Wanted: more honesty, less denial

Walking down London’s Victoria Street on a day of bomb scares after the 7 July attacks, I was interviewed for a “vox pop” by BBC London news. My instinct was to be “British” – to touch the national default button of stoicism and the need to continue as if nothing had happened: “We need to go on, ignore the bombers. We are not going to be deterred by anyone trying to disrupt our perfect little island.”

Aren’t the British so civilised! We are determined not to overreact to any little terrorist bombing. The result of a cricket match, or a freak weather incident, seems to cause much more anguished attention than the fact that bombs have killed more than fifty people and precipitated a period of fear and threat, the possibilty of more deaths, and constant disruption to daily lives. Meanwhile, we accept with too little protest that the policy response to events like the 7 and 21 July attacks should be led by new security measures of the kind Tony Blair, the prime minister, announced on 5 August.

Maybe this very stoicism, the famed (as well as clichéd and caricatured) “stiff upper lip”, is one of the aspects of that much-sought and elusive quality: “Britishness”. It does seem to cross boundaries of creed, colour or lifestyle. In the month since the wave of coordinated bombs on 7 July, every British Muslim leader, as well as all politicians, police and public officials, seem to exude only resolve and determination. We British are considered, measured and unemotional in all that we say and do. How admirable we all are, how justified in congratulating ourselves!

Yet one month on, as the immediate responses have been succeeded by official plans over border controls, incitement to violence, and the legality of political parties, this very stoicism – and its cousin, complacency – is starting to concern me. It is not that I want hysterical responses from our leaders, far less partisan warfare. What does worry me is that the spontaneous resort to a “Dunkirk spirit” mode – as if the only way the country could define itself was by reference to a second-world-war-experience of embattlement and survival under pressure – might be preventing Britain from seeking fresh, creative, modern answers to the problems that the bombings reveal.

Being British

The need for a new approach, and the dangers of self-satisfaction, were particularly illustrated to me at a London meeting jointly hosted by openDemocracy and Q-News on the evening of 21 July. A wide cross-section of the British Muslim community, mainly young and British-born, from a wide range of organisations was present.

openDemocracy writers assess and debate the implications of the 7 July 2005 bombs in London for democracy in Britain and Britain’s Muslim community:

Isabel Hilton, “Letter from wounded London” (7 July)

Mohammed Sajid, “The gap between us: British Muslims and 7/7” (18 July)

Scilla Elworthy, “Tackling terror by winning hearts and minds” (20 July)

Maruf Khwaja, “Terrorism, Islam, reform: thinking the unthinkable” (28 July)

Sami Zubaida, “The London bombs: Iraq or the ‘rage of Islam’?” (3 August)

If you find this material valuable please consider supporting openDemocracy by sending us a donation so that we can continue our work and keep it free for all

When politicians state that Britain’s Muslim community must “get the British project”, “buy into our values”, or “embrace our norms”, I wish they had been at this meeting too (fortunately, they can read the transcript on openDemocracy). The young Muslims present, with very few exceptions, more than shared understanding of and “bought into” what is good about Britain. Many were far more articulate and effective in championing freedom of speech, tolerance, respectful coexistence and democratic values than such politicians and the constituencies they seek to appeal to. In short, they “get” the “British project” in its entirety, and – perhaps precisely because they have links to and knowledge of other regions and methods of government – they value Britain’s positive qualities even more.

So what, exactly, is Britain’s problem? Such moderate, mainstream Muslims are at the heart of their community, and working to promote greater political and societal involvement from its members. Yet they feel let down – their arguments easily rebuffed, their British values questioned. Why? Because their, our, government is not living up to the values – of transparency, justice, and civilised behaviour – that these young people want to endorse.

In this, they have much in common with many other British citizens who feel that the country’s leaders are not fully coming clean with us. While the two Blairs (Tony, the prime minister, and Ian, commissioner of the London police) call upon their Muslim counterparts to address problems within their community, the British establishment itself should address four areas where it may be failing to uphold the values it charges the Muslim community with ignoring.

Becoming honest

First, the great British government’s support for jihadist “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan in the 1980s had some serious, unforeseen implications. There may have been good cause to support resistance to Soviet occupation  of the country; but if the government and foreign-policy elite today admitted that it provided arms, funding and training to people like Osama bin Laden, this would involve honestly accepting some responsibility for the growth of radical Islamism.

Second, Britain has for many years been a close ally of Saudi Arabia, whose funding and promotion of madrasas across the Muslim world have played a role in fostering such radicalism. The Egyptian government that has been arresting and torturing secular and Muslim democrats for decades has also been a beneficiary of British support. The blockage to progress in such countries has pushed many disenfranchised young people towards more militant groups, with results like the 23 July attacks in Sharm al-Sheikh.

Third, Britain chose to support and participate in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. No government minister will accept a link between this policy and the London bombs, but nor can they prevent others from making and (in some cases) exploiting such a link. In any case, it would be naïve to think that Iraq had no impact on what happened in London.

The government may be unable to make this “leap of the obvious”, but British citizens can at least ask one thing of it: start counting the Iraqi dead. The United States administration clearly won’t, but Britain’s government should be brave and confident enough to publish the numbers of those who have died on Britain’s watch. This is not to say that Britain is directly responsible for all Iraqi deaths, but an internationally-minded country with an understanding of global citizenry has a basic duty to count the human cost.

This is a matter of being civilised, not one of nationality or religion. There are almost 200,000 British Iraqis – Muslim, Christian, Jewish. Britain should register deaths among their families in Amara or Basra, as well as those of the brave British troops who are trying to keep the peace.

Fourth, there is an urgent domestic truth. Unemployment, deprivation and injustice affect millions of people in Britain; they are not unique to the Muslim community but do impact very severely on it. These social problems never justify any crime, never mind acts of terror. But the government should recognise that it could do far more to address the issue of Muslims’ social exclusion.

Thinking forward

If the British government started telling the truth on these matters and met the Muslim community halfway, it could have an enormous psychological benefit. Such transparency would reveal politicians’ understanding that British foreign policy is not conducted in a domestic vacuum, and help build recognition across the society – including within the Muslim community itself – that foreign policy is complex and always has unforeseen repercussions.

This is where, for all successive British governments’ self-satisfied celebration of “multiculturalism” and successful integration of racial and religious minorities, they have got it so wrong. The very diversity of Britain today requires policymakers to look at their decisions through the eyes of all British citizens. This makes foreign policy in particular more difficult and challenging, but that is what political leaders are there for.

Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims, along with the country’s various other communities, are helping Britain to become a country with a developing sense of global citizenship. This is exciting and positive, but it needs its leaders to recognise that they can no longer govern Britain through a white, middle-class prism – and its citizens to realise that stoicism is not enough if we want to solve problems and not simply react to them.