Posts Tagged ‘Clash of civilizations’

Query to Dr. Michael Rubin – Post on Wall Street Journal

April 14, 2008


Monday, April 14, 2008


TO:  Dr. Michael Rubin


I refer to your latest article: Rose colored foreign policy.


Your article for me at this stage is just a peg to hang on my query. I would like to place the whole question of ‘nuclear arms and its containment’ into a wider global perspective than the current western obsession to restrict the arms to only the ‘chosen’. I will cite the example of America‘s own historical development around civilian’s carrying of arms for personal protection. This was as good as human necessity to protect one person, family, property, even one group. Gradually the state evolved and took up practically ever phase of internal security. Still there are people and very active in forming a formidable arms lobby to see that the right of carrying arm to protect one is not in any way abridged. It is at times, the only means of survival even in a very organised society like that of the US.


I would take this argument and expand it to global security. Global security and global threats go hand in hand. When nations as advanced as US and EU, feel that they are threatened by an enemy force, they are compelled to arm themselves with weapons, which are on one hand, capable of destroying the potential threat as well as a means to declare to the enemy to lay off or else.


The flaw with the US thinking on nuclear arms proliferation is that while the dreaded arsenal does pose a mortal danger to the enemy, it is comparatively very easy to be acquired by the enemies of the West and its allies and therefore compares with the Wild West conditions, where every one else is to be treated as potential threat and therefore has to be eliminated at the first opportunity. 


The Wild West was superceded by a more civilized and organised state of affairs and central authority evolved that took a big burden off the minds and shoulders of ordinary citizen who had earlier devoted lopsided energy and mental obsession to be always on the alert, always vigilant to known and known dangers to his security.


Only when the state came in, and citizenry felt safe, those more fruitful activities of human endeavors were pursued and that opened up a wide panorama of opportunities for common people. (I will not deny that defence research too helped mankind in so many ways.)


The US and the West are still in the Wild West stage of world progress. They are now in a way programmed to treat every one that is not with them, to be against them and therefore should be eliminated, if 100% security is to be ensured.


This state of collective mindset inhibits the West from areas where it can lead the world in forming a more humane, safer, more productive world, by ensuring security for one and all of the citizens of the world.


No doubt UN and its organs are formed in pursuance of the same goal, but the US monopoly on decision making has imposed so much distortion in the works that the real goal of world government looks just like utopian and an unattainable goal.


My question at this stage will be why a US cannot progress from Wild West to an organised state.


Why a similar Wild West situation cannot be purposefully and proactively tackled by thinkers and activists to usher the world into a civilized unit.


Why US and its neo-cons are so obsessed with their own survival and not the survival of the world.


Why the US model of multi-culturism is not being promoted and tolerated on world scale.


Why a ‘clash of civilization’ has become the driving force for the subjugation of the world, when the fruits of globalization are so distinctly perceived.



Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai