www.reformjudaism.org.uk

Editorial: Did September 11th Change Anything?

Written by Rabbi Tony Bayfield Monday, 07 October 2002

This Editorial seeks to look beyond terrorism and set the appalling events of September in a global, historical context.It was said that September 11th had changed the world forever. A year on, the change is far from apparent. American attitudes have been profoundly affected by the experience, though it is too soon to know whether the change will be lasting or helpful. More than that depends upon a real understanding of what that terrible act of barbarism signified. The exclusive focus on terrorism, despicable and inexcusable though terrorism is, is inadequate as an understanding that will, indeed, be world-changing.

The starting point for understanding what is happening rests with the word ‘globalization’. The Western World is creating a global empire, the like of which has never been seen before in the history of humanity. A particular culture, which owes much to Greece and Rome, a good deal to Judaism, more than it recognises to Islam and most to Western Christianity, has already made its presence felt in almost every place and every corner of the globe. It is characterised by a particular economic system, capitalism, by a particular political system, democracy and certain ethical principles expressed by the phrase ‘human rights’. Many of us think that those are all fundamentally good things — though we have some keen criticisms, particularly in the economic area with its rapacity, environmental indifference and seemingly essential selfishness. We also have questions about the sincerity of the West in intending to globalize its wealth and share the benefits fairly throughout the empire.

What makes this imperialism different from previous forms of imperialism is the communications revolution that it has brought about as part of its success. The universalisation of travel, the globalization of trade, the opportunity now given to almost every individual to ‘know what is going on’ and learn about what Western globalization has to offer, means that the imperial army is already besieging every town and has access to almost every house.

There have been and probably always will be resisters. The resisters are often religious groupings or groupings who use religion as an instrument of resistance. All over the world there are minorities who seek to resist through dress and lifestyle, often banning or controlling the television and access to the media through which the global revolution is pursued. Religious fundamentalism is a classic expression of resistance to modern Western culture.

What is still very much an open question is whether distinctive religious and ethnic cultures can survive whilst embracing Western imperialism. In his latest book, Rabbi Professor Jonathan Sacks argues that they can, providing that the cultural context is one which respects diversity. He is, hopefully, right but several vital questions arise. There are those who would claim that religious dialogue, respect and mutual co-operation are in themselves a product of the revolution of modernity and who then go on to argue that modern religion is wholly the product of that modernity and that authentic Christianity, or Islam, for instance, is incompatible with such a world view. Or, that there is no such thing as Judaism or Christianity, only Judaisms and Christianities. Then again, what limits are there to diversity? Can it and should it accept different definitions of human rights, for instance with regard to women, or tolerate the undemocratic?

To what extent are those countries, for instance in South East Asia, which have eagerly embraced Westernisation and are already enjoying its material benefits, going to be able to retain that which is distinctive and life enhancing in their own cultures?

But here is the central point. The great resisters to globalization by the West or, Westernisation, have been the leaders of the Islamic world and, in particular, the Arabs. For roughly a thousand years, until the middle of the 17th Century, the Islamic world was itself the dominant imperial culture, having conquered vast areas of the globe — not just the Middle-East but huge swathes of Africa, vast areas of central Asia and significant areas of the Indian subcontinent and the Far East. To this day the country with the largest number of Muslims in the world is Indonesia. For much of that thousand years Islam and Christendom were deadly enemies and for much of that period Islam, not without justification, looked down on the Christian West with contempt as an inferior culture which offered little except raw materials and slaves.

The decline of the Islamic world, once focused on Persia, Turkey and Egypt, over the last three hundred years has been dramatic and catastrophic as far as Arabs are concerned. A recent report produced for the United Nations Development Programme by a group of Arab scholars reveals that the 22 nations of the Arab League now have a GNP less than that of Spain (and, if you strip out revenue from fossil fuels, roughly equivalent to that of Finland); one in five Arabs live on less than $2 a day; unemployment is rising; there are desperate rates of illiteracy, especially amongst women and ‘the transfer of power through the ballot box is not a common phenomenon’.

Both the report and Professor Bernard Lewis in his new book ‘What Went Wrong?’ refer to the failure of all earlier attempts at Westernisation — failed military reform; failure to industrialize, failures of governmental and bureaucratic reform, failures of social reform — which have left some three hundred million people in a desperate state, full of anger and resentment at what has happened to them. The once mighty Islamic empire, completely defeated and utterly humiliated by the West, has also been unable (unlike so much of South East Asia) to learn and benefit and now seethes with rage.

Most Arabs and most Muslims were utterly appalled by September 11th but there can be no doubt that September 11th was an expression of the rage that is the product of the humiliating defeat of Islam by Christianity, of the Islamic world by Western globalization, led now by America.

The conclusions to be drawn pose difficult questions. Can the ‘export’ of capitalism, democracy and human rights be resisted? Is it desirable that it should be? Is it a human right to have that right? Is embracing capitalism, democracy and human rights (as understood by the West) compatible with retaining a distinctive, independent culture? Is it possible to have the best of all worlds? Terrorism must be opposed because it is utterly incompatible with the sanctity of human life and human dignity. But to talk only of terrorism and not to examine the roots of this particular act of terror in a clash between empires and not to take seriously the implications of global imperialism is to fail to address the greatest issue of our age and reinforces the view that the world has not changed at all.