|
03/30/2006
The War on Radical Islam
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 21, 2006
[Excerpts]
The true division in foreign policy today is between: those who
want the shop “open”, or those who want it “closed”; those who
believe that the long-term interests of a country lie in it being out
there, engaged, interactive and those who think the short-term
pain of such a policy and its decisions, too great. This division
has strong echoes in debates not just over foreign policy and
trade but also over immigration .
It is in confronting global terrorism today that the sharpest debate
and disagreement is found. Nowhere is the supposed “folly” of
the interventionist case so loudly trumpeted as in this case. Here,
so it is said, as the third anniversary of the Iraq conflict takes
place, is the wreckage of such a world view. Under Saddam Iraq
was “stable”. Now its stability is in the balance. Ergo, it should
never have been done.
This is essentially the product of the conventional view of
foreign policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall. This view holds
that there is no longer a defining issue in foreign policy.
Countries should therefore manage their affairs and relationships
according to their narrow national interests. The basic posture
represented by this view is: not to provoke, to keep all as settled
as it can be and cause no tectonic plates to move. It has its soft
face in dealing with issues like global warming or Africa; and
reserves its hard face only if directly attacked by another state,
which is unlikely. It is a view which sees the world as not
without challenge but basically calm, with a few nasty things
lurking in deep waters, which it is best to avoid; but no major
currents that inevitably threaten its placid surface. It believes the
storms have been largely self-created.
This is the majority view of a large part of western opinion,
certainly in Europe. According to this opinion, the policy of
America since 9/11 has been a gross overreaction; George Bush
is as much if not more of a threat to world peace as Osama bin
Laden; and what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere
else in the Middle East, is an entirely understandable
consequence of US/UK imperialism or worse, of just plain
stupidity. Leave it all alone or at least treat it with sensitivity and
it would all resolve itself in time; “it” never quite being defined,
but just generally felt as anything that causes disruption.
This world view – which I would characterize as a doctrine of
benign inactivity – sits in the commentator’s seat, almost as a
matter of principle. It has imposed a paradigm on world events
that is extraordinary in its attraction and its scope. As we speak,
Iraq is facing a crucial moment in its history: to unify and
progress, under a government elected by its people for the first
time in half a century; or to descend into sectarian strife, bringing
a return to certain misery for millions. In Afghanistan, the same
life choice for a nation is being played out. And in many Arab
and Muslim states, similar, though less publicized, struggles for
democracy dominate their politics.
The effect of this paradigm is to see each setback in Iraq or
Afghanistan, each revolting terrorist barbarity, each reverse for
the forces of democracy or advance for the forces of tyranny as
merely an illustration for the foolishness of our ever being there;
as a reason why Saddam should have been left in place or the
Taliban free to continue their alliance with al Qaeda. Those who
still justify the interventions are treated with scorn.
Then, when the terrorists strike in the nations like Britain or
Spain, who supported such action, there is a groundswell of
opinion formers keen to say, in effect, that it’s hardly surprising
– after all, if we do this to “their” countries, is it any wonder they
do it to “ours”?
So the statement that Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine or indeed
Chechnya, Kashmir or half a dozen other troublespots is seen by
extremists as fertile ground for their recruiting – a statement of
the obvious – is elided with the notion that we have “caused”
such recruitment or made terrorism worse, a notion that, on any
sane analysis, has the most profound implications for democracy.
The easiest line for any politician seeking office in the West
today is to attack American policy. A couple of weeks ago as I
was addressing young Slovak students, one got up, denouncing
US/UK policy in Iraq, fully bought in to the demonization of the
US, utterly oblivious to the fact that without the US and the
liberation of his country, he would have been unable to ask such
a question, let alone get an answer to it.
There is an interesting debate going on inside government today
about how to counter extremism in British communities.
Ministers have been advised never to use the term “Islamist
extremist”. It will give offense. It is true. It will. There are
those – perfectly decent-minded people – who say the extremists
who commit these acts of terrorism are not true Muslims. And,
of course, they are right. They are no more proper Muslims than
the Protestant bigot who murders a Catholic in Northern Ireland
is a proper Christian. But, unfortunately, he is still a “Protestant”
bigot. To say his religion is irrelevant is both completely to
misunderstand his motive and to refuse to face up to the strain of
extremism within his religion that has given rise to it.
Yet, in respect of radical Islam, the paradigm insists that to say
what is true, is to provoke, to show insensitivity, to demonstrate
the same qualities of purblind ignorance that leads us to suppose
that Muslims view democracy or liberty in the same way we do.
Just as it lets go unchallenged the frequent refrain that it is to be
expected that Muslim opinion will react violently to the invasion
of Iraq: after all it is a Muslim country. Thus, the attitude is: we
understand your sense of grievance; we acknowledge your anger
at the invasion of a Muslim country; but to strike back through
terrorism is wrong.
It is a posture of weakness, defeatism and most of all, deeply
insulting to every Muslim who believes in freedom i.e. the
majority. Instead of challenging the extremism, this attitude
panders to it and therefore instead of choking it, feeds its growth.
None of this means, incidentally, that the invasion of Iraq or
Afghanistan was right; merely that it is nonsense to suggest it
was done because the countries are Muslim.
I recall the video footage of Mohammed Sadiq Khan, the man
who was the ringleader of the 7/7 bombers. There he was,
complaining about the suppression of Muslims, the wickedness
of America and Britain, calling on all fellow Muslims to fight us.
And I thought: here is someone, brought up in this country, free
to practice his religion, free to speak out, free to vote, with a
good standard of living and every chance to raise a family in a
decent way of life, talking about “us”, the British, when his
whole experience of “us” has been the very opposite of the
message he is preaching. And in so far as he is angry about
Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan, let Iraqi or Afghan Muslims
decide whether to be angry or not by ballot.
There was something tragic, terrible but also ridiculous about
such a diatribe. He may have been born here. But his ideology
wasn’t. And that is why it has to be taken on, everywhere.
This terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that
warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in
their essence, at their core. By this I don’t mean telling them
terrorism is wrong. I mean telling them their attitude to America
is absurd; their concept of governance pre-feudal; their positions
on women and other faiths, reactionary and regressive; and then
since only by Muslims can this be done: standing up for and
supporting those within Islam who will tell them all of this but
more, namely that the extremist view of Islam is not just
theologically backward but completely contrary to the spirit and
teaching of the Koran.
But in order to do this, we must reject the thought that somehow
we are the authors of our own distress; that if only we altered this
decision or that, the extremism would fade away. The only way
to win is: to recognize this phenomenon is a global ideology; to
see all areas, in which it operates, as linked; and to defeat it by
values and ideas set in opposition to those of the terrorists .
Which brings me to the fundamental point. “We” is not the
West. “We” are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu.
“We” are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to
others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by
secular courts.
This is not a clash between civilizations. It is a clash about
civilization. It is the age-old battle between progress and
reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the
modern world and those who reject its existence; between
optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on
the other. And in the era of globalization where nations depend
on each other and where our security is held in common or not at
all, the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress is
utterly determinative of our future here in Britain. We can no
more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate
changing around us. Inaction, pushing the responsibility on to
America, deluding ourselves that this terrorism is an isolated
series of individual incidents rather than a global movement and
would go away if only we were more sensitive to its pretensions;
this too is a policy. It is just that; it is a policy that is
profoundly, fundamentally wrong.
And this is why the position of so much opinion on how to defeat
this terrorism and on the continuing struggle in Iraq and
Afghanistan and the Middle East is, in my judgment, so
mistaken .
This is, ultimately, a battle about modernity. Some of it can only
be conducted and won within Islam itself. But don’t let us in our
desire not to speak of what we can only imperfectly understand;
or our wish not to trespass on sensitive feelings, end up accepting
the premise of the very people fighting us.
The extremism is not the true voice of Islam. Neither is that
voice necessarily to be found in those who are from one part only
of Islamic thought, however assertively that voice makes itself
heard. It is, as ever, to be found in the calm, but too often
unheard beliefs of the many Muslims, millions of them the world
over, including in Europe, who want what we all want: to be
ourselves free and for others to be free also; who regard
intolerance as a virtue and respect for the faith of others as part
of our own faith. That is what this battle is about, within Islam
and outside of it; it is a battle of values and progress; and
therefore it is one we must win.
Source: www.number10.gov.uk
---
Hott Spotts will return next week.
Brian Trumbore
|
