Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts

Friday, May 4, 2007

Blair set to quit as MP for £10 million bonanza

BENEDICT BROGAN & KIRSTY WALKER

Thursday May 03, 2007

Tony Blair will walk away from British politics this summer and pocket £10 million in his first year out of office.

The sale of his memoirs, lucrative directorships and the vast sums available on the American lecture circuit will turn the Prime Minister into a multi-millionaire overnight.

He will leave behind him a bankrupt Labour Party - and an uphill battle for Gordon Brown to restore its tarnished fortunes.

Mr Blair, who as polls close is facing sweeping losses in the local and devolved elections, intends to bring his political career to a close by leaving the Commons at the end of July, weeks after he stands down as Premier.

His departure halfway through a Parliament would make him the first former PM since the war to abandon the Commons and trigger a by-election.

This could turn into an early test of Gordon Brown's popularity as Prime Minister, and would also open Mr Blair to charges that he is treating the voters in his Sedgefield constituency with contempt by quitting before his full term expires.

Sources claim that Mr Blair and his wife Cherie are eager to cash in on his decade as a world statesman, and do not want to have to make their earnings public.

A scheme planned in close consultation with his wife would see Mr Blair escape the vigilance of Parliamentary watchdogs by resigning as an MP.

This would relieve him of the obligation to record details of his earnings in the Register of Members' Interests.

Mr Blair has been criticised in the past for failing to record details of his free holidays and other perks in the Register.

Experts predict that Mr Blair will easily make more money than Bill Clinton or John Major on the back of book deals - his memoirs could fetch £8 million - speaking tours, property investments and fees from high-profile companies that he has ruthlessly courted.

Mrs Blair is also expected to pocket around £2.5 million a year from speeches.

As a former Prime Minister, Mr Blair will get an immediate pension worth £117,500 a year. The Blairs will also enjoy a £90,000 a year taxpayer-funded 'public service' allowance to help them cope with life after Number 10.

The tax-free allowance can be claimed every year until Mr Blair dies.

He is also entitled to free telephone calls, stationery, an official car and driver and Special Branch protection worth around £1.5 million a year.

Sources say Mr Blair will stand down as an MP just before the House rises for the summer recess, with July 23 earmarked as the preferred date.

On Thursday Downing Street fuelled speculation about Mr Blair's future by refusing to deny that he will quit as an MP before the General Election, expected in 2009.

His spokesman said Mr Blair had not yet made a decision about his political future after he leaves office, probably on July 2.

"He has made no decision whatsoever to stand down as an MP and very firmly remains MP for Sedgefield and proud of it," he said.

It is believed that the announcement about his resignation as an MP was being held back as a surprise following the widespread speculation about his drawn-out departure.

Mrs Blair is reported to have told friends: "Now is the time for us to go and make some money. There is no way he is ever going to serve under Gordon Brown, even as a backbencher."

As details of Mr Blair's escape plan seeped out, there was surprise among some Labour MPs that he was 'deserting' the party.

There was even speculation that some of his die-hard allies, including Alan Milburn, Stephen Byers and John Reid, are planning to leave the Commons at the same time.

A Labour source said: "They have no future under Gordon Brown, so they reckon they could quit together and trigger a byelection 'Super-Thursday' to annoy him."

Mr Blair will tell his party at his Sedgefield constituency next Thursday that he is resigning as Labour leader, triggering a process to confirm Mr Brown as plan his successor. The outcome is due to be announced on June 30.

Rumours that Mr Blair might quit as an MP have been denied until now, but Labour officials are now openly preparing for a by-election.

Would-be MPs are already jockeying for a plum seat that Mr Blair has held for 24 years. He was re-elected in 2005 with a majority of more than 18,000.

The Prime Minister is widely expected to embark on a lucrative lecture tour of the US when he leaves Downing Street.

Wes Neff, the boss of a prominent New York speakers' agency, said: "Tony Blair has a future bigger than Bill Clinton as a speaker. The big names at the moment are Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, and Colin Powell but all these have been in the market place for three or four years.

"He'll be the first world leader to come on the market in all that time. People will be interested to hear what he has to say. If he keeps his ideas interesting and has thoughtful opinions he can do this for decades."

UK Daily Mail

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Brit War Chief: We Underestimated Cheney

LONDON, May 2, 2007

(CBS/AP) Britain's defense secretary during the Iraq war says U.K. officials underestimated the influence of Vice President Dick Cheney in White House decision making, and the coalition failed to anticipate the bloody aftermath of the war, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

But Geoff Hoon, who was defense secretary in Prime Minister Tony Blair's government from 1999 until 2005, said intelligence officials had believed that Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction and that the allies did not lie about why they went to war.

In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Hoon said that "we didn't plan for the right sort of aftermath."

"Maybe we were too optimistic about the idea of the streets being lined with cheering people. Although I have reconciled it in my own mind, we perhaps didn't do enough to see it through the Sunni perspective. Perhaps we should have done more to understand their position," Hoon was quoted as saying.

Hoon said the British side had not comprehended Cheney's influence in the U.S. administration.

Even when Blair and President Bush had agreed on some matter, "sometimes... the decision actually came out of a completely different place."

"And you think: what did we miss? I think we missed Cheney," Hoon was quoted as saying.

He did not cite any examples of decisions apparently reversed by Cheney.

Hoon, who is now minister for Europe in the Foreign Office, said Britain had opposed the wholesale dismissal of Iraq's army and police forces.

"We certainly argued against," Hoon was quoted as saying. "I recall having discussions with Donald Rumsfeld, but I recognized that it was one of those judgment calls. I would have called it the other way. His argument was that the Iraqi army was so heavily politicized that we couldn't be sure that we would not retain within it large elements of Saddam's people."

However, Hoon defended the decision to go to war on the basis of intelligence that believed Iraq was building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction — intelligence he now accepts was wrong.

"I've been present at a number of meetings where the intelligence community was fixed, and looked in the eye and asked are you absolutely sure about this? And the answer came back 'Yes, absolutely sure,"' Hoon was quoted as saying.

"I saw intelligence from the first time I came into office, in May 1999 — week in, week out — that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ... I have real difficulty in understanding why it was, over such a long period of time, we were told this and, moreover, why we acted upon it," he was quoted as saying.

"Whatever else I did, even if people say it was catastrophically wrong, I wouldn't agree with it, but I could live with it," he added. "But I can't live with the idea that I was telling lies, because I wasn't."

Hoon said he felt no need to apologize.

"You can say 'it did not turn out as we expected' and 'we made some bad calls,' but at the end of the day I defy anyone to go through what we went through and come to a different conclusion," he was quoted as saying.

The public, Hoon said, was not interested in perceptions in 2003 or subtle arguments over intelligence or policy.

"I think, especially when British soldiers are being killed, that the public have got to be pretty confident as to why. I think they're not any longer confident, and want us out of Iraq. That's why Tony gets the blame," Hoon said.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Bank warns of increased risks to the UK's financial system

By Jane Padgham

Published: 26 April 2007

The Bank of England issued a stark warning today that the dangers surrounding the UK's financial system have risen over the past nine months. It said benign economic conditions had made banks complacent about risk-taking, some companies were loading themselves up with worryingly high levels of debt, complex credit derivatives were untested in times of turbulence and some debt-laden households were showing "signs of stress". It said the recent US sub-prime mortgage crisis was a salutary reminder of how credit risk assessment can go disastrously wrong, and how participants can be hit by sharp reductions in market liquidity.

In its twice-yearly Financial Stability Report, the Bank said the financial system remained "highly resilient". But it urged banks to be alert to the growing risks and take them into account. It singled out the corporate bond market and its associated derivatives market, which has exploded in size in recent years, as particularly vulnerable.

The six key danger areas identified by the report are: unusually low premia for bearing risk, especially in credit markets; high and rising leverage in parts of the corporate sector; rising systemic importance of large complex financial institutions, ie. the big investment banks and securities houses; dependence of UK financial institutions on market infrastructures and utilities, for example the smooth running of the London Stock Exchange and the BACS clearing system; large financial imbalances among the major economies; high UK household sector indebtedness.

Sir John Gieve, the Bank's deputy governor for financial stability, said: "Financial markets have continued to be vibrant, core institutions are highly profitable and the economic outlook is favourable. But risk-taking is increasing, including through higher leverage, lower margin requirements and relaxation of covenants. The rapid growth in credit risk transfer markets [such as collateralised debt obligations] is also making more participants dependent on continuous market liquidity and could amplify the impact of shocks like a sharp reversal in credit spreads from their current low levels."

Sir John, a member of the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee, said there were few signs that America's sub-prime mortgage crisis would cross the Atlantic. He also played down fears that rising insolvencies and home repossessions could spark a housing crash and undermine financial stability. "We watch the housing market at the MPC every month and there are some signs of easing off," he said. "I don't see this [rising household debt] as likely to precipitate a financial crisis."

Interest rates 'could reach 7.5pc'

Interest rates 'could reach 7.5pc'
Evans-Pritchard, The Telegraph
A group of Britain's leading monetarists have launched a harsh attack on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, warning that inflation risks surging out of control in repeat of earlier boom-bust cycles.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Meacher: 'Blair's Britain makes me sick'

Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 11:41pm BST 21/04/2007

Tony Blair has created a "staggering degree of inequality" in Britain, perpetuated a culture of greed and undermined democracy, according to one of those vying to succeed him.


Michael Meacher: 'We now have four classes'

Michael Meacher, the former environment minister, now a Labour leadership candidate, said that society was more unequal now than at any time since the 1930s. A new class, the "mega rich", had been given unprecedented power and access to government by Mr Blair, who was himself obsessed by money, he claimed.

Mr Meacher said that he was close to securing the 44 names necessary to mount a challenge to the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, the overwhelming favourite to succeed Mr Blair. "I'm getting very close to it," Mr Meacher said. "I have 25, [John] McDonnell has 15 and the overwhelming majority of those will switch to me if John realises that he can't make it and drops out."

The MP for Oldham West said he believed passionately that Mr Brown should face a challenge. "People should have a choice. We should not have a coronation when there has been no debate on policy since Blair came in, in 1994.

"It's crucial that Brown is made to answer as to what he's going to deliver to us. We are entitled to know."

advertisement

While Westminster was fixated on a Blairite challenger, Mr Meacher said, it would be wrong to underestimate the Left. "David Miliband, Charles Clarke, John Reid, it's a matter for them but it's quite interesting that there is a desperate thrashing around to find a candidate and they have not been able to do so. The tendency is to regard the Left as non-existent. That is a really serious misreading of the state of the Labour Party."

Accusing Mr Blair of exacerbating inequality, he added: "We are now a more unequal society than at any time since the 1930s. The average package of the chief executive of a FTSE 100 company is £46,155 a week. The average wage is £400 a week. That is a staggering degree of inequality.

"We now have four classes - an underclass who are so poor that they cannot participate in any meaningful way, a working class who are okay, a fairly well off middle class then a new category, the mega rich who are in a category of their own in terms of wealth, power and their influence on the Government through private meetings with ministers.

"I feel very sick and angry about it. I didn't expect this to happen under a Labour Government. The reason it has happened is, if I can quote Peter Mandelson in 1997, New Labour is very relaxed about people getting filthy rich."

Mr Blair, he said, had "far too little concern" for the people at the bottom. "Tony's natural mates are his big business friends. He feels comfortable with them, he admires and respects them and he gets a good response from them. They are only too glad to have someone in power whom they can do direct deals with."

The Prime Minister, said Mr Meacher, had also ridden roughshod over Parliament. "It would be hard to say this is a genuine parliamentary democracy. The framework is there but the decisions are fixed at private meetings between the Prime Minister and the power brokers in society, the financial houses, industry and the media."

Hitting out at the influence of Lord Sainsbury, the former science minister, with whom he sparred over the issue of genetically modified crops, Mr Meacher said: "People say that is why I was sacked. Lord Sainsbury was appointed by Blair. Blair himself is also pro-GM. Lord Sainsbury provided a lot of money to the Labour Party and he was clearly involved in a lot of GM research. This all mixed in with the Government's objectives."

He said a "conscience of the nation" watchdog should be created to look at all decisions of national importance and prevent abuses of power.

He claimed Mr Brown blocked a decision he took as environment minister to force the top 1,000 companies to publish their greenhouse gas emissions. "So if you ask if he's green - anything but. His feel for this agenda is very weak."

Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0) 207 931 2921 or email syndication@telegraph.co.uk

A coverup of torture, racism and complicity in war crimes

The evidence of British abuse and killing of Iraqi civilians is part of an iceberg of disgrace which demands a public inquiry

Phil Shiner
Monday April 23, 2007
The Guardian


Images of the battered, bloodied, bruised face of Baha Mousa, tortured to death while in detention with British troops under the Iraq occupation, should have shocked the nation when they appeared last week. Instead, most media outlets chose to ignore them. By comparison, when Canadian troops meted out similar treatment to a prisoner in Somalia in the 1990s, the result was a five-year public inquiry and spring-clean of the military justice system. What is going on?



To answer that question is to dig into what was described as a cover-up by the judge advocate at the conclusion of the court martial into the incident. What follows arises from publicly available material, most of it in the House of Lords case, which finishes tomorrow, into whether the Human Rights Act applied to protect Mousa and others. There are four clusters of issues we have to face.

First, the incident led to more than just a single death. Photographs and medical evidence show our troops nearly killed another civilian, and badly injured five others. The judge found that a group of soldiers had engaged in systematic torture and humiliation, but none had been charged because of an "obvious closing of ranks". Who were the torturers?

Second, the torture included the use of four techniques banned by the government in 1972: hooding, stressing and sleep and food deprivation. And it was not just one rogue battalion, 1st Queen's Lancashire Regiment (QLR), but others. Further, we are asked to believe that only a single battalion relied on senior brigade legal advice, which said it would not be breaching international humanitarian law to hood and stress civilian detainees. Is this credible?

Third, the facility where Mousa and others were tortured was small. The soldiers' shouting and detainees' screaming were audible to anyone on the site. So, who are those in command who knew, or ought to have known, what was going on in the critical 36 hours before Mousa's death? Even more potentially damning to the chain of command responsibility, who knew, or ought to have known, of the complete breakdown in the system of training troops? There was a failure to train troops to observe the law and also, it seems, to teach them the basic principles to enable them to fulfil their role.

The evidence on the training of tactical questioners is striking. They have an important balance to strike. They need to obtain evidence from detainees that may, for example, save the lives of our troops. And they must do so without using torture or ill-treatment. This is about prisoner handling. The evidence shows the tactical questioners in the Mousa incident had precisely 1.25 hours training on this. Further, those responsible did not ensure that rules of engagement appropriate to an occupation, not a war, were promulgated to reflect the change for 10 weeks. There is a risk that during this period our troops were following the wrong rules.

The final cluster of issues is where it starts to get really ugly. What are we supposed to make of material that shows it was standard to refer to Iraqis as "Ali Babas"? Or of military operations that had similar racist connotations from an earlier era? Or material that indicates a remorseless disregard of Iraqis' human rights, which dehumanised them in the eyes of the troops who were supposed to protect them? When our troops were supposed to be exercising policing functions, we appear to have shot first and asked questions later.

Uncomfortable questions about our complicity in war crimes with the US also lurk beneath the surface. The evidence from prosecution witnesses in the court martial shows that the US was putting pressure on us to adopt its interrogation techniques.

Consider that the facility involved in the Mousa incident was in the middle of an urban area and the abuse occurred in broad daylight. By comparison, our theatre internment facility, Camp Bucca in southern Iraq, was in the middle of nowhere. But the government claims the US ran Camp Bucca. The evidence in the court martial is clear. We had two compounds for UK detainees, they had six. We had jurisdiction over UK detainees who were subject to questioning by our tactical questioners. So why the blatant denial of responsibility where it is obvious the UK did have jurisdiction? The MoD admitted in 2004 that six other Iraqis had died while in detention with British troops, and we know all British detainees were taken to Camp Bucca until Christmas 2003. We also know that US forces killed Iraqis during "riots" at the facility and that three US soldiers were discharged in 2004 after being found guilty of abusing prisoners. If Mousa died in our custody where he did, what was happening in the British section of Camp Bucca?

Most of this iceberg of disgrace will remain hidden unless there is an independent and public inquiry. What is our government's response to Mousa's death and its implications? Sadly, it knows no shame. Despite the shocking facts and images, it argues in the Lords that the Human Rights Act does not apply outside the territory of the UK. If it succeeds in this argument, we can all give up hope of there being any proper domestic accountability for any human rights abuses by UK personnel outside the country. I can almost hear the howl of anguish from Baha Mousa's grave.

· Phil Shiner is a solicitor and acts for the family of Baha Mousa and in 40 other cases of torture, beatings and killings by UK forces in Iraq

phil_shiner@publicinterestlawyers.co.uk

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Blair's 10-year leadership to end 'within weeks' (May 9th)

Related
Police poised to charge Blair's top adviser
---
Publisher: Jon Land
Published: 22/04/2007 - 09:06:06 AM

Blair's 10-year reign to end 'within weeks' (Pic: PA)
Blair's 10-year reign to end 'within weeks' (Pic: PA)

Tony Blair's decade at 10 Downing Street marks him out as one of those rare politicians who put their stamp on an era.

But no sooner has that milestone been passed than the Blair era will come to an end, with the Prime Minister's resignation expected within weeks, or even days.

There is almost universal agreement that Mr Blair's successor will be Chancellor Gordon Brown. But the apparent inevitability of this long-awaited transition masks a considerable degree of uncertainty about the era to come.

Will a Brown premiership mark a radical break from the Blair administration? Or will the man who insists he was as much a progenitor as the PM of the New Labour project preside over a period of continuity?

Will Mr Brown embark on a purge of Mr Blair's ministers and policies?

And, perhaps most importantly, how long will the Brown era last?

Conservatives have been busy over the last few years predicting that Brown will swing Labour to the left, ushering in a period of business-unfriendly, bureaucratic centralisation.

But Mr Brown himself has been equally busy sending out signals that he will not be a creature of the left, voicing his support for nuclear power and the renewal of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent as well as loudly trumpeting his patriotism with calls for a Britishness day and pride in the flag.

No-one doubts that Mr Brown is planning to hit the ground running with 100 days of eye-catching policy announcements to match the declaration of independence for the Bank of England he made within days of becoming Chancellor.

Only a few in the Chancellor's inner circle know what those announcements will involve. Speculation revolves around the creation of a written constitution, a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, NHS independence, scrapping ID cards or a Whitehall shake-up including the abolition of the Department of Trade and Industry.

He is expected to reward key allies with top Cabinet posts, with Alistair Darling tipped to succeed him at the Treasury, promotions for Ed Balls, Douglas Alexander and Ed Miliband and a senior position for his campaign manager Jack Straw.

But it remains to be seen whether he clears out ministers too closely linked with the Blairite past. David Miliband, who has ruled out a challenge for the top job, will almost certainly survive as a signal that Mr Brown wants to lead a "Cabinet of all the talents", but there are doubts over the future of close Blair allies like John Reid or Tessa Jowell.

Mr Brown will also have to decide whether to appoint the victor of the deputy leadership race to be his Deputy Prime Minister.

Although the deputy's contest is seen as a chance for Labour's grassroots and the unions to influence the shape of a Brown premiership, there is no requirement for the winner to become DPM, or indeed for the post to be filled at all.

Left-wing candidate Jon Cruddas has said he does not want the DPM job, and there are others who Mr Brown would probably prefer not to see standing in for him during his holidays. Mr Prescott's old job could even go to Mr Straw if he is not sent to the Treasury or Foreign Office.

Whatever the personnel of his Cabinet, Mr Brown faces an enormously more difficult economic and political climate than Mr Blair did when he arrived at Downing Street on a wave of euphoria in 1997.

He will take office against the backdrop of possible charges in the cash-for-honours inquiry, rising inflation threatening to force up interest rates and no end in sight to the violence in Iraq.

Rather than representing a clean break after years of Tory rule, as Mr Blair did, Mr Brown faces the far more daunting challenge of winning back voters disillusioned by a decade of Labour.

And in place of the deeply unpopular John Major, he will face Tory leader David Cameron buoyed by months of comfortable opinion poll leads - with surveys suggesting the gap in the Conservatives' favour may even widen when Mr Brown takes over.

After one of the longest waits for power ever seen, Mr Brown knows he has his work cut out if he is not to enjoy one of the shortest periods in power in British political history.

Despite some speculation over a snap election in 2008, he will almost certainly wait until 2009 or 2010 to give himself time to turn the polls round and maximise his chances of winning a fourth election victory for Labour.

The actual process by which Mr Brown - or, just conceivably, someone else - becomes Prime Minister has been set out by Labour's ruling National Executive Committee.

Mr Blair's announcement of his resignation - accompanied by that of his deputy John Prescott - will not mean the immediate arrival of removal vans in Downing Street.

The NEC will meet within 72 hours to finalise a timetable for seven-week contests for the leadership and deputy leadership, and would-be candidates will then have a week to file nomination papers bearing the signatures of 12.5% of Labour MPs - 45 names, including their own.

Mr Brown will have no difficulty in clearing the nomination hurdle, but his two declared rivals - left-wing MPs John McDonnell and Michael Meacher - will struggle to do so.

Even if they get onto the ballot paper, neither man will present any threat to the Chancellor's elevation. Indeed, he would probably welcome their candidacy as a chance to demonstrate his mainstream credentials.

The prospects of a challenge from the "Blairite" centre seem to have receded in recent weeks, with Mr Miliband saying he will vote for Brown and problems at the Home Office making a leadership bid by Mr Reid less credible. Long-shot Blairite candidates Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn have not ruled out running in order to ensure the Chancellor is not anointed unopposed.

If the leadership is contested, the winner will have to secure more than 50% of Labour's electoral college, which is divided three ways between 380 MPs and MEPs, 200,000 party members and 3.2 million trade union affiliates.

Even without a rival, the NEC's rules require Mr Brown to attend hustings alongside the deputy leadership candidates before finally taking the crown he has waited a decade for.

But he will not have to face an "affirmative vote" in the absence of a challenger, as some Labour figures demanded.

The new leader - and deputy leader - will be announced at a weekend meeting of representatives of each section of the electoral college, probably in late June or early July.

Candidates so far declared for the deputy leadership are Hilary Benn, Hazel Blears, Jon Cruddas, Peter Hain, Harriet Harman and Alan Johnson.

Copyright Press Association 2007.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Top UK defense official jailed for taking bribes from US arms dealer

Senior MoD jailed for taking bribes from US arms dealer

Last updated at 17:16pm on 16th April 2007

A senior Ministry of Defence official who built a luxury villa in the sun with bribes for helping an American company win a lucrative contract has been jailed for two years.

Greedy Michael Hale's lengthy betrayal of trust saw the American company being fed so much confidential information that it was able to run circles around the competition.

In addition to backhanders of more than £217,000, the 58-year-old civil servant's five-star lifestyle featured free flights, champagne hospitality aboard an ocean-going cruiser and stays in top hotels, London's Southwark Crown Court heard.

But when his secret paymaster was taken over by another firm, "due diligence" attorneys in California uncovered a total of nine corrupt payments paid to him over the years.

The US authorities promptly informed the MoD.

During the ensuing investigation both his wife and stepson were arrested and wrongly accused of money-laundering. They were subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing.

Hale, of Crown Mews, Ramsey, Cambridgeshire, pleaded guilty to nine counts of accepting bribes from Pacific Consolidated Industries between November 1999 and July 2003.

He showed no reaction as Judge Christopher Elwen told him jail was inevitable for his life of crime.

He said the £4.5 million contract Hale was in charge of as a team leader and a senior professional technology officer was for the supply of gas and containment equipment for all three services, particularly the RAF.

He said: "The first set of payments, all of which were actually made in US dollars, was made to you using your stepson's bank account.

"The second set of payments were paid from an American account to one in Spain in relation to the purchase and building of a five-bedroom villa with swimming pool in Benidorm.

"You were well aware of the strict rules about behaviour to be avoided so as not to raise the presumption of corruption.

"In that context you got to know Pacific Consolidated Industries (PCI) in Santa Ana, California, initially on a legitimate basis.

"But the relationship with that company and in particular with one of the company's vice-presidents, one Lee Smith, became corrupt."

The judge said that if the normal tendering process had been followed, interested companies would have received only the "general specifications" of what was needed in order to "trigger and provoke innovation of solutions".

"But as a result of your intervention, that tender process became, on occasions, entirely corrupted.

"In other words, the playing field sloped considerably in favour of PCI and against everybody else who chose to enter into the competition."

He continued: "It is suggested on your behalf that nothing you did resulted in the MoD being supplied with sub-standard equipment.

"There is, however, no doubt that offences of this nature, which to put it bluntly are the taking of bribes by public servants involving breach of trust and breach of confidence, can be visited by an immediate custodial sentence.

"And sentences for public servants acting corruptly contain an element of deterrence as well as punishment."

Christopher Donnellan, prosecuting, said the investigation by MoD police revealed the full extent of Hale's life of luxury.

Apart from his five-bedroom Spanish villa, he bought another house near his home and enjoyed "lavish hospitality" from his alleged American partner-in-crime, who is still awaiting trial.

"He was taken out for meetings and dealings on Lee Smith's boat and air fares and hotel bills paid for him," said counsel.

A confiscation hearing will be held later this year.

The Emperor of Africa

Tony Blair cannot let go of Britain’s inordinate global powers

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 17th April 2007

The disease that afflicts all British governments is an inability to let go. Unable to accept the end of empire, they cling to past glories. However much they speak of modernity and democracy, they cannot help managing other people’s lives, preserving foreigners – often at gunpoint – from the mistakes they would make if they were allowed to govern themselves.

I was going to call this an imperial delusion, but the United Kingdom has been remarkably successful at defending its powers. Our government has retained a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Its membership of the G8 is unchallenged. Most importantly, it has preserved its unwarranted share of the vote on the boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. And it has no intention of giving this up.

In advance of the IMF’s spring meeting (which has just concluded in Washington) France and the United Kingdom rejected any political reform(1). It is true that the fund’s proposals are feeble. It is true that even after far more ambitious reforms the IMF would remain the wrong body, constitutionally destined to fail. But this is not why our government is holding out. It is resisting change because it wants to preserve its imperial rank.

The United Kingdom, with 1% of the world’s population, has 5% of the IMF’s votes(2). Sub-Saharan Africa, with 12% of the population, has 4.6%(3). The UK’s share equals that of China and India put together. It is 5 times as big as Argentina’s, 19 times Bangladesh’s, 35 times Kenya’s, 124 times bigger than Malawi’s(4). The G7 nations – the UK, US, Japan, Germany, France, Canada and Italy – together possess 45% of the vote. The other 177 members are left to squabble over the remains.

Even these numbers tell only half the story. The five countries with the biggest quotas – the US, UK,

Japan, Germany and France – are each allowed to appoint their own executive director to the IMF’s board(5). The rest must submit their candidates for election. Because poor nations don’t know what’s good for them, they are assigned to the tutelage of richer ones. The votes of the English-speaking Caribbean countries are given to Canada. Mongolia is represented by Australia, Kazakhstan by Belgium(6). The reason the UK and France are resisting even the most timid reforms is that these would tip them below the threshold for automatic election: like the other countries they would be represented on the board as part of a bloc.

Power is distributed like this because the IMF is a plutocracy. A country’s vote represents its “quota”, which is a function of its gross domestic product. In theory the quota reflects countries’ financial contributions to the fund. This is no longer the case, as the IMF receives much of its income from loan repayments from poorer nations. But the old formula has resisted 60 years of complaints.

The result is that the governments which are never made subject to the IMF’s strictures control it, while those whose countries have been reduced to an IMF franchise have no say in the way it runs. The fund’s allocation of votes is a perfect inversion of democracy.

A new report by ActionAid gives us a glimpse of how this unfair distribution of power affects the poor(7). After years of protests by poor countries and their supporters in the rich world, the IMF and the World Bank at last permitted them to provide healthcare and education without charge. The rich nations also promised, in 2000, to ensure that by 2015 every child on earth would have primary education(8). It looked like a great victory for the global justice movement. But the IMF is ensuring that the promise won’t be met. It has, in effect, forbidden the poorest nations to hire sufficient teachers.

No one disputes that public sector wage rises can contribute to inflation. No one denies that governments have to exercise some degree of restraint. But the paternalists who run the IMF – who are fixated on creating safe havens for foreign capital – cannot help micromanaging the economies of the poor nations, without reference to the needs of the people who live there. The limits they have imposed on the public sector pay bill ensure that schooling can’t be improved.

ActionAid studied three very poor countries with major education problems: Malawi, Mozambique and Sierra Leone. After they abolished user fees (and when the civil war ended in Sierra Leone), vast numbers of pupils enrolled. But a combination of the rich nations’ failure to provide the foreign aid they had promised and the restrictions imposed by the IMF has prevented these countries from meeting the new demand. As a result, the pupil to teacher ratio in Sierra Leone is 57:1; in Malawi 72:1 and in Mozambique 74:1. That’s the average: in rural areas it can be much higher. Many of the teachers are untrained; many give up because they cannot survive on their wages. In Malawi, for example, the goods required for the most basic level of subsistence cost $107 a month. A trained teacher receives $55(9).

So crowds of pupils strain to hear a scarcely-literate teacher somewhere in the middle distance seeking to instruct them without books, chalk, paper or pens. We should not be surprised to discover that 40% of children fail to complete primary school in Sierra Leone and Mozambique, and 70% in Malawi. Most of the drop-outs are girls.

As a result, these countries are stuck in a vicious circle of misery. Until education improves, GDP remains low. Until GDP rises, there’s little money for education. As one of the agencies charged with rescuing countries from poverty, the IMF should be seeking to break this circle. But the conditions it attaches to its loans keep these countries in their place. In Malawi the IMF sets the ceiling for public sector wages directly; in Sierra Leone and Mozambique the broader macroeconomic rules it imposes have the same effect. ActionAid argues that its fiscal targets are outdated and unnecessary: all these countries have now achieved sufficient stability to start raising teachers’ pay.

But in no case did the IMF consult either the public or the state’s own ministry of education before laying down the law. The amount of money a teacher in rural Malawi is paid is decided by the men in Horse Guards Road and Pennsylvania Avenue. Except for the district commissioners in pith helmets, little has changed since the country was called Nyasaland.

Last year Tony Blair acknowledged that the IMF “must become more representative of emerging economic powers and give greater voice to developing countries.”(10) But he just can’t let go. The proposed reforms do nothing to democratise the IMF; by linking the quota to purchasing power parity rather than raw GDP, they simply turn it into a more sophisticated plutocracy. But they would have the effect of very slightly empowering some middle-income countries while taking a few votes away from some of the rich ones. Even that is too much for the Emperor of Africa. If the British government wants to help the poor, it must first give up its power to tell them how to live. Until that happens, everything the prime minister says about “partnership” and “solidarity”(11) with the world’s oppressed is humbug.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. Larry Elliott, 13th April 2007. UK opposes plan for developing nations to have more say at IMF. The Guardian.

2. International Monetary Fund, 2007. IMF Members’ Quotas and Voting Power, and IMF Board of Governors


http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm

3.David Woodward, New Economics Foundation, February 2007. IMF Voting Reform: Need, Opportunity and Options. Paper for the G24 Technical Meeting, 12 March 2007. http://www.g24.org/wood0307.pdf

4. International Monetary Fund, ibid.

5. David Woodward, ibid.

6. International Monetary Fund, ibid.

7. Akanksha A. Marphatia et al, April 2007. Confronting the Contradictions: The IMF, wage bill caps and

the case for teachers. ActionAid. http://www.actionaid.org/assets/pdf/1%20%20CONFRONTING%20THE%20CONTRADICTIONS%20E-VERSION.pdf

8. The UN Millennium Development Goals, 2000. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

9. ActionAid, ibid.

10. Tony Blair, 26th May 2006. Foreign Policy Speech 3. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page9549.asp

11. Tony Blair, 8th July 2005. Statement on the final day of the G8 Summit.

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7877.asp

Monday, April 16, 2007

UK: No More 'War on Terror'

Monday April 16, 2007 12:46 PM

LONDON (AP) - The British government has stopped using the phrase ``war on terror'' to refer to the struggle against political and religious violence, according to a Cabinet minister's prepared remarks for a Monday speech.

International Development Secretary Hilary Benn, a rising star of the governing Labour Party, says in a speech prepared for delivery in New York that the expression popularized by President Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks strengthens terrorists by making them feel part of a bigger struggle.

Extracts from Benn's speech at New York University's Center on International Cooperation were released by his office.

``We do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organized enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives,'' Benn said.

``It is the vast majority of the people in the world - of all nationalities and faiths - against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger.''

Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said he was unsure when Blair had last used the phrase.

``We all use our own phraseology, and we talk about terrorism, we talk about the fight against terrorism, but we also talk about trying to find political solutions to political problems,'' he said on condition of anonymity, in line with government policy.

According to the advance text, Benn urged Americans to use the ``soft power'' of values and ideas as well as military strength to defeat extremism.

Benn's comments were at least partly directed at his own Labour Party, which is uneasy about Blair's close alliance with Bush and overwhelmingly opposed to Britain's participation in the Iraq war.

Benn currently is the bookies' favorite to become Labour's deputy leader in a party election once Blair steps down as premier later this year.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

British Troops Kill 20 Shi'ites in Retaliation for Last Week's Killings

20 Shia gunmen die in British Basra fightback

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

Last Updated: 11:31am BST 12/04/2007

British forces have hit back at Iraqi insurgents who killed six colleagues last week, by launching an operation in which they shot dead more than 20 gunmen of Basra's rogue militias.


'There are no "no-go" areas', said a spokesman

Details of the assault emerged last night as the bodies of four soldiers killed by a roadside bomb on Thursday were put on flights back to the UK. They arrived at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire this morning for a repatriation ceremony.

The attack began when a battalion-size force was sent into one of the southern city's toughest terrorist strongholds, three miles from where four soldiers, including two women, were blown up in their Warrior armoured vehicle.

An armoured force of 400 troops from the 2Bn The Rifles and 2Bn The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, both of which suffered fatalities last week, entered the Shia Flats area on the western outskirts of Basra to search for hidden weapons. The district is notorious as one of the most dangerous in southern Iraq.

"We wanted to make quite clear there's nowhere in Basra we cannot go," a British commander told The Daily Telegraph yesterday. "We are prepared to be there in daylight and take whatever comes our way. We are not being bombed out or intimidated."

advertisement

Initially there was no response as the troops began searching homes where they recovered some small arms. But then the atmosphere changed.

"It was all going very well but then there was a sense something bad was about to happen as we noticed children starting to speak into their mobile phones and point at us," the commander said. "At this stage it became clear that the militia was massing for some kind of attack."

As the troops took up defensive positions around their Warrior and Bulldog armoured vehicles, Iraqi gunmen carrying AK47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades could be seen scurrying along rooftops and down streets. It is believed ammunition and hundreds of weapons are hidden in the area and brought into the open at short notice when the British appear.

Intelligence sources also informed the troops on the ground that Shia terrorists were heading towards them from other parts of the city.

The battle began on Tuesday afternoon with numerous rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire hitting the British positions.

The soldiers from the Rifles and Duke of Lancaster's held off the attacks for more than two hours and shot a number of gunmen. There were no British casualties as they gradually fought their way back to their base at Basra Palace.

Coalition jets also made low flying passes to intimidate the enemy although they did not drop any bombs. During one skirmish two attackers, who fired grenades at a British position, were chased down and arrested. Both are likely to face charges.

Commanders believed that some of the dead might have been behind the ambush of a Warrior in which 2nd Lt Joanna Dyer, a close friend of Prince William at Sandhurst, and three other soldiers were killed. A sniper, possibly from Shia Flats, also killed two other soldiers earlier last week. "This was at a location where we believe those responsible for killing our people were almost certainly recruited from," a military source said.

During the battle an Iraqi policeman was shot by one of the militias. He later died.

No civilians are believed to have been killed in the fight, the military reported, although it could not rule out innocent casualties caught in the crossfire.

"While we may regret that such incidents have to take place, we will not allow militia gunmen to control parts of Basra," said Lt Col Kevin Stratford-Wright, the British military spokesman in southern Iraq.

"There are no 'no-go' areas for multi-national forces in Basra. Security is our responsibility and, in conjunction with the Iraqi security forces, we seek to provide as secure an environment as possible. This will inevitably involve taking on the rogue militia who blight the lives of people in Basra."

Official estimates put the number of Iraqis hit by British gunfire at 10 but other defence sources said that double that figure had been shot.

Iraq policy 'spawned new terror'

The British and US policy towards Iraq has "spawned new terror in the region", a think tank report has said.

The countries had tried to "keep the lid on" problems by military force and had failed to address the root causes, the Oxford Research Group warned.

It said Iran, Syria and North Korea had become "emboldened", while the Taleban was on the rise in Afghanistan.

The UK government said the past decade of foreign policy had been effective and action in Iraq was "justified".

Global instability

It comes as a separate report from Oxfam said the Iraq invasion had "seriously undermined" Britain's reputation.

However, the charity warns Britain must not be reluctant to send in troops to deal with future humanitarian crises.


We are looking at a highly unstable global system by the middle years of the century unless urgent action is taken now
Chris Abbott
Oxford Research Group

In a report a year ago, the Oxford Research Group (ORG) highlighted four areas that it said were contributing to world instability.

Climate change, competition for increasingly scarce resources, marginalisation of the majority of the world's population as socio-economic divisions widen, and the increasing use of military force and the further spread of military technologies were all threats.

Its latest report said these issues were still the greatest threats, but added that the ongoing war on terror and the war in Iraq were increasing the risk of future terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11.

"Treating Iraq as part of the war on terror... created a combat training zone for jihadists," it says.

Lead study author Chris Abbott said: "There is a clear and present danger - an increasingly marginalised majority living in an environmentally constrained world, where military force is more likely to be used to control the consequences of these dangerous divisions.

"Add to this the disastrous effects of climate change, and we are looking at a highly unstable global system by the middle years of the century unless urgent action is taken now."

Iran's nuclear plan

The report, Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World, said any military intervention in Iran would be "disastrous". However, it warned that Iran should not be allowed to develop civil nuclear power.

"This would involve the development of facilities that are potential terrorist targets, as well as encourage the spread of technology and materials that could be used in the development of nuclear weapons," the report said.

It also added that the British government's decision to replace its nuclear submarine system Trident could "substantially encourage" other states to develop nuclear weapons.

A Foreign Office spokesman said the past decade of foreign policy had been effective and that the military action in Iraq was "justified".

"We have rightly focused on 'hard' security issues such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone as well as 'softer' issues such as climate change and poverty eradication," he added.

Stop conflating anti-Zionism and anti-semitism

Our politicians are using semantics to outlaw criticism of US and British foreign policy.

April 12, 2007 12:30 PM

Tony Greenstein

When the incitement to religious hatred bill was laid before parliament two years ago, numerous figures from the media and entertainment industries, as well as the human rights, humanist and civil liberties lobbies, condemned the legislation as an attack on free speech. In the words of the actor Stephen Fry, the legislation was "a sop to the Muslim community", whose problems really centred around race, not religion.

Yet barely a murmur has greeted the report of the all parliamentary inquiry into anti-semitism, chaired by the rightwing Labour MP Denis MacShane, who in a previous life as a junior Foreign Office minister greeted the CIA coup that temporarily overthrew Hugo Chávez of Venezuela by denouncing the latter as "a ranting, populist demagogue" (Hugh O'Shaughnessy, March 12 2007).

The committee itself had no status when it drew up the report. It was self-selecting, and not one of the 14 members of the inquiry voted against the war in Iraq on March 18 2003. In other words, they came to the question of anti-semitism from a rightwing political perspective.

Yet the report on anti-semitism, which the government has accepted by upgrading the committee's status to that of a select committee (Jewish Chronicle, March 30 2007: "Police told to focus on hate crime"), is deeply disturbing in its cavalier approach to the definition of anti-semitism, which it conflates throughout with anti-Zionism.

Even the basis for the report itself is hyped and unconvincing. By the reports own' admission (paragraph 29), the year 2005 saw a fall of 14% in recorded anti-semitic incidents compared with the previous year. Of course each and every incident is to be condemned, but where, one might ask, is the all-parliamentary committee on incidents of anti-Muslim abuse; and what, one wonders, would be the level of recorded incidents?

What is more worrying is how anti-semitic incidents are defined. In Brighton and Hove there were two demonstrations against the Lebanon war last summer. Police from Sussex and Surrey swamped the second demonstration, alleging a "serious racial incident" had occurred.

The incident concerned a motorist who had yelled "terrorist" at an Arab demonstrator on the previous march and got into a verbal altercation as a result. Despite a number of eyewitnesses, the police made no attempt to investigate the alleged crime. Instead, it was used as a pretext for some of the heaviest policing of a demonstration, including the use of racial profiling against Arabs, that I have ever seen. It has taken a six-month campaign for Brighton police to accept that the right to demonstrate is not a privilege handed down from on high.


In the course of a conversation I secretly recorded, Brighton's chief of police, Kevin Moore, admitted that before the demonstration, "We made contact with the local Jewish community leaders within the synagogues." In other words, it was the police who made the association between the bombing of Lebanon and the local Jewish community. And in an equally revealing remark, Moore let slip that the police had received a single complaint about the march and, because a "racially motivated incident is one which is declared by any person to be racially motivated", had therefore classified the march as anti-semitic!

The inquiry report is part of a continuum that began with the creation of an offence of "glorifying" terrorism and is continuing with the suggestion that anti-Zionism - that is, opposition to the Israeli state and the movement it created - is anti-semitic. Ironically, it is repeating one of the oldest anti-semitic myths: adopting the EU's working definition of anti-semitism, the report states that anti-semitism includes "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour".

Yet it has long been an article of faith among anti-semites that Jews, wherever they lived and whatever they did, formed a nation separate from those they lived among. The major difference between modern and feudal anti-semitism was that the Jews were seen not as a religion but as a race or nation. It is one of the hallmarks of New Labour that contested political arguments are now being resolved by the criminal law.

And then there is the suggestion that to criticise the nature of the Israeli state, which is unique in defining itself as a state not of its own citizens but of Jews worldwide, is to apply "double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation". This is the argument that supporters of apartheid in South Africa used to make. States that accord privileges based on racial/ethnic criteria are indeed unique.

It is argued that "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is in itself anti-semitic. Now, it might arguably be offensive, but why anti-semitic? In her book The War Against the Jews, Lucy Dawidowicz reports that it was the position of the SS that "the Zionists adhere to a strict racial position, and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own Jewish state". Is it anti-semitic to point out that "ethnic cleansing" and the transfer or forced migration of civilian populations was also Nazi policy; or that only in Israel and Nazi Germany were Jews barred from marrying non-Jews?

And it is supporters of the Israeli state itself who have regularly made comparisons between the Palestinians and the Nazis. Who can forget when in 1982 the Israeli premier Menachem Begin compared Arafat in the siege of Beirut to Hitler in his bunker? How many times has the Holocaust been used to justify the Israeli state?

The report defines anti-semitism as "holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel". Agreed. But is it any wonder that there are some misguided people who criticise the Board of Deputies of British Jews when it holds rallies in the name of the Jewish community in support of Israel's bombing of Lebanon?

This report has nothing to do with anti-semitism and everything to do with creating a rightwing political agenda whereby opposition to British and US foreign policy is deemed anti-semitic. If Israel is the west's principal strategic partner in the Middle East and you question the whole basis of that partnership, then you will inevitably be criticised as anti-semitic. In the United States, it has even been argued that if you oppose the majority positions of the Jewish community in favour of the Iraq war, that makes you anti-semitic.

The all-party parliamentary inquiry made no attempt to interview a broad cross-section of Jews, including anti-Zionists; it played softball with the Jewish establishment. Nor did it seek the views of Jews who have been active in the fight against the BNP and National Front apart from those of the pro-Zionist Searchlight magazine. Instead what it has done is produce a report whose only purpose is to try and criminalise political debate in the name of "anti-semitism".


Tony Greenstein is a founding member of Palestine Solidarity Campaign and a member of Jews Against Zionism.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

IRAN –UK STAND- OFF ; A CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS

April 9, 2007

By K Gajendra Singh

Iran pardons Blair's dozen and Jane Bond.



" U.K. has suspended boarding operations in the northern Persian Gulf while the Royal Navy reviewed its procedures "- First Sea Lord Admiral Jonathon Bond ( no relation of James Bond )


Iranian Chess masters choreograph the crisis end.

It was a virtuoso almost flawless choreography which ended the 2 week long Iran-UK crisis ( with USA lurking at the back and Europe not far behind ) following the James Bond like British intelligence intrusion into Iranian waters. Even the Times on line admitted "The captives, including Leading Seaman Faye Turney, 26, were released yesterday in a stunning piece of political theatre by President Ahmadinejad, who brought a bizarre but welcome end to a 13-day drama that held the possibility of violent escalation."

A similar incident had occurred in 2004 when eight British servicemen were seized after straying over the maritime border. Clearly there is a dispute over where the border actually runs.

Known for inventing the game of Shatranj (chess) Tehran is giving West daily lessons in the subtle art of asymmetric warfare in Iraq and elsewhere the region . But the beaming of the release episode to the centres of western theatre; London , Washington and New York was a masterpiece. When Ahmedinejad's press conference was announced , western TV channels tuned in expecting more of the same blunt talk , which they could then distort ( as they did when they alleged the extinction of the Jewish State of Israel , while he had only repeated what Ayatollah Khomeini had said about the disappearance of the communist regime in Russia and so of the Zionist regime.)

Prime Minister Tony Blair, after the release of Blair's dozen ( Bakers dozen plus one ) and Jane Bond, Faye Turney, insisted that there was no deal done to secure the release, but added that discussions with Tehran during the crisis had opened up channels of communication "that have not been available to us before" and which it would be sensible to pursue.

Iran, meanwhile, claimed that Blair had sent a "letter of apology" the day before the prisoners were released. Ha'aretz quoted , an adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying that Iran had received a letter of apology from Britain before the release .Downing Street denied that any apology had ever been made .

In a story titled "Pawns in a losing game: Britain's policy ", UK's 'Independent 'newspaper of 8 April referring to the release of captives , at cost unknown , but with the death of six soldiers in Basra at the same time, wondered ; just what are our soldiers dying for? , because the return and rejoicing came with a dark shadow of Iraq , with dead British soldiers .Blair directly linked the Tehran regime to the killings of British soldiers in Iraq, saying: "There are elements at least of the Iranian regime that [are] backing, financing, arming, supporting terrorism in Iraq and I repeat that our forces are there specifically at the request of the Iraqi government and with the full authority of the UN." US and UK have been making allegations of Iran' involvement , but have produced no evidence so far. The tank armor bursting cylindrical device Tehran was allegedly supplying can be easily procured in Iraq as it was being milled for its oil industry.

Iran' Ambassador in London Rasoul Movahedian told the Financial Times that Iran had "showed our goodwill" by freeing the Britons. "Now it is up to the British government to proceed in a positive way." He added that "the prime issue for Iran" was recognition of its right to a nuclear power programme. But that was said before UK organized its counter show to neutralise the Tehran performance.

The Anglo-Saxon credibility lies tattered. Except for the so called Western 'international community', the core consisting of USA, UK ,Israel , Australia and a few others , worldwide ,few believe in what British and other Western leaders and its corporate propaganda machine or Government controlled BBC churn out, casting a blot on the noble profession of journalism.

Even the US public does not trust Bush and his claims on Iraq war and inflicted a stinging defeat on his Republican party last November, but apparently to little effect so far .The suave and elegant mother of five, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's talks in Damascus with President Bashar Assad , in teeth of the Administration's opposition heralds the beginning of Bush's lame duck period . Of course , she diplomatically claimed " Our message was President Bush's message."

After visiting Israel , Pelosi delivered a message to Bashar from Tel Aviv which was ready to hold peace talks with Damascus provided it stops arming Hezbollah in Lebanon. Syria denies that it does . After the Damascus meeting she declared "We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from (Bashar) that he was ready to resume the peace process." "He was ready to engage in negotiations ... with Israel," she added.

Pelosi then went on to the Saudi capital Riyadh to meet with King Abdullah, who recently shocked his staunch ally USA. The King described the US occupation of Iraq as "illegitimate" at a meeting of Arab leaders in Riyadh last week. "In beloved Iraq, blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation and ugly sectarianism threatens civil war," Abdullah said. Condi Rice telephoned Saudi Ambassador for clarifications. Abrasive John Bolton , the recently extinguished Ambassador to UN ( as the Senate refused to confirm him) said the US was in Iraq at the invitation of its government and its presence was further sanctioned by a U. N. Security Council resolution.

Everyone knows that the US led invasion of Iraq was in violation of the UN Charter , so affirmed by the Secretary General Kofi Annan himself. Since then quisling regimes in Baghdad have mostly consisted of exiles ,western intelligence assets , convicted embezzlers and others , who mostly live away from Baghdad or are ensconced in the Green Zone fortress .The Soviet Union used to say when its troops went into states like Hungary and Czechoslovakia that they were invited. When asked after some time by whom, the reply would be 'We are still looking for them." As for the UN, it is teetering like the League of Nations at the end .USA has destroyed its impartiality and credibility, and gravely undermined international law and Geneva and other Conventions. US along with four other nuclear armed ,also UN veto wielding powers have made mockery of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty , as in the case of Iran.

Of course there was no quid pro quo (!) said Anglo-Saxons , but access was allowed to five Iranian consular personnel , who were abducted from their office in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. On 4 April , U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said an International Committee of the Red Cross delegation including one Iranian had visited the illegally held Iranian consular officials.

Also Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at Iran's embassy in Baghdad was freed last week after being abducted in Iraq in February. Taken from his car by men in Iraqi army uniforms he was tortured by his captors, including CIA agents. The CIA officials' questions focused mainly on Iran's presence and influence in Iraq," he said. "When faced with my responses on Iran's official ties with the Iraqi government they increased the torture." Iran's Fars news agency reported, "He showed reporters the marks left by torture on his body that are now being treated by doctors."

The US military in Iraq said the coalition forces had not been involved in the abduction or any torture. Of course the CIA does not torture ! Some times they ask their friends to do so .Plausible deniability. Compare it how Tehran treated the British captives and how the Americans and the British have been treating suspects in Bagram in Afghanistan ,Gantanamo , Abu Gharaib and other black holes all over the world including in Europe. Human Rights organizations have compared these blots on humanity to Soviet era Gulags. Some European magistrates in Rome and Madrid have filed charges against CIA personnel who illegally abducted their innocent citizens for torture rendition in other countries .

During the 1991 US war on Iraq to liberate Kuwait ,US and allied troops apprehended in Iraq were treated humanely .This represents the clash of Christian and Muslim civilizations , but they are the branches from the same Abrahmic tree and are a continuation of the battle of the Gods as Karen Armstrong puts it .But unlike earlier Crusades and Jihads , this time the Jews have teamed up with the Western Christians .

James Bonds and Rambos ;

In a joint Five News and Sky News interview, recorded on 13 March but broadcast on 5 April after their release , captives leader Capt Chris Air acknowledged that he was operating close to the buffer zone between Iranian and Iraqi waters, adding: "It's good to gather intelligence on the Iranians." The British Ministry of Defence (MoD) said this was "all part of modern operations". James Bond stuff. The cover was interdicting smuggling of old Toyota cars in the Gulf.

Tehran somehow got wind off it and used it to confront the captives.Iran would not have taken the step unless it had proof of violation of its waters ( at least a couple of times ) .Perhaps the British boat had ventured too far into the enemy waters for the British ship Cornwall to intervene ,when the Iranians captured it.

The (MoD) confirmed that the Iranians had made the claim that they had become interested in Cornwall's activities after learning about it on British television interview, but denied the decision to allow the ship's crew to be interviewed while on active duty had jeopardised the mission.

According to the Guardian , the US had offered a list of military options to Britain, which remain top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran , including US combat aircraft mounting aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran. The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it. Reportedly UK also requested Washington to tone down military exercises that were already under way in the Gulf.

Colonel General Yury Solovyov , commander of Russia's Air Defense Forces Special Command told Novosti. "In line with my assessment, Iran's air defense system is strong enough." "Currently Iran has our [Russian] air defense missile systems, which are capable of tackling U.S. combat aircraft. Iran also has French and other countries' [defense] systems," he added.

It was widely believed in 1979 when US President Jimmy Carter mounted an air operation to rescue US Embassy personnel and others held as hostages in Tehran, that USSR had tipped the Iranians that something was afoot. The operation was a disaster and had to be aborted .It played a significant role in Carter's unsuccessful bid to be re-elected and brought in Ronald Regan , ushering in an era of rabid ultra neo-liberal conservative policies , which are now bringing up fruits adversely affecting the US polity .

Even this time round Moscow warned the West not to aggravate matters .It has been issuing warnings about US` naval build up in the Gulf , which many believe is a precursor to attack Iran. Russia would not standby if US and / or Israel try to destroy Iranian nuclear and military installations and even succeed partially . Nor will China be happy, which has a veto in UNSC , with its extensive energy interests and investments in Iran .

"Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch"

As for the Western media now trying to milk the ordeals of their magnificent men and Mata Hari ( All that crap projected in "The bridge on river Kawai ' must be cooked up as Blair's dossiers and false accusations by Bush Administration prove ).The British lads and lass , who sang like canaries on Tehran TV and were genuinely happy at their unexpected release (the US Embassy hostages taken in 1979 stayed put in Tehran for 444 days ) are now busy selling to the British media their cooked up stories of valour and defiance , an accepted British calling , also exploited by paramours of the decadent British Royalty .

Reportedly the Royal Marines are planning to sell even the vases given as gifts to them in their 'goody bags' by the Iranians on eBay. The father of one of the hostages said the MoD had suggested the servicemen 'Go out there, tell the truth and make the money.'

The Blair's dozen and Jane Bond are expected to make around £250,000 between them. Faye Turney, mother of 3 year old child ,is likely to get the most profitable deal. She is said to have sold her story for £150,000 in a joint contract with a newspaper and ITV. Colonel Bob Stewart, a British commander of United Nations forces in Bosnia, told the Sunday Times that the MoD had turned a military disaster into a media circus. 'The released hostages are behaving like reality TV stars,' he said. 'I am appalled that the MoD is encouraging them to profit in this way.'

In 'The Guardian" ,Terry Jones wrote a sarcastic piece titled " No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch "

He said ,"I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment --It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes-- And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

" If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. --And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: --The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

" -- The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.

"-What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her (Turney )"unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on--."

Released Britons relate stories of Iranian 'trickery'- International Herald Tribune

Can any one beat the 'Perfidious Albion', as Gen Charles de Gaulle once described the British, having suffered from their duplicity and hypocrisy? When the Brits crowed that the Sun never set on the British Empire , an admirer of cynic Diogenes .remarked that even God would not trust them in the dark .Now down and out and hanging on to US coat tails for crumbs from the world wide loot from the energy sector or from wars as after the 1991 war on Iraq . Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf kingdoms ,apart from Germany and Japan were made to shell out hundreds of billions of dollars to primarily protect US interests .One point of irritation for Baghdad was Kuwait's insistence that Iraq return $10 billion it had 'gifted ' brother Saddam Hussein ,the Sunni defender against the rising power of 'infidel' Shias of Iran . It turned out to be a costly deal with Kuwaitis shelling out more than 60 billion dollars and also suffered heavy damage during the Iraqi occupation and US led liberation war. But unlike in 1991 there is no one else to pay for this war.

Western counter show ;

So to counter the Tehran show , Captain Christopher Air of the Royal Marines and others except Faye , perhaps busy writing her memoires and to avoid inconvenient media questions ,were put on to Western TV channels a day after arrival to read out their scripted stories . Captain Air said they were kept in solitary confinement for much of the time. He added that they were subjected to ``psychological pressure'' and ``mind games,'' but none of them were physically harmed. The sailors and marines suffered ``aggressive questions and rough handling but it was no worse than that,'' said Lieutenant Felix Carman of the Royal Navy. ``Some of the tactics were an insult to our intelligence.'' But their treatment by the Iranian hosts was human.

Iran's foreign ministry said in a statement: "Such theatrical propaganda can not justify the soldiers' mistake. Such staged moves cannot cover up the mistake made by British military personnel who illegally entered Iran's territory. We are sorry that Britain has no knowledge about Islamic culture and Iranian civilisation to understand the reason Iran pardoned the British soldiers."

In his Tehran show , Ahmadinejad ha noted Easter's approach, together with the recent birthday of the Prophet Mohammed, and said that Iran was releasing the captives in the spirit of "forgiveness". It was a "gift "to the British people. The British personnel had appeared on Iranian television during captivity, insisting they had been well treated.

Why do M/S Tony Blair , Dick Cheney , George Bush et al refuse to comprehend that USA and UK have little credibility left in the world. Poodle Blair , so described even by the British media , before the invasion of Iraq went around the world to sell Western spins , half truths and lies about WMD and other accusations against Saddam Hussein and Iraq . In media conferences , Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister stated that Moscow did not trust the British dossiers. Cheney remains the leading exponent of Goebbels dictum of repeating lies to make them sound like truth , even when once Bush had denied any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda .

In a Radio broadcast a few days ago Cheney again repeated the canard that Iraq and Al Qaeda had relations prior to 2003 , even after the Congress got the records declassified which clarified that no such relations existed .So what do you do.

With the CIA chief George Tenet sitting behind him Secretary of State Colin Powell told an unbelieving UN audience about the cooked up cock and bull story of WMDs before the invasion .Tenet was later awarded the highest decoration for his 'slam dunk ' certainty of Iraq getting Uranium ore from Niger .A conscientious retired US Ambassador who exposed this canard after visiting Niger had his wife's CIA cover blown off by the administration from the very highest level as the court proceedings are proving .Cheney's chief aid Scooter Libby has been convicted of perjury and other charges .

Home coming celebrations in UK ;

Western media celebrated the return of the captives with headlines like "Mid-air toasts, facing the media, and finally the family reunions", Homecoming 'dream come true' - crew et al.

According to a study by John Hopkins and Mustansiriya Universities published by the prestigious British Journal 'Lancet' 655,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the US invasion and occupation. That was in July 2006 . The deadly dance of violence under US watch continues unabated. Bush's new policy of 'Surge' ie increase in US troops has only surged the mayhem and deaths. When questioned at the end of last year ,George Bush did not find the figures of the dead in the Hopkins led study credible .He stuck to the figure of 30,000 or so he had declared a year earlier .

Moreover, there are more than 2 million Iraqi refugees living in neighboring Syria and Jordan in addition to 2 million more displaced inside Iraq .Cities like Fallujah , Haditha , Tel Afar lie devastated .How many refugees US and UK, the main perpetrators of this crime have accepted .Very few . So much for their Christian morality and charity! The civilized West !

So what about the homecoming for 3 million displaced Iraqis , from Syria and Jordan and from violence created by US led coalition in their own country .When!

Experts on the Crisis ;

"I do think that the Iranian leadership was looking for an opportunity to let those placing pressure on Iran ... know that they will not be pushed into positions the United States is trying to push them into," said Farideh Farhi, an Iran researcher at the University of Hawaii. "The incident and the subsequent taking charge of the issue and negotiations by the secretary of Iran's National Security Council, Ali Larijani, was a sign by Iran that the country is willing to push back."

"The key decision makers ... may also have calculated that holding on to the sailors was a two-edged sword that was helping to boost the American/British depiction of the Islamic Republic as an irrational/outlaw regime," said Dariush Zahedi, who teaches at the department of political economy and Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley.

"The release of the sailors, once Britain toned down its rhetoric and started negotiating with the Islamic Republic, was also a signal to the U.S. -- emulate their example and we will be more amenable to working with you," Zahedi said.

"It is safe to say that by pushing back in such a public fashion, Tehran has declared its intent to stand its ground," Farhi agreed. "At the same time, by releasing the British citizens in a relatively short and 'civilized' manner, it has also made a statement about how Iranian politics works for those interested in resolving outstanding issues through negotiations.

"Whether the other side takes the message as intended by Tehran is, of course, an entirely different matter."

The western reading was that" despite its conventional military weakness and diplomatic isolation, Iran retains the ability to strike at Western interests when it feels sufficiently provoked. But " when Western powers engage Iran with respect and as an equal, they are more likely to get what they want than when they take a confrontational path designed to bully or humiliate the regime. Neither message might be well received either at the White House or among the neo-conservative and other right-wing pundits who have tried hard to depict the incident as the latest sign of Islamic or Persian barbarism." Barbarism -some cheek !

But the release of the Iranian diplomat, as well as reports that Tehran received assurances that it will have consular access to five alleged Revolutionary Guards ,all these events were not just coincidence , although London and Washington, like Ahmadinejad, insist there were no quids pro quo.

"I personally believe that the US action [in Irbil] ... accounts for why Iran chose to stage its capture of the British sailors," said Prof Gary Sick of Columbia University and former aid to Jimmy Carter. "Iran appears to have gained something from its pressure tactics." This view was supported by Trita Parsi, president of the US National Iranian American Council. "By taking the [British] soft targets, the Iranians put pressure on the US."

Sick agreed: "It is a reminder that Iran has quite an array of asymmetrical options available to it to counter indirectly the actions of the US forces in Iraq and elsewhere."

At the same time, according to Sick, Tehran's behavior during much of the crisis - including both the seizure itself, the precise location of which remains a matter of dispute, and its use of "confessions" by the British captives and threats to put them on trial - will probably have cost it much-needed international support.

"I suspect that recognition of this fact accounts for Iran's desire to end this dispute as promptly as possible," said Sick. "For the same reason, I suspect that this ploy will not be repeated any time soon."

Prof William Beeman, of the University of Minnesota, said: "Iranians have been signaling repeatedly, and not just during this crisis, that they will engage diplomatically, but without preconditions and on the basis of equality. So now they say, 'You see, when we have the upper hand, you see how magnanimous we are; we are a charitable, civilized people. We are reasonable. You can talk with us.'"

Parsi stated : "I think the Iranians thought it was better to declare victory and put an end to the crisis before there was any further escalation." He concluded : "The Iranian message is that if you deal with us respectfully, through incentives, then things can get resolved rather quickly. If you only resort to force or impose sanctions at the UN Security Council, then you'll only get stuck, and Iran will respond in kind. They're hoping that the West gets the impression that that is the incentive structure through which it can make progress with Iran. Whether that will be understood in the West is obviously a complete different question."

The Bush administration's relative silence during the crisis may also have conveyed, inadvertently perhaps, another message - that, despite widespread speculation that its recent military buildup in the Persian Gulf is intended to prepare the grounds for an attack on Iran, it has no wish to do so, at least for the moment.

Prof Juan Cole on the crisis ;

According to Middle East expert Prof Juan Cole, who writes a very informative daily Blog on the Middle East ," Once the British sailors and marines were captured, the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the incident "to whip up Iranian nationalistic sentiments" and garner popular support for the relatively unpopular government. He believes that "the captives were released when Khamenei was satisfied that Iran would not lose face and he could ensure the situation would not "spiral out of control." He goes on to add that it is "not impossible" that Iran might agree to a nuclear enrichment suspension if a proper formula can be found.

He adds "Khamenei has the difficulty that he represents the ideology of Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, who founded the current Iranian state. Khomeini had developed the doctrine that the clerics should rule until the Islamic promised one, the Mahdi, returned. And Khamenei represents that ideology which is puritan in character, puts restrictions on individual liberties, and is fairly dictatorial. It isn't popular.

"Although Iranians by and large, as far as we can tell, don't much care for this ideology anymore, they are still very nationalistic. And so Khamenei played this capture of the British sailors as a national moment. You even had the medical students of Isfahan University issuing a communiqué demanding that the British sailors and marines not be released and be punished for their incursion into Iranian national sovereign waters."

"In seizing the Iranians ( in Irbil) , who, after all, had been invited by the Iraqi authorities, the Americans were seen as behaving aggressively," said Cole. "Now the Iranians have demonstrated that the Anglo-American forces are not in a strong enough position to afford to do these things. They can play tit-for-tat."

" Once the British complained to the United Nations, which issued a statement and other statements and actions followed which " caused Iran to lose face, --it made Khamenei dig in his heels." But on Sunday, the British Defense [Secretary Des Browne], announced that the British were engaged in direct bilateral talks behind the scenes with the Iranians. It's clear that the British were prepared to make representations to Iran, that they had no desire to enter their waters, that they would avoid doing so. So the direct bilateral talks and the pledge not to violate Iranian sovereignty were face-saving for Iran."

Prof Cole explains "Beginning with the first supreme jurisprudent Ayatollah Khomeini , his successor "Ali Khamenei has repeatedly said that nuclear weapons are incompatible with Islamic law, because war, of course, in Islam, is a ritual. It's incompatible with Islamic thinking on war that one would kill non-combatants. And nuclear weapons, obviously, would tend to mainly kill non-combatants."

This is perhaps too simplistic. It is true that the Ayatollahs' rule has not been very popular from the very beginning . Khomeini was a rallying point for all in 1979 , against the Shah (caricatured as the sultan or the caliph), the corroding corruption, the excesses of the Savak secret police and its backers, the CIA, the hopes and aspirations of the youth for social justice, the masses suffering from inflation and sudden oil wealth inequities during US ally Shah's regime.

Khomeini provided that unflinching moral and spiritual bulwark against the Shah's armed-to-the-teeth military machine and his mendacity to deny whatever concessions were demanded, and what was held out in the end was too little too late. Many Iranians who opposed the hardline clerics and their killjoy agenda were eliminated, forced to flee or went underground. Even in 1980, disenchanted, only one fourth of Iranians went to the parliamentary polls. Expectedly, many clerics, some even senior to Khomeini, like Shariatmadari, favored political parties and more freedoms. But by sheer force, the radical conservatives took over power, sometimes in spite of Khomeini.

Then the Iranians laid low and dissimulated. When the chance came in May 1997, they voted massively in favor of Syed Mohammed Khatami. He started slowly but surely implementing his agenda, like appointing a woman vice president. But the radical conservative elements would not give in.

All efforts by Khatami to normalize relations with USA failed as since the collapse of the Soviet Union, USA wanted to rule as supreme hyper power and never forgot the hostage crisis of 1979 . Washington wants to keep the Middle East strategic balance in favour of the its Sunni client regimes like Egypt , Saudi Arabia and other kingdoms in the Gulf , who along with the West had supported Iraq in its 1980-87 war to neutralise the rising menace of Shia revolutionary power . West throughout history has exploited the divide and rule policy , in this case between the Aryan Shia Iranians and Semitic Sunni Arabs , but the rise of Iran's Shia power strengthened impoverished and ill treated Shias all over the Arab states ; in Lebanon, Syria and made them more vocal in the Gulf states .The fear of the rising Shia crescent since then grips all Western client states in the region.

Then the world changed on 11 September 2001 .Iran provided help to USA in its war against Talebans and made another sincere and serious offer to normalize relations with USA . But the Neo-Cons who were crowing of 'making history' were not inclined as their 'American Century Project ' envisaged regime changes in Iraq, Iran , Syria and perhaps even in Pakistan with its nuclear bombs ( now under an uneasy alliance , with constant danger of fundamentalist elements in its armed forces and its all powerful intelligence services ISI taking over the country ) .It was a foolish dream which has turned into a nightmare in the region.

After the thoughtless ,if not stupid and ill planned and illegal invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein emerged a Shia ruling dispensation in Iraq, an extremely potent Shia Alawaite ruling regime in Syria , with Hezbollah on a roll in Lebanon.

After two terms for moderate Khatami , whose efforts to engage in a dialogue of civilisations with the US led West were rebuffed, Iranians elected conservative hard line tough talking Mahmud Ahmedinejad in the second round , preferring him over moderate bazari ( merchant leader ) former President Rafsanjani, Khatami having throw in the towel .But let there be no doubt about the strong nationalist feeling among Iranians of all regions, languages and races .Among expatriate Iranians , even Royalists ,the nationalistic fervour exists with no Ahmed Chelebis and Iyyad Allawis in sight yet .The country has survived millennia long rule by Turks , Tatars and Mongols and civilized them all ,as it had Alexander and his uncouth Macedonian hordes.


Conclusions;

According to renowned journalist Patrick Cockburn , it was the botched US attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to north Iraq that triggered the Iran-UK crisis , with Iran seizing the British sailors and Marines.

On 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They only succeeded in capturing five relatively junior Iranian officials whom they now accuse of being intelligence agents .The US operation was carried out without knowledge of Kurdish government about which they had publicly protested .Did US Consul Paul Bremer not transfer sovereignty to Iraqis in June 2004!

The US objective was to 'seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment. Washington , who reportedly abducted an important Iranian in Istanbul " were after Jafari, who the Americans thought he [Jafari] was there. He was accompanied by a second, high-ranking Iranian official General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Pasdaran [Iranian Revolutionary Guard] . Jafari confirmed to the official Iranian news agency, IRNA, that he was in Erbil at the time of the raid. Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, told IRNA: "The objective of the Americans was to arrest Iranian security officials who had gone to Iraq to develop co-operation in the area of bilateral security."

Massoud Barzani, President of the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq said on 7 April that the US forces which captured five Iranians , stationed for legitimate consular work, in the northern city of Erbil three months ago, were really after commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guards who were visiting the region as the guests of Kurdish government .The Iranian guests had already called on Iraqi President Jalal Talabani in the northern city of Sulaimaniyah.

With US influence diminishing in the Middle East , the Kurds in a hostile environment are perhaps trying to make peace with Iran ,as Turkey is fiercely opposed to any autonomy to Iraqi Kurdistan and the forthcoming referendum by the Kurds to grab Kirkuk ,floating on oil like Kuwait ,after having carried out ethnic cleansing and manipulations.

Barzani also warned Ankara that if it intervened in the referendum, they will create problems in Turkey. Thousands of Turkish Kurdish guerillas are holed up in Iraqi Kurdistan . "Turkey is not allowed to intervene in the Kirkuk issue and if it does, we will interfere in Diyarbakir's issues and other cities in Turkey," Barzani threatened. Diyarbakir is the largest city in Turkey's Kurdish-dominated southeast.

Barzani has also declared that the independence and statehood for Kurds ( who live in Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq ) was a "legitimate and legal right". "But I am against the use of violence to reach this goal," he added. Does he have US approval who see an independent Kurdistan ( where a big US base is under construction ) with defence alliance as an option, as there appears little chance of subduing Iraq's Sunni or Shia Arabs , now engaged in a civil war. After all Iraqi Kurdistan is practically a US protectorate since the end of 1991 Gulf war.

Do not the Kurds know that even a powerful ally like Pakistan must obey US dictates as it did after 11/9 otherwise it was threatened of being bombed to the stone age .Islamabad is now paying the price of reversal of its policies with emerging massive violence along its borders with Afghanistan . It is going to get worse , even threatening Gen Pervez Musharraf's regime in Islamabad .

As for the British success in getting the EU to unreservedly back the UK position, which called for the unconditional release of the prisoners and backed by a commitment to take appropriate action if the Iranians refused , it is obvious that it was but typical EU toothless sabre-rattling. EU has become a collection of squabbling national entities , without any common foreign or defence policy , where petty states lecture Russia but would not surrender even a bit of their sovereignty for a united policy .Let us just take EU's energy requirements .It has choice of total reliance on Russia or get some of it from Iran. Its many leaders are upsetting both the suppliers .China ,India and others with galloping economic growth are waiting in the wings with their insatiable energy demand for their 2.4 billion people.

BBC's Pam O'Toole tried to decipher the decision making process in Tehran. She concluded "Iran has many different interlocking - and sometimes competing - centres of power. At best, the decision-making process there is opaque. It is often difficult to know who makes the decisions on some issues - something which causes immense headaches for Western countries trying to negotiate with Tehran.'

It is more equitable than in USA , where till the November trashing of Bush's Republican party , the legislative wing was in the pocket of the executive .And with Democrats not any different in their policies , it looked like a one party state .As for its judiciary , as the lawyers remain loyal to the party nominating them, even to the highest court , seen so clearly in 2000 Presidential elections and on the question of reduction of individual liberty in Bush era or White House's ability to appoint White House favoured Attorneys ,one wonders what kind of democracy US leaders and its subservient corporate media now talk about .In the last six years US political system has regressed towards a totalitarian system. And of course the shots are called by those who control arms manufacture and energy industry , leavened by pervasive Israeli Jewish influence in all branches of decision making . Aspirants for 2008 presidency stakes like Mrs Clinton and Obama are now being auctioned to the highest bidders . Yes , Ms O'Toole the decision making process in USA it is crystal clear.

There have been media reports about possible US attacks on Iran's nuclear sites and military installations , some even suggesting 6 April morning .The Iranian show came just before that deadline .Serious and clear headed Americans like Seymoor Hersh ,Scott Ritter and others have been warning the American lawmakers , that in a crazy move the Bush Administration might exercise that fearful one of 'all options are on the table '. And change the course of human civilization on planet Earth , for the worse.


K Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan from August 1992 to April 1996. Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. Copy right with the author. E-mail: Gajendrak@hotmail.com