In late January, Internationalen's Farooq Sulehria caught up with renowned writer and activist Tariq Ali. The following is an abridged vrsion of the interview.
Do you really think that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat created by US imperialism because it needed an enemy following the collapse of the Soviet Union?
In all the Muslim countries, with few exceptions, the growth of Islamic fundamentalism was aided by the US either directly or indirectly. In no way did Islamic fundamentalism become a big force without US support. In Egypt, [former President] Anwar Sadat used the Islamic fundamentalists to unleash a reign of terror against secular and radical forces. In Pakistan, General Zia did exactly the same.
In Saudi Arabia we have a Wahabite monarchy supported by the US. Not to mention Afghanistan, where the US supported the religious jihad, leaving aside whether the Soviet intervention was right or wrong. I myself opposed the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. I predicted that [it] would create a mess that would take decades to clean up.
To answer your question, I think the US helped in a big way to spread Islamic fundamentalism during the Cold War. Look at, for instance, Israel. [Palestinian resistance group] Hamas was encouraged by the Israeli regime to push the Palestine Liberation Organisation back; to push people like [Yasser] Arafat and [former leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine] George Habash back; to push all the secular Palestinian leaders back. This is not our problem. This was created by [the US] and we are suffering from its consequences.
Don't you think the seeds of anti-imperialism were already present in the Islamic fundamentalist movement before the Cold War — shown, for example, by the attack on US bases in Lebanon?
The Lebanese experience is very different. The organisation Hezbollah came out of the Islamic revolution in Iran and had always declared publicly its aim of driving Israel out of Lebanon. That was a popular slogan.
However, even the mullahs of Iran backed the invasion of Iraq. Similarly, Jamat-i-Islami of Pakistan supported the US in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s.
I don't believe [the Islamic forces] have been anti-imperialist. A real fight against US imperialism can only be waged in favour and on behalf of the agenda of emancipation. What fundamentalists want to do is to go back to 9th century Islam, which they do not understand correctly either.
With the collapse of the communist and secular forces, only the religious parties were left to act as anti-imperialists.
Do you think this new scenario is in fact confirming what author Samuel Huntington called the "clash of civilisations", given that from Bosnia to Chechnya and Afghanistan to Iraq, the Muslim world has been constantly under attack?
Is it a clash of civilisations? Actually, there is an old confrontation of North and South. Look at Latin America — there is a struggle there against imperialism's neoliberal agenda. In Latin America 9/11 was publicly celebrated. The "clash of civilisations" notion is absurd. Interestingly, this theory serves Muslim fundamentalists very well.
Why has resistance in the Muslim world manifested through Islamic fundamentalism instead of class struggles and insurrection like in Latin America?
I think [class struggles] will come up, but it may take 10 or 20 years. These struggles have existed — in Indonesia, in Pakistan, and elsewhere. When socialist ideas were popular in rest of the world, these ideas were popular in the Muslim world too.
But these struggles were brutally crushed. The world's largest communist party existed in Indonesia and was crushed [in 1965 by the dictator] Suharto, with imperialist support. In Pakistan, the workers and peasants movement was crushed and the prime minister of the day was executed. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein killed a lot of communists and Sadat did the same in Egypt. Destruction of these forces is partly responsible for the situation today.
Do you think a wave of democratic processes in the Muslim world will be a welcome change?
Yeah.
What if people like Osama bin Laden in Saudi Arabia or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt come to power as a result of democratic processes?
This is what the American ideologues try to call the paradox of democracy — if you elect a government that you don't like it is a problem. But this is not a problem for imperialism in the West where centre, centre-left or centre-right parties have the same neoliberal economic agenda and all support US imperialism by and large. They have a common manifesto: the conservation of capital.
But in different parts of the world, this is not the case. If there are elections for instance in Iraq, why would the Shiites win? Because they were provided money and arms over the last twenty years in order to build an opposition to Saddam Hussein. If they win the election, let them take over — let the people decide.
In Iran, after thirty years of Islamic process, all the young people hate the mullahs. They are trying to rediscover the pre-Islamic period, not because they are reading my books but because of their own experience. If Iraqis have to vote for Shias, let them. If Saudis want to elect Wahabites, let them. If the Muslim Brotherhood did form government in Egypt as a result of elections, let it. People will learn.
So would you support elections in England if, as a result, fascists came to power?
We are not talking about fascism. Don't make the mistake, made by many people after September 11, of calling this Islamic fascism. They are not fascists — this is not a correct analogy. These parties exist because nothing else exists. When people fight against neoliberal policies and the only alternative is fundamentalism, where else should they go? To the non-government organisations packed with left intellectuals getting fat salaries? The left across the Muslim world is immersed in NGOs, totally cut off from reality.
The question is what alternative exists. I think it is better to have elections, and it does not matter who comes to power. Once people realise that they have the right to change government, they will learn to elect better parties. There are two ways to change governments: revolutions and elections. If masses can change governments through elections, they will learn from mistakes.
How would you differentiate fundamentalism from fascism when there are so many common features?
The Islamists are different in different countries. Wahabites are different from Shias in Iraq. The Taliban [in Afghanistan] is different from the mullahs in Iran. What unites them is the belief that within the Koran there are the germs for an alternative way of organising society. That is wrong. Look at Iran — is that the way for the future?
As far as common features between fundamentalists and fascists are concerned, there are many common features between fascists and Stalinists. You don't call a Stalinist party a fascist party because it has some common features with fascism.
Why is it that the West shows such concern about Islamic fundamentalism but not Hindu or Christian fundamentalism?
Hindu fundamentalism is not universal, while the Christian fundamentalists are liked by the people in power in the West.
From Green Left Weekly, May 5, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.