How Europe and America Should Confront Islamic Extremism

The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom

Through immigration and demographic changes, Europe's Muslim population has grown exponentially in recent years. Because of this, several experts and commentators have predicted doomsday scenarios for Europe, forecasting majority Muslim populations in major European cities within a decade. Mark Steyn, author of America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, envisages the Islamization of Europe by the end of the 21st century.[1]

The disaffection of significant segments of the Mus­lim population in Europe has coincided with a growth in terrorist activity. In a November 2006 speech, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, former Director General of the Security Service (MI5), announced that British security services had identified over 1,600 individuals actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts at home and abroad involving some 200 British-based terrorist networks.[2] The foiled attacks by Islamic ter­rorist cells in Germany and Denmark stand as omi­nous signs of the level of threat facing Europe.

However, this is not just a European problem. Knowing that Europe is a logistical and fundraising base for both domestic and international terrorist plots, including the September 11 attacks, both the United States and Europe need to confront al-Qaeda and other extremist groups head-on. The atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists in Washington, New York, Madrid, and London were attacks on the princi­ples of freedom and liberty that define Western civili­zation. Al-Qaeda and its allies have targeted innocent civilians in Europe, America, Africa, the Middle East, the Far East, and Central Asia and will continue to advance their borderless war on Western values and attempt to break the West's will to fight an asymmet­ric "long war.

A united transatlantic response and commitment to what is currently an indeterminable timetable for victory is not only necessary, but essential if Europe and America are to confront the domestic and glo­bal network of extremists intent on annihilating the West and its allies.

Islamic Extremism: A Global Threat

The threat of Islamic terrorism in Europe is nothing new.

The United Kingdom. In 1983, acting on behalf of the Abu Nidal Organization, Tunisian Habib Muaamar bombed two Jewish-owned department stores in London.[3] Britain's first al-Qaeda-related terrorist plot was uncovered in November 2000, and Moinul Abedin was eventually found guilty of planning to detonate a terrorist bomb.[4]

Since September 11, 2001, however, the num­ber and scope of Islamic terrorist threats in the United Kingdom have increased significantly. In her November 2006 speech, the MI5 Director Gen­eral revealed that the police and MI5 were aware of 30 active plots.[5] Since 9/11, there have been 15 attempted terrorist plots on British soil.[6] From September 11, 2001, through the end of 2006, there were 1,166 terrorism-related arrests in the United Kingdom, and more than 400 charges were brought.[7]

The catalogue of extremist plots and the extent of the radicalization of Muslim youth in Britain are enormous. For example:

• In August 2006, intelligence officers thwarted a plan to explode up to 10 transatlantic flights headed for the U.S. with liquid explosives and detonators disguised as drinks and electronic equipment.[8]
• In September 2006, police raided a Jihadi training camp in the South of England where young Muslim men were being indoctrinated and radicalized.[9]
• In April 2007, five British men were convicted of an al-Qaeda-related bomb plot targeting a shopping center, a nightclub, and the House of Commons.[10]
• In June 2007, seven men were convicted of more al-Qaeda-inspired plots to "blow apart a London Underground tunnel beneath the River Thames and to explode dirty bombs and cause mass civil­ian casualties.[11]
• In July 2007, four men were convicted of trying to detonate explosive backpacks on public trans­portation targets in London, just weeks after the successful al-Qaeda suicide bombings on July 7, 2005, which killed 52 people and injured 700.[12]

The recent failed car bomb attacks on London's entertainment district and the burning car driven into the Glasgow airport are potent reminders of the extent of Islamic radicalization in the United King­dom.[13] However, Britain is not alone.

Continental Europe. Between June 2005 and September 2006, French counterterrorist officers foiled three Islamist bomb plots targeting the Paris Metro, Orly Airport, and the Directorate of Territo­rial Security.[14] In November 2005, Belgian authori­ties arrested members of terrorist cells that were moving suicide bombers into Iraq. In summer 2006, Cologne narrowly avoided a Madrid-style attack when bombs on two regional passenger trains failed to explode.[15] On September 5, 2006, nine people were arrested on charges of terrorism in Vollsmose after police foiled Islamist bomb plots, which Danish Minister of Justice Lene Espersen described as "the most severe ever in Denmark.[16]

On March 11, 2004, an al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist cell attacked public transportation targets in Madrid, killing 191 commuters. In November 2004, Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in a frenzied attack after the airing of Submission, his film about women in Islam that Bouyeri found insulting to Islam.

The United States.The United States has not been immune to homegrown plots by Islamic extremists since 9/11 either. Four al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists were arrested in June 2007 for conspiring to attack fuel pipelines at John F. Kennedy International Airport,[17] and Shahawar Matin Siraj was sentenced to 30 years in prison for plotting to blow up a New York subway station in 2004.[18]

American intelligence services have adopted aggressive policies to combat U.S.-based Islamic extremists. U.S. policy is one of rapid intervention to arrest suspects at the earliest opportunity.[19] In the five years after 9/11, 510 individuals were arrested in cases initially announced as terrorism cases. Of these 510 individuals, 158 were indicted for the federal crime of terrorism. The other 352 were prosecuted on lesser charges unrelated to terrorism such as fraud, racketeering, and criminal conspiracy.[20]

Iraq. Al-Qaeda has largely conspired to levy war against the U.S. abroad rather than at home since 9/11.[21] Iraq has proven a fertile ground for fighting al-Qaeda head-on and has drawn significant numbers of prospective terrorists and suicide bombers. Joseph Billy, FBI chief of counterterror­ism, has stated that suicide bombers are a threat to the United States because of their numbers and "willingness to die for sheer belief,[22] and the Bush Administration has recommitted itself to fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq and tackling the problem.

The United States has captured or killed a number of senior al-Qaeda leaders, including Abu Mus'ab al Zarqawi, Muhammad 'Atif, and Khalid Shaykh Mohammad. However, al-Qaeda's contribution to the global jihad post 9/11 is still enormous, with a vast ability to promote hateful ideology and inspire terrorist cells worldwide.

Transatlantic Plots. The groundswell of Muslim extremism in Europe represents a particular threat to the United States. Many of the high-profile foiled European plots were in fact transatlantic in nature, including the August 2006 airliner bomb plot. The threat from Islamic extremism is undoubtedly a glo­bal one. As British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said during a recent press conference with President George W. Bush at Camp David:

We know we are in a common struggle, and we know we have to work together, and we know we've got to use all means to deal with it [terrorism]. So we are at one in fighting the battle against terrorism, and that struggle is one that we will fight with determination and with resilience, and right across the world.[23]

Popular Support for Extremism.Jihadi activity in Europe and the Middle East has undoubtedly been fuelled by widespread sympathy among signif­icant minorities of Europe's Muslim populations. Attitudes among British Muslims, as revealed in a 2006 survey, are particularly striking. Among Mus­lim youth in Britain, 31 percent believe that the 7/7 bombings in London were justified because of Brit­ish support for the war on terrorism, and 13 percent understood why young British Muslims might want to carry out suicide operations. Among British Mus­lims, 42 percent of Muslims in the South of England would prefer to live under Shari'a law rather than under British law, 28 percent would like to see Britain as an Islamic state, and 45 percent believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy by America and Israel.[24]

In June 2006, when asked "What do you con­sider yourself first? 81 percent of British Muslims, 69 percent of Spanish Muslims, 66 percent of Ger­man Muslims, and 46 percent of French Muslims considered themselves Muslim first rather than citi­zens of their respective countries.[25] Thirty-five per­cent of French Muslims and 25 percent of Spanish Muslims said violence against civilian targets to defend Islam can be justified often, sometimes, or rarely.[26] When asked "Did Arabs carry out 9/11 attacks? 46 percent of French Muslims, 44 percent of German Muslims, and 35 percent of Spanish Muslims answered "No.[27]

Counterterrorism and the European Union

The 9/11 attacks spurred the European Union to introduce new counterterrorism policies aimed at deepening cooperation and integration among member states. The smooth flow of information and exchange of intelligence was seen as critical to Euro­pean counterterrorist efforts, especially in light of the global jihad proclaimed by al-Qaeda and its ter­rorist affiliates.

The EU has made great strides to become a big­ger player in this field. The centerpiece of its legisla­tive agenda was the EU-wide arrest warrant, which was accompanied by a number of other measures to harmonize and standardize member states' anti-ter­rorism policies. In traditional EU style, Brussels cre­ated multiple new posts and beefed up existing agencies to establish its formal standing as primary agent in anti-terrorist affairs, including a counterter­rorist coordinator, Europol, and Eurojust. The European Council even went as far as declaring a solidarity clause with one another in the event of a terrorist attack, to be invoked under Article 42 of the original European Constitution.[28]

Coordinating counterterrorism efforts with the United States was seen as an equally top priority for EU officials, and numerous declarations and legisla­tive initiatives followed.[29] It was also seen as a way for the EU to advance its integrationist agenda and bring on board those member states that were reluc­tant to pool sovereignty in these highly sensitive fields. As the Congressional Research Service noted, "The EU views establishing external relationships with the United Sates and other countries in the police and judicial field as an essential part of devel­oping a common judicial identity.[30]

However, the EU's counterterrorist efforts have slowly become more focused on furthering its inte­grationist agenda in security and defense and in jus­tice and home affairs than on genuinely cooperating in fighting the war on terrorism.

• EU Commissioner Franco Frattini and other offi­cials in Brussels continue to push national gov­ernments to give up veto powers in a wide range of criminal justice areas.
• At a meeting of EU officials and European inte­rior ministers after the transatlantic airliner bomb plot was thwarted, Finnish Interior Min­ister Karl Rajamaeki, whose country held the rotating EU presidency, said, "We came to the conclusion that a united Europe will win the battle with the terrorists.[31]
• Former French Interior Minister and current French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he hoped that Europe's response to the threat of terrorism would be "harmonized.[32]
• The European Council's 2004 Declaration on Combating Terrorism called for "work to be rap­idly pursued to develop the contribution of ESDP [European Security and Defense Policy] to the fight against terrorism.[33]

These statements and intentions go beyond moral solidarity with fellow EU members and beyond a desire to fight a comprehensive, effective war against terrorists. They reflect a wider integra­tionist agenda.

The ESDP is a tool for projecting European power in the world and promoting the EU as a glo­bal actor. Despite rhetorical commitment to the fight against terrorism, the ESDP embodies the worst elements of European animosity toward the United States and fundamentally undermines the NATO Alliance and the Anglo-American Special Relationship, both of which are vital in the long struggle America and Europe should be facing together. As a consequence, despite the initial 9/11 moment of solidarity, the European Union has slowly become more inclined toward its traditional confrontational approach with the United States, rather than coordinating counterterrorism efforts as an effective partner.

Renditions. In January 2006, in a high-profile act of hostility to U.S. foreign policy, the European Parliament set up a 46-member committee to inves­tigate the CIA's alleged use of European countries to transport and illegally detain prisoners.[34] Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) pledged to leave "no stone unturned to find out whether or not the CIA had carried out abductions, extraordinary ren­ditions, or detentions at secret sites.[35]

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went to extraordinary lengths to clarify the Bush Adminis­tration's policy on rendition, making a detailed speech on the matter in December 2005.[36] Then-U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales met with EU Commissioner Franco Frattini in Vienna in May 2006 to personally deny allegations that the U.S. either tortured or was complicit in the torture of suspects.[37] Poland and Romania categorically denied the existence of secret detention facilities in their countries.[38] However, the sovereign word of EU member states and the United States was not considered sufficient, and the European Parliament voted a report condemning national governments on little more than speculation and supposition.[39]

In fact, the year-long investigation of America's rendition policy, based on the flimsiest of evidence, served less as an independent investigatory com­mittee than as a Trojan horse intended to rein in the American-led war on terrorism.As Heritage Foun­dation analysts Nile Gardiner and James Jay Carafano noted:

Despite three major terrorist attacks on Euro­pean soil in the past three years (in London, Madrid, and Istanbul), many top European officials still do not grasp the magnitude of the terrorist threat. Instead, they are engaged in a campaign of pandering and grandstanding to delegitimize U.S. counter-terrorism efforts, especially the policy of rendition.[40]

Data Sharing. Transportation security is an area in which the EU and the United States need to co­operate effectively. A number of transatlantic accords have been reached since 9/11.[41] The most impor­tant aviation security agreement is the May 2004 Passenger Name Records Agreement (PNR).[42] The agreement allowed U.S. Customs and Border Pro­tection (CBP) to access European airline reservation databases to retrieve up to 34 pieces of intelligence about each passenger, including personal data and travel information. The U.S. ran this information against lists of known and suspected terrorists and analyzed traveling trends of other known ter­rorists in the interests of passenger safety and national security.

The omission of Ansar al-Islam as a proscribed terrorist group on the EU's FTO list is incredible considering the significant contribution of many EU member states to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Another notable exception is the Salafist Group for Preach­ing and Combat (GSPC), now linked with al-Qaeda, which plotted to blow up multiple French targets[65] and was described by the French Anti-Terrorist Coordination Unit in 2006 as "one of the most seri­ous threats currently facing France.[66]

The Special Relationship has meant that high-level trust and enduring friendships are the norm and that disagreements are largely played out in pri­vate. The directors of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and the Government Communication Head­quarters both gave evidence to the ISC emphasizing Britain's national interest in maintaining the close working relationship between Britain and Amer­ica.[72] The European Union's desire to take a pri­mary role in counterterrorism puts that in jeopardy.

America should continue to build bilateral alli­ances with its strongest European partners to main­tain the trust and cooperation necessary for high-level intelligence sharing, especially considering the international nature of terrorist plots. The Adminis­tration should reassess its investment in EU alli­ance-building and recommit to strong bilateral alliances for police, judicial, and border control cooperation.

This should not exclude sensible dialogue and cooperation with the EU as necessary, but it should also acknowledge that the EU is often a complicat­ing factor in many areas and that the multilateral forum for intelligence sharing is suboptimal. As the Congressional Research Service noted in 2005:

Some U.S. officials doubt the utility of collab­orating with EU-wide bodies given good, existing bilateral relations between U.S. law enforcements agencies--such as the FBI and CIA--and national police and intelligence ser­vices in individual EU member states.… [M]ember states' national police and intelli­gence services are often reluctant to share information with each other, let alone with U.S. authorities.[73]

The Successful Special Relationship.The issue of rendition perfectly illustrates the contrast between the U.K.'s cooperative and workable approach and the EU's combative attitude toward the United States. The ISC report on rendition out­lines the different legal guidelines and ethical approaches under which the U.K. and U.S. operate with regard to rendition but concludes, "It is to the credit of our Agencies that they have now managed to adapt their procedures to work round these prob­lems and maintain the exchange of intelligence that is so critical to UK security.[74]

While the European Parliament has worked dogmatically to obstruct U.S. policy, the U.K. approach has been to work together toward a mutually beneficial arrangement that does not infringe on either's national security. As the SIS Chief made clear, the British intelligence services assess the merits and seek ministerial approval when sharing "actionable intelligence where ren­dition may occur, but "this does not and cannot be allowed to inhibit the exchange of what we call 'building-block intelligence,' by which I mean material which over time contributes to a picture of a terrorist or a terrorist group, or much other vital operational collaboration.[75] Although rendition has been a contentious issue of public debate in the U.K. and Europe, British security services have strived for a workable resolution. Ironically, the ISC report also notes that there is "no real evidence to support the spurious allegations of the European Parliament's report on rendition.[76]

The success of Operation Rhyme is an example of the high-level counterterrorism cooperation that both Prime Minister Brown and President Bush should seek to maintain at all costs. Operation Rhyme was responsible for investigating and subse­quently convicting seven British men of plotting ter­rorist attacks in Britain and the U.S. from 2004 until their arrest in August 2006. The joint U.S.-U.K. investigation foiled a series of coordinated attacks, including plans to set off a dirty bomb in the U.K. Following the arrest of British cell leader Dhiren Barot, terrorist "reconnaissance documents of mul­tiple American targets including the New York Stock Exchange and the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C., were found on two of his associates.[77]

Upon the conviction of the seven men in June 2007, British Home Secretary John Reid specifically noted the international nature of the threat posed by Islamic extremists "to murder innocent people both here and in the United States causing death and injury on a horrific scale.[78] FBI Director Robert Mueller cited Operation Rhyme to demonstrate "unclassified examples of successes in the war against terrorismthat would not have been possible without extensive cooperation and coordination with both our domestic as well as our foreign partners.[79]

In October 2005, President Bush outlined 10 serious al-Qaeda plots targeting the United States and its international partners that American intelligence services had helped to prevent.[80] Operation Crevice was mentioned as a major success of British-American intelligence sharing. It thwarted a plot to detonate a fertilizer bomb in the U.K. that was intended to cause mass civilian casu­alties. The ensuing convictions of cell leader Omar Khyam and four other cell members after the long­est criminal trial in British legal history was a major victory in the war on terrorism. "Through joint investigation by intelligence and law enforcement agencies in these countries [U.S., U.K., Pakistan, and Canada], Mueller said, "components for explosive devices were recovered and numerous individuals overseas were arrested.[81]

British and American intelligence officers were also in close contact for months tracking the trans­atlantic airliner bomb plot in the summer of 2006.[82] After the arrest of 21 men, Prime Minister Tony Blair commented: "There has been an enor­mous amount of cooperation with the U.S. authori­ties which has been of great value and underlines the threat we face and our determination to counter it.[83] This approach also corresponds closely with the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that the U.S. should continue to develop strategies for intel­ligence sharing with trusted allies.

Transnational and supranational counterterror­ism policies have roles to play in combating Islamic extremism. However, it is imperative that such mea­sures are innovative and helpful and that they actu­ally add value to the existing work of national law enforcement agencies. Europol and Eurojust are EU agencies looking for roles to justify their budget lines rather than significantly contributing to counterter­rorism. The United Kingdom is the second largest contributor to Europol's _63.5 million budget, but it remains unclear whether the costs justify the bene­fits or its contributions would be better invested in domestic counterterrorism efforts.[84]

In the same vein, EU attempts to formulate a common judicial identity and further harmonize member states' judicial and legal spheres under the EU Reform Treaty will usurp existing bilateral coop­eration with Washington under a supranational banner. The proposal to move police and judicial cooperation from third-pillar (intergovernmental) decision making to "the community method (co-decision of the Parliament and Council) will equally negate Britain's ability to operate bilaterally.

Neither is Brussels' attempt to take control of Britain's borders commensurate with its national interest. Although Britain wisely exempted itself from the Schengen Agreement, Tony Blair chose to opt into far too many EU immigration and asylum measures, including the first phase of the Common European Asylum System. Frontex, the new EU body coordinating the management of external borders, has not added significant value for mem­ber states,[85] although Britain's minor 2007 contri­bution (_400,000) reflects a certain contempt for failing EU policies.[86] For the U.K., the best public policy would be to sign on only to policies that are clearly in the British interest and that demonstrably add value.

Bilateral Relationships: A Recipe for Success.The first law of terrorism is that it plays on weak­ness.[87] The current U.S. negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic on missile defense send a clear message that they will pursue a muscular response to emerging threats. One of the foremost lessons of the Cold War is that threats should be addressed from a position of strength. Stationing 10 long-range, ground-based missile defense intercep­tors in Poland and a mid-course radar in the Czech Republic will strengthen transatlantic security and especially counter the evolving Middle Eastern bal­listic missile threat.

These "third site installations allow the United States to extend its security umbrella and protect its European allies. For Warsaw and Prague, this would mark a milestone in their integration into the trans­atlantic security community. They would be provid­ing a significant contribution to NATO and making a powerful statement in support of the alliance's principle of mutual defense. While the European Parliament may find it "undesirable for member states to assert their sovereign right to conduct national security and defense policy, Warsaw and Prague are asserting their primary rights as self-determining and independent nation-states to take the actions that they deem necessary to ensure their own national security.[88]

Joint EU counterterrorist activities are better taken through a mutual recognition approach rather than by undoing national sovereignty and historic traditions. The serious divergence be­tween the U.S. and the EU on policy questions such as missile defense, rendition, the Interna­tional Criminal Court, and capital punishment should make Washington wary of further attempts by Brussels to consolidate power. Although the United States might save time in the short term by negotiating with one power, full EU integration and supranationalization is not in America's long-term interests.

A Multi-Layered Strategy: Development, Diplomacy, and Defense

A muscular response to terrorism is clearly needed. However, winning hearts and minds should also be a policy priority. As MI5's Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller pointed out, al-Qaeda has a sophisticated propaganda machine and wages 50 percent of its war through the media.[89] Europol's 2007 terrorism report highlights a "coordinated glo­bal media offensive from Islamist terrorists.[90] As a major element of President Bush's National Security Strategy, economic development has a vital role to play alongside diplomacy and defense.[91] The Brit­ish government's July 2006 report "Countering International Terrorism calls for British policy to become engaged in the "battle of ideas.[92]

America and Britain need to demonstrate visibly that their global leadership is not restricted to mili­tary campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. and Britain are the world's largest and third largest net aid donors, respectively, and U.S. and British humanitarian and development assistance totals more than $38 billon per year, representing enor­mous global reach.[93] Combining this effort with bet­ter public information campaigns, a commitment to freedom, and people-to-people exchanges, America can work in conjunction with its European allies to win deeper understanding and support for its poli­cies through multiple instruments of foreign policy.

A recent report from Terror Free Tomorrow, a research organization, found that foreign aid not only changes short-term perceptions of the United States, but also "makes a significant and long-term difference in building goodwill toward the United States and eroding popular support for global ter­rorists.[94] The report found that American aid cut across societal boundaries in the world's three most populous Muslim societies (Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan) and shifted previously held sympa­thies for terrorist organizations:

The bottom line is that American aid is the sin­gle most important action the people of the three largest Muslim countries want from the United States. And here's the key to winning hearts and minds: deeper American assistance directly to the people, following their ex­pressed priority.[95]

The broader effects of direct American assistance in priority areas such as education, health, and eco­nomic growth should not be underestimated.

As a matter of principle, U.S. foreign aid should seek to garner goodwill for the United States. The longer-term positive effects harvested by the enor­mous U.S. humanitarian relief efforts following the tsunami in 2004 and the Pakistan earthquake in 2005 support the argument that America's generos­ity reaps the most goodwill when it is most visible to ordinary people. In a 2006 poll, Terror Free Tomor­row found that, more than a year after the tsunami and for the first time in almost four years, more Indonesians are favorable to the United States than unfavorable.[96] This followed a 2005 poll that showed--for the first time ever in a major Muslim nation--that more people in Indonesia were favor­able to America's efforts to fight terrorism than were in opposition.[97]

An international survey conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center found similar trends. Sup­port for suicide bombings among Pakistanis fell from 41 percent in 2004 to just 9 percent in 2007. Among Indonesians, it dropped from 26 percent in 2002 to just 10 percent in 2007. A combination of economic growth following the demonstrable bene­fits of U.S. assistance and a strong belief that the next generation will be better off than the current one has encouraged greater support for America in many parts of the Muslim world.[98]

In a separate poll, Terror Free Tomorrow found that the five-month Western Pacific humanitarian deployment of USNSMercy, which treated 60,000 people, was hugely welcomed by Bangladeshis and Indonesians and led to a positive view of America in a broader sense.[99]

These polls contrast sharply with the traditional model of government-to-government financial assis­tance. Government-to-government aid has not made America friends in the world. Heritage Foundation analysts have noted that, overall, U.S. foreign and military assistance has not led recipients to support America in the United Nations. In fact, most coun­tries that receive U.S. assistance vote against the U.S. more often than they vote with the U.S.[100] The ana­lysts have suggested that economic freedom is the key to unlocking nation-states' support in the U.N. This applies equally to public support in general and vindicates the Administration's slow attempts to restructure the development agenda toward sup­porting economic growth and freedom.[101]

Using foreign aid as a strategic tool of foreign policy to project American values will require ana­lyzing the results from the Terror Free Tomorrow and Pew Research Center surveys very carefully. While America is unlikely to find popular support for the war on terrorism in these countries, the goodwill harnessed by emergency and direct for­eign aid frees the public space necessary for Amer­ica to communicate its message and explain its policies more effectively.

A New Policy Agenda

Europe has an appalling catalogue of failed pub­lic policies, such as multiculturalism and crippling human rights legislation, that must be addressed. A new legislative agenda could face down both domestic and international threats and help Europe to work in close partnership with the United States to combat Islamic extremism effectively.

Multiculturalism: Toward Separation.Multi­culturalism has been a comprehensive failure. Instead of integrating different ethnic and cultural groups into society and garnering value from waves of immigration, Europe has moved far further toward separation than toward integration, with millions of disaffected and radicalized Muslims liv­ing in ethnic ghettos.

Multiculturalist policies appear to give special treatment to groups identified by religious affili­ation, which stirs resentment among the major­ity population.[102] This has given birth to an emergent culture of isolated ethnic groups, par­ticularly Muslim, who are geographically clumped together and are increasingly unlikely to chal­lenge extremist ideologies. Ed Hussain, a re­formed former Islamic fundamentalist terrorist plotter, has said that "in the name of multicultur­alism we have these monocultural ghettos, this underworld where none of this [extremism] is ever questioned.[103]

In social, economic, political, and security terms, multiculturalism has failed, and European govern­ments have failed to address this on a public policy level. As Melanie Phillips argues in Londonistan:

Having allowed the country to turn into a global hub of the Islamic jihad without apparently giving it a second thought, the British establishment is still failing even now--despite the wake-up calls of both 9/11 and the London bomb attacks of 2005--to acknowledge what it is actually facing and take the appropriate action. Instead it is deep into a policy of appeasement of the phenom­enon that threatens it.[104]

London's courting of radical imams such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a perfect example of this policy of appeasement. In July 2006, the British government paid for Dr. al-Qaradawi and his wife to attend a taxpayer-funded conference on "Muslims of Europe, including accommodations at a five-star hotel. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office describes al-Qaradawi as "a highly respected Islamic scholar and particularly influential to British foreign policy objectives.

However, al-Qaradawi has defended suicide bombings and called for the execution of homosexuals.[105] He has also advised European Muslims to create "Muslim ghettos where they can avoid cultural assimilation and introduce Shari'alaw.[106] Because of his views on violence, he has been banned from entering the U.S. since 1999.[107]

The London Metropolitan Police also sponsored Tariq Ramadan to attend the "Middle Path confer­ence in London on July 24, 2005, under the guise that "the Government and police need the co-operation of the Muslim community.[108] In 1999, a Spanish judge found that Professor Ramadan had "routine contacts with an Algerian member of al-Qaeda, and he has denied Osama bin Laden's involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which he refers to as "interventions.[109] He has also been banned from the U.S. for endorsing terrorist activity.[110]

These Islamists are actively working to separate Muslims from society, and the policies of multicul­turalism have encouraged them. Public money is being used to elevate not the principle of fairness or the right to equal treatment, but the right to differ­ence as an end in itself, even to the extreme of being governed by different laws.

The British government is funding advocates who want to see an Islamic state under Shari'a law in Brit­ain and who want Muslims to withdraw from dem­ocratic participation. The British government should reassess its £8.5 million Engaging with the Islamic World Group (EIWG) program, which has been piv­otal in promoting engagement with radical clerics such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Delwar Hossain Say­eedi.[111] The British government has laudably dou­bled its annual spending on counterterrorism since 9/11,[112] but that does not excuse boondoggles and ill-advised adventures like the EIWG, which re­cently funded The Muslim Scholars Roadshow, which British journalist Martin Bright described as "an elaborate sham.[113]

The British government has placed at the heart of its counterterrorist agenda the need to counter domestic radicalization and win hearts and minds,[114] but by embracing preachers of hate and radical imams, it is setting itself up for failure. More­over, Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, argues that the govern­ment's embrace of radical imams like Yusuf al-Qaradawi means that "moderates within the Muslim community are not really given a voice.[115] Muslims certainly have at least as much to lose as non-Mus­lims in this war, and the British government should not crowd out genuine moderates by picking and choosing the wrong allies in the war of ideas.

It is important that in the British drive to trans­mit the values of liberal democracy, hate speech does not get confused with free speech. Islamist groups that advocate overthrowing liberal democ­racy in favor of Shari'a law should not be considered non-extremist simply because they do not necessar­ily call for terrorist acts. As Hudson Institute scholar Zeyno Baran argues:

[S]trategies based on such a framework will certainly lead to defeat in the "war of ideas, since they mistake the nature and ultimate goals of the enemy. The deciding factor in choosing allies in this war cannot be based on tactics--that is, on whether or not a group has chosen to pursue violent methods. Rather, it must be based on ideology, on whether a group is Islamist or not.[116]

Forced vs. Productive Integration and Assim­ilation.France has taken a much stronger line in favor of assimilation over multiculturalism, but it has still failed to address the problem of radicaliza­tion. The social fragmentation caused by failed inte­gration policies across Europe is profound and will take decades to turn around. Many young members of ethnic minorities now believe themselves to be persecuted minorities[117] and are being systemati­cally radicalized by extremists who exploit this sense of alienation. According to Europol, terrorist organizations recruit in schools, mosques, and pris­ons to find Muslims to take part in the global jihad.[118] No element of society is excluded, and a mixture of social, economic, and security responses is clearly needed.

The American integration model is something Europe should consider. Muslim Americans reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than Muslims in Western Europe reject it. Muslim Americans report far lower levels of support for extremism. Overall, they have a positive view of American soci­ety and believe that America is a land of opportunity for those who wish to work hard.[119]

The American integration model stands in stark contrast to the failure of multiculturalism in Europe. America's widespread and highly integrated Muslim population contrasts with British, German, and French ethnic populations of poorly integrated concentrated communities.[120] The strength of a democratic society is not its multiculturalism and diverse set of values and principles, but its unified adherence to basic societal principles.

A New Legislative Agenda for Britain

Integration is undoubtedly a long-term project that may not show results for decades, but a num­ber of other public policy measures should also be undertaken.

In August 2005, the British government intro­duced a list of "unacceptable behaviors that could lead to deportation for non-U.K. citizens. These behaviors included the glorification of terrorism in public speaking engagements and fostering hatred to cause intercommunity violence. Since then, 36 foreign nationals have been excluded from the U.K.[121]

The removal of hate preachers such as Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed has been an enormous force for good and a visible sign of deterrence to those who facilitate and encourage terrorism. Omar Bakri Mohammed tried unsuccessfully to reenter the U.K. in July 2006. He is famous for saying, "I want Britain to become an Islamic state. I want to see the flag of Islam raised in 10 Downing Street.[122]

Britain must not allow people who promote, incite, and glorify terrorism and who represent threats to public order to abuse its liberal tradition of free speech. Prime Minister Brown recently listed a growing number of exclusions and deportations from the U.K. for individuals who glorify terror­ism.[123] This sends a powerful message that extrem­ism will no longer be tolerated, and the British government needs to continue to enforce this policy as a matter of practice rather than haphazardly or on an ad hoc basis.

Prosecution as well as deportation can be employed as a valuable public policy to disrupt Islamists. In February 2006, the successful prosecu­tion of Abu Hamza al-Masri, an imam at the Fins­bury Park mosque, signaled that London was finally getting tough with those who abuse the freedoms afforded by liberal democracies to further Islamist aims. Washington has described Hamza as a "terror­ist facilitator with a global reach[124] and has requested his extradition to the U.S. to face terrorism charges after he completes his seven-year sentence.

Britain's legislative stand against these hate preachers and Islamists needs to be firm, including recovery of £1 million in legal aid costs spent on Hamza's defense.[125] Britain can also signal its intent to face down the extremists by working closely with Washington to coordinate Hamza's potential extra­dition to the U.S. However, the U.K. may face inter­ference from the EU, which has long been hostile to the United States' use of the death penalty.

It is essential that European countries, including Britain, create a hostile environment for terrorists and terrorist collaborators and that in their pursuit of tolerance, robust legislation strengthens, not weakens the government. The strangling effect of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) exemplifies how supranational legislation is constraining Britain's counterterrorist measures. Even after Parliament introduced control orders under the Terrorism Act 2000, judges have been reluctant to use the full powers afforded by these control orders on the grounds that 18-hour curfews breach Article V of the ECHR on detention without trial.[126] This has been roundly condemned by Brit­ain's anti-terrorism watchdog Lord Carlile[127] and previous Home Secretary John Reid, who indicated that he wanted to suspend certain parts of the ECHR under a state of emergency.[128]

Prime Minister Brown has indicated that he will present a comprehensive counterterrorism bill to Parliament later this year. He should propose to withdraw from the entire convention and formulate alternative arrangements that are specifically com­mensurate with British interests.

What the U.S. and Europe Should Do

The United States and its European allies should take a number of steps to confront Islamic extrem­ism. Specifically:

• The U.S. Congress and the Administration should carefully implement the changes in the VWP with flexibility and bilateral alliance-building in mind. The system that is finally introduced should minimize travelers' inconve­nience and recognize frequent trusted travelers.
• Congress should support Poland's entry into the Visa Waiver Program.
• The EU needs to be more receptive to transat­lantic information sharing and agree to an umbrella agreement accepting U.S. data privacy standards as adequate to permit the transfer of information.
• The United States, United Kingdom, and European Union should coordinate their lists of designated foreign terrorist organizations as closely as possible. Congress should con­tinue its steady pressure on the European Union, and President Bush should use the recent détente in French-American relations to press for Hezbollah's inclusion on the EU's official list of foreign terrorist organizations.
• Prime Minister Brown should carefully assess which EU policies are in the British interest and sign on only to those that demonstrably add value. Britain should withdraw from the Euro­pean Convention on Human Rights and formu­late alternate arrangements that are specifically commensurate with British interests. Britain should also oppose proposals in the forthcoming EU Reform Treaty that would supranationalize key areas of police and judicial policy.
• Joint EU counterterrorist activities should be pursued through a mutual recognition approach rather than a supranational one.
• Britain should vigorously enforce exclusion and deportation from the U.K. for individuals who engage in unacceptable behaviors and should continue to prosecute high-profile Islamists who threaten public order.
• Poland and the Czech Republic should con­tinue to pursue negotiations with the United States on missile defense.

Conclusion

Peter Wehner, former director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, recently com­mented that it has fallen to the West, particularly the United States, to deal with Islamic extremism.[129] European directives, regulations, and communi­qués will not win the war on terrorism. The EU has a specific role in coordinating intergovernmental action and even cooperating on a multilateral basis with third parties, but it should not be seen as a replacement for the valuable relationships and bilat­eral alliances that the United States has carefully crafted over decades.

When Irish republican terrorists attempted to assassinate British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with a bomb at the Conservative Party Conference in 1984, she famously held her ground and declared that terrorism would never destroy democracy.[130] On 9/11, Islamic terror­ists killed nearly 3,000 people, including 67 British citizens, and America and Britain were called upon to react with equal resolve and vigor. Just as Prime Minister Thatcher stood firm in 1984, and just as she and President Ronald Reagan faced down the Soviet Union and won the Cold War, American and British leadership will once again be required to stand up to a hos­tile and motivated enemy and defeat the enemies of freedom and liberty.

Sally McNamara is Senior Policy Analyst in European Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heri­tage Foundation. The author is grateful to James Dean, Deputy Director of Government Relations, Foreign and Defense Policy, at the Heritage Foundation for his advice on reform of the Visa Waiver Program. Erin Magee, an intern in the Davis Institute, and Maria Ver­banac, Administrative Assistant in the Thatcher Center, assisted in preparing this paper.