» Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Prime Minister’s Speech at Canary Wharf

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) briefed journalists about the speech that the Prime Minister would be making later today. The PMOS said that it was the first of three speeches the Prime Minister would be giving on his and the Government’s approach to foreign policy.

Today’s focused on global terrorism, and the significance of Iraq and Afghanistan in that fight.

The second speech would focus on the importance of maintaining global alliances, based on common values. The third speech would focus on the need for institutional reform at a global level to meet the challenges of today.

The starting point for today’s speech was the underlying theme that had linked the Government’s approach to issues as diverse as Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change and poverty in Africa – that was a belief in an activist approach to foreign policy based on values, as well as interests.

The Prime Minister said that such an interventionist stance was the essential pre-condition of our future prosperity and stability, but he said that we needed to develop a politics of globalization to match the economics of globalization.

He contrasted this approach with what he called the "doctrine of benign inactivity", which saw the US’s response to 9/11 as a gross over-reaction, and each setback in Iraq and Afghanistan as a reason why we should have just left Saddam and the Taleban in place. Such an approach he said ignored the "life choices" each country now faced – completing the transition to a democracy, or returning to certain misery for millions.

"They, the terrorists, know that if they can succeed either in Iraq or Afghanistan or indeed in Lebanon or anywhere else wanting to go the democratic route, then the choice of a modern future for the Arab or Muslim world is dealt a potentially mortal blow. Likewise if they fail, and those countries become democracies and make progress and, in the case of Iraq, prosper rapidly as it would; then not merely is that a blow against their whole value system; but it is the most effective message possible against their wretched propaganda about America, the West, the rest of the world."

But, domestically, he said we must also recognize Muslim extremism here too for what it is – not pander to it. "The struggle against terrorism in Madrid, or London or Paris is the same as the struggle against the terrorist acts of Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Palestine or rejectionist groups in Iraq……..this is not a clash between civilizations. It is a clash about civilization…. "we" is not the West. "We" are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. "We" are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts."

But we have to equally recognize that this extremism is deep-rooted, and its impact was felt worldwide, with some 30 to 40 countries subject to regular terrorist attacks loosely linked to its ideology.

That was why this global terrorism would not be defeated until its ideas were confronted head on – its absurd anti-Americanism; its pre-feudal concept of governance; its position on women and other faiths. "The only way to win is: to recognize this phenomenon is a global ideology; to see all areas in which it operates as linked; and to defeat it by values and ideas set in opposition to those of the terrorists."

Asked if an activist approach to foreign policy now meant pre-emptive action, the PMOS said that what it meant was that it was not passive, but rather, interventionist, as we were in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. It also meant that people were not passive on issues such as climate change or Africa, as our G8 Presidency showed.

Asked if people would read into Iran into the speech, the PMOS said: no. There was a separate process that was ongoing at the UN on Iran, and as people knew, we had been very actively engaged in trying to resolve this issue through diplomacy. That was an activist interventionist approach, and was not sitting back waiting for Iran to get nuclear capability. It was trying to enforce through diplomacy the settled will of the UN.

Asked what was the activist and interventionist approach to the Middle East, the PMOS replied that in the Middle East, we were actively engaged in supporting the Palestinian Authority. Another important element of the speech was that the Prime Minister would say that just as we had to take tough actions to safeguard our security, so too, we had to address issues such as poverty, injustice, and environmental degradation elsewhere in the world as well. In terms of the Middle East, that did mean trying to move things forward politically, whilst at the same time as recognising Israel’s genuine security concerns.

Asked if the speech would touch on Dr. Allawi’s claims that Iraq was headed towards civil war, the PMOS said that as he had said yesterday, Dr. Allawi had said that he did not think that Iraq was yet at that point.

Asked where this doctrine left the doctrine on sovereign states, the PMOS said that in terms of Iraq, for example, the Prime Minister was quite open in saying that of course, there were those who advocated that simply intervening in issues such as Iraq made the situation worse. It was simply an analysis that the Prime Minister did not accept as what that meant was leaving millions in misery.

Put that it was not an analysis, but rather, a question of law, the PMOS replied that in terms of law, the Prime Minister would point to the fact that in the UN, for instance, we were now, and had been for the last few years, operating with UN authority. Equally, what we had now was a situation where Iraqis and Afghanis were able to express their democratic view many times in a way which was not possible before we intervened.

Put that the Prime Minister would mention the US, the West and the rest of the world in his speech, but not the UK, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister did mention Britain. The message was that we must also recognise Muslim extremism here too for what it was, and not pander to it. The Prime Minster would also say that "the struggle against terrorism in Madrid, or London or Paris was the same as the struggle against the terrorist acts of Hezbollah in Lebanon". Therefore, the Prime Minister fully recognised that we were part of that struggle.

Asked if this was enunciating a new doctrine of foreign policy, or was it just a repeat if not, the PMOS said no, it pulled together the underlying themes that had characterised our approach to issues such as Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. What it did was update that doctrine in light of the experience we had had in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in light of the challenge that we now faced from these loosely linked fronts for Islamic fundamentalists. They shared an ideology which was based on anti-Americanism, a pre-feudal concept of governance, anti-feminism and other faiths. That was what the Prime Minister was drawing together.

Asked if there would be any concrete measures on the domestic front to tackle extremism, as there were people who said that they wanted Sharia law, for example and there seemed to be no action against placard wavers, the PMOS said that he could not talk about that, as there were ongoing procedures. Anyone who had followed the Parliamentary process recently would have seen that not only was the Government precisely promoting action on terror, and we were still trying to do that in terms of ID cards on glorification, but we were also meeting opposition in Parliament. Therefore, people could not accuse the Government of being inactive on this front, as it was for others to say why they were not supporting such measures.

Asked if the Prime Minister had discussed his speech with President Bush, as the speech was committing the US and the UK to take bilateral action, and to say to the EU that we could do what we wanted to, the PMOS replied that was an oversimplification of what was a complex and well-argued speech. This was a serious analysis of the nature of threat posed by fundamentalist misconceived Islamists, as both the Prime Minister and many moderate Muslims saw it. It was also how we needed to galvanise ourselves and our Governments in countering that attack. The PMOS said that this was very much the Prime Minister’s speech; other leaders would make their own views known in their own way.

Put that this speech almost seemed to be the second speech, rather than the first in a series, as it seemed to follow on from the speech made several years ago at the George Bush Memorial Library, and was it now being construed as concentrating exclusively on the war on terror, the PMOS said: no. The Prime Minister was talking first of all about the battle of ideas, and people would see in the speech that he would say a lot about the need to counter this type of extremism domestically, as well as part of foreign policy. The Prime Minister said that this was a battle for modernity. That was why it was important to see it as not a clash between civilisations, but rather, a clash about civilisation. Therefore, the Prime Minister first and foremost saw it as the need to win the battle of ideas, which is why he said that global terrorism would not be defeated until its ideas had been confronted head on. The PMOS said that people had not to be afraid to confront the anti-Americanism, the feudal concept of governance etc, and to talk about it as it was.

Asked about international support, the PMOS replied that as people saw in terms of Iraq, we did go down the UN route, and we did get a resolution. Therefore, we now had UN support, and have had for some considerable time, for what we were doing. What was important, and what the Prime Minister would come to in a later speech was the issue of institutional reform, as he did see the need for it.

Put that people wanted to win hearts and minds, was there a way to convince people about conceptions and misconceptions about conflicts and issues such as Jericho and Guantanamo, the PMOS said that we had to have an impartial and objective reporting of such incidents. In terms of Jericho, and in terms of recognising that we did give warning to the Palestinian Authority about why we were concerned, and why we would have to pull our monitors out. In terms of Iraq and Afghanistan, we fully recognised the democratic change that had happened there. But, the PMOS said that if "recognising" meant pandering to extremists and diluting our view, then the Prime Minister most definitely did not agree with that, as we had to state it as it was. Whilst we had to win the argument, it was not won by soft-pedalling on what that argument was.

Briefing took place at 13:00 | Search for related news

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...

Search


March 2006
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Feb   Apr »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Supported by

mySociety.org

Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings


Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries

Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh