Saturday 5 February 2011

PM’s speech at Munich Security Conference

Prime Minister David Cameron has delivered a speech

Today I want to focus my remarks on terrorism, but first let me address one point. Some have
suggested that by holding a strategic defence and security review, Britain is somehow retreating from an
activist role in the world. That is the opposite of the truth. Yes, we are dealing with our budget deficit, but
we are also making sure our defences are strong. Britain will continue to meet the NATO 2% target for
defence spending. We will still have the fourth largest military defence budget in the world. At the same
time, we are putting that money to better use, focusing on conflict prevention and building a much more
flexible army. That is not retreat; it is hard headed.

Every decision we take has three aims in mind. First, to continue to support the NATO mission in
Afghanistan . Second, to reinforce our actual military capability. As Chancellor Merkel’s government is
showing right here in Germany, what matters is not bureaucracy, which frankly Europe needs a lot less of,
but the political will to build military capability that we need as nations and allies, that we can deliver in
the field. Third, we want to make sure that Britain is protected from the new and various threats that we
face. That is why we are investing in a national cyber security programme that I know William Hague
talked about yesterday, and we are sharpening our readiness to act on counter-proliferation.

But the biggest threat that we face comes from terrorist attacks, some of which are, sadly, carried
out by our own citizens. It is important to stress that terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one religion
or ethnic group. My country, the United Kingdom , still faces threats from dissident republicans in
Northern Ireland . Anarchist attacks have occurred recently in Greece and in Italy , and of course,
yourselves in Germany were long scarred by terrorism from the Red Army Faction. Nevertheless, we
should acknowledge that this threat comes in Europe overwhelmingly from young men who follow a
completely perverse, warped interpretation of Islam, and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill
their fellow citizens. Last week at Davos I rang the alarm bell for the urgent need for Europe to recover its
economic dynamism, and today, though the subject is complex, my message on security is equally stark.
We will not defeat terrorism simply by the action we take outside our borders. Europe needs to wake up to
what is happening in our own countries. Of course, that means strengthening, as Angela has said, the
security aspects of our response, on tracing plots, on stopping them, on counter-surveillance and
intelligence gathering.

But this is just part of the answer. We have got to get to the root of the problem, and we need to be
absolutely clear on where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an
ideology, Islamist extremism. We should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must
distinguish it from Islam. Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people.
Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority. At the furthest end are those who back
terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of Sharia.
Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of
the extremist worldview, including real hostility towards Western democracy and liberal values. It is vital
that we make this distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time
and again, people equate the two. They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much
they observe their religion. So, they talk about moderate Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be
extremist. This is profoundly wrong. Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist. We need
to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.

This highlights, I think, a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat that we face.
There is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue. On the one hand, those on the hard right
ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism, and just say that Islam and the West are
irreconcilable – that there is a clash of civilizations. So, it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this
religion, whether that is through forced repatriation, favoured by some fascists, or the banning of new
mosques, as is suggested in some parts of Europe . These people fuel Islamophobia, and I completely
reject their argument. If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely
compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo :
hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy.

The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not. Picking a
fight with the latter will do nothing to help us to confront the former. On the other hand, there are those on
the soft left who also ignore this distinction. They lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of
grievances, and argue that if only governments addressed these grievances, the terrorism would stop. So,
they point to the poverty that so many Muslims live in and say, ‘Get rid of this injustice and the terrorism
will end.’ But this ignores the fact that many of those found guilty of terrorist offences in the UK and
elsewhere have been graduates and often middle class. They point to grievances about Western foreign
policy and say, ‘Stop riding roughshod over Muslim countries and the terrorism will end.’ But there are
many people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who are angry about Western foreign policy, but who don’t
resort to acts of terrorism. They also point to the profusion of unelected leaders across the Middle East
and say, ‘Stop propping these people up and you will stop creating the conditions for extremism to
flourish.’ But this raises the question: if it’s the lack of democracy that is the problem, why are there so
many extremists in free and open societies?

Now, I’m not saying that these issues of poverty and grievance about foreign policy are not
important. Yes, of course we must tackle them. Of course we must tackle poverty. Yes, we must resolve
the sources of tension, not least in Palestine , and yes, we should be on the side of openness and political
reform in the Middle East . On Egypt , our position should be clear. We want to see the transition to a
more broadly-based government, with the proper building blocks of a free and democratic society. I
simply don’t accept that there is somehow a dead end choice between a security state on the one hand, and
an Islamist one on the other. But let us not fool ourselves. These are just contributory factors. Even if we
sorted out all of the problems that I have mentioned, there would still be this terrorism. I believe the root
lies in the existence of this extremist ideology. I would argue an important reason so many young
Muslims are drawn to it comes down to a question of identity.

What I am about to say is drawn from the British experience, but I believe there are general lessons
for us all. In the UK , some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional Islam practiced at home
by their parents, whose customs can seem staid when transplanted to modern Western countries. But these
young men also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we have allowed the weakening of our
collective identity. Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to
live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision
of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities
behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn
them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been
too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them. The failure, for instance, of some to
confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes
taken abroad to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point. This hands-off tolerance has
only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. And this all leaves some young Muslims
feeling rootless. And the search for something to belong to and something to believe in can lead them to
this extremist ideology. Now for sure, they don’t turn into terrorists overnight, but what we see – and what
we see in so many European countries – is a process of radicalisation.

Internet chatrooms are virtual meeting places where attitudes are shared, strengthened and
validated. In some mosques, preachers of hate can sow misinformation about the plight of Muslims
elsewhere. In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote
separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion. All these
interactions can engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wider society has failed to
supply. Now, you might say, as long as they’re not hurting anyone, what is the problem with all this?

Well, I’ll tell you why. As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist
offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent
extremists’, and they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence. And I say
this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past. And if we are to defeat this threat, I
believe it is time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. So first, instead of ignoring this
extremist ideology, we – as governments and as societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms. And
second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is
open to everyone.

Let me briefly take each in turn. First, confronting and undermining this ideology. Whether they
are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed. Now, for
governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban preachers of hate from coming to
our countries. We must also proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and
abroad. Governments must also be shrewder in dealing with those that, while not violent, are in some
cases part of the problem. We need to think much harder about who it’s in the public interest to work with.
Some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered
with public money despite doing little to combat extremism. As others have observed, this is like turning
to a right-wing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement. So we should properly judge
these organisations: do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other
faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of
people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separation? These are the sorts
of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with
organisations – so, no public money, no sharing of platforms with ministers at home.

At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly-funded institutions
like universities or even, in the British case, prisons. Now, some say, this is not compatible with free
speech and intellectual inquiry. Well, I say, would you take the same view if these were right-wing
extremists recruiting on our campuses? Would you advocate inaction if Christian fundamentalists who
believed that Muslims are the enemy were leading prayer groups in our prisons? And to those who say
these non-violent extremists are actually helping to keep young, vulnerable men away from violence, I say
nonsense.

Would you allow the far right groups a share of public funds if they promise to help you lure young
white men away from fascist terrorism? Of course not. But, at root, challenging this ideology means
exposing its ideas for what they are, and that is completely unjustifiable. We need to argue that terrorism
is wrong in all circumstances. We need to argue that prophecies of a global war of religion pitting
Muslims against the rest of the world are nonsense.

Now, governments cannot do this alone. The extremism we face is a distortion of Islam, so these
arguments, in part, must be made by those within Islam. So let us give voice to those followers of Islam in
our own countries – the vast, often unheard majority – who despise the extremists and their worldview.
Let us engage groups that share our aspirations.

Now, second, we must build stronger societies and stronger identities at home. Frankly, we need a
lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively
tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone. It stands
neutral between different values. But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in
certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule
of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality. It says to its citizens, this is what defines us as a
society: to belong here is to believe in these things. Now, each of us in our own countries, I believe, must
be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty.

There are practical things that we can do as well. That includes making sure that immigrants speak
the language of their new home and ensuring that people are educated in the elements of a common culture
and curriculum. Back home, we’re introducing National Citizen Service: a two-month programme for
sixteen-year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together. I also believe we should
encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power away from the
state and towards the people. That way, common purpose can be formed as people come together and
work together in their neighbourhoods. It will also help build stronger pride in local identity, so people
feel free to say, ‘Yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian, but I am also a Londonder or a Berliner
too’. It’s that identity, that feeling of belonging in our countries, that I believe is the key to achieving true
cohesion.

So, let me end with this. This terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has been thrust upon us. It
cannot be ignored or contained; we have to confront it with confidence – confront the ideology that drives
it by defeating the ideas that warp so many young minds at their root, and confront the issues of identity
that sustain it by standing for a much broader and generous vision of citizenship in our countries. Now,
none of this will be easy. We will need stamina, patience and endurance, and it won’t happen at all if we
act alone. This ideology crosses not just our continent but all continents, and we are all in this together. At
stake are not just lives, it is our way of life. That is why this is a challenge we cannot avoid; it is one we
must rise to and overcome. Thank you.