The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 50: 26 August 2005

Contents

Londonistan - The Spooks' View

Deportations - Outlook Rocky

Realism - Wheatcroft

LONDONISTAN - THE SPOOKS' VIEW

Michael Clarke, head of Defence Studies at King's College, London (who said that Iraq and Afghanistan would be 'the rationale' for future attacks a couple of days ago), has written a piece in the Guardian arguing for the retention/reworking of the traditional approach to handling foreign-born 'jihadis' - the approach derided in France and elsewhere as 'Londonistan'.

Under the previous regime, foreign Muslim extremists were given shelter in the UK, and in return recognised a 'covenant of security' with the UK, pledging not to launch acts of violence within Britain itself. (We discussed this briefly on 13 August.)

Clarke is quite clearly putting the intelligence services' point of view for them:

'The covenant approach generally suits the police, who know that their effectiveness is ultimately dependent on the legitimacy officers have at local level. They can run zero-tolerance campaigns on antisocial behaviour or any number of specific issues, but only with the implicit consent of the majority. A light touch in general allows for a heavy hand on occasion; it does not work in reverse.'

'Not least, the "covenant of security" is favoured by most of the security services - it encourages local communities to join the intelligence effort and allows interesting individuals to be monitored more easily. US authorities were exasperated at the way that Abu Hamza was allowed to preach to a large crowd of radical followers every Friday outside the Finsbury Park mosque. But for a British spook, this kind of weekly photo opportunity is worth its weight in gold, and probably far harder to find with Abu Hamza now in custody, pending extradition to the US.'

The new aggressive approach is undermining British national security, in other words, and those who are on the front line of policing/disrupting this sector are concerned at the consequences of Blair's new policies.

All very sensible, and deserving of a wider hearing (and more emphatic delivery) than Clarke's rather low-key article is due to receive.

Just to reiterate: this is a tactical (perhaps strategic) objection. We have yet to hear in the British mainstream press a wholehearted denunciation of the new proposals on the grounds that they are an attack on freedom of expression.

And for those who are just joining us, there is relevant government research on the problem of 'Muslim extremism' which has been suppressed. Start here!

DEPORTATIONS - OUTLOOK ROCKY

Having published his new rules for expelling and excluding 'foreign extremists' (legislation applying the same rules to British nationals for the purposes of detention and imprisonment will be along after the summer break), Charles Clarke is identifying the first targets for expulsion.

The Times reports (page 2) that things don't look terribly good for the government (they don't look good for anyone, frankly):

'As police and immigration officials draw up plans to seize foreign extremists early next week, lawyers and Muslim groups predicted that the attempted deportations would almost certainly end in chaos. Senior figures inside Whitehall are worried that despite the warning by Tony Blair that “the rules have changed” it will not prevent human rights lawyers derailing the Government’s pledge to begin deportations within days.'

'One source said: “The law hasn’t changed, nor the deportees’ right of appeal, so no one is sure how we cut the time it takes to put these people on a plane out of the UK. It certainly can’t be done within days.” '

More consequences of the Prime Minister's failure to consult before launching these measures.

No matter though. The primary objective has been attained. No one is talking about the Iraq connection any more.

REALISM - WHEATCROFT

Well, almost. Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the FT (page 15 or paid-for access) has some sensible things to say on the issue of 'goals'.

He notes that the Prime Minister has distinguished between Irish republicanism and al Qaeda by saying, 'I don't think you can compare the political demands of republicanism with the political demands of this terrorist ideology we are facing now.' Whatever your feelings about the IRA's position, 'you can hardly say it is a demand that no sensible person can negotiate on, it is a demand that is shared by many of our citizens in the north', whereas al Qaeda's aims 'are not demands any sensible person can negotiate on'.

Wheatcroft observes:

'Much of the terrorist insurgency in Iraq is directed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a follower of Osama bin Laden [actually, both of these statements are misleading, but we leave that aside - JNV] and no doubt some of its more exalted aims - restoring the caliphate and purging the House of Islam of all infidels - are not practical politics, as the phrase is.'

'But Mr Zarqawi's more immediate objectives are perfectly comprehensible, negotiable and indeed achievable. Just as Gerry Adams wants to drive British troops out of Northern Ireland, Mr Zarqawi wants - as did the London suicide bombers - to drive US and British troops out of Iraq.'

Note this highlighted phrase. A tiny glimpse of realism in the sea of exhaustion and denial that is the British mass media.

JNV welcomes feedback.