The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 54: 30 August 2005

'YOUNG MUSLIMS AND EXTREMISM' REPORT - NEARLY DEAD IN THE WATER

BURIED?

According to The Times today, 'Most people would rather read the back of a cereal packet than a letter from a bank, insurer or other financial service provider'.

It seems that most newspaper editors would rather report the back of a cereal packet than a letter from Michael Jay, the top civil servant at the Foreign Office, confirming that the war in Iraq is a major driver of extremism amongst Muslims in Britain.

As predicted yesterday, the leak in Sunday's Observer is completely dead in the major British newspapers (apart from one tiny mention - see first snippet).

(Incidentally, Channel 4 News' website frames the story as a case of 'inept' policymaking, again confirming our analysis yesterday. For non-British readers, Channel 4 News is the most independent and serious news bulletin on British television.)

The Daily Mail (posted 28 August) had more of Dr Liam Fox's interview with BBC News 24 (Fox is the Conservative's foreign affairs spokesperson, or 'shadow Foreign Secretary'):

'I think it would have been surprising if extremist elements in the country did not use the Iraq war as one of the means by which they sow dissent. Are we to have our foreign policy vetoed by minority groups in the country?'

The issue is not whether British foreign policy is to be vetoed by minority groups, but whether a foreign policy which is wrong in principle, disastrous in practice, and rejected by a majority of British people, is also increasing the risk of political violence in Britain itself.

For the authentic anti-war movement, the occupation is wrong, and must be ended. We would also like the British Government to be honest about the increased risks that their policies have brought to the UK itself.

For much of the population, it is also a key question whether whether the war is increasing the dangers of terrorism here.

Many people outside the anti-war movement start from the point that the 7/7 atrocities are appalling and similar attacks must be prevented. The question is then how they can be prevented.

It is entirely appropriate to demonstrate to such people that informed opinion within the British Government accepts that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has 'heightened' the risk of al Qaeda-type terrorism in Britain.

It is entirely appropriate to pursue this logic and to argue that if British policy was reversed in these areas, the risk of terrorism would be correspondingly lower.

SNIPPETS

TODAY'S TOP REALIST

Amazingly, today's top realist is once again a Conservative politician! Some kind of pattern is building up here, but it's hard to accept...

Today's Independent:

Clarke to highlight his opposition to Iraq war in Tory leadership bid

'Iraq is to become a key issue in the Tory leadership election as Kenneth Clarke prepares to contrast his opposition to the war with the decision of his main rivals to support it.'

'Mr Clarke, who is expected formally to declare his intention to stand for the leadership in the next few days, was a consistent critic of the 2003 war, even though it was backed by the Tories under Iain Duncan Smith and his successor, Michael Howard.'

'It was also supported by Mr Clarke's two main rivals for the Tory leadership - the front-runner, David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, and David Cameron, the shadow Education Secretary.'

'One MP who supports Mr Clarke said yesterday: "The fact is that Ken got it right on Iraq and others got it wrong. If he had been Tory leader, the political landscape would have looked very different. We could have made the running on the issue at the general election. Ken wasn't a lone voice. A lot of Tories had doubts but went along with the leadership." '

'Conservative Party officials admitted they had failed to benefit from the leaking of the Attorney General's legal advice on the war during this year's election because the party leadership had endorsed the conflict. Earlier, Mr Howard said he would not have voted for the war if had known in 2003 what he knew now, but his attempt to get off the hook backfired.'

'Allies of Mr Clarke - a former chancellor, home secretary, health secretary and education secretary - insist it is legitimate for him to raise the Iraq issue because the continuing problems on the ground in Iraq bear out his good judgement - his main "selling point" to Tory MPs given his experience in four cabinet posts.'

'Mr Clarke is discussing with advisers whether to devote one of the keynote speeches of his campaign to Iraq. He also intends to attack Tony Blair's claim that last month's terrorist attacks in London were not linked to the war by insisting that the conflict increased the threat to Britain.'

'It emerged at the weekend that the Foreign Office warned more than a year ago that the invasion was fuelling Muslim extremism.'

For non-British readers (and for British readers who quite sensibly blank out all news of the Tories), we should note that there is about to be a contest for the leadership of the Conservative Party, as a result of their poor showing in this spring's election, and Michael Howard's consequent (and long drawn-out) resignation from the top post.

Ken Clarke is the most liberal and attractive figure in senior Conservative circles, and has been blocked from the top job by his firm attachment to the EU integration process (not by his attachment to British American Tobacco - today's Times also has a story on this). It is widely believed that he is the Conservative who poses the greatest danger to New Labour.

The most relevant aspect of Clarke's career for this column is his warning on 26 February 2003, before the invasion of Iraq:

'We should avoid it [war on Iraq] because of the consequences of war. How many other terrorists will we recruit in the long standing battle against international terrorism, which is going to be far harder to win? And what will we have done to the stability of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt?'

'Next time a large bomb goes off in a western city, how far did this policy [the invasion of Iraq] contribute to it?'

Searching the web for the highlighted phrase (minus the hard brackets) brings up no mentions on any of the major news search engines (apart from the reproduction of a JNV briefing on ZNet), despite its precise applicability to the 7/7 atrocities.

Incidentally, the reference to other Tories also opposing the war on Iraq is quite correct, and some of most cogent arguments against the war were marshalled by Conservatives, as recorded in ARROW/JNV briefings at the time.

OUT OF TIME

There are many strands of media coverage relevant to this column that we have not got time to cover, many relating to the treatment of Islam and British Muslims in particular, some to the planned deportation of 'Islamic extremists', and so on.

One small note: how would the British Government react if an Iranian nuclear scientist was to reveal that Iranian military officials came close to building a nuclear bomb in the early 1990s, in defiance of a presidential order officially banning such activity?

What if this scientist was the former president of Iran's nuclear energy commission? What if he said that many components for a nuclear bomb were actually manufactured, and a test explosion had been planned for September 1990? What if he revealed that rogue officials actually obtained enriched uranium from another country (as readers know, a large part of the crisis over Iran hinges on the question of enriched uranium)?

How would the British media react to such revelations about Iran? Or Venezuela?

And how would the Government and media react if these same revelations were made about Brazil?

JNV welcomes feedback.