Dr. Allawi has a Doctorate in Finance, as well as a Harvard M.B.A and an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering. Besides being a sage of the world financial scene (as well as almost everything else), Dr. Allawi is also a member of the Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein, and has appeared on CNN and other political talk shows to discuss developments in Iraq over the years. He is also a family friend, and graciously agreed to talk with me one morning in mid-January during his visit to Karachi. While in the Pakistan section of FASOTE.org (because that is where the interview took place), Dr. Allawi lives in London and is Iraqi.
FASOTE: What is your definition of terrorism?
Dr. Allawi: That is a tough question. I will try to define it. Terrorism, I suppose, is derived from terror, that is, that which causes great fear or anguish in an unexplained or inexplicable way. So, anything that causes this, that happens abruptly, that happens unexpectedly, that happens to an individual or groups of people in ways that are unexpected, meaning in ways that are not necessarily constrained by customs or law, or that are not done seemingly arbitrarily such as murder, become terrorism. So, I suppose the dictionary definition would be anything that causes mayhem or death in an unexpected way to groups of people who do not consider themselves to be targets. So, any event that leads to that is terrorism. But, I suppose you were asking me this question from a more political aspect.
FASOTE: Well, I guess the followup question would be if the Afghan wedding party that was bombed should be considered victims of terrorism. They too did not believe themselves to be targets. I guess the real question would be if you consider state sponsored war acts against civilians acts of terrorism?
Dr. Allawi: No. Well, I mean in one sense it is terrorism, in the sense that the people who receive the blow - to them it was unexpected, to them it was inexplicable, and for those who receive terrorist acts it is generally this way. For those who commit it, if they are constrained by the so-called 'laws of war', then the act itself is not considered terrorism because it is excersied by a state in a lawful combat - at least this is a legal definition. State terrorism is where the act itself is committed, but outside the constraints of a legal state of war. So, for example, a sate that finances individuals, or has groups of individuals connected to it that secretly commit acts of horror against groups that do not expect it, would be guilty of state terrorism and would fall outside the grouping of legal violence, if I can use that phrase.
FASOTE: What would be an example of state terrorism?
Dr. Allawi: State terrorism could be the hiring of assasins by governments. The main definition of state terrorism is that it is deniable, meaning that the state can say it is not responsible for it. But, acts of violence in a state of combat would not be considered state terrorism. If you look at what Israel is doing, you could say legally that it is not state terrorism because they are in a conflict. But again, these are legal definitions that really have no bearing on ethical factors.
FASOTE: OK - one more terrorism question. Osama Bin Laden declared war in the United States in 1994, I think. If so, and if in fact he did commit the terrorism of Septembet 11th, could it be construed as a legal act of war?
Dr. Allawi: Yeah - I would say that it is still terrorism, because under the system of laws in which violence is constrained Osama is not a state, so whatever acts of violence he commits falls under the act of terrorism. But, again, political and legal definitions are different. One person's terrorism is another person's war of liberation, politically speaking. From a moral point of view, is there a moral equivalence between individuals and states in terms of acts of violence they create? So, Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist if you look at it from a legal definition because he is not a state, but if you look at it politically, you can make a case that he is responding, not initiating, and if you look at it morally you could say that there is a moral equivalence between his acts, repugnant as they may be, and acts of assassinations and killings by states. So, I can't give you one answer - it depends on the perspective you want to take.
FASOTE: OK. The next question I'd like to ask is - what are you feelings on the spiritual and political state of the Islamic world today?
Dr. Allawi: Well, what I'll say has probably been said before by different generations, as each generation thinks it is seeing the worst of times, but I think we really are in the worst of shape politically. Spiritually, we are probably better off than we were in the 50s, in some ways at least. This is the span of time that I have experienced, but I'll qualify it by saying I have read a lot on the history of Islam before the 50s. I think politically the Islamic world has never been more disunited than it is now. All of the structures that express political will are decrepit. Politically, it is divided into a large number of states that are manipulated individually, but individually they all seem to see their survival as based on relationships with non-Muslim countries. The amount of inter-Islamic cooperation is really limited. So, from the point of view of divisiveness, from the point of view of dislocation, from the point of view of powerlessness, I think we are at or near the worst level we have had in history. And, there is no sign on the horizon that tells me we are likely to improve the situation. The tragedy of the Muslim world is that it its political language is one of unity - it is the language of the Ummah, which is the community of all Muslims worldwide. But, its reality is extremely fragmented, extremely disparate. So, I don't see anything on the horizon that may act as a catalyst to bring the Ummah together and to let the Islamic identity take preponderence over the other forms of identity given by states or governments.
FASOTE: Do you think that Osama's goal is to unite the Ummah?
Dr. Allawi: Well, I don't really know the man, so I can't say what his goals are. But, I have tracked his past, and it is interesting to note that before his days as an international terrorist, in the mid to late 80s he was a very important element in the Afghan war. If you rummage through articles and newspapers you'll find his name mentioned quite a bit.
FASOTE: You mean for building roads and hospitals?
Dr. Allawi: Not just for that. He actually participated in combat - organizing fighting units and such. Bin Laden, I think, does see the potential of uniting this force, is disgusted by reality, and wants to help the Muslim countries. You can say that he is a person driven by personal ambition and strive for power, but if you put that aside and see whether he has a program, this must be the program - to catalyze the Muslims and make them realize their potential. The way he is doing it is very destructive and counterproductive.
FASOTE: What do you think will be the result, let's say over the next 15 years, of America's unchecked power?
Dr. Allawi: I think that nothing lasts. If you are a person who is a Believer, in the Koran there are lots of instances where Allah tells you to look to examples in the past to see that nothing survives, that great nations crash, that great powers crash. There are no indications or signs right now that the sort of American hegemon is about to crumble, but it's almost a given that it will happen. 15 years from now, probably not, but 100 years from now it is very likely. And, generally these powers crumble internally. I mean - look at the exhaustion of the British as a result of carrying a burden which was far greater than their financial and political abilities. Rome was divided because the state itself was unable to muster the energy to defend its countries. America itself is changing - I mean, the browning of America itself is a clear long term trend.
FASOTE: The browning?
Dr. Allawi: Yes - the increasing Hispanic or non-white European influence in America will in time create a new type of America. In time it will create tensions and resistance to certain parts of the Anglo-Saxon white European power structure that defines American culture right now. I don't know, but all imperial forces carry with them signs of decay. Of course, militarily I don't think anyone can confront the U.S., so if you look at power in terms of military strength, then America probably has clear sailing ahead of it. But if you look at power in a sort of layered nature, then there are other sources of power that are not necessarily controlled by the state - there is an author who terms this 'soft power'. Hard power are things like aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, huge trillion dollar budgets - yes of course America has these things. I guess the power of the U.S. is really an us versus them kind of power. The 'them' might change, but the 'us' is the U.S., and in my lifetime I don't see that changing - I don't see any disturbances to America's domination of the world scene.
FASOTE: Do you think George W. Bush's 'War On Terrorism' will ultimately help or hurt humanity?
Dr. Allawi: I think like almost everything it will have a mixed outcome. Certain aspects of governmental actions are good and certain aspects are bad, but if it is carried off the way it is going now than the balance will probably shift to bad. What we have here is a mixture of policies. There is a straightforward rejection of terrorism, as we have already discussed, which is commendable. But then you have other hidden agendas, other visceral responses, that really don't fit the acts of a civilized nation. So, the way that the balance is moving right now would seem to me to tilt towards a preponderence of non-legitimate causes, which basically go to expanding, enhancing and cementing control and authority over the world by removing evidence and signs and sources of discord. So Bush's 'War on Terrorism', to borrow your phrase, is one that will have multiple outcomes, most of which will not necessarily be good for the rest of the world in the sense that the freedom of the rest of the world is diminished because it is subject to America's whims and desires. And, the ability of the rest of the world to co-operate and work on certain agendas will be held hostage to American interests. So, whenever unilateralism replaces multilateralism the effect is to take us down the worse path. So America, unlike in World War II where it was afterwards the dominant power and chose to follow a course of action that was balanced, that was multilateral, and that was to some extent altruistic - I mean, the reconstruction of Europe was really altruistic, to use the term again. That element in American policy, that moral element, seems to have disappeared and has been replaced with a sort of hard nosed realism which doesn't sit well with the rest of the world. I think the first people to jump the coup will be the Europeans, and it might be - what America is currently doing - the first signs of the division of the West into two camps, a sort of West 1 and West 2, which do not necessarily see eye to eye.
FASOTE: Well, we are already starting to see that in the case of Israel and Palestine, with Europe favoring the Palestinian cause much more than the Americans.
Dr. Allawi: But, there are other issues like, for example, immigration. Europe has to contend with a declining, aging population which is surrounded by nations that are much poorer and all trying to get in. So, their first line of defense is the development of these countries rather than unrestricted immigration because their cultures cannot support that. So, in time, if American policies lead to a heightening of tensions and increased desperation in these poor countries, the first barrier will be Europe, not America because it is protected by two oceans. So, I think that is bound to have a divisive effect on the West over time.
FASOTE: Do you believe that Islam and the West can co-exist? Or put another way, are we in a zero-sum game between the two, where one must win and the other must lose?
Dr. Allawi: Well, again the answer would be both yes and no, depending on what you mean. There is no doubt that so-called Western thought - that is the various issues related to democracy, human rights, civil rights, women's issues and so on - are defined in the current language of political or policy priorities by a Western consensus and, therefore, tend to be Western values, or values associated with civilization and progress. They are to be aspired to by everyone. But, I think Islamic thought - and again I must qualify this by saying there are many schools of Islamic thought - doesn't necessarily buy this line from the West. They may buy the values or principles - for example, the underlying principle of democracy is popular participation and Islam agrees with that, but the forms in which the principles are expressed might not necessarily be acceptable for all cultures. So defining rights in Western terms puts a Western spin on it. It doesn't mean that these rights don't exist in Islam - they are just expressed in different ways. What people should look for are the underlying principles behind these rights and express them in ways that are culturally specific and acceptable. There will be tension in applying Western concerns and current issues - and their resolutions - to other places. I mean, these things are important, but they are less important than rights such as access to clean water, or education or health. So, these questions need to be balanced in a way that is not necessarily ammenable to the civilizations in question. Now, Islam is probably the only civilization that has an entire political and moral alternative to the West. Well, at least other civilizations don't claim such a thing - Buddhism doesn't claim it, Hindusim doesn't claim it. So, Islam is in essence fighting a rearguard action toward these underlying problems that may arise as a result of wholesale acceptance of Western paradigmical values, as it were. Because, these valuse are temporary, in a sense that they are capable of changing. 50 years from now there may be a school in the West that calls for the governance of women - I don't know. I mean, these things are not permanent, but they are made to be so in the West - the culture of rights and entitlement and individual expression of so-called freedom is not necessarily transferrable in a good way to the rest of the world, and especially not the Muslim world.
FASOTE: Do you believe there is one right answer, politically or spiritually, for man?
Dr. Allawi: Well, there is one truth and many truths (laughter). I mean, Islam tells you that there is 1 truth that is expressed in many ways, manifested in many ways, and that, manifestation of many truths also points to the one truth. So, one points to multiplicity and multiplicity points to one. It is not an either/or situation - it can't be. But, these apparent opposites need to be united in recognition that they are from one source. But, that source expresses itself in multiple ways, including relative truths. So, Truth with a capital T is one, but truth with a small t is many, and there are many paths to Truth. So, from my perspective, which is a specific Islamic school of thought's perspective, the question is not formulated correctedly. It is not an either/or situation - it is not that we have the truth and nobody else does. There is an expression of the Truth that we feel is complete, but there are other expressions that may be equally valid if they are used to confirm the existence of the One, the control of One, and the dominance of One. So, there is no single right way - there is a single right way only if it leads to the divine objective.
FASOTE: Meaning the belief in one God?
Dr. Allawi: Yes - meaning the source of power, the source of all being is One. Now, we believe it is manifested in a certain way, and for us to understand this power we have to constrain our lives in certain ways. If you don't allow constraints or certain forces of guidance in are daily lives, then what we have is the belief in the West that everything is possible and there are no constraints. And, I don't believe this to be true, as it leads to constant change, and change for the sake of change does not lead to the affirmation of certainty, which is what people seek.
FASOTE: Who is your greatest hero, alive or dead?
Dr. Allawi: I would say the Prophet Mohammed but I will say Imam Ali. The reason why is that the Imam was a person like any other. But, he managed to attain perfection within the constraints of being a normal person whose life was not directed by divine revelation. He was not a prophet, so his actions were ones of choice rather than no choice. So, the actions of a person who has seen reality in its totality but still has to deal with the problems of this world... if you go to his sayings, they are bittersweet. He sees the absolute possibility of joy and happiness, but everyone around him consistently chooses the wrong path. So, I think his life is second to none.
FASOTE: Thank you for your time.
