André Glucksmann: un nuovo crimine contro l’umanità.
Credo che noi dovremmo cercare di capire la solitudine degli algerini in Europa, e di Khalida in Francia, perché ci riguarda e ci accusa. Credo che sia la stessa solitudine che provò mia madre quando arrivò in Francia nel 1938. Mi raccontava che i rifugiati provenienti dalla Germania e dall'Austria, che dovevano fare nelle Prefetture I documenti per l'immigrazione, si scontravano con un'incomprensione totale da parte dei funzionari francesi. Ma lo sappiamo, l'inno nazionale all'epoca recitava: “tutto va bene, madama la marchesa". La solitudine delle persone che soffrivano nel proprio paese e che all'arrivo in Francia non erano assolutamente comprese, è la stessa che oggi provano tanti profughi, tanti esuli entrando in Europa. E' la stessa solitudine che per interi decenni hanno provato in Europa occidentale i dissidenti dell'Europa dell'est. Erano addirittura spaventati dall'incomprensione della brava gente di qui e dalle ingiurie di un certo numero di intellettuali un po' troppo partigiani. La stessa solitudine l'abbiamo vista sul viso di altri democratici all'epoca della guerra in Jugoslavia. E' vero che le manifestazioni di Algeri di questi giorni, di cui la stampa tace, sono sicuramente meno affollate di quelle recenti di Belgrado che sono state seguite dalla stampa. Ricordiamoci però che ci furono altre manifestazioni a Belgrado, nel 1991-92, quando poco mancò che gli studenti facessero cadere Milosevic, manifestazioni che si svolsero nel silenzio gelido di stampa e istituzioni europee. Oggi sappiamo qual è stato poi il prezzo di quel mancato sostegno ai democratici di Belgrado: la guerra in Jugoslavia, una guerra che è finita solo "con lo sbarco" degli americani.
Credo che noi siamo vittime del nostro stesso silenzio. Quando, davanti all'Algeria, l'Europa non dice nulla, non fa che demoralizzare se stessa.
In questa occasione vorrei dire quali iniziative, a mio avviso, si potrebbero prendere. La prima è chiamare per nome quel che succede. Quelli che hanno luogo sono crimini integralisti islamisti. Il fatto che si compiano con la complicità di chi, esercito e governo, potrebbe impedirli e non lo fa, non rende meno esatta l'attribuzione di responsabilità. E’ un tipo di crimine che si va estendendo e che presenta aspetti di novità impressionanti. Certo, la storia ci dice che noi conosciamo crimini di questo genere. Ci ricordiamo che Franco, per Instaurare il fascismo in Spagna, si richiamava a Cristo Re; sappiamo che nella nostra storia ci sono state le guerre di religione e che nella notte di San Bartolomeo i protestanti furono sgozzati in nome dell'unità del regno cristianissimo. Quello fu un crimine d'amore di Dio. Ciò nonostante in quello che sta avvenendo ci sono caratteristiche nuove. In primo luogo, il crimine è dimostrativo, non ci si nasconde dopo averlo commesso, ma lo si rivendica apertamente. Quando Hitler fece i campi, li fece "nacht und nebel", di notte e con la nebbia, senza farli vedere. Quando Stalin fece assassinare Trotzky o le migliaia di ufficiali polacchi a Katyn, non rivendicò il proprio crimine. In secondo luogo, questi nuovi crimini presentano un simbolismo religioso. Tagliare il dito vuoi dire Impedire al morto di entrare paradiso. Tagliare a pezzi un bambino è un messaggio al popolo del Libro per significare l'inversione del sacrificio di Abramo, quando Dio cambiò il figlio con un montone. Qui l'assassino ci dice: “Io trasformo il montone in bambino". E' un messaggio psicologicamente terrorizzante ai popoli dei Libro. Infine tale crimine porta in sé una specie di razionalità apocalittica: la distruzione è il mezzo per prendere il potere, sulle anime col terrore e nelle città col disordine. Certo, non è soltanto un crimine islamista: ci sono fanatici di altre religioni che potrebbero commetterlo. E’ successo non molto lontano dalla tomba di Abramo, quando un ebreo ha ucciso tanti musulmani sparando loro alla schiena mentre erano in preghiera. E naturalmente non possiamo nemmeno pensare che sia un crimine che coinvolga l'islam nel suo complesso. Alcuni teologi del Cairo hanno detto: "E' blasfemo invocare Dio per tagliare un bambino a pezzi". Ora, questo crimine teologico-politico, questo modo di uccidere In nome di giustificare il massacro delle popolazioni come un'offerta a Dio, merita di essere isolato in quanto tale e di essere caratterizzato, allo stesso modo dei crimini razzisti, come crimine contro l’umanità, perseguibile per sempre perché non può esserci prescrizione per un tale orrore. Credo che l'Europa abbia fatto, nella sua storia e in questo secolo in particolare, una sufficiente esperienza dell’orrore per poter affermare che non si potrà riportare la pace laddove le persone sono state trucidate in tal modo senza che questa operazione abbia a fondamento il rigetto definitivo, di principio, di tali crimini da parte di tutte le parti causa e la definizione di ciò che deve essere assolutamente interdetto. E' questa la condizione necessaria per un negoziato in Algeria. Non c'è nulla di rassicurante nel fatto che il Fis proclami una tregua nelle operazioni militari, quando queste consistono nel fare strage di bambini. Una tregua non è che una tregua! Non ci sarà pace in Algeria se tutte le autorità morali e religiose, tutti i partiti politici, e in particolare quelli che si richiamano all'islam, non condanneranno definitivamente, una volta per tutte urbi et orbi, questi crimini contro l'umanità. Restare in silenzio, al contrario vorrà dire per l'Europa dare le dimissioni da se stessa, dalla sua storia, dal suo pensiero.
Riguardo poi all'esigenza di capire quali iniziative concrete possiamo intraprendere a favore dell'Algeria, credo dovremmo innanzitutto seguire il consiglio di Khalida di riuscire a contare fino a tre, non solo fino a due. E’ un consiglio che vale adesso per l'Algeria, ma che ieri valeva per i dissidenti. Ricordatevi di Stalin quando chiese: "Quante divisioni ha il Papa?". Anche lui sapeva contare solo fino a due: gli americani avevano le loro divisioni, i sovietici anche, il papa non aveva divisioni. E neanche il sindacato Solidarnosc aveva divisioni, neanche Vaclav Havel aveva divisioni, era uno scrittore e aveva solo un portapenne. Ebbene, quel calcolo di Stalin e dei suoi successori, che fu anche, per lungo tempo, quello delle cancellerie occidentali, era un calcolo da imbecilli. A far cadere l'impero sovietico non sono stati solo gli Stati Uniti, ma anche i Sacharov, i Solzenicyn, i dissidenti dell'est, tutti coloro che per tanto tempo furono solo oggetto dei disprezzo dei dittatori sovietici e non solo di loro. Anche Giscard d'Estaing li considerava meno di niente. Impariamo a contare fino a tre, insegniamo agli altri a contare fino a tre e allora sapremo cosa fare. In Algeria non ci sono solo gli islamisti terroristi e l'esercito corrotto, c'è anche una società civile che cerca di vivere: insegnanti che vogliono insegnare, cantanti che vogliono cantare, giornalisti che vogliono scrivere e medici che vogliono operare e ricevere libri dall'Occidente senza problemi. E ci sono donne che vogliono passeggiare senza velo, ci sono tanti algerini che vogliono vivere civilmente in una società dove non si possa uccidere a ogni angolo di strada. Sono loro che dobbiamo sostenere.
Ha ragione Khalida a sentirsi sola? Purtroppo sì. Quando un consigliere municipale è stato assassinato mentre era tenuto in ostaggio, tutti i paesi Baschi e tutta la Spagna sono scesi in strada; lo stesso è successo in Belgio per alcuni crimini di pedofilia assolutamente orribili; quando in Algeria otto maestre sono state sgozzate davanti al loro alunni su Le Monde sono comparse solo cinque righe. E' impossibile non concludere che in Europa usiamo due pesi e due misure. Consideriamo normale per l'Algeria ciò che non accetteremmo mai per I’Europa. Diamo delle spiegazioni per gli algerini che non daremmo mai per gli europei. Immaginatevi che in Europa un sociologo spieghi: "Sì, sì, d'accordo, fanno a pezzi i bambini, ma la ragione è che sono disoccupati, oppure "perché è stati interrotto il processo elettorale. In realtà sappiamo benissimo che sul nostro pianeta i paesi in cui non c'è una democrazia regolare sono la maggioranza e sappiamo anche che non dappertutto vengono commessi questi crimini contro l'umanità. Quindi la spiegazione secondo cui sarebbe normale che si uccidano i bambini e si sventrino le donne poiché c’è la disoccupazione o perché il governo è corrotto e trucca le elezioni rivela solo che si considerano gli algerini allo stesso modo in cui a suo tempo li consideravano i colonialisti francesi, cioè bougnouls [termine che significa "nordafricani" ma con una forte carica spregiativa, ndr]
Showing posts with label Islamism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamism. Show all posts
Sunday, August 26, 2007
L'islamismo è il nuovo nichilismo
"Glucksmann: l'islamismo è il nuovo nichilismo" di Marina Corradi - Avvenire 17-09-03
André Glucksmann ha appena pubblicato un nuovo saggio, L'Ouest contre l'Ouest, da pochi giorni nelle librerie francesi. La tesi: l' Occidente, invece che dividersi in pro e contro Bush, amici e nemici degli Usa, farebbe meglio a guardar bene dov'è, il vero nemico. Che è dalle parti dell'Iraq, ma non soltanto lì. Il vero nemico è, dice il filosofo, una sorta di occulta alleanza fra registi di caos: Saddam e Bin Laden e altre guide di un terrorismo, che dell'Islam si serve in un disegno totalitarista e, al fondo, di pura distruzione. Come una riedizione delle ideologie che hanno segnato di tragedia il ventesimo secolo. Una voce molto autorevole, quella di Glucksmann, ma isolata tra gli intellettuali, e non solo francesi. Un pessimista potrebbe obiettare che i profeti sono spesso inascoltati. Intanto, l'Europa è distratta, e a stento si ricorda dell'11 settembre di due anni fa.
Professor Glucksmann, dopo l'attentato contro la sede dell'Onu a Bagdad, lei ha detto che è ormai evidente come il terrorismo islamico voglia soltanto distruggere, come voglia, letteralmente, il nulla, ponendosi come una nuova forma dl nichilismo nella storia. E' questo, ciò che lei rimprovera a molti europei, è soprattutto alla Francia, di non volere capire?
"Mi ha addolorato che una parte dell'Europa non abbia voluto prendere parte alla liberazione dell'Iraq oppresso da Saddam Hussein, e al tentativo di stabilire in quel paese almeno due cose fondamentali: uno Stato di diritto, e la democrazia, o almeno quanto più democrazia è possibile in questo momento. Ma dopo l'attentato contro l'Onu a Baghdad, e quello contro l'ambasciata di Giordania, e l'assassinio dell'ayatollah Hakim, c'è un'altra evidenza che salta agli occhi di un osservatore appena attento. Assistiamo all'allargarsi di un terrorismo islamista che sembra segnato da un marchio nichilista.
Ha scritto un editorialista sul quotidiano libanese Al safir commentando l'attentato di Baghdad: "Ciò che è successo ieri rivela una mentalità distruttiva. Espelliamo tutti i mediatori. Cacciamo qualsiasi organizzazione internazionale. Tagliamo l'elettricità e l'acqua. Chiudiamo le università e le scuole. Che si blocchi la vita civile... Una forma di nichilismo e di caos si nasconde dietro a slogan bugiardi". E gli europei che pensano che questi terroristi rappresentino il loro popolo: ma come possono farlo, se sabotano l'acquedotto e fanno morire di disidratazione i loro stessi figli? Il credere poi, come molti europei fanno, che basti l'assenza, il non esserci, perché la democrazia in Iraq ritorni, è un errore molto grave".
Forse, banalmente, molti europei pensano che in fondo l'Iraq è lontano, e che la questione non li riguardi così da vicino...
"A questi europei risponderei che c'è una continuità fra Khomeini, Saddam e Bin Laden, una continuità inquietante. Tutti e tre erano o sono leader disposti a tutto, a ogni sacrificio di civili, e anche della propria gente, pur di arrivare a ciò che si sono dati come obiettivo. L'obiettivo di Khomeini era l'Arabia Saudita e quindi la conquista della Mecca; l'obiettivo di Saddam era il Kuwait, non per il petrolio che ha già, ma per porsi come uomo forte della regione; l'obiettivo di Bin Laden è di nuovo il dominio sull'Arabia Saudita. Tutti, alla fine, avevano o hanno in mente il controllo sulla Tomba del profeta, e quindi su oltre un miliardo di musulmani. Disposti a tutto per questo, in un disegno totalitario, paragonabile a quello del nazismo o del comunismo".
Lei ha dichiarato a "Le Figaro magazine" che "il terrorismo islamista rimpiazza la laica "lotta finale" del comunismo con un'apocalisse teologica, con effetti tuttavia analoghi sulla società: questo terrorismo è dunque un vettore del terrore".
"Preciso che "islamismo" non è l'islam, ma è una utilizzazione dell'islam fatta dagli ideatori di questi disegni. L'islamismo di cui parlo può essere definito come la declinazione attuale di uno spirito distruttore che la storia ha già più volte conosciuto. Si può distruggere in nome di Allah, come di una razza o di una classe sociale. Ciò che accomuna è l'idea di violenza redentrice, e il non fermarsi davanti a mente".
Lei, professore, è convinto del pericolo che denuncia tanto da gridarlo ad alta voce, quasi solo tra gli intellettuali, e non soltanto in Francia. Che effetto le fa, nella sua certezza, quest'Europa che distratta guarda altrove?
"Di gente che, in presenza di un grave pericolo, sceglie di dormire. Dicono: in fondo quello delle Twin Towers è stato un incidente, dovuto all'arroganza, all'imperialismo degli americani. Però è significativo come quell'area di Manhattan sia subito stata chiamata, e in tutto il mondo, Ground Zero, come l'area in cui fu sperimentata la bomba atomica. Ground Zero, piano zero, come se inconsciamente si avesse l'impressione di un azzeramento, un dover ricominciare da capo.
Quanto agli europei, dicono "no alla guerra", ma la guerra è là, non ha mai lasciato il nostro orizzonte. È, come scrisse Tucidide, una malattia cronica, e bisogna saperla fissare negli occhi".
Cosa succede a una civiltà che non vuole fissare negli occhi la guerra, nemmeno quando fosse veramente necessario?
"Allora - sorride con amarezza Glucksmann - è la guerra che guarda quella civiltà, e medita di farla esplodere nel bel mezzo del suo sonno, a colpi di terrorismo e bombe umane".
André Glucksmann ha appena pubblicato un nuovo saggio, L'Ouest contre l'Ouest, da pochi giorni nelle librerie francesi. La tesi: l' Occidente, invece che dividersi in pro e contro Bush, amici e nemici degli Usa, farebbe meglio a guardar bene dov'è, il vero nemico. Che è dalle parti dell'Iraq, ma non soltanto lì. Il vero nemico è, dice il filosofo, una sorta di occulta alleanza fra registi di caos: Saddam e Bin Laden e altre guide di un terrorismo, che dell'Islam si serve in un disegno totalitarista e, al fondo, di pura distruzione. Come una riedizione delle ideologie che hanno segnato di tragedia il ventesimo secolo. Una voce molto autorevole, quella di Glucksmann, ma isolata tra gli intellettuali, e non solo francesi. Un pessimista potrebbe obiettare che i profeti sono spesso inascoltati. Intanto, l'Europa è distratta, e a stento si ricorda dell'11 settembre di due anni fa.
Professor Glucksmann, dopo l'attentato contro la sede dell'Onu a Bagdad, lei ha detto che è ormai evidente come il terrorismo islamico voglia soltanto distruggere, come voglia, letteralmente, il nulla, ponendosi come una nuova forma dl nichilismo nella storia. E' questo, ciò che lei rimprovera a molti europei, è soprattutto alla Francia, di non volere capire?
"Mi ha addolorato che una parte dell'Europa non abbia voluto prendere parte alla liberazione dell'Iraq oppresso da Saddam Hussein, e al tentativo di stabilire in quel paese almeno due cose fondamentali: uno Stato di diritto, e la democrazia, o almeno quanto più democrazia è possibile in questo momento. Ma dopo l'attentato contro l'Onu a Baghdad, e quello contro l'ambasciata di Giordania, e l'assassinio dell'ayatollah Hakim, c'è un'altra evidenza che salta agli occhi di un osservatore appena attento. Assistiamo all'allargarsi di un terrorismo islamista che sembra segnato da un marchio nichilista.
Ha scritto un editorialista sul quotidiano libanese Al safir commentando l'attentato di Baghdad: "Ciò che è successo ieri rivela una mentalità distruttiva. Espelliamo tutti i mediatori. Cacciamo qualsiasi organizzazione internazionale. Tagliamo l'elettricità e l'acqua. Chiudiamo le università e le scuole. Che si blocchi la vita civile... Una forma di nichilismo e di caos si nasconde dietro a slogan bugiardi". E gli europei che pensano che questi terroristi rappresentino il loro popolo: ma come possono farlo, se sabotano l'acquedotto e fanno morire di disidratazione i loro stessi figli? Il credere poi, come molti europei fanno, che basti l'assenza, il non esserci, perché la democrazia in Iraq ritorni, è un errore molto grave".
Forse, banalmente, molti europei pensano che in fondo l'Iraq è lontano, e che la questione non li riguardi così da vicino...
"A questi europei risponderei che c'è una continuità fra Khomeini, Saddam e Bin Laden, una continuità inquietante. Tutti e tre erano o sono leader disposti a tutto, a ogni sacrificio di civili, e anche della propria gente, pur di arrivare a ciò che si sono dati come obiettivo. L'obiettivo di Khomeini era l'Arabia Saudita e quindi la conquista della Mecca; l'obiettivo di Saddam era il Kuwait, non per il petrolio che ha già, ma per porsi come uomo forte della regione; l'obiettivo di Bin Laden è di nuovo il dominio sull'Arabia Saudita. Tutti, alla fine, avevano o hanno in mente il controllo sulla Tomba del profeta, e quindi su oltre un miliardo di musulmani. Disposti a tutto per questo, in un disegno totalitario, paragonabile a quello del nazismo o del comunismo".
Lei ha dichiarato a "Le Figaro magazine" che "il terrorismo islamista rimpiazza la laica "lotta finale" del comunismo con un'apocalisse teologica, con effetti tuttavia analoghi sulla società: questo terrorismo è dunque un vettore del terrore".
"Preciso che "islamismo" non è l'islam, ma è una utilizzazione dell'islam fatta dagli ideatori di questi disegni. L'islamismo di cui parlo può essere definito come la declinazione attuale di uno spirito distruttore che la storia ha già più volte conosciuto. Si può distruggere in nome di Allah, come di una razza o di una classe sociale. Ciò che accomuna è l'idea di violenza redentrice, e il non fermarsi davanti a mente".
Lei, professore, è convinto del pericolo che denuncia tanto da gridarlo ad alta voce, quasi solo tra gli intellettuali, e non soltanto in Francia. Che effetto le fa, nella sua certezza, quest'Europa che distratta guarda altrove?
"Di gente che, in presenza di un grave pericolo, sceglie di dormire. Dicono: in fondo quello delle Twin Towers è stato un incidente, dovuto all'arroganza, all'imperialismo degli americani. Però è significativo come quell'area di Manhattan sia subito stata chiamata, e in tutto il mondo, Ground Zero, come l'area in cui fu sperimentata la bomba atomica. Ground Zero, piano zero, come se inconsciamente si avesse l'impressione di un azzeramento, un dover ricominciare da capo.
Quanto agli europei, dicono "no alla guerra", ma la guerra è là, non ha mai lasciato il nostro orizzonte. È, come scrisse Tucidide, una malattia cronica, e bisogna saperla fissare negli occhi".
Cosa succede a una civiltà che non vuole fissare negli occhi la guerra, nemmeno quando fosse veramente necessario?
"Allora - sorride con amarezza Glucksmann - è la guerra che guarda quella civiltà, e medita di farla esplodere nel bel mezzo del suo sonno, a colpi di terrorismo e bombe umane".
El objetivo común de ETA y Al Qaida es matar la democracia
El filósofo André Glucksmann asegura que el 11-M «es una forma de dividir a los que tienen el placer de vivir, nosotros, de los que tienen el placer de matar, ellos»
Fue uno de los pocos franceses en afirmar que era más importante oponerse a Sadam Hussein que a Geroge W. Bush. El pensador francés Andre Glucksmann, que acaba de publicar en España su libro «Occidente contra Occcidente» (Taurus), asegura en esta entrevista a LA RAZÓN que la matanza del 11-M deriva del nihilismo, y no del Islam, como «una estrategia positiva de crueldad». Es el mal por el mal, afirma, la destrucción sinmás ideología que la destrucción.
Sus opiniones encienden la polémica con suma facilidad. Profesor de Filosofía, ex maoísta y crítico con el marxismo, autor de libros como «La estupidez: ideologías del posmodernismo» y «El undécimo mandamiento». La máquina de pensar del filósofo francés André Glucksmann (66 años) lleva más de tres décadas deshaciendo el nudo moral de la violencia, intentando desentrañar esos intrincados y secretos lazos que ahogaron Madrid el pasado miércoles. «Conmocionado» como todos por la violencia irracional del atentado múltiple, «nihilista» la define él, nadie podrá achacarle, sin embargo, no haber predicho las trágicas reverberaciones que provocaría el estruendo del 11-S, como hizo en su último libro, «Dostoievski en Manhattan».
-¿Dostoievski se ha mudado de Manhattan a Atocha?
-Sin ninguna duda, pero no lo digo yo. Es algo asumido por todos: lo ocurrido en los atentados de Madrid es el 11-S de Europa. Y verifica lo que escribí tras el horrible atentado de Nueva York. La nueva violencia nihilista supera el marco del Islam y, sobre todo, no tiene únicamente en su diana al enemigo americano, como pretendían algunos.
Sin fronteras
-¿Quiere decir que estamos todos amenazados por esta nueva violencia?
-Por desgracia, sí. Es el nuevo destino del planeta.
-¿Cambiaría su análisis el que se tratase de ETA o que fuese Al Qaida?
-Lo más terrible es que haya algo de común entre las dos hipótesis que se manejan. Que existan argumentos sobre la responsabilidad de ETA, y se encuentren otros que puedan explicar la autoría de Al Qaida demuestra que el terrorismo nihilista no tiene fronteras, ni ideológicas ni políticas. Su único denominador común es matar la democracia sea como sea. Al margen de que luego la policía determine quién es el culpable, filosófica y socialmente es inquietante que puedan ser tanto unos como otros.
-¿Cómo interpreta la reacción de la sociedad española?
-Los españoles han reaccionado ejemplarmente después de la matanza. Deben expresar lo que han sentido, porque la exteriorización del pensamiento sucede a la de los sentimientos y ya habrá tiempo para ella.
-Los neoyorquinos mostraron su solidaridad con las víctimas de diferentes maneras, pero no hubo manifestaciones organizadas en todo el país, como anteayer en España. ¿Estas iniciativas masivas de la sociedad permiten exorcizar mejor el mal de la violencia?
-Creo que sí, porque es toda la sociedad quien se siente atacada, aunque el número de víctimas sea limitado. Es una forma de dividir a los que tienen el placer de vivir, nosotros, de los que tienen el placer de matar, ellos.
-¿Ha entrado el mundo en un periodo de ruptura con el siglo XXI?
-Si algo caracteriza lo que bien podríamos denominar un «nuevo mundo» es un fenómeno desconocido y planetario: el terrorismo sin fronteras. Durante la guerra de Vietnam, los comunistas aterrorizaban, ergo practicaban el terrorismo, a su propia población, pero no ponían bombas en los Estados Unidos. George W. Bush lo explicó como un «eje del mal», aunque se equivocó en el concepto, porque no se trata de un eje sino de una red. Pakistán, mayoritariamente musulmán, ha reconocido que vendió tecnología atómica a un régimen estalinista como Corea del Norte, a otro chií como Irán y a Libia. ¿Qué tienen en común todos estos países?
-¿Qué otros rasgos definen este nuevo terrorismo?
-El terrorismo es la actividad amenazante de un hombre armado frente a otro hombre desarmado. Poco importa que sea de parte de unos clandestinos como ETA, o de un ejército, como las tropas rusas en Chechenia, que matan indiscriminadamente a la población civil, mujeres y niños, o asolan ciudades como Grozni, de una manera que no había visto Europa desde Hitler en Varsovia.
Resistencia
-¿Qué armas de defensa le quedan a una sociedad?
-En ocasiones, tendrá que ser policiales, en otras, militares (como las invasiones de Afganistán y de Iraq), pero lo esencial de la batalla está en las cabezas de todos los ciudadanos. Que expresen claramente que no se dejarán aterrorizar. La lucha de las mujeres iraníes o afganas que se niegan a que su religión las aterrorice también puede ser calificada de lucha antiterrorista.
-Perdone una pregunta algo simple para terminar la entrevista, ¿el mal tiene límites?
-En todas las sociedades a lo largo de la Historia se ha enseñado a la gente a limitar la violencia, a que no se puede matar a quien sea y como sea. Las cosas han cambiado. Hoy, dos tercios del planeta están tan desestructurados que en ellos hay gente capaz de matar por una casa, una mujer o sólo por placer. Un amigo, el escritor alemán Hans Christophe Buch, estuvo hace poco en Liberia. Hablaba con un chaval de trece años, líder de una banda, y le preguntó: «¿No tienes miedo de matar a tu hermana o a tu madre?» «Why not?» (¿Por qué no?) fue la respuesta.
Fue uno de los pocos franceses en afirmar que era más importante oponerse a Sadam Hussein que a Geroge W. Bush. El pensador francés Andre Glucksmann, que acaba de publicar en España su libro «Occidente contra Occcidente» (Taurus), asegura en esta entrevista a LA RAZÓN que la matanza del 11-M deriva del nihilismo, y no del Islam, como «una estrategia positiva de crueldad». Es el mal por el mal, afirma, la destrucción sinmás ideología que la destrucción.
Sus opiniones encienden la polémica con suma facilidad. Profesor de Filosofía, ex maoísta y crítico con el marxismo, autor de libros como «La estupidez: ideologías del posmodernismo» y «El undécimo mandamiento». La máquina de pensar del filósofo francés André Glucksmann (66 años) lleva más de tres décadas deshaciendo el nudo moral de la violencia, intentando desentrañar esos intrincados y secretos lazos que ahogaron Madrid el pasado miércoles. «Conmocionado» como todos por la violencia irracional del atentado múltiple, «nihilista» la define él, nadie podrá achacarle, sin embargo, no haber predicho las trágicas reverberaciones que provocaría el estruendo del 11-S, como hizo en su último libro, «Dostoievski en Manhattan».
-¿Dostoievski se ha mudado de Manhattan a Atocha?
-Sin ninguna duda, pero no lo digo yo. Es algo asumido por todos: lo ocurrido en los atentados de Madrid es el 11-S de Europa. Y verifica lo que escribí tras el horrible atentado de Nueva York. La nueva violencia nihilista supera el marco del Islam y, sobre todo, no tiene únicamente en su diana al enemigo americano, como pretendían algunos.
Sin fronteras
-¿Quiere decir que estamos todos amenazados por esta nueva violencia?
-Por desgracia, sí. Es el nuevo destino del planeta.
-¿Cambiaría su análisis el que se tratase de ETA o que fuese Al Qaida?
-Lo más terrible es que haya algo de común entre las dos hipótesis que se manejan. Que existan argumentos sobre la responsabilidad de ETA, y se encuentren otros que puedan explicar la autoría de Al Qaida demuestra que el terrorismo nihilista no tiene fronteras, ni ideológicas ni políticas. Su único denominador común es matar la democracia sea como sea. Al margen de que luego la policía determine quién es el culpable, filosófica y socialmente es inquietante que puedan ser tanto unos como otros.
-¿Cómo interpreta la reacción de la sociedad española?
-Los españoles han reaccionado ejemplarmente después de la matanza. Deben expresar lo que han sentido, porque la exteriorización del pensamiento sucede a la de los sentimientos y ya habrá tiempo para ella.
-Los neoyorquinos mostraron su solidaridad con las víctimas de diferentes maneras, pero no hubo manifestaciones organizadas en todo el país, como anteayer en España. ¿Estas iniciativas masivas de la sociedad permiten exorcizar mejor el mal de la violencia?
-Creo que sí, porque es toda la sociedad quien se siente atacada, aunque el número de víctimas sea limitado. Es una forma de dividir a los que tienen el placer de vivir, nosotros, de los que tienen el placer de matar, ellos.
-¿Ha entrado el mundo en un periodo de ruptura con el siglo XXI?
-Si algo caracteriza lo que bien podríamos denominar un «nuevo mundo» es un fenómeno desconocido y planetario: el terrorismo sin fronteras. Durante la guerra de Vietnam, los comunistas aterrorizaban, ergo practicaban el terrorismo, a su propia población, pero no ponían bombas en los Estados Unidos. George W. Bush lo explicó como un «eje del mal», aunque se equivocó en el concepto, porque no se trata de un eje sino de una red. Pakistán, mayoritariamente musulmán, ha reconocido que vendió tecnología atómica a un régimen estalinista como Corea del Norte, a otro chií como Irán y a Libia. ¿Qué tienen en común todos estos países?
-¿Qué otros rasgos definen este nuevo terrorismo?
-El terrorismo es la actividad amenazante de un hombre armado frente a otro hombre desarmado. Poco importa que sea de parte de unos clandestinos como ETA, o de un ejército, como las tropas rusas en Chechenia, que matan indiscriminadamente a la población civil, mujeres y niños, o asolan ciudades como Grozni, de una manera que no había visto Europa desde Hitler en Varsovia.
Resistencia
-¿Qué armas de defensa le quedan a una sociedad?
-En ocasiones, tendrá que ser policiales, en otras, militares (como las invasiones de Afganistán y de Iraq), pero lo esencial de la batalla está en las cabezas de todos los ciudadanos. Que expresen claramente que no se dejarán aterrorizar. La lucha de las mujeres iraníes o afganas que se niegan a que su religión las aterrorice también puede ser calificada de lucha antiterrorista.
-Perdone una pregunta algo simple para terminar la entrevista, ¿el mal tiene límites?
-En todas las sociedades a lo largo de la Historia se ha enseñado a la gente a limitar la violencia, a que no se puede matar a quien sea y como sea. Las cosas han cambiado. Hoy, dos tercios del planeta están tan desestructurados que en ellos hay gente capaz de matar por una casa, una mujer o sólo por placer. Un amigo, el escritor alemán Hans Christophe Buch, estuvo hace poco en Liberia. Hablaba con un chaval de trece años, líder de una banda, y le preguntó: «¿No tienes miedo de matar a tu hermana o a tu madre?» «Why not?» (¿Por qué no?) fue la respuesta.
The World of Megaterrorism
Mad is the European who thinks himself immune to terror for having opposed Saddam's overthrow.
BY ANDRE GLUCKSMANN
Sunday, March 21, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
PARIS--Read carefully the statement that claimed responsibility for the Madrid massacres. Al Qaeda puts everyone, from the Crusaders to the Jews, all countries who sent troops not just to Iraq but to Afghanistan as well, in their gun sights. In other words, all of Europe--Berlin and Paris, no less than Rome, London or Warsaw. France merits special condemnation for its ban on the Islamic veil in public schools.
Mad is the European who thinks himself immune for having opposed Saddam Hussein's overthrow. No accommodation provides insurance against attack. No public building, no train platform, no sidewalk is spared by the Islamist butchers. "Death train," "death's black smoke," "the wind of death," the bleak metaphors fly over the borders in the name of al Qaeda. The bombs in Madrid, they say, are the "answers to the crimes you have committed worldwide . . . in Iraq and in Afghanistan."
In manipulating the Spanish election, terrorism proclaims its gospel and applies it in practice. The perfect timing of March 11 is the monstrous example. Little does it matter that the 201 dead and the 1,500 wounded were working-class people, most likely opposed to an intervention in Iraq--as were some 90% of the Spanish. The "human material" has no value for the terrorists who prove the strength of their convictions and the power of their weapons with the murder of the disarmed, whoever they may be and whatever they may think, whether believers or not. It was an encore, as everyone said: On this March 11, 2004, Europe lived its own September 11, the horror of Manhattan all over again.
Except this time the assassins can proclaim they have won. It took them three days to sway popular opinion. The Popular Party of Jose María Aznar, the expected winner, got trounced. "Punished!" they said. But by whom? What's the point of political campaigns, meetings, reports, programs and debates if within a few hours, the bombing of packed train cars can reverse the result? This final landslide, which no polls had predicted, is entirely due to the Atocha station catastrophe and the terror it spread. How could the terrorists not assume that they are the decision-makers, and that terrorism is now stronger than democracy? If the Socialists brought to govern Spain keep their pledge (made before the massacre) to withdraw from Iraq, they will confirm the killers' innermost conviction: Crime pays--and the greater the horror, the more efficiently.
"But of course not," object the wishful thinkers, Mr. Aznar lost because his alliance with George W. Bush was unpopular. Nonsense! The alliance was just as unpopular three days before the elections, but the Popular Party was still favored then, and his opponents did not hope to win back many "antiwar votes." Without the bombs, without the bloodbath, the shouts of "Aznar assassin" would have sounded ludicrous. But Madrid's ground zero panicked the minds and awoke the demagogues, ready to invert responsibility. Were there not already weak minds--Lenin's "useful idiots"--who eagerly claimed that Mr. Bush and the CIA had planned the fall of the Twin Towers?
With hundreds of dead, more than a thousand wounded and the threat of another imminent terrorist attack, Mr. Aznar did not see, know and understand everything within 24 hours. Should a head of government be blamed for not being God? Should he be imagined plotting a Machiavellian scheme to cheat his people without cheating himself, as some kind of extra-lucid devil pulling the strings of a conspiracy as huge as it would be absurd? Stop this delirium.
One rule, one and only one firm rule must impose itself on Europe after this tragedy. In the event of another electoral hijacking, voting must be immediately postponed. The governed and the governing must both be given the time to recover their right minds. They must be able to assess and address the horror, its antecedents and its consequences; cool down before undertaking an informed vote. Let a people abruptly thrown in the abysses of hell maintain the suspense for a fortnight or two, so that it can exercise its sovereign power with sovereignty!
Right at the moment, fearing to confront the true culprit, a virtual culprit was caught in Spain. Mr. Aznar replaced Osama bin Laden. A magic trick--an exercise in exorcism. With no grip on the true mastermind, some voters find imaginary guilt and decide to symbolically kill through the ballots their own head of government. Illusionists arise to face the blackmailers, a consoling witchcraft dreams of itself as a worldwide antiterrorist operation. In front of the candles lighted for the victims, banners cursed the demons: In small case the Basque terrorists "ETA," then "bin Laden," in bigger letters "Bush," while the huge letters spelled "Aznar." The world is upside down.
"Not in the least," object the sincere or the false naïfs: The conservative government destroyed itself by hiding the truth and pointing to ETA instead of al Qaeda. What a miserable alibi. As soon as the news broke, every single Spaniard--backed by 20 years of bloody memories--including the Socialist winner Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and even a majority of Basques, were inclined to follow the ETA trail. Within 48 hours, the police, the intelligence services, the press and the ministers rectified their initial assumptions. As they were going to the ballot, the voters had heard of everything that was known, and Spanish democracy and its institutions had worked.
But some of the protesters were still waving around the lie of a "state lie;" and numerous voters, perfectly well informed, changed their minds and chose to bow down without regrets to the blackmail of their fellow citizens' assassins. A minute of silence, followed by a night of rejoicing for the electoral winners. What a short memory. Al Qaeda--oh sorry! "the Arab resistance," to use the words of the spokesman of Batasouna/ETA--has waged its elections campaign with corpses, and the ballot box has granted its diktat. Whether we like it or not: "Welcome to the world of megaterrorism!"
Time has come for decisions. Either Europe unifies to resist the engineers of the apocalypse, following Tony Blair. Or it poses as an opponent of the United States, following the pseudo-"camp of peace" led by Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin and the hesitating Gerhard Schroeder. The "viva la muerte" chanted by the Islamist legions vindicates Tony Blair. But the terror they spread, petrifying European citizens, threatens to lead to resignation after resignation.
Rome, Paris, Athens, Warsaw, Berlin . . .? Don't ask who's next! "Never ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." Hemingway the anti-Francoist was quoting John Donne, an 18th century poet. Bin Laden's mercenaries take their inspiration from the Spanish fascist Millán Astray: "You want life, we want death." Will Mr. Zapatero find the voice of Miguel de Unamuno, the independent thinker of Salamanca who denounced the fascist general's "cry of necrophilia," and stand up to today's nihilist killers? It is never too late to prevent a disaster.
Mr. Glucksmann is the author, most recently, of "Ouest Contre Ouest" (West Against West), published in Paris last year by Plon.
BY ANDRE GLUCKSMANN
Sunday, March 21, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
PARIS--Read carefully the statement that claimed responsibility for the Madrid massacres. Al Qaeda puts everyone, from the Crusaders to the Jews, all countries who sent troops not just to Iraq but to Afghanistan as well, in their gun sights. In other words, all of Europe--Berlin and Paris, no less than Rome, London or Warsaw. France merits special condemnation for its ban on the Islamic veil in public schools.
Mad is the European who thinks himself immune for having opposed Saddam Hussein's overthrow. No accommodation provides insurance against attack. No public building, no train platform, no sidewalk is spared by the Islamist butchers. "Death train," "death's black smoke," "the wind of death," the bleak metaphors fly over the borders in the name of al Qaeda. The bombs in Madrid, they say, are the "answers to the crimes you have committed worldwide . . . in Iraq and in Afghanistan."
In manipulating the Spanish election, terrorism proclaims its gospel and applies it in practice. The perfect timing of March 11 is the monstrous example. Little does it matter that the 201 dead and the 1,500 wounded were working-class people, most likely opposed to an intervention in Iraq--as were some 90% of the Spanish. The "human material" has no value for the terrorists who prove the strength of their convictions and the power of their weapons with the murder of the disarmed, whoever they may be and whatever they may think, whether believers or not. It was an encore, as everyone said: On this March 11, 2004, Europe lived its own September 11, the horror of Manhattan all over again.
Except this time the assassins can proclaim they have won. It took them three days to sway popular opinion. The Popular Party of Jose María Aznar, the expected winner, got trounced. "Punished!" they said. But by whom? What's the point of political campaigns, meetings, reports, programs and debates if within a few hours, the bombing of packed train cars can reverse the result? This final landslide, which no polls had predicted, is entirely due to the Atocha station catastrophe and the terror it spread. How could the terrorists not assume that they are the decision-makers, and that terrorism is now stronger than democracy? If the Socialists brought to govern Spain keep their pledge (made before the massacre) to withdraw from Iraq, they will confirm the killers' innermost conviction: Crime pays--and the greater the horror, the more efficiently.
"But of course not," object the wishful thinkers, Mr. Aznar lost because his alliance with George W. Bush was unpopular. Nonsense! The alliance was just as unpopular three days before the elections, but the Popular Party was still favored then, and his opponents did not hope to win back many "antiwar votes." Without the bombs, without the bloodbath, the shouts of "Aznar assassin" would have sounded ludicrous. But Madrid's ground zero panicked the minds and awoke the demagogues, ready to invert responsibility. Were there not already weak minds--Lenin's "useful idiots"--who eagerly claimed that Mr. Bush and the CIA had planned the fall of the Twin Towers?
With hundreds of dead, more than a thousand wounded and the threat of another imminent terrorist attack, Mr. Aznar did not see, know and understand everything within 24 hours. Should a head of government be blamed for not being God? Should he be imagined plotting a Machiavellian scheme to cheat his people without cheating himself, as some kind of extra-lucid devil pulling the strings of a conspiracy as huge as it would be absurd? Stop this delirium.
One rule, one and only one firm rule must impose itself on Europe after this tragedy. In the event of another electoral hijacking, voting must be immediately postponed. The governed and the governing must both be given the time to recover their right minds. They must be able to assess and address the horror, its antecedents and its consequences; cool down before undertaking an informed vote. Let a people abruptly thrown in the abysses of hell maintain the suspense for a fortnight or two, so that it can exercise its sovereign power with sovereignty!
Right at the moment, fearing to confront the true culprit, a virtual culprit was caught in Spain. Mr. Aznar replaced Osama bin Laden. A magic trick--an exercise in exorcism. With no grip on the true mastermind, some voters find imaginary guilt and decide to symbolically kill through the ballots their own head of government. Illusionists arise to face the blackmailers, a consoling witchcraft dreams of itself as a worldwide antiterrorist operation. In front of the candles lighted for the victims, banners cursed the demons: In small case the Basque terrorists "ETA," then "bin Laden," in bigger letters "Bush," while the huge letters spelled "Aznar." The world is upside down.
"Not in the least," object the sincere or the false naïfs: The conservative government destroyed itself by hiding the truth and pointing to ETA instead of al Qaeda. What a miserable alibi. As soon as the news broke, every single Spaniard--backed by 20 years of bloody memories--including the Socialist winner Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and even a majority of Basques, were inclined to follow the ETA trail. Within 48 hours, the police, the intelligence services, the press and the ministers rectified their initial assumptions. As they were going to the ballot, the voters had heard of everything that was known, and Spanish democracy and its institutions had worked.
But some of the protesters were still waving around the lie of a "state lie;" and numerous voters, perfectly well informed, changed their minds and chose to bow down without regrets to the blackmail of their fellow citizens' assassins. A minute of silence, followed by a night of rejoicing for the electoral winners. What a short memory. Al Qaeda--oh sorry! "the Arab resistance," to use the words of the spokesman of Batasouna/ETA--has waged its elections campaign with corpses, and the ballot box has granted its diktat. Whether we like it or not: "Welcome to the world of megaterrorism!"
Time has come for decisions. Either Europe unifies to resist the engineers of the apocalypse, following Tony Blair. Or it poses as an opponent of the United States, following the pseudo-"camp of peace" led by Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin and the hesitating Gerhard Schroeder. The "viva la muerte" chanted by the Islamist legions vindicates Tony Blair. But the terror they spread, petrifying European citizens, threatens to lead to resignation after resignation.
Rome, Paris, Athens, Warsaw, Berlin . . .? Don't ask who's next! "Never ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." Hemingway the anti-Francoist was quoting John Donne, an 18th century poet. Bin Laden's mercenaries take their inspiration from the Spanish fascist Millán Astray: "You want life, we want death." Will Mr. Zapatero find the voice of Miguel de Unamuno, the independent thinker of Salamanca who denounced the fascist general's "cry of necrophilia," and stand up to today's nihilist killers? It is never too late to prevent a disaster.
Mr. Glucksmann is the author, most recently, of "Ouest Contre Ouest" (West Against West), published in Paris last year by Plon.
Tariq Ramadan: an anti-semite obsession.
by Andre Glucksmann
Mr Ramadan says in short: Glucksmann does not think with its head, it thinks with its race. Nothing very nine relating to me. In the friends of Mr. Ramadan the recurring racial reference to l?origine of Lévy and me circulated, when we denounce the great massacres islamists in Algeria in 1997 (massacres which touched, I point out it, the Moslem civil populations). S?agissant of the war against Saddam Hussein, I leave the care to Tariq Ramadan d?expliquer why 18 governments out of the 25 which account l?Union European divided my opinion on the need d?une intervention. Are they all Jewish? Are they all directed by Jews? Are they all under Jewish influence? Mr Ramadan, who makes mine d?opposer my position concerning the defense of Bosniaques (Moslems), Kosovars (Moslems) and Tchétchènes (Moslems) to that which j?affiche against Saddam Hussein (who killed out of the Moslems with turn of arm), would not so easily owe s?étonner because the mafieux collaborationist of Poutine with Grozny, Kadyrov, posts in his office a photograph of him tightening the hand of Saddam Hussein, as testifies some Patrick de Saint-Exupéry (Jewish obviously) in this cabbage sheet one cannot Jewish any more who s?appelle "the Barber". What is astonishing, this n?est not that Mr Ramadan is anti-semite, but qu?il ose from now on to assert itself like such. And qu?il makes followers. I indeed receive many letters which exhale an anti-semitism bestial, little heard since 1945. And some explain the position of "the band of the Four" (Bruckner, Goupil, Kouchner and Glucksmann) by their (unduly) supposed racial origin... As if the signature of the Jew that I am was contagious and infected my co-signatories.
Mr Ramadan says in short: Glucksmann does not think with its head, it thinks with its race. Nothing very nine relating to me. In the friends of Mr. Ramadan the recurring racial reference to l?origine of Lévy and me circulated, when we denounce the great massacres islamists in Algeria in 1997 (massacres which touched, I point out it, the Moslem civil populations). S?agissant of the war against Saddam Hussein, I leave the care to Tariq Ramadan d?expliquer why 18 governments out of the 25 which account l?Union European divided my opinion on the need d?une intervention. Are they all Jewish? Are they all directed by Jews? Are they all under Jewish influence? Mr Ramadan, who makes mine d?opposer my position concerning the defense of Bosniaques (Moslems), Kosovars (Moslems) and Tchétchènes (Moslems) to that which j?affiche against Saddam Hussein (who killed out of the Moslems with turn of arm), would not so easily owe s?étonner because the mafieux collaborationist of Poutine with Grozny, Kadyrov, posts in his office a photograph of him tightening the hand of Saddam Hussein, as testifies some Patrick de Saint-Exupéry (Jewish obviously) in this cabbage sheet one cannot Jewish any more who s?appelle "the Barber". What is astonishing, this n?est not that Mr Ramadan is anti-semite, but qu?il ose from now on to assert itself like such. And qu?il makes followers. I indeed receive many letters which exhale an anti-semitism bestial, little heard since 1945. And some explain the position of "the band of the Four" (Bruckner, Goupil, Kouchner and Glucksmann) by their (unduly) supposed racial origin... As if the signature of the Jew that I am was contagious and infected my co-signatories.
La Rose Blanche, An Interview with André Glucksmann.
May 14, 2003
Iran va Jahan
Ramin Parham
In this important battle for civilization and against the annihilation of our ways of life, Iran plays a fantastic and central role. On one hand, because it was from Iran than the third major totalitarian wave, that of ?green? fascism, was initiated, and, on the hand, because it is Iran that can stop it and serve as the example of a great victory over nihilism, terrorism, and the will to destroy. It is therefore very clear that what is unfolding in Iran concerns, of course, Iranians themselves, but not just Iranians. Iran is one of the great theatres of a universal battle opposing civilization to nihilism.
The interview you are about to read was conducted in French on May 1st, 2003. André Glucksmann, needless to say, is one of France's most renowned philosophers. Throughout recent crises he has consistently been an outspoken advocate of the "devoir d'ingérence" or the "duty to interfere".
Ramin Parham (RP) : 25 years ago, Khomeini gained power in Iran. At the time, Michel Foucault brought him, temporarily, his support. Could you relate this episode and what motivated the great French philosopher's support?
André Glucksmann (AG) : At the time, Michel Foucault and I were close friends and we had decided to go around the world, on different fields, in order to produce philosophical documentaries and determine issues that were not understood by western opinion in general and the French one in particular. It was in that context that I went to Malaysia to rescue the boat people who, at their risk, were fleeing Vietnam. One could say that it was a reversal of the known and dominant opinions regarding the war in Vietnam. Most French, including the French right and myself, were, on that particular issue, rather anti-Americans. Evidently, the fact that Vietnam was developing into a totalitarian dictatorship rendered the context more intricate. It was this kind of field work which I protracted, in the continuance of my support of Soljenitsyne and other dissidents, in my cooperation with physicians, with Sartre and Aron, who, although with differing views on Vietnam war, agreed on the principal to rescue the boat people and condemn the Gulag style totalitarianism of communist Vietnamese. Similarly, Michel Foucault took the road to Iran, in the midst of the upheaval, in order to reflect upon a phenomenon that went largely beyond all known political and philosophical categories which once were the vogue. He named this event "spiritual revolution". It, indeed, was a revolution but, of course, not of the sort of 1789, nor that of the 20th century, Marxist or Leninist or even third-world like ones, i.e., military and secular. Therefore, what Foucault was facing was a new phenomenon and he decided to strike his analysis while the iron was hot. At the time, his analysis made a scandal. So, of course, we can say that he made a mistake. I would rather say that, far from being mistaken in everything, he drew, from a profound intuition, the wrong conclusions. For, the idea that the event in question was a fundamental one was right. But the idea according to which, that event constituted a positive substitute to the failure of previous socialist and Marxist revolutions was quite obviously wrong. No more than previous revolutions, did the Islamic one open the door to a new world, nor to an unprecedented society, nor did it fundamentally transform Man. As with any other totalitarian revolution of the 20th century, the Islamic revolution opened to hell. But, Foucault's mistake was not peculiar to him. Rather, it was a shared one among most human rights activists, even in Iran. Moreover, the mistake was quite rapidly corrected, for, with regard to the course of events, Foucault condemned the new religious totalitarianism of the mullahs.
(RP) : The 20th century was, in part, that of the struggle which opposed liberal democracies to "brown" and "red" fascisms. What does "green" fascism consist of? What are the challenges that it poses us at the turn of this new century? What are its origins?
(AG) : I did not wait for the 21st century to develop the idea that, all things considered, we faced in the 20th century, three revolutionary waves, the Bolshevik, the fascist, and the Islamist one, and that all three phenomena were quite similar. Although, one could say that in their ideals they were irreconcilable, in their practice however, these revolutions were all totalitarian and profoundly nihilistic. So, it comes as no surprise that, once between Stalin and Hitler, and today between Marxists and khomeinists, there be not only exchanges and rivalries, but even imitations.
(RP) : While the " vox populi demands regime change " (6) in Iran, Tehran's theocrats, in the name of what they call "religious democracy", deny their own people what they preach for others. How should one understand this lack of consistency in the political discourse?
(AG) : This is up to the demagogues and their incoherence on one side, and Iranians on the other. I call democracy, the recourse to elections and certainly not just to the power of the streets. I call democracy, the possibility of change and rotation [in power], which, in the same sense used by Aristotle, means that the governed should have the possibility to become governors, and the governors becoming governed. And this rotation [of power], which supposes a representative regime, also implies a certain number of basic rights, allowing an opposition to become for the first time, or regain it in case it once had it, the [political] majority. Elementary rights that implicate the freedom of speech, the freedom of movement, and that of the press and televised media. In short, all conditions, absent from what the mullahs wrongly call "religious democracy", which tends to be a theocracy, and for which democrats are struggling in Iran.
(RP) : In this context, how do you see the Anglo-Saxon notion of "accountability", or the responsibility of governors vis-à-vis the governed, or if you prefer, the transparency of governance ?
(AG) : Democracy does not come at once. The bottom line of the reasoning behind democracy is that given by Churchill, i.e., democracy is not a perfect regime; democracy is even the worst of all regimes exclusive of all others, as unfortunately, we live the experience every once in a while. This is not Churchill's invention, but that of the Greek, Aristotle in particular, who believed that "the best of governments is not the government of the best but that of those concerned by the government, i.e., all the citizens". Democracy is essentially founded on a number of elementary rights, themselves based upon the consideration of the infernos from which these rights are supposed to provide us with a rampart and a bulwark (7). Democracy's elementary rights, the Human Rights, are barricades erected against intolerance, against the inferno of dictatorships and tyrannies. France, in its 1793 Constitution, proclaims that "the necessity to declare these Rights [Human Rights] shall be understood solely upon [and as a result of the fact of] the experience of despotism"?democracy is the anti-despotism. Of course, despotism changes with time. In the 20th century, we have totalitarian despotism that completely suppress the difference between private life and public life. In this, they are innovating in a rather catastrophic way. One can suppress this difference in the name of science, race, or in the name God. But, the result remains the same, that of an absolute oppression. Democracy in the 21st century, is the comprehensive set of barriers erected against the permanent threat of secular or religious totalitarianism.
(RP) : Of 65 million Iranians, 22 millions are aged 14 to 29. Confronted with the isolation of their country, drogues, unemployment, and the absence of fundamental liberties?many have their eyes turned to the [outside] world, particularly to the west. These young form the backbone of what is known as the "third force", spearheaded by the students. What concluding words do you have for Iranian students and intellectuals?
(AG) : I would say that the world too, has its eyes turned upon them, in the sense that they are one of the main keys of the battle which, in my opinion, will cover the entire 21st century, opposing civilization to nihilism. By nihilism, I understand the capacity to destroy and massively devastate to the brink of risking the end of the world, either by a sudden nuclear explosion, or rather, by successive steps. We witnessed, at the end of the 20th century, in Rwanda, a genocide carried out by rudimentary tools, knives and sickles?We also witnessed, at the onset of the 21st century, the most monstrous terrorist attack of the entire human history being committed with a few plane tickets, some pilot training courses, and a few cutters. Inhabitants of earth called the devastated area in Manhattan, "Ground Zero". Nobody claimed any copyright. Everyone agreed upon the designation. Which clearly expressed a unanimous intuition. That of a horizon where a destructive power, suddenly unleashed, can cause monstrous devastation. The first area called "Ground Zero" was the experimental space, in New Mexico, where the last mini nuclear bomb had been tested prior to Hiroshima. In a certain way, designating Manhattan "Ground Zero", means that we live in the possibility of a Hiroshima within the reach of many hands, many purses, and many lunatics. The possibility of the progressive annihilation of humanity which is no longer the monopoly of seven or eight nuclear powers, but within the reach of just about anybody. This threat of annihilation, which, in the footsteps of Dostoïevski, I call the menace of nihilism, is the horizon of the 21st century. We will not eradicate them by simply putting an end to Ben Laden's cluster of small bands of terrorists or the sanctuaries Saddam Hussein wanted to create. We will have this menace in front of us all the way through the present century, so long as the century survives the threat. In this important battle for civilization and against the annihilation of our ways of life, Iran plays a fantastic and central role. On one hand, because it was from Iran than the third major totalitarian wave, that of "green" fascism, was initiated, and, on the hand, because it is Iran that can stop it and serve as the example of a great victory over nihilism, terrorism, and the will to destroy. Consider the case of Iraq as an example. The destiny of Iraq is now open, liberated for the best or the worst, and essentially relying on the hands of Iraqis themselves. It is quite clear that if Iran succeed in implementing democracy within its own boundaries, the future of Iraq will become, as a correlative, happier and delivered from yet another theocracy. It is therefore very clear that what is unfolding in Iran concerns, of course, Iranians themselves, but not just Iranians. Iran is one of the great theatres of a universal battle opposing civilization to nihilism.
(RP) : In this battle, can the Iranian people count on the moral support of the west ?
(AG) : I am sorry to say this, but, as the west often shows its preference to "make tea and not war", I am afraid that Iranians will have at first, to count on themselves and themselves alone.
Iran va Jahan
Ramin Parham
In this important battle for civilization and against the annihilation of our ways of life, Iran plays a fantastic and central role. On one hand, because it was from Iran than the third major totalitarian wave, that of ?green? fascism, was initiated, and, on the hand, because it is Iran that can stop it and serve as the example of a great victory over nihilism, terrorism, and the will to destroy. It is therefore very clear that what is unfolding in Iran concerns, of course, Iranians themselves, but not just Iranians. Iran is one of the great theatres of a universal battle opposing civilization to nihilism.
The interview you are about to read was conducted in French on May 1st, 2003. André Glucksmann, needless to say, is one of France's most renowned philosophers. Throughout recent crises he has consistently been an outspoken advocate of the "devoir d'ingérence" or the "duty to interfere".
Ramin Parham (RP) : 25 years ago, Khomeini gained power in Iran. At the time, Michel Foucault brought him, temporarily, his support. Could you relate this episode and what motivated the great French philosopher's support?
André Glucksmann (AG) : At the time, Michel Foucault and I were close friends and we had decided to go around the world, on different fields, in order to produce philosophical documentaries and determine issues that were not understood by western opinion in general and the French one in particular. It was in that context that I went to Malaysia to rescue the boat people who, at their risk, were fleeing Vietnam. One could say that it was a reversal of the known and dominant opinions regarding the war in Vietnam. Most French, including the French right and myself, were, on that particular issue, rather anti-Americans. Evidently, the fact that Vietnam was developing into a totalitarian dictatorship rendered the context more intricate. It was this kind of field work which I protracted, in the continuance of my support of Soljenitsyne and other dissidents, in my cooperation with physicians, with Sartre and Aron, who, although with differing views on Vietnam war, agreed on the principal to rescue the boat people and condemn the Gulag style totalitarianism of communist Vietnamese. Similarly, Michel Foucault took the road to Iran, in the midst of the upheaval, in order to reflect upon a phenomenon that went largely beyond all known political and philosophical categories which once were the vogue. He named this event "spiritual revolution". It, indeed, was a revolution but, of course, not of the sort of 1789, nor that of the 20th century, Marxist or Leninist or even third-world like ones, i.e., military and secular. Therefore, what Foucault was facing was a new phenomenon and he decided to strike his analysis while the iron was hot. At the time, his analysis made a scandal. So, of course, we can say that he made a mistake. I would rather say that, far from being mistaken in everything, he drew, from a profound intuition, the wrong conclusions. For, the idea that the event in question was a fundamental one was right. But the idea according to which, that event constituted a positive substitute to the failure of previous socialist and Marxist revolutions was quite obviously wrong. No more than previous revolutions, did the Islamic one open the door to a new world, nor to an unprecedented society, nor did it fundamentally transform Man. As with any other totalitarian revolution of the 20th century, the Islamic revolution opened to hell. But, Foucault's mistake was not peculiar to him. Rather, it was a shared one among most human rights activists, even in Iran. Moreover, the mistake was quite rapidly corrected, for, with regard to the course of events, Foucault condemned the new religious totalitarianism of the mullahs.
(RP) : The 20th century was, in part, that of the struggle which opposed liberal democracies to "brown" and "red" fascisms. What does "green" fascism consist of? What are the challenges that it poses us at the turn of this new century? What are its origins?
(AG) : I did not wait for the 21st century to develop the idea that, all things considered, we faced in the 20th century, three revolutionary waves, the Bolshevik, the fascist, and the Islamist one, and that all three phenomena were quite similar. Although, one could say that in their ideals they were irreconcilable, in their practice however, these revolutions were all totalitarian and profoundly nihilistic. So, it comes as no surprise that, once between Stalin and Hitler, and today between Marxists and khomeinists, there be not only exchanges and rivalries, but even imitations.
(RP) : While the " vox populi demands regime change " (6) in Iran, Tehran's theocrats, in the name of what they call "religious democracy", deny their own people what they preach for others. How should one understand this lack of consistency in the political discourse?
(AG) : This is up to the demagogues and their incoherence on one side, and Iranians on the other. I call democracy, the recourse to elections and certainly not just to the power of the streets. I call democracy, the possibility of change and rotation [in power], which, in the same sense used by Aristotle, means that the governed should have the possibility to become governors, and the governors becoming governed. And this rotation [of power], which supposes a representative regime, also implies a certain number of basic rights, allowing an opposition to become for the first time, or regain it in case it once had it, the [political] majority. Elementary rights that implicate the freedom of speech, the freedom of movement, and that of the press and televised media. In short, all conditions, absent from what the mullahs wrongly call "religious democracy", which tends to be a theocracy, and for which democrats are struggling in Iran.
(RP) : In this context, how do you see the Anglo-Saxon notion of "accountability", or the responsibility of governors vis-à-vis the governed, or if you prefer, the transparency of governance ?
(AG) : Democracy does not come at once. The bottom line of the reasoning behind democracy is that given by Churchill, i.e., democracy is not a perfect regime; democracy is even the worst of all regimes exclusive of all others, as unfortunately, we live the experience every once in a while. This is not Churchill's invention, but that of the Greek, Aristotle in particular, who believed that "the best of governments is not the government of the best but that of those concerned by the government, i.e., all the citizens". Democracy is essentially founded on a number of elementary rights, themselves based upon the consideration of the infernos from which these rights are supposed to provide us with a rampart and a bulwark (7). Democracy's elementary rights, the Human Rights, are barricades erected against intolerance, against the inferno of dictatorships and tyrannies. France, in its 1793 Constitution, proclaims that "the necessity to declare these Rights [Human Rights] shall be understood solely upon [and as a result of the fact of] the experience of despotism"?democracy is the anti-despotism. Of course, despotism changes with time. In the 20th century, we have totalitarian despotism that completely suppress the difference between private life and public life. In this, they are innovating in a rather catastrophic way. One can suppress this difference in the name of science, race, or in the name God. But, the result remains the same, that of an absolute oppression. Democracy in the 21st century, is the comprehensive set of barriers erected against the permanent threat of secular or religious totalitarianism.
(RP) : Of 65 million Iranians, 22 millions are aged 14 to 29. Confronted with the isolation of their country, drogues, unemployment, and the absence of fundamental liberties?many have their eyes turned to the [outside] world, particularly to the west. These young form the backbone of what is known as the "third force", spearheaded by the students. What concluding words do you have for Iranian students and intellectuals?
(AG) : I would say that the world too, has its eyes turned upon them, in the sense that they are one of the main keys of the battle which, in my opinion, will cover the entire 21st century, opposing civilization to nihilism. By nihilism, I understand the capacity to destroy and massively devastate to the brink of risking the end of the world, either by a sudden nuclear explosion, or rather, by successive steps. We witnessed, at the end of the 20th century, in Rwanda, a genocide carried out by rudimentary tools, knives and sickles?We also witnessed, at the onset of the 21st century, the most monstrous terrorist attack of the entire human history being committed with a few plane tickets, some pilot training courses, and a few cutters. Inhabitants of earth called the devastated area in Manhattan, "Ground Zero". Nobody claimed any copyright. Everyone agreed upon the designation. Which clearly expressed a unanimous intuition. That of a horizon where a destructive power, suddenly unleashed, can cause monstrous devastation. The first area called "Ground Zero" was the experimental space, in New Mexico, where the last mini nuclear bomb had been tested prior to Hiroshima. In a certain way, designating Manhattan "Ground Zero", means that we live in the possibility of a Hiroshima within the reach of many hands, many purses, and many lunatics. The possibility of the progressive annihilation of humanity which is no longer the monopoly of seven or eight nuclear powers, but within the reach of just about anybody. This threat of annihilation, which, in the footsteps of Dostoïevski, I call the menace of nihilism, is the horizon of the 21st century. We will not eradicate them by simply putting an end to Ben Laden's cluster of small bands of terrorists or the sanctuaries Saddam Hussein wanted to create. We will have this menace in front of us all the way through the present century, so long as the century survives the threat. In this important battle for civilization and against the annihilation of our ways of life, Iran plays a fantastic and central role. On one hand, because it was from Iran than the third major totalitarian wave, that of "green" fascism, was initiated, and, on the hand, because it is Iran that can stop it and serve as the example of a great victory over nihilism, terrorism, and the will to destroy. Consider the case of Iraq as an example. The destiny of Iraq is now open, liberated for the best or the worst, and essentially relying on the hands of Iraqis themselves. It is quite clear that if Iran succeed in implementing democracy within its own boundaries, the future of Iraq will become, as a correlative, happier and delivered from yet another theocracy. It is therefore very clear that what is unfolding in Iran concerns, of course, Iranians themselves, but not just Iranians. Iran is one of the great theatres of a universal battle opposing civilization to nihilism.
(RP) : In this battle, can the Iranian people count on the moral support of the west ?
(AG) : I am sorry to say this, but, as the west often shows its preference to "make tea and not war", I am afraid that Iranians will have at first, to count on themselves and themselves alone.
Andre Glucksmann: An interview in Le Figaro about his new book "West Against West".
Le Figaro Magazine: Doesn't the attack on the UN building in Baghdad which caused dozens of victims amongst the international humanitarians, including the special representative in Iraq, the Brazilian Sergio Vieira de Mello, followed by the attack at Najaf, represent a turning point in the apocalyptic direction of the Islamists?
AG: On Friday, August 29, at the funeral of Sergio Vieira de Mello, there was talk - quite rightly - of a "September 11 for the UN". This phrase was not an exaggeration. In the assumption of absolute destructiveness, the indiscriminate aspect of Islamism shows itself once again.
The attack on the Jordanian embassy was the September 11 of the moderate Arab states. The attack in Najaf, the desecration of the mosque of Ali and the assassination of Ayatollah Hakim was the September 11 of the Shi'ites. The threat is universal. It shows the rage to destroy, the pure power of nothingness. By blowing up water pipelines, the terrorist condemns Iraqi babies to die of dehydration and makes the whole population go thirsty. You have to be a racist to believe that these terrorists who are murdering their own people represent them. They are the representatives of nihilism.
To believe some commentators, Islamism cannot be a form of nihilism because Allah's madmen "believe" in an absolute…
Terror is their absolute. In Islamism, as in communism and Nazism, the will to destroy carries all before it: better to want nothingness than to want nothing. Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche called that nihilism.
What do you call nihilism?
Avec moi, apres moi le deluge! Nihilism is government by chaos. "Let the sun go out!" Leon Trotsky also invoked "eternal darkness". The terrorist in Baghdad sacrifices according to the same logic, as Joseph Samaha noted in the Lebanese daily Al-Safir: "Yesterday's operation against the headquarters of the United Nations is the product of the same mentality of destruction. Let's expel every mediator. Let's banish every international organisation. Let the situation collapse. Let's cut off water and electricity. Let the pumping of oil cease. Let robbery prevail. Let schools and universities close. Let businesses go bankrupt. Let civil life come to a halt…A form of nihilism, absurdity and chaos hiding behind deceitful slogans."
When the Americans speak of the "axis of evil", the important thing is not the term "axis", an unfortunate one, since we live in the era of networks: the important thing is the word "evil": it means the complex "terrorism-Islamism-nihilism". Terrorism forms the backdrop to an era which opened a century ago with the alliance between war and revolution, in the exaltation of a modernity without human rights. Islamism replaces the secular final struggle of communism with a form of theological apocalyptism, it works the same way on the societies in its grip: it's a vehicle of terror. Everything is permitted in the name of a radiant future. Islamism brings something quite different from religion into play. Let's not forget that the first victims of Islamist terrorists were Muslim populations themselves. Look at the work of the GIA in Algeria.
You say that Islamism brings something other than religion into play…
Something that goes beyond it. Islamism is the local variant of a destructive state of mind which has become globalised. They destroy in the name of the living God, or in the name of a race or a class which will take the place of the dead god. The nihilist, Islamist, Bolshevik or fascist shrinks from nothing, just like the child soldier in Monrovia who was asked whether he would shoot his own parents with his Kalashnikov and answered "Why not?" Nihilism flourishes without any why or wherefore. September 11 is the proof: we Westerners are immensely vulnerable when confronted with a collective evil which is always ready to strike. The idea that September 11 only concerns the Americans and that we can remain neutral while counting the punches is absurd. The Jordanians are targets, the UN is a target, the Shi'ites are targets and if the anti-war Europeans think they are off limits, then they are fooling themselves.
The hypothesis of a close collaboration between followers of the former regime and Al-Qaida cannot be discounted…
Indeed, the secular terrorism of Saddam Hussein and the religious terrorism of Bin Laden employ the same methods of war against civilians and pursue the same objective of total domination. In the attack at Najaf, the Shi'ites denounced the collaboration of the Saddamists with Al-Qaida. Don't forget that Saddam financed the human bombs of Hamas, a fundamentalist movement. Rivalries do not exclude tactical alliances - supplying weapons and information. In the nebulousness of nihilism they are strategic rivals and philosophical brothers.
What do you mean?
The atheistic nostalgias of the tyrant of Baghdad have something in common with those of the Bin Ladenists in their identical fascination with destruction, their identical rejection of America and the free circulation of ideas and beliefs. In short, in the hatred of individual liberty. Yesterday, Khomeini; today, Saddam and Bin Laden: three nihilist warlords whose ulterior objectives are cut from the same cloth. They all aim at the same goal, to become caliph, to rule over all the Arabs (then all the Muslims), to control Riyadh, its oil, its finances and, above all, its theological authority (Mecca).
In "West against West" you speak of Islamism as a machine for "total war" against civilians. Is it this aspect which makes Islamism a continuation of the two totalitarian experiences of the 20th century, Nazism and communism?
Yes. The fantasy of a great worldwide anti-liberal, anti-Western and anti-capitalist revolution has successively fed the fanaticism of the Nazis, the communists and the Islamists. It's there that we find their secret, nihilist convergence. Hence their common taste for redemptive violence. Today, in Iraq, the synthesis is functioning once more. Post-Marxist Baathists and Jihadists are uniting in Baghdad to repel the "occupier": "Down with America!" Their common fear is not capitalism but the ethics of capitalism (Max Weber) and the human rights which are inseparable from it…
Do you think Islamism is a threat in Africa?
More than ever. Not only because Riyadh is stirring up - and financing - wherever possible, centres of anti-Christian and anti-animist agitation. But for a more fundamental reason: the lost children of the slums of Monrovia or Khartoum have been cast into the same absence of limits and taboos as their recruiters, those killers enlightened by Jihad who, far from being "nobodies" or illiterates, are often from good families and have sometimes graduated from the finest Western universities. In this Africa "cut adrift", as Bernard-Henri Levy says, the worst horrors come together into a nihilist symphony: the looting of diamonds, slave-trading, child soldiers, fanaticism and racism.
Wasn't it a mistake to portray the bearded fanatics as obscurantist and backward minds?
Yes. Paradoxically the Afghanistan of the Taliban should have rescued us from this intellectual laziness. Let's enter, for a moment, the head of that "theology student", the Talib. He has been brought up on movies from Bollywood, porn included. He ends up by hanging TVs, burning films, banning music, covering up his sisters and his wives, not out of tradition or respect for religious law, but to block out his fantasies. He is already Westernised. His theological absolutism desperately tries to conjure away the fear caused by his troubling freedom.
Satanic angelism. You find an intuition of it in Montaigne who links "supercelestial opinions" with "subterranean morals"! A magnificent phrase: our great philosopher gave us, four centuries ahead of his time, the spiritual key to the three deliriums: red, brown and green.
In "West against West" you exonerate the government of the United States from all responsibility in the radicalisation of this return to Islamism. But by exporting its culture en masse isn't the West feeding a powerful reaction against itself?
Not at all. I exonerate no democratic country. All of them have long backed ultraconservative regimes like Saudi Arabia or Saddam Hussein. All of them have shown contempt for human rights. They all believed that freedom was only good for us and that it mattered little that other peoples were cowering under military or theological dictatorships. September 11 demonstrated how much the freedom of the Afghans was connected with security in New York. Had we helped, as I and some others demanded, Commander Massoud to liberate Kabul, the Twin Towers would still be standing. America has paid dearly and has learnt the lesson. In West against West I lament the fact that France, Germany and the pseudo-"peace camp" (Russia and China!) remain stuck in the illusions of September 10, 2001. Faced with the difficulty of rebuilding Iraq, too many are rubbing their hands, swearing that "America was asking for it", forgetting that Islamism and terrorism are dangers for us all.
AG: On Friday, August 29, at the funeral of Sergio Vieira de Mello, there was talk - quite rightly - of a "September 11 for the UN". This phrase was not an exaggeration. In the assumption of absolute destructiveness, the indiscriminate aspect of Islamism shows itself once again.
The attack on the Jordanian embassy was the September 11 of the moderate Arab states. The attack in Najaf, the desecration of the mosque of Ali and the assassination of Ayatollah Hakim was the September 11 of the Shi'ites. The threat is universal. It shows the rage to destroy, the pure power of nothingness. By blowing up water pipelines, the terrorist condemns Iraqi babies to die of dehydration and makes the whole population go thirsty. You have to be a racist to believe that these terrorists who are murdering their own people represent them. They are the representatives of nihilism.
To believe some commentators, Islamism cannot be a form of nihilism because Allah's madmen "believe" in an absolute…
Terror is their absolute. In Islamism, as in communism and Nazism, the will to destroy carries all before it: better to want nothingness than to want nothing. Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche called that nihilism.
What do you call nihilism?
Avec moi, apres moi le deluge! Nihilism is government by chaos. "Let the sun go out!" Leon Trotsky also invoked "eternal darkness". The terrorist in Baghdad sacrifices according to the same logic, as Joseph Samaha noted in the Lebanese daily Al-Safir: "Yesterday's operation against the headquarters of the United Nations is the product of the same mentality of destruction. Let's expel every mediator. Let's banish every international organisation. Let the situation collapse. Let's cut off water and electricity. Let the pumping of oil cease. Let robbery prevail. Let schools and universities close. Let businesses go bankrupt. Let civil life come to a halt…A form of nihilism, absurdity and chaos hiding behind deceitful slogans."
When the Americans speak of the "axis of evil", the important thing is not the term "axis", an unfortunate one, since we live in the era of networks: the important thing is the word "evil": it means the complex "terrorism-Islamism-nihilism". Terrorism forms the backdrop to an era which opened a century ago with the alliance between war and revolution, in the exaltation of a modernity without human rights. Islamism replaces the secular final struggle of communism with a form of theological apocalyptism, it works the same way on the societies in its grip: it's a vehicle of terror. Everything is permitted in the name of a radiant future. Islamism brings something quite different from religion into play. Let's not forget that the first victims of Islamist terrorists were Muslim populations themselves. Look at the work of the GIA in Algeria.
You say that Islamism brings something other than religion into play…
Something that goes beyond it. Islamism is the local variant of a destructive state of mind which has become globalised. They destroy in the name of the living God, or in the name of a race or a class which will take the place of the dead god. The nihilist, Islamist, Bolshevik or fascist shrinks from nothing, just like the child soldier in Monrovia who was asked whether he would shoot his own parents with his Kalashnikov and answered "Why not?" Nihilism flourishes without any why or wherefore. September 11 is the proof: we Westerners are immensely vulnerable when confronted with a collective evil which is always ready to strike. The idea that September 11 only concerns the Americans and that we can remain neutral while counting the punches is absurd. The Jordanians are targets, the UN is a target, the Shi'ites are targets and if the anti-war Europeans think they are off limits, then they are fooling themselves.
The hypothesis of a close collaboration between followers of the former regime and Al-Qaida cannot be discounted…
Indeed, the secular terrorism of Saddam Hussein and the religious terrorism of Bin Laden employ the same methods of war against civilians and pursue the same objective of total domination. In the attack at Najaf, the Shi'ites denounced the collaboration of the Saddamists with Al-Qaida. Don't forget that Saddam financed the human bombs of Hamas, a fundamentalist movement. Rivalries do not exclude tactical alliances - supplying weapons and information. In the nebulousness of nihilism they are strategic rivals and philosophical brothers.
What do you mean?
The atheistic nostalgias of the tyrant of Baghdad have something in common with those of the Bin Ladenists in their identical fascination with destruction, their identical rejection of America and the free circulation of ideas and beliefs. In short, in the hatred of individual liberty. Yesterday, Khomeini; today, Saddam and Bin Laden: three nihilist warlords whose ulterior objectives are cut from the same cloth. They all aim at the same goal, to become caliph, to rule over all the Arabs (then all the Muslims), to control Riyadh, its oil, its finances and, above all, its theological authority (Mecca).
In "West against West" you speak of Islamism as a machine for "total war" against civilians. Is it this aspect which makes Islamism a continuation of the two totalitarian experiences of the 20th century, Nazism and communism?
Yes. The fantasy of a great worldwide anti-liberal, anti-Western and anti-capitalist revolution has successively fed the fanaticism of the Nazis, the communists and the Islamists. It's there that we find their secret, nihilist convergence. Hence their common taste for redemptive violence. Today, in Iraq, the synthesis is functioning once more. Post-Marxist Baathists and Jihadists are uniting in Baghdad to repel the "occupier": "Down with America!" Their common fear is not capitalism but the ethics of capitalism (Max Weber) and the human rights which are inseparable from it…
Do you think Islamism is a threat in Africa?
More than ever. Not only because Riyadh is stirring up - and financing - wherever possible, centres of anti-Christian and anti-animist agitation. But for a more fundamental reason: the lost children of the slums of Monrovia or Khartoum have been cast into the same absence of limits and taboos as their recruiters, those killers enlightened by Jihad who, far from being "nobodies" or illiterates, are often from good families and have sometimes graduated from the finest Western universities. In this Africa "cut adrift", as Bernard-Henri Levy says, the worst horrors come together into a nihilist symphony: the looting of diamonds, slave-trading, child soldiers, fanaticism and racism.
Wasn't it a mistake to portray the bearded fanatics as obscurantist and backward minds?
Yes. Paradoxically the Afghanistan of the Taliban should have rescued us from this intellectual laziness. Let's enter, for a moment, the head of that "theology student", the Talib. He has been brought up on movies from Bollywood, porn included. He ends up by hanging TVs, burning films, banning music, covering up his sisters and his wives, not out of tradition or respect for religious law, but to block out his fantasies. He is already Westernised. His theological absolutism desperately tries to conjure away the fear caused by his troubling freedom.
Satanic angelism. You find an intuition of it in Montaigne who links "supercelestial opinions" with "subterranean morals"! A magnificent phrase: our great philosopher gave us, four centuries ahead of his time, the spiritual key to the three deliriums: red, brown and green.
In "West against West" you exonerate the government of the United States from all responsibility in the radicalisation of this return to Islamism. But by exporting its culture en masse isn't the West feeding a powerful reaction against itself?
Not at all. I exonerate no democratic country. All of them have long backed ultraconservative regimes like Saudi Arabia or Saddam Hussein. All of them have shown contempt for human rights. They all believed that freedom was only good for us and that it mattered little that other peoples were cowering under military or theological dictatorships. September 11 demonstrated how much the freedom of the Afghans was connected with security in New York. Had we helped, as I and some others demanded, Commander Massoud to liberate Kabul, the Twin Towers would still be standing. America has paid dearly and has learnt the lesson. In West against West I lament the fact that France, Germany and the pseudo-"peace camp" (Russia and China!) remain stuck in the illusions of September 10, 2001. Faced with the difficulty of rebuilding Iraq, too many are rubbing their hands, swearing that "America was asking for it", forgetting that Islamism and terrorism are dangers for us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)