Intelligence

February 25, 2005

IRA plc turns from terror into biggest crime gang in Europe

IRA plc turns from terror into biggest crime gang in Europe

By David Lister and Sean O'Neill
The Republicans' crooked business empire rakes in huge amounts

The traditional face of the IRA: a mural in West Belfast showing its paramilitaries with arms (PETER NICHOLLS)

AN ANALYSIS of the IRA's involvement in criminal activities shows a huge range of operations, from smuggling to money laundering and from robbery to mortgage applications.

ALCOHOL

The IRA is believed to have perfected the recipe for Smirnoff Red Label vodka, among other spirits, and has a well-developed distribution network for its counterfeit products in pubs and clubs which it controls, particularly in Belfast.

Raids on illegal distilleries, mainly in border areas, have uncovered bottling and capping machinery and high- quality copies of brand labels. Many of the products are designed for use in pub optics.

Police found the seven-stage filtration machinery for deionising water not long after Diageo, the drinks company, had introduced the process at its plants. "They use industrial espionage to copy machinery, recipes and labels and are prepared to be very patient to get things absolutely right," said a police source.

The IRA takes the production of counterfeit spirits so seriously that it even has a quality control unit. Diageo and other companies have countered with a security division which works with police and Customs on both sides of the Irish border. Last December Irish Customs seized 1,500 litres of pure alcohol on the Cooley peninsula, Co Louth, as well as printing presses and labels for a variety of vodka brands.

A Diageo spokesman said: "We are very concerned about this illegal trade. It impacts on our consumers, on government revenues and on us as the brand owners."

ROBBERY

The IRA's "elite robbery team" is a dedicated unit allegedly run by Bobby Storey, its director of intelligence who is revered by republicans for his anti-surveillance expertise.

The group's income through robberies varies from year to year. According to Special Branch, Storey played a central role in the theft of £26.5 million from the Northern Bank just before Christmas and organised three other robberies which netted a further £3 million last year.

In each case the IRA used a tactic known as "tiger kidnapping", where the family of an employee is held hostage to ensure his or her co-operation. Since April last year there have been eleven "tiger kidnappings", at least four of which have been blamed on the IRA.

In one such raid at the Makro cash-and-carry store outside Belfast last May, four staff were held at gunpoint, tied up and gagged. Cigarettes, alcohol and electrical items worth more than £1 million were stolen. In October the IRA stole cigarettes worth £2 million from a warehouse in Ardoyne, North Belfast, owned by Gallaher's tobacco company. Over the past two years it has stolen cigarettes worth nearly £4 million from lorries passing through South Armagh. The IRA has also been able to import cigarette cargos through Dublin port.

In the Irish Republic smaller-scale robberies of security vans and post offices have been used to train new recruits.

CROSS-BORDER SMUGGLING

Smuggling is a way of life in South Armagh, the heartland of militant republicanism. According to Customs, about half of Northern Ireland's filling stations sell fuel smuggled from the Irish Republic, where duty is considerably lower, at a cost to the Treasury of about £200 million a year.

Fuel smuggling, much of it organised by the notorious South Armagh "brigade", is now arguably the IRA's single largest source of income. "What the IRA love is excise and revenue frauds, and the fuel smuggling is on an industrial scale," said a security source. "Diesel in the Republic is about 66 or 67p per litre, so straight away you can make a profit of about 15p per litre.

"They get even more with agricultural diesel, which they buy at around 15-20p per litre, then use chemical processes to wash the dye and the markers out of it. It is then sold as ordinary car fuel for 70 to 80p per litre."

According to the Organised Crime Task Force, the IRA's fuel-laundering plants — often concealed in barns along the border — produce up to five million litres of illegal fuel each year, making an annual profit of at least £3 million.

About a third of all cigarettes in Northern Ireland are also smuggled, much of this proportion by the IRA, according to Customs. The cigarettes are typically brought in by the container-load from zero or low-tax countries such as Thailand, China and Turkey. A 40ft container can hold ten million cigarettes worth £1.5 million.

The IRA is still heavily involved in smuggling sheep and livestock across the border so that farmers can take advantage of VAT differences in the Republic, which allows them to claim a rebate for lambs.

In recent months the IRA has embarked on a new activity: the illegal dumping of household waste from the Republic, where residents now have to pay "bin taxes". Police have identified at least five illegal dumping sites in Northern Ireland, with waste ranging from 5,000 to 25,000 tonnes with a value of up to £5,000 per 20-tonne lorryload.

IP CRIME

"Wherever there is a penny to be made, these boys will be turning their hands to it," said one security official.

Seizures of pirate DVDs, CDs and computer games and software are at record levels but the quantity of goods recovered is believed to be dwarfed by how much escapes detection.

The paramilitaries have long been involved in this trade and the IRA's links with America gave it access to new releases. Today much of the illegal product in the province is burnt on to DVDs locally after master copies are imported or downloaded.

Last weekend counterfeit goods worth £200,000, including DVDs, videos, CDs, fireworks and electrical items, were seized in Jonesborough in the heart of South Armagh.

The IRA's counterfeiting operations extend to fake football strips, designer clothes, power tools and, in a recent discovery, a well-known brand of washing powder.

In the past it has been involved in the smuggling and sale of fake-branded disposable razors, toothpaste and other toiletries sold door to door. In one notorious example, a fake perfume seized at a market in Northern Ireland contained urine as a stabiliser.

CONSULTANCY

Special Branch believes that the IRA received up to $6 million (£3.1 million) for helping to train Marxist rebels in Colombia, where three alleged IRA members are wanted after vanishing on bail last December.

The payment was allegedly negotiated by a former IRA "chief of staff" who has worldwide contacts — including in Libya, where republicans are believed to have deposited some of the proceeds from their vast criminal empire.

Other senior republicans have also travelled to cultivate links with the PLO in the Middle East and Eta in Spain. In the past IRA men trained alongside ANC guerrillas in South Africa.

Police say that other payments have almost certainly been received from overseas for the IRA's terrorist expertise in intelligence gathering to bomb-making.

According to Special Branch, the IRA is also heavily involved in providing security services for pubs, clubs and other venues in Belfast. The group does not officially deal in drugs but it is believed to have "licensed" the trade of illegal drugs by the dissident groups and independent dealers in Dublin.

MONEY LAUNDERING AND FINANCIAL CRIME

The IRA's finance unit is said to have contributed to Belfast's property boom by investing in property.

Detectives investigating a suspected IRA money-laundering network in the Republic believe that it controls a huge business portfolio including pubs, restaurants, night clubs, office blocks, taxi firms, filling stations and nursing homes. Often the IRA invests as a silent partner in legitimate businesses.

The authorities also believe that the terrorist group has been looking at property opportunities overseas, particularly in fast-growing markets outside the European Union such as Bulgaria, Turkey and Libya.

"You just can't quantify it," said one official. "The money is put through so many channels that it's impossible to know. Nobody knows how much property they have, but it's a lot."

Other financial crimes include insurance and compensation frauds, VAT frauds, and the diversion of government and EU grants.

In West Belfast, the IRA even helps ordinary Roman Catholics to forge mortgage applications, offering bogus references and salary statements in return for a share of the loan.

February 25, 2005 at 01:19 AM in IRA | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

February 17, 2005

Analysis: Lebanese 'Muppets' in disarray

Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World

ORLY HALPERN, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 16, 2005

On the day of the car bombing that killed former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese Daily Star printed an opinion piece titled, "Lebanon's politicians head for 'Muppet' status."

"The Lebanese political scene is quickly turning into a Muppet show performance, where well-rehearsed actors accuse each other of being puppets on strings, choreographed by foreign powers," read the opening sentence. The writer was referring to the back-and-forth banter between the pro-Syrian government and the opposition, which wants a Syrian withdrawal.

But the bomb that exploded hours after the newspapers were delivered also shattered the "puppet play" in which all the actors knew their "roles." The Lebanese people, who have for the most part tried to avoid getting into any situation that could spiral them back into a civil war, are now acting in defiance.

People are setting out thousands of candles in both Muslim and Christian neighborhoods of the capital for Hariri, "who died as a martyr for the independence of Lebanon."

More significantly, the fragmented opposition, which over the past two months has tried to become more united and more vocal, has become just that overnight.

Last week saw the height of the opposition's gall so far when it called vocally for a Syrian withdrawal. Its calls were so provocative that Lebanese Prime Minister Omar Karameh warned them that they have "crossed the red lines." But from the point of view of the opposition, the assassination of one of its key leaders crossed all its red lines.

Hours after the bombing opposition members met at Hariri's house and left declaring the Lebanese and Syrian governments responsible for the assassination. Sources say that the different opposition groups – Aoun, Qornet Shehwan, Jumblatt, Gemayel, the Democratic Left and independents – are all collaborating to plan the next move.

They had already made a significant start last December, forming the largest multi-sectarian bloc in the history of Lebanon three months after a constitutional amendment was made allowing the pro-Syrian president to extend his term for another three years.

The bloc was headed by Druse overlord and MP Walid Jumblat.

Still, some people fear that the chaos created by Hariri's death may cause the country to spiral into civil war once again.

A Syrian analyst told The Jerusalem Post that Damascus is unmoved by the bombing. "There is a disconnect there that is quite remarkable. The only intelligent thing to do now would be to start an immediate withdrawal from Lebanon," said the source. "But knowing Syria's leaders, this is unlikely to happen.

"Reasonableness, flexibility or pragmatism are no longer attributes of Syria's decaying regime," he said. "If indeed they had ever been."

February 17, 2005 at 08:46 AM in Middle East | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Analysis: A powerful message that could boomerang

Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World

ORLY HALPERN, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 15, 2005

The murderers of Rafik Hariri knew their target was among the most significant figures in Lebanon. The self-made billionaire helped reconstruct his country after a destructive civil war, knew all the top people in Washington and was a personal friend of French President Jacques Chirac and Saudi Arabia's King Fahd.

"You can't go any higher than blowing up Hariri in the middle of Beirut in the middle of the day," said one analyst in Beirut. "It's a very powerful message to all the Lebanese, and to the opposition."

Hariri was the key figure of the Lebanese opposition to the Syrian presence in Lebanon. Some say he was pushing the US and France to pass the UN resolution calling on Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon last September.

But the bomb that ripped through his armored motorcade may have a boomerang effect. Lebanese opposition leaders on Monday night were sounding braver than ever.

Following a meeting in the dead man's home, the kingpins of the Lebanese opposition made a shockingly direct accusation. They said their country was "captive" and they held the Syrian and Lebanese governments responsible for Hariri's death.

Lebanese and foreign analysts say the opposition will now "double its efforts" to push Syria out and gain power in the parliamentary elections that will take place in May. It has already asked for the help of the international community.

Still, analysts and Lebanese were confused by the murder. While everyone agreed that Syria was the obvious culprit because of Hariri's calls for its withdrawal, killing him does more harm than good for Syria.

"It's totally illogical that Syria would do it," said Prof. Eyal Zisser, a Syria expert at the Dayan Institute for Middle East Studies at Tel Aviv University. "It would be such a stupid move on their part. Everyone is watching them and they don't want to destabilize Lebanon."

But, the order for the assassination may not have come from the Syrian government.

"I wouldn't point the finger at Damascus necessarily," Simon Williams, a senior analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit in London, told The Jerusalem Post. "I would look at those acting on behalf of Syria. There are people making decisions inside Lebanon on Syria's behalf that I really don't think have the backing of Syrian leadership."

Reuven Merhav, the former director of Israel's quasi-embassy in Beirut in 1983 and later a director-general of the Foreign Ministry, pointed to Hariri's conflict with Lebanese President Emile Lahoud.

"He didn't make it a secret that he thinks Lahoud is a puppet of the Syrians," he said.

Merhav said Hariri could have been killed for business-related reasons, adding, "He did very big reconstruction projects in Beirut."

Most agreed that the sensational attack did not suit the style of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

"Bashar? It's certainly not his style," said Edward Walker, president of the Middle East Institute in Washington. "I don't think it's something he would do."

Walker told the Post it was not inconceivable that Bashar knew nothing about it and intelligence agents were acting independently with their Lebanese counterparts.

"The same Syrian security services that were there during the civil war in Lebanon are still around," he said.

If Assad was not behind the murder then, as US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said recently, "Bashar is not in control."

Analysts agree.

"Bashar doesn't have control over his country and his people," Walker said. "He doesn't have the death grip [that his father did] over the security forces."

No matter who was behind Hariri's death, the actual bombing can hurt Lebanon in a number of ways. Killing a key figure in broad daylight destabilizes its standing in the international community.

"People won't take the government seriously," said Walker, who served in the US Embassy in Beirut in the 1970s.

The death of the most prominent economic figure in Lebanon could also be detrimental. Hariri organized an international consortium, under France's direction, that bailed out Lebanon. That consortium could fall apart and cause an economic meltdown in the country.

Lastly, Beirut and "war-torn" had recently stopped being in the same sentence. Hariri had rebuilt the city and helped turn it once again into a luxurious vacation spot for Westerners and visitors from the Gulf, who enjoy five-star hotels and expensive restaurants along the fancy waterfront. Last year's 30 percent rise in tourism is now likely to take a nosedive.

What remains to be seen is how this sensational attack will affect the Lebanese people in the upcoming elections. Some may choose to vote for a pro-Syrian government to avoid another civil war.

"A lot of people will be saying we're only 15 years from a major civil war," Williams said. "We need to make sure that we're not running back on that path."

February 17, 2005 at 08:44 AM in Middle East | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

February 16, 2005

'Rogue states' join forces to confront America

Times Online - World

By Roland Watson
Washington piles on the pressure after assasination as Iran and Syria form a common front

IRAN and Syria announced a common front against the United States yesterday as Washington ratcheted up its pressure on two of the countries highest on its list of rogue states.

“We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats,” Mohammad Reza Aref, the Iranian VicePresident, said after meeting Naji al-Otari, the Syrian Prime Minister, in Tehran.

“This meeting, which takes place at this sensitive time, is important, especially because Syria and Iran face several challenges and it is necessary to build a common front,” Mr al-Otari said.

Neither country elaborated on what the common front would entail, though Iranian state television said that Tehran would share with Syria its experience of dealing with sanctions. But the two countries, positioned on either side of Iraq, have enormous capacity to deepen the chaos in that country, cause further trouble in Lebanon and sponsor terrorist attacks abroad.

The White House responded by sharply reminding both states that they had “international obligations and needed to abide by the commitments they have made to the international community”.

The rising tensions in the region were amply demonstrated when Iranian television reported a powerful explosion near the Iranian port of Deylam, in the Gulf. Witnesses claimed to have seen an unidentified aircraft firing a missile.

Financial markets plunged and oil prices rose amid fears that Israel had launched a pre-emptive strike on the Bushehr nuclear facility 100 miles away, as it did against the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.

By nightfall the Iranian military was saying that the explosion was connected to the construction of a dam, although that was merely the latest of several explanations.

Early in the day, before the explosion, Tehran had accused the US of using drones and other aircraft to spy on Iran’s nuclear and military installations and promised to shoot them down. “We have the means to hit them and if they get near, our anti-aircraft defence systems will attend to it,” Ali Younessi, the Iranian Intelligence Minister, said.

Washington has long accused Syria of harbouring terrorists and assisting the insurgency in Iraq, but it has sharply increased its verbal attacks on Syria since the assassination on Monday of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, in Beirut.

Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese mourners crowded into Beirut’s central square yesterday, turning Mr Hariri’s funeral into a mass demonstration against Syrian domination of its small neighbour.

The US used the event to demand the immediate withdrawal of Syria’s 15,000 troops from Lebanon. The death of Mr Hariri “must give renewed impetus to achieving a free, independent and sovereign Lebanon. What that means is the complete and immediate withdrawal by Syria of all of its forces in Lebanon,” Nicholas Burns, the Assistant Secretary of State, who represented President Bush at the funeral, said.

Mr Burns also said that Washington would be watching Lebanon’s elections this spring for signs of Syrian meddling: “The Lebanese people must be allowed to make their own political choices and to conduct those elections on their own, free of foreign interference and intimidation.”

The issue that is driving the US and Iran closer to confrontation is Tehran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In Washington yesterday, Porter Goss, the Director of the CIA, told Congress that Iran was stepping up efforts to build long-range missiles.

In London, Silvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, said that Iran would know within six months how to build a nuclear bomb. “They are trying very hard to develop the nuclear bomb,” he said. “This kind of extreme regime with a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us. The question is not if the Iranians will have a nuclear bomb in 2009, 2010 or 2011. The main question is when are they going to have the knowledge to do it. We believe in six months they will end all the tests and experiments they are doing to have that knowledge.”

Iran insists that its pursuit of nuclear know-how is confined to energy production, but the US believes that the projects are cover for its ambitions for atomic weaponry.

Syria’s decision to stand so publicly shoulder-to-shoulder with Iran surprised no one in the Bush Administration. For years, US officials have accused Syria of complicity in Iran’s funding of, and support for, Hezbollah terrorists who target Israel.

February 16, 2005 at 11:35 PM in Iran | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

February 14, 2005

Secretary Condoleezza Rice: Remarks at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris - Sciences Po

Remarks at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris - Sciences Po

Paris, France
February 8, 2005

[audio]

(11:00 a.m. EST)

Secretary Rice remarks at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris - Sciences Po.SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very, very much. Thank you for those warm and welcoming words. And let me also thank the people of France for being such perfect hosts. I've just arrived. I wish I could stay longer. But it's such a wonderful city; it's wonderful to be here. I look forward to my discussions here with President Chirac, with Foreign Minister Barnier and with others. And -- as a pianist -- tomorrow I look forward to visiting one of your fine music schools.

It is a real special pleasure for me to be here at Sciences Po. For more than 130 years, this fine institution has trained thinkers and leaders. As a political scientist myself, I appreciate very much the important work that you do.

The history of the United States and that of France are intertwined. Our history is a history of shared values, of shared sacrifice and of shared successes. So, too, will be our shared future.

I remember well my first visit to Paris -- here -- my visit to Paris here in 1989, when I had the honor of accompanying President George Herbert Walker Bush to the bicentennial celebration of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Americans celebrated our own bicentennial in that same year, the 200th anniversary of our nation's Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Those shared celebrations were more than mere coincidence. The founders of both the French and American republics were inspired by the very same values, and by each other. They shared the universal values of freedom and democracy and human dignity that have inspired men and women across the globe for centuries.

Standing up for liberty is as old as our country. It was our very first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who said, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." Now the American founders realized that they, like all human beings, are flawed creatures, and that any government established by man would be imperfect. Even the great authors of our liberty sometimes fell short of liberty's promise – even Jefferson, himself, a slave owner.

So we are fortunate that our founders established a democratic system of, by, and for the people that contained within it a way for citizens -- especially for impatient patriots -- to correct even its most serious flaws. Human imperfections do not discredit democratic ideals; they make them more precious, and they make impatient patriots of our own time work harder to achieve them.

Men and women, both great and humble, have shown us the power of human agency in this work. In my own experience, a black woman named Rosa Parks was just tired one day of being told to sit in the back of a bus, so she refused to move. And she touched off a revolution of freedom across the American South.

In Poland, Lech Walesa had had enough of the lies and the exploitation, so he climbed a wall and he joined a strike for his rights; and Poland was transformed.

In Afghanistan just a few months ago, men and women, once oppressed by the Taliban, walked miles, forded streams and stood hours in the snow just to cast a ballot for their first vote as a free people.

And just a few days ago in Iraq, millions of Iraqi men and women defied the terrorist threats and delivered a clarion call for freedom. Individual Iraqis risked their lives. One policeman threw his body on a suicide bomber to preserve the right of his fellow citizens to vote. They cast their free votes, and they began their nation's new history.

These examples demonstrate a basic truth -- the truth that human dignity is embodied in the free choice of individuals.

We witnessed the power of that truth in that remarkable year of 1989 when the Berlin Wall was brought down by ordinary men and women in East Germany. Yet, that day of freedom in November 1989 could never have happened without the full support of the free nations of the West.

Time and again in our shared history, Americans and Europeans have enjoyed our greatest successes, for ourselves and for others, when we refused to accept an unacceptable status quo -- but instead, put our values to work in the service of freedom.

And we have achieved much together. Today, a democratic Germany is unified within NATO, and tyranny no longer stalks the heart of Europe. NATO and the European Union have since welcomed Europe's newest democracies into our ranks; and we have used our growing strength for peace. And just a decade ago, Southeastern Europe was aflame. Today, we are working toward lasting reconciliation in the Balkans, and to fully integrate the Balkans into the European mainstream.

These achievements have only been possible because America and Europe have stood firm in the belief that the fundamental character of regimes cannot be separated from their external behavior. Borders between countries cannot be peaceful if tyrants destroy the peace of their societies from within. States where corruption, and chaos and cruelty reign invariably pose threats to their neighbors, threats to their regions, and potential threats to the entire international community.

Our work together has only begun. In our time we have an historic opportunity to shape a global balance of power that favors freedom -- and that will therefore deepen and extend the peace. And I use the word "power" broadly, because even more important than military and indeed economic power is the power of ideas, the power of compassion, and the power of hope.

I am here in Europe so that we can talk about how America and Europe can use the power of our partnership to advance our ideals worldwide. President Bush will continue our conversation when he arrives in Europe on February 21st. He is determined to strengthen transatlantic ties. As the President said in his recent Inaugural Address: "All that we seek to achieve in the world requires that America and Europe remain close partners."

I believe that our greatest achievements are yet to come. The challenges of a post-September-11 world are no less daunting than those challenges that we faced and that our forebears faced in the Cold War. The same bold vision, moral courage and determined leadership will be required if we are again to prevail over repression and intimidation and intolerance.

Our charge is clear: We on the right side of freedom's divide have an obligation to help those unlucky enough to have been born on the wrong side of that divide.

This obligation requires us to adapt to new circumstances -- and we are doing that. NATO has enlarged not only its membership, but its vision. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe now operates not only on a continent whole, free and at peace, but beyond Europe, as well. The agenda of U.S.-EU cooperation is wider than ever, and still growing, along with the European Union itself.

We agree on the interwoven threats we face today: Terrorism, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and regional conflicts, and failed states and organized crime.

We have not always seen eye to eye; however, on how to address these threats. We have had our disagreements. But it is time to turn away from the disagreements of the past. It is time to open a new chapter in our relationship, and a new chapter in our alliance.

America stands ready to work with Europe on our common agenda -- and Europe must stand ready to work with America. After all, history will surely judge us not by our old disagreements, but by our new achievements.

The key to our future success lies in getting beyond a partner based on common threats, and building an even stronger partnership based on common opportunities, even those beyond the transatlantic community.

We can be confident of our success in this because the fair wind of freedom is at our back. Freedom is spreading: From the villages of Afghanistan to the squares in Ukraine, from the streets in the Palestinian territories to the streets of Georgia, to the polling stations of Iraq.

Freedom defines our opportunity and our challenge. It is a challenge that we are determined to meet.

First, we are joining together to encourage political pluralism, economic openness and the growth of civil society through the broader Middle East initiative.

The flagship of that initiative is the Forum for the Future -- a partnership of progress between the democratic world and nearly two-dozen nations, extending from Morocco to Pakistan. The Forum's mission is to support and accelerate political, economic and educational reform. Its first meeting in Rabat last December was a great success.

Beyond this bold initiative for reform, in which America and European efforts are fused, we also work in parallel. The European Union has a decade-long experience with advancing modernization through the Barcelona Process.

Individual EU member-states have also been working for years to nurture the attitudes and institutions of liberal democracy in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

And it is not just our governments that are promoting freedom. American- and European-based non-governmental organizations devote huge efforts to the reform process.

Our people exemplify the values of free society as they work in their private capacities. Our societies, not just our governments, are advancing women's rights and minority rights.

Our societies, not just our governments, are making space for free media, for independent judiciaries, for the right of labor to organize. The full vitality of our free societies is infusing the process of reform, and that is a reason for optimism.

Just as our own democratic paths have not always been smooth, we realize that democratic reform in the Middle East will be difficult and uneven. Different societies will advance in their own way. Freedom, by its very nature, must be homegrown. It must be chosen. It cannot be given; and it certainly cannot be imposed. That is why, as the President has said, the spread of freedom is the work of generations. But spreading freedom in the Arab and Muslim worlds is also urgent work that cannot be deferred.

Second, we must build on recent successes by stabilizing and advancing democratic progress in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Last October, the people of Afghanistan voted to set their country on a democratic course. And just nine days ago, the people of Iraq voted not just for a government, but for a democratic future.

All of us were impressed by the high voter turnout in Iraq. Each ink-stained finger belonged to a man or a woman who defied suicide bombers, mortar attacks, and threats of beheading, to exercise a basic right as a citizen.

There comes a time in the life of every nation where its people refuse to accept a status quo that demeans their basic humanity. There comes a time when people take control of their own lives. For the Iraqi people, that time has come.

There is much more to do to create a democratic and unified Iraq; and the Iraqis themselves must lead the way. But we in the transatlantic partnership must rise to the challenge that the Iraqi people have set for us.

They have shown extraordinary bravery and determination. We must show them solidarity and generosity in equal measure.

We must support them as they form their political institutions. We must help them with economic reconstruction and development. And we must stay by their side to provide security until Iraqis themselves can take full ownership of that job.

Third, we are working to achieve new successes, particularly in the Arab-Israeli diplomacy. America and Europe both support a two-state solution: An independent and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace with the Jewish State of Israel.

And we all support the process of reform in the Palestinian Authority, because democratic reform will enlarge the basis for a genuine peace. That is why we were supportive of the Palestinian people in their historic election on January 9.

And Europe and America support the Israeli Government's determination to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. We both see that withdrawal as an opportunity to move ahead -- first to the roadmap, and ultimately, to our own -- to our clear destination: a genuine and real peace.

We are acting to transform opportunity into achievement. I have just come from meetings with Prime Minister Sharon and President Abbas. I was impressed with the fact that they said the same thing: This is a time of opportunity and we must not lose it. I urged them to build on this momentum, to seize this chance. And today's meeting of the Palestinian and Egyptian Presidents, the Israeli Prime Minister, and Jordan's King was clearly an important step forward.

The United States and the parties have no illusions about the difficulties ahead. There are deep divisions to overcome. I emphasized to both sides the need to end terrorism; the need to build new and democratic Palestinian economic, political, and security institutions; the need for Israel to meet its own obligations and make the difficult choices before it; and, the need for all of us -- in America, in Europe, in the region -- to make clear to Iran and Syria that they must stop supporting the terrorists who would seek to destroy the peace that we seek.

Success is not assured, but America is resolute. This is the best chance for peace that we are likely to see for some years to come; and we are acting to help Israelis and Palestinians seize this chance. President Bush is committed. I am personally committed. We must all be committed to seizing this chance.

Next month in London, Prime Minister Tony Blair will convene an important conference to help the Palestinian people advance democratic reform and build their institutions. All of us support that effort.

And we will continue to share burdens that will one day soon, we hope, enable us to share in the blessings of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, between Israelis and all their Arab neighbors.

A G8-Arab League meeting will also convene in Cairo next month. This meeting has the potential to broaden the base of support for Middle East peace and democracy. The Tunis Declaration of this past May's Arab Summit declared the "firm resolve" of the Arab states to "keep pace with the accelerated world changes through the consolidation of democratic practice, the broadening of participation in political life and public life, and the reinforcement of all components of civil society."

If that resolve forms the basis of Arab participation in this meeting, only good can come from it.

Our efforts in Lebanon also show that the transatlantic partnership means what it says in supporting freedom. The United States and France, together, sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 1559. We have done this to accelerate international efforts to restore full sovereignty to the Lebanese people, and to make possible the complete return of what was once vibrant political life in that country.

The next step in that process should be the fourth free democratic election in the region -- fair and competitive parliamentary elections this spring, without foreign interference.

In Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and throughout all of the broader Middle East and North Africa, the nature of the political conversation is changing. Ordinary citizens are expressing thoughts and acting together in ways that they have not done before. These citizens want a future of tolerance, opportunity, and peace -- not of repression.

Wise leaders are opening their arms to embrace reform. And we must stand with them and their societies as they search for a democratic future.

Reformers and peacemakers will prevail in the Middle East for the same reason the West won the Cold War: Because liberty is ultimately stronger than repression and freedom is stronger than tyranny.

Today's radical Islamists are swimming against the tide of the human spirit. They grab the headlines with their ruthless brutality, and they can be brutal. But they are dwelling on the outer fringes of a great world religion; and they are radicals of a special sort. They are in revolt against the future. The face of terrorism in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, called democracy "an evil principle." To our enemies, Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite are also evil principles. They want to dominate others, not to liberate them. They demand conformity, not equality. They still regard difference as a license to kill.

But they are wrong. Human freedom will march ahead, and we must help smooth its way. We can do that by helping societies to find their own way to fulfill the promise of freedom.

We can help aspiring societies to reduce poverty and grow economically through sound development strategies and free trade. We must be aggressive and compassionate in fighting the HIV/AIDS pandemic and other infectious diseases that tear families apart, destroy individuals and make development of whole continents impossible.

Ultimately, we must learn how to put developing states on the path to self-sustained growth and stability. After all, it is one thing to fix a sanitation plant or to repair a schoolhouse; it is another to establish the essential components of a decent society: A free press, an independent judiciary, a sound financial system, political parties, and genuine representative government.

Development, transparency and democracy reinforce each other. That is why the spread of freedom under the rule of law is our best hope for progress. Freedom unlocks the creativity and drive that produces genuine wealth. Freedom is the key to incorruptible institutions. Freedom is the key to responsive governments.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a time of unprecedented opportunity for the transatlantic Alliance. If we make the pursuit of global freedom the organizing principle of the 21st century, we will achieve historic global advances for justice and prosperity, for liberty and for peace. But a global agenda requires a global partnership. So let us multiply our common effort.

That is why the United States, above all, welcomes the growing unity of Europe. America has everything to gain from having a stronger Europe as a partner in building a safer and better world. So let each of us bring to the table our ideas and our experience and our resources; and let us discuss and decide, together, how best to employ them for democratic change.

We know we have to deal with the world as it is. But, we do not have to accept the world as it is. Imagine where we would be today if the brave founders of French liberty or of American liberty had simply been content with the world as it was.

They knew that history does not just happen; it is made. History is made by men and women of conviction, of commitment and of courage, who will not let their dreams be denied.

Our transatlantic partnership will not just endure in this struggle; it will flourish because our ties are unbreakable. We care deeply about one another. We respect each other. We are strong, but we are strongest when we put our values to work for those whose aspirations of freedom and prosperity have yet to be met.

Great opportunities await us. Let us seize them, now, together, for freedom's sake.

Thank you for your attention.

(Applause.)

QUESTION: I'm Benjamin Barnier (ph), a student in journalism here. My question is very simple. Iraq Shiites want Islam to be the only source of legislation. Do you think it's a positive thing? And if not, what do you think the coalition can do in order to keep a separation between the states and religion?

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much for the excellent question. I believe that the Iraqi people will now engage in an intensely political process. They have elected new leaders, the government will be appointed, and then they will have to use this opportunity to find institutions and means to bring all of the elements of Iraqi society together, that is Shia, and Kurds, and Sunnis, and Turkoman and other minorities as well.

The democratic process is a process of overcoming differences peacefully. And I believe that everything that we're reading from the Shia, who are the majority in the country and who have probably done extremely well in these elections, is that they understand their responsibility not to do to their fellow Iraqis what was done to them by those who had them live in tyranny and fear. They have talked about reaching out to the Sunnis. They have talked about reaching out to the Kurds.

I think that you will see them come to terms with the fact that there are different religious traditions, different political traditions, different ethnic groups in Iraq, that all now will have to be in a unified Iraq.

I was heartened by some of the statements of some of the Shia that they understand that a theocratic government, or a clerical government, would be unacceptable to the vast majority of the Iraqi people. And so they will find a proper role for Islam in their future. Many societies have done that and have done it still with democratic institutions in place.

What we must understand is there is no inherent conflict between Islam and democracy. These two can exist side by side, as they do, for instance, in Turkey. And I am quite sure that whatever role Islam comes to play will be one that is tolerant of other religious traditions; that recognizes that there are many other groups in Iraq who do not wish to see anything approaching a theocratic state. The Iraqis have no tradition of it, and I expect that they will come to a conclusion that will surprise us all in how well they do it.

It will be hard. And let me assure you, there will come a time when they are negotiating and discussing when we're going to wonder if it's all going to break down and will they get there? That's just the political process. After all, there were times in our own political process in 1789 that a few of our founders threatened to walk out of the Constitutional Convention. So I think the Iraqis will get past this period and they will create a democratic and unified Iraq.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Another question from a student.

QUESTION: Good afternoon, Madame Secretary. My name is Ann Gavaeneau (ph) and I'm a fifth-year student in the Master of Public Affairs. And my question is the following: What is the American position on the form multilateralism should adopt in the future? For instance, do the United States consider it more appropriate to act through regional or ad hoc coalition such as the Caucus of Democracy Madeleine Albright launch in Poland, then to use the United Nations means of actions?

Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. We have to use all the means at our disposal. The United States is a founding member of the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be strong and active and effective. And we have taken many issues to the United Nations. For instance, the United Nations was instrumental and incredibly important in providing the resolution that now allows us to bring attention to what is happening in Lebanon in terms of Syria.

The United Nations has been critical in providing the mandate for the coalition forces that are now in Iraq as a part of a multinational force there to support the Iraqi people. The United Nations, and I must say that Mr. Valenzuela and Mrs. Pirelli of the United Nations did a wonderful job in assisting the Iraqis in their election. They were very active in Afghanistan. So on and on and on, the United Nations is both an important decision-making body and an important means for carrying out those decisions.

There are also other important fora. Sometimes we can do things through NATO. Sometimes we can do things through the OSCE. And increasingly, it is a good thing when ad hoc coalitions of countries get together on a regional basis because they have some particular interest. I'll give you three quick examples.

One is, the United States and Russia, China, South Korea, Japan are engaged with North Korea in the six-party talks, because those are the regional neighbors who most want to be sure that there is not a nuclear-armed Korean Peninsula.

That's an example of an ad hoc arrangement for a regional problem. A problem, by the way, that could have very big international implications, but where the neighborhood is trying to manage it.

A second example is that at the very beginning of the tsunami -- when the tsunami hit, the United States, Japan, India and Australia, which had navies in the area, formed a core group so that we could use that naval -- those naval assets to make sure that, at the very beginning, aid was getting to the affected areas of the tsunami.

And a third example is a very large coalition, ad hoc group, called the Proliferation Security Initiative, to which France belongs, which is an effort to interdict dangerous cargos related to weapons of mass destruction, using our international laws, using our national laws.

So we have great respect for and want to use the United Nations and the Security Council. But there are times when other mechanisms are equally important. I think we will need to be judged by how effective we are, not just by the forms that we use.

MODERATOR: Thank you. You can, of course, ask questions in French.

Sir.

QUESTION: (VIA MALE INTERPRETER)

Good afternoon, Madam Secretary. I am the president of the Council of Democratic Muslims in France. As a French citizen, originated from Bagram, I'd like to -- here we have a few people from left and right, who live democracy, and we know them, we love them because they speak sincerely. If you put yourselves in the position of an Arab -- French or American -- he lives in a Western country. He lives democracy. He lives his freedom.

Do you think for a single moment when going around the Arab world or Muslim world, is there one single country, one country, Madame Secretary, where freedom of expression or democracy is respected? When President Bush tells us, I am here to free the world from tyranny, theocracy, dictatorship, every Arab dreams, dreams of this feeling of finding himself again in a country that you want to build for them.

Unfortunately, and my question is: Is there a single Arab or Muslim country, which deserves to be defended by Bush and by America? Is there a single Arab country, which is making an effort? Please allow the Secretary to respond.

QUESTION: (VIA FEMALE INTERPRETER)
Yes, good afternoon. I'm the President of the French Council of Muslims, and I'd like to understand, as a citizen myself of a democratic country. And here we have a lot of political people from the left and the right, political people, which I, who I represent -- sorry -- whom I like and know because they speak the truth. Is there one single Arab country; is there one single Arab country in the world, which really deserves to be defended by the President Bush?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, it was somewhat longer than that, I believe, and I understand. Let's talk about the Arab people. The Arab people deserve a better future than is currently in front of them. This is a part of the world in which the status quo is not going to be acceptable.

You have large populations that are not receiving proper education. As the report to the United Nations by Arab intellectuals noted, you have 22 countries that have a GDP that is not the size of Spain. This is just not acceptable for a culture -- the Arab cultures -- that were, in many ways, part of the cradle of civilization. How can this be?

And so the freedom deficit, the absence of freedom, has had very dramatic, negative effects in this part of the world. And unfortunately, we in the West, for too long, turned a blind eye to that freedom deficit.

When the President spoke at Whitehall in London, he talked about 60 years of trying to buy stability at the expense of freedom, and getting neither. And what we have gotten instead, is a level of hopelessness that has produced an ideology of hatred so virulent, so thorough, that people flew airplanes into American buildings on a fine September morning; blew up a train station in Madrid; people in another part of the world from another tradition, but the same ideology of hatred, that took helpless children hostage in Russia. This can't be the future of the Middle East.

And so both our security and our moral conscience tell us that this is a part of the world that can no longer be isolated from the prosperity and human dignity that freedom brings. And so it is not what President Bush defends; and certainly, I want to be very clear.

As I said earlier, this is not an issue of military power. This is an issue of the power of ideas, of the power of being able to support people in those societies who are just tired of being denied their freedom.

And so this is a great goal, not just for the United States, but for all of us who are fortunate enough to live on the right side of freedom because in each and every case, for all of us, somebody cared enough about human dignity and human liberty to make a stand in our past. Our ancestors did.

And that's why we all enjoy the liberty and freedom that we do. And sometime in the past, others stood up for us so that we could defeat tyranny and we could live in freedom. And we simply have to do the same thing for the people of the Middle East who are seeking a different future.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We have a question on the right side.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) company and lecturer at this institute.

Madame Secretary, I would like to ask you a question about chemical and biological proliferation because we are lacking a multilateral system similar to the imperfect, but at least existing, system in the nuclear field with the IAEA and with the NPT.

And here, what steps do we intend to take to have multilateral verification systems on chemical and biological weapons? Knowing that all these efforts have been -- have stalled since the beginning of your Administration four years ago?

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. In fact, we have been very active in trying to deal with the problems of chemical and biological weapons. But as you know, it's not easy.

You mentioned the problem of verification. The problem of verification is particularly severe and difficult with biological and chemical weapons because, very often, the very same means that one uses to make a biological weapon or a chemical weapon can be for completely innocent means, so-called dual-use projects -- products, so that, for instance, the chlorine that can be used to purify a swimming pool can also be the basis for a chemical weapon; the same laboratory that can be used to find a cure for cancer can be used to make biological weapons. And these are made in very small spaces that can be easily concealed.

It is especially difficult when you are dealing with very closed states that are making an effort to deceive and to prevent verification from taking place. I have no doubt that verification, for most of the world, for European countries, for the United States, for many of our friends and allies around the world, is much less of a problem because, of course, these are open societies. And when they declare that they are not going to build something, there is Le Monde or the New York Times or somebody that is going to make certain that the information gets out about what is being done. The problem is with closed, dictatorial societies that are trying to deceive.

So we have been party to the conventions and we have been active in the conventions. We need to redouble our efforts to make certain that, for instance, when we find some evidence that we believe points to biological or chemical weapons programs that we are prepared to act to hold accountable those states in which it's found.

It's a very serious problem. It is also a serious problem for terrorism because biological weapons or chemical weapons would be much easier for a terrorist organization. We in the United States experienced what just a little anthrax could do. And so it is a very serious problem. It's a huge intelligence problem given the closed nature of some of these societies, but we do have the international conventions and we continue to work within them.

MODERATOR: As you may imagine, Secretary Rice has a very full schedule so we have time for only one last question. Please, one short last question.

QUESTION: My name is Francois (Inaudible). I am teaching economics here in Science Po.

MODERATOR: Louder, please.

QUESTION: Let me ask you why you have chosen this very country to deliver your highly interesting speech.

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, thank you. (Laughter.)

Well, first of all, France has a great tradition of debate, of intellectual ferment. This is a wonderful institution that fosters that debate. And it is no secret that the United States and France have sometimes disagreed in the past about how to proceed on a common agenda.

The good news is that while France and the United States have disagreed from time to time, and everybody has paid attention to that, the United States and France have continued to cooperate on a wide, wide range of efforts.

I sometimes say that U.S.-French relations are far better in practice than they are in theory, because if you look at what we do, we have done on Lebanon; if you look at our cooperation in Afghanistan; if you look at the Kosovo work that we've done earlier in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in the Balkans more generally; if you look at the Proliferation Security Initiative -- I can go on and on and on -- the fight against terrorism, the intelligence and law enforcement work that we do together; this is a deep, broad, active relationship that is very effective on behalf of world peace.

When we disagreed, we still disagreed as friends. And as long as we remember that we have not just common values but a common future built on those values, I think we are going to see an even stronger relationship, if you will, a kind of rebirth of energy in the U.S.-French and the U.S.-European relationship because we have great things ahead of us.

If I could just close with a personal reflection in this regard, I was lucky enough in 1989, and by the way, I said in my speech at one point it was my first visit to Paris -- my first visit to Paris was actually in 1979 on my way to language training in Russia. And I love coming here.

But I was here in 1989 for the bicentennial; it was a remarkable year. And I was lucky enough to be the White House Soviet Specialist at the end of the Cold War, so I got to participate in the liberation of Eastern Europe, the unification of Germany, the beginnings of the peaceful breakup of the Soviet Union -- things that I never thought I would see, let alone have a chance to participate in.

Do you know, I realized that I was just lucky enough to be harvesting good decisions that had been taken in 1946 and in 1947 and in 1948 and in 1949, when those leaders, at the end of World War II, faced a dizzying array of threats -- strategic threats -- to the progress of freedom and liberty.

When you think about the fact that in 1946, much of Europe lay in ruins and there were real concerns about the importation of communism into Europe from the Soviet Union; if you think about, in 1947, there were civil wars in Greece and Turkey; in 1948, we experienced the Czechoslovak crisis and the collapse of that democratic government; in 1948, the Berlin crisis split Germany for what seemed to be permanently; in 1949, the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear weapon five years ahead of schedule and the Chinese communists won the civil war.

Now, how did they do it? How did they form NATO? How did they support a united Europe? How did they move forward on an agenda that 50 years later produced the circumstances in which Germany could be unified, the rest of Europe could be freed of tyranny, and we could be talking about a NATO that includes not just France and Germany and the United States, but Poland and the Czech Republic and Slovakia and the Baltic States? How did they do it?

They did it because they remained united as an alliance of values. And I know it looks really hard to talk about the spread of freedom and liberty into places where it has never been. I know it looks really hard when we see the pictures from Iraq of the suicide bombers to think that the Iraqi people are going to build a free and stable democratic state. I know it looks hard when we look at Afghanistan and how far it has to go. But this last month or so, little more than that, has been something else.

How could you not be impressed with the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the Palestinian people going to elect a leader who says that it is time to give up the armed Intifadah and live in peace with Israel? And how could you not be impressed by the Afghans, really, in a very underdeveloped society standing along dusty roads to vote where women who used to hide their faces and couldn't even have medical care without a male relative; and now they stand and they vote and they run for office? And how could you not be impressed with the Iraqi people and their facing down fear?

So much is changing in our world. So much is changing in the Middle East. And if we, in this great alliance, put our values and our efforts and our resources to work on behalf of this great cause, we've only just begun to see what freedom can achieve.

Thank you very much.

(Applause.)
2005/160

Released on February 8, 2005

February 14, 2005 at 10:43 PM in US | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Blair moves into election mode

TheStar.com - Blair moves into election mode

PM clears deck for May election
Labour party fears backlash over Iraq

SANDRO CONTENTA
EUROPEAN BUREAU

LONDON—British Prime Minister Tony Blair has set the stage for a general election by publicly regretting the "I know best" style of leadership he used to drag a reluctant country to war against Iraq.

LONDON—British Prime Minister Tony Blair has set the stage for a general election by publicly regretting the "I know best" style of leadership he used to drag a reluctant country to war against Iraq.

In a strikingly personal speech to Labour party members yesterday, Blair warned against complacency in the face of polls indicating a third consecutive election victory.

He made clear the opposition Conservative party, led by Michael Howard, could win by default if Labour supporters stay home or switch to Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats — the only major party that opposed the Iraq war.

Blair placed much of the blame for that possibility on himself, publicly regretting for the first time the leadership style he used to take Britain to war in March 2003.

"I understand why some people feel angry, not just over Iraq but many of the difficult decisions we've made. And as ever, a lot of it is about me," he told delegates at a conference in Gateshead, northern England.

Blair, 51, compared his relationship with voters to the strains that follow the initial wave of euphoria in a marriage.

"And then all of a sudden there you are, the British people, thinking, `You're not listening,' and I think, `You're not hearing me,'" Blair said.

"And before you know it, you raise your voice, I raise mine — some of you throw a bit of crockery — and now you, the British people, have to sit down and decide whether you want this relationship to continue," he added.

Blair, who often described his decision to go to war as doing what he believed was best, said his almost eight years as prime minister have taught him that "if you're not careful, doing the right thing becomes, `I know best.'"

Describing himself as "a little wiser," he said he has learned "the best policy comes not from courting popularity or from mere conviction" but from "a blend of listening and leading."

He reminded delegates that after the Iraq war, he launched a countrywide process to consult voters, adding that his journey in politics "has gone from `all things to all people,' to `I know best,' to `we can only do it together.'"

But Blair, whose government has a 165-seat majority, stopped short of suggesting he was wrong to go to war. "I learned that on some issues, sometimes, you just have to agree to disagree, like Iraq," he said.

Now that Iraqis have voted in their first post-war election, Blair said he hopes British voters agree that British soldiers should stay in the country as long as Iraqis want them to help build democracy.

Blair has already given a grudging apology for joining the U.S.-led war based on intelligence about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be wrong.

The apology came after polls indicated his political credibility had fallen sharply, and Labour activists needed for the election campaign were turning away from the party.

Labour election officials fear too many of their supporters may simply stay home on voting day — widely expected to be May 5.

Their internal polls reportedly indicate they need at least a 60 per cent turnout to secure a third majority victory.

Traditional Labour party members also accuse Blair of turning the party away from its socialist roots and pushing it too far to the right.

Since Blair's "New Labour" came to power in 1997, party membership has fallen from 400,000 to half that number today.

"Where we've lost support, we go out and try to win it back," Blair told delegates.

"Where we've lost old friends, we try to persuade them to come back to the fold. Where we've made mistakes, we say so. Where we've done well, we shout it out."

Blair is counting on a revved-up economy to keep voters focused on his domestic agenda and sweep him back to power. He has also made policies on education, crime, immigration, child care and health central pillars of Labour's campaign.

Said Conservative party chairman Liam Fox: "Most people think Britain is heading in the wrong direction. They feel let down and forgotten by Tony Blair."

February 14, 2005 at 10:37 PM in UK | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Liberals within range of majority

TheStar.com - Liberals within range of majority

SUSAN DELACOURT
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF

OTTAWA—The federal Liberals are within striking distance of majority government, according to a new Toronto Star poll.

But it's a shaky strength built on disenchantment with the Conservatives and a public that's "listless" and scandal-fatigued.

The poll, conducted by EKOS Research Associates, shows the Liberals at 40.2 per cent support nationally, up from the 36.7 per cent they obtained in last June's election.

The increase seems to be coming at the expense of the Conservatives, whose national support slipped back to 26.5 per cent — found mostly in its old, traditional constituencies and farther away from the centrist mainstream. The Conservatives received 29.6 per cent of the vote in the 2004 federal election.

EKOS president Frank Graves describes the electorate generally as "listless" and "fractured" — words that have also been used to characterize the type of minority government Prime Minister Paul Martin has been leading since last June.

With the federal budget coming Feb. 23, the public's appetite for social-program spending also continues to grow, the poll found. When EKOS asked whether the budget surplus should go to debt reduction, tax cuts or social-program investment, an overwhelming majority — 61 per cent — favoured social spending, compared with just 18 per cent worried about the debt and 19 per cent favouring tax cuts. This social-program bent of the electorate could also explain why the New Democrats are at 18.7 per cent, up three points since the last election, and at a heady 32 per cent support in British Columbia, Graves said. "Relatively, they have improved the most since the election," Graves said.

New Democrats, however, could also be benefiting from their strategic decision to steer clear of most attacks on the Liberals along ethical lines. NDP Leader Jack Layton rarely wades into the daily ethics fray between Liberals and Tories during question period in the Commons.

In Ontario, the Liberals lead with 46 per cent support, followed by 32 per cent for the Conservatives and 18 per cent for the NDP.

But in Quebec, the Liberals still trail the Bloc Québécois by 13 percentage points, with the separatist party at 45 per cent support. That makes it very difficult for Martin to win a majority government and suggests there will be no early election.

Graves said the public is wearying of the constant attention on alleged Liberal scandal, which has been dogging Martin's party and government, especially in Quebec.

It's not that voters don't care — the poll shows about 78 per cent of respondents were aware to some degree of the issues in front of the one-year-old commission of inquiry led by Justice John Gomery.

This is around the same as the 76-per-cent level of interest shown a year ago after the federal auditor general's bombshell report about the Liberal sponsorship program.

Almost two-thirds of the respondents say they have adequate or "somewhat adequate" information by now to form a judgment. Graves reads this as scandal fatigue.

"It's a lot of storm and fury but it's not having much impact on things for Martin," Graves said.

"The biggest hazard would be for all those people wanting to flog the ethics issue all the way into an election campaign. ... People seem to have decided they've heard enough."

Martin capped the political portion of the inquiry's hearings last Thursday with his own appearance before the Gomery commission, which followed testimony from former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

The inquiry now moves to Montreal on Feb. 28 to investigate advertising-firm connections to the Liberal sponsorship program.

The poll was conducted through phone interviews with 1,046 Canadians 18 years of age and older, from Feb. 7 to 9. The results are considered accurate to within 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Regional breakdowns have a higher margin of error.

Graves said he finds it odd the Conservatives' strength is so low in this latest poll. Given the lack of any enthusiasm for the Liberal government, one would assume, he said, that Tories would have more support.

But Graves believes it's a result of the same-sex marriage issue, on which Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has been playing mainly to the social conservatives.

"They've been retrenching back to their core constituencies," Graves said.

"But it means they're missing a chance to make gains at the political centre. ... It's very puzzling."

Still, the Conservatives are registering a reasonably healthy 32 per cent support in Ontario, far better than in Quebec, where Harper has been concentrating a lot of his attention, apparently to little effect so far. EKOS found only 8 per cent Conservative support in Quebec.

Graves said "an ethics focus in any looming election will probably kill that party's (the Tories) prospects in Quebec, where voters have no interest in further talk of sponsorship."

Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia are the regions of strongest support for the governing Liberals, and Alberta and Quebec are the areas where they are most overwhelmed by their opposition foes.

February 14, 2005 at 10:33 PM in US | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

China's Big Export

TIME.com Print Page: TIME Magazine -- China's Big Export

When it comes to spying, Beijing likes to flood the zone
By BRIAN BENNETT

Try 4 Issues of TIME magazine FREE!
Ning Wen and his wife were arrested last fall at their home office in Manitowoc, Wis., for allegedly sending their native China $500,000 worth of computer parts that could enhance missile systems. As these naturalized citizens await trial, similar episodes in Mount Pleasant, N.J., and Palo Alto, Calif., point only to the tip of the iceberg, according to FBI officials keeping tabs on more than 3,000 companies in the U.S. suspected of collecting information for China. A hotbed of activity is Silicon Valley, where the number of Chinese espionage cases handled by the bureau increases 20% to 30% annually. Says a senior FBI official: "China is trying to develop a military that can compete with the U.S., and they are willing to steal to get [it]."

But instead of assigning one well-trained agent to pursue a target, "the Chinese are very good at putting a lot of people on just a little piece and getting a massive amount of stuff home," says a U.S. intelligence official. The number of Chinese snoops is staggering, if only because average civilians are enlisted in the effort. FBI officials say state security agents in China debrief many visitors to the U.S. before and after their trips, asking what they saw and sometimes telling them what to get.

The FBI, severely criticized for its investigation of physicist Wen Ho Lee in the mid-'90s, has added hundreds more counterintelligence agents and put at least one in every Energy Department research facility. The bureau also started cooperation initiatives with corporations, but still sees universities as a soft spot, with some 150,000 Chinese currently studying in the U.S. The FBI's three most recent counterintelligence arrests were of suspects who had held student visas at some point. To help sort the few who go to America to spy from the thousands who go there for a better life, the FBI relies heavily on Chinese informants. Says a high-ranking Silicon Valley agent: "We have almost more assets than we can deal with."

With reporting by Timothy J. Burger and Elaine Shannon

Copyright © 2005 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

February 14, 2005 at 09:38 PM in China | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Fragile diplomacy may yet survive shock of murder

Times Online - Newspaper Edition

By Bronwen Maddox
LEBANON has suffered what Iraq escaped: the assassination of a national figure, on the whole a force for stability, at a point when the country’s tortured politics appeared to be taking a turn for the better.

Rafik Hariri had led Lebanon, as its Prime Minister, for ten of the fragile years as the country clawed its way out of civil war. When he quit in October, in protest at Syria’s support for his old rival, the Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, he moved smoothly towards the opposition camp.

He joined other opposition leaders in calling for Syria to pull its 14,000 troops out of Lebanon, before the Lebanese parliamentary elections in May. But even so, in a country bitterly divided into pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian camps, he retained an adroit claim to the middle ground.

His murder may backfire on its perpetrators. It can only increase international pressure on Syria, and on the pro-Syrian camp in Lebanon, at a point when they were already under huge pressure to concede.

It is hard to overstate the shock of yesterday’s blast. True, Hariri was hardly deaf to the threats on his life. The United Nations special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen had warned Damascus last week not to harm him or other opposition members, according to al-Hayat newspaper.

But violence has been subdued since the end of the 1975-90 civil war. Only minutes before Hariri was killed, he was relaxed, standing outside parliament, gesturing energetically with a forefinger as he talked. At least 20 cars were still burning, including the twisted frames of his bullet-proof motorcade, when the black comedy of attributing blame began.

Israel said it held Syria responsible. So did Lebanon’s most prominent exile, the former army commander General Michel Aoun. But Syria rushed to pronounce the bomb “an act of terrorism”. For good measure, Iran said Israel did it.

Yesterday’s early claim of responsibility by a little-known Islamist group did not shed light on the identity of Hariri’s enemies. But it is fair to guess that Syrian sympathisers were responsible. It was, after all, Damascus that had most to lose from Hariri’s stance. It has been uncomfortable with the idea of Lebanese elections, already appalled at the downfall of its fellow Baathist regime in Iraq.

Hariri had backed the UN Security Council Resolution 1559, passed in September, which called on Syria to pull out its troops before May, and for Lebanon to disband militias.

His own years in power were hardly uncontroversial. He was criticised for saddling Lebanon with debt of more than $35 billion (£18.5 billion), which still cripples its finances. But he was credited for hauling the country to its feet, using his web of business and diplomatic contacts.

In past weeks, the US, France and the UN became more confident that they might be able to nudge Lebanon and Syria towards change, for at least three reasons.

The first is that the new, tough stand by the US and France, jointly sponsoring Resolution 1559, appeared to be making a real impact on Beirut and Damascus.

A second is the new warmth in Israeli-Palestinian relations. A third is Lebanon’s catastrophic financial position. Its politicians are truly alarmed at the thought of UN sanctions.

In the past two weeks a busy round of diplomacy appeared to bring results. The UN special envoy reported back to Paris that Syria agreed to begin withdrawal — although it said it would not completely pull out until Israel complied with UN resolutions.

Hariri’s murder will threaten some of this progress. Not least, Lebanon’s fragile hopes of an economic upturn have been based on tourism. The pictures of the famous St George hotel, its balconies lying shattered in the street, will not help.

But the murder will also hugely increase international pressure on Lebanon and Syria at a point when there is real reason to hope for change.

Step forward for women

ONE of the fragments of good news in the Iraqi election results is the strong performance of women, who look set to take nearly a third of the seats in the new National Assembly. Under complicated election rules, one candidate in four was a woman.

The country’s transitional law, heavily influenced by the US, required that women make up at least one quarter of the assembly.

However, it appears that female candidates did better than that and may take 86 of the 275 seats. This will help to safeguard women’s rights, one of the constitutional areas that has seemed most under threat since the end of the war.

Educated urban women, in particular, have been alarmed that they may lose rights in divorce or inheritance that they enjoyed under the secular regime of Saddam Hussein.

Islamic groups have already lobbied to make Islamic law the basis of such rulings.

It is certainly not true that all the female members of the new assembly will take a liberal point of view, but their strength may help to tilt the new constitution in that direction.

February 14, 2005 at 09:26 PM in Middle East | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Analysis: sophisticated attempt to create chaos

Times Online - World

By Hala Jaber of the Sunday Times

When the initial emotions of anger and shock subside in Lebanon following the brutal but sophisticated assassination of the former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the country will demand to know who was behind the murder of the man who rebuilt Lebanon from the ashes of civil war.

Although it is too early to answer such a question with any certainty, the fact remains that in Lebanon the immediate finger of accusation will fall on two main parties.

For the pro-Syrian camp – those opposed to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon despite a recent UN resolution spearheaded by the United States and France to that effect – Israel will be the main suspect.

Pro-Syrians will accuse Israel of wanting further to demolish Syria’s reputation and interests in Lebanon in a bid to have Washington take further punitive steps, or even actions, against Damascus, which it accuses of supporting what it deems as “Hezbollah terrorism”.

Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon would also mean a distance between Syrian troops and Israeli borders.

But for the anti-Syrian camp – politicians’ coalitions and parties in Lebanon calling for Syria’s withdrawal and an end to its meddling in the country’s internal affairs – Syria will be the main suspect. They will blame Syria of wanting to destabilise the country as a justification to maintain its presence in Lebanon.

Lebanon has been a chess board for many intelligence services in the Middle East and well beyond. Before the culprit behind the assassination is finally pinpointed, conspiracy theories for which the Lebanese are renown for - ranging from the unimaginable and fantasy to the feasible - will be rife in the country over the coming weeks.

Hariri was strongly opposed to Syria’s role and the pro-Syrian government and quit as Prime Minister in October last year when he was informed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that Damascus wanted to extend the term of office of his rival Emile Lahoud for a further three years.

He fell in and out of favour with Damascus over the years and recently joined calls by the opposition for Syrian troops to quit Lebanon in the run-up to a general election in May.

What is clear, though, is that the method of assassination is too sophisticated for any one local group in Lebanon.

“The sophistication and type of the explosives and the inside knowledge of his route all confirm that an outside power over and beyond Lebanon is involved in his assassination,” a Beirut security analyst said.

Rime Allaf, a Middle East analyst at London's Royal Institute of International Affairs, said it was the work of an intelligence service rather than a small group.

"Whoever did it aimed at creating chaos in Lebanon and pointing the finger at Syria. I can't believe anyone in Syria could be naive enough to think that this would help them."

She added: "The Israelis have been thought responsible for a number of assassinations in Lebanon, but why would they want to stir things up now? The Syrians must be very worried."

A previously unknown Islamist group said in a videotape aired by Al Jazeera television that it carried out the attack because of Hariri's support for the Saudi government. The claim could not be confirmed

Hariri’s motorcade and limousines are known to be equipped with state-of-the-art radar and jamming devices that generally block mobile phones and devices within a 500-metre radius to prevent assassination attempts by radio-controlled bombs.

The security analyst insists that “whoever designed the explosives had overcome Hariri’s own sophisticated devices”. This pointed to technological knowledge that suggested “the involvement of bigger powers on the outside” of Lebanon.

Hariri’s assassination, reminiscent of Lebanon’s dark days of civil war, comes at a time of intense back-stabbing and internal political conflict regarding Syria’s relationship with Lebanon. It comes a few month after a similar assassination of another opponent – Marwan Hamade - of Syrian presence in Lebanon, in which his driver was killed.

February 14, 2005 at 06:21 PM in Middle East | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Partial eclipse of the Sunni

Times Online - Comment

William Rees-Mogg
Iraq's election result have forced the once all-powered minority to face the truth
THE IRAQI problem was essentially a problem of the Kurds and the Shia; it is now a problem of the Sunnis. Under the Ottoman Empire, a Sunni minority dominated the provinces that became Iraq. The British, who were the protecting power after 1918, maintained this Sunni dominance by installing a Sunni royal family which won independence in 1932, but was overthrown in 1958. After the Baath Party seized power in 1968 it depended on the support of Sunni Arab clans in northwestern Iraq, from one of which, the Tikritis, came Saddam Hussein.

As a dictator, Saddam had the support or tolerance of many of the Arab Sunnis, who amounted to some 20 per cent of the population. He had to oppress the Shia, who are Arabs with some mixture of Persian descent. They amount to about 60 per cent of the population. He also had to dominate the Kurds, who are themselves Sunnis. They amount to some 20 per cent.

Dictatorships which are based on a very narrow section of the population, and are opposed by a large majority, have to use exceptional force to maintain their power. Saddam used torture, genocide, poison gas and war. Such dictators have no option but to be anti-democratic and brutal. At any opportunity, the majority would be glad to sweep them away.

There are indeed many empires in history that have enjoyed substantial consent from the peoples they ruled, but Saddam never even sought such consent. People obeyed him because they were afraid of him; they feared him because he was a murderous thug, surrounded by an entourage of murderous thugs. If there had been no American invasion, he would still be in power. The decision to remove Saddam was therefore of benefit to the great majority of the people of Iraq, despite the sufferings involved. It was a defeat for the minority of the Sunni Arabs who were associated with the regime. The majority even of Sunnis feared this evil dictatorship and, at least initially, welcomed Saddam’s fall.

The elections have shown where the true majority lies. Out of 275 seats in the new National Assembly the United Iraqi Alliance, a mainly Shia group supported by the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, is expected to win 132 seats, the Kurdish Alliance 71, while the list of the outgoing Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, is expected to win 38. These three groups, therefore, will have 241 seats, more than sufficient to approve any new constitution they can agree.

Power has shifted decisively to the Shia and the Kurds, and away from the Sunnis, most of whom either boycotted the election or were afraid to vote. Oddly enough, this the repeated mistake made by the Shia themselves in the election of 1924, which was held under British auspices. The 1924 election boycott cost the Shia 80 years of substantial exclusion from power. Obviously, the three main parties in the new assembly will have to agree between themselves, and that will not be easy. All three are coalitions, both in terms of policies and of personalities. They will all have to learn their way around the new institution. Their main task is to draw up a permanent democratic constitution. The Kurds are determined to maintain the relative independence they have enjoyed since the Gulf War. The new constitution will have to allow considerable regional autonomy.

There is, however, nothing in this constitution-making that looks impossible. The absurdly-named National Independent Cadres and Elites, which is linked to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, only won two seats. At one point his Shia radicalism was a serious problem.

The election had created its own momentum, towards an independent and democratic Iraq, under strong religious influence, but probably destined to be a secular state with substantial regional autonomy. The Sunnis are, however, still the problem. Many of them, no doubt, already see that it was a mistake to boycott the elections; that it had thrown away much of their political influence, at least for this assembly. Yet other Sunnis will not accept the result of the elections at all, or indeed the result of the invasion.

The insurgents, terrorists and extremists, do largely come from the Sunni community, or from foreign Sunnis. They have no chance of reversing the result of the election; they will always remain a minority. The American and British troops will not be able to leave until there are Iraqi defence forces strong enough to defeat the terrorists who are still murdering Shias. These wicked people remain a threat to Iraq, and a great threat to the Sunni community itself.

The new government will try to achieve reconciliation with the Sunnis; that is the most important task. Yet the Sunnis need to face reality; in a democracy the Shias have an outright majority. Foreign powers often withdraw in the face of terrorism, but a majority population never does so. Ultimately, continued Sunni-based terrorism could only be a waste of Iraq’s time, by delaying the withdrawal of allied troops and lengthening the suffering of the Sunnis themselves. This is not pro-Islamic terrorism, but anti-Shia.

What happens to Iraq is what matters most to the world, but the critics of the Iraq policy ought to recognise that they were mistaken, though for the best of motives. Robin Cook got it wrong; the Liberal Democrats got it wrong; many of the London Arabists got it wrong; the Democrats got it wrong in the United States. President Bush got it right; Tony Blair got it right. We ought to be grateful to both of them for their courage and their judgment.

The old Iraq was a murderous tyranny and a threat to its Arab neighbours; the new Iraq may still be fragile, but it is now a democracy, which will regain full independence as soon as the terrorists have been defeated. That is good news for the Middle East, and it is a solid justification for an unpopular war. The world tolerated Saddam Hussein’s genocidal regime in Iraq for far too long; genocide is a solid justification in international law for the decision to intervene.

February 14, 2005 at 08:10 AM in Iraq | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Crisis as SAS men quit for lucrative Iraq jobs

Telegraph | News | Crisis as SAS men quit for lucrative Iraq jobs

By Thomas Harding
(Filed: 14/02/2005)

The number of SAS troopers leaving for lucrative jobs in the security industry has prompted the regiment to write to all soldiers urging them to stay.

A letter from the regiment's headquarters has told all the SAS's 300 front-line soldiers that "it would be in everyone's best interests" if they remained in service.

An estimated 120 former Special Air Service and Special Boat Service troops have left, swapping a junior NCO's wage of about £2,000 a month for as much as £14,000 a month working as security co-ordinators in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The letter is said to have told soldiers to consider their loyalty to the regiment and the kudos of being in the SAS.

"This has always been an issue," an SAS soldier said yesterday. "It is not the young ones that they are worried about but the senior NCOs who are so important.

"If they lose middle management they lose all that experience for the future and they are desperate to keep that experience there."

One former 22 SAS soldier now working in security estimated that 120 former Special Forces men are working for security firms in Iraq.

Some are earning £450 a day, or £14,000 a month, working for firms such as Kroll, Controlled Risks and Armour Security.

The former soldier, who had just one week off in his last two years in the SAS, said: "They cannot stop people from leaving. The SAS lifestyle is extremely demanding and not really conducive to family life or long-term relationships. On the security circuit you have the potential to earn very high wages combined with an attractive working rotation, invariably one month on, one month off."

While wages, pensions and life insurance have been addressed in recent years, the SAS still has substantial commitments around the world. Workload cannot be addressed, said the former soldier, "because the men are deployed all over the place".

The United States Defence Department has offered its most experienced special forces a bonus of $150,000 (£80,000) to sign on for six years to stem an exodus to security jobs, it was announced last week.

The two SAS Territorial Army regiments are also experiencing manning problems and weekend training has been threatened due to lack of numbers. Some TA have been granted permission for up to a year's leave of absence but others have left for the private sector.

TA SAS soldiers, who have a similar selection process to their regular colleagues, are obliged to undertake a certain number of days' training a year. With about 120 front-line "sabre" trained troops each, the TA regiments cannot afford to lose many more.

"The TA are struggling with manning, especially 21 SAS," said an SAS insider. "Drill nights and weekend training are especially suffering."

A former TA SAS soldier said: "The regiment is going to find it difficult because sums just don't add up to replace those who have buggered off."

The troop losses are also affecting the northern-based 23 SAS, which does not have the large number of well-paid doctors, lawyers and city workers found in the southern-based 21 SAS.

A senior SAS source said there had been a loss of TA soldiers. He said: "It has not been astronomical or a massive haemorrhaging of talent because a lot of blokes have been deployed operationally anyway," he said. "It has not had a detrimental effect as yet."

An MoD source did not deny that a number of soldiers had left for security jobs.

While it is not MoD policy to comment on Special Forces, a spokesman said the appeal of "operating in elite units of the British Armed forces remains a very strong draw for our most exceptional people".

He added: "Members of all TA regiments are entitled to full-time employment of their choice, this is the same for the TA SAS regiments."

February 14, 2005 at 12:02 AM in SAS | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

February 13, 2005

Comment: Michael Portillo: Blair wins a gamble abroad and blows it all in Britain

Times Online - Sunday Times

It used to be said that the facts of life are Conservative. It helped to explain why, despite being disliked, the Tories kept winning. The Conservative outlook, if unpopular, conformed to the real world.

Today some of the facts of life look Blairite. The past few days have brought a transformation in the foreign policy scene and a corresponding surge in his prestige.

Tony Blair’s enemies were licking their lips as the Iraqi elections approached. Maybe a spectacular terrorist outrage on polling day, along with a derisory turnout, would supply a suitable epitaph for the Blair/Bush misadventure.

Things turned out differently. The level of violence continued much as before, but no higher. The terrorist menace has journalists pinned down in their compounds, unable to tell us how bad (or good) life in Iraq is. The sight of inky-fingered Iraqis weeping with joy because for the first time they had been able to vote in a democratic election moved even the British media. Foreign correspondents who (understandably) are terrified to show their faces in a Baghdad street were impressed by citizens who defied death threats to cast their ballots.

The Iraqi election spun the weather vane of international politics. The wind is now blowing for the coalition. During Condoleezza Rice’s first foreign tour as US secretary of state, European politicians who made a career of anti-Americanism tumbled over each other to grease up to their visitor.

Gerhard Schröder, chief architect of continental Europe’s calamitous rift with the United States, was wreathed in unctuous smiles as he greeted her. Spain’s foreign minister, whose country provoked Washington by withdrawing its troops from Iraq, seemed delighted with his peremptory handshake. A few months ago it seemed brave to defy the world’s superpower by pulling out of the occupation forces. Now it seems churlish not to have been there to protect the Iraqi voters as they risked their lives en route to the polls.

Rice supplied America with a new smiling face. She seemed to be a different woman, conducting herself with a femininity that was not apparent when, as national security adviser, she was often seen during press conferences scowling at the president’s side.

The secretary of state’s tour had an almost magical effect. Within hours of her meetings with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, the two men were shaking hands in the company of the rulers of Jordan and Egypt.

By all means let us remember that there have been many false dawns in the Middle East, but we should not underplay the importance of what is happening now. Who would have guessed that within days of Bush’s second inauguration we would see the leaders of the two enemies sitting together to agree to a ceasefire? Suddenly Bush does not look so obdurate for having said that Yasser Arafat was the impediment to peace. Today the years of European toadying to the late PLO chairman do not seem like a good investment.

Blair’s support for Bush over the past four years no longer smacks of political suicide. He always sought as his reward an American commitment to the Middle East peace process. Now he has it. His opponents will find it harder to attack the Iraq war without appearing indifferent to Iraqi democracy. In foreign policy the facts of life look Blairite.

What luck, you could say, that the international scene has turned around just weeks before the British general election. In truth, although the timing of Arafat’s death was fortuitous, Blair has made his own luck. He staked everything on backing America and he deserves credit for his tenacity.

It is a pity that the prime minister is not interested in history, because his recent experience illustrates a recurring phenomenon that is hard to explain. Surprisingly often, political parties succeed in the wake of events that you might expect to sink them electorally (although the leader does not always survive).

The Conservatives increased their majority following the catastrophe of Suez. Under Margaret Thatcher they won a landslide victory despite 3m unemployed. John Major squeaked home after the Tories had both introduced and abolished the hated poll tax. The opinion polls say that Labour will win despite Iraq.

The prime minister can be forgiven a little trumpeting. He defied his critics further last week with a denunciation of Iran for sponsoring international terrorism. His party grimly anticipates another American attack. Blair seemed to enjoy playing on their fears.

If Blair sometimes soars like an eagle across the international landscape, at home he grubs in the gutter. As the election approaches, his nasty little kitchen cabinet has reassembled and Alastair Campbell has returned to Downing Street to intimidate the media.

Any time that you feel in danger of admiring Blair, consider what it says about him that he is in thrall to Campbell. It works for me. Blair is also apparently incapable of fighting an election without Peter Mandelson, who last week attacked the BBC for being anti-European. The charge is as plausible as accusing the chief rabbi of anti-semitism.

Meanwhile, the prime minister’s wife was doing little to increase respect for his office, simpering for a large fee about life in No 10 in front of New Zealanders whom she addressed undiplomatically as Australians. She may have Aussies on the brain.

First she had a brush with the conman Peter Foster (Carole Caplin’s former boyfriend). Then she arranged her speaking tour through another Australian, Max Markson. Adelaide’s Queen Elizabeth hospital research foundation has complained that after a charity banquet organised by Markson (addressed by Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor), it received only a fraction of the money it had expected. It must be a relief that Cherie Blair does not share Imelda Marcos’s penchant for shoes.

At home there was more grubbiness as our political parties tried to outbid each other on immigration. In this degrading competition points are awarded each time a politician promises to "crack down" on some hapless group of migrants. They will do no such thing of course. It is all talk. We were better off when, during the 30 years following Enoch Powell’s "rivers of blood" speech, the subject was taboo, especially during elections.

Blair distinguishes himself from Michael Howard by branding him an opportunist. You can never accuse Blair of lacking brass neck, since opportunist could be his middle name. On Friday the prime minister had planned to make a policy announcement in each of five cities. At the last minute his new policy for clamping down on immigration had to be added, so one city was lucky enough to receive two election pledges.

Sixteen years after their convictions were quashed, Blair also chose last week to apologise to the Guildford four. Ellen MacArthur, the round-the-world yachtswoman, could hardly make it to dry land before the prime minister had basked in her reflected glory by making her a dame. Readers thinking of setting a record in any field should do so now, before the election, unless they want to settle for a mere OBE and wait their turn in the new year honours.

All those government announcements are part of a plan to distract us from serious political debate, because in domestic politics the facts of life are stubbornly not conforming to new Labour’s model.

There is mounting evidence that Blair’s high-spending policies have been largely ineffective. Two oncologists have reported that the national cancer plan, costing £2 billion, has failed. The latest figures show a huge rise in the proportion of patients who do not start their radiotherapy treatment on time. The National Audit Office tells us that despite £885m plunged into reducing school absenteeism, truancy levels are as high as in 1997. The chief inspector of schools reports that 40% of children do not receive a decent education.

Blair must ensure that we do not focus on such inconvenient statistics. Dame Ellen has been a useful diversion. Even Campbell’s four-letter e-mails draw our eye away. But what better sideshow could there be than a royal wedding? The Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles have become key accomplices in the prime minister’s election strategy, unwittingly of course.

February 13, 2005 at 01:41 PM in UK | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

The in-crowd get out of Blair’s tent

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-525-1481497-525,00.html

The latest Chequers guest list shows how far the glitterati so sought by Blair have deserted him, writes Stuart Wavell

In the summer of 1996, the satirist Rory Bremner had a curious encounter with Tony Blair that showed the youthful premier-in-waiting was already lining up a circle of celebrity courtiers to cast a reflected glow of glory onto his government.

Bremner, holidaying in the south of France, had learnt that the Blairs were staying in the next village. To his astonishment he received a telephone call from Cherie Blair. “She asked me whether I wanted to play tennis,” he recalls. “To this day I don’t know how that came about.”

After a pleasant game with Blair and making a few jokes at the expense of John Major, then prime minister, Bremner raised a serious point. “I said, ‘We’re laughing at John Major now, but if you get into power the boot will be on the other foot and you’ll be on the receiving end.’

“Blair laughed rather nervously and said, ‘Uh, um, how does Lord Bremner sound to you?’ ” It was a joke, Bremner emphasises, “but he was aware of patronage and bringing people within the circle”.

Bremner believes the joke became more ironic over the years as he went from “believer to agnostic”. Indeed, his television series with John Bird and John Fortune looked like a more trenchant opposition to Blair than the Conservatives when they were preoccupied with internecine strife. His loss of faith parallels the collapse of Blair’s network of patronage.

The extent to which the prime minister strove to fill his “big tent” with the great, the good and the vacuous was revealed last week in a list of dinner guests at Chequers, his official country residence. Between 1997 and 2001, the Blairs hosted grand affairs for an eclectic mix of media folk, celebrities and pop stars, lawyers and novelists.

The 300-strong list, reading like a roll call of the new Labour establishment, included journalists Andrew Marr, James Naughtie, Polly Toynbee and Will Hutton and entertainers Elton John, David Bowie, Mick Hucknall, Sting and Bono. From the film world came Lords Attenborough and Puttnam, while actors Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, Emma Thompson, Sinead Cusack and Jeremy Irons were keen to oblige.

These gatherings of up to 20 guests marked new Labour’s golden age, when Blair seldom put a foot wrong. Robert Harris, the novelist, who attended one of the Blairs’ first Chequers dinners in 1997, recalls: “Few prime ministers have come to power with such a great wave of enthusiasm.” Blair was at his most charming, not belabouring his guests with politics but keen to discuss sport or a movie. The only odd note was struck when Derry Irvine, the lord chancellor and Blair’s former legal mentor, bellowed: “Where’s young Blair? It’s time for young Blair to bring us some whisky!” The significance of these private dinners was in part Blair’s choice of guests, but something more subtle was also at work, believes Michael Cockerell, whose television documentaries have chronicled new Labour.

“From 1994, Blair was keen to identify the new Labour brand with the coming millennium — which was his way of lasering out the negatives from old Labour. He wanted to bring in role models who were young, trendy, black, gay, modern or beautiful — and sometimes all of the above.”

The flattery of an invitation to Chequers was a powerful piece of persuasion. Peter Kellner, the pollster and commentator, remembers his evening at Chequers six years ago with pleasure.

“Physically, it’s a very striking place,” he says. “Security is very tight and you’re met by armed guards at the entrance. Cherie was dressed in a black evening gown and Tony was in smart denims, which I deduced was to make everybody feel at ease.

“After dinner we went on a little tour of the house. In the main bedroom there were some paintings by old masters, one of which Churchill had painted a little mouse on during the war. You end up in the library for coffee, around an octagonal table on which sits a battered leather bag that was Napoleon’s briefcase.”

A pall seems to have been cast over such evenings in Blair’s second term. A guest list for 2001-3 suggests he was trawling the B-list of celebrities. The names of Des O’Connor, Geri Halliwell, Esther Rantzen and Michael Ball stirred sharp comment when they were released by the Cabinet Office last year. “Why should we pay for Des O’Connor’s dinner?” a newspaper headline demanded.

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP who secured the release of the lists, says: “It looks like a sad decline in the people with whom Blair shared his time after the 2001 election. Was it because people were declining the invitations?” By then, whole sections of the glitterati had begun to sheer off. For some the Bernie Ecclestone affair — when the government apparently favoured Formula One retaining tobacco advertising in exchange for a £1m donation — was the first moment of truth. Others recoiled at the Millennium Dome fiasco.

Blair’s stance on the Iraq war was the final straw for many. “His fatal flaw was one of hubris,” said Richard Eyre, the theatre director, who once believed Blair was “somebody one could take at face value”. The prime minister “believed he could marry his particular brand of moral purpose with another brand of fundamental fervour — that of George Bush — and I think it has proved to be a hopeless misjudgment”. Harry Enfield, the comedian, who had paid £1,000 to belong to new Labour’s celebrity supporters club, said recently: “I wish he’d go.”

The novelist Ken Follett, who ran the 1,000 Club, claimed his credibility was “destroyed” one night when Blair’s media advisers decided that he and other so-called “luvvie” supporters were wrong for the Blair image.

Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies, then respectively director-general and chairman of the BBC, also came to feel betrayed by Labour over Andrew Gilligan’s report on the “sexed-up” dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Even Irvine was given his cards.

High-profile insiders, too, found they could no longer resolve the contradictions Blair wanted them to straddle. Chris Woodhead, who was entertained at Chequers as chief inspector of schools, resigned in 2000 after growing disillusionment with new Labour.

Among prominent novelists, only Melvyn Bragg and Harris remain friends of the Blairs. Harris believes the evaporation of celebrity support was inevitable. “There doesn’t seem to be the same sort of loyalty there used to be. I feel this; my natural tendency is to rebel against authority. That’s why I joined the left in the first place.”

It follows, he believes, that the concept of a Labour establishment is “a kind of oxymoron” for people of the left. So Blair’s big tent looks increasingly bare and celebrity dinners seem to be a thing of the past.

In Bremner’s opinion, this reflects the path the prime minister has chosen. “His journey has been from being an inclusive person, all things to all men, to the Blair of Iraq, when he is aware of his place in history. He feels his time is running out and he’s almost impatient with the party and the country.”

CHEQUERS MATES: THE GREAT AND THE GOOD AT TONY’S TABLE

George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury and wife

Cilla Black, Blind Date presenter

David Blunkett, former home secretary

Bono, singer

David Bowie and Iman, singer and his wife

Joan Collins, actress who supported the UK Independence party in last summer’s Euro elections

Robin Cook, former foreign secretary and his wife

Richard Curtis, the man behind Four Weddings and a Funeral

Judy Dench, actress

Greg Dyke, former BBC director-general

Dawn French, comedian

Matthew Freud, PR fixer

Stephen Fry, actor

Bob Geldof, rock star and campaigner

Susan Greenfield, leading academic

Mick Hucknall, lead singer of Simply Red

Elton John, singer-songwriter

Neil Kinnock, former leader of Labour party

Helen Mirren, actress

James Naughtie, Today programme presenter

Salman Rushdie, author and his wife

Delia Smith, TV chef

Sting and Trudie Styler, singer and environmentalist and his wife

February 13, 2005 at 01:26 PM in UK | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Ministers' U-turn on phone taps

Times Online - Sunday Times

David Leppard and David Cracknell
MINISTERS are preparing a U-turn over controversial plans for combating the threat of terrorism. The introduction of telephone intercept evidence in court is being considered by Charles Clarke, the home secretary, and the move is backed by MI5, the police and the Tories.

Britain and Ireland are the only countries to ban evidence from telephone taps in court prosecutions but even Liberty, the civil liberties group, has backed its use.

Clarke, who last month said he opposed the move, is now prepared to review the ban and next week is also expected to confirm a U-turn on plans to keep terror suspects under house arrest.

The about-turn on house arrest was agreed by the cabinet on Thursday after Clarke said the police and MI5 opposed the plans, which also faced defeat in the courts and parliament.

The move follows advice from the security services, which said the house arrest plans would create a focus for disaffection with radical protesters drawn to demonstrate outside suspects’ homes. They believe the houses could become recruiting centres for Islamic fundamentalists, in the same way that internment without trial in Northern Ireland helped IRA recruitment.

While abandoning house arrest, Clarke is expected to announce that both foreign and British-born terror suspects could be subject to “control orders”, such as electronic tagging, curfews and limits on use of the internet.

Pressure on the home secretary to change his new policy — announced only last month — will continue this week when Lord Carlile of Berriew, the government’s independent adviser on terrorist legislation, will say he wants new laws to allow telephone intercept evidence to be used in court.

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, has told Tony Blair that, on balance, the spy agency favours the use of telephone tapping evidence. Her views, and those of senior police chiefs, such as Sir Ian Blair, the new Metropolitan police commissioner, are likely to persuade Clarke that the measure could be added as an amendment to government legislation.

This Friday Blair and Clarke will meet Michael Howard, the Tory leader, and David Davis, the shadow home secretary, at a Downing Street “terror summit” in an attempt to secure a cross-party consensus.

The Tories will say they are prepared to support the government if it drops the present house arrest proposals and promises to consider abandoning the ban on phone-tap evidence.

If there is agreement, the Tories will vote with the government to continue the temporary detention of 10 terror suspects in Belmarsh jail and Broadmoor top security hospital.

The law lords have ruled that their detention is illegal and the suspects are due to be released on March 10. o A man arrested at Heathrow on Tuesday has been charged with conspiring to cause an explosion between October 2003 and March last year. Salahuddin Amin, 29, who arrived on a flight from Pakistan, will appear before Bow Street magistrates in London tomorrow.

February 13, 2005 at 01:00 PM in MI5 | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Hercules victims flown home

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-6047-1476055,00.html

By Michael Evans

A FULL panoply of top brass attended the ceremony yesterday for the repatriation of the bodies of ten servicemen killed in the C130 Hercules crash in Iraq 11 days ago.

The presence of the most senior military commanders at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire, as well as the Princess Royal and Geoff Hoon, the Defence Sercetary, highlighted the devastating impact that the crash — the cause of which is still unknown — has had on Britain’s special forces units.

A former special forces member said: “This has not only been a blow for 47 Squadron (to which five of those who died belonged) but also for the regiment (22 SAS Regiment). They all know each other because they serve together in difficult and extreme operational conditions.� An inquest will be held into their deaths.

February 13, 2005 at 12:59 PM in SAS | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Breaking the Al-Qaeda code

Times Online - Sunday Times

Christina Lamb, Charleston
Terror database is secret weapon
SLEEPY Charleston, the South Carolina hometown of Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind, seems an unlikely place to be on the front line of the global war on terror.

Yet on the third floor of a glass office building overlooking the Cooper river is a locked room that is straight out of a futuristic thriller.

Inside, a series of control panels with flashing lights and whirring hard drives comprise the master computer of the world’s largest free-standing database of intelligence on Islamic terrorism. It could hold the key to dismantling Al-Qaeda.

“It’s the best database on Islamic terrorism in the world,” said a senior counter-terrorism official at the FBI.

The database is the pivotal tool in what those involved say will be the biggest class action in history: a $1 trillion lawsuit on behalf of the families of 1,431 of the people killed on 9/11 and 1,325 of the injured.

More than 100 of the clients are British. Yet while investigators building up the database have received government help in 19 countries, from Afghanistan to Syria, they have had none in Britain, according to Ron Motley, the lawyer behind the action.

“We’ve had zero co-operation from the UK,” said Motley, who works from an enormous yacht named Themis after the Greek goddess of justice. “They just don’t want to help their own citizens.”

Among the millions of pages of documents collated elsewhere are the Jordanian intelligence records on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, America’s most wanted man in Iraq; Bosnian intelligence files of the minutes of the meeting to form Al-Qaeda; German prosecution reports on the Hamburg cell that spawned many of the key players of the September 11 attacks; and Spanish documents that show links between 9/11 and the 2004 Madrid bombings.

There are also records from the Philippines on the failed 1995 Bojinka plot to blow up 12 American airliners over the Pacific, the forerunner of 9/11; Moroccan intelligence on the 2003 Casablanca bombings and Moroccan members of the Hamburg cell; Russian files on Chechnya; and the Swiss bank records of Osama Bin Laden.

I first got an idea of the scale of the operation last year when I ran into two Americans in the home of an Afghan warlord. The sunglasses and bulging briefcases made me think CIA. But it emerged that they were a retired FBI agent and a former special forces officer, working as investigators for Motley.

I was the first journalist to be granted access to the database. Down a series of oak-panelled corridors in Motley’s law office is a darkened room where two database managers sit at laptops in front of a large screen. They showed me how they have adapted a British computer program called Analysts’ Notebook — used by many law enforcement agencies — to find links between some of America’s most wanted terrorists, well known Islamic charities and famous banks.

We typed in “Abdelghani Mzoudi”, one of the Moroccans from the Hamburg cell who, the German authorities believe, was involved in logistics for 9/11. We added “account” and the computer flashed up six accounts. We followed payments to his Citibank account in Düsseldorf and found that his fellow Moroccan, Zakariya Essabar, was the source of one of the transactions. Soon there was a web of bank transactions on screen, linking the two men.

Mzoudi was acquitted last year by a German court that said there was a significant possibility he knew nothing of the plot. German prosecutors are appealing.

One of the database managers demonstrated their party-piece: how they discovered who was behind the Madrid bombings. Running the names of those arrested through their database, they found the same names in documents from the German prosecutors.

“The Spanish government was blaming it on Eta and we were able to show it was Al-Qaeda, because the same names had been lower league players in Hamburg,” he said.

Jack Cordray, a lawyer involved in the case, has visited prosecutors, magistrates and police chiefs all over the world. He spent weeks with Judge Baltasar Garzon, Spain’s most famous investigator, and got 40,000 pages of documents transferred to the US courts.

From Madrid he went to Bosnia, Germany, Russia and on and on, picking up court transcripts, seized documents, financial records and wiretap evidence.

Cordray was astonished by a lack of intelligence-sharing. “We found information in one country was not being passed to another so terrorists were easily able to move because evidence of their existence stopped at the border. Thus the members of the Hamburg cell could start all over again in Madrid because the Spanish government did not have the German records.”

New information is coming in all the time, particularly on the Madrid-Hamburg nexus. The investigation discovered that the July 2001 meetings in Spain of the 9/11 hijackers included individuals who took part in the Madrid bombings.

“We also discovered transfers from the Saudi ministry of interior directly to the Madrid cell,” said Cordray. “You are not telling me that money was for building mosques.”

This allegation of Saudi financial support is fundamental to the class action. The case is based on the argument that the 9/11 hijackers could not have carried out the attacks without generous — largely Saudi — backing. It rests on the premise that those who finance terrorist organisations are liable for the damage they cause.

The CIA estimates Al-Qaeda’s annual running costs at $30m (