Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Africa Subsaharan
SA has lost its moral authority, says UK politician and former anti-apartheid campaigner
2017-03-07
[Business Live] SA trade and investment are losing their attraction in UK boardrooms because of corruption and cronyism under Jacob Zuma, says former British government minister Peter Hain.

"The perception of this country is very negative," he says.

"In government circles, too, SA is plunging down the priority ladder."

The country, he says, has lost the moral authority it enjoyed under Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki. The state of public finances is also causing concern.
Yes of course, Madiba and Mbeki, paragons of moral authority.
All is not lost, however. "Civil society here is very strong, you have a unique constitution and Thuli Madonsela was a wonderful example of the checks that exist. There is still a sense in London that you can be a success story but the longer bad governance continues, the harder it will be to reverse. And your education in African schools is absolutely criminal."

Hain, a former Pretoria Boys’ High School pupil who fled to the UK with his family in 1966 and later became a leader of the anti-apartheid campaign to isolate SA sport, is officially Baron Hain of Neath these days, after gaining a life peerage in 2015. Neath is the Welsh constituency he represented as a Labour Party MP between 1991 and 2015.

Hain was in Johannesburg last week to teach at Wits Business School, where he is a visiting professor. This week, he is back in the House of Lords, where he is campaigning against the Conservative government’s plans to withdraw Britain from the EU.
Link


Iraq
Brits join air campaign against Islamic State in Iraq
2014-09-28
LONDON -- Three European nations, including Britain, joined the widening U.S.-led air campaign against Islamic State militants in Iraq on Friday, even as the group's fighters renewed their attempt to overrun a strategic border city in Syria.

Britain's entry seven weeks after the United States began carrying out strikes followed an overwhelming parliamentary vote to authorize attacks. Denmark and Belgium also opted to join the fight. All three countries that authorized military action Friday are limiting their roles to Iraq. But no European ally has been willing to join the Syria campaign -- raising the prospect that the Islamic State could try to use the country as a refuge.

“Simply allowing [the Islamic State] to retreat across an invisible border is no answer,” said Peter Hain, a member of Parliament and former cabinet minister, during Britain's day-long debate.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, scarred by a humiliating defeat last year when he sought permission to launch strikes against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, did not try to win approval for attacks in Syria this time around. Instead, he limited his proposal to Iraq, where he had a clear consensus, thanks to the Iraqi government's request for Western help. No such invitation from Syria exists, and British opposition leader Ed Miliband has suggested he will not support widening the campaign without a U.N. resolution, which is unlikely to come.

Friday's House of Commons vote endorsing Cameron's plan to deploy six Tornado fighter jets to Iraq was lopsided, at 524 to 43. Still, there was opposition from the backbenches, both from hawks who wanted to go further and from doves who insisted that Britain had not learned the right lessons from more than a decade of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Cameron argued that ignoring the Islamic State was impossible, given the threat he said it poses to Britain.

“This is not a threat on the far side of the world. Left unchecked, we will face a terrorist caliphate on the shores of the Mediterranean and bordering a NATO member, with a declared and proven intention to attack our country and our people,” Cameron said as he opened the debate.
Link


Europe
Gibraltar: Between the Rock and an increasingly hard-line place
2012-02-07
Do you sometimes get the sense that many different parts of the world are under stress at the same time?
Fabian Picardo's office is surrounded by guns. In the courtyard sits a huge black cannon, while the entrance is protected by two more gold plated monsters, glinting in the sun. But the newly-elected Chief Minister of Gibraltar hopes that he will find a peaceful way of protecting the Rock – despite an escalation in the war of words with Madrid.

"We are always hopeful that Spain will follow us into the 21st Century and drop its claim on our land," said Mr Picardo, in his first interview with a British newspaper since winning the December election. "The Spanish government are playing to their constituency of support and concentrating more on the theory of their claim, rather than the realities on the ground. And that is a tragedy for people of both sides of the frontier."

If Mr Picardo, 39, was expecting a gentle introduction to the 300-year-old tussle over the sovereignty of Gibraltar, then he has had a brusque awakening. Just as the newly re-elected Cristina Kirchner in Argentina has made a diplomatic push against British "colonisation" of the Falkland Islands a key policy of her government, Spain's ruling Partido Popular (PP) – itself freshly in power, following the November general elections – has been pushing sovereignty over Gibraltar up the agenda.

Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish prime minister, has abandoned the tripartite talks over areas of co-operation between Spain, Britain and Gibraltar. Instead, on Wednesday, Madrid formally asked Britain for bilateral talks over the sovereignty of Gibraltar – much to the fury of the excluded overseas territory's residents.

"They want to turn me into a Spaniard, but not one part of me is Spanish," said Martin Pickford, a small businessman, as he drove through the winding streets in the shadow of the Rock. "My ancestors were from Malta. Many more are descended from Genoese merchants or Italian sailors. No one here wants to be suddenly told they are Spanish."

The publication of former Europe minister Peter Hain's memoirs last month, in which he told how Tony Blair came close to agreeing joint Spanish-British sovereignty, has further raised hackles in Gibraltar. The territory was ceded to Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, and has been resolutely British ever since.

Spain's foreign minister, José Manuel García-Margallo, last month sparked alarm in Gibraltar when he greeted a British MEP friend with the age-old rallying cry: "Gibraltar: Spanish!" and he has further pressed the issue by writing to William Hague to demand clarification on Britain's stance.

Mr Rajoy is set to meet David Cameron in London at the end of this month, but the authorities in Gibraltar are trusting that the British prime minister will defend their interests.

Yet Mr Picardo knows that he must remain on his guard. And inside his office just off Gibraltar's Main Street, the Oxford-educated lawyer told The Sunday Telegraph that he is determined his government will not be intimidated by sabre-rattling from Madrid.

"We are seeing what appears to be a more proactive desire by Spain to raise the sovereignty issue," he said, criticising Madrid's decision to cease tripatrite talks.
"The Spanish government does not best serve the interests of its people, especially those in the local area, by snubbing an international agreement to which it has subscribed in principle. And with five million or so people unemployed, it seems to me the Spanish have other more important priorities than historic claims over my people."

Certainly the dire economic situation across the border, with the highest unemployment in the eurozone – one in two young people have no job – has renewed focus on Spain's booming British neighbor. New luxury developments are still springing up alongside the sparkling marinas, and the Lord Nelson pub and Marks and Spencers are doing a roaring trade.

Growth this year is expected to be comfortably over four per cent, and the colony's 30,000 inhabitants enjoy almost full employment. Gibraltar makes its money through offshore finance, tourism, its port and online gaming – and an enticingly low corporate tax rate of 10 per cent has brought businesses flocking to their shores.
Shades of Hong Kong...
"We believe we can attract the sort of investors that the rest of Europe would be welcoming with open arms," said Mr Picardo. "You have to remember the scale of the economy here. Gibraltar has a GDP of just over £1 billion. A £100m investment here goes a long way, whereas a £100m investment in Greece, Spain or the UK for instance is a drop in a drop in an ocean. So the highs and lows of the Spanish economy might not affect the bottom line as it could do, given our physical proximity."

Across the border, in the windswept Spanish town of La Linea, residents gaze wistfully at their thriving neighbor.

"Just look at it. It is obviously part of Spain, and it's crazy that it isn't accepted as such," said Pepe, 60, a retired hotelier, who did not want to give his surname. "I think it's absolutely right that Mariano Rajoy speaks to Britain about the issue."

His friend Paco, 65, added: "What hurts me most is that they are laughing at us from across there. During the World Cup they even supported Germany instead of Spain! It's not right."
Ah, jealously.
In the pretty Andalusian plaza in the centre of town, others complain that Gibraltarians use the low-tax business regime to secure deals on mainland Spain. Smuggling of cheap Gibraltarian tobacco into Spain is also a problem.

"I am Spanish and I defend Spain, but they insult it," said Inmaculada Floria, 36, warming her hands on a coffee beneath a sculpture of flamenco dancers. Like 7,000 other Spaniards, until recently she crossed the border daily to work in Gibraltar.

"The people there are really scared of the PP – they associate the party with Franco, who blockaded Gibraltar for 13 years. They should be talking about ways of improving co-operation, not just saying 'No, no, no'."

Her husband Tomas Rodriguez, 39, a civil servant, said: "It's true that a lot of Spaniards aren't interested in Gibraltar. But here it affects us directly. For instance, a coffee in La Linea costs the same as in Madrid, and we are pushed out of the property market. It needs to be sorted out."

But those within Gibraltar's ancient fortress walls argue that the territory actually does a huge amount to help the local area. A study by the Chamber of Commerce found that almost 20 per cent of all jobs in the Campo de Gibraltar area – from Tarifa in the west almost up to Estepona in the east – were provided by Gibraltar. Furthermore, Spanish workers in Gibraltar earned £43m in 2007 – the most recent data available – which would be repatriated to Spain, while Gibraltar businesses imported £174m worth of goods from Spain.

"Gibraltar and Spain have a symbiotic relationship and we can do a lot more to work together," said Edward Macquisten, chief executive of the Chamber of Commerce.
"But if Madrid continues to clamp down, then it won't help anybody."

Beneath Mr Macquisten's office, Roy's Cod Plaice is doing a brisk trade. "Last year was the best I've had in 24 years here," said Roy Walker, 62, the owner. "Life is good here; the economy is good, weather is lovely, and there is very little crime. "But there is constant hostility from the Spanish authorities, from the head of the government all the way down. Not from the people, but from their government.

"I live in Spain and come here every day, as do all my workers. The border queues are sometime two hours – why can't it just be open like with Portugal or France? But I'm pleased David Cameron is standing up for us and saying sovereignty is our decision. And we want to stay as we are."

It is a view shared by 98 per cent of Gibraltarians, who in a 2002 referendum voted resoundingly to maintain the status quo. And it is something that Mr Picardo is determined to defend.

Is the cannon outside his office pointing in the direction of Spain, I ask?

"It's pointing in the direction of the governor's residence opposite – at the representative of the British Foreign Office!" he laughed. "But that is totally unintentional as in any event it is decorative. We are confident in our position here.
"Gibraltar's arsenal is intellectual."
Link


Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Blair: Sailors Weren't in Iranian Waters
2007-03-25
BERLIN (AP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Sunday that the 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran were not in Iranian waters and warned that Britain viewed their fate as a "fundamental" issue.

The group was seized at gunpoint on Friday, and the Foreign Office in London said British officials do not know where Iran is holding them.

"It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters," Blair said at a news conference in Berlin, calling the situation "very serious."

"I want to get it resolved in as easy and diplomatic a way as possible," he said, but added he hoped the Iranians "understood how fundamental an issue this is for the British government."

Blair's comment, at celebrations for the 50th birthday of the European Union, follows British and European Union demands for Iran to release the 15, who were seized at gunpoint in disputed waters between Iran and Iraq on Friday.

Britain and the United States have said the sailors had just completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al Arab waterway when they were intercepted by the Iranian navy.

Iran, however, says they illegally entered Iranian waters. Iranian state television reported that its Foreign Ministry called in British Ambassador Geoffrey Adams, "to protest the illegal entry." Britain disputed the Iranian account, saying the meeting was called at the ambassador's request.

The capture and detention of the British service personnel risks escalating an already fraught relationship between Iran and the West.

The U.N. Security Council of Saturday agreed to moderately tougher sanctions against Iran for its refusal to meet U.N. demands that it halt uranium enrichment. Many in the West fear Tehran's nuclear program is not for power generation but for arms making, a claim Iran denies.

The approved sanctions included ban on Iranian arms exports and freezing the assets of 28 additional people and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. About a third of those are linked to the Revolutionary Guard, an elite corps whose navy seized the British sailors and marines.

The British Foreign Office said requests for access to the 15 Britons had been denied and officials did not know where they were being held.

Iran's Gen. Ali Reza Afshar said Saturday that the seized Britons were taken to Tehran for questioning where they "confessed" to illegally entering Iranian waters.

Lord Triesman, a Foreign Office undersecretary who had held talks with Iran's ambassador on Saturday, told Sky News the issue of whether the sailors had strayed into Iranian waters was a technical one.

"I've been very clear throughout that the British forces do not ever intentionally enter into Iranian waters," he said. "There's no reason for them to do so, we don't intend to do so and I think people should accept there's good faith in those assertions."

"We believe there's good strong evidence that they were in Iraqi water at the time," Triesman said. "That's a technical issue and I think it could be resolved as a technical issue."

French President Jacques Chirac expressed support for Britain's position: "It appears clear that these soldiers were not in the Iranian zone at the time."

Peter Hain, Britain's Northern Ireland Secretary, described Tehran's refusal to return the sailors as a dangerous development.

"It's essential that this occurs and it's essential not just for the well-being of our soldiers but also for stability in the region," he said.
Link


Britain
Labour must admit Iraq errors, say ministers
2007-01-18
Labour will have to admit that serious errors have been made over the war in Iraq if it is to restore public trust in the government, a growing number of ministers believe. The acknowledgment may come when the chancellor, Gordon Brown, takes over in Downing Street, possibly by launching an inquiry into the conduct of the war - a move that has been resisted by Tony Blair.

The impetus for Labour to show contrition has come from admissions by four ministers, who have gone on the record to concede that a string of errors was made in Iraq. Hilary Benn, the international development secretary, told the Fabian Society: "The current situation in Iraq is absolutely grim, so let us be clear about that truth. Look, the intelligence was wrong, the de-Ba'athification went too far, the disbanding of the army was wrong and, of course, we should have the humility to acknowledge those things, and to learn. I am not insensitive to the huge well of bitterness and anger from lots of people in the party."
He's also unwilling to antagonize them by telling them what stoopid gits they are.
Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland secretary, also claims in an interview to be published today by the New Statesman: "The neo-con mission has failed ... It's not only failed to provide a coherent international policy, it's failed wherever it's been tried, and it's failed with the American electorate, who kicked it into touch last November. The problem for us as a government ... was actually to maintain a working relationship with what was the most moderate rightwing American administration, if not ever, then in living memory."
You really don't have to. Go twaddle off with your Y'urp-peon friends and commit cultural and demographic suicide.
A fast-rising Blairite minister, James Purnell, has also admitted that the Iraq war has lacked moral legitimacy and made other military interventions in crises such as Darfur more difficult. Mr Purnell said: "There are many, many lessons we need to learn about Iraq and it is very important for us politically to recognise that. In terms of international politics, we need to learn the lessons of the mistakes that clearly have been made.

"I think the biggest mistake is that you always need to learn the importance of moral legitimacy and international support. Going back and looking at what happened, if we and the Americans had realised that the Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction as an imminent threat, we would have had more time to get a second UN resolution we were trying to get. If we had gone into Iraq with international support, the situation would have been much much easier.
'Second' UN resolution? He means 'seventeenth', since that's what it would have been. And we were never going to geet 'international siupport', by which he means the French (bribed by Saddam), Russians (bribed by Saddam) and Chinese (oil contracts from Saddam). Nor were we ever going to get the European and American left to go along since they consider anything America does to be ucky. The whole notion of 'moral legitimacy' begs the question: moral by what standards? As judged by whom?
He added: "It would have legitimised an intervention in Darfur in a way that it is now very very difficult."
You're the one connecting Darfur to Iraq. If that's how you feel just leave Darfur as is, I'm sure the people will understand how you daren't soil your hands.
The remarks were made at a Fabian conference last weekend, at which the housing minister, Yvette Cooper, seen as close to Mr Brown, also suggested the emphasis after the invasion had been wrong. She said: "I think if different decisions had been taken early on, we might have seen a different course of events. There would always have been difficulties in Iraq, but you should not underestimate the importance of people having a functioning economy - of having jobs to go to, people able to get food and to have a proper functioning infrastructure and how significant that can be to the course of events."
A functioning economy and infrastructure are important. Parts of Iraq have that, because those same-said parts have had security. Whether it was the security of enlightened Kurds in the north or scheming, numerically-superior Shi'a in Basra, those parts have done pretty well. It's the parts of Iraq that haven't had security that are troubled the most with infrastructure and economic breakdowns. Criticize US and Iraqi miliary/police policy there -- we've made our mistakes -- but don't forget that in this argument, basic security comes first.
Ministers have previously indicated that there may need to be a review of aspects of the war, but the new wave of criticisms suggests this may change as Mr Blair's premiership starts to close.
And as a new election looms on the horizon against a revitalized (if nearly unrecognizable) Conservative Party. Seems like Mr. Brown thinks more hand-wringing is required to get the Scottisth Labour vote to stay on his side.
Senior ministers are absolutely opposed to widening the Iraq conflict into a war with Iran, even though they acknowledge that the crisis in Iraq has made Iran more confident. They are also refusing to rule out talks with the Syrians, even though the US seems to have ruled out such a diplomatic initiative.
Link


Terror Networks
UK Attorney General calls for Guantanamo to close
2006-05-07
The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is set to trigger a diplomatic row between Britain and the United States by calling for Guantánamo Bay to close.

The decision by the government's chief legal adviser to denounce the detention centre in Cuba as 'unacceptable' will dismay the Bush administration, which has continually rejected claims that the camp breaches international laws on human rights.

But Goldsmith will tell a global security conference at the Royal United Services Institute this week that the camp at Guantánamo Bay must not continue. 'It is time, in my view, that it should close.' An urbane lawyer who eschews the limelight, Goldsmith is not known for shooting from the hip in such unequivocal terms; however, it is clear he has harboured grave doubts for some time over the legality of Guantánamo under international law.

'There are certain principles on which there can be no compromise,' Goldsmith will say. 'Fair trial is one of those - which is the reason we in the UK were unable to accept that the US military tribunals proposed for those detained at Guantánamo Bay offered sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards.'

Although privately some senior ministers believe Guantánamo should be closed down, no one has so far condemned the camp in such open and trenchant terms. To date, the strongest criticism of the camp has come from Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland minister, who said on Newsnight in February that it was his personal belief that the camp should close, while the Prime Minister said only that it is an 'anomaly' that will have to end one day.

Goldsmith's speech will be welcomed by human rights groups and senior members of the judiciary who have long campaigned for the government to use its influence to persuade its ally to close the camp. The former Law Lord, Lord Steyn, now chairman of the human rights group, Justice, said last month that 'while our government condones Guantánamo Bay the world is perplexed about our approach to the rule of law.'

Steyn made it clear that if the British government were to criticise Guantánamo it would have significant consequences. 'You may ask: how will it help in regard to the continuing outrage at Guantánamo Bay for our government now to condemn it?' Steyn said. 'The answer is that it would at last be a powerful signal to the world that Britain supports the international rule of law.'

In February, a high court judge, Mr Justice Collins, condemned America's approach to human rights after reading a report by the UN human rights commissioner which found evidence of torture at the camp. 'America's idea of what is torture is not the same as ours and does not appear to coincide with that of most civilised nations,' Collins said.

Last week, two high court judges heard a legal argument that the government should demand the release of three British residents held in Guantánamo on the grounds that they had been subjected to torture. Lawyers for the men said the government should lobby for their release because they were being detained 'unlawfully'. But Lord Justice Latham and Mr Justice Tugendhat said that, while the argument was a powerful one, 'decisions affecting foreign policy are a forbidden area'.

Goldsmith will use his speech to acknowledge the judges' concerns and point out that the increased terrorist threat has increased divisions between the government and legal experts.

'I would suggest that the greatest challenge which free and democratic states face today is how to balance the need to protect individual rights with the imperative of protecting the lives of the rest of the community,' Goldsmith will say.

'The UK government is constantly being criticised for striking the wrong balance. Sometimes the criticism comes from the right, from those who see the Human Rights Act as a charter for criminals and terrorists which impedes the executive's freedom of manoeuvre at every turn. Sometimes the criticism comes from the left, from those who see in every government initiative a threat to civil liberties. Such criticism is inevitable.'
Link


Europe
Adams finds US snub is a bitter pill to swallow
2006-03-19
It has proved to be a very expensive St Patrick’s Day for Gerry Adams. A ban on fund-raising, imposed as a visa condition for his trip to the US, has forced Sinn Fein to repay $100,000 (£57,000) in ticket sales for a gala breakfast he attended in Washington.

The Sinn Fein president is clearly bitter about what he described as a “partisan” decision by President Bush’s Administration which, he said, took no account of the IRA’s renunciation of armed struggle and the progress made on decommissioning. “I don’t understand why I’m allowed to go to London for fundraising but not come here,” he told The Times at a subsequent event for the American Ireland Fund.
Maybe because we don't quite believe you?
The US, where up to 45 million people claim Irish descent, has always been regarded as the (Irish) Republicans’ cash cow and for more than a decade Mr Adams had enjoyed being fêted on his high-profile annual trip to the White House. But last year he was removed from the invitation list for the President’s shamrock ceremony because Mr Bush was angry over the IRA’s involvement in the Northern Bank robbery and the continued paramilitary violence that led to the murder of Robert McCartney.

This year, the Sinn Fein leader was allowed back into the White House. But he was not asked to a private, more intimate, meeting with Mr Bush. Instead, the President once again chose to spend time with Mr McCartney’s sister, Catherine, and other victims of IRA violence. These included Esther Rafferty whose brother, Joseph, was allegedly murdered last April, and Alan McBride, whose wife was killed in the Shankill bombings a decade ago.
Bush has a tendency to keep accounts. If he makes a move like this it seldom is for transient show ...
Mr Adams sought to make light of the $100,000 bill for his trip and the frosty reception he had received from the President. “At least I got a free breakfast,” he said. “Look here, Washington comes and Washington goes — but the Irish-Americans have remained constant and they have kept their faith in us.”
A woman in my neighborhood has a '26 + 6 = 1' bumper sticker. I'm hoping she's not as gullible as she once was.
But the income that Sinn Fein receives from the Irish-American lobby has fallen to less than $1 million a year. Donations to the respectable and charitable American Ireland Fund dropped by more than a quarter in 2004.
I'm sure 'unofficial donations' are still high.
Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary who also travelled to Washington for St Patrick’s Day, believes that the mood — even on “green emotion” days such as this — shifted irrevocably because of the September 11, 2001, attacks. “What has changed is terror and that has changed minds, he said. “Sinn Fein had been treated as heroes on Capitol Hill for years with republicanism intertwined is some minds with the American War of Independence.” Although he did not want to be drawn into the row over Mr Adams’s right to raise money in the US, he suggested that last year’s St Patrick’s Day snub for Sinn Fein had a profound effect.

Mr Hain has held talks with Mr Bush, as well as Mitchell Reiss, the President’s special envoy on Northern Ireland, and Bertie Ahern, the Irish Prime Minister, over plans due to be unveiled next month for restoring powers to the devolved Stormont Assembly, which was suspended in 2002. Ian Paisley’s Democratic Ulster Unionists still want to delay, he said, while the nationalists “want to jump back in; we need to find a bridge between them”. A proposal for phased reintroduction appears most likely.

“We’re now entering the most important period since the Good Friday agreement in terms of people having to make their minds up,” he said. But Mr Hain also emphasised that the US remained a central component in the peace process.
rest at the link
Link


Britain
Free speech? Labour cares more about the Muslim vote
2006-02-10
It is 10 years since Tony Blair told me, in an interview for The Sunday Telegraph, of his fascination with Pontius Pilate. In an exploration of his personal beliefs, the Labour leader explained that he viewed Pilate "as the archetypal politician, caught on the horns of an age-old political dilemma... It is not always clear, even in retrospect, what is, in truth, right. Should we do what appears principled or what is politically expedient?" Well, indeed.

How resonant those words have seemed in the past few days, as Mr Blair's ministers and spokesmen have trimmed and mumbled over the cartoons controversy, passing the buck to the police and prosecuting authorities, shirking the statesmanship that was so desperately required. Listen, and you can still hear the sound of hands being washed: this is a government on auto-Pilate.

The tone was set on Friday by Jack Straw, who condemned the republication of the cartoons of Mohammed, but not the protests that had started the night before, at which outrageously violent slogans were brandished on placards by militant Muslims. At the weekend, it became clear that ministers would have to say more. But neither Mr Straw nor Peter Hain would endorse David Davis's call for arrests. Mr Hain sounded as if he was breaking up a playground row: "There has to be a bit of give and take. So let's cool it and work together in the interests of peace and stability around the world." That's telling them, Peter.

In the Commons on Monday, Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, said that "these are operational matters for the police to consider" - but also claimed that "the incident illustrates the merits of having all the legislation on the statute book, which includes the offences created by the Terrorism Bill, including the proposed new offences of encouragement and glorification of terrorism, which I hope will now have the support of the whole House."

So which is it to be, Home Secretary? Were the police right not to make arrests? Or did they lack the necessary powers? The confusion was compounded yesterday by the conviction of the radical cleric Abu Hamza. That verdict was entirely welcome. But if it was right to convict Hamza for inciting murder, why were those calling for beheadings and terrorist acts not arrested?

Yesterday, Mr Blair finally promised that "political correctness" would not "prevent the police from taking whatever action they think is necessary". But it is not political correctness that lies behind the ministerial blether and evasion: it is electoral statistics. Much has been made of the large number of Muslim voters in Mr Straw's Blackburn constituency, where his party's vote in last year's general election was down by 12.1 per cent and the performance of the anti-war Lib Dems up by 12.5 per cent. Blackburn was merely a vivid example of a national trend that terrified Labour pollsters.

In seats where between five and 10 per cent of voters are Muslims, Labour's vote fell by 8.1 per cent. In constituencies where more than 10 per cent are Muslims, the drop was 10.6 per cent. Overwhelmingly, Liberal Democrats were the beneficiaries.

With less than three months to go until local elections, Labour strategists are desperate to make up some of this lost ground, not least because the third party is in such disarray. They are gleeful about the Lib Dems' collusion in the watering down of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill - a tactic which will be presented to Muslim voters as an act of appalling treachery. Now, as flames engulf embassies and British Islamists call for their enemies to be slaughtered, ministers are taking no chances. Nothing must be done to alienate the Muslim vote.

Which leaves the rest of us to resolve such trivial matters as the future of free speech, the prospects for pluralism and the repeated collision of liberal democracy with modern Islamic fundamentalism. After 9/11, Madrid, and July 7 - to name but three horrors - it is no longer possible to shelve such issues as philosophical abstractions. The stakes could hardly be higher; the cost of failure unthinkable.

In the thick of the Rushdie affair, Carlos Fuentes warned of a terrible approaching conflict between "essential activities of the human spirit" - debate, humour, art - and a creed in which "reality is dogmatically defined once and for all in a sacred text... a sacred text is, by definition, a completed and exclusive text, You can add nothing to it. It does not converse with anyone. It is its own loudspeaker."

The conflict is not only between people, but within them.

Yesterday, Omar Khayam, the 22-year-old from Bedford who imitated a suicide bomber in protest at the cartoons, was returned to prison for breaching the terms of his parole licence. How is it possible to be both a convicted drug dealer - the very personification of the sinful West - but also a passionate Islamist? The answer is that it is not. But Khayam's behaviour symbolises the lethal tension between integration and radicalisation that exists within many Muslim males of his generation: a life oscillating between freedom and certainty, Western temptations and imported jihad.

The allure of Islamism to such people owes much to its confidence. And that confidence has been bolstered during the past week. On Monday's Newsnight, Anjem Choudary of al-Ghuraba - the group that organised Friday's rally - showed in a series of furious outbursts how empowered extremists feel by the impunity they have enjoyed. In response to Jeremy Paxman's point that he might be happier in a country where sharia law was in place, Mr Choudary raged: "Who said to you that you own Britain, anyway? Britain belongs to Allah." And just to make clear what he thinks of the British, he continued: "If I go to the jungle, I am not going to live like the animals. I'm going to propagate what I believe to be a superior way of life."

At such moments, the nation needs Paxman, and he did not disappoint. "We're moving on, matey," was his verdict on Mr Choudary's nonsense - and the right one, too. It lifted the spirits, as did the fine contribution by Sayeeda Warsi, the Conservative vice-chairman, and a British-born Muslim of Pakistani background.

Unfazed by Mr Choudary's offensive claim that she was not entitled to speak because she was not wearing a veil, Ms Warsi spoke up for the very British determination not to fall for the frothing of the reactionary Right (we are all doomed) or to yield to the threats of Muslim extremists (you are all doomed). "I am confident," she said, "that in Britain the middle ground, the people who are prepared to engage in dialogue and live alongside each other with shared values and a sense of shared identity, that they will prevail." Firebrands like Mr Choudary, she said, had no place in multi-cultural Britain.

It takes a lot of courage for a Muslim woman to say such a thing. Ms Warsi's intervention made the anodyne remarks of white male ministers seem all the more cowardly. Every politician, as Mr Blair observed a decade ago, resembles Pilate. But not all of them, when the moment of decision arrives, choose to wash their hands.
Link


Britain
Blair and Secretary Hain Face Backlash over IRA Amnesty
2005-11-24
Tony Blair and Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary, faced a fierce and emotional backlash from MPs yesterday over legislation to allow fugitive terrorists to return without having to serve prison sentences. The Bill will allow those wanted by police for some of the most heinous atrocities during the IRA's 30-year campaign to have their slate effectively wiped clean.

Mr Hain looked lonely and uncomfortable as he faced a series of highly emotional interventions from MPs, including the Rev William McCrea (DUP Antrim S) who described seeing his two young cousins after they had been blown up by the IRA. He faced angry protests from Tory MPs when he disclosed that members of the security forces, including serving British soldiers, would also be able to take advantage of the new procedure.

Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, who served with the Army in Northern Ireland, accused the Government of using the inclusion of British soldiers in the procedures as a "shield" for a "grubby and reprehensible" piece of legislation. The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and all the Northern Ireland political parties apart from Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, served notice that they opposed the Bill. A procession of MPs from all parties rose to condemn the legislation, which they claimed was part of a "secret stitch-up" between Mr Blair and the IRA leadership.

During the debate Mr Hain acknowledged that the agreement to provide an effective amnesty for "on-the-run" terrorists was necessary to ensure that the IRA gave up violence, even though Sinn Fein had given a commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means when it signed the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

Mr Blair, who yesterday met the widows of murdered RUC officers, admitted the legislation would cause "pain and anguish" to victims, but said it was vital to the Northern Ireland peace process. He faced criticism from one Unionist MP who compared the actions with offering an amnesty to those who shot PC Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford on Friday.

Mr Hain insisted that the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill was necessary to bring closure to the IRA's "awful and murderous" campaign. It would at least ensure that terrorists, some of whom had been on the run for decades, would get a criminal record, he said.

The amnesty would apply to up to 150 people wanted by police for offences committed before the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998. Paramilitary figures who returned would have their cases heard by a special tribunal - not the normal courts. They would not have to appear in person, but if they were convicted, they would have a criminal record, be required to give DNA and fingerprints, and could be subject to recall to prison for their crimes if they broke the conditions imposed on them.

Mr Hain said the procedure would "bring closure" and ensure that the IRA's armed campaign was over. At present, people on the run were outside UK jurisdiction, and the fact they would get a criminal record if the tribunal convicted them, "ought to be some comfort to the victims concerned".

But faced with accusations that the Bill was "insulting" to victims, Mr Hain conceded: "The legislation is hated by victims".

In Northern Ireland, victims of the Troubles accused the Government of hypocrisy over its handling of terrorism. Aileen Quinton, who lost her mother Alberta, 71, in the 1987 Enniskillen Poppy Day massacre, described the Bill as an "absolute disgrace". The terrorists behind the IRA bombing, which killed 11 people, are believed to be among around 150 people able to take advantage of the legislation. Miss Quinton said that the Government was guilty of double standards when the Northern Ireland situation was compared with the anti-terrorism measures introduced following the London bombings.

"It seems my mother was murdered by cuddly terrorists and not the bad terrorists," she said.
Link


Africa: Subsaharan
Al-Qaeda has used South Africa as a base
2005-08-27
The Scorpions have investigated a claim that a clandestine organisation based in Cape Town shipped 10 al-Qaeda operatives to South Africa from Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2003 and 2004.

The organisation allegedly set them up with almost £1-million (R12-million) and false South African citizenship - before they were transferred to Britain.

Intelligence sources revealed to The Saturday Star that the "Pakistani" operative named "Mr Butt", who allegedly arranged the whole deal, was understood to be none other than Africa's most notorious gun-runner, Tajikistan-born ethnic Russian Victor Anatoliyevich Bout.

Bout, 38, apparently first set up shop in South Africa in 1997. He is being probed by United States authorities for alleged ties to both the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The startling claims - which the Scorpions swore were groundless - were made exclusively to this newspaper by "LW", a 61-year-old "freelance undercover agent", and self-described specialist in laundering drug money.

He claimed the objective of the 10 al-Qaeda operatives in the United Kingdom might be connected to the bloody London terrorist bombings last month that claimed 56 lives.

Born in Uruguay but now a US citizen, "LW" claims to have built a 39-year career freelancing for various government agencies like the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) by infiltrating drug cartels like the late Pablo Escobar's infamous Medellin cocaine empire in Colombia.

The Scorpions investigated "LW's" claims to have infiltrated the "Cape Town al-Qaeda cell" with an offer to use his expertise as a money launderer to transfer the £1-million for the UK-targeted operation into SA.

But Makhosini Nkosi, spokesperson for the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) under which the Scorpions falls, said "LW" was "offering services to the NPA as an informant - until his information was proved to be unreliable. All contact with him was terminated".

The outfit run by "Mr Butt" allegedly turned out to be nothing more than a credit-card fraud operation with no links to terrorism.

The government source said "LW" "told us a story of al-Qaeda and a couple of million pounds, but we looked at it and it was bulls**t. He is a rogue".

The source then strongly warned this newspaper that pursuing the story could prove "dangerous".

"LW" said that if he had lied, "why did the Scorpions give me a letter of introduction to the DEA office in London in 2003?"

Former London DEA agent Ira Israel, speaking from Arizona this week, confirmed that "LW" did "come with a letter, and I believe it was from your Scorpions, saying something like he was legitimate and he had dealt with them".

"LW" claimed that his task for "Mr Butt" would have been to channel the £1-million from a bank in Britain, and then, having deducted his 12 percent commission (£120 000), via a bank account in Hong Kong for a "company selling African curios over the Internet".

The remaining money would then be "cleaned" via "LW's" Swiss bank account.

The final stage would be for "LW" to set up 10 bank accounts in South Africa under the fictional names of the "al-Qaeda" men, then move the money into South Africa, converting it into the equivalent of R9,8-million and dividing it into the 10 accounts.

But, instead, "LW" was compelled to return to the US in 2003 to face massive tax-evasion charges for, he claims, not declaring income derived from his work for the DEA.

The Inland Revenue Service in Washington confirmed he was indicted for evading $250 336 (R1,6-million) in tax on $769 597 in earnings between 1989 and 1991.

In September 2003 he was sentenced to five years' probation, and ordered to pay 10 percent of his earnings, plus a $283 422 fine. He paid - despite living under the roof of the West Palm Beach Salvation Army.

"LW" said he also told Britain's Secret Service (MI5) and the FBI about the alleged plot to insert "al-Qaeda operatives" into Britain. The FBI, he claimed, had shown him photographs of the man he called "Mr Butt".

He further claimed the bureau refused to allow him to launder the money as planned. But he maintained that the money was laundered by someone else and alleged that the 10 men did relocate to Britain via South Africa "sometime in 2003/2004".

Special Agent John Stewart of the FBI's Miami Division, responded with a brief "yeah" when "LW" was described to him, but said: "The bureau's policy is we don't comment on ongoing investigations or people who assist us."

In 2002, Bout's alleged business partner, Sanjivan Ruprah of Kenya, was arrested by Belgian police. Ruprah allegedly introduced South African mercenary outfit Executive Outcomes to ousted Liberian leader Charles Taylor. Al-Qaeda allegedly set up shop in Liberia under Taylor in 1998.

In a February 2001 interview with Ekho Moskvy radio in Moscow, following press reports that he had sold arms to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Bout said: "I am not, and never have been, associated with al-Qaeda, the Taliban or any of their officials, officers or related organisations.

"I am not, nor are any of my organisations, associated with arms traffickers and/or trafficking or the sale of arms of any kind anywhere in the world."

But in 2002, Peter Hain, Britain's lead investigator into the affair, said: "Bout undoubtedly did supply al-Qaeda and the Taliban with arms."
Link


Britain
Blair sets 5 May as election date
2005-04-05
The general election will be held on 5 May, Tony Blair has formally announced. Speaking after asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament next week, Mr Blair said Labour had a "driving mission" for a third term in office. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders pre-empted the announcement by starting nationwide tours of key seats. Michael Howard accused Mr Blair's government of "losing the plot" while Charles Kennedy said he would focus on people's hopes, not their fears.
Mr Blair told reporters in Downing Street the election presented a "big choice". "The British people are the boss and they are the ones that will make it," he said. The Labour leader said he wanted to "entrench" economic stability and public services' investments, as well as ensuring people from all backgrounds could achieve their potential. He then headed off by helicopter to make a speech in Weymouth, Dorset - part of Labour's most marginal seat.
Earlier, Labour's candidate in Ribble Valley, Stephen Wilkinson, said he was defecting to the Lib Dems.
Four opinion polls published on Tuesday suggest Labour's lead over the Tories has slipped to between 2% and 5%. They suggest the Lib Dems trail the Tories by between 10 and 16 points. But one of the polls also suggests the Tories are 5% ahead of Labour among those "certain to vote".
With the campaign under way, ministers must rush to get outstanding legislation through Parliament before it winds up, probably on Friday. It will be formally dissolved on Monday. Backroom horse trading is happening between the parties over which bills of legislation can still be passed. Commons Leader Peter Hain said he hoped 16 bills - more than half the number announced in last year's Queen's Speech - would have been passed before Parliament adjourned. Mr Hain said plans for a new offence of incitement to religious hatred looked set to be lost. The Tories say plans for identity cards are another "likely casualty".
But ministers reached a compromise to save plans to overhaul gambling laws by cutting the number of regional "super casinos" allowed from eight to one.

'Action or talk?'

As he launched his party's campaign in London, Conservative leader Michael Howard said voters faced a "clear choice". "They can either reward Mr Blair for eight years of broken promises and vote for another five years of talk. Or they can vote Conservative to support a party that has taken a stand and is committed to action on the issues that matter." Mr Howard later visited Sale and Birmingham, where there was a minor scuffle as Labour activists with anti-Conservative banners were manhandled away by Tory workers.
Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has visited Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds and Edinburgh on a whistle-stop tour of key seats to begin his campaign. He told BBC News the election was "much more fluid" than ever before. He promised to shun his rivals' "negative campaigning". "I'm not going to spend the next month just talking Britain down," he added.

Wales and Scotland

Plaid Cymru MP Elfyn Llywd said his party was the real opposition in Wales and there was no real difference between Labour and Tories. Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond said his campaign would focus on making Scotland matter to the election. The Green Party said it was fielding 25% more candidates at this election on a "People, Planet, Peace" slogan. The UK Independence Party said it was the only party who believed the UK should govern itself, independent of European Union controls.
Link


Britain
"Bush's morality does not exist over here, thank goodness"
2004-11-06
It used to, of course. That's where we got the roots of it. Britain was a nicer country in those days, many think...
Jowell reveals party thinking on Kerry defeat
Downing Street recalibrates its dealings with Washington
Tessa Jowell, the culture secretary and a strong supporter of Tony Blair, will come close to breaching the cabinet's neutrality on the US election this weekend by voicing Labour's "real disappointment" that John Kerry was defeated. In a sign of the cabinet's dismay at George Bush's success, Ms Jowell will tell GMTV tomorrow: "There's obviously great disappointment among Labour party members that John Kerry didn't make it, and I think there were great hopes at the end that the Republican president would be replaced by a Democratic president." Ms Jowell, who avoids offending the White House by saying she is voicing the views of Labour members, not that she endorses them, qualifies her remarks by saying that opponents of President Bush must accept he has won. "The American people have spoken, George Bush has been returned for a second term, and I think that what is important now is that the very strong alliance between the British prime minister, between Tony Blair and George Bush, is put to its best possible use in getting the Middle East peace process back on course." A cabinet minister would never have dared to raise doubts about Mr Bush in his first term, as the prime minister went out of his way not to offend the notoriously sensitive president. But Ms Jowell's remarks show how Downing Street is recalibrating the way it handles its relations with Washington after the election. Sensitive to the fact that Mr Bush is unpopular in Britain, the prime minister is hoping to reassure Labour members that he is merely dealing with the duly elected US president.
Yup, Tony's calling elections in February. Plus he's paying his dues for sending the Black Watch up to Baghdad
Mr Blair let it be known that he phoned Mr Kerry to congratulate him for fighting an outstanding campaign that had helped to make the election "a true celebration of American democracy".
OTOH, given Cherie's snide comments at Harvard recently, maybe both of them are reverting to Labor form?
The intervention by Ms Jowell came as Labour was being urged to adopt the voter mobilisation technology deployed by both parties to secure the largest turnout in the US since the 1968 presidential elections.
they may be Yankee bastards, but they're effective Yankee bastards, damn them
On Thursday, at a cabinet discussion about the political lessons of the election, it was agreed that Labour had to campaign in the immediate term on its own security issues, including identity cards, crime, litter and job security.
wow - litter! didn't know they had it so bad ...
In a private note to Mr Blair, Peter Hain, the leader of the Commons and a visitor to the Kerry campaign in the summer, urged Labour to examine direct dialling, more sophisticated ways of capturing voter data and using professionals for door-to-door canvassing.
Sure - you know how effective the Kerry campaign was after all
Other parties are also taking stock. Lord Rennard, the Liberal Democrat campaign chief who will attempt to make the war one of the main issues of the election, said he was not put off by Mr Kerry's failure. "In America, if voters said Iraq was the most important issue, they voted four-to-one Democrat, but if they responded terrorism was the biggest issue they voted overwhelmingly for Bush," he said. "People in Britain will simply not accept, as many did in the US, that their country has been made a safer place due to the invasion of Iraq." The Tory party will adopt only some of Mr Bush's techniques. One aide to Michael Howard, the Tory leader, said the social conservatism of the Republicans "is not for us".
well below our class dignity, donchaknow
One shadow cabinet member said: "I do not think there is a read across on Iraq or on Bush's moral conservatism. Middle America believes that the war in Iraq is about the "war on terror". Nobody really believes that here. George Bush's morality and neo-conservatism also does not exist over here, thank goodness." But the Tories believe there is one big lesson from President Bush's victory. A senior strategist said: "Bush spoke in very clear, simple language and was very effective in identifying a negative message - that the US would not be safe with Kerry - and a positive message - what he would do in the future. He then stuck with that, delivering the same speech again and again."
Yup, that'll do it. Doesn't matter what the speech is or whether you deliver on promises. Just keep up the message -- so long as it doesn't have any of that tacky morality in it.
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More