The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY TEN: Sunday 17 July 2005

Part 1: Realism And Denial

Part 1 - Realism And Denial

Part 2 - The Four Bombers

Part 3 - Islam

Part 1 - Realism And Denial

Introduction

The Nuclear Response

Ministers' Relief

Making The Link With Iraq

Denying The Link With Iraq

Realism And Denial

INTRODUCTION

For those visiting for the first time, the background to the comments that follow lie in our priority page, and in our first Media Review. The facts contained in those pages are assumed in what follows.

THE NUCLEAR RESPONSE

As Britain grapples with the fact that the most immediate threat to national security comes from its own people, this is of course the right for 'Talks [to] start with US on Trident's £15bn successor'. Political Editor of the Sunday Times David Cracknell writes that the British Defence Secretary John Reid 'has authorised officials to begin negotiations with Washington and with defence companies on the project before the cabinet or MPs have had the chance to debate it.'

Who's attacking democracy?

MINISTERS' RELIEF

'Privately, senior members of the Government have expressed relief that the public has not reacted to the bombing by demanding that the UK pull out of Iraq.' ('Iraq factor returns to haunt Blair', Independent on Sunday, p. 2)

The Prime Minister's denial yesterday that there is a connection apparently 'reflected a worry among ministers that public opinion will link the London terrorist attacks with the unpopular war in Iraq.'

More accurately, large sectors of opinion - right across the political spectrum - are making such a link. Ministers are worried that this bloc of opinion will become politically active and significant. To ensure that this happens is a task for the anti-war movement.

Creating the political space for this voice to express itself will require considerable pressure on the mass media. The Young Muslims and Extremism report can play a critical role in this effort.

MAKING THE LINK WITH IRAQ

As trailed yesterday, today Claire Short, who resigned from the Cabinet after the Iraq war had begun, said on British TV that she had "no doubt" that the outrage was linked to the war. This report in the Independent on Sunday also reports the first public statement by a Labour MP explicitly linking Iraq to the bombings and calling for withdrawal; and an independent report due out tomorrow to the same effect:

In an interview for today's GMTV programme, [Clare Short said] "Some of the voices that have been coming from the Government talk as though this is all evil, and that everything we do is fine, when in fact we are implicit in the slaughter of large numbers of civilians in Iraq and supporting a Middle East policy that for the Palestinians creates this sense of double standards - that feeds anger."

Barely an hour before the Tony Blair spoke yesterday, John McDonnell, a left-wing critic of successive Labour leaders, told left-wing activists: "I just say to the Prime Minister and other ministerial commentators, please do not try to tell us that the war in Iraq played no part. As long as Britain remains in occupation of Iraq the terrorist recruiters will have the argument they seek to attract more susceptible young recruits to their bomb teams. Britain must withdraw now."

DENYING THE LINK WITH IRAQ

Nigel Farndale considers the foreign policy connection only to dismiss it:

'Say what you like about IRA terrorists, at least they know exactly what they want: which is the British out of Ireland. But what do al-Qaeda "footsoldiers" want? Infidel American boots off Saudi Arabian soil, perhaps? Israelis out of the Middle East?... Presumably the war in Iraq is not the root cause of their grievance, given that their murderous activities pre-date it.'

If we turn to the Young Muslims and Extremism report, we find that the Home Office and Foreign Office disagree with this facile analysis:

'It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment amongst Muslims including young Muslims is a perceived 'double standard' in the foreign policy of western governments... in particular Britain and the US... This seems to have gained a significant prominence in how some Muslims view HMG's [Her Majesty's Government's] policies towards Muslim countries.'

'Perceived Western bias in Israel's favour over the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a key long term grievance of the international Muslim community which probably influences British Muslims.'

'This perception seems to have become more acute post 9/11 . The perception is that passive 'oppression', as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to 'active oppression' - the war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.'

There are three concepts here, then. 'Long-term grievances' (Israel-Palestine, among others); 'passive oppression' caused by inaction by the British Government abroad (pre-9/11); and 'active oppression' caused by British Government actions since 9/11.

Previous atrocities by al Qaeda, up to and including the 11 September attacks, were presumably related to the long-term grievances. The lack of al Qaeda operations in Britain by British Muslims before that date was, by this analysis, because 'passive oppression' of Muslims by British foreign policy was not sufficiently outrageous to stir the required level of hatred.

Thus the war in Iraq is a 'root cause' of the current attacks, contrary to Farndale, but a recent one that takes already existing support for al Qaeda-type action (in certain circles) over a critical threshold, helping to trigger these atrocities.

Farndale, for his part, concludes that the bombings were actually to do with self-aggrandisement and sexual frustration (despite one bomber being married and the other having a pregnant partner).

REALISM AND DENIAL

Bernard Crick, the Labour political philosopher, 'sees macropolitics and especially the running sore of Palestine as directly related to the disaffection of British Muslim youth. For him, the whole issue is political and not religious and the continued use of the phrase “Islamic terrorists” tends to conceal this fact. “Of course they are in some sense Islamic. But we didn’t call IRA bombers ‘Catholic terrorists’.” '

This is contested by Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Racial Equality, in the same article. On the issue of terminology, Phillips says, 'Nonsense, the point he is missing is that the IRA called themselves Irish not Catholic and these new terrorists call themselves Islamic. They have to be what they call themselves.' On the issue of the foreign policy roots of the al Qaeda insurgency, Phillips gives no explanation for his hostility, saying only, 'Bollocks!'

Not a lot of counter-argument one can give to that.

Janet Daley in the Sunday Times is somewhat more articulate. She joins in the condemnation of 'the great British masochism game: this is all our fault':

'It is a response to racism, poverty, deprivation, our foreign policy, blah blah. This argument is so annoyingly wrong that it has instantly spawned its own rebuttal: Islamist terrorism is being most vigorously propagated by wealthy and privileged Saudis; it produced its most spectacular effort before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; it grows in power despite the almost comical eagerness of British government and security forces to exculpate the wider Muslim community.'

The chronological argument we have already discussed above, and in previous posts. The critique of 'poverty' as an alleged major cause of al Qaeda-type terrorism is better-founded. This is not to say that global inequality in power and wealth has not had a considerable influence on all these issues and conflicts.

Turning to the issues of racism and Islamophobia (Daley does not use the word), it does not follow from the fact that the authorities are resisting the demonization of the entire Muslim community, that Pakistani Muslim communities (for instance) have not suffered racism, poverty, deprivation, and so on. The Young Muslims and Extremism report catalogues the relative deprivation that Muslims as a whole have suffered. Much of that has been felt by British citizens of Pakistani descent. That has helped to form the culture and situation from which these crimes have sprung.

But when we listen to British Muslims themselves, when we pay attention to what is already known about the four bombers, we hear over and over again that British foreign policy - despite Janet Daley's scorn - is a burning issue in the community, a source of great and violent anger.

JNV welcomes feedback.