Comments by U.S. Ambassador William B. Milam at the "Islam and the West" Seminar, Marriott Hotel, Islamabad

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, Chairman of the Senate, Professor Ahmed, distinguished scholars, ladies and gentlemen:

I had prepared some remarks which I am going to depart from because of the very interesting and, I thought, provocative statements which Professor [Akber S.] Ahmed has just made. I'm not going to respond directly because, in a sense, I'm out of my depth here: I am certainly not a scholar, and I wouldn't necessarily even claim to be an intellectual -- just someone who reads a little bit and has a great deal of experience in diplomacy. But I think this is a very good opportunity for me to give my perspective on this issue of "Islam and the West."

I agree with Professor Ahmed, as I heard him say at some point in his remarks that the essence of Islam is the fight against injustice and oppression. And here, I think, are values that Islam shares with the West entirely. I think that he has rightly pointed out that the West, in particular, has to get rid of stereotypes regarding Islam. But I hope that Muslims will get rid of certain stereotypes regarding the West. I also noticed, Professor, that you finished with a long list of "musts" for the West. I hope that there will be such a list for Islam as well.

Frankly, I am uncomfortable with the title, "Islam and the West," because to me it signifies a monolithic faith which confronts a geographic and, perhaps, a political unity, The West. I don't believe that is accurate. But if it is, and if it is how many people in this room and throughout the world perceive the issue, then I have a lot of work cut out for me. What I want to do, in the next few minutes, is to make a case for why I think the issue is rather more complicated and more complex than the title of this seminar would suggest. I agree with Prof. Ahmed, to start with, that we need to look at these issues in a different way. What I am going to suggest is certainly a different way, and perhaps a useful way, which I prefer.

Islam is a monotheistic faith, like Christianity and Judaism, and most observers describe the adherents of these three great faiths as the People of the Book. We share the same deepest historical, cultural, and ethical heritages. We honor many of the same prophets. We believe that the relationship between mankind and God embodies the most fundamental meaning of life. And we believe that the proper expression of that relationship determines whether we all live in a peaceful and just world or in chaos and violence.

Islam is a universal faith. It is a philosophy of life. Its believers, however, are as different as the citizens of Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, Pakistan, and the United States -- all countries with either a majority or a significant Muslim population. And just as Christians in Washington, Johannesburg, Paris and Moscow, and, yes, in Seoul and in Islamabad, share the same faith, they do not share the same system of government and the same way of organizing their societies. And that is why I remain uncomfortable when I hear the implication that Muslims all over the world are a monolithic force braced against another monolithic force, The West.

Professor Ahmed, you said in the House of Lords in February, during the historic launching of your book, Islam Today, that the relationship between Islam and the West is at a crossroads facing confrontation and conflict. But I firmly believe that the confrontation -- if indeed there even is a confrontation -- is not between Islam and the West but between the two fundamentally different political ways of organizing society -- that is, between liberal political and economic systems in all of their many manifestations and those political systems which condone or practice aggression against their neighbors or even against their own people, which deny fair and equitable economic development to their citizens, and which abridge or even deny basic human rights to their own people.

I am very hesitant to use this phrase "liberal society" -- it is a loaded term, however I define it. But let me attempt to define it deductively as societies which have as their fundamental basis of organization freedom of the individual; which strive for peace, not war; which do not commit aggression against their neighbors (although they will defend themselves); which strive towards the economic development of their people; and which preserve and protect human rights. Societies which do not do these things, then, are the other kinds of societies with which the liberal societies are in conflict.

Now we see all over the world that countries which are aggressive against their neighbors and which commit human rights violations are not of any particular faith. Right now the West has a war, if I may say so, with Serbia. Serbia is an orthodox Christian country. Earlier we had a war with Iraq, which is a Muslim country. So I think the way I would organize the discussion, if it were left to me, is to differentiate between those kinds of societies which promote these essential human values and those which don't -- and which sometimes attack these values.

I know that some people seem to think -- and I am absolutely certain of this -- that there is some kind of contradiction between Islam and the liberal values I am talking about. But I reject that, I don't think it is true, and I don't think that Muhammad Ali Jinnah [founding father of Pakistan] thought that. He was in favor of a liberal, secular Islamic society.

Now there are times when "liberal societies," as I defined them a few minutes ago, do undertake intervention against countries or regions where there are egregious aggressions against neighbors, or even against their own people, or violations of human rights. I mentioned Iraq. I should mention Kosovo; and I should mention Bosnia, which my friend and colleague, the Bosnian Ambassador, so eloquently described a few minutes ago.

I will have to tell you that I am sometimes perplexed and even disturbed by the urgent sense of aggrieved entitlement which says, "You owe this to us." I am disturbed when I hear that the argument, "You should support us," becomes a shrill demand, "You must support us -- and if you don't, you are against us." My friends, the world is just not that simple.

At times we have intervened against Islamic countries, countries which call themselves Islamic, because it was the right thing to do, because they were violating human rights or committing aggression against their neighbors. At times we intervene to relieve aggrieved Muslim populations -- not because they are Muslim, but because it is the right thing to do. Sometimes our interventions are political -- rather than military -- in nature. We have been involved for years -- the United States -- in political intervention, the painstaking political work to achieve a just and lasting solution of the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. We intervened both diplomatically and militarily in Bosnia.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are only the most high-profile cases. These are the well-known public cases. Every day, around the world, the diplomacy of these liberal societies, and in particular the diplomacy of the United States, intervenes on behalf of the disadvantaged, the aggrieved, the mistreated. These interventions almost never make the newspaper headlines or appear on the TV evening news -- and well they shouldn't, because quiet, incremental diplomacy is the best and, in the end, the most effective diplomacy. The last thing to remember is that diplomacy is the Art of the Possible; it is not the Imposition of the Ideal.

Do we give up in the face of complexity? No. We continue this incremental and diplomatic work. Let me say that I think we can work best with those who take responsibility for themselves. And by taking that responsibility, I do not mean those who throw bombs, nor those who take innocent hostages, nor those who indulge in the fiery rhetoric of hatred.

Let me turn for a moment towards the end of my remarks to discuss Islam in the United States. We heard today from Professor Ahmed complaints about the stereotyped portrayal of Muslims in our mass media. Some of this is true. But I would like to note that the U.S. Government and many Americans are working in the opposite direction. President Clinton has made it a White House initiative to recognize the contribution of Muslims in America to American life. My own Agency, the State Department, has seminars which invite prominent Muslims to advise on policy -- not to expostulate, but to advise. The American mass media -- the same media you will truthfully criticize in some ways -- have been producing increasing numbers of reports on the role of Islam and of individual Muslims in America. Riz Khan of CNN, who I think has family in Pakistan, has recently been reporting every day from Mecca on the haj and on the meaning of the haj. That said, the media and the government are separate in the United States. We do not telephone editors to offer "friendly advice." We expect people when they feel aggrieved to take responsibility for themselves, and to form effective and active anti-defamation groups to educate the mass media and to serve as watchdogs.

Let me conclude by saying that I hope we will all agree that the world is more complex than the slogans and buzz words make it out to be. We also need to recognize that Islam is the fastest growing faith in the United States. We honor the six million Muslims in the United States, and the fifteen hundred mosques, Islamic schools, and Islamic study and information centers. Let us continue to work together to defuse this confrontation and concentrate on fundamental areas -- truth, justice, economic development, good governance -- on which I think both Islam and the liberal democracies of the West do agree. Let us work together, Christians, Muslims, and all other faiths, to build a better world where respect, tolerance, and peace are acknowledged as the highest possible achievements. Thank you.