The
Muslim World Reacts
For
the international world this past week has been anything but uneventful as
tensions between America and the Middle East have steadily increased. Most of
this is due to the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” that has at this
point achieved widespread notoriety. The
film sparked an enormous protest throughout the Muslim world and in Libya the
protest erupted during the 11th anniversary of the World Trade Center
(NY Daily News 1). The protest grew extremely violent and resulted in the death
of US ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other US citizens. From Libya
the issue escalated as protestors began demonstrating at US embassies across
the Middle East in countries like Yemen and Egypt (Newsday 1).
In a response to the escalation of
these events President Obama spoke with President Morsi on Wednesday to address
Egypt’s actions, or lack of action during the protests. Throughout much of the
week the government had little to say as Morsi attempted to find middle ground within
this political hotbed. This situation has not only put President Morsi under
pressure but it is also a trial by fire for the Muslim Brotherhood as it is
forced to deal with both Muslim outcries against the prophet Muhammad and US
pressure to condemn the violence taking place. These competing forces have resulted
in conflicting messages from the Brotherhoods officials. On one Arabic twitter
feed the Brotherhood supported the “Egyptians [who rose] up to support Muhammad
in front of the American Embassy” (Kirpatrick 11). Two days later another
message was sent out on an English feed with support for America, the US
responded to this message with a “thanks; by the way have you checked out your
own Arabic feeds? I hope you know we read those too” (11).
In a situation such as this the
question of security immediately comes into play. After 9/11 the biggest fear
of the US has been another terrorist attack on American soil so even before the
protests the US was already on high alert due to the 9/11 anniversary for any possible terrorist attacks. What’s more
for some time the US had been considering better security abroad for
ambassadors and US embassies (MacFarquhar 10). Some however were
opposed to the idea of adding to their security as it would deter feelings of
goodwill with locals (10). In light of the recent events however the need for
better security will be quite apparent, especially as an expression of US power.
According to Realists if the US cannot protect its own diplomats abroad it will
be seen as weak and may affect the perception of the distribution of power. What’s more, the relationship between the US
and Egypt is nowhere near as binding as it is with its other formal allies. There
is no legal treaty between them and so that makes Egypt’s actions in situations
such as these all the more speculative, and in some cases possibly a threat to
the US as noted by President Obama when he said that “Egypt was not necessarily
an ally” (Kirpatrick 11).
This
is one of the reasons why President Morsi’s response to President is so
important, as it demonstrates the influence the US has within the Egyptian
government. It also speaks volumes for the ways in which Egypt establishes its
own security. Egypt’s main priority after all is also state survival and in
order to maintain that, the Egyptian government recognized the need for
deferring to a more powerful state, in this case the US, concurring with the
theory of realism.
The
situation in Egypt is not only a present security threat for US Foreign Office
representatives but it could also affect long term US security interest in the
region. Since the Arab Spring the US has been backing the Egyptian government
in order to improve relations in the region, which in turn will add to American
security. This would give the US a valuable foothold in the very region where
there are the most threats to America. A bad relationship would also affect
Egypt’s foreign policy with neighboring Israel and may complicate US relations
with other Muslim nations in the region.
However there are still some questions regarding this situation and its possible outcomes. The anti-American hostilities are not necessarily over and it remains to be seen whether or not governments are able to put down the protest. There is also the question of what the US will do in order to reassert its power in the region, and if the death of the US ambassador will be without some type of repercussions. The course of action that the US does take and the success to which it is carried out will be of great interest to other states as a measure of American juridical power. If the US fails to obtain mastery of the situation other nations might began to have misgivings about the US’ ability to influence other countries and some nations or organizations may take advantage of America’s perceived weakness.
However there are still some questions regarding this situation and its possible outcomes. The anti-American hostilities are not necessarily over and it remains to be seen whether or not governments are able to put down the protest. There is also the question of what the US will do in order to reassert its power in the region, and if the death of the US ambassador will be without some type of repercussions. The course of action that the US does take and the success to which it is carried out will be of great interest to other states as a measure of American juridical power. If the US fails to obtain mastery of the situation other nations might began to have misgivings about the US’ ability to influence other countries and some nations or organizations may take advantage of America’s perceived weakness.
Other
questions stemming from this would include the extent of the relationship
between Egypt and the US in the future. President Morsi is the first civilian
elected president and the call for democracy in Egypt since the Arab Spring
demonstrates the change that is coming to the Middle East, and the US would
obviously prefer a change that is in their favor. Realist however are aware
that Egyptian cooperation is not the only factor and Muslim everywhere will be
watching the US for their reactions to those who were responsible for the film.
Already the US has asked YouTube to consider taking the movie of the internet
and in Egypt and in Libya it has been removed in order to help appease the
violence. However Google and YouTube are private corporations, so nations will
be more concerned with what the US will do in regards to the film’s producer,
who was recently taken in to custody. This is a situation that is still in
development and so as of yet there is
still much to be speculated and guessed at.
Works
Cited
Kirpatrick, David D., Helene Cooper, and Mark Landler.
"Egypt, Hearing From Obama,
Moves
to Heal Rift From Protests." The
New York Times Sept.-Oct.
2012,
Washington
ed.: 1+. Print.
MacFarquhar, Neil. "Diplomats Pulled 2 Ways, Between
High Walls and Open Doors."
The New York Times Sept.-Oct. 2012,
Washington ed.: 10. Print
"Protests against Anti-Islam Film Erupt across Muslim
World." NY Daily News. The
Associated Press,
Sept.-Oct. 2012. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/protests-film-spread-muslim-world-article-1.1159601>
"Embassies Targeted as Protests against 'Innocence of
Muslims' Film Spread." Newsday.
Associated Press,
Sept.-Oct. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/embassies-targeted-as-protests-against-innocence-of-muslims-film-spread-1.4002175>.
I really like the topic you chose, the US interest in the Middle East is a fascinating topic that can be examined through many lenses. That being said, what actions by the US in regards to the protests are in line with neoliberal theory? Part of me thinks of the US interest as purely security orientated, but I wonder if the imposition of democratic ideology is also a motive. Thanks!
ReplyDeletePart of the neoliberal theory rests on the idea that multilateral solutions are needed in order to address issues that occur at a state level. The protests in Egypt were a physical disruption of peace in Egypt and if the liberal theory were to hold true,then that would mean that these disruptions were a threat to the whole region and global community. As a result nations have the right under liberalism to take part in the resolution of the conflict as it would correspond with global governance. During the protests US officials began "working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel [and]... citizens worldwide" (CNN). In libya this cooperation took the form US drones gathering intelligence that would be returned to Libyan government which is entirely inline with neoliberalism as is the reliance on President Morsi. And while the US is primarily concerned with security in Egypt the extent of American involvement in the past election can undoubtedly be considered as a push of democratic ideals. The ousting of 30 year President Mubarak was approved by the US and in addition the Obama administration threatened to restrict economic aid to SCAF if power was not promptly transfered from the military. All of which adds to the plausibility that security was not the only objective of US involvement.
DeleteDaniella
Because they are more of a multi-national (or would international be a better term?) organization, how do you suppose Realists would react to the duality in the Muslim Brotherhood's twitter feeds? Realists are primarily concerned with the relations between states, so how would the Muslim Brotherhood factor in? I understand that asking that question definitely puts a more neoliberal spin on this topic, but I would like your opinion. Is a tweet from an international organization something to be taken seriously in terms of international relations?
ReplyDeleteThe confusion demonstrated by the Muslim Brotherhood during the Egyptian protest at first glance may not seem to carry much weight in the mind of a realist. Realists are concerned with the actions by states but in the case of Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is an extremely powerful entity that comprises the state. In the election the MB gained a majority in both houses of the legislative branch and the President himself is a member of the brotherhood, so therefore public communications by the MB are a reasonable indicator of the Egyptian governments’ stance on an issue. But in terms of formal international relations tweets are in no way formal declarations of policy. However they do provide a more raw interpretation of the governments’ sentiments and in the case of the protests these competing tweets demonstrate the confusion from the government. Therefor as an indicator of internal attitudes it makes sense for governments to monitor the social media feeds of other nations.
DeleteIt is very difficult to talk about an issue like the protests in the Middle East, especially while they are happening, as you did. Now that time has passed, do you feel any developments have been made that support or refute your points?
ReplyDeleteIn the days following the violence, Fareed Zakaria, an IR specialist and commentator, made a statement on his television show about the unfortunate situation. He said that it was important to keep in mind that these protests were lead by a small minority in the Middle East, and that there is still a large population in the region that supports US actions there. Do you agree that these events were the result of minority extremism or that anti-American sentiments are just strong as these events suggest?
I really like how you incorporated the effects of social media on the issue. Twitter and of course YouTube were a huge part of these protests. Do you think technology is adding a new dimension to IR? Does its use prove or disprove any of the theories we have learned about? Looking within our own country, should freedom of speech and expression be limited when it puts our national security in danger? Should YouTube be made to remove the video?
Sorry so many questions! I'm interested to hear anyone's thoughts on any of the questions I've asked, I didnt mean to pose them all to you Daniella!
As of yet there is still some light that needs to be shed in regards to the attacks on the US embassies in Libya and Egypt. According to a recent article on CBC news the attacks on the US citizens were part of an “organized two part operation by heavily armed militants” and the civilian protest were simply a means of distracting security forces. The civilians who were involved in the protest who were unaware of any premeditated attacks are in my opinion a representation of the small group of those who are anti-American. There are, I’m sure more extremist within in the Middle East but I do believe that a majority of those living in Muslim nations do not harbor resentment or ill will against the US. Nor are those who do critic the US necessarily prone to violent protests the types of which we have recently seen. The events we have seen only represent a small fraction of the Arab world.
ReplyDeleteAfter the events of the Arab Spring I would say the technology and social media in particular have definitely changed international relations. The uprisings that began in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria were aided by exactly these types of tools. Moreover twitter and sites like YouTube provide people with a public forum that has a global audience and allows people to put more pressure on their government. This idea known as the “two level game” dictates that people at the domestic level can affect the actions of a state is most directly benefited by the extent of social media. However to a realist these sites would be little more than another outlet in which governments can express their power. YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are not public corporations nor are they states so their actions would be of no importance to realists who believe that only states are involved in international relations. However for liberalist social media plays a more important role as it affects the power of the individuals at a domestic level. This increase in influence forces governments to be more accountable to their citizens and promotes the liberal theory that the government should serve the people.
Now within the United States government the abridging of individual liberties like freedom of speech and expression is not entirely a new concept. Throughout history the government has been known to restrict these rights, usually during periods of war and there are some certain types of speech that are in fact not protected by the constitution. Forms of expression and speech that presents a clear and present danger are the main examples of this kind of restriction. In the current situation with the film “Innocence of Islam” there was in fact a danger posed to US citizens and under the criteria of the US could have been restricted, except for the fact that the danger does not exist to the same extent here that it does abroad. Google has only taken the film down in Egypt and Libya and it is still available for viewing in the US as it has not violated any of their guidelines. This issue is not as clear cut as it would seem, the “Innocence of Muslims” is a form of speech and I believe that at least in the US, so long as it doesn’t endanger lives, it should be protected. However in places where any portrayal of Muhammad is prohibited it should be restricted because as an international corporation YouTube and Google are restricted by the laws of their host nation as is any other corporation.
Great questions, I hope I answered them all.