Will we negotiate with Bin Laden?

Tony Blair’s former chief of staff thinks one day, we might.

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!

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.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The changing world of work

As is always the case with challenges such as this, it falls to Labour to make the political case for action. Because inevitably the Tories will revert back to their time honoured answer - people are on their own and can sink or swim accordingly. 

“There is no point knocking doors here.  There won’t be many people at home.  Let’s just deliver leaflets.”  It was a Monday morning in April 2015, and I was keen to meet as many voters as possible, so I ignored the advice.  I’m glad I did.  For that morning I met a number of people, working from home, self-employed, trying to use every hour productively. 

That I met so many is unsurprising.  The reality is we are seeing an unprecedented boom in self-employment in this country. 

According to the ONS, between 2010 and 2014, the number of self-employed people increased by 663,000.  Indeed, in 2014, 15 per cent of the workforce was self-employed, some 4.6 million people.  This isn’t just a major spike in our history, it also gives us the highest rates of self-employment in the G7. 

This extraordinary rise shows little sign of reversing.  Which throws up a huge number of policy questions if we want to ensure that this rapidly changing employment market doesn't leave millions of workers precariously standing alone at the mercy of market forces. 

As is always the case with challenges such as this, it falls to Labour to make the political case for action. Because inevitably the Tories will revert back to their time honoured answer - people are on their own and can sink or swim accordingly. 

As the party that wants to ensure people from every background have a platform to make the most of their talents, Labour understand that for many people self-employment offers a number of attractions, not least independence. 

Many of the self-employed people I speak to tell me that they enjoy being their own boss, or having the flexibility to work their hours around the other things that are important in their lives, like child care or studying.  Before my election last May, I was self-employed, so I know the advantages it can sometimes bring. 

However, it’s also clear that existing systems have been too slow to catch up with a rapidly changing economy.  So for too many people the flexibility, comes at the price of a lack of security. 

As it stands, self-employed people have no entitlement to statutory sick pay. Self-employed mothers are only entitled to maternity allowance instead of full maternity pay. This is particularly significant, because whilst the majority of the self-employed are still men, the number of self-employed women is growing fastest.  With around half of additional jobs taken up by women between 2008 and 2015 being self-employed.    

The New Policy Institute-Citizens’ Advice report, “Who are the self-employed?” found that, in 2015, only 17 per cent of the self-employed were in a pension scheme, compared to 52 per cent of employees, with that latter figure likely to rise even further with the  continued rollout of pensions auto-enrolment.  Neither are all self-employed people high earners.  In fact, the median income from self-employment in 2013-14 was £209 per week.

There's also the problem that in some areas the status of self-employment is being used as a convenient label, to deny workers their rights.   

The Citizens’ Advice report, “Neither one thing nor the other” highlighted the problem of bogus self-employment: “People who are in bogus self-employment can have their hours, the nature of their work and even the amount that they are paid changed at a moment’s notice.”  Sadly, this kind of treatment is all too common.  The report concluded: “We suspect that one in ten of the people that we surveyed are bogusly self-employed.  If scaled up, this could translate into as many as 460,000 people nationwide.” 

Since it can be advantageous for employers to categorise workers as self-employed for national insurance purposes, the report estimated that government could be losing as much as £314 million per year from the coffers. 

The construction union UCATT have run effective campaigns exposing this kind of malpractice by some umbrella companies.  Yet more needs to be done to uncover and stamp out such exploitation. 

Bogus self-employment isn't only an issue for the self-employed themselves. In many sectors of the economy it can also result in a race to the bottom of conditions, driving down standards for all workers. 

These are just some of the factors that combine to create a complex challenge. New technology and ways of working have the potential to give millions of people the chance to enjoy far greater freedom. However, there's also a risk that growing atomisation of people will see many of the workplace protections that previous generations struggled to secure wiped away. 

As a Labour historian, I know that such challenges have faced our movement in every generation.  We have always risen to the task. Now we must do so again to show that Labour has the answers for the workplace in 2020 and beyond. 

I'm proud that as shadow employment minister I have a chance to play my part in that vital work.

Nick Thomas-Symonds is Labour MP for Torfaen and biographer of Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan.