CAN THE ‘LIBERAL WORLD’ BEAT THE TERRORISTS?

In the October edition of the monthly magazine Shokun!, a dialogue on the “War on Terrorism” was held between Katsuhisa Furukawa and Satoshi Ikeuchi. Coincidentally, these same two individuals were introduced to readers here in back-to-back Shingetsu Newsletter Nos. 72 and 73. Shokun! is a magazine of the hard right that devotes much of its space to eternal reflections on how nasty, wicked, and untrustworthy the Chinese really are. However, now and again they pause to take aim at other favorite targets like North Korea or the Asahi Shinbun. In the October issue there was this article on the “War on Terrorism.”

Below, the Shingetsu Institute has provided a full English translation of the article. First, however, I’d like to make some introductory comments.

I have suggested in previous newsletters and elsewhere that elements of the Japanese Right have come to embrace the “War on Terrorism” as their own. Some rightwing academics-turned-diplomats like Shinichi Kitaoka and Masayuki Yamauchi are leaders in this movement. Although much younger at age 33, Satoshi Ikeuchi is also obviously positioning himself for this kind of career move in the future. Even now his op-eds can be found in all the major dailies and even in the MOFA-run publications like Gaiko Forum.

In part this is to his credit. He’s a very productive writer who is pumping out articles at a furious rate. I can respect that, particularly in light of the fact that most Japanese academics don’t work very hard, and don’t publish much at all. Whatever criticisms I may have for his work, I can at least appreciate his ambition and his consistent efforts to get out there and join the national dialogue.

The other thing that I can say for him is that he is sometimes on target with his criticisms. In Shingetsu Newsletter No. 72 an article by him was presented with which I could agree with to a certain degree. However, that article was written for the liberal newspaper Mainichi Shinbun. The piece found here is meant for a much more conservative audience and it is here that he is more direct and we can see his fangs much more clearly.

In this dialogue between Furukawa and Ikeuchi, what we can see is a fairly sophisticated defense and encouragement of the “War on Terrorism.” Although only a small proportion of Japanese intellectuals would sign on to what is said in this article, it is a message that is increasingly being accepted by MOFA and the Japanese political establishment. I would even go so far as to suggest that we can see the future of Japanese-Islamic relations intellectually taking shape here. Critics like me will probably lose, and the sort of ideas promoted by Ikeuchi will probably win, at least as far as Japanese diplomatic and military policy goes. Nevertheless, it is still worth the effort to point out the flaws in the Furukawa-Ikeuchi line, even if it is sure to be largely ignored by policymaking circles.

The main points I will make here are only three:

1) The Furukawa-Ikeuchi methodology is weak
2) They don’t recognize their own cultural biases
3) Their presentation of evidence is selective and self-serving

In regard to point one, there are some sweeping generalizations in this dialogue that need to be examined more carefully before anyone subscribes to their logic. In one striking example, Ikeuchi asserts that “most people in Islamic nations still have the image of a ‘Promised Land’ in America.” Apparently, this observation comes from a discussion he once had with a single Turkish student. Methodologically, it is not wise to describe the views of hundreds of millions of people based on a conversation with only one Muslim. Perhaps this is also what allows them to make the rather offensive comparison between Islam and Aum Shinrikyo cult. There are other examples of the same problem that careful readers will note for themselves.

In regard to the second point, Ikeuchi seems almost blissfully unaware of how some of his analysis about “Muslims” -- which he believes encompasses ALL Muslims -- itself reflects certain characteristics of Japanese culture more than the subject he is allegedly treating. The tendency of Furukawa and Ikeuchi to quickly dismiss “multiculturalism” as a “failure” says more about Japan than Europe. It may also be worth keeping in mind the analysis of Kenneth Henshall is his 1999 book Dimensions of Japanese Society in which he writes things like “Many Japanese are inveterate stereotypers… They apply simplistic stereotypes not only to individual races and nations, but to broad categories of foreigners. The stereotypes then become normative, and foreigners’ behavior is expected to conform to them. If it does not, then they are seen as particularly unpredictable and threatening… [Japanese] like to tame anything potentially disruptive and threatening, and this can obviously include people… All people have to be tamed into a non-disruptive, non-threatening form.” Readers should not have much difficulty seeing these “Japanese” characteristics in Ikeuchi’s analysis.

Finally, like most people with a serious ideological agenda, Furukawa and Ikeuchi are very selective and self-serving in their presentation of facts. Missing here is any serious discussion of how US or European foreign policy may have itself brought about the current War on Terrorism / New Crusader War. Any hint of this kind of notion seems to be regarded by them as the namby-pamby rationalizations of “self-styled Muslim Liberals and Japanese intellectuals.” And what about the history of colonialism? US support of Islamic radicalism in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? Double standards toward Israel? According to these two, it is all essentially irrelevant because, according to Ikeuchi, even if the political conflicts are resolved, “terrorism won’t disappear and terrorists will find another reason for their actions.” Why? Because they aim to take over the world in any case. Of course, Ikeuchi’s view is premised on his own interpretation of Islamic law, and the notion that all Muslims respond to the same essentialism that he sees. Furukawa even had the gall to talk about Algerian radicalism in France without a single reference to the French-backed miltary coup of 1992 in which the electoral victory of the FIS (in fair elections) was overturned with a wink-and-nod from many Western countries.

In any case, it is time to present the article itself. To repeat: I think that its main significance is that ideas such as these are taking hold among the Japanese hard right, and at the same time, the Japanese hard right is increasingly taking hold of Japan. Judge for yourselves what the likely consequences for the future will be.

Can the ‘Liberal World’ Beat the Terrorists?
Japanese Lack a Recognition that Terrorism is a ‘Fight for Freedom’
By Katsuhisa Furukawa and Satoshi Ikeuchi

The World is in a “Battle of Ideas”

Furukawa: I joined an expert meeting for anti-terrorism measures where anti-terrorism supervisors and experts from many western countries took part, when I visited Britain, a week after the first terrorist attack in London on July 7.

The first thing that I was surprised at was the ‘strength’ of London. People were already living normal lives though they went through an attack only a week before. There’s no confusion in the messages from the British Government, London police, and the city government, nor any trouble caused by flaws in the communication network. Everything’s going just right. When we looked at TV reports, experts calmly gave people objective information in Britain, while amateur commentators tended to develop their logic on whims based on inaccurate information or rumors in Japan.

Ikeuchi: The British media hadn’t revealed any information for a few days after the first attack, like the clues about the criminals which the Japanese media often pick up. London citizens are prudent and won’t utter careless words. I feel the “great power” of Britain from the fact they won’t speak carelessly, which is different from the US where people can fall into a fight about unreasonable arguments.

On British TV, which we can’t say is always graceful, there are veterans who have deep insight into national security issues which is justified by their experience and tradition of making comments with many implications. At the same time, on Japanese TV, commentators just argue from a supposition with no sense of responsibility, for there aren’t many sources of information as exist in Britain.

Furukawa: While Americans were wailing with grief, Britons remained calm after the attack in London. The difference between Americans’ and Britons’ reactions comes from whether or not they keep cautious and accept terrorism as one of the risks in their daily lives, and recognize that the world has become a place where such risk exists. Since Britain went through countless terrorist attacks by the IRA (Irish Republican Army) in the 1990s, encountering terrorism probably seems to them like being involved in a traffic accident.

I heard this story from a police official in London that a man whose leg had been blown off at the terrorist attack in the Tube stripped his clothes off and stopped the bleeding by himself, and fled to the surface with a woman who was sitting next to him, supporting him by the shoulders. The man said, “I was finally given a chance to play in the Para-Olympics that I’ve always wanted to join” (laughing). This is similar to the case in which a department store which was struck by Hitler’s V-missile answered, “We widened the entrance.” These make me feel Londoner’s persistence and pride with which they won’t tolerate terrorists violating their lives.

Ikeuchi: Prime Minister Blair articulated his view that the world is in “a battle of ideas” stating this in his speech of August 5th, which took an hour and 17 minutes, “The rules of the game have changed… I won’t tolerate a small group playing on British generosity… There’s no space here for persons who won’t take the obligation where we share British lives and a sense of values, and kindle the hatred and violation against our country.”

Many terrorist attacks like 9.11 caused by Islamic fundamentalists are different from those premised on conventional nationalism like IRA or ideological conflicts by communists. Britain is faced with a dilemma about its choices about what used to be “forbidden” in protecting modern freedom and rights, by which they restrict a certain kind of human rights to those who have a sense of values which denies those of the country. This is being accepted by people ranging from top level politicians of democratic nations, middle level political communities, as well as the citizens.

Furukawa: Contrary to this, there weren’t any argument in Japan over “the dilemma of democracy” after the sarin subway attack happened. Even in the Public Safety Commission, where they were discussing the adoptation of legislation to avoid the destructive activities of the religious cult Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese law system gave the commission no choice but to regard these terrorists’ “human rights” and “legislative rights” as the same things as ordinary criminals’. Thus they had to disclose all the information from the Public Safety Agency. However, disclosing all the data might expose inside informers to danger, and many parts of the data were concealed with black ink. Eventually the evidence was too scarce to adopt the legislation.

A British thinker of 18th century, Edmund Burke, advocated the notion of “Orthodox Liberty.” This is the notion in which citizens are unable to exert their rights of freedom, unless a government establishes order for the citizens’ lives. This was probably applied to the decision in which the Bush Administration after 9.11 enacted the Patriot Act which enables “preventive” wiretapping and imprisonment for suspects of terrorism. Although Bush intends to extend the time limits of some clauses within the law, since they are to be invalid this year, the Congress are constraining his ability to do so. Additionally, the government insists that terrorists held in Guantanamo, Cuba, cannot be protected under the law because they are neither an ordinary war victim nor a prisoner, but an “enemy combatant.” However, the Federal Courts have cast doubts upon it.

Thus, whether good or bad, after 9.11, both America and Britain are faced with tough questions about how they should balance the emphasis on social “stability” and the “democratic sense of values.”

On this point, I recall the ideas of Naofumi Miyasawa, Associate Professor of the National Defense Academy. He was saying that they have repeated the same thing. They intensively take actions against terrorism and then return to their original state. It was memorable that he said that this isn’t a bad thing; rather, it is the very elasticity that is the strength of a democratic society.

Ikeuchi: If that is true, we should go back to the famous “two maxims” which appeared in “On Liberty” by J. S. Mill, who is an early standard-bearer for modern liberalism.

He said there is an “individual freedom” on condition that “Each individual has no responsibility for society as long as his actions have no impact on any interest of the others.” He also said, “An individual is responsible if his actions harm others’ interests. When the society has the opinion that there should be social or legislative punishment to defend their interests, the individual must belong to one of them.” In short, he is talking about “the limit of freedom.”

Originally, “freedom” was the privilege of a small number of aristocrats, and it naturally accompanied responsibility. When industrialization was promoted, the labor class and the middle class got stronger, and they asked for political participation. It became necessary to think if the society could stand after the majority of the society grabbed “freedom.” In other words, people worried about what would happen when each individual started claiming their own freedom and interrupted others’ freedom.

There is a derivative issue whether they should admit the existence of a group which opposes the dominant sense of values in the society. Mill made a cynical statement on this point by saying, “A civilization which can be easily destroyed after being attacked by the barbarous uncivilized world doesn’t deserve the name of civilization. It should just be destroyed like the Western Roman Empire.” This means that the society where the majority doesn’t have a firm belief and cannot make proper decisions isn’t qualified to receive benefits of freedom. He is talking about a fundamental matter in “On Liberty” which is related to Burke’s argument.

Furukawa: “Liberal democracy” is a very contradictory notion, and it has to contain both “liberalism,” that protects individuals, and “democracy,” which Mill calls the “tyranny of majority.” It is required for us to fight against the terrorism that tries to destroy democracy without giving up liberalism.

Multiculturalism Was a “Failure”

Ikeuchi: Britain has had the idea of “multiculturalism,” granting immigrants who live in Britain “rights for peace” with which they won’t be discriminated against for religious and ethnic reasons, and “rights of difference” for religious and ethnic units as well. In short, immigrants hold the core of their identities because they can reproduce their own sense of values in Britain through their own education and religion. It has even been allowed to abide by the sense that they belong to the society and the sense of value of their homelands, not the society of Britain. Since “multiculturalism” vaguely sounds good, Japan has taken this as something great, but it seems to have ignored the contextual difference between Japan and Britain.

Immigrants in Britain have increased since the 1948 Commonwealth Citizenship and Nationality Act, in which Britain granted the citizens of the Commonwealth the right to enter Britain, settle down in the country and work. When their integration became a problem, Roy Jenkins, a leader of the Wilson Labour Party Ministry, declared the policy of multiculturalism in 1966, by saying, “the government won’t ask for the assimilation of cultures. We aim at cultural diversity along with mutual understanding and equal opportunity.” This policy was based on the optimistic notion that an immigrants’ sense of values would get along with the British sense of values in course of time, even if they grant immigrants the freedom of ideas. In Britain, however, the novel The Satanic Verses written by Salman Rushdie was criticized as an apostate book and burned in public in 1989, and a Muslim leader approved of the murder of the author, which stunned British society. The failure of multiculturalism became evident from the state of total denial under the name of religious threats against “freedom of the press,” a fundamental idea of British society. Then Mr. Jenkins, who I mentioned above, confessed that multiculturalism was a “failure.”

Another point that should be pointed out is the “coldness” of “multiculturalism.” A cool and neglectful attitude is at the root of it, where British won’t meddle in others’ cultures, no matter how low quality it seems, as long as they believe in their own justice.

Furukawa: I guess it’s not always “evil” to assimilate immigrants into the nation’s own culture.

What Makes Them Need Sacred War

Ikeuchi: Although Britain had been considered as a “nation of the multiculturalism policy in which they admitted Islamic immigrants’ sense of values and difference” with no perception of a problem, the country began to be looked at as if “the terrorist attack happened because there was discrimination in Britain.” What’s more, the problem is sometimes converted into a problem of “shelving mutual understanding,” which is acceptable only for Japanese, or it is discussed from a supposition with a title like, “Muslims Alienated, Anger Spreads over the Border.” The biggest problem is that they don’t take the battles of ideas which has grown in the Muslim community into account. I’ve been afraid of the risk that since 9.11 we’ve been deprived of the ability of making decisions, and that democracy might be destroyed by the media presenting “farfetched theories” favored by viewers or readers, without caring about coherency with past arguments.

Minority groups’ social status has been uplifted and their integration is proceeding, like in the cases of India-origin or Hong-Kong-origin immigrants who became doctors. On the other hand, there’s a tendency of ideas among the Muslim community like, “It’s better to get a wife from your home” or “You should have a preacher from your home.” They want to keep a connection with their homes, and look down on their fellows as being “deviators” who attempt to go up in the British hierarchy. Since Britain has admitted and kept a slack rein on it under cold “multiculturalism,” some Islamic young people won’t adhere to the propaganda of an “Islamic community blessed by Allah vs. hopeless secular Europe,” which is sent from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

Their idea is based on the recognition of international politics of Islamic Law. Muslims think that they belong to the notional “House of Islam (Dar Al-Islam)” not to Britain or their hometowns. On the other hand, there is “House of War (Dar Al-Harb)” where pagans live as an object of a jihad (“sacred war,” battle with pagans). With that notion as a premise, they think there is also an area named “House of Peace,” reasoning that they don’t need a jihad now. This is a theory where Muslims concede security to pagans. However, they think the security won’t be guaranteed and they fight a jihad when the opponent takes a hostile action, since this area is nothing but a temporarily truce zone. In short, they have the solid notion of the world in which the Islamic world will beat everything in the end. This is not a logic that is peculiar to Islamic radicals, but a basic logic that even the moderate Muslims favor.

These days, it is getting obvious in lots of reportage that sermons like “Suicidal terrorism is based on the teaching of Islam,” and “recent terrorism is what British government itself, which had joined the Iraq War, had asked for,” are being given in Mosques. We should pay attention to the remark made by Omar Bakri Mohammed, who has been excluded from Britain that “the contract which guarantees the Christians’ security was cancelled because Britain had taken a hostile action against the Islamic community.” This is the remark which makes jihad compulsive in Islamic Law.

Furukawa: There was an interesting debate between Americans and Britons in the meeting for anti-terrorism measures. While Europe insists, “We have to change the neglectful attitude toward the Muslim community, and approach the moderates by having more opportunity to talk with them,” an American expert of terrorism contradicted this. He said, “There isn’t an independent ‘Muslim community,’ which is worth talking with. In America, the Muslim community is assimilated into American society, while Europe presumes a distinction between ‘we’ and ‘Islam’.” In fact, there are Muslims who are doing good work in the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) cracking down on terrorism. In Britain, however, an Indian immigrant can be a supervisor of anti-terrorism duties, but an Islamic supervisor hasn’t been found, as far as I know. This is not what happens only in Britain, but what is happening in the whole of Europe. In America, the proportion of Islam-origin citizens is less than 2%. More than that, America has a tradition that even radicals like Cuban rightwing immigrants or the IRA can be assimilated into the society. There were Islamic radicals who attempted terrorism in the US. For instance, Eight Yemeni immigrants from New York went to an Afghanistan exercise camp in May 2001, but more than half of them gave it up because they were unable to stand the exercise camp, saying that they prefer the life in America (laughing). After they returned home, surprisingly, the Muslim community informed on them to the FBI. They were arrested by the FBI as “sleepers,” who supported a terrorism organization.

As a different point of the issue, there is the question of whether Japan should accept immigrants from various nations as “foreign laborers” like in America, which has grown its market share by constantly absorbing immigrants, or like Europe which needs immigrants to support an aging society, because Japan too is faced with a drop in the birth rate. If Japan accepts them, how should we treat them? We’re at the crucial stage of thinking about this because it has been revealed that there is a flaw within the “society of diverse cultures” and “multiculturalism,” which Japanese intellectuals have admired until today. Indeed, the countries which Japan has admired as pioneers of “multiculturalism” like Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, and Spain, are now confronting problems of immigrants. The conventional mainstream, consisting of mainly Christians, is now faced with the question that “multiculturalism” might “lead them to becoming a minority group,” while encountering increasing number of Islamic immigrants who used to be a minority group. That’s why the Right, which is anti-immigrant, and an extreme rightwing parties are rising now in Europe. Japan also should think well about this as a “possible problem.”

Ikeuchi: When I asked a question to a Turkish student of the same generation as me, who’s studying at a university in a Western country: “You don’t like America, do you?” He answered, “On the contrary. If I emigrate, I will definitely go to America. America is a land of opportunity in which you can become rich or famous if you do well, because the nation is a society of diverse cultures. In Europe, Islamic immigrants continue to be looked down upon. These are societies of racial discrimination.”

The idea of “America vs. Islam” has often been suggested. Still, most people in Islamic nations still have the image of a “Promised Land” in America. Muslims who live in America are more often converted blacks who were born in America than immigrants from West and South Asia. These blacks have chosen Islam in order to deny the whole world and to start over as the antithesis of whites’ society, as resistance to the establishment of black society. Malcolm X is a good example.

On the other hand, Europe, geographically adjoining East Asia, has been exposed to historical events like the Crusades, Jihad, the siege of Vienna, and colonialism. Such antagonistic relations still remain deep.

Furukawa: Around the time when the 1989 Salman Rushdie incident happened, the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan and then collapsed. The Liberal world no longer had to rely on the Islamic radicals that they had been used to take advantage of, based on the idea that “the enemy’s enemy is a friend,” to compete with communism and the Soviet Union. Then, Islamic radicals flew to Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and even France for their mental peace and for the new target of hostility. When Algerian radicals caused terrorism in France in the 1990s, the authorities firmly cracked down on them, and they ran away to Britain. Under the protection of “multiculturalism,” they could take root in Britain. Since France forces “assimilation,” which was contrary to “multiculturalism,” like banning Islamic citizens to wear scarves from a viewpoint of the separation of politics and religion, Britain should have been more comfortable place for them.

It turns out that all Islamic radicals who were arrested in Europe within the last one or two years had European nationalities, had received a certain level of education, and were feeling dissatisfaction at their daily lives, through research on them conducted by anti-terrorism experts of Western countries. They are often engaged in science fields, and many engineers are among them. I suppose that there might be a tendency that they escape from the reality by shutting themselves in laboratories. After receiving a certain level of education, I guess, they try to break the reality, which they’re not satisfied with, through the agitations of preachers like Omar Bakri Mohammed, who I mentioned earlier. According to the analysis conducted by the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), or staff at the Pentagon, terrorists are mentally healthy and calm. If they are mentally ill, they’re soon kicked out of the terrorists’ organizations. Then why do they get into self-destructive terrorism, which is nothing but abnormal? It can be explained by the logic of “group dynamics,” in short, “the road won’t be dangerous even with the red light on, if you cross together.”

In addition, while heroes for the young are often athletes like Ichiro, singers, actors, etc., in developed counties, West Asia has a society where criminals of self-destructive terrorism are admired in pictures, films, and music throughout the cities. We should change the heroic image of them first. I think that it is a key of anti-terrorism measures to give an outlet for young people in a situation where the unemployment rates of Islamic young people in Europe remains high (for example, in Britain, 20%). The Bush Administration’s “Middle East Expansion Plan” which aims for the democratization of West Asia, isn’t only of the “Neoconservative Persuasion.” I understand this as the construction of a mechanism in which each country solves problems in democratic ways, so that dissatisfaction or anger within the countries of West Asia won’t spread overseas in the form of terrorism. Of course, it is possible that if Iraq is stabilized, terrorists who used to live in Iraq will spread out of the country and the risk of terrorism in developed countries will rise.

Aside from this, different types of heroic desires are taking root in Islamic society in Europe. European governments haven’t taken effective measures. The Netherlands had noticed Islamic radicals before the 9.11 terrorism attack, but weren’t cooperative, regarding it as “America’s problem,” since the main targets of hostility were Israel and America. The Netherlands was focused on measures against the Right, and was avoiding regulations which can be considered racial oppression because of the nightmare of the Nazi period. Britain was paying attention to the type of terrorism sponsored by nations. America had a very simple problem that they were short of people who could understand Arabic. When you look into the data of the analysis of sermons given at mosques in America, you will find radical messages like “Americans, kill Jews!” in the latter part of the sermons after a modest sermon in English in the former part. Islamic radicals have cleverly switched the language that they use.

The Insularity of “Mutual Understanding by Dialogue”

Ikeuchi: Europe became incompetent about getting information about various Islamic organizations since they gave up colonialism, but there’s another reason that people who major in Arabic tend to conceal improper knowledge.

This “improper knowledge” is improper from viewpoint of Western culture, but it is natural that Muslims try to expand Islam according to the Islamic sense of values. It is not a problem that they reason to young Islamic immigrants that “you should devote yourself to the expansion of Islam rather than waste your life in criminality or with drugs.” However, it is a problem for Western countries that they then continue the sentence by saying, “to achieve this, carry out the obligation of jihad together.” What’s worse, they truly believe “they are pacifists because Islamic doctrine brings peace by winning in jihad.” No matter how much Western countries object to this, it is meaningless because it’s related the basics of the doctrine.

Although “intellectuals” in Liberal world have appealed to “mutual understanding by dialogue” as a way to solve problems, it is nothing but insolence to believe that Islam has no choice but to obey our sense of values in the end. Even Muslims who appear assimilated into Western culture can’t contradict the idea of the “House of Islam vs. the House of War,” because it is in the basics of Islamic law. Even if they think it troublesome, they won’t do anything serious about it, and they will be a target of jihad as an “apostate” if they criticize it. Since Western countries have noticed such a deep conflict, they are beefing up political and policing countermeasures.

Furukawa: It reminds me of the similar idea that “what we do is ultimately good for mankind” which can be seen in the testimony of an Aum Shinrikyo terrorist in the court. How we should deal with such things?

I think there was a deep-rooted optimism that we could achieve diversification of cultures by absorbing the cultures of various countries or by our culture spreading across borders, when the Internet became more common in the 1990s.

However, as you can see from the situation of present China and East Asia, people tend to choose only what corroborates their ideas and their own sense of values in the end, even when they’re exposed to a huge amount of information. I’m afraid the sense of values will become more radical and narrow, rather than diversified, if only IT develops in countries or societies which lack governing ability. The more information they’re exposed to, the more likely a negative mechanism works in which they manage to find a logic which proves that what they think is right.

If I may say more, since the Al-Qaida of the 9.11 terrorism is called “the network of the network,” members moved in a command network which was led by Usama bin Ladin, though it was a loose network. On the other hand, the present Al-Qaida has developed from a network into a movement of “jihad activity on a global scale.” In short, it has changed into a movement of radical Islamic ideology where small groups all over the world who watch messages from Usama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri on TV or the Internet take action without a command network.

The Agitation: “Do Not Inflame Hostility”

Ikeuchi: As you mentioned, it’s a great threat even if only global media like Al-Jazeera and CNN put the remarks of Usama bin Ladin on the air and it motivates only 0.1% of that 1.3 billion Muslims of the world. When we look at such a mechanism, we can’t feel secure in thinking that radical fundamentalists are insane people who have nothing to do with normal Muslims. If these aren’t related and radical fundamentalists have only their own particular thoughts, the story is too easy. If that is true, all we have to do is to bottle up a small number of terrorists with the use of force thoroughly. However, if radical fundamentalists share a lot with ordinary Muslims, it is ultimately impossible to solve the problem by only exerting force.

The problem is, when we say such things, we are criticized by self-styled Liberals among the Islamic world and also by Japanese “intellectuals” as if “what we’re saying were based on discrimination and prejudice and we’re agitating hostility toward Muslims,” whether the criticism is only from ignorance or from intentional slander. Then we become unable to make a truthful analysis of terrorism since we’re regarded as a target of jihad. This is a strange story, but they have a self-righteous and self-centered idea that “they are the same if we understand religion properly.” More regrettably, such argument is thought to be “conscientious” and “sophisticated.”

Though Muslims love peace, for them, “peace can be achieved only by Islam getting a dominant status of the world.” The former Abbasid Empire and the Ottoman Empire had such a form of peace, and even today peace and security is kept within Islamic countries under Islamic rule, which should never be contradicted by anyone. Those who try to realize the ideal of Islamic rule on global scale on their own are called radicals, and those who are waiting for somebody to do it for them are called the moderate. In this respect, they basically have the same idea. However, if you understand such matters by halves, some might say, “Muslims have unjustifiable thoughts. They should change their way of faith,” but it’s off the point, and the faith or logical structure of Muslims cannot be changed at our own discretion. They can say such things because they don’t understand the vigor of Islamic community which is armed with a logical structure with much assurance.

Furukawa: As you can see from the situation in Britain, when radicals start controlling a mosque which has formerly been controlled by moderates, it seems difficult for the moderates to oppose them and win back supremacy. It is unquestionably the case that such mosques have become factories of terrorism after 9.11.

Ikeuchi: It is natural that radicals who can exert “force” beat out the moderates, since the moderates can’t beat radicals who share a similar fundamental doctrine, by appealing to reason. However, if the moderates ask the host society (local residents) like Britain for a help, they are despised as “confederates of a fallen host society,” and if a host society intervenes in the conflicts of Muslims, the action is regarded as oppression to Islam and might justify a jihad on the host society.

In short, Bakri isn’t saying peculiar things, rather, he’s just expressing his opinion based on ordinary Islamic philosophy. His remark that I mentioned earlier is the same as that of Shoko Asahara of Aum Shinrikyo, “Do ‘poa’ before falling to Hell.” Since they aren’t saying, “Kill,” it is hard to blame them as being guilty. The purpose can be achieved when other people listen to and then carry it out. That’s why this is hard to deal with.

From the viewpoint point of ordinary Muslims, it’s impossible to decide which is right, because of a “difference of opinion” with those who are willing to join jihad. If they criticize terrorism they will be regarded as a target of jihad, so they have no choice but to remain quiet. On the other hand, there is an “endless chain” that a heathen intervention will be regarded as an “oppression of Islam,” and that jihad will be more passionately preached. The argument requires facing up to the fact that there exists an elaborated mechanism to make Islam spread all over the world, which stands on the Islamic logical structure related to law, politics, and even military affairs, and the friction is arising between Western society and this mechanism. It’s not a simple argument that, “terrorism and countermeasures against terrorism is a link in an endless chain. The reason is because there is discrimination and poverty.”

Japan Mustn’t Disregard the Issue

Furukawa: If there’s a ray of hope in such a desperate situation, it is the decline of the approval rate for self-destructive terrorism and Usama bin Ladin in almost every country, according to the poll of Muslims conducted by American poll institute, Pew Research Center. The only way is that we live together and search for a chance to reduce its violent aspect while we admit their ultimate philosophy of the expansion of Islam.

Ikeuchi: If Western society works on this issue persistently with its firm attitude and ceaseless persuasion, Islamic countries might change their ideas from one that admires Usama bin Ladin and favoring terrorism to one that won’t alter this West-dominant world that much. I feel if Western society can show its power and value as a civilized society, Muslims can make the same decision they once chose in the early modern age, in which they tried to gain power by accepting Western technology and systems rather than engage in hostile actions.

Some criticize Blair’s defiant provisions about terrorism saying, “polarization appears between those who willingly try to integrate themselves into British society and those who don’t, and the excluded among the latter will be even more radical. This is the situation that terrorists prefer.” This argument is right in a sense, but I also think that things won’t turn around unless we go to the utmost limit of it. We should present Muslims who live in Britain with the question whether of they would integrate themselves into British society or not, and grant maximum independence to Muslims who have accepted “modern” philosophy. On the other hand, it is the realistic way of coping with the problem that if Muslims who reject “modern” philosophy become radical and resort to violence, we should restrain them with greater force. If the other party justifies violence forcing a completely different standard of values, and they have rigid faith in correctness of their standard of values, dialogue alone won’t bring settlement of the problem.

It would be good if the Islamic idea which can get along with “modern” philosophy spreads through a new religious reform like Salman Rushdie’s argument in the British paper The Times (published on Aug. 11), but even in this case, we can’t stop the violence of a minority group who takes advantage of the traditional philosophy. That’s why if a host society proceeds toward the “polarization” of Muslims, the number of terrorists will increase as a short-term result. Nevertheless, I feel Blair’s determination and readiness to carry it out when he makes declarations about the “battle of ideas.”

Furukawa: As I mentioned earlier, France has worked on this issue with a strict attitude toward terrorism since the 1990s Algerian fundamentalist terrorism, and so has America after 9.11.

The Blair Administration has insisted on the necessity of an even stricter anti-terrorism law especially in the Home Office since last year. Although the EU and newspapers had once offered criticisms like, “the Blair Administration intentionally exaggerates the threat of terrorism,” the mood has changed drastically after the attacks in July, and today the majority of the people are asking for “stricter” countermeasures. It means Britain is finally coming close to America and France.

Ikeuchi: Some argue that the Palestine dispute and the Iraq war are the cause of terrorism. It is the case that terrorists picture the Islamic world in conflict with the pagans’ world and justify the attack on Britain by drawing upon Palestine and Iraq. However, under the rules of non-Islamic countries, this only justifies their violent crimes as jihad. Even if the Palestine dispute settles down, terrorism won’t disappear and terrorists will find another reason for their actions.

I think that Japan also has had a period in which it wouldn’t blame terrorism because of the media’s sympathetic attitudes toward the criminals’ “reasons” of “sanction against imperialistic, economic aggression” as can be seen when a series of bombings on the buildings of companies like Mitsubishi Heavy Industry happened in the 1970s. In this respect, Japan is too ignorant about the fact that terrorism is a “fight against freedom.”

Furukawa: Terrorism is not irrelevant for Japan. According to a news report, there is information that Al-Qaida’s No.3, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad testified that, “I had a plan of terrorism targeting the World Cup Championship in Korea and Japan,” and an Algerian Frenchman of Al-Qaida, Lionel Dumond, had visited Japan many times since 9.11. At least we should aware of the possibility that Al-Qaida investigated Japanese infrastructure like the bullet trains and skyscrapers. There’s a tendency that Islamic terrorists never forget a place that they once targeted.

In the statement of Usama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri, Japan is clearly recognized as being one of the targeted nations. Even Usama bin Ladin doesn’t mean to attack Japan in earnest, but his message must be taken seriously. In a sense, the situation isn’t really controlled by Usama bin Ladin.

In addition, when we talk about fundamentalism, we often look only at Arabs, but there is information of growing radical fundamentalism in North Africa, or in Indonesia and Malaysia, that used to do terrorism acts only against their own governments, but are now being recruited to Iraq. Japan cannot be unconcerned about the phenomenon in which Islamic fundamentalist terrorism spreads over the boundaries of region and race.

Although the number of Muslims in Japan is small, I hear that the madrasas (seminaries) are being run in personal homes or in assembly halls, and that means Japan has infrastructure which can become hotbeds of terrorism. An Assistant Professor of Tsukuba University, Hitoshi Igarashi, translator of The Satanic Verses, was assassinated, though the criminal is still unknown.

Ikeuchi: If Islamic radicals do an act of terrorism in non-Islamic countries outside of the West, Japan is most likely to be targeted. Even if they carry it out in Korea, it won’t draw much global attention.

Japan might be less likely to be targeted because the country lacks a will to protect “freedom” and “democracy,” and terrorists won’t be motivated enough to have a “battle of ideas” (laughing). This is unfortunate for Japan in a sense.