Either right or wrong
Either right or wrong
Oppose British policy on its merits - not because it makes us a target
Roy Hattersley
Monday August 14, 2006
The Guardian
I have been an opponent of the American occupation of Iraq ever since I realised that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction only existed in Tony Blair's imagination. And I am equally opposed both to Israel's disproportionate response to Hizbullah's rocket attacks and to the prime minister's support for the assault upon Lebanon. What is more, I have no doubt that tacit acceptance of the slaughter in Beirut and Baghdad makes this country a target for al-Qaida terrorists and provides the friendly hinterland of sympathisers in which all urban guerrillas need to take refuge.
That being said, I still regret that the letter sent on Friday to the prime minister by leaders of the Islamic community implied that the increased threat that Britain's foreign policy guarantees is in itself a reason for changing the government's position. The reason policy should be changed is the simple fact that the policy is wrong. To demand a shift because it will reduce the risk of suicide bombing is to diminish the case for altering course from a matter of principle to a question of self interest.
If Israel were waging a just war against Lebanon, and the prospect in Iraq was progress towards the liberal democracy that George Bush glibly promises, the dangers would have to be accepted with good grace. Unless, that is, we believe that Britain can withdraw from the rest of the world, secure in what WH Auden called our "tight little right little island". If we are to follow Robin Cook's lead towards an ethical foreign policy, Britain must be more engaged in international affairs, not less. Our foreign policy must be measured against moral criteria, not the risks of more explosions on the underground, horrific though that prospect is.
There are already too many siren voices arguing that the tragedy in Lebanon is "nothing to do with us". Commentators who ought to know better are urging Britain to let the Israelis and Lebanese "get on with it" as if they were louts outside a bar, engaged in a brawl that all sensible people would hurry past. Nato intervention actually halted Balkan genocide after the break-up of the Yugoslav federation.
When it is right to go in we should accept the consequences. Arguing that we should pull out to save our skins is a diversion from the central issue. It also enables supporters of the wrong policy to strike heroic postures - bear any burden, accept any hardship, face any foe. So we should when our cause is just. In the case of Iraq and Lebanon our cause is beyond justification. That is the only issue and the only argument.
There is a second reason that the letter is a matter for regret. It will be interpreted by the mendacious and malicious as proof positive that Muslims in general have at least a sneaking sympathy for people who hope to blow up airliners in mid-flight. That is, of course, palpable nonsense. But the alienation of young Muslims is a subject that has to be discussed with care. No informed person doubts that it is happening. It began long before they were offended by Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses almost 20 years ago. But it usually results in no more than rejection of the society that has shown them, and their religion, so little respect. The Muslims I know, and used to represent in parliament, often feel undervalued. But their attitude to suicide bombing is no different from that of the nominal Christians who live next door.
When the signatories to Friday's letter meet the prime minister they should not spend much time on the increased threat that our foreign policy attracts. They ought to discuss the merits and the morals of his attitude towards Beirut and Baghdad. Does he still think that the creation of a democracy in Iraq is more likely than civil war, and how does he justify an intervention that results in more murders each day than during Saddam Hussein's regime? And why is Israel given carte blanche to occupy whichever parts of its neighbours' territory it chooses? The answers are bound to reveal that Britain is on the wrong side of the argument. That is the important thing to be said about our policy towards Iraq and Lebanon.
Oppose British policy on its merits - not because it makes us a target
Roy Hattersley
Monday August 14, 2006
The Guardian
I have been an opponent of the American occupation of Iraq ever since I realised that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction only existed in Tony Blair's imagination. And I am equally opposed both to Israel's disproportionate response to Hizbullah's rocket attacks and to the prime minister's support for the assault upon Lebanon. What is more, I have no doubt that tacit acceptance of the slaughter in Beirut and Baghdad makes this country a target for al-Qaida terrorists and provides the friendly hinterland of sympathisers in which all urban guerrillas need to take refuge.
That being said, I still regret that the letter sent on Friday to the prime minister by leaders of the Islamic community implied that the increased threat that Britain's foreign policy guarantees is in itself a reason for changing the government's position. The reason policy should be changed is the simple fact that the policy is wrong. To demand a shift because it will reduce the risk of suicide bombing is to diminish the case for altering course from a matter of principle to a question of self interest.
If Israel were waging a just war against Lebanon, and the prospect in Iraq was progress towards the liberal democracy that George Bush glibly promises, the dangers would have to be accepted with good grace. Unless, that is, we believe that Britain can withdraw from the rest of the world, secure in what WH Auden called our "tight little right little island". If we are to follow Robin Cook's lead towards an ethical foreign policy, Britain must be more engaged in international affairs, not less. Our foreign policy must be measured against moral criteria, not the risks of more explosions on the underground, horrific though that prospect is.
There are already too many siren voices arguing that the tragedy in Lebanon is "nothing to do with us". Commentators who ought to know better are urging Britain to let the Israelis and Lebanese "get on with it" as if they were louts outside a bar, engaged in a brawl that all sensible people would hurry past. Nato intervention actually halted Balkan genocide after the break-up of the Yugoslav federation.
When it is right to go in we should accept the consequences. Arguing that we should pull out to save our skins is a diversion from the central issue. It also enables supporters of the wrong policy to strike heroic postures - bear any burden, accept any hardship, face any foe. So we should when our cause is just. In the case of Iraq and Lebanon our cause is beyond justification. That is the only issue and the only argument.
There is a second reason that the letter is a matter for regret. It will be interpreted by the mendacious and malicious as proof positive that Muslims in general have at least a sneaking sympathy for people who hope to blow up airliners in mid-flight. That is, of course, palpable nonsense. But the alienation of young Muslims is a subject that has to be discussed with care. No informed person doubts that it is happening. It began long before they were offended by Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses almost 20 years ago. But it usually results in no more than rejection of the society that has shown them, and their religion, so little respect. The Muslims I know, and used to represent in parliament, often feel undervalued. But their attitude to suicide bombing is no different from that of the nominal Christians who live next door.
When the signatories to Friday's letter meet the prime minister they should not spend much time on the increased threat that our foreign policy attracts. They ought to discuss the merits and the morals of his attitude towards Beirut and Baghdad. Does he still think that the creation of a democracy in Iraq is more likely than civil war, and how does he justify an intervention that results in more murders each day than during Saddam Hussein's regime? And why is Israel given carte blanche to occupy whichever parts of its neighbours' territory it chooses? The answers are bound to reveal that Britain is on the wrong side of the argument. That is the important thing to be said about our policy towards Iraq and Lebanon.
Clearday-TRForce tarafından gönderildi saat:
1:40 ÖS
0 Yorum:
Yorum Gönder
Kaydol: Kayıt Yorumları [Atom]
<< Ana Sayfa