What do captured British sailors, fake water boundaries, a botched US raid in Iraq and a UK political corruption scandal have in common?

April 3, 2007

By Heather Wokusch

What do captured British sailors, fake water boundaries, a botched US raid in Iraq and a UK political corruption scandal have in common? Read on…

Tension mounts between Britain and Iran over the 15 British sailors seized on March 23. While many US media outlets dutifully repeat the claims that: 1) the sailors were in Iraqi waters at the time they were taken captive, and 2) the incident came completely out of nowhere, a closer examination of the facts indicates otherwise.

Here’s a quick overview of recent articles providing important context -

1. The map showing the captured sailors were in Iraqi waters is "fake" and "has no legal force."

Craig Murray was the Ambassador to the Central Republic of Uzbekistan from 2002-04 and "helped expose the vicious human rights abuses by the US-funded regime of Islam Karimov."

He also headed Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1989-92. In other words, Murray knows a thing or two about maritime borders.

Here’s an excerpt from Murray’s March 28, 2007 blog entitled "Fake Maritime Boundaries" (www.craigmurray.co.uk):

The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.

But there are two colossal problems.

A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only
harden the Iranian position.

2. According to the UK’s Independent, "A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines."

An excerpt from the Independent’s April 3 2007 article entitled "The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis"
(http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece):

Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and
still holds.

In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search
parties in the Gulf…

The attempt by the US to seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers openly meeting with Iraqi leaders is somewhat as if Iran had tried to kidnap the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighbouring Iran, such as Pakistan or
Afghanistan.

The raid in Arbil was a far more serious and aggressive act. It was not carried out by proxies but by US forces directly. The abortive Arbil raid provoked a dangerous escalation in the confrontation between the US and Iran which ultimately led to the capture of the 15 British sailors and Marines - apparently considered a more vulnerable coalition target
than their American comrades.

3. Headlines about the captured sailors have conveniently buried reports on Prime Minister Tony Blair’s role in a domestic political scandal, which had him threatening to resign as recently as last week.
(www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/25/nhons25.xml)

The UK’s Sunday Telegraph reported on March 26th: "Detectives have spent a year looking into allegations that Labour promised peerages in return for £14 million in secret loans to fight the 2005 general election ... Police officers investigating the cash-for-honours scandal wanted to
interview Tony Blair under caution but backed off after being warned that it could lead to his resignation."

"Under caution" means that Blair would have been "treated as a suspect, rather than simply as a witness." That would be undesirable for Blair, because "The fact that Mr Blair has not been interviewed under caution means it is unlikely any of the answers he has given so far could be
used against him to bring charges. Legal experts say any solicitor is likely to argue that evidence from a routine interview - not treating someone as a suspect - should be declared inadmissible by a judge."

According to a Sunday Telegraph source, "Make no mistake, Scotland Yard was informed that Mr Blair would resign as Prime Minister if he was interviewed under caution."

The plot thickens…

Related
Allegations that Lord Levy is suffering anti-semitism divide British Jews
It’s Anti-Semitism, Stupid!

Police told Blair would resign if cautioned

By Andrew Alderson and Patrick Hennessy, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 12:53am GMT 25/03/2007

Police officers investigating the cash-for-honours scandal wanted to interview Tony Blair under caution but backed off after being warned that it could lead to his resignation, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal. Tony Blair was interviewed twice in six weeks Allies of Mr Blair indicated to Scotland Yard that his position as Prime Minister would become untenable if he were treated as a suspect, rather than simply as a witness. Detectives had hoped to question the Prime Minister under caution during the second of two interviews at No 10. It is understood that they wanted Mr Blair to clarify comments he had made during his first interview about an alleged cover-up by his senior aides. Sources close to the inquiry said that there were difficult discussions before a political intermediary made senior detectives aware of the serious implications of treating the Prime Minister as a suspect. "Make no mistake, Scotland Yard was informed that Mr Blair would resign as Prime Minister if he was interviewed under caution," said a source. "They were placed in a very difficult position indeed." Eventually, Downing Street won the battle of wills: when two officers saw the Prime Minister for a second time, on January 26, he was again not interviewed under caution. A news black-out was placed on the interview for "operational reasons" at the request of the police, but this was lifted after six days. Scotland Yard has, however, not ruled out interviewing Mr Blair for a third time if there is important new evidence to put to him. It is even possible that, as the inquiry drags on, Mr Blair could be interviewed - possibly as a suspect - after he steps down as Prime Minister in some three months. advertisement Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who heads the cash-for-honours inquiry, told MPs this month that it would be "unrealistic" to set a deadline for completing the investigation. He said that he could not be rushed because some evidence raised "complex and challenging legal issues". It can also be revealed that relations between Scotland Yard and Downing Street remain deeply strained. There were tensions over the first police interview with Mr Blair on December 14, which - unusually for a meeting not under caution - was tape recorded. Some days later, detectives sent minutes of the interview to Mr Blair's office to be "signed off" - for Downing Street to agree the typed notes were an accurate reflection of what had taken place. Downing Street refused to sign them off even when detectives reminded political aides that the interview had been recorded and they were merely supplying a transcript of events. More than three months after the interview, the issue remains unresolved. The restricted conditions of Mr Blair's second interview enabled No 10 to play down the significance of the police seeing him for the second time in only six weeks. A spokesman said at the time: "The Prime Minister has been interviewed briefly to clarify points emerging from the ongoing investigation. He was interviewed as a witness, not as a suspect and co-operated fully." The fact that Mr Blair has not been interviewed under caution means it is unlikely any of the answers he has given so far could be used against him to bring charges. Legal experts say any solicitor is likely to argue that evidence from a routine interview - not treating someone as a suspect - should be declared inadmissible by a judge. Detectives have spent a year looking into allegations that Labour promised peerages in return for £14 million in secret loans to fight the 2005 general election. The inquiry has widened to investigate claims that senior aides were involved in a cover-up in which they sought to pervert the course of justice. Officers have interviewed more than 100 people and arrested four, including two senior party aides: Lord Levy, Labour's chief fund-raiser, and Ruth Turner, the head of government relations. The Sunday Telegraph has also learnt that the police are "highly surprised" that neither Miss Turner, 36, nor Lord Levy, 62, has been suspended from their positions given the seriousness of the cover-up accusations against them - even though they deny any wrongdoing, and no charges have been brought. Last night a spokesman for Mr Blair denied that he had been "going around saying he will resign if that happened [being interviewed under caution]. It is not true that such a message was conveyed to the police." He said of the delay in No 10's "signing off" the minutes of Mr Blair's interview: "Witness statements are being drawn up in the usual way."

BBC names Blair aides in banned funding report

Tue Mar 6, 2007 10:24 AM IST

LONDON (Reuters) - More details emerged on Monday of a "cash-for-honours" scandal that has dogged Tony Blair's last months as British prime minister when the BBC named two of his staff allegedly involved in an email exchange about it.

The British Broadcasting Corporation said the aides were connected to a story it has been banned by a court injunction from reporting about a police inquiry into a potential criminal cover-up at Blair's office.

Detectives have been investigating for the past year whether political parties nominated people for state honours in return for loans but are now also probing whether any Blair official sought to conceal evidence from police.

Blair, who is expected to step down by July after 10 years in office, has been questioned twice as a witness by police.

He has said that nobody in the Labour Party, to his knowledge, sold honours that bring with them seats in parliament's upper chamber, the House of Lords.

A court blocked the BBC late on Friday from running a report about an internal email between "two members of Blair's inner circle" that it said could prove central to the cover-up inquiry.

Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith obtained the injunction at the request of police. Officers argued information in the story could jeopardise their inquiries.

The injunction was amended on Monday, allowing the BBC to report that the email was from Ruth Turner, director of government relations in Blair's office, to Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff.

The message concerned Blair's chief fundraiser and Middle East envoy Lord Michael Levy, the BBC said. The broadcaster was still barred from revealing the contents of the email.

Blair's spokesman contested the BBC report. "This story is not accurate because we dispute this version of events," he said, declining to specify which aspect of the story he was disputing.

Levy was arrested in January on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and Turner the same month on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, but both were released without charge.

The injunction against the BBC sparked speculation among politicians and lawyers that officers were planning to bring charges against one or more people and that police could be on the verge of wrapping up their probe.