Every striking event can gain meanings in comparison with the similar events in the history. The hero of the Indian freedom process Gandhi became famous by passive resistance and boycotting of the English products. After Gandhi, the passive resistance acts against the authority were increased in different places of the world. Actions which are dominated as ‘passive resistances’ in literature are used for referring to Gandhi. The violent activities against a more powerful authority (like a state) or enemy, which aims to threaten and to determent innocent people are generally called as terror and these acts has begun in the 19th century in Europe. In the modern era, after a bomb explosion or a murder event, the action processes and the activists are examined. After this examination, the decision is made whether these actions are terrorist activities or not. This process is done in comparison with the previous actions. In the last 20 years, especially after the 11th of September, an extensive literature on ‘terror’ and ‘terrorism’ was written and most of the actions are examined with this process. Has the debate or the analysis of the Danish cartoons, which may be perceived as ‘clash of civilizations’ with the provocative aims or as the freedom of the speech, been carried out with righteous ideological basis?
For last 15 years, we have witnessed many arguments about clash of civilizations increasingly. Especially after the publication of the Samuel Huntington’s notorious article ‘Clash of Civilizations’ in the journal of Foreign Affairs in 1993, several events occurred around the world had started to be analyzed in the framework of this article. Wars, peaces, street fightings, economic or strategic partnerships or competitions have begun to be examined in the context of Huntington’s views. Huntington formulates an expected or an anticipated fact with his point of view. According to this formula, new era’s distinctive feature is the clashes of the different civilizations. Although the actors of many events, who tried to be described in the framework of this formula, are generally peripheral; nonetheless, they became the social, political and especially religious representatives of their related groups, Serbians who killed Bosnians, Albanians and Croatians were mentioned as Christian representatives. On the other hand, every bomb explosion in Western countries is perceived as they were carried out by the representatives of the Muslims and this view has became very usual and normal.
There are approximately 1.5 billion Muslims and more than this amount Christians live in the world. Then how could it be told that Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi, Bin Laden and Zarquawi represent over billions of Muslim people? How could be evaluated that their actions embody Islamic world in the clash of civilizations? However, every flamboyant or aberrant person claims that he/she represents one of the sides. Even if they do not claim, opposite fronts’ defenders think that they can explain the whole event easily with the Huntington model. Generally speaking, Huntington model seems as the simplest way in the West to interpret the events. However, the supporters of this model are increased in the Islamic world too.
After the 11th of September, Western people went to the bookstores to buy the Qur’an and its interpretation. But after the bomb attacks to Baghdad in 1st of April none of the Iraqi people went to the bookstores to buy the Bible. This difference is derived of different thoughts and perceptions of Western and Eastern people. Eastern people thought these bomb attacks are the cause of political preferences of the Western people. However, Western people believe that these attacks are taking root from the Eastern people’s religions. The differences of thoughts and analysis, imprinted that most of the Western people accept the Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ model. Let’s have a look to the mentality of negotiations and view points that criticized the protests against cartoon incident instead of the west that depicts Prophet’s cartoons and insults Muslim’s sacred sits at the heart of discussions.
The most misleading point is the Huntington’s model by the misinterpretation of Western people. They believe that ‘fanatics, resistance fighters, warriors and terrorists’, who attack against the West, can be weakened and ineffective by refuting the holy book of Islam and its prophet. In fact, the most provocative point in the Denmark issue is associating the prophet of Islam with terrorism in the cartoons. ‘Islam is the source of excesses’ approach that alleged by the supporters of the Huntington model also brings attack to the sacreds of the Muslims in the Western world. Although overwhelming majority of the Muslims has been ignored by the Western media, extremists such as Bin Laden and alike are widely take place and discussed in the Western world media and propaganda. This indicator shows us the wrong communication strategy between East and West since Huntington’s 1993 frame. In this context Huntington’s model is a manifest which accepts contractionary, cursory, generalist, straight and exaggerations as the main points. In this model, there is no place to Jesus, Moses or Mohammed but there is a large place to people who alleged shout for them.
These fanatic cartoons have found its opposites in the Muslim world very soon. Although both sides have mostly right minded and responsible, head of states, ecclesiastics, journalists and intellectuals, the supporter of the extremes are dominating the agenda. Every supporter of the Huntington’s model believes that they can explain all of the lack of consideration, deformities, mistakes and abnormal behaviors with this model. All of the extreme supporters, who saw the piquant popularity of this model, tend to intensity and incitement. On one hand there are people who insult sacreds and on the other hand, people, who think they defend their sacreds, starts to show extreme and excess reactions in front of the cameras, thus they provide more excuses for Huntington model and justify it.
Denmark has problems to fulfill the Western values which are reflected in the Copenhagen Criteria. Government authorities claim that they evaluate the PKK (terrorist organization) broadcasts as the freedom of speech and expressed the cartoons’ inconsiderateness as same as the freedom of the speech. This attitude does not reflect the whole western understanding but, focusing especially on Denmark, it brings us the dilemma between freedom of speech that can force the limits of mutual respect and the possibility of terrorist publications those may threaten other society’s security. The most important point of the freedom also includes mostly understanding of others in the way of reaching to the truths. At least freedom of speech does not contain aspersions to other’s assets also indirect treatments to the safety of lives. Looking from this aspect, Copenhagen criteria is replaced with Huntington’s criteria very rapidly. Conflicting spirit stemmed on Denmark spans to the earth by personal successes of the Danish President. It’s a pity that freedom advocates in Denmark cannot see the differences that they are far away from the freedom spirit but more close to Huntington model. Moreover, we have to say that it is impossible to understand the insistence on the mistake, give meanings to them and explain as nature possibility, otherwise other probabilities reminiscent of serious problems.
We hope that Denmark realizes that she is in the wrong way and behaves in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria which present civilization plans to the world. However it seems that common sense of the majority loose ground against the barking of the minority and Huntington model gains ground quickly. The race circuit which was built by extreme advocates has many audiences both in the East and the West. Huntington model which looks imaginary today have a risks in representing majority in the future. Denmark case is the latest example of this issue.
Translated by Sebla ULUDAG and Arzu CELALIFER
20 February 2006
www.turkishweekly.net
A Time Collapse in the Kurdish Problem
