There is no civilization without a collective memory. Thirty-three years ago, on February 8th, like today, the French air force was bombing Sakiet-Sidi-Youssef, in the Maghreb. On February 8th, 1992, we heard on the radio the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, extolling the friendship between France and the countries of the Maghreb and minimizing the significance of his country's military intervention in the Gulf.
History is rife with important events. From a civilizational standpoint, it is to be noted that, again on February 8th, in the year 1904, the Russian-Japanese war flared up to end nineteen months later with Japan's victory over Asia, and the signature of Portsmouth Pact on September 5th, 1905. The American President Theodore Roosevelt offered his good offices for the conclusion
of the Pact. But what are these reminders for?
The fact is that by the end of the 19th century, Japan devoted a substantial part of its human and material resources to scientific and technological development programmes. It soon achieved excellence in this field, to the great astonishment of the West which, up to then, could not believe that non-Westerners were capable of such a feat. The same comparison applies somewhat to the current situation in the Gulf. That a Third World nation, which, on top of that is an Arab country, achieves a measure of scientific and technological autonomy is simply intolerable for the West.
Let us go back now to present-day Japan. The Japanese Institute for the Advancement of Research (NIRA) conducted a major study on the development of scientific research in Japan during the 90s ("Agenda for the 1990s," Tokyo, 1988). In a very short introductory note to this highly technical study, NIRA President outlines the international environment in which Japanese technology would operate. He even speaks about a "new world order" long before George Bush!
According to the President of NIRa, the turn of the current century will signal the fading of American hegemony. Japan should therefore prepare itself for the coming century by developing a comprehensive programme which should take into account the fact that a new civilization will emerge on the basis of cultural pluralism. Diversity is the key to survival whether in Botany or Biology, let alone for the human species.
Japan seems to have grasped this reality well in advance. NIRA President made it clear Japan's "modernization" did not mean "Westernization." This is why those who consider Japan an excellent "imitator" do not understand anything about this country, nor about the organic link between civilizational progress and creative activity stimulated by endogenous values. Hence the difference between constructive innovation and debilitating mimetism. The modernization process must be initiated and diligently forged by each culture.
Yet, in the Maghreb, just like in the rest of the Third World, too many intellectuals still believe in the model based on imitation of the West as if it were the only one passageway to modernity. I have spent about half of my life in the West. The first lesson that I drew from this long sojourn is that, regardless of my sincere appreciation of the Western culture and major scientific and artistic accomplishments, the West is inimitable because its achievements are the fruit of its own genius. To pretend that we are compelled to follow the path trodden by the West to attain "modernity" would imply that we do not understand anything about the West, nor about modernity and, above all, ourselves.
I think that the fundamental lesson to be drawn from the Gulf events is that, regardless of the tens of thousands of martyrs, we have gained some 15 to 20 years. All parameters have changed. Today, as I leaf through the local and foreign press, I realize a striking volte-face in the attitude of certain Moroccan, Algerian and Tunisian intellectuals, but here is not the place to mention their names. Suffice it to say that most of them used to blindly believe in the Western countries' ethics, respect for law, and commitment to the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Now, they have realized the selective, not to say discriminatory, manner in which the West, save for a few of sincere people, defends these fundamental rights according to the persons, countries and regions concerned. We know now how non-universal is the Western concept of "universalims".
Thank God, the mask has been lifted laying bare the face of hypocrisy. The mischief was quite obvious since the very first days. We must not forget that the decision to go into war was taken as from August 2nd, 1990, a date coinciding with Mrs. Thatcher's visit to Washington. We are aware of these facts today thanks to divulgations of the presss. As early as September 27th, I stated in an interview with Radio France International (RFI) that an armed conflict was inevitable. I reiterated the same forecast on November 7th, on the evening news programme of the Algerian Television. I said then that I expected the war to break out within the following weeks. I do not have a second sight, but in the prospective field, when several parameters all point in a given direction, one is led to detect some heavy tendencies that enable one to formulate hypotheses.
Let us go back to the cultural dimension. In the United States, a country whose cultural history hardly exceeds two centuries (excluding the Indian cultures, which were either eliminated or confined into reserves), President Bush expounded, on November 15th, the American action in the Gulf deliberately concealing its real objectives and claiming that it had nothing to do with religion, nor with wealth or cultural differences. His statement is very interesting from a psychological point of view for it exposes the real motives despite his repeated attempts to conceal them. It is certainly a cultural conflict.
The premonitory signs of this conflict date back to several years. Anti-Arab hysteria rages now in broad daylight. The racist campaigns in Europe against migrant workers have taken on unprecedented proportions especially in France. In the United States, anti-Arab feelings are running high and wild. Whatever President Bush may say, this war is a civilizational one. It involves all aspects of the value systems, whether cultural, social, ethical or even religious. Any analysis which does not take into account this civilizational factor is, I think, wanting and inevitably distorted.
Even such an intellectually honest man as Michel Rocard, who is renowned for his humane outlook and sympathy with the Third World, could not help, in his capacity as Prime Minister, writing on January 8th, 1991 that for the first time in the history of mankind, in six thousand years, the international community stood up to say "No" and take the appropriate measures.
How can one so easily simplify and dwarf the history of mankind? Is it due to mere political opportunism, to ignorance of history, to cultural short-sight, to a refusal to understand the others, to arrogance, to a superiority complex ...? How can such respectable persons hope to safeguard their credibility at the universal level? Rocard! Rocard, the symbol of progressism, of socialism, of pluralism, of freedom and of tolerance. He is the one who used to symbolize all those values in which the West revels day and night; not only was he the idol of those of the French people who are fond of probity, but of many other militants who advocate human dignity outside France. He was one of the men whom I respected most in France for reasons other than his ideological or political commitments, but rather for his faithfulness to his own principles. He was the one who honored me, when he was still Minister of Planning, with the "Prix de la Vie Economique" award (1981).
How then can we believe that it is not an ethical crisis, arising from
an anxiety-stricken West, which is uncertain and uneasy about its future
just like the other wealthy countries whose prosperity hinges on the poverty
of others? This is sufficient evidence that we are facing a civilizational
war, in which the incrimination of such and such country is only meant
to conceal the real stakes at the global level far beyond the scope of
local or regional conflicts. It is a war unprecedented throughout the six
thousand-year history mentioned by Rocard. However, there exist in the
West, fortunately enough, a minimum of cultural pluralism, just as there
are here and there, people who are still free enough to think for themselves
and react against all forms of injustice and discrimination.
The figures of the opinion polls are clear-cut: most people in the West are opposed to war. The West has nonetheless proven in the case of the Gulf war that it has no respect for its public opinion, nor for the rules and norms governing the very democratic system it claims to defend. If that were not so, how would certain governments and heads of state declare was when 60% to 70% of their public opinion is against it. Where then is democracy? And what about the Vox Populi?
I said earlier that there were still some lucid people in the West. One of them is university scholar Arthur Schlesinger, former adviser to President Kennedy, who wrote in the "New York Times" on December 17th, 1990 that while the Americans' ignorance of the Middle East was great, their ignorance of the future was, for its part, total. He added that such ignorance was inadmissible.
The objective targeted is to destroy the memory of a civilization. The relics of this 6000-year history, extending from the invention of writing and from the Sumerian civilization to the advent of the Islamic civilization, are assembled in a museum which I knew only too well when I was Assistant Director General for Culture at UNESCO twenty years ago. The vestiges of a 6000 year old civilization have been devastated. It will take years to take stock of all the damage. An irreplaceable part of a genuinely universal memory has been unscrupulously wiped out.
Baghdad is one of the most ancient cities in the world. In fact, it was the Sumerian era which witnessed the emergence of the first cities. Baghdad was also the first city in the world to have overstepped the boundary of one million inhabitants. Derived from Persian, its name signifies "gift of God." Bassorah, for its part, is yet more ancient than Baghdad. It used to be called "Al-Khurayba." It was the place where in the year 636 Atab Ibn Ghazouane, one of the Prophet's companions, was directed by Caliph Omar, to set up barracks for the Muslim armies. It is exactly this place which harbours, today, Iraq's republican guards, and which came under a deluge of bombs 5 to 10 times the equivalent of the Hiroshima bomb.
The West achieved much headway in terms of scientific, technological
and cultural progress during the last four centuries. Similarly, it set
up political and social institutions which contributed greatly to the advancement
of all mankind. However, it has not managed yet to acknowledge and take
into account the existence of values other than its own. ones. It refuses
to communicate and discuss in languages and on terms other than its own.
The colonial period has strengthened this ethnocentric attitude along with
a condescending paternalism. Hence the communication crisis between North
and South. The West has proven the limits and contradictions underlying
its willingness to seek reconciliation and understanding with the South
countries.
Let us take one single but significant example, that is the number of journalists who were present in the Gulf or ensuring daily coverage of the Gulf events from their offices. How many of them read Arabic? How many of them can leaf through the press of Arab countries or speak with these countries' citizens in their language to get their opinion directly from the source?
For Westerners, that effort is quite unnecessary since these people are expected to speak French or English. It is the people of the South who have to speak the language of the North. People of my generation endeavoured to speak the languages of the West, learn their geography, history, literature and music. They also visited their museums, appreciated their cooking, life-style and sense of humor. We are still awaiting a reciprocal treatment. Perhaps the West thinks or hopes that, some day, people will be assimilated in the long run, or integrated in the Western cultures and value systems, which constitute, in its mind, the one and only passageway to progress and salvation.
Throughout the many years of service I spent at UNESCO, I came to know this ethnocentrism from within and realized how it leads to the rejection of civilizational pluralism. I tended to think that this ethnocentrism was due to the mutual ignorance of cultures and not only to an urge to achieve power in complete disregard for the other value systems. However, the industrialized countries' resistance, as from 1970, to any change of the international economic order made me gradually change my mind. Not only did they resist any redistribution of world resources but they were also opposed to non-Western cultures playing a more significant role. Hence the need to stress again the strong relationship existing between political, economic and cultural factors.
It was getting increasingly difficult to rely on inter-national organizations for introducing the desired changes, because they were gradually becoming instrumental in maintaining the status quo which satisfied, in many ways, the North as well as the Governments in the South. That was one of the reasons why I resigned from UNESCO in 1980. By so doing, I actually freed myself of the shackles of the "duty of reserve" imposed by my status as an international civil servant in order to express myself openly and unreservedly on North-South relations.
The Gulf war is part of this problem. The position that I have taken in this respect is not a matter of circumstance, nor is it an emotional reaction triggered off by the fact that the country involved belongs to my region. My position stems rather from a predictable and anticipated deterioration in North-South relations.
During a televised debate in France on June 24th, 1980, which was broadcast as part of the First Channel's programme "Les dossiers de l'écran", on the topic of "the next decade," I said that there were three scenarios for the future of North-South relations.
* The status quo scenario ("stability" and "continuity") which would not through the decade;
* The reform scenario, which is still possible provided that reforms be initiated within the following five years (1980-1985);
* The failure of these two scenarios would inevitably bring about the third one which is the scenario of transformations and ruptures, starting as from the end of the 1980's decade.
The Gulf war signals the onset of the transformations and ruptures scenario which already affects, and will still do in the coming years in a more direct way, the entire Third World and not only the Gulf region or the Arab world.
In 1984, on a Japanese Television (NHK) programme on international cooperation, on which I was a guest along with Jean Jacques Servan-Schreiber and Hisanori Isomura (currently Director General of NHK), I stated that the forthcoming conflicts would be essentially cultural. I added that it should be no surprise if such a conflict breaks out before the end of the century between the United States and Japan. Concerning the war against Iraq, I think that the forecast has already come true. As for the United States and Japan's relations my forecast still have nine years to go.
Nevertheless, the contours of this scenario are already perceptible. The United States is an exclusively military power. It is no longer the economic power it used to be, let alone a moral, civilizational, social or political one. It must more and rely on its armies and arsenals to maintain its position within the international system.
Let us go back some 70 years ago when, on June 14th, 1921, Winston Churchill told the House of Parliament session that, as far as Britain's relationship with Arabs is concerned, it had two alternatives. The first consisted in leaving Arabs divided and forestalling their national ambitions. It also involved the setting up, in each region and city, of puppet administrations with the assistance of local dignitaries and the use of this elite to arouse jealousy and internal strife among them. The second alternative, which W. Churchill thought was best suited to bring to fruition the promises made to Arabs and to their leaders during the war, was to attempt to build around Baghdad, the old capital, an Arab State likely to revive and restore the Arab nation's civilization and glory, the aim being to preserve their friendship towards Great Britain and its allies. Of these two policies, W. Churchill stated that they had irrevocably opted for the second one.(2)
The term "irrevocably" is very significant here in that it shows how colonizers break the many promises they made and contrasts conspicuously with Mrs. Thatcher's declarations. It is also perceived as a cultural phenomenon which impairs the credibility of our interlocutors.
Amidst the eddying whirl of today's upheavals, numerous intellectuals, particularly from the Maghreb, who have so far been strong advocates of the West, have completely changed their mind and placed their creativity and writings in the service of the struggle against the new political, military and cultural hegemony. In Morocco, I will cite only the case of poet and painter Kamal Zebdi, who, a perfect bilingual, used to write French poetry that earned him a prize of the French Academy. He is a real artist, generous, pacifist, erudite and highly respected in Western cultural circles. His new poem, which is more than just a heart cry, symbolizes, through a language that only poets master, the feelings tormenting millions of persons who are unable to express them.
We have to understand that this is not a war of palavers, nor of victorious
slogans. It is a scientific and technological war involving cultural stakes
first and foremost. Each and everyone are required to mobilize themselves
and take action, each one in their field of competence, in order to defend
cultural diversity, which is a pre-requisite for the achievement of peace
and the survival of the human species.
Excerpts from a lecture delivered on February 8th, 1991 at the
Faculty of Economics and Law, University Mohamed V, Rabat.
* Réalités, Tunis, March 8th, 1991.
* Al-Khadra, Tangiers, February 22nd-March 1st, 1991.
* Al-Khabar, Algiers, March 2nd-4th, 1991.
2. 2 United Kingdom, Proceedings of the House of Commons,
vol. 143, pp. 174-175.