APPENDIX 2
Memorandum submitted by Zahid Nawaz
Three weeks after the attacks of 11 September
2001, the Secretary of State for Defence announced at the Labour
Party Conference"As a result of the attacks on the
United States, we will be looking again at how we organise our
defence. This will not be a Strategic Defence Review, but an opportunity
if necessary to rebalance our existing efforts. We must have:
the right concepts, the right levels of force, and the right capabilities
to meet the additional challenges we face from international terrorism
conducted on this scale."
In the Strategic Defence Review I presented
a memorandum entitled Political Islam A source of Concern?
which assessed the role of Islamic Movements, their policies
and functions. The events of 11 September, endorse my comments
that a long-term strategy is clearly needed if we are to win the
war against terrorism. A strategy which is well informed on the
nature of Islamic resurgence, and which distinguishes between
"radical Muslims" and "mainstream Muslims".
In this new chapter of SDR we have to set ourselves
a number of objectives post 11 September 2001. This paper will
seek to examine:
(i) Islamic resurgence and The aftermath
of 11 September;
(ii) Historical Conflicts: Islam-v-West
(iii) Popular Muslim reactions to the
incidents of 11 September;
(iv) Aftermath of 11 September: Attitudes
towards British Muslims;
(v) Strategies to deal with Islamic
Resurgence: "A War on Terrorism not Islam".
INTRODUCTION
"The attack took place on American soil,
but it was an attack on the heart and soul of the civilised world.
And the world has come together to fight a new and different war,
the first, and we hope the only one, of the 21st century. A war
against all those who seek to export terror, and a war against
those governments that support or shelter them."[1]
On 11 September 2001, in an apparently well
co-ordinated attack, hijackers rammed jetliners into each of the
new York World Trade Centers towers and utlimately collapsed them.
A third hijacked airliner plowed into the Pentagon and a fourth
hijacked airliner crashed near Pittsburgh, raising speculation
that a related mission which was aimed at Washington had failed.
It is estimated that the attacks resulted in
the following casualties:
More than 3,000 people died or remain
missing following the attacks. They came from more than 80 different
nations, from many different races and religions.
343 firefighters and paramedics
perished at the World Trade Center.
23 police officers and 37 Port Authority
Police officers died at the World Trade Center.
One business alone lost more than
700 employees, leaving at least 50 pregnant widows.
Apparently 2,000 children lost a
parent on September 11, including 146 children who lost a parent
in the Pentagon attacks.
Nations and Areas That Suffered Losses
From The Attack
Antigua & Barbuda |
Ethiopia | Kenya | St Kitts & Nevis
|
Argentina | France | Lebanon
| St Lucia |
Australia | The Gambia |
Liberia | St Vincent & the |
Austria | Germany | Lithuania
| Grenadines |
Bangladesh | Ghana | Malaysia
| Sweden |
Barbados | Greece | Mexico
| Switzerland |
Belarus | Grenada | The Netherlands
| Taiwan |
Belgium | Gautemala | New Zealand
| Thailand |
Belize | Guyana | Nicaragua
| Togo |
Bolivia | Haiti | Nigeria
| Trinidad & Tobago |
Brazil | Honduras | Pakistan
| Turkey |
Canada | Hong Kong | Panama
| Ukraine |
Chile | India | Paraguay
| United Kingdom |
China | Indonesia | Peru
| USA |
Colombia | Ireland | Philippines
| Uruguay |
Czech Republic | Israel |
Poland | Uzbekistan |
Dominica | Italy | Portugal
| Venezuela |
Dominican Republic | Jamaica
| Romania | Yemen |
Ecuador | Japan | Russia
| Yugoslavia |
Egypt | Jordan | South Africa
| Zimbabwe |
El Salvador | Kazakhstan |
South Korea | Spain |
|
| | Sri Lanka |
The world responded to the events with an unprecedented coalition
against terrorism. The coalition set itself a number of objectives:
(i) To destroy Al Qaeda's [2]
grip on Afghanistan by driving the Taliban from power.
(ii) Destroy Al Qaeda's terrorist training camps;
(iii) Help Afghans put aside long standing differences
to form a new interim government that represents all Afghans;
(iv) To disrupt Al Qaeda's global operations and terrorist
financing networks.
FOCUSING ON
ISLAMIC RESURGENCE
The events of 11 September have focused the attention on
"Islamic Resurgence" and the "launch of jihad".
At the national level, for example, in Bosnia, Chechnya and Kashmir,
there have been national struggles or struggles for self-determination.
With a direct attack on the US "homeland", a Western
media perception is that there has been a qualitative leap from
national jihad to global jihad.[3]
Islamic extremism will increasingly be seen as threatening
the stability of traditionally pro-Western regimes and Islamic
movements are representing a major challenge to the West and the
Muslim World. The relations between Europe and Northern Africa
in the field of security are now full of misunderstandings, and
are characterised by distorted images of Islamic resurgence, which
are often connfused, by the threat or reality of terrorism.[4]
The existence of Islam as a world-wide religion and a ideological
force embracing one fifth of the world's population, spreading
to parts of the world with strategically, economic and political
powers, will continue to raise the fear of an "Islamic threat".
Muslims control much of the oil and gas reserves of the world;
Muslims live in the West in large numbers as permanent citizens.
The challenge to Western-backed Israel from Islamic organisations
like "Hamas", the resurgence of Islam in countries that
matter strategically to the West like Turkey, Egypt and Algeria,
and the nuclear ambitions of several Muslim countries make Islam
important.
Aggression is often made out to be a characteristic of Islam
and its followers. Islam as a whole is perceived as the aggressor
against the West. It embodies a theology of conquest and victory,
but not a theology of defeat. This fear is further increased in
light of the fact, that many Muslim countries now have acccess
to Weapons of Mass destruction.[5]
However, it would be a mistake to claim that Muslims constitute
a homogenous force determined to act as part of a universal conspiracy
against the existing political order. The fact is that Islam is
made up of many diverse groups.[6]
As I shall explain later in this paper, some Islamic movements
advocate violence in the name of Islam and are roundly condemned
by most Muslim political leaders who consider that this does not
conform to the basic teachings of Islam and merely brings it into
discredit throughout the world.
Western attacks on Islam and negative media stereotypes of
Muslims help confirm Islamist paranoia about a supposed Western
plot to eradicate Islam. Some self-appointed Western "experts"
also play into the hands of the most extreme Islamists, through
their excessive characterisation of Islam's uniqueness as a religion.
Islamists, too, would like their fellow Muslims to believe that
Islam is really too self-contained to adjust to modernity or democracy.
It is high time to denounce the implicit alliance between old-guard
Western orientalists and new-wave local Islamists on the ill-defined
presumed uniqueness of Islam. More generally, the West has to
learn that its model of the secular nation-state is not as universal
as it presumes, and other forms of political organisation may
be as valid. Even if the world has ceased to be strategically
multipolar, it remains so in the cultural sphere. Too often, the
Western triumph in the Cold War is mistakenly equated with a triumph
of Western political and intellectual models.[7]
For many Muslims Islamic resurgence is a social rather than
a political movement, whose goal is a more Islamically minded
and oriented society but not necessarily the creation of an Islamic
state. For others, the establishment of an Islamic order requires
the creation of an Islamic state. While some advocate violent
revolution, others do not. Political Islam and most Islamic movements
are not necessarily anti-Western, anti-American, or anti-democractic.
Whilst they challenge the outdated assumptions of the established
order and autocratic order and autocratic regimes, they may not
necessarily threaten Western interests.[8]
Overall, the Islamic revival can be viewed in two ways. From
one perspective, it is a world-wide movement grounded in shared
assumptions about the relationship of individual religious morality
and collective political organisation. From the other perspective,
it is several movements, each manifesting itself within a regional
and political context and its religious and political prospects
conditioned by particular situations. From both of these points
of view, the Islamic revival is not a temporary phenomenon or
the result of foreign intervention and manipulation. It rises
out of political and cultural structures of Muslim societies going
back to the eighteenth century and earlier, and can only be understood
as the expression of a deeply rooted and persisting cultural mentality,
and as part of the political processes in Muslim countries.[9]
Since the incidents of September 11 it is clear that if the
West wishes to intervene in Muslim countries to protect sympathetic
governments against their domestic opponents, their support must
be tempered by the realisation that states which are undergoing
intense economic changes and social stresses are inherently vulnerable,
and the regimes which have failed to achieve significant and fairly
distributed economic gains, have suffered international political
defeats, or are repressive of domestic opposition or are corrupt
in domestic administration, are all the more vulnerable to internal
resistance articulated in religious terms. Any policy towards
Muslim countries will have to tread a delicate line, sensitive
to changes in public opinion, between effective support and compromising
association.[10]
Islam has to be recognised as a legitimate part of the Western
heritage like Christianity and Judaism and not alien to them.
Western powers need to facilitate the process of democratisation
and economic liberalisation in the Islamic world, as some Western
analysts have claimed that Islam is incompatible with democracy
and therefore there is no purpose of supporting such a practice.[11]
These arguments can be challenged in light of the evidence that
has shown that it is authoritarianism rather than Islam which
has prevented democracy from forming its base. The West should
assist in fostering political accountability and respect for human
rights and should not panic if Islamists came to power in the
Middle East, as many moderate Muslims are advocating democratic
choices and respect for human rights, and it would be rather irrational
to claim that all Muslims are extremists and undemocratic. Success
in this task would consitute a greater positive contribution to
peace and harmony in the Muslim world than alignment with dictators
or absolute monarchs.
HISTORICAL CONFLICTS:
ISLAM-V-THE
WEST
The image of Political Islam as the "new danger"
is alleged to receive attention, from many sources. The first
is a history of conflict between the world of the "West",
Christianity, and the world of Islam stretching back over a millennium.
From the invasions of Iberia in the seventh century, through the
Crusades which began in the eleventh century, then through the
conflicts with the Ottoman empire that lasted from the fifteenth
century to the final collapse of the last Islamic challenge in
1918, conflict has been entrenched. Though with the reconquest
of Spain the Islamic powers were driven out in 1492, the Ottoman
rival lasted into this century, leaving deep scars in the southern
Slav countries.[12] In
the northern Slav areas, the "Tartar Yoke" may have
been thrown off in the sixteenth century, but the conflict with
independent Islamic states in Central Asia and the Caucasus and
with the Ottoman empire itself remained a leitmotif of Russian
policy.[13]
In the collapse of established regimes and state structures
in the Balkans in the years from 1989, anti-Turkish and anti-Islamic
themes were promoted by those wanting to mobilise some popular
support and lend legitimacy to their actions. The Croats blamed
the Ottomans for implanting Serbs in eastern Croatia, the Serbs
presented themselves as the champions of a campaign against Turkish-Islamic
influences in Albania and Bosnia; Bulgarian communist nationalists
persecuted Turks in their countries.[14]
This historic anxiety about Islam receives support from quite
another source, namely the end of the Cold War. Both in the West
and the Muslim world it is largely believed that in some way the
end of the Cold War and has created a conflict between the West
and the Islamic world.
"There are a good many people who think that the war
between communism and the West is about to be replaced by a war
between the West and the Muslims"[15]
Some of the analysis of the Gulf War has rested on this view,
claiming that the West went to war with Saddam Hussain as a substitute
for the Cold War. However, Western European concern about the
Islamic threat including the issue of migration into Western Europe,
is seen as some ideological substitute for the Cold War and the
confrontational disciplines it occasioned. In this perspective,
the conflict with the Islamic world allegedly reflects some inner
need of the Western world for a menacing, but subordinated, "other":
a connection is made between the traditional religious-based hostility
to Islamic society that goes back to the Crusades and the need
to assert a post-communist hegemony.[16]
The history of Jewish-Christian-Muslim relations has been
one of competition and combat rather than dialogue and mutual
understanding, driven by competing theological claims and political
interests. The confrontations and conflicts have spanned the ages
and reinforced images of a historic and global militant Islamic
threat: the early Muslim expansion and conquests; the Crusades
and the fall of Jerusalem; Ottoman Muslim hegemony over Eastern
Europe and, with the siege of Vienna, its threat to overrun the
West; the great Jihads against European Colonial rule; the Arab-Israeli
wars; the economic threat of oil embargoes; the spectre of radical
revolutionary groups siezing Western hostages, hijacking planes,
and inaugurating a reign of terrorism, all reinforce images of
an intolerant and dangerous Islam.[17]
The vision of an impending conflict between Islam and the
West as but another stage in a historic (if not inevitable) pattern
of confrontation is reinforced by Bernard Lewis:
"The struggle between Islam and the West has now lasted
fourteen centuries it has consisted of a long series of attacks
and counterattacks, Jihads and crusades, conquest and re-conquests.
Today much of the Muslim world is again seized by an intense-and
violent-resentment of the West. Suddenly, America has become the
archenemy, the incarnation of evil, the diabolic opponent of all
that is good, and specifically, for Muslims, of Islam, why?"[18]
Islam and Muslims are here portrayed as the instigators and
protagonists in fourteen centuries of warfare, and Islam is seen
as the aggressor. Islam and the acts of Muslims are placed first;
responsible for attacks, and conquests while the West is described
as defensive, responding with counter attacks, crusades, and reconquests.
Despite the claim of fourteen centuries of confrontation, the
reader is informed "suddenly" that America is now the
enemy of the Muslims. Therefore if the contemporary threat is
"sudden" then the reader will logically conclude that
Muslims have a historic propensity to violence against and hatred
of the West, or else that Muslims are emotional, irrational, and
war-prone people.[19]
POPULAR MUSLIM
REACTIONS
"The people and the government of Pakistan deeply mourn
the enormous and unprecedented loss of innocent lives in the terrorist
attacks in New York and Washington. We share the grief of the
American people in this grave national tragedy. We strongly condemn
this most brutal and horrible act of terror and violence."[20]
Pakistans President Musharraf issued the above statement
and promised that he would co-operate in certain ways with the
USA by opening Pakistani airspace to US military aircraft, sharing
intelligence, allowing access to military facilities and allowing
special forces and logistical teams to be based in Pakistan.
Immediately, after the incidents of 11 September, religious
figures within Pakistan condemned such acts and expressed regret
over the loss of life. The most vocal of these was the Chairman
of Pakistani Awami Tehreek[21],
Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri who is also a recognised religious authority
within the Muslim world. Dr Qadri issued a number of statements
and fully supported the Musharraf regime in joining the coalition
against terrorism.
Dr Qadri claimed that any terrorist act is against the basic
precepts of Islam, and that it does not allow aggression, oppression
and barbarism in any event. He set out the reasons for such acts
(1) because of the unsettled disputes within the Muslim world,
(2) and that there is a faction in the Islamic world whose interpretations
of Islam are extremist in nature. Their handling of political,
social and cultural matters reflect the extremist trend in their
thinking. He stated that this "extremist class" believes
that Islam is inconsistent with democracy and any association
with democracy is forbidden.[22]
Criticising the extremist elements he stated that such groups
present a horrifying picture of Islam in the Western world and
provoke the religious sentiments of the people for their personal
gains. Dr Qadri encouraged the Taliban to hand Osama bin Laden
over to a third party, he suggested that such a role can be played
by NATO, the European Union, or the Organisation Islamic Conference
(OIC).[23] Dr Qadri rejected
the claim of bin Laden that this war is against Islam by stating
that "this war is not a war between Islam and the non-believers...this
is just war against terrorism.[24]
However, there were other religious leaders within Pakistan
who did not share such views and opposed the Musharraf regime
in providing assistance to the USA. In January 2001 The Times
reported that over 300 Muslim clerics had gathered in Dar Ul Uloom
Haqania, and declared that bin Laden was a great Muslim warrior
and it was a duty upon all Muslims to provide him protection and
support.
THE AFTERMATH:
ATTITUDES TOWARDS
BRITISH MUSLIMS
There are an estimated one and a half million Muslims in
the UK and their prescence here has spanned more than 30 years.
A sizable number of Bangladeshi, Indian, and Pakistani origin
now belong to a younger generation. Other ethnic groups include
Arabs, Turks, and more recently Muslims from Somalia, and the
Balkans.
Since the attacks of 11 September 2001, the Muslim community
has been living in perpetual fear of reprisals, threats, and hostile
media reports and comments which can lead to further attacks.
The Guardian reported that from 11 September until mid-December
"there had been around 300 assaults on Muslims in Britain,
and most of the victims were women. These include verbal abuse,
physical assault and even rape. For example, Muslim women have
been "spat at, punched, kicked, called names, hit with umbrellas
at bus stops, and pelted with eggs and fruit. They have received
dog excrement and fire works through their letterboxes and bricks
through their windows."
The Times stated that this is "a bad time to
be Asian in Britain" and described how many Asians, particularly
Muslims, are scared to go out because "when they venture
on to the street, many are insulted, spat and attacked. Women
have their headscarves torn off and have been beaten up. Mosques
have been set on fire, ringed with pigs' heads and daubed with
racist graffiti"
The Scottish Daily Record said "Moslems in plea
for more police help as attacks by race thugs rocket." Strathclyde
Police Chief Constable said "There has undoubtedly been an
increase (in attacks) since 11 September.[25]
In Wales the Western Mail reported that racist incidents
had increased by as much as "three times since 11 September".[26]
Radical Organisations Stirring Anti Muslim Hatred
The far-right British National Party (BNP) launched a "Campaign
Against Islam" with inflammatory leaflets being circulated
and made available on its website. The first, recruitment leaflet,
blames current troubles on the politicians who "forced a
multicultural society upon us", and urges readers to join
the BNP for "the chance to help reverse the undemocratic
folly of the old parties and stop the fanatics who want to turn
Britain into an Islamic Republic." The second, a "schools
leaflet" encourages parents to withdraw their children from
religious studies classes at school as being "the only way
for ordinary people like us to protect our children from multicultural
brainwashing". A third "churches" publication identifies
Islam with Intolerance, Slaughter, Looting, Arson and Molestation
of women and warns that Islam will be the death of Christianity.
Political Leaders Building Bridges
"This is not a war with Islam. It angers me, as it angers
the vast majority of Muslims, to hear bin Laden and his associates
described as Islamic terrorists. They are terrorists pure and
simple. Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion and the acts
of these people are wholly contrary to the teaching of the Quaran".[27]
"The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship
of one God, as revealed through the Holy Quran. It teaches the
value and the importance of charity, mercy and peace."[28]
As soon as press reports began to speculate that the perpetrators
of 11 September attacks were "Islamic extremists", the
UK Government sought to reassure Muslim and other vulnerable minority
communities and to emphasise that the overwhelming majority of
Muslims in the UK were wholly opposed to the attacks. The effort
was led by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The week following
the attacks, in an article in the Muslim News, Mr Blair
stated that "blaming Islam (for the 11 September attacks)
is as ludicrous as blaming Christianity for loyalist attacks on
Catholics, or nationalist attacks on Protestants in Northern Ireland."[29]
Speaking after talks with leading members of the British
Muslim community on 27 September, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair,
described attacks on innocent Muslims in Britain as "despicable"
and stated that "there is a minority who are only too happy
to use recent events as a convenient cover for racism", which
has "no proper place in our country." Mr Blair characterised
Islam as a "tolerant, peaceful" religion and went on
to add that "there is no contradiction between being Muslim
and being British."[30]
He reinforced these sentiments in a series of of articles for
publication in the Muslim press in which he assured Muslims that
"the vast majority of decent people in Britain realise that
neither you nor Islam is in any way responsible for what happened
in the USA."[31]
He held a further meeting with Muslim religious leaders as part
of an inter-faith gathering on 8 October and in December it was
announced that Mr Blair had appointed John Battle, a Labour MP
and former minister, as his personal envoy to the UK's faith groups.
Other Senior Government figures made similar statements in
the wake of the attacks. The Scottish Parliament gave its support
to a motion condemning racist attacks[32]
and on 27 September, the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott
appealed to people to reach out to local Muslims and to "show
a bit of humanitarianism and express some solidarity and concern."
Referring to plans for military strikes in Afghanistan (which
began 10 days later on 7 October), the Deputy Prime Minister said
"this is not an action against the Muslim community but against
terrorism on a world-wide scale."[33]
on 5 October (the national day of prayer for peace) the Home Secretary,
David Blunkett, visited a mosque in Sheffield and used the opportunity
to underline the government's resolve not to "tolerate attacks
or have people living in fear and insecurity."
Leading figures from the other main political parties have
also made statements showing their support and concerns for Muslims
in the UK. On 1 October the Leader of the opposition Conservative
Party, Iain Duncan Smith, also met leading members of the British
Muslim community. Mr Duncan Smith emphasised the contribution
made by Muslims to British life and assured the representatives
that his party would do everything possible to "ensure good
community relations and the protection of mosques and other places
of worship."
There were, however, some voices which dissented from the
consensus that the 11 September attacks should not be linked to
Islam. Former Conservative Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher,
commented in an interview with The Times newspaper published
on 4 October that she "had not heard enough condemnation
from Muslims priests" of the 11 September attacks. She went
on to say "The people who brought down those towers were
Muslims and Muslims must stand up and say that it is not the way
of Islam . . . they must say that it is disgraceful."[34]
Baroness Thatchers comments were widely repudiated by the press
and politicians on all sides, including Oliver Letwin, the Conservative
spokesperson on home affairs, who described this impression that
senior Muslims he had met were "pretty categorical in their
condemnation of terrorism."[35]
Radical Movements: Media Reflections
Small hard-line Islamic groups, previously unheard of by
the vast majority of the population, have gained a lot of coverage
in the wake of 11 September. Also the revelation that some young
British Muslims are prepared to risk their lives fighting British
troops has provoked much discussion. Whilst the press has in the
aftermath of 11 September stated that Islam is not a violent religion,
in the last part of 2001 their focus shifted on to these groups
and their supporters, giving them a disproportionate amount of
coverage compared with mainstream Muslim groups.
The most reported hard-line Islamic groups were the Al-Muhajiroun.[36]
These groups believe in theocratic Islamic rule and the opposition
of Western Government to Islam. They have come to prominence since
11 September and wish to be seen to be the voice of all UK Muslims.
However, they may have a hidden agenda in trying to legitimise
their group internationally with the backers of other hard-line
Muslim groups.
Supporters of these groups have been reported as approving
of the 11 September attacks[37]
while the groups" spokesman have commonly blamed American
foreign policy for the attacks, or denied they were carried out
by Muslims. Both groups have sought to portray the war in Afghanistan
as a war against Islam. Their leaders have given many interviews
and have regularly been asked for comments.
The leader of Al Muhajiroun Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad has
become the recognisable face of hard-line Islam in Britain. He
has suggested that Britain will suffer an internal intifada "Christians
have to learn that they cannot do this to Islam. We will not allow
our brothers to be colonialised. If they try Britain will turn
into Bosnia." Abu Hamza, leader of the Supporters of Sharia
group is reported to have praised the attacks of 11 September
as a "justified" attack on "a crazy superpower."[38]
Actions of the Al-Muhajiroun group since 11 September:
A spokesman said that the group will "strive
until we flag of Islam flying over Downing Street."[39]
Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed is reported to have
issued a fatwah (verdict) calling for the assassinations of Tony
Blair and President Musharraf of Pakistan.[40]
A spokesman for the group claimed that "thousands"
of British Muslims had gone to fight in Afghanistan.[41]
There have been many articles reporting that British Muslims
have volunteered to fight in Afghanistan against America and Britain.
There has been little evidence to support that this is happening
in anything but a few cases. Such stories have led to the loyalties
of young British Muslim men coming under media scrutiny. Many
articles on the subject included quotes from young Muslim men;
"I'm British born and British bred, but I'm willing to kill
British soldiers."[42]
These reports may result from young Muslims not feeling part of
British society.
The press coverage of these extremist groups and the volunteers
has been extensive. During late 2001 and early 2002, mainstream
Muslim groups have been eclipsed, often only being in the media
to respond to hard-line Islamic groups. Press coverage of these
groups has often been characterised by the uncertainty and fear
of most commentators, on what the attitudes of British Muslims
are to the war. Some articles have warned of the threat to our
society that these hard-line Muslims pose. Referring to them as
"the enemy within" and "a fifth column" some
journalists have argued that the opinions of these young Muslim
men expose the failure of Britain's current approach to multiculturalism.[43]
The idea that Muslims should be grateful to Britain of their
presence here is often alluded to and occasionally stated.[44]
These opinions rarely differentiate between those born in Britain
and more recent immigrants. This view of British Muslims is further
shown by reactions to those that volunteered to fight for the
Taliban. Some newspapers have called for those involved to be
expelled from Britain "Anyone who shoots at our armed forces
gives up their right to be British."[45]
The ultimate sanction under UK law for a British citizen guilty
of treason is a prison sentence.[46]
Calls for the expulsion of these people were particularly common
in the letters pages.[47]
FORWARD STRATEGIES:
A WAR ON
TERRORISM OR
ISLAM?
Strategic Dilemmas and Challenges
The issues raised beg important questions on how and within
what policy framework should such tensions be addressed? The events
of 11 September served as a catalyst for the West to give a higher
degree of policy attention to issues in the Islamic world. Whilst
these events have proved a catalytic for a reassessment of Western
policy towards the Islamic world, it must also be asked whether
the sense of crisis caused by the event is the best background
for a fundamental re-evaluation of a range of complex issues.
In their attempts to combat terrorism nations often, face
conflicting goals and courses of action. Firstly, providing security
from terrorists acts in seeking to limit the freedom of individual
terrorist, terrorists groups, and support networks to operate
unimpeded in a relatively unregulated environment. The second
dilemma is the task of maximising individual freedom, democracy,
and human rights. Efforts to tackle terrorism come even more complex
in a global trend towards deregulation, open borders, and expanded
commerce. Particularly, in Western democracies, the constitutional
limits within which policy must operate are often seemed by many
to conflict directly with a desire to secure the lives of citizens
against terrorist activity more effectively. Such issues are likely
to dominate the agenda as the coalition against terrorism continues
to develop strategies in response to the 11 September incidents.
Another strategic challenge for policymakers is the requirement
to clearly identify the perpetrators of particular terrorist acts
and those who train, or provide any form of sponsorship. As the
international community unite and build a coalition against terrorism
and apply various sanctions, states will become less likely to
overtly support terrorist groups or engage in state sponsored
terrorism. The possibility of covert provision of weapons, financing
and logistical support nonetheless remains, and detecting such
transfers will clearly require a systemic application of intelligence
in states where terrorists operate or may be perceived to operate.
Other issues which surface the agenda in the wake of 11 September
is how to condemn and combat such terrorist activity, and the
extreme and violent ideology of specific radical groups, without
appearing to be anti Islamic in general. A desire to impose sanctions
on a state for supporting international terrorism may conflict
with other foreign policy aims involving that nation.
Since 11 September 2001 the current policy focus is on terrorist
organisations such as al-Qaeda and affiliated groups and state
supporters. However, in the future it is now expected that new
brands of terrorists will emerge: individuals who are not affiliated
with any established terrorist organisation and who are apparently
not agents of any state sponsor.
States already face a third generation of extremism, fostered
by the spread of mass education and disenchantment with current
regimes. The new wave consists of well educated cadres who had
some access to a Western-style education and see that political
Islam has a chance to repeal the nationalist monopoly on power,
as was demonstrated in Iran, Sudan and nearly won in Algeria.
These activists are more patient than their predecessors about
attaining power; they intend to pressure governments to gradually
implement the Shariah (Islamic law) before directly challenging
a regimes rule. However, such concessions do not prevent the Islamic
Movements from attempting to control professional unions (such
as those of engineers, lawyers, physicians and academics) or from
creating "Islamic Zones" where state control is phased
out and replaced by direct management of public order and provision
of social services by the Islamic militants themselves.[48]
Such complexities, have to intense debate on which policies
to adopt. However, the challenge today is to analyse the contingent
nature of the factors behind the Islamic resurgence. As John Esposito
comments:
"The challenge today is to appreciate the diversity
of Islamic actors and movements to ascertain the reasons behind
confrontations and conflicts, and thus to react to specific events
and situations with informed, reasoned responses rather than predetermined
presumptions and reactions".[49]
Western states and the coalition against terrorism need to
understand a number of core issues in order to achieve an effective
campaign against terrorism:
1. Terrorism is only a symbol and symptom, the situation
cannot be improved unless the root causes and factors that lead
to it are addressed.
2. Terrorism is reprehensible in all manifestations,
whether it is carried out by individual, groups, or governments.
3. Terrorism is not confined to a particular place or
incidence. Injustice, wherever, it is, is a threat to humanity.
Any apparent discrimination in this regard is itself a factor
that contributes to terrorism.
How to respond to "Islamic resurgence" is an issue
which information is seriously lacking and which has led to many
misunderstandings between European countries, the United States
and Islamic countries. While Islamic forces are already influential
in countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Sudan, and Central
Asia, Islamic movements are trying to impose fundamentalist regimes
elsewhere by violent means, particularly in Algeria and Egypt,
with some degree of support from Iran (in Algeria's case) and
Sudan (in Egypt's case). Other countries, such as Tunisia and
Morocco, have adopted a programme of improving the status of women
which now makes them less vulnerable to the threats inherent in
some Islamic organisations.[50]
Policy Directions: Building Bridges
The main challenge for policy makers will be to create a
long-term strategy for the Muslim World. The first step would
be to dispel the myth of the so called "Islamic Threat",
and to avoid substituting Islamic resurgence for the disappearing
of the communist threat. The introduction of a "New World
Order" means that the United States must overcome the `mutual
stantization' that influenced their judgements and policy in the
past. America's most powerful leadership tool has the potential
to help regional governments blunt the impact of Islamic activism
and ease the continuing problems of establishing government legitimacy.
Understanding Islam will increasingly become one of the principal
levers to successful Middle East policy in the 21st century.[51]
When deciding on how to deal with Islamic resurgence there
is an easy and a hard path which the Western world can follow.
The easy path is to view Islam and Islamic revivalism as a "threat"
to pose a global Islamic threat whose core is terrorism
and violence. On the other hand, the more difficult path is to
move beyond the facile stereotypes and ready made images and answers.
Just as perceiving the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as the
"evil empire" had it's costs, so too does the tendency
of governments and the media to equate Islam, with Islamic radicalism,
terrorism and anti-Westernism, which seriously hamper our understanding
and condition our responses.[52]
It would be a mistake for policy makers to perceive Islamic
militancy as a monolithic trend. Revivalism and militancy are
diverse, and what is required is a grasp of the politico-religious
level in the Muslim world, the nature of the threats to existing
institutions, and possible course of actions for the Western world
and those European nations which are most directly concerned.
As the aftermath of 11 September 2001 both Western Governments
and Muslim states should consider some policy directions in order
to improve relations:
1. They should seek to know who the Islamic movements
are and what they are doing. This cannot be achieved if the west
views the Islamic challenge simply from the perspective of a "security
threat". Most often, Islamic groups are lumped together as
a single threat to Western interests. This is both unfair and
self-deluding; it ignores the diversity among these groups and
assumes that they are the only anti-Western force in their societies.
The West's security-driven approach to the Islamists underestimates
the societal services they provide and the validity of some of
their demands. And the West can hardly rely on frightened, isolated
local governments to properly educate it on opposition forces.[53]
2. To help find reasonable solutions for the Muslims
in Palestine, Kashmir, and in other parts of the World where Muslims
are facing oppression. In other words, to bridge the gap between
the rhetoric and policy, especially when dealing with issues which
are sensitive to the Muslim world such as; human rights, democracy,
nuclear weapons and terrorism. A successful Western policy can
only be achieved when there is no ambiguity on these matters.
3. Before leading the Western world and the United States
in particular, into a war against Islam, Western States need to
take a bird's-eye view of the so called Islamic crescent. By adopting
this method they would uncover a mosaic of many national, ethnic
and religious groups competing for power and influence; a multinational
phenomenon ranging from Malaysia to France, in which Islam, like
Christianity and Judaism, is less a transitional political force
and a more vital religion that provides spiritual support for
a broad spectrum of people, some liberal, some orthodox. It is
a kaleidoscope producing shifting balances of power and ideological
configurations that neither Tehran nor the Western States and
Washington can control.[54]
4) Muslims need to rebuild an idea of Islam which includes
justice, integrity, tolerance and the quest for knowledge-the
classic Islamic civilisation, not just the insistence on the rituals;
not just the five pillars of Islam but the entire building. Reducing
a sophisticated civilisation to simple rituals encourages simple
answers: reaching for guns and explosives, for instance. Today,
piety and virtue are reflected in political action, often equated
with violencenot sustained spirituality.[55]
5. The West should encourage the present Muslim states
to gradually associate "moderate" Islamist forces with
their governments. The Islamist ideological trend can no longer
be ignored. (State policies, for example in Jordan in the 1950s
and Egypt in the early 1970s, contributed directly to the growth
of Islamic movements as regimes sought to weaken the nationalist
or leftist opposition. However, since the collapse of the Shah's
regime in Iran, the extents to which regimes in the region have
retained powereven without much political legitimacyis
remarkable). Islamists should take part in state legislative bodies
and later in the executive branches. Pre-electoral pacts should
be negotiated between the government and other political parties,
including the Islamists, which should guarantee that the democratic
process, though gradual, would not be reversed by any party.[56]
6. Muslims need to put themselves in the position of
non-Muslims who see them as a threat; of Jews surrounded by what
they see as millions of Arabs united on one aspect alone, their
destruction. Muslim leaders also need to worry about social, demographic
and educational trends in their countries. Muslim population growth,
is amongst the highest in the world, the literacy rates among
the lowest, the figures for health facilities poor and the life
expectancy below average. The West must place pressure on Muslim
governments to "get their act's together", to ensure
justice and to provide clean administration. It must send serious
signals to the ordinary Muslim people, through it's media that
it does not consider Islam as the enemy, and must discourage the
knee-jerk "nuke `em" response to Muslims and the labelling
of any Muslim act as fundamentalist. The generalised and intense
content of the Western media towards Islam pushes many Muslims
into an anti-Western stance. However, much it may disagree with
certain aspects of Muslims behaviour, such as violence and terrorism.
The West needs to understand the Islamic expressions of revolt,
as movements against corruption and lack of justice, not necessarily
as anti-Western.[57]
The Islamic threat runs in cycles, however, the critical
factor will be the performance of existing ruling groups, the
extent to which they tolerate political dissent, and how resolutely
they tackle myriad economic and social ills. If they remain autocratic,
morally bankrupt, and oblivious to the demands of the middle class
and "lumpen proletariat", they will be vulnerable to
challenges from ever present dissidents. The latter, disillusioned
by Marxist theories and secular nationalism, have been compelled
to turn to religion and its attendant traditions. But the primary
inspiration for political action is the overthrow of power centres.
The task for the West is to develop strategies and contingency
plans that deal not with the threat of Islam but rather with the
problem of regime collapse and failed states.[58]
The events of 11 September have had a dramatic effect on
policy agendas in the West and the Muslim world, the need for
greater cultural understanding and dialogue, and Western commitment
to social, economic and political development in the Islamic world
are all in evidence.
1
President George W Bush, 10 November 2001. Back
2
Al-Qaeda is the Arabic word which means "the Base". Back
3
Philip Boulton, "British Muslims and the Global Jihad";
RUSI Journal, volume 20, No 13, December 2000. Back
4
Zahid Nawaz, Political Islam A source of Concern? (Memorandum
to the Strategic Defence Review, Defence Committee, House of Commons,
1997-98, p. 551). Back
5
Ibid. p. 552. Back
6
Ibid. Back
7
Ghassan Salame, "Islam And The West", Foreign Policy
No 90, Spring 1993, p. 33. Back
8
John Esposito, "The Islamic Threat, Myth Or Reality?"
Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 252-253. Back
9
Ira M Lapidus. "Contemporary Islamic Movements In Historical
Perspective", (Policy Papers in International Affairs) University
of California, p. 62. Back
10
Zahid Nawaz, Political Islam A source of Concern? (Memorandum
to the Strategic Defence Review, Defence Committee, House of Commons,
1997-98, p. 556). Back
11
For further details see Sami G Hajjar, "The US and Islamic
Fundamentalist: The need for Dialogue" Strategic Review,
Winter 1997, p. 50-51. Back
12
Fred Halliday, Islam And The Myth Of Confrontation, Religion
and Politics In the Middle East, I B Tauris Publishers, 1995,
p. 108. Back
13
See Transcaucasus And Central Asia, Foreign Affairs Committee,
23 March 1999, p. 3. Back
14
Lapidus, Ira M, "A History of Islamic Societies", Cambridge
University press 1988, p. 53. Back
15
William Pfaff, "Help Algeria's Fundamentalism", The
New Yorker, 28 January 1991 and Benazir Bhutto, "Cold
War: Heroes, Villains and Spies", (Paper presented at Chatham
House 10 September 1998) p. 40. Back
16
Fred Halliday, "Islam And The Myth Of Confrontation, Religion
and Politics In the Middle East", I B Tauris Publishers,
1995, p. 109. Back
17
Middle East Times, "People Direct Islam in any Direction
They Wish", 28 May-3 June 1991, p. 15. Back
18
Bernard Lewis, "The Roots Of Muslim Rage", Atlantic
Monthly 226:3 September 1990, p. 2. Back
19
John Esposito, "The Islamic Threat, Myth Or Reality?"
Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 197. Back
20
BBC Monitoring, Asia Pacific, 13 September 2001. Back
21
The Pakistan Awamee Thereek was established in 1988, Professor
Dr M Tahir-ul-Qadri, a well known religious and political figure
who is also the chairman of a moderate Islamic movement: Tehreek
Minhaj-ul-Quran. Back
22
Dr M Tahir-ul-Qadri, "Extremism: Causes and Cures"
The Nation, December 14, 2001. Back
23
Lecture delivered by Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri, Terrorism & International
Peace, September 2001, Pakistan. Back
24
Ibid. Back
25
The Times 27/09/01 "A bad time to be Asian in Britain. Back
26
The Daily Record 23/10/01 "Protect Us From Hatred". Back
27
Western Mail 01/11/01 "racist Attacks treble after
11 September atrocities". Back
28
Statement By Prime Minister Tony Blair, 7 October 2001. Back
29
Statement by George W Bush, 15 November 2001. Back
30
BBC News onlineHttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk-politics/neewsid.stm Back
31
The Guardian 28/09/01,/Blair Condemns racist attacks". Back
32
The Times 19/09/01 "Blair Tells British Muslims:
We are not blaming Islam". Back
33
Morning Star 21/09/01 "Scots Parliament slams racist
attacks". Back
34
The Times 27/09/01 "Prescott urges Reach out to Local
Muslims". Back
35
The Times 04/10/01 "Thatcher speaks out on terror". Back
36
BBC News onlineHttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk-politics/neewsid.stm Back
37
Al-Muhjiroun is the arabic for "Immigarnt". The names
places a religious significance on the Hijrah, where the Prophet
Mohammed migrated from Mecca to Medinah. Back
38
The Sun 3/10/01 "Abdul from Dagenham". Back
39
The Independent 20/09/01 "Anger at clerics extremism
as race attacks rise". Back
40
The Independent 23/10/01 "Islamic leaders Argue on
Britons joining Taliban. Back
41
The Independent on Sunday 30/09/01 "An audience with
the Tottenham Ayatollah". Back
42
Daily Telegraph 30/10/01 "Britons who join the Taliban
face Trial". Back
43
David Mellor, Sunday People 4/11/01 "Price of selling
our Nation Short". Back
44
Melanie Philips, Sunday Times 4/11/01 "Britain is
in denial about the angry Muslims within". Back
45
Mary Ann Sieghart, The Times 31/10/01 "If they despise
the West, why have extremist Muslims chosen to live in this country? Back
46
Daily Star 30/10/01 "stay out or else". Back
47
The Express 27 October 2001, "Treason: British Muslims
may be charged". Back
48
The Sun 26 October 2001, "Traitor Muslims must not
be let back into Britain". Back
49
See Foad Ajami "The Vanished Imam", Cornell University
Press 1986, Chapters 1-2. Back
50
Esposito John, "Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality", Oxford
University Press, 1992, p 169. Back
51
See Philip Gordon, "The Transatlantic Allies And The Changing
Middle East", International Institute For Strategic Studies,
Adelphi Paper 322, Oxford University Press, 1998. Back
52
Ira M Lapidus "Contemporary Islamic Movements in Historical
Perspective. Policy Pares in International Affairs", University
of California, p 65. Back
53
Sami G Hajjar, "The US and Islamic Fundamentalist: The Need
for Dialogue", Strategic Review, Winter 1997, p 52. Back
54
Leon T Hdar, "What Green Peril", Foreign Policy, 72
(2) 1993, p 31. Back
55
Akbar S Ahmed, "Towards the Global Millenium: The Challenge
of Islam", The World Today, August/September 1996,
p 216. Back
56
Ghassan Salame, "Islam and the West", Foreign Policy
No 90, spring 1993, p 34. Back
57
Akbar S Ahmed, "Towards the Global Millennium: The Challenge
of Islam", The World Today, August/September 1996,
p 216. Back
58
William H Lewis, "The Growing Reach of Radical Islam",
Joint Force Quarterly, (JFQ) Autumn 1995, p 49. Back
|