Murder In Amsterdam

Through the lenses of Holland and more specifically Amsterdam, Ian Buruma creates a very interesting portrait of this modern era of globalization and multiculturalism, showing the problems as they pertain to the Netherlands and translating them into a global perspective. A traditionally accepting society, Holland has been the destination for many immigrants from the Middle East and Arab nations, most coming from Turkey and Morocco. These people are poor, don’t know Dutch, and are frequently devout Muslims. However, the biggest problem is that some of these people, typically the children of first generation immigrants, grow up to hate the nation they live in and become extremists Muslims. This was the case Mohammed Bouyeri, the man who killed political commentator Theo van Gogh for his collaboration with Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her anti-Islam movie Submission as well as his own anti-Islam and anti-immigration comments. Bouyeri's next target, if he had not been caught immediately after murdering van Gogh, was Hirsi Ali. He refused to defend himself in court, claiming that if he was released, he would do the same thing again. Bouyeri believes it is his job to do the will of Allah, which, to him, means killing any one considered to be an infidel (and in Takfir terms, I’d say that the word “infidel” encompasses 95% of the world). Thus, as Buruma puts it, there are two ideals that are competing in Holland: the desire for a traditional society (as depicted by Dutch soccer fans) and the Muslim fantasy of a devout, pure world of the Prophet. Both ideals equally stubborn and equally unachievable.

In many ways, this predicament has shown the short-comings of multiculturalism. I have always believed that toleration of other cultures is an important virtue. However, I also live in a town where 95% of the people are white Christians, and it’s quite easy to espouse toleration of differences when you don’t really have to practice it. This tolerance can be quite detrimental, especially when it comes to national identity. We are living in an increasingly global world, and everyone is more interconnected through culture and technology than ever. Similarly, many from the Middle East are moving into Western Europe and the United States. As Buruma points out, 45% of the population of Amsterdam is Muslim immigrants, and soon, white Dutch will be in the minority. Many of these people don’t know Dutch and have very little in common with those whose ancestors have been living in Holland for hundreds of years. And many believe that tolerance of these differences has lead to the breakdown of the Dutch national identity, and I do believe that they have a point. That is why people listen to people like Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. Through populist rhetoric, they play on the desires of the Dutch who want to see their Holland of clogs and windmills back to the way it was before globalization. They are done with multiculturalism.

However, to abandon multiculturalism entirely is a dangerous proposition. In my mind, this abandonment would be the realization of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s extremist Enlightenment ideals. Hirsi Ali has spoken out against Islam for what she sees as the mistreatment of women. She sees it as the fault of Islam that women are suppressed, not due to the culture. Thus, she calls for women to tear of their burqas and free themselves from Islam. While I believe that her argument does deserve the time of day in an intellectual debate about what to do about the current global predicament (although I do not agree with it), I believe the way she presents her argument discredits it. For it seems as if she rides upon a high horse, claiming she wants to “save” these people from Islam, but as the same time shows great contempt for these people. Similarly, I also believe that her belief that people should give up Islam is a little ridiculous. Many people who practice Islam find solace in it. They are comforted by it, and do not find it oppressive in the least. These people should be able to practice the religion that makes them happy. Similarly, to tell them that they must give up their religion so that they can embrace the ideals of the Enlightenment would cause much and great resentment. Imagine if someone told the Evangelicals in America that they must give up their religion in order to become secularists. 

Thus, there are a couple of fine lines we must walk. The first is that between this new globalized world and traditional society. The second is that between adhering strictly to Enlightenment ideals and letting people choose whether or not they want to follow Enlightenment ideals. I believe that if we answer the second question, the answer to the first will follow much easier. I myself am not sure what to do. I do believe that regardless of your religion, you should follow the laws set forth by the government. It is dangerous when people such as Mohammed Bouyeri believe that they are only held accountable to Allah’s laws (and I am just using him as an example, I am sure that there are sects in religions other than Islam that view themselves in a similar fashion) and thus cannot bother with the laws of this world, when they forbid to act on the will of Allah. However, to tell be that they have to base all of their assumptions and beliefs on reason doesn’t exactly chide well with me either. For pushing the Enlightenment onto people, in my mind, is just as wrong as trying to force someone into a religion. Thus, there is a line we must draw; I’m just not sure where it is. 

Operation Demetrius

It was 4 AM on August 9, 1971. Throughout the cities in Northern Ireland, policemen and soldiers drove through the streets in armored cars “lifting” people. They interned 342 people that  day.

One of them was Oliver Kelly. Early on August 9^th, they knocked on his family’s door, demanding for his brother William, who had run away months ago to join the IRA. When he responded that William wasn’t there, they took him. After interrogating him, a British major checked to see if he name was on the list of people to be interned. It wasn’t. The major simply said, “Oh well, give him the next number in line.” Oliver Kelly was interned because his brother was in the IRA. But Kelly was just one of the many innocent men interned in the Irish concentration camps.

All of this happened, because on August 9, 1971, the Irish Stormont government reinstituted the policy of internment. This Special Powers Act allowed British soldiers and policemen to arrest anyone and intern them without trial, without knowledge of the allegations against them. Perhaps the worst part, however, is that they were interned indefinitely.

Brian Faulkner

The Northern Ireland Prime Minister at the time Brian Faulkner justified this action by claiming, “I have taken this serious step solely for the protection of life and the security of property…this is not action taken against any responsible and law-abiding section of the community.”

Clearly, however, this was not the case. Exhibit A: Oliver Kelly. The army intelligence determined who was to be interned based upon information given to them by the RUC. This organization “tended to confuse civil rights workers, radicals, socialists, and old-time republicans with the IRA.” Thus, hundreds of Catholic men (yes, almost entirely Catholic, although it was reported that there were some Protestants, and by some I mean as many as you can count on one hand; although it is interesting to note that none of the suspected Loyalist paramilitary forces were interned) were taken from their families and put in crowded compounds to sit, and sit, and sit. In many cases, they sat for years.

This policy of internment, however, backfired on almost all fronts. It led to a couple of things:

1.    A lot of angry Catholics in Ulster. Almost all of the Catholics in Ulster viewed the policy as unjust. Thus, they began to become more radical and violent.

2.    The fall of the Stormont government. With the Catholics revolting, a large wave of violence broke out. In the four months after internment, 124 people were killed. Thus, the British government felt it necessary to intervene in Northern Ireland’s affairs and replace the Stormont government with direct rule from London. Kind of ironic that in an attempt to quell the violence, the government kick-starts the bloodiest years of the conflict. (171 died in 1971, 479 in 1972, and 253 in 1973. Most of these deaths were civilian casualties.)

3.    British government looks real bad. After the policy of internment started, the reports of British interrogation methods came out, and they were not flattering to say the least. Like verging on violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not flattering. A few of the recounts I saw included the following: beating a 70 year-old man, making a 20 year strip down to his boots and beating him with a leather belt, beating people who couldn’t answer their questions, and threatening an 18 year-old at gunpoint.  Also, the policy alone was not particularly flattering. Critics of the policy compared the camps to concentration camps, and one inmate called the British Nazis. A particularly harsh insult considering World War II had just ended 25 years before.

4.    Bloody Sunday. The march in Derry on January 30, 1972 was to protest the policy of internment. It also contributed to point #3.

5.    Larger numbers of IRA recruits. There’s the kicker, eh? Trying to reduce IRA violence by putting their leaders and ranks in jail, and what do you get? You get more of them, that’s what. It’s fairly straight-forward as to why. All the more moderate Catholics were outraged that their family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers were being arrested and detained without a trial when many of them had done nothing wrong. Thus, although you were interning many of the higher-ranking officials, you got at least 2 or 3 new recruits for every higher ranking official you interned. These younger kids were much more indiscriminate than the older leaders. Oh the irony. 

Bloody Sunday and the IRA

I had to do it at some point. I love U2 too much, and it was really too tempting to put up their video. But at least you can jam while reading this, right?

Anyways, after finding this article from 2009 on the NY Times website, I found it rather significant how the Bloody Sunday Massacre affected support for the IRA.

First, a wee bit of background. In 1969, the IRA split between the OIRA (Official IRA) and the Provisional IRA (otherwise known as the Provos). The Official IRA was a more pacifistic, Marxist group based in Dublin. They wanted a united Ireland without all the violence. The Provisional IRA, however, was more than willing to partake in violence.

This view is summarized pretty well by Tomas MacCurtain, one of the first leaders of the IRA (in 1920), when he said, “Violence never was or is no longer the best way or the most convenient way or the most comfortable way or the most comforting way. But it is the only way.” (From the Secret History of the IRA documentary)

From: http://www.ia-pl.org/civil_rights/index.htm

On January 30^th, 1972, the Bloody Sunday Massacre in Bogside changed a lot. In short, this was essentially what was described as “mass murder by the British army” (from an article in the Irish Echo, in Ireland’s Agony part 3). What started as a peaceful march ended in the deaths of 13 civil rights marchers by the British army. This massacre sparked protests, such as:

From The Irish Echo in Ireland's Agony part 3

A few months after the massacre, the British army was absolved from the primary blame of the massacre, as it was believed that the first shots were fired from snipers aiming at the army, not the army men themselves. While many Brits believed that the army was innocent, many Ulster Catholics didn't think the same way.

What is perhaps more important is that this marked the death (essentially) of the OIRA, as they officially surrendered to the Brits in 1972. The support of the provisional IRA, which then became known as the IRA, skyrocketed, as did anger amongst the Ulster Catholics. To quote a NY Times article (February 13, 1972), "It created a new reality in Northern Ireland, a reality that makes political compromise virtually unacceptable, at least until violent passions are cooled, and the unthinkable thinkable."

A (Very) Brief History Lesson

The English started to settle the Ulster counties in 1607, the same year as the colonists settled Jamestown (a coincidence I found interesting). Roughly 150,000 Scots and 20,000 English came over. They set up plantations, which many republican Irish view with disdain, and shipped the native Irishmen off to horrible bits of real estate. Much like what the colonists did to the Indians.

However, what makes Ireland any different from Wales and Scotland? This is the question posed in part 1 of the wonderful Ireland’s Agony book, and I think it is an interesting one to consider. The author points out that England, Scotland, and Wales are connected through dynasties, as in 1485 the Welsh Henry Tudor took over the English crown and in 1607 Scottish James I did the same. This was not the case with Ireland.

He also makes the case that “England doesn’t understand Ireland.” On the most basic level, I believe this stems largely from the religious differences between the two countries. The English king never trusted the Irishmen who were had allegiance to a foreign power in Rome, and the Irish didn’t appreciate the idea of converting to Protestantism.

Thus, these things I believe are quite important in understanding the IRA and Ireland, as many seem to be deeply connected to their history and still have very strong feelings about it. 

Only Because I Really Like This Table Too...

Question: Which of these terms best describes the way you usually think of yourself: British, Irish, Ulster, Sometimes British – Sometimes Irish, Anglo-Irish, Other?

	Catholics		Protestants
	1968	1978	1968	1978
British	15%	15%	39%	67%
Irish	76%	69%	20%	8%
Ulster	5%	6%	32%	20%

Also from Northern Ireland Since 1945 -- pg 215: Table 1.9 National Identity in Northern Ireland; comparison between 1968 and 1978 (Source: Moxon-Browne, Nation p 6) [N.B. only responses for British, Irish, and Ulster are shown]

The Economics Behind the Anger

	Average Personal Income	Average Household Income
UK	₤74.90	₤182.10
Best Region (South East)	₤89.40	₤210.50
Worst Region (Yorkshire/Humberside)	₤65.70	₤163.30
Northern Ireland	₤52.30	₤144.70

Pg 214: Table 1.6 Average personal and household weekly incomes, 1982-1983 (Source: Regional Trends, 1985, quoted by Gafikin and Morrissey in Teague, Rhetoric, p 143)

	Unemployed	Full-Time Working	Part-Time Working
Catholics
Males	35%	62%	3%
Females	17%	55%	28%
All	28%	59%	13%
Protestants
Males	15%	82%	3%
Females	11%	55%	35%
All	13%	71%	16%

Pg 213: Table 1.4 Economic activity by religion: percentages (Source: Continuous Household Survey, 1984, quoted by Gafikin and Morrissey in Teague, Rhetoric, p 150) 

Socio-Economic Status	Catholics	Protestants
A	2.5%	6.4%
B	8%	11.4%
C1	22%	26.1%
C2	29.8%	26.7%
D	30.7%	25.6%
E	7%	3.8%

pg 215: Table 1.7 Socio-economic Status by religion, 1978 (Source: Northern Ireland Attitude Survey [NIAS], quoted by Moxon-Browne, Nation, pg 83)


As much as I hate math, I love charts and tables. In particular, I love these tables (from Sabine Wichert's book Northern Ireland Since 1945) because I believe they provide a whole new dimension to the conflict in Northern Ireland.


The tables pretty much speak for themselves as to what they mean. On pg 78 of Toolis's book, Rebel Hearts, Toolis quotes a man named Fergus claiming, "The Protestants have all the best jobs in Cookstown. They get to work inside...in the factories." If these numbers don't back up that assertion, they certainly back up that Protestants simply have more jobs in general. Similarly, in the documentary, the Secret History of the IRA, a Catholic neighborhood is shown alongside a Protestant one. The discrepancy between the two is rather staggering. (the footage showing the neighborhoods begins at 5:36)

This clear difference between folks of these two different religious backgrounds is clearly a source of bitterness in Ulster, and may very well be another reason some of these young men joined the IRA. 

War Stories

War Stories. From what I have determined, it seems like everyone in Northern Ireland has them. They either know someone or heard of someone who has been harassed, injured, or killed by the British Army, the RUC, the SAS, UFF, or UVF. Sometimes they are civilians with no connection to the IRA, other times children. They can tell you their names and their life stories, the family each one left behind. Take this blog post from Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Féin, about a woman named Nora McCabe, who was murdered in 1981 by the RUC. Or Tony Doris from Kevin Toolis’ book. Or Pat Finucane mentioned in both Adam’s blog and Rebel Hearts.

While these stories are incredibly sad, they also add another dimension into why people join the IRA. Nothing helps to keep anger alive like a martyr. 

The Story of Tony Doris

Kevin Toolis starts the second chapter of his book Rebel Hearts with the story of Tony Doris, an IRA member killed in an SAS (Special Air Service, defined by Toolis as “a small but elite unit of the British Army that specialized in the ambush and assassination of IRA men on active service”) ambush in 1991.

Toolis, a proclaimed Republican, admits, “Tony was a killer” (49). However, the undeniably view of this book is that Tony Doris was a hero. To use Doris’s words, “Tony was judged to be a republican terrorist, a gunman intent on sectarian massacre. But to his friends, family, and the community in Meenagh Park, Tony was not an aggressor, not a terrorist killer, but their defender” (49). He was defending them from the constant harassment that the Catholics (those suspected to be in the IRA or not) in Meenagh Park receive from the armed UDR (Ulster Defense Regiment).

Now Toolis has a definite bias, which he has stated outright, so thus, I know I must be weary of his claims. However, the atmosphere of Northern Ireland as Toolis describes it (with armed British army men carrying around and pointing guns before asking questions, interrogating Catholic schoolchildren), sounds quite brutal to say the least. When asked, Doris’s family could not explain why he joined. “In their minds, the mere description of life in Coalisland was sufficient to explain why Tony had joined the IRA.” I found this fact quite interesting. That it’s a no-brainer for some of the Catholics of Northern Ireland to join the IRA, what seems to be universally condemned as a terrorist organization. However, after reading just part of Toolis’s book, I feel like I am beginning to understand the mindset of these people.

This mindset revolves largely around the history of the issue. Toolis points out, “In other countries and in other lands, history happens and then dies…in Ireland, history does not die” (36). This seems incredibly true. The fact that many Irishmen can recall how the English pushed them off their land, forced them onto the worst bits of real estate in the country, and essentially damned them and their ancestors to lives of poverty are sources of much anger amongst the Irish people. Couple this with the way that Toolis describes the Northern Ireland of the 1980/1990s, and it makes for some understandably irate Irishmen.

However, while Toolis’s bias is clear, I do believe he brings up a good point when it comes to the Ulster Volunteer Force. The UVF is an illegal Protestant paramilitary group in Northern Ireland. Unlike the IRA, they are never brought in for questioning, convicted of murder, raided, or jailed. Daniel McShane, a friend of Tony Doris, claims, “The UVF go out to intentionally shoot innocent people. The IRA intentionally go out to pick on the British Government…There are casualties in all wars but the IRA do not mean to have innocent casualties” (50). Obviously, this can be debated. However, it seems to me the UVF commit largely the same crimes as the IRA, but are not punished. The reasons for this are quite obvious. But the fact that the world doesn't condemn them like they do the IRA seems like an outrageous double standard.

I shall leave you with this final thought to chew on. A few weeks after the death of Tony Doris, a mock St. Valentine’s Day card was dropped onto the family’s front garden by British soldiers. It read: “Tony loves the SAS. From Her Majesty’s Forces. May you rot in hell Tony. Ha, Ha, Ha!” (39).

"Nothing Gold Can Stay": The Decline of the West & Rise of the Rest

In this new globalizing world, many Americans are scared that their time of dominance has ended. Both Kishore Mahbubani and Tony Judt agree on this. The Rise of the Rest seems imminent. In Mr. Judt’s article, What Have We Learned, if Anything, he critiques the West for, on the most basic level, forgetting the lessons of the twentieth century. In The Case Against the West, Mr. Mahbubani, however, attacks the West, claiming that it is both an incompetent player in global affairs and the cause of many—the way he puts it, it seems to be all—of the world’s problems.

As an American, it is hard to read Mr. Mahbubani’s article and not get angry. In the beginning, he asserts that “the West assumes that it is the source of the solutions to the world’s key problems. In fact, however, the West is also a major source of these problems” by its mishandling of global affairs, some of his examples being the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, and Israel, to be precise), global warming, and the economic crisis. He, then, asserts that Asia will replace the US as the head of the world (but then contradicts himself to say that Asia merely wants to be partners with the West, not overtake them, but that is neither here nor there.)

I have a few problems with this article. The first is the claim that China has become a “‘responsible stakeholder’ in the international system.” For an incredibly long time, China has been artificially depreciating its currency in order to make its exports more competitive on a global market. This comes as an advantage for China at the cost of, well, everyone else. Similarly, when Mr. Mahbubani claims that “the demise of a round table negotiation, the Doha Round,” is because of the West’s mismanagement of worldly affairs, he conviently overlooks the fact that China has also played its part in the demise. Thus, I find his claim that China has become a responsible stakeholder quite misleading.

My second issue with Mr. Mahbubani is his blatant anti-American, pro-Asian bias. Yes, everyone has their opinion, and Mr. Mahbubani should be allowed to express his. However, I find that this prejudice creates a misleading argument, one of the few examples being the one above.

My final issue is simply that he blames global problems almost solely on the West. Yes, America has surely messed some things up. Vietnam, Iraq, torture at Guantanamo, I get it. We have done some bad things. But to place the blame for all of the world’s problems on the US seems absurd for two reasons. 1. We can only do so much. We facilitate peace talks. We try. But when it comes down to it, the people of that region are the ones who have to put the suggestions of the peace talks into action. Not us. 2. Mr. Mahbubani claims that Asia is going to dominate the world and thus, take over the responsibilities of the West as the global mediator. Would China be able to settle the conflict in Palestine more effectively than the US?

Mr. Judt’s article, on the other hand, I find to be particularly accurate. His question of “What have we learned, if anything?” I believe is an important one to ask. I would agree with Mr. Judt that we have not learned much from the twentieth century. This is evident in our glorification of war and criticism of pacifism as a cowardly option. The US now uses torture, something, as Mr. Judt points out, once reserved solely for dictatorships like Soviet Russia. Finally, there is an anti-Islam wave sweeping through the nation, (of course, it has not hit everyone). The fairly recent Qur’an burnings make this abundantly clear. From all of these points, especially the last two, I would conclude the same things that Mr. Judt does. Americans have forgotten (or never learned) both the horrors of war and the horrible things that happen when you dehumanize your enemy.