Since the terrorist attacks in Oslo and Utøya, countless foreign media have sought my opinion. They all ask the same questions: What will happen in Norway now? Will Norway be recognisable after this? Could something similar happen in other countries?

At first, I answered that Norway will be recognisable. It will continue to be an open society characterised by tolerance and the fight for human rights and peace. I still believe this.

But as I learned more about the terrorist, I began to add that I also hoped Norway would not be recognisable in quite the same way.

We need to become more aware of what terrorism is, where it comes from and not least, how we speak about it.

It should no longer be possible, for example, to refer to terrorism committed by Muslims as ‘Islamic terrorism'. No one would dream of calling Behrend Breivik a ‘Christian terrorist', just because he has described himself as Christian. We have never called the terrorism of the IRA in Northern Ireland ‘Christian'. When it comes to Muslims, however, their actions are immediately associated with Islam as a religion. The term ‘radical Islam' has flourished in Norwegian debate. Does Breivik represent radical Christianity?

No. The first thing we must do is to liberate religion from this burden of association. There is nothing in either Christianity or Islam that can justify terrorism. 

When, through our choice of words, we link Islam to terrorism, we polarise the debate. There follows a natural fear of Muslims and Islamisation. This is currently rampant in Europe, and, in my opinion, it is the greatest internal threat we face.

Political leaders talk of multiculturalism having failed. Needless to say, the consequences of such a view must surely be that Muslims and all others who do not fit in, are expected to leave. One French minister has even said that it has become difficult to take the bus, because of all the Muslims. What exactly did he hope to achieve by that? In the minds of fanatics like Breivik, it invites the answer he has given. Breivik sees himself as an idealistic saviour. He takes life to save us all from the Muslim threat.

I notice that some researchers say that Behrend Breivik cannot be understood in terms of old-fashioned racial theories. He distances himself from Hitler and he takes the side of Israel. And yet, he is just the same as Hitler. He would cleanse Europe of Muslims in the same way that Hitler wanted to cleanse Europe of Jews.
  
The similarities between Breivik's terrorism and the terrorism that comes from the Middle East, where Muslims live, are evident. Breivik's terrorism and Al Qaeda's terrorism are both born of a desire to rid one's environment of intruders.

The methods are the same too. Ruthless violence is used even against one's own – the traitors. Terror is directed at one's own ranks, against those who work with foreigners. Far more Muslims have been killed in this type of terror than foreigners. Breivik did not direct his attack against Muslims, but against those who want them here.

So let's liberate religion from the crusaders, rather than linking them through our use of language. All religious leaders working for reconciliation between religions must support and encourage one another.

Moreover, political leaders must assume much greater responsibility. This was the reason why, as Secretary General of the Council of Europe, I appointed a "group of wise persons" to analyse and advise on what can be done to help us live together in a multicultural world. The group was led by former foreign minister Joschka Fischer and, among others, included former Secretary General of NATO and EU High Representative Javier Solana, Timothy Garthon Ash, one of Europe's leading intellectuals, together with Danuta Hübner, a prominent Polish woman member of the European Parliament. Edward Mortimer, aide to Koffi Annan when he was UN Secretary General, penned the report.

On my visits to a number of European capitals with the group, presenting the report, it struck me how much weight everyone gave to the responsibility of political leaders and the media. They identified a high degree of opportunism among political leaders and a media bias towards conflict.

They underlined the responsibility one has to explain to people the real situation. Namely, that multiculturalism is here to stay. Europe has always been a continent of many religions and ethnic groups. Whenever we have not been able to live with that, the worst disasters have ensued. We must not only accept the multicultural, we must make the most of it. We need to change our mindset, our mentality. Our brains must calculate the advantages we can draw from the fact that we are different.

I have advocated expanding the European security concept beyond its focus on military matters. I call it "deep security". It has to do with how we can live together without escalating conflicts. Security deep down within the society.

The basis for this are the values ​​that bind us together. They are enshrined in the European Human Rights Convention. It contains the rights of every individual, and their obligations. You have no obligation to give up your religious or ethnic identity. But you have an obligation to respect common European values.

Europe has received a clear warning from Norway. Perhaps Behrend Breivik operated alone. But I am afraid he has started a new trend. Whilst we have all been occupied with talk of Muslims and radical Islam, it has quietly been allowed to develop.

We see a new form of nationalism, in a new guise. But the old adage applies: All nationalism comes from something bad, and leads to something bad.

The German Chancellor said something important: Hatred of foreigners is a European challenge.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has given the opposite signal to that given by the American President after 11 September 2001, when the message was one of revenge: "You are either with me or against me". It divided the whole world. President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, among other things, because he immediately started to build bridges.

Our Prime Minister has set a course that Europe should now follow. It aims to build bridges within our society, helped by our democratic institutions. We can not change Breivik. Our safety lies in the human relationships we are able to build.

* * *

version 07/09/11