Naeem — Derrida — Enlightenment past and to come
Comments Off on Naeem — Derrida — Enlightenment past and to comecompliments of Shobak:
November 2004 Enlightenment past and to come
The work of philosopher Jacques Derrida, who died on 9 October, was anchored
in current affairs. That is why he was invited to Le Monde diplomatique’s
50th anniversary celebrations in May, one of his last public engagements.
This is an edited extract from his speech.
by Jacques Derrida
I AM delighted that Le Monde diplomatique at 50 is, ever more
internationally, a key reference point for social movements grouped under
the banner of counter-globalisation. That doesn’t mean that any grand
revolution is about to remove the power centres that emerged victorious from
the cold war (represented by all those sinister acronyms: IMF, OECD, WTO).
But constant pressure from the counter-globalisation movement and ordinary
people the world over cannot fail to weaken these institutions and force
them to reform. It’s already beginning to happen. The same pressure will
also force reform upon the institutions created by the victors of the second
world war: the United Nations and its Security Council.
In Le Monde diplomatique’s first editorial, in May 1954, Hubert Beuve-Méry
said something that may have seemed conventional, patriotic, even
nationalistic. Given our shared mission “to work for the peaceful
development of international relations,” he said, “everything points to
Paris as the natural home of such a paper and to French as its natural
language”.
Le Monde diplomatique has since become a truly international publication,
translated into 18 languages and seen as a paper of reference all over the
world. But it is still firmly based in Paris. To me, that shows the paper’s
deep-rooted Europeanness. I cannot imagine such a paper thriving in the same
way, with the same degree of liberty and the same high standards, in a
different country or a different continent. That implies that we, as
Europeans, have a unique political consciousness and sense of duty. It
doesn’t mean the paper and the movements it champions are limited to a
Eurocentric or Franco-centric perspective. Rather, it should serve as a
reminder of Europe’s role in the counter-globalisation movement.
Caught between US hegemony and the rising power of China and Arab/Muslim
theocracy, Europe has a unique responsibility. I am hardly thought of as a
Eurocentric intellectual; these past 40 years, I have more often been
accused of the opposite. But I do believe, without the slightest sense of
European nationalism or much confidence in the European Union as we
currently know it, that we must fight for what the word Europe means today.
This includes our Enlightenment heritage, and also an awareness and
regretful acceptance of the totalitarian, genocidal and colonialist crimes
of the past. Europe’s heritage is irreplaceable and vital for the future of
the world. We must fight to hold on to it. We should not allow Europe to be
reduced to the status of a common market, or a common currency, or a
neo-nationalist conglomerate, or a military power. Though, on that last
point, I am tempted to agree with those who argue that the EU needs a common
defence force and foreign policy. Such a force could help to support a
transformed UN, based in Europe and given the means to enact its own
resolutions without having to negotiate with vested interests, or with
unilateralist opportunism from that technological, economic and military
bully, the United States of America.
I would like to cite Ignacio Ramonet’s “Resistance”, an editorial written
for the 50th anniversary issue in May. I agree with every no and yes in that
piece, but I would like to single out one yes for special emphasis: the yes
to a less market-dominated Europe. To me, that means a Europe that is
neither content merely to compete with other superpowers, nor prepared to
let them do as they please. A Europe whose constitution and political stance
would make it the cradle of counter-globalisation, its driving force, the
way alternative ideas reach the world stage, for example in Iraq or
Israel-Palestine.
This Europe, as a proud descendant of the Enlightenment past and a harbinger
of the new Enlightenment to come, would show the world what it means to base
politics on something more sophisticated than simplistic binary oppositions.
In this Europe it would be possible to criticise Israeli policy, especially
that pursued by Ariel Sharon and backed by George Bush, without being
accused of anti-semitism. In this Europe, supporting the Palestinians in
their legitimate struggle for rights, land and a state would not mean
supporting suicide bombing or agreeing with the anti-semitic propaganda that
is rehabilitating (with sad success) the outrageous lie that is the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In this Europe it would be usual to worry
both about rising anti-semitism and rising Islamophobia. Sharon and his
policies are not directly responsible for the rise of anti-semitism in
Europe. But we must defend our right to believe that he does have something
to do with it, and that he has used it as an excuse to call European Jews to
Israel.
In this Europe it would be possible to criticise the policies of Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz without being accused of sympathy for Saddam
Hussein and his regime. In this Europe no one would be called anti-American,
anti-Israeli, anti-Palestinian or Islamophobic for allying himself with
those Americans, Israelis or Palestinians who bravely speak out against
their own leaders,often far more vehemently than we do in Europe.
That is my dream. I am grateful to all those who help me to dream it; not
only to dream, as Ramonet says, that another world is possible, but to
muster the strength to do all that is needed to make it possible. This dream
is shared by billions of men and women all over the world. Some day, though
the work may be long and painful, a new world will be born.
Translated by Gulliver Cragg