We can’t justify Brussels and
Paris, but we have an obligation to listen to what those attacks say.
By Tariq Ramadan 25 March 2016
Terror and death have struck in
Europe once again, this time at the heart of European Union with a doubly
strategic message. Brussels is home to the Continent’s core institutions and
the attacks at the airport and the subway station neighboring the EU quarter
sent a clear message. The target is political, and no one, no matter who they
be, or where they are, will ever feel entirely safe again.
Condemnation of the attacks in
Brussels, as in Paris, Istanbul, Damascus, Baghdad, Bassam or Ouagadougou, has
to be firm, absolute, and without exceptions, half-measures or attempts to
distinguish between victims. Clarity is essential here, as it is in the
terminology we use and the solutions we propose. But before we can formulate a
response, we must face the problem head on and try to understand its origins
(this in no way means justifying acts of terrorism, whatever George W. Bush may
have said, and what Manuel Valls says today).
It is imperative that we untangle
the reasons behind this hard swerve toward violent extremism — because it is
not just “mad,” “irrational” and “inhuman.” These words only serve to confuse our
vocabulary, and offer no political clarification on the elements of the
equation. They add blindness to an emotional reaction already stoked by fear.
What we need today is reason and measured conversation — we have to be tough,
yes, but above all, reasonable.
How do we explain this violent
extremism? Why today? Why in places of symbolic meaning on every continent?
The first reason is political. We
cannot, today, afford to disconnect these events with the violence, terror and
death that have long been commonplace in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya,
and in Africa and Asia more widely. European and American foreign policy does
not happen in a vacuum, as those who target us have repeated in countless
videos: You have caused war and death in
our countries, now you will suffer the consequences.
While nothing can justify
terrorist attacks, we must hear those who criticize the incoherence of our
allegiances and our support of dictatorships. Does the condemnable violence of
their reaction mean we can ignore their arguments? Is it right to declare war
when citizens are killed at home but to consider ourselves at peace when we
kill the citizens of other countries far away?
The second reason has been
half-expressed in various statements put out by the commanders behind these
terror operations. It is about provoking fractures between Muslims and other
citizens in the West. It is about making Muslims feel that they will never be
welcome in our societies. Their goal is to use Muslims to feed our fear of
Islam; for us to associate them with danger and violence.
To spread insecurity and social
instability along religious fault lines at the heart of the West is one of the
explicit aims of these kinds of attacks. Commanders prey on frustrated youth
(educated or not) and manipulate them psychologically and intellectually (on
the Internet or in places often far from the mosque). They sell tales of glory
and of vengeance against mankind and the wrongs of history. Religion is evoked
to construct, justify and lend legitimacy to violence.
The goal of the violent
extremists is to use Muslims to feed our fear of Islam; for us to associate
them with danger and violence. This is not, in fact, a process of “religious
radicalization” because the majority of young people who join these networks
often only have a few months of experience with religious practice. The shift
is sudden, not a progressive evolution from religious belief to violence and
terror. Some are still involved in petty crime, alcohol, drugs, and nightlife
when they organize attacks.
Jihadi recruiters use religion as
a political tool and to defeat them we must respond in kind — with solid and
rigorous religious arguments. But we should not mistake our target: Religion is
a disguise that hides political aspirations, lust for power and divisions that
are cynical, Machiavellian and often inhuman. (Drug use among jihadi militants
during attacks is widespread, revealing their somewhat relative adherence to
beliefs of how to attain paradise and salvation).
How do we respond to a situation
that is so complex, whose causes are so diverse, and whose consequence is the
spread of a strain of violence that can strike anywhere, in multiple forms?
Knowing that groups like Boko Haram, Daesh and ISIL want to instill fear and
deepen divisions on an international level, we must guard against trying to
outbid them with overemotional responses and a line of thinking that paints the
solution solely as an issue of war and security. Instead of defining an “us”
and a “them” that distinguishes between Europeans and Muslims, we have to say
“us,” together, and with conviction. I said the same thing 15 years ago, when I
launched the “manifesto for a new ‘we.’”
We urgently need to establish
partnerships based on respect, trust and critical debate between political
institutions, social organizations and citizens (including Muslims and their
diversity of religious representatives — not only those arbitrarily chosen to
represent Muslims by the political authorities).
To continue to deny that there is
a connection between our politics (or our absence of clear politics) in Syria,
Libya, Iraq and even in Palestine, and terrorist attacks in Europe proves our alarming
ignorance.
We must stay humble while
remaining determined to combat violent extremism by grappling with its causes
as much as with its concrete expression. In Europe, we can start by avoiding
criticism of neighboring countries and the failures of their intelligence
services — as we heard in Britain regarding France, and in France about
Belgium. No one is in a position to impart lessons to others — and besides, it
is an attitude that is not conducive to effective cooperation. Nor do alarmist comments
that reduce a deeply complex situation to a war of civilizations (“they want to attack our liberties”) or a
problem of failed integration (“these
young Muslim terrorists haven’t understood or assimilated the principles of
democracy”) help in any way. These are false, and dangerous, conclusions to
draw.
We need a concerted security
policy across Europe with the dual understanding that, first, such a policy
will only be valuable as part of a more global and multidimensional strategy
and, second, that it cannot be used to justify the stigmatization of certain
citizens, or the failure to uphold human rights (including those of migrants)
and the equal dignity of people. Higher up the ladder, states have to ensure
the coherence of their foreign policies in the Middle East and Africa.
To continue to deny that there is
a connection between our politics (or our absence of clear politics) in Syria,
Libya, Iraq and even in Palestine, and terrorist attacks in Europe proves our
alarming blindness or ignorance. We cannot support dictatorships, be political
and economic partners with states who export literalist Salafi doctrine, be
silent when civilians are massacred south of our borders and hope that we will
not receive a response to the injustice and humiliation we have provoked.
Our foreign policies must be
clarified and fall in line with our fundamental principles. If we are driven
solely by geostrategic and economic interests, we risk continuing to pay a
heavy human price. In the same way, we urgently need to completely rethink,
revolutionize even, the tone of our political debate and the policies of our
own countries.
Muslim citizens must participate
in civil debates to help build the social policies of the future, not to
justify themselves or to condemn others in the wake of every attack or
controversy. We must have the courage to set in motion policies based on trust
that include diversified partnerships with different strains of Muslim thought.
We cannot only listen to those who tell us what we want to hear and make the
mistake of confusing for open dialogue the kind of interactive monologue in
which people who think alike will engage.
Western Muslims, for their part,
cannot only raise their voices when we talk about Islam. They should, in fact,
spend less time talking about Islam and take a greater interest in the larger
problems their society faces — education, employment, health, the environment —
to avoid the temptation of branding themselves as victims. I have repeated this
over the past 25 years:
There is no failure of religious
and cultural integration in Europe, but there is a disastrous deficit of
effective policies related to social justice, education, housing and
employment.
We all know that we need to
clarify the terms of our current debate. We need to grasp the full complexity
of the phenomenon and take a holistic approach by proposing a variety of
complimentary responses. To become obsessed with the religious question, to
refuse to see the political aspects and hope that tough security and war-like
measures can protect us will only lure us toward dangerous consequences. The
time for new partnerships has come — between European states, and between states,
civil society and citizens of all confessions or none. It is on us now, each
one of us in our own way, to assume responsibility and stop hiding behind the
so-called “madness and hatred” of the “other.” Because if we try “explain” away
the state of the world this way, we won’t get anywhere.
(Tariq Ramadan is professor of
contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University and president of the think
tank European Muslim Network (EMN).)
