Select Committee on Defence Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


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 EthiopiaKenyaSt Kitts & Nevis
ArgentinaFranceLebanon St Lucia
AustraliaThe Gambia LiberiaSt Vincent & the
AustriaGermanyLithuania Grenadines
BangladeshGhanaMalaysia Sweden
BarbadosGreeceMexico Switzerland
BelarusGrenadaThe Netherlands Taiwan
BelgiumGautemalaNew Zealand Thailand
BelizeGuyanaNicaragua Togo
BoliviaHaitiNigeria Trinidad & Tobago
BrazilHondurasPakistan Turkey
CanadaHong KongPanama Ukraine
ChileIndiaParaguay United Kingdom
ChinaIndonesiaPeru USA
ColombiaIrelandPhilippines Uruguay
Czech RepublicIsrael PolandUzbekistan
DominicaItalyPortugal Venezuela
Dominican RepublicJamaica RomaniaYemen
EcuadorJapanRussia Yugoslavia
EgyptJordanSouth Africa Zimbabwe
El SalvadorKazakhstan South KoreaSpain
       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 violence—not 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 power—even without much political legitimacy—is 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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 15 May 2003