Of Surface and Substance

By Ralph Schoellhammer

One of the most striking first impressions of the city of Beirut is its modern, almost Western appearance. Sure, traffic is chaotic and traffic signs are not more than friendly suggestions, but that is just about the same in every Italian city south of Rome. If we see Americanization as the strongest form of Westernization, Beirut is even further ahead than some European cities. Try to find a Dr. Pepper, a KFC or even a single doughnut in Vienna and you will realize that it is a futile endeavor. Not so in Beirut, where they sell them at every corner and you literally cannot walk for more than two minutes before finding yourself in front of some US fast food-franchise. Some people like the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman see this development as the emergence of a global society that on the long run will usher into a new peaceful world order. Warming up to his theory, Friedman created the “Golden Arches Theory”, stating that no two countries which have McDonald’s franchises have ever gone to war with each other. But even before the ink was dry, the Kosovo crisis lead to a NATO air-campaign against Serbia, rendering the “Golden Arches Theory” meaningless.

The existence of a McDonald`s in Belgrade did not make the country more Western, just as the existence of Dunkin Doughnuts in Tel Aviv and Beirut did not prevent the war of 2006. The idea that equal consumption behavior will lead to equal political behavior is as tempting as it is flawed. It is a superficial deception that seems to absolve many contemporary observers and columnists to look deeper into the issues at stake.

If you fly from New York to London and then continue to Berlin you will again have the Beirut experience: The same pop music, the same jeans, the same Cheeseburgers. And yet Europe might be only second to the Arab World when it comes to anti-Americanism. The American model of “Imperialism” (for the lack of a better word) was deliberately based on this superficial deception. It is quite peculiar that the United States never saw a problem in its attempt to change the dinning culture of entire nations, but backed off almost every time when it comes to deeper things like the form of governance or questions of liberty.

The United States became an empire by accident, unwilling to fully take up the responsibility that comes with being the world’s strongest state. The British Historian Niall Ferguson remarked that the US is “an empire that lacks the drive to export its capital, its people and its culture to those backward regions which need them most urgently and which, if they are neglected, will breed the greatest threats to its security. It is an Empire, in short, that dare not speak its name. It is an empire in denial.” It only exported the easy, superficial parts of its culture: Food, music, movies. But those things are the result of American culture, not its precondition. And indeed, this neglect, as Ferguson describes it, has “breed the greatest threats to security”: On 9/11, 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, a country that had a friendly relationship with the United States since the 1930s and, in fact, owns its independence to the patronage of the US. In 1946 Colonel William Eddy was the first United States minister to Saudi Arabia. In his first meeting with Ibn Saud, the country’s founder, he was told: “We will use your iron, but you will leave our faith alone.” Compare this to the story of British India: In the early days of British rule there was the widespread tradition of “suttee”, the burning of widows together with their dead husbands. The British general Charles Napier was observing this tradition and decided not to leave their faith alone: “You say it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

It was an obvious feature of British Imperialism to export its vision of justice and government, and there can be no doubt that modern India is better off without suttee. The political correct mind would probably argue that this is an imperialistic view, but at its time it was called “cultural confidence.”

When the United States, on the other hand, came to Saudi Arabia, they decided to provide 20^th century technology to an 8^th century ideology. And, contrary to the American model, the Saudis do use their oil money to spread their ideology or show “cultural confidence”. Look at the numbers: In 1974 Saudi Arabia’s exports were to 91% oil-related. In 2004, it was still 91%. So what did they do with all the oil revenue? They train and finance Imams, build mosques spreading the Wahhabi version of Islam, fund the OIC and its attempts to make a public discourse of Islam impossible.

Even those institutions that were built by Americans to teach and educate moved into the backwater of Anti-Americanism. Don’t believe it? Well, in 2004 Professor Galal Amin, a professor at the American University of Cairo, wrote in Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly, that "there is still doubt that the September [11] attacks were the outcome of Arab and Islamic terror.... Many writers...suspect that the attacks were carried out by Americans." This seeming to be an important observation at AUC, Prof. Amin was seconded by his colleague Abdallah al-Ashal, professor of international law and political science who said during an interview in 2008: “I claim that since the events of 9/11, which were created by Sharon and Bush - the two of them shared a secret.” The idea, of course, that the mere existence of schools and better education will eliminate radicalism, terrorism and political violence is regularly contested by reality. The Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl was beheaded by a graduate of the London School of Economics, the London subway bombers were university students and fully integrated into the British society – fans of Fish’n Chips, Cricket and soccer. You can loathe Western society and still enjoy the seductions it has to offer – from pornography (the main preoccupation of Mohammed Atta besides plotting the 9/11 attacks) to Pepsi and Rod Stewart (the passion of Mullah Omar). But while it is understandable that the more radical Islamists denounce the West and try to spew their propaganda, it is surprising that the West itself does not seem to realize the problem at all. It is nice when the US-Ambassador in Beirut proudly announces that the US is the largest donor to UNRWA and builds schools throughout the Near- and Middle East, but, unfortunately, has no influence on the curriculum of these schools. Sure, I forgot: Lebanon and all these countries are sovereign nations and they do not want foreigners to interfere in what they teach at school. Fair enough, so the United States is not a sovereign nation? Ever heard of the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia? Or its most well known graduate, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali who tried to assassinate the US-President in 2005? Probably not, because all major news outlets from the AP to the New York Times declined to mention some background details on the school that turned Mr. Abu Ali into a radical. Described as a mere “high school” by the New York Times, a closer look might have revealed additional information. For example that the school describes itself as “subject to the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” or that its classes are based on “the curriculum, syllabus, and materials established by the Saudi Ministry of Education.” Luckily for the school’s pupils, the Saudi Ministry of Education offers a straight forward curriculum concentrating on Wahhabi history and “Islamic values and the Arabic language and culture” and, of course, “the superiority of Jihad.” Part of this educational experience is that in 11^th grade students are taught that on the final day of judgment Muslims will kill every Jew on the planet, and one can only guess how beneficial the view of the “Saudi Ministry of Education” is on Christianity and the West, given that even the possession of a Bible constitutes a crime in Saudi Arabia. In other words: While America finances schools in the Arab world that teach the loathing of the West, Saudi Arabia finances Schools in North America that teach the loathing of the West. To a certain degree, one is reminded of the old cold war joke where the American tells his Soviet friend: “This is a free country; everybody is allowed to criticize our president.” His friend answers: “Same here, in the Soviet Union everybody is allowed to criticize your president.” In a certain way, radical Islam has been a more successful export product than McDonalds: Pakistan adopted Islamic Law in 1977, Iran in 1979, Sudan in 1984. In 1960, Nigeria had English Common Law, now half of the country is under Sharia law, fighting a bloody war with the half that is not. Even in NATO-occupied Afghanistan a person trying to convert to Christianity has to face death threats. It is not the caves Tora-Bora that threaten the success in Afghanistan; it is in the classrooms of Kabul where the outcome of this conflict is decided. The Duke of Ellington famously said that “the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton,” if so, the battle against radical Islam might as well be lost in the backyards of the madrassas. If the West is not willing to present and defend an alternative ideology, more and more people will start looking for one elsewhere.

The Soviet Union failed in the end because the majority of Eastern Europeans wanted to live like their Western brothers and sisters. In the view of Poles, Czechs, Bulgarians and all the other formerly Communist nations, Western Democracy was the future, not Soviet Communism. In other words, it was the battlefield of ideas that in the end brought down the Soviet system. The question now is, how are we doing on this battlefield in the Muslim World? Not so well, I would guess: If we look at current trends, a large number of people between Morocco and Indonesia see their future in an Islamic society under Sharia law. A view that is, by the way, shared by an increasing number of Muslims living in the West. The difference is that in the 80s there actually were several institutions from the Catholic Church to NGOs like Helsinki Watch (now known as human rights watch) who actively promoted Western values. Nowadays, however, every attempt to do the same in the Muslim World is denounced as Imperialism, Colonialism or even Racism.

According to the UN’s demographic division in 1974 the Muslim World represented about 15% of the global population and the Western World accounted for approximately 30%. In 2004, both are at an almost equal 20%, with the latter in population decline while the former shows strong population growth. So I would suggest that the political views and philosophical principles the strongest growing demographic group on the planet ascribes to might have some impact on what the world looks like a few generations down the road. History is usually made by the most determined, and not the so-called silent minority. Neither the Nazis in Germany, nor the Bolsheviks in Russia ever won a majority in an election. Their determination, however, brought them to power anyway.

To leave the field to the radicals in the Muslim World, no matter under which name they appear, would mean to abandon all those millions of believers who just want to go on with their daily lives, raise their children and have a sense of security. In light of the most recent decision by Western governments to abandon Afghanistan in 2014, we might want to rethink the signals we are sending to the world. If we are not willing to defend our values and beliefs, why should they.