Incomprehension, hatred and violence. Today my main intention is to summarise and compare the largely opposed positions and behaviour of the Western world and the Muslim world in their reciprocal relations. I think it's a crucial exercise because at the moment those who express their opinion or react, often with violence, don't take account of the opinion and reasons of the other party. We become indignant and invite reaction, with the result that the lack of understanding - indeed even the hatred and violence - is prolonged and increases which, moreover, is exactly what certain protagonists are aiming for. The lack of understanding between the two parties is currently, in several cases, radical.
Fanaticsim and moderation. For the majority of the Muslim world, the film Innocence of Muslims represents an intolerable insult to Mohamed, which explains and, in his opinion, justifies the violent reactions in the three Continents, and the attacks or attempted attacks against the American embassies and those of some European countries. Extremists have seized the occasion to declare a sort of war against the United States and Europe, provoking the riots and widespread disorder that we have seen, and against which, we have to recognise, the local authorities in general react by protecting those who are attacked.
But the Muslim organisations located inside the EU have reacted in a profoundly different way. The reason is obvious - these organisations represent Muslims who reside in Community countries, who have been living there for a long time and who have, in several cases, the nationality of the host countries, whose law they are expected to uphold and respect. In Belgium, the Musulmans progressistes association has reacted strongly, but by legal ways. It has denounced the film in question in the name of legislation which condemns discrimination and racism, because it represents “a brutal attack on citizens who are depicted as terrorists, anti-Christian and reactionary”. But their reaction is placed in a legal framework. They have defined what is happening in Libya as “monstrous” (the assassination of Ambassador Stevens). This attitude of course rejects the other violence which then characterised the behaviour of the Muslim world elsewhere.
Limits of possible intervention in West. On the Western side, it should be recognised that the film in question is a provocation, without any value or artistic meaning. For virtually all the political class and the academic world, banning the distribution or removing the passages which are offensive to a race or religion can be justified. But this must be done by respecting the laws and the competences - it is not up to the political powers to exercise a censorship (except particular cases linked to national security and other specific demands).
The United States presidency has asked YouTube not to show the film. Google (which controls YouTube) has not accepted, obviously wanting to safeguard its autonomy and freedom of action; but in reality it has stopped showing the film, or removed certain passages, to take account either of laws in force in India and Indonesia, or of the emergency situations in Egypt and Libya.
In the EU, legal analyses have led everywhere to practically identical results. A professor of international law at Brussels University has explained that in Belgium the insult is a crime punished by penal law - which clearly means that it is the law which must give its verdict and not the political authorities themselves. Legal analyses have been broadly similar elsewhere.
Other more nuanced opinions also exist. For example, Eugene Rogan, who teaches Modern History of the Middle East at St Antony's College, Oxford, has said that the derogations to the freedom of opinion that exist in Europe should not be forgotten: it is generally forbidden to deny the Jewish holocaust; in Germany, praise of Nazism is a crime. Why “if one offends Muhammad and the Muslim religion” is the reaction not the same? Yet, for Mr Rogan the easy explanation of attributing the disorder to the fanatic minorities is not sufficient. In fact, “last week's violence reflects popular widespread sentiments”. This, in his opinion, should be taken into account.
But in general, the reactions of the Muslim world are considered as unjustifiable. It is easy to recognise that the film at the origin of the events is terrible, that it is the work of someone mediocre and is perhaps a provocation. But what about the assassinated American ambassador, the friend of Arab culture - has he got anything to do with this third rate film? And the president of the United States, or before him, the institutions of the EU - did they not do the maximum to support the Arab Spring countries, an attitude much more important than a terrible film?
An assassination prepared at length. We are getting to the most serious and most important observation - what happened in Benghazi during the night of 11 to 12 September, with the assassination of Ambassador Stevens, was not a spontaneous reaction to a film or an improvised reaction, but has been prepared at length. This suspicion existed for a few days and is now a certainty. What we now know about the way the assassinators worked in Benghazi prove it. The elements gathered there by the Libyan authorities speak a great deal. Suffice it to read, for example, the detailed news published in Le Monde this Wednesday 19 September, under the title “The account of the attack on the American consulate strengthens the thesis of a planned act”. The result of this is that the Innocence of Muslims would only have represented the occasion - grabbed as it was in the air - to justify criminal actions which had been prepared and decided well in advance, with the goal - for the terrorist - of exciting Muslims and inviting them to react across the whole world.
A necessary but difficult appeasement. At present, we would need the reaction of all those who reject the global conflict started by the fanatics and terrorists; of all those who remain in favour of the peaceful co-existence of beliefs and religions; of all those who intend to defend the real interests of the people who live, or who want to live, in peace. But it would not be easy, indeed it's very unlikely. According to some observers, the Muslims who demonstrate are a small minority which becomes violent and aggressive when it believes it is acting with the consensus, expressed fairly clearly, of public opinion in general. Without doubt, the excesses of Al Qaeda are not shared by all the population, but neither do we see explicit reactions of popular rejection.
The latest message of Aqmi (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which covers Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania) reproduced in yesterday's press, invites people to follow the example of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi by “killing all the American ambassadors in this region”.
It would not be simple for the United States to continue to finance countries where such attitudes would not be firmly rejected, and those responsible for them pursued. Indignation is not always evident in the Muslim world. Egypt is in the difficult situation of needing American aid to maintain its armed forces, and of having at the same time to keep account of the orientation of the majority of the population. Its manner of reconciling these two requirements is not always clear. Tahar Ben Jelloun seems, on this occasion, to be moving away from his balanced attitude, which in the past was habitual. The hope of an appeasement remains but it is far from being in hand. This column will come back to this. (FR/transl.fl)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *