March
30, 2007
The
Meaning of Moderation
Moderation
is a term which has gained popular currency
in global communications. It is a label
used by the West to conveniently identify
those in the Muslim world who are deemed
relatively acceptable. The term ‘moderate’
also has a loaded meaning, including
but not limited to: (1) those who are
accommodating to Israel; and (2) those
who don’t defy Western arrangements
in the Muslim world.
The regular usage of the term also fulfills
the useful strategic objective of Divide
and Conquer. Muslim elites for their
part have been quick to pounce on the
term ‘moderation’ and have
presented themselves as bulwarks against
the rampant tide of ‘fundamentalism’.
It has been aptly warned: let not the
lion and the tiger fight at the bidding
of the jackal.
It is instructive to examine the benefits
of so-called moderation and the fate
of moderates. For example, Turkey. Turkey,
under its Kemalist philosophy, aligned
itself with the West. It dispatched
troops during the Korean War of 1950-1953,
losing an entire brigade in the process.
It covered NATO’s south flank
against the former Soviet Union. It
developed diplomatic ties with Israel.
It permitted its territory to be used
as a launching pad to attack Iraq during
the first Gulf War of 1990-1991. It
even disbarred from its parliament a
hijab-wearing elected female legislator.
And what does Turkey get in return?
It can’t even get membership in
the European Union. And, according to
the former Turkish ambassador to the
US, Nuzhet Kandemir, “no nation
has been vilified so much in the US
as Turkey.”
The Muslim-majority state of Bosnia
is another chilling example. An independent
nation-state recognized by the United
Nations, it was European, multi-ethnic,
secular, and liberal. Yet, its cities
were pulverized, its mosques razed,
its children slaughtered, and its women
raped, all under the watchful eye of
the UN and NATO. The genocidal slaughter
of Muslims at Srebrenica during July
1995, which was a UN safe haven, speaks
for itself.
Similarly, the former Soviet Union was
dubbed as ‘the evil empire’
by then President Reagan. Now, under
Putin – with the West turning
a blind eye to the humanitarian catastrophe
in Chechnya – Russia is presented
as a moderate force.
Yasser Arafat, when he was seen as defying
Israel, was shunned as a terrorist.
But when he decided to mend fences with
Israel, he was quickly hugged in the
Clinton White House, alongside Israeli
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin during
September 1993, and subsequently launched
as a messenger of peace. Significantly,
Arafat was accepted by the West when
he was losing traction amongst the Palestinian
people. His besieged plight during the
waning days of his life is instructive.
In its over-zealous pursuit of ‘moderation’,
the West sometimes embraces those ‘moderate’
Muslims who have little credibility
and legitimacy in their own community.
The lesson is clear: it is not wise
to parrot terms coined by others with
a specific political agenda. ‘Moderate’,
therefore, does not necessarily mean
someone who is balanced and adopts the
middle way. In global terminology, it
often signifies those who are compliant
with the objectives of Western policy-makers.
Moderation is often welcomed in the
West. But it would be useful to examine
the fate of those ‘moderate’
actors who followed the script crafted
by Western directors.
