On June 23, 2005, Sir Derek Plumbly, the British ambassador to Egypt, wrote to the UK Foreign Office's political director, John Sawers, about his colleagues' determination to "engage" with the radical Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood.
Its motto is: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our constitution. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
Hassan al-Banna, its founder, was an admirer of European fascism and its most terrible ideologist, Syed Qutb, inspired the Sunni terror that is sweeping the world.
Given that the brotherhood's leaders came from the far right and upheld an explicit far-right program, Sir Derek wondered if these were the kind of chaps the Foreign Office should be doing business with.
In a letter leaked to the New Statesman magazine, he said that he detected a "tendency for us to be drawn towards engagement for its own sake; to confuse `engaging with the Islamic world' with `engaging with Islamism'; and to play down the very real downsides for us in terms of the Islamists' likely foreign and social policies, should they actually achieve power in countries such as Egypt."
What was Britain hoping to achieve?
How did a country under a left-of-center government expect to influence religious rightists? Did it hope that a conversation with Foreign Office ministers would persuade them to repent and become converts to the noble cause of the emancipation of women? Would an invitation to tea with a high commissioner be enough to shake them out of their hatred of homosexuals, Jews, free thinkers, liberals and secularists?
Get real, said Sir Derek: "I suspect that there will be relatively few contexts in which we are able significantly to influence the Islamists' agenda."
Plumbly lost the power struggle against the pro-brotherhood faction in the Foreign Office, but the questions he raised then remain pertinent now, as the disgraceful reaction to Salman Rushdie's knighthood shows.
Across the political spectrum, the ignorant and the terrified are arguing that if only Britain didn't provoke the zealots in Pakistan and Iran -- and, indeed, in parts of the UK -- by defending liberal values and honoring a great writer, their fury would pass and we would be safe.
APPEASEMENT
In theory, they may have a case. Neville Chamberlain gave appeasement a bad name, but we all appease in our daily lives and make concessions in order to get concessions in return. In practice, the Labour government has tested appeasement to destruction and, thankfully, turned back to principled politics.
If you haven't read The Islamist, Ed Husain's memoir of his life on the religious right, it is worth getting a hold of a copy because he uses his inside knowledge to describe how the Labour party in the UK placated reactionaries who hated every progressive principle the center-left holds.
To take one of many examples, Husain tells how his journey into the wilds began when he joined the east London mosque, which was controlled by Jamat-e-Islami, the Muslim Brotherhood's south Asian sister organization.
After his disillusionment with far-right politics, he returned to the mosque bookshop and found Qutb's work on sale: "... with chapter headings such as `The virtues of killing a non-believer' and ideas such as `attacking the non-believers in their territories is a collective and individual duty.' Just as I had done as a 16-year-old, hundreds of young Muslims are buying these books from Islamist mosques in Britain and imbibing the idea that killing non-believers is not only acceptable but the duty of a good Muslim."
For all that, the mosque had received public subsidies and an apparent endorsement from Prince Charles. Labour ministers flattered Jamat and Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), invited them into Downing Street and put them on policy commissions, even though in Bangladesh, Jamat thugs terrorize Bengali leftists who have every right to expect the support of their European comrades.
The British Labour party's indulging of Jamat and the Muslim Brotherhood is over for a reason Plumbly might have predicted. Engagement for engagement's sake led nowhere and ministers got nothing in return for going along with the Islamists.
The MCB made no serious attempts to oppose terrorism after the 7/7 bombings in London, while its refusal to participate in Holocaust Memorial Day showed that it had no commitment to either multiculturalism or anti-fascism. In the end, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other members of his Cabinet shrugged their shoulders and walked away.
POLICY
Government policy is now to support British Muslims who uphold liberal values and oppose those who do not. Rushdie's knighthood was a sign of the changing mood. Labour politicians might have tried to impose a veto a few years ago; instead, they said: "Are we going to allow British policy to be decided by dictatorial bigots, who want to inflame religious passion to divert attention from their own corruption?"
There is only one possible answer to that question and it remains astonishing how many people who profess liberal sympathies refuse to grasp it. I know I keep saying that leftish opinion in the UK has taken a reactionary turn, but if you think I'm overdoing it, watch the discussion about Rushdie on the June 21 Question Time panel discussion program on the BBC Web site.
There you will see Shirley Williams, the representative of the UK's Liberal Democrats and member of the great and the good, fail to offer a word of protest against men who would burn books and murder their authors.
All she does is condemn the British government for honoring a novelist, until Peter Hitchens, a rightwing columnist usually dismissed as a spittle-flecked loon by respectable society, reminds her that she needs to clear her throat with a few words of criticism for his would-be assassins, if only for form's sake.
The British Labour party should stop worrying about the baroness and her kind and relax. If a liberal intelligentsia that is neither liberal nor noticeably intelligent and a Liberal Democrat party that can't stand up for liberalism and democracy want to attack the government, let them. They will pay a price for their moral cowardice.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs