There are a number of tragic coincidences relating to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the 27-year-old Brazilian killed by police officers in London after been mistaken for a suicide bomber. According to the press, Menezes, had been followed by the police for some time because he lived near a gathering place for suspected terrorists. On the morning of July 22, Menezes was wearing an unusually thick coat for a summer's day, arousing further suspicion.
According to the Guardian, the UK has recently dispatched a number of British police officers to Israel to consult with Israeli police about how to maintain national security and handle suicide bombing attacks. The Israeli police and military may well be skilled in tackling bombers, but the extreme approach they have adopted often causes numerous casualties among innocent Palestinians. Such stringent measures have only resulted in more hatred and violence.
Many commentators believe that the rise of Islamist extremists is related to the US' bias toward Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In view of this, the UK's decision to learn how to combat terrorism from Israel may cause more problems than it solves.
The incident reveals the tremendous pressure that British intelligence agencies feel they are under, for it is difficult to prevent suicide bombers from targeting public transportation. It's especially difficult locate perpetrators who are born and educated in the UK.
Why is London a terrorist target? The UK's participation in the war in Iraq has been the most cited factor. Although the British government strongly denied any connection between these two matters, it has failed to convince the majority of the British public. A recent public opinion survey has indicated that most believe that the bombings in London are related to the war in Iraq. The London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs came to a similar conclusion.
However, there are also internal factors inherent in British society to take into account. When the identities of the suicide bombers were revealed, I immediately thought of a movie by British-Pakistani director Udayan Prasad called My Son the Fanatic. The father in the story does all he can to emigrate from Pakistan to Britain, and works as a cabdriver to built himself a new life. He loathed the poverty and backwardness of his motherland, favoring British culture and its way of life (which extended to a liking for afternoon tea and a fair-skinned British prostitute). He was shocked to discover that his son had joined a fundamentalist Muslim sect, rejecting his father's values and love for mainstream British culture.
The family backgrounds of the four young men suspected of involvement in the July 7 London bombings are reminiscent of this movie. Muslim social groups from South Asia have found themselves on the lowest rung of the social and economic ladder in Britain, and have been at the wrong end of prejudice and malice that only got worse following Sept. 11.
The second generation, born and bred in Britain, lack their parents' perception of living a better life, and find it difficult to accept the unfair treatment they receive. There are a great deal of people feeling anger and resentment at the fact that they are socially marginalized, and they are particularly sensitive when it comes to ethnic prejudice.
In a number of cases this has lead to the emergence of a kind of "long distance nationalism," where individuals are bent on a return to imagined traditional values. The only difference in this case with these four individuals is that they are driven not by ethnic nationalism, but religious extremism.
Pakistan, the "home" of some of them, has been through years of problems, seen serious religious conflict and is home to large numbers of extremist groups and Islamic schools that encourage the use of violence. Under these circumstances, it is possible that the Iraq war merely helped ignite the fuse.
The above analysis is not intended to excuse terrorism. Nevertheless, there is equally no excuse for the use of violence against innocent citizens. This is both politically and morally unacceptable, and should not be allowed to continue.
If one is to fight terrorism, one has to truly understand the root causes behind it, and eradicate it from the source. This process takes a long time, and the real question is: In the meantime, are societies like the UK willing to pay the price of possible continued attacks?
Must the rights of the citizen, freedom and human rights be sacrificed in the process? The US, as part of its "war on terror," is arresting suspects without charge and detaining them indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay. This policy, and the anti-terrorism legislation being discussed in Britain at the moment, are cause for concern. Is British democracy robust enough to pass this test?
Shang-jen Li is an assistant professor in the department of social medicine at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG AND PAUL COOPER
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS