Whatever the merits of the Labour party holding its current leadership contest, there is no doubt that such episodes highlight vital political issues. One is the question of talking to terrorists or, more specifically after Owen Smith’s comments on Wednesday, the issue of whether or not to include Islamic State in negotiations on the Middle East.
The clamour that greeted his remarks, and the speed with which Smith then sought to clarify them, reflect the delicacy of this question. And there are crucial matters involved, not least the sensitivities of those who have been bereaved or otherwise brutally harmed by groups such as Isis.
On the face of it, talking with groups that have practised terrorism seems an appealing option. Over-reliance instead on military responses to terrorism has been seen again and again to have limitations, from Israel/Palestine, to the British response to Northern Ireland, to the post-9/11 “war on terror”.
The last of these examples offers perhaps the most salient illustration of the problems of over-militarisation. The US-led response to the September 2001 attacks relied heavily on military methods, and this was one of the main reasons for the fact that the years after 9/11 actually witnessed an increase in terrorism, especially emerging from those regions where militaristic counter-terrorism was most intensely applied by the US.
If military means are flawed, and if in the end compromise will be necessary, then is it indeed not best to move straight to involving all actors in negotiations?
In relation to the current Isis crisis, the answer is surely no. For three main reasons.
First, those cases where talks with terrorists have proved most fruitful and successful (the Northern Ireland peace process is the example Smith understandably gave) have had settings in which the leaderships of non-state violent groups have recognised that violence was not bringing them the results and the victory they had anticipated. Plan A had not worked, so a more peaceful plan B was in their minds, and thus talks had a possibility of success.
With Isis in 2016, there is no persuasive evidence that this situation exists. Far from it, as so much violence in Syria, Iraq and beyond bloodily demonstrates.
Second, talks have to have around them some considered notion of what the endgame might be. When the Spanish government engaged with Basque separatists group Eta, and certainly when the UK engaged with the Provisional IRA, such a sketch was not only there but also increasingly familiar to the participants. But even if one could fly the leadership of Isis to the Foreign Office for talks, at present the imbroglio in Syria and even in parts of Iraq is such that no clearly feasible outcome is yet available.
Third, to talk to Isis would risk giving it the kind of legitimacy it currently and decisively lacks. It is likely that Isis’s own actions will gradually help to degrade its cause.
There is no denying that political compromise – though unappealing to many – can become necessary after conflicts have waned. But to draw Isis into talks too early would be pointless and counter-productive.
And that brings us back to the Labour party. Both Jeremy Corbyn and Smith understand the importance of a credible foreign policy and of a realistic approach to dealing with terrorism. If either of them were to become prime minister, then the pressures in these realms would be fierce indeed.
So what the UK currently needs from one of its main political parties is that it is seen to address such vital and sensitive questions in patient, thoughtful and well-considered policy, rather than through rapidly uttered and unworkable public suggestions.
