American-Middle East politics is not a grateful task: In Libya, a U.S. ambassador was killed by an Islamist clique that possibly would not have emerged without American weaponry. Attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen followed. Washington’s reaction to this precarious situation is an imprudent measure that could once again radicalize the masses.
Sometimes, it is shattering how paltry products of culture bestir the masses. The Muhammad caricatures publicized a few years ago were ill-drawn and ill-intentioned. The arcane and hustling film about Muhammad as an allegedly homosexual and child-abusing man would have deserved only its own makers as an audience. However, the violence against U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya, Tunisia and Yemen, Iran and Iraq has now exploded because of it.
A lot seems unclear and orchestrated: Why wasn’t the film translated from English into Arabic until a few days before September 11? Who is actually responsible for this opaque work? Exiled extremist Copts? An American Jew? Why did the anger discharge itself so punctually to the anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center? And who exactly is outraged? In Libya, a small group consisting of al-Qaida-affiliated Islamists who had attempted to subdue large parts of the country beforehand, to no avail, apparently utilized the excellent groundwork laid. In Egypt, even soccer fans, who are renowned for their willingness to riot, as well as for their detachment from political concerns, consorted with the religious groups. In Yemen, a radical sheik is said to have piqued the people.
Since the eruption of the Arab uprising, there have been many difficult moments in the relationship between the United States and the Arab world. Only a few were as sensitive as this one. The United States has barely any influence on this region; it is confronted with anti-American resentments that are no longer controlled by a dictator. By now, forces are forging ahead that at the same time take advantage of and despise the United States. In Libya, America had helped to overthrow Gadhafi. A sardonic irony is connected to the fact that the Islamist clique that now has the idealistic U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens on its conscience would probably not have emerged without American weaponry.
And Mursi Held His Tongue
In Egypt, Islamist President Mohamed Mursi remained silent about the attack on the U.S. Embassy for almost one day. Then he condemned the violence — but simultaneously he called on the U.S.-hostile Muslim Brotherhood to organize mass rallies against the defamation of the Muslim religion last Friday. And even more: While protestors waved the radical Islamists’ black flag outside of the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egyptian officials met with a U.S. business delegation. Washington wants to abate one billion dollars of Cairo’s debt — today the country is the second largest recipient of U.S. aid.
Mursi’s position is comprehensibly inconvenient. As an Islamist, he competes with the radical Salafists for the title of the paramount guardian of religion. As a president, he needs money. But the Liberals also vituperate the United States because Washington allegedly fawns over the Islamists. And Egyptian publicists lament that the riot in front of the embassy is an American orchestration with the goal of defaming the delicate Arab democracy. American-Middle East politics is not a grateful task.
Particularly, therefore — and in spite of the election campaign — adding fuel to the flames would be an unwise move by the Americans. That President Barack Obama is now sending destroyers and marines to Libya, and will maybe even let drones follow soon, is not a good indication. To date, just a few, dangerous little groups rampaged against U.S. embassies; to date, the United States can perch itself on a rest of approval, at least in Libya. But should Washington fall into a stance of defense, such as the one being employed against al-Qaida in Yemen, with civil victims and the fight against terrorism as an absolute priority, the tide could turn rapidly. The people in the Arab world want to be more than a safety hazard.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.