Cabinet Split over Anti-terror Laws

Today is the sixtieth birthday of the Burmese political activist Aung San Suu Kyi, who has spent the last nine years in detention under the natives' equivalent of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. The British Foreign Secretary, a statesmanlike figure consisting of a suit, a pair of spectacles and the wishes of Tony Blair, has called for her release. He referred to her treatment by the authorities as "indefensible" and said her release was not only "a moral imperative" but also "a crucial step" in beginning a process of "reform and political dialogue involving all political parties and ethnic groups".

The press do not appear to have picked up on the most important aspect of the Foreign Secretary's statement, namely the gaping rift it reveals in the British Cabinet between the Foreign Office and the hole in the atmosphere which replaced David Blunkett as Home Secretary. Surely the Foreign Secretary's statement can be interpreted in no other way than as a frontal attack on the Prevention of Terrorism Act and all the other protective measures with which we in Britain have been favoured since a foreign country was attacked in September 2001.

The Foreign Secretary's mention of reform and political dialogue is certain to cause considerable offence in the Home Office, and perhaps even in Downing Street as well. As is well known, the Prime Minister's preferred form of discourse is the repeatable ecclesiastic monologue; while "dialogue" with his courtiers is, by preference, limited to prepared statements from their respective press offices and "Thank you, Minister" from the media.

Such is the brazen contempt of the Foreign Secretary's statement that it even goes so far as to mention "the terrorist attacks in Rangoon on 7 May, which killed at least 23 people". If Aung San Suu Kyi's release is a moral imperative despite such a level of violence and intimidation, what are we to think of the Home Office's introduction of indefinite detention without trial in the face of nothing worse than some churned-up grass in Hyde Park and a maniac with an apple pip collection?

The Home Secretary has made no response that I am aware of, though given his belief in guilt by association he might well point out that Aung San Suu Kyi won the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize, which places her in the august company of Kissinger of Indochina and Carter of Iran. Then again, given the exalted source of the Burma statement, I suppose the Home Office might be prepared to compromise over the British anti-terror laws. Assuming the Prime Minister's blessing and the White House's consent, it is not inconceivable that the Home Secretary may be prepared to excuse all Nobel Prize winners from indefinite detention, unless of course circumstances appear to justify it.