and voices of confrontation inside his own
administration, Obama wasn’t able to act on his Cairo’s discourse. We will
never know if Obama was sincere about this dialogue. But what we know is that he did not blindly
follow those who wanted a confrontation to the end with Iran. Recently
Ayatollah Khamenei wrote on his twitter account that Obama wrote him a second
letter in 2009 full of affirmative statements about Iran. Khamenei said he had the intention to reply
to the letter but after Obama supported the protests against the government in Iran in 2009 he refrained from doing so. Obama acted against the voices of confrontation with Iran, but not before the
failure of the 2009 colour revolution for regime change. He finally succeeded in reaching a deal with
Iran that, if its implementation is unhindered by more confrontation, should
naturally open a dialogue on values between Muslims and the West.
On the Iranian side, the deal reached between
Iran and the West silenced the voices of confrontation and opened
possibilities to initiate a dialogue between Muslims and the West. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was first to open this dialogue on the values of Islam with his two letters to western youth (January 2015 letter and November 2015 letter). Khamenei’s initiatives came in a context of a renewed wave of Sunni terrorism by ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq
and Syria), more barbaric and more sectarian than the terrorism witnessed since
911, and threatening this time the Near East, the Levant and Europe.
While the nuclear deal was being worked out
between the West and Iran during the year 2015, many terrorist attacks by Sunni
Muslim extremists hit Muslim countries, especially Iraq and Syria, as well as
Europe. Most notable were the attacks in
France claimed by ISIS that attracted wide and sustained attention in Western
media. ISIS is virulently anti-Iran and
anti-Shia. It promotes a return to
the Sunni Caliphate. The first attacks were on January 7th at the
offices of Charlie Hebdo and on a Jewish surpermarket in Paris and its suburb
and killed seventeen and wounded others.
Khamenei’s first letter was published merely two weeks after these
attacks. It spoke of a different kind of
Islam, attempting to educate Western youth on Islam and the real sources of
knowledge on Islam, away from the terrible and negative image that was being
presented to the West by ISIS. The
letter was deliberately addressed to youth.
Khamenei argued that dialogue with Western leaders was futile because
these leaders not only promoted the kind of Muslim extremism embodied by ISIS
but also did not appear to be willing to learn about the true religion of Islam
and Muslims beyond the terrorists clichés. The second series of attacks in
France in 2015 happened on Novembre 13 at the Bataclan concert venue and a café
in Paris and killed hundred and thirty people and wounded many. Ayatollah Khamenei’s second letter to Western
youth was published two weeks later on November 29. In it, Ayatollah Khamenei chides the West for
its double standards towards the victims of terrorism and for the imposition of
Western culture by force uniformly on Muslim societies.
Although the lives lost to terrorism in France
weren’t more precious than other lives taken by blind terrorism elsewhere, the
attacks were alarming, not only because they touched the heart of Europe, its
cultural symbols and its youth, but because they threatened to create a greater
wedge between European and Muslim populations inside and outside Europe, in
neighbouring countries around the Meditterranean basin, and beyond in the Asian
and African continents where the majority of Muslims live. While American neocons, who so much wished
for the clash of civilizations after 911, could observe the increasing wedge
between Muslims and non Muslims far from their own shores separated and
shielded from this clash by two oceans, Europe is increasingly becoming the
theatre of the clash.
A clash of values is not a clash of civilizations
What is the
nature of the clash between Sunni extremism and the West? It is important to make a distinction here
between the clash of civllizations and the clash of values. While the clash of civilizations includes
also a clash of values, it is about more than values. It is confrontational in essence because
civilizations aim for self preservation and fight against their annihilation. The term ‘civilization’ means not only values
but a geopolitical, economic and military space. The clash of values can be resolved through
dialogue. Values tend to evolve slowly
and by consensus according to each society’s needs. They can intersect between two civilizations
and they can be passed on peacefully between civilizations. Many civilizations’
values evolve from the inside, but also from contacts with other
civlizations. In the ancient times,
these contacts were mostly established through wars. The citizens of ancient Greece considered non
Greeks as barbarians and non humans because ancient Greece was a ‘closed’
civilization. This perception changed
during the Hellenistic period after contacts were made by Alexander the great
with other civilizations through conquest and wars.
The term ‘clash of civilizations’ is greatly misleading. It implies a confrontation. It is both a testimony to the
neocons’ warring agenda as well as to their backward thinking. Wars aren’t needed today to establish contacts
with other civilizations. Today’s means
of communication are many, multi-level, fast and easy.
The fall of the former communist bloc
countries should have led us to a more cooperative, less confrontational world,
militarily speaking. Instead, the
neocons created the clash of civilizations to produce more wars and more
confrontations to advance American hegemony in a unipolar world. With 911 and its aftermath, Sunni Muslim
terrorism, initially born out from the collaboration of America’s cold war
ideology & Sunni Wahhabism against the former communist bloc, set the scene
worldwide for a spectacular and threatening clash of values, mistaken for a
clash of civilizations. Wherever there
was a clash of values, the neocons created wars resembling a clash of civilizations
with their lot of humiliations, provocations and blasphemy of religious
symbols, leading to a greater clash of
values, reinforcing in a loop the ‘clash of civilizations’.
It is Europe and Asia where most people on the
planet, and most Muslims live, that are set to take the full impact of this clash being prepared for decades now by the neocons. The neocons’ game in Europe is to treat Europe’s woes resulting from a clash
of values between east and west,
between north and south, with more
confrontations and wars.
This is the post 911 reality created by the
neocons. A world that has every possible tool to make communication and
dialogue on many issues, including values, easy and natural, yet is locked in
confrontations and wars. As often, it takes two to dance. The neocons’ project to produce a clash of
civilizations is greatly helped by resentful extremism and its
state sponsors.
To be aware of this post 911 reality is to
make everything possible to prevent a great war in Europe and its geopolitical
surroundings. And fortunately for us,
the majority of Muslims do not want this clash of civilizations which has been hurting Muslim countries and Muslims more than others. Fortunately for us too, Iran refuses to
engage in the clash of civilizations.
Amid the tensions of the post 911 world, Iran has shown the world it can
make peace without losing its dignity. I have argued elsewhere that both the nuclear deal and Khamenei’s letter to
western youth form a coherent approach by Iran to treat the woes of Islam and
show the West that there is an alternative to confrontation with Islam and
Muslims, that there is an alternative to terrorism.
Those in the West who want a dialogue on
values with Muslims to peacefully resolve differences instead of a clash of
civilizations and wars can now count on Iran’s leadership. A dialogue
on values can be much more enriching than the forcing of western values on
Muslim societies. A dialogue on values
doesn’t and shouldn’t end by one set of values taking on another but by finding
common ground amid differences. That’s
the essence of communication and diplomacy and the respect for the dingity of
others and our common humanity.
Russia, which has worked hard to end Iran’s isolation, has a diplomacy that instinctively understands the potential of resolving the issue of the clash of civilizations that feeds
today’s devastating terrorism eating at the heart of all these civilizations. Because Russia's neighbour, Europe, is by excellence the theatre
for this clash. And because a clash of
civilizations that counts on terrorism to provoke a confrontation of
values will undoubtedly lead to the end
of civilizations.
The US however, despite the
nuclear deal and the recent détente with Iran, is still very much sitting on the fence,
between war and peace. Hesitations and
mixed messages, as well as Obama’s end of mandate, risk annihilitating the
dialogue that the Iran deal is promising, putting the initiative back in the hands of the neocons.
As I wrote in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, a dialogue on values is urgently needed to
silence the voices of confrontation. The clash of civilizations is an idea as backward as the barbaric terrorism it sets out to explain... and fight... by curtailing our civil liberties and creating an artificial wedge between civilizations otherwise destined to increase their common ground in an era of rapid communications where societies are becoming more open and more welcoming.
The promoters of the clash of civilizations are the new enemies of the Open Society.
The promoters of the clash of civilizations are the new enemies of the Open Society.
Since March 29th 2006