You may have noticed that the world is not exactly a friendly place… and seems to be less so than at any time since the onset of WWII. Since the fall of the Soviet Union two decades ago, the world is no longer divided into the three basic forces that dominated during the cold war: communism, Western democracies and “other” (mostly non-aligned nations). Instead, we are seeing several powers fighting for domination over others: the U.S., China, and the Islamic world… while others simply want to assert their independence from external powers, most notably Europe, Latin America and India. And as populations have increased, competition for global resources accelerated and the global economy declined, secular solutions to regional woes seem to have run out of steam and are generating decreasing traction in the world, most certainly including the United States, with a call on God for answers rapidly stepping up in importance.
What all of this means for global peace is anything but positive. The more focused on local values as the only correct view of the world, the perception that one’s actions are a mandate from God, the less there is of a willingness to compromise, accept that there are irreconcilable differences that simply need to be tolerated… and the greater the perceived need to force others to bow to your creed or faith. The West has a tradition of sending its Christian ministers around the world to spread the faith. Islam has a tradition of conversion through conquest. China is sending advisors with cash, and Russia is basically following U.S. actions and taking the opposite stance wherever it can.
With the perception of the failure of the American free market economy (and the slowest recovery from an economic collapse in recent memory) contrasted with the apparently growth-success of China’s centrally-controlled economy (also hitting a few bumps in the road), American influence is most definitely on the wane, no matter what the Democrats or Republicans try and tell their constituencies. The underlying clash of civilizations – a battle of values and beliefs where compromise is falling by the wayside – is perilous path that threatens the countervailing trends of global interconnectivity, ease of travel and one global marketplace.
The ability to spread disinformation rapidly, to create almost immovable beliefs in minutes based on appealing to underlying religious prejudices, and to mobilize masses of people in support of what to outsiders appears totally illogical is altering the face of diplomacy and international relations. The release on YouTube of clips from a strongly anti-Islamic film, The Innocence of Muslims, is a case in point. The film was created by a man claiming initially to being an Israeli Jew but who later was identified as a 55-year-old convicted felon (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula who called himself “Sam Bacile”) living in Southern California and who appears to be a member of the Egyptian (Christian) Coptic Church. The YouTube clips ignited protests, many exceptionally violent, all over the Islamic world. U.S. embassies and consulates were attacked, U.S. bases stoned, and massive street marches illustrated the ire of Muslim masses.
Shades of Pakistani (but a UK resident) Salman Rushdie (who in 1989 wrote what was seen as a blasphemous novel, The Satanic Verses and was targeted with an Iranian cleric’s fatwah for his crimes against Islam), Danish political cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (who drew an unflattering cartoon of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad in a 2006 newspaper) and the more recent Qur’an burning events sponsored by Florida Pastor Terry Jones… sparking mass demonstrations from the Islamic world in protest.
In the instant protests against Nakoula’s film clips, disinformation spread immediately across the Islamic world, and was taken by masses as the truth. The U.S. government sponsored the film according to many reports. The American legal system fights anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish sentiments, they said, making those illegal but is completely silent when it comes to Muslim minorities in America. It is illegal in America to deny the Holocaust or to wear Nazi symbols (there are European laws, but our First Amendment precludes such restrictions), they add, but there is no countervailing protection for anti-Islamic efforts. Slowly, as anger rose, the act of one individual was raised to the efforts of the entire United States in its “war against Islam.” It was reminiscent of blood feuds so common in the Middle East (but then, we have the Hatfields and the McCoys!), where many are punished for the actions of another… in some cases, generations of retribution and retaliation.
To make matters even worse, eight days after the release of the offending YouTube videos, “[t]he magazine Charlie Hebdo, which is known for outrageous humor, published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Mohammed on [September 19th]... Stephane Charbonnier, director of the French magazine, said his staff is ‘not really fueling the fire’ but rather using its freedom of expression ‘to comment (on) the news in a satirical way... It happens that the news this week is Mohammed and this lousy film, so we are drawing cartoons about this subject,’ Charbonnier told CNN affiliate BFM-TV...” CNN.com, September 19th. Hebdo routinely lashes as religion and religious groups with no specific bias. French embassies and consulates braced for the expected confrontations.
On the U.S. side, cries were heard for America to “disengage” from the Arab world entirely. Thoughts of helping Syrian rebels was pushed further aside by many American leaders. Benjamin Netanyahu was having a field day on American television pressing for the U.S. to get behind a significantly more military response against Iran’s nuclear program, even as his former intelligence chief (head of the legendary Mossad), Meir Dagan, went on CBS 60 Minutes telling the world that an attack on Iran at this time was the “stupidest idea” he had ever heard of. Presidential candidates, Obama and Romney, traded politically-tinged barbs over the film, the seemingly-related death of our ambassador to Libya, and the violence that has emanated against the United States, while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, finding the film “repugnant,” also rejected the violent responses of ill-informed mobs. While some Muslim governments echoed Clinton’s words, proselytizing zealots seemed to win the appeal to the masses as protests escalated.
Passionate Muslims often cannot equate free speech and freedom with the ability to trash the religious beliefs of others… it’s a First Amendment with a blasphemy exception. They cannot understand any legal system that is sufficiently callous so as not to protect the most sacred and intensely personal beliefs possible. Many Americans are equally passionate about free speech in its grandest and widest expression. It is a total and irreconcilable disconnect. Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, who fomented one of the largest turnouts in a largely peaceful protest in Beirut, pretty much made the “sacred” position his bottom line. “America, which uses the pretext of freedom of expression ... needs to understand that putting out the whole film will have very grave consequences around the world,” he said. The throngs marching through Beirut’s Shiite neighborhoods responded with chants of “Death to America, Death to Israel” and “America, hear us – don’t insult our Prophet.” Pakistan is trying to diffuse popular sentiment by introducing a new, sacred national holiday dedicated to reverence for Islam.
We cannot “win” this fundamental clash with opposing world views. Our military cannot force those who hate us to give up their beliefs and tow the American party line. We can make matters worse, but we are no more likely to change our First Amendment than are fundamentalist Muslims likely to stop blaming our entire nation for the actions of a few operating under our precious and wondrous notion of freedom. Given the obviously interconnectivity of global markets and communications, neither can we disengage from the billions in the world who might oppose our views. It will always be a question of balance, bending and moving in the right direction, knowing that there will be insolvable moments that we will simply have to live with, and understanding that the more we stick our military noses into the business of others, the more we are going to be the obvious target of global anger searching for scapegoats for the misery that recent economic times, horrific droughts and incalculable natural disasters have visited upon our heads.
I’m Peter Dekom, and learning to live on a planet with strongly diverse views and increasing frustrations about the quality of life is a lesson that so many Americans have trouble understanding.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment