American Diplomacy: Lost in Translation
By Holly Crystal Gell
Security in the Age of Terrorism
We are six years into the “war on terror” and senior administration officials are still unable to grasp the nature of the challenge we face. Recently, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes offered a rather optimistic assessment of the war of ideas between the United States and Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, her conclusions reflect a deep misunderstanding of the threat posed by violent Islamism.
Hughes reported that bin Laden’s popularity has dropped significantly in Afghanistan and Iraq, but failed to account for high approval ratings in many large Muslim countries. In Pakistan, bin Laden is more popular than President Pervez Musharraf, whose overthrow was recently urged by bin Laden himself because of his “loyalty, submissiveness and aid to America against the Muslims.” In Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, 41 percent of Muslims have “a lot” or “some” confidence in bin Laden, according to the same Pew Poll Hughes cites. Indeed, when the leader of a global terrorist network is trusted by 20 to 40 percent of the populations of the vast majority of Muslim states, it is a cause for concern not optimism. These levels of support suggest a pool of potential recruits capable of keeping the jihadist movement staffed with foot soldiers indefinitely.
Various polls have reported that support for terrorism, as a tactic, has dropped in many countries, and that growing numbers believe violence against civilians contradicts Islam. Yet, even as terrorism is increasingly delegitimized, many Muslims continue to believe that the objectives of terrorists are legitimate.
Disturbingly large numbers of Muslims believe the United States seeks to weaken and divide the Muslim world, the goal of the “war on terror” is not self defense, al Qaeda did not commit the 9/11 attacks, and al Qaeda and bin Laden are pursuing generally legitimate goals. People support terrorist groups not because they are terrorists, but because, despite their excesses, they are perceived as the only ones standing up for justice.
If Hughes is overly optimistic about the meaning of recent polls, she is even further afi eld in her policy recommendations. She naively describes English education and cultural exchange as a panacea for faltering world opinion of the United States. However, people interested in learning English in order to improve their lot in life are not the people populating the ranks of Islamist groups. Islamists harken back to the golden age of Islamic culture and seek to create a new world order in which this society is once again dominant. Hughes utterly fails to understand the challenge and is culturally insensitive when she off ers the study of English as an alternative to Muslims who might be attracted to a movement which seeks to restore pride in their own culture.
The Islamist ideology teaches that the only legitimate form of governance is in accordance with the laws of God, as interpreted by the Islamists themselves. Bin Laden does not call for the destruction of America out of ignorance. He understands and rejects our form of government because it is not in accordance with his religious views. Th is is precisely why bin Laden has offered to end his war against America as soon as Americans accept Islam. We will never be able to control the way in which people interpret religious texts and there is not much we can do to gain the favor of those who believe our very existence is an affront to God. Certainly a conversational English lesson is not going to suffice.
Hughes seems to believe that Muslims express low opinions of the United States in polls because they have not “experience[d] America for themselves.” She ignores important details of the 9/11 attacks: the plot was hatched in Germany and at least three of the hijackers had spent over a year in the United States. Yet none of this exposure to Western culture convinced the terrorists that those attacks were not worth dying for. The same is true of the London subway bombings and numerous other plots executed and disrupted over the past several years that were conceived and nurtured in the very Western societies they were designed to harm.
It will not be easy, but a concerted public diplomacy effort, in concert with real policy shifts, could help communicate to Muslims across the globe that we do not wish to forcibly retain governments which cause their people to suffer; we sincerely desire to see Muslims prosper both culturally and economically; and that we seek to use our power within ethical limits and employ force discriminately.
An unambiguous condemnation of torture from the White House would be a good first step in differentiating between our claims of self-defense and those with whom we are competing to win the proverbial hearts and minds of the Muslim world. Sharing our language and culture with the world may be valuable in various other ways, but it will not win the “war on terror.”
Holly Crystal Gell is an analyst at the American Security Project and a graduate student in Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program.
Download PDF:
092407_HCGLostInTranslation.pdf
