We must continue to fight extremist Islamism

Photo: Youssef Shoufan (Flickr)

“When the Islamic world hates us, we have only ourselves to thank.” So goes the dogmatic masochism which has characterised the multiculturalist Left for the last decade. But they are missing the point: Islam has been on the same path since its inception, as we can see from the inflexibility of its scriptures and supplementary texts. The path of Islamic conquest in the centuries after its inception corroborates this point, so too does the clash of the Jeffersonian Navy and the Barbary pirates in the 18^th Century.

Traditional Islamic attitudes towards apostates as well as ‘blasphemers’ (the definition of which is rather porous) is hardly compassionate, and so why aren’t we surprised that so many fundamentalists see it fit to organise terrorist atrocities such as the one which a group of British men from Birmingham men confessed to last month? The horrific carnage to rock the Boston Marathon conforms to type, and is an outrage committed by lone fanatics inspired by bin Ladenist doctrines of hatred and religiously inspired totalitarianism. This is the case; and it only serves to show that we have not yet won the war on terror or the war against theocratic fascism either. While these are in a minority, it is still a worryingly large proportion of the 1.2 billion Muslims we hear of, who are all assumed to be ‘offended’ by all supposed insult to their prophet or faith.

Home-grown terrorists are hardly new for the United Kingdom. The bosom of the nation (and as some Right-wing rags were so happy to point out, the welfare system too), nurtured the vile perpetrators of the rightly infamous 7/7 attacks on London in 2005. It was not a surprise to see bearded would-be-jihadits lining the streets of London on Remembrance Sunday to protest against troop deployments designed to save their co-religionists from torture and abuse by fascist gangs and evil extremists. These echo the very people who happily oppress, for example, women: those whom a book of moral instruction says it is acceptable to rape if they will not sleep with their husbands.

Protests are small in number, but attract disproportionate coverage due to canny media manipulation – such as proscribed group Islam4UK which planned to demonstrate in the symbolic town of Wotton Bassett – before it was banned by the British Home Secretary in 2010. Small they may be, but they are aided in their mission to spread awareness by the very multiculturalist doctrines which originally were intended to safeguard minorities from this sort of wanton thuggary.

The fact that so many Muslims seem to hate the western conceptions of secularism and gender equality cannot be put down, as easy as it may be for some who rely on the Muslim vote (like George Galloway) to do so, to western intervention in Islamic countries. His cry that the policies of Britain and America have created ‘ten-thousand new bin Ladens’ only shows how out of touch he is; not only with factual reality (Galloway watchers gave him up for lost years ago on that one), but also the opinions of some Islamic leaders in these newly liberated nations.

Despite the sentiment expressed above; there are examples of Muslims, indeed the great majority of modern practitioners: who buck the trend of violence and ignorance. The following is an attempt to illustrate this.

The President of Iraq, Mr. Talabani, is not only a Kurd (which is remarkable in itself), he is also a Muslim. He, and many other political leaders like him, can combine their faith with holding public office, and even co-operating with the Americans. He is joined in the Iraqi Parliament and corridors of power by Sunni and Shia practitioners, all of whom don’t hate the western forces (who aimed to improve their lives by removing a brutal tyrant) simply because of their religion. Give them some credit!

Just because they subscribe to one religion does not make them automatically wish to kill all those who do not. Fundamentalist Islam teaches to kill non-believers, but individuals make their own choices; this is why suicide bombers are largely young men, devoid of all hope and love for anyone who isn’t supernatural. It is possible for rational people to escape the barbaric encirclement of dogma, in order that they might be peaceful and spiritually free.

What we need to do, and do so forcibly, is to break down the reasons for the latter example: ghettoisation, decline in respect for tolerance, and other peoples’ freedoms, and the isolation and ignorance which comes from traditions of mutual loathing. Multiculturalism keeps communities segregated from each other, only facilitating extremism and cultural illiteracy.

By all means tackle the problem, and the work the UK police is doing in combating potential terrorist activity is largely faultless, but we need to tackle the two root causes of the issue: the wicked use of the Quran peddled by grubby, demagogic, Imams; and the lack of serious links between communities. Sociological bankruptcy is not helping reconciliation.

So yes, it is our fault. But not through any action of anti-Muslim provocation – other than merely existing. Our crime, and why we are to be haunted with the spectre of extremist Islamic anger until this squalid little ideology is stamped out, is not combating the sinister doctrine of exceptionalism which has fostered such a master-servant relationship. Even moderate Muslim voices, compressed by the media need to shape a narrative into one, easy-to-use stereotype, are marginalised by the continued lack of any serious campaign against the pernicious nature of absolutist Islam in the UK.

Our cultural and military deference to Islamic extremism and the culture of inbuilt violence which emanates from a minority reading of a holy book is what has led directly to nastily capricious heights, creating a default setting of outrage. Until we can promote secular values in society, and remove ourselves from the demeaning task of pandering to religious authorities in search of solutions, we will continue to see the sort of evil which was luckily foiled by the law. Too bad Boston was not quite so lucky.

James Snell. Follow on Twitter @James_P_Snell

Egypt: A Bloody Shame Indeed

Morsi’s supporters celebrate victory. Photo: Lorenz Khazaleh (Flickr)

One of the major victories of the Arab Spring was the new raft of democratically elected leaders who came to power following the fall of dictatorial regimes who terrorised their people and ruled without regard for freedom of speech, of the press and the views of the down-trodden who inhabited the levels in society below those of the privileged elite who controlled so much of their lives.

This process of democratising the region led to the first free and fair Egyptian election in decades; the election of Mohammad Morsi, candidate for a previously banned party (the Muslim Brotherhood), who successfully won the election as President of the newly freed country. This was a fresh political experience for Egypt’s young population, with millions never having had the opportunity to vote before during the term of the last leader, Hosni Mubarak, and his long fiefdom over the whole nation.

This glorious enfranchisement made the whole country feel like it had a real say in events, for the first time in years. This made the elections held after Mubarak’s downfall particularly engaging and exciting for ordinary Egyptians; their pet parties had to win, in order to get in there first and truly shape the country so monopolised by the oligarchs. The political energy, of the sort not seen in the more apathetic ‘reserved’ European and American democracies, was hailed as another success of the Arab Spring, with a strong vibrant culture around voting becoming the centrepiece for all those who (correctly) supported the Egyptians in their valiant struggle for self government.

However, this joyous revelling in a new found ability to determine the leadership of the nation also created many problems. The movements of mass action which had characterised the protests against the regime also had an effect on the way the campaigns were run as well as the level of political discourse in the country. For even after the brave citizen-led fight to stop the tyranny had been done in a spirit of unity, vast chasms of division remained amongst the politically educated. There were huge amounts of polarisation and partisanship in the run up to the election.

The BBC did an excellent piece analysing the potential results and cross-referencing the potential voters. It turns out that women (by a considerable margin) favoured the non-Islamic candidate, Ahmed Shafik, who was considered by some to be a stooge for the former government. This rejection by womanhood is significant in two ways: the first is their disenchantment with the Islamic message preached by Morsi and his supporters (perhaps showing an awakening amongst those the religion oppresses most?). It is also significant in that women were actually allowed to vote, in direct contrast to other ‘Islamic Republics’.

The world may not be ready for a democratically elected Islamic leader of a free country. People in the West who supported the military intervention in Libya were hugely alarmed when the Leader of the National Transitional Council, Mustafa Jilil, said that the new constitution of the country would be broadly based on ultra-conservative Sharia Law, ‘obviously’. It does appear worrying that those who so keenly wrote and spoke in favour of Arabs making their own political futures and choosing their own leaders, are then recoiling when they choose something alien to our experience. Let me be clear, if the new countries’ governments stay within a democratic framework, then there are no problems.

However; if, like in Egypt now, the government exceeds its own powers and gives itself new ones (which the Morsi administration is currently doing) then the world at large is legitimised in its’ worries for the people, and the region. The consequences of further international involvement in a region already struggling to rebuild after the last encounter with hellfire missiles and a democratically elected demagogue at the helm are not happy ones.

It is a true travesty, after winning an election, and the respect of the international community in his mediation between Israel and Palestine (which not only prevented an escalation of the region’s problems, but also demonstrated a new resurgence from Egypt as a new power in the area) he had proved himself capable of the office entrusted to him. To see all of that disintegrate in a matter of hours from statesman to mob orator, who has to watch his party headquarters burn as the collective will of the Egyptians is once more released on another leader with dictatorial ambitions.

Morsi is defiant; he cannot govern while others have the ability to challenge his decisions and to amend them, he has decreed that none of his actions can be changed by the legislature; this is controlling, and hardly the actions of a democrat. But the other implications of his new move are profound. He is now able to take any action necessary to safeguard the revolution. This is Leninist in essence, and any mention of emergency powers whilst in the presidency is pure Putin.

He may genuinely think that by his actions he is stream-lining the process of making decisions, and he may think that concentrating more power in his hands is a positive attempt to respond to crises quicker, and he may well take false consolation in the evidence: he has, after all, done very well in the only major problem to come his way so far.

But this is no true indication of the stresses of his job and the future challenges, where his course of action may not be so well defined. The default Arab response is to defend Palestine, and that has served him well so far, but how can we guess he will respond to a more convoluted situation: presumably involving Iran and Israel? He has no obvious route to navigate the storm of angry rhetoric, UN Security Council vetoes and powerful backers. Let us hope the violence and strife makes him change his ways; we don’t want a situation like 1917, where the errors of a revolutionary government were considered as strong as to warrant another, and more disastrous, upheaval.

James Snell

Film review: Zero Dark Thirty

Photo: Sony/Columbia Pictures

It became one of the most widely circulated images ever. Pete Souza’s capturing of the moment the leading figures of the United States crammed into the White House Situation Room to follow the progress of the hunt for the world’s most wanted man, Osama bin Laden. President Obama, in a white polo shirt and blue jacket, looks small and powerless on the edge of his seat. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton holds her hand to her face in suspense.

But what about the scenes behind the screen they all appear to be watching? Zero Dark Thirty, a documentary-style drama film, aims to recreate a picture of the self-described ‘greatest manhunt in history’ and shed some light onto the events leading up to the assassination. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, who has form in the field having previously directed The Hurt Locker to six Academy Awards, the film focuses on Maya, a young CIA officer, and her journey of uncovering the intelligence needed to confirm Bin Laden’s whereabouts.

Throughout, Maya (Jessica Chastain) is clinging on to a lead by the name of Abu Ahmed, thought to be a close associate of Bin Laden’s. But when a detainee, after looking at a photograph of Ahmed, claims he is dead, the game appears to be up; that is until it emerges that the man in the photograph is in fact Ahmed’s older brother. From here on in, Maya has the self-belief to follow through on her lead; committed and determined, she is essentially portrayed as locating Bin Laden all by herself. Whether or not, in reality, the character played by Chastain was quite so central to the search is questionable; to this date she remains strictly undercover and lips closed.

That being said, whilst not claiming absolute historical accuracy, Zero Dark Thirty clearly attempts to offer a respectable recreation of what is still a very recent event. At 157 minutes long, it is a challenging watch; the first hour is particularly torturous, quite literally. Featuring uncomfortable scenes of water-boarding and other forms of torture, it has provoked controversy in the US; with Washington insiders claiming it overstates the use of torture, and others claiming it promotes torture as the necessary means to an end.

The film’s highlight, the night US Navy SEALs raided Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, is a worthy climax; part Call of Duty, part Splinter Cell, the scene is tense and personal. Interestingly, Barack Obama, who broke the news of Bin Laden’s assassination to the world on May 2nd 2011 and benefitted politically from the event, hardly features; his face on a screen in the background of a meeting room being the sole reference.

Only the harshest critic would claim Zero Dark Thirty is guilty of hyperbole or excessive American patriotism. Ending with a close-up of an emotional Maya, many questions remain unanswered; was she pleased to have finally caught the man she had been seeking for so long? Had the success of the mission justified the use of torture in the process? Were the benefits of US involvement in the Middle East outweighing the costs? Ultimately, as much as you could wish for from a film of this kind, Zero Dark Thirty allows viewers to decide for themselves.

Robert Smith is Editor of Politiker. Follow on Twitter @RobertSmithUK

How strong is Joseph Nye’s case for US intervention in Libya?

Photo: World Economic Forum

American neo-liberal founder Joseph Nye recently published an article in which he gave four reasons for which the American intervention in Libya is justified. Nye argued that the operation in Libya is a strong case for humanitarian intervention because of the danger of slaughter Gaddafi posed to the people in Benghazi.

Second, the action is a multilateral effort in which France and Britain have taken the lead. This might diminish the concerns that the US is trying to impose its interests in the Middle East. Third, the intervention is legitimate because it has the approval of both the UNSC and the Arab League. Finally, Nye states that the operation should have limited objectives and a limited duration in order not to become a long term engagement for the states involved.

There are two main problems with Nye’s arguments. The main one is the matter of legitimacy. Even though the Coalition forces intervened after having obtained the consent of the Arab League and the UN Security Council, the 5 members which abstained from the vote could raise new problems especially if NATO is given control over the operation.

Germany and Russia, along with India, China and Brazil have expressed their worries with regard to the extent of the operation. They opposed military action and they might take a different position in case NATO takes the lead. The French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, also opposes a NATO lead because it fears legitimacy might be at stake. Turkey and Norway have also expressed their concerns with regard to the command structure. Furthermore, the German representatives left the meeting of the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s decision-making committee after his country had been criticised for refusing to get militarily involved.

This proves once again that even though multilateral action is enjoys a higher degree of legitimacy, it can be doomed to failure particularly because of the large number of actors involved. The decision making process becomes more complicated which eventually affects the outcome of the intervention.

The second problem with Nye’s argument of which he is aware is that Gaddafi continues to have some supporters among the Libyan people. US President Barak Obama stated that the operation should have limited objectives and a limited duration, but this might not be the case. Neither of the states involved in the intervention would be willing to engage in a long term operation. For Libya not to become another failed humanitarian intervention on the UN’s list the members of the coalition need to agree upon the course of action and decide what role should each play.

Anca Voinea

Tony Blair: Life in Iraq not as I hoped

In a BBC Newsnight Special, broadcast last night on BBC Two, Presenter Kirsty Wark interviewed Former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on his views of life in Iraq ten years on from the US-led invasion. Despite the situation of daily life for many Iraqis not meeting Mr Blair’s expectations, he has insisted that the outlook is far more positive than it had been under Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Having long “given up trying to persuade people that it was the right decision”, Mr Blair echoed the importance of understanding the challenges he faced in making a “complex” and “difficult decision”.

“Sometimes you come to a decision where whichever choice you take the consequences are difficult and the choice is ugly” says Mr Blair.

The Newsnight Special, ‘Iraq: 10 Years On’, which marks the upcoming 10th anniversary of the invasion, is now available on BBC iPlayer.