Chatham House “shocks” Downing Street
July 22, 2005
Our media office asked last week if I would respond to media enquiries about the Chatham House report which was to be published on Monday July 18, given that I mostly agreed with the main points; I therefore had it for several days (it was embargoed until Monday), and expected some reactions to arise from one or two of its main conclusions, but nobody could have imagined the uproar it caused, nor the furious response from the British government, especially Jack Straw's rather shrill reaction ("I'm astonished Chatham House is now saying that we should not have stood shoulder to shoulder with our long-standing allies") and John Reid's insistence that terror existed before Iraq (as if anyone disputed that). Both, of course, in no way directly answer the report.
The two experts who wrote the paper are not from Chatham House, although the paper is published by it under a joint effort with the New Security Challenges Programme which was launched by the Economic and Social Research Council. You can find the paper in PDF on the Chatham House website, and read for yourself - the Iraq related piece is only a couple of pages long.
The basic premises (grossly summarized) are the following: by the mid 90s, because of Britain's concentration on Northern Ireland and the IRA, and because of its decision to allow a number of radical Islamist groups to set up shop in London and promote terrorism (as long as they did not target British interests or threaten British security), the global terrorism threat had not been a concern.
When 9/11 happened, Britain swiftly changed course, and joined the US in its "war on terror." The report considers that the invasion of Afghanistan was a success in that war. (I do not quite agree with this particular point; on the contrary, I think that the destruction of Afghanistan, while it did oust the Taleban, in no way reduced the terror threat. Bin Laden and his accomplices still roam freely, and seem to have become even more of an "inspiration" for numerous radicals anxious to follow their agenda.)
The invasion of Iraq, the report continues, helped Al Qaeda and sidetracked the Anglo-American coalition from the war on terror. The experts write: "There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism. It gave a boost to the Al-Qaeda network's propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, and deflected resources and assistance that could have been deployed to assist the Karzai government and to bring bin Laden to justice."
This last point, linking the increase in terror with Iraq, was bad enough for Blair, Straw, Reid and the rest of the government, especially as Britain had dutifully parroted the Bush administration's ridiculous claim that the invasion of Iraq was part of the war on terror … after having been, how could we forget, waged for invisible WMDs, and later for Iraq's "liberation" and "democratization."
I personally think that what most infuriated Blair was the following passage: "… the UK government has been conducting counter-terrorism policy 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US, not in the sense of being an equal decision maker, but rather as pillion passenger compelled to leave the steering to the ally in the driving seat." It concludes with the assessment that "riding pillion with a powerful ally has proved costly in terms of British and US military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure, and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign."
Indeed, Blair is extremely sensitive to claims that he is a junior, rather than an equal partner with Bush. Right after 9/11, as he shuttled across the world to explain why Afghanistan was to be invaded, claiming that he didn't leave home without his Koran, the media had mockingly called him America's ambassador at large. Other descriptions were much less respectful, and even the formidable Jeremy Paxman once asked Blair directly, on Newsnight, if he was Bush's poodle.
In any case, this is more or less what all the fuss was about, triggering livid responses from Blair ministers and from supporters of Iraq's invasion. The more they complained, the more talk of the Iraq link got discussed; I am actually quite surprised at the clumsy response of the government, they usually demonstrate a lot more calm. Several of my colleagues and I were left to explain to the media exactly why Downing Street had hit the roof.
Unfortunately for Blair, right after the publication of the Chatham House paper, a report was leaked about the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre's assessment of the situation, mostly concurring with our report. Amongst other things, the report states: "At present there is not a group with both the current intent and the capability to attack the UK." That report was written only 3 weeks before the July 7 bombs! It goes on to deliver the coup de grace: "Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the UK."
Not surprisingly, the government refused to comment about a report from their own intelligence. To add to the mess, a poll conducted by The Guardian and ICM (before the publication of the reports from Chatham House and the JTAC) gave the verdict of Britons: two thirds believe the London bombings are linked to Iraq.
The Guardian's leader on Wednesday sums up the Chatham House report, the leaked JTAC paper, and its own poll.
I ended up giving over 20 interviews on Monday alone, including with all the major British television networks and several international ones. It's a pity the camera couldn't catch the approving nods of a number of journalists whose facial expressions spoke volumes about their agreement with my responses. At the other end of the spectrum, out of about 30 interviews clocked in so far on the subject, a minority pushed with questions whose aim was clearly to catch (or cause) a slip, or an implied justification of the terror. When that never came, some journalists asked point blank: but how can Chatham House justify the terrorist attacks on London, and are you saying that these attacks wouldn't have happened if the war on Iraq hadn't happened? As Dr. Paul Cornish (Head of the Security Programme at Chatham House) said, such suggestions would be insulting had they not been so ridiculous.
Explaining and providing a context so that we can better understand this global phenomenon is not justifying. I'm tempted to say "methinks Tony doth protest too much" – but we all know why he is beginning to worry. Britain didn't really care about the rest of the world and seems to have "bought" its own security by not stopping radical Islamist groups from propagating in London. Blair got nothing in return for its alliance with – or rather blind devotion to – the Bush administration, and clearly has very little clout in Washington. Is Blair's foreign policy really advancing his country's interests?
