JH: John Prescott’s going to meet Muslim MPs
today. The timing makes it a potentially
difficult meeting. Last week, three of
them and other Muslim leaders wrote to a letter to Tony Blair attacking his
foreign policy and made sure it got plenty of coverage by paying for full page
adverts in some newspapers to print it.
It said his policies on
JH: What affect has our foreign policy had on
terrorism, as it affects this country?
DB: Well, I think what underlies that question,
of course, is the analysis, which I do not accept, that our foreign policy can
be seen as some sort of reason for the radicalisation and the translation of
members of an otherwise law abiding community into potentially indiscriminate
terrorist killers. And I don’t accept
that analysis and I don’t accept it for three reasons and, if you’ll just bear
with me, I’ll explain to you quickly what they are. First of all, substantially that analysis, as
far as I can see, depends for a significant number of people on a distorted
view of what our foreign policy is. Secondly,
even that distorted analysis, in my view, doesn’t in any way explain why people,
citizens of this country who are members of a law abiding community should
become indiscriminate terrorist killers and it can never be any justification
for an individual planning to or committing …
JH: And nobody has suggested that
…
DB: I understand that. But, thirdly, I think that that analysis, as
has been pointed out and I’ve heard it in interviews in your programme, fails
to take account of the fact that the nature of this terrorism predates our
involvement, for example, in
JH: So, are you saying that our foreign policy
has had no effect at all on terrorism as it affects this country? Is that what you’re saying?
DB: The main role our foreign policy appears to
play in this debate is that it gives a new focus to people in terms of the way
in which they want to present this particular problem. I don’t believe that it changes people’s
minds. I believe that it may give them a
focus around which they want to frame their grievances and I think it’s
explained to some degree by people looking to find another argument for, for
their own opposition to our foreign policy.
JH: Well, that’s an interesting view. May I remind you of a report that was prepared
for the Prime Minister - a JIC report, Joint Intelligence Committee report,
that was signed off by Ms Manningham-Buller, the head
of MI5, John Scarlett, the head of MI6, and Sir David
Pepper, the head of GCHQ - that said Iraq is likely to be - this is referring
specifically to Iraq - “Iraq is likely to be an important motivating factor for
some time to come in the radicalisation of British Muslims and for those
extremists who view attacks against the UK as legitimate”. Not exactly what you’ve just been saying?
DB: Well, I don’t think… It’s not exactly what
you’ve just been saying, because it’s somebody else’s words, but I don’t think
that it in any way is contradictory…
JH: It flatly contradicts you.
DB: Well, I don’t think it does contradict
me. What I’m saying is that of course
people will present their arguments
JH: An important motivating factor.
DB: Read the whole …
JH:
… I’ll read it again if you like: “
DB: The point I’m making to you, and I repeat it,
is that of course people are legitimately entitled to take a view which is
contrary to the foreign policy view of the Government …
JH: No, you’re going beyond that
DB: Let me just finish. Of course, they are entitled to do that. What they are not entitled to do in my view is
against the other facts and I’ve set them out very - I’ve set them out in short
for you, but they cover a wide range, all of the other facts that indicate that
in fact the radicalisation, the translation of otherwise law abiding people
into very serious, potentially dangerous, terrorists has to be accounted for by
something other than this, this comparatively simplistic analysis.
JH: In that case, the JIC is really
simplistic. That is the point I am
making.