Relations between Europe and the Islamic world have historically been characterised by conquest, conflict and colonialism. But they have also seen interchange, discovery and mutual contribution. Our central task for foreign policy is to create of arenas of politics, national and international, in which different values and ideas can be argued out, so marginalizing recourse to violence. We need a better template than the one that exists for people of diverse views, which derive from different belief systems, to work together.

Security in today’s world depends on the broadest possible coalition of states and political movements and the consent of citizens. To broaden our coalitions and win consent we need to hold firm to our own values and support those who seek to apply them, but this will also require a more active effort to reach out to those who do not share our values or adhere to our world view. That is why Britain, with Embassies in 38 Muslim majority countries, maintains diplomatic engagement with countries with whom we have major disagreements on human rights, nuclear proliferation or conflict – like Iran, Sudan or Uzbekistan – but whose engagement is essential for the global challenges we have in common, such as climate change, Millennium Development Goals and the economic crisis. When the silent consent for violence is withdrawn in favour of politics, diplomacy has a chance to stick.

It will never be easy to determine which political movements not in government we can and should work with, in particular in relation to conflict situations. Every case will be different. But we must seek a common commitment to a process by which conflicts are worked through politically. 

Over the last decade the focus of the relationship between the west and the Muslim world has narrowed. Terrorism has distorted our views of each other and skewed our engagement. Organizations with different aims, values and tactics have been lumped together. Little distinction has been drawn between those engaged in national territorial struggles and those pursuing global or pan-Islamic objectives; between those that could be drawn into domestic political processes and those who are essentially anti-political and violent. The upshot was that the West came to be seen not as anti-terror, but as anti-Islam. 

If we want to rebuild relations to forge broader coalitions we need to show greater respect. That means rejecting the lazy stereotypes and moving beyond the binary division between ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’. We should not just see Muslims as Muslims, but as people in all the many guises they occupy in their lives.

It is a great shame that the doctrine of liberal interventionism came to be defined not by action in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, where humanitarian interests were at stake, but by the conflict in Iraq. It came to be defined, narrowly and inaccurately, by military action rather than diplomatic engagement. We need to recover the original idea which was and is a noble idea and which can be seen in our doubling of aid to Pakistan or our peacekeeping efforts in Darfur. The one place where there is unanimous agreement that we need more political activism and more diplomatic engagement is in the pursuit of a two-state solution in the Middle East. We need – all of us, in our own ways – to act very soon to prevent a fatal and final blow to the scope for compromise.

We need shared effort to address the grievances, socio-economic and political, that are perceived to keep Muslims down and in fact do. For generations Britain has been a meeting place, where now two million Muslims from all around the world have made their lives. They join the coalition of the nation and are the greatest demonstration of progress being made through coalition based on consent. I hope that this is something we, together, can achieve.