Now that the conflict over the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed is dying down, or so I hope, it is clear that the only winners are the extremists -- in the Islamic World and in Europe.
I regret the fact that the controversy started in my own country when a newspaper chose to publish the cartoons in a naive effort to demonstrate freedom of expression. It happened last autumn, and at that time I argued publicly against what I regarded as an insensitive act, because it hurt other peoples' religious feelings. It was also an unnecessary provocation, and constituted in itself a caricature of our cherished freedom of expression, that is guaranteed in our Constitution.
As my father (an old journalist himself) used to say: Freedom of expression provides a right to say what you think, but it is not an obligation to do so.
When the controversy blew up a few weeks ago, a lot of fuel was added to the fire. Many incorrect stories were circulated. False rumors that the Koran had been burned in demonstrations, false information on the status of Islam in Denmark, incorrect translations of what our queen had said, etc. This added to the anger, and it led to burning embassies and threats of violence.
The conflict has been called "A Clash of Civilizations." It could well deteriorate into that; the potential is there. But I would still prefer to call it "A Clash of the Misinformed."
There were so many mistakes on both sides: On one side there was a lack of understanding of the deep religious feelings that were hurt by a show of disrespect. On the other side people were given exaggerated and even falsified stories of what had actually happened.
The potential for a "clash of civilizations" lies in the deep differences between European and Islamic cultures and traditions. We should all be aware of those who seek to deepen these differences and turn them into insurmountable gulfs instead of inspirations to a richer life. It is only too easy for them to point to the case of the cartoons and say: Now you see how Western-style democracy and freedom of expression mean that you will face ridicule and mockery of your religious faith.
It is easy because freedom of expression was used, when publishing the cartoons, merely to demonstrate itself and therefore became a caricature of itself.
Our globalized world brings us not only economic opportunities but also cultural and spiritual challenges. Internet and SMS have developed over less than a decade and we still have not made the mental adjustments to the implications of such instantaneous communication.
The Danish cartoonists and newspaper editors that published the cartoons obviously failed to understand that they were not just addressing themselves to a local audience but to other inhabitants of the global village. If they had realized that, they would not have published the cartoons -- as they stated clearly when they made their apology.
The lessons of this unfortunate incident seem to me to be clear: We should all acknowledge that in the modern world it is increasingly necessary for all sensible people to work for mutual respect, tolerance and better understanding. We must avoid situations where different values are confronted with each other in ways that trigger violence. Instead we must try to build bridges between religions, ethics and norms.
Call it self-censorship if you wish. But self-censorship is practised all the time by sensible people. If you wish to stay in the same room as other people you try not to offend them through unnecessary provocations. The room we are talking about is no longer the local pond but the global village. Co-existence is the key.
Some people are unwilling to accept this. They are not open to values other than their own. They want confrontations. You find such people in Europe as well as in the Islamic world. Unfortunately they are the beneficiaries of the conflict that was triggered by the cartoons in a Danish newspaper.
But if we do not stand up to them we all run a grave risk of repeating some of history's great mistakes. The risk was explained in a very small poem by the late Danish poet and philosopher Piet Hein in one of his famous "Grooks" called "That is the question:" Coexistence or no existence.
Uffe Ellemann-Jensen was foreign minister in Denmark from 1982 to 1993 and a member of parliament from 1977 to 2001. He was leader of the Danish Liberal Party from 1984 to 1998 and president of the European Liberal Party from 1995 to 2000.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Earlier signs suggest that US President Donald Trump’s policy on Taiwan is set to move in a more resolute direction, as his administration begins to take a tougher approach toward America’s main challenger at the global level, China. Despite its deepening economic woes, China continues to flex its muscles, including conducting provocative military drills off Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam recently. A recent Trump-signed memorandum on America’s investment policy was more about the China threat than about anything else. Singling out the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a foreign adversary directing investments in American companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies, it said
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
Chinese social media influencer “Yaya in Taiwan” (亞亞在台灣), whose real name is Liu Zhenya (劉振亞), made statements advocating for “reunifying Taiwan [with China] through military force.” After verifying that Liu did indeed make such statements, the National Immigration Agency revoked her dependency-based residency permit. She must now either leave the country voluntarily or be deported. Operating your own page and becoming an influencer require a certain amount of support and user traffic. You must successfully gain approval for your views and attract an audience. Although Liu must leave the country, I cannot help but wonder how many more “Yayas” are still
RSS