AL KHADRA: Professor Mahdi Elmandjra, being a specialist in future studies, you analyze the past as well as present data to make prospective projections. You are an advocate of worldwide change and you invite the industrialized nations of the North to change the mental structures governing their relations with the Third World. We, too, believe that there is a chance for change... However, big countries prevent small ones from developing.
ELMANDJRA: You are right. However, you know our proverb which says that one cannot clap with only one hand. This is the arabic equivalent of "it takes two to tango". Big countries always find smaller ones ready to "collaborate" with them. We live indeed in an epoch which I may venture to call the era of mercenaries. Mercenaries may be found within our governments, armies as well as intellectuals. Nowadays, men and governments can be bought and bribed. The events currently witnessed in the Gulf clearly reflect this reality.
However, what is upsetting is that major part of the funds used to this effect come ultimately from our own resources. To put it plainly once and for all, America, which represents a mere 5% of the world population, now controls, whether directly or indirectly, over 80% of the world oil reserves. Worse still is that Organization of the United Nations has also come under the direct control of this new hegemony.
I have attended, in one way or another, all of the annual sessions of the UN General Assembly and scores of meetings of the Security Council ever since 1951. Never before in my life have I witnessed a comedy like the one played, during the last week of November 1990 in the Security Council, under the chairmanship of James Baker, the chief U.S. diplomat, prior to the adoption
of Council Resolution 678. The media have shed the light on the strong pressures which were exerted on all the members of the Council.
At the beginning of this interview, I spoke about the era of mercenaries. To give but one example, the U.S.S.R. received from Saudi Arabia, in return for its non-recourse to the veto, a five billion-dollar loan only 24 hours before voting on the said resolution. To further clarify the situation, let us consider the following figures. The overall amount of loans granted to the U.S.S.R. since the end of the cold war stands at a mere 2 to 3 billion dollars, although the period has been quite favourable for loans.
This period witnessed, indeed, the establishment of Soviet-Western cooperation relations and the beginning of famine in the Soviet Union. Until then, and despite the European cooperation based on shared Judaeo-Christian values and the pressures exerted on Germany and Japan, the whole coalition could not mobilize more than 2 to 3 billion-dollar loans for the benefit of the Soviet Union. Conversely, it took America only one-minute pressure to induce Saudi Arabia to grant a 5 billion-dollar loan that would make it possible to buy the Soviet Union's vote within the Security Council.
To give you another example, the money spent daily to meet the needs of some 500 or 600 thousand soldiers, in terms of accommodation, food, drinks, light and entertainment, comes entirely from Arab oil proceeds. This oil is currently exploited under the direct and undirect control of the United States in disregard for the needs of the Arab World's future generations. America uses it indeed according to its own will.
AL KHADRA: This is a real pollution...
ELMANDJRA: Yes, a pollution of minds. Although I sound pessimistic, I am nevertheless as sure as a man can be that this is a transitional stage in history and that the circumstances which have brought about the current situation cannot last more than four or five years. I am convinced fundamental changes will take place before the advent of the 21st century - only nine years from now.
AL KHADRA: As a new year has started, we would like to know how you see the immediate consequences of this war and hear about your forecast about a potential conflict between civilizations at the world level.
ELMANDJRA: I have before me a respectable magazine, "The Economist." In an article on Islam and the West, it states in a quite explicit manner that with the end of the cold war, which is an ideological war, only one conflict - which has, in fact, already started - may be expected: the conflict between Islam and the Judaeo-Christian world.
In my view, the new era has been officially initiated with the Paris Agreement signed by all heads of State and Government of European countries in the presence of the U.S. President. This agreement marked the end of the cold war and, by the same token, that of the ideological war, within the framework of a civilization uniting the Eastern and Western parts of Europe on the basis of shared values, namely Judaeo-Christian ones. This new era was preceded by premonitory signs which I have been stressing for many years.
Indeed, ever since 1974, I have consistently emphasized the fact that future conflicts would be of a cultural nature, involving threats more serious than those underlying classical political and economic conflicts. We have now actually entered this era. Each Third World citizen, whether a Muslim or not, must know that the danger threatening us lies in the risk of cultural hegemony. However, I am quite happy at the new changes which have begun to take form.
One of the best news that I heard these days is about the decision of the Algerian parliament to make Arabic the national language of the country and fight the hegemony of the French language. Indeed, in addition to its obvious cultural effects, the excessive reliance on that language has fostered the development, in Maghrebian countries, of a generation of intellectuals cut off from their cultural roots and unconsciously predisposed to operate as mercenaries in the service of socio-cultural values foreign to those of their people.
Being a Moroccan and a staunch believer in Maghrebian unity, I sincerely hope that the Governments of Morocco and Tunisia will officially go back on their membership in the "Francophonie" Summit Conference so that we may adopt a common Maghrebian strategy to face up the major problems confronting us, particularly those of the environment.
AL KHADRA: What you say, professor, is frightening. The bleak years that you are forecasting constitute a heavy load for the world, the more so as it is threatened by the eruption of the nuclear volcano. Recourse to the nuclear weapon is not an improbable assumption. What is your honest opinion about the subject and are you optimistic enough to believe that the Gulf War will not break out, or do you think it will break out?
ELMANDJRA : On last 27 September, I gave an interview to "Radio France International," the text of which was published by several daily newspapers, including "Al-Alam."(2)
During the interview, I underlined the fact that it the War was inevitable and that new weapons would be used in the Gulf region. Today, the international context seems to me even more serious and dangerous than it was on 27 September because new but not totally unexpected have since taken place.
I could not indeed imagine that some Arab officials would be guilty of high treason through their relations with the West, particularly with America. I could not believe that this complicity could be taken to the extremes reflected in the declarations published in the wake of the Conference of Gulf States, held in Qatar, which provided the proof of what I would call treason against History, the Arab world, Islam and the whole Third World.
I could not imagine that they could go so far as take such grave
decisions in Doha, capital city of Qatar. Needless to go into details,
let us only say that was the first element. The second element is that
the indicators and studies, then available, could never lead one to imagine
that, within three months, there would be 600.000 foreign troops stationed
in the Gulf.
I think that even if we were to gather all authentic citizens of Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, we would still come up with less than the number of foreign forces dispatched to the region. By the word "citizens" is meant all people who have the right to vote in such States as Kuwait, in which some form of election is sometimes held. Such a massive concentration of military forces has never been witnessed before, not even during World War II.
As for the third element, I never thought that such a degree of cohesion could be reached within the Western block, notwithstanding the sporadic declarations of the President of the Republic of France. In addition to converging objectives, there has been indeed perfect understanding among European States which agreed to join forces in the Gulf region. The question therefore is no longer whether the war will take place.
Rather, the question concerns survival. We should also try to find out if there are new agreements providing for permanent Western presence in the region, regardless of the changes which might affect existing regimes. These "people" did not go to the Gulf to spend two months doing tourism, or even war. They went there for a somewhat longer period, and that is where the danger lies.
Consequently, the question whether there would be war, to which I replied in the affirmative on 27 September, is somewhat well founded. As pointed out earlier, things started to worsen since then. Having already replied to this question weeks ago, I can only stress frankly today that when something affects an Arab, whether in the Gulf region or elsewhere in the world, it also ultimately affects all people of the Third World. I would like to recall in this respect the article published in the daily newspaper "Le Monde" on 26 September. The article reviewed the reactions witnessed in the other regions of the Third World and concluded that most people in Arab-Islamic countries and elsewhere had felt personally affected by those events.
I stress, once again, that we are currently living in a post-colonial era. There will be war casualties on both sides. However, the goals targeted by the West are quite obvious. Economic interest in oil ranks second after civilizational and cultural objectives, although Western countries stand in need of oil to assert their hegemony over the world. Another important element is that the West will allow no Third World State, be it small or medium-size, to acquire sophisticated technological and military means. As for Israel, which is considered part of the Western world, it has "the right" to achieve scientific development, benefit from all types of assistance, including annual subsidies amounting to billions of dollars, in addition to acquiring and using the most sophisticated weapons.
Conversely, no other Third World country, particularly Arab and Islamic ones, will be allowed to develop potential strength likely to enable it to enter into a strategic dialogue with even minimum "dissuasion power," as is the case with a number of industrialized countries and two Asian countries (China and India). It was, therefore, necessary to destroy Iraq which expended strenuous efforts and made considerable sacrifices in the field of scientific research in order to achieve a certain measure of development. That is, in fact, the second objective of the Gulf War, the third objective being clearly the introduction of a new colonial ("post-colonial")order(3)
in the region.
At any rate, things became clear as from 2 August 1990. The West has no lesson to give to anyone, whether in democracy, human rights or other. On 27 December, American newspapers had already published the list of countries which the American nationals had to be evacuated by order of the American Government (Mauritania, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates as well as the Eastern part of Saudi Arabia). According to "Le Monde", the American citizens residing in Morocco were also instructed to leave the country before 15 January. All this occurred at a time when the United States were speaking about the defense of the Arab world! Such indicators betray a certain concern on their part and provide us with a clear picture of the stance of America and the West in general.
What is therefore the general feeling in the Arab world, the Islamic world and the Third World? It is our destiny which is at stake today, particularly with regard to pollution. Pollution has affected us and infiltrated some of our leaders. This type of pollution is related to the question of morals; when morals are trampled, nothing valuable remains. Not only does this apply to the superpowers, but also to the States which are performing the role of mercenaries. One day, History will pinpoint the States which sold their soul to fight people of their own creed and civilization, people who live in the same region, the region of the powerless, that is the Third World.
But in spite of all this, and perhaps because of it, I am still somewhat optimistic, for nothing but detente can ultimately come after all these ordeals; a real salvation like the one awaited by the believer from his Creator, a salvation that would reward him lavishly his long patience.
AL KHADRA: To go back to what you said earlier, the new world order is necessary; however, it cannot take place without a reconsideration of the structure of the United Nations Organization.
ELMANDJRA: Of course. In 1973, the Non-Aligned Summit Conference adopted, in Algiers, a Declaration calling for the establishment of a "New International Economic World Order." The Declaration contained modest recommandations for a more equitable restructuring of North-South relations. The Western countries and the World Bank fought this proposed "new international order"!
Nowadays, the "new order," as perceived by the Americans and Western countries, is not more than a distorted picture of international law. Having devoted most of my life to international cooperation and to the teaching of international relations, I can declare that never before did the credibility of the United Nations fall so low. Analysis of the voting process within the Security Council shows the prevalence of a spirit of mercenary practice and corruption never witnessed before in the records of this international institution.
Let us consider Resolution 678 fixing the January 15 fated deadline. This resolution is based on sub-paragraph 42 of the Charter. However, the provisions enshrined in this sub-paragraph may not be enforced without reference to the provisions of sub-paragraphs 46 and 47. In the case under consideration, no State, whether America or other, may, by itself, determine whether the conditions for launching the attack are fulfilled. It is indispensable that the Security Council hold another meeting to consider the situation before taking action. Should it deem that the conditions are indeed fulfilled for envisaging an intervention, it would have to define the type of intervention required, for the resolution refers to means without defining their nature, nor indicating whether they are military or other.
Even if the above procedure had been observed, this would still have not been sufficient, for the matter would have to be submitted to the United Nations Military Staff Committee in compliance with the provisions of sub-paragraph 47. However, such a recourse never took place since the inception of the United Nations Organization. As you see, nobody has taken the trouble of ensuring the observance of the simplest rules of legality and the rule of law.
Worse still, the UN Secretary-General, and here I assume full responsibility for my statement, failed to discharge the duty assigned to him, that is ensuring observance of law and raising people's awareness about the necessity of respecting the Charter. Only God knows what really happened - perhaps history will tell us some day. What is certain, however, is that the pressures applied on the United Nations Organization and its Secretary-General have resulted in a form of mutism never witnessed before in the records of the United Nations Organization.
We still remember the cases of Korea, the nationalization of the Suez Canal, the situation in the Congo and the positions taken by Dag Hammerskjold, U-Thant and even Kurt Waldheim. Conversely, under the mandate of the current Secretary-General, whenever South-South problems arose, such as the Iraq-Iran conflict and the Afghanistan problem, the United Nations Organization worked diligently and dispatched its envoys. However, in the Gulf crisis, even this course of action was conspicuously lacking. In fact, the United Nations Security Council did not allow the UN Secretary-General to exercise the authorities vested with his position. Such is the extent of the pressure exerted on the United Nations.
If we move on to the League of Arab States (which was the subject of my doctoral thesis in the University of London) (4)
we shall see that the way the Egyptian President behaved throughout the last Cairo Summit and the way in which decisions were made therein were a violation of all rules governing the Arab League. We also recall the way in which the transfer of the Arab League from Tunis to Cairo was hurriedly decided and carried out.
One cannot help but wonder about this "new world order" and about observance of law when faced with what is occurring at the United Nations and the elder institution, the League of Arab States, which is, in fact, the first international governmental organization created after the end of World War II.
The question is therefore one of credibility and seriousness. Let them then speak as they please about their New World Order! However, another world order is in the making - a world order based on pluralism, democracy, justice and respect of civilizations, human values and liberties, and the will to fight pressure whatever be its origin or goal. This new order will take some time to evolve, but its emergence is inevitable provided that human beings still take even minimal interest in their dignity and in the survival of the human species.
AL KHADRA: In our latest issue, you spoke about some problems related mainly to the Gulf crisis. We would like to know more about your analysis of the Gulf crisis as well as the problems of the environment, particularly since the environment does not concern nature alone as much as it concerns man in the first place. My questions are therefore as follows: Does pollution "have a future"? Are there any prospects for development?
ELMANDJRA: I have recently received a list of the 50 most important books published in 1990 in the field of future studies. Twelve of these books, that is 25%, deal with environment problems, problems which may be solved only within the framework of a long-term policy. This figure attests to the interest taken nowadays in the environment in the largest acceptation of the word. In short, it seems that people have, at last, understood that the problem of the environment is not only a question of techniques and legislation, but of survival on earth.
When we address the issue of survival, we realize that the problem
of the environment involves priorities for the future but the future starts
today. In fact, recent scientific developments and the ensuing evolution
of our knowledge of the universe have brought to light a fact which has
been unknown so far, namely that the earth itself may very well be a "living"
organism with its own regulatory system.
It has been scientifically proven that the earth has what we may call an auto-regulation system. In other words, the earth is endowed with some natural means that enable it to adapt to change, even to variations affecting air temperature, acids in oceans and meteorology in general. There is therefore a kind of natural control system in the form of reactions generated by the earth's own mechanism.
The evolution of our knowledge compels us to adopt a new approach in our relations with the earth and the universe. Such an approach has to be dynamic so that we may understand the relationship between ecological problems and what we may call the civilizational or social and cultural values. There is, in fact, a close relationship between the ecological problems affecting oceans and those affecting forests, soil erosion, habitat and population.
The major problem is that there are certain species of insects and plants which disappear once and for all, every day, thus threatening our very survival which hinges on diversity and pluralism. Pluralism is essential to nature and constitutes a major component of cultural, civilizational and political life.
We have to understand that environmental problems are not the exclusive field of interest of experts, thinkers, engineers and other pollution specialists. On the contrary, they concern all of us. Consequently, we may say that the fundamental problem facing the environment is not any different from the problem confronting contemporary civilization, namely a worldwide ethical crisis.
This crisis finds its origin in a development model based on the Western civilization, which relies mainly on industry. Yet, savage industrialization is increasingly perceived as being particularly harmful to nature. People are, however, starting to be aware of the danger underlying this type of development. I think that this awareness constitutes a turning point and that it will have a major impact on our evolution at the end of the current century and the beginning of the next.
AL KHADRA: When you say that the future starts today, I understand, as a matter of fact, that it began yesterday, in the sense that it is our duty to draw the necessary lessons from past experience to take up future challenges more efficiently. However, the extensive explanations you have just provided have convinced me of the universality of the ecological problem. I would like you to tackle this problem for "Al-Khadra's" readers, from a regional or local perspective. How can we, as Maghrebians and Moroccans, face up to the problem of pollution, which essentially comes from the North, that is from the industrialized countries?
ELMANDJRA: The first lesson is that we cannot envisage any solution to pollution and environment problems without prior modification of our perception of development and its ultimate goal. Why has the development model followed by the Third World proven to be a failure? The reason is that it relies on a technocratic perception of development which, instead of focusing on man and on improvement of his life conditions, has mainly concentrated on productivity, industrialization and material needs.
This state of things has further exacerbated the ever-increasing gap between rich and poor, weak and powerful. The gap separates, first of all, North from South. But within this very South, the gap widens rapidly and dangerously as disparities between rich and poor have reached a critical stage during the last 10 to 15 years. Hence the turmoil shaking the Third World, particularly in Tunisia and Algeria in 1988, Morocco these last days, as well as other countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, in which there have been an upsurge of socio-economic crises and street manisfestations these last years.
This situation is quite natural and was expected to happen. This is why I share your view of the future, but I should emphasize again that the future begins today when it comes to laying down a political plan or embarking on a course of action. However, our immediate life, indeed our life over the next two or three years, is determined to a great extent by our past actions. Consequently, we are duty-bound to analyze carefully the results of inconclusive past policies and try to change our course of action by first undertaking a redefinition of the concept of development in such a way as to make man the basis of development and dignity and social justice its ultimate goal.
The achievement of these objectives hinges, of course, on the relevance of the plans to be implemented in the fields of politics, development and industrialization. In this respect, it is worth recalling the example of the Third World countries whose development plans rely on importing pollution-causing industrial products whose deleterious effects are now fully perceived by industrialized countries.
Some Third World countries, thinking that they were making the right decisions and eager to benefit from the auspicious occasion to benefit from the transfer of technology, built up, in our regions, industrial plants with particularly heavy polluting effects. I am speaking in general, of course, but to give you only one example, there are some projects in the region of Safi and Jorf Lasfar that require the establishment of scientific and technical facilities likely to monitor and gauge their polluting effects.
In addition, the staggering increase in urban populations has brought about several pollution problems which affect the health of city dwellers and contribute to the deterioration of marine life in coastal areas. The Mediterranean Sea, for instance, whose Southern part borders a large area of Morocco, suffers from the consequences of heavy industrial and tourist activities in the Northern part of the Mediterranean, particularly in Southern Spain, Italy, Yugoslavia, Turkey and Greece. In addition, the Mediterranean is victim of the role it plays at strategic and military levels as well as in terms of maritime transport. Hence the increasing concern about the death menace threatening the Mediterranean.
It grieves me to see what is happening in the Gulf which, until recently, was called the "Arab Gulf," but which may now be called the "American Gulf," the more so that the number of foreign troops currently stationed there exceeds the size of the population of certain States in the region. The unusual movements in the region have altered beyond recognition the area's landscape. In a recent issue of the "International Herald Tribune" and the "New York Times", I read an article whose title indicated that the Gulf had become a laboratory for testing American weapons. The article pinpointed the huge number of new weapons introduced in the region, some of them virtually nuclear weapons. This made me think of at least two articles that I had written two months earlier,(5)
in which I foresaw the outbreak of an armed conflict in the Gulf, emphasizing, among other things, that the conflict would provide an occasion to test the new weapons that could not be tested before due to the cold war.
I am mentioning this to illustrate the new context in which we live and underline the close relationship between this context and the afore-mentioned moral crisis. I would like to point out that such a behaviour on the part of certain policy-makers from the North as well as the South does not take into consideration in the least the future of the coming generations and neglects even the most elementary requirements of survival. We are living in an epoch that I would call the era of modern barbarism, the post-colonial era. The responsibility for this situation does not only fall with the North, but with the South as well, including some Third World countries which have displayed total lack of discernment and seriousness in the face of major development problems.
AL KHADRA: It seems therefore that pollution can still expect "bright prospects" in the future, especially if the situation does not change in the countries of the South. However, when we talk about development, we cannot help thinking about a fundamental prerequisite, that is the necessary change of the current political map. In fact, change of mentality can only be conceived within the framework of a democratic process adapted to the situation of the South. What will be the future of the environment in this context?
ELMANDJRA: Everywhere in the Third World, including the Maghreb, there has been a significant change in the landscape, the taste of fruits, the state of the forests and coasts, and even the quality of the air we breathe. Despite the studies conducted throughout the world and the norms set to safeguard the environment and fight pollution, the States of the Maghreb have complied with none of the recommendations adopted in this field.
2 The reason is that our notion of development does not take into consideration the fact that performance and actual factory productivity are measured only in the light of their impact on nature, that is the environment wherein man lives. Certainly, some so-called Third World environment officials attend major international meetings held on the subject, such as the Conference to be held in Brazil in 1992, for which preparations are already under way. However, no follow-up is ensured owing to a lack of interest in the problem.
Your question is a valid one indeed. We cannot heed developmental problems unless we take interest in the individual's well-being and freedom. Democracy encourages such freedom, that is freedom of speech, criticism, analysis, access to knowledge, reconsideration of things and expression of one's difference. Such forms of freedom mobilize citizens to militate, in a committed manner, for the protection of the environment, i.e. their own milieu and that of their family, village, country, in addition to the air they breathe.
Not only will citizens have the possibility to express themselves as they like, but they will also follow up the evolution of things, participate in elections, ask questions to members of parliament, write articles in newspapers and engage lawsuits. To achieve this, however, it will be necessary to ensure at least minimal standard of democracy and secure pluralism as well as full observance of human rights so as to build up a civil society. As for ecological problems, their solution also hinges on the respect of human rights in the broadest sense of the term.
AL KHADRA: Does not the new world order, be it economic or political, require a new type of human being? To put it frankly, are you satisfied with your contemporaries? Is contemporary man a perfect model?
ELMANDJRA: Being a believer, I am fully confident in all God's creatures, whether animate or not. I have faith in the earth itself, the universe and mankind. I can only be optimistic in my belief that there will soon be radical changes that will affect mankind's future regardless of color, religion, race, sex or age. However, the difficulties hindering the fulfillment of these hopes must not be underestimated. How can I, for instance, cherish any hopes for the Third World at a time when 60% of its population is illiterate? That is the first problem in the pollution record: ignorance.
There is not just ignorance; in fact, we can speak of an exploitation and manipulation of ignorance for political purposes by certain unscrupulous Third World governments. With political will and minor resources, the illiteracy plague could be overcome within five years. I think that the eradication of illiteracy is a prerequisite if we want to bring about a new form of development and humanism and a fair measure of dignity and social justice.
The huge disparities in the Third World have become unbearable. Moral decadence, which is a form of pollution, affects several aspects of life, such as values, human relationships, and respect for human beings. In view of their interdependence, these problems may not be tackled separately. Nevertheless, I still maintain full confidence in man's destiny.
If there is no future, why then should we care about it? It is future studies which have enabled me to take full cognizance of current problems and which have enhanced my optimism notwithstanding all of the obstacles in the way of development and equity.
Nonetheless, I am profoundly pessimistic for the short-term, that is for the coming four or five years, although my pessimism is, in fact, a basis for my optimism as regards major future changes because things can not remain as they are for much too long. The question, however, is what social price are we going to pay for these changes. If we launch radical changes immediately, the price will be relatively low. Conversely, if we are to remain behind the bandwagon of change, renewal, improvement of human conditions and respect of human dignity, we shall be doomed to pay a higher price both at individual and planetary levels.
Radical transformations will therefore take place. Another unprecedented fact in the Third World consists of the mutations under way, which are rapidly taking place in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Fear was the Third World's major handicap. Today, that fear is overcome and, throughout the world, people have started to assume their responsibilities and assert themselves after vanquishing their apprehensions.
Western hegemony will not be able to check this process although it may, in some cases, provisionally delay such transformations by supporting dying systems.
Moreover, new trends have emerged and affected all walks of life because they are based on our values. I think that the problem of value systems will be the pivot around which future mutations will revolve. Hard times are lying ahead of course, and we must be ready to pay the price because what is at stake is our very destiny.
What we have to understand is that it is unthinkable that the next century will still be that of Western hegemony. I think that the 21st century will be the century of pluralism, not just political pluralism, but the pluralism of civilizations and cultures. To achieve this goal, there is a need to overcome the infernal and unfair domination which is, as you may see, increasingly exerted in the field of information.
Interview by Ahmed Ifzaren, "Al Khadra", 27 December 1990.
* Extracts from articles which were published in "Al Khadra",
No. 32, 4 January 1991 and No. 33, 11 January 1991, Tangiers.
2. 2 See above, Chapter 2 "Yes, there shall be a war".
3. 3 See above, Chapter 1, "The Emergence of Post-Colonialism".
4. 4 Mahdi Elmandjra, "The League of Arab States 1947-1957", Ph. D. Thesis, the London School of Economics (1957).