Coming
Soon!
From Common Courage Press
Recent
Stories
May
22, 2003
Carl
Estabrook
Republic of Fear
Carl
Camacho, Jr.
Reason for Hope
Ben
Granby
What Rates a Headline from the Middle
East?
Don Monkerud
Snowballs in a Soggy Economy
Barry Lando
The Nether-Nether World of G.W. Bush
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars
May
21, 2003
Dave
Lindorff
Ari Fleischer Quits the Scene: The
Liar's Gone, the Enablers Remain
Chris
Floyd
How Blood Money Becomes Business Opportunity
Dr. Gerry
Lower
Graham's God and Bush's Pathology
Patrick
Cockburn
In Post War Iraq, the Signs of Breakdown
are Everywhere
Brian Cloughley
The Fatuous Braintrust: Newt, Rummy and Wolfowitz
Saul
Landau
Shopping, the End of the World and the Politics of Bush
Larry Kearney
Two Morning Poems, May 2003
Steve
Perry
Chaos in Iraq: Just What the US Wanted?
Elaine
Cassel
Ashcroft Justice Comes to Iraq
May
20, 2003
Tariq
Ali
The Empire Advances
Ahmad
Faruqui
Whither American Nationalism?
Ben Tripp
Dialysis with Osama
Linda
Heard
The Cage of Occupation
Cynthia
McKinney
Toward a Just and Peaceful World
Edward
Said
The Arab Condition
Mokhiber
and Weissman
Why Ari Should Have Resigned in Protest Long Ago
Stew
Albert
Yale Men
Steve Perry
The New Face of Al-Qaeda
May
19, 2003
Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
A Letter to Kofi Annan on Powell's Missing
Evidence
CounterPunch
Wire
"Terror" Slut Steve Emerson
Eats Crow
John
Chuckman
Blair's Awkward Lies
Matt
Vidal
Corporate Media and the Myth of the Free Market
Michael
S. Ladah
The Fine Print to Bush's Road Map
Robert
Fisk
Bush's Eternal War Backfires
Elaine
Cassel
Clarence Thomas, Still Whining After All These Years
Jonathan
Freedland
Ann Coulter's Appalling Magic
Steve Perry
Play It Again, O-Sam-a
Hot Stories
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Elaine
Cassel
Civil Liberties
Watch
Michel
Guerrin
Embedded Photographer Says: "I
Saw Marines Kill Civilians"
Uzma
Aslam Khan
The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War:
What America Says Does Not Go
Paul de Rooij
Arrogant
Propaganda
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
May
22, 2003
Christian in
Name Only
A Clash of Civilizations?
By MARK GAFFNEY
During the last few years there has been an endless
stream of windy rhetoric in U.S. journalism about the so-called
"clash of civilizations." And the tone became much
more shrill after 911. The clash--we are told--is the inevitable
fault-line that runs between we in the civilized West and the
fanatical followers of Islam. This is usually the way it is portrayed.
The phrase "clash of civilizations"
was coined by Samuel P. Huntington, a Harvard professor whose
original paper by that name appeared in the journal Foreign Affairs
in the summer of 1993. The article has been described as a prescient
description of our world. Those who have read it know that Huntington
offered some valuable insights. The professor argued that the
ideological Cold War that raged between the Communist East and
the Capitalist West during the 20th century was not the norm
when viewed in the sweep of history. On the contrary, it was
anomalous and transient. Huntington's paper, published after
the collapse of the Soviet Union, predicted that the East-West
rivalry would soon fade, and be replaced by a clash of cultures.
Many babyboomers probably found his prediction surprising. Most
of us, after all, grew up in a world dominated by anti-Communist
and anti-Capitalist propaganda. But Huntington argued that the
Cold War itself was but a temporary departure from the deep cultural
and religious clash between the Christian West and Islam that--he
argued--had dominated world affairs for more than a thousand
years. According to Huntington the differences between Islam
and Christianity did not disappear during the Cold War. They
were merely overshadowed by the intense U.S.-U.S.S.R ideological
rivalry. When the Cold War fizzled, however, the world reverted
back. The clash of civilizations reemerged as the dominant factor.
Huntington offered no solutions. His paper merely described the
world as he saw it.
After 911, America became obsessed with
security. Huntington's descriptive analysis became a cause celebre.
The new perceived enemy, Islamic fundamentalism, seemed to threaten
everything we hold dear, including western democratic values.
At any event, this has been the rationalization for the increasing
use of U.S. military power abroad. The argument is dubious, however,
because, as I will show, one need not look abroad to Islam to
discover the basis for "the clash." There is a crisis,
yes. But, in my view, it is not primarily a clash of civilizations.
That is secondary. The primary problem can be found right here
at home. And it is the continuing impoverishment of our own Judeo-Christian
tradition. We in the West have lost contact with our own spiritual
origins. Which is why we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.
To understand why this is so, we need
only review some pertinent history. Take, for example, the case
of Iran. Why Iran? Firstly, because Iran illustrates the failure
of Christian values. Secondly, because Iran could well become
the next target of U.S. aggression. Today, few Americans understand
the pivotal role the U.S. government played in Iran in the 1950s
sewing the seeds for the Islamic revolution of the 1970s. The
basic facts are almost never told, here. For which reason I will
briefly review them. In 1951 the nation of Iran was a budding
democracy. In that year a moderate professor, Mohammed Mossadegh,
became prime minister of the country in an overwhelming vote
of the Iranian parliament. He was an aristocrat, and a wealthy
landowner, but also a political progressive. Mossadegh was popular
with his countrymen, known for his "...exceptional record
of honesty and courage, and...disinterested public service."
The man was a genuine leader. He had stature. (Joseph Upton,
The History of Modern Iran, 1960, Harvard Press)
The new prime minister was charged with
a popular mandate: to renegotiate Iran's oil concessions to the
U.S. and British oil companies. At the time, this was viewed
as the nation's highest priority. A large majority of Iranians
believed that the then-current oil royalty structure was unfair.
The country needed a more just compensation for its primary export,
oil, which was then coming into great demand in the world marketplace.
Higher royalties were needed to develop the country. Mossadegh
faced a stiff challenge, however, because one month before his
election the Iranian parliament had nationalized the British
oil company. The move infuriated the British government, which
responded with a naval blockade that crippled the country. Mossadegh's
policy was to defuse the crisis by seeking a diplomatic compromise.
Did the U.S. government respond with
reasoned dialogue? Absolutely not. Instead of negotiating a fair
settlement of the differences, the Eisenhower administration
collaborated with its British ally. The CIA and M16 (the British
counterpart of the CIA) were ordered to stage a military coup.
Mossadegh was overthrown by force of arms. The young Shah Muhammad
Reza Pahlavi, who during the previous two years had been eclipsed
by Mossadegh's immense popularity, was installed in power. Mossadegh
was thrown into prison. What mattered in Washington was not democracy,
nor the best interests of the Iranian people. What mattered was
not fairness, or international law, or human dignity. None of
the above. Only one thing mattered: preserving the obscene profits
of the U.S. and British oil companies.
The U.S. refused to negotiate with Mossadegh,
but not because he was a Communist. He was not. Even as the coup
was in progress, John Foster Dulles, U.S. Secretary of State,
told a Senate committee there was no Communist threat in Iran.
Mossadegh was unacceptable because he was considered too independent.
He insisted, for example, on maintaining Iran's neutrality. During
the Cold War Washington viewed this kind of attitude as tantamount
to betrayal. Available historical records show that U.S. policymakers
did not even consider whether meddling in Iran's internal affairs
might be immoral. The U.S. National Security Council never even
discussed the question of ethics on the day it made the fateful
decision to launch the coup. (William Blum, Killing Hope, 1995,
chapter nine)
The Shah was more compliant to U.S. corporate
interests. For which reason the U.S. lavished aid and arms upon
the Shah's increasingly brutal government. The coup signaled
the end of democracy. The CIA and Israel trained the Shah's notorious
secret police, the SAVAK, which hunted down Iranian dissidents
all over the globe. During the next twenty-five years the Shah
was Washington's most loyal ally--at the expense of the people
of Iran. Amnesty International reported in 1976 that Iran "had
the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system
of civilian courts, and a history of torture which is beyond
belief. No country in the world has a worse record of human rights
than Iran." (William Blum, Killing Hope, 1995, chapter nine)
The rest is history. Today, it is instructive
to ask whether Shi'ite fundamentalism would have come to prominence
in Iran in 1979 had we the good sense in the 1950s to support
political moderation, justice, and democracy, instead of profits
for profits' sake. Viewed in this perspective, the "clash
of civilizations" appears considerably less inevitable than
the talk show hosts, the FOX pundits, and the rabid newspaper
columnists--the fear mongers--would have us believe. Indeed,
the above history suggests that the actual clash is right here
in America. The clash is the gaping chasm between one view of
the world versus another: human decency versus rapacious greed.
If we were truly a Christian nation,
we in America would have insisted that our government's dealings
with Iran adhere to the golden rule: do unto others. But nothing
like this happened. We who preach freedom and democracy chose
not to be informed about our government's foreign intrigues.
We who call ourselves Christians chose not to care about the
criminal way our government was treating others. Most importantly,
we so-called Christians totally abandoned the most fundamental
teaching of Jesus: do unto others as you would have them do unto
you. A teaching so simple, yet, so profound. We failed in the
case of Iran. And similar instances involving other countries
are too numerous to count. Some will argue that foreign affairs
is no place for Christian values. What nonsense! On this shrinking
planet--a planet in deep peril--the most important decisions
we make are how we treat other people(s). The unpleasant truth
is that we Americans are spiritually bankrupt as a nation: Christian
in name only. And there is no doubt that in the coming days we
are going to reap the consequences of the whirlwind we have unleashed
on this tiny planet.
Mark Gaffney
is a researcher, writer, poet, environmentalist, anti-nuclear
activist, and organic gardener. Mark was the principal student
organizer of the first Earth Day at Colorado State University
in April 1970. Mark's first book was a pioneering 1989 study
of the Israeli nuke program: DIMONA THE THIRD TEMPLE. From 1989-1993
Mark helped National Audubon Society inventory and map Oregon's
remaining old growth forests. Mark's forthcoming book is a study
of early Christianity: SECRETS OF THE NAASSENE SERMON. Mark can
be reached for comment at mhgaffney@aol.com
Today's
Features
Dave
Lindorff
Ari Fleischer Quits the Scene: The
Liar's Gone, the Enablers Remain
Chris
Floyd
How Blood Money Becomes Business Opportunity
Dr. Gerry
Lower
Graham's God and Bush's Pathology
Patrick
Cockburn
In Post War Iraq, the Signs of Breakdown
are Everywhere
Brian Cloughley
The Fatuous Braintrust: Newt, Rummy and Wolfowitz
Saul
Landau
Shopping, the End of the World and the Politics of Bush
Larry Kearney
Two Morning Poems, May 2003
Steve
Perry
Chaos in Iraq: Just What the US Wanted?
Elaine
Cassel
Ashcroft Justice Comes to Iraq
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|