Sukant Chandan argues that the recent botched terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow are the result of Britain's botched imperial designs against the Muslim world Following unsuccessful car-bomb attacks in London and Glasgow on the first day in office of the new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, debate in Britain revolves around two main issues: are Muslims justified in arguing that Islam and Islamic countries are victims of a Western plot of domination and aggression, and is the invasion and occupation of Iraq the cause of the radicalisation of Muslim youth and the growth of militant Jihadi networks planning attacks in Britain? What is at stake is the very relationship between the Muslim communities, the white community and the British state. The process of mutual understanding and dialogue will escape us so long as the British government, the mainstream media and the public are in denial over the fact that strained relations between the Muslim community and the British state must be seen primarily within the context of British government policy vis-à-vis Muslims and Islam across the world, especially in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. Further violence and conflict will continue both in Britain and the Middle East if this state of denial and lack of mutual respect continue. In the post-WWII period, it was the war in Vietnam which epitomised the relationship between not only East and West, but also North and South. Since the collapse of the Socialist Bloc this relationship has been symbolised by the wars and occupations of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan. Indeed the 1990 US-led aggression against Iraq was the US's signal to the rest of the world that it was establishing its world hegemony, or New World Order in the words of Bush Senior. The Middle East continues to be the epicentre of this battle between the poor and rich nations, the North and South. The attacks in London and Glasgow took place against a stark backdrop of occupation and resistance in the Middle East and the ludicrous appointment of Tony Blair as a Middle East peace envoy by the Quartet. Al-Quds Al-Arabi 's Editor-in-Chief Abdul-Bari Atwan suggested that "the only reception befitting of Blair is with rotten eggs and tomatoes." Instead of a reasoned public debate about the root causes of Arab and Muslim anger against Western foreign policy, Blair set the boundaries of the public debate in blaming the victims. In what was probably the most vicious of a long line of attacks on Muslims and their identity and beliefs, Blair insists: "it's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified." This is typical of Blair, the ideological spokesperson of the West's "civilising mission" against Muslims and Arabs, but it is given further credence when Muslim voices echo Blair. One Hassan Butt has obliged and been prominent in the print and TV media. Butt, a former member of the now disbanded militant British pro-Jihadi group Al-Muhajiroun, said in The Observer on 1 July that Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their identity through their dress, construction of mosques and equal rights before the law. Butt, the spokesperson for the model Western civilised Muslim, helps to confirm The Observer 's editorial on the same day which assures us that "the West does not want to dominate the lands of Islam." Meanwhile, he helps to confirm the misplaced fears of many that Islam is blindly violent to non-Muslims, referring casually to "those passages of the Quran which instruct on killing unbelievers". The underlying cause of the growth of political Islam is Western policy in the Middle East. Instead of recognising this simple fact, the terrorist activities of a handful of frustrated militants are used to trivialise any notion that Muslims may have a convincing case for their concerns. The attacks in London and Glasgow are being used by some to argue that the widespread solidarity for those resisting occupation in the Middle East in the Muslim community is really support for Al-Qaeda-type armed attacks against civilians in this country. The subtext is that Western tolerance towards Muslims and Islam requires that they confine themselves to praying quietly, dressing as they like, and respecting the law, but in no way should Muslims or anyone else support the rights of Arab and Middle Eastern people to end occupation. If they do, they are branded terrorist sympathisers. Rather, Muslims and the public in general are told time and time again that there is no project to dominate the Middle East, whilst every season sees a new campaign against a Middle Eastern country. Attacks in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, regime- change threats against Sudan, Syria and Iran, a secret international network of US prisons for Muslim men, women and children, the obscenity that is Camp X-Ray, and the sadistic humiliation and torture at Abu Ghraib prison... What else is necessary to prove that Arabs and Muslims who stand up for the independence of their countries and their identity are being victimised? The Middle East was the last region of the world to be conquered by the colonial powers. It continues to be the most difficult to subdue, but is a crucial region for the West to control due to its geographical proximity and oil. It is so important, and acquiescence to control it is so important, the very act of resisting US, British and Israeli aggression and occupation is therefore in effect a crime in the eyes of the West. In this context and due to the related terrorism laws here, most of the Muslim community is afraid to get involved in legitimate democratic political activity. Those who are involved, even the most mainstream organisations, have to constantly defend themselves from attempts at criminalisation from the more hawkish sections of the British state. Rather than victimising dissenters, true believers in British democracy should be trying to show that democracy can work; they should involve them in consultation with the authorities and in light of this apply a wiser policy in the interests of all parties. What is taking place instead is polarisation between the British authorities and the Muslim community. A small section of Muslim youth here see that, on the one hand, democratic methods such as lobbying and marching in the millions does not shift British policies one iota, and that mainstream Muslim organisations are ignored and even attacked despite all their meetings with panels and committees with the British authorities. It is no wonder then that in the face of the unabated suffering of their brothers and sisters in the Middle East, some sympathise and a few even take up the strategy espoused by Al-Qaeda of refusing the West security as long as Muslims are denied security through occupation and aggression. This emergence of the more extreme and violent methods of protest when legal protests fail was infamously explained by Mohamed Siddiq Khan in his video before the bomb attacks that he led on 7 July 2005: "our words have no impact upon you, therefore I'm going to talk to you in a language that you understand. Our words are dead until we give them life with our blood." This Al-Qaeda political strategy of treating violence with violence is not unique to militant Islam: it was most recently employed in England by the Irish Republican Army and by secular Palestinian nationalists in the 1970s amongst others. It is the "shock and awe" of the weak. When peaceful and democratic means to resolve conflicts and grievances are allowed to fail by those who have the power to resolve conflicts, it is inevitable that some will try other means. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is clearly setting a markedly different tone to that of the comparatively hawkish and offensive former PM Tony Blair. Unlike Blair, Brown has not so far opportunistically encouraged the media and authorities to take advantage of this situation to immediately justify the strengthening of the terrorism laws and encourage an atmosphere where Islamophobia flourishes. However, on all the most important issues of foreign policy in the Middle East there is no sign that Brown will be moving away from the policies of his predecessor. Whether or not the attacks in London and Glasgow are Al-Qaeda-inspired, Brown should understand that these attacks are inevitable when one nation occupies and creates calamities in another nation. The attack at Glasgow airport poses a serious problem for the new nationalist Scottish government. Newly elected Scottish National Party (SNP) leader Alex Salmond is now first minister of the Scottish parliament. The SNP, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens are all opposed to the Iraq war and support British troops being withdrawn from Iraq. Furthermore, the SNP want independence from the United Kingdom. Given Al-Qaeda's ideological position of assuring countries immunity from attack if they are not partners in military campaigns against the Middle East, striking in Scotland does not make any sense. A terror attack against Scottish targets only jeopardises the Scottish people's aspirations for independence from the British government and their policies in London, and hence goes against Al-Qaeda's policy of encouraging anti-war administrations in the West. If the attack in Glasgow is an Al-Qaeda-inspired attack it shows the lack of sophistication on part of the attackers not just on the level of technical know- how, but politics as well. Salmond has shown an alternative and more positive political leadership for people in Britain; he is keen to distance himself from the rhetoric of the Blair and the British media in alienating the Muslim community, and is keen not to be pushed into adopting draconian laws against Muslims in response to these attacks. The public debate in the aftermath of the attacks in London and Glasgow is centred on blaming the Muslim community and their beliefs. On a popular level, those who believe in justice and mutual respect for the people of the Middle East need to develop effective strategies to end British occupations, and press for dialogue with political movements that represent Arabs and Muslims who are struggling for independence.
