Kramer and the value of dialogue

Last week I recommended Martin Kramer's argument against dialogue with Islamists. It's a well-written and entertaining essay, as Martin's usually are. But - as will surprise no-one - I think that it is fundamentally wrong-headed.

Martin begins by noting that calls for dialogue routinely appear when Islamists are doing well, and that such calls should be met with consistent skepticism: "Whenever I hear the word "dialogue," I ask myself the question: dialogue about what? What does the United States have to say to the Muslim Brotherhood in a "close and constant dialogue"? What does it hope to learn? There is a facile argument that it is good to hear their ideas first-hand. But there is nothing that cannot be learned about the Muslim Brotherhood's positions from readily available sources. A good analyst, relying on the mass of openly available texts, will have no trouble eliciting the worldview of, say, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood's actual paramount guide. Tell me you want to meet with an Islamist to tempt him with a cash-stuffed envelope, that is one thing. But meet him to sound him out? If you have done your homework, he will tell you nothing you do not know already."

This is true, to a point - it is easy to learn quite a bit about Islamist political thought from published sources, if you have the language skills and access to adequate information sources. This in itself is testament to the high priority that Islamist moderates place on publicity and even transparency - Qaradawi was an early adopter in terms of both the internet and satellite television, speaks often and frankly about everything from current political events to technical points about Islamic interepretation, and so forth.

But in another way, it's a very, very odd argument to make. Kramer elsewhere argues - again, I think correctly - that we have to take the public statements of moderate Islamist with a few grains of salt. Indeed, one of Kramer's most influential articles emphasizes precisely that we should discount the public statements of moderate Islamists because they are trying to mask their true, radical face with sweet words and double talk (a point he repeats later in this essay).

Now, I actually think that the public rhetoric is extremely important, in some ways more important than their private beliefs - because it is the public statements which will influence their vast audiences, not their private beliefs. But, to bring this back to Martin's argument, how can he have it both ways? If their public views are not authentic, then direct dialogue would seem to be necessary to discover what they really believe; and if their public discourse is what's relevant, then his argument is on very weak grounds in what follows.

Because what follows is a remarkably narrow vision of what moderate Islamists might have to offer the United States. Here's what Kramer sees as their potential contribution:

" 1. Condemnations of the jihadists for actions like the September 11 attacks, the March 11 attacks in Madrid, and the slaughters in Bali and Beslan."

"2. The implicit promise that once the United States throws open its doors to Islamist activism, it will be accorded immunity from further attacks. (The implication is that, to improve one's immune system, one should allow freedom of operation to an even wider range of Islamists.)"

And that, Kramer concludes, isn't really worth the negative consequences: "In sum, dialogue with "moderate" Islamists, far from undercutting the jihadists, would undercut their opponents. It would muddle the message of the war on terror—the message that there can be no middle ground, and that Muslims must choose. Islamists not only wish to create a middle ground in the Middle East, but they seek to extend it to American soil. Few things could undermine the war on terror more thoroughly than dialogue with them, because it would facilitate just that."

But this seems to me to be an incredibly impoverished notion of what moderate Islamists might bring to the table in a dialogue. Let me just suggest some other things we might consider.

First, moderate Islamists might be seen as the single most important contributors to building the intellectual foundations of an Islam which rejects violence and extremism. Such intellectual foundations can, in fact, be seen in the discourse of a wide range of moderate Islamists. But leaving aside those controversial questions (about Qaradawi, Ramadan, et al) for the time being, let's stick with the broader theoretical question. Is there a war of ideas at the heart of the struggle against terrorism and extremism? If so, then who can wage such a war? It seems to me that only moderate Islamists, who can and do argue for such a vision of Islam, are vital to any such campaign. This doesn't mean casting aside liberals or secularists (or the left, for that matter) - it means encouraging norms of dialogue and public reason, and welcoming all political forces willing to commit to working within those rules. This matters especially because...

Second, moderate Islamists do in fact have an enormous audience and are far more influential than most - or all - of Kramer's preferred interlocutors. In a very real sense, whether or not we like the moderate Islamists doesn't matter all that much. Maybe it would be great if pro-American liberals commanded vast audiences, but they don't. If you want to actually reach tens of millions of Muslims and Arabs who reject extremism and violence but detest American policies, the Islamist moderates are the voices to whom many of these people listen.

Third, moderate Islamists are among the most vocal and insistent forces denouncing Arab autocracies and demanding democratic reforms. We can argue all day over whether this is just a cynical power grab - one man, one vote, one time - although it's worth nothing that this has never actually happened: no moderate Islamist party has ever been elected and then abolished democracy, as opposed to legions of secular Arab dictators who have come to power by various means and then done away with any meaningful democracy. But set that aside: in the struggle for democratic reform, isn't it significant that this influential voice - and a credible voice, one which can not be tarnished with the "American puppet" smear - is demanding precisely the kinds of democratic reforms that we hope to see?

So, to sum up, contra Kramer, I see moderate Islamists bringing a lot more to the table than empty double talk and a cynical sanctuary offer: what they can offer, if given the chance, is deploying their vastly influential voices in a shared campaign against extremism, against violence, and for democracy.

Which brings up a final point. Kramer points to various equivocations and ugly rhetoric as evidence of why dialogue isn't worth it. But there hasn't been such a dialogue - indeed, the Bush administration has spent the last four years doing everything possible to isolate, alienate, enrage, and humiliate Arab and Islamist moderates. What we hear right now is not evidence of the worthlessness of dialogue - it shows starkly what happens when you don't engage in dialogue. Treat them with contempt, and they will resent you; ignore their interests, and they will be on the other side - is this so hard to understand?

Overall then, Kramer's brief against dialogue with moderate Islamists is unconvincing. I think that he seriously undervalues the potential contribution that moderate Islamists can make to transforming the terrain of public debate in the Arab and Islamic world, and also under-states the value of dialogue for revealing what Islamists really think and want as well as its potential contribution to changing their minds and to repairing the damage done by these years of hostility and alienation.

But at this point, I'll throw the floor open and hear what others think.

Comments

[Martin Kramer]

I appreciate Abu Aardvark's considered rejoinder, and the invitation he's extended to me to weigh in here. Alas, I'm racing against a deadline, and the real Martin Kramer sometimes has to trump the virtual one. So don't wait for me: I urge others to weigh in, and I promise to do so myself at some point later in the week.

[Carleton Wu]

I think that one value of an ongoing dialogue is the dialogue itself. It fosters empathy between the people who will be coming together to resolve crises down the road. It allows the minutiae of organized talks to be sorted out beforehand. It gives a constant hum of background data flow which allows a clearer perception of the other side- data that probably wouldn't in and of itself justify opening a communications channel.
And, finally, dialogue creates the impression that each side has some common interest. It fosters the idea that each side has something invested in the other, that each side is willing to listen, in general, to the other side's thoughts, needs, opinions, etc.

And it has a tiny opportunity cost.

Wu