It would be nice if there were a silver bullet. There isn't, of course, but current Islamic militancy has its origins not in the Middle Ages or in violence inherent in a major faith, but in real problems in the real world -- so real solutions are possible.
One, we need to recognize that "al-Qaeda" is an ideology, not an organization. There is no point in talking about masterminds or hunting for a global headquarters. There are none.
Two, we need to stop confusing justification with explanation. Learning what motivates enemies does not mean sympathizing with them.
Merely saying that the bombers are mad, when there is no evidence that militants are mentally ill or backward, and when contemporary radical Islam clearly has its roots in the conditions of the modern world, does not help.
Three, we should ditch the rhetoric. There is no point in saying, "We will never surrender to terrorism," when history tells us that, in order to manage a terrorist threat, successive governments in the UK and abroad always mixed "hard" coercive measures, such as those announced by British Prime Minister Tony Blair last week, with a "soft" political strategy that undercuts the legitimacy of the militants' claims.
Representatives of the IRA are in the UK parliament. The Egyptians and Algerians ended their mass Islamic insurgencies of the early 1990s with judicious concessions as well as repression. The Americans blithely admitted recently to talks with Iraqi insurgents.
Four, we need to recognize that doing things that enrage millions, even if we feel that anger is wrong-headed and misdirected, will make us more of a target.
Before the invasion of Iraq the UK was fairly low down the target list for the militants. Now, the UK has joined Israel and the US at its top. It is impossible to speak with any credibility to young British Muslims -- or any young Muslims -- without admitting this.
Five, the July 7 bombers were not "brainwashed" by anyone. Radical Islam provided them with an explanation of what was happening in the world and suggested actions that made sense to them.
So we need a broad range of measures to ensure that such ideologies are less likely to convince in the future. If we cannot negotiate with existing militants, we can at least stop the next wave of recruits.
Some causes of terrorism do exist within the UK. They include identity issues and the poor economic performance of many British Muslim communities as much as the activities of radical rabble-rousers from overseas. We need to accept that a harsher security environment will temporarily be necessary. Another major bombing in the UK could damage community relations beyond repair. We now know quite what a powerful weapon surveillance cameras are, whatever their civil liberties implications.
Legal loopholes that mean men such as Abu Qatada, a key radical ideologue, cannot be expelled or detained should be closed.
Most Islamic countries have a system of government-run colleges for Muslim clerics and licensing for such scholars and the UK needs one too to make sure that the lessons taught in mosques, religious schools and prisons are moderate.
But the real causes are international -- and can be dealt with through real policies. Militants often cite Chechnya, Kashmir and Palestine as examples of Western oppression of Muslims. In each case, complex historical, political and economic factors have combined to sustain conflict. But with sufficient will and attention, and a balanced, tough-minded approach, solutions are possible. Merely making an obvious effort to solve problems in a fair-minded way would be extremely helpful in restoring the goodwill many in the Islamic world once felt towards Britain.
Six, we need to look for new allies in the Islamic world. We should be developing major programs to develop civic society, with a particular emphasis on involving women, beyond the state.
There are thousands of under-resourced groups involved in everything from literacy to human rights to micro-credit that can be assisted, with or without the consent of local governments, from the Maghreb to the Far East. They can help us to show the Islamic world that our way of life does not mean: "neo-imperialism" or "moral corruption" but is about tolerance, justice and empowerment of the weak. They will help form a critical pro-Western, moderate and locally authentic bloc that in time will become a strong and important voice.
Seven, if the above seems intimidating, we must remember that small steps can make a huge difference. For instance, we need to sell ourselves better. The UK Foreign Office needs hundreds of Arabic and Urdu speakers to project our message.
The Blair government is determined to improve community relations in the UK, but needs to think globally. Every diplomatic mission should make convincing Muslims that the West is not an aggressor a priority.
None of these measures will end the threat of terrorism, but central to our efforts must remain a simple fact: Violent Islamic militancy is not inevitable.
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