Clare Short interviewed by Steve Richards
Broadcast 17 July 2005
What are your reflections on the current situation?
I am very sad but not completely surprised. I see big parallels with Irish terrorism. Obviously this is the world descending into worse and worse standards of targeting civilians both in state violence in Iraq, Gaza and so on and the terrorist retaliation. But we had the Birmingham pub bombings in which 20 something people died and I know obviously this is worse but 20 is a big number. Then we had emergency prevention of terrorism, we had the famous trials where the wrong people were convicted although they were jury trials and we had a mood of repression, which I think was widely judged as recruiting support for the IRA, and I have got a horrendous fear that that is where we are going and it is going to get worse before it gets better. It seems to me that if we look at the parallel with Ireland we have to behave with justice here, and obviously with sense, in order to catch and prevent those who would inflict violence on others, but we also have to be in favour of justice in the middle east and not have double standards and that means we should not be supporting what happened in Fallujah and it is out of some of that hypocrisy that the anger feeds.
So what precisely do you fear might be, as you put it the recruiting agent now, obviously events in Fallujah you mentioned but presumably it is wider than just Fallujah in your view.
I am very gloomy about the Middle East. I think the suffering, violence and cruelty and Guantanamo and the rest is going to go on and on in Iraq. I don’t think there is going to be progress on a two state settlement on Israel-Palestine and I think we are going to have more tension here, more criticism and repression of young Muslims – the danger of unwise repressive laws that creates more anger; that is my fear.
Is it your view the war against Iraq was a factor in what happened ten days ago in London?
I am afraid I have no doubt about that. Of course September 11th 2001 happened before Iraq – we all know that. But then Iraq happened after September 2001 and America claimed that Al Qaeda was there, and we all know that was a lie and we now know that our own Prime Minister deceived the country terribly. And we know there has been horrendous loss of life and suffering and we know that there is anger. Anyone who came anywhere near the general election in constituencies with a substantial Muslim population knows that.
In terms of what you call repressive legislation do you not accept that new laws will be necessary in order to try and track some of these people down in advance of these actions, there are specific measures being aimed at preparatory pre-empted measure against these terrorists, isn’t there a case for that in the light of what has happened?
I have read what you have written on this subject but I think that the Prevention of Terrorism Bill that was introduced just before the election in those crazy all night sittings was an outrageous and foolish piece of legislation and the initial suggestion was that the Home Secretary would have the power to lock up anyone he felt like, that was somewhat modified and needs to be reviewed. Of course we need action, but it should be Just action. Remember the Birmingham six, the Guildford four - we had gross injustices that spread a sense that it is an unfair country amongst young Irish people and they were jury trials. So we need wisdom not just as a Government with a massive majority that is showing how tough it is, so I am very pleased actually in the way that the opposition resisted Labour’s initial proposals on Prevention of Terrorism and now there is all party talks and I hope more wisdom will come out of that.
In your view what has happened has not changed your opposition to these proposals but has actually in some ways reinforced them – do you think it becomes more dangerous if these things are in place?
I think it is the same argument - I and indeed the opposition parties were not against any new legislation or any new action. I just wanted us to learn from our recent history and not make grave errors by throwing away any sense of due process, the rule of law, habeas corpus and therefore creating more and more injustices which I think would be the inevitable consequence and it’s the lesson of the experience of Irish terrorism - you then inflame the situation and create more people who are willing to use violence as they believe there is no justice.
Should Muslim leaders in local communities like yours and others be doing more as well?
I think we all have to do more. It is not just Muslims - when there are young people who grew up in our country who are willing to contemplate killing completely innocent civilians - that is wrong anywhere at any time and we have all got to give stronger leadership to challenge that, but I think some of the voices that have been coming from the Government that talk as though this is all evil, and that everything we do is fine, when in fact we are implicated in the slaughter of large numbers of civilians in Iraq and supporting a Middle East policy that for the Palestinians creates this sense of double standards. That feeds anger, and I mean when we went and at last thank heavens got towards peace in Northern Ireland we went for justice within Northern Ireland as well as using security well, as well as a political settlement, but surely that is the lesson.
Could I ask you about the other specific measure being proposed at the moment which is new legislation outlawing what has been defined as incitement to terrorists or terrorist acts presumably aimed partly at some of these controversial Muslim clerics. Your view?
On the face of it, I don’t mind. But you only have to think for two minutes and it is problematic. I mean given what Cherie Blair and Jenny Tonge said about the situation in Palestine and how they understood if people were treated in that way that they might be willing to contemplate suicide bombing - words to that effect, was that incitement? So the concept of not allowing people to go around whipping people up to support the use of violence against innocent civilians is a completely good concept. The problem is going to be finding the right words and implementing it in a way that is really dealing with people that are inciting and not preventing honest discussion of the underlying causes of this horrendous political situation the world is in now.
Given what you have said and your position is very clear, what do you want Tony Blair to do if you were advising him. What would you be telling him precisely to do?
I think it is very hard for him to do it. So I think my own view is that, well I would still advise him but I mean a new Labour leader would be better able to do it. We need to look again at policy in the Middle East and stop being in the pocket of the US who have ulterior motives in Iraq, who are not in favour of a just settlement on Israel/Palestine and therefore prop up dictators in the region and I think the next maybe decade or so is going to be terrible in the world and this is breaking all our International Institutions, the UN is gravely weakened, International law is being grossly undermined, Guantanimo and the rest is undermining the Geneva Convention. I mean that the time where we need International agreement more than ever on the environment and the rest, poverty we are breaking up our International Institutions and the rule of law and Tony Blair is part of it. Now we have to change that and I think we have to be willing to be really looking for justice and new International law, a real settlement in the Middle East and that means Britain distancing itself from the US, standing with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world and pushing the United States into favouring a just settlement in the Middle East. Where Tony Blair is, is propping up Bush in the continuation of oppression and injustice in the Middle East that is feeding the anger of the world.
I must put the alternative case which seems to be very wide spread at the moment that Tony Blair has responded well to the challenge of recent days and he more than any other leader has been trying to propel America into doing some kind of deal in terms of getting the Middle East peace keeping process going again and he could only do that because of his alliance with Bush, which was cemented over Iraq.
Firstly of course he handles himself with dignity in a moment of crisis as he did when Princes Diana died - he is terribly good at that - that is one of his great strengths; we all know that he is good at the public performance and saying the right words. It is good to have a Prime Minister that can do that. The second part of the argument just does not hold up - there was no immediate crisis in Iraq. If Tony Blair meant the words he said, which is that we have to get an Israel-Palestine peace and we had the road negotiated by the UN, the EU Russia and the US, he should have demanded as a condition of cooperation to resolve the position in Iraq, which because of sanctions and the rest needed resolving, progress on the road map, compliance with the rule of law, keeping with the rest of the international community. He had no leverage over Bush because he gave his word to do whatever Bush wanted. If he had made conditions - that was his moment in history - he could have helped to move the Middle East forward, he was so anxious to be in with Bush, he really did not change anything, he just made it easier for Bush and America to make the terrible mistakes they made which has inflamed the situation in the Middle East - that is objectively where it is. He claims that Tony did something that gave him influence. I mean it just does not stand scrutiny if you look into the detail of it all.
Out of interest because as you know in the House of Commons at the moment there is pressure on everyone to rally round, what is your assessment of how many of your back bench colleagues share privately that this is connected with the war against Iraq, have you got a sense of the private view?
It would be hard for me to give a proportion because I have not talked to every single one and actually the power of patronage and the sort of fear and punitive nature of the whipping in the Parliamentary party means collectivity and intelligent discussion is breaking down very sadly - but I would say a good half. I think most people in Britain, nobody wants to have this horrible moment to point out these things sharply, but the arguments will come as the moment moves on but I think most people know that, well indeed it was the intelligence and security committee that said before the war in Iraq that such as war would be likely to increase the recruitment to Al Qaeda and so on. So that is the most respectable kind of source you can have - there is not doubt about it and it is really foolish for people to deny it - we all know that.
Links
Slaughtering civilians is beyond the pale: The west and Islam now have the chance to proclaim this, Financial Times, 16 July 2005
Iraq war support ‘harming fight on terror’, Financial Times, 18 July 2005
