BBC Radio 4 brought MPs together in London to debate the crisis in the Middle East. The debate was recorded as live on August 17 from 5:15 – 7:00 pm GMT. An edited hour-long version was then broadcast that night at 9:00 pm, and can be heard here.
A summary (w/ links) follows after the fold….
The most eloquent speaker, about 38 minutes in, may have been Jeremy Hunt (Con). He argued that what would have been outlined on 7/7/2005 (the date of the London bombings) as the worst possible outcome of UK foreign policy is coming to pass:
*Islamic extremists succeeding in "weaving together" the terrorist attacks of London, New York, Madrid, and Bali with the conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine-Israel;
*Islamic extremists succeeding in "uniting behind them moderate Islamic opinion," and
*A radical Islamic state getting its hands on nuclear weapons.
Hunt described the current situation in the Middle East as a "foreign policy disaster of the highest magnitude" that is "in good measure of our own making." He stressed that the it was as naive to put full faith in military force as it is to put full faith in diplomacy (the implication being that Bush vis-a-vis Iraq and Bush & Olmert vis-a-vis Lebanon this summer put too much faith in military force).
He sees that a battle for the "hearts and mind" of moderate Muslims is being waged, and he asked relative to that: "who can quantify" the number of friends that Israel has lost by the displacement of over 1,000,000 Lebanese; "who can quantify" the number of recruits to terrorist organizations by the deaths of over 1,000 Lebanese, or for that matter by the deaths of civilians in Iraq, which in 2006 is over 30% higher than it was two years ago (with the number of British casualties having doubled)?
Tim Yeo (Con) pointed out that Tony Blair and the Government were "silent" on the issue of Lebanon when the fighting raged there. He said Blair had been a "nodding donkey" while in the US during the wide-ranging Israel attacks meant to destroy Hezbollah, in stark contrast to Margaret Thatcher who during the Middle East crisis of her day gave George H. W. Bush advice both privately and publicly. Yeo stated bluntly that Tony Blair’s "unquestioning support" of the US perspective on international affairs has "increased the dangers of a serious terrorist attack on the British people." History will judge Blair "very harshly indeed," Yeo said, for having made the world a more dangerous than it was in 1997.
Susan Kramer (LibDem) rightly declared that the refusal of the British Government to call for an immediate cease fire was essentially read by the Israelis as "a green light to proceed with a disproportionate response," and has "shattered any trust" between Britain and the the people of Lebanon.
Kramer reminded members that the IRA used the same extreme "no surrender" and similarly radical, reckless language that Hezbollah does (e.g., Hezbollah calls for Israel’s destruction), but the clashing parties involved in the Northern Ireland issue persisted in negotiations, and eventually great progress was made. She called for a similar commitment to negotiations on the part of the parties involved in the Middle East, including the US and Israel. (I.e., the US and Israel may not like the prospect of negotiations with Hezbollah, but negotiations of some manner need to be attempted regardless.)
Lord Triesman (Lab) represented the Government’s point of view and outlined a sensible goal of a Lebanon "genuinely sovereign and democratic," in which the government alone has "the monopoly right for the use of force," and which is free of "private, marauding militias" who are answerable not to the Lebanese people but to "to Iran and Syria," the former of which has expressly declared its desire to wipe Israel off "the face of the map." He argued the unconvincing case that somehow not calling for a ceasefire aided in fulfilling the Government’s worthy goal.
Triesman reminded listeners that "no civilized country" would allow its citizens to be "rocketed every night, to have militias come into its soil" and "abduct its soldiers" and that the "outcry would have been deafening" had any Government allowed such to befall the UK. A colleague of Triesman’s complained that calls for cease fires in the early days of the recent conflict were too often calls for Israel to do so unilaterally, with no attendant call on Hezbollah to cease its attacks, too.
Simon Hughes (LibDem) outlined 5 principles to be applied to the larger situation of Israel’s security and Middle Eastern peace:
1. the right of Israel to exist in peace and security within internationally recognized boundaries and the right of Palestine to exist in the peace and security within internationally recognized boundaries, something promised them in 1947 and still undelivered;
2. the open status of Jerusalem to people of all faiths;
3. terrorism is not permissible;
4. all those elected in Palestine have to be worked with and recognized; and
5. international law must prevail.
Hughes said that Israel must recognize the 1967 UN resolution and stop settling people outside of the boundaries set forth in that resolution.
Douglas Carswell (Con) believes that the lack of democracy in the Middle East is the "engine" that drives so many of the problems in the region. (Someone ought to tell him that he’s holding the Union Jack upside down in this photo.) Carswell used President Bush’s "axis of evil" term to describe a four- not three-part axis of Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah pledged to destroy Israel. He conceded "not everything Israel does is right." He predicted "dark days ahead." He also pointed out rightly that the debate over the invasion of Lebanon is nowhere more fierce than in Israel itself.
When asked about John Prescott’s description of President Bush’s foreign policy as crap, Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Lab) stated that President Bush is not her "favorite politician." Importantly, she pointed out that Israel is not doing itself any favors by arresting freely and democratically elected Palestinian leaders.
Mike Weir (SNP) stressed that as "a friend of the United States" the UK should have stood up during the early days of the Israeli attacks within Lebanon and said to the US, "’You’re wrong to allow Israel to do this.’" He declared as "worthless" Prime Minister Tony Blair’s description of the US-UK relationship as being–in a phrase used now for decades–"the special relationship" in which the UK is a valued partner.
My endnote: As a regular listener to BBC Radio 4’s news programs, I am very disappointed by and concerned about the increasingly anti-American language I hear on-air. It seems to becoming fashionable on BBC Radio to dislike all things American, not just the policies of George W. Bush–which polls show most Americans themselves dislike. I know of at least one commentary in the UK print media during the run-up to the US 2004 General Election in which an explicit warning was given: the people of the UK like most things about America–certain the ideal of America–and the American people, while loathing the American president, particularly his amateurish foreign diplomacy, rhetorical tone-deafness, religiousity, apparent arrogance, and myopic foreign policy; however, if you, the US voters, actually by a majority vote for him (which did not happen in 2000!), UK anger will begin to be more broadly directed against the US as a whole: its culture and its people.
I think that that is happening.
While I would remind UK readers that George W. Bush has an approval rating in the US in the 30s %, which is only slightly higher than Blair’s in the UK, it certainly must be said that no President has done more harm to the special relationship than George W. Bush. Even when Eisenhower forced a cease-fire upon the UK-France-Israel alliance to the UK’s great detriment during the Suez Crisis in 1956, he did so as a President who had as Supreme Allied Commander during WWII demonstrated his admiration of Britain and respect for her military and political leaders; what is more, the pressure on the UK was exercised with the support of the significant Commonwealth nations of Canada and Australia.
But George Bush has no such diplomatic or political capital to squander vis-a-vis the special relationship; his manipulation of Tony Blair was uncalled for, and he demonstrates a persistent disdain for the UK’s foreign policy experience…that was gained at times in the past at a very high cost, and is probably ignored the the US’s peril.
Since it takes two to make a head-on collision, it must be said that Tony Blair is also to blame for the deterioration in the special relationship. He has yet to find a way to out-maneuver President Bush’s dangerous policies, and instead seems to be their happy co-executor.