We're much more used to terrorism in this country than America.. In the 1920s and 30s we had the Fenians (the predecessors of the IRA -- Irish Liberation Army), in the 40s we had the German bombs, in the 70s we had the revival of Irish national terrorists. By the time that the explosion in the Grand Hotel occurred which almost took out all of Thatcher's cabinet, we'd learned not to respond with reprisals, and the same applied when the IRA nearly dropped a mortar bomb on 10 Downing Street (it hit the garden and blew out the windows of the cabinet room). When the Baltic Tower was destroyed some five or six years ago, Blair realised that he time had come for some serious negotiations with terrorists -- and it's been quiet ever since (even though the basic problems are not resolved, at least they're negotiating). Bush or any previous administration has not had that experience. What they don't realise is that the Al Qaeda-type terrorism has already reached a threshold from which it will grow from now onwards, however Bush tries to stop it, heroic speeches or otherwise. Terrorists are quite as smart as secret services and from each incident they learn how to do it more effectively the next time. After all, they've been using encrypted e-mails from the beginning.
The situation in London is peculiarly sensitive because most of the people who were killed were office workers and a proportion of them were no doubt employed by foreign banks and firms. And, to add terror to the normal level of claustrophobia of travelling in tunnels which even normal people have, this has created a situatiion -- excuse the metaphor -- which is dynamite for Blair. At the moment, like Bush, he'll feel a surge of support from all sides. But his honerymoon will only last for a few days at the most because he'll be in daily fear of another attack on the London Underground. I'm in absolutely no doubt that spokesmen from the international financial community in London have already told Blair of their feelings (as they told him when Baltic Tower within the City of London was blown up).
It's possible that Blair will do nothing to expedite the removal of British troops from Iraq, and it is possible that there won't be another Al Qaeda-type attack on the London Undergound. But I wouldn't bank on it and Blair can't afford to do so either. Whether the UK secret services are already in negotiations with Al Qaeda terrorist groups in Iraq I don't know (likely, I'd have thought) and whether the Iraqi Al Qaeda have any control over the European group behind the Madrid and London attacks, I don't know either (unlikely, I'd have thought). But, as with the UK government in its relationship with the IRA in recent years, when it didn't strive too much to capture terrorist leaders (and many who were imprisoned were prematurely released), my guess is that the UK government will be trying to negotiate with whoever is in charge rather than make serious attempts to capture them. Yes, by all means try and quarantine any impressionable youngsters who might become terrorists but, more than anything else, the UK government will be trying to negotiate with the terrorist organisers who mattter (just as the CIA and State Department have been doing in Iraq). At the end of the day, the financial health of the City of London is immensely more useful to the economic health of the UK than the defence contracts that America occasionally throws our way.
Keith
At 08:12 12/07/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Sally, et al: here are a few samples gleaned from current headlines about the political environment and legislative activity. Speaking for many in the US and on this list I sincerely hope that the British government and people of Great Britain will avoid our gravest mistakes, as they recover and continue to deal with the problem of terrorism in a globalized world. Wed never had anything like 9/11 happen before, and our bad choices often overshadowed our good choices.
As fallout from Karl Roves callous smear of liberals at a partisan event recently demonstrates, the time for unified action can be too brief and institutional competition will impede problem solving. It takes both broad vision and technical restraint, something made more difficult by the politics of divide and conquer. Blair would do well, and I think he will, to avoid Bushs mistakes of polarizing the very people from whom he needs cooperation.
Another advantage the British have that the US didnt is that the 7/7 London attacks, whether they are judged in consensus as attacks on everyday people and the western way of life or attacks on western institutional symbols, happened during a seasoned politicians watch. Bush was a rookieleader and a not very bright one at that, and 9/11 happened to an unsuspecting and largely inwardly focused population. There seems to be very little Why us? in the admirable response of the British public. Americans suffered from an insularity or naïve arrogance that brought out an unfortunate vengeful response in too many, accompanied by the four stages of grief. We have much to learn yet in our collective midlife crises, and I hope we will return to the higher middle ground. KwC
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
