Shortly after the Paris attacks it was established that most attackers were citizens of European countries, namely France and Belgium. They were non-Europeans but originated from or had lived for quite some time in EU countries. However, their Islamic Fundamentalism turned out to be stronger than European identity with its universal values.
Paris attacks warrant the necessity of discussing the shortcomings in the performance of the secret police, also what Europe has come to be, what the European way of life is all about. Is it worth protecting? If so, against whom? More on this in the following interview with Dr. Andrii BAUMEISTER, Ph.D., Faculty of Philosophy, Taras Shevchenko National University, Kyiv.
Dr. Baumeister, what new challenges do you think Europe is facing after the Paris attacks? French President Francois Hollande says it’s an act of war. Is he right?
“The European countries are facing very serious challenges. Today the issue of what Europe will be like in the near future is being decided. How to effectively combat terrorism without acting contrary to one’s principles and remain committed to the fundamental human rights and freedoms? How to solve the problem of migrant influx? How to remain firm in one’s relations with Russia? Naturally, local problems no longer exist in the modern world. What’s happening in Europe has a direct bearing on all of us. The European community of nations is the model Ukraine has chosen. I believe that Europe will be strong enough to meet these challenges, although this is easier said than done.
“The next day after the attacks Le Monde wrote: ‘Terrorists will attack us again… We must remain a free, creative, and open society. If we close the free space in our cities, it will mean that the terrorists have won.’ Well said. Terrorists are apparently unable to ruin the EU economy. Their attacks are aimed against a certain way of life, against certain ideas. In view of this, we should interpret President Hollande’s statement about France being at war with ISIS differently. The problem is that the enemy is hard to identify. This enemy is hidden and strikes suddenly and treacherously. One has to fight this enemy without losing face. Winning this war means retaining one’s identity without turning traitor to one’s ideals.”
Is there a threat of Islamization of Europe? What changes does the European policy on migrants need?
“This Islamization threat has been discussed for quite some time. Apparently, the issue ought to be considered in a broader context. Europe faced this threat since the 8th until the 19th centuries. Turkish troops were near Vienna in 1683. Fortifications were built in Kyiv in the mid-19th century in case the Turks invaded. On the other hand, there is no denying the strong cultural influence of the Islamic world on Europe, beginning in the Middle Ages, and the fact that things Turkish were in vogue during the Enlightenment period. Islamic scientific and cultural achievements enriched Europe and determined its identity to a considerable degree. Finally, the West took advantage of the Ottoman Empire’s decline. In 1882, Great Britain occupied Egypt. In 1908, the Austro-Hungarian Empire annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1917, the Allies [the British Army led by General Edmund Allenby] captured Jerusalem. The Allies divided Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq between themselves. All this happened just a century ago. Islamic revival began as a massive anti-West movement right after the end of the World War Two. Under the Atlantic Charter drafted by Sir Winston Churchill and F.D. Roosevelt and issued as a pivotal policy statement on August 14, 1941 [later confirmed by all of the Allies of World War Two], Great Britain was to give up its colonies. In other words, the last great empire was to disband. The US President and the British Prime Minister pledged to work for the benefit of world peace, so that ‘all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.’ In the former colonies, local elites were the first to come to power, but they proved unable to organize political life. What happened next? Power was taken over by either the military (e.g., Iraq, Syria, and later Palestine) or religious conservatives (e.g., Iran). It was the finest hour for characters like Hussein, Gadaffi, and Assad. They wouldn’t have held office for long but for support from the United States or the Soviet Union. The way the US backed the Taliban against the USSR, starting in 1979, is a graphic example. It was a political show that left lessons worth learning, where double scenarios were written and double standard practiced…”
ISLAMIZATION: A THREAT ONLY IF EUROPEANS ARE POLITICALLY INDIFFERENT
“This digression into history was necessary, otherwise it would be difficult to figure out current events. We are witnesses to the destruction of that ephemeral ‘law and order’ that has for the past 50 years been guaranteed by the military leaders. It is against them that today’s religious radicals have risen up in arms. Europe has consolidated and developed its economy after WW II, building alliances and unions while countries in the Middle East have remained in a state of deep crisis and kept losing their identities. The West has been regarded by many Islamic intellectuals as the reason behind this crisis. The existing frontiers are believed to have been imposed, considering that most of the peoples in that region had for centuries lived using an entirely different coordinate system. It is important to understand that, first, certain radical Islamic intellectual circles are blaming the West and, second, they believe that they are prepared to offer a new Islamic renaissance project – of course, the way they see it.
“An ideological struggle is underway in the Islamic world, with various such projects locking horns with each other. It is very easy for us to identify the radical wing of Islam with Islam as such, but this would be a bad mistake. It takes subtle perception. Islamization would pose a threat to Europe if: (a) radical Islam got the better of moderate Islam, and (b) Europeans became weak and ideologically indifferent. Hopefully, neither will happen.
“Briefly in regard to the policy on migrants. It is a rather difficult problem. The West’s main ideological weapon against the Soviet Union was accusing Moscow of violating human rights. There was a specific aspect to human rights at the time, when people were denied the freedom of movement, particularly in terms of migration. Ronald Reagan spoke on behalf of the West when he tagged the Soviet Union an evil empire. The European Union is now faced with a new challenge: serious legal restrictions. We all know about the visa issue. And there is that multitude of refugees. Some experts say that 2015 is the year of the second Great Migration. We are being fed various apocalyptic scenarios. Let me tell you here and now: I don’t buy any of this. It is true that European countries will have to take harsh measures. We can see what’s happening in Germany. Alongside the high Willkommen-kultur standard, there are tougher social payment terms. This, however, is only putting the problem on a different level.”
What is the impact of philosophy on the modern European identity? Which of the thinkers would you point out as founding fathers? To what extent does philosophy influence European domestic and foreign politics?
“Now ‘influence’ takes some explaining. How can ideas influence our life? At first sight, this influence is not as conspicuous as the impact of one pool ball on the next, or of the sculptor’s chisel on the marble block. While the marble block is dealt with by the chisel in the sculptor’s hand, the chisel and the hand are directed by the man’s brain. The same is true of ideas. The Islamic State was begun by an idea, as was Marxism. European culture is rooted in ideas. Of course, as new generations come these ideas are reconsidered. They deepen and evolve. Who forms them? The elite does. Alcuin and Charlemagne, Pope Gregory VII and St. Dominic, Leibniz and Kant, Napoleon and Talleyrand, Charles Peguy and Chesterton, Schuman, Adenauer, and Gasperi in the past. Today it is Habermas and Benedict XVI, Remi Brague, and Giovanni Reale. Remi Brague said [in an interview with The Clarion Review, October 29, 2009]: ‘Europeans were barbarians… they knew this about themselves. Studying classical languages, and thereby imbibing a civilization wholly different from their own, made them conscious of the fact that they were stinking barbarians, who needed to wash themselves with the soap of higher civilizations. The Romans were well aware that they were culturally inferior to the Greeks. But they also had the courage to admit it.’ Brague believes that Europe has never had its own original culture. In view of this, Europe shouldn’t fear Islamization because Europe has always produced universal unifying and creative ideas.”
BIG POWERS SHOULD NOT TURN OTHER COUNTRIES INTO MEANS OF SATISFYING THEIR INTERESTS
What ideas can replace the “post-modern anarchistic discourse,” as you put it in your publications? Could it be civic patriotism, as in the United States, or revised Christianity?
“When I criticized the post-modern anarchistic discourse, I meant its hostile attitude toward the universal principles and ideas. This discourse has long taught Europeans value relativism where everything is relative, where no values or ideas are better or worse. Now we know how wrong this concept is. There are values worth being rallied round, just as there are ideas that we must resolutely reject. There are good and evil, justice and injustice. Blurring their distinctions is lethally dangerous.
“Civic patriotism? A very good idea, but one has to understand that in our case a civic patriot is a European citizen of the world. Disuniting, destructive ideas must be replaced by unifying creative ones.”
Do you think the West – I mean Europe and the United States – should assume part of the responsibility for the destiny of the rest of the world? Where should be the boundary line of such interference?
“I think that the West must assume part of this responsibility. The Westphalian model (the principle of sovereignty) has transformed after 1945. Of course, there are national interests, domestic matters and tasks, but there are also the interests of mankind relating to the humanitarian, ecological, and cultural spheres. Another thing is where the boundary line of interference should be drawn. Apparently, it is important for the big powers not to abuse their power, not to turn other countries into means of satisfying their national interests. The first half of the 20th century shows that there were such temptations and that the West made such mistakes. Radical Islam is one of the consequences of such temptations and mistakes. Hopefully, the West will make more reasonable, prudent decisions in the early 21st century.”
