Europe’s Muslim Communities: Security and Integration post 9/11

The project on Muslim communities of Europe after 9/11 was promoted by the Ethnobarometer Programme of the Italian Social Science Council (CSS). It was developed by a team of non-Muslim and Muslim scholars and experts.

Objective
The initial objective of the research was to assess the consequences of the backlash of 9/11 for both the Muslim communities and European societies at large and, in particular, its impact on integration processes and, more generally, on the relationship between Muslim communities and the rest of the population. New legislation, regulations and police practice (stopping searching individuals simply on the basis of their aspect, storming into mosques or Muslim centres and seizing people suspected of association with terrorist groups, surveillance, the freezing of assets, etc.) were perceived as having a very negative impact on the life of Muslim communities and changing the attitudes and behaviour of non-Muslim populations. However, retrospectively it must be acknowledged that in fact all the problems were there well before 9/11 and that the main impact of terrorism has been to make the dialogue more difficult.

The countries covered in the research were Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

Methodology
The methodological model we used aimed at producing new knowledge about the ways in which the actors, both Muslims and non-Muslims, argue about issues, either real or imagined, concerning the presence of Islam (e.g. the teaching of Islam, fundamentalism, the headscarf). This approach was derived and adapted from the “sociological intervention” method developed by A. Touraine and other methodologies close to “action research”. Its purpose was:
- to put face to face, in a debate consisting of several meetings, individuals (Muslims and non-Muslims) holding different or opposed opinions;
- to involve a moderator (a sociologist or another qualified expert), who will share with the participants his analysis of their positions and will record their accounts/experiences; the moderator himself is a participant and an analyst at the same time; the text drafted by the analyst will be submitted to the critical observations of the participants;
- to observe how those positions/relations develop, change, redefine or crystallise themselves as a result of this feedback process between the actors and between themselves and the analyst.

Update 2007
About 20 discussion groups met in the six countries between Spring 2004 and May 2006, each group meeting at least three times. About 40 local researchers were involved, under the guidance of the country coordinator. Groups consisted each of about 10-12 people, teachers, journalists, students, workers and employees, representatives of local institutions and NGOs, social workers, housewives, occasionally a neighborhood policeman or an imam -- Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women, young and old. We intentionally did not include in the groups politicians and other individuals holding public or otherwise important positions, to avoid that participants feel inhibited from expressing freely their opinions.
Each country coordinator wrote comprehensive and detailed reports on the dynamics of their groups and issues discussed. Preliminary final reports were completed in August 2006.
Comparative analysis is presently under way. It will be structured in eight chapters: 1) introduction & methodology, 2) Civil society/political culture, 3) Body practices, body politics, 4) Connecting public and private narratives, 5) Grammar of conflict, 6) Negotiating rights and obligations, 7) Education and conflicts in public schools, 8) Muslim public sphere and Politics.

Project Director Alessandro Silj (Ethnobarometer, Consiglio Italiano per le Scienze Sociali) Coordinators in the six countries Stefano Allievi (Department of Sociology, University of Padova), Valérie Amiraux (CNRS/ CURAPP, Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies European University), Myriam Cherti (Centre for Migration Research, Sussex University), Gill Cressey (School of Education, University of Birmingham), Felice Dassetto (Unité d'anthropologie et sociologie, Université catholique de Louvain), Gerdien Jonker (Vergleichende Kultur und Sozialanthropologie, Europa-Universitat Viadrina , Frankfurt, Germany, Georg-Eckert-Institute for International Textbook Research – Braunschweig, Germany), Muhammad Khan (School of Education, University of Birmingham), Martijn de Koning (International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM), Leiden, The Netherlands), Brigitte Maréchal (Unité d'anthropologie et sociologie, Universitè catholique de Louvain), Werner Schiffauer (Vergleichende Kultur und Sozialanthropologie, Europa-Universitat Viadrina, Frankfurt-Germany), Sara Silvestri (University of Cambridge, Centre of International Studies), Martin van Bruinessen (Department of Oriental Languages and Cultures, Utrecht University, TheNetherlands, International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World - (ISIM) - Leiden, The Netherlands).

UP

Immigration & Security: US/European Comparison

Ethnobarometer plans to compare the approaches of governments in the United States and in Europe to the perceived security problems of immigrant Muslim communities in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks and of terrorist attacks in Europe. this new effort would yield deeper understanding of: 1) the different strengths and weaknesses of the policies and practices pursued to enhance national and international security and, 2) the impact of these policies and practices on social cohesion, integration and national policies towards immigration in general.

The project is a joint venture between Ethnobarometer and the Center of International Studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The comparative analysis would be carried out by a group of scholars and experts, 4 Americans and 4 Europeans, with, if needed, the assistance of one researcher/consultant on each side. The group may audit individuals from different walks of life – e.g. community leaders, police officers, journalists, including individuals who can offer useful insights, from their own experience, on how relations with Muslims differ between Europe and the US (e.g. Pakistani writer Mohsin Hamid, who has been living in both continents and who in his recent novel, Reluctant Fundamentalist, tells the story of an immigrant to the UK and America). The group would meet at least four times, over a period of 12 months, twice in the US and twice in Europe, to produce a comprehensive report that would provide descriptive and analytical accounts of the comparisons between the U.S. and Europe. The policy-relevant results would then be presented to decision makers in Europe and the United States.

This effort would draw on separate research and processes undertaken on the two continents. The Social Science Research Council (SSRC), under its project “Reframing the Challenge of Migration and Security” has brought leaders of immigrant Muslim community leaders in America together to explore their perceptions of how these post-9/11 policies have affected their communities. Furthermore the SSRC conducted in depth interviews with homeland security officials and policy professionals. SSRC staff has also convened a group of distinguished scholars, including European scholars, engaged in research on Muslim and other immigrant groups, who met twice, in New York and Washington. Dr. Alessandro Silj, the director of the CSS/Ethnobarometer project, is a member of this consultative group of scholars for the SSRC program. Ethnobarometer has been working on migration issues for the past ten years. Recently it organized a research on the “crisis” of multiculturalism in Europe, analyzing how immigration legislation and practice in Europe have evolved since the end of WW2, moving gradually in recent years from a tolerant, liberal approach to a very restrictive and discriminatory one. To-day, immigration has become the most controversial and intractable issue that confronts most European national governments. Ethnobarometer also promoted and organized a 3-year (2004-2006) project, “Muslim communities in Europe – Integration & Security post-9/11”, in the course of which 20 focus groups were organized in six European countries (Italy, Belgium, France, Germany, the Nether-lands and the UK), each meeting at least three times. Each group included both Muslim and non-Muslim participants holding different or opposed opinions; who argued about issues, either real or imagined, concerning the presence of Islam (e.g. the teaching of Islam, fundamentalism, the headscarf). The discussion involved a moderator (a sociologist or another qualified expert), who shared with the participants his analysis of their positions and recorded their accounts/experiences, observing how those positions/relations develop, changed, redefined or crystallised themselves as a result of the feed-back process between the actors and between themselves and the analyst.
The MIT Center for International Studies also undertakes a number of relevant research projects. The Executive Director of the Center, Dr. John Tirman, was the Program Director at SSRC, who founded and coordinated the project, “Reframing the Challenge of Migration & Security,” until 2004; he also is editor and coauthor of The Maze of Fear: Security and Migration Since 9/11 (The New Press). Tirman now participates in projects on security and migration with the University of Pittsburgh and Sciences Po, and with Monash University (Melbourne) and Chatham House. MIT hosts the Inter-University Committee on International Migration, a consortium of MIT, Harvard, Tufts, Wellesley, Brandies, and Boston University, and that committee would act in a consultative role in this project, bringing many of the finest scholars, practitioners, and graduate students in the U.S. to the project.

The proposed comparative analysis aims to produce new knowledge about the ways in which relevant actors, governments and minorities argue about issues concerning the presence of Islam, and will finally explore ways of best practice to achieve more harmonious coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims. The guiding questions would include the following: How are policies formed, what is the perception and identification of national-security threats? How do articulated policies and law-enforcement actions differ? In what ways can policies be described as successes or failures, and what are the standards for making such judgments? What is the impact of the state’s actions on Muslim institutions, public opinion, and daily life? How have relations between these populations and their countries of origin been affected? To what extent has their sense of belonging to their new country of residence been disrupted? How do they now perceive their “place” in America or Europe? Do post-9/11 policies promote inclusiveness, or stir alienation and even radicalization? What kinds of policies would promote proper goals for internal security as well as social and political inclusiveness for immigrant communities? In both the United States and Europe, policy makers and practitioners are searching for better ways to pursue the goals of security and protection of civil liberties and aspirations for citizenship. That these goals at times appear to be incompatible, or poorly managed, speaks mainly to the difficulty of pursuing them adeptly. The proposed comparative analysis can go a long way toward helping policy leaders evaluate their own approaches, understand more substantively the problems of the targeted groups, and reshape priorities and practices to enhance security and inclusiveness simultaneously. Controversies will persist, but in many respects can be minimized. The broader public, too, deserves a stronger account of these issues—the effectiveness of current policies and the impact on immigrants—in order to make informed choices.

The meetings of the Group would take place in Boston, at the Center for International Studies, and in Florence, at MUSMINE, the Center on Muslim minorities in Europe, set up in January 2007 as a joint venture between Ethnobarometer and the Robert Schuman Center of Advanced Studies of the European University In-stitute.

UP

European Multiculturalism Revisited

An analysis of the main “models” of multicultural societies that Europe has ex-perienced from the end of WorldWar2 until now. Multiculturalism has been, from the very early days, a very ambiguous and therefore inevitably controversial concept. Originally the term multiculturalism was put forward by those who were against (politically and ideologically) the concept and policies of assimilation, the French approach to integration. Integration, on the other hand, is a rather loose concept that stands in between the other two. In its more general meaning it assumes that the immigrant fully participates in the socio-economic life of the host country, and the term is being used without specific references to the institutional and cultural parameters that shape such participation. It can mean different things depending on the contexts. We have assimilation when the immigrant renounces to claim a distinct national, ethnic, cultural or religious identity and merges with and blends into the identity of the host country. We have multiculturalism instead when diversity is recognized, not only recognized but also perceived as being positive and desirable, and the Other is not perceived as a threat to the identity, values and culture of the host society.

The ambiguity of the concept of multiculturalism clearly emerges from the many different names with which it has been called by scholars and politicians. In addition to integration, assimilation and multiculturalism, some have used incorporation, and others pluralism and even plural monoculturalism (Amartya Sen), or pluriculturalism or interculturalism, communitarianism (co-existence of communities within the same political space), and still others such apparently intricate concepts like disintegrated multiculturalism and integrated multiculturalism (Michel Vieworka, in discussing the US on one hand and the cases of Canada, Australia e Sweden on the other hand). some have spoken of assimilation without participa-tion (related to Switzerland) and multiculturalism finally has also been described as a fraudolent alternative to equal opportunity (John Rex).

The point of departure of our analysis is the alleged crisis of these models, in Britain after the July bombings, in Holland after the Van Gogh assassination, also in Denmark and other countries, including France where doubts about their assimilation approach have grown stronger, etc. As a first step the analysis will consist of a historical account of how in each country the model developed (underlying principles, policies) and was implemented in practice, followed by an analysis of the factors that have led to the claim that the model has failed. The question being: did it actually fail, and if it failed was it because of some intrinsic weaknesses, or rather of some external and contingent circumstances and if so does this justify such claims, e.g. question: is the British model really a bad model?

Our analysis is covering a limited number of countries, at least initially: Britain, Holland, France, Germany, Denmark, and Italy (the Italian model being… the lack of a model). Preliminary reports have been written by scholars in these countries, and a meeting to discuss their findings has been held in Weinheim, Germany, in December 2006, hosted by the Freudenberg Stiftung. An international workshop was held in Torino, Italy, in June 2007, focussing on some of the main and most controversial issues, such as cultural rights, legal pluralism, integration in public schools, etc. that “multiculturalism” has raised in European societies.

UP

Research Centre on Muslim Minorities in Europe - MUSMINE

MUSMINE is a research programme on Muslim Minorities in Europe jointly promoted by the EUI Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS) and Ethnobarometer/Consiglio italiano per le Scienze Sociali (CSS). Its aim is to create a permanent research and training centre on questions raised by the presence of Muslim minorities in Europe. It will serve as a meeting place and laboratory for experts and scholars in Europe currently addressing these questions. MUSMINE takes as its task the diffusion of data on the Muslim presence in Europe to a wide range of interested users (academics, the media, the political sphere, NGOs, and relevant institutions at the local, national and European level, etc.). Furthermore, the Centre also identifies and assesses emerging problems, to stimulate research where information and analysis are lacking or incomplete.

Activities
MUSMINE activity articulates itself along four axes: 1) monitoring; 2) academic research and activity; 3) training; and 4) policy advising and consulting.

Research
The objective is to serve, at a European level, as a clearing-house or repository of the work produced, that promotes shared knowledge, experience, and collaborative activity across borders and disciplines. It appears to us that some academic fields (such as economics and law) should aim to form tighter associations as they address the question of Islam in Europe, especially for work framed in a comparative perspective. MUSMINE will host visiting scholars of various levels (PhD students, post-doctoral fellows, senior faculty) from the EU countries for brief stays at the Centre to complete and publish their work, and to participate in the Centre’s activities. Research, seminars, workshops, conferences culminate in publications: working papers, analytical notes, and volumes in a monograph series edited by MUSMINE itself.

Training
The training initiatives are primarily in terms of continuous education for professionals in sectors such as education, hospital and prison administration, journalism, social work, trade unions, and local politics.
A first phase of training activities took place in Italy, and would later be extended to other countries in the EU.

Policy Advising
Thanks to the network of experts involved in the programme, governments or other decision-making bodies are able to consult MUSMINE on specific issues. Furthermore, MUSMINE also drafts ad hoc policy reports on issues that it holds should be brought to the attention of policy makers at the national and European level.

MUSMINE started operating in February 2007. Click here for more information.

UP

The Impact of an Independent Kosovo on regional stability

Mostly for lack of initiative and the desire to leave Kosovo rather than in pursuance of any solid strategy of regional stability, most European capitals have accepted Kosovo’s independence as the closest solution, to them, to an exit strategy, no matter how slow and hard to achieve. Playing on that lack of initiative and overall strategy, Pristina has further narrowed the EU countries’ and the US’ options by announcing a unilateral declaration of independence after the end of UN mandated talks on the final status (December 10). That negotiation is itself being carried out largely in deference to the present oppositionist stance of an increasingly assertive Moscow and at the same time pre-empted – for, the most influential European capitals have already followed Washington in announcing their recognition in case of unilateral declaration of independence. The immediacy of the trouble Kosovar Albanians could provoke – in fact under the military protection of an international force – has taken in tow all broader and longer-term interests of the international community and of the European Union in particular.

The future independence of Kosovo (the independence is expected for the whole territory of the former province of Serbia, including the Northern part where Kosovar Serbs live) has already had a strong impact on European and world affairs. The first preoccupation is, understandably, that it would create a precedent to which the Macedonian Albanians and Republika Serpska in Bosnia-Herzegovina could refer (the Macedonian Albanians, in particular, have always considered Kosovo as a continuation of the territory where they, relatives and friends live.) Furthermore, the independence of Kosovo is resisted by EU countries that fear secessionist pressures within or adjacent to their territory, such as Cyprus, Spain, Romania, Slovakia and others. One consequence of this is the further weakening of the European Union’s ability to produce unified stances and policies in external affairs.

The future independence of Kosovo has utterly conditioned Serbian politics and distracted it from the reform process and the productive conditioning that was coming from the process of integration with the Union. Finally, it has offered Moscow an occasion for the flexing of political muscles which have been gaining strength as the price of oil rose. In very recent times, Moscow has broadened and deepened its commercial and political ties with Serbia. Those growing ties, in turn, take Belgrade out of international isolation, afford it an alternative to the politically costly relations with the EU, and afford it to maintain a rejectionist stance on the Kosovo issue. A pawn in the chess game of world power, Kosovo can be used by Moscow to respond to Western moves concerning Iran, the deployment of the US antimissile defences in Eastern Europe and more.

With the mostly painless separation of Montenegro in mind, many European officials point to a political impact that can be easily absorbed. In fact and besides very substantial differences between the two cases, most important in the case of Kosovo is the growing relevance of external dynamic factors such as the new position of influence of Russia and as, even more, the weight of the European Union in this affair. With regard to Russia, the possible linkage to other issues of today’s international politics simply does not help the solution of this problem. With regard to the Union, in the case of Kosovo Brussels (and, with it, the international community) has forsaken the influence that its gravitational power can exert on territorial and ethnic issues and, by default, is in fact weighting on the side of territorial independence.

Brussels’ leadership in this affair is crucial. Not only it has the most effective leverages for possibly defusing this kind of issues but also, because of the strong demand of integration, it is most influential on the position of other regional actors. Thus for instance, Skopje is keeping a low profile not because it is unconcerned about Kosovo’s independence and rather because it is building credits with the EU through its alignment with the EU’s positions.

The present research addresses this broad panorama of implication of Kosovo independence. Mostly through extensive interviews with policy makers in the region and analyses of the media coverage, it aims at ascertain both the expected direct impact of that independence especially among adjacent countries and what other factors, such as the desire of European integration, are at play in the stance offered by different capitals. Rather than taking side on the merit of any given solution, such as the Ahtisaari Plan, the research wants to clarify the range of political elements which play a role in the search of a solution to Kosovo’s final status.

UP

Roma in Central and East European countries – Romania and Moldova

This work, organized in collaboration with the Séminaire d'anthropologie sociale, University'of Fribourg, Switzerland (under a grant from the National Swiss Foundation) follows the work done with Romani researchers and NGO’s in Bulgaria and Macedonia on Roma communities in these two countries.

UP