Norway’s Brush with Terror and Ramifications for Europe

For many, the events that occurred in Norway on July 22, 2011, were the worst ever attacks inside a country known for its commitment to peace. In fact, European commentators go as far as saying that it is the most devastating loss of lives that the country has witnessed since World War II, when it was briefly occupied by Nazi Germany. The bombs in Oslo and the subsequent shooting of young members at a Norwegian Labour Youth Camp, claimed the lives of 77 persons, many of who were children of immigrants. From the information released by the Norwegian police, they were bright, enthusiastic youth who had more than a passing interest in political affairs of the country that they were born in, as proven by the fact that they were present for the youth camp being organised by the Labour Party Youth.
The gunman who dressed up as a policeman and killed them was a conservative, right wing, blue-eyed, blonde called Andres Behring Breivik, with grand ideas about an imminent Marxist-Islamic takeover of Europe. It is important to stress that he was young, blonde and blue-eyed, for when the event happened and was flashed across television screens all over the world; my first reaction was to fervently wish that it would not be attributed to some Islamic group seeking to exact revenge upon the so-called decadent west. It would result in a terrible backlash against the millions of Muslims who are citizens of different European countries. Breivik, however, appeared smiling and unconcerned, as he gave himself up the police after having killed his victims. His vision of anarchy and targets of his ire are tragically, but intrinsically linked to post war Europe’s economic and social policies, as investigators have shown in releasing parts of his diaries.
Norway is one of the few countries in the world where the idea of a peaceful resolution of conflicts is part of foreign policy. One may remember their unenviable role in attempting to broker peace between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a role that earned them brickbats and veiled threats from the administration in Colombo. The point is: Norway’s insistence on peace is also part of its larger left-leaning tradition, where working class histories are respected. It is also a favoured destination for asylum seekers and refugees from Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, despite the fact that many west European countries have capped immigration levels, to the extent that the idea of “Fortress Europe” has become common currency amongst anti-racist activists today. This makes for a potentially disturbing situation, where right wing, neo-Nazi groups are able to exploit economic hardships and channel them into racist diatribes against immigrants. Breivik is a product of this state of affairs.
Such narratives of hatred and white-extremism, are exacerbated by the fact that Norway has very few punitive, anti-racist laws. As the country begins to cope with the tragedy, its media is now beginning to ask questions about how the country will deal with such crimes. It is an important question because there are demographic issues to confront, specifically on the fact that old people now inhabit much of Europe, including. If Norway is to keep adding new persons to its workforce, they will have to come from elsewhere. This demands a new look at immigration policies. However, the recent attacks will serve to push these debates to a backburner and it is easy to imagine that the conservative right wing will come out and claim that only a stricter immigration policy can prevent the recurrence of such attacks. Once again, “Fortress Europe” will close in and look for alternative targets of its ire at recent failures of its integrationist, capitalist market system. Unfortunately, these targets will most likely be poor migrants from North African countries.