 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
[Index] [About] [Participants] [Forum] [Vote] [Letters] [Disclaimer] [Archive]
Real Media Real Media Audio
Internet Links
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) The History of the Taleban
 BBC News Online. The BBC's Jonathan Charles reports from Afghanistan Islam analyst Dilip Hiro
 EU Observer
Political Parties UKIP New Labour The Conservative Party Liberal Democrats SNP |
Silence is Golden
The new Tory
leader Iain Duncan Smith has been called a wobbler this
week. Why? Since IDS, as he is known to many of his
supporters, was elected in September he has faced a huge
problem. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre
on September 11th 2001 occurred right at the
end of the Tory leadership elections.
The reactions calling for “a war on terrorism” that echoed across the Atlantic therefore obliged Iain Duncan Smith to back the Government and simultaneously silenced any reasoned opposition to the current conflict in Afghanistan. This week’s attempts by IDS to criticise the Government for not sufficiently bolstering public opinion in favour of the war were therefore rebuked in some of the media, and even by the Government.
Even so, Iain Duncan Smith would be an unlikely candidate to oppose the current war. Furthermore, the effects of the war are resounding in a number of ways. Her Majesty’s official Opposition has become just a whisper against the roars of the war-obsessed media, and the administrations of Bush and Blair. The US administration’s words “You are either with us or against us,” appear to have stifled any sensible party political debate. Iain Duncan Smith’s criticisms against the Government, since he beat Kenneth Clarke in the Tory leadership race, have therefore not made any great headlines.
The Tories have tried to hold the Government to task over the economy, health and education. Yet if you listened to the news and read the majority of Britain’s newspapers you might only be lucky to spot a passing mention. “There’s war on you know!” At least that seems to be the attitude of most editors, many of whom are sensationalising the conflict and providing insufficient opposition or criticism against Tony Blair and George W. Bush’s campaign. Indeed public protestations against the war, albeit most of the British public are said to support their Government’s reaction to September 11th’s attacks, seem as ineffective as the American and British campaign itself against the Taleban.
The war also presents Blair with an opportunity to raise taxes with impunity, and to introduce futile policies and legislation (such as compulsory identity cards) that he might not have dared to propose before the attacks on the Pentagon and New York’s World Trade Centre. These policies will or could affect the civil rights of each and every Briton. If the Government succeeds this would be a blow to our own democratic values. So there are still some areas where the new Tory leader can provide invaluable opposition to Blair’s New Labour Government. The irony would be that Blair is responsible for the Human Rights Act. These measures, proposed by the Government, would not have prevented September’s attacks.
The Bush administration’s argument that there is now a greater need for the renegotiation of arms’ limitation treaties to allow the introduction of nuclear missile defence (NMD), also lacks clarity of thought and speaks more of opportunism. NMD would not have prevented the attacks on September 11th 2001. This deflects responsibility from the marked lack of security prior to the attacks on New York and Washington at domestic airport terminals. Better intelligence gathering on the part of the CIA and FBI could also have prevented the deaths of around 6,000 people.
The death toll though is still rising as the conflict continues. This time Ground Zero is Afghanistan. Yet shouldn't we all listen to those moderate Muslims who also feel that American foreign policy is the ultimate cause of resentment within the Islamic world? It seems that silence is golden, and their message goes unheard. Winter is approaching in Afghanistan, and many will die of starvation. Now the campaign has begun, even Iain Duncan Smith won’t dare to call for the conflict to end. So who is winning: is it the terrorists themselves? I hope not.
Graham Jarvis MA, 4th November 2001
[About EuroPolls] [Index] [Participants] [EMU Forum]
[EMU Vote] [Letters] [Legal Disclaimer] [Archive]