Per attribution to www.stratfor.com at bottom, this is redistrubuted:

Strategic Forecasting
GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
02.07.2006

  READ MORE...

Analyses Country Profiles - Archive Forecasts Geopolitical Diary
Global Market Brief - Archive Hotspots - Archive Intelligence
Guidance Net Assessment Situation Reports Special Reports Strategic
Markets - Archive Stratfor Weekly Terrorism Brief Terrorism
Intelligence Report Travel Security - Archive US - IRAQ War Coverage

                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 [log in to unmask]

  Get unrestricted access to Stratfor Premium with a FREE 7-day Trial
  today.

Have intelligence delivered straight to your inbox every day and get
24/7 access to the ~SShadow CIA~T with Stratfor Premium ~V yours FREE
for an entire week!

As the most comprehensive package of intelligence features available
online, Stratfor Premium brings you decision-oriented intelligence so
that you can find relevant answers to your toughest questions with:
 *  In-depth analysis on relevant political, economic, military, and
    security developments
 *  Alerts drilling into the significance and direction of
    course-altering events.
 *  Exclusive Special Reports and Forecasts, plus much more!

Sign up for your Guest Pass today! Be among the first to receive the
advance warning that helps you stay prepared, identify opportunities,
and manage risk.

For an entire week, get unrestricted access to the behind-the-scenes
intelligence that will add impact to your day-to-day decisions and your
long-term prospects. With new reduced subscription rates ~V now just
$39.95 a month ~V there~Rs never been a better time to experience the
Stratfor advantage first-hand.

Stratfor is ready to keep you informed with intelligence at your
fingertips every day ~V try it now with FREE 7-day access. Click here to
find out more now!

  Distribution and Reprints

This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to
Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests,
partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication,
please contact [log in to unmask]

Do you have a friend or acquaintance that would benefit from the
consistent actionable intelligence of the FREE STRATFOR Weekly
Geopolitical Intelligence Report?

Send them to
www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php to
sign up and begin receiving the Stratfor Weekly every Tuesday for FREE!

  Newsletter Subscription

The STRATFOR Weekly is e-mailed to you on an opt-in basis with STRATFOR.
If you no longer wish to receive regular e-mails from STRATFOR, please
send a message to [log in to unmask] with the subject line:
UNSUBSCRIBE - Free GIR. For more information on STRATFOR's services,
please visit www.stratfor.com or e-mail [log in to unmask] today!

(c) Copyright 2006 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.




Tracy Johnson
Measurement Specialties, Inc.

BT







NNNN

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *