A few days ago Paul Surtees published an article here on the great religious diversity to be found in Hong Kong (Jan 12, China Daily HK Edition), which could not have been timelier in its appearance. It was another reminder of how fortunate Hong Kong is in the social institutions it has developed. Surtees pointed out that not only is there a fine tradition of religious diversity and tolerance, but that adherents of all religions and beliefs are able to live side by side with no serious friction. The rarity of such a privilege was demonstrated by the appalling events in Europe earlier this month.

People in outward-looking Hong Kong will have been as shocked as anybody by the attack on a Paris newspaper office by a pair of well-armed, well-trained and well-organized terrorists on Jan 7, killing 10 staff and two police officers, and the ensuing attack on a Jewish supermarket, in which hostages were taken and four of them, all Jewish, were killed. The killers were, it seems, linked to the al-Qaida international terrorist group, and claimed revenge for the newspaper's publication of satirical cartoons of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

This is becoming a worldwide problem with the growing number of violent extremists claiming to act on behalf of Islam. The wave of terror has even reached the Chinese mainland, with recent murders in the capital and Kunming. But, apart from the permanently strife-torn Middle East itself, the worst outbreaks seem to be in Europe. Why should that be so, rather than in the United States? The US is a large and highly diverse country with a large Muslim population, it is the country principally blamed for causing wars in the Middle East, and weapons are far more easily accessible in the US than in most other countries.

Europe and the US both claim to have a culture of free speech, but there are subtle differences between their cultures. In the US the government is constitutionally prohibited from interfering with free speech, which means its communities tend to be self-policing; it is possible to preach any kind of extremism in a US city, but in practice local communities do not tolerate organizations preaching anti-American violence. Especially while American soldiers are fighting overseas, those at home will not accept co-existence with groups wholly inimical to the US and everything for which it stands.

In Europe the picture is different. Firstly, there is post-colonial guilt: Many former colonial subjects have migrated, for economic reasons, to the "mother" country, still bearing grievances and unwilling to integrate, rather like the descendants of the slaves brought to the US. In Britain and France in particular, these former colonials include many Muslims. The vast majority of these immigrants - often second or third generation - want nothing more than a peaceful life and the chance of prosperity for their families. But these communities also contain a number of extremists, some of them trained in the use of weapons in various Middle Eastern wars, who attempt to recruit followers from the local Muslim communities. These are protected from American-style public disapproval by the authorities, fearful of the outbreak of general anti-Muslim hostility.

Thus, although most Muslims are naturally peaceful and good citizens, the work of keeping the peace is frequently frustrated by the activities of self-appointed "community leaders", who though not always extremists often work to prevent the integration of Muslims into the wider society, preferring to use them as a political power base. They are helped by current economic conditions, which have left many minority communities racked by poverty. Their failure to integrate socially and culturally makes it that much more difficult for them to benefit from local economic opportunities.

The "community leaders" are protected by the authorities, who try hard to deflect popular criticism of them. But this protects not only ordinary Muslim citizens from attack and discrimination; it inevitably also protects those small groups who really are planning violent action. The security forces, successful though they have generally been in preventing terror attacks, cannot be everywhere; they need support from the wider community in clearing out troublemakers.

All this provides one more powerful reason why Hong Kong must treasure its hard-won social stability and cultural harmony. There are socio-economic problems, to be sure, but very little ill-will between communities. The tradition of Hong Kong is that people do not interfere with one another, but that everyone gets on with making their own living.

The one potential danger is a serious falling-off in economic prospects, leading to unemployment, poverty and the associated social disintegration, especially among the younger generation. Such a scenario could provide troublemakers with the opportunity to drive wedges between different sectors of the community. Hong Kong cannot afford to allow the disaffected minorities we see in Europe and the USA resort to anti-social actions to fight for their rights and benefits. Let this be borne in mind as the territory's leaders strive toward progress on the constitutional development of the SAR.

The author is a former UK diplomat specializing in China. He spent nine years as an analyst in Beijing. He now works as a freelance writer and commentator.

(HK Edition 01/30/2015 page7)