The British
Connections
By Dr Shireen M Mazari
As Britain finally buckles down
to implement some strong anti-terrorist measures
to counter its homegrown brand of Muslim extremists
and its tradition of giving shelter to wanted criminals
and extremists from other parts of the world, we
find a British connection in another controversial
international debate today -- that of non-proliferation.
While it had been known in some quarters that Britain
had aided Israel's early nuclear weapons development,
this has now been confirmed through official British
government documents. Britain exported 20 tons of
heavy water for around 1.5 million pounds sterling,
in 1958, for the production of plutonium at the
Dimona reactor. The heavy water itself was of Norwegian
origin, purchased by Britain in 1956, and so the
deal officially was shown as a deal between Norway
and Israel. It is certainly interesting to see two
European states, so belligerent over Dr A. Q. Khan's
role in proliferation, themselves guilty of the
same crime at the official level of the state itself.
Certainly an irony given how the Norwegians have
sent so many parliamentary delegations to Islamabad
to learn more about the Khan proliferation issue
and chide us on it! Given this European expertise
in clandestine proliferation, it is no wonder the
IAEA chief declared in 2004 that Dr Khan was the
"tip of the iceberg" in the global proliferation
network with the rest of the iceberg floating in
Western Europe.
Coming back to the anti-terrorist measures taken
up by Britain, certain troubling questions come
to mind because it appears as if the measures only
target Muslim extremists. Given Britain's past experience
with terrorism on its shores in the form of the
IRA, it should surely be less blinkered in its targeting.
For instance, among the measures the British government
is taking is one which will create new grounds for
excluding and deporting people from Britain and
these will include "fostering hatred, advocating
violence to further one's beliefs or justifying
or validating such violence." We know that
alleged extremist Muslims are going to be targets
of this decree but will this law also cover secular
politicians, living in Britain under the right of
political asylum, indulging in such hatred and preaching
of violence in their home countries? Will it include
people who provide funds for extremist organizations
abroad including fundamentalist organizations who
conduct violent acts against Palestinians and Muslims?
Then there are measures that will strip people of
their British nationality if they act against British
interests. But what if these people happen to be
British born and bred -- and not of immigrant stock
either? After all, there are white fascist groups
indulging in violence and spreading an evil message
of hatred and intolerance in Britain -- or are they
kosher and in line with British interests?
Then there are measures to deal with websites, bookshops
and centers that preach violence and hatred. Again,
will this only target Muslim sites and bookshops
or will all extremist sites be targeted without
prejudice. There are numerous sites that spew hatred
as well as other fascist sites, such as www.LittleGreenFootballs.com,
www.infidel.org, www.liberty-web.net, www.hsita.cjb.net,
ww.aboutisa.com, ww.americandefenders.org, www.dhimmitude.org
-- to name just a few of the many that spew hatred
and incite to violence against Muslims. Will the
British government deal with these websites also?
If it is truly intent on its commitment, it should
seek the list of anti-Muslim hate-spewing websites
from a French anti-racist group, Mouvement contre
le racisme et pout l'amitie entre les peoples (MRAP).
And what about authors who spew the message of hate
against Islam and other religions and ideologies?
After all, such messages themselves lead to a violent
reaction and as the British government has explained,
any message that can lead to violence will be targeted
also. So where would authors like Rushdie and Naipul
be then? Where would the British draw the line between
literary freedom and a threat of engendering violence
and hatred?
If one examines these issues one realizes only too
clearly that the British measures are Muslim-specific
and this has been reflected in the decision to expel
500 radical Muslims including not just preachers
but also Islamic bookshop owners, teachers and writers.
What is disturbing is that Britain will arbitrarily
decide to strip the British citizens of their nationality
and return them to the country of their origin --
thrusting the problem on to a third party that was
certainly not responsible for the evolving extremist
mindset of these British citizens. And what of those
born in Britain itself? Cleary what the British
are seeking to do is to shift the problem, arising
primarily from British political issues like Iraq,
on to a third party -- a Muslim state. This is indeed
ironic given that many of these Britishers of foreign
birth were given refuge in Britain against the wishes
of their country of origin in the first place. Having
fed their extremism on the lush British soil, they
are to be sent to their "countries of origin".
Truly an absurdity!
Of course, the British will force Muslim states
to accept the extradition treaties but they are
being naive to think that they can simply ship away
their extremist or terrorist problems by these means.
Like the rest of us, they have to accept a certain
responsibility and deal with the root causes of
terrorism while applying their laws without prejudice
and bias to all their citizens and foreign visitors
alike. While the British forces were in Northern
Ireland, it was IRA terrorism that haunted Britain
and now with Iraq it is Muslim obscurantists conducting
acts of terror.
Furthermore, over a period of time, the British
have deliberately chosen to give succor to those
funding terrorism or extremists escaping from their
home countries -- be it the Tamil tigers, or politicians
from many developing countries who have used their
British base to push their supporters to violence
and terror at home. And now when the chickens have
come home to roost, they want to simply ship all
these well-nourished terrorists and extremists back
to their "country of origin".
Clearly, while the international community battles
with conventions and laws relating to terrorism,
it also needs to deal with this increasingly controversial
issue of "country of origin". How long
does the "country of origin" bear responsibility
for individuals who have left to set up a life abroad
and have acquired a new nationality? These are people
who are either living on the largesse of their new
country of residence -- provided for by that state
of its own will -- or are tax-paying members of
that civil society. Surely the responsibility for
these people's actions also lies primarily with
the country of residence or new nationality?
Finally, it is indeed an irony that Britain and
Pakistan have found so much in common beyond their
colonial links. But the manner in which they are
dealing with their common problems is very different
and reflects the differing mindsets. For instance,
while Pakistan has accepted that it has a homegrown
terrorist problem and is seeking to move in ways
to deny space to such people; Britain is attempting
to wash its hands off the problem by trying to cast
it in a "country of origin" mode -- despite
its earlier experience with Irish terrorism which
also led to many innocent deaths in bombings in
British cities like London. On proliferation also,
in true colonial spirit, the British state has shown
no regret for its actions; Pakistan has chosen to
punish those of its citizens guilty of proliferation.
(The writer is Director General of the Institute
of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Courtesy The News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
