火燒之島

來英國四年，七月底就回台灣（論文還沒搞定，先不要恭喜）。要說的是，來去的時間都剛好跟恐怖攻擊很有關係。

2001年九月某一天下午，剛到英國才不到三個星期，正驚嘆怎麼BBC會實況轉播英國總工會TUC全國代表大會，畫面中斷，插播進來的即時新聞畫面是正在冒煙的紐約世貿中心，接著，另一架飛機就栽進另一棟，幾分鐘後，這兩棟我曾經在樓下抽過菸的twin tower就垮了。接著兩年，就是一次又一次的反戰活動。

這個月七日，離要回家也差不多三個星期左右，上午十一點，按照慣例吃brunch配Radio Four，發覺主持人一直重複「請盡量停在你現在所在的位置，不要移動。沒有生命危險的威脅，請不要打緊急求救電話……」。心疑地打開電視，是的，就是許多人認為遲早會來的恐怖攻擊。

趕緊抄起電話，先找來倫敦參加研討會的徐。他前一天才到家裡來，當天傍晚的飛機走，電話不通。找參加同一個研討會的Pearl，也不通。找每天早上通勤到倫敦上班的鄰居Lil，也不通。找在倫敦讀書的魏，還是不通。

有過九二一的經驗，知道電話不通是正常的。開始擔心交通問題，因為當天晚上七點半要到倫敦Heathrow機場接來歐考察的正揚。於是電視廣播齊開，頻道輪換，知道火車地鐵公車全停，顯然只有開車一途。幸好到Heathrow機場的主要道路並沒有封鎖，確定有機會到得了機場就放心了。

接近中午，收到Lil從辦公室寫來的信，當場頭皮發麻。原來她就就是搭上那班往Aldgate的circle line，而她正坐在被炸掉的下一節車廂！她說她還好，但是現場很糟，她一直留在現場幫忙照顧受傷的旅客，直到救援人員到來。真是勇敢的一位英國女孩。

還是一直撥電話，特別是徐，因為他住的旅館就在兩個爆炸點的中間。想說他該不會這次要好好逛逛倫敦，一早起來就上了地鐵…..。後來總算打通了，說一早就去逛大英博物館，到中午出來看到警車救護車滿街狂嘯，才知道發生什麼事。我看真正經歷過恐怖攻擊的台灣政論分析者，大概只有他了。

下午出發去機場接人，平時兩個半小時搞定的路程，花了五個半小時才到。機場滿是荷槍實彈的警察，還不時廣播要旅客「隨身攜帶自身行李，不然會被移走並摧毀。」可是，炸彈客不就是隨身攜帶自身行李嗎……

之後的一個星期，陪著初次到歐洲的正揚四處看看以及另兩位朋友的來訪，沒有特別留意相關的新聞，直到前幾天才有機會坐下來看看報紙。就這樣，五十幾條人命沒了，去年，馬德里那個我們曾經坐在裡面喝過咖啡的火車站，一百多人死亡，而在中東，這樣的事幾乎每天上演著。除了嘆氣之外，還是嘆氣啊。

真的是在九一一之後，才開始比較認識所謂的回教世界/以巴衝突/中東戰略地位是怎麼一回事。以前在台灣，很少有機會聽到或者讀到這些資訊，即便有，也不頂認真，因為實在太遠。卻沒想到，台灣離全世界最大的回教國家也才幾個小時的航程，南邊的菲律賓、泰國與西邊的中國，打壓回教徒都是出了名的。

我在想，也或許是這樣的陌生，中國時報才會有這種順手拈來，想當然爾的文章：
包容造就恐怖殺手 倫敦震驚（中國時報，江靜玲／倫敦觀察 2005-07-14）
英國如今面對的其實是一個生存在英國社會中，但準備摧毀這個國家的基本社會結構，多元化民主，公民自由和社會保障的恐怖殺手。這些人或組織是最清楚英國的一群，卻以分裂英國社會為目標，製造不安和仇恨。英國該如何因應這種新危機，對整個社會將是一項莫大的挑戰。
不解與震驚之餘，英國朝野該反問自己一個問題，英國為什麼會成為本世紀新興恐怖份子的天堂？或許，答案正在於英國的超級包容特質。

保守的想法在英國不是沒有，事件隔天就有清真寺的玻璃被敲碎了，但是這麼明白的把解決答案指向一個社會的包容性，這記者顯然比倫敦西端的中產白人更擔心英國變「黑」了。

當然，現在查出四個炸彈客有三位是土生土長的英國回教徒（一位雖是牙買加出生，但也在英國長大），許多壓力就直指回教社群，特別是宗教領袖要自我反省。以下這兩篇可以做為代表，論點大概是：不要老把英國回教社群講得很慘，事實上政府已經幫了很多忙，回教社群自己也要振作；不要凡事都說是英美帝國主義的錯，看看賓拉登幹了什麼？看看多少平民死於自殺炸彈客手中？回教徒要能誠實地發展一套論述來面對事實。

It's paranoia, not Islamophobia, David Goodhart, The Guardian, July 15 2005

Face up to the truth, Nick Cohen, The Observer, July 10, 2005

但是，這一個多禮拜的印象中，這樣的保守說法好像還真的不多見。

其實不只保守派，回教社群裡面也有人把矛頭指向保守的回教領袖，認為他們基本上不食人間煙火，並不積極處理回教移民（特別是年輕人）所遭遇到的挫折與問題，間接導致了恐怖主義的溫床。印象中，這個回教徒公共事務委員會的幾個年輕組織者，在前一陣子大選中真的跑到一些清真寺的門口發傳單，要大家不要再支持工黨布萊爾派的候選人，後來Channel Four還做了一個專輯來介紹他們。這篇文章就在鼓吹回教寺院可以更與現實世界結合，鼓勵回教徒關心政治與選舉，進而參與及改變英國的政策決定過程。

昨天遇到班上同學Ulku，她的題目正是英國年輕回教徒的文化認同，跟她聊了一下。她說她很擔心現在在搞什麼反恐法，對於回教社群的有形無形壓制會更強，這下只會把那些激進年輕人更往地下化的方向推。當這股激進不滿的力量轉成更為地下，更為隱密的形式的時候，要想直接摧毀這些力量是更為困難的。

這樣擔心不是沒道理的。如果英國主流政治人物把這些基本教義派定義為「仇視西方文明與生活」，而不去進一步去反省這樣的「仇視」從何而來，那只能靠制式武力去破獲，去鎮壓，問題是：這些人死都不怕了，還怕你捉他？「恐怖主義」與傳統的「社會動亂」不一樣，後者具有較高的可預測性。如果再加上宗教教義去支撐，諸如：相信被炸死的人也會上天堂，或者無論如何上蒼會原諒這種暴行之類的說法，真要靠厲法嚴辦恐怕行不通。講白了，這次倫敦自殺炸彈客之一，去年曾經被MI5（英國情報局）調查過，so，國家機器沒那麼行的。

更重要的，英美政治人物真的要消滅恐怖主義嗎？有個賓拉登在，布希/布萊爾為軸心的西方聯盟要在中東進進出出，更是師出有名。前年美軍已經將賓拉登圍鎖在阿富汗西邊山區，但是美軍臨陣卻派出阿富汗軍隊進攻，擺明了是放水。

另一方面，西方在中東進進出出，恐怕也是這些恐怖組織所樂見的，因為他們能夠得的支持將會更多。可以預見，如果英國接下來是採取緊縮與高壓手段來對待回教社群，那蓋達組織從英國回教社群得到的支持只會多不會少。

我們終究還是要回到那個問題：是什麼因素造就了支持恐怖主義的網絡？是什麼因素孕育了這個土壤？根據衛報最新的民調，超過六成民眾認為倫敦爆炸攻擊跟入侵伊拉克有關，同時認為布萊爾多少要為倫敦爆炸負起責任。當然這不是說他下台就能了事，而是說明了這種恐怖攻擊不是那種「誰犯罪就捉誰」這麼簡單的犯罪行為。不管如何，答案絕不會是如中時那篇所說的：「答案正在於英國的超級包容特質」，事情如果這樣就好辦了，不是嗎？「把海珊幹掉，伊拉克就民主了！」當年贊成入侵的人是這樣說的呢……..


看了底下幾篇文章，或許有空來翻譯一下。
Not hate, vengeance
Mundher al-Adhami
Saturday July 16, 2005
The Guardian

This terror will continue until we take Arab grievances seriously
David Clark
Saturday July 9, 2005
The Guardian

Withdrawal would curb terrorism
Salim Lone
Tuesday July 12, 2005
The Guardian

Our leaders must speak up
Salma Yaqoob
Friday July 15, 2005
The Guardian

這篇是英國左翼政論雜誌Red Pepper的一篇文章，也可以參考。作者是2002年曾經到過台灣的Hilary Wainwright。

Remembrance from the other London
Hilary Wainwright
12 July 2005

There have always been two Londons. London the imperial capital city and financial centre and London the city lived and worked in by five million people speaking 300 different languages, originating from every country in the world. Tony Bair spoke for the imperial capital, proclaiming a war for civilisation, echoing George Bush after 9/11. Ken Livingstone spoke for Londoners – his ability to articulate their diverse interests and culture as entirely separate from those of the capital city is a secret of his success – when he vented his anger at the `attacks on ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old’ and when he celebrates London as somewhere where people could `just be themselves.’

During the time of the IRA bombing in the 1980’s, however, Livingstone took a further step, challenging imperial London, calling for British troops to be withdrawn and directly linking the security of Londoners with ending the war in Northern Ireland. But after the bombing of 7/7 he declared the murderous attack had `nothing to do with the war.’ In doing so he failed to represent the majority of Londoners who voted – more strongly than those of any other British city – against the war and did so partly for reasons of their own security.

In the past few days, these same voters have dominated the radio phone-ins and TV vox pops. `It’s Iraq ain’t it?’ many of them say when asked for their view of the bombing, arguing that Tony Blair must take some of the blame. This widespread view is almost completely unrepresented in the political system. `The political elite is in denial. With a guilty conscience, it is putting all its resources into denying that the bombing has anything to do with the war’, argues veteran anti-war campaigner Tariq Ali. Demonstrating the importance for democracy of left political representation independent of Labour, George Galloway, the new Respect MP for Bethnal Green and parliament’s only explicitly left-wing independent, has also been the only MP to clearly link his condemnation for the war with a demand for the withdrawal of the troops.

It has been the relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq who have made the strongest statements arguing that only an end to the occupation of Iraq will make London secure. The Stop the War Coalition, Justice not Vengeance and other anti-war organisations have organised vigils across the country but have not yet found a confident enough voice to express the widespread but unrepresented association of the bombing with the occupation of Iraq.

The theme that has gained strongest momentum among activists so far is the defence of Muslim communities, and resistance to any sign of racism. `We are putting out a statement to all our members telling them to stamp on racism wherever it raises it’s nasty head’ announced Paul Mackney, General Secretary of further and higher education teachers’ union NATFHE.

The defence of civil liberties is a third theme that activists are taking up. Again, Tony Blair has not so far been able to use the bombings to whip up the support he wanted to introduce Identity Cards – which in Britain are seen as primarily an attack on asylum seekers and immigrants - or for tougher anti-terrorist laws. The memory of the IRA bombings, which no amount of draconian anti-terrorist laws could stop, has produced a wariness of attacks on civil liberties justified in terms of security. In the end it was a withdrawal of troops and the negotiation of a political solution that stopped the death and destruction over the future of Northern Ireland.

US commentators remark on how muted has been the British response to terror attacks. The answers lies in an awareness perhaps strengthened by the historical memory of Northern Ireland that bombing and occupation engenders a blowback. And this isn’t just leftie analysis. Months after Bush and Blair had clinched their agreement to go to war on Iraq, the British joint intelligence committee reported that Al-Qaeda and associated groups represented `by far the greatest terrorist threat to western interests, and that that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq.’ It’s a report that Tony Blair would rather forget but which contained a truth that will haunt the memories of many ordinary Londoners.