Some European countries rush to humbly apologize to crowds throwing stones and smoke bombs at their embassies, others try to save face by demonstratively distancing themselves from the conflict, and still others simply stop sending money to states whose residents apparently regard humanitarian aid from Europe as a kind of tribute paid by the vanquished to the victors.
The "holy war" has been shaking the walls of the Brussels language school English Academy for over a week now. While Danes, Germans, French and Spaniards, even the eternal rivals Flemings and Walloons, peacefully master the next "future indefinite", their fellow Muslim students with Belgian passports in their pockets suddenly decided to exercise in a completely different discipline - the fight against discrimination. As such, they regard the school curriculum - politics and religion, love and sex, as well as other signs of European degradation - which should become taboo for teachers who have the high honor of teaching faithful students. The school's teaching staff mostly consists of women, and they are also not delighted with this contingent of students - the teachers complain about the emphatically disrespectful attitude and rude antics of their Muslim charges. They even hired a lawyer to represent their interests in court. However, the school management turned out to be absolutely helpless. What to do? Seek a compromise, negotiate, show understanding and agreement to the demands of, after all, solvent clients, or throw them out of the classrooms?
Just a couple of hundred meters further down the street, in the glass palaces of the European Commission and the European Parliament, the leaders of a united Europe are puzzling over similar questions - only the scale of the problems facing them is far more impressive. Since the very day the publication of the ill-fated Danish cartoons prompted Islamic activists around the world to protest and commit acts of violence against Denmark and the entire West, the EU has been seeking its own position in this conflict. So far, in vain. In principle, this crisis could well have become the "finest hour" of the EU: only a common foreign and security policy, as European leaders have been loudly declaring for a long time, gives significance to the values and interests of the people of the Old Continent. But if it suddenly comes to putting these wonderful intentions into practice, the 25 partner countries cannot get along with each other.
The idea of convening an emergency meeting of foreign ministers or even EU leaders (in view of burning European embassies) was put forward long ago, but was rejected - too dangerous. Firstly, among EU member states, one way or another, there is no agreement on the conflict between freedom of speech and respect for religious feelings. Secondly, such a meeting could further whip up the already raging crowds in Islamic countries. So Europe preferred to throw tons of incoherent statements, explanations and appeals into the fire. If you listen to all the statements in just one week, the picture is as follows: violence is bad, we strongly condemn it and support our Danish friends. However, our Danish friends are stupid people, and must all apologize to Muslims for the rest of their days.
The media hear calls to "show restraint and refuse to escalate violence", and these calls are strangely addressed to Europeans, who have so far not been noticed in storming embassies or kidnapping anyone. However, all these verbal evasions please the inhabitants of Europe or calm the raging passions just as little as the fanatical crowds proclaiming anathema to the West. On the contrary - as soon as EU financial commissioner Peter Mandelson warned Iran about the inadmissibility of boycotting Danish products (this measure, as he put it, is "absolutely inappropriate"), the Iranian government in response announced an indefinite boycott on trade with Denmark.
The joint call of the EU, the UN and the Organization of Islamic States for "calm and harmony" also did not have the desired effect. Religious pogroms continue to occur in Lebanon and Iraq, in Pakistan and Indian Kashmir, in Indonesia and Iran - tens of thousands of demonstrators burn with equal ease both the flags of hated states and cars with houses. Europe also gets it: in Brussels itself, the newly formed "Front of the Faithful" marches, in London, ringleaders who came from nowhere call on thousands of their co-religionists to "tear off the heads of Christians". Instead of responding to all this responsibly and decisively, Europe not only puts itself in the position of a defending side, but also demonstrates that this defense cannot boast of unity at all.
Peter Mandelson states: "A boycott of Danish goods means, by definition, a boycott of European goods." "Nothing of the sort," the leaders of large trading corporations object. "We only benefit if they start buying our products in the East instead of Danish ones." And they do their best to please their customers so dear to their hearts. The Swiss firm Nestle informed its customers in the Middle East that its dairy products do not contain milk from Danish cows. The Egyptian branch of the French supermarket chain Carrefour hastily cleared its shelves of Danish products and obsequiously informed "dear customers" that this was done in solidarity with the just protest of Muslims. That is, among other things, in solidarity with the arson attacks on embassies of European countries and, in particular, the French embassy in Tehran.
With the principle of freedom of speech, not everything is clear either. On the one hand, it is a fundamental foundation of European democracy, as stated in one of the resolutions adopted by the European Parliament. On the other hand, this principle must be linked to "responsibility and respect for religious feelings," which were offended by the Danish cartoonist. Fine words, but they are very difficult to interpret unambiguously: in the end, one can arrive at the terrible thought that freedom of speech is restricted by religious factors, and from experience it is known that these factors are somehow always dictated by followers of Muhammad – and not even all of them, but only those who at any moment can blow something up or at least throw stones. How can one not recall Stalin's definition of freedom as conscious necessity?
French President Jacques Chirac, with six million highly excitable Muslim residents of the country before his eyes, suddenly in his public argumentation turned into almost a model Iranian "guardian of the Islamic revolution": the reprinting of the Danish cartoons by French publications is a provocation. The Vatican, on the contrary, calls for a crusade. Pope Benedict XVI demanded of Roberto Calderoli, the minister of state reforms in Berlusconi's cabinet, that he, like his predecessors of the 16th-17th centuries, "stand at the head of the Christian world against the Islamic threat." Just as in those times when the troops of the Ottoman Empire stood under the walls of Vienna, the Pope believes, the hour of struggle has come.
Instead of the Italian government's response that had been expected so far, the reaction came "from the other side": the son of the leader of the Libyan revolution, the "black colonel" Muammar al-Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, put forward his demands to Berlusconi: the latter must "dismiss the minister and apologize to Islam." Otherwise, they say, Libya, the Arab world, and Islam will react themselves.
In any case, it is already clear now: firstly, the theme of apologies has overnight become very popular among Muslims – Europeans should apologize for the cartoons, for celebrating Valentine's Day (a protest demonstration against this event was recently held in London), for supporting Israel, for America... In short, for everything that it pleases them to present as an accusation. Moreover, to apologize in deeds: to dismiss those who are objectionable, to adjust foreign policy in the right direction, and most importantly – to pay, pay, and pay tribute. Pardon – humanitarian aid. Secondly, the promised "reaction" absolutely does not depend on whether there is anything to react to or not. "You are guilty simply because I want to eat."
Boris ALTNER. IA Rosbalt