Public relations, more usually referred to these days as ‘communications’, is a method used by organisations to explain themselves or issues, or sell a product/message/strategy. To create/manipulate their audiences’ various external environments so that these can prevail, sophisticated organisations firstly recognise competitor or negative PR; secondly, they counter it. The means by which they do so include tactics such as photo-opportunities, branding, viral marketing and local spokespersons. These tactics have been used to devastating effect by al-Qaida.
Its communications campaign has been textbook – identical to that mounted by any multinational – and has taken years to put in place. Had the SIS known anything about PR (which, given its corporate clients, it ought to have done) it would have spotted al-Qaida’s programme long ago, and known how to interpret it. In consequence, it would have anticipated where al-Qaida’s agenda was headed; recognised the build-up to what in commercial terms would be called an attempted hostile takeover; and been prepared to avert, compete with or counter it.
Al-Qaida has, in a disciplined manner, carried out an international research programme, which has enabled it to direct a global rolling PR programme. This has allowed it to explain its short, mediumand long-term objectives (Palestine/defeat of America/creation of Islamic states) providing a ‘menu’ to diverse supporters who can buy into the whole, or parts of it, sustaining local and international growth. It has been straightforward about its operating strategy, and, in the best PR tradition, created expectation, which it has delivered on time and on budget; (1) provided maximum local autonomy to customise/localise its message to increase its market-share; and been unapologetic about the tactics used. (Strategy that can start in a madressa, can end in the creation of a suicide bomber (a tactic). Terrorism is one of the ugliest means of communication.)
The British government, along with the US Administration, principally because of cultural and racial arrogance, have underestimated a worldly foe. As a result, they have played into al-Qaida’s hands firstly by not recognising that it had a PR strategy; secondly by using dated Second World War/Cold War PR to combat it, the demonisation/personalisation of a figurehead: Hitler, Stalin and now, bin Laden. Which is to say, while al-Qaida has been running a multi-track, cutting-edge PR programme – sophisticated PR is not an exclusively multinational phenomenon – the British and US governments have been using the same single-track techniques of fifty years ago. This means that they cannot even tackle minor al-Qaida PR spinoffs. One of these is the mix of entrepreneurial opportunism and spontaneous gesture of solidarity that has delivered the al-Qaida T-shirt.
T-shirt PR
As any good PRO, advising say, a multinational, could have predicted – merchandising tie-ins are not just for Hollywood – the face of Osama bin Laden (2) is now emblazoned across T-shirts in many parts of the world. As a result, al-Qaida now has an icon, bin Laden, and, in neat, street-cred contrast to the traditional robes worn by its icon, a flag to project it on, the T-shirt. (3)
Instead of countering, which is to say, in PR terms, being both reactive and proactive, with similar street-cred images and photo-opportunities, the British and US governments have continued in typical Cold War PR-mode. As bin Laden graces the day-wear of the souk and street; they offer…… photocalls of men in suits and generals in uniform. For an alternative photo-opportunity they present a US President in his golf buggy – golf is to Bush what cake was to Marie Antoinette – or our head of state touring a mosque as a fixture in her Golden Jubilee Year.
Instead, they could have countered with an alternative T-shirt that challenged al-Qaida. One, in particular, comes to mind i.e. one imprinted with the image of a dead Roman Catholic priest, his dog-collar grimy, carried from the wreckage of the Twin Towers by the surviving members of his NY Fire Department flock. No representation could have better translated into Islam and challenged al-Qaida’s claim to speak on its behalf, than the projection of a murdered, dearly-loved Christian cleric.
Of all the photographs taken on that saddest of days, it was the one image that could, at the time, have undermined Osama bin Laden personally because it went to the heart, and therefore shamed, Islam, one of the world’s most peaceful and tolerant religions. Al-Qaida purported to speak to the infidel in terms of religion. The US government failed to talk back in the required language.
Nor has it tackled al-Qaida’s political messages on Palestine and America. Again, T-shirt PR could have been one of many vehicles the American government could have used. For example, on but one occasion – this is all that would have been required – President Bush could have worn, over his collar and tie, a different T-shirt, this time featuring a woman, one that equalled bin Laden’s eerie beauty. Tragically, the right image was easily delivered, as they always are, in this instance by the face of a Palestinian widow, Mme. Ikhlas Khouli. She was photographed, wearing glasses, her head respectfully covered, accentuating, without make-up or other artifice, the beauty of her bone structure, prior to her execution. She was shot dead by Palestinian soldiers for allegedly assisting Israel. She left seven children under eighteen orphaned. A spokesman for the Israeli Human Rights Group B’tselem said: ‘If it is true that she was a collaborator, the Israeli forces that recruited her have a heavy responsibility for what happened since they endangered her life.’ (4)
Her face could have been flashed around the world, since her fate – a widow, trying to do the best by her family – was determined jointly by the wrong of Israeli and Palestinian soldiers. Mme Khouli’s frightened gaze could have stared out at us from the chests of thousands of women wearing T-shirts in her name.
Women, however, are not icons to the warlords of fundamentalist, clashing civilisations; and certainly not when their fate condemns soldiers of opposing armies, their governments, as well as the world’s only super-power. T-shirts, like all flags, have to be partisan. As a result, an image that had ‘legs’ was not even considered, let alone used. Good PR is about accurate communications. Unlike a missile marked ‘Patriot’ (5) or ‘Made in Britain’, a T-shirt can strike its target precisely.
Hatred of the USA
And so to al-Qaida’s second political message, hatred of the USA. This strikes a chord in market-places from Latin America to the Far East. Nowhere is it worse than in the Middle East where a newly released UN Arab human development report (6) describes a region whose 280 million people, despite vast oil wealth, have fallen behind all others including sub-Saharan Africa, in most indices of progress and development. It is hardly a wonder that in, for example, Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida has grotesquely managed to unite liberals and fundamentalists alike against a corrupt Saudi government nurtured by America; or, in seeming contradiction, harnessed the pan-Arab (secular) nationalism once championed by President Nasser of Egypt – one of the best PR-men the Middle East has ever produced. America could still have responded in T-shirt terms, and used it as shorthand for much else.
To have done so, however, would have required US executive self-knowledge, lack of which has cost the American people and millions of others, dear. Had, however, the US government been able to make the leap, its slick new Office of Global Communications (7) could, even now, print up a T-shirt with the American flag and one word – ‘Sorry’. America, as with the British government, has much to be sorry about. Marketed globally, the profits from the humility of such apology could have provided much of the funding necessary to ameliorate the conditions of the many. The US government will not do so for many reasons, including the threat of lawsuits. The payment of reparations, however, one day, maybe forced upon it anyway. (8)
World vision statements
If T-shirts can be a ‘shorthand’ instrument of political PR, speeches are its ‘longhand’ equivalent. The Prime Minister has given three ‘world vision statements’ since 11 September 2001. These were at Labour Party Conference that year and this, as well as at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg in September 2002. At the last of these, he announced a crackdown on corrupt Third World governments by demanding multinational oil, gas and mining companies publicise all payments to rogue states. His position was undermined by many factors, including the sweeteners paid by British armament companies to those countries that the government does not consider to be ‘rogue’. (9) The Prime Minister’s naiveté was almost as insulting as his ‘white’ man’s language and poor timing. (Language and timing are crucial to good PR.)In addition, it weakened one of his administration’s other and already weak PR initiatives, (10) since Britain’s own ‘good governance’ does not always stand up to scrutiny.
Different mistakes were made by the Prime Minister at the Labour Party conference. This was because he was seeking to address three target audiences: his party, the country and part of the international community. However, and as any good PRO would have told him, if you offer a message to three audiences, you automatically alienate those to whom you offer none.
One audience overlooked by the Prime Minister, possibly because he did not wish to tread on the Queen’s toes, was the British Commonwealth. As a result, he missed a (PR) opportunity to bind the goodwill of its multi-ethnic and multi-faith diaspora to the fight against terrorism. This could have also assisted the SIS in its recruitment drive announced earlier this year. (11) He also failed to address a growing constituency, those Britons who have mixed parentage, who have a very different view of the world, dual-, sometimes multi-national allegiance and the alternative circles of influence that can go with this.
Of far greater concern is that one of the audiences he ignored were the Arab nations.(12) Scuttling between the Arab League’s hospitality and that of the Friends of Israel, or making promises to Palestine while emphasising Israel’s right to recognition/co-existence, is not the same thing as acknowledging the Arab people independent of these. Had he the courtesy – in Arab society courtesy travels globally – he could have assisted in the dilution of al-Qaida’s appeal if he had alluded to Britain’s long and cherished history with the Arabs. This is separate from, and pre-dates, the state of Israel; and relationships were not exclusively at governmental level, which, for the most part, they are today. He did not do so presumably because he has no interest in the Arab people, only in their unelected officials. (13) In addition, of course, to offer publicly even a modicum of respect to the Arab populace would be an anathema to Israel. A bit like speaking Latin to the Reverend Iain Paisley. (14) It was another PR opportunity lost.
Spook PR and Policing al-Qaida
One reason why Prime Minister Blair could have added good manners to Britain’s arsenal in the fight against al-Qaida, is because the government needs the assistance of others to protect our citizens here and overseas. Al-Qaida proved this when it exploded the myth that the spooks, despite all the SIS had pretended, have global reach. (15) They do not. This is one reason why the hospitality-PR offered by Labour at conference to a clutch of ambassadors and foreign dignitaries was empty since it was not followed-up from the platform. This, in a live broadcast, could have mobilised our multi-racial population here, every bit as much as it could have created the necessary goodwill overseas. It is vital to do so because the SIS can only service what, in PR terms, would be called a multi-market account, in collaboration with local agencies. In addition, to further this, it requires personnel (spies) employed locally or from Whitehall who have the appropriate attributes, including, for example, ethnicity, to seek out intelligence (without, it could be added, any effort being put into their personal safety) and/or maximise relationships, sometimes including with such local agencies. (16) If the last of these, the spy can be additionally responsible for branding, (17) two-way liaison with local agencies (18) and, in a limited number of cases, monitoring or instruction in acceptable civilian (rather than repressive) policing.
However, despite their acknowledged skills, they are expected to accept a two-tier SIS employment system, (19) with themselves in the bottom tier and SIS civil servants/declared intelligence officers (‘the staff’) in the top one; (20) and the local agencies are expected to put Western lives and goals ahead of their own, or good of their people (not always, if ever, the same thing).
In addition, the local agencies are expected to assist without even a nod of appreciation – far less respect – in their direction. Dame Stella Rimington, for example, presumably acutely aware of sensitivities, failed to recognise their specific contribution when she could have added the spin. Writing in the Guardian on4 September 2002, in another PR opportunity missed, she omitted to applaud the work of the local agencies, although she did, unusually, praise on this occasion non-staff spies:’…essential though they are, human sources on their own are not enough. They must be supplemented by technical intelligence….’ (21)
Not only are those who staff the local agencies airbrushed by Whitehall, but their brothers and sisters, many of whom live here and are British citizens, are deemed, without a shred of evidence, to be culpable of heinous deeds. (22) Meanwhile, SIS and MI5 launch a campaign to attract those from various ethnic groups living in Britain to sign up to Her Majesty’s secret services…..(23)
Spook PR and War with Iraq
Nowhere has Whitehall’s Cold War (and macho) PR-machine been more in evidence than in its handling of Iraq. Take, for example, the map of Iraq invariably accompanying our newspaper reports. These are figuratively ‘male’ – they usually mark presidential palaces, oil-wells or presumed sites of weapons of mass destruction. The ‘female’, for example Iraq’s two great rivers Tigris and Euphrates, is either omitted or reduced to unnamed ‘worms’. To name the ‘worms’ would be to evoke memories of Iraq’s once fecundity. It is a bit like a map of London without the Thames; or Gateshead/Newcastle without the splendour of the Tyne. Nor, for the most part, are Iraq’s major cities named. This is similar too presenting a map of Britain without marking Birmingham, Cardiff or Glasgow in case we should be reminded that these heave with civilians. And, where once America and Britain rightly rounded on the Taleban for blowing up the Buddhas of the ancient world, there is no similar intimation of Iraq’s antiquity – for example, mention of Babylon, Ctesiphon or Ur. Presumably, were these to take a direct hit, they would be regarded as collateral damage.
Whitehall’s PR-machine’s largely successful attempt to strip the Iraqi people of who they are so that, in the case of war, we bomb not a doctor with her patient, but aggressors, has, however, been undone by civilians worldwide, as well as clerics of every faith. Take, for example, the reminder in the Times letters page that: ‘Traditionally, the main victims of warfare and armed conflict have been soldiers and other armed combatants. Today, around 90% of casualties in modern wars are innocent civilians, and about half of those are children.’ (24)
Whitehall, as well as the Blair administration, has also been undone by the (PR) embarrassment of the two-day conference held in London over the summer when a bunch of Iraqi and Kurdish warlords, generals and businessmen got together in the hope that a sort of Iraqi ‘Vaclav Havel’ figure would emerge, over the bodies of dead infants, as inheritor to Saddam Hussein. When this objective failed, to no-one’s great surprise, Whitehall and the government concentrated their PR elsewhere. (25) First of all, the public was told that ‘Iraq is a tribal society and has no traditions of freedom’. (26) (Sub-text: Iraqis are not interested in democracy.) Next, it was told that, historically, Iraq has always been a fractious nation. (Sub-text: Iraqi civilians are responsible for their plight.) Thirdly, (and with much piety) it was informed that Iraqi civilians had been allowed to become the project of do-gooders. Fourthly, Saddam Hussein’s PR-machine was ridiculed, the assumption being that in so doing the Iraqi president himself was ridiculed.
These seemingly different PR strategies were in fact one, an attempt to focus externally. This, as any Risk-PRO could have told the British authorities, is a banner headline proclaiming the weakness (in PR terms) of their case. First of all, democracy could be introduced in Iraq but it would set off a chain-reaction that many governments do not want. (The wishes of Iraq’s citizens, a proportion of which similarly do not favour democracy, are apparently irrelevant.) Secondly, the Irish, Scottish and Welsh nations have been called ‘fractious’ in their time. Thirdly, do-gooders, no matter how worthy or well-intentioned, strip a highly educated and one-time prosperous people of their final dignity: the parade of left wing MPs being a further insult because the Iraqi middle classes are not left wing. Fourthly, the Iraqi president’s PR has been rather good, whether or not he is to be regime-changed. (27)
Saddam Hussein’s PR
Take Gulf War One when our media analysed the body posture of a petrified, small British boy, held as part of Saddam Hussein’s ‘human shield’ and force-photographed with him at the time. This enduring image has been revisited by our press in what, at the time of writing, appears to be the run-up to, but unlikely, Gulf War Two. The child’s terror was presumed by the British press to be bad PR. At no time did they – or the spooks – seem to realise that we were not the target audience. Nor did it seem to occur to them that same image played well throughout Iraq and the Middle East, that Saddam Hussein’s cynical attempts to allay terror were sympathetically reviewed and that the only audience he was seeking to influence was local and regional.
It was, in fact, an expertly handled photo-opportunity, complimented by the President’s ‘solicitous’ accompanying voice-over, ‘Are you getting enough milk?’ This was not cynicism masquerading as sentimentality but a perfectly worded, showering PR-missile that landed all over the Middle East, especially in Gaza where Palestinian mothers knew that Britain’s (then Conservative) government had no interest whatsoever in whether or not their children had milk too.
Instead of countering the power of Saddam Hussein’s PR by the creation of their own photo-opportunities and sound bites which could have similarly performed well in the region, the spooks and naive British media played into his hands by broadcasting and rebroadcasting his own.
A decade later the spooks have made a similar mistake. I refer to the allegory that Saddam Hussein published earlier this year which, for obvious reasons, became a best-seller in Iraq. The spooks had the book translated and then ridiculed in our press. In a catalogue of own-goals this was the finest. Allegory is always rubbish to those who do not like allegory. However, it means a lot to many from the Middle East. In particular, it appeals to young women. (Saddam Hussein is not stupid.) In rubbishing the book on the basis of allegory, SIS risked offending an entire culture.
The spooks had a sophisticated alternative. They could have had the book professionally translated, and, back-to-back with the Arabic version, had it commercially published with profits, if any, donated in the name of the British people to charities in Iraq, Israel and Palestine. This would have been no more than mundane PR but would have provided the perfect opportunity for a British ‘brand extension’.
In PR, ‘brand extensions’ are where real influence begins. Had SIS had the Iraqi president’s allegory published, it could have added a Foreword. This could have made a point about freedom of expression – one of the ‘western values’ the Blair administration is apparently so keen to spread around the world – as well as, for example, an ecumenical prayer for peace in the Holy Land and the Middle East as a whole. Iraq is not, as the so-called authoritative analysts keep telling us, a ‘secular’ country. Iraq’s governments have described the country as secular because it has always been run by its minority Sunni elite. Its majority Shia population is not a ‘secular’ one.
Corinne Souza’s memoir on Iraq and her father’s SIS service, The Spy’s Daughter: Tales of Espionage from Baghdad to London will be published by Mainstream in March 2003, price £15.99.
Notes
1. Even school-children in cafes throughout the Middle East knew that ‘something big’ was going to happen in September 2001.
2 I am told that on some of these T-shirts, Bin Laden wears a Crown of Thorns i.e. in some parts of the world, he is also a hero to some Christians.
3 In the modern world, a T-shirt can be a flag as powerful as that of any nation state. Some would say it is more powerful since it does not have the militaristic/ imperial connotations of some countries. Some believe that popular music is undermining (usually) militaristic national anthems in the same way.
4 The Guardian, 26 August 2002. Although a participant in some EU projects, Israel is not (yet) an EU member. Had it been, it would have been prevented from employing Mme. Khouli because such employment, automatically, would have been deemed to impact disadvantageously on her children, a contravention of the EU protocol on children.
5 ‘Patriot’, as in missile: an obscene joke and example of US Cold War PR.
6 The Guardian 11 September 2002.
7 The Times 17 September 2002.
8 Reparations: Some multinationals, including British ones, are currently facing a multi-billion pound lawsuit for profiting from/collaborating with, apartheid era South Africa. The issue has embarrassed South Africa’s present government which is keen to attract foreign investment. The Observer 18 August 2002 & 1 September 2002. (It may be only a matter of time before the SIS are sued by the victims of SAVAK, the Shah of Iran’s evil ‘police’ whom Britain trained, given the ‘benefits’ this achieved for British and American companies operating in Iran . . .) The lawsuit has being filed, coincidentally, simultaneously with one by ‘descendants of slaves in the United States’ against the US government, as well as Lloyd’s of London ‘and other leading companies . . . and claim that these benefited financially from the work of slaves and should repay the profits made …’ The Guardian 5 September 2002.
9 See The Observer, 13 October 2002: ‘Chief Executives and diplomats will be keeping half an eye on events in Jersey this week. They are bracing themselves for explosive revelations about unexplained payments of more than £100 million made by major arms companies allegedly including British Aerospace to a senior member of Qatar’s Royal family. Long awaited details about the payments, suspected of being sweeteners to secure big defence contracts from the oil-rich Gulf state, are set to emerge in court proceedings in St Helier, Jersey’s capital.’
10 ‘Foreign Office officials are examining ways of using public and private funding to turn the BBC’s struggling international TV news channel, BBC World, into a global player. . . its existence would promote “good governance” and help raise Britain’s international profile’ – The Guardian 22 July 2002
11 The Times 17 April 2002: SIS is hoping to recruit: ‘. . . Arabic speakers and a more diverse range of ethnic recruits……’ This is something that France has long recognised which is no doubt why in October 2002 Lebanon played host to la politique de la francophonie i.e. the meeting of the French Commonwealth countries opened by President Chirac. The French Commonwealth incorporates most countries in Africa, including the Islamic ones, and an increasing number in Eastern Europe. (The latter will soon be useful EU (French) allies which is presumably why France even gave Slovenia ‘observer’ status at its love-fest in the Lebanon. ‘Love-fest’ is another way of saying hatred of American government.)
The American executive is up against more than a PR job! Basically, ‘commonwealths’ are ‘in’ at the moment, although this appears to have passed by our press. The Dutch are activating theirs in the Caribbean; the Spaniards have their version in Latin America….. if the EU ever got its act together it could run the lot. (The real reason why the USA will not allow the Euro to challenge the dollar.) In other parts of the world the Chinese have their group and the Russian Federation has the Commonwealth of Independent States. None of these ‘commonwealths’ will be holding love-ins for President Bush. . .
All Bush has is NATO which is little more than a joke and NAFTA. The latter stretches from Canada to Argentina, most of which countries, with good reason, loathe the American executive. It also has the ACP (Africa, Caribbean, Pacific) regions – which have ties with various european countries, i.e. commonwealths.
No amount of USA PR can compete with emotional ties, any more than it can with religious blocks, including Islamic solidarity. All of this partly explains US executive paranoia. It has been isolationist while asset-stripping the world; and has to act unilaterally because with the exception of Prime Minister Blair everybody else hates it. Even the Israeli government will dump it sooner or later if for no other reason than geography: i.e. Israel’s future rests with the EU, Arab and African countries…
Never mind, therefore, the Arabs applying to join the British Commonwealth. The best hope America has for the rest of this century would be to ask to join it too. It could then stand down its Office of Global Communications saving the suffering American taxpayer a fortune.
12 In view of the historic ties that link Britain and the Middle East, some Middle Eastern countries could consider joining the British Commonwealth. This, in some cases, could parallel the long term goal of EU membership when joining criteria, such as democratic rights and social justice, are met. Historically, the Africans, Phoenicians and Semites of the Middle East and North Africa are all traders. The EU was made for them.
13 ‘Last year, Britain sanctioned more than £300 million of weapons exports to dictatorships in the Middle East. These regimes account for more than 40% of the world arms market . . . Yet there is still no apparent contradiction between supplying this market and a senior US military official condemning the region because “there’s not a single democracy in the 22 nations of the Arab League”.’) Tribune 25 October 2002. The willingness of the British and US governments to approve of some despots but not others has baffled the Iraqis. ‘But is Iraq the only Arab country that is a dictatorship?’ – query of an Iraqi official, quoted in The Guardian, 24 October 2002 exploding the hypocrisy of both governments.
The Arab League: The Independent 25 October 2002 said that President Gaddafi had pulled Libya out of the League and was now looking to Africa for some of his strategic alliances. This was interesting for two reasons. Firstly, because it is about time the countries of the North African Mediterranean started to take Africa seriously (which means coming to terms with two-way racism); and for what the Libyan president said about the Arab League. ‘Incompetent’ was one word he was reported to have used. I am sure he used stronger adjectives, all of which would have been valid.
14 Israel does not ‘mind’ British and US administrations being ‘nice’ to some Arab governments e.g. the Saudis with whom Israel has been in bed for years. Another reason why al-Qaida has so many supporters . . .
15 Interpol’s extensive network has been airbrushed. Turf wars continue to Rule OK.
16 This is one reason why endemic SIS-racism has been so disastrous: the majority of those staffing local agencies, as well as the spies needed, are not Anglo-Saxon.
17 In much the same way as some Muslim clerics are responsible for the branding of Islamic fundamentalism.
18 In much the same way as some Muslim clerics liaise with some local (i.e. overseas) madressas.
19 Private sector expertise is now accepted/acknowledged by Whitehall which uses consultants all the time. The one exception is in the employment of spies who are not staff but have the skills required that staff lack. The former, instead of being feted, are regarded as second-class spooks by their public sector colleagues and treated accordingly.
20 An example would be the courageous declared SIS intelligence officer now involved in Palestine. (The Guardian, 3 September 2002). It would be interesting to know whether, as a declared staff spook, he is covered by the Vienna Convention (protecting diplomats), or the Geneva Convention (protecting soldiers) or whether he is operating without such protection relying instead on the SAS soldiers whom I understand are guarding him. Non-staff spooks, of course, have always operated without any protection. Declaration of Interests: I am a friend of former MI5 officers David Shayler and Annie Machon.
21 In the best example yet of a staff-spook who has no idea how other societies work, she then gave an explanation of the vital role played by modern communications. She appeared to have no knowledge that coded messages could be broadcast from minarets at the call to prayer and were therefore not vulnerable to radio interception; and little boys could pass a message from one end of a souk to the next, faster than she could think.
22 Home Secretary David Blunkett sent an ‘unprecedented apology to Muslims living in Britain after the security services were accused of engaging indiscriminate “fishing expeditions” to try to find evidence of links to the al-Qaida terror group’. The Observer 25 August 2002. In a parliamentary democracy, it could have been more appropriate for the out-going MI5 Director General Sir Stephen Lander to have delivered the apology to the Muslim community. The media could also have been more forcefully informed, guaranteeing widespread coverage of the apology. After the Summer recess, Home Secretary Blunkett could then have apologised to the Muslim community via Parliament, on behalf of the country, so that Sir Stephen’s colleagues could have had an understanding of the gravity of the offence they had caused. Today, as I understand it, many are still striving to cope with their ordeal in private. They form a community knit by shared experience which will last much longer than any apology. A spook PR own-goal.
Security Service conduct also resulted in a publishing PR own-goal. A firm of solicitors produced a detailed guide, distributed throughout the Islamic community, on how to deal with the intelligence services.
One assumption that used to hold true may remain correct today i.e. espionage used to work, and probably still does, on the basis that the more anti-British a cleric may be, the more likely it is that he is working for the spooks.
23 SIS: The Times, 17 April 2002; MI5: Sunday Express 13 October 2002.
24 Joint letter from the Christian Communities in the UK published in The Times, 22 July 2002.
25 The tragedy here is that when SIS had the right and honourable candidate to lead Iraq, and when our government could have solved the Saddam Hussein ‘problem’ with minimum civilian casualties, it did not do so for reasons of commercial and political expediency.
About the only thing of any interest at that conference was the presence of the uncle to King Abdullah of Jordan, Prince Hassan, otherwise known as ‘America’s man’. Also present was Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, a member of Iraq’s deposed royal family who describes himself as ‘candidate heir to the throne of Iraq’. So far as I can tell, Prince Hassan has a stronger blood tie to the late Boy King of Iraq and therefore a better claim to the throne. It can only be hoped that the Americans, in their delusion, and Prince Hassan, in his disappointment – the late King Hussein of Jordan promised him the Jordanian throne – do not really believe that the Iraqi people require a new king to replace the one (Saddam Hussein) they already have. Experience should tell us this will not work. Iranians, for example, are tuning into a strictly illegal satellite broadcast from the USA presented by Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Shah. (The Observer, 25 August 2002). He is the only Iranian politician talking in terms of a secular democracy. This does not mean that one day he will end up on the Peacock Throne.
26 The Guardian 24 October 2002
27 It is noticeable that, at long last, the US government are now referring to the Iraqi president respectfully as ‘Saddam Hussein’ and not by his first name. (People do not like Robert Mugabe. However, he is referred to as ‘Mugabe’, not ‘Robert’. ) The British government has always been more sophisticated about these matters and in public has consistently referred to ‘Saddam Hussein’.