Grieve and grievances

Tom Harris MP Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 05:07:18 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Dominic Grieve, the new Shadow Home Secretary, is a decent chap. He’s also extremely sharp and, as a public prosecutor in a previous life, has prosecuted an impressive range of individuals and organisations.

But his claim in 2005 that he thought the 7/7 London bombings were “totally explicable” - comments brought to light by The Spectator in the past few days - should be of concern to all of us. “Explicable”, of course, isn’t the same as “justifiable”, but it’s not a kick in the shirt off it either. Motivation can always be explained. Myra Hindley, Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe - their actions were, arguably, “explicable” if one takes account of the various psychological assessments that have tried to plumb the depths of these particular individuals’ minds.

But look at what Grieve also said in his 2005 comments. The 7/7 bombings were “totally explicable” because (and these are indirect comments): “of the deep sense of anger over the Iraq war, a wider despair about the Islamic world and what Muslims saw as a ‘decadent’ western society.”

I don’t deny that among British muslims there is anger at what has happened in Iraq, the ongoing situation in Israel and the denial of basic human rights by muslim regimes in the Middle East. But such anger can hardly be used as justification of murder.

And yes, there is resentment by some muslims at what they see as the west’s decadence. In fact, it seems that this, more than foreign policy, is the motivation for feelings of violence towards British citizens. It provided the motivation of the terrorists of 9/11. But such anger at moral standards are religiously inspired and, while important to the holders of those views themselves, they can never - should never - be addressed by government.

It is this point that most concerns me about Grieve’s views. By acknowledging anger at “decadent western society”, he seems to be suggesting that such grievances can be addressed. For the minority of British muslims who believe Islamism is the answer, acknowledging such grievances is never going to be enough. And addressing them in any way is out of the question, since that would represent an unacceptable compromise of liberality and tolerance.

Visit Tom's blog. 






tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Grieve and grievances | 24 comments (24 topical)

Re: Grieve and grievances (#1)

by jljb2 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 07:00:22 PM GMT

"But such anger at moral standards are religiously inspired and, while important to the holders of those views themselves, they can never - should never - be addressed by government."

What? You mean the government has no responsibility to improve public morality? So you don't think the Labour Party should be promoting the values of compassion, decency, respect, tolerance and cooperation? To argue that we can't change people, and can only work with them as they are, is nonsense and patently untrue: Thatcher completely changed the British psyche in an individualist direction - why on earth can't we do the same in the opposite direction? I'm an atheist, but strongly believe that we live a society that is decadent, individualistic and selfish; changing it to a more cooperative form would improve freedom, surely?


And notice that Grieve said 'explicable' not excusable or justifiable - surely, rightly or wrongly, these were the individual-level motivations for the attacks - and if not, then what was?


Re: Grieve and grievances (#2)

by matt1986 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:41:44 PM GMT

You said:

"What? You mean the government has no responsibility to improve public morality?"

If I've understood correctly, Tom is talking about government addressing the anger that can potentially lead people to commit crimes like those carried out in New York on September 11th 2001, and in London on July 7th 2005. If this anger provides part of an explanation for why people do things like that, then how likely do you think it is that a democratic government - one which governs a society that people who have this anger want to destroy - could adequately address this anger, 'improve' these people's morality or bring them round to our way of thinking? It is not likely at all; it's impossible. Such deeply held anger and hostility is just too strong for us to do anything about, and why would we want to do anything about it, when it represents, fundamentally, deep hatred of freedom?

By the way, I agree that there is a lot of selfishness today, but why do you think we are decadent?


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#3)

by Free Radical on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:21:10 PM GMT

"I don’t deny that among British muslims there is anger at what has happened in Iraq, the ongoing situation in Israel and the denial of basic human rights by muslim regimes in the Middle East. But such anger can hardly be used as justification of murder."

Tom,

The point is, as others have said, that Grieve has not justified murder but said it is explicable. I know that you must really understand very well the difference here between explication and justification, so it looks to me as though you are merely making a (cheap) political slur rather than a serious point. In fact, if your report is accurate, Grieve would appear to be saying no more than Cherie Blair once said about Palestinian suicide bombers. 

As a member of parliament who voted for the Iraq war do you yourself accept some responsibility fo the anger amongst Muslims that you acknowledge (or even for the 666,000 excess mortality amonst Iraqis since our invasion)?


Re: Grieve and grievances (#4)

by Tom Harris MP on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:15:34 PM GMT

For the avoidance of doubt, I would never accuse Dominic of seeking to justify terrorism; the danger is that there are some who don't see much of a difference between explaining a deed and justifying it (your comparison with Cherie Blair is apposite - although she  would never have attempted to justify suicide bombers, her remarks were considered unhelpful to the fight against terrorism, particularly in Israel).

I'm sorry you think I was making a cheap political point; I guess that's the danger of publishing my thoughts more widely - there's always a danger I won't make them as clear as they seem in my head!

Yes, I accept my share of responsibility for the dreadful toll of civilian deaths in Iraq. I don't accept a shred of responsibility for the murders of innocent people at the hands of suicide bombers since then. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#5)

by Free Radical on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:36:45 PM GMT

Tom

Thanks for clarifying this.

Of course I accept that responsibility for the murders of civilians by suicide bombers lies with the murderers themselves.


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#6)

by TonyH on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:41:39 PM GMT

Tom - what you said did look like a cheap political point.

I accept you didn't intend it as such but I've looked at Grieve's point and he's absolutely right.

While you didn't invent it - you're perpetuating the awful, wretched conceit about the national conversation in which acknowledging the enemy's thinking, even to reject it, is tantamount to accepting or endorsing it when, clearly, it isn't.

The fact that British Muslims blew themselves up in an act of terrorism is totally explicable as it is totally wrong. It is explicable given that we know the depth of human anger and the power of religous fervor. It is explicable given we know how misguided terrorist murderers can be and it is totally explicable to those who understand cause and effect.

A Tory tries to honestly examine how this happens and you cheaply pop him and make inferences about his understanding.

I think the 7th July bombers genuinely thought they were doing something for God. From the innocence of their childhoods to that murderous, moronic, hateful and completely wrong position - nobody stopped them. THAT's the point and that should be the discussion about what we address.

If the discussion about what goes wrong with people who turn to these radical groups keeps on getting shot down by cheap politics and cheaper politicians - we will never make any headway.

Certainly not from the guy who, four days ago, told us that the related 42 day issue was about lives and not popularity. 

With that in mind, the final line of your post sticks out:
And addressing them in any way is out of the question, since that would represent an unacceptable compromise of liberality and tolerance[my underline and bold].

...but not as great a compromise as allowing the State to hold people without charge for a world beating 42 days?


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#7)

by jkitleft on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:03:58 PM GMT

I generally believe that Islamism is a utopian ideology, and I'm not sure it can be expained away by foreign policy.

There is no question that our lack of a Marshall plan in Iraq, or the nuclear standoff in the subcontinent, or the slaughter of Chechnyans, or our poisonous war on drugs in Afghanistan, and the Israel-Palestine situation, and the degradation of Shias across the Middle East causes terrorism in those specific areas.

But the four people who attacked us three years ago, were not from downtown Basra, or being shelled in Grozny, or had seen their homes demolished in Gaza. Three were from Leeds, and one was a Jamaican convert.
Does anyone seriously believe that if we withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan, and an independent Palestine was recognised, that Al-Qaeda would declare a ceasefire? Of course it could stop many being recruited. But there is a larger question of a battle between moderate Muslims and Arab secularists, and radical Islamists.


Re: Grieve and grievances (#8)

by AngryVoter on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:30:16 PM GMT

A good stance Tom, but I think your explanation got a little cross-wired.

I think we have to carefully weigh up how we treat Islam in this country and have to go about it in a careful and mature way. Now, to me, I know it may insult some people, but I do think a more... Centre-Right approach is perhaps necessary in tackling Islamification and Islamic extremism, we have to be a little tougher and more conservative in the approach to unpicking the problems.

There are several problems, primarily where does the state stop in religious affairs? 

 I think both parties, since the 1990's have bungled the way Islam is "worked" in the United Kingdom, inviting and permitting Wahabiist Islam instead of protecting and encouraging the traditional Sufi Islam. [Which has been in the UK since the late 1600's.]

We give "asylum" to various extremist preachers who call upon hatred and death to the West and other elements of Western Civilization. The government continues to tolerate Hizbut-Ur-Tahir, an organization banned in the Middle East by most of the states there.

We recently blocked a moderate Egyptian preacher because he said that having things like a Shandy on special occassions was OK as his views might insite "Religious" Tensions.

We've adopted the Islamic banking code, which is also banned in the United Kingdom [Which may be little more than opportunism by the banks, 0% interest means they don't have to worry about the investment as much as other accounts] 

Sharia courts are held around the country in bookshops and cafes, meeting out justice away from our legal system. 

Now, we get to the "explicable" part. 

I think what Mr Grieve meant is that we can see and work out how we've gotten to this point, rather than any kind of justification behind the actual actions. It's partially because we've been too accomodating to various groups that have lost their own support base in the Middle East and instead looked for a country that is a lot more tolerant, and perhaps even sleptwalked, into the problem of Islamic Extremism by tolerating and permitting questionable groups of individuals or entire organizations such as that of Hizbut or the new "Mega Mosque" in London

[Though personally I think the design is stunning and a triumph of modern architecture, I am uneasy at the group behind it's construction and it's aims]

S'my take on it anyway. 


Re: Grieve and grievances (#10)

by jkitleft on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:58:58 PM GMT

Well, I hate religious ideologies, but tend to take the Peter Tatchell "Hate the belief, but love the believer" approach.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir, is a repugnant organisation, that preaches view that go against every part of my left-wing beliefs. But they should not be banned. They are a political organisation. If we are talking in paralel terms, Al Muhajaroun, like Combat 18 should be banned, but Hizb-ut-Tahrir, like the BNP, should not be.


I believe it is actually a Centre-Left approach which defeats superstition, and illiberal ideologies gaining ground. It is necessary to free Muslim women and gays and secularists, to be able to modernise their religion. We all know Jews and Christains who are believers, but don't believe in literal interpretations of original holy scriptures. I think we cannot isolate Muslims. But one of my favourite social democrats, Ken Livingstone, could roll of his tongue all the shelters in London which help victims of domestic abuse that concentrate on emancipating abused Muslim women. He opposes violence on all sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and criticised Muslim and Christain groups for trying to exempt themselves from discrimination laws against homosexuals. This negates, in my opinion, meeting disgusting Egyptian clerics.


Ironically, the Qu'ran doesn't mention banning alcohol. It only mentions wine, that's why there are many Islamic scholars getting drunk on Johnny Walker Blue.


But I don't think this is necessarily centre-right to oppose Islamism. For instance, I don't support banning Hizb-ut-Tahrir. But, I oppose the building of the mega mosque. If it is funded by extremists, then I am against it, but I'm not sure whether I would vote to stop it.


[ Parent ]

I will have my say! (#9)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:40:00 PM GMT

Mr. Harris, I submitted the following post to your own blog, but you didn't post it, so as we are talking about terrorism and freedom here, I will let others read what I have to say.

Mr Brown is always saying how much he wants to hear from the public: not on important issues like the EU and our sovereignty, obviously, but anyway, here is my post again .....



Our freedoms are being eroded from all angles. The 42-days was the last straw for Mr Davis, but what about everything else he said, Mr Harris, like:

#We will have shortly, the most intrusive identity card system in the world.

#A CCTV camera for every 14 citizens.

#A DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has.

#An assault on jury trials, that bulwark against bad law and its arbitrary abuse by the state.

#Shortcuts with our justice system that make our system neither firm nor fair.

#The creation of a database state, opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers.

#The state has security powers to clamp down on peaceful protest, and so-called hate laws that stifle legitimate debate whilst those who incite violence get off scot-free.

What about all this?

What about the fact that we now live in a country where the mother of a young child who accidentally drops a piece of sausage roll (which is then eaten by birds) gets into trouble with the law - BUT a man who has sex with a 12-year-old girl is spared prison because she "was asking for it?"

A recent Civitas report says that rather than tackling crime effectively, "We are bringing more and more people to justice but they are the wrong people."

Surely this defines the UK as a police state.

Forget party politics and petty bickering for a while and see the reality of what Mr Davis was saying and return our liberty to us or we will take it back - IT IS NOT YOURS TO TAKE.

As for terrorists, try looking to governments to see who the biggest ones are. Google: "USS Liberty", "Operation Gladio", "Gulf of Tonkin", "Operation Northwoods",  and of course a large part of the IRA was British Intelligence.

And naturally, there has been a lot of regime change to preserve the profits and influence of the global 'elite'.

Just one example is MI6 and CIA removing Mohammad Mossadegh as president of Iran in 1953. I even heard Tony Benn admitting this one on Radio 4.

(Imagine what Iran of today could have been like had "we" allowed Dr. Mossadegh to carry on reforming his country.)

A major problem is that MPs know very little about the real world, present and historical, and even try to do what they think is right sometimes, but instead their actions can be very damaging indeed.

Such is the case of the 42-day detention without charge in a climate where hundreds of arrests are being made per week under the Terrorism Act and where local councils are using special terrorist powers to spy on people for reasons not related to terrorism.

P.S. I no longer vote for any of the mainstream parties, but could be persuaded to vote for DD given the chance.


 


Re: I will have my say! (#12)

by Tom Harris MP on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:35:51 PM GMT

I never edit or censor comments on my blog unless they are gratuitously offensive or unless they might provoke legal action against me. Although your own comment is a bit silly, I would have posted it had I received it.


[ Parent ]

Re: I will have my say! (#17)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:52:15 PM GMT

Mr Harris, thank you for your reply. I thought, maybe you didn't receive my comment, so as not to jump to conclusions, I resubmitted it two days later and a message popped up advising me that my comment had already been submitted, so forgive me for presuming you received it when your website intimated that you had.


I am interested to know which part of my post you consider "a bit silly." Was it that Mr Brown says he wants to listen, but won't give us the expected referendum on the EU?


Please see the poll on my blog article on this website: Back Down, Mr Brown, the Lisbon Treaty is OFFICIALLY Dead (thank you Ireland).


At the time of posting this, 15 out of 18 who voted either want the Treaty scrapped or offered a referendum.
 

Did you think Mr Davis' list of threats to our freedom is silly? Every day we read of utterly contemptuous treatment of law-abiding citizens by the "authorities."


As for the false flag terror by the US and UK, allow me to outline these two examples.


Operation Gladio (after the Italian for 'sword') is very interesting and major atrocities like the Bologna railway station bombing in 1980 where 85 people were murdered may be just one of the attacks attributed to Gladio.


On November 22, 1990, the European Parliament passed a resolution on Operation Gladio.


Just the first three points are worrying enough:


A. having regard to the revelation by several European governments of the existence for 40 years of a clandestine parallel intelligence and armed operations organization in several Member States of the Community,


B. whereas for over 40 years this organization has escaped all democratic controls and has been run by the secret services of the states concerned in collaboration with NATO,


C. fearing the danger that such clandestine network may have interfered illegally in the internal political affairs of Member States or may still do so.


It is also mentioned in the more recent European Parliament resolution (pdf) on "the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners" (2006/2200(INI)), which states:


"whereas, in adopting its resolution of 22 November 1990 on the Gladio affair, Parliament drew attention, more than 16 years ago, to the existence of clandestine operations involving intelligence services and military organisations without adequate democratic control."


Other links: Independent article; book, "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe," recent Times article, which also reminds us:


"Britain 1975 - Harold Wilson, the Labour Prime Minister, told journalists he believed himself to be the target of a coup planned by MI5. Fears of covert Soviet influence on the Government and extensive union activism are thought to have been driving factors in the alleged plot."


As for Iran: "Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951, a move which resulted in the British evacuation of the refinery several months later, and then, two years later, the M16/CIA operation to secure the overthrow of Mossadegh."

The New York Times reported in 2000 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright saying that,


"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh.''


''The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons, but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.''


The article states that the decision to go ahead with the coup was made by Allen Dulles, the first head of the postwar C.I.A., and his brother, John Foster Dulles, the secretary of state at the time. And it was executed chiefly by Kermit Roosevelt, a grandson of Theodore Roosevelt.


Of course, as Robert Tait wrote in The Guardian,


"The result was Operation Ajax, a CIA-MI6 putsch that co-opted a loose coalition of monarchists, nationalist generals, conservative mullahs and street thugs to overthrow Mossadegh. With the economy teetering in the face of the British blockade, Mossadegh was ousted after several days of violent street clashes."


As I have already said, imagine what Iran of today could have been like had Dr. Mossadegh been allowed to carry on reforming his country.


Maybe voting for David Davis, you consider "silly". Given you are a Labour MP, I will give you that one, but everything else I wrote is very, very serious.


By Stewart Cowan (Glasgow South Side boy born and bred and hoping you will check my claims).


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#11)

by Tankist on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:11:53 PM GMT

Tom,

 

Once again you don't miss and hit the wall!

The "west's decadence" is my right (not only, but also) to go and have a drink, to sleep with a mutually consenting adult and to live a life in freedom.

If some people - regardless of their religion - don't like that, that is their problem, not mine and they can be sure that me and plenty like me will fight them - with guns if necessary.

As for Iraq - we got the fascist. He doesn't look so indefatigable now, does he?

Given that Chemical Ali's response to being advised that the "international community" might object to his policy of mass murder in Kurdistan was "fuck them" then we should be proud of having put down that rabid dog regime.


Re: Grieve and grievances (#13)

by TonyH on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:59:24 PM GMT

Given that Chemical Ali's response to being advised that the "international community" might object to his policy of mass murder in Kurdistan was "fuck them" then we should be proud of having put down that rabid dog regime. 

But we shouldn't be proud that we (the coalition) made a (rabid) dog's ear of the entire process and the management of the country post invasion.

We shouldn't be proud that Iran has been strengthened, Al Quaida rebuilt in Afghanistan and North Korea emboldened as a result of the mismanagement of the war.


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#14)

by AngryVoter on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:10:22 PM GMT

Iran was being "held back" by a bunch of illterate drug runners on one side and a "Mighty" leader that took us less than 3 weeks to defeat on the other.

 Says a lot about the new "strong" Iran. 90% of it is smoke and mirrors.

----------

I do agree with the dog's ear of the "afterwards" though, we shouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi military [most of whom are now in the various militias]

Blair should have stood up more on the lack of after-action planning.

However, due to Labour's own historical ignorance [as in literal lack of knowledge and historical blaze to the military] to war and it's effects, I cannot really blame him just nodding in agreement to whatever the American high-ups were saying. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#16)

by Free Radical on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:36:02 PM GMT

Of course you can blame Blair - he was the Prime Minister!


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#20)

by AngryVoter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:49:43 AM GMT

Well.... yeah. I'd be calling whatever Tory PM a spanner too if this had happened under them.

We've never before disbanded the military of any conqured country because we knew they'd be necessary for policing, which is why I stared boggle eyed at the TV as the ridiculous General Casey disbanded the Iraqi Military.


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#15)

by Free Radical on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:34:30 PM GMT

Also, following Tony's point, we shouldn't be proud of the excess 654,965 Iraqi deaths that, according to a paper in The Lancet, occurred between 2003 and 2006 as a result of the invasion.


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#18)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:29:51 AM GMT

The tragedy of how the war strengthened Iran, is that if the war had been effective, it could've weakened the theocracy. The students in Iran were getting increasingly angry. The public were supporting Iraqi shi'ites, and were therefore supporting military action, as the mullahs were well aware. We could've triggered a democratic revolution in Iran, but sadly our lack of a Marshall Plan, which would've made all the difference, has left what could've been the plan to trigger a democratic revolution across the Muslim world, in tatters.


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#19)

by Free Radical on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:51:17 AM GMT

JK

You seem really sold on the idea that some kind of benign military intervention is possible. But there are very few examples of this (perhaps Vietnam deposing Pol Pot in Cambodia might be one relatively benign example - I don't know) and the reason there are remarkably few is that people don't mind being liberated but they don't generally like being occupied by a foreign power (and sometimes not by a home power either). In my view, with the greatest respect (and I would be happy to discuss this at length with you because your posts always display a certain rigour and thoughtfulness) I think the notion of liberal intervention is almost entirely wrong (Sierra Leone, where we stabilised a civil war might be one of the few examples where it has worked to a degree but the chaos of a civil war is not like pre-invasion Iraq - it's more like post-invasion Iraq).

The other factor is that it is used to cloak the real reasons for intervention, and in Iraq there were two big (and related) reasons. One obvious one was oil. The other related reason was the containment of Iran.

Afghanistan is another complete disaster, where we are pouring billions into the wholesale destruction of a country (we have apparently used more ordnance than in Iraq).

So basically my thesis is that liberal intervention is generally a misnomer for old-fashioned imperialism.

The comparison with Germany and Japan is quite flawed as I have previously pointed out.


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#21)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:02:59 PM GMT

You do make an excellent point, and after a brief flirtation with the pro-war side, I am back on the anti-Iraq war side. What I would like to know, is why the anti-war left at the time of intervention, didn't propose an alternative way of getting rid of Saddam.

I continue to mention West Germany and Japan, because I maintain that it is where we have gone wrong. I don't use these two examples to justify pro-war arguments, I use them to criticise our management of Iraq. If we legalised drugs, we could withdraw from Afghanistan tomorrow. With regards to Iraq, I believe we should've withdrawn in 2004, but, failure there has been brought about, because we haven't treated it like a West Germany or a Japan.

The World Bank currently gets to control the Iraqi economy, with disasterous Thatcherite economics ensuing, even with a democratic socialist as President- the excellent Jalal Talabani. If we are to withdraw from Iraq, we need to reform the World Bank. If this succeeds, Iraq can gain control of their economy, and we should strike a peace deal, whereby oil is distributed proportionately amongst the non-Kurdish Sunnis, the Kurds, and the Shi'ites.

How quickly the Thatcherism on steroids economics can then be reversed is questionable, so until they can provide a new economics to rebuild their regressive health system, and their collapsing water, sanitation and electricity systems, and repair their education, as well as tackling unemployment, we should pour the money we our currently spending on troops into these systems. This money could then gradually decrease, until the disasterous economics of the World Bank is reversed.

It is their economic situation which has provided a breeding ground for terrorism. If we had mass unemployment, especially amongst young, bored men, and we had bombs going off everyday, then ethnic groups here would quickly turn on each other.


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#22)

by Free Radical on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:13:32 PM GMT

You make some good points JK.

As to why the anti-war left didn't propose alternative ways of getting rid of Sadam - I guess they did in the sense that many (including Galloway) supported the opposition, such as the Iraqi Communists. But there are two issues in removing a dictator
1. How do you do it practically?
2. What are the repercussions?

You might add a third, which is "whose business is it to remove a dictator?" - and I think primarily the people of that country. The unfortunate truth is that for many years we kept Sadam in power and armed him to the teeth, because he was useful to "our" interests. As I recall it was really only the left and the liberal left who complained about him at all.

I agree that the legalisation (or I would prefer decriminalisation) of drugs would have enormous beneficial consequences on balance - both here and in Afghanistan. I also agree about the problems caused by the World Bank.

Generally though (and I acknowledge the paradoxes) we should as individuals and as a Labour movement support liberation movements, as we did, for example with South Africa, but I am almost always against military intervention - because it generally makes things worse for the people invaded and they resent it before very long, and because there are other dubious reasons for intervention that often work their way in. Clearly with Iraq the US (and UK) want to exercise some control over the world price of oil by controlling Iraq - as well as strategically limiting Iran. The US will never leave Iraq voluntarily, no matter what the Iraqis want - but will retire to permanent fortified bases when it can.

The constitution we have left Iraq looks to me (as a non-expert!) as a disaster - it has fragmented the country, which was probably its intention. Only a new constitution forged by Iraqis themselves will work. So my position is that we need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. If they need some stabilisation in the meantime then let other countries more acceptable to those peoples step in on a temporary basis.


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#23)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:53:45 PM GMT

I think everyone is interested in Iraq: France gave its nuclear industry to Iraq, and along with China and Russia gave its oil companies. Saudi Arabia and Iran would gain even more money. Turkey wants Iraqi Kurdistan. America gave less weapons than Denmark to Iraq though, and around 90% of weapons were given by USSR, France and China.

We almost got rid of him in the seventies, but that war criminal Henry Kissenger betrayed the Iraqi Kurds, in order to keep the Shah in power (useless, as his regime fell a few years later).

What is clear though, is that Iraq would've had a properly coherent hydrocarbon law without IMF neo-liberalism. They could then start rebuilding their country. I think we should reverse their debts, and start paying Iraq, in order to help them rebuild their country.


[ Parent ]

Re: Grieve and grievances (#24)

by Free Radical on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:28:48 PM GMT

It's another thread really JK - which maybe we should start.

Sadam was quite skillful in playing the superpowers off against one another and therefore (because of the oil and the strategic position in the Middle East) was able to gain from both East and West.

In my opinion we need to leave Iraq to the Iraqis to put together their shattered country. And leave Iraqis the oil that rightfully belongs to them.

But, as I have said, the US will never leave Iraq voluntarily and is building huge permanent bases.

Britain on the other hand will leave voluntarily because the price of the political fallout at home is too high - but, as announced today, we will compensate by increasing our commitment to the other unwinnable war in Afghanistan.

(It probably sounds trite to say "leave them to it", and there may need to be an intermediate stabilisation phase in restoring their independence, but I don't think that we have a legitimate role in this).

I don't know if you have read Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation but I recommend it highly - it puts everything into an admirable wider historical context.


[ Parent ]

Grieve and grievances | 24 comments (24 topical)