|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
if the Iranian newspaper hadn't called their bluff on the free speech issue to begin with.
_________________
Can you explain this further. Are you advocating that "people should only say something/print something if no one complains".
Maybe they wanted to test the waters. I heard of a woman, who was mentally handicapped. She killed herself by running a hot bath and not testing the waters before jumping in.
Its normal to test a situation at times, to check the temperture of the water. We do it, because it may kill not doing it. So whats wrong with them doing it. |
I'm saying that the Danish newspaper is publishing the holocaust cartoons simply because the Iranian newspaper threw down the gauntelt and effectively said "well, if you're so hepped about free speech, do you think holocaust jokes are okay?" As far as I know, the only holocaust cartoons that the Danish paper is publishing are the ones that they get from the Iranians, so I doubt they have much interest in publishing holocaust jokes in general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
Freedom of speech is one thing...
However, doing something that is considered sacreligious to an entire group of people is offensive.
Making fun of the deaths of millions of people of one religion is an entirely different thing altogether. It's evil.
Does anyone else think this? |
In general I agree, though I think humour can make its way into any situation, just in its own particular way. I remember that scene in The Pianist where they're sharing that last bit of caramel that they paid twenty (I think) z��oty for, and I could see a Pulp Fiction sort of humour:
| Quote: |
| That's a pretty fucking good caramel. I don't know if it's worth twenty z��otych but it's pretty fucking good. |
But I expect their submissions to be cruder and less funny than something like that. What they should have done was choose cartoons on the pope, George Washington, somebody like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
That's a pretty *beep* good caramel. I don't know if it's worth twenty z��otych but it's pretty *beep* good.
But I expect their submissions to be cruder and less funny than something like that. What they should have done was choose cartoons on the pope, George Washington, somebody like that.
|
Yeah, but people like the Pope and Washington get satirized all the time in "edgier" publications, and it wouldn't be too huge a leap for a more mainstream paper to publish such material on the grounds of "well the Iranians are publishing it already, so it's a news story".
One thing they could do is solicit slanderously ribald satires about the Jyllands-Posten publisher and his family, along the lines of the the famous Hustler ad about Falwell. Then sit back and watch as either a) the publisher engages in special pleading about how he can't be expected to subject his family to such humiliation(but Muslims are fair game, right?), or b) publishes the stuff and destroys his family psychologically.
But that probably wouldn't sit too well with Iranian puritanism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
I personally would have liked to have seen the Iranians come out with cartoons depicting Jesus and/or Moses as drunks and/or pedophiles or something. That would have been a good tit for tat response in the battle of blasphemous cartoons.
What they have done instead is the moral equivalent of the Danes making cartoons about Saddam gassing Iranian troops during the (actual) first Gulf War (as opposed to the Desert Storm 'first' Gulf War). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm convinced more than ever that the only way to make sense of geo-political events in today's world is by subscribing to the Economist and Stratfor. sometimes they might tell you what you already know, but at least they won't steer you in the wrong direction. Usually they cut through the clutter and give concise summaries of the real issues.
Case in point with regard to Stratfor:
| Quote: |
The Cartoon Backlash: Redefining Alignments
February 07, 2006 20 49 GMT
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.[Wow, igotthisguitar subscribes to Stratfor?!?])
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I personally would have liked to have seen the Iranians come out with cartoons depicting Jesus and/or Moses as drunks and/or pedophiles or something. That would have been a good tit for tat response in the battle of blasphemous cartoons.
|
This gets us into the whole question of how effective blasphemy is in the modern west. Most of the "offending" newspapers have been in Europe, where church attendance and belief in God are much lower than in North America. So a lot of Europeans would probably just shrug their shoulders or even chuckle if they saw Jesus portrayed as a dirty old man in a trenchcoat.
Plus: it seems to me I read somewhere that it is taboo for Muslims to blaspheme ANYONE considered a prophet of Islam. So an Iranian paper lampooning Moses or Jesus might end up being the next target of the "torch and pitchfork" brigade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xeno439
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anne Coulter wrote:
| Quote: |
| Catholics aren't short on rules, but they couldn't care less if non-Catholics use birth control. |
Interesting that she chose birth control and not abortion as her example of something that Catholics "couldn't care less about". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
I personally would have liked to have seen the Iranians come out with cartoons depicting Jesus and/or Moses as drunks and/or pedophiles or something. That would have been a good tit for tat response in the battle of blasphemous cartoons.
|
This gets us into the whole question of how effective blasphemy is in the modern west. Most of the "offending" newspapers have been in Europe, where church attendance and belief in God are much lower than in North America. So a lot of Europeans would probably just shrug their shoulders or even chuckle if they saw Jesus portrayed as a dirty old man in a trenchcoat.
Plus: it seems to me I read somewhere that it is taboo for Muslims to blaspheme ANYONE considered a prophet of Islam. So an Iranian paper lampooning Moses or Jesus might end up being the next target of the "torch and pitchfork" brigade. |
Good points all round. Doubly so on the Coulter point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like the article by Friedman there, Bulsajo. But it appears my global security commentating pundit disagrees with your global security commentating pundit. Most notably, he seems to advance the idea that this present situation is not good for the United States.
| Quote: |
United states - minus United States
By Ehsan Ahrari
For a while after the US invasion of Iraq, it appeared that the idea of "the West" and "Western unity" had become history. But now that idea seems to be reviving precipitously.
It is interesting that the ostensible departure of that idea looked real when a Muslim country was invaded in 2003. Now Western unity is seemingly resurgent in the aftermath of the defiance by another Muslim country (Iran) of the United States (or is the West?) and at a time when Muslims are showing their outrage related to the caricature of the Prophet of Islam. In both instances, Islam has played a perceptible role. Are we about to see the emergence of a great divide, a major schism, between the world of Islam and the West? If so, how permanent is this divide likely to be?
If the history of the Cold War teaches us anything, it is that a conflict of a major proportion and of an enduring nature is a precondition for nation-states to determine on which side of that conflict they want to be. They study the conflict over a period of time, determine how that conflict affects their vital interests, and then evolve their related position. That was what happened between 1945 and 1991. Whether the community of nations now will follow a similar pattern is not quite clear yet.
Islam has already emerged as a major issue that has captured the world's attention, especially for the past five years. As the lone superpower, and as a nation that was targeted by global terrorists on September 11, 2001, the United States got on the offensive against a fanatical government in Afghanistan soon thereafter. Since all the hijackers on September 11 were Muslims, there were a number of legal measures taken inside the US that were perceived in Muslim countries as anti-Islamic in nature. However, the US government, more than any other government in the world, went out of its way to insist that the focus of its outrage was not Islam, but those elements that are determined to perpetrate global chaos and mayhem in the name of that great religion.
Then came the US invasion of Iraq. It is the manner in which the decision was made to invade that country - and the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found - that intensified Muslim anger. Clearly there was also ample resentment related to what Muslims perceived as "unjust" concomitant public discussions in the United States linking Islam with global terrorism. Then came disclosures of brutal treatment of Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison and that of the "detainees" in the Guantanamo prison. Even though the Bush administration claimed that reports of brutality related to those dungeons were exaggerated, the allegations themselves were seen in Muslim countries simply as more "evidence" of America's ongoing "war" against Islam.
Viewing the conflict from the US side, there is no reason to dismiss the Bush administration's position that it has no fight against Islam. The September 11 attacks legitimately frightened the US leadership, even though its machismo prevented it from saying so. The United States had to react. How much of that reaction was legitimate and at what point one could say the US went over the top was largely a matter of debate. No one can rightly claim to be objective about the issue. If you were a Muslim, you would feel that your religion was unjustifiably targeted, or the US went too far in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, if you are not, there was no such thing as overreaction. After all, the United States was attacked first - it could not have sat back and waited for another attack. By the same token, it could not have taken limited actions against those who deemed killing Americans as some sort of "religious obligation".
Europe was not a part of that fight until al-Qaeda targeted Spain in March 2004, as a tactical maneuver to force it to pull its forces out of Iraq. The fact that the Spanish government withdrew its troops soon thereafter did not persuade that organization not try to push all of Europe toward appeasement. In fact, until the terrorist attacks in Spain, the European perspective was that al-Qaeda's major fight was with the US, and Europe would, somehow, be spared.
As Europe remained schizophrenic about its own position and ambivalent about its role in George W Bush's "global war on terrorism", some of its members showed solidarity by committing troops in Iraq. Only France and Germany remained as major critics and consistent opponents of that "war of choice".
The London bombings of July 7, 2005, marked a point when Europe could no longer remain ambivalent about its role in the "war against terrorism". When the video of one of the terrorists in those bombings was released showing him declaring war against European countries, the die was cast. Europe could no longer remain on the sidelines. But Europe's participation in this war became idiosyncratic of its perception of Islam, a perception that has deep historical roots.
Regarding the "global war on terrorism", there is a major difference between the United States and Europe. Americans do not have long memories of interacting with Islam or colonizing Muslim countries. Besides, in the United States, "political correctness" is more than a bumper-sticker statement. Intuitively speaking, a large number of people are genuine practitioners of not offending anyone's faith in the name of freedom of expression. Thus a majority of Americans are at least intellectually capable of making the distinction between the perverse terrorist logic of relating their action to Islam and the religion of Islam itself.
In contrast, Europe - where anti-Islamic feelings related to the Ottoman conquests between the 12th and 16th centuries never really vanished - has shown little evidence of really comprehending that distinction. Besides, Europe was a region that produced the most nefarious evidence of anti-Semitism in the form of creating the Holocaust. Europe is also a region - if one includes Russia as an extension of it - that has the legacy of creating gulags, another depressing legacy of human suffering. In other words, Europe has historically demonstrated that, given a chance, it is capable of manifesting worse examples of hatred. Europe is also busy constantly raising the bar regarding the entry of Turkey in the European Union, largely because it is a Muslim country. That type of legacy is substantially absent from US history.
In this context, it seems that Europe is only beginning to show that it is capable of demonstrating anti-Islamic tendencies in the name of freedom of expression (eg, the cartoon episodes of the Nordic countries). The London Guardian reported on February 6 that the same Danish paper that published the caricatures of the Prophet of Islam - claiming to exercise freedom of expression - refused to publish (and rightly so) similar cartoons of Jesus three years ago for fear of offending Christians. If it decided to be circumspect then by not publishing those cartoons, why did it apply a different rule in the case of offending Muslims? At the same time, some European countries can stifle freedom of choice by conveniently passing laws against hijab, Islam's female dress code (eg, France for now, but there are reports that European countries are also considering the passage of similar laws), when it suits their purpose.
Iran's nuclear aspirations have to be viewed in the same context and from the European perspective: an Islamist government creating a fiction of not developing nuclear weapons while, in reality, that is where it is heading if it is allowed to continue its uranium-enrichment programs. The involvement of the EU-3 countries (the United Kingdom, France and Germany) has made that conflict very central to the EU's future role in resolving global issues. At least that is a general perception in a number of the European capitals. In this instance, Islam is also a player, at least in the minds of the Europeans.
So it seems that a great divide is emerging between "the West" and the East. The West seems to be uniting on issues related to Islam. It is too early to surmise how long this divide is likely to last. It might not last long at all. One thing appears certain, however. As the lone superpower - since it is determined to ensure the longevity of the present unipolar order - the United States is likely to work hard to close this divide. In the case of Iran, it has wisely let the EU-3 countries play a visible role in negotiating with Iran, thereby allowing diplomacy to proceed. At the same time, it has wisely decided to create a physical distance from Europe in the caricature-related controversy. It declared them as "offensive", but also has also supported the related exercise of freedom of expression.
The Europeans might not know this, but the United States would not want the "return" of the "West" that would sow seeds of intense resentment and hatred toward that very idea in the world of Islam. The US has most to lose, not the Europeans. |
In any case, I think he is too harsh, one of the reason the United States still distinguishes so well between Islamic extremist and the moderate is because there have been few (if any) honor killings there. And at any rate, conflating the gulags as being a part of the historical education of Europe as a whole is falling into the kind of rhetorical trap of seeing a unified European position that Friedman warns against. So, let's set aside the author's disdain for Europe's recent attitudes.
Nevertheless, the article valuably points out that the United States is no winner here, should mainstream opinion in the ME come around to believe that the West is truly acting as one. I think it is undoubtedly the case that the US stands to gain if this, as Friedman suggests may, become true: "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." But, a united Shi'a-Sunni perception that the West is one on this issue (which would more likely be interpreted as the US standing with Europe's position that free speech trumps respecting religious sensibility) could be really bad for the United States in particular. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Most notably, he seems to advance the idea that this present situation is not good for the United States. |
Well, I haven't read your article yet (I'm about to) but I did think George Friedman's point about the cartoon issue being beneficial to the US was stretching things a bit in order to find a silver lining for subscribers. Certainly having the rest of W. Europe aligning more with US' viewpoint with regards to the War on Terror is a benefit, but it does seem to be a rather small and short term one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Between the two articles posted (Friedman's and Ahari's) there seems to be only one real point of divergence:
| Ahari wrote: |
| The Europeans might not know this, but the United States would not want the "return" of the "West" that would sow seeds of intense resentment and hatred toward that very idea in the world of Islam. The US has most to lose, not the Europeans. |
To be honest I find this point extremely contentious.
It could be true- the 'cartoon-issue' is pushing more moderates to choose sides, and this is not good. Europe may end up in more of a shitstorm than the US over the long run, and US interests being tied up again with Europe might be more of a chink in the armor than an additional level of shielding...
But the exact opposite could be equally true- the US/West is already in the shit, and having a more unified alliance couldn't possibly make things any worse, just the opposite- unified actions/goals and more 'Western' cooperation with regard to the the Middle East, Iran, Pakistan/Afghanistan etc. could definitely be an advantage to both sides.
I wouldn't be betting heavily on either analysis right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Between the two articles posted (Friedman's and Ahari's) there seems to be only one real point of divergence:
| Ahari wrote: |
| The Europeans might not know this, but the United States would not want the "return" of the "West" that would sow seeds of intense resentment and hatred toward that very idea in the world of Islam. The US has most to lose, not the Europeans. |
To be honest I find this point extremely contentious.
It could be true- the 'cartoon-issue' is pushing more moderates to choose sides, and this is not good. Europe may end up in more of a shitstorm than the US over the long run, and US interests being tied up again with Europe might be more of a chink in the armor than an additional level of shielding...
But the exact opposite could be equally true- the US/West is already in the shit, and having a more unified alliance couldn't possibly make things any worse, just the opposite- unified actions/goals and more 'Western' cooperation with regard to the the Middle East, Iran, Pakistan/Afghanistan etc. could definitely be an advantage to both sides.
I wouldn't be betting heavily on either analysis right now. |
Well, I think Ahrari's opinion might be true insofar as the US regards it important to keep the Shi'a-Sunni divide. But, you know, now that I think about it, the US may not have to worry too much about those two sides getting along, not with all the Sunni extremist terrorism committed against the Shi'a and with all those Shi'a death squads running around Baghdad.
But, yes, I'm becoming slowly more inclined towards your view that there's very little benefit or disadvantage for the United States in this. The entire issue is more important in the context of European-ME relations. I think one of Friedman's points about Iran may be overstated as well. It is hard for me to imagine Sunnis admiring Iran too much yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But, yes, I'm becoming slowly more inclined towards your view that there's very little benefit or disadvantage for the United States in this. The entire issue is more important in the context of European-ME relations. I think one of Friedman's points about Iran may be overstated as well. It is hard for me to imagine Sunnis admiring Iran too much yet.
|
I actually think that, when all is said and done, this cartoon business will end up having very little impact on international relations. Predictions...
1. American adventurism in the region will continue at its current pace, which basically means they'll stick it out in Iraq but proceed no further(for the time being). Not as a result of the cartoons, but because the Iraqi fiasco has made further interventions seem like a losing proposition.
2. Europe will continue to go along with American foreign policy when it suits them, with left-leaning governments being less obvious about it and keeping up the "oh those awful yankee cowboys" rhetoric.
3. The Sunni-Shiite divide will continue as before(see Kuros above). Nobody who didn't like Iran last year is suddenly gonna go running into their arms because they're making the best speeches about the cartoons.
4. Some obscure council in Britian will pass a motion against defaming the Prophet, which will be held up by the anti-Muslim crowd as heradling the gotterdammerung.
5. "Multiculturalism" and "tolerance" will become somewhat less popular in Europe, or at least will not be so casually cited as uncomplicated benefits. But day-to-day inter-cultural relations in Europe will continue much as before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At least someone can laugh at themselves.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
