In the last 10 years, the extremist threat in Britain “appears to have increased,” according to Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6. Since the London terror attacks of 2005 in which 52 people were killed, there has been only one terrorist death in Britain—the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich in 2013.
“But in terms of sheer numbers,” said Dearlove, “the inspirational aspects of a movement like IS [the Islamic State group] have caused a good degree of attraction among young Muslims.”In the light of the June terrorist attacks in Sousse, the Tunisian beach resort where 30 British citizens were murdered by a gunman with links to IS, these comments will give cause for deep concern. Islamist extremism has increased in the Middle East, North Africa, Nigeria and the southern Arabian peninsula. Authorities in the United States are concerned that growing numbers of Americans are being exposed to promotional and fundraising material for IS. Dearlove suggests that more British Muslims are becoming radicalised.
“We’re fortunate that many of these people have actually left the country and are not here—they’re in Syria,” said Dearlove. “But that leaves the worry as to whether they come back and how they behave and what sort of attitude they have towards our society when they do get back.”
Part of the government’s reaction to the threat of extremism has been the introduction of a so-called “full-spectrum” approach, whereby non-violent extremism will be regarded as a precursor to violent extremism and will be treated as such. Dearlove called this “an exceptionally difficult area.”
“When you talk about ‘full spectrum,’ I don’t quite see what the follow-ons from that are. Obviously if one is going to start attaching legal constraints to that, one has to be very concerned about what that actually means in practice.”
Dearlove said that the cure for extremism can only be found within Britain’s Muslim communities, making it a “cultural and social issue more than a legal issue.” “There has been a failure, not only in our relations with Muslim communities but within Muslim communities themselves,” in confronting radicalisation, he said.
It is also uncertain how much a full spectrum approach will conflict with British values of free speech and thought. “During the Cold War,” said Dearlove, “we lived reasonably comfortably with communist parties in our midst, who if you analysed the logic of their position, would be fundamentally opposed to the values of our democratic society. There was the problem of subversion from within but we didn’t treat it as a problem to be legislated against.” His argument suggests that attempts to legislate against groups seeking to undermine British values from within are unneccesary.
In Dearlove’s estimation, the threat of extremism will exist in Britain for at least the next decade, its persistence stoked by a geopolitical climate that has allowed its proliferation. Since Barack Obama came to power in 2009, the US has operated a policy of light touch engagement in the Middle East, preferring to develop areas of influence elsewhere. The Obama White House “pivoted” its foreign policy towards Asia, where the vast markets of China beckoned. The decision to move away from the Middle East was an understandable reaction to failed military adventures.
“There’s no question that Obama’s attitude towards US deployment in the Middle East shows strong isolationist tendencies,” says Dearlove. “The withdrawal from Afghanistan, the withdrawal from Iraq—they were popular moves domestically. I think in terms of the US’s positioning as the global power it was unfortunate. It’s definitely a step back. It has allowed forces like the Taliban and IS in particular to move into these vacuums that were left behind as a consequence of US policy.”
As for Britain, says Dearlove, “we could have continued our deployments in Afghanistan,” adding that Britain failed in its “inability to mould the Syrian opposition.”
“That would have meant not necessarily putting boots on the ground, but... a large-scale training and support commitment—which never really materialised.”
Western governments face an array of threats, of which extremism is only one. The Greek debt crisis poses a challenge to the stability of the eurozone, Russia’s occupation of Ukraine remains entrenched and the Chinese economy is in a period of extreme instability. Common to all situations is the west’s inability to exert any substantial influence.
It seems now that there is a renewed willingness to confront IS, but western governments have not yet translated their tough rhetoric into direct action. A continued failure to act could be deeply counterproductive. “If the US doesn’t engage more actively,” warns Dearlove, “we’re going to have a succession of quite serious regional crises.”
“But in terms of sheer numbers,” said Dearlove, “the inspirational aspects of a movement like IS [the Islamic State group] have caused a good degree of attraction among young Muslims.”In the light of the June terrorist attacks in Sousse, the Tunisian beach resort where 30 British citizens were murdered by a gunman with links to IS, these comments will give cause for deep concern. Islamist extremism has increased in the Middle East, North Africa, Nigeria and the southern Arabian peninsula. Authorities in the United States are concerned that growing numbers of Americans are being exposed to promotional and fundraising material for IS. Dearlove suggests that more British Muslims are becoming radicalised.
“We’re fortunate that many of these people have actually left the country and are not here—they’re in Syria,” said Dearlove. “But that leaves the worry as to whether they come back and how they behave and what sort of attitude they have towards our society when they do get back.”
Part of the government’s reaction to the threat of extremism has been the introduction of a so-called “full-spectrum” approach, whereby non-violent extremism will be regarded as a precursor to violent extremism and will be treated as such. Dearlove called this “an exceptionally difficult area.”
“When you talk about ‘full spectrum,’ I don’t quite see what the follow-ons from that are. Obviously if one is going to start attaching legal constraints to that, one has to be very concerned about what that actually means in practice.”
Dearlove said that the cure for extremism can only be found within Britain’s Muslim communities, making it a “cultural and social issue more than a legal issue.” “There has been a failure, not only in our relations with Muslim communities but within Muslim communities themselves,” in confronting radicalisation, he said.
It is also uncertain how much a full spectrum approach will conflict with British values of free speech and thought. “During the Cold War,” said Dearlove, “we lived reasonably comfortably with communist parties in our midst, who if you analysed the logic of their position, would be fundamentally opposed to the values of our democratic society. There was the problem of subversion from within but we didn’t treat it as a problem to be legislated against.” His argument suggests that attempts to legislate against groups seeking to undermine British values from within are unneccesary.
In Dearlove’s estimation, the threat of extremism will exist in Britain for at least the next decade, its persistence stoked by a geopolitical climate that has allowed its proliferation. Since Barack Obama came to power in 2009, the US has operated a policy of light touch engagement in the Middle East, preferring to develop areas of influence elsewhere. The Obama White House “pivoted” its foreign policy towards Asia, where the vast markets of China beckoned. The decision to move away from the Middle East was an understandable reaction to failed military adventures.
“There’s no question that Obama’s attitude towards US deployment in the Middle East shows strong isolationist tendencies,” says Dearlove. “The withdrawal from Afghanistan, the withdrawal from Iraq—they were popular moves domestically. I think in terms of the US’s positioning as the global power it was unfortunate. It’s definitely a step back. It has allowed forces like the Taliban and IS in particular to move into these vacuums that were left behind as a consequence of US policy.”
As for Britain, says Dearlove, “we could have continued our deployments in Afghanistan,” adding that Britain failed in its “inability to mould the Syrian opposition.”
“That would have meant not necessarily putting boots on the ground, but... a large-scale training and support commitment—which never really materialised.”
Western governments face an array of threats, of which extremism is only one. The Greek debt crisis poses a challenge to the stability of the eurozone, Russia’s occupation of Ukraine remains entrenched and the Chinese economy is in a period of extreme instability. Common to all situations is the west’s inability to exert any substantial influence.
It seems now that there is a renewed willingness to confront IS, but western governments have not yet translated their tough rhetoric into direct action. A continued failure to act could be deeply counterproductive. “If the US doesn’t engage more actively,” warns Dearlove, “we’re going to have a succession of quite serious regional crises.”
