A. Malashenko’ throwaway: West and East coalesce if aliens descend

The spring above failed to spring up in the relations between West and East. Why? ASTNA tried to get the question answered from interview with Soviet and Russian orientalist, expert on Islamic sudies and political analyst, Alexey Malashenko.

***

- The dissolution of the USSR was accompanied by confrontation tendencies worldwide, in particular, between West and East, the USA and China, West and Russia. If this is the case, an ordinary reader wonders: is there any dialogue between civilizations? 

- It has to be kept in mind that a dialogue does not mean a spanless mutual chemistry. On the other hand, a dialogue is an aspiration to attain mutual understanding. At the same time, a dialogue is an attempt (usually clandestine) to prove its own excellence in the course of a dialogue. This is nothing more than confrontation in the struggle for ultimate rectitude and truth owned by one party only. This is clearly apparent in the dialogue of civilizations.

It ought to be noted that Islam is the ultimate and the most advanced monotheism. It is difficult to stand up to this fact. This notwithstanding, West and the western-Christian civilization is surviving the economic, political and the so-called «material» duel. Consequently, the Muslim world is losing, although it s not going to decline from its own superiority.

-Is this confrontation due to civilization differences or a result of competition aimed at attaining a winning predominance?

- In the course of the civilization dialogue each party is eager to persuade its opponent in own ultimate accuracy with simultaneous recognition of other party’s achievements and even temporary material supremacy. A eloquent testimony to this are Islam and West relations.

By the way, no one will be able to revise the number of these civilizations – 3, 4, 5, 8…, etc. The question is that there is no uniform definition of civilization. There is merely «a feeling» of civilization but there is not a real pragmatic understanding of what civilization is. In Russia, it is the mode to allege about «Russian civilization»; however, no one can refer to any real criteria. Now and then it is reminiscent of political speculations.

Don’t you find that an issue of a dialogue of civilizations mainstreaming tоday is caused by contradictions between the Muslim world, especially its radical part, and the rest of world?

- What do you think, does a confrontation go beyond a dialogue while parties’ responsibilities are equal? 

- Your question is provocative and even amateurish. There is no getting away from the fact that the history is neither street brawl, nor world war. May a pinheaded remark «historical responsibility» weigh on conscience of politicians who are afraid of their own responsibility. Civilization is completely blameless, and volcanic eruption is not their personal provocation. Water is not guilty of being wet. That aside, civilizations have largely been formed due to space, climate and terrain relief.

It has to be kept in mind that in a various degree it is sometimes ordinary people, mostly politicians that bear responsibility for specific actions. On the other hand, absent Napoleon, Moses, Jesus Christ, Mohammad, etc., they would be filled by somebody else. In the end, each of them voiced social, cultural and possibly civilizational trends under challenging situations.

It is common to speak of role of the individual in history but of role of the history in individual. In other words, it’d be wrong to charge history and civilizations with any adversities. Failing that, there are evidence-free accusations that Islam is responsible for atrocities and West for colonization. By the way, why have you, the faithful, let West colonize you?  

-  It has been argued in East that West employs double standards. In particular, West did not back Catalonia’s departure from Spain, on the one hand, but currently sympathizes the Armenian and Kurdish separatism, on the other. That was clearly apparent during a 44-day war of Azerbaijan directed to the liberation of its territories from Armenian occupation. Western countries called to halt the war, on the one hand, and simultaneously declined from pressuring Armenia over leaving occupied territories. Further complicating the case was adoption of an act on «NKR»’s independence by both chambers of the French parliament. For 40 years Turkey has been denied into the EU. Tired of waiting, the country changed its policy direction. Everything points to the fact that the double standard policy is impairing credibility between countries. Is West so much short-sighted or are there other reasons to operate in that space?

- «Double standards» are inventions and demagogy. Every society and every state has its own interests: today it shows interest in color black; tomorrow in color white; the day after tomorrow in another color, etc. It is impossible to get engaged in politics to comply with a single standard. In this respect, today’s multi-vectoriness is «multi-commonality», isn’t it?

As for Turkey’s non-admission to the EU, it is evident that Europe is on guard for having such a state and society as its member. It is beware of this state, and is doing the proper thing. Suffice it to imagine Erdogan in Europe with his pan-Turkic and neo-Ottoman ambitions? Pope Benedict XVI hit the mark as saying that «if we let Turks into Europe, why should we have shielded Vienna from them in 1683? ». In every joke there is an element of truth. Basically, neither Europe, nor Turkey is ready to join hands.

-For the sake of argument, elements of globalization – second-language skills, social networking, transnational corporations, broad economic incorporation, financial and currency ties are designed to accelerate civilization rapprochement. Strangely enough, it fails to happen today. Why?

-What is important to notice is that this “common language”, including social network service, etc., not only draws people together but disintegrates them as well. Drawing people together, or globalization, causes response, i.e. aspiration to preserve their own identity. And vice versa, to thrust their traditions. People in East are seeking to save their traditions; people in West are eager to thrust them. Suffice it to remind that Europe and America “thrust” telephone, telegraph, television, computer, Internet…Isn’t that enough? In turn, availing of Internet East aspires to survive its identity.

-It is migration processes in West that gave birth to a large eastern diasphora. The essential point to remember is that 15% of France’s population is Moslems; approx. 4 million Turks reside in Germany. As a matter of fact, these migrants were meant to serve as a crossroad between these civilizations but failed. Why?

- Migration is a sort of bridge between peoples; however, in the course of construction, the bridge has a separating ditch. In this respect, migration is an up-to-date form for movement of peoples and cultures. This process has been traditional for all times: in antiquity, in the course of Mongolian and other invasions; expansion of Ottoman Empire and colonial seizures. This is an inevitable, objective process, yet, painful rather. It might be added that the strongest, more advanced in policy, culture and technology, does survive.

- For a long period East has been unsuccessful in closing the gap from West. What do you think, if East managed to catch up West, would a dialogue occur at higher level?

- Your question is unintelligible. Catch up in what sense? In political order, social relations, culture or technology development? As a matter of fact, it is possible to reduce the gap and make good the lag. It is worth reminding that any attempts «to catch up» mean borrowing plus modernization of native traditions, ability to adapt them and adopt the most effective. This is best demonstrated in the countries of the Coast – Japan, Korea, etc. The situation is most stressful in other «Easts»; it is somewhat dreadful. In the Soviet times Khrushchev dreamt of catching up and overtaking America. And look how that turned out!

- During the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia a FocNews correspondent told President Aliyev that we know Armenians of old; they are members of our society; they suffered tragic chapters of their history and they are Christians. That’s why our sympathies are with them. The same was true of approaches of journalists and politicians from other western countries. What do you think, does a religious factor matter in a dialogue between West and East? Is a religious factor governing or it…?

-It’d be appropriate to note that a religious factor plays an essential role in the process. Note that religions are engaged in perpetual competition, with their own concept of «finitude» and perfection.  An interrelation dialogue is possible on a worldly panel only. Besides, we deal not merely with religions as a whole but with various, sometimes exactly opposite interpretations, even radical ones. As a matter of fact, it’d be wrong to mix apples and oranges, i.e. religion and faith.

- At present, there are serious differences between the EU and Great Britain, between the United States and the EU. When adjusted for the fact that West is faced with intrinsical disagreement, is it possible to agree with East?

-Political dissociation in West is not a matter of principle to affect relations with East.

- In your opinion, is a dialogue prejudiced by historical memory of East in the recent past of its domination? Is there a feeling that East is seeking to recapture the past?

- Historical memory is a strongly contradictory phenomenon as is the case with historical truth. Every people, every socio-cultural group has its own truth. For instance, a place of Tamerlane in the historical memory of Uzbeks and other peoples; a memory of the Ottoman Empire;  a memory of the Second World War. At least, a memory of Armenian genocide. Is there anybody to mind it?

As for historical truth, the experience makes it plain that in the USSR and Russia historical truth had repeatedly been «corrected after an advent to power of the next Secretary General or president. Under Stalin, under Khrushchev, etc. The essential point to remember is the memory cannot be used as political instrument as is the case today.

- Account has to be taken of the fact that East lurches from one extremity to the other. Followers of theocratic state overthrew pro-western shah of Iran. Egyptians overthrew pro-western, secular President Mubarak, and Muslem Brothers with their Shiite views came to power in the country. In a while they were replaced by Gen. As-Sisi who restored previous political order. The same occurred in Turkey where the military overthrew Erbakan. Political experts forecast that after Erdogan’s resignation the pro-western forces will come to power in Turkey to start developing a dialogue with West. A question arises: why are not eastern societies consolidated to make their strategic choice?

- It is nothing to be surprised about. Changes are in progress in society and political elites. Success gives way to failure. Let’s look at the Arab spring of 2011. Its primary cause is collapse of frozen regimes’ home politics: their leaders did not want, nor could carry out urgent radical reforms. The former rulers are and will be replaced by other persons – from pro-western to Islamists. Of interest is the fact that among Islamists there are many politicians prone to contacting with Europeans and Americans. It should be borne in mind that weird tendencies are interlinked in the policy of Muslim societies. This is to be expected.

As for Erdogan specifically, his future is dependent upon internal situation in his country and economic conditions, not upon implementation of foreign political ambitions. Erdogan’s Turkey of today is ambitious like never before. Turkey speaks with America, Russia, European countries as equals (or believes as equals). Turkey is omnipresent in Syria, Libya, South Caucasus, etc.

It is nothing else than damages for unsettled аnd unsettledness of domestic issues. By the way, in this matter Turkey has much in common with Russia. However, sooner or later Erdogan will have to answer a question «Haven’t you run off with your foreign policy? We, Turks pay a dear price for political games, don’t they?. See how the wind blows …

- What do you think, was Kipling right in saying that East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet? Is there any chance to turn things around? What should both parties do to put an end to confrontation and start a dialogue and collaboration?  It keeps getting worse, there is a sign of fatigue caused by confrontation …

-First of all, West is a single entity despite its intrinsic differences. In the meanwhile, there are scores of «Easts», as who should say: China is different from Morocco;’ Korea is different from Afghanistan, etc. East is East and West is West. And never the twain shall meet, at least, in the nearest thousand years. They will come together if aliens from another planet descend. Faced with two-legged and three-headed aliens, earthlings will cease distinguishing West and East. (Not ! Or may not)

Interviewed by Shahmar Agabalayev