Phase Two

Everyone seems to be taking things all too seriously in the wake of the initial publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed. Muslims around the world have taken a none-too-small amount of offense at the drawings. The widespread protests have resulted in many injuries and deaths, in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan (check out the eery headline on that one), and most recently in Libya where eleven people are reported to have been killed as a result of increasingly violent protest action. Expressions of dismay and offense are yet to begin abating.

But it's not just the Muslim world that has its knickers in a twist over this. A foremost concern of New Zealand is that the publication of the cartoons here has the potential to be detrimental to trade, following Jordan and Iran's threats to cancel trade with New Zealand. Helen Clark has expressed disagreement with some of our media's decisions to publish the cartoons. Although I do understand that she is significantly responsible for the task of maintaining diplomacy with other countries, it surprised me that she would take such a stance on the cartoons given that I would have perceived her to err on the side of free speech. It is no hyperbole saying that it is stupid for Jordan and Iran to be taking the positions that they are against New Zealand in its entirety merely as a result of the actions of our media. The media are, of course, independent organisations that should not always be taken to speak for the rest of society.


For many journalistic organisations, the climate provided by the initial publication of the cartoons has formed a proving ground on which they are able to put their particular output's ethics on possibly-even-more-public-than-usual display; to make a stand either in favour of free speech, or self-censorship to avoid offense and conflict. One vivid example of this being exploited was a German newspaper's creation and publication of their own separate but similarly offensive cartoon. It featured caricatured Iranian football players dressed as suicide bombers and was apparently employed to highlight the reason why troops would be warranted as security at the football World Cup that will be held in Germany this year. It would be fair to say that this cartoon would not have been published had the stage not already been set for it, and that it was intended as a test of freedom of speech. Predictably, the Iranian government has threatened to take legal action if no written apology (cop-out) is issued.

As all this rages on, the Iran nuclear situation is heating up -- as it appears to do, periodically. This has been not-insignificantly spurred on by a media report that claimed the United States were preparing for "possible airstrikes" against the Middle Eastern nation. The Bush administration was quick to denounce the suggestions that had been made. It remains fact, however, that a conflict of some kind and at some point is an inevitability; certainly that Iran is likely to be the next on Bush's list. This is despite the statements of the British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, which one could be forgiven for taking as an attempt to cover the Bush administration's back. It's interesting to note that just over a week before the laying of the claims, United States Vice President Dick Cheney spoke out about the precarious nature of the stand-off situation, but made a point to place the blame squarely on the "outrageous statements" of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. If the claims about the United States' military preparations were revealed to be true, then Cheney would have some quite obvious egg on his face, having tried and failed to divert the spotlight of accusations of militancy onto Iran.

Ironically, further still in the background, Bush has noted in his State of the Union speech that "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," adding that the United States must "move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." Considering that the Bush administration has itself actually contributed to the destabilisation of a part of the world -- Iraq -- in its quest for oil, this seems pretty rich coming from the man himself. Only of further detriment to his credibility, he went on -- perceivably inconsistent with the earlier part of his speech -- to suggest that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, consequently showing a possible favouring of more pre-emptive strike action against nations. Bush also claimed that Tehran is being "held hostage" by Muslim clerics which will serve him well in providing a token humanitarian reason for the imperialist act that he may be about to initiate.