Let the Islamic world go its way

Vladimir Inozemtsev, RIA Novosti, Moscow

The question we should be asking is not, "When will we win the war on terror?" It is, "When will we recognize that no such victory is possible?"

In many respects, modern terrorism is a response by poor countries to the advance of the West. It is not so much direct aggression that the Muslim world is trying to "free" itself from, as it is the persistent penetration of Western values into its cultural and historical environment. While this encroachment points to the weakness and the limited opportunities of Muslim societies, at the same time it compels these societies to turn to traditional values in an attempt to define themselves.

The advocates of this "freedom" and the use of terrorism to achieve this goal, do not need rational arguments, positive programs or plans. They position themselves as spokesmen for the blind will of the masses, rather than as defenders of the interests of particular groups.

Not counting the victims of Sept. 11, every year since 1999, there has been a 60-80 percent increase in the number of people killed in terrorist attacks. At the same time, more and more countries are suffering at the hands of terrorists. In these circumstances, the West has only one option: to help Muslim countries achieve the "freedom" they desire, and stop trying to impose its humanitarian values, goods and technologies, and even its democracy, on this part of the world.

It should be recognized that "liberation from Western values" is not tantamount to progress, and that the independence of one society from the dominance of another does not necessarily make its citizens happy and prosperous. In the modern world, the reverse is true: The wealthier countries and nations are, the less independent they are.

The more independent they are from everyone else, the more they are doomed to poverty. Therefore, the process of "liberation" leads to a dead end, and there are currently no forces in the world (and nor will there be in the future) capable of ensuring that no nation will "successfully" come up against this blank wall.

The West cannot civilize the Muslim world in the way in which it wishes. Yet it should not try to block the process of de- civilization or to minimize its negative consequences. A policy of non-interference is not fraught with serious economic risk for the West. Europe and the United States do not really depend on Islamic nations as sources of energy, markets, or cheap labor.

For example, just 25.4 percent of total U.S. oil imports are from the Middle East, equivalent to 13.5 percent of its aggregate consumption. If every car manufactured in the U.S. got as many miles to the gallon as a European car, America could give up its Persian Gulf oil imports altogether.

The Arab nations account for 4.1 percent of total EU exports, and 2.9 percent of U.S. exports. In 2003, arms sales by the West to the Persian Gulf nations totaled US$9.6 billion, which is 17 times less than its spending on "the war against terrorism."

With an unemployment rate of 10 percent, Europe does not really need to turn to Arab countries for manpower. Moreover, only 44 percent of immigrants in Europe have jobs, meaning that more than half of them go to Europe to take advantage of its social welfare programs.

The "war on terror" that is being waged by the industrialized nations aims to remove the terror that is spreading to the centers of the Western world. Therefore, the arena for this struggle should be limited to its borders. Evidently, the main method in this war will be to restrict the civil liberties of those people who find themselves in the "risk zone" on the basis of their religious affiliation, ethnic identity, or criminal record, or because they have lived in a particular country.

Two quite different but complementary policies should be pursued: On the one hand, the West should gradually reduce its presence in the regions where terrorism originates, and on the other hand, there should be a resolute effort to suppress aggressive "multiculturalism" within Western societies.

Today the Islamization of Europe is being carried out in the name of "symmetrical cultural influence": Western civilization is changing the Muslim world with its ideas and values, while the Muslim world is influencing the West with its immigrants and their customs. If the West gave up its attempts to spread its ideas and values, it would be able to start to prevent the "reverse effect."

What is referred to here is stopping the construction of mosques and prayer houses, banning the practice of inviting mullahs from Arab countries to preach in the West, and forbidding ostensive signs and displays of religious adherence.

Immigration to the EU should once again be strictly economic. Immigrants should have the right to work and live in Western countries, and enjoy all the rights of residents, but they should not be allowed to become citizens, or obtain voting rights enabling them to form lobby groups. Of course, they should remember that they could always be deported.

Considering that it was only forty years ago that Muslims began emigrating to Europe in any real numbers, there are no grounds whatsoever to praise them for "actively contributing" to the growing prosperity of Western countries.

Reciprocity is very important: Western nations should not prevent Muslims from establishing their own systems in the countries of their traditional (historical) residence, and for their part, Muslims should not arrive in Europe or the U.S. and make "demands."

Strict controls must be imposed on the supply of dual-purpose technologies with civilian and military applications to states whose citizens have repeatedly been involved in acts of terror. The G-8 should ban all sales of arms to the Middle East and should use the threat of economic sanction to compel other countries (China and India in particular) to follow suit. It is both inadmissible and illogical to wage a war against terrorism while supplying unstable states with arms.

Instead of trying to impose democracy, the West should be supporting democrats in Middle Eastern and other developing countries, that is, those people who are genuinely interested in providing a new future for their nations. Moreover, this support should be given to people who are actually living in these countries, rather than those who are whiling away their time as immigrants.

Prof. Vladislav Inozemtsev is a Doctor of Economics. He is the director of the Post-Industrial Society Research Center and editor-in-chief of the magazine Svobodnaya Mysl XXI (Free Thought XXI). The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.