This policy had notable successes and failures, but it had the unfortunate side effect of ingraining the idea in many Americans that we are meant to police the world. It may have been a good notion when we thought the Soviet Union was threatening to turn the world into a totalitarian radioactive wasteland, but in 1991 that excuse became untenable. Since then, however, America has intervened in Iraq twice, Afghanistan (again!), Kosovo and Libya, to name a few. Many of these interventions have been unnecessary, and the primary American conflict of the 21st century, the one in Iraq, has contributed to our current financial meltdown.

An equally ruinous practice has developed alongside this one; European nations have, as a general rule, taken a backseat to American-instigated conflicts. This probably has roots in the post-World War II era, when much of their continent was smoldering ash. These days, though, I feel there is no need for the United States to continue taking the leading role in ill-guided foreign affairs.

That’s why it’s a relief that now, after decades of following in American footsteps, European countries are finally taking the initiative. In Libya, the United States made it clear from the beginning that it would hand over command to an international body, NATO, and on April 4, all American forces were removed from active duty and placed on reserve. Now, it is Britain and France who are the driving forces behind NATO operations in Libya. Even when America was attacking Gadhafi’s strongholds with Tomahawk missiles and F-15s—the British, incidentally, fired several rockets of their own—both Europeans and Americans were pushing for the ousting of Gadhafi. France has recognized the Opposition as the legal government of Libya and declared that its mission was to remove Gadhafi from power.

And recently, France responded to calls to aid the people of the Ivory Coast against the president, who, after losing the most recent election, refused to give up power and began killing citizens opposing him. It was French peacekeeping troops who fired on the Ivory Coast’s presidential palace. Europe, it seems, is taking over some of what many Americans regarded as our role in the world.

These recent actions are radically different from what has seemed to be the norm. For the past 70 years, America has been leading the international charge against Communists and dictators, sometimes unilaterally. We are tired of intervening.

I think this should be the beginning of a new trend. If polls are remotely indicative of American political views, our actions in Libya are opposed by most of the country. Those views need to continue. After two incredibly costly wars, (one of which many Americans are convinced began under false pretense) Americans are drained. If we no longer support interminable campaigns that result in no tangible benefits and only leave the nation broke, we should be pleased that Europe is now stepping in as a global police force. After decades of an expensive Cold War, and the continuation of interventionist policies in subsequent years, we’re ready to take a break.

Erin Mitchell | Student Life

Just like the average American student is horrified when he steps out in Parisian gardens and sees couples (GASP! The horror) holding hands or even (shudder) kissing each other, so Europeans are often left dumbfounded by the complexity of the American dating game. You’ve been seeing a girl for two or three months, but you still don’t know what your “status” is? Welcome to America, where commitment seems to be the third biggest fear of college students, right after getting overly drunk and doing a Native American dance naked around the Clocktower, and listening to a mainstream band. I think Mark Zuckerberg invented the “It’s Complicated” status strictly for American students. In Europe, it’s regarded as nothing more than a funny oddity.

It seems to me as if the basic relationship that is being promoted is the drunken hook-up at a frat party, your senses (and most importantly, your sense of judgment) numbed by the shots and cans of Miller Light that you ingested. And if, by chance, you actually fall for a girl you like, well, the fun has only just started, because things can NEVER be straightforward. I blame game theory. If you feel that there is actually something worth preserving from that first alcohol-induced encounter, then you need to respect completely stupid rules like not calling the other person first, or other, achingly imbecilic protocols. I get that it’s supposed to make the other person like you more because they’re constantly wondering why the other is not calling, but not only does it make the whole thing slightly shameful and twice as irritating, it’s also completely counterintuitive. The entire concept of dating in France revolves around you showing that you like the other person, not ignoring them. But in America, the infamous P.D.A.s (Public Displays of Affection) are proscribed, and couples even vaguely acknowledging the fact that they are indeed an item are held up to public contempt before being pilloried. Or that’s how it feels, anyway.

Don’t get me wrong, I can understand why students don’t want to be “In a Relationship” in college. But that’s because relationships in America are altogether too serious. You can be seeing someone and not planning for marriage. You can be in a relationship, and still not be “serious.”

Only in America could a girl dump you because your relationship is going too “well.”

As I’m writing this, I realize that I sound more bitter than Moammar Gadhafi after last Friday’s U.N. resolution. I’m sure that American girls find Europeans pushy for expressing themselves, and American men find European girls distant (for not grinding them once they’ve had a cocktail). Let me just say that the prospect of dating in America leaves me cold. There’s already too much bullshit to deal with in college life without adding another layer. Who ever thought there was a need to overcomplicate the most simple and natural of human relations?

Behind the bravado it is hard to see this as anything other than political posturing. Throughout Europe there has been a resurgence of the far right, surfing on the current wave of Islamophobia. A book recently came out in Germany condemning the Turkish minority and, instead of being denounced, 61 percent of Germans said they agreed with the author’s arguments. The English Defence League held a demonstration against Islam in Luton. Other countries like Austria and Switzerland have also had to deal with a renewal of intolerance, with far-right parties entering government. Political leaders have been reacting to what they perceive as a shift of the center ground.

The problem with the critiques is that they announce the failure of a system because of a very small minority. Most second-generation immigrants are proud of their home country and of their roots. Being an English Pakistani is not an oxymoron, just as it is not incompatible to be French and English, or Chinese and American.

There seems to be a particular problem with Islam. It is extremely unfair to tar everyone with the same brush. Islam has often been painted as intolerant and disrespectful of other cultures. This view has been extended to all of Islam, not just extremists: One of Cameron’s main accusations was that Muslims were doing very little to fight extremism.

However, all around the Middle East, different communities have been calling out for an end to conflict. After the terrorist attack in Alexandria, one would be forgiven for considering Egypt as an unlikely place for religious harmony. How surprising, then, to see Muslims and Christians forming a human shield around each other during prayers in Tahrir Square, putting their own lives in danger to protect members of other faiths.

It should be obvious to everyone that the problem is not religious but social. If young Muslims in England are turning to violence, it is not Islam’s fault, but because they feel increasingly hemmed in. There is no chance for them to move up in the world. With no hope, it’s no wonder that some may feel tempted by radicalism. When presented with a system that doesn’t seem fair, it’s normal to try to look for a substitute. Just like Communism before it, radical Islam has spread in countries where government is weak and poverty is rife. Instead of taking the easy route and announcing the failure of multicultural policies, Europe’s leaders need to find a repairman for their broken social ladder.

Wash. U. professor John Bowen has been asked by the French government to testify before a panel on the burqas often worn by Muslim women. (WUSTL Images)

The burqa debate is back on in France, and a Washington University anthropologist has become part of it.

The French government has asked anthropology professor John Bowen to testify on the matter, as a parliamentary commission is investigating a possible ban on burqas in public places. France banned burqas in public schools in 2004.

The burqa differs from the headscarf in that it is a “complete cover” for Muslim women that “shows only the eyes, and sometimes not even the eyes,” according to Pascal Ifri, director of graduate studies in French.

There are different styles of what the French government collectively refers to as “burqas,” Bowen said. While the burqa covers the entire face including the eyes, Bowen added, the niqab leaves the eyes exposed. The potential ban would prohibit both the burqa and the niqab, although the French government refers to both styles as “burqas.”

“The assumption is that women who wear burqas are somehow oppressed,” Ifri said. “It’s not always a sign of oppression, but that is the assumption.”

The French commission investigating the potential ban rationalizes that “in a republic, where everybody is equal, there shouldn’t be obvious signs of oppression,” Ifri said.

Bowen said that none of the French Muslim women who have been interviewed on the matter have indicated that they wear burqas because they feel forced to do so, although he recognized the possibility that those women exist and simply have not provided interviews.

Most women who have been interviewed “said that they decided to put it on as part of an effort to discover what true Islam is,” Bowen said. “Some said they might wear it for a while and then decide whether to continue or to stop wearing it, but nobody reports they were forced to do it.”

Having the choice to wear a burqa ensures “that women have the freedom to explore their religiosity without being forced to do one thing or the other,” Bowen added.

“Some of them say, ‘I want to wear it. I feel better. I feel protected. I don’t feel like a target,’” Ifri said.

Sophomore Kelly Diabagate, who practices Islam, said that wearing the burqa “is a matter of modesty.” She added that in her experience, most women wear the burqa because of a personal choice, seeing it as a means of “expressing liberty and personal rights.”

Bowen said that only a few hundred women in France wear burqas. A ban, though, could potentially have a profound impact on some of those women.

If women who wear burqas are no longer allowed to wear them in public, “they may disappear from public view. It may be worse for them. They won’t go out anymore. That’s the danger,” Ifri said. “That’s one of the reasons why it may not pass.”

Diabagate said that she “would imagine it would be very difficult” for French women who wear burqas if the ban were to come to fruition.

“I can see a lot of people trying to leave” and moving somewhere where “they are given the right to exert their religion the way they see it,” Diabagate said. “Because obviously no one can stay home all day.”

“I feel like a lot of people will not be willing to compromise,” Diabagate added.

The issue of Muslim religious symbols in French public spaces gained prominence in 1989, when a public middle school expelled three Muslim girls for wearing head coverings, Bowen explained in his 2004 article “Muslims and Citizens: France’s headscarf controversy.”

While forbidding headscarves in public schools was initially at the discretion of individual principals, in 2004 the French government passed a law that officially banned headscarves in public schools, Ifri said.

The French government values laïcité, or public secularism, Ifri added.

“French politicians…don’t want obvious signs of religion if it offends some people,” he said.

While public secularism formed the basis of the headscarf ban, more practical reasons contributed as well.

Some public school students wore not only headscarves but also coverings that concealed their arms and legs, “and you cannot do gym if your legs and arms are covered,” Ifri said. “It’s not so much that it’s a religious sign, but can you be like every other kid, meaning can you do gym…when your legs and arms are covered?”

Ifri added that “there are very few cases of girls who don’t want to go to school” because of the headscarf ban, and “school is compulsory.” If a Muslim girl does decide not to attend public school because of the headscarf ban, she can “go to private school” or “have private tutoring,” he said.

Diabagate said that she would consider a burqa ban to be a constraint on religious expression. Bowen, though, said that the French government “protects organized religion…which refers to activities that take place in churches, temples, mosques, etcetera, and not to the behaviors of individuals outside of those places.” Religious protection, then, does not apply to the public spaces that the potential ban would include.

Ifri noted that right now the issue is simply a debate, and the French government is not close to passing a law banning the burqa. Bowen considers it highly unlikely that a ban would ever pass.

“What they really wanted to do was have a public discussion and debate about the issue and not necessarily propose a law,” Bowen said. “I think that French politicians will find that it would be absurd to create a set of clothing police to decide whether what a woman is wearing on the street counts as a burqa or a niqab…or just a headscarf.”

Diabagate does not think that the government should have the authority to ban religious dress.

“It’s your personal freedom,” she said. “No one can tell you how to practice your religion, especially if they’re not Muslims and they don’t know the rules of Islam.”

Additional reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/world/europe/01france.html

Bosnia is not a nation of historic validity, but a disputed buffer region between the competing Serbian and Croatian nations, each of whom have legitimate claims to substantial portions of the land. Accordingly, it has been of a multi-ethnic character for centuries, and remains so today. However, this fuels substantial conflict in a region where multi-ethnic states have often proven themselves to be breeding grounds for violence and genocide, the overwhelming majority of which has always been directed against the Serbs. In a half-baked effort to pacify this battleground nation, the Dayton Accords created a federal system wherein there is a relatively weak national government, and two much stronger state governments. Republika Srpska hosts the nation’s sizable Serbian population, while the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina hosts the remaining Bosniak and Croat populations.

After many years of brutal warfare and chaos, both sides set national ambitions aside and worked together to rebuild. But, as seemed fairly obvious to any individual with a grasp of the true nature of the Balkans, this was short lived. Though we have not yet seen war, the rhetoric has become increasingly polarized. Those in the Federation have been pushing for drastic reforms that would shift all of the power into a strong central government, where they would make up the majority of the population and could thus run roughshod over the rights of the Serbian minority. In turn, this has inspired the highly moderate government of Republika Srpska to extend legitimacy to the idea of ending Bosnia, by way of becoming independent (or more reasonably merging with Serbia), should the need arise.

As the nation exists today, it is a tense union between two unlike factions with highly divergent agendas and interests. So why continue to prop it up? If the only justification is Balkans stability then the answer is not to add to the hasty patchwork keeping Bosnia as one nation, but to proactively develop and implement a more rational and permanent solution. That means separating Republika Srpska from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina immediately, merging the former with Serbia. But what to do with the latter? Allowing it to become independent as is would be dangerous, since quite naturally the Croats would seek reunion with the motherland, and inspire yet another bloody conflict. As it happens, the ethnic divisions are presently such that the Croatian-dominated portions could be given to Croatia without much issue, allowing the Bosniaks to have a new state of their own. Wedged between the powers of the region, it would be kept in check, and its ability to provide a breeding ground for jihad and Islamism would be reduced by threat of invasion from the concerned neighbor states (this will be elaborated on in a future column).

With the major parties unwilling to defend the national interest and stand up against radical Islam, that role has fallen to fringe parties on the far right wing of the political spectrum. A number of parties have gained greatly from this. Some, such as Vlaams Belang (Belgium) and Partij voor de Vrijheid (Denmark), are guilty of nothing other than poor PR efforts. But many of the parties making gains, such as the British National Party (UK) and the National Front (France) are populist hate machines who, in between their occasionally legitimate complaints about the EU, spew some of the most racist bile in the Western world. This was illustrated quite recently when Austria held elections on September 28 for the National Council. Together, Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs and the Bündnis Zukunft Österreich earned almost a third of the vote. Both of these parties are of the racist variety, BZO especially.

In recent days, this has again made headlines because BZO leader Jörg Haider died in a car accident this past Saturday. His party is, not surprisingly, in great distress since he was the most iconic bigot in European politics, and helped make extremism socially acceptable in Austria. Of course, for that very same reason, there aren’t many people elsewhere shedding tears over it. What matters is not so much the exact policy goals of his now mainstream racist party, but what allowed it to gain so much ground. And that is the unwillingness of the mainstream to take up the great issue of our lifetime: violent political Islam.

While our two-party system will prevent against a hardline xenophobic party from gaining serious political clout, both of the main parties in our nation have generally been ignoring the underlying issue. There are, of course, a few vigilant individuals, such as Senator McConnell and Senator Brownback, who deserve praise for their strong and factually-supported positions. But sadly, senators like them are too few and far between. To make sure that this grave international security issue is not highjacked by bigots, but is instead part of the standard political discourse of the mainstream, greater awareness must be raised.