The Remarkable Non-Impact of the Norwegian Terrorist Attack
The Remarkable Non-Impact of the Norwegian Terrorist Attack
Cas Mudde: The Remarkable Non-Impact of the Norwegian Terrorist Attack
This week the case against Anders Behring Breivik started in a heavily guarded Oslo court. The security was not so much to protect the court against friends of the accused as to protect the accused against the potential wrath of the population. Breivik stands trial for killing seventy-seven people last summer, first with a car bomb in downtown Oslo, killing eight, and then on a shooting spree on the island of Utoya, killing sixty-nine mostly young activists in the Social Democratic Party. The gruesome terrorist attack was front-page news around the world and led to intense debates within Western Europe, but it seems to have left little legacy beyond Northern Europe.
After the car bombing in Oslo, professional ?terrorism experts? in the media pointed predictably to a jihadist attack, just as they had done after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. As always, the attack was linked to a mythical global network of highly organized and threatening terrorist groups. Once it turned out that the terrorist was a white right-wing extremist and self-proclaimed Christian, the discussion moved to the question of whether or not he was insane. Despite (false) claims that he was the ?commander? of an anti-Islamic group, the Knights Templar, most commentators quickly adopted the frame of the insane ?lone wolf,? a figure virtually absent in accounts of Islamic terrorists yet predominant in those on right-wing nationalist terrorists. For example, Janne Kristiansen, the director of the Norwegian Police Security Service, told the Associated Press, ?It?s a unique case. It?s unique person. He is total evil.?
It was only in left-wing circles that a debate took place over the larger breeding ground that had enabled, or even created, Breivik. The same people that would generally argue vehemently against the collective guilt of Muslims after a jihadist attack were now accusing virtually anyone critical of Islam or Muslim immigration of being Schreibtischtäter (desk killers). In similarly predictable fashion the accused, usually the first to point to the collective guilt of Muslims for jihadist attacks, rejected any collective responsibility for Breivik and the Norwegian attacks. This position was articulated most quickly and shamelessly in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal the day after the shooting, in which prominent Islamophobic author Bruce Bawer argued that Breivik was well-read (Breivik had written very favorably about Brawer?s bestseller While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within) and had ?a legitimate concern,? but at the same time was also clearly insane and that ?his violence will deal a heavy blow to an urgent cause.?
The start of the trial against Breivik is a good moment to provide a first assessment of the impact of his terrorist attack on European politics. Given the brutality of the attack, and the fact that it happened in such a peaceful and prosperous country as Norway, one would expect quite a shake-up. However, it seems that for all the attention and debate, not much has changed, both for good and bad. From the outset Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg made it clear that Norway would not give in to terrorism?neither by bringing policies more in line with the ideology of the terrorist, nor by undermining the fundamentals of liberal democracy with a repressive and overreaching reaction. It was a highly commendable response, not very dissimilar to those of the British and Spanish governments after the jihadist attacks of 7/7 and 11-M, respectively. Norwegian voters responded by handing the populist Progress Party, the main voice of Islamophobia in the country, a clear defeat in local elections later that year.
It is clear that the attack has changed the perception of terrorism in Europe. Until 9/11 European terrorism had been mostly associated with extreme left and separatist groups, but in the past decade it had become synonymous with Islamic jihad. The Norwegian attack, along with the later uncovering of the terrorist National Socialist Underground in Germany, led to a critique of this one-sided interpretation of terrorism in many European countries. This might explain why many observers initially thought that the recent French killings were the work of a ?lone-wolf? right-wing extremist, too. The fact that it turned out to be a jihadist ?linked to al-Qaeda? will probably undo the Breivik-effect and have our ?experts? return to their usual first response.
In short, the horrific attack in Norway has had some short-term consequences, but seems to have had little fundamental effect on European politics. Perhaps some intelligence agencies will devote a person or two more to the extreme Right, and there will be some new committees on Islamophobia and an inevitable increase in publications on lone-wolf terrorism, but overall little has changed or will change. To be fair, there seems no serious indication of a ?Brown Army Faction? in Europe, or any of its states.
Unfortunately, the political debate about the role of Islam and Muslims in contemporary European societies will also remain unchanged. This means a continuation of the (at times unspoken) assumption that ?they? are alien to European society, despite centuries of Muslim presence on the continent, and should ?integrate? into ?our? society. And this is the progressive position! At the same time, Islamophobic positions will gain further leeway in the political and public discourse, expressed by ?intellectuals? from across the political spectrum (some of whom are creating remarkable new alliances). While this will not ?create? a new Breivik, it also won?t create a more harmonious society.
