Vitaly Naumkin Interview: Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley

Jane Scherr photo

Page 5 of 5

Conclusion

I get the sense that, drawing on your breadth of knowledge and study of the region, you are saying that the United States, and also in some cases in the past, Russia, have ignored the complexity of Islam and the Arab world, and not focused enough on the fragmentation, and the opposition that's created by intervention and efforts to impose either Western values or a Western security agenda. Are those the key elements in what we're missing and misperceiving in this part of the world, as we develop our policies?

You are right. We have to acknowledge the fact that we may have to live with some bad guys. It's inevitable. We have to understand all this complexity of the situation in the Middle East, because sometimes we are satisfied with bad regimes, with bad guys, but who are friendly towards us. I am saying "us," because we are now in one place. We are allies -- the West, Russia, it's all the same in my view. For the Muslims, for the Arabs, it's all the same. Sometimes they look friendly, but they have, still, a lot of problems as far as their population is concerned, because they create problems for the population, and they make them supporters of the most aggressive, radical, extremist movements.

At the same time, there are countries and states that we may be not very pleased with, but still they're moving towards democracy. Look at Iran, for instance. I was surprised by the fact that President Khatami was elected by free election. He was not supported by the ruling group of mullahs, who were supporting the speaker of the parliament. So it means that there are elements of democracy in Iran, and these elements are stronger than in many other states of this region which are more friendly to the West, but not advanced very much in the path towards democracy. So is necessary to be taken into account. We have to support some forces of change, of modernization, and even some moderate factions of the Islamic movement to integrate them into modern society, to turn them into our friends, and not to alienate.

I'm not against change, but I think to go to war in every case [where] we dislike someone, and to put into our records, in our history, that, for instance, there was what could be described as an American-Arab war, will be not very productive for the future of U.S.-Arab relations. The same about Russia and Islam. I don't think that this war in Chechnya serves our security 100 percent, though it was maybe necessary. Now it's necessary to do something. We cannot just withdraw our forces, to leave them. It's impossible. It will not work. But sometimes, it's better to find ways for understanding and not to go to war whenever it is possible.

Professor Naumkin, on that note, I want to thank you very much for taking the time to visit the Berkeley campus this semester and also for being a guest on our program. Thank you very much.

Thank you. It's a pleasure and distinct privilege to do that.

Thank you. And thank you very much for joining us for this Conversation with History.

© Copyright 2003, Regents of the University of California

To the Conversations page
To the Globetrotter Research Gallery "Moderation and Militancy in Islam"