Big Sticks and Small Carrots

Or willful ignorance?

Who remembers when concerns about UK involvement in “rendition” were ridiculed as conspiracy theories? Let’s have a quick trip down memory name courtesy of Obsolete to remind ourselves of the way these denials were formulated.

Here’s an extract from a leaked briefing document written by a Foreign Office official at Downing Street’s request.

The Home Office, who lead, are urgently examining our files, as are we. But we now cannot say that we have received no such requests for the use of UK territory or air space for “Extraordinary Rendition”. It does remain true that “we are not aware of the use of UK territory or air space for the purpose of “Extraordinary Rendition”". But we think we should now try to move the debate on from the specifics of rendition, extraordinary or otherwise, and focus people instead on the Rice’s clear assurance that all US activities are consistent with their domestic and international obligations and never include the use of torture.

Phrases like “we are not aware of…” were commonly included in the government’s semi-denials. The memo also recommends that “we should try to avoid getting drawn on detail… and to try to move the debate on, in as front foot a way we can, underlining all the time the strong anti-terrorist rationale for close cooperation with the US, within our legal obligations.” Again, this diversionary tactic was repeatedly deployed by the government.

Further trips down memory lane available from Blairwatch and The Guardian.

Good faith? Its not even funny.

Apparently, the UK is a soft touch and multiculturalism is to blame. And, contrary to rumours, my hamster was not killed by curiosity but by multiculturalism. It’s evil, I tells you.

But this post isn’t about multiculturalism. Reading the RUSI article (pdf), it becomes apparent that a large part of it is concerned with something else.

The opening two sentences read:

The security of the United Kingdom is at risk and under threat. The mismatch between the country’s military commitments and the funding of its defence moved Lords Bramall, Boyce, Craig, Guthrie and Inge – five former Chiefs of the Defence Staff – to take the unusual step of raising their concerns publicly in a House of Lords Defence debate on 22 November 2007.

Quite a strong clue there as to what that something else is. As the article progresses, it becomes clear that the authors don’t just blame the current Labour government for the current situation:

Both political parties have been complicit, from the time of the Rifkind Defence Review under the Major administration to the agitated activity and many institutional disturbances of the Blair administrations. And now we have the failure of the Brown administration to provide the significant increases of core funding for defence that so exercises Lords Bramall, Boyce, Craig, Guthrie and Inge. Official assertions plead otherwise, but the intervention of the Chiefs of the Defence Staff suggests an atmosphere of chronic disrepair. Britain’s defence forces have been reduced during a decade of overuse, under-funding and general underprovision relative to that use.

How very non-partisan.

For the avoidance of doubt, the conclusion says this of the structural change recommended in the article:

It would reduce the appearance of short-term political advantage in the deployment of our defence forces and promote acceptance of necessary provision for defence and security. [My emphasis.]

It is, as is so often the case, about money. In essence, the theory is that a non-partisan body would be in a position to effectively sell the case for increases in military spending to a sceptical public. Such a body, would, the authors believe, command greater authority and respect than the government of the day. As such, you can see why they were so keen to make the parallel with the Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England. Public confidence in that body is high and its decisions and pronouncements are respected. Who wouldn’t want some of that?

In short, the committees suggested by the article would ultimately operate as lobbyists for arms manufacturers but with moral authority and public respect. To be fair, the authors have been reasonably quite open about this. If you look at the press release, these points are not hidden. Multiculturalism, on the other hand, doesn’t get a mention. (To be fair to the media, they don’t seem to have misquoted the article, just chosen to emphasise this one part of a wider argument).

There are undoubtedly many people who would agree with this approach or at least with the goal of increases in military spending. Unsurprisingly, I’m not one of them. Rather than go into the reasons in detail, I can explain with reference to one phrase. In the press release, co-author Professor Prins, is quoted as saying:

The United Kingdom can only take the risk of a bare-bones defence and security establishment if we are sure of the shape of the threat. Today we are not, and cannot be. Britain’s defence forces have been reduced during a decade of over-use, under-funding and general under-provision relative to that use. Defence and security must be restored as the first duty of government.

When an “expert on international security” used the phrase “bare-bones defence and security establishment” in relation to the UK, something has gone horribly wrong.

The UK spends more on its military than almost any country in the world. Depending on how you measure it, the UK is the 2nd or 5th largest spender. In the world. Of the top 15 spenders, only the USA and Saudia Arabia spend more per person on the military. (From the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.)

An “expert on international security” should certainly know this. No, an “expert on international security” certainly does know this.

A bare bones defence? Professor Prins undoubtedly also thinks that participants in Celebrity Fit Club could do to gain a few pounds.

At the bottom of this exclusive Sun report on there’s a caption which says:

Unaware … terror mobs don’t know their words can be heard by RAF

It may not be entirely accurate.

In a situation like this, it’s hard to be sure what’s going or where the story came from.

It might be possible to make some educated guesses by observing the government’s reaction. If they launch an enquiry and attempt to prosecute the leakers for compromising an important method of intelligence gathering, that would suggest that there was a leak and that it hadn’t been orchestrated by the government. This is certainly a possibility.

If that’s the last we hear of it however, the story is likely to be a Sun invention or a government approved leak. These are also perfectly possible.

Questions, questions.

Update

Somehow, I have a feeling you’ll be able to guess what happened when I tried to take advantage of the Sun’s “Have Your Say” feature under the article. I thought I’d try some Sun language for this one:

“Unaware … terror mobs don’t know their words can be heard by RAF”

You’ve just told them!

If this story is true, the Sun has now compromised an important method of gathering intelligence on the Taliban. This can only make it even more dangerous for our troops in Afghanistan.

Shows how much the Sun really cares about our lads. Shameful.

Hours later, and with plenty of other comments published in the meantime, there’s no sign of it. I told you it wouldn’t be a surprise. It’s not like they were going to be able to defend their decision to publish this story in a fair debate, is it?

Interestingly,  given the rubbish way the Sun’s comment system works, I suspect very few people would have bothered to have read my comment even if they had published it. This heavy handed approach to criticism does suggest that they’re worried about the fragility of the echo chamber they’ve constructed to hide behind. Let’s hope they’re right about that, at least.

Now, do you think I’ll get a reply to the polite email I’ve sent asking why the moderators have a problem with my comment?

Over the last few days, there has been much said about Dean Godson, Policy Exchange’s “Research Director”. His appearance on Newsnight to defend P.E.’s report into extremist literature was quite extraordinary. Here are some interesting facts about Mr Godson.

Most notably, he holds the extraordinary distinction of having lost his position at the Daily Telegraph because of his political views. Back in 2004, Martin Newland, former Telegraph editor, explained to the Guardian:

It’s OK to be pro-Israel, but not to be unbelievably pro-Likud Israel, it’s OK to be pro-American but not look as if you’re taking instructions from Washington. Dean Godson and Barbara Amiel were key departures.

Dean Godson was too pro-Likud and too subservient to the US government for the Telegraph. Given the writers they happily still employ, you’ve got to wonder just how extreme his own views must be.

Mr Godson has also been reasonably open about the need for the US and UK government’s to deploy covert propaganda techniques. In an article for the Times in 2006, he wrote that:

During the Cold War, organisations such as the Information Research Department of the Foreign Office would assert the superiority of the West over its totalitarian rivals. And magazines such as Encounter did hand-to-hand combat with Soviet fellow travellers. For any kind of truly moderate Islam to flourish, we need first to recapture our own self-confidence. At the moment, the extremists largely have the field to themselves.

The Information Research Department was a secret Foreign Office propaganda organisation which operated mostly in the developing world during the Cold War. It’s practices were modelled on psychological warfare operations. Typically, it covertly spoon fed “slanted” anti-communist stories to journalists to achieve the desired effect

Encounter magazine, on the other hand, was funded by the CIA. Based in London and initially edited by Irving Kristol, it too was a covert Cold War propaganda tool. It’s primary function seems to have been to attempt to steer European left wing intellectuals down the “right” path (no pun intended). The “right” path was the path deemed most acceptable by right wingers in the CIA. The CIA funding was kept secret in order that readers wouldn’t know that attempts were being made to manipulate their views from across the pond.

Neither of the government funded organisations operated in a transparent manner. Quite the opposite in fact. Mr Godson, who worked for the Reagan administration, will almost certainly be aware of the covert nature of these organisations. In true neo-conservative style, this does not seem to bother him in the slightest.

This suggests rather strongly that Mr Godson is a believer in the idea of the political noble lie as a means to achieve social cohesion and national security.

And he is the “Research Director” of Policy Exchange, an organisation which purports to be “an independent think tank… committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development”.

Right…

I’m no expert but I’m not sure that Dean Godson is the best man for the job.

There is clearly vital and compelling evidence of the need to extend the maximum period of detention without charge to 90, no, 28, no, 56, no, 47 days, 4 hours, 18 minutes and 29.5 seconds.

No, let’s try that again.

There is clearly vital and compelling evidence of the need to extend the maximum period of detention. I hope MPs don’t rue the day they refuse to acknowledge the vital and compelling evidence of the need extend the maximum period of detention without charge to 90, no, 28…

Drat.

One more try.

There is clearly vital and compelling evidence of the need for Gordon Brown to be seen to be doing something.

And we’re off.

According to the Guardian:

There is evidence that Gordon Brown has not yet formed any strong personal opinion and he is said to remain “genuinely open-minded” on his preferred option.

Much as I’d like to be optimistic, this is probably a reference to Brown being genuinely open-minded on the length of the extension needed, not on whether one is needed at all.*

But it’s no wonder he hasn’t made up his mind yet; there are serious issues to be considered here. Would an extra 14 days be enough to convey the sense of a competent, trusted statesman dealing responsibly with a complicated issue? Would going for an extra 28 days so soon after the last doubling add a suggestion of gravitas and decisiveness or would it look Blairish and hysterical?

It’s not an easy call.

To pass the time while Gordon decides what’s needed, feel free to submit your guesses below. There won’t be any prizes if you get it right, I’m afraid, but on the plus side, participation is unlikely to lead to entrants being imprisoned without charge for up to three, no, one, no, two months.

Every cloud and all that.

* I’d be more than happy to be proved wrong.

Check out these two, ahem, unrelated, ahem, pieces of news today.

Terror limit ‘could be doubled’

The 28-day limit on holding terror suspects without charge is likely to be doubled by the government.

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said the government wanted to extend the limit, “probably” to 56 days.

‘Thousands’ pose UK terror threat

There are at least 2,000 people in the UK who pose a threat to national security because of their support for terrorism, the head of MI5 has said.

Jonathan Evans said there had been a rise of 400 since November 2006.

Hmm.

It appears that the new head of MI5 is participating in a co-ordinated attempt to set the news agenda in preparation for Gordon Brown’s first Queen’s speech tomorrow. And, if the news bulletins I’ve heard this evening are anything to go by, he has succeeded.

Because using the secret services to disseminate fear in order to generate support for a proposed government policy is a hallmark of a truly democratic country…

The Policy Exchange report into extremist literature in British Mosques certainly got plenty of coverage in the media this week (as was the intention, no doubt).

Before looking at the report itself, it is worth taking a moment to highlight the general attitude of its author, Dr. Denis MacEoin.

Elsewhere, he has said:

Just as our parents and grandparents fought the dark ideology of Nazism in the 1930s and 40s, so I believe this generation has the heaviest of responsibilities face to face with this growing threat to all civilized values. Not just the West, but the peoples of the Islamic world too may see their way of life changed for ever should the totalitarian spectre impose itself and its deadening hatred of life on all we and they hold dear.

I don’t like to speak in terms of historic moments or symbolic conflicts, but I’m afraid that, as this struggle intensifies, I am bound to do so.

Civilization itself is at stake. The values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the open society are as much or more at risk today than in the decades when we confronted, first German fascism and then Soviet communism.

He has also said:

I do not hold a brief for Islam. On the contrary, I have very negative feelings about it… I am pro-Israeli and involve myself in the defence of Israel…

To be fair, I should also mention that that second quotation was taken from a complaint Dr MacEoin made to Dhimmi Watch concerning the “gung-ho ignorance masquerading as informed comment” which appears in their comment threads.

Dr MacEoin’s attitude towards Muslims and his lack of any sort of ability to maintain perspective* is no reason to dismiss the findings of his report out of hand, of course. I include this merely as a context.

So let’s look at the report. Policy Exchange says:

The report is the most comprehensive academic survey of its kind ever produced in the UK and is based on a year-long investigation by several teams of specialist researchers into the availability of extremist literature and covers more than a hundred mosques and Islamic centres throughout the UK.

A comprehensive academic survey, they say.

Well, I’ve had a look at it (pdf) and I’m not sure that’s the description you’d want to use for it. For a start, can anyone direct me to the peer reviewed journal which published this “comprehensive academic survey”? I’m no scientist but I believe that’s the standard way in which academic surveys gain legitimacy. No?

As far as I can tell, it’s been published exclusively by Policy Exchange themselves, the same organisation which commissioned and funded the “research”.

And what of the methodology used in the report?

Methodology

In November 2006 four research teams (each comprising two people) were dispatched over a six month period to 100 Islamic institutions in a variety of locations across Britain… The focus for their research was on sites of religious instruction – which for the most part meant mosques… The teams’ brief was to investigate the extent to which literature inculcating Muslim separatism and hatred for the ‘non-believer’ was accessible in those institutions – both in terms of being openly available and also being obtainable ‘under the counter’.

There’s more but it really doesn’t get any more enlightening. It seems that this “comprehensive academic survey” specifically set out to find as many offensive pieces of literature as possible and that’s all it attempted to do.

The report claims to have found offensive material in 26% of the Mosques they investigated. Did the teams investigate the context in which this literature was available or the prominence given to these publications? Did they attempt to build a clear understanding of the situation by recording the number of publications containing counter-arguments available from the same institutions?

No, they did not.

In Edinburgh Central Mosque, for example, the report found one publication they deemed objectionable and that was enough for the Mosque to be included in the list of distributors of hate. Was that one publication sitting overlooked on a dusty bottom shelf while more moderate literature was widely available, prominently displayed and actively promoted? I suspect that’s the reality, as does Osama Saaed, but this is not something which Policy Exchange’s “comprehensive academic survey” concerns itself with.

If you were to visit libraries in the UK, you could find similar literature and get a very high headline figure indeed. Without context, this finding, while true, would be essentially meaningless.

It seems then that the survey was designed so as to allow as many Mosques as possible to be included in the headline grabbing figures. No attempt was made to investigate the full picture of the literature available at British Mosques or the way it is used and distributed. It was instead cherry picking on a grand scale; a comprehensive academic study into the literature being promoted in British Mosques, it most certainly was not.

None of the above is to deny that there is extremist literature to be found in some British Mosques, of course. Nor is it to deny that the Saudi government actively seeks to promote its intolerant version of Islam in other countries including the UK. The point is merely that headlines generated by flawed reports masquerading as academic surveys should not be taken at face value.

* If you agree with MacEoin’s contention that “the values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the open society are as much or more at risk today… “, I’ve got three words for you: Battle of Britain. And another three: Cuban missile crisis.

Perhaps that’s what Kim Howells meant when he said “our shared values”.

Or roast beef, Yorkshire pudding and torture.

Or fairness and equality for all (men). (Well, some men anyway.)

Howells also said that “some commentators will focus on our differences and ask how we can talk of shared values”. Well, yes. How can you?

Is the US government enabling and protecting a terrorist organisation? If the boot were on the other foot and the Turkish government opposed US attempts to deal with a terrorist group which had killed US citizens, how do you think the Bush administration would view that?

The US certainly doesn’t show any real enthusiasm for tackling the PKK and affiliated groups. In fact, the Turkish government claims that they have captured US weapons from members of the PKK. These weapons are thought to have been given to the PKK by the infamous mercenaries at Blackwater who operate in Iraq under contracts issued by the Pentagon. I can only assume that General Patreaus be soon be showing slides to the world’s media which demonstrate the fact that these terrorists are using US arms. He will undoubtedly then argue that this is proof of US government support for a group which they themselves classify as a terrorist organisation. Or maybe not…

Of course, the PKK and the PEJAK are known to cause problems for the Iranian regime as well as the Turks and the Iranians have been responding heavy handedly in recent weeks. But only a hardened cynic would suggest that the PKK’s antagonism of the Iranian government has anything to do with the Bush administration’s apparent unwillingness to shut them down. I mean, the US government has absolutely no track record of turning a blind eye to, implicitly supporting or secretly funding and training violent, human rights abusing, non-democratic organisations. Right?

The actions of this terrorist have turned the spotlight on liberals, libertarians and all those others opposed to the ever expanding power of the state. It is time for them to make a choice.

Will they renounce their dangerous opposition to ID Cards and the National Database? Will they publicly support the rapid expansion of the government’s entirely secure DNA database? Will they wholeheartedly and sincerely endorse the government’s national children’s database? (And will they also support the perfectly sensible exclusion for the children of the people who made it compulsory for everyone else’s children to be included?)

Will they renounce the ridiculous idea that there could be any legitimate reason to oppose the government’s expansion of its ability to monitor its subjects in ever greater detail? And will they acknowledge that there are absolutely no legitimate grievances against the actions of the government.

At this crucial moment, it is to be hoped that these liberals will finally accept what all civilised people have always known; the government always knows best.

But I fear that many will not. A large number will continue to actively justify and support the actions of despicable terrorists. They will embrace violence rather than rejecting it. Many, brainwashed by the extremist philosophies of John Stuart Mill, will refuse to accept that their so called grievances are based on a dangerous, discredited and out-dated belief system. They will refuse to acknowledge the utter lack of credibility of their “arguments”, despite the fact that their facile nature has been proved beyond doubt by these vicious letter bomb attacks. It is impossible to see how refusal to accept this can be anything other than a wilful denial of reality fuelled by an unthinking hatred of the government.

These apologists should know this; you’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror! Anyone who refuses to actively combat this dangerous ideology will be held accountable for their inactivity.

Well liberals, what’s it to be?

And remember, the government will know which side you choose to take. They always know…