The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 75: 20 September 2005

Contents

Responding To Al-Zawahiri - Latest Tape, Realism New York Style

Realism And Denial - Toynbee, The Royal Commission

Snippets - Campus Extremism

RESPONDING TO AL-ZAWAHIRI

LATEST AL-ZAWAHIRI TAPE

For some reason (perhaps because it was broadcast so late) only The Times (page 11) has picked up on the latest al-Qaeda tape, again featuring bin Laden's right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri - and this time including a direct claim of responsibility for the 7/7 bombings:

'Ayman al-Zawahri, second in command of the terror group, said that it had been "honoured to launch" the “blessed” London attacks.'

Going to al-Jazeera, we find that he said this:

' "The London attack is one of the attacks that al-Qaida ... had the honour of carrying out against Zionist, British arrogance," al-Zawahiri said.'

' "This blessed attack revealed the real hypocritical face of the West," al-Zawahiri said in the tape in reference to British threats to deport anti-West Muslim clerics to their countries of origin.'

This is interesting. It seems that al-Qaeda see the new Blair laws as another grievance that can be used to increase or rally their support base.

Channel 4 News has more quotations, which do not refer to the Blair deportation laws:

'He said: "The London attack is one of the attacks that al-Qaeda had the honour of carrying out against British arrogance, the aggression of the crusader British against the Muslim nation for over a hundred years." '

'He denounced Britain for "the historical crime of setting up Israel and the continuing crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.'

' "These and other attacks have revealed the true hypocritical face of Western civilization that talks about human rights and freedom only as long as it is in its interest," he said.'

REALISM - NEW YORK STYLE

Breaking with our laser-like focus on the British media, there is a very significant article in another Times today, in the Los Angeles Times, by a New York academic.

Allen J. Zerkin, a research fellow at New York University's Center for Catastrophic Preparedness and Response , and an adjunct professor at its Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, has asked the crucial question: 'Is Al Qaeda asking to negotiate?' Subtitle: 'Plan A against terrorism isn't working, but listen closely, there might be a workable Plan B: political engagement.'

Starting with the observation that 'the terrorists can't win this war, but neither can we', Zerkin makes some more sensible remarks which we reproduce in full:

'The most serious risk is that Al Qaeda will sooner or later be able to attack us with a biological or nuclear weapon, not merely the conventional bombs used in London and Madrid or the suicide car bombs being used to such gruesome effect in Iraq during the last few days.'

'Long-term strategies to win Muslim hearts and minds — through democratization, public diplomacy and greater economic opportunity — are therefore likely to be a case of too little, too late. Even if, somehow, many are won over, such strategies will have no effect on the recruits who are being drawn to Al Qaeda every day, especially among Sunni populations where U.S. troops are stationed.'

'So is there a Plan B? The most recent videotaped message from Ayman Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's second-in-command, broadcast Aug. 4, is a reminder that there could be — in the form of some sort of political engagement.'

'Unthinkable? In his message, Zawahiri referred to Osama bin Laden's April 2004 offer of a truce to any European country that made a commitment to stop "attacking Muslims, or intervening in their affairs." European governments immediately dismissed the offer. Why?'

'For starters, because the West believes there is nothing to be negotiated when it comes to Al Qaeda. Terrorist acts are either senseless violence (which means there is nothing to talk about) or part of a plan to destroy our way of life (which is nonnegotiable). As White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "Terrorists will use any excuse to carry out evil attacks on innocent human beings." '

'It's also believed that a truce is impossible because Bin Laden and company will not act in good faith. In the words of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, "How can you make a deal with a terrorist?" And finally, even if we could make a deal with Al Qaeda, we shouldn't — engagement with terrorists would only encourage them.'

'It's time to take a fresh look at this logic.'

'Does Al Qaeda have nonnegotiable goals? Zawahiri said: "There will be no salvation until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources and end support for infidel, corrupt rulers." Some argue that this is an initial set of demands — that the real goal is imposing Islam on the West.'

'Maybe. But what if, instead, Al Qaeda's agenda is what its leaders repeatedly say it is: an end to the Western military presence in Muslim lands, to "uncritical political support and military aid" to Israel, and to support of corrupt Middle Eastern regimes. Most scholars of Islam argue that because jihad is a defensive concept, the attacks on us must be understood as retaliation for perceived provocations, and that Al Qaeda's stated agenda — which has been consistent since 1996 — should be taken literally.'

'But can one make a deal with terrorists? The British eventually dealt with the IRA, and the French with the Algerian FLN. A few months ago it was reported that U.S. Army officers negotiated with insurgent leaders in Iraq.'

'As to whether we should deal with them, there is a legitimate concern, but it's a Catch-22: If aggrieved parties are ignored by an authoritarian government, they often eventually resort to violence, and then if the government is loath to engage them for fear of legitimizing their tactics, the grievances remain and the violence continues. (Think of the American colonists and George III or the early Zionists and the British.)'

'Sooner or later we may find ourselves having little choice but to seek a truce with Al Qaeda, no matter how much it galls us. And waiting until there are many more American — and European, Egyptian, Saudi, Iraqi — casualties only weakens our position because it will then be clear that Plan A has failed and we are desperate.'

'Is all this hopelessly naive? Consider this: In the wake of the Beslan terrorist attack, none other than neocon theoretician Richard Pipes called upon Russia's Vladimir Putin to negotiate Chechen sovereignty with those terrorists, on the grounds that the conflict had historical roots (there were real grievances) and because the Chechens had "resorted to terrorism for the limited objective of independence … not [destroying] Russia." '

'Pipes then tried to distinguish the Russian situation from "America's war with Al Qaeda," asserting that the latter was nonnegotiable because Al Qaeda's attacks, unlike the Chechens', "were unprovoked and had no specific objective. Rather, they were part of a general assault of Islamic extremists bent on destroying non-Islamic civilizations." '

'But Al Qaeda does feel provoked, and if, as I have suggested, it has limited and specific goals, then Pipes' advice to Putin applies to us.'

'Some argue that we should just unilaterally change the policies that provoke Al Qaeda. I would argue that if we do, we risk not getting the peace we seek, and we would then have already given away our negotiating leverage.'

'I'm not suggesting that we engage in direct meetings with Al Qaeda, nor that we stop pursuing those who commit or support acts of terror. But, through back channels, we should seek to determine if Bin Laden would withdraw his fatwa against Americans in exchange for certain policy changes, if Al Qaeda would settle for less than its maximum demands and if its far-flung followers would honor a truce.'

'There is evidence that the answer to all these is yes, but it's inconclusive. With the stakes this high, shouldn't we find out for certain?'

Perfectly sensible suggestions from someone whose job is considering the catastrophes that await us as we follow 'Plan A'.

The only flaw in Zerkin's analysis is a certain lack of realism concerning US and Western policy goals. There is no recognition here that national security plays a minor role in determining 'national security policy', as we see once again with Britain's nuclear weapons debate.

REALISM AND DENIAL

REALISM - TOYNBEE STYLE

Polly Toynbee has some pointed questions in today' Guardian about the differences between 'counter-terror' policies in relation to the IRA and now in relation to al-Qaeda: 'Why was the IRA less of a threat than Islamist bombers?' She writes:

'It's not about appeasement. Iraq is a shockingly brutal error that has multiplied worldwide terrorism, for which Tony Blair has somehow escaped paying the price. That much we understand.'

She also makes a number of points in relation to the new legislation (practical points about national security rather than principled criticisms):

'Labour is keen on what works; Iraq has made the world more dangerous and these anti-terror laws risk the same.'

'Bad responses to IRA bombs prolonged that terror. Mass internment on the flimsiest of evidence radicalised a generation, seriously limiting intelligence from informants. Most attempts to quell terror made things worse by disproportionate action taken in anger.'

'Islamist killers took terror to a new level on 9/11, but catching and deterring perpetrators needs the same techniques. Never forget the IRA murdered publoads of ordinary people and came within a splinter of slaughtering the prime minister and cabinet. Ordinary Muslims may detect an elemental horror of dark-skinned bombers that strikes a deeper fear than Irish Catholics. Why else yet more draconian action?'

'Clarke's move to jail for up to five years anyone who "glorifies, exalts or celebrates" terrorist attacks is as daft as it is dangerous. Consider how we tolerated the endless Irish glorification of terror. Neither giant street paintings celebrating the gun and bomb nor IRA killers in berets and sunglasses shooting guns over the coffins of "martyrs" had the army charging in... Lawyers are stumped as to what genuinely dangerous act of glorification wouldn't already be caught under the law against incitement to violence.'

'Similarly, why is it only when confronting the Islamist threat in the 2000 Terrorism Act that it became a legal duty to inform on possible terrorists?'

'Under this law the brother of the British suicide terrorist who murdered many in Israel is this week being retried after a trial where the jury couldn't decide whether to convict. But the law never forced the Irish to inform. Perhaps it was recognised that any Irish family informer would be tarred and feathered, kneecapped or killed.'

'But why are we putting a higher expectation on Muslim families, equally in fear? It seems as if we fear these new terrorists as more alarmingly alien, less one of us, though Catholic and Islamist bombs have the same effect. The IRA was undoubtedly the more organised enemy, so probably more lethal. Or is it just that politicians need to be seen taking "new" action, despite perfectly good existing laws?'

'Nor is it clear why Islamist terrorist suspects have to be held without charge for three months, when the Prevention of Terrorism Act for the IRA allowed one week. Police inefficiency is legendary: once they know they have three months, an investigation will lose its urgency. Intelligence "evidence" is even more notoriously bad; many Muslims will be arrested on slender or useless information only to be released three months later, seething with indignation.'

'So let the evidence be collected before arrest. Even if it does take expensive surveillance, it is a price worth paying. This is not about the abstract rights of terrorists. It is about what works in protecting citizens without stirring worse terror. This is about proportionality and unintended consequences.'

'It's not easy to confront a crazed death cult, but at least we can avoid making matters worse... Locking up without trial many on the fringes of this cult will not make us safer. It will make harder the painstaking building up of intelligence with networks of infiltrators.'

REALISM - CLARKE STYLE

Martin Samuel returns to his visceral anger over the war in Iraq (though within the confines of official propaganda - it was an 'error' rather than a crime), in his support for Ken Clarke's leadership challenge. His piece is entitled 'One reason why Labour ought to be terrified of Clarke: it's the war, stupid'. Please note the highlighted section:

'... if Ken Clarke led the Conservative Party, Tony Blair would be gone within a year. If the Conservative Party could take direct aim at his Achilles heel every week during Question Time, if it could consistently link this Government and most specifically its leader to panic, despair, casualties and chaos, then the modern, ruthless organisation that Blair helped to create would have no option but to remove him from the firing line before too much damage were done.'

'It’s the war, stupid. Always the war. Only the war. Whoever leads Her Majesty’s Opposition has got to be in a position to take Blair — and later Gordon Brown, who also supported it — directly to task over the greatest strategic mistake of any British prime minister since the Second World War. Now that Iraq is destined for a horrific civil conflict and the repercussions of British involvement are having a terrifying, direct impact on our lives, the only way Blair can stay safe is if the Conservatives elect a leader who stays silent on the daily litany of death, fear, corruption and destabilisation that is the harvest of our invasion. Someone who supported it. Like David Cameron or David Davis. Not Clarke.'

'Viewed coldly, political point-scoring on the subject of postwar Iraq is so undemanding it has even made a sage of George Galloway. Only one qualification is needed: the critic had to foresee the cataclysm. Clarke did, which is why he continues to represent Blair’s worst nightmare: a centre voice, appealing to many of the same voters, with a man of the people image (however unfounded) and the ability to lay the blame for daily catastrophe directly at his feet. On election night, Galloway’s speech, emotive, zealous, angry, grandstanding, stole the show and the news bulletins the following morning. Imagine that happening every day for a year. And how could the Government respond? By pointing out some inconsistencies of thought over Europe? Get real.'

'It is very hard for any Conservative to go head to head with Blair right now. The Labour Party is still seen as the defender of the health service, the welfare state and public education, and any attacks based on social issues are rebuffed with details about government policy from another age. The Conservatives’ traditional stronghold, the economy, is healthy, while Labour has so successfully aped right-wing statements on law and order that any attempt to open debate in that area is redundant.'

'Where Blair is vulnerable is foreign policy and its fallout. The deceptions, the folly, the vanity, the casualties, the cost, the false hopes, the miscalculations, the increased danger. When every dawn brings bad news, the attack is simply sustained; the fear that it will split the party groundless. Were Blair to reply to these very real charges by gesturing to the Conservative backbenches and pointing out that, at the time, most agreed with him, not Clarke, it would only make the Opposition leader sound wiser.'

Once again, some perfectly sensible points, but the crucial phrase is the description of the invasion of Iraq as 'the greatest strategic mistake' of the postwar era. If the invasion had been successful, if total control had been established, and if therefore al-Qaeda had been kept out of Iraq, would Martin Samuel be angry - or acquiescent?

We would still be facing a 'heightened' threat of terrorism in the UK, as the Joint Intelligence Committee warned, but it would not be quite as high as it is now.

This is how you start to distinguish the authentic anti-war position from the 'feigned dissent' of mainstream critics.

DENIAL - THE ROYAL COMMISSION DUMPING PROCESS

We speculated that the suggestion for a Royal Commission into the London bombings would be dumped, but skilfully, to avoid offence. Here's the start of the process, reported in The Times:

'Charles Clarke will unveil plans tomorrow for a new commission to look at ways Muslims and other faiths can better integrate into the community. The commission on integration, to be headed by Hazel Blears, the Home Office Minister, is one of the Government’s responses to the fallout from the London bombings and the growth of Muslim fundamentalism.'

'But the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are expected to reject calls from task forces set up by the Government for a royal commission to investigate the London bombings and the causes of Islamic fundamentalism.'

'The task forces consist of seven groups of Muslim MPs, peers, academics and community leaders but they are expected to be wound up this week and their work carried on by the new commission on integration and other bodies. According to leaks, the groups all feel that British foreign policy, especially Mr Blair’s support for the Iraq war, has fuelled resentment.'

'But Mr Clarke and Mr Blair are understood to be deeply sceptical about a royal commission and fear it would undermine the sense of urgency about finding solutions.'

Brilliant. There should not be a serious attempt to discover the true nature of the problem (which is denied by the Government), because this would slow down the implementation of the Government's preferred solution (which is not accepted as a genuine solution by informed commentators).

SNIPPET

An excellent letter in the Guardian on 'campus extremism':

'What a relief it is to know that British universities are apparently safe from the danger of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Sikh and Hindu extremists.'

Subir Sinha
Rashmi Varma
London

 

JNV welcomes feedback.