Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO07013 | A Question of Values? Changing Strategies in the Ideological Battle against Terrorism
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO07013 | A Question of Values? Changing Strategies in the Ideological Battle against Terrorism
    S P Harish

    27 February 2007

    download pdf

    Commentary

    IN the ideological fight against terrorism, there has been a marked shift in the strategy of many Western countries. Before the need for an ideological battle was realized, Islam and terrorism were carelessly conflated. Subsequently, there was a massive effort to rectify this misguided approach and defend what was believed to be ‘true Islam’. To that end, many political leaders emphasised that the terrorists were ‘misinterpreting and misrepresenting’ the holy Quran. This strategy relied heavily on the monolithic nature of Islam and the ability to identify so-called ‘moderate Muslims’. It was believed that by increasing airtime for Muslims who preach tolerance, the ideology of the terrorists would automatically be discredited.

    The flaws of this last approach can be seen clearly in the ongoing Iraqi insurgency. The deep schisms in the country within Islam were not anticipated and the coalition forces are now struggling with the intense rivalry between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Indeed, who determines a ‘moderate Muslim’? Given the divergences within Islam, the quest for ‘moderate’ or ‘true’ Muslim is futile. This is not to say that moderate Muslims do not exist; of course they do. But a blind emphasis on this categorisation begs the question – why should Muslims only be identified as moderate or otherwise?

    The New Strategy: Way of Life

    After the failure of this false dichotomy in the Iraqi quagmire, there has been a noticeable change in the strategy to discredit terrorism. Instead of demonising Islam or attempting to find the ‘right model’ of Islam, the stress is now on espousing the values of what U.S. President Bush has labelled the ‘civilized world’. Increasingly, we hear sound bites from both Australian Prime Minister John Howard and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair that they are protecting not only their country, its people but also its ‘way of life’.

    What does this ‘way of life’ entail? It cannot just be dismissed as rhetoric for Western values; for if that is the case, then Samuel Huntington’s thesis of the ‘clash of civilizations’ is much closer than we would care to admit. To their credit, both prime ministers have taken pains to reject Huntington’s argument. Tony Blair, in particular, has argued that the current battle against extremism is not a clash between but about civilizations.

    An elaboration into the elements of the phrase ‘way of life’ can be gleaned from Tony Blair’s recent article in Foreign Affairs. In the article titled ‘A Battle for Global Values’, Blair mentions (1) religious tolerance (2) openness to others (3) democracy (4) liberty and (5) human rights administered by secular courts as the key tenets that he seeks to protect from extremism. Of these, Blair highlights the significance of democracy, seen in the successful Iraqi and Afghan elections. He also emphasises that these values are global and not dependent on religion. Irrespective of whether one is a Muslim, Christian, Jew, or Hindu, these values represent those on the right side of the battle. There has hence been a subtle shift from rejecting ‘bad’ values to embracing ‘good’ ones.

    Pros and Cons of the Shift

    So is this recasting of the ideological battle helpful? Compared to earlier strategies, the new approach certainly seems the right way forward. Its most significant strength is that it takes away religion from the equation, thus altering the ideological divide in the current struggle against terrorism. But a closer examination reveals some shortcomings.

    First, it reveals a deep tension between democracy and secularism. For Blair, democracy is not just about free and fair elections; it includes rule of law as well as constitutionally protected civil and political liberties. But even if democracy is about giving all citizens a voice in their country’s governance, then it should be entirely possible for religion to acquire a prominent place. Indeed, President Bush’s stance on stem cell research and abortion illustrates that democracy does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with secularism. Moreover, there are political parties in Europe which espouse notions of ‘Christian democracy’. In the same light, would there not be room for ‘Islamic democracy’? Would an Islamic democracy in the Middle East or Asia be acceptable?

    There are numerous advantages of secular democracies. But has it been conclusively proven that a secular democracy is the only panacea against religious extremism? And would a non- secular prescription of human rights be necessarily worse than the secular alternative?

    Second and related to the friction between democracy and secularism – is democracy or secularism more desirable in countering extremism? There are a number of examples of secular countries with little semblance of democracy. For instance, regimes in Zimbabwe, North Korea and Myanmar all have secular outlooks but are ruled by authoritarian if not oppressive leaders. The high significance placed on democracy by Western countries will then require at the very least, an equal emphasis in addressing secular as well as religious dictatorial regimes.

    Third, the new approach demonstrates the deep tensions within democracy. The fact that Blair had to list four other elements in addition to democracy — tolerance, openness, liberty and human rights — shows that democracy alone cannot guarantee the rest. This is a key lesson for countries which believe that a democratic Middle East, modelled after a future Iraq, would automatically lead to peace and security.

    Fourth, Blair’s tenets have disconcerting implications for multicultural societies. It assumes that everyone should subscribe to some value. The evaluation of extremism is no longer dependent on rejection of certain values but the acceptance of some others. All citizens, especially immigrants, will be judged on the extent to which they subscribe to values prescribed by Blair’s precepts. What was originally an inclusive pathway to a multicultural society has become exclusive. Increasingly, there does seem to be a significant attempt in both the United Kingdom and Australia to tweak their multicultural systems in favour of France’s integration model. But we would learn well from the recent riots in France where the weaknesses of the French model became apparent.

    This is, of course, not to say that Blair’s tenets are harmful in any way. To his credit, he has attempted to distance religion from extremism. In that respect, they are a helpful starting point — but only to the extent that one set of divisions are not replaced with another. The efficacy of the values that embody the ‘civilized world’ are useful only to the extent they are flexible.

    Conclusion

    At the heart of the global values debate is the question of national identity in an era where talent flows are not constrained by national boundaries. Samuel Huntington, in his latest book Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity, subscribes to a shallow static conception of national identity and portrays immigrants as a challenge, if not a threat to American national identity. We will do well if we can recognize national identity as a dynamic concept that needs to be continuously negotiated within society. We will do even better if we recognise that values of a particular society, be it Western or otherwise, are not the prerogative of only political elites but all residents of the country.

    About the Author

    S.P.Harish is an Associate Research Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. 

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Terrorism Studies / Global

    Commentary

    IN the ideological fight against terrorism, there has been a marked shift in the strategy of many Western countries. Before the need for an ideological battle was realized, Islam and terrorism were carelessly conflated. Subsequently, there was a massive effort to rectify this misguided approach and defend what was believed to be ‘true Islam’. To that end, many political leaders emphasised that the terrorists were ‘misinterpreting and misrepresenting’ the holy Quran. This strategy relied heavily on the monolithic nature of Islam and the ability to identify so-called ‘moderate Muslims’. It was believed that by increasing airtime for Muslims who preach tolerance, the ideology of the terrorists would automatically be discredited.

    The flaws of this last approach can be seen clearly in the ongoing Iraqi insurgency. The deep schisms in the country within Islam were not anticipated and the coalition forces are now struggling with the intense rivalry between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Indeed, who determines a ‘moderate Muslim’? Given the divergences within Islam, the quest for ‘moderate’ or ‘true’ Muslim is futile. This is not to say that moderate Muslims do not exist; of course they do. But a blind emphasis on this categorisation begs the question – why should Muslims only be identified as moderate or otherwise?

    The New Strategy: Way of Life

    After the failure of this false dichotomy in the Iraqi quagmire, there has been a noticeable change in the strategy to discredit terrorism. Instead of demonising Islam or attempting to find the ‘right model’ of Islam, the stress is now on espousing the values of what U.S. President Bush has labelled the ‘civilized world’. Increasingly, we hear sound bites from both Australian Prime Minister John Howard and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair that they are protecting not only their country, its people but also its ‘way of life’.

    What does this ‘way of life’ entail? It cannot just be dismissed as rhetoric for Western values; for if that is the case, then Samuel Huntington’s thesis of the ‘clash of civilizations’ is much closer than we would care to admit. To their credit, both prime ministers have taken pains to reject Huntington’s argument. Tony Blair, in particular, has argued that the current battle against extremism is not a clash between but about civilizations.

    An elaboration into the elements of the phrase ‘way of life’ can be gleaned from Tony Blair’s recent article in Foreign Affairs. In the article titled ‘A Battle for Global Values’, Blair mentions (1) religious tolerance (2) openness to others (3) democracy (4) liberty and (5) human rights administered by secular courts as the key tenets that he seeks to protect from extremism. Of these, Blair highlights the significance of democracy, seen in the successful Iraqi and Afghan elections. He also emphasises that these values are global and not dependent on religion. Irrespective of whether one is a Muslim, Christian, Jew, or Hindu, these values represent those on the right side of the battle. There has hence been a subtle shift from rejecting ‘bad’ values to embracing ‘good’ ones.

    Pros and Cons of the Shift

    So is this recasting of the ideological battle helpful? Compared to earlier strategies, the new approach certainly seems the right way forward. Its most significant strength is that it takes away religion from the equation, thus altering the ideological divide in the current struggle against terrorism. But a closer examination reveals some shortcomings.

    First, it reveals a deep tension between democracy and secularism. For Blair, democracy is not just about free and fair elections; it includes rule of law as well as constitutionally protected civil and political liberties. But even if democracy is about giving all citizens a voice in their country’s governance, then it should be entirely possible for religion to acquire a prominent place. Indeed, President Bush’s stance on stem cell research and abortion illustrates that democracy does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with secularism. Moreover, there are political parties in Europe which espouse notions of ‘Christian democracy’. In the same light, would there not be room for ‘Islamic democracy’? Would an Islamic democracy in the Middle East or Asia be acceptable?

    There are numerous advantages of secular democracies. But has it been conclusively proven that a secular democracy is the only panacea against religious extremism? And would a non- secular prescription of human rights be necessarily worse than the secular alternative?

    Second and related to the friction between democracy and secularism – is democracy or secularism more desirable in countering extremism? There are a number of examples of secular countries with little semblance of democracy. For instance, regimes in Zimbabwe, North Korea and Myanmar all have secular outlooks but are ruled by authoritarian if not oppressive leaders. The high significance placed on democracy by Western countries will then require at the very least, an equal emphasis in addressing secular as well as religious dictatorial regimes.

    Third, the new approach demonstrates the deep tensions within democracy. The fact that Blair had to list four other elements in addition to democracy — tolerance, openness, liberty and human rights — shows that democracy alone cannot guarantee the rest. This is a key lesson for countries which believe that a democratic Middle East, modelled after a future Iraq, would automatically lead to peace and security.

    Fourth, Blair’s tenets have disconcerting implications for multicultural societies. It assumes that everyone should subscribe to some value. The evaluation of extremism is no longer dependent on rejection of certain values but the acceptance of some others. All citizens, especially immigrants, will be judged on the extent to which they subscribe to values prescribed by Blair’s precepts. What was originally an inclusive pathway to a multicultural society has become exclusive. Increasingly, there does seem to be a significant attempt in both the United Kingdom and Australia to tweak their multicultural systems in favour of France’s integration model. But we would learn well from the recent riots in France where the weaknesses of the French model became apparent.

    This is, of course, not to say that Blair’s tenets are harmful in any way. To his credit, he has attempted to distance religion from extremism. In that respect, they are a helpful starting point — but only to the extent that one set of divisions are not replaced with another. The efficacy of the values that embody the ‘civilized world’ are useful only to the extent they are flexible.

    Conclusion

    At the heart of the global values debate is the question of national identity in an era where talent flows are not constrained by national boundaries. Samuel Huntington, in his latest book Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity, subscribes to a shallow static conception of national identity and portrays immigrants as a challenge, if not a threat to American national identity. We will do well if we can recognize national identity as a dynamic concept that needs to be continuously negotiated within society. We will do even better if we recognise that values of a particular society, be it Western or otherwise, are not the prerogative of only political elites but all residents of the country.

    About the Author

    S.P.Harish is an Associate Research Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. 

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Terrorism Studies

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info