SANAA, 9 November 2002 — Participants in an international symposium here this week stressed that the world has moved closer toward cultural polarization after Sept. 11, but at the same time witnessed serious calls for dialogue between nations.
Intellectuals from the Kingdom, Yemen, Germany, France, Switzerland, Britain and Japan met in a three-day symposium to discuss the implications of Sept. 11 on international relations.
Titled “War in Times of Peace and International Relations after Sept. 11,” the symposium dealt with three major issues: the West, the East, and the regional order.
Some participants believed that Sept. 11 has proved the validity of the “clash of civilizations” model, and has fuelled ideological radicalization, while others felt that the dangers imposed by such “clash” had urged more vigorous “cultural dialogue” between civilizations and cultures.
The participants also discussed the price some countries are paying for their cooperation with the US in its war on “terrorism”.
Prince Turki Al-Faisal, chairman of the King Faisal Center for Islamic Studies and Research in Saudi Arabia, highlighted the impact of the Sept. 11 attacks on the Arabian Peninsula. He criticized the title of the symposium saying it should have been “Peace in Times of War” for the region has been living in war for a long time. He said the region needs reform, democracy and human rights.
“One of the main issues that should be addressed is the US bias toward Israel. This issue provokes backlash with Arab and Muslim peoples,” Al-Faisal noted.
Dr. Abdul Kareem Al-Iryani, Yemen’s former prime minister, who is now working as an adviser to President Ali Abdullah Al Saleh, said: “Sept. 11 has raised a lot of questions on how the international relations should be... Our frustration has partly resulted from Sept. 11. What has made it even worse is the American bias toward Israel, the Israeli intransigence, and the total helplessness of the Arabs.”
Professor Mohammed Ahmed Al-Afandi, chairman of the Yemeni Center for Strategic Studies, said combating terrorism should not be used as a pretext to oppress moderate Islamic movements.
Abdul Azeez Al-Maqaleh, chairman of the Yemeni Center for Research and Studies, stressed the importance of dialogue for eradicating terror. “The use of force in dealing with terrorism is illogical and unacceptable. There is a need for dialogue and for studying every case individually,” Al-Maqaleh said. (GN)
Masato Iizuka, a Japanese professor, said: “Japan’s foreign policy was formed with two major objectives: keeping good relationship with US, the biggest customer of Japanese products, and building friendly relations with Muslim countries to secure a supply of oil.”
Dr Michael Ehrke, German political scientist, presented a paper on common grounds and tensions in American and European foreign policies.
He reviewed the options of the EU vis-a-vis the U.S saying three options are considered: a policy of rearmament and military modernisation aiming at balancing the American military power; a policy aiming at increasing the strategic value of Europe for the U.S. and, consequently, increasingly influence on American decision building; and a policy of appeasement and the abandonment of an autonomous global political role of the EU.
