Some reasons for hope. Given that the Muslim fundamentalist origin of the terrorist attack of 11 September against the United States is being confirmed, at first sight the theory of Professor Huntington on the clash of civilisations is strengthened. At first sight: but looking further, beyond the bitter curses, we see emerging more considered reactions, reactions that let in a ray of hope. On the Arab side, the general current that we simplify as "moderate" provides the impression of wanting to isolate the fundamentalist minority that has declared war on Western civilisation; on the European side, the urgency of resolving existing conflicts in an equitable manner is being rigorously reaffirmed and some defects in America's policy are being recognised.
For this general current of balance and wisdom to prevail, the path is narrow: both civilisations must co-operate fairly in combating terrorism, against all terrorists. The Muslim world must immediately - and in deed, not with a few declarations or window-dressing - abolish all complicity with, all support for and even all understanding of the terrorists; the millions of Muslims living in Europe must do likewise. If not, given the power of destruction that terrorism has achieved and the cowardly cruelty shown, the repercussions will be serious, I'd almost say horrifying, as Europe's effort at implementing its own principles to relations with the Muslim world would lamentably collapse.
The EU has done a great deal, even if, as usual, we tend to forget it. Shortcomings are many, but the essential facts are there. First element, millions and millions of Muslims live in Europe, freely partake in their religion and their customs, have found work, our schools are open to them, Mosques are mushrooming. Second element, in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, the EU is being even-handed, and for years now has fully financed the action of UNRWA (food and education in Palestinian refugee camps), and, for some time now, also the functioning of the Palestinian Authority. Third elements, in the bloody crises of former Yugoslavia, Europe did not hesitate to defend and help the Muslims (in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Kosovo) against the Christians (Serbs and others) each time it seemed to it to be the right thing to do. We hesitate to say that Europe has always been paid back, when we think of the Arab terrorism that has at time struck at the very heart of EU and that terrorist training camps were once set up in Bosnia.
Abolishing "double speak". I've no intention of harking back to the past. I would simply like us not to systematically forget, it's the fashion, Europe's merits and efforts. Since it became a Community, it has been faithful to the principle of the respect of the other's civilisation; it demands reciprocity. Muslim fundamentalists make the absurd claim that our civilisation is the "Great Satan", that it needs destroying; they have just proven that these are not mere words. True, these stances are not officially shared by governments; however, according to a very well documented survey in the review "Commentary" (September 2001 edition), a part of the Arab authorities continues to practice "double speak". There are said to be on the one hand stances destined for the West, in English, that speak the language of dialogue and understanding, and, on the other, declarations intended for the Muslim populations, in Arabic, that speak the language of confrontation and hate. The many examples cited and translated in the review are a painful surprise. They go from exhortations of the Mufti of Jerusalem to kill Jews wherever they are to school books that urge children to consider Israelis and Americans as agents of Satan. The anti-Semitic pamphlet "Protocols of the Wise of Zion" is presented as an authentic Jewish text and published as such, whereas the Shoa is presented as a lie. Clearly, I'm in no position to personally control the quotes of the "Commentary"; but they at least make one wonder.
Sincere condemnation of terrorism means that double speak has to be banished, not only because it is unfair and hypocritical but especially because it contributes in fermenting fanaticism and hate. If the most cruel and cowardly terrorism - the one that struck the Americans on 11 September - is not condemned with the same sincerity by both civilisations together, the consequences in Europe (I'm not talking about the United States, it's not mine to do so) will be very painful not only in terms of innocent victims, but also in terms of regression in civilian life and concrete dangers.
The mistrustful and firm Europe awaiting us if.… Firstly, Europe's progress in favour of the co-existence of the two civilisations on our soil should be seriously perturbed. Are the Arab authorities fully aware of what the events in New York and the way they were prepared mean to Western public opinion? Certainly, the existence of Bin Laden networks, the hate of the fundamentalists for our civilisation and their determination to destroy it, were known; but it was a question of theoretical knowledge. Suddenly, public opinion has seen the reality of it all in all its horror, live on television and through information on the years of planning. Sinister people who underwent flying lessons in our countries to learn to strike there where the greatest number of civilians would be gathered; complicity on our territory to live hidden and procure themselves with false papers… After which, the manifestation of joy in the streets of certain Arab countries. A few more events of this type and thousands of Europeans, each time they have the opportunity of shaking hands with an Arab presented to them, will look them in the eyes and wonder: are they here to live with us in friendship, with their beliefs but respecting ours, or are they insidiously preparing to kill our children, or to hide, cover, help those who want to do so? Is that what fundamentalists want to happen?
The predictions of Frederik Forsyth in an article published in several European newspapers, even of the Left, chills the spine. By setting out what the West will be obliged to do to ensure its security, he announces that: "the obsession" for civil rights will have to downwardly reviewed by several degrees; all types of terrorism will have to be classified in the same category, including those of the Basque Country and Northern Ireland; the West will have to use its economic clout to isolate and ruin countries harbouring terrorists (who need somewhere to live, recruit, plan their operations, procure themselves with false papers and weapons, open up bank accounts, as well as camps to train for their sinister plots). According to Forsyth, we shall have to "harden our hearts" and create the concept of "rejected States" with which contacts with the rest of the world will be banned as long as they have not expelled all terrorists. The countries that harbour them or show indulgence will have to be rejected from the community of nations.
A dangerous theory. What a waste! Those who hate our civilisation would have secured as result rendering life in Europe, less open, less welcoming. Are they aware of the difficulties they will thus have created for millions of Muslims who live in Europe? I know the theory by which the attitude of Islam is but a response to the harm the Muslims suffer because of the West. This theory is in part false but for sure is dangerous. False because united Europe has never even considered questioning Islamic civilisation as such, has never expressed the intention of destroying it, has always helped - and continues to - Muslims in distress, has always vigorously condemned anti-Arab attitudes. It is also dangerous, this doctrine, because it opens the way to all excess; were we to admit that the response to genuine of perceived grievance may take the form of terrorism against cities and civilian populations, this principle would become valid for all; should we then understand that the brothers, spouses, fathers of the victims of the two New York towers would be justified in responding in the same manner? Organise just as ignominious attacks in large Arab cities? It's awful, unthinkable; and yet this is what the theory of justified response would lead to.
Even in Europe, the disgusting beast could rear its head. We Europeans are no better than others; Nazism and other horrors have taught us that the disgusting beast of intolerance and hate can rear its ugly head here as elsewhere. For half a century, Europeans have been trying to change the course of the history of their Continent, to put an end once an for good to conflicts that for centuries and centuries have bloodied its soil, appease tenacious rancour that separated them and to set new rules based on equality between all those who live and work here, whatever their race or religion. That's why we are fighting for the unity of Europe. But "Man can never take anything for granted, and when he believes - opening up his arms, his shadow is that of a cross" (Aragon); we know full well that the hearths of hate and intolerance are not extinguished, the daily news reminds us of that; Nazi groups rear their heads from time to time, European terrorists act, balaclavad trouble-makers attack democracy and freedom. For now, the ugly beast is being prosecuted and controlled here; the demonstrators of intolerance or racism are condemned, in our schools we do not teach the rejection of the other but a welcome. But were similar deeds to those in New York to occur in Europe, tensions risk becoming untenable. Were Muslim terrorism to strike Strasbourg of Rome - as was planned according to certain enquiries - or other centres of our civilisation, it would become increasingly difficult for the European authorities to stem a "terrorism of retaliation" against large Arab cities. If the sacred shrines of European civilisation were to be struck, by what miracle would the sacred shrines of Islam remain unscathed by fanatical European groups? Please, let's all stop the bloodied hands of the terrorists before it is too late.
(F.R.)