British Military evade justice for rape in Kenya

Mon 18 December 2006

A three year investigation into the rape of hundreds of Kenyan women by British soldiers over three decades has ended in disarray after the Ministry of Defence claimed the rapes were fabricated.

The three million pound inquiry into the rape of approximately 600 Masai and Samburu women by British soldiers was concluded after the Royal Military Police (RMP) claimed “There is no reliable evidence to support any single allegation made which would stand up to the Crown Prosecution Service evidence test and lead to a prosecution against any named individual”. The officials from the RMP, who interviewed over two thousand women, accused the African women of being prostitutes and fabricating Police complaints. Many of the women protested at a demonstration with their dual heritage African children as ‘evidence’ of the British rapes. Of the women that were raped, 69 children were born and are now aged between 3 and 41 years old. In a petition to the High Commissioner, the women highlight the social ostracism they and their children face as a result of the British rapes; "The stigma attached to us as women raped by white men is bad enough, but for our children, the situation is worse as a result of their (skin) colour. Our children stick out like sore thumbs...." Human rights groups in Kenya are outraged. Johnson ole Kaunga, of the Impact human rights group challenged the decision in face of “concrete evidence," and remarked on the three years and millions wasted in “British taxpayers money” to subvert justice. Maina Kiai, the chairman of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, stated that an independent body like the United Nations or indeed, the Kenyan Government themselves should have conducted the investigation; He said "[i]t is not surprising that the British would find themselves innocent... It is like asking the police to police themselves.”

Kenyan women march to the British High Commission in 2003 to present a petition on behalf of the Masai and Samburu women raped by British soldiers

Evidence suggests guilt

In March 2003, the discovery of minutes of a three-hour meeting between Masai leaders, British Army officers and the Kenyan District Commissioner was reported in the Guardian newspaper and revealed how the Army knew about rape claims as far back as 1983. This was significant because the British Military was asserting that the women’s claims were a recent attempt to get on the ‘compensation bandwagon’ and the meeting demolishes this argument. Other evidence from the 1970’s was recovered from police and hospital records detailing medical cards with admission details such as 'Raped by gang of white soldiers' from women suffering from severe bleeding to abdominal pains and collapse. One card recorded an abortion carried out on a woman four months pregnant 'due to mass rape by British soldiers'. The survivors of the rape assaults have often described the humiliation of their assault which has not been compounded by the bizarre ruling by the BMP. In an article for Women against Rape, Karamas Walebutunui says "I saw the men coming and I started running away but then they started emerging from the bush. I tried to scream and cry but there was no one to help me. When they got hold of me, five men raped me. That's all I remember." During the investigation, the body of 16 year old Mantoi Kaunda, was also exhumed following her parents claim that she was raped by British soldiers and later died as a result of the attack. Johnson ole Kaunga added "It is a sad day for women of Kenya, our mothers and daughters. The investigations were never about getting justice for the women but whitewashing the actions of the British Army. They were the accused, they investigated themselves and this is their report". Many of the women are now planning to seek justice in local African courts.

The arms deal they called the dove: how Britain grasped the biggest prize

The Saudis want Iran whacked. Time to go after these sumbitches, folks.
---
· No expense spared as UK wooed Saudi politicians
· US and France lost out on tens of billions

David Pallister
Friday December 15, 2006
The Guardian

The deal of the century, as it came to be known, took three years to complete. But when it was finally signed by Prince Sultan, the Saudi defence minister, on the Caribbean island of Bermuda in 1988 it provided British Aerospace with a stream of revenue worth around $2bn (£1.02bn) a year, with a current total that stands at more than $40bn.

It involved the sale of 72 Tornado fighters and 50 Hawk jet trainers, the construction of two airbases and a host of other equipment, training and spares, serviced by more than 3,000 UK experts stationed in Saudi Arabia. They called it Al-Yamamah: the dove.

---

---

Britain's role as one of the world's top arms exporters was guaranteed by the partnership, but it was a close-run battle. In 1985 the Saudis were desperate to upgrade their defences. They were concerned even then about the spread of Islamic fundamentalism touching their Shia citizens in the oil-rich east, as well as the possibility of being drawn into the Iran-Iraq war, in which they took the side of Saddam Hussein. They approached France for its Mirage 2000s and the US for the F-15E, in the face of strenuous opposition from the Israeli lobby.

In the end Britain triumphed, due, in large part, to the intervention of Margaret Thatcher. She assiduously cultivated Sultan on his private visits to London and developed a close relationship with King Fahd, whose opinion of the British prime minister verged on infatuation.

The British party that flew to Bermuda to sign the memorandum of understanding included Sir Colin Chandler, head of defence export services and now chairman of easyJet; air vice-marshal Ronald Stuart-Paul, head of the Saudi armed forces project at the Ministry of Defence; and John Weston, the British Aerospace director in charge of the project.

The deal was immediately controversial and perpetually shrouded in secrecy. It was paid for by the delivery of up 600,000 barrels oil a day, with the money going into a dedicated MoD account. But given the Saudi royal family's propensity for extravagance and corruption, the allegations of kickbacks soon surfaced and have never gone away.

It was not only princes and their officials who were said to have benefited but also, allegedly, Mrs Thatcher's son, Mark, through his friendship with one of the intermediaries, the Syrian/Saudi billionaire Wafic Said.

Campaigners against the arms trade argued that Britain should not be selling war planes and military equipment to an undemocratic regime that practised torture. They claimed that the British government refrained from criticising Saudi human rights abuses, even when British citizens were involved, in order not to upset the arms sales.

Such was the sensitivity of the arrangement that a National Audit Office report in the early 1990s was, unprecedentedly, suppressed. The official British line has always been that this was a government-to-government contract, and no agents were involved. But evidence that commissions or bribes were paid by BAE, as it now is, and some of its sub-contractors such as Rolls Royce, Thorn EMI and Royal Ordnance, have been seeping into the public domain for years. Rolls Royce was even sued in the high court by agents acting for one of the princes because it had reduced the level of its commissions.

The alleged principal method for concealing the bribes was to increase the price of the goods; so, it appears, the Saudi princes were stealing from their people.

But after Al-Yamamah 1, the deal just rolled on. It was renewed in 1993 when Saudis agreed to buy another batch of 48 Tornado war planes. In a third stage, signed last year, Britain is selling up to 72 more planes, this time Typhoons.

The Guardian disclosed that accidentally released Whitehall papers, including a telegram from Chandler, revealed how the price of the Tornados had been inflated by 32%. Another document in the archives quotes a dispatch from a British ambassador saying the family of Prince Sultan "had a corrupt interest in all contracts". Two years ago this newspaper also revealed something of the quantity of money that was allegedly being passed around when it published details of the lavish BAE Systems hospitality showered on Prince Turki bin Nasser, the deputy head of the air force, and his family.

By then, the Serious Fraud Office had launched an inquiry into allegations; laws that came into force in 2002 made paying bribes on overseas deals a criminal offence. SFO officers have been trawling seized documents and have arrested and interviewed some BAE officials.

They unravelled details of arrangements for commissions being paid through Swiss bank accounts, and appeared to be about to approach the Swiss authorities for access to them. The scale of the alleged slush fund, concealed in Swiss bank accounts of Panamanian companies, may be as much as £100m.

BAE and all individuals have always denied any wrongdoing.

All the allegations have infuriated the Saudi royal family, not least because they have fuelled the resentment against the regime by its own militants and fundamentalists throughout the Muslim world.

In the past few weeks there have mutterings - aired by BAE Systems itself - that the Saudis are upset, the new Typhoon deal is in peril, and thousands of jobs are at risk if the Serious Fraud Office continues its investigations.

Key dates

Mid-1980s
Saudis keen to upgrade defences; consider French and US-made systems as well as British.

1985
Al-Yamamah deal signed by Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan and then defence secretary Michael Heseltine. Britain's biggest arms deal, it provides for the sale of 72 Tornado and 30 Hawk warplanes to Saudi Arabia. Worth £43bn so far. Al-Yamamah means "the dove" in Arabic.

1989
Deliveries begin.

1992
National Audit Office scrutinises the deal following allegations that members of Saudi royal family and middlemen were secretly paid hundreds of millions of pounds in kickbacks. But report is suppressed over fears it would anger the Saudis.

1993
Al-Yamamah deal renewed. Saudis agree to buy 48 Tornados.

1997-1999
BAE sets up offshore accounts in British Virgin Islands and Switzerland to move around large sums of off-balance-sheet cash.

2002
Laws come into force making it illegal to pay bribes to foreign public officials.

2004
Guardian reveals scale of hospitality BAE showered on Prince Turki bin Nasser, deputy head of air force.

2004
SFO launches investigation into corruption, including allegations that BAE Systems ran a multimillion pound "slush fund" to secure the Saudi arms deals.

2005
Third phase of deal sees Britain sell up to 72 Typhoon aircraft in £6bn deal.

2005
Sir Richard Evans, BAE chairman, interviewed by SFO.

Oct 2006
Guardian publishes documents showing how price of Tornado warplanes was inflated by £600m.

Nov 2006
SFO pursues evidence that millions of pounds of BAE cash was found in Swiss accounts potentially linked to the Saudi royal family.

A dangerous illusion

The idea that caving to Saudi pressure to halt the SFO's inquiry could be in Britain's national interest is absurd - and disastrous.

December 15, 2006 06:15 PM

Ian Davis

The decision to discontinue the Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE Systems' arms deals with Saudi Arabia was not only a "shabby, shaming day, among the most inglorious" Tony Blair has spent in office, it is also one that leaves Britain less secure.

This arms deal with Saudi Arabia will ensure that Britain remains a target for al-Qaida, is almost certainly bad for British jobs and the economy, lacks transparency and accountability, drives a coach and horses through proposed tougher measures against corruption in international business and undermines UK leadership of an international arms trade treaty. Apart from boosting the coffers of BAE Systems and its shareholders, what does Britain gain from this highly visible, seemingly unquestioning appeasement of one of the most ineffective, corrupt and authoritarian regimes in the Middle East?

There are at least four grounds for disagreeing with the Attorney General's interpretation of the UK public interest in this case.

First, it is in Britain's national interest to promote our international standing as a democratic country that values the rule of law and seeks to promote it elsewhere. This decision not only undermines confidence in UK anti-corruption legislation, but also opens the door for other countries to apply political pressure to prevent criminal investigations that might conflict with foreign policy objectives. Will the Scotland Yard inquiry into the murder of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko be the next casualty should Vladimir Putin decide to threaten our access to gas and oil supplies?

And where does this leave Hilary Benn, appointed in June this year as our "ministerial champion" for tackling international corruption with the support of a new taskforce including the City of London and Metropolitan police? This will now be seen as a fruitless exercise and have no credibility with either domestic opinion or other governments.

How different the wheels of justice spin in Germany, for example, where the former junior defence minister, Ludwig-Holger Pfahls, was jailed in August 2005 for two years and three months on bribery and tax evasion charges stemming from a controversial export of 36 armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf war.

Second, it is in Britain's national interest to promote restraint in international arms transfers. Indeed, down at the Foreign Office, Margaret Beckett, is supposedly championing an international arms trade treaty to ban arms transfers if they are likely to contribute to human rights violations, fuel conflict or undermine development. As one of the world's leading arms exporters, this was always going to be a difficult trick to pull off. The Saudi arms deal makes it nigh impossible.

The British arms industry has long been heavily dependent on one major deal: the al-Yamamah contract to supply Tornado fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia, which was secured only after personal lobbying by Margaret Thatcher and after high levels of secrecy and commissions were guaranteed. Al-Yamamah accounted for 62% of all UK military exports from 1997-1999, but by the end of the millennium the deal was coming to a close, increasing pressure on BAE to secure a follow-up order for the Typhoon Eurofighter.

Built by a four-nation consortium, which includes Britain's BAE, the Typhoon was delivered to the RAF a decade later than first planned (hence the change in name from Eurofighter 2000), at a total cost for the UK alone of over £19bn, £12bn more than initially projected. That is about £350 for every adult and child living in the UK, the equivalent of paying £1.1m for every job that the project is said to sustain.

Like several other controversial arms deals agreed in recent years, the export of Typhoons to Saudi Arabia will breach a series of criteria outlined in the 1998 European Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. For example, the code requires consideration of the impact of any export on the preservation of regional security. President George HW Bush's 1991 Middle East Arms Control Initiative also called for a series of proposals designed to "restrain destabilising conventional arms build-ups", since the situation in the Middle East poses "unique dangers". Despite all this, the US and UK have carried on transferring vast quantities of destabilising weapons to the Saudis.

Similarly, the code states that arms exports should be compatible with "the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country, taking into account the desirability that states should achieve their legitimate needs of security and defence with the least diversion for armaments of human and economic resources". Saudi Arabia's weapons purchases over the past 20 years have been among the largest in the world, vastly outweighing domestic technical capability, with much of the equipment being operated or serviced by UK government officials and RAF personnel. In short, Britain is effectively running the Saudi air force.

This leads to my third point that it is in Britain's national interest to balance "UK/Saudi security, intelligence and diplomatic cooperation" in the war on terror with the pursuit of political reform in Saudi Arabia. There is a strong public perception in the Arab world that the ruling Saudi family is corrupt and exists in mutual dependency with the west. This has led not only to increased support for al-Qaida but also to fears of a palace coup. More recently, a steady stream of Saudis have become involved in the insurgency in Iraq, a further indication of the depth of support for radicalism in the Saudi state. Reconciling the tension within Saudi Arabia between an internal radical Islamic stance and an external pro-western policy can only be made more difficult by a further arms deal with the UK government.

Finally, it is also in Britain's national economic interest to remove the costly subsidies that underpin such arms deals. Lord Goldsmith's claim that "no weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest" carries no credibility whatsoever. Large defence export contracts have helped to ensure BAE's continuing viability, but at a significant cost for Britain. By 2003, for example, £1,015,166,892 of Saudi debt was guaranteed by the UK Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD), mostly for military exports. And industry claims that 50,000 UK jobs are at stake are pure fantasy. The Eurofighter consortium's own report (The Industrial and Economic Benefits of the Eurofighter Typhoon, June 2006) states that Eurofighter sales to Saudi Arabia would secure around 11,000 jobs throughout the whole of Europe. Fewer than 5,000 of these jobs would be located in the UK.

Moreover, studies by the MoD's own chief economist have suggested that a halving of military exports from Britain would lead to an increase in the numbers employed, as investments shift to less capital-intensive activities elsewhere in the economy. Because of the level of subsidy offered by the government to defence exporters (up to almost £1bn a year, for an industry that accounts for less than 2% of exports), the exchequer and the wider economy would clearly benefit from a shift in resources.

It is now almost 12 months since then defence minister, John Reid, signed the latest multi-billion-pound arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The deal has profound political and security implications - and the high likelihood that it is being underpinned by publicly-funded subsidies. Yet, with the exception of a few political commentators (such as George Monbiot) and a handful of parliamentary questions from Liberal Democrats, the silence from our guardians of truth and accountability has been deafening.

When the late Robin Cook took over foreign policy in 1997, in the wake of the arms-to-Iraq scandal, the promise was that things would be different. A stronger ethical or moral compass would guide Britain's relations with the rest of the world. Today, such an approach is needed more than ever, not only to enhance Britain's tarnished international reputation as result of an illegal war in Iraq, but also to dampen some of the poisonous thinking at home that led to the London terrorist bombings. An ethical foreign policy would also make Britain more secure. Unfortunately, Britain's ethical foreign policy appears to have been finally buried by the Attorney General's statement in the House of Lords yesterday.

Dr Ian Davis is executive director of the British American Security

Information Council (BASIC). With offices in Washington, DC and London, BASIC provides independent research, analysis, and advocacy on nuclear and WMD non-proliferation, missile defense, the international weapons trade, and global security issues. BASIC acts as a transatlantic bridge for policy makers and opinion formers on these issues, and seeks to promote public awareness of security and arms control in order to foster a more informed debate leading to creative and sustainable solutions.

Ian has a rich background in government, academia, and the non-governmental organization (NGO) sector. He received both his Ph.D. and B.A. in Peace Studies from the University of Bradford, in the United Kingdom. He has made high-level presentations in Washington, D.C. and in Europe on WMD non-proliferation and transatlantic security issues.

His publications include: The Regulation of Arms and Dual-Use Exports: Germany, Sweden and the UK, SIPRI/Oxford University Press (2002); Sailing Into Uncharted Waters? The Proliferation Security Initiative and the Law of the Sea, BASIC Research Report (2004); and Unravelling the Known Unknowns: Why no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq, BASIC Special Report, (2004).

Britain caved in to Saudi Blackmail? Breaking an international convention against bribery & corruption

Related

'National interest' halts arms corruption inquiry
---
Saudi Arabia

From World Press Network

Major criminal investigation stopped

• A major criminal investigation into alleged corruption by the arms company BAE Systems and its executives was stopped in its tracks yesterday when the prime minister claimed it would endanger Britain's security if the inquiry was allowed to continue.
• The destruction of its inquiry will be a severe blow to the SFO which has spent more than £2m on what was its most extensive current investigation, and taken hundreds of pages of statements from witnesses.

Blair defends Saudi probe ruling

• Critics argue the government had succumbed to Saudi threats to pull out of a deal to buy 72 Eurofighter jets from BAE, amid reports the Saudi royal family was prepared to ditch the contract and deal with France instead.
• The Lib Dems have called for an inquiry and accused the government of putting cash before principle and said it was a "sad day" for the rule of law in Britain.
• Lib Dem peer, Lord Goodhart, told the BBC's Today programme: "I think what has happened here is that we have been bounced into this decision by what is effectively blackmail by the Saudi Arabian government."
• He added: "It is clear it was not the SFO's own decision, and it was not something that was instigated by the SFO. This came from the top."
  • WPN Note : The above paragraph, which appeared in the initial BBC report, has been removed from the current BBC report [without any note or comment]. We wonder who "objected" to it ? Too close to the truth for comfort ?
• The government and the SFO have both said "no weight" was given to economic interests.

WPN Note : The government statement above, that "no weight was given to economic interests", is just not credible. When will the government realise that the public will not trust anything they say until the government and most politicians stop treating the public as "serfs" who shouldn't question what they are told, and who are to be kept too busy with day-to-day life (especially taxes and expenses) so that don't have the time, energy, or resources to hold the government or politicians to account.

"British lectures on the "rule of law" will lose some of their force."

• Foreign competitors will see another performance by 'perfidious Albion', as the British government holds its hand on its heart and promises that commercial interests have played no part.
• Other governments - and frankly, many of the British workers engaged on the project - will not believe that the size of the contract in question was not the determining factor. It is for 72 Typhoon Eurofighters from BAE.
• It is a classic of its kind in diplomatic and legal history.
• Yet, the attorney general affirmed, the decision had been for the Serious Fraud Office alone, who had not been "under pressure in any sense."
  • WPN Note : The above statement is just not credible.
• The Liberal Democrats called it "blackmail" by Saudi Arabia and a violation of an international convention, contradicted Article 5 of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions which says that states should "not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest [or] the potential effect upon relations with another state".
  • WPN Note : What message does this send to foreign business men : i.e. do they now have to make even bigger bribes to stay in business ? Also, what about the implications for third-world debt ? Can't the debtor countries now say that bribery was a fundamental part of the loan system, and as thus the loans and dependent transactions were a fraud against the people of that third-world country, and thus not repayable ?
• Cue cynicism from around the world.
• And we have been here before. In 2001 the British parliament passed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, which banned the bribery of officials aboard. Payments made before that law was passed did not result in any prosecutions either.
• Nobody anywhere is therefore surprised at this new decision.
  • WPN Note : Is the above statement a BBC admission that Britain has no moral standing in the eyes of the world ? Has Britain's reputation fallen as far down as the US's reputation ? The old adage that "you can judge a person by the company he keeps" seems to apply to nations as well. 'Sleaze' taint may cling to Blair

Fighter aircraft fraud probe ends

• The Serious Fraud Office has ended its corruption inquiry into a £6bn fighter planes deal with Saudi Arabia.
• Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said the decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law.
• Lord Goldsmith said that both Mr Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne had argued that carrying on the investigation would harm intelligence and diplomatic co-operation with Saudi Arabia, in turn damaging the UK's national security.
• "No one is going to win any Saudi business until this SFO investigation ends " Senior defence executive
• The SFO said "No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest."

WPN Note : It seems clear that the prosecutors, the SFO, was leant on to drop this investigation. Indeed, when the Attorney general says you have to balance against the rule of law, it seems to be an admission that the law was broken, but due to the national interest (which seems to be defined as including national security), the investigation should be "discontinued". The SFO might "technically" not have lied if they thought that the issue was national security, but the main issue was bound to be commercial/economic (and national security as a by-product). i.e. The SFO statement is a way to gloss over a break in the law.

Probe 'threat' to British firms

• Top British defence and manufacturing firms have written to the government to warn that billions of pounds could be lost in contracts with Saudi Arabia.
• The DIC's letter is the latest twist in the row over an inquiry into bribes allegedly paid in the huge Al-Yamamah arms deal won by BAE Systems.
• It says the threat extends to the UK industrial base and to British security.

WPN Note : A transparent and representative government should have nothing to fear from a probe into bribery. Indeed, a bribe paid by a supplier is effectively an increase in the "official" price charged to that purchasing country, i.e. it is embezzlement of funds from the citizens of that purchasing country (as well as undermining the faith of shareholders in the company paying the bribe). Furthermore, bribery undermines the level competitive playing field between countries which, for legal (or moral) reasons, refuse to pay bribes. As such, it is in Saudi Arabia's interest for this matter to be properly investigated. The SFO should NOT be placed under political pressure to close the investigation

Saudi Arabia to pressure Iran "using money, weapons or its oil power" but not Israel ?

Saudi will intervene in Iraq if US withdraws-aide "using money, weapons or its oil power"

• If the Saudis are prepared to flood the oil market to hurt the Iranians, why can't they put pressure on the Israelis by restricting supply ? Why is it OK to use Oil markets to "pressure" the Iranians, but not the Israelis ?

Saudis reportedly funding Iraqi Sunnis

• Maybe the public is being "prepared" for an invasion of "Saudi Arabia" (or "regime change"), ignoring the huge possibility that the US has already decided to switch support from the Iraq Shiites to the Iraqi Sunnis (i.e. the "insurgents" who now Saudi Arabia is being accused of funding -- the Saudis are probably following "orders" from the US anyway).

Shit Hits Fan! Saudis to Back Sunni Insurgency in Iraq

• When did they tell us this? Remember when Dick Chenney got summoned to Saudi Arabia? Yup, that's when. They called Dick and told him to go fuck himself (kind of poetic justice, don't you think?). They told him that regardless of what's good for America, America must do what's good for Saudi Arabia.
• As a result of our fucking up Iraq, now the entire middle east (majority Sunni Arabs, even though they are the minority in Iraq) is now ready for a bloody civil war. Iran is interested in supporting the Shiites and increasing its influence while Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and others are interested in protecting their influence. Is this what George Bush meant when he talked about transforming the middle east? Transform it into total chaos?

Retrieved from "http://worldpressnetwork.net/index.php/Saudi_Arabia"

---

To view or add your feedback on any article on WPN, click the "discussion" tab at the top of the page. You can also create new topic pages.
WPN will be featuring the best pages, and issuing awards for the best journalistic contributions (in WPN's sole discretion).

US State Dept. Official On Tony Blair: "We Typically Ignore Them And Take No Notice"

The Times November 30, 2006

Kendall Myers, a State Department analyst, said he felt "a little ashamed" at George Bush's treatment of Tony Blair


'London's bridge is falling down'
Tom Baldwin in Washington and Philip Webster, Political Editor

Damning verdict on one-sided US-UK relations after Iraq

State Department official says Blair is ignored by Bush

See pictures of the Bush/Blair "special relationship" from first meeting to "Yo, Blair"

Timeline

In a devastating verdict on Tony Blair’s decision to back war in Iraq and his “totally one-sided” relationship with President Bush, a US State Department official has said that Britain’s role as a bridge between America and Europe is now “disappearing before our eyes”.

Kendall Myers, a senior State Department analyst, disclosed that for all Britain’s attempts to influence US policy in recent years, “we typically ignore them and take no notice — it’s a sad business”.

He added that he felt “a little ashamed” at Mr Bush’s treatment of the Prime Minister, who had invested so much of his political capital in standing shoulder to shoulder with America after 9/11.

Speaking at an academic forum in Washington on Tuesday night, he answered a question from The Times, saying: “It was a done deal from the beginning, it was a onesided relationship that was entered into with open eyes . . . there was nothing. There was no payback, no sense of reciprocity.”

His remarks brought calls from British politicians last night for the special relationship to be rethought, but also attracted scathing criticism from one close supporter of the Prime Minister.

Dr Myers had hard words for his own Administration’s record in the Iraq war: “It’s a bad time, let’s face it. We have not only failed to do what we wanted to do in Iraq but we have greatly strained our relationship with [Britain].”

Dr Myers, a specialist in British politics, predicted that the tight bond between Mr Bush and Mr Blair would not be replicated in the future. “What I think and fear is that Britain will draw back from the US without moving closer to Europe. In that sense London’s bridge is falling down.”

The extraordinarily frank remarks will be seen as further evidence of the long-standing unease felt within some parts of the State Department over the direction of White House policy. They may also be an indication of the weakness of President Bush as he struggles to stop Iraq sliding into civil war and faces a Democrat-dominated Congress elected this month.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: “These remarks reflect a real sense of distaste among thinking Americans for Mr Blair’s apparent slavish support for President Bush . . . The special relationship needs to be rebalanced, rethought and renewed.”

But Denis MacShane, Labour MP for Rotherham and a former Foreign Office minister, who supported the Iraq war, said: “After the Republican defeat in the midterm election, every little rat who feasted during the Bush years is now leaving the ship. I would respect this gentleman, who I have never heard of, if he had had the guts to make any of these points two or five years ago.”

Last night Dr Myers, who is thought to have attended the discussions over the infamous Downing Street memo in 2002 before the Iraq war, was disowned by the State Department. Terry Davidson, a spokesman, said: “The US-UK relationship is indeed a special one. The US and the UK work together, along with our allies in Europe and across the world, on every issue imaginable. The views expressed by Mr Myers do not represent the views of the US Government. He was speaking as an academic, not as a representative of the State Department.”

Privately, US officials are furious about the comments made by a man not even involved in the policymaking process, which can only rock relations at a time of high-wire tension in international diplomacy. Dr Myers himself was said to be considering early retirement.

He said on Tuesday that Mr Blair had been left “ruined for all time” by the Iraq war and that if he had “only read a book” on the last British invasion of Iraq in the 1920s, “he might have hesitated”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2478925,00.html