The Bogus of "Alliance of Civilizations"

The Bogus of "Alliance of Civilizations"

In the days following the horrific London bombings the announcement of a new international initiative did not make it to the pages of leading newspapers. UPI and AFP reported on July 14, 2005 a UN announcement of “an initiative by Spain and Turkey to try to bridge the divide between the West and the Islamic world”. The UN Secretary General announced, despite the fact that the UN General Assembly already has an item before it called “Dialogue Between Civilizations”, that he will convene a meeting of  “a high level group of eminent persons to guide the initiative and …present … a plan of action in late 2006”. In the State Dept.’s Daily Press Briefing of July 15, Spokesman McCormack welcomed the initiative as “the broadest support for participation in” the President’s Broader Middle East and North African Initiative.

The new initiative called “Alliance of Civilizations” was conceived by the Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero. Kofi Annan suggested that Zapatero should act together with a leader from the Muslim world. Zapatero approached the Turkish Prime Minister, considering that Turkey may represent a moderate Islam, because she has for the first time in her republican history a religiously oriented political party in power. The latter, who systematically and methodically labors to introduce religious authority into the political system, found the idea as a golden opportunity to gain international support for his quest.

As may be inferred from an Islamist Prime Minister’s enthusiasm, the idea is as much flawed, as it is ambitious. The initiative may not produce any useful results because it is based on the wrong premises that the current violence is a conflict between civilizations (a metaphor for the term cultures), and that the differences between cultures can be resolved by international recommendations and/or political measures.

There seems to exist too few thinkers (certainly no politicians) who understood that the current international violence is not because of differences between cultures in general, and between Christianity and Islam in particular. Nor is it international criminal acts that can be brought under control with military, police and judicial actions alone. This violence is a socio-psychological phenomenon, a product of socio-political developments of recent decades. It is a cowardly reaction (a counter-force) of traditionalists/dogmatists around the world to the power of the contemporary civilization.

History and political science do not support the expectation that cultural (religious) differences can be resolved by political intervention. Interference in cultures (religions) by political authority to establish an alliance between them will run counter to the ideal of separation of Church and State  -a rainbow never really reached. Such intervention may further and even legitimize the intervention of religion in politics, thus evaporating the glimmer of hope of separation of Church and State. Therefore, while the initiative may not be newsworthy it should not escape our attention because it may carry with it an unwitting danger.

The problem has to be dealt with socio–psychological means. Public’s rationalism, not political or clerical imposition, can achieve an alliance of universal civilization and peace. A bold and resolute action to eliminate all dogmatic teaching in all cultures (religions), and to replace them solely with a rationalist learning may succeed. The Turkish Republic’s founder Ataturk’s belief in rationalist education, and that differences in cultures contribute, and must contribute, to the continued development of a common universal civilization may serve as a guide to all of us.

July 16, 2005