What began as a family fight in unhappily multicultural Denmark has become a global cause celebre in what some like to play up as a clash of civilizations. A series of cartoons printed four months ago in the largest Danish daily newspaper portrayed Muhammad variously as a kindly old man and as a villain with a bomb in his turban.

Editor-in-Chief Carsten Juste of "Jyllands-Posten" has apologized for giving offense in what he claims was initially conceived as merely a "contribution to the inner debate" in Denmark. But the whole affair has already taken on cartoonish dimensions.

In belated response, the Al-Aqsa brigades briefly occupied EU officies in Ramallah in the West Bank this week, amidst growing Muslim calls for a boycott of Danish and other Scandinavian products.

EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, who frequently insists that Europe speak with one voice, has placed political weight on the scales. In a meeting with Saudi diplomats he insisted that a boycott of Denmark in response to the cartoon affair will be handled like a boycott of the entire European Union. The EU has threatened Arab countries which support the boycott with WTO sanctions. In the consequence of this slow-burning affair, the Swedish-Danish dairy firm Arla has already closed its production in Riad, and is considering a comprehensive new investment elsewhere. Other firms potentially affected by the call for boycott include high-end electronics maker Bang & Olufsen, Danisco and the pharmaceutical Novo Nordisk In response, Danish Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen has distanced himself from the cartoons while defending their right to be printed.The Danish Red Cross has removed workers from the Gaza strip and Yemen, after these received threats. In Gaza, demonstrators burnt images of Rasmussen.

Seventeen foreign ministers of the Arabian League even called for punishment of the responsible editors while meeting in Tunis on Monday.  Representatives of Denmark 's 200,000 Muslims have accepted these apology from the paper, and are considering redeploying the so-called "December Group" which visited the Islamic world late last year to raise alarm about the cartoons. But this time round the group would go to calm passions. Indeed, after the July bombings in London and the riots in Paris, many German commentators are concerned about what the affair means for free speech and whether the Danish cartoons could prove the combustible link between domestic and foreign conflict in Europe.

The conservative paper Die Welt demonstratively reprints  the cartoons, asking "Is it possible to satirize Islam? How much humor is compatible with the religion of Islam, this metaphysics of world conquest by an early medieval robber prince, who with his caravan army created a great empire on the basis of polygamy and a strict code of honor?" While the paper agrees that there is a certain "threshold of shame" in regard to the satirization of religion, "The standard of measure set by the Muslims nonetheless is a challenge for an open society." Die Welt also regrets what it regards as the Danish capitulation to the pressure, and goes on to defend the "right to blasphemy" against calls not to "provoke religious minorities."

The left-wing Berliner Zeitung takes a different approach to the proposed Muslim boycott. "Again Europe is defending its values, again the danger is seen in the Muslim world. For there is apparently an infernal anger against caricatures of Islam there. And this anger, or better the expression of this anger, is considered illegitimate, lacking in respect for the freedom of opinion. And if we really want to protect our values, then we should respect this call for boycott and just accept the sacrifices they will incur, as the sacrifices of a civil, market-oriented way of life." The paper concludes, "In a free Europe critical, even derogatory speech about religion belongs to the heart of freedom of opinion, this freedom was wrested from the Church hierarchy. About race one can speak less freely. Christians and Muslims are easy to satirize, but one doesn't speak so loosely about Black Africans whom used to be called "Neger". Those are the fine shades of freedom of opinion, of which our Muslim trading partners are making us aware. And this is how trade indeed contributes to enlightment.

The business daily Handelsblatt concerns itself with the economic consequences of the affair. According to the analysis of the Danish Jyske Bank, a one year boycott of Danish food products would result in lost revenues in the amount of €322 million and the loss of 4,000 jobs. In the case of a spill-over effect to other branches, 11,000 jobs would be in danger. "For critics of the center-right government of Fogh Rasmussen, this is one more result of a restrictive policy toward asylum-seekers, which despite a relatively low percent of resident foreigners of 5 percent, has repeatedly resulted in actions against foreigners," concludes the paper. 

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung takes a closer look at Danish policies towards foreigners, as kind of family fight which has spilled out into global streets. "The government in this case has nothing to do with the cartoons, and it is right to call attention to press freedom. But the newly inflamed debate fits with the climate in this land, in which since 2001 there has been a coalition of mainstream parties under Prime Ministers Anders Fogh Rasmussen, which  is tolerated by the right-wing populists the Danish Peoples Party." The paper calls the Peoples Party's Pia Kjaersgaard the most powerful right-wing politician in Europe and credits her with the sinking acceptance rates of asylum seekers from 53 percent in 2001 to nine percent in 2004.

--Anjana Shrivastava
3:30 p.m. CET

Queasy about Iran

As the diplomatic baton over Iran's controversial nuclear ambitions is being passed from the so-called EU-3 --  France, Germany and Britain -- onto the UN Security Council, Europe's roll in defusing the crisis is bound to diminish. After years of talks, the EU-3 just couldn't convince Tehran to give up its plans to develop a potentially dangerous nuclear program. Conversely, the importance of both Russia and China is sure to grow, as the two permanent members of the Security Council could easily scupper sanctions or any other measures against Iran. Since both Moscow and Beijing have considerable economic ties with Tehran, this makes a lot of people understandably queasy.

German papers aren't any different and they express ambivalence about this new and untried diplomatic territory. If at first glance the move to the UN shows a united front of great powers, there are plenty of doubts about just how closed their ranks really are. Some voices caution as well against viewing Iran under hard-liner Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a monolith. But there are yet more mysteries: there is relatively little attention to the role of the United States. In Germany this seems to be a debate about transitions to a world order which is increasingly as multipolar as it is confusing.

Although the change of tactics was necessary because of Europe's diplomatic failure, the Süddeutsche Zeitung remains optimistic: "The West has achieved its goal. The UN Security Council will take on the matter of the Iranian nuclear program. The UN-veto powers found clear words surprisingly quickly, Iran is isolated as never before in this conflict." The paper trusts that Russia and China have more to gain as honest brokers rather than in pursuing narrower or more immediate national interests. Nonetheless, the paper fears that Iran will attempt to divide the Security Council. "Iran has mastered the tactics of trickery and division to a high degree." The paper concludes that Iran will have to be convinced to alter its position in a series of  small steps made by a unified Security Council.

Die Tageszeitung looks at ways to divide and conquer Iran by taking a nuanced look at its political scene: "There are also moderate forces at work within the government. Even conservatives reject these confrontational policies. Moderate elements within the government described Russia's offer to produce nuclear fuel in Russia as 'positive' and as a 'possible way out of the crisis', and just last Monday an Iranian delegation tried to prevent Europe from making rash decisions." The leftist TAZ writes that it is a matter of knowing which faction within the Iranian parliament will win the battle of opinion, and believes that the answer depends, to no small degree, on the manner in which the West responds. "Threats, sanctions or a military attack will only serve to strengthen the radicals' position and silence the voices which today rise in opposition to Ahmadinejad's policies."

The Financial Times Deutschland awaits wait will happen next, but doesn't expect anything anytime soon. "The gesture of threat couldn't have been smaller: the foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council at their meeting in London decide together with the German foreign minister to bring the fight with Iran over its nuclear program to the UN. Iran doesn't need to have any immediate fears." But at the same time the paper sees signs of extreme nervousness in Iran: "The blustery counter-threats to call off all negotiations over the nuclear program shows just how nervous Teheran now feels in its predicament."

Austria's Der Standard is more fundamentally suspicious of Russian and Chinese intentions. "In the two greatest proliferation conflicts of the moment--in regard to Iran and North Korea--the key roles of China and Russia have largely been overlooked. Both states are not only decisive in the diplomatic process which could lead to sanctions in the UN, insofar as the five permanent Council members arrive at a common understanding of the threat posed by North Korean or Iranian nuclear weapons. Moscow and Beijing are also the guaranteeing powers for any conceivable solution of the Korean and Iran crisis in general. It's unsettling for the West: how much can one trust great powers which are merely half-democratic or undemocratic to manage such existential threats?" The paper fears that both countries not only have the interest, but also the diplomatic means, to arrange solutions amenable chiefly to themselves, concluding that only the West has a true interest in an international solution.