Civilizational neutrality in international relations
Dr. Abdullah bin Musa Al Tayer
It is said that the Western thinker and political strategist does not work in isolation from ideological and historical influences, as well as the inherent competition between cultures and civilizations.
Therefore, his plans to empower his state are based on dominating the other and establishing the demonization of the enemy in the collective mind. At the core of his planning, he plots conspiracies as strategies, and takes necessary measures to convince those targeted by his plans that the conspiracy theory is false, and that it is a sign of backwardness, in order to neutralize the other party’s readiness and resistance.
Western political discourse often presents itself as pragmatic, secular, interest-based, and devoid of ideological antagonism. Behind this appearance lies a force that insists that it is universal, neutral, and rational, while imposing its conditions behind the scenes.
To bring the scene closer, two popular lies must be abandoned: The first is that Western strategy is ideologically neutral, and the second is that resistance to Western standards is treated as a legitimate civilizational difference and not a threat to its influence.
No political strategist works in a vacuum; Western political thought is shaped by historical experience, imperial expansion, religious and cold wars, the rise of capitalism, and the rise of liberal-democratic doctrine. This cumulative legacy has produced a strategic political culture that gives priority to hegemony, the ability to predict and control, neutralizing the threat and eliminating competition, through planning or conspiracy, no matter the term.
Western political conservatism, in particular, directs world politics in civilizational terms. It draws boundaries between a secular, individualistic law and the sovereignty of the nation-state, and an external law that is depicted as incompatible with the general secondary system and destabilizing.
Islam, especially when it is presented as a political or legal system or a reference for them, becomes a symbol of this other. This framing is not just rhetorical, it shapes policy debates, security doctrines, immigration regimes, and public consciousness.
Threat making requires portraying Islam and Muslims, whether moderate or extremist, and whether their countries are secular, nationalist, or Islamic, as a civilizational competitor that may be dormant today but may revolt tomorrow. In this context, the thinker and political planner do not view Muslims as mere citizens of democratic countries, or societies governed by different political systems; Rather, as demographic risks, destabilizing factors of the dominant culture, or latent security threats.
The line between political Islam, conservative religious practice, and Islamic identity itself is blurred, and they are in the same basket. The construction of the supposed enemy unites societies internally when the danger is expressed openly, as right-wing conservative politicians and Western populists do. Fear is a unifying force, replacing simplistic narratives with complex realities.
The irony is that while Western political culture warns the general public against conspiracy theories, and expresses its resentment against them on the grounds that they are a manifestation of backwardness, at the same time it uses secret action, strategic deception, and long-term geopolitical planning, even if the names differ.
Intelligence operations, psychological warfare, and the influence of Western regimes are treated as realpolitik, while any attempt by non-Western societies to interpret patterns of domination as a conspiracy targeting their very existence is labeled as a form of paranoia.
Western power structures require that global political systems submit to secular authority, that economic models be integrated into global capital flows, and that political legitimacy derive from frameworks consistent with liberal democratic norms. Any attempt to present a civilization as an alternative source of power is not seen as a parallel model, but rather as a threat that must be dealt with.
Current US President Donald Trump, despite his right-wing base, announced that he opposes blatant interference in the choices of others, but the question remains whether the deep state and its institutions agree with him in what he said? Perhaps the greatest danger is not conspiracy, but ideological certainty, such as the belief that a regime represents the end of history, in Fukuyama’s account.
Civilizations and cultures do not need to become replicas in order to coexist. What is needed is mutual recognition of legitimacy, borders and pluralism. A sustainable global order cannot be built on forced convergence. The West will remain influential, and Islam will remain an influential civilizational force. Can they move beyond rhetoric based on mutual intimidation to a policy that recognizes differences without demanding surrender by plotting machinations and conspiracies as long-term strategic plans?
I can say that the political systems in the Third World, most of which are Muslim countries, do not recognize strategic thinking, let alone conspiring against others. They are overwhelmed with meeting today’s requirements and dealing with yesterday’s problems, and do not have the luxury of planning for the future.
