It would be nice if there were a silver bullet. There isn't, of course, but current Islamic militancy has its origins not in the Middle Ages or in violence inherent in a major faith, but in real problems in the real world -- so real solutions are possible.
One, we need to recognize that "al-Qaeda" is an ideology, not an organization. There is no point in talking about masterminds or hunting for a global headquarters. There are none.
Two, we need to stop confusing justification with explanation. Learning what motivates enemies does not mean sympathizing with them.
Merely saying that the bombers are mad, when there is no evidence that militants are mentally ill or backward, and when contemporary radical Islam clearly has its roots in the conditions of the modern world, does not help.
Three, we should ditch the rhetoric. There is no point in saying, "We will never surrender to terrorism," when history tells us that, in order to manage a terrorist threat, successive governments in the UK and abroad always mixed "hard" coercive measures, such as those announced by British Prime Minister Tony Blair last week, with a "soft" political strategy that undercuts the legitimacy of the militants' claims.
Representatives of the IRA are in the UK parliament. The Egyptians and Algerians ended their mass Islamic insurgencies of the early 1990s with judicious concessions as well as repression. The Americans blithely admitted recently to talks with Iraqi insurgents.
Four, we need to recognize that doing things that enrage millions, even if we feel that anger is wrong-headed and misdirected, will make us more of a target.
Before the invasion of Iraq the UK was fairly low down the target list for the militants. Now, the UK has joined Israel and the US at its top. It is impossible to speak with any credibility to young British Muslims -- or any young Muslims -- without admitting this.
Five, the July 7 bombers were not "brainwashed" by anyone. Radical Islam provided them with an explanation of what was happening in the world and suggested actions that made sense to them.
So we need a broad range of measures to ensure that such ideologies are less likely to convince in the future. If we cannot negotiate with existing militants, we can at least stop the next wave of recruits.
Some causes of terrorism do exist within the UK. They include identity issues and the poor economic performance of many British Muslim communities as much as the activities of radical rabble-rousers from overseas. We need to accept that a harsher security environment will temporarily be necessary. Another major bombing in the UK could damage community relations beyond repair. We now know quite what a powerful weapon surveillance cameras are, whatever their civil liberties implications.
Legal loopholes that mean men such as Abu Qatada, a key radical ideologue, cannot be expelled or detained should be closed.
Most Islamic countries have a system of government-run colleges for Muslim clerics and licensing for such scholars and the UK needs one too to make sure that the lessons taught in mosques, religious schools and prisons are moderate.
But the real causes are international -- and can be dealt with through real policies. Militants often cite Chechnya, Kashmir and Palestine as examples of Western oppression of Muslims. In each case, complex historical, political and economic factors have combined to sustain conflict. But with sufficient will and attention, and a balanced, tough-minded approach, solutions are possible. Merely making an obvious effort to solve problems in a fair-minded way would be extremely helpful in restoring the goodwill many in the Islamic world once felt towards Britain.
Six, we need to look for new allies in the Islamic world. We should be developing major programs to develop civic society, with a particular emphasis on involving women, beyond the state.
There are thousands of under-resourced groups involved in everything from literacy to human rights to micro-credit that can be assisted, with or without the consent of local governments, from the Maghreb to the Far East. They can help us to show the Islamic world that our way of life does not mean: "neo-imperialism" or "moral corruption" but is about tolerance, justice and empowerment of the weak. They will help form a critical pro-Western, moderate and locally authentic bloc that in time will become a strong and important voice.
Seven, if the above seems intimidating, we must remember that small steps can make a huge difference. For instance, we need to sell ourselves better. The UK Foreign Office needs hundreds of Arabic and Urdu speakers to project our message.
The Blair government is determined to improve community relations in the UK, but needs to think globally. Every diplomatic mission should make convincing Muslims that the West is not an aggressor a priority.
None of these measures will end the threat of terrorism, but central to our efforts must remain a simple fact: Violent Islamic militancy is not inevitable.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath