Francis Fukuyama has written a brilliant article in which he captures the essence of my argument. He argues that this conflict is not really between Islam and the west as much as it is the West vs. "Islamo-fascism," which he defines a "the radically intolerant and anti-modern doctrine that has recently arisen in many parts of the Muslim world." He believes that blame for this new form of Islam rests with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have invested vast sums of oil money into promoting a sect of Islam called Wahhabism, which promotes a fanatical Islam that considers non-believers as infidels and enemies of Islam. Likewise, they poured a fortune into building schools and mosques all over the world to promote this form of Islam.

In addition, to the role of Saudi Arabia, matters of poverty, economic stagnation and authoritarian politics in the Middle East constitute a hotbed for extremist politics. In many of the oil rich countries of the Middle East the opportunities for economic and political reform of their societies has always been there. However, none of these governments has undertaken the kinds of policies followed by countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Chile or Mexico, for example, to open up their countries to the global economy and lay the foundations for sustained development. As Fukuyama argues, "There is not a single instance of an oil-rich state in the Persian Gulf that has used its wealth to create a self-sustaining industrial society, instead of creating a society of corruption wh[ich] over time ha[s] become more and more fanatically Islamist." These failures, more than anything the outside world has done, are the root cause of the Muslim world's stagnation.

What then needs to be done? The Muslim world must decide to make peace with modernity. In many ways, the Muslim world is at the same juncture that Christian Europe was during the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), when it decided that the religious wars devastating Europe needed to end. Fukuyama points to Iran as perhaps the greatest hope that this will occur. Twenty-three years ago Iran initiated its current fundamentalist upsurge by toppling the shah and bringing Ayatollah Khomeini to power. Now, hardly anyone under 30 in Iran seems any longer to have sympathy for fundamentalism. If Iran can change and become more tolerant of modernity, then it might be the model for the a new brand of Islam that has made peace with modernity. If not, then there is no hope. As Fukuyama concludes, "The struggle between Western liberal democracy and Islamo-fascism is not one between two equally viable cultural systems, both of which can master modern science and technology, create wealth and deal with de facto diversity of the contemporary world."

The greatest challenge is the very nature of democracy. Democracy can only succeed if Islam is separated entirely from political life. But this is the rub, because the debate in Islamic society is the central question of which should take precedence, the will of the people or religious teachings. Furthermore, at a time when democracy is new and its institutions untested, and with many Arab societies divided among tribes or sects, or between modernists and traditionalists, there are concerns that majorities might become tyrannical.

In short, there is no easy answer to this dilemma. What has made American culture work is that its democratic-republican institutions are undergirded by a shared ethical consensus, at least until recently. Further, Christianity lends itself to a separation of church and state where the distinct roles of each institution are clearly spelled out in Scripture. The church is not to do the role of the state and vice versa. That dynamic does not exist in Islam. So, 2002 might be a very important year in the history of Islam. Will it settle its dispute with modernity? Or will Islam continue to do battle with the forces of modernity and see its societies continue to deteriorate?

See Fukuyama's article in Newsweek (17 December 2001) and New York Times (23 November 2001), p. A10.

Back to top

THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EURO

The logistics of transforming a region with many different currencies into one currency are enormous. Retailers will have huge headaches in conversion issues and thinking through the amount of cash needed, training and information needed for employees and customers, as well as security issues and the financial costs of the conversion.

The euro is good for Europe in many ways as the next decade will show. That the euro exists proves an intent to pursue the single market that has so far bedeviled Europe. The new currency will have an immense impact, changing the way European companies think and operate. Given a single transmission system, the new currency could help achieve greater integration, galvanizing the European economy into becoming fully competitive. Combined with other structural reforms in the works, it could shape Europe's economic and political future. It will be competitive with the United States and could set the world economic agenda in not too many years. In short, what will occur on 1 January 2002 could be seen in years to come as one of the most important developments in modern history.

See The Economist (1 December 2001), a special section on the introduction of the euro.

Back to top

RUSSIA JOINS THE WEST

Since 9/11, Vladimir Putin has been moving Russia even more closely to the West. As a reward, NATO has been making significant gestures to more fully integrate Russia into its organization. For example, at the end of November, the NATO secretary general, Lord Robertson, proposed to give Russia equal status with the alliance's 19 permanent members in devising and executing some policies, a change that would bring Russia into the center of NATO deliberations on terrorism and other matters. Obviously, this proposal promises a fundamental shift in behavior for the 52-year old organization, founded in 1949 to repel any threat from the then USSR. It would also signify a move towards the full partnership of Russia with Western democracies, something Putin has advocated for awhile now. What does this mean?

First, it would mean that Russia and NATO members would coordinate anti-terrorist activities, nuclear proliferation, missile defense, practical military cooperation and joint efforts to combat organized crime and drug trafficking. Therefore, Russia would have a much large operational role in the alliance. Since 9/11, Russia has seen that its destiny rests with the West in destroying terrorism. Further, all major global, trading nations of the world see that the Osama bin Ladens of the world must be stopped if the integration of the world's economies is to continue. Further, the borders of Russia are threatened by radical Islam as much as any nation right now.

Second, with Russia now closely coordinating with NATO, it will neutralize one of Russia's major issues: that NATO remains oriented towards containing Russia. Further, there is no question that NATO will continue to expand, especially to include the Baltic states and others that border Russia today. With Russia's support, that will no longer be an issue.

Third, what 9/11 changed as well is the perception of Russia. Currently, Russia is not perceived as a threat to the West. Russia is stable, growing economically and aligning with the West. Having Russia integrated in some fashion into NATO will resolve one of the most volatile issues remaining from the Cold War the question of NATO's role in the new world order unfolding before us. Presumably, NATO will now view Russia as an equal and as a partner.

As this program has shown, the crisis of 9/11 continues to change the world. I have only cited a few items for consideration in 2002. I believe we are witnessing one of the most significant realignments in modern history and, if it holds, we will see fantastic geo-political rearrangements continuing. Our God has everything under control that we know for certain. Our task is to try and understand the complexities of the world He has placed us in, all the while trusting His sovereignty completely.

See the New York Times (23 November 2001) article on NATO and Russia by Michael Wines.

Back to top