You’ve Got Mail
So there’s this letter from what the BBC calls ‘Muslim groups’. It’s bizzarre.
Prime Minister, As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens. It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad. To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.
The government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy – and then what? Tell itself that unless it obeys (obeys whom?), hundreds or thousands of people will be murdered, and therefore decide to obey (obey whom?) and – um – withdraw all its troops from Iraq (thus no doubt triggering a bloodbath) and send its troops to impose a ceasefire in Lebanon? Is that it? Is that what obedience (to whom?) would be? Or is it something else the government is supposed to do? But if so, what? Who, exactly, is issuing the instructions? Who is delivering the extortion notes, and what do they say? What exactly is the government supposed to do in order to mollify people who are eager to kill hundreds or thousands of people and cause them to decide not to murder all those people and to be good peace-loving citizens instead? Do the people who wrote that stupid letter know? Does anyone? There are those suicide tapes, of course – are they the instructions? Is that it, will that do? The government should study those tapes and do whatever Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer tell them they should have done? Except of course that was before the Lebanon problem – Tanweer said attacks would continue ‘until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq.’ So would it be okay if the government pulled its forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq but did nothing about Lebanon, would that work? Well, is there anyone the government can ask? Not Khan and Tanweer, obviously, so…who? The suspects maybe? They probably know. But maybe they wouldn’t say. Maybe they’d say the wrong thing, and the government would do that, and then somebody else would murder hundreds or thousands of people anyway, and leave a suicide video saying ‘Ha ha, fooled ya, that wasn’t what you were supposed to do, ha ha.’
In other words what the hell do the people who wrote and sent that stupid immoral letter think they’re talking about? And since when do mass murderers get to decide what a liberal democracy’s foreign policy should be? Since when is it considered reasonable and responsible to look about and say ‘Oh, there are some loathsome thugs bent on killing a lot of people, let us hasten to find out what they want us to do and immediately do that in order to reward them and persuade them not to murder us after all.’
In fact the more you look at that letter, the more presumptuous and (yes) offensive it seems. I beg your pardon? You’re chastizing Blair for not guessing at what a bunch of murderers want and then doing that so that they won’t murder anyone?
Kim Howells and some other people find it irritating too.
Mr Howells denied there was a “rational connection” and said “no government” formulates policy based on a perceived risk from terrorists…”I think it is very, very dangerous when people who call themselves community leaders make some assumption that somehow that there’s a rational connection between these two things.”
And not just self-proclaimed community leaders but also a couple of MPs and three peers.
MP Sadiq Khan, who signed the letter, said British foreign policy was seen by many as unfair and unjust…The letter was also signed by MPs Shahid Malik (Dewsbury) and Mohammed Sarwar (Glasgow Central), and peers Lord Patel of Blackburn, Lord Ahmed of Rotherham and Baroness Uddin. Other signatories include the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Association of Britain, British Muslim Forum and the lobby group, the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain.
Another MP summed it up well.
Liberal Democrats deputy leader Vince Cable agreed there were links with foreign policy but voiced concerns the letter’s message might “give some comfort to the kind of people who say: ‘Well, change your foreign policy or we’ll blow you up'”.
Ya think?
Going by this logic, the terrorists’ whims and fancies must guide government policy? It is foreign policy now. It may well be the way women dress next. The only thing you can be sure of is that the goalposts will keep shifting.
It was very, very stupid of the muslim reps to do this.
“It was very, very stupid of the muslim reps to do this.”
Yes, but it is rather helpful for the rest of us that they showed their hand.
What changes to British foreign policy do these people favour? The withdrawal of British troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? But they are there with the support of the democratically elected governments of those countries, governments whose members are almost entirely muslims. Why should the wishes of other muslims count for more than the wishes of these people?
Mmm… Devil’s advocate, anybody?
OK, I’ll do it…
On the other hand, it can be argued that the attacks in New York, London, Madrid, Goa have already shaped Britain’s and America’s foreign policies. Neither of these countries would be in Iraq now if it wasn’t for 9/11. By attacking Iraq, we played into the hand of Al Qaida
Furthermore, I would argue that the relation between Iraq, Palestine and the attacks in Britain exists. (Who spoke recently of an “Arc of Extremism?) There are other causes obviously but the more I listen to this government and the less I find them ready to address any of them.
Before you all fly off the handle, note that I said causes not concerns or demand. As in: what causes British Muslims to blow themselves up? There is a difference between negotiating with extremists and persuading young people that life, theirs and that of others, is worth living.
Let’s be clear: there is no excusing people who kill hundreds (or even one) of innocents: ultimately we are all responsible for our own actions. But if responsibility cannot be shared, it can be augmented and I have little doubt that the invasion of Iraq and the unconditional support to Israel give ammunition to the very people we are trying to fight.
So Howells is right when he says there is no “rational connection”, but that’s not to say there is no connection. What was that phrase again? “Winning hearts and minds”?
‘…fight against all those who target civilians with violence…’
Fine, let’s attack both Israel and Hizzbullah (at least we’ll have the element of suprise), then move into Darfur, Sulawasi, Southern Thailand…
Might be a little on the expensive side, but otherwise a reasonable request.
Maybe the Uk could conscript all the angry chavlims and CiF ranters and pack them off to save civvies all over the world. Though my inclination is to set them to work, digging wells and latrines in the third world. Clean water will save more lives than the vagaries of UK foreign policy.
Hi, Mirax,
Good point. When I see young, healthy guys ranting about how much the suffering in the world tears them up, I often want to ask ‘And what exactly have you done to reduce that suffering? Dragged yourself away from your video games for a few afternoons of screaming about how everyone is rotten and they’d better watch out? Pay some dues and get back to us, kid.’
It’s not as though the opportunity isn’t there. Plenty of non-sectarian organisations desperate for volunteers.
That’s half-true. Organisations that operate within this country are desperate for volunteers (normally for donkey work, in my experience), but actually doing something useful overseas is a different matter. Most organisations do not require people unless they have very specific skills.
Oh, I don’t know…rebuilding a few of those schools the Taliban have burned down would take some donkey labour. That would be one place to start.
Paul,
Fair point. Nothing wrong with donkey work for healthy lads, of course. However, a quick google showed me two things;
1. Volunteering has become much more commercial since my day.
2. There are still a lot of groups who ask for no more than manual labour skills and the ability to care. Work physically building schools, wells, clinics or just caring for people in orphanages or hospices is still needed. I’ll admit I was suprised that you pretty much have to self-finance unless you have specific skills, but I suppose that makes sense. A little gumption and sponsorship should cover that.
Snap.
For overseas work, I couldn’t find any organisations that even required donkeys (when I last looked, two years ago).
There are plenty of local people that would do the work more cheaply, so they would rather have your donations. In most cases, it seems that going over there is really just a self-indulgence that isn’t particularly helpful.
If you know of any that do want unskilled morons, then let me know. I’m one of those.
Well…mirax’s point was probably not altogether literal anyway.
Paul,
‘In most cases, it seems that going over there is really just a self-indulgence that isn’t particularly helpful.’
I have to say I agree to some extent. I looked at quite a few sites before responding to your comment ( I often do my research after commenting) and found lots of consciece-soothing holidays helping turtles thrive at $5,000 a month. With sightseeing breaks built in.
Also, some sites charge a search fee. If it’s a fashion I suppose it’s a generally beneficial one, but I take your point.The extent of that aspect did suprise me. I suppose I was thinking about the old days when you were given a map to Ed Dueim and told to get on with it.
However, I’m going to have to ask you to take my word (because I neglected to note websites and can’t be bothered to do it all again) that if you can self-finance there is real work for willing hands, although messy and unglamorous.
Even so, the skills neeeded are not arcane. If you have reached the age of, say, twenty-five witout a transferrable skills it is not from want of colleges begging you to sign up.
So basically the UK shouldn’t have a more rational or moral foreign policy because if it does the terrorists have won?
And the letter said anything about a more rational or moral foreign policy where, exactly?
You think, Nick? You think the letter scored points? I don’t know; I’m not there; but from what I’ve seen it lost a lot more than it scored.
Maybe you’re right OB, but it seems to have brought some fairly far out ideas into mainstream debate ,e.g Newsnight on Monday. That said, having spoken to a fairly senior midlands police officer on Friday night, I think everyone’s rather more concerned about neo-nazi thugs getting mobilised and burning mosques. If there’s another succesful attack, I think it’ll go pretty nasty for a while. Perhaps that’s a reason why everyone’s been so reticent in criticising… and why that letter has had legs.
Newsnight tonight-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4795931.stm
Worth a look – William Shawcross and some usual suspects.
First class critique of that revolting letter ob.