European
politicians seem to get primitive logic. They even seem to lose their intuition
– the obligatory property for any successful politician.
In order to
help European politicians to save their reputations and careers we are going to
publish the opinions of sensible experts on the most important issues.
Below is the
first such opinion: Sergey Kurginyan (evil tongues say that he is the eminence
grise of Russian politics) comments on Charlie Hebdo incident.
By Sergey E. Kurginyan
What happened in France
deserves a detailed analysis. However, such an analysis can be done only after we
have cleared up the nature of these, sadly increasingly ordinary, events, which
makes them the biggest political challenge.
By ‘ordinary’ I mean
terrorist attacks as such. Regrettably, the world is growing used to such horrific
attacks and, given their increased incidence, we may perceive such attacks as
an appalling reality. No point in listing all the attacks which took far greater
number of lives than the most recent one in Paris, they are too numerous and remain
too sore in our memory, including those in other European capitals, London and
Madrid.
However, what makes the Paris
event stand out of this appalling reality I mentioned above is first and
foremost the abhorrent statement by Mikhail Khodorkovsky saying that from now
on every self-respecting news outlet must publish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed;
and secondly, the fact that certain groups called for rallying around Charlie
Hebdo - a victim in this terrorist attack; and thirdly, the upcoming Republican
march in Paris, commemorating victims of January attacks and involving high
profile government officials from a number of countries.
Let’s leave aside Khodorkovsky’s statement: it could be explained either by specific oligarchic
cretinism or by his highly developed instinct for provocation. But where did this idea of such a
rally involving high foreign officials come from? After all, there have been no such ‘marches’
ever before. Even in New York after 9/11 no president, prime minister or
foreign ministers went beyond offering condolences
and taking other official appropriate measures but no ‘marches’ took place. Why?
This question proves not that hard if you know what the deal is with any
demonstration.
1. Any demonstration
sends a strong message. Even more so, if coupled with high profile attendance.
2. Attuned
to a certain message, people must consolidate around either in favor or against
factions, turning some into proponents of Charlie Hebdo and the others into its
bashers.
3.
Those consolidated around Charlism are desperate to act. For example, to publish cartoons, as Mr. Khodorkovsky called for. Or to challenge
the "savages" in other forms (for
example, stating that they are
not human beings and therefore they
cannot be offended, as yet another provocateur did).
The range of options is enormous. Once in Charlie’s ranks you have to come up
something provocative, and then to realize it.
4. Anti-charlists
will be eager to face up the challenge. Even if the moderate Muslim majority will not do so there will be radicals, for whom this will
be a way to discredit moderate Muslims and strip them of support of the Muslim
population.
5. Anti-charlists reaction will encourage charlists to pursue even more
radical actions. And here you will see "civilizations
clashing" in just France alone. Or more precisely at first
just in France alone.
6. The
reality is that French right-wing parties will split into two groups, Islamophobes,
who joined charlists considering that Islamophobia is much more important than Anti-Liberalism,
and radical anti-liberals for whom the main thing in any case is to say that the punishment serves
Charlie Hebdo right with other European right-wing forces joining the strife
later on.
7. How might
the situation develop further? Suppose – as an extreme case - that it came to the deportation of the part of Muslim population out of Europe. Who is going
to handle it? Charlist-liberals? I doubt that, because they have no guts for this.
It will be anti-liberals who will take charge of deportations coming to the
political fore in Europe.
8. No chance,
the Muslim population
around the world will stand aside, and, hence, Islamic leaders will react accordingly.
No need to develop this model further, since
everything was already described in the notorious "clash
of civilizations" model. Those who seek to implement this
model seem over-zealous to do so. That is not, obviously, Huntington I have in mind, but rather powers that be seeking to bring
about changes on the global scale. Neocons, to put it simply.
No way it is
a conspiracy theory. One could argue otherwise, if not for the weird idea of high
profile officials going on a demonstration. Even in 2001,
Bush had some sense not to go down this road, because the
consequences were all too clear. Bush, however, sought a clash of civilizations. Yet, something still kept him from doing so at that time. Now
all constraints have been loosened.
By whom
and
to what
end?
In order to prevent the process from developing according
to the model I presented above, there is a need to caution all charlists – at
least in Russia- that any,
even the slightest, "quasi-charlist"
stunt will be severely
suppressed by the Russian authorities.
Especially, since Russia has laws to stop Charlism as it
is an obvious incitement of interfaith strife. The same should apply to anti-charlists, as well.
Neither
pro-Charlie nor anti-Charlie rallies must take place in Russia. All Charlie and
anti-Charlie demonstration in Russia must be prohibited, people participating
in such rallies must be dispersed. Any Charlie and anti-Charlie media campaigns
must be interrupted up to the closure of the outlet (what measures to take
against terrorist is a common knowledge).
The
important is that all figures of authority
make all the necessary efforts to clarify the true meaning of the campaign to those social groups who
might buy into Charlism or anti-Charlism.
