Religious extremism and freedom of choice

Huntington may prove to be prescient after all if one considers intra-European controversy generated by the invitation extended to Turkey by the European Council to start negotiations for admission into the EU. Valery Giscard d'Estaing denounced that Turkey's entry into the EU would spell the end of Europe. Austrian President called for pan-European referendum to settle the question. Two former Belgian Prime Ministers as well as the leaders of Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Malta and Greek Cyprus are not enthusiastic about Turkish membership. Though European leaders would not publicly admit it but generally Europeans are against Turkish membership because Turkey is predominantly an Islamic country. Paradoxically Europeans have little problem in accepting within its fold Catholic Italy, Ireland, Spain, Hungary, Czech Republic and Lithuania as well as other European countries where religion plays a predominant role in the social life of the people.

In Germany, for example, there is a religion tax though not mandatory yet religious and social services provided by the church to the religion tax payers. One is therefore tempted to wonder that if the threshold of European tolerance for Christianity is so high then why is the threshold so low for Islam? The French ban on wearing head scarf for Muslim women is a case in point though the ban is equally applicable to public display of all religious symbols. Perhaps German political leader Wolfgang Schauble has given the most credible explanation about European reservation about Turkish membership. Dismissing the charge that opposition to Turkey is on religious ground Schauble explains that European hesitation is because of potential problems that could arise by admitting a country which shares hundreds of miles of border with Syria and Iran into a Union that all but guarantees freedom of movement to all individuals.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

But Muslim scholars are reluctant to give much credence to perceived threat from religious extremists on the ground that the better part of the last century was occupied by wars among Europeans, Americans and Japanese not to speak of IRA and Spanish Basque separatists. Questions may be asked as to why withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon(part of which was under Israeli occupation till recently) and suspected Iranian nuclear ambition( despite Iran's declaration that it has no intention to nuclearise the country while Israel possesses reportedly two hundred nuclear weapons) merit greater Western attention than the unspeakable brutalities particularly on women currently being perpetrated in Darfur and Democratic Republic of Congo despite western failure particularly the Europeans armed with centuries old knowledge of colonial Africa to prevent genocide in Rwanda?

Why is it that the West finds solace in devolving control of restless Africa to the military units of the African Union when Garrett Evans chaired International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty advocate intervention to respond to humanitarian crisis -- massive violation of human rights, famine, genocide? Is it because that western policy makers truly believe in Harvard Professor Marie Ann Slaughter's view that the "responsibility to protect" should apply only in cases where tyrants in closed societies are producing WMD which might directly harm the West while decimation of subalterns is acceptable with responsibility for their protection having been given to ill equipped and ill trained local forces? Fortunately despite global unanimity on the need for humanitarian intervention in extreme cases for people like Mary Ann Slaughter and others UNSC still remains the preferred destination for resolution of international conflicts.

West's hesitancy in taking pro-active and coercive measures is understandable on the ground of possibly being accused of "neo-colonialism" and also because in pre-9/11 era the nation-states were jealous and zealous in guarding their territorial integrity against external encroachment. The newly independent countries defined neo-colonialism as the influence exercised by the ex-colonialists and superpower USA through financial, educational and cultural institutions, such influence being more insidious and undetectable than when the colonies were being directly ruled. Besides the unwitting or even willing collaboration by the compradors(elites brought to power by the ex-colonial masters after giving independence to the colonies) and the pressure of globalisation prevented the Third World nations from developing an independent political and economic identity.

Though some Muslim scholars consider the essentialist construction of the people and the religion of Islam dominant in the western academic orthodoxy as grossly distorted, yet one must also acknowledge that the deviants of Islamic religion immersed in their own grotesque interpretation of pristine Islam do pose serious threat not only to the West but also to Muslims who they consider to have deviated from the "true" path. Time is past for the Muslim world to hold on to tortured nationalism by blaming the West for failing to seize the moment when western technology was on its way to irreversibly change the contours of global civilisation. It is past time for the Islamic world to clean up the Augean Stable, get its act together and unite with the West and others to fight the common enemy -- terrorism. Islamic renaissance is unlikely to emerge from the destructive acts of Osama bin Laden.

Efforts should be directed towards achieving "global civic ethics" as recommended by the Commission on Global Governance echoing Immanuel Kant's theory of "universal moral community" that derives from the principle that all people are bound together morally regardless of their distinctive culture and identity. If it is recognised that human security is central to global peace then a government's right to rule must be weighed against its people's right to security. In cases if it is found that people's security is being threatened under the cloak of religious activism then the state should assume its responsibility to put ban on such religious activism which incipiently tries to crawl towards staging a so-called Islamic Free Election Trap to stage a coup to establish a theocratic state. Devoutly Muslim Bangladeshis are unlikely to countenance any Machiavellian machination by religious extremists because Bangladesh has a tradition of secular culture which is neither atheistic nor agnostic. The government in power regardless of political expediency is duty bound to arrest any movement towards religious extremism and ensure freedom of choice to the people.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.