Muqtedar Khan has an interesting take on his experience at two recent "dialogue of civilizations" conferences he attended, one in Paris and the other in Doha. In the Paris conference, he was frustrated by the absence of either American or Islamist voices, which led to a lot of America and Islam bashing. The Doha conference, organized by Brookings, brought in a high powered group of Clinton-era Americans (but, as the Weekly Standard complained last week, no Bush officials), American Muslims, and Islamist figures such as Yusuf al Qaradawi. Bill Clinton's speech gets rave reviews in this account as well - what a great idea to appoint Clinton a "dialogue czar," an ambassador at large for public diplomacy... are you listening John Kerry (or John Edwards)?
On a more analytical level, Khan observed that the public sessions tended to be unproductive, with Americans "waffling" and Muslims posturing. But in private sessions there was far more of a zone of agreement on the need for domestic reform in Muslim societies, on the counterproductive tendencies of American Middle East policies, and the like. Khan walked away with the impression that "on many issues, it appeared as if Americans and Muslims were public enemies but private allies." Such experiences call into question the value of the public dialogues which I, for one, have long advocated. But in response to Khan, I would point out that it is the public, not the private, which ultimately matters: for these opinion makers to change views, ideas, and behaviors in either America or the Islamic world they need to argue their cases in public, change the terms of public debate, and make these zones of agreement into a legitimate subject of political action. That's the only way that these kinds of conferences can actually have an impact extending beyond their own walls, or beyond a few individuals having a learning experience about the Other.
Bill Clinton for Secretary General.
Posted by: Brad DeLong | February 18, 2004 at 01:50 PM