If indeed a clash of civilizations had existed between Japan and the
free world, the complete and impressive transformation that took place
in that country in such a relatively short period of time could never
have occurred.

The salient point in this argument relates to the fact that when Japan
was an autocracy, it was in constant conflict with the democratic
world. This conflict ceased to exist once Japan itself became a
democracy, and was replaced instead by competition played out
according to the rules of the game as practiced by the free world.

My friend and I - the minority camp - ended our argument by stating
that, “It is not civilizations that clash, but rather autocracies and
democracies that come into conflict.” The Second World War was a war
between autocratic and democratic factions, as was the Cold War. This
bears no relation to a clash of civilizations: no such thing exists.

I recall that during this meeting, I spoke of another issue related to
the main theme of our discussion; namely, the sheer panic that arises
in the hearts and minds of many members of the Arab communities
concerning the possibility of losing their cultural identity. I would
again cite the example of Japan , from which we could learn that such
fear has its roots not in a threat emanating from the outside world,
but rather from the own internal world of these fearful die-hards.
Quite frankly, the Arab mind needs to undertake an honest process of
self-examination and an unbiased contemplation of the following facts:

Our cultural specificities include both positive and negative aspects.
Our cultural specificities are not static but dynamic; the cultural
specificities of the Egyptian people in the year 2000 differ in many
respects (but not all) from those of the year 1900, which were again
different from those that had distinguished the Egyptians of the year
1800; which themselves had also changed considerably since the year
1700. Accordingly, the widespread use of the term “our fixed traits”
is unscientific, imprecise, and largely a figment of the imagination
and of wishful thinking.

Cultural specificities cannot be erased through widespread dealings
with others, as amply proved by the Japanese. I would venture to say
that the cultural specificities of isolationists and those who shut
themselves off from the outside world are more likely to diminish,
lacking as they do the stimulation and regeneration resulting from
contact with others.

When the Arab mind begins to contemplate the issue of widespread
dealings with the other (in particular, joining the march of human
progress together with the rest of the civilized world), it raises the
now-familiar cry of, “Our cultural specificities are in danger!” It
fails to take into account the difference between integration with the
outside world by playing the game according to the rules set by the
advanced world, and between a total assimilation that erases identity
and cultural specificity. Playing the new global game in accordance
with its rules (as prescribed by Western democracy) means that one
participates in the game and abides by these rules without losing
one’s identity or specificities. I would liken this to the way
Brazilians play football: they do indeed follow the rules of the game,
but in their own, very distinctive way, and in a manner that is theirs
alone! Again, the Japanese provide the best example of the validity of
this argument.

Sheer ignorance and unjustified conceit have led most Arabs to believe
in the possibility of creating their own game played according to new
rules that differ from those developed by the democratic world. It is
the same ignorance that leads some to believe that abiding by the
global rules of the game constitutes humiliation or defeat; a sick
reasoning spewed forth by so-called “thinkers” who are more akin to
the poets of the pre-Islamic era where resonant words and grandiose
phrases were much admired and indeed constituted the only achievement
of this age. Once more, the Japanese did not bother themselves with
attempting to change the rules of the game, but channeled their
efforts into achieving progress, development and distinction within
the rules of the game prescribed by the victors at whose hands they
had suffered defeat in the summer of 1945.

The deplorable state of the Arab intelligentsia today can only evoke a
feeling of sorrow within the hearts of those who wish to see the
region receive its fair share of progress and development.
These “thinkers” are occupied with denouncing the rules of the game
developed by the western democracies, while propounding the theory
that it is feasible to invent new rules for the game. It is a stance
that is shared by no other countries, even those who might have been
expected to show animosity to Western civilization, such as Japan and
the stars of Asian progress, South Korea , Singapore , Taiwan and Hong
Kong , and to a lesser extent, Malaysia and Indonesia . It is my
belief that Malaysia will soon catch up with the Japanese example
after ridding itself of a leader who, while enjoying a high degree of
administrative skill, is nevertheless a dictator who thinks nothing of
imprisoning his opponents (after fabricating false accusations) and
who, a few weeks ago, joined the ranks of the defenders of Saddam
Hussein.