Intelligence

June 29, 2005

The problem with 4th generation war

Download file

June 29, 2005 at 12:46 AM in US | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

June 27, 2005

On becoming a Chinese Colony

On becoming a Chinese Colony - Sokwanele

Sokwanele Special Report : 21 June 2005

Spontaneous protest, Bulawayo, 19 June 2005"We are a sovereign nation! We will never be a colony again!" This slogan drove ZANU PF's 2005 election campaign; and it was followed by a frenzied attack on Tony Blair and his treasonous accomplices of imperialism within Zimbabwe. The thousands of school children forced to listen to such rantings have never experienced being a colony and surely do not understand the concept of sovereignty. But it becomes increasingly apparent that few of those who shout from the rooftops about our much vaunted sovereignty understand it either. They do not understand that sovereignty in today's globalised community holds little meaning for many nations, and even less for a country with a collapsed economy. But even worse, as they boast disingenuously of Zimbabwe's sovereignty, they are busy selling what little remains of it to a different coloniser - the Chinese.

In the 1960's, when our push for independence with majority rule began in earnest, we knew what a colony meant, and thought we knew what sovereignty meant. A colony was a country ruled not by its own people, but by others. Sovereignty meant being in charge of our own fate, our own government, our own natural resources, and our own decisions about our present and future development. If we threw off our foreign rulers then we would be sovereign in our own land. There were two problems with this, we discovered. One was that in order to gain that "independence" we had to make compromises, particularly in regard to what we could do with private ownership of land. Secondly, although we might be politically independent, economically we could not progress without assistance from foreigners in the form of loans and investment.

Throughout the first twenty years of "Independence", ZANU PF pursued an essentially western-oriented, capitalist approach to the economy. In spite of socialist rhetoric and tight economic controls, socialism was in no way a serious prospect. When the economy ran into trouble at the end of the 1980's, because we could not pay our debts, we had to depend on balance of payments support from the IMF; being indebted meant we had to take instructions from the lenders on how to organise our economy, and this entangled us deeper in the tentacles of world capitalism. Indeed, we were no longer a colony, but we were hardly sovereign in our land because we could not choose our own policies. Too late ZANU PF realised the danger. By the end of the 1990's with the economy contracting under structural adjustment, ZANU's political support crumbled. They decided to renew efforts to use land redistribution to pacify supporters and reinvigorate the economy. But land reform still required foreign assistance and they were frustrated by conditions placed by donors who distrusted their corrupt, opaque and nepotistic methods. It is a fact of economic life that the financier dictates the terms; but while in 1980 and 1990 ZANU PF had been prepared to work within the conditions, in 2000 they could see that the impositions would affect their ability to rule by patronage. Instead they staged a governmental temper tantrum, denounced the west, and returned to the anti-imperialist rhetoric of the liberation struggle.

In the name of sovereignty, of not accepting dictates from anyone, they accused the west of interfering in their internal affairs. And then rationality flew away in the wind and they took the breathtaking step of destroying the whole of the economy. Did they believe that it could be rebuilt from scratch and genuine independence would result? Had they no understanding of the painstaking work based on experience, skill, time and financial resources required to develop a complex economy such as was Zimbabwe's? Free from external dictates of western governments they may now be, but it is time to realise that economic reality can also dictate and curtail sovereignty.

When the economic dislocation began to produce serious shortages, it became clear that ZANU PF could not "go it alone"; they had no alternative but to look for other friends. Did they believe that the new friends would not place conditions on them, would respect their "sovereignty"? The first choice was Libya, because at least it could produce badly needed fuel, and it was known to be anti-western; but Libya was not enough of a friend to give away fuel that could not be paid for, and was just then busy compromising its own "sovereignty" to gain acceptability in the western world. Malaysia was initially sympathetic but had a change of leadership, which diverted its interest in assisting ZANU PF. Then they had to look for the player of last resort - the Chinese.

It was not the first time that ZANU PF had turned to China when it had no other friends. In the early 1960's, when the nationalists decided to demand full independence, they first thought that they could achieve it simply by negotiating with the British government. They were not socialists and were not revolutionaries; they were nationalists, wanting a liberal form of democracy on the British model. But the British could not or would not deliver. The decision to embrace armed struggle drove both ZAPU and ZANU to the "East". ZAPU, on the scene earlier, had made contact with the Soviet Union. ZANU was forced to make do with the Chinese version of communism; the split between the Soviet Union and China by the early 60's allowed them space to develop alongside the Soviet-backed ZAPU. ZANU rapidly transformed themselves into socialists and developed a new rhetoric to fit the need for support from China. They sacrificed the freedom to develop their own political line in order to get training, logistics, and political support. And increasingly Chinese ideology seemed to make sense in their struggle to dislodge settler colonialism.

In the 60's, ZANU needed China to assist with the struggle to overthrow colonialism. China needed ZANU to bolster its quarrel with the Soviets for the control of world communism. China was itself becoming a champion of the oppressed and colonised, in competition with the Soviet Union, and African liberation movements provided suitable clients. The split in the Zimbabwean liberation movement was a golden opportunity.

ZANU PF is again in desperate need of a friend. They have clung to power in Zimbabwe in the face of clear and repeated demonstrations that the people do not want them. They have destroyed an already struggling economy in the name of anti-imperialism and sovereignty. They have alienated their friends of the 1980's and the 1990's. What better solution than to turn again to their friend of the 1960's and 70's?

During the Cold War, China pursued interests in independent African countries, providing assistance with projects such as the building of the railway from Zambia to Dar es Salaam after UDI, building roads, selling consumer goods, and distributing thousands of free copies of Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book". Their motive was primarily ideological. Surely they would be able to help ZANU PF again in their hour of need, to combat a common enemy.

But while ZANU is still thinking in the cadences of armed revolutionary struggle against imperialism, the Chinese have moved on. Their once underdeveloped economy is fast transforming into a challenger to the dominant Americans, using capitalist principles of exploitation and profit taking.

China has recreated itself in the past fifteen years. The retention of a communist political system means little more than complete control of the political space by the Communist Party. Economically, they have developed capitalist production, relying to some extent on American, Japanese and European investment, but also on opening up to private Chinese ownership, particularly in the manufacturing sector. Growth of the Chinese economy in the past decade has been phenomenal, and they have reached the stage that European capitalism reached in the 19th century. The Chinese companies need fields for investment where they can raise capital through super-profits, they need raw materials, and they also need markets where they can sell the vast output from thousands of factories that produce cheap consumer goods.

Inside China, economic development has been rapid since the early nineties, but it is within the last five years that it has started to have a major impact on the world economy. It is a magnet for investment from the west, particularly the U.S.; it has seen major population changes from rural to urban centres, huge developments in the energy and electronics sectors and massive growth of manufacturing as its citizens become more able to afford mass-produced consumer goods. And as it has transformed its production from state-owned to privately owned, it has invaded foreign markets with all kinds of goods. Last year it joined the World Trade Organisation.

Quietly, without fanfare, China has been moving into Africa. Africa is the one continent which still has relatively untapped reserves, particularly of fossil fuels and minerals. Her main targets have been Sudan, Nigeria, and Angola. China needs oil, and has been getting it. She has been developing oilfields in Sudan and now Sudan supplies 5% of her oil consumption. Nigeria not only has oil, but also provides a huge market in a country where manufacturing is not well developed. But there is no African country where China would not like to sell her manufactured goods, particularly clothing, shoes, hardware, electronic goods - in fact almost anything, including as we have seen, airplanes. In just three years, from 2001 to 2004, China's trade with Africa has more than doubled from $US10 billion to $US 20 billion.

What could China want in Zimbabwe? We do not have oil, our population is small compared to those of larger African countries. Our location is not particularly strategic for an outsider. What the Chinese want is raw materials and opportunities for investment. They will be happy to have a share in mines, power production, anything that can turn them a profit for a comparatively small amount of investment. These are wanted not so much by the Chinese government, but by individual companies. They also need an outlet for the substandard manufactured goods that cannot be sold in the developed world, where they sell their quality products. The Chinese government is interested in their companies' progress, and assists them through such bodies as the China-Africa Co-operation Forum.

For China, Zimbabwe is economic small fry, but for ZANU PF, China is the only way out of a deep hole. ZANU PF needs what it has thrown away from the rest of the world - investment to get the economy going again, investment to cover the foreign currency gap, the energy gap, the food gap, and the agricultural production gap. But ZANU PF needs the Chinese for something more sinister as well - perhaps it is only the Chinese who are prepared to assist them to stay in power against the wishes of their own people. The Chinese have ample experience in controlling restive peoples, both their own and those they have colonised, as in Tibet. They have no compunctions about democracy or human rights, only a single minded obsession with control. And since their own people do not enjoy democratic freedom of expression and participation, they have no check on what types of regimes they support elsewhere. ZANU PF has doubtless observed how China has been able to supply the Sudanese government with military equipment used against their own people and at the same time frustrate any United Nations action against Sudan for the atrocities in Darfur.
.
The Chinese government also has an interest in political alliances that will promote China's policies world-wide. They want supporting votes in international bodies that will protect them from scrutiny over their human rights abuses, their non-observance of international labour standards, not to mention violations of democratic principles and civil rights. A state such as Zimbabwe can provide that support.

But the Chinese government is also perhaps the only one that succeeded in destroying their own economy while yet remaining in power. They reduced their own economy to ruins during the "Cultural Revolution" of the 1960's and 70's, when they subdued all ideas outside the accepted party line through extreme brutality and deliberate breakdown of society. As communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, they prevented the same from occurring in China by the brute force symbolised by the massacre of hundreds in Tienanmen Square in 1989. They probably understand what ZANU PF are trying to do, and are quite prepared to help them do it.

So where are we at the moment in terms of engagement with the Chinese? Our government is so secretive that it is often difficult to have authenticated information. In terms of investment, we have been told of their interest in Hwange colliery and electricity generation, their interest in farming, and of possible involvement in platinum mining. We know the government is targeting China as a source of tourists; we also know that we have bought three commercial airplanes for the price of two, and we have seen the Chinese busses that are reportedly of poor quality. We have also seen the military aircraft, the brand new army trucks and riot gear, and experienced the effects of jamming of radio broadcasts, said to be done using Chinese equipment.

What we do not know are the terms of engagement. Is it true that we are paying for military equipment and commercial aircraft with our tobacco crop, or with our natural resources? We don't know; nor do we know the prices we are paying. We have already seen the flood of cheap Chinese goods on the market. How do they repatriate their profits? There are stories such as that of the individual Chinese businessman who made enough profit in four years of small trading to build himself a house in Dubai. Are they being favoured in forex deals? We don't know. While we may need the investment in key productive areas, what are we giving in exchange? One thing we do know from our own experience is that the Chinese do not have any concern for labour standards and exploit labour to the fullest. Furthermore, they often do not even provide the jobs we need, preferring to bring their own personnel to work on projects in Africa. And their environmental awareness has been open to question even within China, demonstrating that development takes priority, with environmental impact far down the scale of priorities. If they have no wish to preserve their own environment, why would they care about ours?

Recently we have seen the use of the Chinese jets, the army trucks and riot gear in the war on the urban poor. The use of slogans for campaigns such as "Driving out the Rubbish" are reminiscent of Chinese campaigns during the Cultural Revolution. Is this the beginning of an attempt, with Chinese assistance and protection, to engineer society in a manner beneficial to ZANU PF? It is too early to tell, but it is a frightening thought.

If we follow this policy line, where will we be in three or fours years' time? Of course it all depends on how large the Chinese presence looms, and how much we offer in return. Although we could not describe the relationship between our two countries as classic colonialism, it certainly fits the bill of late twentieth century neo-colonialism - we invest in your economy for our own benefit, extract the natural resources for the development of our own industries, not yours, and sell you the products of our factories. Such investment brings few jobs for Zimbabweans, and little benefit, while the Chinese take their profits. That is the economic side of it. The political side is even more sinister for the Zimbabwean people - we provide you the means to maintain your control over your own people when they resist your policies, and the protection from censure in international bodies.

The Chinese know that our people do not appreciate the relationship, but they will support an oppressive government so that the relationship can continue to their benefit. As long as ZANU PF remains in power they will provide them with military equipment, even airplanes, to suppress the people's aspirations, their right not to be arbitrarily deprived of their property, their civil rights, even their right to make a living in the informal sector. They will assist ZANU PF to gain total control of all information that circulates in the country so that people may remain in ignorance. They even know how to depopulate cities and send "unwanted elements" to the countryside for hard labour. In spite of all the sweet nothings mouthed at diplomatic encounters, China is no longer the champion of African "liberation" or even of African development. Its business deals are purely that - business, and in competition with American business to exploit the opportunities that Africa offers. The political deals serve their own interests first, the ZANU PF elite second, and the Zimbabwean people not at all.

ZANU PF seems to think that the Chinese will rescue them and the economy. It's possible that they will, but not in the name of sovereignty, not in the name of development and certainly not in the name of democratic progress. They will become the new colonisers, dictating the terms of engagement. They may bring a distorted growth while undermining indigenous Zimbabwean development, and depriving us of what little is left of our rights as citizens. China will not be the champion of poor Zimbabweans, the defenders of our nation against the grasping foreigner. China will be the foreigner and ZANU PF the aider and abettor in the sale of our resources and exploitation of our people. Has ZANU PF understood the price of turning to China at this juncture? Or is no price too high to pay for remaining in power?

June 27, 2005 at 08:19 PM in China | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Iraq rebellion 'could last years'

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq rebellion 'could last years'

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has warned it may be years before the insurgency in Iraq is defeated.

Speaking on US television, Mr Rumsfeld said ultimately Iraq's own forces, rather than coalition troops, would beat the insurgents.

Earlier, Mr Rumsfeld said US officials in Iraq have had talks with leaders of the insurgency.

Earlier, Mr Rumsfeld said US officials in Iraq have had talks with leaders of the insurgency.

It comes amid growing concern in the US about rising casualties and warnings that the insurgency is strengthening.

Recent opinion polls in the United States have shown a considerable drop in support for the US-led invasion of Iraq.

President George W Bush is to make a prime-time address to the nation about the situation in Iraq on Tuesday.

More than 1,000 people - mostly Iraqis - have been killed since the new government was installed in April.

Domestic concerns

The US defence secretary told Fox News: "Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.

"Coalition forces, foreign forces, are not going to repress that insurgency. We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency."

Mr Rumsfeld warned that violence could escalate ahead of new elections for a permanent government, due in December.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
There's no-one negotiating with Zarqawi or the people that are out chopping people's heads off
Donald Rumsfeld
US Defence Secretary
Maintaining domestic support for a continuing role in Iraq was crucial, Mr Rumsfeld said, but he warned about paying too much attention to a myriad of opinion polls.

"If you start chasing polls, you're going to get seasick," he said.

"The task for the president and the government and the military leadership is to show that progress is being made, which it is."

The senior US general in the Middle East, John Abizaid, also called for Americans to remain calm.

"We don't need to fight this war looking over our shoulder worrying about the support back home."

The BBC's Ian Pannell in Washington says the White House, engaged in a public relations offensive, is worried by the rising casualties, the ongoing insurgency and waning domestic support.

The latest remarks by Mr Rumsfeld would suggest that managing expectations is now an important part of White House strategy, our correspondent says.

Meetings downplayed

During a round of network TV interviews, Mr Rumsfeld made light of a report by a British newspaper that said US officials have secretly met with Iraqi insurgents.

Meetings go on "all the time", Mr Rumsfeld said, adding that Iraq's government often initiates contact.

"I would not make a big deal out of it.

Mr Rumsfeld denied a Sunday Times report that the US met with Ansar al-Sunna, which has carried out suicide bombings, and several other Islamist groups.

"There's no one negotiating with Zarqawi or the people that are out chopping people's heads off... but they're certainly reaching out continuously, and we help to facilitate those from time to time," Mr Rumsfeld said.

A statement allegedly from the leader of Ansar al-Sunna was also posted on the internet denying all contact.

"Jihad is the only way to restore dignity to this nation. Without this dignity, the nation will be shamed and defeated," the statement said.

June 27, 2005 at 12:36 AM in Iraq | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Freed hostage tells of killings

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Freed hostage tells of killings

An Australian who was held hostage in Iraq has described the murders of two fellow detainees in the same room.

In his first extensive interview, Douglas Wood, 63, also told Australian TV of his efforts to retain his sanity during his captivity.

The engineer was held for 47 days by gunmen in Baghdad before being rescued by Iraqi forces earlier this month.

He was reportedly paid A$400,000 dollars (US$307,000; £169,000) by Channel Ten for his story.

Mr Wood was bound, gagged, beaten and fed only bread and water by his captors.

'Replay of my life'

He said he heard two Iraqi captives being murdered on successive nights, the first after he had been knocked to the ground just inches from the Australian's feet.

"He collapsed to the ground. His head was maybe two inches from my foot and bang, bang, bang - even a silenced gun is very consciously a gun shot in an enclosed space.

"The next night they came in and there was a television set. They turned up the volume... and then bang and a minute later another bang."

Douglas Wood on a videotape
Wood said he felt like a traitor after calling for the withdrawal of troops
Asked how he felt about the killings, Wood replied that he had thought: "When is my turn?"

But he said the low point of his ordeal was when, during a brief period when he was not blindfolded, he saw his two Iraqi assistants led away to their deaths.

"I feel absolutely rotten. I was the ultimate cause of it."

He said he planned to send money to the families of the dead men.

He said his time in captivity was often uneventful but was punctuated by immense fear.

"I think I was conscious of trying to keep myself sane, by exercising my mind - a replay of my life, all the girls I've ever known, try and count them, what were their names...?"

Ransom denial

Mr Wood was found in a house in Baghdad by Iraqi and US soldiers during what one military commander said was a "simple everyday mission".

When his rescuers were breaking in through the front door, Mr Wood said he thought al-Qaeda had come to execute him.

"The fear side of me is thinking maybe bloody al-Qaeda turned up and decided to take over, and that meant cut the throat time."

He also said he felt like a traitor when he was forced at gunpoint to make a video plea for the US and Australia to withdraw their troops from Iraq.

Mr Wood is recovering with his family in Melbourne.

The BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney says relatives have expressed their worries about his mental health, although he appeared to be bright and spirited during his television interview.

The Australian government has insisted that no ransom was paid to secure Mr Wood's freedom.

June 27, 2005 at 12:35 AM in Iraq | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

June 26, 2005

The secret Downing Street memo

The secret Downing Street memo - Sunday Times - Times Online

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

June 26, 2005 at 03:28 PM in Iraq | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

The leaked Iraq war documents

The leaked Iraq war documents - Sunday Times - Times Online

Michael Smith
The level of interest in the now famous Downing Street Memo, published in the May 1 edition of The Sunday Times, and in the leaked documents published over subsequent weeks, has been extraordinary
This new web page is designed to give our readers access to all the stories we have written about three highly classified documents on the Iraq war that were leaked to the Sunday Times ahead of the British General Election on 5 May 2005.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

These three documents include the now famous “Downing Street Memo”, which contains the minutes of a meeting of what was effectively Tony Blair’s war cabinet held in Downing Street on 23 July 2005.

The meeting was a crucial one. President George W Bush was due to make a decision on which military plan should be used for the invasion of Iraq. The British had a number of deep concerns over the US plans which Blair would have to raise with the US president.

The Foreign Office was particularly concerned over US lack of interest in planning for the aftermath of the war and the lack of a legal justification for ousting Saddam. Regime change for its own sake is illegal under international law. It was therefore seen as essential that the allies went first to the UN to obtain a Security Council resolution backing the use of force to oust Saddam.

It was in this context that the main players on the British side met. Blair chaired the meeting, which was also attended by the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw; the then Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon; the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith; Sir Richard Dearlove, the Chief of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (better known as MI6); the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee John Scarlett; and Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, who as Chief of Defence Staff was head of Britain’s armed forces.

The key quotes in this particular document came from:

Dearlove, who had just returned from Washington where he had talks with George Tenet, and was quoted as saying that there was “a perceptible shift in attitude” in the US capital. “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, though military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

Straw, who said: “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military actions, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.” Britain should “work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.”

And Geoff Hoon, who in what may yet turn out to be the most damaging quote of all, said that “the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime”. (See British Bombing Raids were Illegal, says Foreign Office, 19 June 2005)

An inside-page article set out the context for the publication of the leaked document (see Blair planned Iraq war from the start, 1 May 2005), and it was in fact the second of the documents, the Cabinet Office briefing paper, Iraq: Conditions for Military Action, on which we based our first front-page story (Blair hit by new leak of secret war plan, 1 May 2005).

This document distributed on 21 July 2005 two days before the Downing Street meeting was designed to brief the participants on the latest situation with regard to the US war planning. It gives an astonishing feel of the official concern felt within Whitehall over the way in which things were going, the lack of legal justification, the failure to prepare for the post-war situation in Iraq and most particularly the fact that there was no way that Britain could get out of going to war (See Ministers were told of need for Gulf War excuse, 12 June 2005).

For as the briefing paper made clear very early on “When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change.”

At the time, this was the most damaging part of any of the documents. Despite Blair’s repeated insistence throughout 2002 that no decision had been taken to go to war with Iraq, political analysts had long believed that the decision was in fact made at the Bush-Blair summit at the president’s range at Crawford, Texas, in early April 2002. Not only did this confirm it, but it did so in terms that were highly damaging to the prime minister.

Despite having been warned by his officials that “regime change per se is illegal” he had agreed to back military action to achieve it. There were three conditions attached to his agreement. But the most crucial of these, that “options for action to eliminate Iraq’s WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted” would never be achieved.

The third leaked document was Foreign Office legal advice, which was appended to the briefing paper. This is a useful background document on the British view of international law the text of which is now also published on this website.

The recent circulation on the internet of the text of five other similar memos, which were leaked to me last September, has raised some interesting issues, largely because I destroyed the original copies I was given to protect my source. A number of supporters of President Bush have even suggested that this somehow “proved” that the documents were not genuine.

Firstly, all of the documents have been authenticated not just by me, but by the Washington Post, the LA Times and the Associated Press. Secondly, the various documents included quotes from a dozen senior officials, including Blair, Straw and Hoon, none of whom have come forward to dismiss them as fakes. Thirdly it is a matter of record that a police Special Branch leak investigation took place into how I came to get hold of the documents, something that would not have occurred were they forgeries.

The leak investigation should come as no surprise to anyone who has read the Downing Street Memo, which carries the stern warning, “This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.” The irony is of course that the attention given to the document by the internet bloggers once it appeared on this website has almost certainly made it the most widely read secret British document in history.

Additional links: Hansard on bombs dropped March to October 2002

Hansard on bombs dropped October 2002 to January 2003

June 26, 2005 at 03:26 PM in Iraq | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

How the leaked documents questioning war emerged from 'Britain's Deep Throat'

How the leaked documents questioning war emerged from 'Britain's Deep Throat' - Sunday Times - Times Online

It started with a phone call and has now swept across America: Michael Smith tells the tale of his ‘Downing Street memo’ scoop
It began with a phone call from a friend nearly 10 months ago — somebody well-placed who had given me a few stories before. But he wasn’t really a journalistic source, though he has now been dubbed “the British Deep Throat” by some of the US press

He was just a friend. So I had no great expectations of the meeting we arranged in a quiet West End bar. I was just expecting a convivial drink, with the usual exchange of gossip, the catching-up on how our lives were going.

Almost immediately it was clear that this time it would be something more. The place was empty, but my friend chose the most secluded spot he could find. He was clearly nervous.

He wasn’t sure if I’d be interested in what he had, he said. It was about the run-up to the war. “All the Butler stuff,” he said, referring to Lord Butler, who had reported on the failures of intelligence over Iraq.

He thrust two sheets of paper into my hand. It was a “Secret — Strictly Personal” letter from Jack Straw to the prime minister written in March 2002, a year before the invasion.

In the letter the foreign secretary said there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction worth talking about and that, in part as a result of a lack of US preparation, post-war Iraq was likely to become a very nasty place.

It was, in short, remarkably prescient and would make a pretty good story, I said, with some understatement. Well, I’ve got five others just like it from the same period, said my source. “Most say stuff just like that, or worse.”

The documents covered the period running up to a summit between George W Bush and Tony Blair at the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in early April 2002. At that time the swift victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan had left hawks in the US administration openly briefing that Iraq was next.

Most of the leaked documents were designed to brief ministers or Blair on whether backing the US plans to get rid of Saddam would be sensible and legal. They set out the merits and dangers of taking part. Their gist was that there weren’t many merits. The documents made it pretty clear that it wasn’t sensible, it wasn’t legal and it was very risky.

The document that seemed to encapsulate the problems was another “Secret — Strictly Personal” letter to Blair. It was written by his foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning.

“I think there is a real risk that the (US) administration underestimates the difficulties,” Manning wrote. “They may agree that failure isn’t an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it.”

When I reported these documents I was surprised to find that there was no real interest in them in America. The story swiftly died away.

Then eight months later, in the run-up to Britain’s general election, with the focus on the attorney-general’s advice to Blair on the legality of war, somebody else gave me further, even more startling documents. They concerned a meeting in Downing Street on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion, when Blair was insisting to the public that all options on Iraq were still open.

One leaked document was a Cabinet Office briefing paper for a crucial Downing Street meeting held on the day in question. It said the prime minister had promised Bush at the Crawford summit that he would “back military action to bring about regime change”. It added that ministers had no choice but to “create the conditions” that would make military action legal.

The other document was the minutes of the actual meeting, chaired by Blair and attended by Straw; Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general; Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6; John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee; and Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff.

Dearlove, who had just returned from Washington, said “military action was now seen as inevitable . . . the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action”.

Straw agreed with Dearlove. He said Bush had “made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin”.

After reporting these secret memos, which revealed the dubious manoeuvrings of government, I expected the US press to react. Surely there would be a storm of anger over the way in which the American public had been deceived into going to war? But still there was no interest. Then slowly something astonishing happened. People power took over.

The Sunday Times website was inundated with ordinary US citizens wanting to read the minutes of the July meeting. Bloggers set to work passing the word.

Six ordinary, patriotic citizens with no political axe to grind were so outraged to discover the truth about the path to war that they set up their own website, naming it after the minutes, which had become known as the Downing Street memo.

Another website called AfterDowningStreet followed. People got together to lobby their local newspapers and radio and television stations to demand to know why they weren’t being told about the memo. There were even T-shirts made with the slogan: “Have you read the memo?” With anger over the war growing, Washington politicians finally acted. More than 120 congressmen wrote to Bush, demanding to know whether the memo was true. They held their own hearings to try to draw attention to it. The issue was forced into the mainstream media.

The focus turned to what may ultimately be the most important part of the memo: the point where Hoon said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime”.

Ministry of Defence figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that virtually none were used in March and April; but between May and August an average of 10 tons were dropped each month, with the RAF taking just as big a role in the “spikes of activity” as their US colleagues. Then in September the figure shot up again, with allied aircraft dropping 54.6 tons.

If this was a covert air war, both Bush and Blair may face searching questions. In America only Congress can declare war, and it did not give the US president permission to take military action against Iraq until October 11, 2002. Blair’s legal justification is said to come from UN Resolution 1441, which was not passed until November 8, 2002.

Last week one US blogger, Larisa Alexandrovna of RawStory.com, unearthed more unsettling evidence. It was an overlooked interview with Lieutenant-General T Michael Moseley, the allied air commander in Iraq, in which he appears to admit that the “spikes of activity” were part of a covert air war.

From June 2002 until March 20, when the ground war began, the allies flew 21,736 sorties over southern Iraq, attacking 349 carefully selected targets. The attacks, Moseley said, “laid the foundations” for the invasion, allowing allied commanders to begin the ground war.

The bloggers may have found their own smoking gun.

June 26, 2005 at 03:24 PM in Iraq | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Focus: Secret memos fuel US doubt on Iraq

Focus: Secret memos fuel US doubt on Iraq - Sunday Times - Times Online

ANDREW SULLIVAN
He’s vowed to complete his mission in Iraq, but President Bush faces growing disillusion as leaked documents reveal the hidden path to war and the mood changes in America

You can sometimes tell when a political conversation is at a turning point because the rhetoric goes nuclear. With respect to the Iraq war, that is what is beginning to happen in America.

Last week saw Dick Durbin, a leading Democratic senator, compare an account of detainee treatment at Guantanamo Bay with prisoner abuse in totalitarian regimes. It also saw Karl Rove, the president’s most powerful political aide, essentially call all “liberals” a danger to their country for their response to 9/11 and the Iraq war.

Chuck Hagel, a leading Republican senator, called the White House “completely disconnected from reality. It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along”. The internet blogs and the op-eds were full of similarly calm discourse.

It’s not that the Bush administration policy is likely to change any time soon. It’s that the American people have reached a point of no return with the president and his constant and unpersuasive assertions that everything is just peachy in Mesopotamia.

A poll that showed 60% of Americans want to start removing troops from Iraq merely confirmed the obvious: Bush’s war policy can no longer be sustained by the kind of “trust us” condescension that he has previously employed.

The doubts have increased markedly since America woke up to the secret Downing Street memos that shatter illusions about the build-up to war. The memos — first revealed in The Sunday Times by Michael Smith on May 1 — have since stormed through American websites and made headlines in the mainstream US media.

Last weekend the Associated Press agency moved a special package of six articles on the memos to its media subscribers throughout America.

The memos reveal that Tony Blair agreed to support President George W Bush’s plans for regime change as early as April 2002 — a year before the war started. They also show that the head of MI6 reported back from America to Blair that the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”.

They describe American efforts to find a cause for war as “frankly unconvincing”. And, perhaps most damningly in US eyes, the memos reveal that little effort was made to plan for the aftermath of invasion — which is still costing hundreds of American and Iraqi lives — despite warnings that it could be messy.

“A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise,” warned one memo in July 2002. “The US military plans are virtually silent on this point.”

THE debate on the war has polarised yet again — and the poles are further apart than ever. On the one extreme are those in the Bush camp who argue that the war is all but over and that we have already won. On the other are those who opposed the war in the first place and seem to take a perverse pleasure in every discouraging news report. In between are various shades of hope and disappointment, despair and grim resolution.

In all of these positions there is a new intensity. That intensity suggests that the long period of acquiescence in a policy barely explained and riddled with inconsistency is coming to a close. Some kind of tipping point is approaching — either for or against the entire venture.

The Bush boosters engage in several arguments. The first is that the mainstream media have deliberately ignored the good news from the country. Much of Iraq, they argue, is peaceful; the economy, after a nosedive, is recovering; the elections proved that the Iraqis want democracy; there are signs that the Sunni minority is beginning to accept a bigger role in the constitutional and political process.

Instead of focusing on the daily suicide bombings, the Bush defenders point to shards of evidence that there is a split within the insurgency between the Sunni nationalists and foreign jihadists.

They say that they have gained good intelligence from the detainees “interrogated” under the new exceptions to bans on “cruel and inhumane” treatment approved by Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary. They cite slowly growing numbers of trained Iraqi military units fighting alongside and sometimes even independently of US forces.

They argue that this is a long process, that setting up a democracy in a country recovering from dictatorship and war requires patience.

In an innovative logical move, Dick Cheney, the vice-president, has argued that the increased intensity of insurgent attacks is a sign that they are losing, not evidence that they have not been marginalised or contained.

How? Because the desperation of the attacks on Iraqi civilians, the brutal mass murders of Iraqi recruits and the deployment of suicide bombers are the last resorts of the militarily defeated.

Last month Cheney said that the insurgency was in its “last throes”. He did not, however, say how long those last throes might last. Even the fact that large numbers of jihadist terrorists seem to be pouring over the unsecured Syrian border has not fazed many Bush supporters.

David Warren, a columnist, recently wrote: “All ground indications are that large numbers of Islamist terrorists who would otherwise remain dangerously under cover, not only across the region but elsewhere, are irresistibly drawn towards these theatres of action, where they sooner or later get themselves killed.”

As for the poor or non-existent post-war planning, easily the most damning aspect of the Downing Street memos, Bush’s supporters argue that it was all deliberate. Too many troops would have alienated the Iraqis by appearing to be an occupation force.

By allowing mayhem, murder and looting, the Americans were able to show the malign motives of the Ba’athists and jihadists, and avoid the taint of imperialism. It was a deft ploy to expose the insurgents as murderous extremists, force the Iraqis themselves to oppose them and so build a consensus for a new democratic government.

The only problem with this defence of the conduct of the war is that an alternative scenario is just as plausible. It is worth recalling that the war plans anticipated only about 30,000 US troops remaining in Iraq by now. I knew of nobody in the pro-war camp before the invasion who anticipated a full-scale guerrilla war being waged for the duration of two presidential terms, as now seems likely.

Internal Bush administration assessments of the war have been nothing like as optimistic as the White House’s public arguments. The CIA’s recent report on the insurgency argued that, just as American forces have learnt a great deal from fighting the terrorists and insurgents in a difficult urban terrain, so have the jihadists.

THERE has been a major influx of Islamo-fascists into Iraq, especially from Saudi Arabia, through the porous Syrian border. Their training in urban warfare, the CIA worries, could soon spill over into other Arab states. The under-manned occupation of Iraq, in other words, might have created another version of Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s, a training ground for terror.

The insurgents are also adapting fast in a terrain they know better than any foreign army and have developed lethality against US armed convoys and Humvees. The rate of American casualties has spiked this month and the toll on Iraqi civilians continues to climb.

Last week the top commander in Iraq said the insurgents’ “overall strength is about the same” as it was six months ago. This requires an indefinite retention of the 130,000 or so American troops, a level that has already strained the US military to its limits. Many of the soldiers over there are reservists who never expected to be sent into a war zone, let alone for lengthy consecutive stays. Retention has become difficult and recruitment has shown signs of collapse.

The Bush administration always doubted that it could carry the public into a war as long and as difficult as Iraq was bound to be, so it fatally understated the risks and minimised the troop commitment. It never believed in nation-building, so it walked backwards into the task with insufficient resources. Forgivable early mistakes, such as disbanding the Iraqi army, made matters much worse.

By these early errors and half-measures, it actually made the war harder and longer. And because it never fully levelled with the public in the first place, it cannot ramp up commitment now.

I received a telling e-mail from a military official in Baghdad last week who explained his worries in very stark terms: “The lack of US troops in Iraq has been a disconcerting topic for many of us here. I still believe that we can defeat the insurgency with the current troop level . . . yet at what costs?” What if the American public balks at those costs? Last week Lindsey Graham, the always thoughtful Republican senator, told Rumsfeld: “We will lose this war if we leave too soon, and what is likely to make us leave too soon? The public going south. That is happening and it worries me greatly.”

The signs are all there that the administration now realises this and is also deeply worried. The president will, we are told, be launching a series of speeches to rally the country. His less scrupulous allies are preparing to accuse all critics of undermining the troops and aiding the enemy.

Hence Rove’s attack on Durbin for his comments about interrogation tactics at Guantanamo. “Let me put this in fairly simple terms,” he said. “Al-Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.”

When the most influential man in the administration is dealing cards that low in the deck, you know he’s rattled.

Which scenario is the most persuasive: has the Iraq war been a brilliant piece of tactical planning or a screw-up of massive proportions? Are we still “misunderestimating” Bush? Or have we overestimated his capacity for strategic judgment and political skill? I tend to share the assessment of David Brooks, the New York Times columnist: “Since we don’t have the evidence upon which to pass judgment on the overall trajectory of this war, it’s important we don’t pass judgment prematurely. It’s too soon to accept the defeatism that seems to have gripped so many.

“If governments surrendered to insurgencies after just a couple of years, then insurgents would win every time. But they don’t because insurgencies have weaknesses, exposed over time, especially when they oppose the will of the majority.”

The key is the capacity of the Iraqis to construct a national army capable of defending a genuinely sovereign state. No serious observer believes that they can defeat the insurgency on their own over the next two years, which is the only foreseeable political schedule for the Bush presidency.

Does the American public have the stomach to lose another couple of thousand troops for such an uncertain goal over such an extended period of time? Before this war started, the Bush administration apparently did not believe so.

Moreover, the president has yet to demonstrate the ability to confess to great difficulty, to explain mistakes, to take responsibility for error, to ask for help. His strength can be both brutal and brittle. He is much better at declaring “mission accomplished” than at actually accomplishing the mission.

THE signals from the White House suggest that Bush will not attempt to level with the public and try to unite the country around persevering. He will instead insist that everything is on track and more time and resources are all that are necessary.

He will rightly argue that American security depends on winning the war in Iraq and that democracy can prevail. He will say that we have no choice but to carry on. He will attack much criticism as unpatriotic and disloyal to the troops. He will press ahead because it is all he knows.

This may not be stupid, although the toxic effect on America’s national identity and unity will linger for a long time. Part of winning wars is projecting complete determination and obstinacy.

The fact that the insurgents have no real alternative to offer the Iraqi people except mayhem and tyranny will count in Bush’s favour. His strategic case for the democratisation of the Middle East is the only real solution to the threat exposed by 9/11.

Maybe the political process in Iraq will speed up and lead to some kind of breakthrough. Maybe the split between the jihadists and nationalists will deepen and provide the opportunity for a lasting victory against the Islamists in the Arab world. Maybe it will prove an inspired decision to launch a war for the future of democracy in the cradle of civilisation.

That is certainly the scenario I wish for. Criticising this administration’s arrogance and intermittent incompetence does not mean hoping that it fails. For the security of all of us, it has to succeed.

The process of disillusionment has been a brutal one for me and many others. But it does not bar us from having hope, even as it prevents us having much confidence. That, at least, is the nagging sense of things in America today where so much, for all of us, still hangs precariously in the balance.

June 26, 2005 at 03:01 PM in Iraq | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

June 25, 2005

Is this Bush's `smoking gun'?

TheStar.com - Is this Bush's `smoking gun'?

War opponents seek U.S. inquiry into U.K. memos Documents show

war started before Congress approved

TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON—Cindy Sheehan never supported George W. Bush's war in Iraq, and always thought the case for the invasion was built on a pyramid of lies.

Her son Casey shared her views, she says, even as he deployed for Iraq from Fort Hood, Tex. His perception didn't change even as the army specialist mounted a rescue mission in Sadr City 14 months ago, then took a bullet in the midst of chaotic battle, ending a life that didn't last 25 years.

He had been in Iraq only two weeks.

"I always knew this war was built on lies," the California mother said, "and I will always regret that I didn't speak out before my son died.

"But now I have something that confirms what I've always known. It's there in black and white and I'm not going to let this thing die."

The evidence that has so energized Sheehan and others in the United States is known as the Downing Street memos.

War opponents say the eight leaked documents are the smoking gun that prove the United States was taken to war on a pack of falsehoods and that more than 1,700 young Americans have died in a conflict that was preordained by the U.S. president and his advisers.

The memos outline a series of British perceptions of Bush's determination to rush to war in Iraq throughout 2002. They accuse Washington of fixing intelligence to fit its policy, lacking any plan for post-invasion reconstruction and trying to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliation against air strikes to provoke a pretence for invasion before the case was made at the United Nations.

So pervasive have the Downing Street memos become in the United States, they are now widely recognized by the acronym DSM.

Two Democratic representatives, John Conyers of Michigan and Barbara Lee of California, are behind a growing demand for a congressional inquiry into the memos, to determine whether Bush lied to the American people.

The two lawmakers have delivered a letter signed by more than 560,000 Americans seeking an inquiry.

"I want to wake up the country so more people don't get the type of wakeup call I got," Sheehan said.

Two of the memos have received the most attention in the United States.

The minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top officials refer to reports from Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain's intelligence service.

"Military action was now seen as inevitable," the minutes state. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Two days earlier, another briefing memo given to Blair seems eerily prescient:

"A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on that point."

The memos were originally obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who wrote about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Nobody in Blair's government has questioned their authenticity.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times this week, Smith argued that the real news in the July 23 memo was that the United States was engaged in an illegal air war against Iraq in the summer of 2002.

Smith pointed to the part of the memo quoting Geoffrey Hoon, Britain's defence secretary at the time, saying the U.S. had already begun "spikes of activity" over Baghdad, long before Washington argued its case before the United Nations.

The United States had begun intensified aerial bombing of Baghdad in May 2002, continuing through August of that year, in a bid to trigger a retaliation that would justify a full-out invasion.

When that did not happen, the U.S. responded by ratcheting up the bombing in September 2002, continuing until the invasion formally began on March 19, 2003.

Based on the memos he obtained, Smith argued that Bush and Blair really began an air war six weeks before the U.S. Congress approved military action.

In a March 25, 2002, memo British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told Blair: "If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military actions against Iraq. In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and Al Qaeda."

Three days earlier, Straw had received this assessment from Peter Ricketts, Blair's foreign policy adviser: "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

Initially, the Downing Street memos received scant attention in the United States, with large newspapers either ignoring them or relegating reports about them to their back pages.

With the benefit of hindsight, more mea culpas have been offered, but the original thought in the United States seemed to be that the so-called fixing of intelligence and the predetermination to take out Saddam had been thoroughly aired.

After all, similar allegations have been made in books published by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and renowned journalist Bob Woodward.

Bush had been forced to distance himself from perceptions that Saddam had somehow been linked to the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001.

And successive government inquiries proved the intelligence used to justify the war was flawed at best, bogus at worst.

Downing Street memos? Yawn. Old news.

Yet, the mainstream media have been forced to look again by the likes of David Swanson, co-founder of a website called afterdowningstreet.org.

"I've worked on a lot of campaigns and coalitions, but I've never seen anything grow this fast," Swanson said.

"The reason we're getting so many hits is that readers couldn't go to the New York Times website or CNN.com to read these memos."

But Nile Gardiner, a specialist in U.S.-Britain relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, called the memos "much ado about nothing."

He said they show no evidence that either government sought to mislead.

"I don't see how this can significantly shift opinion in the U.S. The debate here is all about troop casualties, how long they will remain there, what happens if they leave — debate which looks ahead, not backward."

Bush has been publicly asked about the memos only once, after a White House meeting with Blair on June 7.

First, he tried to question the motive of the leaks, coming on the eve of the British election, then denied he had made up his mind for an invasion as early as 2002.

"There's nothing farther from the truth," Bush said. "My conversation with the prime minister was, how could we do this peacefully, what could we do?

"And so it's — look, both us of didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."The Downing Street movement has grow since then.

The slogan "Ask me about the Downing Street memo" has been plastered on T-shirts, barbecue aprons, teddy bears, wall clocks and even shirts for your dog. They are available on the americablog.com website.

Network and cable news programs took up the case this week and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove have fielded questions about the memos.

Rove, on MSNBC's television show Hardball, dismissed the memos as "a Brit making a comment about what he perceived to be U.S. policy.''

Rumsfeld said that no one in the administration lied about weapons of mass destruction.

Still, the memos have dovetailed with a precipitous drop in public support for the war, emboldening war opponents and Democrats awakened from their post-election slumber.

"This is all about our system of checks and balances," Swanson said. "If you can't impeach when lives are lost on lies, when can you impeach?"

Additional articles by Tim Harper

June 25, 2005 at 10:25 AM in Iraq | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

June 22, 2005

Rice Criticizes Allies In Call for Democracy

Rice Criticizes Allies In Call for Democracy

Egypt, Saudi Arabia Challenged to Embrace Rights

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Page A01

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, June 20 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday sharply criticized Egypt and Saudi Arabia for democratic failings, mounting a direct challenge to autocratic U.S. allies in the Middle East and calling on governments in the region to embrace "certain basic rights for all their citizens."

"Throughout the Middle East, the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty," Rice told an invitation-only audience of government officials, academics and diplomats at the American University in Cairo. "It is time to abandon the excuses that are made to avoid the hard work of democracy."

She later traveled to Saudi Arabia, where "many people pay an unfair price for exercising their basic rights," she said.

President Bush has made promotion of democracy a hallmark of his second term, but this was the first time a senior U.S. official has delivered that message in the heart of the Middle East. Rice mixed tough-minded rhetoric with assurances that the Bush administration was not planning to impose democracy. The United States, she said, "has no cause for false pride and we have every reason for humility," because of its history of slavery and racism.

Rice was much tougher on Iran and Syria, two countries often in disagreement with the United States, than she was on Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two longtime U.S. partners with virtually no history of representative government. She denounced the "organized cruelty of Iran's theocratic state" and called on Syria "to make the strategic choice to join the progress all around it."

Rice offered mild praise for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, who has ruled since 1981, for having "unlocked the door for change" by agreeing for the first time to allow an opposition candidate to run against him. The move was "encouraging," she said, but now "the Egyptian government must put its faith in its own people." She called on Mubarak to end violent attacks on pro-democracy demonstrators, stop "arbitrary justice" and lift emergency decrees allowing the police to break up gatherings of more than five people.

First lady Laura Bush, in Egypt last month, described Mubarak's move as a "very bold step," infuriating opposition groups that regard it as a sham. Rice's carefully calibrated message appeared designed to mitigate criticism following the first lady's remarks.

Rice spent nearly an hour talking to leaders of sanctioned opposition parties in Egypt. But she said the United States would obey Egyptian law and maintain no contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is Egypt's largest opposition movement and has been banned from political activity since 1954. The refusal to meet with the Brotherhood was a nod to the sensitivities of the Egyptian government, since Rice has riled other governments -- such as Belarus's two months ago -- by meeting with dissidents.

In her remarks on Saudi Arabia, Rice noted that three people who petitioned the monarchy to adopt a constitutional system had been jailed on charges of trying to encourage dissent. "That should not be a crime in any country," Rice said.

In the speech, the secretary said governments must protect "certain basic rights for all their citizens," including "the right to speak freely, the right to associate, the right to worship as you wish, the freedom to educate your children -- boys and girls -- and the freedom from the midnight knock of the secret police."

She also made an impassioned plea for women's rights in the Middle East. "Half a democracy is not a democracy," she said.

Meanwhile, Rice decried groups such as Hamas, a militant Islamic movement labeled a terrorist organization by the United States that has been successful in recent local Palestinian elections. "For all citizens with grievances, democracy can be a path to lasting justice," Rice said. "But the democratic system cannot function if certain groups have one foot in the realm of politics and one foot in the camp of terror."

After the address, Rice met for nearly an hour with Ayman Nour, the Egyptian opposition candidate whose campaign has been repeatedly harassed by the government, as well as seven other representatives of opposition parties and civil groups. There were no representatives from Kifaya, or Enough, the coalition of human rights, professional and legal organizations that began a drive last fall to unseat Mubarak.

In February, Rice canceled a planned visit to Egypt when the government did not immediately release Nour from jail on what U.S. officials said were trumped-up charges.

While in Egypt, Rice met with Mubarak at Sharm el-Sheikh, a resort area on the Sinai Peninsula. After the session, Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit told reporters that the Egyptian government was committed to "free, fair and transparent" elections.

In Riyadh, the Saudi capital, Rice met with Crown Prince Abdullah, the kingdom's de facto ruler, and other officials. She later told reporters that she had raised the issue of the three jailed petitioners with the crown prince, reiterating that their actions "should not be a crime." But the foreign minister, Prince Saud Faisal, responded that they had broken Saudi laws and that the matter was therefore in the "hands of the court." Saud, who said he had not read a transcript of Rice's Cairo speech, asserted that Saudi Arabia would undertake reform at its own pace and in accordance with its traditions.

"I don't understand what the row is about, asking what type of reforms and what speed of reforms," Saud said.

Rice delivered her 25-minute speech in Cairo in workmanlike fashion, eliciting no applause from the audience of 600 until it was completed. She then took questions for 40 minutes.

After one questioner raised the reported mistreatment of the Koran, the Muslim holy book, by U.S. soldiers, Rice said the United States was built by people who fled religious persecution and that it "would never sanction for its personnel to somehow disrespect the great book of a great religion." She said the incidents involving the Koran were "overwhelmingly, simply mistakes by people, not intentioned." Her response brought loud applause.

As is her style, Rice was forceful in the question-and-answer session in both defending U.S. policy and acknowledging shortcomings in the U.S. past. At one point, she cited the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who she said was responsible for her having the position she holds now. He "always talked about making America true to ourselves," she said.

June 22, 2005 at 08:29 PM in Middle East | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

June 21, 2005

Armed police raid house in hunt for gangs who aid suicide killers

Britain, UK news from The Times and The Sunday Times - Times Online

Daniel McGrory and Russell Jenkins
Complex trail of terror from Europe revealed as anti-terror officers seize suspect in Manchester allegedly tied to an insurgent who was killed fighting coalition forces

POLICE are hunting for the British support network behind a Manchester-based suicide bomber who was killed in Iraq after an attack on coalition forces.

An armed raid on the bomber’s safe house yesterday was the first confirmation that militants from Britain have been recruited for suicide missions in Iraq.

Anti-terror police arrested a French-Algerian man who allegedly shared the terraced house in Moss Side with the suspected bomber, named as Idris Bazis, 41.

Bazis is believed to still have family in this country who were last night being questioned by police.

He is said to have arrived in Britain last summer and was travelling on a French passport.

Bazis is said to have taken part in a suicide operation in February, which was the worst month for bomb attacks in Iraq after the election of a new government. At least 60 coalition troops were among those killed.

Detectives would not reveal which suicide attack it was that Bazis allegedly took part in, though it is understood that he was killed just days after being smuggled into the Anbar Province of Iraq. They have asked the US and Iraqi authorities in Baghdad for any DNA sample that was recovered to provide a positive identification.

The early-morning raid by 30 police yesterday comes after a series of arrests across Europe in the past week which has revealed a burgeoning network recruiting volunteers to fight in Iraq.

Al-Qaeda supporters have made violent boasts on extremist websites in recent weeks about operations carried out by their “European martyrs” but Western security chiefs are only now realising the scale of recruitment.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the wanted terror leader, recently appealed on his website for young radicals living in Europe to join the ranks of “lions” in his “martyrs brigade”.

Security officials told The Times that they cannot give an accurate figure on the number of British-based radicals who have gone to Iraq.

A Greater Manchester Police spokesman said: “Since the beginning of the year, there have been a series of suicide bombings against coalition forces in Iraq.

“This operation involved two suspects, one who used to live at the address in Great Southern Street before he travelled to Iraq to take part in a suicide bomb attack, and the other who was still living at the address until his arrest.”

Assistant Chief Constable David Whatton said that inquiries are being carried out in Baghdad and across Britain to establish the circumstances and to positively identify the suspected bomber and the details surrounding his travelling to Iraq.

“Officers are searching the address looking for documents relating to his journey to Iraq and links to anyone else,” Mr Whatton said.

Neighbours told of being woken by officers breaking down doors to force their way inside the modest red-brick terrace.

Andrew Holmes, 43, said that the man arrested by police had been living in the street for about two years, adding that several other men occasionally used the address.

Police teams in blue plastic suits moved into the house and took away a computer and two dustbin bags full of documents. The property is believed to be owned by a housing association.

June 21, 2005 at 11:21 PM in Iraq | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

June 18, 2005

Iranians arrested in dawn raids by anti-terror police

Britain, UK news from The Times and The Sunday Times - Times Online

By Michael Evans and Joanna Bale

FOUR Iranians suspected of plotting terrorist attacks in Iran from addresses in North London were arrested by armed police yesterday.

he four men, aged 31, 37, 58 and 63, had been under surveillance by MI5 officers for many months. The decision to arrest them — on the day that Iran went to the polls to elect a president — was taken because of fears that they were in possession of firearms.

There was no evidence that they had engaged in terrorist activities affecting the United Kingdom and it was not clear what the potential targets were in Iran.

The men were seized in Barnet and Finchley by officers from Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch, supported by armed police, under section 41 of the Terrorism Act. Last night they were being questioned at the high-security Paddington Green police station.

The elections yesterday were expected to bring in a moderate president who would be more conciliatory towards the West — anathema to the country’s Islamic fundamentalists.

Two of the suspects were arrested in a car in Barnet’s high street. The road was closed off while police checked the car. No firearms were found in it.

Searches continued at three addresses in North London. One was a council flat on a large 1960s estate in Barnet.

Kerry Germishuzen, who lives opposite, described the dawn raid. She said: “I was woken up at 3.30am by this almighty noise. It sounded like a riot was taking place. I belted out of bed onto my balcony and saw around 20 armed men dressed in black with helmets and balaclavas on. They were trying to smash down the front door of the flat with a battering ram but it took several minutes. They were shouting at the occupants to stay away from the door.”

An ambulance came and some people arrived in white overalls whom she took to be forensic officers. “Eventually, a man in his 50s was led out in handcuffs and put into the ambulance, accompanied by police and forensics officers.”

Ms Germishuzen, a 42-year-old housewife, said: “I had never seen this man before but neighbours had reported strange goings-on in the flat to the police, with lots of male visitors being frisked before they were allowed in.”

Another neighbour, who gave his name as Jamie, added: “They had only been there a few months and were very security-conscious with lots of security lights outside and even boarded-up windows. There was a man in a wheelchair and a woman and a child, but lots of other men coming and going all the time.

“My Mum had an argument with one man over a bump to her car when it was left parked outside the flat. The man told her that she should not cross him. He was very hostile.”

Another witness to the raids at a separate block of flats in Barnet said that police had gathered under railway arches near by before rushing forward to make the arrests.

Chandni Patel, 17, who lives on the ground floor of the targeted block of flats, said the family involved in the arrests had lived there for about two years.

June 18, 2005 at 07:51 PM in Iran | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

w al-Qaeda videotape broadcast

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | New al-Qaeda videotape broadcast

The deputy leader of al-Qaeda has appeared in a new videotape and warned Muslim nations against adopting the "US concept of reform".

Ayman al-Zawahri said, in the tape shown on al-Jazeera TV, that any change should be based on Islamic law.

He also warned against the possibility of trying to bring about change through peaceful demonstrations.

This is the first tape he has appeared in since one aired by the Arab satellite news channel in February.

"Expelling the invading crusader forces and Jews from our Muslim homes cannot be realised solely through demonstrations and speaking out in the streets," he says on the tape.

"Reform and expelling the invaders from Muslim countries cannot be accomplished except by fighting for the sake of God."

Wanted men

Al-Jazeera said Egyptian-born Zawahri condemned the assaults on women protesters during demonstrations in Egypt last month.

He also criticised the Pakistani, Saudi and Egyptian governments for their pro-Western stance.

Zawahri appears wearing a white turban with a machine gun beside him, in a similar pose to previous videotapes.

In February, he warned the West to show respect for the Islamic world and denounced US President Bush's calls for reform in the Middle East.

Despite a massive US-led hunt since 11 September 2001, Zawahri and al-Qaeda's leader Osama bin Laden have so far managed to evade capture.

They are believed to be hiding in the rugged border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

June 18, 2005 at 12:39 AM in Al Qaeda | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

June 16, 2005

EU 2005

Graphic: The seating plan and wish lists - World - Times Online

June 16, 2005 at 10:44 PM in Europe | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Bin Laden 'is not in Afghanistan'

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Bin Laden 'is not in Afghanistan'

The US ambassador to Afghanistan says he does not believe that Osama Bin Laden or Taleban chief Mullah Omar are in the country.

He did not say where the two men are but correspondents say his comments imply that they could be in Pakistan.

A senior Taleban commander said on Wednesday that the two men were alive and well.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf says that his forces have "broken the back" of al-Qaeda in his country.

'Timely intelligence'

"Mullah Omar is not in Afghanistan. I do not believe that Osama is in Afghanistan," US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said at a news conference in Kabul.

He was speaking at his final press conference before taking up his next post as US ambassador to Baghdad.

"It is not an easy job to find one person, maybe with some (people) helping him... in a vast region.

"It requires timely intelligence," he said.

The ambassador said that "a lot of progress" has been made in fighting al-Qaeda and that it was not clear how much control Osama Bin Laden still has over it.

"Significant numbers of the leaders of al-Qaeda have been captured. Their network has been disrupted... the financial network has also been disrupted," he said.

"But this is a long-term struggle, and symbolically (it is) very important that he (Bin Laden) is brought to justice, and sooner or later I believe firmly that he will be caught."

Osama Bin Laden
The US has offered $25m for Osama bin Laden's capture

US officials have long argued that the Bin Laden is hiding somewhere on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr Khalilzad has been a controversial figure. Last year Pakistan denounced comments he made about Islamabad not doing enough to fight al-Qaeda as "worrisome, foolish and highly irresponsible".

Correspondents say that Mr Khalilzad was careful to try to avoid offending Pakistan in his latest comments about Osama Bin Laden by using more diplomatic language.

'Alive and well'

Speaking at a meeting at the end of his three-day visit to Australia, President Musharraf said that his forces had chased al-Qaeda out of the cities into the mountains and then "occupied their sanctuaries".

"Terrorism is to be confronted with force. We are doing that, and we have succeeded," Gen Musharraf told a meeting of businessmen in Sydney.

His comments came a day after a Taleban commander claimed that Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan's former Taleban leader Mullah Omar are alive and well.

Significant numbers of the leaders of al-Qaeda have been captured
Zalmay Khalilzad

"I am in contact with Mullah Omar and take directions from him," Mullah Akhtar Usmani told Pakistan's privately-run Geo television.

"Taleban are all over Afghanistan," he said, "they may be more in some provinces and less in the other, but their support is growing."

There is no way of independently verifying Mullah Usmani's claims.

Correspondents say that Mr Khalilzad has been the US ambassador in Kabul since November 2003, and has played a hugely influential role in Afghanistan's transition process.

The Afghan-American will soon replace John Negroponte as US ambassador to Iraq.

June 16, 2005 at 12:42 PM in Al Qaeda | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

June 15, 2005

Taliban Chief: Bin Laden Alive and Well

Taliban Chief: Bin Laden Alive and Well - Yahoo! News

By SADAQAT JAN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 11 minutes ago

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -
Osama bin Laden is alive and in good health, as is fugitive Taliban chief Mullah Mohammed Omar, a purported senior commander of the ousted Afghan religious militia said in a TV interview broadcast Wednesday.

Pakistan's Geo television broadcast the interview with a man it identified as Taliban military commander Mullah Akhtar Usmani, a former Afghan aviation minister who said he still receives instructions from Omar.

Asked whether bin Laden is hiding in areas of
Afghanistan that are under Taliban control, the man said he would not specify where the terrorist mastermind was hiding.

"Thanks be to God, he is absolutely fine," the man said.

The man wore a black turban to shield his face, making it impossible to recognize him or verify his identity. He wore a gray jacket, and an AK-47 rifle was propped next to him as he spoke in front of a red-patterned, Afghan-style rug.

Geo said the interview was recorded last week, but declined to say where.

A senior journalist at the independent station said on condition of anonymity that the interview was done near the Afghan town of Spinboldak, which is close to the Pakistani border.

The interview was conducted in broken Urdu, Pakistan's main language and the language in which Geo broadcasts most of its programs. Most senior Taliban speak Pashtu.

The man said the Taliban are still organized and senior Taliban leaders hold regular consultations.

"Our discipline is strong. We have regular meetings. We make programs," the man said.

He said Omar does not attend the meetings but "decisions come from his side." He did not say where those meetings take place.

In speaking about Omar, the man referred to the Taliban chief by his self-proclaimed title of "ameerul momineen" — "leader of the faithful."

"Ameerul momineen is our chief and leader. No one is against him. Our ameerul momineen is alive. He is all right. There is no problem. He is not sick. He is my commander. He gives me instructions," the man said.

Asked whether he has direct contact with Omar, the man said: "I will not say whether I meet with him or not. But he is giving instructions."

A U.S.-led coalition ousted the Taliban in late 2001. The offensive was launched after the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden and dismantle al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

June 15, 2005 at 11:42 AM in Al Qaeda | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Going undercover in the BN

BBC NEWS | Magazine | Going undercover in the BNP

oing undercover is not a task undertaken lightly, especially if your true identity is going to be revealed very publicly on television. Jason Gwynne, whose documentary about the BNP has resulted in shocking footage, describes the ordeal.

For Jason Gwynne, finding the right tone was everything.

As an infiltrator in the British National Party, he had to convince the party's leaders and activists that he was "one of them", and yet as a journalist he had to ask the kinds of questions which would give him the answers he needed to film.

Play too naïve and his cover could have been blown. Don't be naïve enough and risk the success of the entire project.

"The BNP members already understand the grey areas, but I needed to keep asking," he says.

Steve Barkham
Steve Barkham, right, spoke of attacking an Asian man
His project began in December 2003 when the BBC was put in touch with a BNP leader, Andy Sykes, who had joined the party after being concerned about asylum seekers but who had quickly become disillusioned with its actions and ideals.

Mr Sykes had been acting as a mole within the BNP since the time of the Bradford riots in 2001, passing on information about its activities to the Trades Union Congress. He agreed to introduce Jason, 33, to other BNP members as an activist and help him to make film evidence of racism within the party.

Undercover operation

The evidence he collected includes one BNP member, Steve Barkham, confessing to a violent assault on an Asian man, and a prospective election candidate admitting to a campaign of pushing dog excrement through the front door of an Asian takeaway.

Another man is seen saying that he wants to kill Asians and attack mosques. Activists are filmed plotting to fire bomb a van being used by to distribute anti-BNP literature.

You fear that your cover could be blown at any point and that months of research would go down the drain and the story lost
Jason Gwynne

BNP activists admit to race crime
It was not the first undercover operation Jason had worked on - past projects had included documentaries about football hooligans, fugitives and hells angels. But it was the first he had undertaken knowing his cover would be blown at the end of it when the documentary was broadcast.

He spent most of his six months' undercover working in Bradford, where he was based in a house near to Andy Sykes'.

He says: "I was apprehensive about going undercover and it was difficult because I was away from my friends and family. But they knew I was working in difficult circumstances - only my immediate family and my girlfriend knew exactly what I was doing.

"There is also that fear of exposure when you're living undercover - you fear that your cover could be blown at any point and that months of research would go down the drain and the story lost."

Suspicions

Jason came close to exposure several times during the operation and relied on Mr Sykes to help him remain undiscovered. "But if any suspicions were raised they went through Andy, as a senior figure, and he would tell them he was keeping an eye on me and he would tip us off so we knew to be more careful about the kind of questions I was asking."

Jason Gwynne with Nick Griffin
Jason with Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, who said his own comments could see him jailed
One further risk that Jason had to avoid was that there should be no chance of him instigating any actions by BNP members, or joining in with any compromising activities, while all the time being seen and heard to agree with the sentiments expressed by other activists - something which left him feeling "very uncomfortable".

He says: "I heard the BNP leader Nick Griffin give a speech inciting racial hatred and the founder, John Tyndall, inciting racial hatred and I heard some awful anti-Semitic remarks."

HAVE YOUR SAY
The BNP must be allowed to air their views however much people disagree with them
Scott, Leeds, UK

Send your response to the documentary
There was a back-up team of producers "lurking around in vans" nearby whenever he was filming under cover. "The team were very close," he says. "If there were any problems I would telephone or text and I kept on my toes so I could run out of the door if there was any hint I had been exposed.

"But it was hard to manage with the hidden cameras. I would have to go to the toilet to try to do things with them and that became very problematic. There would be people beating on the door asking what I was doing in there.

"One time I was in the toilet and BNP Steve Barkham was outside the door saying 'What are you doing in there - are you on the phone to the CIA?' That was pretty nerve-wracking."

Andy Sykes with Jason Gwynne
Andy Sykes with Jason - both men's security has been tightened
Fear of reprisals means the BBC has had to review security for both Jason and Mr Sykes.

"I am fearful, because you never know when you're walking down the street if someone will recognise you. And I am very concerned for Andy," he says. "He wanted to expose these people and prevent the BNP from creating further tensions and problems in the city he loves. He could have walked away but he didn't."

The Secret Agent was broadcast on BBC One at 2100BST on Thursday, 15 July

June 15, 2005 at 08:09 AM in UK | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Muslim apostates cast out and at risk from faith and family

Britain, UK news from The Times and The Sunday Times - Times Online

By Anthony Browne
While Christians who turn to Islam are feted, the 200,000 Muslims who turn away are faced with abuse, violence and even murder

It was a shock, but hardly a surprise. The week before, another brick had been thrown through the window as the family were preparing for bed in their Bradford home. The victim of a three-year campaign of religious hatred, Mr Hussein’s car has also been rammed and torched, and the steps to his home have been strewn with rubbish.

He and his family have been regularly jostled, abused, attacked, shouted at to move out of the area, and given death threats in the street. His wife has been held hostage inside their home for two hours by a mob. His car, walls and windows have been daubed in graffiti: “Christian bastard”.

The problem isn’t so much what Mr Hussein, whose parents came from Pakistan, believes, but what he doesn’t believe. Born into Islam, he converted eight years ago to Christianity, and his wife, also from Pakistan, followed suit.

While those who convert to Islam, such as Cat Stevens, Jemima Khan, and the sons of the Frank Dobson, the former Health Secretary, and Lord Birt, the former BBC Director-General, can publicly celebrate their new religion, those whose faith goes in the other direction face persecution. Mr Hussein, a 39-year-old hospital nurse in Bradford, is one of a growing number of former Muslims in Britain who face not just being shunned by family and community, but attacked, kidnapped, and in some cases killed. There is even a secret underground network to support and protect those who leave Islam. One estimate suggests that as many as 15 per cent of Muslims in Western societies have lost their faith, which would mean that in Britain there are about 200,000 apostates.

For police, religious authorities and politicians, it is an issue so sensitive that they are accused by victims of refusing to respond to appeals for help. It is a problem that, with the crisis of identity in Islam since September 11, seems to be getting worse as Muslims feel more threatened.

Muslims who lose their faith face execution or imprisonment, in line with traditional Muslim teaching, in many Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and Yemen. In the Netherlands, the former Muslim MP Ayan Hirsi Ali had to go into hiding after renouncing her faith on television.

The Prince of Wales recently held a meeting with religious leaders to consider ways to stop former Muslims being persecuted in other countries, but Britain itself is also affected.

Mr Hussein told The Times: “It’s been absolutely appalling. This is England — where I was born and raised. You would never imagine Christians would suffer in such a way.”

The police have not charged anyone, but told him to leave the area. “We feel completely isolated, utterly helpless. I have been utterly failed by the authorities. If it was white racists attacking an Asian guy, there would be an absolute outcry,” he said. “They are trying to ethnically cleanse me out of my home. I feel I have to make a stand as an Asian Christian.”

Yasmin, who was raised in the North of England, has been forced out of her town once, and is now trying to resist being chased out again. Brought up in a Muslim family, she converted after having a vision of Jesus when she gave birth to her youngest son, and was baptised in her thirties.. “My family completely disowned me. They thought I had committed the biggest sin — I was born a Muslim, and so I must die a Muslim. When my husband found out, he totally disowned my sons. One friend tried to strangle me when I told him I was converting,” she said.

“We had bricks though our windows, I was spat at in the street because they thought I was dishonouring Islam. We had to call the police so many times. I had to go to court to get an injunction against my husband because he was inciting others to attack me.”

She fled to another part of Britain, but the attacks soon started again as locals found out about her. “I wasn’t going to leave again,” she said, adding that it was the double standards of her attackers that made her most angry. “They are such hypocrites — they want us to be tolerant of everything they want, but they are intolerant of everything about us.”

With other converts, Yasmin has helped to set up a series of support groups across England, who have adopted a method of operating normally associated with dissidents in dictatorships, not democracies. They not only have to meet in secret, but cannot advertise their services, and have to vet those that approach them for infiltrators.

“There are so many who convert from Islam to Christianity. We have 70 people on our list who we support, and the list is growing. We don’t want others to suffer like we have,” she said.

Although some are beaten “black and blue” for their faith, others suffer even more. The family of an 18-year-old girl whomYasmin was helping found that she had been hiding a Bible in her room, and visiting church secretly. “I tried to do as much as possible to help her, but they took her to Pakistan ‘on holiday’. Three weeks later, she was drowned — they said that she went out in the middle of the night and slipped in the river, but she just wouldn ’t have done that,” said Yasmin.

Ruth, also of Pakistani origin, found out recently that she had only just escaped being murdered. When she told her family that she had converted, they kept her locked inside the family home all summer.

“They were afraid I would meet some Christians. My brother was aggressive, and even hit me — I later found out he wanted me dead,” she said. A family friend had suggested taking her to Pakistan to kill her, and her brother put the idea to her mother, who ruled against it. “You are very isolated and very alone. But now, my brother is thinking about changing and a cousin has made a commitment to Christianity.”

Noor, from the Midlands, was brought up a Muslim but converted to Christianity at 21. “Telling my father was the most difficult thing I have ever done. I thought he would kill me on the spot, but he just went into a state of shock,” she said. He ended up almost kidnapping her.

“He took drastic actions — he took the family to Pakistan, to a secluded village with no roads to it. He kept us there for many years, putting pressure on me to leave my Christian faith. I endured mental and emotional suffering that most humans never reach,” she said. Eventually, her father realised that he could not shake her faith, and released her with strict conditions. “In desperation, my father threatened to take my life. If someone converts, it is a must for family honour to bring them back to Islam, if not, to kill them.”

Imams in Britain sometimes call on the apostates to be killed if they criticise their former religion. Anwar Sheikh, a former mosque teacher from Pakistan, became an atheist after coming to Britain, and now lives with a special alarm in his house in Cardiff after criticising Islam in a series of hardline books.

“I’ve had 18 fatwas against me. They telephone me — they aren’t foolhardy enough to put it in writing. I had a call a couple of weeks ago. They mean repent or be hanged,” he said. “What I have written, I believe and I will not take it back. I will suffer the consequences. If that is the price, I will pay it.”

The most high-profile British apostate is Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani-born intellectual and former teacher from London, who lost his faith after the Salman Rushdie affair and set out his reasons in the book Why I am not a Muslim.

He recently edited the book Leaving Islam, but finds it hard to explain the hostility. “It’s very strange. Even the most liberal Muslim can become incredibly fierce if you criticise Islam, or, horror of horrors, leave it.”

He himself has taken the precaution of using only a pseudonym, and lives incognito in mainland Europe. He thinks that Islamic apostasy is common. “In Western societies, it is probably 10-15 per cent. It’s very difficult to tell, because people don’t admit it.”

Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Barnabas Trust, which helps persecuted Christians around the world, said that it was finding increasing work in Britain: “It’s a growing problem. Today, conversion is seen as linked to Bush trying to convert the world — democratisation is confused with evangelism.

“The difficulty in Britain is the growing alienation between the minority Muslim communities and the mainstream Christian one. Christian mission work in inner cities is seen as an assault,” Dr Sookhdeo said. “We are only asking that freedom of religion should be applicable to everyone of every faith.”

June 15, 2005 at 08:08 AM in UK | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

June 14, 2005

Mounties uncover 'Al Qaeda' cache

TheStar.com - Mounties uncover 'Al Qaeda' cache

Plans, tapes diaries seized at Pearson
Zaynab Khadr denies they belong to her

MICHELLE SHEPHARD
STAFF REPORTER

OTTAWA—The RCMP and Canadian military believe they've discovered a vital cache of information on Al Qaeda that includes the whereabouts of wanted members and details of attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan.

The information is allegedly contained in a laptop, dozens of DVDs, audiocassettes and the pages of diaries, seized by the RCMP officers who met Zaynab Khadr at Pearson airport with a search warrant as she arrived back in Canada in February, court documents state.

Khadr is the eldest daughter of a family that has admitted close ties to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and whose patriarch was once believed to be the highest-ranking Canadian member of Al Qaeda. Her younger brother, Omar, is currently Canada's only known detainee in the American camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

With the three-month time limit allotted to the federal police force to hold the items having now expired, the RCMP must go to a Toronto court this Friday to persuade a judge to allow them to continue doing a forensic evaluation of the seized materials. But Khadr's lawyer Dennis Edney says the Mounties are on nothing more than a "fishing expedition," and will argue that Khadr is entitled to her possessions.

Khadr, 25, said in an interview yesterday that anything found on the laptop, except personal pictures and a few "cartoons" that she downloaded, are not hers. She says she bought her laptop second-hand about seven months before coming to Canada. The audiocassettes, described in court documents as providing "significant information regarding `after-battle action reports' of Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents" involved in attacking coalition forces in Afghanistan, were found among her father's possessions after he was killed in 2003, Khadr said.

"I think it's my right to bring what I want since I'm not breaking any laws, so I decided to bring them," she said. "Although I don't know what's on them, I still thought I'd bring them."

Khadr has not been charged in Canada or Pakistan, where she lived with her young daughter and sister before returning to Scarborough to be with her mother and brothers.

The court documents state there are "still a number of steps" to be taken in the investigation, that cannot be disclosed, but that her written records are being studied by the RCMP's behavioural sciences unit for a "psychological analysis" and to determine if she is a "threat to society."

Among her possessions, the RCMP allege, are downloaded clips of bin Laden's voice and songs — one titled "I am a Terrorist" — which contain excerpts from speeches calling for the killing of Americans. There is also allegedly a video clip of a 2003 attack on a compound used by Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and cassettes about insurgent attacks in Afghanistan. Canada has troops stationed in Afghanistan.

"(T)hey provide insights into the tactics, techniques and procedures by these insurgent groups," the documents allege. "They (also) provide time and place information regarding activities of key Al Qaeda and Taliban personalities who are presently at large and operating against coalition troops."

The seven-page affidavit by RCMP Sgt. Konrad Shourie, filed last month in the Ontario Court of Justice, provides rarely revealed details about the terrorism investigation.

The Khadr family has created its share of controversy. Khadr's father, Egyptian-born and Canadian citizen Ahmed Said Khadr, generated enough public pressure in 1996 to convince prime minister Jean Chrétien to intervene when he was facing charges in Pakistan in connection with the bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad. He died in a battle in Pakistan in October 2003. After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks he was put on a list of suspected Al Qaeda terrorists. His family's connections to bin Laden were confirmed three years later with a documentary where his son, Abdurahman, admitted to growing up in an "Al Qaeda family."

June 14, 2005 at 07:41 AM in Al Qaeda | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

June 12, 2005

The leak that changed minds on the Iraq war

The leak that changed minds on the Iraq war - Sunday Times - Times Online

Michael Smith
Six weeks ago The Sunday Times published the leaked minutes of a July 2002 Downing Street meeting in which Tony Blair committed Britain to war in Iraq months before parliament was consulted.

They detailed a secret pledge to President George W Bush to help oust Saddam, showed that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, had warned such action could be illegal and that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, had thought the case for war was “thin”.

By any standards these were fascinating revelations. Nothing, however, could have prepared us for what a worldwide impact the story would have. More than a month later it still features in the daily top 10 most popular stories on our website, with 330,000 people estimated to have logged on to read it.

Though it remains unclear to what extent the leaked documents had on the general election (held four days after the story broke), anger about the war is widely seen as the key reason for the government’s severely reduced majority.

What is clearer is that they are having a strong effect on public perception in America, where there has been a wave of interest in the leak. At least two websites, afterdowningstreet.org and downingstreetmemo.com, have been set up to draw public attention to the leaked minutes. The former received more than 1.6m hits on a single day last week (it averages above 1m a day) while the latter has been selling out of T-shirts bearing the legend: “Did you get the Downing Street Memo?” Last week the leaked documents stormed the mainstream US media when they were raised at a White House news conference, forcing Tony Blair and George Bush to address the issue.

The minutes showed that Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, warned Blair’s war cabinet that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”. The prime minister, who had chaired that July meeting, told the White House briefing room that “the facts were not being fixed in any shape at all”.

The American public is not so sure. Last week a Washington Post-ABC News poll found for the first time that a majority of Americans — 52% — felt the war in Iraq had not made the United States safer.

Today we publish further revelations in the news section in the form of a July 2002 Cabinet Office briefing paper.

It makes clear that both Blair and Bush have a lot to apologise for: “When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change,” it states, adding that “regime change per se is illegal”.

As a prime minister had agreed to do something that was illegal under British interpretation of international law, it was “necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support regime change”, the briefing paper says.

For Blair, “creating the conditions” meant going to the United Nations to get a unanimous resolution warning Iraq to co- operate with the inspectors or else. Bush needed the backing of Congress and he didn’t get that until October 11, 2002.

But as Geoff Hoon, then British defence secretary, said in that Downing Street meeting in July 2002, the “US had already begun ‘spikes of activity’ to put pressure on the regime”.

No bombs were dropped on southern Iraq in March 2002 but by July, with the “spikes of activity” in full flow, about 10 tons of bombs were being dropped a month. The problem was that the Iraqis didn’t retaliate. They didn’t provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed.

So at the end of August the allies started the air war anyway. The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone.

The authenticity of these figures is not in doubt. They were obtained from the government by parliamentary questions put by the Liberal Democrats so they are up on the Hansard website for all the internet bloggers to see.

They show that Bush and Blair began their war, not in March 2003 as most believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Bush received his congressional backing, and more than two months before the UN vote.

That is why the wave of public awareness sweeping America is so dangerous to Bush and why he has refused to answer a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if the intelligence was “fixed” and precisely when he and Blair actually agreed to go to war.

John Conyers, the Demo-cratic congressman who drafted the letter, promised when downingstreetmemo.com was set up last week that once 250,000 people had signed the website’s petition demanding the same answers he would deliver it to Bush.

By Friday more than 500,000 people had signed and it seems likely that by next Thursday when Conyers carries the petition up to the White House gates the names on it will number well over a million.

June 12, 2005 at 11:41 AM in Iraq | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action

Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action - Sunday Times - Times Online

The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source.

PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY

IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)

Summary

Ministers are invited to:

(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.

(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.

(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.

(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.

(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.

Introduction

1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.

2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.

3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support milita