Or, why silence is not golden
Sometime back in the late 70s or early 80s it was decided by then UK premiere, Margaret Thatcher (that bag of vile middle class prejudice) that the best way to halt the violence of the IRA and the 'loyalist' paramilitaries was to deny them what she called the 'oxygen of publicity'. In practice, this turned out to mean that Jerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein (the political organ of the IRA) could be shown on British TV, he could be shown to be speaking to the camera - but his voice could not be heard. Instead a narrator paraphrased his comments in voice-over.
This ridiculous enterprise was abandoned when it was realised it did more to make a laughing-stock of the then Conservative Government than it did to deny publicity either to Sinn Fein or the IRA.
I'm no supporter of the British Conservative Party, nor do I often have anything positive to say about politicians of any political persuasion. But I will say this of John Major (the man who eventually succeed Thatcher, remaining Prime Minister until the accession of that disgusting weevil Blair) - it was he and his cabinet that had the balls to do whot no one else in the entire sorry history of the Troubles had done - engage actively and seriously with terrorist groups in a process of dialogue meant to bring an end to the violence, crime and despair that has plagued Northern Ireland since the 60s.
At first in great secrecy, and then after the declaration of various cease-fires by different terror groups (of whom the IRA are only one) with much greater openness, dialogue was undertaken that continued to include terrorsists as vital partners whose demands had to be both acknowledged as legitimate political aspirations and concerns, and actively responded to by Government 'concession'.
Whether or not this rewards terrorists for their acts of terror, it was also the only way forward in an intractable struggle that had until that point lasted almost forty years, and in which every other approach short of dialogue had been tried.
Which is not to say that the Good Friday Agreement, as the cease-fires came to be known, has brought untarnished peace and stability to the Five Provinces. It hasn't, simply because those forty years of struggle saw the IRA and the 'loyalists' become involved in all manner of criminal activity as a means of funding what was called by the IRA the 'long war'. That criminality remains and continues to flourish. What has been curtailed drastically by the Good Friday Agreement is the level of violence that can be said to be motivated politically.
Israel says it has no partner with whom it can legitimately discuss a solution to the Palestinian problem. It refused to recognise the PLO as a legitimate partner in such discussions, and it now rejects Hamas as such a partner, in part because Hamas' constitution still calls for the destruction of Israel.
Bush refuses to recognise Hamas as anything other than a terrorsist organisation, despite its coming to power through legitimate democratic elections, because of Americans' slavish devotion to that cabal of crypto-fascists, racists and religious bigots that calls itself the state of Israel. Only the Europeans have stated that they are willing to continue humanitarian and economic support for the Palestinians - and by extension that they are willing to engage in the unofficial, 'back-channel' form of communications with Hamas that characterised the early stages of the process that led to the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.
Hamas presents President Bush, and all those who believe that there can be no dialogue or compromise with terrorsts, with some very thorny problems - just as being elected to power presents Hamas with some difficult decisions.
Bush, proselyte for democracy that he is, cannot now turn around and refuse to deal with Hamas because it is not a legitimate representative of the people. That's exactly what it is. Legitimately elected to power with a huge popular mandate to end corruption in government and address the people's desire for peace, stability and prosperity.
In electing Hamas, the people of that area of the Middle East have done exactly what Bush said he wanted them to do - engage in democracy and elect a government. Having done so, Bush cannnot now refuse to deal with that government without looking like the greatest fool and hypocrite on Earth.
Despite the inconsistency of the American government in supporting despots such as Musharraf in Pakistan while advocating democracy everywhere else, the American government can engage with groups such as Hamas without appearing to reward terrorism and those who carry it out (again, despite the inconsistency of its support for the Israeli state which carries out extra-judicial killings by gunship on a regular basis, a state which is in direct contravention of its obligations under the nuclear proliferation treaty, just as India and Pakistan are).
It can do this in the way favored by Europeans in their dealings with groups such as Eta and the IRA - through back-channels and in secrecy, while doing everything in its power to exploit the contradictions that are now inherent to the position Hamas finds itself in.
It's always easier to be in opposition than it is to govern. Political groups having no access to power are not burdened by the responsibility of taking action to satisfy voters. Nor are they subject to any of the consequences of failed policies and initiatives. Instead, they have the luxury of being able to criticise without being required to do anything themselves, and they have the blessing of 20/20 hindsight. Ah ha! they say, If we were in power we would have done things very differently indeed...
Hamas, before it became a government, concerned itself with creating a solid base of support among the people by building schools and hospitals, providing financial services, and doing so without corruption. In terms of political action it killed people - which is always much simpler than building a relationship with them. In terms of political philsophy it had none but the Islamist creed of the Muslim Brotherhood and the intent to destroy Israel.
How very different the situation they find themselves in today, able to be held to account for those things that displease their constituents and forced, by the nature of their position as a government, to engage in all manner of difficult and challenging relations - not the least of them being that with its nemesis, Israel.
Israel may be able to choose to have no dealings with Hamas on the question of peace (though they have dealings with them at the level of local councils - where Hamas often finds itself in the position of local government - everyday) but Hamas cannot. Since it has chosen political engagement by way of the ballot box it cannot now cherry-pick those issues it wishes to be involved in and ignore those that it does not. The question of peace is at the root of all other questions and it is with Israel that Hamas must deal, whether it wishes to or not, if it wishes to avoid the charge of incompetence and the likelihood of political impotence and paralysis. Just as, like it or not, Israel must come to deal with Hamas because Hamas is the elected representative of its constituents, and such dealings are the means of communication among democracies.
That is, it must do so unless it wishes to reveal that it has no long term commitment to any cause but the aggrandizement of Israel at the expense of its neighbours, and unless it wishes to reveal its rhetoric of justice and peace to be utterly hollow and no more than a fig-leaf of justification for its racist and apartheid policies.
As ought to be evident from studying the 'long war' of the IRA against the British State, and its almost-resolution through the Good Friday agreement, as well as through contemplation of de-centralised terror groups such al qaeda, the 'war against terror' is not going to be won through military means. There can be no deciding battles, no military intervention, that will finally cripple and nullify the intransigent aggression of such groups, nor their ability to recruit new and willing bodies for the ranks of the suicide bombers.
Killing their leaders merely martyrs them and sows new dragon's teeth of hatred and the desire for vengeance.
No, the only solution to such reckless hate is to enmesh those of its leaders who choose to engage in democratic politics in the web of political relationships and engagements that characterise such politics. Only so will the enemy in each case begin to assume a human form for those who presently wish only to destroy and have no incentive to do otherwise. As was the case in Northern Ireland, these communications should not be openly acknowledged until they bear fruit - or until groups such as Hamas realise that dialogue is more difficult and dangerous than sending out suicide bombers to kill and maim - and disavow politics for a return to the gun and the bomb.
The beauty of such engagements is that once entered into and pursued seriously then, as the IRA has found, they become almost impossible to retreat from without destroying the credibility and integrity amongst its adherents necessary to maintain the group as either a viable political entity or as a group capable of carrying through with its threats.
Democracy, like mud, shit and blood, tends to stick.
Perhaps dialogue does tend to reward terrorists for their terrorism since, as the IRA has, they end up getting something of what they want. Perhaps so. But the people of Northern Ireland will tell you that their lives are better now, to one degree or another, than they were. While criminality, the child of the Troubles, continues to flourish, there is now far less political violence there - and with a decrease in politically motivated violence comes the chance to further enmesh terror groups in the conventions and procedures of a civil society - and with that comes a greater chance of addressing the economic and criminal violence that remains.
Of course, just as it's easier to be in opposition than it is to be in government, so it's easier to address terrorist violence with violence in return than it is to begin the difficult process of creating dialogue. It takes courage for the first step, patience, insight, the will to compromise, and active political imagination, to proceed. And in no politician of the moment, in either America or elsewhere, do I see those qualities.
I see intransigence, I see a greed for short-term political gain and a fear of doing anything that might put that gain at risk. In relation to Iraq and Iran, Palestine and Israel, I see no politician of any party willing to take the kind of risks necessary in order to have any hope of reducing the violence that blights that region and may even, in the form of the confrontation between America and Iran, result in an escalation of that violence that could, ultimately, put us all at risk.
In fact, I see no hope at all, for any of us. It's true that I believe that, if a policy of dialogue based on the acknowledgement of real grievance were to take place, coupled with the determination to do something about the situation in the Middle East, no matter what the cost in terms of rhetoric rejected and shibboleths overthrown; that if an American politician arose who had stature at home and was willing to confront the Israelis over their continued illegal activities (the subject of endless UN condemnation and Security Council resolutions without number) then there might be hope of achieving some kind of resolution.
But I see no sign at all of such a thing happening, now or in the future. And I also honestly believe that out of this compound failure of politics, pragmatism and common sense, will arise a conflict that will overwhelm us all.
I can't wait:)