The West is today what it has been for a number of decades, the center and source of powerful ideas incarnated in institutions and practices from whose effects no corner of the globe is wholly immune. It is the great disturber of other cultures. Thus, mutatis mutandis, the West takes its place with the ancient Orient, with classical Greece, with Islam, with the great civilizations that extended and imposed themselves through differing proportions of military power, commerce, and high cultural confidence.

In its development the West has been informed by the profound contributions of the Greco-Roman and JudeoChristian traditions, and it cannot be understood without reference to them. But the factors that allowed the West first to become a great economic force and second to extend that force into the ecumene have their immediate causes in the eighteenth century. This period in Europe, variously termed the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason, elevated to prominence and gave particular meaning to such abstract social concepts as “liberty,” “equality,” “rights,” and “authority.”

It is not a joking matter, but the state of Middle East politics is nothing if not absurd. Which is to say that, to the Westerner at least, the most recent rearrangement of alliances, conflicts, and rivalries follows no readily apparent pattern of loyalty or consistency—either religious or political. The Iran-Iraq war seems to have crystalized the fragmented Arab world into two opposing blocs, those siding with non-Arab Iran and those backing Saddam Hussein. But Libya and Syria, the two most pro-Soviet countries, have sided with anti-Communist, anti-Soviet Khomeini. On the other hand the Imam is opposed by the two anti-Soviet monarchies of lordan and Saudi Arabia and the non-Communist Gulf states led by pro-Soviet Iraq. The two monarchies might be expected to oppose Iran's revolutionary regime but hardly to ally themselves with a regime no less revolutionary in its own way than Iran. Not to put too fine a point on it, it was the 1958 Iraq revolution that murder ed King Faisal II, ruler of Iraq and cousin to King Hussein. We find Sunni Libya, which has sought to embarrass Alawite president of Syria Assad by stirring up opposition among the Sunni majority of Syria, united with Assad to give aid and comfort to the Shiite leader of Iran. Syria and Iraq, which are hostile to each other, are ruled by the two extant leaders of thp Baath or Renaissance party dedicated to the unity of the Arab peoples. We find Soviet-client Iraq allied with the most proAmerican states, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, against the most anti-American state, Iran. Soviet weaponry provides the security of the Arab axis against American weaponry provided to the shah. Meanwhile, Iran credits the U.S. with starting the war, even though Iran is being attacked with Soviet weaponry.

Martial law in the Philippines was “lifted” on January 17. Some prisoners were released, other rituals performed But there was no dancing in the streets, and any private rejoicing must have been dampened when President and Prime Minister Ferdinand Marcos signed an order retaining the absolute powers vested in him under his 1973 constitution and 1976 amendments, both submitted to mock referenda. The writ of habeas corpus remains suspended under the catchall “crimes against security” and labor strikes are still banned under another catchall category, “vital industries.” The army will not be returning to the barracks.

The ceremonial lifting was timed for greatest effect, anticipating Ronald Reagan’s inauguration on January 20 and Pope John Paul lis visit to the island in February an ecstatic event for the 40 million Filipino Catholics who make up 86 per cent of the population. The pope was hardly deceived, and, in any case, he certainly does not give his benediction to government repression. The Reagan administration has issued no official statements on the Philippines, but the new secretary of state has made provocative generalizations about how matters of human rights will be met in U.S. foreign policy.