Tag Archive for 'moral_principles'

Foreign Policy, Muslim leaders and that letter

A few weeks ago there was a bit of a brouhaha over prominent Muslim politicians’ letter to the Prime Minister (rightly) bemoaning British foreign policy and clumsily linking it to the threat of terrorism against the UK today. The political and media response was entirely predictable, and correct in the central point (i.e. that foreign policy should not be surrendered to terrorists). At the time I did feel a desire to write an article giving them a wrap on the knuckles for being so politically naïve, though managed to restrain myself. Nevertheless, I did say to myself that I would write an analytical piece about it, in the fullness of time [sic].

under|progress has, however, beaten me to it, with a very well argued essay, Policy, profiling, poverty. A very well recommended read for everyone. Here’s a snippet:

For too many people the explanation of terrorism in Britain stops at this point about foreign policy. That is, the foreign policy is a shambles and therefore we can expect some kind of response from would-be defenders of the people who suffer from Blair’s delusions of grandeur. But the argument fails, or is higly limited, on several points. It does not offer a ‘root cause’ explanation. As far as I am aware, no Iraqi or Afghan has decided to attack Britain for its role in the two invasions and subsequent occupations (instead some living Britain have made there way to Iraq to fight). Only, by and large, British-born, English-speaking Muslims. The simplest refutation of the foreign policy argument is that, despite anger Blair’s foreign objectives, there are Muslims who do not engage in such acts of violence. Is their anger or concern any less than those who take to bombing tubes and buses? Further, such an explanation is actually an insult to Muslims who don’t feel the need to engage in such acts or find such actions against their religio-moral principles. This explanation says Muslims are unable to rationally deal with the situation and that their only response is bound to be a violent one. This is, plainly speaking, rubbish.

Quite right! (Even if he failed to spell check it before hitting publish! :-) )

Whoever he is, he’s going on the blogroll.