THE DIVISION OF THE WORLD
By Avi Davis

No one should be too surprised by the insistence of the U.N on the renewal of the Combating Defamation of Religion resolution. It has come up for approval and actually been renewed every year by the United Nations General Assembly since 2005. And there is a very good reason for it. The measure is fully supported and promoted by the Organization of Islamic Conference , a 57 member bloc that dominates the United Nations and for decades has been behind some of its most notorious resolutions. The densely worded document is meant to safeguard religious ideas and allow religious minorities to lead "a life of respect ... free of coercion, fear or threat." According to the special U.N. rapporteur for anti-discrimination there has been an alarming escalation in anti – Islamic rhetoric and behavior throughout the world.

And what acts does this refer to? They include remarks made last year about Islam by Pope Benedict XVI, the publication of cartoons in Danish newspapers that contained unflattering images of the prophet Muhammad and the incendiary comments and attacks on Islam by Muslim writers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie.

In the West , of course, to criticize, deride or even lampoon a religion or faith had usually been protected under freedom of speech. But as we have consistently reported in the Western Word and I have stated in many articles, freedom of speech, in the western democracies nearly always takes a secondary role in its confrontation with Islam. But there is another reason other than Islamic empowerment which has brought about such a sorry state of affairs. That is the West’s apparent willingness to play along with whatever is politically expedient. It is significant that at the recently convened Democratic National Convention in Denver , the threat of militant Islam, was never mentioned. Cast as the struggle with internationalism terrorism, the Democrats seemed content with relegating the real threat against this country as a something akin to a natural phenomenon, a scourge whipped up out of thin air having no antecedents or roots in an anti- Western ideology. Rudi Guiliani was therefore right to point out in Minneapolis this week that politically correct thinking and the determination not to offend anyone will effectively derail the war on terrorism. Because if you can’t even name your enemy and identify the ideological roots of his animus, how can you expect to achieve an ultimate victory?

The apparent queasiness the West feels about castigating Islam, can also be seen in it attitudes towards the actions of Russia, China and Iran... Russia’s recent invasion of Georgia and its support for the independence of two new provinces received only a tepid response in the West, a restraint explained by Western leaders’ unwillingness to accept that Russian imperialism has assumed a new incarnation and its centuries old determination to dominate its region has been reborn. China similarly receives a clean bill of health for its regular abuse of human rights and its threatening stance towards its neighbor Taiwan. China’s piracy of Western designs and patents is one of the gravest threats to international economic order, and yet the West refuses to acknowledge China’s rampant breaches of law and exploitation of Western greed for cheap knock offs.

Perhaps the most egregious example of the West’s continuing willful blindness can be found in its attitudes towards Iran’s persistent flaunting of international censure regarding the development of its nuclear program. Iran has learned that it can bait the West with guarantees and assurances about peaceful intentions while making explicit and dire threats against Israel. The failure to recognize that the threat to the State of Israel is a threat against the West itself that may ultimately prove to be one of the gravest diplomatic blunders in history – akin in many ways , to the West’s policies of appeasement of 70 years ago.

For all this, there is some safeguards built into the situation which offers the West some cause for confidence that it will prevail in its confrontations with rogue regimes and would-be Hegemons. That is that all of these countries – Russia, China, Iran and the countries of the OIC, are all eager to present the appearance of playing by international rules. Vladimir Putin did not seize power and establish a new Stalinist –like dictatorship, but followed Russia’s constitutional process and handed the Presidency off to a new successor, even though he is still clearly the power behind the throne. China may be breaking its own agreements regarding intellectual property rights but it is nevertheless willing to conduct discussions and conferences to address the issue. Iran continues to seek justification for the continuation of its nuclear program, rather than off handedly dismissing Western grievances.

The bottom line, therefore, is that Western opinion and diplomatic acceptance still matters to these regimes. They still seek legitimacy from the West for their actions because they recognize that the West still retains the economic clout, and perhaps even the military capacity, to bring them to heel. This places considerable power in the hands of Western governments. The world may well be drifting back into traditional 19th Century style balance of power politics – with each power center carving out its own sphere of influence. But if the West displays resolve and unity in facing down aggression - and backs it up with assertive action, such as sanctions and even threat of military force - the inevitability of a new world order in which the West is only one player among many – an equal but lesser role than it currently maintains – does not have to eventuate.

The Western Word - An International Weekly Digest   9-05-2008