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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers