A dogma of everything Habibul Haque Khondker

A dogma of everything

Habibul Haque Khondker

Published on 01 April, 2006

This is in response to Thomas Friedman's article titled "A theory of everything" published in Sunday's New York Times.

There cannot be a theory of everything. A theory that tries to explain everything becomes a dogma, not a theory. In my view Thomas Friedman's theory is flawed because the premises on which his theory is based are flawed.

Premise 1
Why do they (the Muslim world) hate us? This was a wrong question to begin with. The September 11, 2001, attacks were launched by a group of disgruntled people (yes, by religion they were Muslims) who did not represent any organized "they", be it the Muslims of the world or even the Arab Muslims. Non-Arab Muslims were not involved in the attack and their response to the tragedy was quite similar to the responses that came from elsewhere. The responses of the Muslims in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks were mixed, ranging from some people being very happy (dancing on the streets in the West Bank) to expression of sympathy (candlelight vigil in Tehran). Nobody knows for sure what went into the heads of the attackers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. So far what we have are nothing better than conjectures.

A large number of Muslims are critical of US policy toward Palestine and they are at various levels of anger, anguish and frustration. Not all Muslims are as mad with anger that they will carry out suicidal missions. So a better-formulated question would be, Why are some Muslims so angry with the United States to the extent that they would blow themselves up to harm the US? Their psychology is not unlike that of the radical groups in Palestine. I think the key word here is "anger" and not "hatred". The hatred theory was invented by President George W Bush or his speechwriters. There are surely some super-angry men; fortunately not all Muslims are super-angry.

I agree with Friedman that the 1990s version of globalization had the distinct American imprint with such icons of Americanism from Nike shoes to McDonald's and Coca-Cola worldwide. There was resentment as there was adoration of these icons. Hollywood movies became global not because US marines forced people around the world to watch the movies. They were great movies. Why do people of the world embrace American medicine or science or the Internet? They are the best in the world. Where can we find someone as smart as Michael Moore or the creators of The Simpsons? Maybe some people were jealous of the achievements of the Americans, but most people admired and wanted to partake in those achievements. There was no reason to be angry just because Karim Andul Jabbar was a better basketball player or Tiger Woods was a better golfer. People like good games. They are pissed off when the games become unfair. If the rules of the game are fair, there will not be any resentment. The anger thesis is wrong. There is, however, resentment with unfairness. And that resentment was quite universal, cross-cutting national, religious and geographical boundaries.

Premise 2
"Why does everybody else hate us?" This is again a flawed premise. During the Iraq war, the United States had its allies. The world was divided between unilateralism vs collective response. People outside the US were critical of the US administration, the neo-cons, the Republican Party, the hawks of the Pentagon. They often turned to some American critics of American policy. Many people saw the point of US unhappiness with Iraq. Many agreed that Saddam Hussein was not worth defending with his terrible record. But the Muslims were hurt by the perceived US arrogance of unilateralism. Some US officials were ready to go to war even without British participation. Such was the height of unilateralism.

Many Muslims were divided, just like Christians or Jews or Americans or Bangladeshis, on the issue of the Iraq invasion. Some thought that it was against international law and held on to the principle of national sovereignty. Others saw it as a civilizational war. Many were ambivalent. Some people were pragmatic; others were concerned with the moral and ethical consequences. How can we ignore this diversity of views and opinions? Some of the most articulate critics of US policy were not Muslims. They were Jews, Christians, Americans, Indians, Australians, etc. One of the most strident critics was Arundhati Roy, the Indian author and activist. I have talked to people from various countries, from various walks of life, and I have searched carefully newspapers, opinions, etc. In my estimate, the majority of the people on the planet were against the US-led invasion of Iraq and the war made them angry not at US society as such, but at the hawkish groups misusing the US preeminence to a shortsighted objective. US-led globalization has no serious or organized opposition, notwithstanding anti-globalization demonstrations. The US has loyal supporters in the capitalist class all over the world, just as there are critics of US capitalism in the streets of Seattle, where the overwhelming majority were US citizens, as well as elsewhere. The most interesting feature of globalization has been the messing up of geography. We cannot neatly divide any more "us" versus "them". The leftover class conflict is diffused everywhere.

"Us" versus "them" analyses are gross simplifications. They are wrong. The majority of people, in my opinion, were sad at seeing the destruction of the World Trade Center and they were also sad to see the collapse of Iraqi society due to the war and are worried about the reckless war of words against Iran. James Jesudason, a friend and a fellow sociologist, says an equally compelling question for the researchers to pursue, in so far as the hate game is concerned, is: "Why does the US hate the Muslims?"

I have a simpler theory. People as such prefer right over wrong. There is a global ethics. That human beings are ethical is evident in the fact that most people do not find it justifiable that the war on Iraq was based on the allegations of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). At the same time, many of the critics of war will be convinced that the war was justifiable if WMD are found. I will bet that most people will not share the position that the US is powerful so we should hate the US, as they will not endorse the position that we should support the US because it is powerful. People make moral choices most of the time. And many thinking people are often ambiguous in their responses. They say something like: "Yes, it is good that Saddam is ousted, but I feel sorry for the children of Iraq or all those who were killed on both sides. Ideally, the world should make sure that Saddams are not created in the first place, etc."

The article was originally published in Asia Times Online on Jun 5, 2003 :

: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF05Ak01.html

Dr. Habibul Haque Khondker teaches Sociology at the National University of Singapore.