The researchers sharply criticize the strategic thinking abilities of British ministers and compare the current situation to the state of the country before World War I. The authors of the report do not mince words. They have defined modern Great Britain as a 'fragmented post-Christian society, increasingly divided by different perceptions of its history, national goals, values, and political identity.' At the same time noting that 'the state's loss of self-confidence contrasts sharply with the ruthlessness of its internal and external enemies - Islamic terrorists.'
Scholars from the oldest and respected institute assert that the disunity of the British is exacerbated by the growing self-awareness of those migrants who refuse to assimilate and become the same citizens of Great Britain as the natives of this state.
The researchers also speak with concern about the situation of the defenders of the 'fragmented post-Christian community.' In their opinion, the armed forces receive too little funding and are in a state of 'chronic dysfunction.' Interestingly, according to The Guardian, the report reflects the sentiments prevailing in British military circles. However, most ministers of the British government, according to the publication, believe that the institute exaggerates the danger facing the country.
Recall that in early February, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, had to publicly apologize to the Anglican Church and the congregation for his words that some Sharia laws should be introduced into the judicial practice of Great Britain. His statements that British courts must take Islamic laws into account caused a storm of indignation in society. At the same time, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown supported the archbishop and even called him a 'courageous man.'
It can be said that Rowan Williams' statement is quite consistent with the problems identified in the report of the Institute for Strategic Studies. The archbishop simply viewed the situation from a different angle. He explained his position by saying that introducing Sharia laws into official judicial practice would avoid a situation where members of the Islamic diaspora settle their disputes without state involvement.
However, the authors of the report would clearly disagree with such a 'soft' way of solving the problem of non-assimilated migrants. They directly speak of 'misplaced respect for multiculturalism' on the part of the British government, and it seems that they consider it more expedient to 'bend' migrants to the laws of the host country, rather than the other way around.
It must be said that such a point of view cannot be called unusual for Great Britain. Suffice it to recall the high-profile story of the 'model migrant' - the young Nigerian Damilola Ajagbonna went through all the judicial instances, but despite his outstanding personal qualities, he was unable to stay in the country. In February, he, the best student at school and a UNICEF employee, awarded a medal by the Anglican Church for his great personal contribution to British public life, was expelled from Great Britain only because he once submitted a request for British citizenship to state authorities six weeks later than the deadline prescribed by immigration rules for children.
While various social forces in Great Britain swing from one extreme to another, statistics published at the end of 2007 show that, contrary to all assurances of Gordon Brown's government members, 80% of new jobs created in the country since 1997 are held by migrants. Naturally, this state of affairs cannot but worry the native inhabitants of the country. Perhaps the heated discussions of problems related to migrants are precisely what make the 'fragmented post-Christian society' feel more united.
Tatiana Efremenko.