|
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.
|
