του Νίκου Μπινιάρη
Asia,
the womb of all religions and spiritual heritage of humanity is gestating a new
child. Grown-up children as Islam, Hinduism and the Taoist-Confucian China are
each almost the one third of Asia’s population.
Judaism and Christianity are a minority. However, these two traditions,
represented by the state of Israel
and Russia, play a crucial
role for the future of Asia and the world.
These religious-cultural traditions represent a qualitative aspect of the
complex and fluid terrain of state relations of that continent which in lieu
with the direct or indirect involvement of the West in Asia’s
affairs create an explosive landscape with possible dire consequences for all.
But, beyond any ongoing power politics among these actors, the focus of our
attention should be placed upon the structure of these states and the
differences with what we consider the model of international relations, the
European nation-state. These differences are foremost, the lack of the
political culture of accommodation and compromise among diverse ethnic,
religious and cultural groups and secondly, the state in itself which is either
weak or at the same time suppressive and autocratic.
Since 1648, the end of the Thirty
years War fought between Catholic and Protestant kings and princes, Europe
realized and decided that the two factions of Christianity had to cohabitate
the regions and its feudal residues and kingdoms. The nation state was forged
with the citizens’ allegiance solely upon a single state and not upon a supra
religious authority or a sovereign of a different state. Europe
went on to forge a new political reality with numerous wars and alliances and a
historical transformation through social and institutional revolutions: the
parliament as a representative body of the will of the people and pluralistic
democracy. This political and institutional basis of the European
paradigm-shift from the imperial and feudal sructures formed the model of the
strong nation state. Through the next phase of the European transformation, the
nation-state expanded all over Asia and destroyed either ancient Empires or
tribal political institutions creating new political realities painfully but
inexorably in Asia, Africa and the Americas.
An important element of the 1618-48
war was that it was fought solely among European powers. An initial involvement
of the Sultan who was invited to fight against the Polish Lithuanian League in
1620 and Russia’s
short term engagement played a minimal role in the outcome of the war.
The European social-political
evolution was solely an internal affair of what we identify today as the core
states of the West. The nation-state which emerged was a basis and a guarantor
of citizenship rights, political participation, and the rule of law, as a basis
of equitable distribution of justice. Furthermore, the Westphalian model
enshrined the concept and practice of national sovereignty and the
non-interference of states in others’ internal affairs. The cohesion and
solidarity founded upon the spirit of the nation permitted the European state
to support economic and imperialistic ventures world wide. Human rights, as a
recent evolution of the European social political paradigm is presently the
most widely used principle and tool for the social and political transition of
non-European societies to more democratic, pluralistic and tolerant political
entities. At the same time human rights is an instrument of dissolution of
certain states which were constituted from diverse ethnic, religious and
cultural groups, as Soudan, Ethiopia,
and perhaps Iraq, Syria,
Somalia, Nigeria,
Pakistan.
On the other hand, in Asia
there was a continuous presence of the past, as a political and social reality
which has up to now emulated, but at the same time defied, the European
paradigm. As a stark example we can observe that no Westphalian Treaty was ever
forged among the Islamic nations. There has never been a political compromise
and an understanding among Muslims about the place of Shiites, Sunnis, Alewites
and other factions and schisms in their own societies. The cohabitation of
these various strands of Islam can be described as benign or explosive at the
various stages of Islam’s presence in vast tracks of Asia and Africa.
At this point in history we are
witnessing a power struggle between Shiites and Sunnis as well as other
factions for a place in Islam’s evolution. At the same time we are following
the rise of a wave of democratic movement in the Arab world which is
experiencing painful birth pangs without a definitive tomorrow. The recently
formed states from Central Asia to the Maghreb,
with a Muslim heritage are struggling to define their social, political and
economic identity. What is lacking is an authentic political and cultural
settlement, an accommodation of their differences in the context of a civil
society and a genuine nation state. This is a demand which is not fulfilled and
as a matter of fact is jeopardizing not only their peaceful and economically
sustainable presence in the world but it also places at risk stability
worldwide.
We follow the news of terror attacks
not against the West but amongst Shiites and Sunnis. We read the analyses about
the confrontation between Iran
and Saudi Arabia or the
ongoing tug of war between the Sunni government of Turkey
and its Alewite citizens. The states
which are defined as Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan
or even Afghanistan, or Pakistan
are an agglomeration of tribes, ethnic groups and religious affiliations which
are on and off in turmoil or in an outright civil war.
We cannot define these entities as
nation-states. We cannot view them only as a forced commonality of either
extinct parts of empires or the outcome foreign designs that emanate from
imperial interests or even rivalries far away from their own territories. We
face a cross-categorization of conceptual tools which are inadequate to analyze
the entities we try to examine. The strong nation-state with citizens’ rights
and an equitable rule of law, which is what secularism implies, is presently
absent from many Muslim “nation-states” in Asia
and elsewhere.
The European paradigm as an outcome
of the Westphalian Treaty is not a very useful conceptual tool to study and
devise practical solutions for the acute problems of so many Asian countries in
flux. We have to contend with social entities with a past pre-dating Marxism as
a theory of social study. European sociology and political science is not
equipped and is too west-centered to understand the demands of these societies
and the future of these states.
Asia
also contains two giant political entities which do not belong to the Muslim
world. China
is an empire but for some historical and anthropological reason may be
categorized as a strong nation-state strong but not free form ethnic strife as
is the case of the Iugurs and the Tibetans. The other is India,
a democratic empire. It is a state engulfing a civilization which has spread
over the whole of Asia. This uniqueness of India
makes it more difficult to place Asia under the
Westphalian paradigm. The large minority of Muslims in India, which cohabitate
with Hindus in relatively peaceful condition with occasional bursts of clashes
for temple sites, or religious expressions, has forged a modus vivendi in a
democratic chaos, which walks upon a thin thread of compromise and co-existence
and is at risk of breaking at any major incident of terrorism or the impact of
deep social grievances.
The Asian experience of a
social-political Treaty among factions of religious beliefs and cultural
diversity has not yet been achieved. This historical reality is not an academic
remark but a serious impediment for understanding and facing the evolution of
this part of humanity, which is an important component of our future. Three
factors exogenous to this process are determinants of its evolution. The
European paradigm is an influence which facilitates and at the same time
impedes the autonomous evolution of Asia’s
societies towards a new model of political and social reality. This is a basic
difference between an autonomous local European evolution and an evolution of Asia
under the influence of the European paradigm and globalization.
The first and foremost factor is a
direct intervention of the stable nation-states of the West in Asia,
which has both positive and negative consequences. The former is the projection
of the Western democratic paradigm which encloses human rights, women’s rights
and tolerance of the “other’s” cultural or religious distinction. The paramount
influence of the West, though, is the fields of science and technology. Japan
first and China as well as India
have moved towards developing a strong scientific and technological basis. The
emulation of this aspect of the West has already dire consequences for western
economy and beneficial for the countries with the will to pursue such a course.
The negative consequences of western
influence are its direct or indirect involvement in the internal affairs of
these states. Central Asia was and still is an arena of conflict, and power
politics among Russia, China,
and the USA
or NATO as a whole. States are shifting for and against great powers aligning
and re-aligning themselves so that they can survive or stay intact against the
design of other local power centers. Afghanistan
is the paramount example of a state of many ethnic groups torn among Russia,
America, India
and China.
Its radical Islamic behavior has placed it on the map as the breeding ground
for any form of conflict, be it sectarian, ethnic, or power politics of the big
international players. It seems that slowly but inexorably the same is
happening in Pakistan.
Whatever keeps this country together are its Muslim character and the fear of
Hindu domination. Still this country is falling apart due to the NATO
intervention in Afghanistan
and the sectarian violence which is constantly present. The absence of a
Westphalian Treaty is painfully present in Pakistan
where intra-Islamic conflict is becoming a central weakness of this state to
advance its social and political transformation.
The second factor is the competition
of the West and the rising powers of China
and India
for raw materials. States without a strong internal cohesion, national spirit
and defined interests for their people are vulnerable to all kinds of pressure
and blackmail from the big players who use them even as pawns for their own
interests. This competition is not only on the economic field but for the
cohesion of states like Sudan,
Congo and even Iraq
and the Caucasus region.
A third exogenous factor for these
areas is the globalization of the world economy. Globalization creates the
conditions for a rapid and uncontrolled economic expansion or contraction, a
rising middle class and a great number of destitute mass which is unprotected
by strong state institutions and policies. Foreign investment has resulted in
miracles and disasters. Culture tradition and local norm of conduct vanish or
are distorted rapidly leaving behind a vacuum which is difficult to fill. Economic
transformation through globalization of trade and production is forcing a
change upon human relations and politics which may lead to disaster due to a
chaotic emergence of new elites and old rivalries.
Strong Western nation-states are disrupting
all forms of an authentic transformation of Asia’s
states, and for this matter, African ones, towards a model of tolerance and
much needed internal cohesion. An Asian Westphalian Treaty can be the basis for
mutual tolerance and cohabitation of various cultural and religious groups
leading to economic development and social justice. Accordingly, it becomes obvious that, since Asia’s
social-historical entities are not left alone to decide their own fate, the
continent’s transformation may turn more chaotic and dangerous than expected
for peace and security. Asia’s
womb may give birth to a still-born child with the features of an economic-
or/and real war Armageddon.
Nicholas A Biniaris 16/12/2011
