The London Blasts: Media Review

TWO MONTHS ON

DAY 63: 8 September 2005

Contents

Two Months On - A Summary

Repression Update

Snippets

TWO MONTHS ON - A SUMMARY

MR BLAIR'S ISOLATION

On 1 September Ken Clarke launched his bid for the leadership of the British Conservative Party with these biting words:

'If the Prime Minister really believes it, he must be the only person left who thinks that the recent bombs in London had no connection at all with his policy in Iraq.'

Mr Blair has dodged adroitly, but his Iraq policy is in real danger.

A 19 July opinion poll in the Guardian found two-thirds of the British people hold Tony Blair at least partly responsible for the 7 July atrocities, with a third thinking the Prime Minister bears 'a lot' of responsibility.

A 25 July Daily Mirror poll found that 85 per cent of people believe that the war in Iraq was one of the reasons for the 7/7 bombings. 23 per cent said it was the main reason.

The Chatham House report said on 18 July that, Britain is 'at particular risk' from al-Qaeda because it is 'the closest ally of the United States', and has 'deployed armed forces… in Afghanistan and in Iraq'.

After that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre memo was leaked, which warned just before the attacks, 'Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK.'

Then MI5 wrote on its website, 'Though they have a range of aspirations and "causes", Iraq is a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.'

MR BLAIR CHANGES DIRECTION

Blair himself never directly denied a link between Iraq and the bombings, and so was less exposed when, on 26 July, he changed direction, saying, 'I can see how these people use these issues to recruit people.'

Jack Straw, less nimble than the PM, was caught out piloting the new direction the day before. On 20 July, Straw had said there was no link between Iraq and 7/7; on 25 July, he said we could not know 'for certain'.

Blair continues to dodge. He threw up diversionary chaff in the shape of the new deportation legislation (which successfully distracted media attention until Ken Clarke’s speech). But he is in considerable danger.

WHAT MR BLAIR IS HIDING

The fact is that the Prime Minister consciously increased the risk of terrorism.

We know that on 10 February 2003, the Joint Intelligence Committee warned him that invading Iraq would ‘heighten’ the risk from al-Qaeda. Something he chose not to share with the electorate. He invaded anyway.

Blair also chose to hide from the public the advice he received from Government officials last year that British foreign policy was a primary factor in deepening ‘Muslim extremism’ amongst the young.

The secret joint Home Office/Foreign Office 'Young Muslims and Extremism' report, drafted in April 2004, describes a number of factors creating ‘extremism’. Top of the list is ‘foreign policy’:

'It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived "double standard" in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US.'

'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.'

In other words, the danger of home-grown al-Qaeda attacks has been 'heightened' by Britain’s post-9/11 foreign policy, contrary to the Prime Minister’s incessant insinuations.

THE ROOTS OF 7/7

A friend of the Leeds bombers traces their ‘extremism’ back to the opening of a bookshop where you could buy 'under-the-counter' videos:

'videos of what was happening in Bosnia, Iraq and Chechnya. Stuff the television could not show.'

The videos showed, 'Rapes, murders, mutilation, all saying: "Look what is happening to your Muslim brothers and sisters." You see that and you start to get angry. That was the beginning.' (Sunday Telegraph, 17 July)

This is the root: Britain’s role in directly causing or indifferently ignoring massive Muslim suffering around the world.

WHAT NOW?

The central question is: what do we do now?

The Prime Minister is desperate to keep the issue historical, and to frame it in terms of whether or not invading Iraq in the past would have affected the risk of terrorism in Britain. The Government wants to make this a retrospective counterfactual 'what if' exercise, when they know full well that it is the most politically charged question of live policy alternatives in Britain today.

The central question hidden at the heart of British politics today is whether withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan now would reduce the risk of terrorism in Britain in the future.

For the authentic anti-war movement, the question of self-interest is irrelevant. The occupation is wrong, and should be ended even if it increases the risk of terrorism in Britain.

For much of the British population, however, who are unenthusiastic and uncomfortable about the occupation, but who do not wish to 'cut and run', the question of self-interest is extremely important, and can tip the balance heavily in favour of withdrawal from Iraq. (Another way to reduce the resistance to withdrawal is to propose a neutral replacement security force.)

The fact that withdrawal from Iraq (and Afghanistan) would reduce the risk of terror, is therefore of critical significance, and this explains the Government's desperate attempts to distract attention from this prospect, and to mislead the British people.

That is why Mr Blair wriggles and dodges and throws out new laws to distract. While in Iraq, the death toll mounts. And somewhere in Britain, more young men prepare more atrocities.

REPRESSION UPDATE

BRITISH REPRESSION SLATED

At the European Parliament, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke

'endured a gruelling session before the European parliament in Strasbourg where MEPs charged British police with operating a shoot to kill policy against innocent people, simply because they looked Muslim. They also accused Tony Blair's Government of "exploiting the fear factor" after the July 7 attacks, ignoring the human rights of suspected terrorists, operating "summary justice" and confining British Muslims to "second-class citizenship".' (Telegraph, page 8)

Graham Watson, the British leader of the Liberal group of MEPs, dismissed Mr Clarke's recent suggestion that the London bombers had forfeited their human rights:

'Suspected terrorists have rights - they have the right to a fair trial, they have the right to be interrogated not tortured by the police, they have the right to legal counsel and representation in a court of law. If convicted they have the right to be imprisoned in a European jail.'

'The language of the war on terror leads too easily to the justice of Wyatt Earp and High Noon, a point illustrated by the tragic death of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of the UK authorities.' (Guardian, page 14)

DENIAL - CHARLES CLARKE

In his outraged response to this kind of criticism, the Home Secretary turned the link between Iraq and 7/7 on its head:

'There are some political and national forces who have a knee-jerk anti-Americanism. It is very, very foolish indeed for the European Union to develop its policy and approach on the basis of anti-Americanism, whether on Iraq or whatever.'

'There are elements of the EU that have a false view of the relationship between all these events. If there is anybody in the whole of the European Union who believes they are protected, or inoculated against terrorist attack on the basis that they did or did not take some particular policy decision at some particular moment in the international situation, they're wrong.'

Good effort, Mr Clarke, but you are no Tony Blair. You have not the delicacy of touch of that master deceiver.

The point is that other governments have not deliberated 'heightened' the risk of al-Qaeda terrorism against their citizens - without telling them - by launching illegal, immoral and immensely damaging wars of aggression, undermining international non-proliferation agencies and treaties in the process.

It's not that other governments have 'inoculated' themselves against terrorism (though bin Laden did ask, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?'), it's that our Government has injected both Iraq and itself with the al-Qaeda virus.

DEPORTATION LAWS FIASCO - UPDATE

'After the July 7 bombings, Tony Blair insisted that the “rules of the game” had changed and two weeks ago Mr Clarke announced new rules for deportations with a pledge that moves would take effect “very quickly. The next few days.” Since then no action has been taken against any extremist under those rules. Immigration officials and police were given a list of targets to arrest, but the first raids were called off at the last minute with no explanation.'

'The Home Office has asked lawyers to look again at the files of all the suspects, including some well-known dissidents meant to be the first to be picked up.'

'The original list of suspects has been cut drastically with only a dozen people believed to be facing expulsion. Officials will not say why the others were taken off the target list.'

'It is believed that Whitehall officials and lawyers are still studying the files on a number of extremists, their behaviour while in Britain and their immigration status to ensure that moves to deport them are legally watertight.' (Times, page 30)

As we have pointed out for weeks, it doesn't matter to Mr Blair if he loses this battle or looks bad for putting forward legislation which is not thought through. The point of this initiative was to distract attention from the link between Iraq and 7/7. That is the criterion of success, and from this point of view it has been highly successful.

Note that some proposals are proceeding:

'Mr Clarke late confirmed that British embassies had drawn up a list of up to 100 radicals who are not welcome in the UK. He told BBC2's Newsnight that the names had been put forward for inclusion on a "warning index". If any of them attempt to enter Britain, their application will be passed to a government minister for a decision.' (Telegraph, page 8, not online)

Elsewhere in Europe, less attention is being paid to human rights:

'The Interior Ministers of France and Spain met ten days ago to co-ordinate their crackdown on possible deportations. Italian police picked up Bourki Bouchta, an imam, at his home in Turin on Tuesday and drove him straight to Milan airport, where he was immediately put on an aircraft to Morocco.'

'Mr Bouchta was frequently seen on television condemning the role of Italy in Iraq and, despite his family’s protests, the Interior Ministry said that he would not be allowed back. Last week they expelled a Tunisian-born preacher and have sent back militants to Senegal and Algeria for allegedly making comments that incite violence.'

'France has deported four radical Islamists since July 7 and says that ten more will follow.' (Times, page 30)

 

DEPORTATION LAWS FIASCO - LEGALITY

Joshua Rozenberg considers the legality of the deportation procedures, and the Government's challenge to the judiciary, in the Telegraph today (page 16 but not online).

SNIPPETS

POLL: BLAIR, IRAQ, REPRESSION

The Times notes that British politics is 'returning to normal':

'The initial boost to Tony Blair’s ratings over his handling of the bombings has largely unwound. This creates problems for ministers both in the handling of terrorist legislation and, more generally, in the relaunch of their third term programme.' (Times, page 31)

Labour support is down three points at 37 per cent, and the Tories seven points up at 35 per cent. 'This is the narrowest margin in any poll since May', The Times notes.

'Although nearly a fifth of the public (19 per cent) say their view of the Prime Minister has become more positive because of the way he has handled the threat of terrorist attacks, almost a quarter (24 per cent) say they have become more negative, with more than a half saying their opinion has not changed. Men are more positive than women, at 22 against 16 per cent, and professionals and managers more critical than skilled manual workers.'

'The public also takes a generally critical view of the Iraq war, with only 30 per cent believing that military action was the right thing to do and 55 per cent the wrong thing. This is broadly the same balance as in January, when the question was last asked. Women and professionals remain the most strongly opposed.'

So the public thinks the war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do, by nearly two to one. Extrapolating from the past to the current occupation, it seems likely that a majority, or at least a plurality (the largest bloc of opinion) would like to end the occupation, though with qualms.

The Government's handling of the July bombings has hurt the Prime Minister more than it has helped him. Much of this must be to do with the entirely incredible position he has to take, that there is no connection between the war in Iraq and the 7/7 bombings.

The deportation legislation, and the attempt to switch the public's attention to the 'preachers of hatred' might well have succeeded in reducing or diverting public anger over this kind of deceit, but the laws ran into the legal buffers.

This would not have happened if there had been proper consultation, and lawyers had studied files to make everything legally watertight before the laws were announced, but that would have taken time, and Mr Blair was running out of time to stop a raging outbreak of realism about the Iraq connection. Hence the 5 August announcement, and a quick hop across the Atlantic for a holiday.

The anti-war movement is in a much better position than one might expect two months after a major terrorist attack. There is a real opportunity to break through to the general public and persuade people that what can make us safe is doing the right thing - in Iraq and in Britain.

ANOTHER TERROR TRIAL - CONTINUED

It seems only the Telegraph is interested in the trial we discussed yesterday. Today's story is headed, 'Court views bin Laden tape found in terror suspect's former home'.

It looks like Mr Abdullah visited Bosnia, Chechnya, Thailand, Malaysia, Morocco and several other countries (he destroyed a number of visas in his passport, so we don't know the complete list for sure). It seems entirely plausible that he was involved, directly or indirectly, in the armed struggles in some of these countries, given his participation in the effort in Bosnia ten years ago.

It is plausible, but not proven.

Mr Abdullah is being charged not with participation in any foreign insurgency, but preparing to prepare for an unidentified terrorist act or conspiracy with unidentified persons in the UK.

THE PARIS BOMBINGS AND ALGERIA

Naima Bouteldja puts the case that the bombings in Paris in 1995 were the work of the Algerian security services in the Guardian today.

JNV welcomes feedback.