Warning: This post was published more than 11 years ago.
I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!
But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:
- My views might have changed in the 11 years since I wrote this post.
- This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
- Factual information might be outdated.
- Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.
Many thanks for your understanding.
Chatham House has published a report (PDF) whose conclusion is, in a nutshell…
There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism… The UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the United States.
Jack Straw and Tony Blair, who have published precisely zero reports into this, are absolutely convinced that Chatham House is wrong:
“I’m astonished that Chatham House is now saying that we should not have stood shoulder to shoulder with our long-standing allies in the United States,” Mr Straw told reporters before chairing an EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels.
“The time for excuses for terrorism is over,” he said. “The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq.”
Of course, he’s very helpfully misrepresnted the contents of the report, which does not say that the UK should not have supported the USA, and also does not say that if we had not done so, there would be no terrorist attacks. The report merely suggests that antagonising terror cells increases the chance of a terror attack occuring. Which, logic says, it does.
Whilst terror cells are quite happy to attack many places in the Western world in order to make their voices heard, they are doubtlessly going to expend greater efforts attacking the countries which most greatly represent the ideology which they wish to attack. And if this country is attacking Muslims around the world, logic follows that we’re going to be somewhere near the top of the list. If we weren’t attacking them, we’d probably be a little lower down.
It’s also interesting to see today that Charles Clarke has decided that his ‘crucial’ new terror laws, which he claims are necessary to secure the country and help prevent further attacks like those in London, are now to be introduced only in December, because our hard-working MPs need a summer holiday, and really can’t be expected to stay back for an extra couple of weeks. If Charles Clarke continues to say that these laws are so ‘crucial’ after the summer, then I hope someone will point out to him that his own government have delayed their introduction twice – once by calling an early General Eleciton, and once by refusing a summer recall – and so they really can’t be that important.
As serious a story as this is, I think there’s room for a little humour. The Times provides this for us, with possibly the most ridiculous heading for a newspaper graphic so far this year: ‘Tentacles of Terror‘. Whoever said The Times was becoming more tabloidesque?
In all seriousness, Mr Blair and his government must begin to accept that their foreign policy has an impact at home as well as abroad. Until they do this, the country will be in much greater danger than is truly necessary.