Are the attacks in Egypt a culture clash?
This week there have been terrible attacks on our embassy in
Cairo and a consulate in Libya. These
attacks were brutal and riotous. Have you ever been a part of riot? When riots
happen they start from protests about injustice or conflicting virtue. It
starts from some catalyst. In Benghazi
it was a gunshot. When I was in Quebec
this year a simple protest could have turned into a riot when one of the
protesters rushed at the police line, and one of my students waiting in a
doorway shouted an insult at the crowd. Fortunately this did not happen. But
the diplomats in Benghazi
were not as lucky. If both parties took a closer look at the elements of the
conflict that created the protest there is always hope that the protest will
stop escalating and settle into diversion.
In order for this to happen both sides must have a good
understanding of each others point of view. In the case of the student protest
in Quebec the
conflict was about college tuition hikes and a voice in government. Which was
more important to the students? When the Parliament ruled their strike illegal
things heated up very significantly, and my students and I got out of
town. I think one of the things
diplomats need to know is when to leave town. More importantly both parties
must strive to have a better understanding of what is at the root of the
conflict. In the case of the Anti-Muslim video that caused so much offense some
helpful questions could settle an injustice by pointing out the conflicting virtues.
When I was Egypt
in 2007 I had the privilege of visiting a private school. While we were there I
took the time to draw out one of the social studies teachers on their
curriculum. He was very upset when he showed me copies of the new text books he
was required to use by the government. They were history books. They started
with the pyramids and then quickly fast forwarded to Nasser.
He looked at me with tears in his eyes and told me he can no longer teach about
the enlightenment. I would argue that if students do not have the opportunity
to study the enlightenment then they will never understand the western mind. He
seemed to agree with me. At least in Egypt I noticed there were
significant differences by what was meant by freedom of speech inside and outside
of the country.
While I was in Egypt I also had the opportunity to
meet with a Coptic Christian women who was desperate to leave the country. At
one time the Christians in Egypt
were treated very favorably, and held key positions of power. The status of the
Coptic Christians in Egypt
was deteriorating with each passing year. This was still when Hosni Mubarak was
still in power. With the Arab Spring I am sure that their position is even less
favorable. Remembering what you used to have, and resenting it being taken from
you has a way of turning into revenge. Perhaps there was enough revenge that in
the ideals of the Coptics the offensive video was justified. America saw the
creation of the video as an expression of freedom of speech. The Muslim world
saw the video as a direct attack on their God. Since God gives us eternal life,
then any action even death is justified to correct this injustice. In the eyes of the Coptic Christians it could
be revenge. Since they used to have power, and now no longer do, then have been
persecuted and would like lash out to inflict pain on the people who have
offended them.
Is this a culture clash? I think it is more of about special interests protecting their interests. This conflict was not about freedom
of speech. It was about misunderstanding speech. What are the elements common
to all parties? They are all offended. America is offended because they
have been unfairly attacked with causalities. Islam is offended because their
prophet was attacked and their God blasphemed. The Coptic Christians are
seeking revenge for being demoted from the Egyptian upper class. America must
attempt to walk in the shoes of those in the Arab world. We understand revenge. We
understand disrespect and offense. We even have a limited understanding of what
blasphemy is. The temptation to react instead of respond further escalates the
conflict. Instead of a culture clash we should try to respond to the core of
the conflict. To the Arab people we must respond to the perceived blasphemy by
demonstrating our desire to protect religious expression. One way to do this is
to take action to restrict our own media. Because our country believes in
freedom of expression we can not go after the people behind the video. Instead
we can show how we regulate expression by showing the Arab people how we
prohibit this expression in certain settings. We should do everything in our
power to create a timeline without offense to reduce the possibility of more
violence.
In the end game the Arab people must understand our value
system as we attempt to understand theirs. We must take the initiative to
demonstrate this by regulating our self expression and then reach out to
explain our value system to the blind spots in Arab understanding. We can do
this the same way that they were offended by sending them videos in Arabic that
explain our desire to protect religious expression guaranteed in the first
amendment of our constitution. The root of the conflict is misunderstanding. We
must strive to be understood.
