The West stands at a crossroads when it comes to tackling extremism on home turf. But for the first time in years, it looks as though there is momentum building towards movement on this issue, although the question remains whether that move will be in the right direction or not.
David Cameron, the British prime minister, made waves last week when he spoke in Slovakia about the dangers of extremist ideology affecting Muslim Britons. His concern is both legitimate and important, but Mr Cameron expounded upon it in a manner that led to counterproductive consequences.
For one thing, it is not entirely clear what "extremism" actually means, and it is important to distinguish between conservative Muslim communities and actual extremism.
Many British Muslim communities hold to traditional views of their faith that may inoculate them from recruitment by ISIL activists, who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Islam. On the other hand, if British Muslims en masse feel that it is not simply extremists who are being targeted, they may feel alienated from the security establishment.
The key to a successful counter-terrorism strategy is cooperation between communities and the security establishment – and trust between the two.
If the security establishment views the Muslim community as essentially a suspect community, there is precious little trust that is going to be established. If Muslim Britons feel they are being unfairly targeted, they are also not going to view the security sector with much favour. It is clear Mr Cameron would not desire this outcome, but his comments did not really encourage the debate into a better place.
Another rather difficult point in his speech was Mr Cameron’s claim that parts of local Muslim British communities “quietly condoned” extremism.
Overall, the speech did not seem to suggest that only a radicalised minority “condoned” extremism. It seemed to suggest that many more Muslims than that did so. Certainly, that was the way much of the British press interpreted these comments. That was further exacerbated by Mr Cameron’s decision to speak about the issue overseas rather than on home ground.
Understandably, Muslim British community figures were troubled by the comments. Many of them have condemned terrorism in the past and worked against it. But they were not the only ones who weighed into the public debate shortly after the prime minister’s speech. The most senior counter-terrorism official in the UK, the direction of the office for security and counter-terrorism, Charles Farr, publicly warned against portraying Muslim communities as “intrinsically extremist”. Mr Farr did not mention Mr Cameron’s speech in his remarks – but the thrust of the two approaches appears quite different.
Viewing the Muslim British community only through the prism of security is a temptation that ought to be strongly resisted. Mr Cameron may well be opposed to that as well. If so, he would be well advised to make it clear that he doesn’t view Muslim British communities in that light – and instead perceives them as partners in British civil society twho are on the right side in tackling radical extremism at home.
There are, however, two other issues at work here, which tie into the international debate around Islam. All too often, there is the conflation made between Islam as a religion and Islamism as a modern political ideology. The two are not the same, and ought not to be considered as such. It’s unclear whether the decoupling of these two things has taken place in the UK, and elsewhere in the West, from quarters both hostile and friendly towards the Muslim community at large. That approach is not only outdated, but simply wrong.
Moreover, there is also an unsophisticated view of Islamism more generally. Either it is viewed as the Arab-Muslim version of the German Christian Democrats, fundamentally pluralistic and democratic – or it is perceived as essentially Al Qaeda. Islamism has different shades – and simplistic views of it, whether positive or negative, are rather unhelpful. Both government and civil society need to work harder at understanding that.
Finally, there are hard questions that ought to be asked. For many in Whitehall, the idea that British policies at home and abroad have contributed to a narrative of alienation is anathema. For many critics of the government, the reality that extreme ideology plays a deeply significant role in radicalisation is often denied. If the UK is to genuinely get to grips with its problems, they will have to give up their collective blinkers on these issues – fast.
Mr Cameron was correct to raise concerns around ISIL’s recruitment of young people in the West. But the issue of ISIL-style ideology will be around for a long while. In tackling it, the UK needs to be level-headed. It also needs to find a better way for communities and government to work together.
In this regard, community organisations can do much more – that is clear – but the UK government has a responsibility to do a much better job. They are, after all, the government – and their mandate is to protect and serve all citizens.
Dr HA Hellyer is an associate fellow in international security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute in London, and the Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC
On Twitter: @hahellyer