<div class="section1"><div class="Normal">The clash of civilisations theory is back in circulation, though now suitably amended to take care of such non-Islamic surprises as North Korea. Writing in the <span style="" font-style:="" italic="">New York Times</span>, Tom Friedman divides the world into two: World of order and world of disorder. In the former category fall the US (but of course), the UK, the EU countries, Russia, China and India (hurrah!). In the latter fall failed states such as Liberia, rogue states Iraq and North Korea, and messy states, Pakistan (more hurrah!), Indonesia, Colombia and most Arab and African states. <br /><br />True, this is a variation of the ‘Islam versus rest’ hypothesis. But then look at the advantages of pursuing this line. There is no change in the way the Islamic world is viewed: Almost all of it is either roguish or messy, the same, old civilisational problem in other words. At the same time, it conveniently opens up a substantial area outside the Islamic world for regime change scenarios.<br /><br />Friedman makes a case for the orderly world getting together to “help stabilise and lift up� the disorderly world, and wonders why China won’t see it this way. After all, the choice is obvious: “Indeed, some Chinese intellectuals actually believe you all have more to fear from US power than from Osama, Kim or Saddam...�. Unfortunately for foreign policy analysts lining up behind president Bush, not just China, or even France or Russia, but a major part of the “orderly� world would seem quite happy to side with the “disorderly� lot. <br /><br />Around the globe today, an increasing number see the US rather than Iraq as a threat to peace and order. In a Time-Europe poll done sometime ago, over 70 per cent named the US as the greatest threat to peace. <br /><br />The last nail in the coffin of the civilisational clash theory came last weekend — in the form of the spectacular anti-war protests that swamped the streets of world capitals. From New York to London to Berlin to Madrid to Tokyo to Toronto to Tel Aviv — yes, Tel Aviv — there was hardly a city left that didn’t thumb its nose at the Bush and Blair war show. <br /><br />In many places, placards asked for a regime change — not in Baghdad but in Washington and London. If the protests were muted anywhere, they were in the ‘disorderly’ Arab world.<br />This mass of protesting humanity didn’t represent a sudden spurt of irrational anger against the US. <br /><br />This was anger that had been building up, as Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria discovered while travelling in Europe much before the protests began to show up on the streets. Such was the sweeping anti-Americanism Zakaria found wherever he went that he might have been in hostile Arab territory rather than in Europe; indeed, he quotes a Swiss friend’s child as saying that everyone in his school believes the CIA to be behind 9/11. As Zakaria says, it is no longer about Iraq, it is about the US. <br /><br />Given this background, the Bush administration should have known better than to try and prove a Saddam-Al-Qaida link through a new bin Laden tape. The attempt was to establish Saddam as a terrorist, of course, but even more to paint him in the colours of Osama — as a religious obscurantist. In short, once again a ‘progressive’ West versus ‘regressive’ Islam projection.<br /><br />In the event, the attempt backfired, with the taped voice going on to heap the choicest abuse on Saddam, who is called “socialist, communist and infidel.� The disconnect was so stark, so evident, even the pro-establishment New York Times blew holes in the story. To quote: “Nothing would make it easier for president George W Bush to overcome Americans’ doubts about going to war with Iraq than proof that Saddam Hussein is in league with Osama bin Laden. Talk about an axis of evil! In truth, however, there is little hard evidence of such a connection and the administration should stop peddling that line to the American people...� <br /><br />The NYT editorial went on to point out that the tape was “larded with disparaging gibes at the ‘infidelity’ of Iraq’s ‘socialist’ leaders.’’<br /><br />Islam versus rest. Good versus evil. Order versus disorder. There simply aren’t enough buyers even in the post-9/11 scene for the Bush administration’s black and white view of the world. Of course, this is not to say that Messrs Bush and Blair will not press ahead with war in Iraq. Or that France and Germany will forever stand up to the duo. War will happen, but it will be a war won as much by steamrollering Saddam, as public opinion worldwide. And if France and Germany — and possibly China and Russia — stay resolute, it will be a war won steamrollering the majority sentiment in the UN.<br /><br />That the US will go against the UN has been made clear by almost every member of the Bush team. On February 7, Mr Bush said: “If the Security Council were to allow a dictator to lie and deceive, the Security Council would be weakened.� On February 12, Colin Powell repeated the threat: “We are reaching a moment of truth with respect to the relevance of the UN Security Council to impose its will on a nation such as Iraq, which has ignored the will of the Council.�<br /><br />And that will be the ultimate irony. The world’s greatest democracy despatching a ‘demonic dictator’ by the same means he has employed to stay in power — muzzling the voice of the people and showing complete disrespect to the will of the United Nations.<br /><br />When that happens it might be time to redefine the worlds of order and disorder.</div> </div>
