By Anatole Kaletsky in Times Online

It has been another awful week for Tony Blair, perhaps even worse than the mid-summer meltdown triggered by his fatally misjudged support for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. First there was the craven surrender to Saudi Arabia’s demand for the suspension of Britain’s anti-corruption laws if they impinge on the personal finances of Saudi princes. Next came the derisive rejection of Mr Blair’s latest effort to ‘kick-start the Middle East peace process’ by every leader in the region. This was followed by the devastating report from Britain’s leading foreign policy institute, explaining how the Prime Minister had subordinated national interests to his unrequited love affair with President Bush. Then to cap it all, Britain’s supposed ally, the Iraqi Vice-President, commented that Mr Blair had been ‘brainwashed’ and ‘blackmailed’ by Mr Bush.

Nobody much cares any longer if Mr Blair rushes towards political perdition, but will his few remaining months in office sabotage the prospects of future Labour governments for years to come? The Chatham House report about the ‘disaster’ of Mr Blair’s foreign policy is surprisingly sanguine about the willingness of future prime ministers to change course: ‘His successor(s) will not make the same mistake. For the foreseeable future, whoever is prime minister, there will no longer be unconditional support for US initiatives in foreign policy.’

If only things were so simple. With every day that passes, Gordon Brown, through his silence on foreign policy, is closing off the options which should be available to the next prime minister. Having failed to hint at any objections to the conduct of the Iraq war or to Washington’s Middle East policies, Mr Brown is starting to get personally locked into the Blair-Bush axis. If he remains silent on foreign affairs much longer, Mr Brown will find it difficult to undertake the radical shift in British diplomacy that many of his supporters have been expecting and which Chatham House now describes as inevitable and necessary for Britain’s national interest.

The difficulty of executing a foreign policy U-turn if Mr Brown takes over, presumably sometime in June, will be greatly exacerbated if events in Washington and the Middle East continue to accelerate at their present pace. The problem is not just that the security situation in Iraq is deteriorating, but that the Bush-Blair duo are ruling out sensible options and creating new enemies almost every time they open their mouths.

(more…)

Chatham House is a widely respected think tank on international affairs. A new report from its Director describes the root failure of Tony Blair’s foreign policy as his inability to influence the Bush administration in any significant way.

The invasion of Iraq was a ‘terrible mistake’ and the absence of a UN Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of force drove a ‘horse and cart’ through Blair’s earlier, self-proclaimed, doctrine of international community. The post-invasion ‘d’b’cle’ has undermined British influence internationally and over crucial issues including a two-state solution in the Middle East. A distancing of the UK from the US and a closer relationship with Europe are requirements of post-Blair foreign policy. However, the UK will have to work to be taken more seriously by its European partners.

Read the report here

By Rajeev Syal in Times Online

Downing Street aides and Labour officials involved in the cash-for-honours inquiry are being investigated on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, The Times has learnt.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has advised detectives to look into suspected attempts to hamper the nine-month investigation. Some e-mails and documents have yet to be handed over to the police while others have apparently “disappeared”. Some individuals are suspected of colluding over evidence.

For full article go here

Update 20.12.06: Smear campaign against cash-for-honours policeman

Google “Rashid Rauf – mastermind”. On the first page of results you will find CBS, the BBC, the Times, Guardian and Mail all describing Rauf last summer, on security service or police briefing, as the “Mastermind” behind the “Liquid terror bomb plot”. So the fact that a Pakistani court has found there is no evidence of terrorism against him cannot be lightly dismissed by the cheerleaders of the plot story.

Rashid Rauf still faces other charges, including forgery, and what is touted as possession of explosives, although what he actually possessed was hydrogen peroxide, which is not explosive. As hydrogen peroxide is readily obtainable without limitation from any chemist or hardware store in the UK, why you would source it in Pakistan to blow up jets in Britain was never very convincing. The Pakistani court perhaps felt so too.

Rashid Rauf has much to answer. He is still wanted in the UK over the murder of his uncle some years ago – a crime which, like the alleged forgery, had no apparent terrorist link. None of which adds to the credibility of the evidence he allegedly gave the Pakistani intelligence services about the liquid bomb plot in the UK.

A second and simultaneous development is even more compelling evidence that this massive scare was, as I said at the time, “More propaganda than plot”. Thames Valley police have given up after five months scouring the woods near High Wycombe where the bomb materials were allegedly hidden. They told the Home Office on 12 December that they would only continue if the government were prepared to meet the costs; they wished to get back to devoting their resources to real crimes, like armed robbery and burglary.

Remember this was a plot described by the authorities as “Mass murder on an unimaginable scale” and “Bigger than 9/11”. There have been instances in the UK of hundreds of police officers deployed for years to find an individual murderer. If the police really believed they were dealing with an effort at “Mass murder on an unimaginable scale”, would they be calling off the search after five months? No.

Which brings us to the lies that have been told – one of which concerns this search. An anonymous police source tipped off the media early on that they had discovered a “Suitcase” containing “bomb-making materials”. This has recently been described to me by a security service source as “A lot of rubbish from someone’s garage dumped in the woods”. You could indeed cannibalise bits of old wire, clocks and car parts to form part of a bomb – perhaps you could enclose it in the old suitcase. But have they found stuff that is exclusively concerned with causing explosions, like detonators, explosives or those famous liquid chemicals? No, they haven’t found any.

Wycombe Woods, like the sands of Iraq, have failed to yield up the advertised WMD.

The other “evidence” that the police announced they had found consisted of wills (with the implication they were made by suicide bombers) and a map of Afghanistan. It turns out that the wills were made in the early 90s by volunteers going off to fight the Serbs in Bosnia – they had been left with the now deceased uncle of one of those arrested. The map of Afghanistan had been copied out by an eleven year old boy. All of which is well known to the UK media, but none of which has been reported for fear of prejudicing the trial. I am at a complete loss to understand why it does not prejudice the trial for police to announce in a blaze of worldwide front page publicity that they have found bomb-making materials, wills and maps. Only if you contradict the police is that prejudicial. Can anyone explain why?

While the arrest of 26 people in connection with the plot was also massively publicised, the gradual release of many of them has again gone virtually unreported. For example on 31 October a judge released two brothers from Chingford commenting that the police had produced no credible evidence against them. Charges against others have been downgraded, so that those now accused of plotting to commit explosions are less than the ten planes the police claimed they planned to blow up in suicide attacks.

Five British newspapers had to pay damages to a Birmingham man they accused, on security service briefing, of being part of the plot. Only the Guardian had the grace to publish the fact and print a retraction.

A final fact to ponder. Despite naming him as the “mastermind” behind somethng “bigger than 9/11”, the British government made no attempt to extradite Rashid Rauf on charges of terrorism. That is not difficult to do – the Pakistani authorities have handed over scores of terrorist suspects to the US, many into the extraordinary rendition process, and on average the procedure is astonishingly quick – less than a week and they are out of the country. But the British security services, who placed so much weight on intelligence from Rashid Rauf, were extraordinarily coy about getting him here where his evidence could be properly scrutinised by a British court. However MI5 were greatly embarassed by Birmingham police, who insisted on pointing out that Rauf was wanted in the UK over the alleged murder of his uncle in Birmingham. Now he was in custody in Pakistan, shouldn’t we extradite him? So eventually an extradition request over that murder was formally submitted – but not pursued with real energy or effort. There remains no sign that we will see Rauf in the UK.

I still do not rule out that there was a germ of a terror plot at the heart of this investigation. We can speculate about agents provocateurs and security service penetration, both British and Pakistani, but still there might have been genuine terrorists involved. But the incredible disruption to the travelling public, the War on Shampoo, and the “Bigger than 9/11” hype is unravelling.

You won’t read that in the newspapers.

Craig Murray

The BBC carried two pieces yeaterday that suggest the liquid explosive Terror Plot is looking rather less robust than has been previously suggested…

UK ‘plot’ terror charge dropped

A Pakistani judge has ruled there is not enough evidence to try a key suspect in an alleged airline bomb plot on terrorism charges. He has moved the case of Rashid Rauf, a Briton, from an anti-terrorism court to a regular court, where he faces lesser charges such as forgery.

Pakistan has presented Mr Rauf as one of the ringleaders behind the alleged plan to blow up flights out of London. The British authorities say they foiled it with Pakistan’s help in August. They say proceedings against suspects arrested in Britain will go ahead.

‘Explosives’

The arrest of Rashid Rauf in Pakistan triggered arrests in the United Kingdom of a number of suspects allegedly plotting to blow up transatlantic flights. The Pakistani authorities described him as a key figure. But an anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi found no evidence that he had been involved in terrorist activities or that he belonged to a terrorist organisation.

As well as forgery charges, Mr Rauf has also been charged with carrying explosives. But his lawyer says police evidence amounts only to bottles of hydrogen peroxide found in his possession. Hydrogen peroxide is a disinfectant that can be used for bomb-making if other chemicals are added.

The BBC’s Barbara Plett in Islamabad says the judge’s decision has reinforced the already widespread scepticism there about the airliner plot. Several commentators said the threat was deliberately exaggerated to bolster the anti-terror credentials of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and that it helped to demonise British Muslims of Pakistani origin.

The Crown Prosecution Service in the UK said the dropping of charges against Mr Rauf in Pakistan would “make no difference” to the case against the men charged in Britain.

‘Suspected conspiracy’

In August, the British government requested the extradition of Mr Rauf, a Briton of Pakistani origin who returned to Pakistan four years ago, in connection with a 2002 murder. Scotland Yard declined to discuss which murder case the request related to. The government in Pakistan, which has no extradition treaty with the UK, said it was considering the request.

Rashid Rauf was arrested in Pakistan earlier that month over the alleged plot to blow up US-bound aircraft, Pakistan’s foreign ministry said.

He has been described by Pakistan’s government as a “key person” in the “suspected conspiracy”. The August arrests led to increased airport security around the world, causing major disruption. Passengers on many flights were forbidden to take liquids aboard aircraft.

Terror search ends amid cash row

Scotland Yard anti-terror officers are to stop a search of woodland linked with the alleged airliners bomb plot amid a dispute over funding. Thames Valley Police, which was guarding the woods near High Wycombe, Bucks, had said it might pull the plug over spiralling costs.

The force demanded the Home Office cover the ‘8m cost. Plans for either military personnel or fencing to be used to seal the site are understood to have been rejected. The search operation started after the alleged plot was uncovered in August.

Thames Valley Police are thought to have threatened to “walk away from the scene” if it did not get some financial assistance from the Home Office. The Home Office said its request was still being considered.

Pension reserves option

It is thought Thames Valley may have to dip into pension fund reserves to ensure the force has enough money to cover any unexpected costs next year, if the Home Office turns down its request for extra funding. Last month, the local force ended its search of Kings Wood and moved onto the Booker Common area.

Ch Supt Graham Bell, from Thames Valley Police, had described the Kings Wood search as “one of the most intensive large-scale searches I can remember”. The alleged plot sparked a massive security operation at Britain’s airports and MI5 raised the attack threat level in the UK to critical – its highest.

The authorities believed the targets were both US and UK airlines flying to all parts of the US.

See also The UK Terror plot: what’s really going on?

Quotes can turn up in the most unexpected places.

Is this just a make over or are parts of the Tory party really re-writing their script?

I continue to view Cameron’s new touchy-feely conservatism with a measure of distrust until proven otherwise. But nevertheless, this is quite an astonishing statement to come from the Conservatives, and goes beyond anything even Robin Cook said about how Embassies should conduct themselves. It would be both churlish and foolish to do anything other than stand and give William Hague a hearty cheer.

Craig

From BBC Online

Tories demand human rights focus

International human rights have been relegated by the Foreign Office, the Conservatives’ commission on human rights has said.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague called for a government minister to be appointed to concentrate on the issue. Publishing the first annual report of the commission, Mr Hague said human rights would be central to Conservative foreign policy. He also called for ambassadors to be more “proactive” in championing them.

Mr Hague said: “Currently it depends to a large extent on the individual ambassador or diplomat. It should be a requirement of the job, and outstanding service should be rewarded and recognised.

“Embassies should become freedom houses. Ambassadors should provide dissidents with a platform, and – where appropriate – should be willing to join pro-democracy demonstrations.”

The report highlighted the case of Craig Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan who was removed from his posting after speaking out about torture in the country.

National interests

Mr Hague said: “We have the privilege of living in freedom. But with that privilege comes the responsibility to use our liberty to speak up for those who are denied it. “It is not only morally right that we should speak for the oppressed; it is also in our national interests to do so.

“Dictators do not make the best allies. Freedom and prosperity go together.”

The commission, chaired by MP Gary Streeter, said ministers’ dual responsibility for both trade and human rights created a conflict of interest. The commission plans a “substantive consultation” with human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as a review of the arms trade.

The report details 18 countries monitored during the past year, and ranks them on freedom, rule of law and human rights violations. Burma had the most violations, while North Korea was the worst violator of freedom and rule of law.

‘Killing and torture’

Others near the top of the list for violations were Tibet, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, Cuba and Belarus. The commission called for further reform of the United Nations, describing it as “the only club in the world in which a country can frequently violate the rules with little or no penalty.”

Among instances of human rights abuses, the report mentioned “the killing and torture of civilians and the displacement of up to 25,000 villagers in Burma’s Karen district in the course of 2006 alone”.

It also highlighted “the 200,000 political prisoners incarcerated in North Korea’s jails, who are the victims of a regime which is known to arbitrarily imprison up to three generations for the transgression of a single individual”.

Back in March TomPaine.com published an article by Katherine Gun which still makes interesting reading.

Katharine Gun was a translator at the Britain’s communications spy agency, General Communications Headquarters. In 2002, she leaked a top-secret memo to a British newspaper, revealing the U.S. was spying on U.N. Security Council members before their vote on the Iraq war.

Where are the whistleblowers about Iran?

It is exactly three years since the United States and Great Britain invaded Iraq, and a little over three years since Martin Bright and his colleagues at the London Observer quietly tested the veracity of an e-mail passed to them anonymously, whilst I nervously waited to see if the e-mail I leaked would appear in a newspaper. All this for the purpose of slowing down, if not derailing, a war that many felt was being rushed into by gung-ho politicians Bush and Blair…

Go here for the full article

By Stewart Tendler in TimesOnline

The police marksmen who killed Jean Charles de Menezes may have lied about the death of the Brazilian during the botched operation, the High Court was told yesterday.

They had claimed that Mr de Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket when, in fact, he had on a denim one. They also claimed that they had shouted a warning, but none of the other passengers on the London Underground train heard them.

The details of the policemen’s claims were revealed as the dead man’s family began an application for a judicial review into the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute anyone over the shooting in July 2005.

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head by two officers after he was wrongly linked with the bungled terrorist attacks on the London transport system the day before.

Opening the family’s case, Michael Mansfield, QC, told Lord Justice Richards, sitting with Mr Justice Forbes and Mr Justice Mackay, that the decision not to charge any officers was ‘a violation’ of the human rights of the de Menezes family. He said that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights required an adequate trial or inquiry to ‘deter life-endangering conduct in future’.

Jonathan Crow, QC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS, called the family’s human rights argument unsustainable. He added that, as far as a prosecution was concerned, a ‘judgment call’ had to be made.

The hearing continues today.

Previous postings on the killing of De Menezes:

28/07/05 – Perpetual War Justifies Everything

17/08/05 – The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes

19/04/06 – The shooting of de Menezes: inquiry witness on a collision course

04/06/06 – Met chief could face charge over Menezes

13/09/06 – De Menezes family brand promotion of officer ‘slap in face’