Intelligence: April 2006 Archives

April 14, 2006

McMillan Tac-50

'Big Mac’ — McMillan’s Tac-50
Neither the Canadian government nor DND are willing to comment on CF sniping in Afghanistan but unconfirmed reports put ‘kills’ by 3PPCLI snipers at more than 20. A particularly successful CF rifle is the new 12.7mm McMillan Tac-50. One shot, in the Shah-i-kot, set a gruesome new distance record for sniping — 2,430m. The combat effectiveness of the Tac-50 and CF snipers (nominated for five US Bronze Stars) has now been proven.

April 14, 2006 at 09:10 PM in World affairs | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

April 09, 2006

US National Security Strategy March 2006

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

Remarks by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley to the United States Institute of Peace on the President's National Security Strategy
Renaissance Mayflower Hotel
Washington, D.C.

MR. HADLEY: Thank you very much, Robin. I'd also like to thank Ambassador Dick Solomon for being here and for inviting me to speak to you today. I am honored to be here with so many members of the diplomatic corps and other distinguished guests who have joined us today, and I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you and to discuss the President's National Security Strategy.

I want to begin by thanking the Institute for your hard work, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. Your support of those drafting the Afghan constitution has helped create a society rooted in the rule of law that respects the rights of all Afghans. Your work in Iraq is bringing different Iraqi groups together to discuss their common future. The Institute is making a difference, bringing the hope of peace and freedom to both countries. And we are very grateful for that work.

Today, we released the President's National Security Strategy, which explains the strategic underpinning of his foreign policy. As the President has said, America's policy -- and its purpose -- is to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

The National Security Strategy lays out the President's vision of how to achieve this goal -- and today I want to draw your attention to five important themes in the strategy. First, America must be strong and secure. We are at war, and defeating the terrorists is America's most immediate challenge. Second, our strategy is to defeat -- our strategy to defeat the terrorists must include a strategy to defeat their hateful ideology. We do this by promoting a positive vision -- the promise of freedom and democracy. Third, freedom and democracy are more than just a means to an end. Our nation has long promoted freedom as the birthright of every human being. We champion effective democracy as the best way for nations to secure the freedom of their citizens, as well as their prosperity and security. Fourth, security and effective democracy can enable the pursuit of a smart development strategy that can improve the lives of people everywhere. Fifth, a community of effective democracies can best address the regional and global challenges of our time.

The President's strategy begins with the recognition that America is at war. Protecting the American people remains the first duty of the President of the United States. The President's strategy renews his commitment to maintain an American military without peer that can dissuade, deter, and defeat a wide variety of potential threats.

The President continues to mobilize all elements of America's national power to defeat the terrorist threat. To do that, he believes we must stay on the offense: We must defeat the terrorists abroad so we do not need to face them here at home. The strategy reaffirms the doctrine the President has set forth so clearly, that America makes no distinction between the terrorists, and the countries that harbor them. And the President believes that we must remember the clearest lesson of September 11th -- that the United States of America must confront threats before they fully materialize.

The President's strategy affirms that the doctrine of preemption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our National Security Strategy. If necessary," the strategy states, "...under longstanding principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. Terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Amman, Samarra, Bali, Riyadh and many other cities since September 11th are grim reminders of just how lethal and determined the terrorists remain.

At the same time, the United States, with its partners and allies, is making progress in the war on terror. From the terrorists' point of view, they have lost their home base in Afghanistan, many of their leaders are dead or in custody, countries that once allowed them free rein are now moving against them, their efforts to divide their opponents have largely failed and the terrorists' strategy of attacking innocent Muslims is beginning to backfire and expose them for what they are: enemies of all humanity with no respect for human life and dignity.

Two weeks ago I was with the President in Kabul, and we witnessed the enormous transformation that has taken place in Afghanistan. Before September 11th, 2001, Afghanistan was ruled by a cruel regime that oppressed its people, brutalized women, and gave safe haven to the terrorists who attacked America. Today, the terror camps have been shut down, women are free to work if they choose, boys and girls are back in school -- and 25 million people now enjoy freedom.

This week will mark the three-year anniversary of the liberation of Iraq. In that time, the Iraqi people have gone from suffering under a brutal tyrant to liberation, to sovereignty, to free elections, to a constitutional referendum, and, last December, to elections for a fully constitutional government. In those December elections, over 11 million Iraqis -- more than 75 percent of the Iraqi voting age population -- defied the terrorists to cast their ballots.

Yet in recent weeks our memories of purple-ink-stained fingers have been replaced by images of events much more violent -- a ruined house of worship, mass protests in response to provocation, reprisal attacks by armed militias, and sectarian violence that has taken the lives of hundreds of Iraqi citizens.

The sectarian tensions that are fueling this violence were exacerbated for many years by Saddam Hussein's tyranny. Saddam ruled through brutal suppression of dissent, through murder and genocide, and his Iraq became a nation of deeply repressed sectarian divides. It should surprise no one that freedom has allowed the expression of sectarian identity, and the surfacing of sectarian grievances. And it should surprise no one that terrorists like Zarqawi would seek to exploit these divisions.

But freedom and democracy have also empowered and legitimized leaders who exerted their influence over the last two weeks to dampen the violence and draw their nation back from the brink of sectarian warfare. As the President said, the Iraqi people "looked into the abyss and did not like what they saw." The vast majority of the Iraqi people clearly do not want civil war. They do not want sectarian violence to rob all Iraqis of the hope of a common future. And their elected leaders are doing the difficult work of binding the nation together and forming a national unity government.

That work goes on as we speak. Before coming here I spoke with Ambassador Khalilzad, as I do every couple days, for a status report. The leaders of all the various parties and factions are in Baghdad; they are meeting daily to form a unity government. They announced to the Iraqi people two days ago that they would seek to do that by the end of the month. They are working on a structure of government, the personnel to go in position, and a common program that can bind the government and the country together.

The process is going forward. The legislative assembly met today -- that meeting went well -- and the leaders group is resuming their discussions tomorrow. We are supporting that effort strongly. The government that emerges will be an Iraqi government. But we and the Iraqi leaders agreed that the next step for Iraq needs to be a unity government, and needs to be a unity government soon.

Violence remains a challenge in Iraq, and it remains a challenge in Afghanistan. But this challenge is being met by leaders, empowered by the ballot, who offer their people a new hope rooted in freedom and democracy.

The President's strategy recognizes that the global war on terror is both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas. In the battle of ideas, freedom and democracy directly counter the ideology of the terrorists. The terrorists exploit feelings of alienation, while freedom and democracy offer a stake in society, and a chance to shape one's own future. The terrorists exploit historical grievances, while freedom and democracy offer institutions that promote peaceful resolution of disputes. The terrorists exploit misinformation, prejudices, and propaganda, while freedom and democracy offer independent media and the marketplace of ideas. And while the terrorists exploit a religion to justify murder, freedom and democracy offer respect for human dignity and rejection of the deliberate destruction of innocent lives.

For the vast majority of Afghans and Iraqis, the choice between these two visions is clear, and they have chosen democracy. Yet freedom and democracy are not merely means to an end in the war on terror; they are noble purposes our nation promotes because of our history and our founding principles.

The President expressed this calling most clearly in his second inaugural address. He said, "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights and dignity and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of heaven and Earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time."

Human freedom and human rights are released by the defeat of tyranny, but they are secured by the creation of effective democracies. Effective democracies play a central role in American foreign policy, because they are our natural allies and the anchors of stability in the international system. We seek to help newly free nations build effective democracies, and to partner with effective democracies to address global challenges.

Effective democracies uphold basic human rights, including freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press. Effective democracies submit to the will of the people, especially when the people vote to change their government. Effective democracies exercise sovereignty, maintain order, and establish the rule of law within their own borders -- and fight corruption. Effective democracies protect institutions of civil society such as the family, religious communities, voluntary associations, private property and independent businesses. And effective democracies foster a vibrant civic culture that limits the power of the state through an independent media, opposition political parties, and a system of institutional checks and balances.

The President's strategy recognizes that the journey to effective democracy is long, and it highlights practical ways America supports countries as they make this journey. While free elections are the most visible sign of a free society, they are only the start of the process. Time and patience are required to build the institutions and practices of effective democracy. But free elections can be catalysts for change, by building popular demand for the other democratic institutions necessary to sustain freedom. Some have argued that holding elections before these institutions are in place is premature. But we know that tyrannies are generally poor incubators of free institutions. Generally, it is elected leaders who have the legitimacy to lead a nation -- with the sustained support of other effective democracies -- along the path of democratic success.

As nations find their way in building the institutions of effective democracy, they create opportunities for their people to prosper and build better lives. Creating global prosperity is another vital element of the President's National Security Strategy. The President recognizes that economic freedom and political freedom cannot be long separated. As people experience the freedom to buy, to sell, and to produce, it is only a matter of time until they will demand the freedom to assemble, to speak, and to worship.

For developing nations, the President has promoted economic freedom through an innovative global development strategy, the Millennium Challenge Account program. The President believes that each nation bears the responsibility for its own development, and that success will go to those nations that govern justly, fight corruption, invest in the health and education of their people, and are open to the power of free markets and free trade to lift people out of poverty. Nations that make these choices deserve the active support of the developed world.

The Millennium Challenge Account program is only part of the President's development strategy. He continues to support reducing debt burdens that cripple many nations in the developing world, and opening access to private capital markets. He recognizes the importance of the international private sector in development, as well as a nation's own entrepreneurs. He believes in the dignity of every human life and, therefore, has led unprecedented efforts to address deadly diseases such as AIDS and malaria. Together, these initiatives are creating an alternative to the failed model of corruption and permanent dependency that has been so prevalent in the past.

The President's strategy promotes economic freedom on a global scale, through a free trade agenda to foster prosperity among both developing and developed nations. The President supports open markets, a stable financial system, and the integration of the global economy -- because each of these helps create better lives for all people and a more secure world. The President's free trade agenda includes ambitious proposals put forward in the Doha Development Agenda negotiations of the World Trade Organization. Lowering trade barriers worldwide in agriculture, manufacturing, and services is the best opportunity in a generation to lift millions of people out of poverty and enhance economic opportunity for all people.

Effective democracies provide stability, accountability, and opportunity for their people. Mobilizing effective democracies is also the best hope for addressing the serious challenges we face in our world.

And the challenges we face are enormous. We face public health challenges such as AIDS and avian flu. We face environmental challenges, some of which have been created by human beings, some of which have destroyed human beings through horrific natural disasters. We face energy challenges caused by dependence on old fuels and old technologies. We face the challenges of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We face the challenges of the global drug trade, organized crime, and the detestable trade of human beings for sex and for slavery.

We face the challenge of oppression and violations of basic human rights. The President is personally offended by the profound oppression and suffering in Darfur, Sudan, as well as in Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Iran, Belarus, and other countries. Oppression occurs often on a massive scale, often as a tool of government control. The perpetrators of these horrors brazenly proclaim their indifference to human rights standards

-- so we in the international community must be equally bold in condemning their outrageous conduct.

Effective democracies can improve human rights, address other global challenges, and create a better world -- if we all work together. The President's strategy highlights ways in which effective democracies can cooperate for the greater good. But we must think differently and organize ourselves more creatively if we are to be effective.

The President believes that new international partnerships and arrangements among willing nations offer the possibility of quick and measurable results. The Proliferation Security Initiative, for example, has no governing council, no executive secretariat -- but it has created a community of nations voluntarily committed to acting together to keep dangerous weapons from rogue states and terrorist groups. The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Development and Climate is a group of states working to enhance energy security, reduce poverty, and lower pollution levels through accelerated development of clean technologies. The ad hoc Core Group led multinational efforts to respond to the devastating tsunami of 2004, and filled a critical gap until more traditional relief organizations could begin operations.

The President values these partnerships and arrangements, and his strategy anticipates replicating these and other innovative models to address future challenges. Measurable outcomes, not endless process, should define our international partnerships going forward.

I've only mentioned some of the principal elements of the President's National Security Strategy. But all of the President's foreign policy initiatives are united by his conviction that we are living in a moment of choosing, for our nation and for the world. America can choose a path of fear, leading to isolationism and protectionism, or a path of confidence, leading to international engagement and the expansion of freedom and democracy.

The President's National Security Strategy charts the way forward along the path of confidence. It is a strategy of leadership. It is a strategy of partnership. It is a strategy that protects America's vital interests, reflects America's history, and promotes America's highest ideals.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END

April 9, 2006 at 03:46 PM in US | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

April 06, 2006

The spy's tale: The life and death of Denis Donaldson

By David McKittrick, Ireland Correspondent
Published: 06 April 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article356032.ece

Within the IRA and Sinn Fein, Denis Donaldson was regarded as such a staunch republican that his incorrigible womanising rang no alarm bells, even in organisations forever suspicious of infiltration by the security forces.

Donaldson's frequent approaches to women were so well-known in republican circles that they were not regarded as rendering him open to recruitment as an agent. Indeed, one of a number of mysteries that remain about the Donaldson affair is exactly how Special Branch recruited him 20 years ago. He gave no details, apart from saying he was recruited "after compromising myself during a vulnerable time in my life".

According to one who knew him well, Donaldson was both charismatic and irritating, causing some to like him but others to dislike him. "He had been around a few corners, enjoyed the friendship of the Sinn Fein leadership and was always believed to be a 'sound' republican," the source said. The Irish feminist Marie Mulholland wrote of him: "Denis stood out, all five foot nothing of him. Yes, he was a small man but somehow it never seemed to matter because he had charm - buckets of it. Not the smoozing of an operator, but real charm. It worked wonders with women and Denis loved women - lots of them."

Donaldson's career in the IRA and Sinn Fein spanned the entirety of the Troubles, from the rebirth of the IRA in 1970 to Sinn Fein's growth into Northern Ireland's largest nationalist party.

A member of an old republican family, he was identified with crucial events in recent republican history. In 1970 he helped give the IRA new credibility as the defender of vulnerable Catholic communities when he helped fend off a loyalist assault on the Short Strand district of Belfast.

Later, he was photographed inside the Maze prison with Bobby Sands, the most revered republican martyr, their beaming faces conveying IRA prisoners not as sinister terrorists but as friendly comrades.

Donaldson travelled the world for the IRA, visiting Europe and many parts of the Middle East. In Lebanon he was closely involved in attempts to secure the release of the Belfast-born hostage Brian Keenan.

He was also sent to the United States, serving as a contact point with the important Irish-American community. In his travels he is thought to be have acted in a dual role, seeking to win friends for Sinn Fein within groups such as the PLO, but also looking out opportunities for the IRA to procure arms abroad.

More recently he became an important cog in the Sinn Fein machine, acting as the party's office administrator at Stormont. In this role he was not in the tight inner circle of Gerry Adams and his "kitchen cabinet", but he was close to the heart of the republican political operation, and has been party to many decisions, and involvedin many conversations with important figures.

Republicans thought of him as utterly dependable, first of all in the IRA and then during Sinn Fein's period of political growth. The revelation of his double role as republican activist and as Special Branch informer shocked and horrified Sinn Fein and IRA people.

Republicans had known there were agents in the ranks, but it seems none had suspected Donaldson, partly because of his identification with the birth of the modern IRA and his association with Bobby Sands.

His unmasking came about in the most bizarre circumstances in October 2002. Following televised high-profile raids at Stormont, police arrested him and others, charging him with being part of a republican spy ring. The allegation against him was that he had been at the centre of an IRA operation which had amassed large amounts of confidential documents from both the Northern Ireland Office and from local political parties. The raids and arrests in effect brought down the power-sharing administration, with David Trimble, who was Ulster Unionist leader at the time, declaring that it could not function in the light of such behaviour. The Stormont Assembly has been suspended ever since.

In political terms, the Donaldson killing could not have come at a worse time. Tony Blair is due to launch an initiative today aimed at reviving the Assembly.

One of the ironies in this saga is that the IRA instructed him, a police informer, to start spying at Stormont, co-ordinating the collection and photocopying of confidential documents. That is presumably exactly what he had been doing for British intelligence: collating documents and information on the activities of Sinn Fein and the IRA, and passing them to police.

The IRA, in other words, ordered the British spy to start spying on the British - a tribute to his skill in avoiding suspicion.

There is no definitive answer to the question of why, in arresting and charging Donaldson, the police should have moved against their own agent of 20 years' standing. The most likely explanation is that he was selective in what he passed to his handlers. Security sources say he did not inform the police that the IRA had appointed him as its spy master at Stormont, and thus forfeited any legal protections he might have had. In all probability, they suggest, he withheld the information to protect himself and his family.

Evading detection for two decades was a major achievement on his part, and during his long experience he doubtless worked out many tricks and techniques for his own self-preservation. He probably became adept at handling his handlers.

Security sources also say his importance decreased over the years, an assessment which may help explain why Special Branch was prepared to sacrifice him. It may also be the case that the police and other agencies have other agents implanted at even more strategic levels within Sinn Fein and the IRA.

It is certain that they continue to use technological means of surveillance, making use of ingenious bugging devices planted in or near homes and other premises used by republicans. These can look like old rafters in a house, or when planted outside resemble pieces of rotting wood. Several years ago, a car used by Sinn Fein leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness was found to have fitted with a bug which broadcast their conversations to a satellite. In any event, Donaldson was clearly just one of a range of sources which the security forces used to maintain surveillance on republicans.

His unmasking presented the IRA with a huge dilemma, since its traditional punishment for informers is usually death. During the Troubles it killed at least 50 people, who it claimed were informers. But the Donaldson disclosure came after the IRA formally declared that it was abandoning violence.

In another irony, the republican used to announce this to the grass roots was Seanna Walsh, a friend of Donaldson's for decades.

Killing him would have made a mockery of what republicans saw as solemn and historic pronouncements that their movement had entered an entirely new phase of development, in which politics would displace terrorism.

The old procedure would have been to dispatch Donaldson with a bullet in the back of the head; instead, under the new dispensation, he was allowed to go free. The general assumption, which he himself shared, was that he was in disgrace, but not in danger of death.

Had he left Ireland he would probably still be alive: other informers have been spirited away to start new lives abroad. By staying in Ireland, Donaldson sealed his own fate, since there is nowhere that anyone can completely hide themselves away. Sooner or later, word would have got round about where the infamous informer was holed up.

His decision to stay was a fatal miscalculation: Ireland may be on the brink of a new and more peaceful era, but someone was determined that Donaldson would not live to see it.

How the IRA dealt with those it considered informers

CHRISTOPHER HARTE

Shot in 1993 by the IRA, who said he was a member of the organisation and claimed he was an informer. His body was found with gunshot wounds to the head.

PATRICK FLOOD

IRA member from Londonderry was killed in 1990, his body found hooded and gagged on a border road. He had been missing from home for seven weeks. His mother said: "At the end of the day it's people like me, and their families, that are left to pick up the pieces."

MICHAEL MADDEN

Pensioner was shot six times at his west Belfast home in 1980. The IRA claimed he had given information to police about an attack in which a police officer was killed. A detective told the inquest there was no truth in the claim. The coroner described him as "a recluse causing no trouble to anyone."

FRANK HEGARTY

Body was found on the border in 1986. Originally from Londonderry, he moved to England after an arms find, but later returned to the city. The Republican leader Martin McGuinness strongly denied claims by his mother that he helped persuade her son to return home, assuring him he would be safe.

CAROLINE MORELAND

Mother of three from Belfast was shot and her body left on the border in 1994. The IRA claimed she had been working as a police informer.

EAMON MAGUIRE

Former member of the IRA, his body was found close to the border in 1987. The IRA claimed he had worked for eight years as an informer with police in the Irish Republic, which his family denied.

Donaldson's career in the IRA and Sinn Fein spanned the entirety of the Troubles, from the rebirth of the IRA in 1970 to Sinn Fein's growth into Northern Ireland's largest nationalist party.

In political terms, the Donaldson killing could not have come at a worse time. Tony Blair is due to launch an initiative today aimed at reviving the Assembly.

The IRA, in other words, ordered the British spy to start spying on the British - a tribute to his skill in avoiding suspicion.

In another irony, the republican used to announce this to the grass roots was Seanna Walsh, a friend of Donaldson's for decades.

His decision to stay was a fatal miscalculation: Ireland may be on the brink of a new and more peaceful era, but someone was determined that Donaldson would not live to see it.

How the IRA dealt with those it considered informers

CHRISTOPHER HARTE

Shot in 1993 by the IRA, who said he was a member of the organisation and claimed he was an informer. His body was found with gunshot wounds to the head.

PATRICK FLOOD

MICHAEL MADDEN

FRANK HEGARTY

CAROLINE MORELAND

Mother of three from Belfast was shot and her body left on the border in 1994. The IRA claimed she had been working as a police informer.

EAMON MAGUIRE

Former member of the IRA, his body was found close to the border in 1987. The IRA claimed he had worked for eight years as an informer with police in the Irish Republic, which his family denied.

April 6, 2006 at 02:29 PM in IRA | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

April 04, 2006

IRA man who spied for Britain is found shot dead

IRA man who spied for Britain is found shot dead - Britain - Times Online

By David Sharrock
A former agent who infiltrated the heart of Sinn Fein is murdered at his remote cottage hideaway just four months after being exposed

THE most senior British agent to have been exposed as having worked at the heart of Sinn Fein was found murdered at his home last night.

Denis Donaldson had been shot in the head, execution-style, inside the primitive cottage in Glenties, Co Donegal, where he had been living since he was dramatically outed as a spy in December.

Irish police said that Mr Donaldson had been killed with a shotgun, and that his hand had been severed during the attack. They would not comment on reports that he had been tortured before death and his body mutilated.

Mr Donaldson’s exposure and murder may seem to be the stuff of thrillers, but the repercussions were only beginning to sink in last night. A senior government source said that the murder was being viewed as an attempt to derail the latest — and possibly final — attempt to bring the Northern Ireland peace process to a successful resolution.

The source was referring to the visit by Tony Blair to the Province tomorrow during which he and his Irish counterpart, Bertie Ahern, will announce the revival of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Last night the Northern Ireland Office said: “Nothing will deflect the Government from its aim of ensuring political progress in Northern Ireland.” The Irish Government insisted that plans to announce proposals for a new power-sharing executive this week would go ahead despite the killing. “The dark detail that surrounds this murder is a tragic and regrettable reminder of Northern Ireland’s past,” a spokesman said.

Trying to coax the hardline Democratic Unionists into power-sharing with Sinn Fein will prove even more difficult after what will be seen as a highly political killing. Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary, said that he was “completely appalled by this barbaric act”. Mr Ahern said: “We condemn this brutal murder.” He said that a police investigation was under way.

Mr Donaldson had so many potential and real enemies that it may never be known who carried out the killing. He carried a heavy burden of secrets, from inside the deepest workings of the republican movement and also from the counter-terrorism elite.

Even so, suspicion is likely to be directed in the first instance towards his old comrades. It was only a few months before Mr Donaldson’s exposure that the Provisional IRA said that its “armed campaign” to end British rule in Ireland and all related activities were at an end.

Before that announcement it would have been a certainty that Mr Donaldson would have been treated the same as scores of fellow republicans accused of espionage before him — a bloody interrogation, a bag over the head, a bullet, and a body left on the side of a bleak border road.

Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein president, who shared a long and close working relationship with Mr Donaldson since they spent time together in jail, immediately condemned the killing and tried to distance the republican movement from it: “I want to disassociate Sinn Fein, and indeed all republicans who support the peace process, from that killing.”

Asked if he believed the murder was, therefore, the work of dissident republicans, he replied: “I’m not going to speculate. Denis Donaldson, as you know, worked for the British Government. He was an agent of the British Government, so I have an entirely open mind if he was killed or murdered, who was behind it.”

Sinn Fein had previously issued an assurance that Mr Donaldson’s life was not at risk, after his confession on television before Christmas. Mr Adams added last night: “How could Sinn Fein offer him any protection?” He said he presumed that the responsibility for doing that lay elsewhere.

The IRA statement said: “The IRA had no involvement whatsoever in the death of Denis Donaldson.” It was signed, as always, “P. O’Neill”.

Tracked down by an Irish newspaper last month to a cottage in Co Donegal, Mr Donaldson was said to appear gaunt and chastened by his change of circumstances. For years he had been liked, as much by journalists as by fellow republicans, for his humour, sharp mind and evident pleasure in the finer things in life. Little did anybody realise that he had been working for British Intelligence and the Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch for more than 20 years. That a man as trusted and apparently committed to the republican cause as Mr Donaldson could have been spying for the British for so many years posed the pertinent question: “If Denis, then who else?” Mr Donaldson was an East Belfast Catholic who joined the IRA as a teenager. He served a prison sentence for bombing a distillery and forged a close alliance with Mr Adams’s “kitchen cabinet”, a team who went on to reshape the Provisional IRA into the most lethal and efficient terrorist organisation in Western Europe.

The Rev Ian Paisley, the Democratic Unionist Party leader, was sceptical about the IRA denial of responsibility and said that the killing could affect the meeting between Mr Blair and Mr Ahern. “There are serious talks that are going to take place and I would say that this has put a dark cloud over those talks,” he said.

REPUBLICAN LIFE

1950 Born in republican Short Strand, east Belfast

Mid-1960s Joined IRA. Sided with the Provisional wing in 1969

1971 Caught trying to bomb government buildings. Jailed for four years, later became a key ally of Gerry Adams

1981 Arrested in Paris with false passports. Freed and fostered links with groups such as ETA and the PLO

Mid-1980s Recruited by British security services

Early 1990s Backed peace process and set up Sinn Fein office in the US

1998 Appointed head of Sinn Fein’s Stormont office

October 2002 Charged after a raid on Sinn Fein offices in inquiry into alleged IRA spy ring inside the Northern Ireland Office

December 2005 Admits being a British agent for 20 years, a week after he is acquitted of spy charges

March 2006 Tracked to a cottage in Co Donegal, Irish Republic by a journalist

Click here to find out more!

April 4, 2006 at 11:28 PM in IRA | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

End of 'the thin red line'

CNN.com - End of 'the thin red line' - Apr 4, 2006

Chapter of military history closes as Scottish regiments merge

Tuesday, April 4, 2006 Posted: 1236 GMT (2036 HKT)

EDINBURGH, Scotland (Reuters) -- A chapter in Scotland's colorful military history closed last week when its six remaining infantry units, whose forebears served Britain in wars down the centuries, were merged into a single regiment.

The new Royal Regiment of Scotland was launched at a low-key ceremony under gray skies at Edinburgh Castle on Tuesday, with representatives of its five battalions receiving their new cap badges from the divisional commander, Major-General Euan Loudon.

Two regiments, the Royal Scots -- the oldest infantry regiment in the British Army -- and The Highlanders, received their badges in Iraq, where they were on deployment. Other units were serving in Cyprus, Northern Ireland, England and elsewhere in Scotland.

Over the centuries, Scottish regiments have participated in virtually every war on every continent, from the 17th-century battlefields of Europe and the American Revolution, to the Napoleonic and Crimean wars of the 19th century through two world wars in the 20th century, and now in Iraq.

The merger of the Royal Scots, the King's Own Scottish Borderers (KOSB), the Black Watch, The Highlanders, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the Royal Highland Fusiliers provoked bitter opposition from veterans and Scottish nationalists.

The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders earned the nickname "The Thin Red Line" for confronting a Russian cavalry attack at the Battle of Balaclava in 1854 during the Crimean War.

The skirl of the bagpipes as kilted infantrymen went into battle provides a colorful legacy and Loudon, himself a former commanding officer of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, insists the "golden thread" of the regiments' history and tradition will continue to run through the new unit's five regular battalions and two Territorial Army (civilian reserve) battalions (Highland and Lowland).

He noted that March 28 had been chosen to inaugurate the new regiment on the anniversary of the raising of the unit that became famous as the Royal Scots in 1633.
Commonwealth affiliations

The regiments have affiliations with "Highland" regiments in other Commonwealth countries.

The army says the new regiment is being forged to meet the changing needs of the 21st century, including more short-notice deployments, peacekeeping duties and the need to operate alongside allies -- as with U.S forces in Iraq.

Four of the old regiments will constitute individual battalions with the Royal Regiment, but the Royal Scots and the KOSB will be combined into one battalion over the next few months. The army is also losing three regiments in England.

A group of KOSB veterans went to court to challenge the right of the Defence Ministry in London to dissolve a regiment created by the Scottish Parliament before the political union of Scotland and England in 1707. They withdrew their petition just days before the new regiment was born.

The leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in Scotland's Parliament, Nicola Sturgeon, said the party would like to see the merger reversed, "but obviously, regrettably, it's moving forward at the moment."

Historian Tom Devine of Edinburgh University told Reuters military tradition and the regiments had played a vital role in Scotland, particularly in Highland society in the 17th and 18th centuries, providing employment and income to poor families.

He noted, however, that Scotland's militarist past appeared to have faded with the end of the British empire and overseas commitments, and as a result of radical social changes at home. He said army recruitment had also been hit by the high level of employment in recent decades.

Loudon said the new super-regiment had emerged from a review of defense policy in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War. What emerged, he told Reuters in an interview, was that "we would have to be prepared to fight across a broad spectrum of operations and, of course, peace support and peacekeeping missions, and to go to these operations at quite short notice and plug in effectively with allies."
Cold war legacy

He said that a legacy of the Cold War had left the army unbalanced, with a preponderance of "heavy forces that were pretty immobile," and "light forces that had relatively light combat power."

"The big idea was that we would re-balance that structure into three areas of capability: light, which would be beefed up; medium, which would be created; and heavy, which would be made as mobile as we could in the future."

He said the traditional system where units changed locations and roles every three years or so also failed to meet these needs and meant that about 25 percent of infantry in the British Army could be unavailable for operations at any one time as they moved to new locations and retrained for new roles.

In the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the merged Royal Scots and KSOB will constitute the 1st battalion, the Royal Highland Fusiliers the 2nd battalion, the Black Watch the 3rd battalion, The Highlanders the 4th battalion and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders the 5th battalion.

The Royal Scots and KOSB have traditionally worn tartan trews (trousers) rather than kilts, but the Royal Regiment of Scotland will be kilted, wearing the Black Watch, or "government" tartan.

The battalions will, however, retain their distinctive colored feathers behind their cap badges, known as the "hackle," and the pipe and drum bands will keep the regimental tartans and accouterments .

Loudon said history and tradition were integral to the new regiment, but added: "A tradition is only relevant if its legacy, when it is handed down to the next generation of people inspires, them to soldier as their forebears have done."

He said the spiritual homes of the old units would remain at their old bases in Scotland in the form of regimental museums and associations covering past and present members.

"The memories are terribly important things, aren't they, because they tell you who you are, who you were and, with luck, will help you understand who you might be in the future."

April 4, 2006 at 10:34 AM in UK | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

April 02, 2006

Remarks at BBC Today-Chatham House Lecture p Condaleeza Rice

Remarks at BBC Today-Chatham House Lecture

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Ewood Park
Blackburn, United Kingdom
March 31, 2006

U.S. Secretary Of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw smile during the House Audience held at the Ewood Park stadium in Blackburn, England, Friday March 31, 2006. [U.S. Embassy Picture/Richard Lewis]SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. Well, listening to Jack, I'm sure you understand why I value his counsel and his friendship and why the people of the United States are so pleased that we have such a good friend in the Foreign Secretary here in the United Kingdom. The partnership that we forged over this past year, I think is a reflection of our nations’ historic alliances, but more than that is a reflection of the values that we share as peoples, because ultimately the work of governments cannot be sustained, particularly democratic governments if there is not a deep bond between their peoples. And the peoples of Great Britain and of the United States, of course, have that historic bond.

Today, on behalf of President Bush, I would like to thank the citizens and the government of Great Britain for the willingness to share in the sacrifices for freedom, no more so than in the last several years since the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and on the Pentagon really revealed again to America in ways that we had not seen for a very, very long time in our history, our own vulnerability to outside attack and to the forces of hostility to democratic values. And, of course, on July 7th when Britain also experienced that hostility, I hope that Britain felt the support of the United States in our joint desire to defeat those forces that are so hostile to our democratic principles.

I also want to thank Jack for inviting me here to Blackburn and for allowing me to share the stage with Jim Naughtie. Thank you very much for the work of the BBC in this and I am really honored that Lord Hurd would be here, a great public servant whom we've all admired for many years. Thank you very much for being here. Jack invited me to see a different side of British society, one that's not normally seen by Secretaries of State and already I have seen how this old cotton city is finding new prosperity and building airplanes and a knowledge-based economy. And of course, I've just had the opportunity to walk around the "pitch" – is that right? -- of the Blackburn Rovers football club. And, Jack, if Blackburn is "the center of the world," then I suspect that this stadium is the center of the center of the center of the world. (Laughter.)

UU.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as she delivers her speech to guests during the Chatham House Audience held at the Ewood Park stadium in Blackburn, England, Friday March 31, 2006. [U.S. Embassy Picture/Richard Lewis]When Jack was in Birmingham last October, I took him to, as he said, a University of Alabama football game. Now, unless you've experienced American college football in the Southeastern Conference, you just don't know what that means. I think it's safe to say, though, that even though Jack loved the experience, I'm not absolutely certain that he knew what was going on. (Laughter.) Had I had the opportunity to watch Blackburn play Wigan here next week, I'm certain that I would have been just as clueless. And it is true that the European stereotype of America -- Americans that we do not have the attention span for a 90-minute game that doesn't have that much scoring and where there isn't full contact. Yeah, it's true. (Laughter.) But I would remind you that the man who keeps the ball out of the Rovers’ goal is an American, Brad Friedel. (Applause.)

I'm delighted to be here to deliver this lecture. As a professor myself, I like to take every opportunity to put on my academic hat, to reflect broadly on the issues of the day. So this afternoon, I want to talk about an idea -- an idea that has defined the modern era since the dawn of the Enlightenment, an idea that has now captured the imagination of a majority of humanity, and made our world more secure as a result, so that idea is liberal democracy.

What do I mean by "liberal" democracy? Well, first of all, I mean capital "L" in Liberal, as in Liberalism, the theory of politics that took shape in the minds of Englishmen like Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke, and even a Scot or two, like Adam Smith. The ideas of Liberalism were, of course, later refined and applied and written into the American Constitution by men like Hamilton, and Jefferson and Madison. And all of these individuals were trying, in their own way, to solve one of history's oldest quandaries: How can individuals with different interests, and different backgrounds, and different religious beliefs, live together peacefully and avoid the evil extremes of politics: civil war and tyranny, or as they would have said, the state of nature or the oppression of the state?

In their answer to this question, the theorists of Liberalism transformed politics forever. They declared that all human beings possessed equal dignity and certain natural rights -- among these, the right to live in liberty, to enjoy security, to own property and to worship as they pleased. These universal rights, established and embodied in institutions and enshrined in law, would then establish the principled limits on state power. But that was not all. They had another equally bold idea: For government to be truly legitimate, they argued, it had to be blessed by the consent of the governed.

Now, those were truly revolutionary ideas, and not surprisingly, they inspired revolutions. You made yours here in Britain in 1688. We made ours, after a few false starts, in 1776 and 1789. And I do not, therefore, mean to imply that there is only one model of liberal democracy. There is not. Even two countries as similar as Britain and the United States embraced liberal democracy on our own terms, according to our own traditions and our cultures and our experiences. That has been the case for every country and every people that has begun the modest quest for justice and freedom -- whether it was France in 1789; or Germany and Japan after World War II; or nations across Asia, and Africa, and Latin America during these past decades; or in countries like Ukraine, and Afghanistan, and Iraq today.

The appeal of liberal democracy is desirable, but its progress has not been even nor inevitable and there's a reason for that. The challenge of liberal democracy is always two-fold: to ensure majority rule and to respect minority rights, to strengthen communities and to liberate individuals, to empower government and to limit that power at the same time. And for societies accustomed to thinking in zero-sum terms, or for diverse communities that have never shared power among themselves, liberal democracy can seem difficult and frustrating and even threatening, and that feeling is entirely understandable.

Too often, we forget how long and hard liberal democracy has been for us. At times in our history and cities like Blackburn and Birmingham for that matter, the challenge of liberal democracy seemed so severe that it would split societies in two.

Once the cotton business moved out of this city, inequality and alienation were so rampant that many thought a revolution was not just likely, but inevitable. In my hometown of Birmingham, Alabama, the legacy and the birthmark of slavery persisted for a century in the brutal and dehumanizing form of segregation. I spent the first 13 years of my life without a white classmate. It was when we moved to Denver, Colorado, that I had my first white classmate. And one Sunday morning in 1963, four little girls, including my good friend Denise McNair, were murdered in church by a terrorist bomb.

So even today, we know that we are still wrestling with the two-fold challenges of liberal democracy. Consider, for example, our efforts to strengthen national security and to protect civil liberties at the same time. In the attacks of 9/11 or 7/7 here in Britain, the United States and Britain saw the true threat of global terrorism. No matter of just police work of course, because if we wait for terrorists to attack, then 3,000 people die on one September morning or dozens are murdered on their commute to work. This forces us to think anew about how we will keep our societies both open and safe at the same time and that is no easy task, and we're all finding our own solutions within our own democratic systems.

I know that there is a lot concern in Britain as well as in Europe and in other parts of the world, that the United States is not adequately guaranteeing both our need for security and our respect for the law. We in America welcome the free exchange of opinions with our allies about this issue, especially here in place like Britain. But I also want to say that no one should ever doubt America’s commitment to justice and the rule of law. President Bush has stated unequivocally, as have I that the United States is a nation of laws and we do not tolerate any American, at home or abroad, engaging in acts of torture. We also have no desire to be the world’s jailer. We want the terrorists that we captured to stand trial for their crimes. But we also recognize that we are fighting a new kind of war, and that our citizens will judge us harshly if we release a captured terrorist before we are absolutely certain that he does not possess information that could prevent a future attack, or even worst, if we meet that terrorist again on the battlefield.

Now, these difficult issues, still for us affirm the value of liberal democracy. But from our present and past experience, we know that liberal democracy is no panacea. It is a living regime, a never-ending conversation, a perpetual struggle to balance democratic demands within the limitations of Liberalism. This is genuine liberal democracy and this is its genius, its flexibility and its dynamism, how it helps diverse societies and diverse peoples reconcile their differences peacefully. Even for mature liberal democracies like ours, with centuries of experience, these balancing acts are often painstaking and time-consuming and frustrating. So when we talk about young democracies, like those emerging in the Broader Middle East today, we must do so with great humility and with great patience and with great sympathy for their historic undertaking.

Too often, I think, we forget this perspective. Recent elections in places like Egypt and the Palestinian territories -- the freest by far in both of those places -- have led some to argue that our policy of supporting democratic change in this region is creating not liberal democracy, but illiberal democracy: elected governments that view no inherent limitations to state power. Some American and European commentators even argue that democracy is impossible in the Middle East, and that perhaps it should not be tried for fear of its consequences in destabilizing the Middle East. Now, this criticism seems to assume that our support for democratic reform in the Middle East is disrupting somehow a stable status quo there. But do we really think that this was the case?

Does anyone think that the Lebanese people were better off under the boot of Syria? Does anyone think that Yasser Arafat pretending to make peace while supporting terrorism was better for the Palestinian people? Does anyone think that the Middle East was more secure when Saddam Hussein was massacring the Iraqi people, invading his neighbors, using weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and his people, funding terrorism, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and exploiting a failed sanctions regime for billions of dollars? And who today would honestly defend Arab authoritarianism, which has created a sense of despair and hopelessness so desperate that it feeds an ideology of hatred that leads people to strap bombs to their bodies and fly airplanes into building? The old status quo was unstable. Any sense of stability was a false sense of stability. It was not serving any interest and democratic reform had to begin.

It's hard to imagine, as some do, how this process of reform -- it's hard to imagine for some critics how this process of reform might go forward in the Broader Middle East. But I can tell you this; it cannot go forward in the Middle East without freeing its citizens to voice their choices. For decades, authoritarian regimes in this region have completely closed off the political space of their countries. If things remain as they are, it is not very likely that a vibrant civil society is somehow going to emerge under the heel of authoritarianism. Real change will begin and is beginning in the Middle East when citizens -- men and women -- are free to make demands of their government. It would be illiberal in the extreme to think that disagreeing with a people’s free choice means that we should deny them the freedom to choose altogether.

Elections are the beginning of every democracy, but of course they are not the end. Effective institutions are essential to the success of all liberal democracies. And by institutions I mean pluralistic parties, transparent and accountable legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, active civil society, market economies and, of course, a monopoly for the state on the means of violence. One cannot have one foot in terrorism and one foot in politics. Now, if these institutions that transform a government of imperfect citizens -- it is these institutions that transform a government of imperfect citizens into a government of enduring laws.

I think that we in the West need to reflect long and hard before we write off entire societies as inherently despotic because of some notion of their cultures. Remember, cultural determinists were once so certain that democracy would never work in Asia because of "Asian values," or in Africa because of tribalism, or in Latin America because of its military juntas. It was even said, in my own lifetime, that blacks in America were "unfit" for democracy -- too "childlike," too "unready," too "incapable," too "unwanting" of self-government.

The criticism assumes that human beings are slaves to their culture, not the authors of it. Liberal democracy is unique because it is both principle and process, an end toward which people strive, and the means by which they do so. The daily work of negotiation, and cooperation, and compromise, the constant struggle to balance majority rule with individual rights -- this democratic process is how people create a democratic culture.

All too often, cultural determinists misunderstand culture in many places in the world. But we've seen it most especially lately in Iraq. It is certainly true that Iraq rests on the major fault lines of ethnicity and religion in the Middle East. It is also true that, for many centuries, Iraqis have settled their differences through coercion and violence, rather than compromise and politics.

But in the past two generations, it was Saddam Hussein who took a society that was already rife with sectarian and religious divisions and drove it to the brink of the state of nature. He committed genocide and filled mass graves with 300,000 souls. He slaughtered entire villages of Shia and Kurds. And he carried out a nationwide policy of ethnic cleansing to make Iraq’s Sunni minority dominant throughout the country. To be certain, he repressed a good number of Sunnis, too. So when we look at Iraq today, we must take care to separate the culture of its people from the near-term legacy of a tyrant. And we must support the millions of Iraqi patriots who are striving nobly to redeem their country.

This is an incredibly difficult endeavor, but the Iraqis are moving forward. In just three years, the people of Iraq have regained sovereignty and voted in free elections. They've written and ratified a constitution, then voted again, and their elected leaders are now working to form a national government. This steady progress has occurred in the face of truly horrific violence. Terrorist attacks, like the one that destroyed the Golden Mosque in Samarra, seek to inflame Iraq’s divisions and tear the country apart. But in response to that, some Iraqis have given into the temptation to take justice into their own hands, to engage in reprisal killings.

Yet, at the same time, we are witnessing something else, something very hopeful. After the Samarra mosque bombing, Iraq’s new democratic institutions helped to contain popular passions. Iraq’s leaders joined together to stay the hand of vengeance and violence in their communities. In these actions and events, we see the early contours of a democratic culture, forged in cooperation and strengthened by compromise.

The majority of Iraqis are formulating their own democratic answer to the question that first inspired the Enlightenment four centuries ago: How can different individuals and communities live together in peace, avoiding both the state of nature and the tyranny of the state? With time, with painstaking effort, and with our steadfast support, Iraqis will build up their fragile democratic culture, and eventually, many decades from now, people will take it for granted; that that democratic culture was always to be, just as we in America and Britain now take for granted our democratic culture.

In a tale of two cities, that the Secretary and I have now visited, Birmingham and Blackburn, Britain and the United States have seen how the impossible dreams of yesterday can become the inevitable facts of today. Who would have imagined, fifty years ago, that Birmingham would have been a thriving and desegregated capital of the New South? Or that Blackburn today would be revitalizing and modernizing and growing into a hub of enterprise for Northwest England and beyond?

Someday, people in Baghdad and Beirut and Cairo and, yes, in Tehran will say the same thing about their great cities. They will wonder how anyone could ever have doubted the future of liberal democracy in their countries. But most of all, they will remember fondly those fellow democracies, like Britain and the United States, and dozens of others, who stood with them in their time of need – believing that advancing the cause of freedom is the greatest hope for peace in our time.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

QUESTION: Rosemary Hollis. I'm Director of Research at Chatham House, and not only from there but in general, myself personally, welcome this opportunity to have access to you. Now, I wonder if I could point something out and base my question on that. Whilst it is a very, very close alliance and British commitment to the United States in the last three, four years is probably without parallel, that not only means that we know we are in a sense junior partner, but we also feel that we're not always sure where you're going to lead. I wonder if you could give us some reassurance to the effect that some lessons have been learned from some of the mistakes made over the last three years which will be used to judge situations going forward.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, thank you. And first of all, I'm delighted you are at Chatham House, which is a fantastic institution, and I have from time to time been able to take advantage of the work of Chatham House, so thank you for that and thank you, Lord Hurd, for that.

First of all, we have partners in the world and I don't think of it in terms of junior partners and subordinate partners. We have partners in the world. And it starts from shared common values that those partnerships exist. You then, of course, have goals in common and you can sometimes then have disagreements about tactics. There's no doubt about that. And the only way to overcome those differences is through constant dialogue and constant discussion. And I think if you look back over the record of the last three-plus years, you would see that there's been extraordinary consultation, discussion, problem-solving, between the United States and Great Britain -- how often the Prime Minister and the President have met, how often Jack Straw and first Colin Powell and now I have talked. And I can assure you, these are not conversations in which I say, "Here's what the United States is going to do. Would you like to come along?" That's not the way that it goes. It really is a discussion about how we are going to jointly move forward.

Now, as to whether you learn, of course, you learn lessons. If you are impervious to the lessons of the period that you've been just been out of, you're really rather brain dead; you're not thinking. Of course, you're trying to trying to learn lessons. I've often said that one question that often comes to me is, well, tell me about the mistakes you've made. And I've said many, many times I am quite certain that there are going to be dissertations written about the mistakes of the Bush Administration and I will probably even oversee some of them when I go back to Stanford. But one of the things that's very difficult to tell in the midst of big historic change is what was actually a good decision and what was a bad decision. And I will tell you that decisions, when you look at them in historical perspective that were thought at the time to be brilliant, turn out to have been really rather bad, and vice versa.

And so I think what you have to do is to make certain that you've got the right strategic choices and the right strategic decisions, and you're going to make a host of tactical mistakes along the way. I believe strongly that it was the right strategic decision that Saddam Hussein had been a threat to the international community long enough that it was time to deal with that threat, that you were not going to have a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein at the center of it, and that it was best, once having overthrown that dictator, to set on a course of democratic development in Iraq.

You know, there were people at the time of the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein who actually said, oh, yes, you should get rid of Saddam Hussein but your goal shouldn't be democracy in Iraq; your goal should be to find another strongman for Iraq because Iraqis will never be able to self-govern. Now, that would have been a tactical decision that I think would have been a huge mistake. But as we're in the midst of this in Iraq, are there people who probably think, yeah, it would have been a better idea to put a strongman in his place? I just don't agree.

So my point to you is that yes, I know we've made tactical errors -- thousands of them, I'm sure. This could have gone that way or that could have gone that way. But when you look back in history, what will be judged is did you make the right strategic decisions. And if you spend all of your time trying to judge this tactical issue or that tactical issue, I think you miss the larger sweep.

Now, absolutely we think all the time about what can be done better, what needs to be adjusted. But I think I just think of it a little bit differently than trying now to catalogue every "mistake" and react to it.

QUESTION: Robin Oakley, CNN. Secretary of State, you have expressed your sympathy this morning for Iran over the earthquakes, but politics must go on. And before you came to the center of the world, you were on the continent of Europe discussing with the P-5 and Germany what next steps could be taken to persuade the Iranians to pull back from the uranium enrichment program. Aren't you worried that the tactics being adopted by the P-5 and others so far are enabling the manipulators of an imperfect democracy in Iran to build up sympathy with the Iranian people?

And in discussing those next steps, can you tell us what next practical steps you can see? It's quite obvious that the difficulties you had in getting an anodyne statement out of the Security Council just to toss the issue back to the IAEA for 30 days hasn't impressed the Iranians at all. So what can be done to put real pressure on them? Do you agree with your host here in Blackburn, Jack Straw, that sanctions could be involved? Do you see the slightest chance of getting Russia or China to agree to sanctions?

And if you could clear up one other point, Jack Straw keeps telling us that he talks to people in the U.S. Administration and they share his view that military action will never be used. But your President keeps telling us that all options remain on the table, which must include military action. Can you tell us which is right?

SECRETARY RICE: Let me try a few of them. First of all, one can express and deeply mean sympathy for and willingness to help the Iranian people without endorsing what I would not even call an imperfect democracy. I think when you have a Guardian Council that chooses a thousand people who can run, I don't really find the use of the word "democracy" in that sentence. It's rather like there used to be a Democratic Republic of Germany and there used to be a -- there still is a Democratic Republic of Korea. So we have to be careful about the use of the term.

As to whether or not people are being driven toward their government, I do think it's immensely important and it's not easy to do, it's not an easy point to break through, that we have no quarrel with the Iranian people. The United States doesn't. Great Britain doesn't. Germany doesn't. None of us have a quarrel with the Iranian people. In fact, the Iranian regime is having an unaccountable few who are frustrating the good wishes, the good aspirations, of the Iranian people, who over time have demonstrated that they would like a truly democratic society.

And in this nuclear matter, it is enormously important that we get the message through to the Iranian people that it is not the international community that is isolating Iran; it is the Iranian regime that is isolating Iran. No one is saying that Iran should not have civil nuclear power. We accept that Iran may need civil nuclear power. But given the behavior of the Iranian regime over the last 18 years with the IAEA, it isn't possible to conceive of the use of the technologies of reprocessing and enrichment on Iranian territory. And again, we have to make that argument in a way that shows that there is a proper choice for the Iranian regime that would not result in its isolation.

So I would hope that rather than looking at the P-5 and saying, well, the P-5 is out to make it difficult for the Iranian people, that the only reason the Iranian -- that the P-5 would make it difficult for Iran is if the Iranian regime does not respond to the just demands of the international system.

As to what will happen in the future, I warn all the time that it's very easy in diplomacy to read the latest headline and say, oh, well, that's a failed diplomatic effort. I can remember that we were also never going to get this issue to the Security Council because several months ago there was some sense that Russia would never permit it to go to the Security Council. Well, we're now in the Security Council. I can remember when I first became Secretary, I came to Europe -- I was actually here first in Britain -- and people said, oh, the United States and its European allies are split and Europe is trying to mediate between Iran and the United States. We're far past that.

So diplomacy, as Lord Hurd said, takes time. It takes some patience. It takes working through issues. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't. When we did the presidential statement, yes, we changed some language that we would like, Russia changed some language that it would have liked. So this is a process and where we end up in this process in terms of the potential for sanctions, which I do agree with the Foreign Secretary have to be on the agenda, I think will be, in part, dependent on whether the Iranian regime decides to respond to the just demands of the international system.

And as to military force, the American President never takes any option off the table. You don't want the American President to take any option off the table. But we also recognize that that is not what is on the agenda now. We are in a process that we believe can work diplomatically. I do think the Iranians are worried. And for all of the bravado about they're not really worried, it's very interesting that every time we get close to the Security Council, they suddenly become interested in the Russian proposal or the EU proposal. I think they actually do worry quite a lot about isolation.

QUESTION: I'm a local business person. I very much enjoyed your lecture, Secretary of State. To promote global harmony, would you consider setting up a liaison committee with membership from the USA, UK and Australia?

SECRETARY RICE: I'm sorry, a liaison committee for?

QUESTION: A specific liaison committee with membership from the USA, UK and Australia.

MR. NAUGHTIE: To do what?

QUESTION: To promote global harmony.

SECRETARY RICE: Oh. Well, we obviously have, Jack and I, a relationship with our counterpart in Australia, Alexander Downer. I was just there. And I would have a suggestion. I actually think that there are some tasks, some issues that are actually better taken on not by government but rather by people. One of the strengths that we see is when populations, people-to-people, decide. Either the business community decides that it wishes to get together or academics, universities, decide. Chatham House is a fine place where academics from all over the world come together. That youth get together. And it doesn't always have to be the government that pursues those things and so -- global harmony is quite important. I'm not actually sure that the governments are the best to pursue it, but rather that people-to-people ties might work better.

QUESTION: On a related question, given what Lord Hurd said about institution building after World War II, and perhaps a decision not to go down that road for reasons that we can understand in the early '90s, do you think that was a missed opportunity?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I've thought a lot about that because, actually, my academic work is on institutions and how they govern -- the state of nation matrix, so to speak. I agree with Lord Hurd that we didn't create new big international institutions, but there has been a significant evolution of some of those institutions; for instance, NATO. I remember after the Cold War ended -- I was, by the way, a specialist on the Warsaw Pact, which shows what a dinosaur I am -- and there were people who said, well, the Warsaw Pact has gone out of business, it won't be long before NATO follows. Rather, NATO has transformed itself consistent with its purposes of creating an environment under which democracies can pursue peace. It's transformed itself into a real magnet for the newly democratizing states of Eastern Europe. So NATO is now at 26. It has at the table Poland and Romania and Lithuania and Latvia. This is an enormous transformation.

NATO, of course, has also no longer any arguments about what's out of area. NATO is supporting African Union forces in Sudan. NATO is in Afghanistan. It is training Iraqi military forces. And so there's been such an evolution of that institution that I think you could argue it has become, in a sense, anew.

And if I could make just one other point, I'm a major advocate of United Nations reform. I do think that the reform agenda is extremely important so that the United Nations can be revitalized and made to be relevant to the 21st century. We're in that process.

One thing that is sometimes not seen also is the growth of institutions in other parts of the world that perhaps are not so focused on here in Europe. So part of the United States institution building is in strengthening ASEAN, for instance, among Southeast Asian countries, the Asia-Pacific Economic Council, which has all of the Pacific Rim countries involved in it. And so there is a lot of -- the Organization of American States, where we spend a lot of effort. So one of the answers to new institutions is that it's happening in new regions of the world on a regional basis rather than on a global one.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Chatham House. The new conservative guru, Professor John Mearsheimer of University of Chicago, argues that war between the United States and China is inevitable. Do you agree? And if you don't, do you think China's rise is a threat to regional or world peace?

SECRETARY RICE: I do not see events of this -- really, any human event is inevitable. We make choices that lead us to conflict or lead us to peace. And with China, we are seeing the rise of an important state that is going to be influential one way or another, and it has been the goal and the policy of the United States to try and help create the circumstances under which the rise of China will be beneficial to the international system and will be peaceful.

Part of the way that we've tried to do that is to be very strong advocates of the integration of China into world institutions that are rules-based, like the World Trade Organization. Because with this huge economy in China, it has to be operating on a rules basis or it will be a problem for the international economy.

We have been very active in trying to manage what is currently the biggest security threat in Northeast Asia, which is the North Korean nuclear program, with China really at the center of the six-party talks.

We have our differences with China on human rights. We have our differences with China on some economic issues and trade issues. We have had our differences with China on a number of other questions. But it is a good relationship, it's a sound relationship, and it's one that while recognizing and talking openly about those differences I think is very much on track to see the peaceful integration of China into the international system. I think it's entirely possible to do it.

It will depend on choices that China makes and we have tried to help create circumstances in which those choices will be peaceful ones.

QUESTION: Not all of us share your optimism about freedom and peace, democracy in Iraq. I just wonder, looking back to the Vietnam War, and that was also a fight for democracy, pushing back the boundary of communism, whether this is a fight for democracy that America should be out of. And I wonder what -- how worse it's got to be in Iraq before America withdraws its troops, and equally the British troops as well, but in particular yourself. Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Well, we could spend a long time on the differences between Vietnam and Iraq, including questions of the nature of the Middle East at this point and the relationship of a different Middle East to the core security interests of the United States, or for that matter Great Britain. But we could perhaps have that debate sometime.

Let me just -- let me address the question of how long the United States feels that it needs to be there. We are there at the request of this, first the interim government, and we'll see -- I assume at the request of the national unity government when it is formed. We're there under UN mandate. We're there to try to train Iraqi forces so that they themselves can do the security tasks before them.

But I think it would be wrong to somehow leave Iraq to the mercies of the Zarqawis of the world or former Baathists who really do want to unravel the political process. And while it is true that there is a great deal of violence, that people can kill innocents and that can be the dominant image of Iraq on television or in the newspapers, there is another story to what is going on in Iraq; and that is that the people of Iraq, through leaders that are emerging, are trying to find a way to make use of democratic institutions to overcome their differences and to form a national unity government and to have a way to overcome those differences peacefully.

Now, part of the problem with the argument, I think, not just in Iraq but across the Middle East, that, well, it's unstable and therefore you ought to either withdraw or try to pull back or somehow admit that it was a mistake to unleash democracy in this region that really wasn't worried about it, is: What is the alternative? What is the alternative? Is the alternative that the Iraqi people were left somehow to Saddam Hussein? Was that really a more stable or a better situation? And Saddam Hussein wasn't going anywhere without military intervention. With all due respect, the sanctions and the Oil-for-Food program were not keeping Saddam Hussein either in check nor helping to bring him down. If the alternative in places like Lebanon is to leave Syrian power there, that makes no sense.

So I would ask, you know, what is the alternative to democracy and what is the alternative to a Middle East that is not a place that is a cauldron of frustration, where political conversation and political activity cannot be channeled into legitimate institutions, where authoritarianism reigns, where women are not full citizens? What is the alternative to the democratization of those places?

And if I could just -- one other point -- Lord Hurd said something that I want to associate myself with and I think it's sometimes misunderstood about American policy. It is not the notion that somehow you can impose democracy from the outside. I firmly believe that people have to take it up from within and they have to take it from the inside. But we all know that sometimes you have to create conditions under which then people are capable of doing that. Jack was saying earlier, had the United States not intervened in World War II, the ability of the German people to actually practice democracy would never have come about. In Iraq or Afghanistan, had those regimes not been overthrown, those people would not have had the ability to practice democracy.

But the United States is not going to deliver Iraqi democracy or Afghan democracy or Palestinian democracy. That is going to have to be done from within. But if you have a real belief, as I do, that this is something that is desired by all people, you have to believe that you don't have to impose democracy from the outside; you have to impose tyranny. And people, given a chance, will find a way to begin to resolve their differences by politics.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from the Middle East program at Chatham House. There has been much talk of reform in Saudi Arabia but students of the crucial educational sector remain indoctrinated by the most narrow of Wahabi Islamic officials. Given this, how seriously does the United States take the reform -- Saudi reform process, and in particular the educational system? And how do you propose to persuade them to move in towards a more meaningful democracy, hopefully liberal democracy?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, thank you. First of all, there is reform going on in Saudi Arabia, but at a very, let me say, measured pace, and, of course, in very narrow circumstances or in very narrow elements of the society. And I think you've put your finger on it. I think some of this is the educational system which, at one time, was more open actually to people being trained outside of the country. A lot of people were trained here in Great Britain, in the United States. And one thing that we've begun to do is to try to increase again the number of educational exchanges and students who will actually come from Saudi Arabia to go to school in the United States or in Great Britain or another. I think it's extremely important because it leads to a kind of opening up of the society.

I think it's also very important that the Saudis -- and they express a desire to do so -- take on the question of what kind of education people are getting. Are they being educated for the skills of the modern society or is it simply education that is closed to one set of beliefs and one set of doctrines.

I'll tell you an interesting story. I was just in Indonesia and I visited a madrasa in Indonesia. Now, perhaps in Great Britain, as in the United States, the word "madrasa," everybody recoils a bit because of some of the pictures that we've seen.

MR. NAUGHTIE: I live opposite one.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, right.

MR. NAUGHTIE: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY RICE: No, you're fine with it. No, but really, the word sometimes gets -- this was a madrasa that I wish most people could see, as I'm sure would be the case. Girls in cover learning math skills, boys learning math skills. Teachers who were enlightened. Religious traditions being respected, religious principles being respected, but a sense that these children should be educated also for the modern world. This is trying to happen in Pakistan, where there's been educational reform. And I think around the world this is going to be one of the most important elements of the opening up of these societies.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Financial Times. Secretary Rice, can I ask about Iran's nuclear program? Do you believe that the time for developing the incentives for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment has passed or do you sympathize instead with the ideas floated by British diplomats that what the international community should be doing is looking at coming up with some kind of improved offer if Iran does renew that suspension? Is the road ahead simply one of coercion and UN action or should we try and think about developing those incentives should Iran conform?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think it's worth thinking about how we go forward to try and convince Iran that it is best for it to involve itself in negotiation rather than to continue to escalate and continue to cause tensions here. We'll have this discussion over the next several weeks. We've got 30 days -- or Iran has 30 days to respond to the presidential statement. I think it will be worth looking at all kinds of issues.

I would just note that thus far Iran has not been particularly interested in any offer that has been put to it. It is the Russians, the EU-3; everybody's put offers before the Iranians. The main issue is, of course, enrichment and reprocessing on Iranian soil, which is not acceptable to the international community.

So I would just note that I think Iran is going to have to make a choice, and if there are ways to sharpen that choice, of course, we should look at ways to sharpen that choice. But the choice is a pretty clear one, and that is accept a way to the development of civil nuclear power that does not have the proliferation risk associated with enrichment and reprocessing on Iranian soil, or face deeper isolation from the international community. And we will see whether Iran understands that's the choice it's got.

2006/T10-4

Released on March 31, 2006

April 2, 2006 at 12:51 AM in US | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Government in secret talks about strike against Iran

Telegraph | News | Government in secret talks about strike against Iran

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 02/04/2006)

The Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.

A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran.

It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.

Tomorrow's meeting will be attended by Gen Sir Michael Walker, the chief of the defence staff, Lt Gen Andrew Ridgway, the chief of defence intelligence and Maj Gen Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff, together with officials from the Foreign Office and Downing Street.

The International Atomic Energy Authority, the nuclear watchdog, believes that much of Iran's programme is now devoted to uranium enrichment and plutonium separation, technologies that could provide material for nuclear bombs to be developed in the next three years.

The United States government is hopeful that the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support. British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants - a land assault is not being considered at the moment.

But confirmation that Britain has started contingency planning will undermine the claim last month by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that a military attack against Iran was "inconceivable".

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, insisted, during a visit to Blackburn yesterday, that all negotiating options - including the use of force - remained open in an attempt to resolve the crisis.

Gen Sir Michael Walker
General Sir Michael Walker

Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from US navy ships and submarines in the Gulf would, it is believed, target Iran's air defence systems at the nuclear installations.

That would enable attacks by B2 stealth bombers equipped with eight 4,500lb enhanced BLU-28 satellite-guided bunker-busting bombs, flying from Diego Garcia, the isolated US Navy base in the Indian Ocean, RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Whiteman USAF base in Missouri.

It is understood that any direct British involvement in an attack would be limited but may extend to the use of the RAF's highly secret airborne early warning aircraft.

At the centre of the crisis is Washington's fear that an Iranian nuclear weapon could be used against Israel or US forces in the region, such as the American air base at Incirlik in Turkey.

The UN also believes that the production of a bomb could also lead to further destabilisation in the Middle East, which would result in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia all developing nuclear weapons programmes.

Click to enlarge

A senior Foreign Office source said: "Monday's meeting will set out to address the consequences for Britain in the event of an attack against Iran. The CDS [chiefs of defence staff] will want to know what the impact will be on British interests in Iraq and Afghanistan which both border Iran. The CDS will then brief the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on their conclusions in the next few days.

"If Iran makes another strategic mistake, such as ignoring demands by the UN or future resolutions, then the thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis. The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable.

There will be no invasion of Iran but the nuclear sites will be destroyed. This is not something that will happen imminently, maybe this year, maybe next year. Jack Straw is making exactly the same noises that the Government did in March 2003 when it spoke about the likelihood of a war in Iraq.

"Then the Government said the war was neither inevitable or imminent and then attacked."

The source said that the Israeli attack against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 proved that a limited operation was the best military option.

The Israeli air force launched raids against the plant, which intelligence suggested was being used to develop a nuclear bomb for use against Israel.

Military chiefs also plan tomorrow to discuss fears that an attack within Iran will "unhinge" southern Iraq - where British troops are based - an area mainly populated by Shia Muslims who have strong political and religious links to Iran.

They are concerned that this could delay any withdrawal of troops this year or next. There could also be consequences for British and US troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran.

The MoD meeting will address the economic issues that could arise if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president - who became the subject of international condemnation last year when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" - cuts off oil supplies to the West in reprisal.

There are thought to be at least eight known sites within Iran involved in the production of nuclear materials, although it is generally accepted that there are many more secret installations.

Iran has successfully tested a Fajr-3 missile that can reach Israel, avoiding radar and hitting several targets using multiple warheads, its military has confirmed.

April 2, 2006 at 12:48 AM in Iran | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Intelligence