Clash of Civilizations:
The Centre for World Dialogue
by Benazir Bhutto
CYPRUS  - 30th October 1997

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a pleasure to meet you today on the island of Cyprus, which is a most appropriate venue to discuss the complex political, cultural, moral and religious intersections between Islam and the West.

It was only four years ago that Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington shocked the world with his contentious monograph on the subject entitled "Clash of Civilizations".  

As a Muslim woman who has been educated in the United States and the United Kingdom, I was initially appalled by the specter of inevitable conflict that he outlined. I particularly disagreed with Huntington's unshakable pessimism about the emerging clash between the west and an increasingly self-confident and economically independent Islamic world.

Four years after I heard Prof. Huntington speak at Davos, I have moderated my own initial response to Prof. Huntington's thesis of a clash between civilizations. I do not subscribe to its inevitability but his article has served as a useful mechanism to bring to the forefront of intellectual attention significant issues that warrant debate.

Whether we like it or not, whether it must be so or not, the world seems to be increasingly looking at the values and mores of the West, and the values and traditions of Islam, as mutually exclusive and confrontational.

Let's explore these issues to day.

The world is very different place now than it was just ten years ago. At that point the nuclear threat was omnipresent. The Cold War raged on between the West and the Soviet bloc, reaching a boiling point in the battle for self determination for Afghanistan.

It was the common stand of the Islamic world through the Fifties, and Sixties, and Seventies and Eighties that was central to the containment of Communism on the Asian continent.

It was victory of the Mujahideen, the Islamic freedom fighters, supported by the forces of freedom all over the world, that extinguished the fading embers of a dying system.

Islamic resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan proved, once and for all, that the Soviet Union could not, with all of its military might, suppress the forces of history and the forces of justice.

Afghanistan proved that might does not make right. Afghanistan proved that at least sometimes, and some place on this earth, right makes might.

I remember vividly my feelings on February 15th, 1989 when as Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan I witnessed the final withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. The Western and Islamic world jointly celebrated this victory for freedom and for democracy.

Little did we realize at the glorious moment, that the victory in Afghanistan would be a catalyst to a curious corollary. The West's interest in, and need for alliance, with the Islamic world would steadily deteriorate with time!

Interdependence gave way to indifference. Indifference has, in many ways, been replaced by contempt.

Many in the west would like to think of us as terrorists and fanatics. We are neither, Muslims expect nothing from the West but basic respect. Mine is a religion that sanctifies Abraham, Moses and Jesus as Prophets.

Ladies and Gentlemen, The Communist threat united the Western and Muslim world. The Western world was rich, the Muslim world poor. The alliance between the West and the East led to the transfer of vast resources from one continent to another. In Pakistan alone, we received $ 4.2 billion of military and economic assistance, which sustained our economy. Other Muslim countries saw an influx of finances from one of the two super powers. The end of Super power politics heralded the end of the world of aid. Suddenly Muslim countries were economically at a disadvantage. The end of superpower politics also heralded the end of an alliance. The West no longer needed the Muslim countries to contain communism. But the end of superpower politics heralded something far more significant: a power vacuum. Each generation and each civilization needs to unite against a common threat. A vacuum cannot remain a vacuum for long. The power vacuum caused by the end of the cold war coincided with a historical economic shift.

Since the end of World War II, newly emergent independent nation states had been involved in national reconstruction. While the economies of the West appeared to have reached saturation point, the economies of the Muslim and Christian world seemed poised for an economic take off. Resources are finite. Therefore the transfer of resources from one part of the world to another indicates the enrichment of one part at the expense of another. The demise of Communism lifted the strategic blinkers and opened the optic vision of a world of markets. Suddenly the West realized that the inexorable march of history would announce a reversal of roles. Whereas in the past era, the Muslim countries (and Confucian countries) were dependent on the West for territorial security, suddenly the West was on the brink of an era of dependence on Asian/Muslim/Confucian markets. Historical fears reared their heads, for the West meets Islam at the doorway of Europe. Irrespective of whether it looks East or West, it sees the world of Islam. A world that had once knocked on its doors and threatened conquest. The Islamic/Asian World on the other hand, feels let down at the unceremonious way in which the alliance and with it the concurrent economic assistance ended. Conscious of its economic potential, the world of Islam wonders whether the West will allow the principles of Free Trade to work when free trade could mean a disadvantage to a dominant West and an advantage to a rising East.

Many Muslim countries view global values such as child labour, Human Rights, Environment as attempts by the West to erect invisible barriers to prevent free competition. Of course, Muslim countries subscribe to the global values aimed at protecting human rights, promoting the environment and ending child labour. But when they see a West selective in its application of global values, they wonder whether the West wishes to promote a new global partnership or use these values as a tool to tame markets. This is a serious misgiving which needs tackling. Many Pakistanis wonder why the West is vocal about human rights violations in Burma but silent about human rights violations in Pakistan, Kashmir and other parts of the Muslim world. The Muslim World embraced the economics of deregulation and privatization. Foreign funds were invested in its markets. But now there is a growing fear whether these foreign funds will be used for economic or political purposes - for instance, will contracts be given on merit or will countries be punished with withdrawal of foreign funds leading to erosion of balance of payments if a contract is not given to a favoured company in a favoured country.

I read an article in Vanity Fair (July 1997) that the rise of Kabila in Zaire had something to do with the grant of mining rights to a Western country. Let me give you the case of Pakistan. As Prime Minister I tried to diversify Pakistan markets between the West, the Gulf and East Asia. Although there was a quantum leap forward for Western companies during my stewardship of Pakistan, at least one diplomat considered me a threat to the commercial and agricultural interests of his country, although his country got billions more in contracts during my tenure than any other. As an Asian and a Muslim I wanted the Gulf and East Asia to have a share of our market. And many in Pakistan believe I paid a heavy price for that.

The West has a vital stake in the markets of the Muslim World. That stake gives rise to fears and insecurities in the minds of Western analysts. The Muslim countries welcome deregulation but also see it as a vulnerability for the powerful western companies to dictate contracts or for their countries to dictate a political agenda. This mutual suspicion is at an incipient stage. Prof. Huntington must be credited with scenting it so precisely at a time when the rest of us were caught up in the warm glow of global brotherhood, peace and harmony.

To compound the rise of mutual suspicion is the rise of the Information age. The Information age is dominated by Western cultural moves. These Western moves are at a variance with the cultural taste of the Muslim countries. Many in the Muslim countries believe that Western culture is characterized by the indulgent individual. An indulgent individual which puts himself/herself above church, spouse, children. Divorce and drug rates are cited as examples of families falling apart. The East believes that the individual needs to sacrifice individual craving at the alter of the family or the community's needs. Thus there is a gulf between the perceived roles of individuals in the West and the East. Then there is a threat to the concept of identity. Scholars have written that we are not only moving into a new millennium but into a new age. An age where individuals will be freed from the straitjacket of the nation state itself, where individuals will be able to access hospitals, schools, contacts and contracts through the computer. The global citizen is emerging from the chrysalis. This is change in a big way. And change is always resisted by the status quo.

Therefore the Western dominance in international media threatens the age-old traditions, identities and values in the Muslim world leading to another fault line of suspicion. Does this mean that the civilizations must clash? I believe the tension prints for a clash are there, but that a clash is not inevitable. This is an age of communication. We need better communication between the two worlds. We need, not to dictate, but make concessions. We need to show greater sensibility on both sides and we need most of all to develop a universal morality for a global age where the global citizen will emerge. Leaders on both sides of the two civilizations need to show sensibility.

Let me give you an example. Muslims were horrified at the carnage in Bosnia. Outrage that the West which had acted so swiftly in the Gulf War to secure oil supplies, now watched silently as Muslim blood washed the streets of Sarejevo. As Prime Minister, I considered it my duty to help end the ghastly genocide and to reduce a potential gulf between the West and the East. With Prime Minister Ciller of Turkey, I flew to Bosnia to highlight, as Mothers, our concern for the innocent children of Bosnia. I took up the issue with European and American leaders. I found them receptive particularly President Clinton, Chirac and Republican leader Bob Dole to my contention that delay in a cease-fire would lead to a backlash in Muslim countries. Our efforts paid off in the form of the Dayton Accord. When I met President Chirac upon his election, he mentioned Bosnia to me, and what I had said to him earlier. Europe and America alerted by a Muslim leader showed the sensibility required to act.

Similarly in the case of the genocide in Jammu & Kashmir, my government highlighted the issue. And we were successful. President Clinton's Deputy National Security Advisor told me that when re-elected, President Clinton would focus more intently on South Asia. And that is what is happening now. Sensibility, communication, compromise are the key to building an understanding between the West and Islam. Many Muslims are perturbed about the manner in which Prime Minister Mahathir has been portrayed in the Western dominated media. There is a perception, whether true or false is irrelevant, that the West is out to get Mahathir. It is no secret that many in the West viewed with dismay the rising deficit in Malaysia and the grandiose projects being undertaken by the government there.

However the Muslim perception is not that the Western investors withdrew funds from Malaysia because of an economy going off track. The perception is that Mahathir led the ASEAN fight to include Burma on its economic frequency despite Western warning. And for that he had to be punished. So the signal went out for the Western investors to withdraw funds, send the Malaysian currency into a tailspin and rock the Malaysian economy. I could see the Malaysian storm breaking and had I been Prime Minister I would have tried for Pakistan to promote a greater understanding between the agenda of the West and the agenda of the East. I give this example to illustrate once again that sensibility, communication and a spirit of compromise are necessary to promote a better understanding between Islam and the West in an age of transition, in an age of transfer of resources and in the Information age.

No doubt the West fears that a growing Muslim world will begin to flex its muscles in two to three decades. But attempts by the West to tame the Muslims through the tools of deregulation and free market vulnerabilities will surely backfire. Rapping the knuckles of leaders that do not fall into line will widen the gulf of understanding. Building bridges of understanding will lead to peace, harmony and stability. One billion Muslims stand at the crossroads today. One road leads to intolerance. Another leads to accommodation. There are voices of madness on both sides. There are those who say Muslims are barbarians who lock up their women. There are others who say the West is decadent, obscene and vulgar. In every society there is an extreme. Men and women of reason in the Information age need to tread the path of moderation for global understanding.

And I come to Cyprus to say that we in the West and in the Islamic World have a choice to make: For we are about to cross, together, into a new century, and into a new millennium. Whether we cross the millennium with acceptance, or fear, is very much in our control. For Islam and for the West, the forces of change, the thrust of modernity and technology, the strength of tolerance, the inevitability of freedom and liberty, and the sanctity of human rights, are all converging on this time -- on our generation -- providing an extraordinary opportunity to move the world.

In just 791 days from today, the calendar will mark the new millennium. We will have to determine whether this is just a change in date, or a change in attitude, in spirit, in hope. Let us determine to make that choice with reason and pragmatism in the light of an alliance that has ended with the cold war but left behind the embers of a warm understanding upon which much can yet be built.

Thanking you ladies and gentlemen.

Go Back

Biography - Speeches - Articles/Interviews - Kashmir Policy - Letters - Audios/Videos - Poems - Photographs