Britain's homegrown terror crisis has taken on a new dimension in previous days. Five men have been arrested in central England over a terrorist-plot to assassinate Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former PM Tony Blair. The organization, al-Qaeda in Britain, made the threats on a popular jihadist website in January and has been under surveillance since that time. Unique to this case, and further complicating Britain's anti-terror strategy, is that at least one of these individuals is a Caucasian convert to Islam. While initially frightening from a law-enforcement standpoint, this can be seen as a great development towards developing a more cohesive and inclusive counter-terror policy.
Homegrown terror is nothing new to the United Kingdom, yet something the overall political establishment seems to purposely ignore. The problem came to the forefront with "shoe-bomber' Richard Reid of South London. The gravity of the situation was not fully understood until the July 7 London attacks, entirely perpetrated by British born suicide bombers. Shockingly, several British polls found that 25% of the country's Muslim population refused to denounce the attacks.
Having lived in America's major terrorist targets ,New York City and Washington, D.C. , and Britain's major terrorist targets ,London and Edinburgh-, there is a strikingly different attitude toward each country's respective Muslim populations. In the UK, "there is a palpable sense of fear [] of these terrorists - perhaps more so because they walk among us and share our welfare systems and transport networks whilst harbouring plans to destroy it all,' says an English colleague of mine.
Why the discrepancy in attitude? It is naïve to claim that a significant number of Americans do not fear their Muslim neighbors, yet the facts speak for themselves. America does not seem to be struggling, at least on as large a scale, with homegrown Muslim extremists. This occurs because of three fundamental differences between our two very similar nations: 1) the number of Muslims 2) the integration of Muslims and 3) the identity of Muslims.
1) Numbers. In the United States Muslims account for less than 1% of the total population, and about 3% in the United Kingdom. This might seem like a similar number, yet in terms of density they are greatly different. America's Islamic minority predominately lives in suburban neighborhoods or on the outskirts of major cities. With several exceptions, such as various places in Michigan, the diaspora is vast and members commonly live in multi-ethnic communities with Persians, Pakistanis, Indians, Jews, and Asians. In Britain, a large proportion of Muslims live in lower-class, socio-ethnic ghettos largely composed of homogeneous, isolated communities. This isolation is essential for radicalized extremists to attract new members, meet, and plan attacks. It is also far more difficult for law enforcement to monitor and infiltrate these communities.
2) Integration. Integration of Muslims in to American society is far easier than in the UK. It is rooted in the "new-world' principles of religious tolerance and political activism. As a result, Muslim organizations and political movements can be involved in the American process without being forced to forfeit their religious identities. Minority-rights organizations are nothing new or feared in America, and have been an integral part of the political landscape for centuries. The American economic model greatly facilitates integration as well. Like other immigrants, Muslims are in America for political freedom and the chance to get rich; the "American Dream'. There is no widespread welfare safety-net. If you fail in America, you go home. As a result, America enjoys a middle-class and professional Muslim minority. A more affluent Muslim population leads to better financed political organizations and community development. They can go to better schools, visit better doctors, and eat at nicer restaurants.
In the United Kingdom, a stagnant economy and a lack of economic motivation has left the Muslim minority disconnected and alienated from the political establishment. A welfare-society, coupled with extremely liberal immigration policies from the former Empire, has led to a significant population of people living there by default, not because they want to become "British', but because life at home is simply too terrible to tolerate.
3) Identity. When it comes to terrorist ideology, there is nothing more important than identity. Historically, the US has been extremely successful in forging a multicultural identity uniquely known as "American'. When identity differences do arise, the debate is more concerned with locality than religion: i.e. Mexican-Americans and Chinese-Americans. The debate is rarely focused on Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Muslims. The Muslim population within the United States has no conflict in identifying themselves as Muslim and American. In the United Kingdom, and indeed Europe at large, there is a perceived incompatibility with being Muslim and being European; epitomized by the French head-scarf ban. This has led a large number of disenfranchised youth to view themselves not as "British', but something "other'. Identity confusion of this sort is something Islamic fundamentalists readily exploit, particularly al-Qaeda. Bin Laden promotes a transnational, global, Muslim identity that views the political "state' as illegitimate. These British citizens are highly valuable for al-Qaeda linked or inspired organizations, and are subjected to extensive recruitment initiatives.
The United Kingdom must somehow engage its Muslim minority in a fair and mutually beneficial relationship. Crackdowns on these communities, without proper explanation or local support, will further alienate these people from the political process and the "British' identity. They must be given a ladder to economic advancement and take part in the UK experience. They must view an attack on British society as an attack on their own society, as they are intrinsically paired. Numbers are hard to change, but integration and identity are fluid concepts, both of which must be addressed should this homegrown terror crisis be averted. Ironically, al-Qaeda in Britain's use of a white Muslim convert can be a positive development for British society in that it blurs the lines between who is suspect and who is not. The majority must see that it is not dark-skinned individuals from Pakistan that are the enemy, but a radical ideology. It took a long time for the British establishment to realize this, but now that the genie is out of the bottle, let's move forward together.
7 Comments So Far»
As a British citizen I would agree with the author's analysis that the American ‘civic identity’ has offer a more palatable option for Muslims living in the US then the exclusive nationalist identity promulgated in the past by the British political and social establishment.
However, I take issue with your ‘English colleague’ in her assessment that “there is a palpable sense of fear [] of these terrorists - perhaps more so because they walk among us and share our welfare systems and transport networks whilst harbouring plans to destroy it all”.
Firstly, living and working in London, the only UK city to have suffered a jihadist terror attack, the idea that there is a ‘palpable sense of fear’ of terrorism is hyperbolic. Obviously people don't want to be blown up on the tube but the most pressing concerns centre on the opportunistic assaults on our civil liberities perpetrated by a government both encouraging and utilising the ethereal myth of popular fear.
Secondly, the idea that the welfare state is somehow to blame for the atrocities of 7/7 is frankly laughable. The British welfare state and the inclusive egalitarian principles that guide it presents a key tool to engendering a greater sense of community and shared identity that will prevent such attacks happening in future. It has been consistently stated that economic deprivation and the ghettoisation of groups based on ethnicity or religion provide fertile ground for the overtures of extremist recruiters. By summoning the bogeyman of 'terrorists in our midst’ your colleague unwittingly plays into the hands of those that pray on young British Muslims by perpetuating the myth of the Islamic community as fifth columnists bent on our destruction.
Josh, I find the points that you highlight in this article interesting and worthy of further discussion. Particularly this ‘New World’ concept of integration as key to the fabric of American society as opposed to Britain's ‘Old World’ of alienation and an almost overly benevolent liberal welfare state that massages its subjects to the extent that they don't have to try to assimilate/develop/learn.
You would surely expect that such a generous welfare system would have just the opposite impact on its subjects, Muslim or otherwise; that a country that offers nothing in terms of healthcare support (etc.) but merely offers the caveat that “If you fail…you go home” would instill less inclination towards the state and assimilation than one that attempts to provide for all of its citizens equally.
I agree roundly with the majority of what you say here but just have a problem with the welfare state as a concept being held culpable…if our institutions like the NHS do contribute to this complex problem of homegrown terrorism in the UK I’m inclined to think it's from a different angle than too much ‘mollycoddling’. It's more likely that these systems aren't sufficient to cope with huge diversity, non-English speakers, alternative religions…that the workers don't receive adequate training in dealing with these communities sensitively and so help to alienate them.
Perhaps that's just the Brit in me!
Gustag,
Surely I am not blaming the welfare state for the attacks of July 7, but while I fully understand how such a system can benefit a society, I think you need to examine some of its limitations.
Extensive welfare policies reduce the incentive to work hard and become active in the political establishment. This is not isolated to Muslims nor immigrants, but can similarly apply to British citizens. I would argue that your NHS and economic policies have increased the ghettoization of immigrant minorities and made equal opportunity more difficult to realize. While it is certainly a more ‘just’ system and does indeed provide a base level of care for society's most vulnerable, it does little to lift these communities out of the lower socio-economic positions they find themselves in.
Josh,
Thanks for your reply.
I am sure it will come as no surprise that I take a different line than you on the issue of the NHS. The arguement that health care free at the point of delivery causes people to become workshy is an attitude that betrays a marked disconnection from reality. Are the millions of American citizens (of which I am also one) languishing without health insurance, suffering because of an insufficiently robust work ethic? Are the ethnic minorities of Germany, France and the Scandinavian countries (where government spending on healthcare as a percentage of GDP far outstrips our own) ticking timebombs of extremist militancy? Should the entrenched economic and social inequalities visited upon British Muslims be met with the ‘get on your bike’ policies of the Thatcher era (which incidently saw a tripling of poverty and and explosion in the rates of violent crime).
How much better would it be to concentrate our efforts on rebuilding trust between our communities by forging a shared sense of identity born out of the ancient British values of democracy and civil liberties. This would be a far wiser path than harking back to the discredited policies of neo-liberal voodoo-economics that serve only to entrench resentment and mistrust thereby endangering our future as a proud and successful multicultural society.
Mr. Hammer,
Your overall argument presented here is interesting and the blog posts indicate that it has been thought-provoking for others as well. I would like to highlight one area that I found of particular interest to me.
From a national security perspective the general blurring of the fine lines between those who are suspect and those who are not is in no way a positive development in the war on terror for Great Britain or the West generally. Inversely, this development could have potentially catastrophic consequences if allowed to continue at least partially unabated under auspices of just another “benign social evolution.”
However, I actually see some merits of white Muslim converts emerging in society with asymmetrical backgrounds to their Middle Eastern brethren. For one, it has become a social taboo to identify Muslims (or even radical Jihadists) based on race, ethnicity, color or citizenship and that progression is a positive step in the right direction for global society. In the United States alone an estimated 1 out of every 4 of the 6 million Muslims are white or African-American converts. Moreover, worldwide, Islam is believed to proselytize more converts than any other religion. Signposts such as these illustrate that this Abrahamic religion is rising profoundly in popularity in the 21st century as its global reach continues to increase precipitously.
Neophytism as a social power should not be understated, and such a movement could in some way help to erode xenophobia that often divides states. Profiling and targeting groups as potential terrorists is no longer as black and white. Now this concept of “who needs to be watched?” (that in Britain has impacted these ghetto communities the most) has undergone a conspicuous paradigm shift. It is now increasingly difficult for Anglo-American doomsdayers to incubate the notion that radical Muslim jihadists emerge from neatly packaged boxes with an easy-to-read label.
This all said, there is the obvious more pessimistic side to this positive avenue for the trend of white Muslim converts. Arguably Britain's two worst nightmares have now converged and manifested a sense of real threat to those British citizens and residents here who are not living in that strange bubble of ignorance of the American or British previous blogger (I’m somewhat confused as his identity seems to change according to his point. ), who denies the existence of fear of this new trend. I agree with your "English colleague' and feel sure that the majority of others would too (especially those relatives of the 52 people murdered in the 7/7 attacks). What the growing trend of white Muslim converts indicates is that there is a new avenue being offered to Britain's huge core of disaffected youth who loiter, drink rapaciously and intimidate because they seem to have no other outlets. Admittedly this seems outlandish, but youth psychologists have warned that recruitment into terrorism presents potent prospects for rebelling, feeling a part of something, feeling important, and at the extreme- notoriety through death.
Ultimately, blurred lines are indicative of blurred vision, which plays into terrorists' hands. In the worst of two evils, it seems that we might be moving towards a Britain that is less xenophobic with regards home-grown terrorists but more afraid, with more people to be afraid of.
war on terror ? first it will be nice to know what you are standing against
http://israel-is.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F05EF2AB5722C702!1780.entry
What I find interesting about foreign policy discussions about terrorism is the lack of attention paid to the economic funding activities of such. The Iraqi terror resistance requires expensive sophisticated munitions that can demolish m1 tanks; at times, incidents every day across multiple points requires an expensive budgetwhich the Heritage foundation stted was “unlimited”. This is even more true in the Caspian region where historical para-military activities in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Nagorno_Karabach at times included state sponsorship. In Algeria there was similar logistical help with the addition of private military companies providing special forces and pseudo-operations.
I would like to see your association do more research on the overlap between geoeconomic activity of transnational companies and para-military activity in the same such region. In Africa thethe historical use of private military forces by oil companies is well established. In current conflict, there is very litte detail covered. Yet the economic stakes of these companies in Algeria and the Caspian is perhaps higher tha in Africa.
This makes it even more interesting t find that oil consortia in the caspian and algeria-mena share the same personnel and companies across the same regions, and that some of these personnel share military, insurgency, and narcotics expertise.
Some detail on the Algerian-Caspian connection in private military-intelligence functionality isfound here:
http://www.julaybib.com/correlation-studies/2008/9/4/data-almanac-the-algerian-caspian-connection-and-the-next-be.html
Leave Comments Below»