"Evidently
formed over decades of ideological struggle with the Soviet Union, the dogmatism
of the American population doesn't give one hope that the Quran burning
promised by the pastor won't eventually occur. … So what should Russia do in
this situation? Whom should it embrace and from whom should it distance itself?"
Last week it became obvious
that the world is half a step away from a dangerous line. The beginning of the
Third World War has been postponed. For how long?
Just Thursday, it seemed that
the Rubicon had been crossed and that on September 11, the anniversary of the
terrorist attacks on the United States, Pastor Terry Jones would carry out his threat
to publicly burn 200 copies of the Quran. The photos of this auto-da-fe would
then have gotten into newspapers, provoking an uprising of protest from the
Muslim world unprecedented in its scale.
Then everything would have escalated.
After the inevitable wave of terrorist attacks and attacks on Americans - and
not only in “hot spots” - would have come Western accusations that Iran was supporting
the radicals. Amid the obvious attempts by “the regime of the ayatollahs” to develop
nuclear weapons, any provocation, even an accident, will be enough to provoke
an armed conflict. Events would then snowball, capture the Islamic “street” in
various countries and give impetus to a Third World War.
Alarmist? Perhaps. But evidently
formed over decades of ideological struggle with the Soviet Union, the dogmatism
of the American population doesn't give one hope that the Quran burning
promised by the pastor won't eventually occur. Suffice it to recall the polling
results of people in America in connection to the case of Terry Jones. When
asked what they think of the pastor’s plans, Americans largely express disapproval
of his ideas. And this is commendable. But they then added that the pastor has
every right to burn the Quran, since the freedom of expression is guaranteed by
the Constitution.
All the logic of presidents,
heads of diplomatic missions and military agencies of both Old and the New
Worlds, who speak of the real danger posed to the world by Jones’ provocation, resulted
in a simple, unicellular answer - he can burn the Quran. The law doesn't
prohibit this. And that’s that.
On Friday it became known
that for the moment, the pastor has been persuaded to abandon “playing with
matches.” Instead of destroying holy books on September 11, he would meet with
the leader of New York’s Muslim community. The theme of the conversation is not
at all theological - moving a mosque which city authorities have given Muslims
a permit to build in the immediate proximity of the twin towers site. Jones
even specifically addressed his supporters, asking them not to burn anything on
September 11 because “the time is not yet ripe.” But the stubborn pastor warned
all parties concerned: he has called off his action only in exchange for a
promise, obtained from one of the leaders of the state’s Muslim Islamic
community, to move the mosque to a different location. But since no one has confirmed
such a promise, the pastor said that the Quran burning has only been postponed
until circumstances can be clarified.
One Rossiyskaya Gazeta
reader who commented on this story drew attention to two questions that remain
unanswered. The first is that radicals in many countries will, without hesitation,
burn before the cameras the American flag - a symbol of state no less holy for
many United States residents. And no one interferes with this self expression. Also
- these bonfires are accepted throughout the world as something natural, as if
this is how it should be. His second point is the following: all prominent
terrorist attacks over recent years have been committed by followers of Islam. Terrorist
attacks involving Christians or Buddhists are unknown. So why the Muslims? What
is it - is it the modern prototype of the Crusades, or an attempt by an
entirely unknown “third power” to instigate a new, religious world war to
impose a geopolitical revision of the world?
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
All of these ideas would remain
speculative, if not for the opinion of one very authoritative person whom it is
difficult to accuse of excessive alarmism. Last week, the former leader of Cuba,
Fidel Castro, in interview with an American journalist, offered
his vision of the modern world in relation to the Almighty. The global
media highlighted and developed one theme - Castro’s statement about the unsuitability
of the old economic model in today’s Cuba. But Castro spoke of something else
entirely, and had in mind the Freedom Island’s denial of ideals of the
revolution. The 84-year-old leader of the country, who has strong insight and a
fantastic political sense, is attempting for the umpteenth time to warn of the
approach of a new conflict, the central protagonist of which will be nuclear
weapons.
Almost all of Castro’s recent
statements center on the struggle for peace. And he repeatedly refers to three
countries which, in his opinion, will decide whether there will be a Third
World War - Israel, the United States and Iran. Statements by the Comandante
about the need of change Cuba’s economic model are nothing but an attempt to
save his own country in the event of an armed conflict. Indeed, because in this
case, the world would rapidly change. Many of Cuba’s usual partners would be
unable to meet their obligations and Havana will have to be ready.
Within the public mind, a critical
mass of facts has accumulated that speak of the rise of religious, and more
precisely, civilizational tension. Last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel
presented the Dutch artist who painted the caricatures of the Prophet
Muhammad with a press freedom award.
These cartoons resulted in large-scale
protests in countries with predominantlyMuslim populations. Even governments relatively loyal
to the West were powerless to contain the protests of the "street." It
took a long time and many apologies from leaders in the Old and the New Worlds
to cool passions. And now the cartoonist, whose work created a firestorm, has
been awarded for his provocation.
Last week a provincial German
doctor hung
a sign on his clinic door, on which he announced that services to Muslims would
be offered only if they comply with certain conditions. In particular, they
should speak German proficiently, come without headscarves, not make disruptive
noise, monitor the behavior of their children, etc. After the incident became known,
the doctor’s colleagues condemned him of being intolerant. It may nevertheless
turn out that in time, the doctor will become a national hero for demanding
that Islam-practicing immigrants abide by Western civilizational norms.
So what should Russia do in
this situation? Whom should it embrace and from whom should it distance itself?
Last week a meeting of the Valdia
Discussion Club concluded. Like last year, it culminated with a meeting between
foreign political scientists and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. There's no need
to repeat the foreign and domestic policy considerations of the head of the
Russian government. All of these were discussed last week in Russkaya Gazeta
by German political scientist Alexander
Rahr.
But one point is worth noting.
Putin pays much less attention today to the development of a partnership
between Russia and China than between Russia and Europe. He recognizes the
importance of a dialogue with the West, but it's obvious that he looks with more
hope to the East. This choice, however dubious at first glance, can protect our
country from many future troubles by keeping it on the “outskirts” of any
impending military activity - and at a time in which the Old and New Worlds
will be in their epicenter.
Pastor Jones and his
followers, which as recent events confirm, are numerous, have put off the burning
of the Quran. But for how long?
