Many people have suddenly become very hesitant about using the term "multicultural society." Or they hesitate to use it approvingly, as a desirable ideal that social reality should at least approximate.
Last month's terrorist attacks in London demonstrated both the strength and the weakness of the concept. London is certainly a multicultural metropolis. An indiscriminate attack such as a bomb in the underground will necessarily hit people of many cultural backgrounds and beliefs.
Sitting, or more likely standing, in the "tube" (as London's subway is affectionately known), one never ceases to be amazed at the ease with which Jewish mothers and Muslim men, West Indian youngsters and South Asian businessmen, and many others endure the same stressful conditions and try to lighten its impact by being civil to one another. The terror attacks demonstrated not only how particular people helped each other, but also how the whole city, with all the ingredients of its human mixture, displayed a common spirit of resilience.
This is the positive side of a multicultural society. Careful observers have always noted that it is strictly confined to the public sphere, to life in those parts of the city that are shared by all. It does not extend in quite the same way to people's homes, let alone to their ways of life in the private sphere.
This is one reason why London has experienced the other, darker side of the multicultural society: the veneer of multiculturalism is thin. It does not take much to turn people of one group against those of others with whom they had apparently lived in peace.
We know this because it lies at the core of the murderous environment that gripped the Balkans in the 1990s. For decades (and in some cases much longer), Serbs and Croats -- indeed, Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim "Yugoslavs" -- had lived together as neighbors. Few thought it possible that they would turn against each other in a bloodletting of such brutal enormity that it is very unlikely that Bosnia-Herzegovina can ever become a successful multicultural society. Yet it happened, and in a different way it is happening now in Britain.
It is important to recognize that we are not talking about the return of age-old hostilities. Ethnic and cultural conflicts today, often in the form of terrorism, are not the eruption of a supposedly extinct volcano. They are, on the contrary, a specifically modern phenomenon.
For the terrorists themselves, such conflicts are one consequence of the unsettling effects of modernization. Beneath the veneer of integration into a multicultural environment, many people -- especially young men with an immigrant background -- are lost in the world of contradictions around them. Their seamless, all-embracing world of tradition is gone, but they are not yet confident citizens of the modern, individualistic world. The question is not primarily one of employment, or even poverty, but of marginalization and alienation, of the lack of a sense of belonging.
It is in such circumstances that the key feature of terrorism comes into play: the preaching of hate by often self-appointed leaders. They are not necessarily religious leaders; in the Balkans and elsewhere they are nationalists who preach the superiority of one nationality over others. But to call these hate-mongers "preachers" is fitting nonetheless, because they invariably appeal to higher values to sanctify criminal acts.
The mobilization of criminal energies by such preachers of hate is itself a modern phenomenon. It is a far cry even from such doubtful claims as the self-determination of peoples defined as ethnic communities. Hate preachers use highly modern methods to enhance their personal power and to create havoc around them.
But countering them does not involve warfare, or even a rhetorically looser "war on terror." Of course, part of the answer is to identify the relatively small number of people who are prepared to use their lives to destroy the lives of others without distinction or purpose. But the more important issue is to identify the preachers of hate and stop their murderous incitement. This is why it is so important to capture and prosecute Radovan Karadzic, who spurred on the homicidal rage of so many Bosnian Serbs. And this is why militant Islamist preachers must be stopped.
Beyond this carefully targeted -- and, in principle, limited -- task, there remains the need to strengthen the sphere of common values and cooperation in societies that will, after all, remain multicultural. This will be difficult, and it must not be approached naively. Differences will not -- and need not -- go away; but ensuring that all citizens can rely on each other requires us to find a way to extend and bolster the civic trust that we see in the public sphere.
Ralf Dahrendorf, author of numerous acclaimed books and a former European commissioner from Germany, is a member of the British House of Lords, a former rector of the London School of Economics and a former warden of St. Antony's College, Oxford
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
RSS