This year we
face extraordinary tests of our values and our resolve.
In responding to the aggression against one of our
Member States, Ukraine; in seeking peace in the Middle
East; in dealing with the terrifying spread of the Ebola
virus in West Africa; and in overcoming what I want to
focus on today, which is the mortal threat we all face
from the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL) in Syria and Iraq. Deir ez-Zor is a province in
eastern Syria. Home to the Al-Sheitaat tribe it was
captured by ISIL last month. Seven hundred tribesmen
were executed; many were beheaded. The vast majority
were civilians, Muslims who refused to take an oath of
allegiance to ISIL’s sick extremist world view and who
paid for this with their lives. They are not alone. Across
Syria and northern Iraq thousands have suffered the
same fate — Muslims, both Sunni and Shia; Christians;
Yazidis; people of every faith and none.
ISIL is not a problem restricted to just one region. It
has murderous plans to expand its borders well beyond
Iraq and Syria and to carry out terrorist atrocities right
across the world. It is recruiting new fighters from all
over the world. Five hundred have gone there from
my country, Britain, and one of them almost certainly
brutally murdered two American journalists and a
British aid worker. This is a problem that affects us all
and we must tackle it together.
There is not one person in this Hall who will view
this challenge without reference to the past, whether in
Iraq or in Afghanistan. Of course it is absolutely right
that we should learn the lessons of the past, especially
what happened in Iraq a decade ago. But we have to
learn the right lessons — yes to careful preparation;
no to rushing to join a conflict without a clear plan.
But we must not be so frozen with fear that we do not
do anything at all. Isolation and withdrawing from a
problem like ISIL will only make matters worse.
We must not allow past mistakes to become an
excuse for indifference or inaction. The right lesson is
that we should act, but act differently. We should be
comprehensive, defeating the ideology of extremism
that is the root cause of this terrorism, so that we win the
battle of ideas and not just the battle of military might.
We should be intelligent, supporting representative and
accountable Governments and working with them at
their request, not going in over their heads. We should
be inclusive, working with partners in the region who
are prepared to be part of the solution, potentially
including Iran. We should be uncompromising, using
all the means at our disposal, including military force,
to hunt down these extremists. Let me take each of
these in turn.
The root cause of this terrorist threat is a poisonous
ideology of Islamist extremism. This has nothing
to do with Islam, which is a peaceful religion that
inspires countless acts of generosity every day. Islamist
extremism on the other hand believes in using the most
brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a
warped world view and to live in a quasi-mediaeval
state. To defeat ISIL, and organizations like it, we must
defeat this ideology in all its forms.
As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of
those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that
many of them were initially influenced by preachers
who claim not to encourage violence but whose world
view can be used as a justification for it. We know
this world view. The peddling of lies — that 9/11 was
somehow a Jewish plot, or that the 7/7 London attacks
were staged; the idea that Muslims are persecuted all
over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy; and
the concept of an inevitable clash of civilizations.
We must be clear. To defeat the ideology of
extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism,
not just violent extremism. For governments there
are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban
preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must
proscribe organizations that incite terrorism against
people at home and abroad. We must work together
to take down illegal online material like the recent
videos of ISIL murdering hostages. We must stop the
so-called non-violent extremists from inciting hatred
and intolerance in our schools, universities and even
our prisons. Of course, some will argue that this is not
compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry.
But I ask “Would we sit back and allow right-wing
extremists, Nazis or Ku Klux Klansmen to recruit on
our university campuses?” No, so we should not stand
by and just allow any form of non-violent extremism.
We need to argue that prophecies of a global war
of religion pitting Muslims against the rest of the world
are nonsense. We need Muslims and their Governments
throughout the world to reclaim their religion from
these sick terrorists as so many are doing, and quite
rightly doing, today. We all need to help them with
programmes that channel young people away from
these poisonous ideologues, and we need the strongest
possible international focus on tackling this ideology,
which is why here at the United Nations the United
Kingdom is calling for a new Special Representative
on extremism.
But fighting extremism will never be enough.
Communism was defeated not simply by pointing out its
flaws, but by showing that the alternative of economic
freedoms, democracy and the rule of law could build a
better society and a better world. Young people need
to see the power of a different, better, more open,
more democratic path. The twentieth century taught
us the vital role of representative and accountable
Governments in offering their people opportunity, hope
and dignity.
Of course we should not be naïve. Not every
country can move at the same speed or even reach the
same destination. We should respect different cultures,
traditions and histories. But let us be clear — the failure
to meet people’s aspirations can create a breeding
ground where extremist and even terrorist insurgency
can take root. Governments that only govern for some
of their people cause deep resentment. In Iraq, the
failure of the Al-Maliki Government to represent all of
the people has driven some of them into the arms of the
extremists.
Too often, people have been faced with a false choice
between an autocratic and unrepresentative government
on the one hand and a brutal insurgency, with religion
misused as its rallying call, on the other. To combat this
we must support the building blocks of free and open
societies. In Iraq this means supporting the creation of
a new and genuinely inclusive Government capable of
uniting all Iraqis — Sunnis, Shia, Kurd, Christians and
others. In Syria, it must mean a political transition and
an end to Al-Assad’s brutality.
I know there are some who think that we should
do a deal with Al-Assad in order to defeat ISIL. But I
think this view is dangerously misguided. Our enemies’
enemy is not our friend; it is another enemy. Doing a
deal with Al-Assad will not defeat ISIL because the
bias and the brutality of the Al-Assad regime were and
are one of the most powerful recruiting tools for the
extremists. Syria needs what Iraq needs — an inclusive,
representative, democratic Government that can look
after the interests of all its peoples.
To those who have backed Al-Assad or who have
stood on the sidelines, I would say this: “We are ready
to join with you in a new political effort to secure
a representative and accountable Government in
Damascus that can take the fight to ISIL”. It is simply
not credible for Al-Assad to lead such a government
although we are prepared to look at every practical
option to find a way forward.
We must be inclusive, engaging the widest possible
coalition of countries in this international effort. ISIL is
a threat to us all, but the greatest threat is to the region.
It is very welcome that a number of Arab countries
have already taken part in the action to degrade ISIL.
They have shown courage and leadership. Iran should
also be given the chance to show it can be part of the
solution, not part of the problem. Earlier today I met
with President Rouhani. We have severe disagreements.
Iran’s support for terrorist organizations, its nuclear
programme, and its treatment of its people all need to
change. But Iran’s leaders could help in defeating the
threat from ISIL. They could help to secure a more
stable, inclusive Iraq, and a more stable and inclusive
Syria. If they are prepared to do this, we should
welcome their engagement.
Finally, when the safety and security of our
people are at stake, we must be uncompromising in
our response. That starts at home. For our part, in
the United Kingdom we are introducing new powers
to strengthen our ability to seize passports and stop
suspects from travelling; to allow us to strip British
identity from dual nationals and temporarily prevent
some British nationals getting back into our country;
to ensure that airlines comply with our no fly lists
and security screening requirements; and to enable
our police and security services to apply for stronger
locational constraints on those in the United Kingdom
who pose a risk. Here at the United Nations we have
led in the adoption of a Security Council resolution to
disrupt the flows of finance to ISIL, to sanction those
who are seeking to recruit to ISIL and to encourage
countries to do all they can to prevent foreign fighters
joining the extremist cause.
What about the role of our military? I do not believe
that the treat of Islamist extremism will best be solved
by Western ground troops directly trying to pacify or
reconstruct Middle Eastern or African countries. But,
pursuing an intelligent and comprehensive approach
should include a place for our military. Our military
can support the enormous humanitarian efforts that
are necessary, as our Royal Air Force did in helping
the millions of people who fled from ISIL. We should,
together, do more to build the capability of the legitimate
authorities that are fighting the extremists. That can
mean training, equipping and advising, and providing
technology and the other assets necessary for success.
Whether it is supporting action against Boko Haram in
Nigeria, against Al-Shabaab in Somalia, against Ansar
al-Sharia in Libya, or against Al-Qaida in Yemen, it is
right to help those who are fighting on the front line for
their societies, their countries and their freedom.
Along with our European partners, we have already
been supplying equipment directly to Kurdish forces.
We are strengthening the resilience of the military
forces in neighbouring Lebanon and Jordan, and
British Tornado and surveillance aircraft have already
been helping with intelligence gathering and logistics
support to help those taking on ISIL in Iraq.
We now have a substantial international coalition in
place, including Arab nations, committed to confronting
and defeating ISIL. We have a comprehensive strategy
to do that, with the political, diplomatic, humanitarian
and military components that are needed to succeed
over time. The Security Council has now received a
clear request from the Iraqi Government to support it
in its military action against ISIL. So we have a clear
basis in international law for action, and we have a need
to act in our own national interest to protect our people
and our society. It is right that Britain should now move
to a new phase of action. I am therefore recalling the
British Parliament on Friday to secure approval for the
United Kingdom to take part in international air strikes
against ISIL in Iraq.
My message today is simple. We are facing an evil
against which the whole world should unite. As ever, in
the cause of freedom, democracy and justice, Britain
will play its part.