From: Wade Allsopp (wade.allsopp@gmail.com)
Date: Wed 08 Feb 2006 - 20:06:42 GMT
On 2/8/06, Keith Henson
>
> Any speculations on the eventual number of deaths induced by the cartoon meme?
An interesting question. As far as I can recall we've had The
Christian boy blown up in a church in Iraq, The Roman catholic priest
knifed in Turkey, 4 Afghan rioters shot when attacking Norweigan
paccemaking forces in Afghanistan, 2 rioters killed in Lebanon in the
embassy fires. I would have thought thing would die down over the
next couple of days so that about 20 might be a reasonable
guesstimate.
But it's very difficult demarkating consequences. The Eqyptians at
first turned back the Royal Navy vessel heading to rescue the
survivors of the Red Sea ferry disasterl. Maybe whoever made that
decision was stoked up with anti Western anger resulting from the
cartoons.
The following article from Statfor argues that the cartoons serve to
paper over the rift between the US and Europe and between Sunni and
Shia, possibly to the advantage of the US and Iran.
The Cartoon Backlash: Redefining Alignments
By George Friedman
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark. We just couldn't
help but open with that -- with apologies to Shakespeare. Nonetheless,
there is something exceedingly odd in the notion that Denmark -- which
has made a national religion of not being offensive to anyone -- could
become the focal point of Muslim rage. The sight of the Danish and
Norwegian embassies being burned in Damascus -- and Scandinavians in
general being warned to leave Islamic countries -- has an aura of the
surreal: Nobody gets mad at Denmark or Norway. Yet, death threats are
now being hurled against the Danes and Norwegians as though they were
mad-dog friends of Dick Cheney. History has its interesting moments.
At the same time, the matter is not to be dismissed lightly. The
explosion in the Muslim world over the publication of 12 cartoons by a
minor Danish newspaper -- cartoons that first appeared back in
September -- has, remarkably, redefined the geopolitical matrix of the
U.S.-jihadist war. Or, to be more precise, it has set in motion
something that appears to be redefining that matrix. We do not mean
here simply a clash of civilizations, although that is undoubtedly
part of it. Rather, we mean that alignments within the Islamic world
and within the West appear to be in flux in some very important ways.
Let's begin with the obvious: the debate over the cartoons. There is a
prohibition in Islam against making images of the Prophet Mohammed.
There also is a prohibition against ridiculing the Prophet. Thus, a
cartoon that ridicules the Prophet violates two fundamental rules
simultaneously. Muslims around the world were deeply offended by these
cartoons.
It must be emphatically pointed out that the Muslim rejection of the
cartoons does not derive from a universalistic view that one should
respect religions. The criticism does not derive from a secularist
view that holds all religions in equal indifference and requires
"sensitivity" not on account of theologies, but in order to avoid
hurting anyone's feelings. The Muslim view is theological: The Prophet
Mohammed is not to be ridiculed or portrayed. But violating the
sensibilities of other religions is not taboo. Therefore, Muslims
frequently, in action, print and speech, do and say things about other
religions -- Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism -- that followers of
these religions would find defamatory. The Taliban, for example, were
not concerned about the views among other religions when they
destroyed the famous Buddhas in Bamiyan. The Muslim demand is honest
and authentic: It is for respect for Islam, not a general secular
respect for all beliefs as if they were all equal.
The response from the West, and from Europe in particular, has been to
frame the question as a matter of free speech. European newspapers,
wishing to show solidarity with the Danes, have reprinted the
cartoons, further infuriating the Muslims. European liberalism has a
more complex profile than Islamic rage over insults. In many
countries, it is illegal to incite racial hatred. It is difficult to
imagine that the defenders of these cartoons would sit by quietly if a
racially defamatory cartoon were published. Or, imagine the reception
among liberal Europeans -- or on any American campus -- if a professor
published a book purporting to prove that women were intellectually
inferior to men. (The mere suggestion of such a thing, by the
president of Harvard in a recent speech, led to calls for his
resignation.)
In terms of the dialogue over the cartoons, there is enough to amuse
even the most jaded observers. The sight of Muslims arguing the need
for greater sensitivity among others, and of advocates of laws against
racial hatred demanding absolute free speech, is truly marvelous to
behold. There is, of course, one minor difference between the two
sides: The Muslims are threatening to kill people who offend them and
are burning embassies -- in essence, holding entire nations
responsible for the actions of a few of their citizens. The European
liberals are merely making speeches. They are not threatening to kill
critics of the modern secular state. That also distinguishes the
Muslims from, say, Christians in the United States who have been
affronted by National Endowment for the Arts grants.
These are not trivial distinctions. But what is important is this: The
controversy over the cartoons involves issues so fundamental to the
two sides that neither can give in. The Muslims cannot accept visual
satire involving the Prophet. Nor can the Europeans accept that
Muslims can, using the threat of force, dictate what can be published.
Core values are at stake, and that translates into geopolitics.
In one sense, there is nothing new or interesting in intellectual
inconsistency or dishonesty. Nor is there very much new about Muslims
-- or at least radical ones -- threatening to kill people who offend
them. What is new is the breadth of the Muslim response and the fact
that it is directed obsessively not against the United States, but
against European states.
One of the primary features of the U.S.-jihadist war has been that
each side has tried to divide the other along a pre-existing fault
line. For the United States, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the
manipulation of Sunni-Shiite tensions has been evident. For the
jihadists, and even more for non-jihadist Muslims caught up in the
war, the tension between the United States and Europe has been a
critical fault line to manipulate. It is significant, then, that the
cartoon affair threatens to overwhelm both the Euro-American split and
the Sunni-Shiite split. It is, paradoxically, an affair that unifies
as well as divides.
The Fissures in the West
It is dangerous and difficult to speak of the "European position" --
there really isn't one. But there is a Franco-German position that
generally has been taken to be the European position. More precisely,
there is the elite Franco-German position that The New York Times
refers to whenever it mentions "Europe." That is the Europe that we
mean now.
In the European view, then, the United States massively overreacted to
9/11. Apart from the criticism of Iraq, the Europeans believe that the
United States failed to appreciate al Qaeda's relative isolation
within the Islamic world and, by reshaping its relations with the
Islamic world over 9/11, caused more damage. Indeed, this view goes,
the United States increased the power of al Qaeda and added
unnecessarily to the threat it presents. Implicit in the European
criticisms -- particularly from the French -- was the view that
American cowboy insensitivity to the Muslim world not only increased
the danger after 9/11, but effectively precipitated 9/11. From
excessive support for Israel to support for Egypt and Jordan, the
United States alienated the Muslims. In other words, 9/11 was the
result of a lack of sophistication and poor policy decisions by the
United States -- and the response to the 9/11 attacks was simply over
the top.
Now an affair has blown up that not only did not involve the United
States, but also did not involve a state decision. The decision to
publish the offending cartoons was that of a Danish private citizen.
The Islamic response has been to hold the entire state responsible. As
the cartoons were republished, it was not the publications printing
them that were viewed as responsible, but the states in which they
were published. There were attacks on embassies, gunmen in EU offices
at Gaza, threats of another 9/11 in Europe.
From a psychological standpoint, this drives home to the Europeans an
argument that the Bush administration has been making from the
beginning -- that the threat from Muslim extremists is not really a
response to anything, but a constantly present danger that can be
triggered by anything or nothing. European states cannot control what
private publications publish. That means that, like it or not, they
are hostage to Islamic perceptions. The threat, therefore, is not
under their control. And thus, even if the actions or policies of the
United States did precipitate 9/11, the Europeans are no more immune
to the threat than the Americans are.
This combines with the Paris riots last November and the generally
deteriorating relationships between Muslims in Europe and the dominant
populations. The pictures of demonstrators in London, threatening the
city with another 9/11, touch extremely sensitive nerves. It becomes
increasingly difficult for Europeans to distinguish between their own
relationship with the Islamic world and the American relationship with
the Islamic world. A sense of shared fate emerges, driving the
Americans and Europeans closer together. At a time when pressing
issues like Iranian nuclear weapons are on the table, this increases
Washington's freedom of action. Put another way, the Muslim strategy
of splitting the United States and Europe -- and using Europe to
constrain the United States -- was heavily damaged by the Muslim
response to the cartoons.
The Intra-Ummah Divide
But so too was the split between Sunni and Shia. Tensions between
these two communities have always been substantial. Theological
differences aside, both international friction and internal friction
have been severe. The Iran-Iraq war, current near-civil war in Iraq,
tensions between Sunnis and Shia in the Gulf states, all point to the
obvious: These two communities are, while both Muslim, mistrustful of
one another. Shiite Iran has long viewed Sunni Saudi Arabia as the
corrupt tool of the United States, while radical Sunnis saw Iran as
collaborating with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The cartoons are the one thing that both communities -- not only in
the Middle East but also in the wider Muslim world -- must agree
about. Neither side can afford to allow any give in this affair and
still hope to maintain any credibility in the Islamic world. Each
community -- and each state that is dominated by one community or
another -- must work to establish (or maintain) its Islamic
credentials. A case in point is the violence against Danish and
Norwegian diplomatic offices in Syria (and later, in Lebanon and Iran)
-- which undoubtedly occurred with Syrian government involvement.
Syria is ruled by Alawites, a Shiite sect. Syria -- aligned with Iran
-- is home to a major Sunni community; there is another in Lebanon.
The cartoons provided what was essentially a secular regime the
opportunity to take the lead in a religious matter, by permitting the
attacks on the embassies. This helped consolidate the regime's
position, however temporarily.
Indeed, the Sunni and Shiite communities appear to be competing with
each other as to which is more offended. The Shiite Iranian-Syrian
bloc has taken the lead in violence, but the Sunni community has been
quite vigorous as well. The cartoons are being turned into a test of
authenticity for Muslims. To the degree that Muslims are prepared to
tolerate or even move past this issue, they are being attacked as
being willing to tolerate the Prophet's defamation. The cartoons are
forcing a radicalization of parts of the Muslim community that are
uneasy with the passions of the moment.
Beneficiaries on Both Sides
The processes under way in the West and within the Islamic world are
naturally interacting. The attacks on embassies, and threats against
lives, that are based on nationality alone are radicalizing the
Western perspective of Islam. The unwillingness of Western governments
to punish or curtail the distribution of the cartoons is taken as a
sign of the real feelings of the West. The situation is constantly
compressing each community, even as they are divided.
One might say that all this is inevitable. After all, what other
response would there be, on either side? But this is where the odd
part begins: The cartoons actually were published in September, and --
though they drew some complaints, even at the diplomatic level --
didn't come close to sparking riots. Events unfolded slowly: The
objections of a Muslim cleric in Denmark upon the initial publication
by Jyllands-Posten eventually prompted leaders of the Islamic Faith
Community to travel to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon in December, purposely
"to stir up attitudes against Denmark and the Danes" in response to
the cartoons. As is now obvious, attitudes have certainly been
stirred.
There are beneficiaries. It is important to note here that the fact
that someone benefits from something does not mean that he was
responsible for it. (We say this because in the past, when we have
noted the beneficiaries of an event or situation, the not-so-bright
bulbs in some quarters took to assuming that we meant the
beneficiaries deliberately engineered the event.)
Still, there are two clear beneficiaries. One is the United States:
The cartoon affair is serving to further narrow the rift between the
Bush administration's view of the Islamic world and that of many
Europeans. Between the Paris riots last year, the religiously
motivated murder of a Dutch filmmaker and the "blame Denmark"
campaign, European patience is wearing thin. The other beneficiary is
Iran. As Iran moves toward a confrontation with the United States over
nuclear weapons, this helps to rally the Muslim world to its side:
Iran wants to be viewed as the defender of Islam, and Sunnis who have
raised questions about its flirtations with the United States in Iraq
are now seeing Iran as the leader in outrage against Europe.
The cartoons have changed the dynamics both within Europe and the
Islamic world, and between them. That is not to say the furor will not
die down in due course, but it will take a long time for the bad
feelings to dissipate. This has created a serious barrier between
moderate Muslims and Europeans who were opposed to the United States.
They were the ones most likely to be willing to collaborate, and the
current uproar makes that collaboration much more difficult.
It's hard to believe that a few cartoons could be that significant,
but these are.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 08 Feb 2006 - 20:34:27 GMT