As Muslims See It

Osama bin Laden's atrocities are reported to have had a positive effect inspurring democratization in the Arab world. Perhaps what many Iraqis and otherssee as another Mongol invasion will end up having positive consequences as well,though it would be disgraceful for privileged Westerners to leave thatpossibility to chance.

It is comforting to attribute the alleged "clash" between Islam andthe West to their hatred of our freedom and values, as the president proclaimedafter 9/11, or to our curious inability to communicate our true intentions. A NewYork Times headline reads: "US Fails to Explain Policies to MuslimWorld, Panel Says," referring to a study by the Defense Science Board, aPentagon advisory panel, in December 2004.

The conclusions of the panel, however, were quite different. "Muslims donot 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies," the studyconcluded, adding that "when American public diplomacy talks about bringingdemocracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-servinghypocrisy." As Muslims see it, the report continues, "Americanoccupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only morechaos and suffering."

The Defense Science Board study was reiterating conclusions that go back manyyears. In 1958, President Eisenhower puzzled about "the campaign of hatredagainst us" in the Arab world, "not by the governments but by thepeople," who are "on Nasser's side," supporting independentsecular nationalism. The reasons for the "campaign of hatred" wereoutlined by the National Security Council: "In the eyes of the majority ofArabs the United States appears to be opposed to the realization of the goals ofArab nationalism. They believe that the United States is seeking to protect itsinterest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political oreconomic progress." Furthermore, the perception is understandable:"Our economic and cultural interests in the area have led not unnaturallyto close US relations with elements in the Arab world whose primary interestlies in the maintenance of relations with the West and the status quo in theircountries," blocking democracy and development.

Much the same was found by the Wall Street Journal when it surveyedthe opinions of "moneyed Muslims" immediately after 9/11. Bankers,professionals, businessmen, committed to official "Western values" andembedded in the neoliberal globalization project, were dismayed by Washington'ssupport for harsh authoritarian states and the barriers it erects againstdevelopment and democracy by "propping up oppressive regimes." Theyhad new grievances, however, beyond those reported by the National SecurityCouncil in 1958: Washington's sanctions regime in Iraq and its support forIsrael's military occupation and takeover of the territories. There was nosurvey of the great mass of poor and suffering people, but it is likely thattheir sentiments are more intense, coupled with bitter resentment of theWestern-oriented elites and the corrupt and brutal rulers backed by Westernpower who ensure that the enormous wealth of the region flows to the West, apartfrom enriching themselves. The Iraq invasion only heightened these feelings,much as anticipated.

Writing about the same 2004 Defense Science Board study, David Gardnerobserves that "for the most part, Arabs plausibly believe it was Osama binLaden who smashed the status quo, not George W. Bush, [because] the 9/11 attacksmade it impossible for the west and its Arab despot clients to continue toignore a political set-up that incubated blind rage against them." SaudiShiites share that belief, as the New York Times reported.

The evidence concerning Washington's actual stance and role, virtuousdeclarations aside, is clear and compelling, surely by the standards of complexworld affairs. Nonetheless, it is always possible that Washington's actionsmight have an incidental positive effect. It is hard to predict the consequencesof striking a system as delicate and complex as a society with a bludgeon. Thisis often true of even the worst crimes.

As noted, Osama bin Laden's atrocities are reported to have had a positiveeffect in spurring democratization in the Arab world. The terrible crimes ofimperial Japan led to the expulsion of the European invaders from Asia, savingmany millions of lives -- in India, for example, which has been sparedhorrifying famines since the British withdrew and was able to begin to recoverfrom centuries of imperial domination. Perhaps what many Iraqis and others seeas another Mongol invasion will end up having positive consequences as well,though it would be disgraceful for privileged Westerners to leave thatpossibility to chance. The United States is very much like other powerful statesin pursuing the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors to theaccompaniment of rhetorical flourishes about its exceptional dedication to thehighest values. It should come as no surprise that the evidence for Washington'sdedication to its proclaimed messianic mission reduces to routinepronouncements, or that the counterevidence is mountainous. The reaction tothese facts is of no slight significance for those concerned with the state ofUS democracy, as noted at the outset. Abroad, democracy is fine as long as ittakes the "top-down form" that does not risk popular interference withprimary interests of power and wealth. Much the same doctrine holds internally.

Noam Chomsky is the author, most recently, of Failed States(Metropolitan Books), from which this is excerpted, courtesy, Znet