United Kingdom, 2014

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.