The life of Alexander Litvinenko is movie material. In November, 2006 he fell gravely ill in London from what would turn out to be Plutonium poisoning, and died shortly thereafter. British authorities traced a radioactive trail back to Russia, leading to a request for the extradition of two former KGB officers, which was refused.
Litvinenko, himself a former Soviet KGB, and later FSB (Russian federal security service) agent was granted political asylum in England after fleeing Russia in fear of arrest. While in Great Britain he was highly critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Among the nefarious accusations Litvinenko leveled against the Putin government was provoking the Danish Mohammed Cartoon controversy in a revenge operation carried out by the FSB through the hosting of proxy servers that disseminated the cartoon throughout the internet. This accusation has yet to be corroborated, but go with the idea, and in any case the result of the cartoon is not in doubt: outrage and weeks of protest across Europe and the rest of the world. Video clips of protesting Muslims were shown across media networks, and many Judeo-Christian Westerners had no idea what was going on or why some Muslims had been so provoked.
Or take the “Innocence of Muslims,” the youtube video that most recently stirred up controversy and protest. This had been available online since July 1st, and it was not until September 8th (timed to coincide with the September 11th anniversary) that it began to gain attention after being posted on a cleric’s website. This controversy was also orchestrated.
Again Muslims throughout the world would demonstrate against the insult and blaspheme this movie brought against Islam, and again the issue of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims was discussed throughout Western media as images of protest flashed across television screens.
What was the result of these episodes? Perhaps there were a few inroads made and some took this as an opportunity to create better cultural understanding. But most chose a team from the two distinct sides in an unresolved and misunderstood conflict. Nothing was settled, and it’s only a matter of time until the next provocation comes and the cycle will begin all over again. For some it’s a matter of respect for something dear, and for others it’s a matter of freedom of speech. But actually it is neither. In fact the crux of the issue is power and those who want to have and keep it.
Unfortunately the main benefactors of these two controversies are proponents of the “clash of civilizations” narrative. Their story is all to familiar: Islam and Christendom have been nemeses ever since the Crusades and are presently fighting each other for world domination. This narrative is epic and would make for a great show in a theater, but unfortunately these people aren’t film directors.
And reality is no movie, especially to people who suffer the consequences in conflicts inflamed with a religious narrative. Proponents of the clash of civilizations are looking for epic ways to describe local and regional conflicts that have much more to do with economics and its offshoots, politics and resources, than with religion, and they are the ones who gain. Religious provocations are disguised grabs for, and maintenance of, power, and they take advantage of peoples’ passionate feelings against their own advantage. When we inadvertently think of things in this narrative the primal “us” versus “them” instinct is engaged, and it becomes that much easier to support the next military action or disregard a civil war.
View the Original article
0 comments:
Post a Comment