Every generation faces a new set of societal challenges: this one is no different. International migration, terrorism and the economic rise of Asia are among the foremost issues that we need to grasp and respond to. But who is the ‘we’ that needs an answer and to what purpose? The response to this is as important as the original questions in themselves. Let’s assume that the ‘we’ refers to citizens of Europe and more specifically the UK. As a vital part of Europe, America’s strongest ally, with its historical ties to the Indian sub-continent, Britain is uniquely positioned globally to influence the western world’s response to these three challenges.
The nature of citizenship remains at the heart of these debates. It needs to be the central focus of any response. Across the western world, from the United States to Britain and further east to Germany, the relationship between citizens, new and old, to their respective states is vastly different. For example, the historical narrative of the United States has always consisted in the statement that it is a country of immigrants. Furthermore, the civil rights movement forced the country to openly admit that there were institutional reasons for the gaps in economic and social development between different racial groups.
While Britain has also developed through different waves of immigrants, these have in contrast played a relatively insignificant part in determining its national narrative, until recently. Britain has nevertheless been relatively accommodating to immigrants. Roy Jenkins, home secretary from 1965 to 1967, was credited with developing the philosophy of multiculturalism as ‘cultural diversity coupled with equality of opportunity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance’, that has largely survived intact as the state approach to diversity, despite recent encroachments that I will come to later.
On the other end of the spectrum, Germany, traditionally, has adopted a much less accommodating stance towards immigrants, especially ethnic Turks, demanding that they assimilate into mainstream German culture. Until recently it was very difficult for them to acquire German citizenship even for their offspring. This contrasts sharply with America, where every newborn baby automatically becomes a citizen, even if born to illegally present immigrants.
Unsurprisingly, such differences in the relationship between immigrants and their offspring to the state foster distinct debates within western countries about how to respond to global challenges.
The crux of the matter can be summarised thus. European countries, including Britain, have to evolve beyond defending their national identities on racial, ethnic or cultural grounds. Our own debate on Britishness, prompted by Prime Minister Gordon Brown at a Fabian Society lecture in 2006, has become stale thanks to its overt focus on cultural traits. Globalisation and immigration have irreversibly diversified our way of life, so that a new narrative is needed to act as a social glue.
Here, America offers a compelling path to follow. The narrative of a nation of immigrants has led the US to offer a set of shared political values as its glue. Loyalty is required not to cultural traits but rather to the United States as a political entity, its constitution and the flag. Such a system is particularly attractive to immigrants because there is little conflict with their previously held cultural or religious beliefs. As long as you follow the laws and see yourself as an American first, cultural difference can be accommodated.
It should therefore come as no surprise, despite the war in Iraq and the demonisation of Islam in parts of the media there, that American Muslims are in no conflict about their identity. As various commentators such as writer Reza Aslan have pointed out, they loudly assert their American identity whenever questioned.
This is in deep contrast to the UK, where polls find British Muslims frequently conflicted about their own identity and place in British society. Clearly, how the identities of second, third and fourth generation offspring of immigrants evolve depends on how closely the host country embraces them as ‘one of us’.
In many ways our current tussle over the viability of multiculturalism is a positive evolution of this debate. While some say immigrants must do more to integrate, it is difficult to define what cultural (as opposed to political) traditions new citizens must identify with; and they can’t be denied citizenship.
As Gordon Brown’s Governance of Britain Green Paper partially suggested last year, the debate about multiculturalism should lead us to a look at our own identity as a nation and our notions of citizenship rights and responsibilities. In the past, British policy on multiculturalism had almost shunned ethnic minorities issues to tick boxes that could largely be ignored, without recognising the centrality of such issues to the direction in which the country was evolving.
For the future of transatlantic relations, the way forward then seems obvious. Modern western states have been built on liberal democratic values and it is these political values, expressed through strong parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and expression, secularism, stronger civil liberties and transparent political engagement, that must now form the basis of our common bond and shared citizenship. In Britain, that should take the form of a constitution or Bill of Rights. In Germany it would necessitate a re-evaluation of its citizenship laws.
The transatlantic relationship needs to remain as strong than ever. But it cannot continue to act as an exclusive club for rich white men: rather it must become a much more inclusive club, based on the criteria of democratic and liberal political values. If Europe includes its new citizens in the same embrace as the old ones, they are much more likely to return that embrace, as the United States has clearly shown.
We need to strengthen our commitment to and understanding of democracy and human rights, learning to celebrate diversity and facing challenges such as terrorism, without sacrificing civil liberties.
Anything else would be a betrayal of the political values this country has developed over the last few centuries.
| 
