Displaced Iraqi families from the Yazidi community cross the Iraqi-Syrian border, 13 August. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: We have a responsibility to protect the Yazidis of Iraq

The UK government has been right to contribute humanitarian aid and to refuse to rule out military involvement if the situation deteriorates.

For months, almost unchecked, the jihadists of the Islamic State (also known as Isis) have advanced across Iraq and Syria. With modern weaponry and medieval savagery – stonings, beheadings, crucifixions – they have conquered an area larger than the United Kingdom. In this self-declared caliphate, all those who do not subscribe to the group’s extreme Salafist ideology face a choice between conversion or death.

It took the threat of genocide for the west to intervene. Haunted by the memory of Rwanda and Srebrenica – and by Saddam Hussein’s massacre of the Kurds – the international community retains a special horror of this crime. Barack Obama, who withdrew US troops from Iraq at the end of 2011, was right to deploy air strikes against Isis to safeguard the 40,000 Yazidis sheltering in terror on the desolate Mount Sinjar. The doctrine of “responsibility to protect” may be selectively enforced but that is preferable to it being disregarded entirely.

Within a day of the beginning of the offensive, at least 20,000 Yazidis had managed to flee to safety. The air strikes and the arming of the Kurdish peshmerga (“those who face death”) have also allowed some territory to be retaken from Isis. In Iraq’s present state, these are worthwhile gains.

The UK government has been right to contribute humanitarian aid and to refuse to rule out military involvement if the situation deteriorates. There is a case for parliament to be recalled to debate the appropriate response. Downing Street may protest that military action is not under consideration, unlike in the case of Syria last year, but it is precisely to determine whether this is the right stance that MPs deserve to be consulted. Meanwhile, the UK should follow the example of France and open its borders to those fleeing persecution in Iraq. The Conservatives must not allow their aspiration to reduce net migration to “tens of thousands” a year to override Britain’s humanitarian obligations.

The ironies of the present situation run deep: the US is now firing on its own military equipment, which was looted by Isis from the hapless Iraqi army; a president who was elected on a pledge to end armed involvement has been forced to intervene again; and the country that the west invaded in 2003 to rid it of jihadists is now overrun by them.

It was the intervention in 2003, which we opposed, that led to many of the current woes. The hasty overthrow of the Ba’athist regime allowed sectarian hatreds suppressed under Saddam to surface. The subsequent dismantlement of the state and the Iraqi army created the conditions for them to flourish. For eight years, the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who in effect has been deposed, sowed the seeds of Sunni hatred through crudely discriminatory policies, depriving the government and its institutions of national legitimacy. When confronted by Isis in Iraq’s northern capital, Mosul, the splintered and unmotivated army, which outnumbered the jihadists by 40 to one, crumbled in just three days.

The result is that the country is in danger of regressing to a Hobbesian state of nature. As the historian John Bew writes on page 22, the rise of Isis is less a symptom of jihadist strength than it is of governmental weakness. When Leviathan is absent, new monsters rush to fill the vacuum.

The immediate priority remains to prevent Isis from achieving its genocidal ambitions. This will involve a sustained military commitment but Mr Obama is right to reject Republican demands for a more ambitious and ex­tensive offensive against the group. As the Iraqi ambassador to Britain, Faik Nerweyi, warned at a meeting in the Commons last month, the jihadists are too well integrated with the local population to be evicted by US force from Mosul and other strongholds. Any wide-ranging assault would result in Sunni civilian deaths that could strengthen support for Isis.

The precondition for the defeat of the jihadists is the formation of an inclusive government, capable of commanding support from all ethnic and religious groups. This administration, along with the regional superpowers of Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, must then devise a strategy to defeat Isis.

Recent history, in the shape of the western actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, shows how interventions can lead to the gravest of unintended consequences. An all-out confrontation with Isis would satisfy the moral injunction for “something to be done” but it would not be accompanied by any reasonable guarantee of success. If Isis is to be defeated, the fightback must be led from within the Middle East, not from without. 

This article first appeared in the 13 August 2014 issue of the New Statesman, A century of meddling in the Middle East

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.