Jim Murphy and the British neo-cons

February 13, 2013 3:44 pm

Author:

Share this Article

What would be the response if it were discovered that a senior Shadow Minister was to make a keynote speech at a thinktank whose Associate Director had previously said, “Conditions for Jews in Europe must be made harder across the board“? Quite rightfully, all hell would break loose, the event cancelled, apologies issued and people would say it set the party back.

Yet swap ‘Jews’ for ‘Muslims’ in the above and that’s who will be hosting a keynote speech by Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy this Thursday.

Thinktanks obviously debate a range of ideas and host or publish all kinds of thinkers, but this is not the case here. The Henry Jackson Society, who have been chosen to host Jim Murphy’s speech on “A New Model for Intervention” must regard their Associate Directory Douglas Murray as their most high profile staff member and a key driver of their politics.

Nor is his shocking quote an aberration from an otherwise mainstream organisation. Murray (author of ‘Neoconservatism: Why We Need It’) is very much at home in an organisation whose former European Neighbourhood Section Director has said “No longer is it a centrist, bipartisan think-tank…Instead, it has become an abrasively right-wing forum with an anti-Muslim tinge…[that] panders to a narrow readership of extreme Europhobic British Tories, hardline US Republicans and Israeli Likudniks.”

On the eve of the tenth anniversary of the vast anti-war march, it is a cruel irony that a Labour shadow minister will be hosted by an organisation who still enthusiastically support the neo-con agenda now widely understood to have been a disaster for the Party (and the world).

It was the decisive rejection of this approach which has allowed Labour under Ed Miliband to reconnect with many who became estranged from the Party in the aftermath of Iraq. Whilst not knowing what Jim will outline, it is hardly a positive sign that Labour’s policy on protecting human rights the world over will be outlined in a speech to an outfit that champions unilateral approaches and seems to have learned little from the disaster of Iraq.

With the tenth anniversary of the Iraq war looming and the undoubtedly uncomfortable publication of the Chilcot Inquiry expected next year, all of Labour’s frontbench must be clear that there can be no rehabilitation of the politics which led us to some very dark places. Labour needs an outward-looking, engaged foreign policy which appreciates Britain’s place in an increasingly multi-polar world. The neo-cons of the Henry Jackson Society should have no role in it.

  • John Reid

    having been on the next generation labour website and , the only criticism I could see they had was they don’t like criticism of the Venesualan government, I can’t see why the author here has a problem with him Murphy talking to the Henry Jackson society and as for the alleged comment about Muslims not being acceptable if it were about Jews, I find this strange the anti semeticism some of the left that Jeremy Corbin surrounds himself, is a lot worse. The relevance of the anniversary of Iraq is irrelevantly too,

  • volcanopete

    The Labour party is at its best when adopting a zero tolerance stance against islamophobia and racism of all kinds.Jim Murphy would be well advised to reconsider.

  • JoeDM

    Have I strayed onto the SWP website by mistake?

    • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

      Before you get over excited about ‘liberal intervention’ perhaps you’d like to consider the views of U.S. patriot Chalmers Johnson:

      http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/27/chalmers_johnson_nemesis_the_last_days

    • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

      Before you get over excited about ‘liberal intervention’ perhaps you’d like to consider the views of U.S. patriot Chalmers Johnson:

      http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/27/chalmers_johnson_nemesis_the_last_days

      • JoeDM

        Why do you think I would be excited about “liberal intervention”? It was, after all, a central plank of the last Labour Government’s foreign policy.

    • David Lindsay

      No, onto one allied to a previously almost forgotten organisation called the Labour Party. Is Jim Murphy in it? Not if he appears at the HJS, no.

  • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

    They may be neocons, if that is what they want to be called. They do not seem to be racists, as you infer. And everyone who supports intervention is not a “neocon”, whatever that means.

    • Guest

      Rob, do you think it likely that someone who writes a whole book called ‘Neoconservatism: Why We Need It’ might indeed be a neoconservative? I don’t think I’m unfairly labeling him here.

      Have you glanced at the first link above. It’s far from just the one line – e.g. “No European country’s Muslim population is currently higher than 10% – which ordinarily would be alright – not ideal, but alright.” Not ideal? Too many Muslims – not Islamists, not fundamentalists, not terrorists, but Muslims. Might this suggest he has a problem with, oh, let’s see, Muslims?

      Would you think that sentence acceptable if the size of a country’s Jewish community were being discussed, or would you then recognise it for what it clearly is?

    • BenSoffa

      Rob, do you think it fair to assume that the person who wrote the book ‘Neoconservatism: Why We Need It’ might indeed be a supporter of neoconservatism and has a definite view on what it is?

      Does this quote (from the same speech as linked above) strike you as Islamophobic:
      “So it is worth reminding ourselves of the basics of the problem. No European country’s Muslim population is currently higher than 10% – which ordinarily would be alright – not ideal, but alright.”

      ‘Not ideal’ – remember he’s talking about ‘Muslims’ – not fundamentalists, Islamists, terrorists etc. but Muslims. As I Jew, I know I’d consider that to be racist if said against my community. I think it’s no less hateful when said about anyone else – maybe you disagree?

  • Brumanuensis

    A shame they couldn’t have gone the way of the Project for the New American Century.

  • robertcp

    I would never vote for anyone that supported the Iraq war. I will never forget the sickening feeling when I realised that Blair and Straw were lying when they said that war was not inevitable. Fortunately, the Labour MP in my constituency opposed the war.

  • Daniel Speight

    From what’s already been released it seems Murphy’s speech will be along the lines of ‘do as I say, not what I did.’

    Will it be a mea culpa or just the archetypal apparatchik trimming his sales to the party’s latest positions?

  • franwhi

    When the speech he should be making is scrap Trident and Trident defence spending – we can ill-afford this macho posturing. Shame

  • Chilbaldi

    There will always be this element in the Labour Party, I fear. The ‘we must never ever intervene even if people are being slaughtered and we should disband the army tomorrow’ branch.

    • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

      Come, come now – a ridiculous exaggeration does your position no good at all.

      What I find interesting is that the old traditional right and the young new left have now found common cause in opposition to military adventures that, as Johnson and Wolin argue, will eventually destroy what most believe they are intended to protect.

      A new form of patriotism has been born.

  • Monkey_Bach

    Isn’t Murphy the guy who wanted to subject all benefit claimants to lie detector tests? Eeek.

  • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

    First of all, you have mistakenly asserted that I was questioning whether or not he is a “neocon”. If he calls himself one, then I think we can all assume he is one – whatever that means. But you have argued against a point which I did not make.

    Second, I think there are lot of people in today’s Britain who are racist. There is the BNP. There are some members of far-left organisations. There are clearly members of all three major parties. But I struggle to see Douglas Murray, who comes across as a thoughtful person – albeit one whose views I usually disagree with – as a racist.

    It is very easy to call someone a racist, but I feel you require a little more evidence than you have provided for what is a very strong charge (I should add that Murray could, by the way, very likely sue you and win, if he so chose).

    That is not a partisan statement in any way, by the way – I am, after all, on the left and he is clearly on the right – but I believe we all deserve for people to phrase their criticisms a little less sweepingly, and at least not libellously, if they are to be credible.

    • BenSoffa

      So from your defence of him, is it safe to assume you think the two quotes from his own speech, as formerly published on his own website, are within the realms of acceptable debate? Is it OK – not necessarily correct, but OK – to claim the size of the Muslim population is “not ideal, but alright”?

      Again, if the comments had been about my own Jewish community, I think people would see this as a pretty straightforward question.

      I’ve met and shared a platform with the man (to oppose each others positions) – he was perfectly charming. At no point have I claimed that he is a racist person. I have merely noted two quotes which he put on his website, one of which, if it had been aimed at the Jewish community, I have said I would regard as racist. If he wishes to draw far wider attention to these comments and limit debate in this area, I have no doubt he is aware of some very good lawyers.

  • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

    First of all, you have mistakenly asserted that I was questioning whether or not he is a “neocon”. If he calls himself one, then I think we can all assume he is one – whatever that means. But you have argued against a point which I did not make.

    Second, I think there are lot of people in today’s Britain who are racist. There is the BNP. There are some members of far-left organisations. There are clearly members of all three major parties. But I struggle to see Douglas Murray, who comes across as a thoughtful person – albeit one whose views I usually disagree with – as a racist.

    It is very easy to call someone a racist, but I feel you require a little more evidence than you have provided for what is a very strong charge (I should add that Murray could, by the way, very likely sue you and win, if he so chose).

    That is not a partisan statement in any way, by the way – I am, after all, on the left and he is clearly on the right – but I believe we all deserve for people to phrase their criticisms a little less sweepingly, and at least not libellously, if they are to be credible.

  • http://twitter.com/youngian67 Ian Young

    Another prominent Henry Jackson Society supporter is Gisela Stuart who Douglas Alexander reminded an audience, following his EU speech last month, was the only Labour MP to back Bush’s re-election.

    Rather like the old Tory Monday Club in the 70s hanging onto dreams of post imperial
    federation, these are the last of the Labour Atlanticists who hanker after a junior role in Washington to try and temper the worst excesses of American power and towards a more morally driven Blairite/Gladstonian liberal interventionism.

    The concept has little traction under Obama’s administration and even the Tories are
    becoming resigned to an Anglo-French led European defence and diplomatic strategy.

    • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

      “these are the last of the Labour Atlanticists ”

      But the game has only just begun. Yesterday, Murphy turned crowd-pleaser and assured his audience of Labour’s willingness to partake in further military adventures – promising to fund “strong supportive expeditionary capability and enablers alongside force protection. C4-ISTAR, naval resources, unmanned technology, helicopters, airlift, close air support and refuelling capabilities”.*

      Remember when Blair and Bush were hailed in Murdoch’s tabloids, in the run-up to the Iraq catastrophe, as the Churchill and Roosevelt of the 21st Century? Well, it looks as if Murphy is attempting to achieve similar ‘credibility’.

      * http://www.labour.org.uk/how-the-uk-responds-to-extremism-in-north-west-africa-and-beyond,2013-02-14

  • Pingback: Exclusive: Top Libdem resigns from controversial think-tank Henry Jackson Society | Liberal Conspiracy

  • Pingback: Muslim demographics, rabid Islamophobia and The Commentator | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper

  • Pingback: Houriya’s Demographic Horror | Spittoon Watch

  • Peter Thomson

    Murphy has destroyed the party in Scotland with his arrogance and ignorance in his pursuit of power and self interest, now it is England’s turn. Enjoy!

  • MikeHomfray

    And this sums up why Murphy is not fit for the shadow cabinet and would be entirelying wrong as Scottish Labour leader.

Latest

  • Featured Scotland “I’m standing for First Minister of Scotland and I intend to win”: Jim Murphy joins Scottish Labour leadership race

    “I’m standing for First Minister of Scotland and I intend to win”: Jim Murphy joins Scottish Labour leadership race

    We now have three candidates for Scottish Labour leader, as Jim Murphy’s long-awaited candidacy has been confirmed. The Shadow International Development Secretary and former Scotland Secretary released a statement this evening, saying that his intention is to be Scottish Labour leader and First Minister: “I’m standing for First Minister of Scotland and I intend to win. I want to bring Scotland back together after the referendum. There is so much to be proud of in Scotland but so much we […]

    Read more →
  • Comment I’m not upset about Cameron’s refusal to wear a t-shirt – it’s everything else that gets me

    I’m not upset about Cameron’s refusal to wear a t-shirt – it’s everything else that gets me

    On Monday the news broke that David Cameron has repeatedly refused a request by Elle magazine to be photographed wearing a t-shirt. Why? Because on it, the t-shirt says “This is what a feminist looks like”. There have been a catalogue of ideas floated since about why he might not have done it – “It’s only a mag campaign” or “You shouldn’t dress up the Prime Minister”, say. But really, it’s not important that it was a request from a […]

    Read more →
  • News Scotland Anas Sarwar: We shouldn’t allow the SNP to “talk left and act right”

    Anas Sarwar: We shouldn’t allow the SNP to “talk left and act right”

    Interim Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar may have formally declared that he will not be entering the race to succeed Johann Lamont, but that has not stopped him analysing where Labour have failed in Scotland over the past few years. In an interview the the Huffington Post, Sarwar identifies the perception that the SNP are more left wing as a problem – even if that belief is misplaced. He said: “The SNP have been allowed to wear our clothes and talk left […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs verdict: What have we learned? That Westminster has tried and failed to control immigration?

    PMQs verdict: What have we learned? That Westminster has tried and failed to control immigration?

    You could tell early on that PMQs was going to be…different, this week. The Prime Minister was sat in his seat like a coiled spring. On the Labour benches opposite, Harriet Harman was wearing a t-shirt reading “This is what a feminist looks like”. Cameron had refused five times to be photographed wearing the same t-shirt, so it was clearly intended to rile him. In reality it simply looked like a stunt, and appeared to have no impact on the […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Scotland Neil Findlay confirms he is standing for Scottish Labour leader

    Neil Findlay confirms he is standing for Scottish Labour leader

    Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary in the Scottish Parliament, Neil Findlay, has announced his intention to run for leader of the Scottish Labour Party. Findlay’s name has been among the list of potential candidates since Johann Lamont stood down on Friday. There were rumours this morning that Findlay was reconsidering whether to stand following the surprise declaration of Sarah Boyack yesterday. In a statement this lunchtime, however, Findlay says Gordon Brown was the candidate he would not have wanted to run […]

    Read more →