It is ironic that on the very day that the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, launched the Government’s long-awaited new counter-terrorism strategy urging engagement and dialogue with the Muslim community, the Communities Secretary, one Hazel Blears, chose that very moment to break off relations with the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). MCB is an umbrella body representing hundreds of mosques and community organisations which was set up in the late 1990s by the then Home Secretary with the support of the Conservatives. The net effect of the two juxtaposed announcements makes it yet again appear to Muslims that the Government may be beaming one message, but its actions indicate a very different message. But even leaving that aside, that is still not the main problem with the new policy.

The essence of the Contest 2 document is not to outlaw those who defend terrorism and violence, but to challenge such views and not to concede the floor to those who propagate them. However, this goal is ringed around with tough new law enforcement operations. It is claimed that a ‘dirty bomb’ attack is likely in Britain as a result of increased smuggling of chemical, radiological and biological materials. Counter-measures are being taken to crack down on this and to stop any import into Britain of roadside bomb materials from Iraq or Afghanistan. Lurid warnings are given that al Qa’ida may be fragmenting, but successor groups that are self-generated may pose a more dangerous threat. Also, we are told that the counter-terror budget is to rise to 33.5bn a year by 2011.
Obviously all due measures need to be taken to protect the country and its population from any terrorist attack. But at the same time policy should be rigorously focused on tackling the causes of such activity, not just the symptoms. What is not questioned or seriously thought through in Contest 2 is what drives such persons into terrorism in the first place. It is naive to assume that Government can crush retaliation on the streets of Britain when young Muslims are confronted with evidence of violence against civilians by occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, by the illegalities and humiliations against Muslims in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, by the use of rendition and torture against Muslims who disappear into ghost prisons, and by the perceived partiality towards Israel in its widespread destruction and killing in Lebanon and in particular Gaza.
The real way, and probably the only way, to secure stability and the end to terror threats in Britain from the Muslim community is to rebalance UK foreign policy towards the Middle East, with a much more even-handed approach to Israel and the Arab States – a much more independent policy not driven either by compliance with US commitments to Israel or by the Western obsession with securing and retaining control over the main remaining repositories of oil.
It is not too much to say that in the absence of a fundamental change in UK foreign policy towards the Muslim world, no amount of cracking down on every conceivable channel of potential terrorist activity – even at the gigantic cost of a £3.5bn counter-terror budget – will ever secure safety on the streets of Britain and the elimination of all threats. But it is equally true that if Government attitudes to the Muslim community both at home and abroad were indeed perceived to change significantly towards greater dialogue and mutual understanding, then it would become quickly clear that the heavy emphasis on control and perceived demonisation of a community – a major cause of radicalisation – was no longer needed. Rather than a stand-off with the MCB, leaving Government uncertain who to engage with, the sensible solution would be to explore all reasonable avenues for dialogue and engagement within the Muslim community.

Bookmark to: