Britannia Radio

Pipes on "Twenty Years of Illusion about Islamism" in NRO

Daniel Pipes June 3, 2012

Homepage    |     Articles    |     Blog

You can follow Daniel Pipes and the Middle East Forum on their Facebook and Twitter pages.

Please take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber area, and submit your city & country location. We will use this information in future to invite you to any events that we organize in your area. Twenty Years of Illusion about Islamism by Daniel Pipes June 2, 2012 Cross-posted from National Review Online http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2012/06/twenty-years-of-illusion-about-islamism. The broad lines of U.S. government, other government, and generally establishment policy  toward Islamism were  laid down on June 2, 1992, when Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian  Affairs  Edward P. Djerejian delivered a major speech, "The U.S. and the Middle East In a Changing  World," at Meridian  International, in Washington, DC. After some throat clearing about the collapse of the Soviet  Union, the Kuwait  War, and the Arab-Israeli conflict, Djerejian gave what has been called "the first major U.S.  government statement  on fundamentalist Islam" and, in just over 400 words, sketched out a policy that has been  held to with remarkable consistency over the subsequent 20 years. Edward P. Djerejian,  assistant secretary of  State for Near  Eastern and South Asian  Affairs in 1992. Djerejian started by noting that "the role of religion [in the Middle East] has become more manifest, and much attention is being paid to a phenomenon variously labeled political Islam, the Islamic revival, or Islamic fundamentalism." He praised Islam "as one of the world's great faiths," while noting that its cultural legacy "is a rich one in the sciences, arts, and culture and in tolerance of Judaism and Christianity." Djerejian then analyzed the Islamist movement: In countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa, we … see groups or movements seeking to reform their societies in keeping with Islamic  ideals. There is considerable diversity in how these ideals are expressed. We detect  no monolithic or coordinated international effort behind these movements. That diversity is fine, he went on, so long as there is real political dialogue between government on the one hand and the people and parties  and other institutions on the other. Those who are prepared to take specific steps  toward free elections, creating independent judiciaries, promoting the rule of law,  restrictions on the press, respecting the  rights of minorities, and guaranteeing individual rights will find us ready to recognize  and support  their efforts, just as those moving in the opposite direction will find us ready to  speak candidly and  act accordingly. … Those who seek to broaden political participation in the  Middle East will, therefore, find us supportive, as we have been elsewhere in the  world. Indeed, Washington "has good, productive relations with countries and peoples of  all religions throughout  the world, including many whose systems of government are firmly grounded in Islamic  principles." But the  U.S. government is "suspect of those who would use the democratic process to come to  power, only to destroy  that very process in order to retain power and political dominance. While we believe in  the principle of 'one  person, one vote,' we do not support 'one person, one vote, one time'." Djerejian then adduced the general rule, that the concern is political not religious. In his  words: "religion is  not a determinant-- positive or negative--in the nature or quality of our relations with  other countries. Our  quarrel is with extremism and the violence, denial, intolerance, intimidation, coercion,  and terror which too  often accompany it." Which leads to the take-away quote of the speech: "the U.S. government does not view  Islam as the next  'ism' confronting the West or threatening world peace. That is an overly simplistic response  to a complex reality.  The Cold War is not being replaced with a new competition between Islam and the West." Comment: Djerejian makes a fundamentally faulty assumption here, namely that Islamists  can be agents to  "broaden political participation." That illusion remains, two decades later, the abiding hope  of the State  Department and nearly the whole of the establishment. No, simply put, a deeply  anti-democratic ideology  cannot bring on democratization. Islamists have picked up on this hope and invariably,  including right now  in the campaign for the run-off presidential elections in Egypt, present themselves as  democrats. But they never are. Related Topics:  Radical Islam, US policyThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.