My Notebook: When the Danes woke up to 'global' reality
By Hardev Kaur
September 29, 2006
New Straits Times
Denmark lost its innocence with the cartoons. The reaction from the rest of the world shocked the Danes. They had never seen their flag being burned or demonstrations against their nation in front of their embassies overseas.
The government's reaction did not help. It did nothing to placate the Muslim ambassadors for at least four months. The reaction and anger spread round the Muslim world and the Danes, who were under siege, found that globalisation had arrived at their doorsteps.
It was no longer a case of the Danish newspaper, or any newspaper for that matter, catering to the local audience alone. The news may be local but the audience is global. With the Internet, modern and instant communications, the audience is worldwide. There is a new reality to which the Danes and indeed the rest of the world must accept.
The cartoon controversy, or cartoon conflict as it came to be labelled, refused to go away. Denmark was no longer isolated nor insulated from the rest of the world. The argument that it is "My Law, My Country, My Constitution" is not enough, according to the Secretary-General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.
At a recent meeting of Eisenhower Fellows in Istanbul, the Danish Minister of Education and Religious Affairs, Bertel Haarder, was told the "ugly, uncivilised and rude depiction of the Prophet is unacceptable". And, he was reminded, there is a moral and political responsibility on the part of the Danish government, and indeed all governments, to deal with the realities of the modern world.
The Danish weekly newspaper Monday Morning together with the Nordic Council, the World Economic Forum's Council of 100 (C-100) and the Asia-Europe Foundation, took the initiative and organised "The Copenhagen Lab of Co-Existence". It brought together individuals from around the world, public figures, scholars, media, business and religious leaders to consider the global diversity and issues, including religious and cultural differences, that affect people and how they can be tackled. It aimed, with open and frank debate on global co-existence, to establish a "vision for future co-existence".
But even as groups and associations such as these try to do something about co-existence and better understanding, the statements from powerful and influential people such as President George W. Bush and the Pope, quoting from the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, do not help.
High-profile personalities do more damage and their word spreads faster around the world. The effects are longer lasting, too. From being the "war on terror", Bush's remarks last month (following the foiled plot in London to blow up US-bound flights) that "this nation is at war with Islamic fascists" only served to fuel more anger among Muslims.
Bush — who wasted an opportunity to get support from the Islamic world after the Sept 11 attacks — upset many Muslims by referring to the global war against terrorism as a "crusade" – a term which for many Muslims connotes a Christian battle against Islam.
Even though the White House and Bush stopped using the word, the damage had been done. The Muslim world saw it as an affront and as a true reflection of what the President really thinks.
Then, there are double standards in the West. It was pointed out that anything written or said that is seen as being "anti-Jew" or "anti-Semitic" is immediately condemned. But in the case of the Danish cartoons the reaction, indeed inaction, from Western governments smacked of hypocrisy.
While the Pope has apologised and met ambassadors from Muslim nations to the Vatican, there is no denying the outrage his remarks have caused among Muslims worldwide. It is hoped that the "appeal for dialogue" from the Pope will open a new frontier between the different faiths and lead to mutual understanding and respect. It is unfortunate that despite the explosion of information there are more and increasing differences in the world.
Modern communications and the increased flow of information should help us understand each other better. But it does not seem to be happening. It is for the leaders to set a good example of tolerance, mutual understanding and accommodation.
The argument that there is Press freedom in the West and that governments do not have a say does not mean there is freedom to insult and denigrate another's beliefs. Even in Denmark, where the cartoons were first published, there is no absolute freedom as there is protection against blasphemy.
The efforts of organisations and individuals to work for better understanding among different faiths and cultures takes a longer time and harder work. It is easy to destroy and much harder to rebuild, and it is incumbent on leaders, religious and political, not to make things more difficult than they already are.