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

Africa North
UK military personnel to West Africa
2013-01-31
Britain is offering to send up to 200 military personnel to help train a West African intervention force to support French forces in Mali, the defence secretary has confirmed to MPs.

Philip Hammond said this would be in addition to up 40 military advisers who will be sent to train soldiers in Mali. His statement in the Commons was in response to an urgent question by Conservative MP John Baron, on 29 January 2013.

Mr Baron said it was in "everyone's interest" not to allow "legitimate governments to fail when faced with extremists", but he feared the UK could be drawn into "ever deepening conflicts".

He said greater clarity was needed on the exact role of British troops - arguing that there were "grey areas" between combat roles and support roles - and on the exit strategy.

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy also warned against "mission creep", saying the British public are "wary and weary" of conflict.

The defence secretary accused him of "fence setting" claiming he had not made it clear whether Labour supported the government's action. He told MPs: "It is not our intention to deploy combat troops. We are very clear about the risks of mission creep and we have defined very carefully the support that we are willing to provide to the French and the Malian authorities."

Mr Murphy also sought guarantees that no UK personnel would be redeployed to the Mali mission from Afghanistan.

Mr Hammond said the government was looking "all the time" at what it could do without impacting on operations in Afghanistan.

Liberal Democrat former leader Sir Menzies Campbell asked about the "long-term implications" of the "step change" in Britain's commitments to the Mali mission. Mr Hammond said what the government was proposing was a "very well-leveraged" use of British forces, resources and capability at "minimal cost and risk to ourselves".

The UK is already sending a C17 transport plane for three months and an RAF Sentinel surveillance aircraft.
Link


Britain
London 2012 Olympics: 'fiasco' of the 12,000 empty seats
2012-07-30
[Telegraph.uk]Lord Coe, the chairman of London 2012, was accused of breaking a promise that unsold and unused corporate tickets would be given to the public, while Sir Menzies Campbell, an observer on the board of Games organisers Locog, described the situation as depressing.

Athletes who had been unable to get tickets for their families to watch them compete said it was "absurd" and "ridiculous" that whole blocks of seats remained empty at some venues.

Locog insisted that off-duty soldiers, as well as local schoolchildren and teachers, be taken by bus to venues to help fill the gaps, as Lord Coe ordered an urgent investigation into why so many seats have been empty.

A survey by The Daily Telegraph found that at least 12,000 seats were unused yesterday, not including football stadiums, where tens of thousands of seats have been unoccupied for some matches.

Popular events such as gymnastics, tennis and swimming had swathes of empty seats despite members of the public being told that they were sold out.
Link


Britain
£1billion deal paves the way for Trident nuclear deterrent replacement
2012-06-17
Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, will reveal the scheme to build a new nuclear deterrent in a move which will cause tensions with the Liberal Democrats.

He will announce a deal ordering nuclear reactors for a new class of submarines to replace the current Vanguard fleet, which carries Britain's Trident nuclear arsenal.

The decision is the most public statement yet that the Government is committed to a full-scale replacement of Trident - something opposed by the Lib Dems, who want a cheaper way of maintaining nuclear weapons.

Mr Hammond will say that a Rolls-Royce plant at Raynesway, in Derby, will be given the order to build the reactors, and that the Ministry of Defence will fund an 11-year refit of the plant. The contract will create 300 jobs and many more in the factory's supply chain.

But it will create a rift with the Liberal Democrats. One senior Liberal Democrat source told The Sunday Telegraph this weekend that the replacement of Trident remains a "massive fault line" between the Coalition's two parties.

The Lib Dems pledged in their 2010 manifesto that they would oppose a "like-for-like" replacement of the submarines and the nuclear warhead-carrying missiles which they fire.

Nick Harvey, the Lib Dem defence minister, is leading a review into cheaper ways to maintain the nuclear deterrent and wants to abandon the so-called "Moscow criterion", which recommends Britain retains an arsenal capable of destroying the Russian capital.

The new contract, to be announced in the next few days, represents the Government's biggest commitment to replacing the ageing Trident fleet, at a total cost of up to £20 billion. Ministry of Defence sources said that it was possible to go ahead with the reactor contract now because defence cuts and reforms to procurement meant new investments could begin.

A senior MoD source said: "This is good news for the Royal Navy and a great boost for jobs. These cutting edge reactors will support the UK's submarines for decades and are a vital part of ordering long lead items for the new nuclear deterrent submarines.

"We have balanced the MoD's books and can now get on with ordering major pieces of equipment for the armed forces to protect us against future threats."

Conservatives are determined to replace "like for like" the Vanguard submarines, which are expected to be decommissioned in the late 2020s, Their Trident II D-5 missiles are expected to remain in service until 2042. It is undecided whether the Government will opt for three or four submarines.

Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, there are many new threats to international security, with growing fears surrounding Iran, China and Russia, Conservatives say. It is also claimed that failing to commission a new wave of submarines could cost up to 15,000 British jobs.

Although the Coalition Agreement between the Tories and Lib Dems said the parties would "maintain Britain's nuclear deterrent", it also said that "Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives".

A £350 million contract to design the new submarines went to BAE Systems, Babcock and Rolls-Royce. But the symbolism of ordering reactors is far greater.

The new nuclear submarine contract with Rolls-Royce will be seen as one in a series of policies launched by the Tories which are designed to reconnect with the party's grassroots. In recent weeks, Conservative ministers have unveil a crackdown on illegal immigrants and foreign prisoners, pledged new action on anti-social families and given ground on the prospect of a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.

The decision by Conservatives ministers to sign such a high-profile contract comes at a time of tense relations between the two parties. Many Tory MPs are seething with the Lib Dems for failing to support Jeremy Hunt in last week's Commons motion calling for an investigation into the Culture Secretary's handling of News Corporation's BSkyB bid.

And it was made despite Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem grandee, making an open public call for ministers to abandon the "Moscow criterion".

"Nuclear weapons have no intrinsic merit," the party's former leader said recently, adding that "it is unthinkable today that Britain would contemplate the destruction of the heavily populated capital of Russia -- or any other city."

However, opposition to a new generation of nuclear weapons will not be confined to Liberal Democrats. A poll two years ago found that 63% of the public said they supported scrapping Britain's nuclear deterrent to cut the deficit in the public finances.

Some senior military figures have also opposed Trident, arguing that it consumes too much of the defence budget and leaves less money for front-line forces.

General Lord Dannatt, the former chief of the army staff, previously said in an interview: "It is a very fine judgement as to whether we should continue to have a nuclear deterrent or not.

"I think if we are looking at the character and nature of future conflicts and if we think we will be dealing with hybrid warfare or asymmetric threats, then may be for the next few years it makes sense to keep that ultimate deterrent in case some government in five, ten, or 15 years would want to threaten the security of our country.

"At present we should keep it but not forever."

The push towards a new generation of nuclear submarines comes as the military is facing deep cuts, with the number of armed forces personnel set to be cut from 180,000 to 150,000 over the next five years.

A report published earlier this year by CentreForum, a liberal think tank, said: "Replacing Trident is nonsensical. There is no current or medium-term threat to the UK which justifies the huge costs involved.

"A critical assessment of the UK's strategic position and military requirements leads to a clear conclusion: Trident makes no effective contribution to our security.

"Cancelling it will provide a unique opportunity to re-balance and revitalise Britain's forces for the 21st century."
Link


Britain
UK Liberal Democrat leader Campbell resigns
2007-10-16
Menzies Campbell, leader of the kooky hard left centrist Liberal Democrats who have consistently opposed the Iraq war, resigned on Monday as head of Britain's third biggest party after his support slumped in opinion polls. The former Olympic sprinter quit amid rising party fears that he would have been an ineffective leader if Prime Minister Gordon Brown had decided to call an election two and a half years early.

Campbell's abrupt demise capped a tumultuous two weeks in British politics. Brown, enjoying a hefty opinion poll lead, contemplated calling a snap general election but changed his mind in the face of a surge of support for the Conservatives, Britain's main opposition party.

In his resignation letter, Campbell said: "It has become clear following the prime minister's decision not to hold an election, questions about leadership are getting in the way of further progress by the party. Accordingly, I now submit my resignation as leader with immediate effect."

The 66-year-old Campbell, known as "Ming", had been criticized for his lackluster performance in parliament and mercilessly mocked in the press and by cartoonists for his age.
Making him "Ming the Mercilessly Mocked"...
The party's support in opinion polls had halved since the 2005 general election to just 11 percent with its popularity steadily sliding against the ruling Labour Party and the Conservatives.
Link


Iraq
Petraeus praises British troops
2007-09-19
The US commander in Iraq has praised "the great contribution" made by British troops. Gen David Petraeus said the British military had "done magnificent work" in the face of "tough enemies" and countless other challenges. And he dismissed talk of a split between the US and Britain over the pace of withdrawal of UK troops.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for a "more stable" political process in Iraq after talks with Gen Petraeus. US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker also joined the talks in Downing Street.

Last week Gen Petraeus said that the "surge", an extra 30,000 US troops deployed in February, was working. At the same time as that surge has taken place, in the south of Iraq Britain has just withdrawn 500 troops from Basra Palace, to join 5,000 at an airbase outside the city. And responsibility for security in much of Basra Province is progressively being handed over to local Iraqi forces, although British troops will continue to provide back up or an "over-watch" role.

Gen Petraeus told journalists at the Royal United Services Institute that "various" military and political issues had to be sorted out before the full handover of Basra province, which he said he hoped would happen later this autumn or this winter. He also warned that a premature drawdown of forces from Iraq would have "devastating consequences not only for Iraq and the region, but for our nations and the world".

Asked whether there had been a split between the US and UK on the withdrawal of British troops, he said: "I do not know what that's all about. What has been done has been done in close consultation and dialogue with the senior operational command of the multi-national corps."

Downing Street said Mr Brown had discussed the security situation in Iraq with Gen Petraeus. It said in a statement: "The PM reiterated that like America, Britain will discharge its duties to the Iraqi people, to our allies and to the international community.

"They agreed it was essential for Iraq to achieve a more stable and confident political process.

"This included reconciliation with disaffected groups, economic development in Iraq, a more inclusive government, and a genuine attempt to reach consensus on major political issues."

President Bush has announced that more than 5,000 of the more than 160,000 US troops in Iraq will leave by Christmas - and 30,000 are expected back in the US by summer 2008. Mr Brown held "cordial and constructive" talks with President Bush on the issue last week by video conference, but has said the UK will make its own decisions about the British military commitment based on "conditions on the ground". He is expected to outline his strategy to MPs when Parliament returns in October.

But Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell has urged Mr Brown to say UK troops will be pulled out of Iraq entirely. "The prime minister should tell Gen Petraeus that Britain has fulfilled its moral obligation to Iraq and that our continued presence neither meets military purposed nor political objectives," he said.
Plus we're getting really nervous about the whole Iran thing.
Link


Britain
Strict Gun Control Has Doubled Gun Crime In England
2007-08-26
Senior police officers have been warning for several months that a growing number of teenagers in big cities are becoming involved in gun crime.

The age of victims and suspects has fallen over the past three years as the availability of firearms in some cities has risen. Liverpool and Manchester are the cities where illegal guns are most readily available, with criminals claiming that some weapons are being smuggled from Ireland. Sawn-off shotguns are now being sold for as little as £50, and handguns for £150.

Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily. This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.

“Illegal firearms have become increasingly accessible to younger offenders who appear more likely to use these firearms recklessly,” a report on gun crime commissioned by the Home Office cautioned last year.

The research supports warnings from police chiefs in Merseyside and London about the spread of gun use in gangs and among teenagers.

Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Chief Constable of Merseyside, said this year that although gun crime in the area had fallen there had been an increase in the number of teenagers involved in firearms crimes.

Figures from the Metropolitan Police show that the average age of gun crime victims in London fell from 24 to 19 between 2004-06 and that there was a similar trend among suspects charged in connection with shootings.

Mr Hogan-Howe said that youths were being protected by a wall of silence, and he demanded a new law to compel the public to give information about gun crime. He said that action must be taken to break down the power base of families involved in gun crime. “Families who do nothing to stop their children’s involvement in gun crime put society at risk and could find themselves identifying their child in the morgue,” he said.

The Home Office research highlighted how guns were an integral part of a gang culture in which guns were used to deal with disputes. “In the context of firearm ownership, even quite trivial disputes may result in shootings as the presence of guns elevates threat levels and the so-called ‘shoot or be shot’ scenario precipitates pre-emptive violence,” the study said.

Policies to help to deal with the problem were considered at a scheduled No 10 summit yesterday, chaired by Gordon Brown and attended by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, Beverley Hughes, the Children’s Minister, Lord Hunt, the Justice Minister, as well as police chiefs and local government leaders.

It was the first of a series of meetings to tackle the issue. Mandatory minimum jail sentences for carrying knives and requiring people to give information if they are aware that people have illegal weapons are among the ideas under discussion. Mrs Smith has asked the Serious Organised Crime Agency to look atways to curb the importation of illegal weapons.

After the 90-minute meeting, the Prime Minister said: “Make no mistake about this — the people responsible will be tracked down, they will be arrested and they will be punished.” He said that the Home Office would be earmarking ten areas for an intensive campaign against gun and knife crime. The areas will be announced next week.

Mr Brown added that families would be offered greater support. “The vast majority of young people are decent and law-abiding. They too want to feel safe and secure on our streets. Where there’s a need for early intervention, we will work very intensively with those families so that young people are deterred from going into gangs and guns and knife crime,” he said.

Mrs Smith has outlined a range of measures, including the increased use of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and a crackdown on the sale of alcohol to under-age children. The Government has issued guidance to police and local authorities on how to use the contracts — written pledges to improve behaviour — effectively.

David Cameron said that social breakdown would be the central theme of the Conservative election manifesto. Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats, called for a “change of atmosphere” in communities with gang violence, but said that there was “no simple solution”.
Link


Britain
Blair to cut 20% of nuke warheads
2006-12-04
Tony Blair will promise today to cut by a fifth the operational nuclear warheads on Britain's Trident submarines, from 200 to 160, the Guardian understands. The cut is part of the prime minister's campaign to persuade MPs that the government must start work almost immediately on plans detailed in a white paper to build a replacement fleet.

The white paper will also say the new Trident system will cost less than £25bn. But it will say this figure represents 5% of the annual defence budget, and about 0.1% of GDP, Whitehall sources said yesterday. Ministers have rejected claims Britain no longer needs nuclear weapons to deter a potential enemy and have embraced the "insurance policy" argument that it is impossible to predict the shape of threats in 20 years.
Who knows, you might be fighting the French Muslims in 20 years.
The promised reduction in Trident, whose warheads will have been halved from 300 since 1997 when Labour came to power, is unlikely to appease critics of nuclear weapons or MPs in all parties who challenge Downing Street's view that Trident must not only be renewed, but that a decision is urgent.

With a public debate and then a Commons vote in February set to follow the white paper, ministers hope they will win the vote comfortably. But they accept they will need Conservative support to push it through.

Up to 40 Labour MPs oppose nuclear weapons, but the key group Mr Blair seeks to persuade are those, including the Liberal Democrats, who think there is no need to take an early decision. The Tories remain pro-deterrent, but their defence spokesman, Dr Liam Fox, said yesterday they would only "replace it [Trident] when necessary".

One Labour minister seemed confident the government would prevail: "There will be some trouble in the parliamentary party. My activists will not want it, but they will not object to it."

The white paper will also reject arguments urging a delay on a decision to commission new submarines by at least five years, as the Lib Dem leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, and many independent analysts have proposed. Given the long lead times before operational availability - 14 years between the Trident decision and the day it replaced Polaris - it would be too risky. Delay would also not be cost effective, mainly because the nuclear reactors that propel the present boats need replacing soon.
I think they mean that the fuel needs to be replaced; as I understand it that's a costly and time-consuming business.
The white paper will say that a sea-based system is the only "credible" nuclear deterrent, rejecting arguments for land-based cruise missiles. The government has also rejected the argument that a Trident submarine need not be continuously at sea. Instead it will suggest that advances in technology may allow Britain to manage on three rather than four submarines, which would save up to £2bn, one minister said last night.

Anti-nuclear campaigners will step up their protest today. CND and a number of MPs will hand an alternative white paper to No 10 and express concern over the short amount of time being given to discuss the issue. The ArchDruid Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is also expected today to signal his opposition to replacing the nuclear deterrent.
Is he a religious leader or something?
Link


Britain
Our failure to confront radical Islam is there for all to see
2006-10-18
At long last, the debate on Islamism as politics, not Islam as religion, is out in the open. Two weeks ago, Jack Straw might have felt he was taking a risk when publishing his now notorious article on the Muslim veil. However, he was pushing at an open door. From across the political spectrum there is now common consent that the old multicultural emperor, before whom generation of politicians have made obeisance, is now a pitiful, naked sight.

The 10,000 Muslims in my constituency of Rotherham can only benefit from removing the dead hand of ideological Islamism – allowing their faith to be respected and their children to flourish in a Britain that finally wakes up to what must be done. Despite the efforts of extremists to prevent any sort of rational debate about the place of Islam in Britain, it is at last happening.

“A fight-back is beginning to reclaim Britain from the grip of those who refuse to acknowledge the centrality of British values of tolerance, fair play and parliamentary democratic freedoms – notably those of free speech and respect for all religions, but supremacy for none.”
A fight-back is beginning to reclaim Britain from the grip of those who refuse to acknowledge the centrality of British values of tolerance, fair play and parliamentary democratic freedoms – notably those of free speech and respect for all religions, but supremacy for none. Voltaire noted this attribute of the English three centuries ago, when he wrote: "If there was just one religion in Britain there would be despotism. If two, there would be civil war. But as there are 30, they all live at peace with each other."

It is worth returning to Voltaire on this issue. The struggle is not between religion and secularism, nor between the West and Islam, and still less between Bush-Blair and the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents. It is the ideologisation – an ugly word for an ugly thing – of religion that needs confronting. Return to Voltaire who noted, "Neither Montaigne, Locke, Boyle, Spinoza, Hobbes, or Lord Shaftesbury lighted up the firebrand of discord in their countries; this has generally been the work of divines, who, being at first puffed up with the ambition of becoming chiefs of a sect, soon grew very desirous of being at the head of a party."

The row ignited by Jack Straw has, so to speak, ripped away the veil over the failure of British policy-makers since the 1980s to come to grips with growing ideological Islamism in our midst.

In David Blunkett's diaries, he refers to the arrest of the Finsbury Park radical Islamist imam, Abu Hamza, in January 2003. Mr Blunkett records: "We had been to-ing and fro-ing on this for months." For months! For years, every other politician in Europe had been complaining about the failure of Britain to act against Hamza and the other ideologues of hate who were turning young Muslim minds – long before 9/11 or the Iraq conflict – into cauldrons of hate against democracy, and some, tragically, into self-immolating killers of innocent men, women and children.

Where Blunkett and previous ministers failed to act, it has taken a young, devoutly religious Christian politician, in the form of Ruth Kelly, who knows the difference between private faith and public politics, to come forward and to speak en clair to organisations and ideologues who believed that their world view would – and should – overcome British values and traditions.

An all-party commission on anti-Semitism that I chaired reported recently. Our most worrying discovery was the complacency on many university campuses about harassment of Jewish students. Jew-baiting behaviour that would have had the Left outraged in the 1930s is now actively encouraged by an unholy alliance of the hard Left and Islamist fundamentalists, and the odious anti-Semites who have infiltrated some lecturers' unions. Ruth Kelly, whose fealty to her faith matches that of any deeply religious British Muslim, is right to make clear there are now limits which must not be overstepped.

As a Foreign Office minister, I tried to get Whitehall to take the issue seriously. I argued that diplomats who spoke relevant languages should go and talk, discuss and report back to ministers.

Chinese walls in Whitehall prevented effective inter-departmental co-operation. The Home Office, in addition to allowing Hamza to poison the minds of a generation, refused to return to France Rashid Ramda, who was wanted for questioning in connection with the 1995 Paris Metro bombings – a foretaste of our own 7/7. I hated having to go on French television and waffle defensively at a policy of not extraditing this evil man. But the prevailing culture was to deal with religious leaders, not elected politicians. Whitehall sought the advice of friendly theologians from Cairo, or Muslim ideologues such as Tariq Ramadan. This denied political space to British citizens of Muslim faith, women as well as men.

Late in 2003, I made a routine speech to my constituency. It followed the murder of British and Turkish men and women at our consulate in Istanbul by Islamist terrorists. At the same time, a young South Yorkshire Muslim had gone to Israel and killed himself in a suicide bombing attack.

The two events led me to make a speech in which I said: "It is time for the elected and community leaders of British Muslims to make a choice: it is the democratic, rule of law, if you like the British or Turkish or American or European way – based on political dialogue and non-violent protests – or it is the way of the terrorists against which the whole democratic world is now uniting." I thought my remarks were banal. After 7/7, everyone used them.

But, three years ago, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips wrote a whole page in the Observer denouncing me. The Foreign Office and Downing Street would not allow me to defend my position. It was an ugly, uncomfortable time, as no one in Whitehall or the media showed any support for efforts to get a debate going on issues that today rightly predominate. Red boxes are here today and gone tomorrow. But if a minister is to be dismissed for telling the truth, even if the telling of the truth is not perfectly timed, then this or any government is in trouble.

Islamist politics is now one of the most important issues for the future of democracy. Getting the right answers will define the world's future. All main parties, other than the odious BNP, rightly shun Islamophobia. British Muslims will be welcome at Eid parties in the Commons to celebrate the end of Ramadan. But we have to find answers to calls for censorship, to celebrations of jihadist terror, or a religiously ordained world view that denies equal rights for women or gays here and in Afghanistan.

Some difficult politics lies ahead. It is bizarre that neither David Cameron nor Sir Menzies Campbell have spoken. At some stage, the metro-populism of Notting Hill will have to engage with the worries of British citizens who understand a problem long before Whitehall gets it.

There is a new generation of British Muslims who want to engage in politics and reclaim the issues that concern their communities from religious-based outfits or those who see their task as importing foreign conflicts into domestic British politics.

They must be encouraged before it is too late. From Margaret Thatcher, until very recently Tony Blair, political leaders have been in denial. It is time to wake up.

Denis MacShane is Labour MP for Rotherham and worked at the Foreign Office as PPS and minister, 1997-2005
Link


Europe
Irish refused bombs sent to Prestwick airport
2006-07-31
BOMBS destined to be used by Israel are being flown via Scotland only because the Irish government refused to allow them to land on its soil. Scotland on Sunday can reveal that after the conflict in Lebanon began three weeks ago, Ireland turned down a United States request for planes carrying 600lb so-called bunker busters to refuel at Shannon airport in Co Clare. As a result, cargo planes carrying the bombs, which the Israeli army is using in its offensive against the Hezbollah, are being flown via Prestwick airport in Ayrshire.

The use of Prestwick triggered a furious diplomatic row last week after it emerged that the US had broken aviation rules by failing to notify Britain about the flights. That row is intensifying this weekend as two further American planes carrying 'hazardous' material to Tel Aviv land at the airport.

In another controversial development, Scotland on Sunday has learned that Prestwick is negotiating to allow planeloads of US military personnel on their way to Iraq to stop there. A well-placed source close to the negotiations said it was bidding to take flights away from Shannon, which is currently used as a stopover for the bulk of the 900 American soldiers who travel from the US to the Middle East every day.

The American airlines which transport the troops through Shannon are understood to be reviewing their use of the airport, following protests in Ireland which have resulted in some of the planes being vandalised. The source said: "It could soon be the case that the Irish will say that they don't want these flights and, as a consequence, then we will look to get them."

The latest revelations are set to crush hopes among British diplomats that the row over Prestwick would die down following President George Bush's apology to Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday.

One Irish official said that the bombs would never have been allowed on Irish soil. The source said: "There is absolutely no way that we would allow munitions or weapons to be shipped through Shannon to a location where there is an actual war going on. We would not allow it. It is correct that we allow the US to transport troops to Shannon, but sending bombs to Israel is another matter and completely out of the question for us."

Opposition critics last night seized on the situation. Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond said: "It is highly significant that Shannon put its foot down and drew back from allowing the transport of bunker busters, which could become the tinder to escalate dramatically the Middle East conflict." He added: "It is absolutely appalling that we should allow Prestwick to become a stopover to death and destruction."

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said the fact that more flights were now landing in Scotland was "adding insult to injury". He said: "What price the president's apology now?
To think that the Scots used to be warriors.
The British government should be pursuing an active policy of denying weapons of any kind to anyone in the Middle East who may be assisting the conflict in any way."

However, speaking from America, Blair defended the use of Prestwick: "We should just apply the rules in the appropriate way, which is what we are doing. What happens at Prestwick airport is not going to determine whether we get a ceasefire in the Lebanon.

"If what people are saying is that we should impose an arms embargo on Israel, or indeed on the US, I think that would be very curious indeed."

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority confirmed the authorities had approved an 'exemption' allowing the two new flights to land at Prestwick. The first, a Boeing 747 from Texas, landed at about 1pm yesterday for refuelling. A second flight is due to arrive today.
More at link, also read comments
Link


Britain
UK FM criticises US over Israel flights
2006-07-27
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has publicly criticised the United States over reports that a Scottish airport was used as a stop-off for flights carrying arms to Israel. Mrs Beckett accused the US of not following the right procedures over arms flights and threatened a formal protest after raising the matter with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

With Tony Blair due to visit to Washington for talks with President Bush on Israel and Lebanon, Downing Street is keen to play down any possible rift with the US.

Mrs Beckett said she was not happy about reports Prestwick airport had been used for refuelling and crew rest for two chartered Airbus A310 cargo planes filled with GBU28 laser-guided bombs, adding she had "already let the United States know that this is an issue that appears to be seriously at fault".
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell seized on the news as evidence Britain was being "taken for granted".

Mrs Beckett's comments came as she resisted calls for the British government to back an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon after a crisis summit failed to agree action.

al-Guardian: Aviation chiefs are expected to decide later on Thursday whether the US broke international rules when using a British airport as a staging post for transporting weapons to Israel. A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority said it was responsible for policing international regulations governing transport of hazardous material in Britain. "We're looking into the issue at the moment," he said. "We expect to make a decision later today."

Flights such as that by the two chartered Airbus A310 cargo planes - which were carrying GBU28 laser-guided bombs - usually require "specific exemptions" from hazardous material rules, according to the spokesman.

Times Online: The United States has denied it contravened British air transport procedures by allowing two cargo aircraft loaded with bunker-busting bombs bound for Israel to stop over in Scotland. The US Defence Department said Washington had double-checked its records of all flights since the reports emerged and found it has not broken any regulations in Britain or anywhere else.

British defence sources have alleged that the Airbus jets stopped to refuel at Glasgow’s Prestwick airport last weekend during a flight to transport GBU28 laser-guided bombs to Israel. A US Defence Department spokesman, Joe Carpenter, said: "It’s our policy that US military flights and those contracted on our behalf comply with existing bilateral agreements. "There have been no recent deviations from those procedures."

BBC: The White House has dismissed UK concerns about the use of Prestwick Airport, in Scotland, by US planes carrying bombs to Israel. "Apparently, the British foreign minister thinks the paperwork was not in order," said spokesman Tony Snow. "The Department of Defense does," he added. "We'll get it straightened out."

Opposition parties reacted angrily, with Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond claiming the UK government should decide whether to "be an aircraft carrier" for the US. Mr Salmond said that "with an escalating Middle East conflict", it was ill-advised to send bombs "to arm one side in that conflict to the teeth".

The UK's Civil Aviation Authority said it followed a series of procedures set out by the International Civil Aviation Organisation "to facilitate the international movement of civil aircraft". These "apply to everyone who may be involved in putting or taking dangerous goods on an aircraft", its website stated. Countries must "hold permission to carry dangerous goods" and submit to "audit-style inspections" to "check for compliance".

If insufficient information was supplied then all available evidence would be gathered to try to inform the originating state "so that action can be taken there", it said. A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority was unable to confirm whether it had been informed of the contents of the flight to which Mrs Beckett referred.

Prestwick has supplied logistical aid for military flights since the Second World War in "moving troops and cargo", an airport spokesperson said. "That support involves allowing crew to rest, refuelling aircraft and providing food and water. "The airport is obliged to allow aircraft from any CAA-registered country to land here."
I'll bet money the paperwork is in order
Link


Britain
UK jails crisis - 1,028 prisoners released, not deported
2006-04-26
Some of this is internal UK politix, in which I'm not fully versed, but part of this relates to the Global War on Terror.
HOME Secretary Charles Clarke offered to resign before the scandal of released foreign prisoners broke last night, but had his request turned down by the Prime Minister. But today, Mr Clarke was under growing pressure to quit over a blunder which saw more than 1000 prisoners released instead of being deported after serving their time. At Westminster today calls for him to go were stepped up after it was revealed that almost 300 of the convicts were allowed back on the streets after he first knew of the problem last autumn.
It wasn't really an 'oversight' then, was it?
The Home Office said it was still unsure whether any of those who should have been considered for deportation had been let out of Scottish jails and was unable to confirm which prisons across the UK they had been released from. Mr Clarke was today making a statement to the House of Commons about the fiasco which Downing Street said Mr Blair considered to be "deeply regrettable". The 1028 released prisoners - who included three murderers, nine rapists, and five child sex offenders - should have been considered for deportation under the Home Office's own rules. The problem stretches back to 1999 when 160 of them had been recommended for deportation by their trial judges. Mr Clarke said he expected that most of the released convicts could be tracked down and that many were still robbing and raping their neighbors under some form of supervision, but he admitted that he could not guarantee that all would be found. He said that his department did not know the full details of offences committed by more than 100 of them.
Gah.
Mr Clarke said this morning that the authorities had lost track of most of the prisoners due to a breakdown in communication between the Immigration and Nationality Director (IND) and the UK Prison Services. Asked if he told the Prime Minister he was ready to quit over the issue, Mr Clarke said: "Yes I did. I told him I was prepared to resign if he thought it was right. He said he didn't think it was right."
UK politix to follow:
He originally became aware of the problem last autumn after the House of Commons main efficiency watchdog the Public Accounts Committee asked for details about the problems. He made his offer to resign to Mr Blair before Christmas. Today Mr Clarke's aides said that while he was reporting matters to the House of Commons he was not intending to resign and Downing Street said Mr Blair still had "full confidence" in his Home Secretary. But Mr Davis said Mr Clarke was aware of the problem ten months ago and should have dealt with it "as a matter of urgency". But following the revelation that almost 300 more had been set free since then Mr Davis said: "I think that unless he has got a very good explanation - and I cannot think of one that will satisfy the House of Commons - I think his position has become untenable." Mr Mundell said that it was vital to find out if any of the prisoners had been freed in Scotland. And the Scottish National Party's Home Affairs Spokesman Stewart Hosie said: "We are witnessing a department in crisis and a Secretary of State who has failed in his primary responsibility to keep people safe." In Edinburgh the SNP's leader Nicola Sturgeon called for an immediate statement at Holyrood from the Justice Minister. And Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said it was "extraordinary" that so many people had simply disappeared.
Link


Europe
Condi will tell EU to stuff it in secret prison probe
2005-12-04
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will inflame the transatlantic row over America's alleged torture of terror suspects in secret jails by telling Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and other European officials to 'back off'.

Rice, who arrives in Brussels tomorrow for a meeting with Nato foreign ministers, has been under pressure to respond to claims the US has been using covert prisons in Eastern Europe to interrogate Islamic militants. Human rights groups have alleged the CIA is flying terror suspects to secret jails in planes that have used airports throughout Europe, including Britain.
They haven't offered up any proof of course, but they still expect Condi to respond, hoping that she'll let something out. Condi is too smart for that.
Rice's refusal to answer detailed questions on what has become known as 'extraordinary rendition' will anger many in Europe.
Oh horrors! Perhaps they'll need some of Ethel's pills!
Last week Straw wrote to Rice asking for clarification about some 80 flights by CIA planes that have passed through the UK. European politicians and human rights groups claim the flights and use of a network of secret jails breach international law.
Which international law? Which protocol? Besides not offering any proof that we're doing this, they can't even tell us which law.
State Department officials have hinted that Rice's response to Straw and other European ministers will remind them of their 'co-operation' in the war on terror. She is expected to make a public statement today stressing that the US does not violate allies' sovereignty or break international law. She will also remind people their governments are co-operating in a fight against militants who have bombed commuters in London and Madrid.
And murder citizens in the Netherlands, and splash acid in the faces of citizens in Belgium, and set up car-B-Qs in France ...
She will drive home her message in private meetings with officials in Germany and at the EU headquarters in Brussels.

Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern said Rice told him in Washington she expected allies to trust that America does not allow rights abuses.

An unnamed European diplomat who had contact with US officials over the handling of the scandals told Reuters yesterday: 'It's very clear they want European governments to stop pushing on this... They were stuck on the defensive for weeks, but suddenly the line has toughened up incredibly.'

Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who will be chairing a Commons committee of MPs along with Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, has said Rice needs to make a clear statement. She 'does not seem to realise that for a large section of Washington and European opinion, the Bush administration is in a shrinking minority of people that has not grasped that lowering our standards [on human rights] makes us less, not more, secure'.
No, but lowering your expectations of behavior in your citizens certainly does.
In Britain, human rights group Liberty is to table an amendment to the Civil Aviation Bill that would oblige the Home Secretary to force any aircraft travelling through UK airspace suspected of extraordinary rendition to land and be searched by police and customs.

Straw is also facing calls to allow MPs and human rights groups access to Diego Garcia, the British island in the Indian Ocean being used as a US military base. It has long been suspected that the island has been used to hold or transfer terror suspects to secret US jails.
I dunno if we're doing any of this, but if so it might be time for a few Esquimaux-flagged cruise ships, really secure, that just sail 'round and 'round in the South Pacific ...
Link



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