Newsletter
Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Jobs
Policy | Charity & Fundraising | Research | Education | Executive | Media | Social Care | Communications
User login
RSSWill we negotiate with Bin Laden?
Tony Blair’s former chief of staff thinks one day, we might.
By Mehdi Hasan Published 09 August 2010 14:38
Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's former chief of staff, has a rather interesting comment piece in today's Guardian, promoting his three-part documentary Talking to the Enemy, which kicks off on Radio 4 this week.
In the opening paragraph, he writes:
It has become fashionable for western leaders, including generals, to talk about talking to the Taliban. But no one seems to be able to quite bring themselves to actually do it.
Powell adds:
There seems to be a pattern to the west's behaviour when we face terrorist campaigns. First we fight them militarily, then we talk to them, and eventually we treat them as statesmen. That is what Britain did with Menachem Begin and the Irgun in Israel, with Jomo Kenyatta and the Mau Mau in Kenya and with Archbishop Makarios in Cyprus.
But it is his final para that stands out:
In the end there always has to be a political solution. Tough military pressure to convince insurgents that they cannot win, coupled with offering them a political way out, seems to be the only way to resolve such conflict. If history is any guide we will in the next few years be repeating the pattern we went through with Begin, Kenyatta and Makarios, and will be speaking to Mullah Omar, and even perhaps to Osama Bin Laden.
Sorry, what?! Talk to Bin Laden? Says Tony Blair's former chief of staff? How times change. Do you remember the ferocity with which the Labour government, for which Powell then worked, turned on the late Mo Mowlam when the former Northern Ireland secretary dared to suggest negotiating with Bin Laden et al?
From the BBC, 8 April 2004:
Ms Mowlam, who stood down as Redcar MP in 2001, said the US and UK should open dialogue with their enemies.
In an interview with Tyne Tees television to be broadcast on Easter Sunday, Ms Mowlam said the UK and US were acting as a "recruitment officer for the terrorists" by carrying out military action in Iraq.
Asked if she could imagine "al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden arriving at the negotiating table", she replied: "You have to do that. If you do not, you condemn large parts of the world to war for ever.
"Some people couldn't conceive of Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness getting to the table but they did."
Saint Mo was dismissed by her critics as hopelessly naive and a liberal softie. Will hawks dare do the same to Powell, an enthusiastic backer of his then boss's invasion of Iraq, back in 2003?
The debate over engagement with Islamist terrorists, and even Osama Bin Laden, has been shifting in recent years. In 2006, the award-winning investigative reporter Peter Taylor fronted the BBC documentary Al-Qaeda: Time to Talk?, in which he spoke to General Ali Shukri, a former intelligence adviser to King Hussein of Jordan, who told him:
There is no harm in talking. Engagement is not endorsement. Are the Americans prepared to wage war for the next 25 years?
In 2008, Hugh Orde, then head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, said he believed Britain should negotiate with the leaders of al-Qaeda: "Well that's the logic of . . . I don't think that's unthinkable, the question will be one of timing."
From the Guardian, 30 May 2008:
Asked whether Britain should attempt to talk to al-Qaeda, [Sir Hugh] said: "If you want my professional assessment of any terrorism campaign, what fixes it is talking and engaging and judging when the conditions are right for that to take place.
"Is that a naive statement? I don't think it is . . . It is the reality of what we face.
"If somebody can show me any terrorism campaign where it has been policed out, I'd be happy to read about it, because I can't think of one."
There has also been a spate of books from scholars and experts in the field, emphasising the importance of "jaw, jaw" over "war, war" -- from Audrey Kurth Cronin's How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns to Mark Perry's Talking to Terrorists: Why America Must Engage With Its Enemies to Louise Richardson's What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat.
Richardson is an Irish political scientist, a former Harvard academic specialising in international security, and is currently principal and vice-chancellor of the University of St Andrews. Here is an extract from an interview she did with Spiegel Online in 2007:
Well, I'm not suggesting that President Bush sit across a table from Osama Bin Laden. They would be informal, set up through back channels. These sorts of efforts from the British government were instrumental in the successful resolution of conflict in Northern Ireland. And it's conspicuously lacking from the United States right now.
Talks wouldn't have to be negotiations. Sometimes diplomacy is just a matter of feeling the other side out, of finding out what they actually want. If we could find splits within the organisation of al-Qaeda, we could play them off of each other for our benefit, isolating the most radical elements. Some people say that setting up talks with terror groups would grant them too much legitimacy. But, in my view, declaring war on a terror group is actually the most effective way of granting legitimacy.
Hear, hear!
Tags: terrorism Police islamism Northern Ireland Afghanistan Tony Blair
Related articles
-
03 June -
03 June -
03 June -
03 June
Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.
From the magazine
-
Andrew Gimson -
New Statesman -
Laurie Penny -
Ned Beauman -
Ian Stewart -
Andrew Adonis -
Ed Smith -
Peter Wilby -
Laurie Penny
Elsewhere on the Blogosphere
- FT Westminster
- ConservativeHome
John Baron and Peter Bone table a cunning EU referendum amendment
- Labour List
Harrow Labour Group splits, as several councillors form “Independent Labour Group”
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Left Foot Forward
Benefit fraud accounts for just 0.7 per cent of welfare budget
Blogroll
- Alastair Campbell
- Benedict Brogan
- Coffee House
- Comment Central
- Conservative Home
- Dave's Part
- Gary Gibbon
- Guardian Politics
- Hopi Sen
- Iain Dale
- Labour List
- Labour Uncut
- Left Foot Forward
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Liberal Democrat Voice
- Luke Akehurst
- Neil Clark
- Next Left
- Our Kingdom
- Paul Waugh
- Penny Red
- Pickled Politics
- Political Betting
- Political Scrapbook
- Simon Fletcher
- The Bleeding Heart Show
- Think Politics
- UK Polling Report
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists
55 comments
The problem here is that Al Quaida are not a nation, or a government, or really a movement as such. it would be relatively easy to talk to Hammas, for example, as they have some aims that can be met.
Bin Ladens' proclaimed aim of a worldwide Caliphate offers no starting point, and as he has no recognised constituency to please, he and his brethren can do as they like, with no regard to consequences for their supporters.
Dialogue is in general a good thing, but Mehdi, at what point can we agree on with these men?
Des,sue your English professor.
"Some people say that setting up talks with terror groups would grant them too much legitimacy. But, in my view, declaring war on a terror group is actually the most effective way of granting legitimacy."
Exactly so. And there's a flipside to that. The idea that talking to Bin Laden would grant him legitimacy amongst his actual or potential support is ludicrous. Bin Laden seeks to recruit from people who would, if anything, see talks with the West as delegitimising al-Qaeda - as a potential sign of weakness or sell-out.
The deluded conceit of apologists for Western power is apparently such that they imagine it is in the gift of our governments to withold or bestow "legitimacy" even in the eyes of their enemies.
Mehdi Hassan:
> Here is a straight answer to your straightforward question: "No. Of. Course. Not. Don't. Be. Silly." Now give it a rest.
So, either you were talking shite in that video or you're talking shite now. I think your performance in the video appeared more genuine - in fact it was the performance of a fanatical, wild-eyed zealot peddling borderline hate speech. We're not keen on those in free, civilised, secular societies.
And Laurie is more than capable of taking care of herself. What's it to you ? Are you her sub?
PMSL.
We need to talk to them, see how much support they think they have.
Clem, they may have no recognised constituency but that doesn't matter, its the ideas they have that will have the support and its those ideas that can transcend national borders. Whilst his aim may have no starting point, we need to talk to him to see what steps can be taken so that the beliefs he and his supporters are fighting for can be heard and no more loss of life can be taken.
P.S. Mehdi, whether or not you believe it, only you and your fellow non-kaffirs think that followers of the Muslim cult have the moral high ground. Many of us see it as a barbaric, dark ages throwback.
This is not just a 'terrorism campaign' it is a Jihad from al-Qaida point of view,the two are not the same and cannot be dealt with in the same way.
To suggest such is a category error for which we will pay a high price.
I agree that we have to talk, but only to undermine and destroy their twisted fascist theology not to give it long term legitimacy.
We are involved in an ideological war and the sooner we wake up to that the better.
Nicola, the trouble is, that who are you talking to? And what common ground is there? Unlike, say negotiations with the Communist states, there is no shared interest with Al Quaida. They simply want to bring the world to a one-religion state, ruled by their interpretation of the Koran.
Whilst there are no doubt many on the fringes who havent thought this through, or are more attracted to the supposedly "anti-imperialist" messages they give out, the leadership as such have no room for manouvre, and show no signs of wanting any.
Simply put, at this stage, Bin Laden has power but no responsibility.
Unlike even the various Afghan warlords and the Taleban, there is nothing concrete we can give them, save our submission to Wahabi-style Islam.
In this case, a wider dialogue with the Muslim world is a much better bet, this lot are not like the IRA, or MauMau, or any of the other liberation movements of the past, who wanted certain political/economic goals. The call for this Jihad is absolute, so absolute in fact that Iran is seen as a nation of backsliders.
I suppose that the completion of the oil pipe to Baku in 2012 means that the NATO forces won't need to be in Afghanistan anymore... so 'talking' to Bin Laden would be on the cards, to 'justify' withdrawing by 2015.
hasn't Powell been saying this for some time now?
Having discussed Afghanistan and the "War on Terror" with serving soldiers, I can say, at least on an anecdotal basis, that the two extremes -
"Wage war until they give in"
and
"Give in, lets go now"
Get the same response, namely a thin awkward smile, and a faint groan of tired exasperation.
Please, remember that with both naked options we give the taleban what they want. this situation has become so complex that to square the circle requires a much more detailed analysis and solution than any of us in this stream are providing.
What a stupid comparison. Makarios wanted an end to British colonial rule in Cyprus and to unite the island with Greece; Sinn Fein wanted an end to the British presence in Ireland – both of which were legitimate and comprehensible demands; while Bin Laden wants to destroy Israel, overthrow all the Arab governments and establish a caliphate based on religious fervour and bigotry. Yes, go and negotiate the destruction of Israel with Bin Laden; but don't forget to ask the Israelis about your plans first.
Can someone tell me why:
1.57 Muslims countries with a population of 1.5b have a combined total of US$1,200b GNP?
cf.
Japan - US$5,5000b?
Germany - US2,500b?
Jews, population 14m, won 183 Nobel Laureate and Muslims only three (non of which for scientific discovery)?
2. There is not a single democratic Muslim country ?
@Felix, 14:06:
You are saying that al-Qaeda are different because they don't think of themselves as terrorists? (Whereas presumably by implication all the other groups mentioned above did).
Isn't it the case that all terrorist groups actually think that they're in the right?
Clem
The communist states were (at least in theory) committed to the spread of worldwide revolution. The USA is committed to the spread of free market capitalism across the world. The IRA and Sinn Fein were committed to the ending of British rule in Ireland, while the UDF / Unionists were committed to keeping Ulster British. it is not unusual to go into negotiations with the two sides having incompatible demands.
As for there beinf nothing concrete we could offer Al Qaeda - nonsense. There are common themes, beyond a worldwide Caliphate, in every broadcast I have heard from Bin Laden: we could withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan; start treating Palestinian lives as as important as Israeli lives, and pressure Israel to comply with international law; close US bases in Saudi Arabia. These measures would probably not satisfy the leaders, but they are the issues around which Al Qaeda recruits, so they'd be forced to change their stance or lose support.
Hope not. Bin Laden is another Pol Pot.
After the troops leave? Utter chaos, with civil wars breaking out.
Tony,
'Isn't it the case that all terrorist groups actually think that they're in the right?'
Very true and a valid point,but this is a divine right that is fixed in stone and not open to compromise.
I would greatly appreciate a Muslim or anyone else honestly addressing this issue and disabusing me of this notion from an Islamist perspective.
@Tim ,I'm rich ,get over it!
If I wish to defend democracy and freedom of speech with my time and money its my business isn't it?
@Tony , "Mehdi's written one himself for the NS that addresses the accusations put by Felix."
WHAT accusations. I posted a link to a YOUTUBE video of Mehdi preaching.
Mehdi RESPONSE CLAIMS THAT THE QUOTES ARE out of CONTEXT and that they are not his views as they are from the Koran!
The context is irrelevant with regards to this issue as they clearly indicate the Koran's and Islam's attitude towards the unbeliever the kaffir.
Care to dispute this!
Rob - The communist states were exactly that - states, which have interests as well as ideology. Unless you are an arms dealer, Bin Laden wants nothing from you.
Al Quaida has been carrying out attacks since before we were in Afghanistan, and before the last Gulf War, so it is difficult to see what concessions would be enough.
It would be nice to see Arab leaders treat Palestinian lives as important at all, but I take the point, although most communiques restate the aim of the destruction of Israel, regardless of the slaughter this would cause.
Most of the points we could concede would just be part of a "minimum program" on the way to the Caliphate.
''Mehdi RESPONSE CLAIMS THAT THE QUOTES ARE out of CONTEXT and that they are not his views as they are from the Koran''
Actually I don't think he said they are not his views, unless I missed it. I think he simply stated that he was quoting from the Quaran.
I did ask if he believed this quote and am awaitig a reply. However I now realise the way my question was phrased may have put him in a bit of a bind.
If he says he doesn't believe it then he is going against the irrefutable word of the Quaran and is likely to have a gang of jihadists camped outside the New Statesman offices demanding his head.
"Des Demona" - you wrote above, on 10 August, 20:05:
"I have asked a very straightforward question. 'Do you believe, as you stated, that non believers in Islam are cattle, of no intelligence and live like animals.' I'd appreciate a straight answer."
Here is a straight answer to your straightforward question: "No. Of. Course. Not. Don't. Be. Silly."
Now give it a rest.
Clem the Gem NAILS IT!
AT LEAST FROM AN ISLAMIST POINT OF VIEW
"Most of the points we could concede would just be part of a "minimum program" on the way to the Caliphate."
It would be seen as a temporary truce until they can gain more strength,just read some Islamic war manuals.
As others have said it is difficult to see what the basis of negotiation would be. The removal of troops from Afghanistan? Happening anyway, ditto with Iraq.
How do you negotiate with an ideology that demands the promolgation of Islam? I guess we could all just convert, that would sort it out.
Problem is I have a very major problem taking orders from a mythical sky god and his minions. Especially those foam flecked ranting minions demanding utter obedience, beheadings and stonings and who use their followers to bomb civillians around the world. I think the majority of people feel the same. So what is the basis for negotiation?
It looks like the problem will remain.
OK, another stream going down the pan in ranting...
Oh Dear, now felix and I have agreed on something...
I must be having a bad day :o)
@ Mehdi Hasan
Well thank you for clearing that up. It could have been done a little more gracefully given that it was your apparently bigoted and insulting statements to whichever audience you were addressing that caused the fuss in the first place.
The matter is now closed as far as I am concerned.
@clem the gem
I have no religious or political affiliations. However, after viewing that video I do now have mixed feelings about Mehdi Hasans agenda (if not his sanity)
I don't think an attempt to clarify if he does believe that non muslims are 'cattle' 'of no intelligence' and living like animals' is ranting.
I think it's a legitamate question to determine if it worth debating any issue with him if his mind is so closed off.
Des Demona ..
"that they are not his views as they are from the Koran"
I should have said that they are not his 'personal' views as they are from the Koran.
the issue still stands,it will never go away.
That is why you will never receive a reply on the kaffir issue.
@ Felix
Actually he said
' I seem to refer to atheists as "kafirs", as "people of no intelligence" and as "cattle". In fact, I am quoting from the Quran -'
I don't see anything here saying that it is not also his view. Not to mention his apparent approval of some french guy stating that the Quran basically says that not to believe in it is a mental illness.
Thanks Mehdi, nice to know how you feel about the majority of your readers.
And just to point out - in the video Atheists weren't mentioned - the derogatory terms were aimed at anyone who didn't believe in Islam.
Muslim nut Osambo Bin Laiden deserves a bullet in the back of the head.
@Felix (16:42)
No you wouldn't appreciate it. I've seen your discussions on threads before and you have your own firmly held beliefs which wouldn't be changed by anyone posting differently.
And you have no better idea as to bin Laden's motivations than I have. Yeah, he'd presumably like everyone on the planet to be following his version of Islam. But he's getting support and money from somewhere. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of supporters of his are more concerned about Western foreign policy and its effect on the population of certain "Muslim countries".
Oh, hi Max. Yes, of course Mehdi "bats for bin Laden's team", its so obvious I can't believe that I hadn't noticed it before.
Just out of interest is your theory that the New Statesman hasn't noticed this, or are they now Al Q's official mouthpiece in the UK?
Do you think perhaps that there's a 3rd option. Perhaps it isn't true at all and is a playground slur propagated by keyboard heroes from the safety of their sofa?
"There is not a single democratic Muslim country ?"
Try Turkey.
BTW. If you are British, you do not live in a democratic country either.
Tony
"No you wouldn't appreciate it... your own firmly held beliefs which wouldn't be changed by anyone posting differently."
"And you have no better idea as to bin Laden's motivations than I have."
You do not seem to misunderstand my point if mehdi or any other muslim wishes to reeducate me they can.This is an open blog.
But they never do!
Why?
If what I am saying is false please prove it.
I would really like to be proved wrong, I would sleep better!
These are not my views they are Islamic views!I quote from Islamic texts and give full references.
But no intelligent response ?
Why?
Maybe its because if they lost, it would show up islamophobia for the paper tiger it is.
Why are you all dragging up this crap. It's one speech, and yet his entire body of work since and before is completely ignored!
He quoted what the Quran says about those who deny the existence of God. ALL muslims believe it is a great sin to deny God's existence so why does that continue to shock everyone???
Let. It. Go.
As has been said many times before, the word 'kafir' simply meant non-believer. Other have since used the word for their own purpose.
And is describing non-believers as 'cattle' really that different from describing believers as 'sheep' (as some people do)? There's nothing in that quote which if someone has said it about Muslims or about people of faith generally would have caused anyone to bat an eyelid.
The difference is that atheism is fashionable now.
There are a couple of reasons why I'm not ...letting it go.
I'm just an ordinary bloke looking for answers and wondering who to trust. I have no political or religious agenda.
I was very disturbed to see that video because formerly I took most of what Mehdi Hasan said at face value. I was equally disturbed to see that in Mehdi Hasan's 'defence' of his utterings that nowhere did he disassocciate himself from the his preachings that unbelievers were cattle, living like animals, having a mental disability etc. Instead he used mealy mouthed weasel words to defend the language used. One would have thought that in his 'defence' of the video he would have chosen to make that clear.
It seems to me that from the evidence he has very different private and public personnas.
If you want to bandy the 'phobe'word at me, call me a zealotaphobe because I have a deep distrust of zealots of any persuasion, and given the vehemance and language of Mehdi Hasan's delivery he comes across as a zealot.
That's fine, if he comes out and admits it so we know where we are. I have asked a very straightforward question. 'Do you believe, as you stated, that non believers in Islam are cattle, of no intelligence and live like animals. I'd appreciate a straight answer.
And here's the reason. If Mehdi Hasan believes that then he is a bigoted zealot.
Personally I'd feel uncomfortable if the Political Editor of the New Statesman appears to be a bigoted zealot. A straight answer to a straight question would lay this to rest but so far it hasn't been forthcoming.
The New Statesman is a socialist magazine. There should be no room for bigots of any persuasion on its writing staff, and belief that those who don't agree with your religious view and agenda are cattle and mentally deficient seems to me to be rather bigoted.
The Christian Worlds and Peace Loving people of the world - be warn. You cannot appease Osama Ben Laden. You cannot appease jihadists. You cannot appease Muslims for it is provided in the Quoran not to honour any agreement with non-Muslims.
All you can do is to serialise the Quoran and the Hadiths here and else where and Islam will disappear in 5 years- I bet my bottom dollar.
@ 2yyiam
"ALL Muslims believe it is a great sin to deny God's existence"
well finally you said it.
ALL MUSLIMS.....
@Tony "the word 'kafir' simply meant non-believer."
if only..to call a Muslim a kafir is a form of gross insult.
Kaffir (as a racial slur towards blacks ):considered offensive,The term was taken from Arab slave traders in Africa,
who had used Kaffir to mean someone who does not believe in God.
Kafir (Arabic: كافر kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār) is a term used in a Islamic doctrinal sense, usually translated as "unbeliever" or "disbeliever", or sometimes "infidel".
The term refers to a person who rejects God or who hides, denies, or "covers" the truth.
ie that Islam is the truth and if you do not accept it you are a kafir.
Shi'a jurists have traditionally deemed the person who does not believe in Allah (God) and His Oneness to be ritually impure (najis) so that physical contact with them or things they touched would require Shi'as to wash themselves before doing regular prayers.
Mehdi is a shi'a Muslim.
As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Muhammad,But still believe in the monotheistic God they are commonly considered Pak (pure).
As in PAKISTAN
the land of the pure.(RING ANY BELLS)
THERE ARE TEN TYPES,
These are the two that most directly concern us as Society.
Kufrul-Istihlaal: Disbelief out of trying to make HARAM into HALAL. This applies to someone who accepts as lawful (Halal) that which Allah has made unlawful (Haram) like alcohol or adultery.
Only Allah has the prerogative to make things Halal and Haram and those who seek to interfere with His right are like rivals to Him and therefore fall outside the boundaries of faith.
Kufrul-Istibdaal: Disbelief because of trying to substitute Allah's Laws. This could take the form of: (a) Rejection of Allah's law (Sharee'ah) without denying it,
(b) denial of Allah's law and therefore rejecting it, or
(c) Substituting Allah's laws with "artificial" (i.e. non-Muslim) laws.
The implications of the above should be clear to anyone giving them more than a moments thought.
Des Demona @ zealotaphobe great! I will adopt it,that is spot on!
but i think it should be zealotophobia.
but a great new word!
@Felix - don't you have a job, how do you manage to spend all your time checking Mehdi Hassan's articles and commenting on them? What is your problem? You seem to have some kind of obsessive tendancy.
Des Demona
Mehdis reply
"No. Of. Course. Not. Don't. Be. Silly.
Now give it a rest."
Notice the fullstops ,he is talking down to you like a foolish overemotional child.
What a patronizing ****!
And you thank him for it ?!
@Joe Bone - why do you talk of Christian world. Do you mean Christian as someone who follows Jesus and 'turns the other cheek' when someone hits him/her, love's his enemies??
The originator of the word PAKISTAN, Chowdhry Rehmat Ali wrote of his concepts,
It means the land of the Paks - the spiritually pure and clean.
It symbolizes the religious beliefs and the ethnical stocks of our people;
and it stands for all the territorial constituents of our original Fatherland.
Yes felix. But as Mehdi would advise, I'm keeping the moral high ground.
''Here is a straight answer to your straightforward question: "No. Of. Course. Not.''
I dont believe Medhi Hasan.
I can't imagine negogiating with Bin Laden would be a walk in the park or a panacea to our problems.
What could we offer Bin Laden? Do we allow him to become a head of state or what?
I would favour some behind the scenes dialogue, but it would be naive to think that it couldn't indeed make things much worse.
At the moment we're not in a strong position to negotiate either. Our foreign policy has alienated large portions of the Muslim world and Al Qaeda's influence has grown dramatically in the last decade, and there's no reason why it can't continue to grow unless the West is able to turn the tide.
We need a very long term strategy. One that is thinking 20-30 (or even more) years ahead before it reacts to the terrorist acts of today.