By Paul Tate
The long awaited Butler report was finally published on Wednesday. The report took six months to complete and focused, like its counterpart in the US, on the intelligence that was used to justify the war on Iraq. Unlike the Senate report, Butler''s was quintessentially English - carefully crafted and constructed in such a way as not to offend anyone.
This was to be expected. Butler is a former Cabinet secretary and an establishment insider in the full sense of the term. Whereas the US inquiry a week ago cut straight to the chase, with Senator Jay Rockefeller stating aggressively that Congress was misled and adding "we went to war on false claims", Butler''s style was far more subtle in both tone and delivery.
Nevertheless, although the language was cautious, there was plenty of meat for those discerning enough to pick through the niceties. Plenty of mmunition to fire at Prime Minister Tony Blair - despite the fact that Butler himself remained perched firmly and securely on the fence, with every criticism quickly followed by a qualifier. The inquiry concluded that there were "serious intelligence flaws", but Butler saw no evidence of "culpable negligence".
The report stated that the 45-minute claim should never have been included in the September 2002 dossier. This was the dossier on which Blair''s argument for military action was based. Butler, however, despite agreeing that the claim may have been inserted for its "eye catching quality" - refused to make the connection that it was inserted to sell the war to parliament and to the general public. The report strongly criticised the government''s claim that the above dossier was "owned by the Joint Intelligence Committee", which it was not.
This claim gave credibility and legitimacy to the government''s case for war. The report makes clear how Blair saw fit to remove all the qualifiers. In the Blair version, possibilities became certainties and maybes became definites. A selective approach to the intelligence was used, giving the impression that the intelligence was solid when it was not. But yet again, Butler refrained from accusing the government of sexing up the document and maintained that the government had "acted in good faith".
Another criticism was aimed at the "informality of decision making" in No. 10 and the concentration of power in only a few chosen allies of the prime minister. Apparently, according to the report, Cabinet meetings were called at short notice and ministers were given no advance notice of the issues to be discussed, giving them no time to receive adequate briefing - thus, no awkward questions for Blair. But according to Butler, there was no reason to suggest that this style is "any less effective". And this was the nature of the report, criticism followed by qualification.
Despite the litany of failures detailed in the report, apparently no one is to blame. The British citizens were drip fed faulty intelligence - selective and "eye-catching" intelligence over the period of a year - including, let us not forget, a plagiarised PhD thesis complete with typographical errors, yet according to his lordship, no one is to blame. Prime Minister Blair chose to leave out important information and insert other "eye-catching" information that, according to Butler, should "not have been in the September 2002 dossier, yet no one is to blame.
According to Butler, "there was no case for stating that the parliament and the British public had been misled". So what are we to make of this? The report, while giving plenty of mmunition to the government''s critics, also cushions every blow in the true English spirit of fair play. But we are not talking about a game of cricket here or a game of polo. We are talking about war. The most unevenly contested conflict in the history of modern warfare. And let us not forget the fact that it was this "flawed intelligence" - this "selective" and "eye-catching" information - that was sold to the British public by Blair with the cunning of a second hand car salesman and the zeal of a TV evangelist.
This is what won Blair the March 2003 vote in the House of Commons to pursue his war - a war that according to the Sir Christopher Meyer, the ex-British ambassador to Washington, was planned in September 2001 during dinner with George W. Bush. Although Butler''s thoroughly British report will be seen by Blair as closure to the whole affair, MPs and the British public will see it differently. Both will feel hoodwinked by Blair. Should the UK face a serious threat of war in the near future, it is doubtful whether Blair would be believed.
This could have grave consequences for the security of the UK. Also, in drawing the intelligence services into the political process, Blair has done the country a great disservice at a critical time when trust in these services is essential in the face of the real threat to the UK from international terrorism. What is absolutely clear from the Butler report is that the UK was dragged into a war on false pretences. It is simply just not good enough for Blair to claim now that getting rid of Saddam wasrestore public confidence in the government, a full public enquiry should be conducted into the political judgements that resulted in the Iraq war.
The writer is former lecturer at the University of Durham, UK. He ontributed this article to The Jordan Times. Friday-Saturday, July 16-17, 2004
Saturday, November 25, 2006
US, UK clash over Afghan heroin eradication
By Paul Tate
Heroin was not the natural drug of choice for the disenfranchised youthof the early 1980s. Before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, teenagers in working class run-down housing estates across Western Europe preferred to smoke marijuana, largely to block out the monotony of unemployed life.
All that changed in the early 1980s with the setting up of a "pipeline" by the Pakistani Intelligence Services and the CIA, and funded by Saudi largesse to channel arms and funds to Osama Ben Laden and the Afghan Mujahedeen.
As a quid pro-quo, a blind eye was turned to the heroin that began to flow the other way. This vast supply of cheap high-grade heroin didn''t take long to make its way to Europe''s cities, which have been struggling with the consequences ever since. Wide-scale heroin addiction, crime, gangsterism and corruption, not to mention CIA-trained Islamic extremists,
were just some of the consequences of Afghanistan Mark I.
Twenty-five years later, the country has once again reclaimed its No. 1 spot at the top of the world league of heroin producers. Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan doubled between 2002 and 2003 to a level 36 times higher than in the last year of rule by the Taleban, according to White House figures.
Since the "war on terror" began, heroin production has soared by 1,400 per cent. According to the UN, the combined income of poppy farmers and smugglers last year was around $2.3 billion, a 6 per cent increase on the previous year and fifty per cent of Afghanistan''s legal gross domestic product.
British policy makers have been complaining of late that the US appears to be disinterested in combating the growing drug problem. Given that 95 per cent of the heroin sold on the streets of the UK originates in Afghanistan, as compared to only 5 per cent in the US, British anxiety
is understandable. But there are other reasons the US appears to be once again turning a blind eye to the booming opium trade.
One US official was quoted in Britain''s Guardian newspaper as saying: "You guys [the British] are here because you have a war on drugs, I''m here because we have a war on terror." But the real reason the US is reluctant to make a concerted effort to close down the drug laboratories is that some of its key allies in the Afghan government are thought to be up to their necks in drug money.
The US strategy in Afghanistan Mark II, as was the case in Afghanistan Mark I, is to turn a blind eye to heroin trafficking in order to pursue geopolitical goals. With the country already on the brink of anarchy, and US forces at full stretch, the last thing the Americans want is to
open up another front against the drug barons. Above all, the US doesn''t want to upset the current administration and the forthcoming elections scheduled for Oct. 9. Local commanders have, therefore, been allowed to use profits from drug trafficking to fund their private militias and amass power under the umbrella of the Bush administration''s war on terror.
But as Mirwais Yasini, Afghanistan''s Counter Narcotics Directorate chief, has pointed out, this strategy has already started to backfire. Alliances in Afghanistan follow the old dictum "my enemy''s enemy is my friend".
Today''s allies become tomorrow''s foes. Yasini says he is aware of at least two millionaire drug barons in league with Taleban rebels trying to destabilise the south of the country.
The consequences of inaction are clear: more money in the coffers of local warlords means more weapons which, in turn, leads to greater instability and undermines the fledgling democratic process. Afghanistan''s first post-Taleban elections have already been postponed twice due to increasing violence towards voters and officials. Attacks attributed to the Taleban
and its Al Qaeda allies have claimed more than 1,000 lives in the past 12 months. Only Kabul is considered secure. The rest of the country is in the grip of the warlords.
Efforts to disarm the militias, a precondition for elections under the Bonn 2001 accord, have stalled. Drug cultivation and trafficking are undermining the rule of law and providing a mass of funds for international terrorism and fuelling the Taleban revival, as well as a culture of addiction, crime, bribery and corruption in Afghanistan and the surrounding states.
At particular risk is the Central Asian state of Tajikistan. This desperately poor nation shares a 900-mile border with Afghanistan and is now the preferred route for traffickers. Analysts believe that the country is at risk of turning into a "narco-mafia state" controlled by an economy dependent on the flow of heroin and with links to Al Qaeda and regional Islamists
, precisely what the US claims it intervened in Afghanistan to prevent.
The country is already deeply affected by the fall out from the drugs trail. Tajikistan is experiencing a heroin epidemic akin to that experienced by Britain in the 1980s and all the misery that entails: drug-crime, social and family breakdown, wasted lives and increasing rates of HIV infection.
Meanwhile, in the towns and inner-cities of Europe, a new batch of cheap high-grade heroin is freely available on the streets. In Afghanistan Mark I, the proceeds of this trade went to fund the Mujahedeen against the Russians and, later, the infighting between rival warlords. Now, ironically, the heroin bought by European drug users is funding the forces of international terrorism and the Central Asian mafias - therefore increasing the possibility of wide-scale terrorist attacks and their ability to acquire chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons.
Heroin was not the natural drug of choice for the disenfranchised youthof the early 1980s. Before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, teenagers in working class run-down housing estates across Western Europe preferred to smoke marijuana, largely to block out the monotony of unemployed life.
All that changed in the early 1980s with the setting up of a "pipeline" by the Pakistani Intelligence Services and the CIA, and funded by Saudi largesse to channel arms and funds to Osama Ben Laden and the Afghan Mujahedeen.
As a quid pro-quo, a blind eye was turned to the heroin that began to flow the other way. This vast supply of cheap high-grade heroin didn''t take long to make its way to Europe''s cities, which have been struggling with the consequences ever since. Wide-scale heroin addiction, crime, gangsterism and corruption, not to mention CIA-trained Islamic extremists,
were just some of the consequences of Afghanistan Mark I.
Twenty-five years later, the country has once again reclaimed its No. 1 spot at the top of the world league of heroin producers. Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan doubled between 2002 and 2003 to a level 36 times higher than in the last year of rule by the Taleban, according to White House figures.
Since the "war on terror" began, heroin production has soared by 1,400 per cent. According to the UN, the combined income of poppy farmers and smugglers last year was around $2.3 billion, a 6 per cent increase on the previous year and fifty per cent of Afghanistan''s legal gross domestic product.
British policy makers have been complaining of late that the US appears to be disinterested in combating the growing drug problem. Given that 95 per cent of the heroin sold on the streets of the UK originates in Afghanistan, as compared to only 5 per cent in the US, British anxiety
is understandable. But there are other reasons the US appears to be once again turning a blind eye to the booming opium trade.
One US official was quoted in Britain''s Guardian newspaper as saying: "You guys [the British] are here because you have a war on drugs, I''m here because we have a war on terror." But the real reason the US is reluctant to make a concerted effort to close down the drug laboratories is that some of its key allies in the Afghan government are thought to be up to their necks in drug money.
The US strategy in Afghanistan Mark II, as was the case in Afghanistan Mark I, is to turn a blind eye to heroin trafficking in order to pursue geopolitical goals. With the country already on the brink of anarchy, and US forces at full stretch, the last thing the Americans want is to
open up another front against the drug barons. Above all, the US doesn''t want to upset the current administration and the forthcoming elections scheduled for Oct. 9. Local commanders have, therefore, been allowed to use profits from drug trafficking to fund their private militias and amass power under the umbrella of the Bush administration''s war on terror.
But as Mirwais Yasini, Afghanistan''s Counter Narcotics Directorate chief, has pointed out, this strategy has already started to backfire. Alliances in Afghanistan follow the old dictum "my enemy''s enemy is my friend".
Today''s allies become tomorrow''s foes. Yasini says he is aware of at least two millionaire drug barons in league with Taleban rebels trying to destabilise the south of the country.
The consequences of inaction are clear: more money in the coffers of local warlords means more weapons which, in turn, leads to greater instability and undermines the fledgling democratic process. Afghanistan''s first post-Taleban elections have already been postponed twice due to increasing violence towards voters and officials. Attacks attributed to the Taleban
and its Al Qaeda allies have claimed more than 1,000 lives in the past 12 months. Only Kabul is considered secure. The rest of the country is in the grip of the warlords.
Efforts to disarm the militias, a precondition for elections under the Bonn 2001 accord, have stalled. Drug cultivation and trafficking are undermining the rule of law and providing a mass of funds for international terrorism and fuelling the Taleban revival, as well as a culture of addiction, crime, bribery and corruption in Afghanistan and the surrounding states.
At particular risk is the Central Asian state of Tajikistan. This desperately poor nation shares a 900-mile border with Afghanistan and is now the preferred route for traffickers. Analysts believe that the country is at risk of turning into a "narco-mafia state" controlled by an economy dependent on the flow of heroin and with links to Al Qaeda and regional Islamists
, precisely what the US claims it intervened in Afghanistan to prevent.
The country is already deeply affected by the fall out from the drugs trail. Tajikistan is experiencing a heroin epidemic akin to that experienced by Britain in the 1980s and all the misery that entails: drug-crime, social and family breakdown, wasted lives and increasing rates of HIV infection.
Meanwhile, in the towns and inner-cities of Europe, a new batch of cheap high-grade heroin is freely available on the streets. In Afghanistan Mark I, the proceeds of this trade went to fund the Mujahedeen against the Russians and, later, the infighting between rival warlords. Now, ironically, the heroin bought by European drug users is funding the forces of international terrorism and the Central Asian mafias - therefore increasing the possibility of wide-scale terrorist attacks and their ability to acquire chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons.
Syria will pay price for Hariri murder
By Paul Tate
There is one certainty surrounding the assassination of Rafik Hariri,
the former Lebanese prime minister: no matter who is responsible, Damascus
will pay the price.
Opposition figures inside Lebanon opposed to Syria''s military presence
are now openly pointing the finger of accusation at Syria and President
Emile Lahoud''s pro-Syrian government. For years, the Lebanese have blamed
Syria for a string of political assassinations, but never before have
they declared it publicly.
They now feel confident to oppose Damascus because they sense, quite rightly,
that what is happening in Lebanon is part of a much wider game, involving
an array of anti-Syrian forces. Lebanon, as was the case during the 16-year
civil war, is once again finding itself in the unenviable position of
becoming the theatre for a much wider international conflict.
Syria and its sole ally Iran are now firmly in the US spotlight for possible
regime change, with the former being a much easier option. For months
now, Washington has been turning the heat up on Syria, accusing it of
aiding and abetting the insurgency in Iraq and of "interfering" in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process through its support of Hamas and Hizbollah.
Sanctions have already been placed on Damascus, with more in the pipeline.
Seen in this context, Hariri''s bombing and murder is a gift-horse to
those in Washington gunning for regime change in Damascus and supports,
rather conveniently, America''s claim that Syria is a destabilising force,
not just in Lebanon, but the whole region. The US wasted little time in
recalling its ambassador and bolstering Lebanon''s opposition forces by
calling for Lebanon to be allowed to choose "a path of freedom and independence",
in other words, for Syria to comply with UN Resolution 1559 and withdraw
its 14,000 forces from the country in accordance with the 1991 Taif accord
that ended the 16-year civil war.
Since the end of the cold war and the loss of its Russian ally, Syria''s
strategic hand has steadily weakened. Now isolated and on the defensive,
the regime in Damascus is desperately trying to retain the last card in
its pack: its domination over Lebanon. Lebanon is Syria''s last and most
vital bargaining chip in a 37-year struggle to regain the Golan Heights,
occupied by Israel in the 1967 war.
Through its support for Hizbollah and Palestinian resistance groups, the
regime in Damascus has sought to persuade Israel to negotiate and make
a deal. Israel and the US, on the other hand, have constantly sought to
undermine Syria''s hand, shut down the resistance and isolate both Syria
and the Palestinians. The decision by Ehud Barak to end Israel''s 22-year
occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000 can be viewed in this context.
Ironically, Lebanon is now being used by Syria''s enemies as a platform
from which to exploit it. The once strategic bargaining asset is fast
becoming an Achilles'' heel. The methods once employed by Syria to ensure
domination in Lebanon, such as political manipulation and intimidation,
are now backfiring against the regime with devastating effect.
Syria is steadily losing its grip, highlighted by its diktat to extend
the constitutionally permitted presidential six-year term of pro-Syrian
President Emile Lahoud. The harder Syria pushes to hold on to her prized
possession the more it inflames the opposition, backed by international
powers.
Long-term Syrian allies, such as Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, although
remaining generally supportive of Syria, have been quick to sense the
changing tide and, like others, has decided to swim with the current.
Was Hariri about to jump on board with Jumblatt and back the opposition
and drive another blow against Syria''s bargaining chip in the Middle
East?
One thing is for sure: no matter who was responsible, Hariri''s murder
has severely undermined Syria''s already fragile position in the region,
whilst strengthening the hand of its enemies. It now remains to be seen
whether Syria will acquiesce to US designs in the region and trade in
the Lebanese card in some kind of deal to assure its place in the new
Middle East order, or whether Lebanon will once again become a battleground
for a much larger international conflict.
There is one certainty surrounding the assassination of Rafik Hariri,
the former Lebanese prime minister: no matter who is responsible, Damascus
will pay the price.
Opposition figures inside Lebanon opposed to Syria''s military presence
are now openly pointing the finger of accusation at Syria and President
Emile Lahoud''s pro-Syrian government. For years, the Lebanese have blamed
Syria for a string of political assassinations, but never before have
they declared it publicly.
They now feel confident to oppose Damascus because they sense, quite rightly,
that what is happening in Lebanon is part of a much wider game, involving
an array of anti-Syrian forces. Lebanon, as was the case during the 16-year
civil war, is once again finding itself in the unenviable position of
becoming the theatre for a much wider international conflict.
Syria and its sole ally Iran are now firmly in the US spotlight for possible
regime change, with the former being a much easier option. For months
now, Washington has been turning the heat up on Syria, accusing it of
aiding and abetting the insurgency in Iraq and of "interfering" in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process through its support of Hamas and Hizbollah.
Sanctions have already been placed on Damascus, with more in the pipeline.
Seen in this context, Hariri''s bombing and murder is a gift-horse to
those in Washington gunning for regime change in Damascus and supports,
rather conveniently, America''s claim that Syria is a destabilising force,
not just in Lebanon, but the whole region. The US wasted little time in
recalling its ambassador and bolstering Lebanon''s opposition forces by
calling for Lebanon to be allowed to choose "a path of freedom and independence",
in other words, for Syria to comply with UN Resolution 1559 and withdraw
its 14,000 forces from the country in accordance with the 1991 Taif accord
that ended the 16-year civil war.
Since the end of the cold war and the loss of its Russian ally, Syria''s
strategic hand has steadily weakened. Now isolated and on the defensive,
the regime in Damascus is desperately trying to retain the last card in
its pack: its domination over Lebanon. Lebanon is Syria''s last and most
vital bargaining chip in a 37-year struggle to regain the Golan Heights,
occupied by Israel in the 1967 war.
Through its support for Hizbollah and Palestinian resistance groups, the
regime in Damascus has sought to persuade Israel to negotiate and make
a deal. Israel and the US, on the other hand, have constantly sought to
undermine Syria''s hand, shut down the resistance and isolate both Syria
and the Palestinians. The decision by Ehud Barak to end Israel''s 22-year
occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000 can be viewed in this context.
Ironically, Lebanon is now being used by Syria''s enemies as a platform
from which to exploit it. The once strategic bargaining asset is fast
becoming an Achilles'' heel. The methods once employed by Syria to ensure
domination in Lebanon, such as political manipulation and intimidation,
are now backfiring against the regime with devastating effect.
Syria is steadily losing its grip, highlighted by its diktat to extend
the constitutionally permitted presidential six-year term of pro-Syrian
President Emile Lahoud. The harder Syria pushes to hold on to her prized
possession the more it inflames the opposition, backed by international
powers.
Long-term Syrian allies, such as Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, although
remaining generally supportive of Syria, have been quick to sense the
changing tide and, like others, has decided to swim with the current.
Was Hariri about to jump on board with Jumblatt and back the opposition
and drive another blow against Syria''s bargaining chip in the Middle
East?
One thing is for sure: no matter who was responsible, Hariri''s murder
has severely undermined Syria''s already fragile position in the region,
whilst strengthening the hand of its enemies. It now remains to be seen
whether Syria will acquiesce to US designs in the region and trade in
the Lebanese card in some kind of deal to assure its place in the new
Middle East order, or whether Lebanon will once again become a battleground
for a much larger international conflict.
Tough challenges ahead for Blair
By Paul Tate
British Prime Minister Tony Blair may be putting a brave face on an election
win that gave his party a third consecutive term, but behind the optimistic
faade he will know that it signals the beginning of his demise.
Only 24 hours after his reelection, backbench MPs are already calling
for Blair to step down "sooner rather than later". The embattled British
PM is now regarded as an "electoral liability", according to one former
minister, with the general consensus among party members that the real
hero responsible for bringing Labour back to office is the PM in waiting
and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.
Power struggles have already broken out in the Cabinet, with Deputy Prime
Minister John Prescott and education secretary Ruth Kelly openely defying
Blair in their refusal to move to other posts.
Elected on a mere 36 per cent of the vote and with a reduced majority
in the House of Commons, not to mention a distinct lack of trust on the
part of the UK electorate, one wonders to what extent Blair will be able
to push through his much touted programme of reforms.
On controversial issues such as anti-terror control orders and compulsory
ID cards he will face stiff opposition which could well see them confined
to the filing cabinet for the remainder of his term. Also, in terms of
public service reform, Blair may find himself having to veer more towards
old Labour values of pouring in the cash in his quest for backbench votes,
which will not sit well with the much needed support of middle England,
so crucial to the New Labour venture. Navigating between these to diametrically
opposed political currents will take a lot of diplomacy and capital from
a prime minister who is all but spent up in this regard.
The new term will also require a change in political style from a man
that has so far demonstrated disdain for the consensual approach to decision
making. Due to the government''s sharply reduced majority, backbench Labour
MPs who have been sidelined over the previous eight years will now find
themselves courted by Blair - but will they back him? Gone are the days
when he could simply rely on his huge majority in the Commons to browbeat
the "awkward squad" into swallowing their convictions and back controversial
policies such as the introduction of university tuition fees.
Blair will also be aware that both of Labour''s old foes in the shape
of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have emerged strengthened
from this election. In the inner cities, the Liberals are snapping at
Labour''s heels, picking up votes from traditional Labour voters disillusioned
with the party''s swing to the right and by Blair''s insistence on dragging
Britain into the Iraq war.
This poses a dilemma for the Blair government. The whole New Labour project
has been one of occupying the middle ground - which roughly translates
as the centre-right. Therefore, he has, until now, solely focused on appealing
to conservative values while taking traditional Labour seats for granted.
But as the election results highlight, this strategy appears to be unravelling
with millions of voters defecting to the new party of the left - the Lib
Dems.
In the Tory heartland of middle England, where New Labour was born, Blair
also has to watch his back to ensure that their successes in London are
not repeated elsewhere. He is increasingly being viewed as soft on crime
and immigration, as well as veering towards big government - the antithesis
of the Tory creed, not to mention being too Euro-friendly. Michael Howard''s
decision to step down as Conservative leader, however, has bought Labour
some time. The Tories will be occupied with internal battles for a good
while yet.
On the international stage, and especially in terms of Blair''s partnership
with the Bush administration, the prime minister finds himself considerably
weakened. This will be welcome news in Damascus and Tehran, currently
feeling the heat from the US, but bad news for the Bush-Blair axis. Any
military action against either of these states now seems more unlikely
than ever. Blair is simply too weak in terms of both trust and political
capital to push through a vote in the House of Commons sanctioning another
war. This may well be taken by Iran as a window of opportunity to accelerate
its uranium enrichment programme, therefore forcing the hand of the US
and Israel.
But perhaps the key issue with the potential to unravel not just Blair
but the entire New Labour project will be on the European front - an issue
that has been on the backburner for some time now but which is rapidly
coming to the boil. Blair will follow a policy of wait and see in terms
of the outcome of the May 29 French referendum on the European constitution.
One can''t help but suspect that many in the Blair government wish the
whole matter would just go away. If the French vote yes, Blair will be
forced to follow suit and attempt to sell it to a Euro-sceptic British
public - with all Blair''s political capital and trust exhausted this
appears an impossible task. A referendum defeat on the EU constitution
would spell political disaster and turn the whole of Labour''s third term
into a debate as to whether Britain should break away from Europe. A scenario
such as this would push British politics firmly to the right, while damaging
European and transatlantic relations and completely undermining Britain''s
role as "America''s voice" in Europe.
The UK''s total exports to the EU amount to 9.5 per cent of the country''s
GDP, while member states'' exports to Britain are worth just 2.4 per cent
of their combined GDP. Britain''s succession, therefore, would not be
viewed kindly with negotiating strength firmly in favour of the EU. It
would also see Britain weakened in a world where China, India and Brazil
are emerging as economic powers.
The conclusion seems to be that Blair won Thursday night''s battle but
lost the war. In British politics one thing is certain - a British prime
minister cannot survive without a stable political base in the House of
Commons, especially one that is now regarded by many in his own party
as untrustworthy and a liability.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair may be putting a brave face on an election
win that gave his party a third consecutive term, but behind the optimistic
faade he will know that it signals the beginning of his demise.
Only 24 hours after his reelection, backbench MPs are already calling
for Blair to step down "sooner rather than later". The embattled British
PM is now regarded as an "electoral liability", according to one former
minister, with the general consensus among party members that the real
hero responsible for bringing Labour back to office is the PM in waiting
and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.
Power struggles have already broken out in the Cabinet, with Deputy Prime
Minister John Prescott and education secretary Ruth Kelly openely defying
Blair in their refusal to move to other posts.
Elected on a mere 36 per cent of the vote and with a reduced majority
in the House of Commons, not to mention a distinct lack of trust on the
part of the UK electorate, one wonders to what extent Blair will be able
to push through his much touted programme of reforms.
On controversial issues such as anti-terror control orders and compulsory
ID cards he will face stiff opposition which could well see them confined
to the filing cabinet for the remainder of his term. Also, in terms of
public service reform, Blair may find himself having to veer more towards
old Labour values of pouring in the cash in his quest for backbench votes,
which will not sit well with the much needed support of middle England,
so crucial to the New Labour venture. Navigating between these to diametrically
opposed political currents will take a lot of diplomacy and capital from
a prime minister who is all but spent up in this regard.
The new term will also require a change in political style from a man
that has so far demonstrated disdain for the consensual approach to decision
making. Due to the government''s sharply reduced majority, backbench Labour
MPs who have been sidelined over the previous eight years will now find
themselves courted by Blair - but will they back him? Gone are the days
when he could simply rely on his huge majority in the Commons to browbeat
the "awkward squad" into swallowing their convictions and back controversial
policies such as the introduction of university tuition fees.
Blair will also be aware that both of Labour''s old foes in the shape
of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties have emerged strengthened
from this election. In the inner cities, the Liberals are snapping at
Labour''s heels, picking up votes from traditional Labour voters disillusioned
with the party''s swing to the right and by Blair''s insistence on dragging
Britain into the Iraq war.
This poses a dilemma for the Blair government. The whole New Labour project
has been one of occupying the middle ground - which roughly translates
as the centre-right. Therefore, he has, until now, solely focused on appealing
to conservative values while taking traditional Labour seats for granted.
But as the election results highlight, this strategy appears to be unravelling
with millions of voters defecting to the new party of the left - the Lib
Dems.
In the Tory heartland of middle England, where New Labour was born, Blair
also has to watch his back to ensure that their successes in London are
not repeated elsewhere. He is increasingly being viewed as soft on crime
and immigration, as well as veering towards big government - the antithesis
of the Tory creed, not to mention being too Euro-friendly. Michael Howard''s
decision to step down as Conservative leader, however, has bought Labour
some time. The Tories will be occupied with internal battles for a good
while yet.
On the international stage, and especially in terms of Blair''s partnership
with the Bush administration, the prime minister finds himself considerably
weakened. This will be welcome news in Damascus and Tehran, currently
feeling the heat from the US, but bad news for the Bush-Blair axis. Any
military action against either of these states now seems more unlikely
than ever. Blair is simply too weak in terms of both trust and political
capital to push through a vote in the House of Commons sanctioning another
war. This may well be taken by Iran as a window of opportunity to accelerate
its uranium enrichment programme, therefore forcing the hand of the US
and Israel.
But perhaps the key issue with the potential to unravel not just Blair
but the entire New Labour project will be on the European front - an issue
that has been on the backburner for some time now but which is rapidly
coming to the boil. Blair will follow a policy of wait and see in terms
of the outcome of the May 29 French referendum on the European constitution.
One can''t help but suspect that many in the Blair government wish the
whole matter would just go away. If the French vote yes, Blair will be
forced to follow suit and attempt to sell it to a Euro-sceptic British
public - with all Blair''s political capital and trust exhausted this
appears an impossible task. A referendum defeat on the EU constitution
would spell political disaster and turn the whole of Labour''s third term
into a debate as to whether Britain should break away from Europe. A scenario
such as this would push British politics firmly to the right, while damaging
European and transatlantic relations and completely undermining Britain''s
role as "America''s voice" in Europe.
The UK''s total exports to the EU amount to 9.5 per cent of the country''s
GDP, while member states'' exports to Britain are worth just 2.4 per cent
of their combined GDP. Britain''s succession, therefore, would not be
viewed kindly with negotiating strength firmly in favour of the EU. It
would also see Britain weakened in a world where China, India and Brazil
are emerging as economic powers.
The conclusion seems to be that Blair won Thursday night''s battle but
lost the war. In British politics one thing is certain - a British prime
minister cannot survive without a stable political base in the House of
Commons, especially one that is now regarded by many in his own party
as untrustworthy and a liability.
Fertile ground for radicalism
By Paul Tate
As the shock subsides and realisation sets in concerning the gravity of
the home grown suicide attacks on London last Thursday, the question
on everyone’s lips is: Why did four British-born Pakistani men, one apparently
a primary schoolteacher with a wife and child, deliberately set out to
kill and maim as many of their fellow citizens as possible?
Although troubling to many, the writing has been on the wall for many
years now. Britain has already produced a handful of homegrown suicide
bombers, one of whom, Asif Hanif, 21, from London, accomplished his mission
by walking into a bar in Tel Aviv in 2003 and blowing himself up. His
accomplice, from the English city of Derby, backed out of the mission
and was later found dead floating in the Mediterranean. There was also
the infamous but equally inept “Shoe Bomber”, Richard Reid, who attempted
to blow up a plane bound to Miami from Paris. Fortunately he was overpowered
by passengers before he was able to light the explosive cord concealed
in his shoe and has since been jailed for life in the US.
And there have been many more of their ilk, including Ahmad Omar Saeed
Sheikh, the public school boy and London School of Economics graduate
who masterminded the kidnapping and murder of the American journalist
Daniel Pearl. Sheikh was sentenced to death last year in Pakistan.
So we cannot pretend that this is something new - that British-exported
terrorism wouldn’t come home to roost. Added to this, it is well known
that up to 3,000 British-born Muslims have attended terrorist training
camps in Afghanistan, including, it seems, at least one of the London
bombers, with many more volunteering to fight in Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir
and the newly created crڈme de la crڈme of training grounds - Iraq.
Given this context, the only surprise should be that last Thursday’s barbaric
acts took so long in coming and that the security service MI5 failed to
catch the perpetrators before they had chance to murder innocent civilians.
The radicalisation of a section of British Muslims has long been known,
driven by a desire to align themselves with the forces of global jihad.
When Bush divided the world into good and evil, us or them, and subsequently
invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, for many British Muslims the choice was
made easy and they threw their hands in with Ben Laden.
For this reason it is significant that all four suicide bombers carried
with them some form of identity - no doubt to the consternation of those
who sent them. Already some conspiracy theorists are beginning to cry
foul - why would they carry items that could identify them, they ask.
The answer is simple, they wanted to be known
As the shock subsides and realisation sets in concerning the gravity of
the home grown suicide attacks on London last Thursday, the question
on everyone’s lips is: Why did four British-born Pakistani men, one apparently
a primary schoolteacher with a wife and child, deliberately set out to
kill and maim as many of their fellow citizens as possible?
Although troubling to many, the writing has been on the wall for many
years now. Britain has already produced a handful of homegrown suicide
bombers, one of whom, Asif Hanif, 21, from London, accomplished his mission
by walking into a bar in Tel Aviv in 2003 and blowing himself up. His
accomplice, from the English city of Derby, backed out of the mission
and was later found dead floating in the Mediterranean. There was also
the infamous but equally inept “Shoe Bomber”, Richard Reid, who attempted
to blow up a plane bound to Miami from Paris. Fortunately he was overpowered
by passengers before he was able to light the explosive cord concealed
in his shoe and has since been jailed for life in the US.
And there have been many more of their ilk, including Ahmad Omar Saeed
Sheikh, the public school boy and London School of Economics graduate
who masterminded the kidnapping and murder of the American journalist
Daniel Pearl. Sheikh was sentenced to death last year in Pakistan.
So we cannot pretend that this is something new - that British-exported
terrorism wouldn’t come home to roost. Added to this, it is well known
that up to 3,000 British-born Muslims have attended terrorist training
camps in Afghanistan, including, it seems, at least one of the London
bombers, with many more volunteering to fight in Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir
and the newly created crڈme de la crڈme of training grounds - Iraq.
Given this context, the only surprise should be that last Thursday’s barbaric
acts took so long in coming and that the security service MI5 failed to
catch the perpetrators before they had chance to murder innocent civilians.
The radicalisation of a section of British Muslims has long been known,
driven by a desire to align themselves with the forces of global jihad.
When Bush divided the world into good and evil, us or them, and subsequently
invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, for many British Muslims the choice was
made easy and they threw their hands in with Ben Laden.
For this reason it is significant that all four suicide bombers carried
with them some form of identity - no doubt to the consternation of those
who sent them. Already some conspiracy theorists are beginning to cry
foul - why would they carry items that could identify them, they ask.
The answer is simple, they wanted to be known
Australia and Canada close embassies, citing security threat
By Paul Tate
AMMAN — Australia and Canada closed their embassies here indefinitely on Sunday due to an undisclosed security threat, a day after Britain closed its embassy citing similar security concerns.
“Reports suggest terrorists may be in the final stages of planning attacks against Westerners and places frequented by Westerners in Jordan,” said a statement on Sunday posted on the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.
The statement advised its citizens to exercise a “high degree of caution in Jordan because of the high risk of a terrorist attack.”
Both embassies announced that their premises would remain closed until further notice. No one at either embassy was available for comment.
Britain closed its embassy in Amman on Saturday. While giving no specific details on the nature of the threat, a spokesperson from the embassy told The Jordan Times that it would remain closed until further notice “due to a security alert.”
Jordanian Government Spokesman Nasser Judeh in a statement on Sunday to the Jordan News Agency, Petra, said the security threat against the embassies was not sufficient to warrant their closure.
Judeh did not comment on the reasons behind the decision to close the embassies but said that the Kingdom's security agencies had made a full assessment of the situation and had informed the three embassies of the threat level.
“In this case the security authorities concluded that the threats did not warrant the closures,” Judeh said.
However, he added that security around the embassies had been reinforced.
“Jordan is committed to use all its available resources to provide full security as required to all diplomatic missions,” Judeh said.
British Ambassador to Jordan Christopher Prentice praised Jordanian security departments on Sunday for ensuring the embassy's safety, according to the Jordan News Agency, Petra.
When asked about the reasons for the embassy closure, Prentice said a threat came via the Internet. He also expressed hope that the embassy would open as soon as possible.
The decision to close the embassies comes amid heightened security measures throughout the country following the November 2005 suicide attacks on three of the capital's hotels, which left 60 people dead and around 100 injured.
Al Qaeda in Iraq, led by Jordanian fugitive Abu Mussab Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for the attacks.
Shortly after the bombings, the group posted an Internet statement on an Islamist website promising more attacks against places frequented by foreigners, and warning Jordanians to avoid visiting hotels, embassies and tourist sites.
Since the attacks, security has been stepped up at the country's major institutions and leisure facilities, with metal detectors and security guards becoming a regular feature of life in the capital at the entrances to hotels, restaurants and shopping malls.
In August 2005, a Jordanian soldier was killed during a rocket attack on two American warships docked in the southern Port of Aqaba. The incident was also blamed on the group led by Zarqawi.
In 2004, the State Security Court sentenced Zarqawi to death in absentia after convicting him, along with six others, of the murder of USAID officer Laurence Foley, who was gunned down outside his Amman home in October 2002.
Monday,January 9, 2006
AMMAN — Australia and Canada closed their embassies here indefinitely on Sunday due to an undisclosed security threat, a day after Britain closed its embassy citing similar security concerns.
“Reports suggest terrorists may be in the final stages of planning attacks against Westerners and places frequented by Westerners in Jordan,” said a statement on Sunday posted on the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website.
The statement advised its citizens to exercise a “high degree of caution in Jordan because of the high risk of a terrorist attack.”
Both embassies announced that their premises would remain closed until further notice. No one at either embassy was available for comment.
Britain closed its embassy in Amman on Saturday. While giving no specific details on the nature of the threat, a spokesperson from the embassy told The Jordan Times that it would remain closed until further notice “due to a security alert.”
Jordanian Government Spokesman Nasser Judeh in a statement on Sunday to the Jordan News Agency, Petra, said the security threat against the embassies was not sufficient to warrant their closure.
Judeh did not comment on the reasons behind the decision to close the embassies but said that the Kingdom's security agencies had made a full assessment of the situation and had informed the three embassies of the threat level.
“In this case the security authorities concluded that the threats did not warrant the closures,” Judeh said.
However, he added that security around the embassies had been reinforced.
“Jordan is committed to use all its available resources to provide full security as required to all diplomatic missions,” Judeh said.
British Ambassador to Jordan Christopher Prentice praised Jordanian security departments on Sunday for ensuring the embassy's safety, according to the Jordan News Agency, Petra.
When asked about the reasons for the embassy closure, Prentice said a threat came via the Internet. He also expressed hope that the embassy would open as soon as possible.
The decision to close the embassies comes amid heightened security measures throughout the country following the November 2005 suicide attacks on three of the capital's hotels, which left 60 people dead and around 100 injured.
Al Qaeda in Iraq, led by Jordanian fugitive Abu Mussab Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for the attacks.
Shortly after the bombings, the group posted an Internet statement on an Islamist website promising more attacks against places frequented by foreigners, and warning Jordanians to avoid visiting hotels, embassies and tourist sites.
Since the attacks, security has been stepped up at the country's major institutions and leisure facilities, with metal detectors and security guards becoming a regular feature of life in the capital at the entrances to hotels, restaurants and shopping malls.
In August 2005, a Jordanian soldier was killed during a rocket attack on two American warships docked in the southern Port of Aqaba. The incident was also blamed on the group led by Zarqawi.
In 2004, the State Security Court sentenced Zarqawi to death in absentia after convicting him, along with six others, of the murder of USAID officer Laurence Foley, who was gunned down outside his Amman home in October 2002.
Monday,January 9, 2006
Jordan’s security boosted by Zarqawi’s demise — analysts
By Paul Tate
AMMAN — The prospect of further large-scale terrorist attacks in Jordan has been significantly reduced as a result of the death of Al Qaeda frontman in Iraq Abu Mussab Zarqawi, analysts said on Sunday.
The Jordanian-born militant was killed late Wednesday after two US F16s dropped a pair of 500lb bombs on his safe house in Hibhib, a village 48km northeast of Baghdad.
“Zarqawi’s demise is definitely positive for Jordan as he had a long-standing grudge against the regime and was heavily involved in planning and staging attacks in the country, said Joost Hiltermann, the Middle East project director of International Crisis Group.
In addition to leading scores of bombing campaigns in Iraq, Zarqawi was a strong proponent of spreading the jihad to neighbouring countries, as evidenced by his hand in masterminding the November 2005 triple suicide bombings in Amman.
The attacks against three of the capital’s hotels left 60 people dead and around a hundred injured.
In an Internet statement following the bombings, Zarqawi threatened more attacks and denounced Jordan as a land “crawling with American and Zionist spies.”
“Zarqawi’s grudge against the Monarchy dates back to the late 1980s when he returned radicalised from the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan,” Hiltermann said.
On returning to Jordan, Zarqawi attempted to form a jihadi cell which ended in failure when authorities broke up his group after an unsuccessful attempt to attack Israeli targets. He was sent to prison only to be released in a Royal amnesty in 1999.
“Of all the neighbouring countries, Jordan will benefit most from the news that Zarqawi is no longer active,” according to political analyst and Al Ghad columnist Muhammad Abu Rumman.
“Iraq gave Zarqawi the perfect training and recruiting ground to export the jihad here. Although he was based in Iraq, there is no doubt that his eyes were always fixed on his homeland,” Abu Rumman said.
Hiltermann said the likelihood of Zarqawi’s followers in Jordan carrying out attacks in emulation or support of their slain leader was minimal, adding that although local followers have the technical know-how they have been thoroughly infiltrated by the security forces.
“The chances now of large- scale Al Qaeda synchronised attacks has been greatly reduced with the end of Zarqawi. If there are attacks by his followers here seeking to emulate him they are much more likely to be sporadic, low-key and unorganised,” said Hilterman.
Fares Braizat, from the University of Jordan’s Centre for Strategic Studies, agreed that the threat to Jordan came from Zarqawi’s ability to use Iraq as a base for his wider struggle.
“His ability to recruit experienced and battle-hardened foreign militants posed a serious threat to Jordan’s security, as evidenced by the four Iraqis who carried out the November attacks, said Braizat.
Analysts agreed that the new Al Qaeda leardership in Iraq is now much more likely to be focussed on finding a new leader, which may lead to an internal power struggle.
The organisation will also be seeking to show that they have not been affected by the loss of their leader, a position that will translate into an increase in attacks on coalition forces, according to Braizat.
Hiltermann, however, sounded a note of caution.
“We shouldn’t jump the gun and need to wait and see who the new leader is going to be. If the leader turns out to be another Jordanian then the country may well remain the frame for some time to come.”
Monday, June 12, 2006
AMMAN — The prospect of further large-scale terrorist attacks in Jordan has been significantly reduced as a result of the death of Al Qaeda frontman in Iraq Abu Mussab Zarqawi, analysts said on Sunday.
The Jordanian-born militant was killed late Wednesday after two US F16s dropped a pair of 500lb bombs on his safe house in Hibhib, a village 48km northeast of Baghdad.
“Zarqawi’s demise is definitely positive for Jordan as he had a long-standing grudge against the regime and was heavily involved in planning and staging attacks in the country, said Joost Hiltermann, the Middle East project director of International Crisis Group.
In addition to leading scores of bombing campaigns in Iraq, Zarqawi was a strong proponent of spreading the jihad to neighbouring countries, as evidenced by his hand in masterminding the November 2005 triple suicide bombings in Amman.
The attacks against three of the capital’s hotels left 60 people dead and around a hundred injured.
In an Internet statement following the bombings, Zarqawi threatened more attacks and denounced Jordan as a land “crawling with American and Zionist spies.”
“Zarqawi’s grudge against the Monarchy dates back to the late 1980s when he returned radicalised from the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan,” Hiltermann said.
On returning to Jordan, Zarqawi attempted to form a jihadi cell which ended in failure when authorities broke up his group after an unsuccessful attempt to attack Israeli targets. He was sent to prison only to be released in a Royal amnesty in 1999.
“Of all the neighbouring countries, Jordan will benefit most from the news that Zarqawi is no longer active,” according to political analyst and Al Ghad columnist Muhammad Abu Rumman.
“Iraq gave Zarqawi the perfect training and recruiting ground to export the jihad here. Although he was based in Iraq, there is no doubt that his eyes were always fixed on his homeland,” Abu Rumman said.
Hiltermann said the likelihood of Zarqawi’s followers in Jordan carrying out attacks in emulation or support of their slain leader was minimal, adding that although local followers have the technical know-how they have been thoroughly infiltrated by the security forces.
“The chances now of large- scale Al Qaeda synchronised attacks has been greatly reduced with the end of Zarqawi. If there are attacks by his followers here seeking to emulate him they are much more likely to be sporadic, low-key and unorganised,” said Hilterman.
Fares Braizat, from the University of Jordan’s Centre for Strategic Studies, agreed that the threat to Jordan came from Zarqawi’s ability to use Iraq as a base for his wider struggle.
“His ability to recruit experienced and battle-hardened foreign militants posed a serious threat to Jordan’s security, as evidenced by the four Iraqis who carried out the November attacks, said Braizat.
Analysts agreed that the new Al Qaeda leardership in Iraq is now much more likely to be focussed on finding a new leader, which may lead to an internal power struggle.
The organisation will also be seeking to show that they have not been affected by the loss of their leader, a position that will translate into an increase in attacks on coalition forces, according to Braizat.
Hiltermann, however, sounded a note of caution.
“We shouldn’t jump the gun and need to wait and see who the new leader is going to be. If the leader turns out to be another Jordanian then the country may well remain the frame for some time to come.”
Monday, June 12, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)