There are a number of tragic coincidences relating to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the 27-year-old Brazilian killed by police officers in London after been mistaken for a suicide bomber. According to the press, Menezes, had been followed by the police for some time because he lived near a gathering place for suspected terrorists. On the morning of July 22, Menezes was wearing an unusually thick coat for a summer's day, arousing further suspicion.
According to the Guardian, the UK has recently dispatched a number of British police officers to Israel to consult with Israeli police about how to maintain national security and handle suicide bombing attacks. The Israeli police and military may well be skilled in tackling bombers, but the extreme approach they have adopted often causes numerous casualties among innocent Palestinians. Such stringent measures have only resulted in more hatred and violence.
Many commentators believe that the rise of Islamist extremists is related to the US' bias toward Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In view of this, the UK's decision to learn how to combat terrorism from Israel may cause more problems than it solves.
The incident reveals the tremendous pressure that British intelligence agencies feel they are under, for it is difficult to prevent suicide bombers from targeting public transportation. It's especially difficult locate perpetrators who are born and educated in the UK.
Why is London a terrorist target? The UK's participation in the war in Iraq has been the most cited factor. Although the British government strongly denied any connection between these two matters, it has failed to convince the majority of the British public. A recent public opinion survey has indicated that most believe that the bombings in London are related to the war in Iraq. The London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs came to a similar conclusion.
However, there are also internal factors inherent in British society to take into account. When the identities of the suicide bombers were revealed, I immediately thought of a movie by British-Pakistani director Udayan Prasad called My Son the Fanatic. The father in the story does all he can to emigrate from Pakistan to Britain, and works as a cabdriver to built himself a new life. He loathed the poverty and backwardness of his motherland, favoring British culture and its way of life (which extended to a liking for afternoon tea and a fair-skinned British prostitute). He was shocked to discover that his son had joined a fundamentalist Muslim sect, rejecting his father's values and love for mainstream British culture.
The family backgrounds of the four young men suspected of involvement in the July 7 London bombings are reminiscent of this movie. Muslim social groups from South Asia have found themselves on the lowest rung of the social and economic ladder in Britain, and have been at the wrong end of prejudice and malice that only got worse following Sept. 11.
The second generation, born and bred in Britain, lack their parents' perception of living a better life, and find it difficult to accept the unfair treatment they receive. There are a great deal of people feeling anger and resentment at the fact that they are socially marginalized, and they are particularly sensitive when it comes to ethnic prejudice.
In a number of cases this has lead to the emergence of a kind of "long distance nationalism," where individuals are bent on a return to imagined traditional values. The only difference in this case with these four individuals is that they are driven not by ethnic nationalism, but religious extremism.
Pakistan, the "home" of some of them, has been through years of problems, seen serious religious conflict and is home to large numbers of extremist groups and Islamic schools that encourage the use of violence. Under these circumstances, it is possible that the Iraq war merely helped ignite the fuse.
The above analysis is not intended to excuse terrorism. Nevertheless, there is equally no excuse for the use of violence against innocent citizens. This is both politically and morally unacceptable, and should not be allowed to continue.
If one is to fight terrorism, one has to truly understand the root causes behind it, and eradicate it from the source. This process takes a long time, and the real question is: In the meantime, are societies like the UK willing to pay the price of possible continued attacks?
Must the rights of the citizen, freedom and human rights be sacrificed in the process? The US, as part of its "war on terror," is arresting suspects without charge and detaining them indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay. This policy, and the anti-terrorism legislation being discussed in Britain at the moment, are cause for concern. Is British democracy robust enough to pass this test?
Shang-jen Li is an assistant professor in the department of social medicine at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG AND PAUL COOPER
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS