The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 83: 28 September 2005

Contents

Speeches - Brown

Speeches - Blair

SPEECHES - BROWN

Gordon Brown's speech the day before yesterday (full text here) said very little about terrorism or Iraq.

On the other hand, the reference that was included did come high in the speech order.

Opening with a reference to 'Make Poverty History' (which campaign he attempted to hijack), the Chancellor then moved immediately to the topic of terrorism.

After invoking the heroic public service workers who helped the victims of the bombings of 7 July, Mr Brown said:

'And let no one doubt that we will spend what it takes, bear each and every hardship, endure each and every sacrifice, and as Jack Straw, Charles Clarke and John Reid have said both internationally in Afghanistan and Iraq and at home we will at all times have the strength and resolution so that there is no hiding place for terrorists - or those who finance terrorism - and so we will protect and defend the security of the people of this country.'

This was the only reference to the war in Iraq. Hidden in here may have been a reference to the causal link between the war in Iraq and the risk of terrorism in Britain ('we will endure each and every sacrifice'). There may also have been coded support for the Blair 'anti-terrorist' laws (the reference to Home Secretary Charles Clarke).

These were obligatory but minimal references to the most burning issues of our day. Mr Brown is frightened to make a stand on any issue. He would rather create a benign haze around issues that might damage him.

SPEECHES - BLAIR

In contrast, Tony Blair's speech yesterday (full text here) made quite a few references to terrorism and Iraq. He has less room for maneouvre than the man-who-would-be-king.

The Prime Minister's first reference to 7/7 came not via heroic public services workers, but the Olympics:

'And when terrorism struck, the same pride and confidence asserted itself, to the envy and awe of the watching world. London, that day, did Britain proud.'

TERRORISM AND CITIZENSHIP

Later he deals with the 'war on terrorism', focusing on the need for immigrants to integrate, an interesting but predictable choice of emphasis:

'Today, of course, we face a new challenge: global terrorism. Let us state one thing. These terrorists do not, never have and never will represent the decent, humane and principled faith of Islam.'

'Muslims, like all of us, abhor terrorism. Like all of us, are its victims. It is, as ever, only fringe fanatics we face. But we need to make it clear. When people come to our country, they have and should have the full rights we believe in. There should be no second-class citizens in Britain. But citizenship comes with a duty: to give loyalty to our nation, its values and our way of life.'

Then comes a passage urging 'strong alliances' with both the EU and the US. Mr Blair makes a virtue of 'being at the forefront' in every battle, despite 'the pain it can bring'.

'When I became Prime Minister I took a decision: always be at the forefront where decisions are made not at the back where they're handed down.'

'... Britain should also remain the strongest ally of the United States. I know there's a bit of us that would like me to do a Hugh Grant in Love Actually and tell America where to get off. But the difference between a good film and real life is that in real life there's the next day, the next year, the next lifetime to contemplate the ruinous consequences of easy applause.'

So we must help to inflict 'ruinous consequences' on Afghanistan, Iraq, and people elsewhere, because of the possible damage that British interests might suffer otherwise. Later he adds:

'I know we could have hidden away at the back after September 11th and let others take the strain. But that is not Britain at its best. Nor is it this Party.'

Instead we must have Britain at its worst. And the Labour Party at its worst.

'And when we fight behind the standard of democracy in Afghanistan or Iraq or Kosovo or Sierra Leone, for me that too is a progressive cause.'

'In each case, Britain in these last 8 years has been at the front. Not always succeeding, but never a spectator. In the modern world, for all the pain it can bring, it is the only place to be.'

Never a spectator, always a killer. In Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo, never a spectator but always acting to increase the toll of human suffering.

What motivates al-Qaeda? Mr Blair has no doubt:

'I never doubted after September 11th that our place was alongside America and I don't doubt it now. And for a very simple reason. Terrorism struck most dramatically in New York but it was aimed then, and is aimed now, at us all, at our way of life.'

In contrast, those who know anything about al-Qaeda (for example CIA expert Michael Scheuer) say that it is aimed not at 'our way of life', but 'our policies'. This is also the implicit message of the Home Office/Foreign Office 'Young Muslims and Extremism' report.

IRAQ AND DEMOCRACY

Mr Blair then turns immediately to Iraq, where he claims that the principal aim of the insurgency is to derail elections, to attack democracy:

'This is a global struggle. Today it is at its fiercest in Iraq. It has allied itself there with every reactionary element in the Middle East.'

'Their aim: to wreck this December's first ever direct election for the Government of Iraq.'

'... Yes, several hundred people stoned British troops in Basra. Yes, several thousand run the terrorist insurgency around Baghdad. And yes, as a result of the fighting, innocent people tragically die.'

'But 8 ½ million Iraqis showed which future they wanted when they came out and voted in January's elections.'

True, they showed what they wanted. The largest share of votes went to a party list promising a rapid end to the occupation.

FortAs any competent observer knows, it is the US and British Governments which sought to prevent direct elections occuring in Iraq - until they were forced to by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

NON-CAUSAL LINKS

What about the link between Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the terror threat in Britain? Mr Blair had this to say:

'How dare the terrorists justify their campaign of hate by claiming they are angry about Afghanistan? Was it better under their Taleban?'

Quite a few people do think that daily life in Afghanistan was better under the Taliban (except for the tiny urban middle classes). But that is irrelevant. The anger comes from the fact that Britain and the US attacked and destabilized a whole nation, and have caused enormous suffering there, reinstalling the rule of warlords and committing numerous human rights abuses. Without justification.

On with the sermon:

'They use Iraq and Afghanistan, just as they use the cause of Palestine, whilst trying to destroy by terror the only solution that will ever work: a secure Israel living side-by-side with a viable independent and democratic Palestine.'

Terrorists are trying to destroy by acts of violence the route to a two-state solution. The only thing is that the terrorists are in the Israeli cabinet, which has ordered unprovoked attacks this week that are designed to undermine the Hamas ceasefire. And Mr Blair chooses this moment to try to blame Palestinian violence for undermining the chances of peace.

FAKE CLAIMS

'Strip away their fake claims of grievance and see them for what they are: terrorists who use 21st century technology to fight a pre-medieval religious war that is utterly alien to the future of humankind.'

How does Mr Blair know that these are 'fake claims of grievance'? Is he saying that Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir and so on are not really sources of grievance - that Muslims are not being tortured, killed and oppressed on a large scale there by illegitimate forces? There's some evidential burden here.

Or is he saying that this suffering is real, but that al-Qaeda militants do not truly care about this suffering? What is his evidence to support this claim?

Whatever the private attitudes of the core al-Qaeda leadership (and there seems little reason to doubt that they are sincerely angry about all these issues), the suffering in these places, either at the hands of the Western powers or with their connivance or neglect, is the primary source of recruitment to al-Qaeda.

Mr Blair seems to acknowledge this - 'They use Iraq and Afghanistan...' - but only to deny that these illegitimate wars are a cause of terrorism carried out by these recruits.

Nifty footwork. Desperate plays.

LAST WORD

The commentary on the Prime Minister's speech has been uninteresting. The Telegraph had perhaps the most pointed comment on this aspect of the speech, from a right-wing Armed Forces perspective:

'There was no acknowledgement of the acute difficulties in Iraq, and certainly no hint that London and Washington are determined to take the steps necessary to ensure that the mission does not end in humiliation and failure.'

JNV welcomes feedback.