Brown's moral offensive

Commentators on Gordon Brown's July meeting with President Bush have been quick to favourably compare Brown's emphasis on "moral superiority" and "human dignity" to Bush's crude characterisation of militant Islam as "evil". But Brown will have to do more than change the vocabulary of counter-terrorism to demonstrate his commitment to human dignity.

Olivia Allison is a researcher with the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and co-author (with David Cook) of Understanding and Addressing Suicide Attacks: The Faith and Politics of Martyrdom Operations (Praeger 2007)

The greatest difficulty for the British government in claiming any kind of moral superiority will be in proving it. Brown was right when he wrote that the way to do this was to undercut "terrorists' so-called ‘single narrative'", but understanding the context and nature of that narrative is essential for this strategy to work.

The militant Islamist single narrative focuses on Muslims' perceived humiliation and oppression around the world. This narrative has been so popular precisely because it appeals to the same concept on which Brown builds his own case for moral superiority: human dignity. "Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world", 7/7 bomber Muhammad Siddique Khan said in one of the most widely circulated statements - a representative example of this "single narrative". A cursory glance at militant recruiting literature and media releases shows the repetition of the humiliation motif, as well as the invocation of domestic and international grievances that are unlikely to be directly addressed directly by the Brown government.

Also by Olivia Allison on toD:

"Understanding suicide attacks"
(21 June 2007)Brown's suggestion that the British government "back mainstream and moderate voices and reformers" at home and abroad could very well backfire. Existing moderates will be tainted by the brush of government support, eroding the legitimacy of their campaigns and ideas. Cultural discussions of this nature take a long time - Brown rightly claims that the fight against Islamist radicalism will last at least a generation. The British government must create the environment for these discussions, encouraging and protecting those who speak out against militant ideologies, but the process cannot be rushed or micromanaged from Downing Street or Whitehall.

For instance, Brown has sought to change the rhetoric around terrorism by describing it as a "crime against humanity". To this end, the Brown government should place repeated public emphasis on the incidents of terrorism targeted against Muslim civilian populations, thereby cutting through the illusion of the jihadis' just war against oppression. Militant martyrdom propaganda never speaks of those countless attacks that have killed many Muslims across west Asia; "martyrdom wills" simply do not exist for the killings of Iraqi or the attacks on mosques.

Jordanian public opinion turned against al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and against suicide attacks the night Zarqawi bombed an Amman hotel. With so many civilians killed by militants in recent years, Britain should stress the plight of victims and do more to assist them, demonstrating (as opposed to asserting) its commitment to serious engagement in west Asia. Combating the "single narrative" requires recasting terrorism as a source of oppression - not a response to it.

Second, moral leadership on tackling the crisis in Darfur would inspire a British public tired of war. However, one major strand of the humiliation narrative evokes western forces of occupation in Muslim countries. This anti-occupation message is now being stretched to Darfur, with claims in Arabic-language media that the west is planning to occupy Sudan. For instance, Sudan's Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Sadequ Abdallah bin Al-Majed recently said in an interview: "They studied this region extensively - the Darfur region in particular - and realised that it is full of treasures, the likes of which have never been found elsewhere in Sudan. ... [The west is] behind all the tragedies that are taking place in Darfur."

Handling Darfur and other future interventions, whether carried out using "soft" or "hard" power, requires delicacy and tact. If existing and future military campaigns - even those for peacekeeping purposes - further destabilise the Muslim world, it will further reduce the credibility of the international community's humanitarian intentions. The British government and any international organisations should enlist Muslims to assist prominently in the Darfur operation. In order to combat perceptions of western imperialism and replace it with a belief that the UK is committed to an international reform and justice agenda, both the UK and US should be more willing to engage with Arab and Muslim populations around the world, especially through their own local media outlets.

At a domestic level, many British Muslims believe counterterrorism policies are specifically directed at them. The British government has generally defined "terrorism" in terms of Islamist extremis, including in official documents like Lord Carlile's report on the definition of terrorism. Counterterrorism policies that appear to strike against civil liberties - such as Blair's and Brown's proposals to widen police stop-and-question powers and to increase the pre-charge detention limit from 28 to 56 days - are perceived to be measures trained specifically at Muslims. The British government has so far been unable to disavow many of its citizens of this perception, and as long as "terrorism" is generally described as a "Muslim" activity, it is difficult to see domestic policies escaping the clutches of eager Islamist propagandists.

Likewise, inaction on rendition and Guantanamo Bay compromises Brown's stated commitment to "human dignity". If the counterterrorism struggle is expected to continue for at least a generation, governments must understand the ramifications of so-called "temporary" interruptions of personal liberty; a generation-long battle of ideas requires permanent, sustainable and unhypocritical policies.

If Brown is serious about his government's - and liberal democracy's - moral superiority, the battle of ideas will hinge on his ability to prove this superiority, necessitating policies and long-term dialogue, not just rhetoric.

| | | | | | | |

This article is published by Olivia Allison, , and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.