From The Tony Blair Faith Foundation...
By Tony Blair, The Way Forward, 22 September 2014
By Tony Blair, The Way Forward, 22 September 2014
In
this essay, Tony Blair sets out seven principles of understanding that he
believes should underpin a comprehensive strategy to counter religious
extremism:
The
horrifying events of the past weeks in Syria and Iraq have significantly
shifted the terms of the debate about whether intervention is desirable or
sensible to counter the violence in the Middle East and its potential impact back
in our own countries.
President
Obama is rightly building the broadest possible coalition for action against ISIS and should be given all support
necessary. It is also clear that he is developing US strategy in a way that
recognises that the threat is bigger and broader than ISIS. This is important
and should also be supported. Secretary John Kerry has succeeded in putting
together a formidable array of allies for the immediate task; France has
already taken action; David Cameron is pledging British support. Today's
leaders have this opportunity: as a result of changes in the politics of the
Middle East, there is a real possibility of building a coalition that goes far
beyond the West. Leading Arab nations are also part of the coalition. This is
invaluable and corrects one of the principal weaknesses of Western strategy
after September 11th 2001.
‘In
addition, there are at least the beginnings of an emerging consensus which is
global, about the nature of the threat we face. It is clear that there is a
fundamental problem with radical Islamism; clear that it is deep; clear that
the solutions are not easy or presently to hand; clear that this is the work of
a generation not an election cycle; and clear – most important of all – that
this is 'our' challenge and not simply 'theirs'.
Without
a comprehensive strategy, we will face a future marked by conflict and
instability across swathes of the world and major acts of terrorism in our own
lands.’
However
there is still hesitation and unresolved expanses of discord in how we describe
the problem and therefore in how we confront it. Here I will set out my
analysis of what has happened, what is happening and what will happen and my
belief that without a comprehensive strategy, we will face a future marked by
conflict and instability across swathes of the world and major acts of
terrorism in our own lands.
By
all means let us take strong action against ISIS and against the citizens of
our own country that seek to join them. But action against ISIS alone will not
suffice. We need to recognise the global nature of the problem, the scale of
it, and from that analysis contrive the set of policies that will resolve it. I
want to set out seven principles of understanding that I believe should underpin
such a strategy.
Islamism
of course is not the same as Islam. The religion of Islam is an Abrahamic
religion of compassion and mercy. For centuries it shamed Christendom with its
advances in science and social development. This is not a clash of civilisations.
It is a struggle between those who believe in peaceful co-existence for people
of all faiths and none; and extremists who would use religion wrongly as a
source of violence and conflict. Our enemies are those who would pervert Islam.
Our allies are the many Muslims the world over who are the principal victims of
such a perversion.
I
also completely accept that strains of extremism are not limited to the faith
of Islam. Such strains exist in most faiths. But not on this scale or with this
effect. I agree too that in times past, Christianity exhibited cruelty and
engaged in persecution that produced war and suffering. How Christianity
escaped from that madness, is its own story. But we're dealing with the
present.
The
views I put forward are of course in part shaped by my experience dealing with
this issue as Prime Minister after the terror attack, planned from the training
camps of Afghanistan, of September 11th 2001, in which over 3000 innocent
people lost their lives on the streets of New York and elsewhere; and the
terror attacks in Britain of 7 July 2005 by British born Muslims. But they're
equally the product of the last 7 years spent outside official office, in the
Middle East every month, seeing and hearing first-hand what is happening there
and having the opportunity, without the vastly varied in-tray of a leader in
office, to study this phenomenon.
The
two Foundations which I have established – one around Africa Governance and the
other concerned with promoting respect between religious faiths and countering
extremism – have also allowed me to examine the dynamics of what is happening
not only in the Middle East but in the world, precisely around the challenge we
now face. In the case of the Faith Foundation the connection is obvious. In the
case of the Africa Governance Initiative, though it
is primarily about helping African Governments implement vital programmes of
change, it is increasingly clear that unless a way is found to deal with the
de-stabilising power of religious extremism many African countries will be
unable to make the progress they so urgently need.
So
this is why I chose to do what I now do. I became convinced whilst PM that this
was the issue of our time. I am even more convinced now.
1. Join the Dots. It Is One Struggle.
There
has been a tendency to see the conflicts happening in different parts of the
world as unconnected, as driven by a collection of separate, essentially
localised disputes. So we respond to each in its own way. One crisis arises and
we act; another rears its head and we take another action. Or perhaps better we
should describe our policy as a series of reactions. We have not yet a sense of
a unifying core of strategic analysis leading to a set of actions that are
governed by that core and that have coherence on a global scale.
They
have one huge and central element in common: extremism based on an
interpretation of Islam which represents a clear ideology.
I
say that what is happening in Syria, Iraq, and across the Middle East; and what
is happening in Pakistan, Nigeria, Mali, or in parts of Russia or in the
Xinjiang province of China or in multiple other parts of the globe, are linked.
They form different parts of one struggle. They all have their individual
aspects. They all have unique dimensions. It would be odd if it weren't so.
‘But
they have one huge and central element in common: extremism based on an
interpretation of Islam which represents a clear ideology that, even if loosely
at times, is shared by all these different groups of extremists.’
So
in every case there are distinct factors. Some are to do with long standing
grievances over territory, or ethnic and tribal differences. Some are protests
against central Governments and policies of repression. Some involve a dispute
over the ownership and management of resources. But to deny as a result of
these distinct factors, the common factor of religious extremism and of a
particular ideology associated with the extremism, is wrong as a piece of
analysis and dangerous in its consequences for policy.
I
understand this is a contentious analysis. For example, in respect of the
Middle East there has been a revival of the old Sykes-Picot debates, and whether it was
the drawing of the map of the region by the British and French back in 1920
which is at the root of the present troubles. This is a quaint but ultimately
fanciful explanation for what is happening. It is true of course that some of
the lines then drawn have been fiercely contested. Some were at the time. True
also that there are those within the region who see a chance in all the chaos,
to right a perceived wrong of the past, since it is certainly true that the
lines were drawn not by the people of the region but by the external powers,
Britain and France.
But
since those lines were put, however capriciously on the cartographers table
almost 100 years ago, (and there was less caprice in it than sometimes
imagined), the region has undergone a vast demographic transformation and
become the centre of the world's energy production.
For
example, in 1920, the population of the UK was around 50m; France 40m; Germany
60m. Today the figures are roughly 60m for UK and France and 80m for Germany.
i.e. a significant increase but not a transformation. Consider the figures for
countries of the Mid East (not all obviously affected by Sykes-Picot, but all
part of the same region). Egypt in 1920, 13m; now almost 90m. Syria less than
2m in 1920, by 2011, over 20m; Iraq in 1920, under 3m, now over 30m. Saudi
Arabia had a population of just over 3m. Today it boasts 30m. Ancient
Palestine, a hundred years ago, had less than 1m Arabs and Jews combined; now
it is around 12m for Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
In
1920, oil production was minimal. The people, small in number, eked out a living
often as poor farmers.
The
last century has been transformative in a unique way in the Middle East. Going
back would not be easy.
In
any event all of these problems would be manageable if there was not violence
and terror being visited on the region. Yes, there are long standing grievances
and scars of tribe and tradition; but the reason why there is a living
nightmare in the Middle East today, is not because of the politics of identity,
but the politics of hate driven by Islamist extremism.
It
isn't the case that if we dealt with the historic issues of identity and
boundaries, we would curb the extremism; it is literally the other way round:
if we eliminated the extremism, we could resolve the issues of identity and
borders.
The
ideologies of the 20th C which caused such distress and conflict also
manifested themselves in existing grievances and disputes in a variety of
different ways and situations. But there is no doubt that the common factor of
shared ideology crucially impacted both the manner in which conflicts arose and
the vehemence with which they were conducted. Revolutionary communism had many
faces. So did fascism. But their essential ideological character played a
defining part in how the history of the 20th C was written, the alliances that
were formed, the spheres of influence created. We have to see this ideology
born out of a perversion of religious faith, in the same way.
In
saying this I do not want at all to minimise the importance of the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict or its effect on extremism. I believe this
conflict remains absolutely central to the future of the region. I speak and
write about it so much I do not want to repeat myself here.
However
I think it is also now clear that this conflict, in itself, cannot explain the
turmoil of the region at this present time.
By seeing the struggle against Radical
Islamism as one, albeit with many different arenas of action, we then can see
plainly what before has been obscured: that no strategy to counter it, will
work, unless it is comprehensive i.e. unless the big picture is perceived and
understood. This alone has fundamental implications for policy.
So
we are right in the immediate term to concentrate on defeating ISIS. Defeating
them is indeed vital. But another ISIS will quickly arise to take their
place unless we go to the root of the issue and deal with this ideology
wherever and however it shows itself on a coordinated global basis.
2. The Problem is Getting Worse not Better
The
evidence is clear: the problem is growing not diminishing. The coverage of
these issues in the Western media is led by events. The more horrific – such as
the murders of the hostages – the more it intrudes on our conscience. But the
truth is whilst we have focused on the hideous rampage of ISIS out of Syria
into Iraq, the killing in Syria has continued, with now more dead than in the
whole of Iraq since 2003; the slaughter of the innocent by Boko Haram in Nigeria goes on;
the growth of militia violence in Libya is unabated (and I warn that Libya is
going to become a problem potentially as bad as Syria if we do not take care);
in Xinjiang in the last months hundreds have died and in the hill country of Pakistan the Army
of the State fights an existential battle against terrorism, with hundreds of
thousands displaced.
The
timely summit on Africa held by President Obama in the early part of August
swiftly became as much about the terrorist menace as about the more positive
story of investment and commercial opportunity. Countries like Kenya are
confronted now with an extraordinary challenge that puts at risk all the
immense and substantial progress of the past years; and this has happened in
the space of months.
‘The evidence is clear:
the problem is growing not diminishing.’
And
I haven't even mentioned Somalia or Yemen
or the Central African Republic or the travails of Central Asia. Just last
week, we saw terrorist attacks in Thailand and a foiled plot in Uganda, neither
country normally featuring on the roll call of extremism; and of course the
arrests in Australia.
In
our own countries, the biggest security threat we face: our own citizens –
radicalised Muslims – who have gone to fight 'Jihad' in Syria, returning home battle-hardened
and bent on bringing their 'holy' war to our own towns and cities.
In
a grim harbinger of things to come, the spectre of anti-Semitism is again
stalking the streets of Europe. The response of the political class has so far
been confined to strong statements of disapproval. But this is an evil that
requires gripping right now with firm and uncompromising action against both
the perpetrators of violence and their ideological fellow travellers. When, a
few days back, Chancellor Merkel took the extraordinary step of attending a
rally in Berlin against anti-Semitism, accompanied by her entire Cabinet, it
was a welcome response to recent events in Germany; but it was also an
illustration of the seriousness of the problem.
3. The Challenge is a
Spectrum not Simply a Fringe
This
argument goes to the heart of the scale of the challenge and why we find it so
hard to comprehend it, let alone defeat it. The problem is not that we're
facing a fringe of crazy people, a sort of weird cult confined to a few
fanatics. If it was, we could probably root it out, kill or imprison its
leaders, deter its followers and close the doors to new recruits.
The
problem is that we're facing a spectrum of opinion based on a world view which
stretches far further into parts of Muslim society. At the furthest end is the
fringe. But at the other end are those who may completely oppose some of the
things the fringe does and who would never themselves dream of committing acts
of violence, but who unfortunately share certain elements of the fanatic's
world view. These elements comprise, inter alia: a belief in religious
exclusivity not merely in spiritual but in temporal terms; a desire to re-shape
society according to a set of social and political norms, based on religious
belief about Islam, wholly at odds with the way the rest of the world has
developed, for example in relation to attitudes to women; a view of the West,
particularly the USA, that is innately hostile and regards it essentially as
the enemy, not only in policy but in culture and way of living.
‘The problem is that
we're facing a spectrum of opinion based on a world view which stretches far
further into parts of Muslim society…This Islamism – a politicisation of
religion to an intense and all-encompassing degree – is not confined to a
fringe. It is an ideology (and a theology derived from Salafist thinking)
taught and preached every day to millions, actually to tens of millions, in
some mosques, certain madrassas, and in formal and informal education systems
the world over…It is the spectrum that helps create the fringe.’
A
large part of Western policy – and something I remember so well fighting in
Government – is based on the belief that we can compromise with the spectrum in
the hope of marginalising the fringe. This is a fateful error. All we do is to
legitimise the spectrum, which then gives ideological oxygen to the fringe.
Compile
a compendium of all the formal and informal methods of teaching religion in
Muslim communities, even in our own countries, and what you will find is much
more frightening than you would think: that in many countries even those considered
moderate, there is nonetheless a significant number of young people taught a
view of religion and the world that is exclusive, reactionary and in the
context of a world whose hallmark is people mixing together across the
boundaries of race and culture, totally contrary to what those young people
need to succeed in the 21st C. Only Foundations like my own and the Global
Community Engagement and Resilience Fund are even attempting such an endeavour
- a sign of the paucity of the strategy, on a global scale, which we require.
Then
go to the online following of the more radical clerics and see how some,
including those with views actually very close to the fringe, have followers numbered
not in thousands or even tens of thousands, but in millions. Read some of the
twitter feed coming out of parts of the Mid East. Read the sermons that some of
the most acclaimed radical clerics give. Mohamed al-Araifi, banned in 26
European countries for his views on women and Jews, alone has 10 million people
who subscribe to his account.
So
we may naturally prefer to see these people who have come to our attention in
the last weeks as isolated lunatics, to be hunted down like serial killers and
with their demise the problem is eradicated. Would that it were so. But it
isn't. Unless we confront the spectrum as well as the fringe, we will only
eliminate one group and then be faced with another.
4. Fight the Fringe; Speak Out against
the Spectrum
The fringe and the spectrum require different
strategies. There is a clear difference between those with whom we disagree,
however strongly, and those who are an active security threat.
We
have to fight the fringe. Here are certain guiding principles of analysis when devising
the means of doing so.
The
first is that it is hard to envisage compromise with such people. They have no
reasonable demands upon which we can negotiate. This is not like Irish
Republicanism. There may be individual conflicts – like the Mindanao dispute in
the Philippines –
where there can be a peace agreement reached because the primary cause of
conflict is local. But in general, though
political engagement can reduce the support and freedom of manoeuvre of the
fanatics, or divide off the merely disaffected, as was the case in Iraq up to
2010, there is no alternative to fighting and defeating the hard-core.
At
a certain point, once they know superior and determined force is being used
against them, some of them at least may be prepared to change. And some
undoubtedly have taken up arms because of genuine grievances. So yes it is true
that in Iraq after 2006, as a result of the 'Awakening', the political process
that brought the Sunni tribes to an understanding with the Government was
crucial. However so was the surge; so was the day after day, night after night,
war of attrition and suppression waged with such courage by US, UK and other
forces.
The
second is that the moment they cease to be fought against they grow; and fast.
ISIS now controls a territory in Syria and Iraq larger than the size of the UK.
Just think about that, let its full ghastly implications sink in. This is right
on the doorstep of Europe. Boko Haram was reported recently to have taken the
Northern city of Bama in Nigeria. Weapons from Libya together with funding have
increased their reach and firepower. Libya itself is in the grip of warring
factions where the risk is not just the vanquishing of internal stability, but
the export of arms, money and extremist personnel across the world. As fighters
are pushed out of Yemen, they go across to Somalia and from there across west
to the northern parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. With territory comes the
opportunity for these groups to gain money through extortion and kidnapping, to
access resources, and build manpower.
The third is that whilst terror is upright and
busy, it is impossible for any country to solve its everyday challenges and
embrace with confidence the future. It is not simply the act of terror and the
fact of carnage that de-stabilises a nation. It is the fear, the chaos, the tremor
throughout the whole of society, deepening fault-lines, exacerbating existing
divisions and giving birth to new ones. That is why it has to be fought against
with vigour and without relenting.
Fourth and hardest of all, because the enemy
we're fighting is fanatical, because they are prepared both to kill and to die
there is no solution that doesn't involve force applied with a willingness to
take casualties in carrying the fight through to the end.
This is where we get to the rub. We have to
fight groups like ISIS. There can be an abundance of diplomacy, all necessary
relief of humanitarian suffering, every conceivable statement of condemnation
which we can muster, but unless they're accompanied by physical combat, we will
mitigate the problem but not overcome it.
Airpower
is a major component of this to be sure, especially with the new weapons
available to us. But – and this is the
hard truth - airpower alone will not suffice. They can be hemmed in, harried
and to a degree contained by airpower. But they can't be defeated by it.
If
possible, others closer to the field of battle, with a more immediate interest,
can be given the weapons and the training to carry the fight; and in some,
perhaps many cases, that will work. It may work in the case of ISIS. There is
real evidence that now countries in the Middle East are prepared to shoulder
responsibility and I accept fully there is no appetite for ground engagement in
the West.
But we should not rule it out in the future if
it is absolutely necessary. Provided that there is the consent of the
population directly threatened and with the broadest achievable alliance, (to
which I return below), we have, on occasions, to play our part. To those who
say that after the campaigns in Afghanistan and
Iraq, we have no stomach for such a commitment, I would reply the difficulties
we encountered there, are in part intrinsic to the nature of the battle being
waged. And our capacity and capability to wage the battle effectively are
second to none in part because of our experience there.
However we're not talking here about armies of
occupation. We are, in certain situations where it is necessary and subject to
all proper limitations, talking about committing ground forces, especially
those with special capabilities.
What
helped turn the tide back in favour of Assad in Syria was the entry into the
conflict of Iranian backed Hezbollah. They
fought the ground war. They took casualties. On one account I was given, in a
short period before the end of 2013, they took more casualties than the UK in
the whole of Iraq in the years we were present there. For the same reasons
extremist groups rose to prominence in the Syrian opposition because they were
prepared to fight where the battle was hottest.
'I know
as well as anyone all the difficulties in advocating even the contemplation of
such a course. It may require change whether in NATO or within the framework of
European Defence to improve the force capability we have presently and our
ability to work in alliance with others. It may even require a new
configuration of combat forces altogether. But I repeat: you cannot uproot
this extremism unless you go to where it originates and fight it.'
The
spectrum is a different matter. Here the most important thing is to expose it,
to speak out against it, to make sure that at each point along the spectrum the
proponents of this ideology are taken on and countered; but also be prepared to
engage in dialogue and to acknowledge, as has been the case in Tunisia, that
some of those on this spectrum may be willing to leave it. So there should be
openness in our attitude, but the total absence of naivety. To engage
successfully, we have to be willing to confront.
We
are not doing this as of yet. The truth is that Islamism, unless fundamentally
reformed, is incompatible with modern economies and open-minded, religiously
pluralistic societies. This truth has to be recognised. This is not to say that
it should be subject to oppression. Certainly in our types of society, people
are perfectly entitled to hold views that we believe are destructive to our way
of life and that we profoundly disagree with. Provided that that they express
them within the law, that is their right.
But it is also our right to point out why they
are indeed incompatible with all we hold dear. And it is our duty, if we
believe in what we say we do, to take on the argument with vigour and to watch
with vigilance to see that Islamism does play by the rules in our own country.
And where, as so often abroad, they operate outside the law and seek to subvert
progress we should be keen to expose them and be loyal to those, in these
countries, who share our way of thinking.
This
is why I argue that in the Middle East and elsewhere, we should not view the
ideological struggle between Islamists and those who want open-minded
societies, as one in which we're neutral. There is a side we should take. And
we should do so with energy, because they need our support.
This
is why what has happened in Egypt is so important and what will happen in the future
is vital; including to our own interests. Of course there will be
disagreements, sometimes strong ones, – as over the jailing of the Al-Jazeera
journalists or the death sentences handed down to hundreds of people in one
ruling. I am not suggesting we do not criticise where it is right to do so.
This is not advocating a policy of 'turning a blind eye' to human rights
abuses. It is simply realising that in the complexity of the situation the
country finds itself, we have to be the friend onside and supportive - though
prepared to speak critically - not the distant commentator blind to the reality
of the assault on its way of life by radical Islamism which this ancient and
proud civilisation of Egypt faces.
Governments
are not NGOs. We have to represent and advance broad strategic interests in
defence of our values. It is massively to our advantage that President Sisi
succeeds. We should help him. We should
not make the mistake of dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood as if it were
merely an Arab version of the Christian Democrats. It isn't and there is little
sign it ever will be.
World-wide,
we should be on the look-out for where there is evidence that Islamist
organisations are on the march. Those that fund and support them should know
that we're watching, should know that what they want hidden, will instead be
exposed to the light.
5. Support Modern-minded Muslim
Opinion. They Are Our Allies
One
of the tragic myths of the past years has been the idea in the West – almost
like a new Orientalism – that Arabs in particular and even Muslims in general
are irredeemably lost in the mire of religious and ethnic dispute, that their
mind-set is incompatible with democracy, that the whole thing is really about
Shia vs Sunni, that they're condemned by some invincible force of history to be
in conflict and mayhem.
You
still hear people say 'Arabs think this' or 'the feeling in the Muslim world is
that'. This is no more accurate than saying 'the British think this' or
'Christians think that'. The fact is that opinion on most issues in the West is
divided. There is a plethora of views. It is no different today in the Arab or
Muslim world.
The
true significance of the so-called Arab Spring – in reality a series of
revolutions across the region – has not been properly understood in the West.
Having been initially naive about the ease with which societies creaking under
oppressive regimes and out of date institutions could make the transition to
modernity, we're now in danger of making the opposite mistake, believing that
the instability that has followed these revolutions shows the inherent
incapability of those societies to adapt and change.
‘What
we're actually witnessing is an agonising, immensely challenging but profound
transition away from the past to the future.’
The
regimes ultimately collapsed under the weight of their own contradictions, the
biggest one being the contradiction between the need for a modern economy and
well educated workforce in societies of burgeoning populations; and the reality
of a system totally unsuited to such an economy and the absence of such
education. Islamism often became the way that people protested against the
regime under which they were groaning. When the old order passed away or came
under attack, there was then a struggle between those who wanted a modern
economy and society to come into being and those who wanted to turn instead to
a religiously based order.
This is still the essential battle.
The lesson from Iraq or Afghanistan is that
where it is possible to have a process of evolution, then that is the optimal
outcome, because the instability which accompanies revolution and the ousting
of the old order is so difficult to bring under control and in the disorder
that follows revolution, the wrecking forces of extremism have the opportunity
to get out on parade.
This
is why in respect of both Libya and Syria, as I argued at the time, it would
have been better, if it had been possible, to have had an agreed process of
change even if it meant for a transitional period leaving the existing
leadership in place as the change happened.
However
where the Western debate misses the point is in thinking that the systems that
have been in place or still are, were or are sustainable for the long term. In
other words when people say things like – maybe it would have been better if
Saddam were still governing Iraq or Gaddafi in Libya or now want us suddenly to
ally ourselves with Assad because then at least we would have stability, they
fail to understand one crucial point: the people living under those regimes
won't accept it. The promise of stability of such a kind is hollow. This is the
significance of the revolutions. So leave aside the actual misery of the people
under those Governments. What the events following 2011 show is that the choice
is revolution vs evolution. The status quo is not on offer. That is where the
Islamists and the liberals agree.
The problem with the modern-minded elements –
if we can describe them like that – is that they are numerous but not
organised; whereas the Islamists are both numerous and well organised.
The important thing now is that we recognise
that this struggle is ongoing, that it is not lost, and that we should do all
we can to ally ourselves with those who want to get to the future but face
inordinate challenges in doing so.
This issue – so connected with the debate
inside Islam – cannot in the end be won other than by Muslims. But we have both
an interest in the outcome and a role in supporting those who realise that the
only hope for the future lies in a world in which different faiths and cultures
learn to live with each other in mutual harmony and respect.
6. East and West Should Work Together
One
thing is irrefutable: this is a challenge which East and West share. The
extremism and its attendant ideology have caused serious attacks and terror in
both Russia and China to say nothing of course of India. So the great powers of
the East, without doubt, desire the right outcome to this battle as much as us.
‘The
extremism and its attendant ideology have caused serious attacks and terror in
both Russia and China to say nothing of course of India.’
I
completely understand the hesitation of the West at any notion of an alliance
in any form with Russia. The events in Ukraine cast their long and dark shadow.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear I am not suggesting that we
reduce our pressure on Russia in any way in respect of Ukraine. I am not
contemplating some omnibus deal in which in return for help against the forces
of Islamism, we yield on the proper protection of the people of Eastern Europe.
I am making two points. The first is that the
main security challenge of the 21st C remains the Islamist threat. I do not
minimise the risk of a more conventional confrontation between the big powers
such as we saw in the 20th C. It is possible that Russia, relinquishing the old
Soviet armour, decides to wear new battle garb forged by exaggerated sentiments
of nationalism and to take it to the point of all-out war. We should certainly
not be complacent about the danger.
But my belief is that the 21st C will not
repeat the pattern of earlier times. The stakes are too high; the lessons of
history too unambiguous. I think the principal threat today will come from
non-State actors or from rogue States. Look at the death and terror of the past
years since 9/11, and most of it has come from these sources. Radical Islamism
is the issue.
On
this issue, we need the East as partners. We need them as partners for many reasons
to do with effective action against the threat, to coordinate, to cooperate and
to disrupt the activities of the Islamists. But we need them for another
reason. As will be very obvious reading the propaganda of the extremists and
those further along the spectrum, essential to the propagation of their world
view is the notion that this is a fight between the culture of the West and
Muslims.
We need to have it absolutely clear that this
is false. It is actually a global battle between those who believe in religious
tolerance and respect across boundaries of faith and culture; and those who
don't; between those who accept globalisation and those who don't, not because
globalisation produces injustice, but because it necessarily involves the mixing
and mingling of people.
In
making this case, it is important – I would say essential – to have East and
West lined up together. India should have a central part in any such alliance
of nations East and West, because of its size, its experience and its religious
composition.
7. Education is a Security Issue
This
is the question upon which the least is said in this whole debate, which is
both perplexing and alarming. Each and every
day the world over, millions, even tens of millions of young children are
taught formally in school or in informal settings, a view of the world that is
hostile to those of different beliefs. That world view has been promulgated,
proselytised and preached as a result of vast networks of funding and
organisation, some coming out of the Middle East, others now locally fostered.
These are the incubators of the radicalism. In particular the export of the
doctrines of Salafi Wahhabism has had a huge impact on the teaching of Islam
round the world.
I am not saying that they teach youngsters to
be extremists. I am sure most don't. But they teach them to take their place on
the spectrum. They teach a view of the world that warps young and unformed
minds, and places them in a position of tension with those who think differently.
If we do not tackle this question with the
honesty and openness it demands, then all the security measures and all the
fighting will count for nothing.
'As I
have said before, especially foolish is the idea that we leave this process of
the generational deformation of the mind undisturbed, at the same time as we
spend billions on security relationships to counter the very threat we allow to
be created.'
We
need at the G20, or some other appropriate forum, as soon as we can, to raise
this issue as a matter of urgent global importance and work on a common charter
to be accepted by all nations, and endorsed by the UN, which makes it a common
obligation to ensure that throughout our education systems, we're committed to
teaching the virtue of religious respect. This doesn't mean an end to religious
schools or that we oblige countries to teach their children that all religions
are the same. Catholic schools will continue to teach their children the
virtues of the Catholic faith. Muslim countries will continue to teach their
children the value of being Muslim. But we should all teach that people who
have a different faith are to be treated equally and respected as such. And we
should take care to root out teaching that inspires hatred or hostility.
The
work which my Foundation does – now in 30 different countries – shows clearly
the benefits of education programmes which teach young people about 'the other'
in ways which enhance mutual respect. There is plenty of evidence such
programmes work. We just need to act on it.
This should be a common global obligation, like action to root out
racism or action to protect the environment. Nations should feel the pressure
to promote respect and to eradicate disrespect.
‘Nations
should feel the pressure to promote respect and to eradicate disrespect.’
It follows from all the above that what is
required is a major overhaul of policy. This should be done without
recrimination or unnecessary dispute about the past. There will continue to be
fierce debate about the post 9/11 decisions particularly Iraq. But the fact of
the Arab revolutions since 2011 in the Middle East and North Africa and the
obvious prevalence of the Islamist problem far beyond the boundaries of either
Iraq or Afghanistan, mean that this issue has to be re-thought and debated
anew.
Neither
should anything here be taken as a criticism of the new generation of
leadership in the West. On the contrary I
sympathise enormously with the challenge which it is their grave responsibility
to meet. This is a problem of the first magnitude. It dismayed and often
disoriented those of us before them. It will continue well beyond the present
leaders. Certainly we made mistakes. And for sure our understanding frequently
fell short. This is the way of things when new and original threats of great
significance arise. But now we need to pool our energies and focus our
attention, learning from the past so as better to address the future, without a
narrow or partisan political debate, without attempts to discredit or decry,
but with the combined rigour of analysis and action the situation now urgently
demands.
SoRo:
Please read The Myth of ‘Moderate’ Islam in the Middle East in its entirety, but here are a few pull quotes from Ali Sina of Former Muslims United – Exposing the Myth of Moderate Islam:
I have always maintained that “moderate Muslim” is an oxymoron. We have two kinds of Muslims: Terrorist Muslims and ignorant Muslims. The former are those who know Islam well and live by its dictums. The latter have no clue about their religion and have an idealized image of Islam that has no bases in facts.
The problem is Islam, these are the symptoms.
Astonishing account? These accounts were reported by early Muslim historians. If Fatah is astonished it is because he, like most Muslims, has not read the history of Islam. Few Muslims care to investigate their religion. The references to Muhammad’s raids, rapes and lootings can also be found in the Quran. Muslims chant the Quran for thawab (reward), but they don’t study it and often don’t understand what they read.
Because Muhammad hated the Jews, Muslims will always hate the Jews. This hatred is inseparable from Islam.
Former Muslims hate Islam because we hate discrimination against women, violence against non-Muslims, dictatorship and imposition of faith that characterizes the true Islam, and because we know the damage that his overgrown cult has done to our people, our culture and our countries.
Former Muslims propose telling the truth as the solution. We believe that truth can set us free. Former Muslims do not advocate violence and hate against our own kin, brothers, sisters, parents, and loved ones. We strive for their freedom and their right to know the truth. We oppose censorship and political correctness that have enslaved the truth. Truth can hurt our feelings, but lies will kill us.
Islam is not tolerant because Muhammad was not tolerant. This does not mean all Muslims are intolerant. There have been many Islamic rulers who were tolerant, but they went against the canons of Islam, as many do today. That is why the jihadists who follow the true Islam are attacking these Muslim rulers.
One is either a Muslim, therefore emulates Muhammad and is a terrorist, or he is not a Muslim. Moderate Muslim makes as much sense as moderate Nazi.
A Muslim who does not practice Islam or believes Islam means peace is not a moderate Muslim, but a wishy-washy Muslim or an ignorant Muslim.
There are countless good people who are harassed, prosecuted and called racists because of this myth.
This myth is endangering the lives of the critics of Islam and is violating their right to free speech. Good people are called Islamophobe, bigot, racist and fascist because the world prefers politically correct untruths to the inconvenient truth. It is thanks to this myth that telling the truth has become the new hate speech.
I would like to remind the readers that virtually all Muslim terrorists come from a secular background. At one point they were just as “liberal” as Mr. Fatah is today until something happened in their lives and they turned to their faith.
Every “moderate” Muslim is a potential terrorist. The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire. For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith.
It is time to put an end to the charade of “moderate Islam.” There is no such thing as moderate Muslim. Muslims are either jihadists or dormant jihadists – moderate, they are not.
Related Reading:
http://tinyurl.com/kpbfava
No comments:
Post a Comment