Norway after terrorism

The bombing in Oslo and the shooting rampage that followed on the nearby Utoya Island, which killed 77 people, sent shock waves throughout Norway and Europe. The fact that these cruel and horrendous acts of terrorism were committed by an extreme right-wing ethnic Norwegian, Anders Breivik, who opposed his country’s policy of multiculturalism and its acceptance of Muslim immigrants, was particularly horrifying.

How could such an atrocity take place in Norway, a peaceful, stable, prosperous and tolerant nation that prides itself on social harmony, an extremely high standard of living, a generous welfare system and a strong dedication to international conflict resolution?

This is indeed difficult to explain, but it is a fact that Islamophobia has been on the rise in Europe since the September 11 attacks, some of it even originating from fringe groups, but also sadly from certain political parties.

Preaching hatred or intolerance no doubt creates a climate which could allow such terrible acts of terrorism to take place. This might sound like a simplistic argument; after all, Breivik targeted his fellow ethnic Norwegians, not Muslims; however, on Utoya Island he shot members of the youth wing of the ruling Labour Party simply because this was the party most in favour of multiculturalism.

It is also important to note that right-wing populist parties, many of them opposed to Muslim immigration, have also been on the rise in a number of European countries over the past decade, particularly in Scandinavia but also in Holland, Austria and Italy.

One certainly cannot link these parties to right-wing terrorism; it would simply be unfair – and incorrect – to do so, and one must acknowledge that immigration is a real concern among many European voters.

Consequently such right-wing parties have done well in national elections – the Progress Party in Norway got 22.9 per cent of the vote in 2009, the True Finns Party in Finland got 19.1 per cent in 2011 and the People’s Party in Denmark, which supports the minority centre-right government, got 13.8 per cent in 2007.

Breivik himself was a member of the Progress Party from 1999 to 2006 – again it would be unfair to link this party with terrorism, but it just shows how important it is for politicians to choose their words carefully.

In 2009 for example, Siv Jensen, leader of the Progress Party, had said: “The reality is that a kind of sneak-Islamisation of this society is being allowed. We are going to have to stop this.”

If Jensen wanted to point out the failings of multiculturism, she should have done just that. After all, David Cameron, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy have all said multiculturism in their countries had failed, but this did not cause any uproar.

Does the atrocity in Norway signify a new trend in right-wing terrorism in Europe? It is difficult to say and so far it looks as if Breivik was acting alone. Thomas Hegghammer, a terrorism expert at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, said Breivik “constitutes a special branch of extreme right-wing ideology” and described him as a “pan-European nationalist”.

Breivik was also heavily influenced by the founder of the far right English Defence League, Paul Ray, who now lives in Malta and who has since dissociated himself from Breivik’s acts of terrorism.

Furthermore, Breivik’s 1,500 page manifesto, posted on the internet, showed him to be obsessed with medieval battles between European Christendom and Islam. His manifesto talks about a ‘cultural Conservative’ order of soldiers that was to lead a new battle against Islam.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who has acted with the utmost dignity since the attacks, vowed his country will react to the bombing and mass shooting with “more democracy, more openness and more political participation”.

That is good, but Norway will also have to review its security operations, monitor all types of extremists and extremist organisations more carefully, address people’s concerns about immigration in a rational and level-headed way and conduct a serious soul-searching exercise into how a tolerant and humane society could produce a monster such as Anders Breivik.