Citizen Khan
Mark Leftly
May 12, 2016
“London is the greatest city in the world,” says Khan, “but we’re at a crossroads.”
Sadiq Khan, London's newly elected mayor, London, United Kingdom, May 8, 2016.
London's first Muslim mayor aims to be an "antidote" to Islamic extremism
It’s Sunday morning in London, and Sadiq Khan is sitting in the newly vacated mayor’s office. A huge map of the city is pinned to an inner wall, and the River Thames can be seen glistening in the unseasonably warm weather outside. Khan has been chief executive of the city for little more than 24 hours, and he’s wondering when Prime Minister David Cameron might call to congratulate him. Picking up his phone to show TIME hundreds of unread messages of congratulations, he spots a missed call. It’s from 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister’s residence. He will return the call later that day.

Khan, 45, won a landslide, 14-point victory as the Labour Party’s candidate in the early hours of May 7 after one of the nastiest electoral contests in recent British history. His Conservative Party opponent, Zac Goldsmith, put Khan’s Muslim faith under scrutiny, demanding to know why Khan had appeared on platforms with Islamic extremists as a human-rights lawyer. (His answer: he was defending them.) Londoners rejected Goldsmith and the ruling Conservative Party, choosing instead to elect the son of an immigrant Pakistani bus driver to become the British capital’s mayor?not to mention the most prominent Muslim politician in the Western world. “I feel like the luckiest person in the world,” he says. “I am the boy who won the golden ticket.”

That golden ticket puts him in charge of a city of nearly 9 million people, only the third person to be elected to the job since the position was created in 2000. The mayor is in charge of the city’s strategic planning, transport, policing and economic development but has become to many people the face of London. And now, for the first time, that face looks like the 44% of Londoners who are not white.

Khan never set out to be a representative for his faith, but that is the role thrust upon him in a European capital where the threat of radical Islamic terrorism is real. British authorities say that at least 800 people have left the U.K. to fight for ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Nearly half of these largely young fighters have returned, sparking fears that some could be plotting terrorist attacks on home turf.

London is an obvious target. After scores of IRA attacks late in the last century, the city has been hit at least twice by Islamic terrorism?first in the bus and subway bombings of July 7, 2005, which killed 52, and again in 2013 when a 25-year-old soldier was hacked to death near his barracks in Greenwich.

Khan says his rise to city hall can be seen as a riposte to the surge of extremism in the U.K. “I am a Londoner, I’m British, I’m of Islamic faith, Asian origin, Pakistani heritage, so whether it’s Daesh [a derogatory Arabic acronym for ISIS] or these others who want to destroy our way of life and talk about the West, they’re talking about me. What better antidote to the hatred they spew than someone like me being in this position?”

Aspiration, in other words, can engage disaffected youths who yearn for meaning and sometimes find it in extremism. “You say to youngsters, You can be British, Muslim and successful. You can go into business, you can go into medicine, you can go into politics.”

Khan’s life certainly qualifies as one example. The son of immigrants (his mother was a seamstress), he grew up in a housing project so tough that the future mayor took up boxing to defend himself. But inspiration is also on offer, he says, in the achievements of the double Olympic gold medalist and long-distance runner Mo Farah and singer Zayn Malik, who has risen higher on his own than as part of One Direction. “The way to respond to somebody who tries to brainwash people with a sort of nihilistic view of life and says the way to get success in this world and the hereafter is to get a Kalashnikov and go to commit?in inverted commas?‘jihad’ is to say, ‘You know what? That’s not true.'”

He understands he’ll be a target to some; he was singled out by Islamic fundamentalists as a Labour member of Parliament in 2013, receiving death threats for voting in favor of same-sex marriage. “I’ve experienced the receiving end of this extremism,” he says. “I understand what that’s like.”

But Khan serves as an example to more than troubled youth, says Wes Streeting, a fellow Labour lawmaker who campaigned for him. “Given the way politics is at the moment, particularly in the U.S.,” he says, “we feel London has offered a message not just to our country but to the rest of the world about the kind of inclusive society we want to live in.”

Unfortunately, London is anything but inclusive in another key area familiar to voters on both sides of the Atlantic: economic equality. The average price for a townhouse now stands at about $887,000, with most large family homes unaffordable to all but the staggeringly wealthy. London real estate is widely known as a place for Russian and Arab oligarchs to park their billions. “London is the greatest city in the world, but we’re at a crossroads,” Khan says. “Ordinary Londoners have been priced out of our city because of the housing crisis. We’re a city that’s growing in population, but the infrastructure can’t cope with the growth.”

He plans to ensure a pipeline of new, affordable homes for lower-and middle-class people by fast-tracking new construction projects and freeing up land owned by public bodies he controls, like London’s transportation authority. As blueprints for responsible growth, he cites New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s affordable-housing plans and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s idea for a city infrastructure bank, though both proposals are untested and have yet to win approval by local residents.

And compared with the mayors of most large American cities, Khan has limited powers. He regularly points out that in London, the mayor controls only 7% of tax revenue raised in the city, against 50% in New York and at least 70% in Tokyo. The rest goes to the government and is mostly distributed to the rest of the country. What’s more, the 32 London boroughs are each in charge of their own local services such as education, social programs and waste collection.

Still, Khan is the mayor and plans to meet his counterparts in the U.S. to exchange ideas and show the flag. Pointedly, he adds that he will have to travel before the end of the year, in case Donald Trump is elected President. The presumptive Republican nominee called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S. after the attacks in San Bernardino, Calif. “If Donald Trump becomes the President, I’ll be stopped from going there by virtue of my faith, which means I can’t engage with American mayors and swap ideas,” he says.

Khan’s remarks prompted a slight softening from Trump. “There are always exceptions,” the billionaire said on May 9. “I think [his election] is a very good thing, and I hope he does a very good job.” But Khan doesn’t think it will come to that. “I’m confident that Donald Trump’s approach to politics won’t win in America,” he says.

The biggest political question vexing Britain, however, is the looming referendum on whether to leave the European Union, a vote slated for June 23. Most political pundits expect victory for the “remain” side, which is headed by Cameron, over the “Brexiteers”?the foremost member being Boris Johnson, who was mayor of London before Khan.

The contest is close, with an average of six recent polls putting the campaigns at 50-50, according to analysis by NatCen Social Research. In March, while still in office, Johnson claimed to fellow lawmakers that London’s financial center, known as the Square Mile, would “flourish mightily” if Britain were to leave the E.U.

That’s not how Khan sees it. “More than half a million jobs in London are directly dependent on the E.U.,” he says. “Sixty percent of the world’s leading companies, including Sony, AIG and China Telecom, have their E.U. headquarters here in London. Half of London’s exports go to the European Union. Leaving the European Union would be catastrophic for our city.”

It’s not just on Europe that Khan differs from Johnson, the ebullient blond Tory known for his faux-bumbling manner and tendency to quote ancient Roman poets by heart. The new mayor claims to be a “metrosexual” who enjoys pop music with his young daughters, but cuts a more serious figure in public than his predecessor. “The problem of the last eight years is Londoners have been given the impression that the job of the mayor is to cut ribbons, walk the red carpet and tell a few jokes,” he says. “I can do all that, by the way, as well. But actually, mayors can do a huge amount. They can use the pulpit of city hall to bring people together.”

Johnson is now widely seen as a prospect to succeed Cameron. The current leader of Labour, Jeremy Corbyn, is from the party’s far left and won the post after a populist insurgency but is viewed as having little chance of winning a general election. Could Khan ever leverage his new position to become Britain’s first nonwhite Prime Minister? “Look, the job of the mayor of London for me is a destination job. It’s not a stepping-stone,” he says. “Being the mayor of London is such a huge privilege that the idea that I would use city hall as a springboard for a coup or whatever doesn’t appeal to me.”

He says he is content to surrender his seat in Parliament to be a “full-time mayor,” albeit one with the biggest mandate of any politician in the U.K. The next campaign, after all, is the one on Brexit, and it will be waged across party lines. “I’m going to be a Labour mayor campaigning with a Conservative Prime Minister for us to remain in the European Union,” Khan says. The next time Downing Street calls, there will be plenty to talk about.

This appears in the May 23, 2016 issue of TIME.







ロンドン市庁へのカーンの登場は、英国における過激派の台頭に対する反撃でもあるだろう。「私はロンドンっ子で、英国人で、イスラム教徒、アジア系で、パキスタン文化を継承しています。だからダーシュ(Daesh: ISISを指すアラビア語の蔑称)を始めとする連中が私たちの生活を破壊しようとし、欧米について語る時、それは私について語っているに等しいのです。市長の職に就いた私ほど、テロリストがまき散らす憎しみを消し去る適役はないでしょう」
















World U.K.
Europe’s Crisis of Faith
Simon Shuster
June 30, 2016

London is in a daze. At the posh bars in Soho, at the kebab shops on Edgware Road and in the halls of Westminster, conversations circle around the incomprehensible fact that the United Kingdom voted on June 23 to leave the European Union. It seems astonishing how little force it took to rip the fabric of the Western world. No war was needed. No great depression. Just the inchoate resentments of British voters who felt cheated and estranged from the European project. Their anger had festered for years at the fringes of mainstream politics before it erupted in the form of 17 million ballots, all shouting in unison, Out!

The echoes will be heard for years, because while Britain is leaving, all of Europe will have to pay the price. Stock markets plummeted globally, wiping out a record $3 trillion in two days of trading and risking another great recession just as the last one was starting to fade. Across the Continent, populists responded to the Brexit referendum by calling for ones of their own. In Brussels, European leaders convened an emergency summit to try and fend off the contagion. Russia watched from the wings with barely concealed delight. The U.S., already struggling with the West’s receding influence around the world, now has to cope with the departure of its closest ally from the table of E.U. decisionmakers.

For those who abhor the E.U., the news was enough to declare the beginning of the end for Europe as we know it. “I think within 10 years, the European Union will be deconstructed,” Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s right-wing National Front, told TIME a few days after the vote. With the E.U. now in uncharted waters, optimists clung to the hope that Western society would carry on. “The European Union is strong enough to cope with the departure of Britain,” Chancellor Angela Merkel told the German Parliament on June 28.

Of course, the optimists believed this shock would never happen. On June 16, exactly a week before the referendum, the noisy, rancorous and often misleading campaign for the country to leave the E.U. nearly fell apart. Center-left lawmaker Jo Cox, one of the most charismatic advocates for the U.K. to remain in the E.U., was murdered on the streets of her electoral district. The man charged with shooting and stabbing her to death, Thomas Mair, would later say in court: “My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”

Many hoped that Cox’s tragic killing would at least serve as a wake-up call for Britain. As the polls opened on June 23, most pundits, academics, bookmakers and politicians were confident that economic good sense, if not the more abstract ideals that hold Europe together, would prevail over the fearful calls to retreat behind the English Channel in the face of migration and globalization. But they were wrong. A majority of British voters?51.9% of them?cast their ballots in favor of leaving. Even in Cox’s district?which she won easily in the 2015 general election?55% of voters rejected her calls for Britain to stay. The rejection of Europe was beyond dispute.

Much of the blame for Brexit has fallen into Prime Minister David Cameron’s lap. It was his idea last year to call the referendum in the first place?an epic gamble with the future of the country that was meant to mollify E.U. bashers in his Conservative Party and strengthen his push for re-election. It achieved those ends?the Conservatives won an outright majority in Parliament last May?and like most of the British elite, Cameron campaigned for the U.K. to remain. But his arguments?weighed down by the fact that Cameron had never been a fan of the E.U.?felt timid: better to stay within a flawed alliance than risk the uncertainty of breaking away. The halfhearted efforts by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to back Remain were even less convincing.

The morning after the vote, a shell-shocked Cameron was forced to announce his resignation, leaving the next government?which likely won’t be in place until October?to put out the fires Brexit has started. The worst are burning in the U.K. itself. The value of the British pound dropped to its lowest point in more than 30 years, and both the Conservatives and Labour may soon find themselves without leaders at the same time. In Scotland, where 62% of voters favored Remain, the government has said it will not be dragged out of the E.U. against the will of the Scottish people. That could mean another referendum on Scottish independence just two years after Scotland voted solidly to stay in the U.K. Even the fragile peace in Northern Ireland is at risk.

And the U.K. hasn’t even started the process of breaking away. The E.U.’s protocol for such a split, which has never before been invoked, begins only once a government makes a formal request to secede. After that, the British will have two years to agree on new terms for their relations with Europe, most importantly on trade. European leaders?worried that other rebellious nations might be emboldened by the British?are not likely to be generous. At a summit in Brussels on June 29, E.U. leaders made it clear that the U.K. could not continue to enjoy the benefits of membership without accepting some of the burdens. “It is not an amicable divorce,” Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the E.U.’s executive body, the European Commission, remarked on June 25. “But it was also not an intimate love affair.”

That’s because the U.K. was always a hesitant partner to the E.U.?or as the London political scientist Simon Hix puts it more directly, “it is a festering sore” on the European project. By consistently challenging the E.U.’s rules, the British have managed to win all kinds of exceptions for themselves over the years, including a huge rebate on the money contributed to the E.U. Among the larger member states, it is the only one to forego the euro, the currency that 19 E.U. countries share. It has also stayed out of the Schengen Area of 26 European states whose citizens are allowed to cross each other’s borders without so much as showing their passports.

Still, in order to access the common European market, the U.K. had to accept the free movement of goods and workers from other E.U. member states. That has made trade a lot more efficient. According to the Office of National Statistics, 44% of everything the U.K. exports goes to other E.U. member states, all without paying tariffs or going through customs procedures. But in addition to goods, European citizens have been able to move freely across British borders. The U.K. saw a massive influx of workers from poorer countries like Poland and Slovakia after they joined the E.U. in 2004.

Between 1990 and 2015, the U.K.’s population grew by about 8 million people, roughly equal to the population of London?even though the national fertility rate is now below replacement levels. In the fiscal year ending in March, about 270,000 people settled in the U.K. from other E.U. nations. “There is a national limit to how many of them we can take,” says Jeffrey Elenor, a local councilman in the southeastern district of Thanet, where 63% of voters supported leaving the E.U. “We’ve become their favorite honey pot.”

Underlying such concerns is the sense that the U.K. has surrendered too much control to the unelected E.U. technocrats in Brussels. Deservedly or not, the E.U.’s institutions have a reputation for being elitist, inefficient and undemocratic. (The European Parliament, after all, picks up and moves once a month from Brussels to Strasbourg for a few days at great expense, chiefly to keep the French happy.) What the British tabloids especially love to hate about the E.U. is the red tape churned out by Brussels in an attempt to regulate every aspect of the European market, from the maximum wattage of vacuum cleaners to the amount of water used in a toilet flush. As one conservative member of Parliament, Craig Mackinlay, told me on referendum day, “I’m only half an MP, because half the decisions are made in Brussels.”

Maybe not quite half. But the give-and-take between national sovereignty and European integration is at the heart of the E.U.’s debate over the benefits of creating “an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe.” First outlined in the preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome?the E.U.’s founding document?this idea envisions the gradual fusion of European states into a federation, or as its most ardent supporters suggest, a United States of Europe. “It is a silly notion,” says Laszlo Trocsanyi, Minister of Justice in Hungary, whose government has long been among the most resistant to Europe’s push for integration. “It creates a false illusion.”

One might more generously call it a dream, and a rather noble one, in which nations would seek to set aside the tribalism that fueled countless European wars in favor of a transnational identity?not merely Dutch or English or Hungarian, but European. For those who grew up in the 1990s, after the Iron Curtain fell and Schengen effectively abolished borders across the E.U., it has been relatively easy to embrace that European identity. Europe for most millennials means unlimited freedom to travel and work in any of the E.U.’s 28 member states, each with its own culture to explore, its own charms and opportunities. “My generation has the most at stake in losing that,” 19-year-old Gus Sharpe said after voting in his hometown of Margate.

But it wasn’t Sharpe’s generation that decided the result. Across the U.K., only about 19% of people between the ages of 18 and 24 supported Brexit, according to a survey conducted by the YouGov polling agency. Among those of retirement age, who grew up before the E.U. was created, a staggering 59% wanted their country to leave. That shows how badly the E.U. has failed in trying to foster a sense of belonging among its older citizens. “Only about 15% of British people will confess to any kind of European identity whatsoever,” says Patrick Dunleavy, a professor of political science at the London School of Economics. Instead, the British tend to see themselves as a nation apart, the proud heirs to an imperial legacy that still colors their attitudes toward the rest of the world. That has made it harder for them to share the European dream of equal nations governing by consensus.

Now they have walked away from that dream, leaving Europe to stop such ballot-box insurgencies from spreading. It won’t be easy. A Pew Research survey taken this spring found that a plurality of voters in France, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands want the E.U. to return some of its powers to national governments. “In many other countries in the E.U., people also want to get out,” says France’s Le Pen.

Hungary is planning to hold a referendum this fall to challenge the E.U.’s authority over whether the country can be forced to accept some of the 1 million-plus refugees who arrived in Europe last year. “We cannot give the right to anybody else to decide who can live on the territory of our country,” says Trocsanyi. “We have to be able to decide.” Polls suggest that Hungarian voters will overwhelmingly agree.

It seemed ironically appropriate that President Barack Obama learned the results of the Brexit referendum while visiting Stanford University, the heart of Silicon Valley. As global markets went into free fall the morning after the vote, Obama chose to blame the outcome on anxiety over globalization, the very force that had lifted up Silicon Valley and the digital economy it represents. ”Yesterday’s vote speaks to the ongoing changes and challenges that are raised by globalization,” he told a summit of entrepreneurs. “The world has shrunk. It is interconnected.”

To Obama’s audience that morning, a shrinking world has always been a better one. It has meant open markets, global reach and easy access to cheap labor. But globalization means something else for the voters who backed Brexit, a group Matthew Goodwin, a British political scientist at the University of Kent, calls the “left behind.” They’ve been doubly abandoned?first by the postindustrial economy, which made their jobs redundant and moved their industries abroad. And then by the mainstream politicians who took their support for granted while serving the interests of the wealthy.

But the white working class never went away. Across Europe and in the U.S., they have been quietly stewing in their own resentments and feeling variously belittled, patronized and ignored by the elites who champion globalization. “Nobody paid attention to us for I don’t know how long,” John Nichols, a retired fisherman in the southeast of England, told me on referendum day. “It’s like we didn’t exist.”

To Nichols and other supporters of Brexit, the question of leaving the E.U. was not just about taking control of borders, finances and fishing rights from the bureaucrats in Brussels. It was also a chance to vent the social and economic rage that has been building.”It is a response to 50 or 60 years of economic change,” says Tony Travers, a political scientist and adviser to the British Parliament, “from which some people have managed to gain, and others have found it harder, and in some cases a lot harder, to benefit from that new world.”

Their frustrations came with a yearning for an older world, one in which their native industries and local customs could withstand the forces of globalization. It wasn’t long before demagogues appeared with promises to resurrect that world. In the U.K., Brexiteers pledged to “take back control”?glossing over the fact that leaving the E.U. would also mean losing the privileges of Europe’s single market.

In the race for the U.S. presidency, Donald Trump has made similar promises to build walls and ban Muslims to “make American great again.” While Obama held court in Silicon Valley the day after the referendum, Trump arrived in the U.K. to open his refurbished golf course in Scotland. “People are angry all over the world,” the Republican candidate said. “They’re angry over borders. They’re angry over people coming into the country and taking over, and nobody even knows who they are.”

In his diagnosis at least, Trump is right. The anger is palpable across the U.S. and Europe. Even in Germany, a nation that has spent decades trying to immunize itself from the virulent nationalism that spawned the Third Reich, the popularity of the far right has soared in response to last year’s influx of refugees from the war zones of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Polls show that Alternative fur Deutschland, whose manifesto holds that Islam is incompatible with the German constitution, is now the third most popular party in the country. Le Pen, who called Brexit a “victory for freedom,” has urged all E.U. members to hold a referendum on whether to break away. Russia is watching for how it might gain from the possible disintegration of the E.U. Boris Titov, an adviser to the Kremlin on business affairs, blithely predicted that Brexit would spell the end of the transatlantic alliance. “This is not the independence of Britain from Europe,” he wrote on his Facebook page the day after the referendum, “but the independence of Europe from the USA.”

That seems like wishful thinking for the Russians. Most E.U. nations, if not all of them, still consider the U.S. their most important ally outside their own bloc?at least in military terms. And without the British, there is a chance that European leaders could find it easier to pursue that “ever-closer union.” “We have to set a positive agenda, and positive goals, and try to show that we have an ambition and an aspiration to produce prosperity for our people,” German Chancellor Merkel said at an E.U. summit on June 29.

But their biggest challenge remains unresolved. They will still need to convince the people in each member state to pull together, not out of fear or complacency, but out of a shared conviction that the European dream is still worth dreaming.

With reporting by Vivienne Walt/Brussels

Europe’s Crisis of Faith

























世論調査によると、イスラム教はドイツ憲法と相いれないという内容の綱領を掲げる「もう一つのドイツ(Alternative fur Deutschland)」は、今やドイツ国内で第三位の人気を獲得している。ル・ペンは英国の離脱を「自由の勝利」と呼び、すべての加盟国はEU離脱の国民投票を行うべきだと主張している。ロシアはきたるEU解体から漁夫の利を得ようと眺めている。ロシア政府ビジネス顧問ボリス・ティトフは、英国のEU離脱は環大西洋の同盟の終焉を意味するだろうと、希望的観測をしている。「これは英国のヨーロッパからの独立ではない」と彼は国民投票の翌日、フェイスブックに書き込んだ。「ヨーロッパの米国からの独立だ」



inserted by FC2 system