March 02, 2001

When civilisations clash

If you are properly clad, the 14th century Charles bridge in the shadow of the Prague castle is one of the world’s great walks even in winter. My Czech historian friend was describing the marvelous statues that line the bridge until our gaze settled on the elaborate sculpture just before the ornate gate opening towards the castle. The sculpture shows Christians being tortured in an Ottoman hovel during the Crusades and a bloated, brutish Turk keeping watch outside. ‘‘How will you ever accept Turkey in Europe with that sort of historical memory?’’ I asked. The conversation then zigzagged quite logically through themes like European unity and the clash of civilisations.

Even if one rationally sets aside Samuel Huntington, his essential thesis surfaces every now and again. Zbigniew Brzezinski was quite categorical some months ago: ‘‘Of course, there is a great deal to worry about in the Clash of Civilisations.’’

In another situation, a senior French official at the foreign office in Paris took my breath away. I was talking about the intellectual inertia of the liberal French at the height of the Bosnian crisis. The official shot back: ‘‘Look, the balance of power shifted against the Christians in Lebanon; the balance has likewise shifted against the Muslims in Bosnia.’’ Would you have been able to make that connection? The Maronite Christian elite in Lebanon was always very Francaise in its cultural orientation. That is why the Germans or the British would not have seen the turn of events in Bosnia in that light. Indeed, they saw Bosnia from their own perspectives.

Bosnia erupted when German Foreign Minister Genscher recognised Croatia ahead of the other Europeans. What is not commonly recognised is another detail: Cardinal Kukerij of Zagreb rushed to the Vatican as soon as Milosevic embarked on his project of greater Serbia by making his first probes into Croatian territory. It was at Cardinal Kukerij’s prodding that the Vatican recognised Croatia a day or two earlier than the Germans did.

Since Croatia was part of the Axis during World War II, the British almost instinctively threw their diplomatic weight behind old allies, the Serbs. It was between the ancient Serb-Croat hostilities that the Bosnian Muslims got horribly squeezed. For nearly five years Europe watched, pulverised. I remember Salman Rushdie’s observation at western inaction: ‘‘I have no doubt that if the religious affiliations were reversed, NATO would have marched into Sarajevo as soon as the news of the horrors were first received.’’

Any unilateral action by an individual European country would have invited a reaction from the others. Europe would have been dragged into a wider conflict. This is the most charitable construct of European inaction during the Bosnian crisis. The European Union after all was being created to obviate possibilities of wider conflict. In this, Europe had succeeded.

In fact, the conflict was not snuffed out without American intervention — indeed, American leadership. Of course, the US, being the world’s only power with a truly global reach, was responding to the anger worldwide at the high tolerance level Europe was demonstrating to unspeakable brutalities. ‘‘Never again’’ was the ringing resolution after the horrors of the Holocaust had surfaced at the end of the war. What had happened to that resolve?

The saturation coverage of the Bosnian war by the western media had a lot of impact. The media, possibly unwittingly, mixed up ethnic quantities with religious ones. It was described as a three-way conflict between Croats, Serbs and Muslims. It should either have been accurately described as a conflict between the Roman Catholic Croats, Orthodox Christian Serbs and Bosnian Muslims or simply Croats, Serbs and Bosnians. The fact of the matter is that bookstores in Zagreb at the earlier stages of the Bosnian conflict were lined with glossy books detailing Catholic chapels destroyed during the ethnic cleansing of Croat areas along the border as part of the project for a greater Serbia. Such facts were occasionally noted but never amplified.

The overwhelming projection was that Croats and Serbs, spurred on by Milosevic and Tudjman, had turned upon the Muslims in a relentless campaign of ethnic cleansing. Mass graves, rape camps were the daily fare on TV. Naturally world opinion, particularly in Muslim countries, was enraged. Images of Iraqi suffering, the Intifada, Bosnia — all got jumbled up. In the minds of people in such pro-West regimes as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the West was seen as the enemy. Huntington was proving right.

Europe was in a scrum, pulverised, unable to devise initiatives for fear of tripping into a wider war. It was at this stage that the Americans stepped in and restored a sort of balance which led to a status quo currently being described as peace.
My historian friend agreed the US, a power unencumbered with history, would be required for a long time. Europe and America, in tandem, will have the power for renewal, a capacity to rediscover the western elan as has happened at The Hague where crimes against humanity in Bosnia have been so suitably punished.

Other columnists:

Other articles by the columnist Because they are just like us Civiliasation as a unifier The Indian miracle and Islamabad The perils of amity The unreality of Pakistan The real message from Action This silence isn't golden The swoop of the falcon When palace responds to street Butter chicken in Managua Little India in Kobe New warmth in arctic winter From a reporter's notebook Ramzan is giving way to Christmas Scenes from a tragedy A mantra for Indian Muslims Hold the celebrations Pakistan awaits the Bush hand Build bridges across the Gulf On Kashmir, make haste slowly In self-destruct mode Why Congress is appeasing BJP Gurudev of home and the world