Springtime of Discontent

 

In the winter of 2011, a Tunisian spark flamed into the Arab Spring, which has fanned, in one form or another, throughout the Muslim world. The flames have cremated Muammar Qaddafi and Hosni Mubarak, and currently threaten the House of Assad.[ii]   Today many former Arab Spring supporters who threw fuel into the Muslim flames are not only disheartened at the violent 11 September film protests, but also feel betrayed; meanwhile, those who feared Muslim democracy would unleash greater evils are currently wagging their told-you-so fingers. Both sides are flying too near the Arab Spring fire to provide an accurate and proper analysis.

 

In the fall of 1988, the publication of the The Satanic Verses set off a Muslim firestorm that resulted in Ayatollah Khamenei calling for author Salman Rushdie’s head. Violent protests outside the American Cultural Center in Islamabad resulted in the deaths of six people, and protestors torched books in India. Protests also occurred in 2005—due to the depiction of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish Editorial Cartoon—despite governments that were similarly anti-democratic to those in existence in 1988.

 

Following the publication of caricatures of the prophet Muhammad in Denmark in 2005, angry Muslims in Syria torched the Danish and Norwegian embassies. In Yemen 100,000 women marched in protest of the cartoons and in Gaza, Danish flags went up in flames. In the summer of 2005, grassroots activists managed to convince fifty-seven Muslim countries to boycott a Danish exhibition held in Denmark.[iii] The following year U.S. News & World Report stated:

 

 

The Arab Spring developed in no small part through the popular support for toppling dictatorial regimes, and the fire will smolder if the populations of the Arab Spring do not continue to fan the flames. Those who preferred that President George W. Bush keep his democratic ideals limited to America’s shores should take note that the variable of popular support has the potential to restrain fundamentalist Islamic Arab Spring governments. It is unwise to predict that the Arab Spring will develop into an anti-democratic power. The Islamic parties that rose to power in Arab Spring states did so with popular support, and those supporters expect their democratically elected parties to adhere to the will of the people. It is too early to determine if these states will attempt to impose Islamic fundamentalism upon their people, but not too early to see that those people expect their new leaders to one-day stand up for reelection. This expectation is a far stronger force than any that attempted to restrain the atrocities of the former regimes.[v]

 

Not all Muslim parties act together. For instance, according to a Washington Post story this past March, senior Hamas leader Salah al-Bardaweel, stated that his organization would restrain itself if Israel struck Iran.[vi] Hamas is not at all pleased that the Islamic regime of Iran is not supporting Muslim fighters attempting to overthrow Assad. Neither is the Arab Spring a unitary movement headed by an all-directing politic; failure to properly understand this produces unfounded fears. The protests of 1989 and 2005 demonstrate that the film protests are not a unique byproduct of the Arab Spring.

 

There is no reason to believe Western nations must endure  more  difficulties weathering the film protests than they did the former protests, even though pro-Western dictators are no longer in power. There are many within the Arab Spring who clearly would like to continue to receive Western aid and support. Fundamentalist Muslims in Libya begged NATO to drop bombs on Qaddafi’s head; Muslims in Syria are eager for the same NATO warplanes to give Assad a good pounding. Western nations have indeed supported the Arab Spring with much-desired monies and aid. Presently, it is simply not in the self-interest of many Muslims to bite a hand that feeds them. At a later date some Arab Spring states may indeed turn on the West, but even if this occurs   it is not likely that all Muslims in every Arab country will pick a fight over a film. Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi does not appear eager to lose the $1.3 billion dollars of military aid the United States provides his government; he and his peers will likely continue to be careful in their treatment of Western nations.[vii] 

 

Neither is this the time for the West to cease heralding democracy nor lament that it wished Muslims remained under the boots of men like Qaddafi. On the contrary, if diplomatic missions are to be properly maintained this is the time for the West to demand that Arab Spring governments properly protect those missions and present a list of severe consequences if further attacks occur.

 

Those who claim that the West was more secure prior to the Arab Spring seem to have forgotten Qaddafi’s chemical weapons and Syria’s nuclear reactor. It is yet unclear how these Arab Spring states will develop. As Condoleezza Rice stated in 2005 at the American University in Cairo:

 

 

The Arab Spring is not over, and though men desire to impose their will on others, it should not be  prophesized that it will end as badly as many fear. It is yet too early to judge how powerful a restraint the will of the electoral public might be against Islamic fundamentalism. Though anti-democrats, opportunistic leaders, and terrorist organizations will fervently support the film protests, Muslim discontent over the film is not likely to turn the Arab Spring into an Arab Winter. The protests would have occurred with or without Muslim necks under the boots of pro-Western dictators. The film protests will pass, but Western governments need to be firm and properly defend their diplomatic missions while adhering to Bush’s belief that the “desire for freedom resides in every human heart.”[ix]

 

Taro-kun is a pseudonym. He graduated from the University of Hawaii with a B.A. in Asian studies and has a graduate certificate in National Security and Strategic Studies from Hawaii Pacific University. Comments may be emailed to: [email protected] 

---