Should Britain talk to ISIS as it once did with the IRA?

Is there a new Sinatra doctrine in British politics? Not 'I did it my way,' but Frank and Nancy Sinatra's chorus: 'And then I go and spoil it all, By saying something stupid like'.... Daesh has strong points. This was a highlight of a major television interview with Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn this week.

Given the British government publicly rejected talks with the IRA but long had secret contacts, the interviewer asked Corbyn whether Britain should 'be talking to Isis at this point already, making some kind of contact with them.' Corbyn, who hosted the IRA's political wing at the Commons just after they tried to assassinate Mrs Thatcher, didn't condemn covert communications with the IRA, or the Taliban, and suggested 'There has to be some routes through somewhere because remember a lot of the commanders in Isil, particularly in Iraq but to some extent in Syria, are actually former officers in the Iraqi army because we made many catastrophic mistakes, one of which was to destroy the whole Iraqi state structure after 2003.'

He said 'dialogue is perhaps the wrong word to use. I think there has to be some understanding of where their strong points are, where their weak points are and how we can challenge their ideology.' Corbyn's comments were widely mocked. The IRA, after all, was a localised terror organisation, while Daesh abhors diplomacy and would execute Western emissaries, although Corbyn pointed out that links had secured prisoner releases. Corbyn's ambiguous comments easily allow him to be typecast as thinking that terrorist actions are an understandable reaction to Western policies, as his Stop the War Coalition often argues. He gives too many hostages to fortune with elliptical points that could mean various things.

I could try to argue in his defence, for instance, that a strong point could include analysing how Damascus and Baghdad have alienated and thereby inflamed Sunni support for jihadism. Or driving divisions between hardliners and any biddable Baathists could help as Daesh is degraded militarily. But I am guessing and the views of an aspiring Prime Minister should be crystal clear or enemies will have a field day, as the Conservatives already are.

Yet Corbyn is here to stay. Most Labour MPs reject Corbyn's overall approach because it denies bitter lessons learned from successive electoral defeats: there is no point in singing the same tunes when voters keep giving the same negative answer. This prompted healthy revisionism in the 1990s and allowed Tony Blair to win three elections on the trot. Blair turned Thatcher's settlement on a centre-left axis by rebuilding the public realm and redistributing power, income and life opportunities. He also directed foreign policy to noble ends with interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo that averted mass slaughter. Yet Blair is widely reviled for the intervention in Iraq by a generation who know little about fascism in Iraq.

Blair remains a huge figure, thanks to the valuable work of his Faith Foundation, the Africa Governance Initiative and his political commentaries. Myself and the KRG High Representative in London, Karwan Jamal Tahir met him recently to discuss Kurdistan. Blair commented afterwards that 'The Kurdistan Region faces great challenges in its important fight against ISIS, a battle of ideas shared by countries around the world. I support the openness and pluralism characterised by the Kurdistan Region, and believe it to be an important antidote to extremism and sectarianism fuelling conflict in the region.'

I also heard bullish comments from a senior Conservative foreign policy figure this week on how the West is winning the war against Daesh, which has less money to pay its foreign fighters and less oil to sustain its military machine. Success will bolster Conservative credibility on the key issue of security while Corbyn's ill-formed comments further confirm public distrust in his security credentials.

Labour is still consumed by confusion and bickering, and that extended to Corbyn's own leadership team this week. By contrast, Prime Minister Cameron presents a coherent image with regular initiatives on different issues - each week often brings a new speech or article that sets the agenda for several days - and a mission to win reforms in the European Union that could underpin an historic victory in an in/out referendum on British membership, possibly in June. The jury is out on Cameron's ability to pull off a deal and avert a major Tory split on Europe. It could go disastrously wrong and benefit Corbyn.

Cameron is so far lucky in facing an often introspective and incoherent Opposition. It will take an exceptional government crisis and an exceptional transformation of Labour's fortunes to prevent the Conservatives winning the 2020 election. Without such change, the relevant Sinatra tunes could involve flying to the moon with the girl from Ipanema for all the difference it makes.

The transcript of the interview with Corbyn on 17 January is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3hshxFhHM4dKd3px6Q3NzRF/transcripts

Gary Kent is the director of All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.

• SHARE ON
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Whatsapp
• Share on Telegram
• Share on Viber
• Share on Messenger