|
Radnor Geopolitical Report
by Ken Feltman
Paris
‘They are welcome to come but not if they don’t want to fit in.’
- a resident of the Netherlands summing up his attitude toward immigrant Muslims now making their homes in the Netherlands.
‘Why can’t we follow our own ways? Leave us alone.’
- a recent Muslim immigrant to the Netherlands.
The gulf between these two attitudes seems to be wider today than ever. Perhaps the breach has grown because ordinary Europeans are beginning to conclude that Muslims may never adapt to the European lifestyle. As more Europeans come to see their Muslim minority as problematic, they speak up – and now a few moderate politicians seem to be changing their stance, as well.
Throughout Europe, the current climate seems to be driving people apart. The extremes on both sides are becoming more the norm and more extreme. Many Europeans, even those who are generally supportive of immigration, are now asking blunt questions about cultural differences, and specifically about Muslims’ religious beliefs, isolation and social values. Sometimes, the situation becomes strangely tragic.
The Pope made an unwise statement about a possible tendency toward violence in Islam and, in retaliation, riots broke out and a nun was killed - all to protest the Pope’s statement that violence was often part of Muslim behavior. Until recently, those who raised their voices against Muslim violence - which many see as an unfettered form of intimidation as well as terrorism - were on the far right. Now moderates are asking whether Europe’s liberal tolerance and multiculturalism have reached their limits.
The former British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, seemed to speak for many when he wrote that he felt uncomfortable addressing women whose faces were covered with a veil. He wrote that the veil was ‘a visible statement of separation and difference.’
Danish cartoons and bad behavior
The reality is that views on both sides are more extreme. Most Europeans are not against Islam. But they are against bad behavior. They are against violence. They are against intimidation in the name of religion.
Moderates see bad behavior getting worse. The Danish cartoons triggered riots. They also triggered thoughtful introspection among Europeans when they realized that the first instinct of many politicians was to decry the Danish publication which printed the cartoons rather than to decry the Muslims who turned to violence.
Is bad behavior, unacceptable in a child, somehow permitted to those who say they are doing it in the name of their religion? When the pendulum swings back, it swings dangerously close to those who pushed it in the first place.
|
This is the fourth in a series of newsletters based on a report Ken Feltman delivered in Paris in early September. You can review the three earlier reports - The American Conflict Index, Whiny Europeans and Two Telling Disagreements in this Blog. |
Now, many Europeans are speaking bluntly about the cultural differences, specifically about the deep religious beliefs and social values, far more conservative than those of most Europeans, on issues like women’s rights and homosexuality.
Joost Lagendijk, a Dutch member of the European Parliament for the Green Left Party, is active on behalf of Muslims. Yet, recently he said, ‘Now we have this religion, it plays a role and it challenges our assumptions about what we learned in the ‘60s and ‘70s. There is this fear that we are being transported back to where we have to explain to our immigrants that [in the Netherlands] there is equality between men and women. And gays should be treated properly. There is the idea that we have to do it again. More and more people want the newcomers to embrace the majority culture or to leave.’
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany recently said that self-censorship is not the answer. ‘[It] does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam. It makes no sense to retreat.’ This backlash shows up in other ways. Muslims say they are now expected to be more like their European hosts. They resent it.
Not so much immigrants as invaders
An Italian politician said, ‘We welcome immigrants who want to work and be among us. We welcome immigrants who want to embrace what it is to be Italian. But these are not so much immigrants as invaders. They do not want to adopt our culture. They want to live on our land and force us to change and to accept them. That’s what invaders do. That is not what good neighbors do.’
A French Socialist said, ‘Finally, we may say that enough is enough. I must admit that their conduct is like the child who is continually testing the parents. Until the parent defines the limits, the child is free to behave horribly.’
France is at the center of the change. The French people are fed up with the lawlessness. They are cautious but concerned. Their government has been unable to cope with the rising wave of violence. The country is on edge. Students protest what most people consider to be a reasonable change in the law. Immigrant mobs join the demonstrations. Suddenly, violence erupts.
|
Surprising unpopularity
Today, President Jacques Chirac is less popular in France than President Bush is in the U.S. |
IThe continued violence and resulting fear have received extensive coverage in the French press. Combined with a weak economy, high unemployment and the collapse of popularity for French President Jacques Chirac, the battle lines are set. But Chirac, a career politician, is like most of France’s governing elite - cut off from and even disdainful of the everyday French population.
First, restore order
The Chirac government’s Socialist opposition - largely representing government bureaucrats and professionals - is cut off from popular opinion as well. American expatriate writer Dennis Boyles says the Socialists’ courtship of the Muslim vote is so ardent that they are tongue tied when it comes to the violence. Amidst the hand wringing by most government officials, Interior Minister Nicholas Sarkozy, himself the son of an immigrant father from Hungary, drew a line and promised to try to limit lawlessness.
Some numbers tell an interesting story: During Ramadan last year, 10,000 cars and over 250 buildings were burned in predominantly Muslim neighborhoods. This year, Sarkozy prepared the police for the roving and riotous bands of young troublemakers. He was criticized by the left-of-center French establishment for creating a ‘police state.’ Then, he was criticized by Muslim spokesmen for muzzling the demonstrators’ right of free expression.
Sarkozy put restoring order at the top of the domestic agenda. Fewer cars were destroyed, fewer windows smashed, fewer youths arrested. In the end, the rioting this year was subdued. Fewer than 300 cars were torched on the first anniversary of the October 2005 riots. True, 300 sounds like a large number but compare it with the 100 cars that are torched on an average day in France.
Despite the positive results, however, the overwhelmingly left-leaning French media continue to apologize for the rioters’ bad behavior. They make excuses for the car-burners and window-breakers. They cite the oppressive confinement to ghetto-like enclaves and hopeless futures faced by many immigrants and the French-born children of those immigrants. Others claim that there is no link between Muslims and the fire bombings but ordinary French people notice that the blazes seem mostly confined to Muslim areas or occur when gangs from predominantly Muslim areas roam through other neighborhoods.
A parallel politician?
Sarkozy is out of touch with the French left. But he seems to be in touch with the growing backlash of anger and anxiety among everyday citizens. As a centrist, not a representative of the extreme right, he does not come off as anti-immigrant. He comes across as anti-violence. Thus far, he has been successful in decreasing violence. If he can continue, his chances of becoming the next President of France increase. The question then will be if Sarkozy, like Rudy Giuliani in New York City, can buck the tide of the traditional leftist elites and pull his country back from the brink. Giuliani did it in New York. Sarkozy may be destined to attempt it in France. The task will be difficult. Sarkozy approaches difficult tasks with a determination that opponents label as simplistic. They find cultural, political and economic reasons for unrest and violence. Sarkozy admits that all the reasons may be valid. Then, he points out the the first step is to stop the violence.
The French government has long promoted the Arab world as a counter-balance to American and Israeli power. French television, often an extension of the ruling elites, tries to appeal to young Muslims by portraying conflicts in the Middle East largely through the eyes of a Franco-Muslim youth. The TV news seems to glorify the Intifada against Israel.
Will Europe’s leaders set limits for the Muslims among them? If so, friction and violence may well be the immediate result. But if not, the long-term future of Europe as a liberal, progressive and welcoming society is in danger because, surely, the extreme right will grow stronger as the left grows weaker.
As Ramadan ended a few weeks ago, people starting asking a question. Is it possible, even probable, that one reason for the lower-than-expected numbers of torched cars in France has to do with one man’s decision to get tough? Is it possible to say ‘no’ to Muslims behaving badly without being anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim?
The French left cannot seem to come to terms with that question. Is Sarkozy's position simplistic? Or is it just simple? Is violence simply violence, no matter who causes it and what the causes are?
Please click here to review previous issues.
copyright © 2006 Radnor Inc.
|
