Russia, Syria, and the Labour front bench
It is a healthy thing for people involved in politics to read, at least occasionally, publications which generally take a different point of view from their own. If it does nothing else, it gives then a better understanding of different perspectives and makes them less likely to act like the characters in Tracy Ullman's "Alternative Opinions Support Group" sketch.
Another reason for this is that when a political party really makes a mess of something, harsh criticism on whatever they have got badly wrong from a paper or magazine which is generally on the same side are usually far more damning than attacks from those who always attack them anyway.
Hence it is a good idea for Labour politicians to read The Telegraph or The Spectator from time to time or for Tories to read the Guardian, Prospect or The New Statesman.
Of the left of centre publications in the UK, the one I have most respect for is The New Statesman because it generally publishes the broadest range of more thought-provoking opinions, even though I often disagree with them.
Sometimes, of course, I find pieces in a left of centre publication which I actually do agree with.
It does happen from time to time that one of them will make a criticism of Conservative policy that I think we ought to listen to.
And sometimes when the Labour party gets something really badly wrong and gets hauled over the coals for it by papers or magazines on their own side, a piece in the Guardian or the New Statesman which tears Labour policy to shreds is far more useful to quote than one in the Telegraph or any other publication from which such a response to Labour is par for the course.
Labour's shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry made such an egregious mistake in parliament on Monday this week in response to concerns at what most informed commentators believe to be another impending humanitarian catastrophe in Northern Syria.
The New Statesman has published an article by Oz Katerji which accuses Thornberry of parroting Putin and Assad’s propaganda over war crimes in Syria which I think is the most devastating critique of Labour foreign policy I have read in a left of centre publication since those made of Tony Blair over Iraq following the Chilcott report.
Katerji warns of the massive threat to the lives of civilians in the Idlib province, the last area of the country not controlled by the regime and which is imminently expected to come under attack. He writes:
"As the eyes of the world turn towards the potential humanitarian catastrophe of an Assad regime offensive targeting the more than three million civilians living in Idlib, the international community has been justifiably warning of the regime committing yet another major chemical weapons atrocity.
So it is no surprise that the Russian state disinformation machine is working overtime to create the pretexts for a new chemical weapons attack in Syria. For weeks now, social media accounts belonging to Russian embassies around the world have been disseminating increasingly hysterical lies about Syrians, baselessly claiming that humanitarian NGOs are working in partnership with the Western media to film faked chemical weapons attacks.
While these claims are laughable, they are also dangerous and indicative of the murderous intention of the Russian government and the Assad regime. The UN has conclusively proved Assad has used chemical weapons time and time again. These ridiculous claims can only be taken seriously as a statement of intent by the Russian government on behalf of the Assad regime to commit new war crimes in Idlib."
He adds that on Monday in parliament there were
"many impassioned pleas from across the party political spectrum warning of an impending humanitarian catastrophe in northern Syria. Yet shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry instead decided she would take her comments straight out of the Russian propaganda book."
Katerji writes that Thornberry took a line which could have come
"almost directly from the Russian ministry of defence, launching an outrageous and completely bogus attack on the open source investigators that have been exposing the Kremlin’s crimes for years."
The Shadow foreign secretary said that “Relying on so-called open-source intelligence provided by proscribed terrorist groups is not an acceptable alternative,”
when in fact most open source intelligence comes not from terrorists but from Syrian rescue workers, medics, human rights activists, and journalists. Unsurprisingly, many Syrian activists have taken great exception to Labour's shadow foreign secretary smearing these groups as terrorists. Kremlin propagandists, however, were delighted and have been quick to cite her remarks in their support.
There are some issues on which I strongly disagree with Oz Katerji but I think his article on this subject is very powerful and convincing and I recommend it. You can read that article in full here.
Another reason for this is that when a political party really makes a mess of something, harsh criticism on whatever they have got badly wrong from a paper or magazine which is generally on the same side are usually far more damning than attacks from those who always attack them anyway.
Hence it is a good idea for Labour politicians to read The Telegraph or The Spectator from time to time or for Tories to read the Guardian, Prospect or The New Statesman.
Of the left of centre publications in the UK, the one I have most respect for is The New Statesman because it generally publishes the broadest range of more thought-provoking opinions, even though I often disagree with them.
Sometimes, of course, I find pieces in a left of centre publication which I actually do agree with.
It does happen from time to time that one of them will make a criticism of Conservative policy that I think we ought to listen to.
And sometimes when the Labour party gets something really badly wrong and gets hauled over the coals for it by papers or magazines on their own side, a piece in the Guardian or the New Statesman which tears Labour policy to shreds is far more useful to quote than one in the Telegraph or any other publication from which such a response to Labour is par for the course.
Labour's shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry made such an egregious mistake in parliament on Monday this week in response to concerns at what most informed commentators believe to be another impending humanitarian catastrophe in Northern Syria.
The New Statesman has published an article by Oz Katerji which accuses Thornberry of parroting Putin and Assad’s propaganda over war crimes in Syria which I think is the most devastating critique of Labour foreign policy I have read in a left of centre publication since those made of Tony Blair over Iraq following the Chilcott report.
Katerji warns of the massive threat to the lives of civilians in the Idlib province, the last area of the country not controlled by the regime and which is imminently expected to come under attack. He writes:
"As the eyes of the world turn towards the potential humanitarian catastrophe of an Assad regime offensive targeting the more than three million civilians living in Idlib, the international community has been justifiably warning of the regime committing yet another major chemical weapons atrocity.
So it is no surprise that the Russian state disinformation machine is working overtime to create the pretexts for a new chemical weapons attack in Syria. For weeks now, social media accounts belonging to Russian embassies around the world have been disseminating increasingly hysterical lies about Syrians, baselessly claiming that humanitarian NGOs are working in partnership with the Western media to film faked chemical weapons attacks.
While these claims are laughable, they are also dangerous and indicative of the murderous intention of the Russian government and the Assad regime. The UN has conclusively proved Assad has used chemical weapons time and time again. These ridiculous claims can only be taken seriously as a statement of intent by the Russian government on behalf of the Assad regime to commit new war crimes in Idlib."
He adds that on Monday in parliament there were
"many impassioned pleas from across the party political spectrum warning of an impending humanitarian catastrophe in northern Syria. Yet shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry instead decided she would take her comments straight out of the Russian propaganda book."
Katerji writes that Thornberry took a line which could have come
"almost directly from the Russian ministry of defence, launching an outrageous and completely bogus attack on the open source investigators that have been exposing the Kremlin’s crimes for years."
The Shadow foreign secretary said that “Relying on so-called open-source intelligence provided by proscribed terrorist groups is not an acceptable alternative,”
when in fact most open source intelligence comes not from terrorists but from Syrian rescue workers, medics, human rights activists, and journalists. Unsurprisingly, many Syrian activists have taken great exception to Labour's shadow foreign secretary smearing these groups as terrorists. Kremlin propagandists, however, were delighted and have been quick to cite her remarks in their support.
There are some issues on which I strongly disagree with Oz Katerji but I think his article on this subject is very powerful and convincing and I recommend it. You can read that article in full here.
Comments