The 32-year-old Norwegian who has confessed to killing more than 70 people requested two things for his court appearance: He wanted to wear a uniform, and he wanted the hearing to be open.
This makes what has happened more complicated. It seems that the man who committed this hideous crime developed a political agenda to defend his actions. He cannot be dismissed simply as a “madman,” he is something more. He regards himself as a soldier and he thinks that he has something important to say.
The question is, what?
Perhaps we can find the answer in a book that the German-Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote during the trial in Israel in 1961 of Adolf Eichmann. For those who do not remember the case, Eichmann had been a much-feared Nazi camp commander who did not hesitate to carry through the orders he received about the mass extermination of the Jews, the Romanies and other people that Hitler thought should be removed from the face of the earth. He had been on the run since Nazi Germany collapsed in the spring of 1945, but was captured by Mossad agents in Argentina and brought secretly to Israel. He was sentenced to death and later executed by hanging.
In her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Arendt tries to understand the minds of those people who are prepared to indiscriminately kill their fellow humans without empathy. Often they are ordinary people who cherish their gardens and play with their dogs and their children. No one on the street would ever suspect them of being a deranged murderer.
What we know about the man in Norway indicates banality, too. He is torn apart by an inner rage. He is opposed to Muslims. He is opposed to different types of people meeting in a multicultural society. He detests the ambitions of globalism and is willing to attack the very idea of the modern age. He is a cold-blooded Don Quixote tilting at people who live and breathe.
Everything was well planned. On the surface, there was little or nothing to indicate what was about to happen. After he was arrested, he is reported to have described his actions as “heinous, but necessary.” He had launched his own war to “awaken” his fellow countrymen. He wanted to perform in a uniform and he wanted the hearing to become a stage where he could deliver his message.
Perhaps he imagines that, in time, he will become the hero that “saved” Norway. Or perhaps he will be satisfied with being inducted into the hall of fame of human monsters.
We might ask whether we have been waiting for this, a brutal act of terrorism not committed by people who have kidnapped the Islamic faith and who claim to act in the name of that religion, but a man with a different political and religious motive. A right-wing extremist, a nationalist with elements of Christian fundamentalism. One could say that what happened in Norway is a ghastly return of the Ubermensch mentality that was the mark of Hitler’s Nazism which occupied and tortured Norway during World War II.
At least we now know one thing that we might not have been certain of before: People can find the justification for acts of terrorism in all religious, political and ideological contexts. Now we know that those who claimed that terror is always synonymous with the Islamic faith were wrong.
The distant and in many ways idyllic Norway is suddenly exposed to the banality of evil.
It may be impossible to completely defend oneself and one’s country against these actions, but we must try. We must defend the open society, because if we start locking our doors, if we let fear decide, the person who committed the act of terror will win. He will have injected fear into our community. As former US president Franklin Roosevelt put it: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
However hard the young Norwegian man tries to justify his actions, there will still be something that we cannot understand: What goes through the mind of a person who turns a gun against a young woman or man he does not know and pulls the trigger?
In every barbaric act there is a human element. That is what makes the barbaric act so inhuman.
Henning Mankell is a leading Scandinavian novelist and the author of the Kurt Wallander series of crime stories.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under