The Appeasement of Extremism and the Defence of Europe

 

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile in the hope it will eat him last”.

Winston Spencer Churchill

Civilisational decline?

President Donald J You-Know-Who has suggested Europe is in “civilisational decline”.  It is easy to dismiss such comments because they come from President Donald J. You-Know-Who.  Western Europeans liberal political leaders would like their citizens to do just that – nothing to see here.  But does he have a point and what are the implications for NATO and the defence of Europe?

By “civilisational decline” Trump means that the historically large scale and rapid immigration of the past 25 years has had a corrosive effect on the cultures and unity of Western European countries.  He is specially referring to the three backbone European powers in Europe, Britain, France and Germany, which he expects to step up and do far more for the defence of Europe. He bases that view on the mass immigration of documented and undocumented people from outside Europe.  As an inner-European migrant myself I do recognise there is a problem. 

Defence and extremism

The fact is it is hard to separate acts of violent extremism such as the disgusting anti-Semitic attacks on Bondi Beach this past week from mass immigration, particularly mass uncontrolled immigration.  Such attacks are only a relatively recent phenomenon as is mass immigration from outside Europe. But, such a separation must be made if defence too is not to be corroded and eroded by extremism. Sadly, there is a very real danger that Western European governments by appearing to appease extremists are effectively doing their job of inter-communal hatred for them by worsening the divisions within society upon which extremism feeds.

In the wake of the Bondi Beach atrocity one British Labour Party politician trotted out that tired old mantra of the Left that “diversity is our strength”.  It is a patently ridiculous statement if such diversity leads to division.  Worse are reasons the Labour Government makes such claims because it does not want to offend one voter base – Muslims.  Muslim voters represent over 15% of the electorate in almost 100 parliamentary constituencies out of 650 at a time when much of the population dislikes the Labour Government intensely.  Similar patterns can be seen across Western Europe and explain why the rise of so-called rightist populism is evident and persistent.

Defence and solidarity

Mass immigration is perhaps the most important strategic trends of the age given the impact it has, And yet few experts dare talk about it for fear of career extinction unless they follow the official Kumbaya mantra. The strategic impact on defence is a case in point. There can be no credible defence in the contemporary sense of the word unless the home base of European countries is reasonably secure and society reasonably cohesive.  There is a reason a patently weaker Russia believes it might get away with future land grabs even in EU and NATO Europe. Moscow believes that the multiculturalism that is a consequence of mass immigration has led to disjointed open societies that Russia can exploit in a digital age, possibly catastrophically.  

This is not a party-political point.  Such disjointedness is the direct result of a strange alliance between the Business Right and the Ideological Left.  The former sees immigration as a source of cheap labour, whilst the latter sees immigration as totemic of the open borders in which they believe. Both the Business Right and Ideological Left have also done their level best to prevent people from talking about the impact of mass immigration on Western European societies by implying racism.  In fact, I am deeply comfortable with Britain’s multi-racial society even if I am concerned with the ghettos in which hate incubates and which multiculturalism seems to have spawned.  There is a profound difference.

Liberalism, immigration and multiculturalism

If social liberals like me want liberalism to survive then Western European governments and the liberal Establishments of which they are a part are going to have to address the relationship between extremism, mass immigration and multiculturalism.  Thus far, they have chosen not to and the consequences are self-evident.  Millions of decent Muslims across Western Europe feel that they are being identified with Salafist extremists by an increasingly large number of their fellow citizens of all colours or creeds.  My own country, Britain, has seen leaders actively rubbish patriotism to make all feel welcome but have instead made no-one feel welcome.  Britain is today a country profoundly divided into those who see British history as heroic and those who see it as criminal.  As an Oxford historian who has studied this stuff, I can tell you the truth really does lie in the moderate middle.

And it is moderation which is most at risk in this most important of debates – a debate so vital there can be no sound defence without it.  This is because by appeasing extremists on both Left and Right governments in Western Europe have silenced the moderate majority. Worse, by refusing to do something about the legitimate concerns of the moderate majority as they see their countries change rapidly around them moderates are also becoming radicalised.

The absence of leadership

It is the absence of leadership which is the root cause of this most strategic of malaises.  And here's the rub – most people want to rub along and do.  They also want to share a basically similar view of what it means live in a pluralistic society and believe their leaders share the same ideals.  They do not want to be told that their country is criminal or have their children told that in schools by ideologically driven leaders or teachers.  They also do not want to be told that mass immigration is vital to the economy by venal leaders when huge swathes of the population are trapped on social welfare and hopeless.  In other words, they want to believe again in their country. 

Western Europeans will be incapable of leading the future defence of Europe UNTIL that social compact with leaders and establishments is re-established.   Until it is many moderate people, the backbone of any defence, will not be willing to risk themselves or their children in defence of establishments that they believe to be actively inimical to their interests. There can be no place for nostalgia in the defence of Europe but there must be pride. That means building a new moderate shared patriotism with the citizens of today not of the past.  For too long Western European governments have quietly killed such pride by seeking to accommodate the unaccommodatable – extremism.   Those who shout the loudest.  

If not, however strong Europeans may look on paper, Russia will eventually get what it wants because it knows that without the support of the people ‘Europe’ is in fact something Moscow knows well – a Potemkin village.  A Potemkin house divided against itself…

Julian Lindley-French