Hispanism produced some excellent historical essays, as did Indigenism, as well as important fictional works, but, from today’s perspective, both doctrines seem equally sectarian, reductive and false. Neither of them was able – caught up as they were in their ideological and slightly racist straitjackets – to capture the great diversity of Latin America. Who would dare to say, today, that only the Hispanic or only the indigenous can legitimately claim to represent Latin America?
However, attempts to define and isolate our ‘cultural identity’ continue to surface, with an intellectual and political stubbornness that would be better spent on worthier causes. Because to try to impose a cultural identity on a people is like imprisoning them and depriving them of their most precious freedom: the right to choose what, who and how they want to be. Latin America does not have one but many cultural identities, and none of them can claim to be more legitimate, more pure or more genuine than the others; they all make Latin America the plural land that it is, with its diverse languages, traditions, customs and ethnic filiations.
Of course Latin America is the pre-Hispanic world and the cultures that continue it to our day and which, in countries like Mexico, Guatemala and the Andean countries, have such an important bearing on society. But Latin America is also a great cluster of Portuguese-and Spanish-speakers, with a tradition of five hundred years, whose presence and actions have been decisive in shaping the continent. And is there not something of Africa in Latin America, which arrived on our shores along with the Europeans? Has not this African presence indelibly marked our skin, our music, our way of being, our social landscape? When we explore the cultural, ethnic and social mix that is Latin America, we find that we are linked to almost all the regions and cultures of the world. And this, which prevents us from having a unique cultural identity – we have so many that we have none – is, contrary to what nationalists believe, our greatest wealth. It also gives us excellent credentials to feel fully-fledged citizens in the global world of today.
The fear of the Americanisation of the planet is based more on ideological paranoia than on reality. There is no doubt, of course, that, with globalisation, the dominance of the English language, which has come to be, like Latin in the Middle Ages, the general language of our time, will continue to grow, because it is essential for communications and for international transactions. Does that mean that English will develop to the detriment of the other important languages? Of course not. Probably the reverse will occur. The disappearance of borders and the prospect of an interdependent world has become an incentive for the new generation to try to learn and assimilate other cultures (which could now be theirs if they so desire) out of interest but also out of need, because to speak different languages and to be comfortable in different cultures is today a very important credential for professional success. Let me take the case of Spanish. Fifty years ago, we Spanish-speakers were still a community that was more or less closed in on itself, with very little resonance outside our traditional linguistic confines. Today, by contrast, this community is increasing in strength, spreading its influence across five continents. The fact that in the United States there are currently twenty-five to thirty million Spanish-speakers explains why, in the last US elections, both candidates, Governor Bush and Vice President Gore, conducted their presidential campaigns in Spanish as well as in English.
How many young people of both sexes across the globe have, thanks to the challenges of globalisation, started to learn Japanese, German, Mandarin, Cantonese, Arabic, Russian or French? Very many, of course, and this is a trend that, fortunately, can only increase in years to come. For that reason, the best defence for one’s own languages and cultures is to promote them the length and breadth of the new world we live in, instead of trying naïvely to guard them against the threat of English. People who suggest this remedy, even though they talk a lot about culture, are usually an uncultured bunch trying to hide their true vocation: to the cause of nationalism. And there is nothing more anathema to culture than the parochial, exclusive and confused vision of cultural nationalists. The most admirable lessons that cultures teach us is that they do not need to be protected by bureaucrats or commissars, or confined behind bars, or isolated by customs houses in order to remain fresh and healthy. Cultures need to live in freedom, exposed constantly to other cultures, which enrich and renew them. In antiquity, Latin did not kill Greek; quite the contrary, the artistic originality and the intellectual depth of Hellenic culture pervaded Roman civilisation and through this civilisation, the poems of Homer and the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle reached the entire world. Globalisation will not make local cultures disappear; everything good about them will find a place to grow in this open world.
In a celebrated essay, ‘Notes Towards the Definition of Culture’, T. S. Eliot predicted that humanity in the future would witness a renaissance of local and regional cultures, and his prophecy seemed rather speculative at the time. However, globalisation will probably turn his prediction into a reality in the twenty-first century, and we should be pleased. A renaissance of small local cultures will restore the rich multiplicity of behaviour and expressions that – and this is something that is usually forgotten or people avoid remembering because of its moral implications – from the end of the eighteenth century and in particular in the nineteenth century, the nation state annihilated, sometimes in the literal rather than the metaphorical sense of the term, in order to create so-called national cultural identities. This was often achieved by force, by banning the teaching and publication of vernacular languages or the practice of religions or customs that were not seen as suitable for the Nation. Thus in most countries of the world, the nation state was formed by the forced imposition of a dominant culture over other weaker, minority cultures, which were stifled and then excised from official life. But, contrary to what those fearful of globalisation might think, it is not easy to erase cultures from the map, however small they might be, if they have a rich tradition behind them, and there is a group that adheres to their culture, albeit in secret. And we are today beginning to see that, as the nation state becomes less rigid, the forgotten, marginalised or silenced local cultures are beginning to re-emerge and show signs, on occasion, of quite vigorous life.
This is occurring everywhere in Europe. Perhaps we should point to the case of Spain and the dynamic growth of its regional cultures. During the forty years of the Franco dictatorship, they were stifled and had little opportunity to express themselves, condemned as they were to a semi-clandestine existence. But with democracy came the freedom to develop the rich diversity of Spanish culture, which has been extraordinarily successful, mainly in Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque regions, but in other areas as well. Of course, we must not confuse this regional cultural renaissance, which is positive and enriching, with the phenomenon of exclusive nationalism, which is a source of problems and a serious threat to the culture of freedom.
Globalisation presents many political, legal and administrative challenges. And if it is not accompanied by the global spread and strengthening of democracy – freedom and law – it could have damaging consequences, facilitating, for example, the internationalisation of terrorism and crime syndicates. But compared to the benefits and opportunities that it brings, above all for poor and backward countries which need to move quickly to reach decent living standards for their people, then we must look to face up to these challenges with enthusiasm and imagination. And with the conviction that never before, in the long history of civilisation, have we had so many intellectual, scientific and economic resources at our disposal to fight against the atavistic evils of hunger, war, prejudice and oppression.
Madrid, September 2002
Responses to 9/11
Just as after severe earthquakes the ground keeps shaking for many days, the responses to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in New York will be lengthy and will radically transform the public and private life of the twenty-first century. Although some of these outcomes will be u
npredictable, in particular in the political and military spheres, in one specific area the effect will surely be positive. The terrorist groups and movements in five continents, and the parties and states that protect them, will find life much more difficult than before, because they will be pursued and hunted down in a systematic way by the democratic powers, which will show none of their previous indulgence. The United States and the European Union have realised how exposed they are to attacks similar to those that destroyed the Pentagon and the Twin Towers in Wall Street, and in future will coordinate their anti-terrorist activities, finally realising that among the fanatical practitioners of terror there is a basic solidarity, a common aim, above or beyond specific governments, to destroy the rule of law and liberty as forms of life.
That is the reason why ETA in Spain, the ELN in Colombia and Fidel Castro in Cuba, to give just Spanish and Spanish American examples, have rushed to condemn the attacks in Manhattan and distance themselves from Islamic fundamentalism. And, through their spokespersons, allies and figureheads, they are advancing the strange idea that not all terrorist activities are the same, that, in certain historical contexts, blowing apart peaceful citizens with car bombs, putting bullets into the necks of political opponents, or using kidnapping and extortion to finance their activities, are justifiable operations. If the campaign that democratic countries are organising against those that commit terror can be transformed into an effective and systematic support for the democratisation of countries suffering dictatorship, then the world would make rapid progress, not just in terms of coexistence and basic human rights, but also in terms of security.
But, following the declaration by the White House that the United States will not look to overthrow the Afghan-Taliban government and replace it by another less intolerant and repressive government, but rather that it will concentrate exclusively on the capture of Osama Bin Laden and his right-hand men, we are faced with alarming uncertainty. It’s clear that this declaration was made for diplomatic reasons, so as not to over-alarm the satraps of the Persian Gulf, like Saudi Arabia, that the United States relies on for logistical support, in whose despotic regimes the very idea of democracy strikes fear. But what is clear is that if the reprisals for 11 September are going to be confined just to the persecution of the Saudi terrorist and his accomplices, even if they are captured or killed, then very little gains will have been made in the fight against terror. See what happened during the Gulf War, when Kuwait was liberated but the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussein was left intact. Saddam has not only enslaved the Iraqi people but also supports political violence against the West and harbours terrorists. If the internationalisation of human rights, the rule of law and freedom are not held up as goals, then the campaign against terror that is currently being waged will be mere show, devoid of any content.
To date, the main political beneficiaries of the tragedy in the United States are Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon. Acting with undeniable speed and skill, by coming out immediately in support of Washington and placing at its disposal the vast amount of experience acquired by Russia during the Afghan War, the Russian prime minister has put himself and his government centre stage in international affairs. He has gained an audience and sympathy that he did not have before, and he has used this, with the instinct of a bloodhound, to promote his view that there is a strong alliance between Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Chechen independence movement. Whether this is true or false – and the truth doubtless lies between these two extremes – his argument is now much more widely accepted than in the past. It is possible that, in the immediate future, the West will stop putting pressure on Russia over violations of human rights in Chechnya, and, perhaps, even help the Russian government, this brand-new ally, in its fight against the Chechen independence movement, a movement that has been dealt a terrible blow by the destruction of the Twin Towers.
The same is true of the Palestinians, whom the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon is now presenting to democratic countries as fundamentalists and terrorists (the Minister of Defence has called Arafat the ‘Palestine Osama Bin Laden’). This is a caricature that some weeks ago would have been roundly rejected, but now, by contrast, it is being given serious consideration and, in some sectors, is gaining approval. It is true that under pressure from Washington, Sharon lifted his ban on talks and has allowed the President of the Palestinian Authority and his own Foreign Minister, Simon Peres, to meet and make a vague declaration that seems to leave the door open for fresh negotiations. But let’s not deceive ourselves. If before 11 September Sharon was a declared opponent of the Oslo agreement, now he is even more so. That is because he feels more secure in his extremist positions, convinced that the blood of the seven thousand people murdered in the United States by Islamic terrorism can also stain the Palestine cause and strengthen those in Israel, like him and his followers, who refuse to make the smallest concession in the interests of a solid peace with the Palestinians, and believe that drastic police and military action – including state terror, that is, selective assassination – will put down the Intifada and the aspirations of the subordinate population. I, and many other old friends and defenders of Israel, think that this is a monstrous attitude and also an illusion, because apart from condoning terrible injustice and crimes, it will just serve to detract further from the international image of Israel, depriving it of the moral legitimacy over its opponents that it could claim as a democratic state in a region where despotism abounds. But, in the short term, it is possible that through proverbial reasons of state, Sharon will get his way and the Western countries, starting with the United States, will be more tolerant and even supportive of the policy of intolerance and excess of this well-trusted ‘ally’ in the fight against fundamentalist terrorism. The explosion in Wall Street has finally buried the Oslo agreements and put back the Middle East peace process a very long way indeed.
But, perhaps, the greatest damage caused by the terrible attacks of 11 September, working like a virus, will be the erosion of the culture of freedom in the democratic countries themselves. I am writing this article in London where, in contrast to the normal sangfroid of the population, public opinion is now in a state of tension and alarm over security that could be termed, without exaggeration, paranoid. In newspapers, radio broadcasts and television programmes, the obsessive topic is where the next terrorist attacks will take place: if there will be an escalation and if the next act of Bin Laden or one of his kind will be to explode an atomic device that would destroy the city, or poison the water, the air or food with biological weapons. All these possibilities are presented and assessed by experts who, quite unperturbed, explain the mechanisms of these potential acts of collective homicide, and produce horrifying statistics on the number of estimated victims. In such a climate, can all the individual liberties that Great Britain is justifiably proud of survive? For a start, a poll in a local newspaper found that a majority of the people were in favour of introducing identity cards, to be carried night and day by all citizens, so as to facilitate the monitoring and control of suspects. This might seem an unimportant measure, which is already standard practice in many democratic countries. But let us not deceive ourselves.
For the same logic that forces citizens to carry identification with them can justify a telephone tap, house searches, preventive detention, anti-immigration policies and restrictions on press freedom. It might well be the case that, faced with the threat of mass annihilation that, since 11 September, now hangs like a sword of Damocles over the inhabitants of the richest and most powerful countries on the planet, the adherence to the great values of legality and individual freedom will be weakened, and take second place to the obsessive and perfectly legitimate desire for security. Who can deny that an open society is more vulnerable to the terrorist action of small fanatical groups than a police state, where all the movements and actions of its citizens are controlled by an absolute power? Of course, the United States and the European Union are not go
ing to become totalitarian states because of the quite understandable insecurity and fear that has spread in the wake of 11 September. But there is no doubt that the need for security, that has become the number one priority, will erode the rights and prerogatives that democratic culture had won for ordinary men and women. The fanatical criminals who crashed the planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were not mistaken: the world is now, thanks to them, less safe and less free.
London, Sunday 30 September 2001
Novelist in New York
The Eggs Benedictine and the Bloody Mary are as delicious as ever in that institution that is P. J. Clarke’s on Third Avenue, and it seems that the Broadway theatres, which emptied after 11 September, are now full once again: at the ticket office where I tried to get seats for the Mel Brooks musical, The Producers, I was told that there was no availability until May next year. In the cinemas, restaurants and museums that I visit in my very full week in New York, I do not notice anything abnormal; there is a reasonable influx of spectators and customers, and daily life seems to have gone back to normal.
Touchstones Page 30