The Daily Telegraph - 07.08.2019

The Daily Telegraph Wednesday 7 August 2019 *** 17

N

ow that the caliphate in Syria

is no more, and many of its

legions of fanatics have been

killed, captured or forced to flee, it is

tempting for countries, like Britain,

that contributed to the military

campaign against Islamic State of Iraq

and the Levant (Isil) to conclude that

their participation in the conflict is

over. After all, it is not as though there

is any shortage of other challenges to

contend with. Whitehall, for example,

has spent the past few weeks

wrestling with the dilemma over

whether to join the US in mounting

maritime patrols to protect merchant

shipping in the Strait of Hormuz from

attacks by Iranian gunboats.

This followed last month’s seizure

of the British-registered oil tanker

Stena Impero by Iran’s Revolutionary

Guard, which prompted the then

foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt

to call for the establishment of a

European maritime force to operate

independently of the Americans.

Given the aversion of our European

allies to causing Iran upset, this

was always going to be an unlikely

proposition.

Now the new Johnson Government

has agreed to take the more logical

course of action by deciding to join

American forces in the region to

prevent further attacks, reaffirming

the importance of the transatlantic

alliance in safeguarding Britain’s

security needs.

And the Government should adopt

a similar spirit of cooperation with

Washington when it comes to other

issues of mutual interest, such as

helping to resolve the vexed issue of

the fate of the hundreds of foreign

fighters – many of them British – who

have been captured following the fall

of the caliphate.

There are currently around

800 foreign fighters being held in

Kurdish-controlled territory on the

border between Turkey and Syria.

But even though the majority of

them were captured in the act of

fighting for Isil and other militant

Islamist groups, many European

governments, including Britain, have

simply turned their backs on them.

The recent controversy concerning

Shamima Begum, the British teenager

who fled to Syria in 2015 and married

an Isil fighter, simply resulted in the

Government hardening its position

towards returning jihadists, with then

home secretary Sajid Javid revoking

her British passport.

Britain, in common with other

European countries such as France,

Germany and the Netherlands,

is reluctant to allow citizens who

abandoned their country to fight with

Isil to return home for a number of

reasons.

There is the legitimate concern

that allowing them to do so, and then

seeking to put them on trial, will

result in a similar legal free-for-all to

that which surrounded those accused

of being associated with al-Qaeda

following the invasion of Afghanistan

in 2001. This resulted in politically

motivated human rights lawyers in

effect putting the intelligence and

security establishment on trial for its

handling of the conflict.

Prosecuting those alleged of

committing war crimes is difficult

at the best of times, and the task

becomes immeasurably harder

when they have been committed in a

lawless entity like the caliphate.

And if it proves impossible to

prosecute returning jihadists, the

only alternative is to let them free to

radicalise others, thereby increasing

the prospect of further acts of

home-grown terrorism.

The hesitancy of Britain and

other Western governments to

repatriate captured Isil fighters is,

in such circumstances, perfectly

understandable. The only flaw in this

outlook is that it does not provide

a solution to how they should be

treated. There has been talk of

setting up a Nuremberg-style judicial

structure in the Kurdish-controlled

area where the majority of them are

being held. But for that to happen, the

We can’t just let captured Isil fighters rot in hell

Washington is right that

the perpetrators of the

caliphate’s barbaric rule

must be brought to justice

CON COUGHLINHLIN

L

eo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister,

yesterday said he did not believe a

no-deal Brexit was inevitable on

October 31. As the leader of the country

with the most to lose from such an

eventuality he should address his

remarks to the Commission in Brussels.

It has become apparent in the few weeks since

Boris Johnson took over as Prime Minister, that the

Europeans are intent on ignoring the changed

political landscape in the UK and are refusing to

talk to the new Government about reopening the

Withdrawal Agreement.

Michael Gove, the Cabinet minister responsible

for no-deal planning, said he was “deeply

saddened” that Brussels was, in effect, saying “no,

we don’t want to talk”. Evidently, the EU side think

Mr Johnson is either bluffing or is too weak

politically to bring about a no-deal Brexit without

being defeated in the Commons. But if that is the

advice they are receiving from whatever quarter,

they should consult some constitutional experts

who would tell them this can happen by default.

If Mr Johnson is determined enough to face

down a Parliament ranged against him, which

would be an unprecedented break with

constitutional custom and practice, then Brexit

might well happen on October 31 even if MPs don’t

want it to. Not for the first time during this three-

year saga, both sides are misreading the intentions

of the other. The UK never imagined that countries

like Germany, which runs a massive trade surplus

with Britain, would be prepared to damage its own

economic interests to maintain a united EU front.

Equally, the EU is not taking seriously enough

the desire of Mr Johnson to do a deal on new terms.

The EU assumption that the Government is now

wedded to no deal is wrong. The Prime Minister

has said many times he wants an agreement.

It is a simple fact that the deal reached between

the EU and Theresa May is a dead duck. She tried

and failed three times to get it through Parliament;

so another approach is needed. It is self-defeating

obduracy on the part of Brussels to pretend

otherwise.

Paradoxically, the EU and Ireland are desperate

to prevent a hard border on the island yet by

refusing to renegotiate the backstop they are

ushering in a no-deal Brexit that will necessitate

just such a border. That is incomprehensible. With

most of Europe’s leaders on holiday, perhaps a dose

of sunshine will bring them to their senses.

Brussels is getting

the wrong message

S

cientists have found no relation between a

good night’s sleep and abstaining from coffee

within four hours of bedtime. Alcohol did

interfere with continuous sleep, and a nightly

smoke was worse, reducing the sleep of those

given to insomnia by about 45 minutes. These

findings, from 750 people monitored in America,

will sound unbelievable to many. This may be

because the study ignored caffeine tolerance. Some

know that a wee espresso taken as the last notes of

Newsnight send good citizens to bed will mean that

within the hour – boing! – they’ll sit up staring into

the dark, wide awake, with nothing to look forward

to but the dawn chorus. The scientists’ findings are

published in the latest number of Sleep. Perhaps

the next study should examine effects on the

sleep-deprived of perusing that solid journal.

A good night coffee

E

ver since the independence of India in 1947,

the Muslim majority state of Jammu and

Kashmir has had special status. While New

Delhi controlled its defence, foreign relations and

communications the local administration retained

autonomy on other issues. This was enshrined in

Article 370 of the Indian constitution, although it

was listed under “temporary provisions”.

This week, Narendra Modi, the Indian prime

minister, ended the arrangement and triggered a

potentially dangerous confrontation with Pakistan,

which contests India’s sovereignty over Kashmir.

The apparent rationale behind Mr Modi’s move is a

belief that the special status has been at the root of

the region’s long-running unrest.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party claims it has

discouraged investment and job creation and led to

inefficient and corrupt administration. This lack of

employment and opportunity, they argue, causes

hopelessness that fuels youth unrest. This may be

true; but unilaterally revoking the region’s semi-

independence is hardly likely to make it any more

stable. It will also encourage the view among

separatists that India is an occupier with no

legitimacy to govern.

The fact that the Indians felt the need to pour

troops into the region and block communications

to the outside world indicates the sensitivity of this

action. The BJP government wants to “bring

normalcy to Kashmir” which is a laudable ambition

and is asking for five years in which to achieve it.

Pakistan, which has fought two wars with India

over Kashmir, holds the key with its reaction as to

whether this new dispensation can last or will tip

over into another conflict that threatens peace on

the sub-continent.

Kashmir in firing line

established 1855

area would need to be secure, which

is very much in doubt with various

interests – Turkey, Syria, Russia and

Iran – all staking claims to Kurdish

territory.

But while, clearly, there are no easy

answers to the challenge of making

Isil fighters face justice, abandoning

them to rot in some fetid hell-hole is

not an option, tempting as it might

appear. The last time the Western

powers lost interest in dealing with

Islamist extremism was in Iraq

following the defeat of the al-Qaeda-

led insurgency. All that happened

was that the survivors regrouped

and helped to form Isil. And there are

legitimate concerns in Washington

that the same could happen again

in Syria if the means are not found

to bring the perpetrators of the

caliphate’s barbaric rule to justice.

The fact that no one in Europe

appears prepared to tackle the issue

is causing frustration in Washington,

where Donald Trump has threatened

to repatriate forcibly to Europe the

jihadists being held by Kurdish forces.

The American president has

a point, one the new British

Government should take on board.

To win the moral high ground

in the long-running campaign

against Islamist-inspired terror, it is

important we find a way to ensure

the jihadists face justice for their

abominable crimes.

We accept letters

by post, fax and

email only. Please

include name,

address, work and

home telephone

numbers.

111 Buckingham

Palace Road,

London

SW1W 0DT

FAX

020 7931 2878

EMAIL

dtletters@

telegraph.co.uk

FOLLOW

Telegraph Letters

on Twitter

@LettersDesk

READ MORE at telegraph.co.uk/opinion

Letters to the Editor

SIR – The behaviour of Michel Barnier,

who demanded control over every

aspect of the Withdrawal Agreement

during the Brexit negotiations, has

come back to bite the EU (“Brussels

expects no deal”, report, August 6).

Britain’s sovereign Parliament

rejected such railroading tactics three

times and now, with the arrival of our

new Prime Minister, the EU should be

showing far more pragmatism. With

Theresa May’s version of the

Withdrawal Agreement dead in the

water, the EU must accept that some

change is necessary in order to get an

acceptable deal through Parliament.

Boris Johnson has articulated the

benefits of such a deal, and most

people would support him on this. But

he is right to recognise that a no-deal

Brexit may be required.

B J Colby

Bristol

SIR – Britain is the fifth-largest

economy in the world, and right on the

doorstep of the EU. If EU leaders are

saying that they do not want a trade

deal with us, the people of Europe

have a serious problem – and they

need to find representatives with a

more realistic outlook.

Why should Europe suffer because

unelected EU commissioners simply

want their own way?

Mick Ferrie

Mawnan Smith, Cornwall

SIR – I didn’t vote for Mr Johnson, but I

commend his willingness to use every

device possible to ensure that we leave

the EU on time.

Some of these methods may be

controversial, but that is a response to

the behaviour of the Remainers.

Assisted by the Speaker, they have

used every underhand method

available to frustrate the result of the

referendum. The wrath of the

electorate awaits them.

A G Whitehead

St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex

SIR – I can’t decide whether Douglas

Murray’s piece (“Grief-stricken

Remainers have poisoned our politics

with their Brexit despair”, Comment,

August 3) is insulting to Remainers,

plain naïve or both. Facing this unique

issue, it does not help simply to say

that the Remainers lost the 2016

referendum and should just accept it

and move on. The argument that to do

otherwise is an existential risk to our

democracy is worn-out. We can

correct the outcome of general

elections next time round, but exiting

the EU is final.

Remainers campaigning for a

second referendum would clearly have

to accept it if the outcome were the

same. Indeed, many would argue that,

if a second vote favoured Remain,

there would need to be a third,

confirmatory vote. How can this be

anything other than democratic?

Britain’s standing as a universally

respected liberal democracy has taken

a beating. As the great American chief

justice Warren E Burger once said, the

sign of true intelligence is to doubt

one’s own first principles.

Lenny Goodrich

London SW

The EU must understand that its bullying tactics won’t work anymore Against downsizing

SIR – I spent my childhood living in

small RAF married quarters around

the world. I later joined the RAF

myself and lived another 20 years in

similarly sized homes, before leaving

the Air Force to give my three sons

stability.

My wife and I are now happily

retired, living in a comfortable

five-bedroom home. I have no

intention of paying large sums to the

Government, an estate agent or a

solicitor in order to downsize. In fact, I

relish the thought of a lottery win to

allow me to upsize substantially.

Jim Parker

Bristol

SIR – One of the reasons over-65s don’t

downsize is the need – or desire – to be

able to accommodate children and

their families when they visit from the

distant places in which they have

chosen to live and work.

Even my under-occupied three-

bedroom house will not be large

enough when my family of a mere six

people arrives at Christmas. With four

of those coming from America, I do

not want to tell them to find a hotel.

Tony Royle

Penrith, Cumbria

Justice for Heath

SIR – Charles Moore (Comment,

August 3) expresses sympathy and

support for those of us who are

battling in Parliament and the media to

get justice for Sir Edward Heath.

The investigation into the

allegations against him was utterly

flawed. The chief constable of

Wiltshire, Mike Veale, was not kept in

his job after its conclusion in October

2017; though he found another one, he

had to resign last year as a result of

accusations of personal misconduct.

He maintained that, if he had still been

alive, Ted Heath would have been

questioned under caution about seven

of the allegations. Some, perhaps all, of

these are thought to rest on the lies of

Carl Beech. The Police and Crime

Commissioner for Wiltshire has

called on the Government, which

funded the investigation to the tune of

£1 million, to establish an independent

inquiry.

In the Lords, I have repeatedly

pressed ministers for action, attracting

unanimous support on all sides of the

House. The Government has failed to

give any serious reasons for its refusal.

The new Home Secretary should

review the decision urgently following

Beech’s recent conviction.

Lord Lexden (Con)

London SW

Big green families

SIR – As a mother of four I was

interested in your article “How many

children can you have and still be

green?” (Features, August 1).

As I reflected on my lifestyle

choices, I realised that many of my

children’s belongings are reusable; a

lot of our food is sustainably sourced

or homegrown; our house is full of

second-hand furniture; we have

reduced our carbon footprint by

making more environmentally sound

holiday choices, such as camping in

Cornwall; we take a “make do and

mend” approach to renovations, as

reflected by our rather retro kitchen.

So yes, I think you can be “green”

with a big family, as much as you can

be environmentally unfriendly as a

childless couple. But most of all I think

my family brings me so much joy

every day – or should I say they

actively improve my mental health and

wellbeing?

Let’s hope big families don’t become

as socially unacceptable as single-use

plastic.

Rachel Goldsmith

Sidlesham, West Sussex

Special reserve

SIR – While there has been serious

erosion of the modern concrete

raceway at the Toddbrook Reservoir

near Whaley Bridge, the dam and

design of the reservoir have proved

remarkably sound (Letters, August 6).

Reservoirs are essential because

they limit summer flooding and

provide a supply of water. Any

suggestion that they should not be

uphill from settlements rather defies

the laws of physics and geography, and

calls for inquiries into decisions made

in the 19th century are unnecessary.

I would agree, however, that there is

a need for a better understanding of

the effects of climate change,

including a review of the impact of

higher-intensity rainfall.

Roger Smith

Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire

SIR – The suggestion in yesterday’s

letters that the Toddbrook Reservoir

be drained and turned into allotments

overlooks the fact that reservoirs feed

the canal system.

Are we to lose the wonderful

opportunities provided by the canals

for boaters, walkers and fishermen?

J M Stevens

Derby

Clogging the capital

SIR – Gill Tweed (Letters, August 6) is

right about cyclists blocking London

last Sunday.

We came in on the M4 to see friends

south of the river but eventually had to

give up and go home. Every bridge

along the Embankment was closed and

even Google failed to find us a route.

No one should be able to bring the

Queen’s highway to a halt in this way.

Susan Fagan

Fulmer, Buckinghamshire

SIR – Many cyclists were raising money

for charity last Sunday. Even more

riders will have injected money into

the London hospitality economy.

Given the number of supporters I

rode past, I suspect that Gill Tweed is

part of a begrudging minority.

Brian Harris

Cirencester, Gloucestershire

Retro regime

SIR – I note that the new International

Trade Secretary sits happily at her

desk without a computer (Features,

August 2).

Are we to assume that this lack of

technology is the result of a new

directive from Jacob Rees-Mogg?

Timothy Wigglesworth 

Newcastle upon Tyne

Markle sparkle: the Duchess in Aquazzura slingbacks at The Lion King‘s London premiere

MAX MUMBY/INDIGO/GETTY IMAGES

sir – I am glad that Bryony Gordon

has given a more balanced view of

the Duchess of Sussex (Features,

August 3). To some, Meghan will

always be that common, money-

grabbing American star who dared

marry a British prince. But the main

factor behind hostility towards her

simply seems to be that she has

ruffled traditionalist feathers.

This is nothing new. When

Queen Victoria married Prince

Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha,

the press often sought to strike at

his foreignness and disliked the

way he “dabbled” in the cultural

life of his adopted country – the

message being that a German

should stay out of such matters.

During the reign of George V,

traditionalists were outraged when

he supported the middle class over

the gentry and horrified by his

modernisation of the monarchy.

Later, when Diana, Princess of

Wales came under the spotlight,

she irked some by campaigning

for politically sensitive causes not

previously supported by royalty.

The truth is that the British Royal

family has lasted this long because it

has been able to adapt.

Reliance on tradition and

precedent will not always be

appropriate if the family wants to

stay relevant.

Emilie Lamplough

Trowbridge, Wiltshire

The Duchess is the latest to kick royal tradition

SIR – Recent letters (August 6) have

discussed the types of ships deployed

by the Royal Navy.

Much criticism has been made of

Britain’s lack of escorts, frigates in

particular. However, it is wrong to say

that we have invested in too few large

warships at the expense of smaller,

more versatile vessels. Since the

Second World War, aircraft carriers

have been deployed in – and been

essential to – every conflict in which

Britain has engaged, bar the Gulf war.

They are still a pivotal asset.

That said, the Navy is woefully short

of escort ships, as was recently

exposed in the Middle East. What we

require is a balanced fleet, so we do

not have a capability gap and are able

to counter any threat. History tells us

that the lack of airborne early warning

systems very nearly cost us the

Falkland Islands. Two years before

that conflict I listened to Captain

Sandy Woodward, then at the Ministry

of Defence, trying to convince the

Treasury that the gap was serious. He

was, of course, absolutely right.

Captain R M Turner

Weymouth, Dorset

SIR – Charles Moore (Comment,

August 5) slightly misquoted Rule

Britannia. The lyric is an exhortation

for Britannia to “rule” the waves, not a

statement that she rules. A subtle

difference, but one that should be

remembered in these feverish times.

G F Orsi

Pontypridd, Glamorgan

Frigates aren’t a panacea for the Navy’s plight

РЕЛИЗ ПОДГОТОВИЛА ГРУППА "What's News" VK.COM/WSNWS