By Huseyin Bagci
The Fourth International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Global Strategic Review meeting, which took place in Geneva on Sept. 8-10, dealt with the topic, "New Thinking on Conflict and Peace." Around 400 hundred intellectuals, politicians, diplomats, academics, and military actors from 50 countries discussed the challenges which the world is facing today and its future. Indeed, the world is now not only "flat" (to quote Thomas Friedman) but also more dangerous than ever for future generations.
The conflicts in classical understanding are transforming into a new type and level, such that neither the nation-state nor international organizations can cope with them. U.S. policies in particular have been challenged and criticized heavily, but the U.S. remains the only global power and there's no change in sight. This means that the U.S. is still the only power which can undertake military operations (for good and bad purposes) around the world and can finance them.
The commander of the Combined Forces Command in Afghanistan Gen. Karl Eikenberry, stressed how with Afghanistan how difficult it is not only to create a new state but a whole new society. It is a fact that 2 million out of 6 million children who started to go to schools after the fall of the Taliban are girls who weren't previously allowed to go to school. Afghanistan is just one of the examples showing how illiteracy and poverty must be fought through all means. Terrorism is the biggest enemy of free societies -- a point that we remembered with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
The problem is how free societies can combat terrorism without losing the basic rights of citizens. Indeed, religious totalitarian groups make use of this weakness of free societies and would like to impose a certain way of life on their citizens. The new type of terrorism, in the form of religious fundamentalism, attracts masses unhappy both with their governments and the existing economic system. The "Osama bin Laden phenomenon" became a symbol of ideological resistance against the West by millions of people who cannot change their regimes via democratic means, like many Arab regimes, or lack sufficient opportunities to express themselves in their societies.
Thus, the West is facing a new type of challenge which will make life more difficult than in the Cold War years. The world is insecure and democratic states have to protect themselves against terrorism and combat it with military means if need be. But then the question is just what kind of military operations are acceptable -- U.S. style, Israeli style or NATO style?
The proliferation of nuclear weapons is another challenge for the West. Iran is at the moment the country which embodies the challenge to proliferation. The position of China, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is more supportive of Iran as Beijing rejects the "double standard" on this issue and gives the message to the West that nuclear weapons cannot be under the monopoly of Western powers.
The nuclear debate doesn't only center around Iran. North Korea is one issue where the West remained less influential than China. China is also emerging as a "new balancer" in global military issues. As Dr. Jiemian Yang from the Shanghai Institute for International Relations stated, China is modernizing its army so that no Western power can dare take any stance against it. Indeed, China is investing large sums in military reform.
The official view of Iran, stated by Dr. Manoucher Mohammadi, deputy foreign minister for education and research, showed how Iran is using the existing "spirit of the age" (zeitgeist) so that it will be the leader for some other Muslim countries to show that Islamic countries can also develop certain nuclear programs. It's a matter of national honor in Iran now to possess nuclear weapons.
The impact of emerging Asian powers on global security is now stronger and there is a "new quest for global balance of power" (Henry Kissinger). Beside China, India is emerging as another global player and no doubt East Asia will now play a larger economic and global role. This does not mean, however, that a clash is expected.
The clash, it seems, will be between Islam and Christianity. The recent statement of Pope Benedict XVI created a great uproar in the Islamic world. The world is falling with great speed into irrationality, and some top leaders are contributing to this in a way that radical Islamist movements gain more sympathy. It is true that the Islamic world has not had a reform process like the Christian world. Neither is there a firm unity among Islamic countries. But the confrontation of Christian and Islamic values in several parts of the world is a fact, and the fire of conflict is getting stronger.
Is it Islam versus Christianity in the end? For example, is there a European Islam, or in general how should Western countries contain the Islamic elements in their societies? Could India become an example for Europe in dealing with its Muslim population? Former Indian Foreign Minster Jaswath Singh stressed the historical fact that separates two examples, saying, "While India has absorbed Islam, Europe has expelled Islam." Indeed, there are two different historical paths, but Europe should also learn to absorb it and Turkey is offering in this case a unique example as the country which negotiates with the EU.
Some European politicians who are against Turkey because of its cultural and religious values represent the historical "continuation of exclusion" rather than the historical challenge to "absorb" it. It is a long debate and political issue. However, European policies towards Islam are also guiding the U.S. in the long run. In transatlantic relations, Islam is getting a binding issue for both sides as a new challenge. Russia is another experience of a "limited absorption of Islam." Islam is considered for Russia not a challenge but rather a chance for the future of the Asian region. Interestingly enough, the Central Asian Turkic states like Caucasian states are remaining secular and fight against radical Islamic movements with the same intensity as Western countries.
The new thinking on conflict and peace also foresees what type of peace we want to have. Civilians face constant fear, and nowhere is security completely provided. Western countries are not abandoning their liberties. At the same time, moderate Islamic regimes and secular Islamic societies face the challenge of being the victim of radical religious movements.
There is a "long war," as Sir Michael Howard said in the closing speech of the IISS conference, which started just couple of years ago. It is not a military one only, but a war of values and policies. Everyone is responsible now for heading off a new totalitarian ideology. However, reality leads to a very pessimistic view: the world is divided and already there are many worlds emerging. The global system which was established in 1945 with the UN cannot face the challenges of the future. One must be more creative now!
