German Papers Did the Terrorists Come from 'Londonistan'
Editors Note: Spiegel Online has also posted its own analysis and commentary on the London terrorist attacks.
The official death toll in London has reached 49, with the number expected to increase after the bodies of victims in one Underground train wagon are recovered. The questions in the papers on Monday are what the political and societal toll will be after the attacks. Seeking to prevent an outburst of anti-Muslim violence as seen in the Netherlands after the slaying of filmmaker Theo van Gogh last year, British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday called the vast majority of Muslims in Britain and abroad "decent and law-abiding people." Inevitably, however, the attention of the press and some editorialists has turned to London and Europe's Muslim minority and asked what they should be doing to stop terrorism and extremist behavior.
The London bombings, writes the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, "represent a new quality of terrorist threat" from al-Qaida. It describes the threat as "modern terrorism, probably even the terrorism of the modernists. It even uses modern means as its modus operandi." For that reason, it argues, the fight against terrorism must employ "modern means," such as biometric passports. There is a loss of freedom associated with that -- even the introduction of biometric passports fits in with the image of a police state, but it is inescapable if one is to take the challenges of Islamist terrorism seriously and wants to protect the innocent. The paper then looks at Europe's more than 15 million strong Muslim population, and says "they themselves must actively tackle Islamism -- otherwise it will be their undoing."
The Sueddeutsche Zeitung takes a weekend statement by former London Metropolitan Police Chief Lord Stevens as its jumping off point. Stevens said he thought those responsible for the July 7 attacks were "British born and bred, brought up here and totally aware of British life and values." But whether he is right or not, the paper argues, is beside the point. After all, everybody believes Muslims were responsible for the crime. "These assumptions alone will suffice for many British Muslims to suffer discrimination in a country proud of its openness and ability to integrate," it warns. It then admonishes the Blair government to act carefully if it does not want Britain to become a breeding ground for yet more terrorism.
The conservative newsweekly Focus notes that British secret service agents have long called parts of the capital city "Londonistan." That's because during the 1990s, a flood of Islamists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestine, persecuted in their own lands, went to London, a safe haven where they could further promote their jihadist causes. The magazine notes the British government believes that between 3,000 and 4,000 Muslims living in Great Britain -- mostly from North Africa or Pakistan -- were sent to Afghanistan for terrorist training in the past. Many have returned to build underground terror cells. According to Focus, the local terrorist cells in London and other European capitals are mostly autonomous -- meaning they don't get direct orders from Osama bin Laden. It estimates the materials used in the London attack cost about 10,000 -- cheap enough, the magazine concludes, for a new generation of terrorists to pull off similar attacks in the future.
A number of papers on Monday focus on Cool Britannia, the stoic and composed response the British gave to the terrorists. Osama, you're not going to stop my evening at the pub, many seemed to be saying in spirit.
"There are still societies in Europe that do not allow themselves to be intimidated by the global threat," writes the conservative daily Die Welt. "The stoicism of the British is not an eccentric virtue, but an unwillingness, rooted across British society, to be ruled by fear." In London, people are already riding the rails of the Underground again because they are "brave." Of course they know fear, "but they control it in order not to grant victory to terrorism." And the reaction, too, has been very different from Madrid, where people immediately called for a political response, above all the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. Instead, Blair's popularity has risen. "The people sense how, in a moment of crisis, the country is being led by a prime minister who does not speak of leadership. Instead, he acts it."
"The heroes of the attacks on London are the Londoners," writes Focus. "Hundreds of thousands of stranded commuters followed, peacefully and with composure, the directions provided by the security forces and observed the far reaching closures and walked without complaining to their homes in the suburbs -- sometimes many kilometers away." Even the victims who escaped the inferno in London's Underground seemed to be amazingly composed. The magazine then describes the scene that best captured the essence of London's reaction to the terrorist attack. A young attorney, covered in blood, his suit torn by the power of the explosion, spoke with television reporters waiting outside the Underground station: "I'm a little bit shocked." Then he apologized to the cameramen.
On Thursday and over the weekend, many papers wrote about how the stoic Brits beat the terrorists by refusing to succumb to fear. But the German business daily Handelsblatt says the terrorists have failed in another major respect: One of the key goals of Islamist terrorists is to weaken the West economically. But with each new act of terrorism, the effect on the markets gets smaller. Within 24 hours, the paper notes, the stock markets in Europe and the United States were back in the plus. Oil prices recovered faster than expected and the markets ability to regulate itself beat expectations. The stock markets, the paper writes, have gotten used to the phenomenon of terrorism. "It's getting clearer that the terrorists are less and less successful at shaking the Western markets through 'normal' terrorist acts." That will continue to be the case, the paper says, so long as the attacks are of the dimensions of recent attacks.
In Germany, some politicians couldn't resist speculating that Berlin is safe from an al-Qaida attack because it refused to send troops to Iraq. Bullocks says the Financial Times Deutschland, singling out Volker Beck, a prominent Green Party member in parliament, for criticism. Over the weekend, he said the government's decision "to refuse to send troops to Iraq, in contrast to the Christian Democrats, may have closed up a decisive security hole all the way back in 2002." The editorial calls the statement "highly dangerous nonsense." The Islamic terrorism movement, is "not a reaction to the Iraq war" or any other negotiable sticking points. "Their resentment is focused against the Western way of life, and some of their addle-brained reasons for anger go back hundreds of years," it adds. Germans have also been victims of al-Qaida terrorism -- just look at Djerba. Besides, there's no "neutrality bonus" for Iraq war opponents -- everyone from Turkey to United Nations workers to French journalists in Iraq have been victims of terrorist violence. "And ... Germany is anything but neutral," it continues. "It's actually a very active partner in the war on terror. In the Gulf region, Germans are training Iraqi security forces. German soldiers are stationed in Afghanistan, that erstwhile haven for fleeing terrorists." There, its troops are helping the US to fight Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. That's not exactly neutral.