This week,
America watched in shock as three nations that toppled authoritarian leaders
during the Arab Awakening protested and rioted, apparently against an
Islamophobic “documentary” about the Prophet Mohammed. Though the film came out
in July, on the 11th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 activists
reacted to the Arabic-dubbed version of the inflammatory movie. Tragedy struck when
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American consulate employees were
murdered in an assault on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. Amb. Stevens was a
longtime scholar of North Africa, former Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco, and
true believer in the hope of the “new Libya.” As protests continue throughout
the Middle East and North Africa, Americans are left to wonder if the optimism
that embodied the Arab Awakening is about to be replaced with extremism,
anti-Western leaders, and more oppression.
Photo of the Consulate entrance, taken by a Benghazi resident.
To the
contrary, the extremists who are using this film as a pretext to attack symbols
of the U.S. know what Westerners seem ignorant of: the weakness of their
position in the Middle East. Salafist groups have fragmented since the Arab
Awakening, unable to gain widespread popular support for their extreme
movements. They now contain militant, political, and peaceful wings, in a pattern that has played out in many other countries long plagued by Salafist groups intent on jihad. Many Muslim countries may be socially conservative but are unwilling
to accept Taliban-esque sharia law. As
I have written previously, Libya’s elections offered the only example of
post-Arab Awakening elections in which Islamist parties not only lost, but lost in a landslide. Choosing technocrats over ideologues and economic growth
and security over religion, Libyans shocked observers by failing to elect a
single candidate from the political parties representing Salafi Islam.
Libya’s
problem is not a current of extremism or Salafism in the general population. Libya has a long history of Sufism that most citizens value as a cultural
tradition, yet Salafists condemn as heterodox, earning the ire of the average Libyan. Libya’s problem is that the
General National Congress has not been able to bring militias, many of which
have an Islamic bent, under the control of the new government. Weapons are
easily available thanks to Western suppliers of the revolution, and many militant groups that have been “deputized” are
only nominally under the control of the government. These groups have launched
many attacks in recent months on Sufist mausoleums and mosques, British World
War II graves, and the Tunisian consulate over an art display deemed offensive
to Islam. The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was preceded by an IED
explosion there on 6 June. The sporadic attacks have earned condemnation by
cultural societies, women’s groups, liberal organizations, and moderate
Islamists, representing a wide swathe of the Libyan population.
Attacks do
not equate with power, popularity, or prestige within Libyan society. As with
the Taliban in Afghanistan, the attacks are the last-ditch effort of
extremist groups to scare Western powers away while attracting more militants
to their cause. The film “Innocence of Muslims” gave them the perfect excuse to
do so, a rallying cry that ordinary Muslims without extremist tendencies would
respond to. Reports have already surfaced that the militant groups Ansar
al-Sharia brigade or Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb’s group Omar Abdul Rahman
brigades were the ones truly responsible for the attack, not a group of
ordinary citizens who were moved to violence because they were offended by the
film. Groups such as these needed an excuse to launch an attack, and the
confluence of the film’s Arabic-dubbed release and the anniversary of 9/11 gave
them a perfectly timed opportunity to do so.
More than
just extremism is at play in Libya. If the Salafist movement does manage to
drum up popular support given recent events, it will be because it has managed
to attract members of disenfranchised tribes that have been victims of
disproportionate aid. Libya is still very much a tribal society, like many
other countries in MENA. While some tribes have been generalized as having
supported the revolution and received the lion’s share of aid from the
government, still others have been labeled “traitors to the revolution” and
have thus been excluded and marginalized from the progress the country has made
in the last year. They are the most eligible group of recruits should the
government fail to evenly distribute resources. Benghazi is also a hotspot for
extremism because of perceived regional disenfranchisement, which has led to
calls for secession from Libya or federalism of its different regions.
Distributing aid for revenge or reward based on the revolution of 2011 will
only lead Libya down a path of destruction, not development. The coming months
will test the government’s ability to reign in the militias, redesign aid
policies, and make sure that every Libyan feels as though their citizenship is valued
equally.
A burnt out, looted room in the embassy.
In other
countries, protests have continued and U.S. embassies have been attacked.
In Cairo and Sana’a protestors managed to scale embassy walls and replace
American flags with Islamist ones, although it is unclear whether consulate staff
members were still inside at the time or had been moved to another location.
Yet other protests have occurred as well: counter-protests calling for a stop
to the chaos and pointing out that this is exactly what the extremists want. Hopeful
scenes of people in Cairo and Benghazi holding up signs denouncing violence
have also been making front-page headlines in the global media. They represent
the factions of society that may not agree with U.S. policies, but disagree
with the use of violence even more strongly.
Counter-protests in Benghazi.
All parties
involved need to weather this storm with cool heads. The film, after all, is
laughably poorly produced. Despite claims that it carried a $5 million price
tag, it looks as though it was created in a high school film class at best. The
most inflammatory comments about the Prophet appear to have been dubbed on
after production. In Arabic, many are quite clearly not correct translations of
the English version. While this does not supersede the offensive nature of the
film and the fact that it is extremely Islamophobic, it does point out that the
film is a clear-cut piece of untruthful propaganda. Most Americans would
dismiss it as hateful drivel, just as most Muslims would condemn the
assassination of a U.S. ambassador. Giving into the impulse of anger against
the film directly plays into its creators’ hands. They want Muslims to rise up violently, thus tarnishing their
relationships with the West and standing in Western eyes. They want people to shout extremist slogans
so that the West turns away from its Muslim allies and gives into anti-Islam
rhetoric being spouted from several countries and groups.
Amb.
Stevens’ murderers cannot be allowed to win, nor can the extremists on the
other end that revel in the recent violence. Balanced, objective policy
decisions need to guide the way forward from these tragedies should we wish to
prevent their reoccurrence. Libya and the rest of MENA made impressive and
unprecedented strides towards true democracy and freedom for all people within
their borders. Preserving that progress and continuing to push for more is the
key to a successful future. Giving into extremists, be they Muslim, Christian
or Jewish, is to tarnish the memory of a man who worked for peace and liberty
in a region he believed could be better.
“But we also
know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of
their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human
dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that
they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe
who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.” -Pres. Barack Obama
Ambassador Chris Stevens
A series of long-simmering conflicts have erupted across Muslim nations of North Africa and the Mideast. Western leaders are perplexed wondering how to deal with revolutions against former allies that have affected friendly and neutral governments as well as terrorist states. There are many factors at work leading to these conflagrations. Before we can make any judgments about the present situation, we need to understand the history of this conflicted region.
ReplyDeleteFollowing World War II, the former European colonial powers drew the borders for their colonies, creating the nations we know today, and appointed their rulers. The 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war changed the political dynamics of the region with the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel in its ancient religious homeland. Zionist Israel, supported by the United States and western Europe was surrounded by its Islamic enemies (from the seventh century AD). A series of wars by its Arab neighbors against Israel resulted in Israeli victories but also major changes. Among many events were Egypt’s nationalization of the British Suez Canal and an OPEC six months long oil embargo against the United States and western Europe. When the Shah of Iran was overthrown by Shia religious fanatics and the entire staff of the US embassy held captive for 444 days, Western attention became acutely focused on the Mideast. Many other crises contributed to our present dilemma.
The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq provoked military action by the United States and its allies to protect oil supplies and shipping routes. After freeing Kuwait the allies pursued the Iraqi attackers but stopped short of toppling the government. When that government was subsequently believed to be developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and preparing to attack Western assets, a second invasion of Iraq was undertaken to replace its government, to destroy its war-making capabilities and to protect our oil supplies. No WMDs were found, so a new goal was announced—installing a model democracy to help stabilize the region, i.e., nation building.
You can buy this book now on any of the following websites:
Strategic Book Publishing Rights Agency: http://sbpra.com/HenryMarkant/
Amazon Books: http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Crises-Their-Solutions-ebook/dp/B00A2WZ4CK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357573018&sr=1-1&keywords=coming+crisis+henry+markant
Barnes and Noble Books: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/coming-crises-and-their-solutions-henry-markant/1113749628?ean=2940015922875