Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik may have failed to ignite a race war with Muslims, but he succeeded in stoking anxieties about the stability of Europe’s increasingly diverse societies.
Though his talk of an international underground of killers — latter-day Crusaders he called the “Knights Templar” — seemed to be mere fantasy and while his methods place him far beyond the pale of mainstream politics, many of his beliefs are to be found within the fold of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant populists.
“His ideological ‘manifesto’ is a distilled representation of a cultural crisis that pervades the European continent and finds expression in an increasingly xenophobic populism,” Kirsten Simonsen, a professor at Denmark’s Roskilde University, wrote in Bloodlands, a series of essays about Breivik.
Some notions — that Europe and its indigenous cultures are being weakened by immigration and multiculturalism — have been helping reshape the continent’s right-wing politics for years.
These beliefs occasionally find an echo on the margins of center-right parties, among politicians seeking support from communities plagued by rising unemployment.
Mario Borghezio is a case in point.
The Italian politician set off a storm of outrage after Breivik’s gun and bomb massacre by declaring in a radio interview that its perpetrator had some “excellent” ideas.
Borghezio exemplifies a trend among populist anti-immigration groups — the use of the language of Western counter-terrorist efforts against al-Qaeda to pursue what amounts to an anti-Islamic cultural campaign.
‘EUROPEAN SPRING’
Human rights groups are increasingly alarmed, not just at the far right, but at what many see as the pandering to its Islamophobic stereotypes by Europe’s mainstream parties.
“We need our own ‘European Spring’ to overcome old and emerging forms of racism and intolerance,” Nils Muiznieks, the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe, a governmental human rights body, wrote in blog last month.
Muslims had become the primary “other” in right-wing populist discourse in Europe and needed to be accepted as an integral part of society, entitled to equality and dignity, he said.
Political parties in Austria, Bulgaria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland had employed anti-Muslim rhetoric for political gain, he said.
Borghezio’s Breivik comment was denounced by his party, the pro-devolution, anti-immigrant Northern League, which apologized to Norway and temporarily suspended Borghezio from their ranks.
The European lawmaker argued the indignant reaction was misplaced, because he strongly condemned Breivik’s violence.
And yet, a year on, he still sees Breivik’s stance on some issues as attractive — particularly a perceived need to prevent Muslim immigration to Europe and combat Islamist extremism.
“Not all the ideas were criminal. It is the man who behaved in a criminal way,” Borghezio said.
CHEAP MUSLIM LABOR
Tough regulation of immigrants, particularly Muslims, was essential, he said. In many mosques in Italy, Muslims in economic difficulty were encouraged by extremist Islamist organizations “to carry out antisocial and illegal acts,” he said.
His comments echo the public position of many in Europe’s far-right networks: A sense that the continent is under threat from Islamic extremists and is being betrayed by a rapacious political elite that values cheap Muslim labor above the economic welfare of its own communities.
Security specialists worry that far-right social media commentary stigmatizing Europe’s Muslims may help push enthusiasts towards militancy, much as al-Qaeda propaganda opened pathways to violence for numerous Islamist radicals.
In a report this year, European police agency Europol said that the threat of violent right-wing extremism “has reached new levels in Europe and should not be underestimated. The threat will most likely come from lone actors, but organized, underground groups also have the capability and intention to carry out attacks.”
Some argue Breivik might have had more chance of setting off the kind of religious war he imagined if he had targeted Muslims, so as to create a cycle of revenge killings, rather than killing young white Norwegians from the pro-immigration Labor party, which encouraged a rallying behind common values.
‘COUNTER-JIHADIST’
On Sept. 3 last year, six weeks after Breivik’s Utoeya massacre, Stephen Lennon, a leader of the rightist English Defence League, took to a podium in central London and warned against any repeat of the 2005 attacks by British Islamists on London’s transport network that killed 52 people.
“The Islamic community will feel the full force of the English Defence League if we see any of our citizens killed, maimed or hurt on British soil ever again,” he said.
US-based researcher Arun Kundnani, in a June paper for the Hague-based International Center for Counter-Terrorism, asserts that in the past two decades rightist violence in Europe has been comparable to Islamist bloodshed.
By his count, since 1990, at least 249 people had died in incidents of far-right violence in Europe, compared to 263 who have been killed by jihadist violence.
A report by a left-wing anti-racist group, Hope Not Hate, identified more than 100 groups it said were part of a so-called counter-jihadist movement promoting anti-Islamic agendas in Europe, the US, Canada and Australia, sharing anti-Islamic commentaries, photographs, videos and rock music.
The groups, some of which Breivik quotes from in his manifesto, replaced the old racial nationalist politics of neo-Nazis with the language of cultural wars, Hope Not Hate said.
Immigration is an obsession with such groups.
Fifteen to 20 million Muslims, out of a total population of 500 million, are estimated to live in the 27-member EU as well as non-EU members Norway and Switzerland.
France, a nation of 60 million people, is home to Europe’s largest Muslim minority, estimated at about 5 million. Norway estimates 2 percent of its 5 million population are Muslims.
A Pew survey of 50 European countries last year said the Muslim share of the population was expected to grow from 6 percent of the region’s people in 2010 to 8 percent in 2030, due in part to higher birth rates among Muslims than non-Muslims.
‘ADULTERATING’
Breivik argued his 77 victims, mostly teenagers at the ruling Labor Party’s summer camp on Utoeya, deserved to die because they supported Muslim immigration, which he said was adulterating pure Norwegian blood.
In Norway itself, Breivik’s deeds rebounded against the right. The mainstream, but anti-immigration, Progress Party, briefly joined by Breivik, suffered a huge blow in municipal elections two months after the attack.
However, a growing number of opinion surveys show Europeans increasingly receptive to the notion that immigration, especially by Muslims, should be curbed or halted.
A Pew Attitudes survey found in July last year that, when asked whether Muslims wanted to adopt local customs or stay culturally distinct, majorities of European populations chose the latter answer. A Populus research service poll last year of more than 5,000 people in Britain for the Left-wing Searchlight Educational Trust found deep resentment among a range of communities about immigration.
‘TOO MANY’ IMMIGRANTS
An Ipsos MORI poll on attitudes to immigration found in June this year that in seven out of nine EU member states surveyed the majority regarded immigration as having had a negative impact on their country: Sweden and Poland were the only exceptions.
Mainstream center-political parties have tried to keep up with the trend, enacting a variety of measures in the social sphere that have sometimes inflamed tensions on the street.
France banned clothing that covers the face in April last year and Belgium followed suit in July of the same year, while similar legislation has been proposed in the Netherlands, Italy and some Spanish regions. Switzerland barred the construction of new minarets following a referendum in 2009.
There is a broad European shift away from overt skin-color racism to prejudices about culture and religion, shaped in part by the West’s war on al-Qaeda.
“The whole focus of far right activity in Europe has shifted from race, the idea that ‘blacks are inferior,’ to wider issues of identity,” said Ted Cantle, executive chairman of the Institute of Community Cohesion, a think tank.
Multiculturalism is another bugbear of the far right, which tends to define it as an excessive tolerance of immigrant communities that amounts to Western cultural suicide.
Center-right politicians who have also questioned multiculturalism and advocated the primacy of Western liberalism in recent years include British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French president Nicolas Sarkozy. All did so facing domestic political pressure to take a tougher line on immigrants unwilling to adapt to host cultures.
Another example is Dutch populist Geert Wilders, head of the anti-immigration, anti-euro Freedom Party. Breivik’s manifesto reproduced anti-Islamic comments Wilders made to the Dutch parliament. Wilders has denounced Breivik and his actions.
Pepe Egger, head of Western European Forecasting for the UK-based Exclusive Analysis research house, says some of Breivik’s ideas are held quite widely among European political activists.
“The bizarre thing is that his ideas, as Islamophobic as they are, are almost mainstream in many European countries,” he said. “The perceived need to defend Europe against ‘Islamization’ is not that far removed from what you can find in the opinion pieces in large daily newspapers.”
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