Talking to Extremists

According to Sayeeda Warsi, Tony Blair needs to consider talking to Islamic extremists. On the one hand, she raises a fair point – stating that the Moslem communities should root out the evil that lurks in their midst misses the point that they are no more likely to know who these people are than anyone else.

“I live round the corner from the mother-in-law of the alleged bomber in Dewsbury – I have known the family most of my life – and that’s why I am worried about Blair’s stance,”…

…”I would never have known this particular individual had any links to these atrocities, so when you say this is something that the Muslim community needs to weed out, or deal with, that is a very dangerous step to take.

“It is the role of the police and the security services to deal with the security of this country. “

Well, yes, she’s right there. However, it’s when she says:

“We must start engaging with, not agreeing with, the radical groups who we have said in the past are complete nutters,” she said.

“We need to bring these groups into the fold of the democratic process. As long as we exclude them and don’t hear them out, we will allow them to continue their hate.

“It may not achieve results immediately, but it may stop the immediate violence.”

That she treads dangerous ground. Pointing out that the British Government talked to the IRA and that we no longer have Irish Republican bombings is missing a very big point. Irish Republicans had a clear aim – a united, autonomous Ireland. That they were prepared to compromise suggests that the erosion of tacit support among mainstream republicans was a factor in their eventual decision to cease the bombing campaign in favour of negotiation. This was perhaps best evidenced by the public backlash in the wake of the Omagh bomb set by the Real IRA.

The problem with talking to, and encouraging Islamic extremists to negotiate, is rather more difficult. They do not operate a hierarchical organisation as did the IRA. Who will take charge? Who will negotiate and on behalf of whom? And, what do they want? For some, doubtless, it is as simple as America and its allies pulling out of the Middle East. I say simple – that’s a relative term. For others, it is western influence that angers them. How can governments negotiate on such nebulous terms? How do they stop Hollywood films on DVDs getting into Islamic communities or Coca Cola selling its produce worldwide? They just don’t have that level of authority, even if they tried to exercise it. For those extremists who want a worldwide caliphate – fat chance. Many, myself included would never submit to such a proposal.

Given the various and unclear drivers – along with a lack of any obvious demands, negotiation is a practical impossibility. Over at Samizdata they refer to Ms Warsi’s suggestion as a modern danegeld. They have a point. Attempting to buy off further attacks is self defeating and weak. If we ever do negotiate – and I would never entirely rule out the possibility – then it should be from a position of strength. Engaging radicals without a unilateral ceasefire on their part will give out entirely the wrong signal.