No-one is under any illusion about the ongoing threat Britain faces through terrorism inspired by al-Qaeda. In 2007/8 alone 231 terror-related arrests were made in the UK, more than any other country in Western Europe. The threat from terrorism is unlikely to ever be solves; however, there are some fundamental alterations the UK government could make to its policy to manage violent radicalism in a far more effective manner.
The principal area in which Governments’ often go wrong is in identifying who poses the threat. This may sound like a basic point but taking a more informed stance on where the danger lies can transform policy for dealing with terrorism.
The difference that must be identified is the distinction between a ‘radical’ and a ‘violent radical’. This is important for a number of reasons: Firstly, ‘radicals’ can become valuable allies in combating terror. Secondly, you are more likely to avoid alienation and resentment by permitting reasonable debate through allowing non-violent radical opinion to be heard. Finally, it could lead to clawing back some of the basic civil liberties that have been lost through the various Anti-terrorism Acts brought in since 2001.
Demos recently produced a paper which accurately sets out the differences between ‘radicals’ and ‘violent radicals’. They identify ‘radicals’ as making up about 20% of the Muslim population in the UK and these are people who have strict conservative views, but ones which are not violent. ‘Radicals’ believe in the application of Sharia Law and the Caliphate - however, they refuse to defend violent jihad in the West.
‘Radicals’ are not a direct threat to national security, as they argue that, while Islam is not a pacifist religion, violence is only condoned when it is justified- killing innocent civilians is seen as far from justified by ‘radicals’.
‘Violent radicals’ on the other hand, through an ‘us versus them’ ideology, completely reject Western society and place pride and status in damaging it in whatever way possible. The typical way to view the actions of ‘violent radicals’ is to see their use of violence as a means to set the political agenda, an agenda rigidly influenced by Islam. However, research has shown that a better way to view terrorism is as a social epidemic.
It seems that ‘violent radicals’ are predominantly ‘angry young men’ (AYM) who feel alienated from society and see little opportunity to better themselves and, therefore, view terrorism as the only way they can articulate their grievances. This leads me to conclude that terrorism in the West is a social phenomenon rather than a theological one and that religion is simply used as a convenient device in which to frame this action in an attempt to justify it.
There are no easy solutions to dealing with violent radicalism, and it is a problem that will not be wholly solved through central government policy. However, it is through identifying who the threat is that I would recommend the following actions be taken to try and manage Islamic terrorism in the U.K.
Bearing in mind the assumption that violent radicalism is a social issue, the measures taken to tackle terrorism should be designed accordingly. Studies have found that most ‘violent radicals’ exist on the edge of communities and achieve below average educational outcomes. Opportunity for would-be ‘violent radicals’ is a key part of preventing terrorism. Muslims are the most disadvantaged faith group in the Western European labour markets and often live in areas of ghettoisation, which inevitably leads to anger and social tension. Priority should be given to employment as a key element of integration, as the Danish government currently does. Until the inequality in opportunity is tackled then anger among young males, in particular, is inevitable; this can in turn lead to violent radicalisation - not just among young Muslims, but among all social groups.
Specifically regarding young Muslims, the feeling of resentment and alienation must be curbed. More effort must be made to build trust between the police and young Muslims, many of whom feel victimised by police forces. Foreign policy decisions and military interventions have also contributed to the sense of alienation among young Muslims. While the UK government continues to carry out a foreign policy which seems to target and demonise Islam and Islamic countries, resentment is inevitable among members of the UK’s Muslim community.
The actions of the government abroad and the police at home since 2001 has only amplified the feeling of alienation which has created pockets of AYM in Muslim communities, who have grown to detest the West and the way the West seemingly treats Islam.
The approach to ‘radicals’ must also be altered, in light of the fact that they pose no security threat to the UK, but rather simply hold a different political view. By treating ‘radicals’ and their views as a security threat, as the UK currently does, this can lead to security responses against people who detest al-Qaeda’s violent methods. This further alienates the Muslim community and adds to the feeling of resentment among the AYM I have mentioned earlier.
Tackling radicalism is a social issue, not a subset of terrorism, and therefore should be tackled through open debate - not through security measures. By allowing debate you also ensure that young Muslims have a means by which to vent their anger and provide an alternative route to self-esteem.
‘Radicals’ can also be valuable allies in managing terrorism. The Demos study found that many radicals show a healthy respect and fondness towards western values of tolerance. Many accuse ‘violent radicals’ of not knowing Islam and following a warped version of the religion. They reject thinkers such as Abdullah Azzam, who called for direct violent action against the West, and it is in this position that they can play a vital role in deterring would-be ‘violent radicals’ from carrying out acts of terror.
Studies have found that many radical thinkers actively discourage violent radicalism. They are in the best position to stop terrorism, not the UK intelligence services. They have knowledge of potential would-be ‘violent radicals’, and have the authority to prevent them from carrying out violent action, through reason and superior knowledge of Islam, which is what ‘violent radicals’ use as their prism through which violent action is taken.
The UK Government has a very difficult task in tackling terrorism, but by correctly identifying who is the threat they can go a long way to finding a method of managing the problem in a more effective manner. Differentiating between those who want to cause harm to innocent people and those who simply hold a different vision of society is vital, not only in tackling terrorism, but also in upholding civil liberties, something this country used to pride itself on.
The principal area in which Governments’ often go wrong is in identifying who poses the threat. This may sound like a basic point but taking a more informed stance on where the danger lies can transform policy for dealing with terrorism.
The difference that must be identified is the distinction between a ‘radical’ and a ‘violent radical’. This is important for a number of reasons: Firstly, ‘radicals’ can become valuable allies in combating terror. Secondly, you are more likely to avoid alienation and resentment by permitting reasonable debate through allowing non-violent radical opinion to be heard. Finally, it could lead to clawing back some of the basic civil liberties that have been lost through the various Anti-terrorism Acts brought in since 2001.
Demos recently produced a paper which accurately sets out the differences between ‘radicals’ and ‘violent radicals’. They identify ‘radicals’ as making up about 20% of the Muslim population in the UK and these are people who have strict conservative views, but ones which are not violent. ‘Radicals’ believe in the application of Sharia Law and the Caliphate - however, they refuse to defend violent jihad in the West.
‘Radicals’ are not a direct threat to national security, as they argue that, while Islam is not a pacifist religion, violence is only condoned when it is justified- killing innocent civilians is seen as far from justified by ‘radicals’.
‘Violent radicals’ on the other hand, through an ‘us versus them’ ideology, completely reject Western society and place pride and status in damaging it in whatever way possible. The typical way to view the actions of ‘violent radicals’ is to see their use of violence as a means to set the political agenda, an agenda rigidly influenced by Islam. However, research has shown that a better way to view terrorism is as a social epidemic.
It seems that ‘violent radicals’ are predominantly ‘angry young men’ (AYM) who feel alienated from society and see little opportunity to better themselves and, therefore, view terrorism as the only way they can articulate their grievances. This leads me to conclude that terrorism in the West is a social phenomenon rather than a theological one and that religion is simply used as a convenient device in which to frame this action in an attempt to justify it.
There are no easy solutions to dealing with violent radicalism, and it is a problem that will not be wholly solved through central government policy. However, it is through identifying who the threat is that I would recommend the following actions be taken to try and manage Islamic terrorism in the U.K.
Bearing in mind the assumption that violent radicalism is a social issue, the measures taken to tackle terrorism should be designed accordingly. Studies have found that most ‘violent radicals’ exist on the edge of communities and achieve below average educational outcomes. Opportunity for would-be ‘violent radicals’ is a key part of preventing terrorism. Muslims are the most disadvantaged faith group in the Western European labour markets and often live in areas of ghettoisation, which inevitably leads to anger and social tension. Priority should be given to employment as a key element of integration, as the Danish government currently does. Until the inequality in opportunity is tackled then anger among young males, in particular, is inevitable; this can in turn lead to violent radicalisation - not just among young Muslims, but among all social groups.
Specifically regarding young Muslims, the feeling of resentment and alienation must be curbed. More effort must be made to build trust between the police and young Muslims, many of whom feel victimised by police forces. Foreign policy decisions and military interventions have also contributed to the sense of alienation among young Muslims. While the UK government continues to carry out a foreign policy which seems to target and demonise Islam and Islamic countries, resentment is inevitable among members of the UK’s Muslim community.
The actions of the government abroad and the police at home since 2001 has only amplified the feeling of alienation which has created pockets of AYM in Muslim communities, who have grown to detest the West and the way the West seemingly treats Islam.
The approach to ‘radicals’ must also be altered, in light of the fact that they pose no security threat to the UK, but rather simply hold a different political view. By treating ‘radicals’ and their views as a security threat, as the UK currently does, this can lead to security responses against people who detest al-Qaeda’s violent methods. This further alienates the Muslim community and adds to the feeling of resentment among the AYM I have mentioned earlier.
Tackling radicalism is a social issue, not a subset of terrorism, and therefore should be tackled through open debate - not through security measures. By allowing debate you also ensure that young Muslims have a means by which to vent their anger and provide an alternative route to self-esteem.
‘Radicals’ can also be valuable allies in managing terrorism. The Demos study found that many radicals show a healthy respect and fondness towards western values of tolerance. Many accuse ‘violent radicals’ of not knowing Islam and following a warped version of the religion. They reject thinkers such as Abdullah Azzam, who called for direct violent action against the West, and it is in this position that they can play a vital role in deterring would-be ‘violent radicals’ from carrying out acts of terror.
Studies have found that many radical thinkers actively discourage violent radicalism. They are in the best position to stop terrorism, not the UK intelligence services. They have knowledge of potential would-be ‘violent radicals’, and have the authority to prevent them from carrying out violent action, through reason and superior knowledge of Islam, which is what ‘violent radicals’ use as their prism through which violent action is taken.
The UK Government has a very difficult task in tackling terrorism, but by correctly identifying who is the threat they can go a long way to finding a method of managing the problem in a more effective manner. Differentiating between those who want to cause harm to innocent people and those who simply hold a different vision of society is vital, not only in tackling terrorism, but also in upholding civil liberties, something this country used to pride itself on.
Tom Bateman
Demos Website: http://www.demos.co.uk/
Demos: 'The Edge of Violence': http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/theedgeofviolence
No comments:
Post a Comment