WAC-DC

Given the importance that the World Affairs Council places on a global education, it was a real delight last night to welcome Ambassador Akbar Ahmed to address the Council’s members and guests. As the former Pakistani ambassador to the UK and current Ibn Khaldun chair of Islamic Studies at American University, it is quite appropriate that he is regarded by the BBC as the ‘world’s leading authority on contemporary Islam.’ Ambassador Ahmed and his young cadre of American college students have recently completed a mammoth undertaking, a year-long ‘Journey in to America’. Visiting over 75 Muslim communities and over 100 mosques, he sought to arrive at a more thorough understanding of how Muslims are perceived across the country. Out of his experiences he and his staff have compiled a book and put together a film, a documentary that we were privileged enough to watch snippets of during his presentation.
Ambassador Ahmed conceded that he was somewhat dismayed by their findings. About half of the non-Muslim Americans they surveyed admitted to varying degrees of anti-Islamic sentiment, the other half professed neutral or indifferent stances. Nearly everybody they spoke to said they really knew next to nothing of Islam. In acknowledging that he had encountered a similar ignorance of America when travelling in the Arab World, Ambassador Ahmed feels it is a terrific failure of both the East and West that we continue to misunderstand each other so completely. It was for this reason that Ambassador Ahmed was particularly kind in his praise of the World Affairs Council’s efforts to defend the value of a global education. He said that he remained very much indebted to the various World Affairs Council chapters across the country for their support on his travels.
During his travels Ambassador Ahmed thought about what he calls the United States’ great conundrums, primary amongst these issues is its relationship with the Muslim World. Are we to treat the Muslim World with respect and honor, or are we to continue down this path of seemingly unending conflict? Perhaps even more significantly to what extent is America able to remain faithful to its own lofty ideals? Ambassador Ahmed was particularly struck at the University of Virginia by the statue of Thomas Jefferson. It is a statue that celebrates Jefferson’s upholding of freedom of conscience, and emblazoned on a tablet under Jefferson’s arm are the names of Jehovah, Rama, and Allah. America was founded as a country of unparalleled tolerance, and even in an era of minimal Islamic exposure in the US, Jefferson maintained the Hindu and Muslim gods’ right to be worshipped. Citing the example of a mosque in Columbia, Tennessee that was burned down by a ‘Christian Identity Movement’, Ambassador Ahmed queried as to whether America can be America?
The Ambassador and his team endeavored to document the manner in which the Muslim minority adjusts to the non-Muslim majority. Their thousands of pages of notes, observations and diaries have been condensed into a ‘Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam’. As an anthropologist’s account, Ambassador Ahmed’s book exists more as a record of what they found than as political commentary. It is impossible, Ambassador Ahmed noted, however, to accurately study one community without examining its relations with other groups. Consequently his book is as much an international relations book as it is a travel record and an anthropologist’s tome. Given his highly impressive credentials one would have been almost disappointed had Ambassador/Professor/Dr. Ahmed not added a few observations of his own, and indeed he checks his objectivity at the door for the last chapter. For America has, by his own admission, been very good to him, and Ambassador Ahmed feels that his recommendations on how to confront homegrown terrorism constitute his contribution to America.

The World Affairs Council was recently privileged to host Monte Reel, former South America Bureau Chief for the Washington Post correspondent, at the Charles Sumner School. After a number of years with the Post in South America, Washington and Iraq, this was Mr. Reel’s first foray into the literary world and he does not disappoint. The Last of the Tribe amounts to a gripping account of the discovery in 1996 of the last surviving member of an Amazon tribe. Mr. Reel summarized his book as the ‘story of the most isolated man on the planet, and the fight to keep it that way.’ In person he captivated us with his knowledge and insight into the particular problems facing a rapidly modernizing Brazil. In the words of Publishers Weekly ‘he endeavors to bring to life the ongoing struggle on the Brazilian frontier between Native Americans and land-hungry settlers.’ Demonstrating a very detailed understanding of his subject matter, and exhibiting quite the time and research he had dedicated to this project, Mr. Reel skillfully recounted the Brazilian Government’s evolving approach to its indigenous tribes. The subtitle, the ‘Epic Quest to Save a Lone Man in the Amazon’, added at his publisher’s bequest he noted, evokes the obstacles that the FUNAI (the Brazilian Government Indian protection agency) encountered in trying to contact previously un-contactable tribesmen.
For in confronting an issue that no other country has to manage on such a scale (the interaction between its tribal and societal elements), Mr. Reel documents the Brazilian authorities past experiences with indigenous peoples. Having recently made two successful first contacts with previously ‘undiscovered’ tribes, it was with a certain confidence that FUNAI sought out the lone Indian. Very soon, though, the authorities realized that their expedition had taken on the complexion of a hunt, as the tribesman fearfully sought to evade the very people who were trying to help him. Mr. Reel made it clear that his approach was rather more political than anthropological in nature and as a consequence he delves deeply into the socio-economic concerns posed by such a situation. He voiced his approval for the present FUNAI policy of no contact, formulated in the aftermath of this experience, and for the practice of maintaining reservations for these Indian peoples (the ‘last tribesman’ has a 31 square mile patch of land to himself). In the interest of balance Mr. Reel is no less effusive in his understanding for the loggers and ranchers. And it on this count that Mr. Reel has come in for much criticism for expressing overt sympathy with those who were no doubt responsible for the massacre of the rest of the Indian’s tribe. He admittedly has a point in his highlighting of the ranchers’ woes. They feel that the rules of the game have been changed in the middle of the process. They had done what the previous military governments had wanted and developed the rainforest, and now they are being punished for it. To call them the victims of the entire sordid affair, however, does the Indian a great injustice. For Mr. Reel’s book essentially amounts to not only a tale of one particular individual’s victimization, but also of an entire people left behind by Brazil’s fast-evolving modern society.

Among the themes of this summer’s upcoming events is an evaluation of empires, and the claims of American imperialism. Heidi Shoup, our organization’s president spoke on this theme and others in the introduction of Timothy Parsons to our council members last night at the Charles Sumner School in downtown DC. Really I doubt we could find a better start for an exploration of imperialist themes than a discussion with Timothy Parsons, author of The Rule of Empires. A scholar of history, and an educator at Washington University of St. Louis, Dr. Parsons presented a powerful argument in support of the ideas expressed in his book.

The foundation of Dr. Parsons’ argument lay in creating a firm definition of imperialism. Throughout the centuries imperialism has become representative of a number of ideas, understood in varied ways by differing cultures. From ancient Rome to British India, from economic empires and political ideologies to Soviet republics and African colonies some would have us believe that empire as an idea has remained constant and unwavering. Dr. Parsons’ arguments are based directly in contrast with this idea; they require first and foremost, an acceptance of the differences between empire and other forms of forceful coercion. In defining empire narrowly as the formal direct rule of one group over another, Parsons prepared the rest of his argument to stand up against possible criticisms via examples of cultural assimilation and economic hegemony.

With this definition firmly set Dr. Parsons expressed his stance that empire could never be morally or fiscally justifiable. In contrast with our appreciation for some of these past great “civilizers” and military regimes, Parsons painted a picture of inequality, servitude and exploitation. Here I believe Dr. Parsons would likely be engaged by all of the standard traditional arguments over the betterment of native societies and moral superiority of these past conquering nations. Dr. Parsons might find his ideas less argued however in the area of his stance against the fiscal sustainability of empire.

Once, when governors had less ability to control the daily activities of the governed, Dr. Parsons claims imperial goals might have been more reasonable. When a nation was required to delegate authority to local officials, the potential assimilation of the conquered people made resistance less an issue. In the modern empire occupiers have met a host of challenges brought by subjugation and the increased ability of subjects to communicate with one another and the outside world. In many ways the idea of moral superiority has contributed to the failure of modern empire.

The concept of an international moral order might seem new and brilliant when applied to our struggles in the Middle East, but the idea is far from fresh. Historically many with imperial aims have attempted to justify otherwise unacceptable behaviors with moral rhetoric on the benefits of lifting folk from savagery. Though few would appreciate the comparisons and some might even be offended by them, Dr. Parsons listed the actions of Rome, the Conquistadors and Hitler in justifying imperial aims. No nations have seemed impervious to this sense of nationalism gone wrong, when one takes pride in one’s own nation it unfortunately seems not a far stretch to view it as superior to all others.

On the conclusion of Dr. Parsons’ presentation, questions from the audience ranged in nature from full support to utter disagreement. Those disagreements which occurred however seemed largely irreconcilable differences over the understanding of modern empires histories.

Last night, on a rainy DC evening, The World affairs council-Washington DC hosted another author series event author series, at Merrill Lynch. This week we were able to have the author of China in the 21^st Century, What Everyone Needs to Know, Jeffery N. Wasserstrom, a professor of history at University of California at Berkley, portrayed an insightful portrayal of modern day China. Wasserstrom discussed how the rapid industrialization of the young nation has created many cultural incongruities. He provided ample examples of how China is both culturally and economically similar to the United States during its era of rapid industrialization, during the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s. He then discussed how these two facets have drastically changed the political atmosphere as drastically.  He remarked how the political atmosphere China of today is almost unrecognizable of the China of Mao Zedong. He claimed that today’s atmosphere has taken a radically different approach than the hard line approach the Peoples Republic of China had towards controlling the public’s opinion.

After his presentation Professor Wasserstrom allotted time to take questions from the audience. After many insightful questions from the audience, there was a reception where Professor Wasserstrom signed copies of his book, and socialized with our distinguished guests.