The Times

[tx_ned]

Theatre of war

Ten questions that Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues should ask today when Gordon Brown appears before the Iraq war inquiry


Gordon Brown has long given the impression that he was lukewarm about a war that he did not instigate but in which, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was complicit. Today, facing five and a half hours of questioning before the Chilcot inquiry, he can no longer remain on the sidelines. While it would be wrong to expect too many new truths to emerge, the right questions should help to illuminate the way that Government made agonisingly difficult decisions both in the run-up to war and its aftermath.

Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues will want to press Mr Brown on the accusations that Tony Blair rode roughshod over his Cabinet in going to war. They will also want to examine the suggestions that he himself, as Chancellor, underfunded the front line. They will be grilling Mr Brown in three capacities: as a senior member of the Cabinet that went to war in 2002, as the Chancellor in charge of defence expenditure between 2002 and 2007, and as the Prime Minister who subsequently made the decision to draw down British troops. They might want to ask the following questions. First, as a senior member of the Cabinet:

1. Were you aware, in 2002, that Mr Blair wrote to President Bush promising Britain’s support if Iraq had to be disarmed militarily? Did you support that position?

2. Did you believe, in March 2003, that Iraq had committed a further breach of UN Resolution 1441? (Resolution 1441 stated that Saddam Hussein was in breach of his disarmament obligations, and offered Iraq a final chance to comply.) 3. How many times did the Cabinet debate the policy on Iraq before the invasion? What opinions did you express at those meetings? Did you believe that the Cabinet was operating properly in the months leading up to war, including the exclusion of Clare Short from discussions about reconstruction?

4. Did Mr Blair consult you privately on Iraq? What did he ask, and what opinions did you express? To what extent do you feel the Chancellor should play a role in foreign policy decisions involving blood and treasure?

5. What intelligence were you and other Cabinet members shown concerning Iraq’s military capability and weapons of mass destruction (WMD)?

Next, in his role as Chancellor:

6. What requests did you receive from the Ministry of Defence for additional funding for the invasion of Iraq? How did you respond?

7. What requests did you receive for additional funding for the reconstruction of the country after the invasion? How did you respond?

8. Why was the Snatch Land Rover not replaced in Iraq (and Afghanistan) once it was clear that it was so vulnerable to roadside bombs? Thirty- seven British Service personnel have died in Snatches, and their families have been denied an inquiry into why these poorly armoured vehicles continued to be used. Will you make a commitment to holding an inquiry?

Lastly, in his capacity as Prime Minister.

9. Do you believe that Britain left Iraq in the right circumstances? On what basis did you decide to draw down troops while Basra was still run by militias? Why did you choose the week of the Conservative Party conference to make the announcement that the first 1,000 troops would be home by Christmas?

10. How many deaths of serving British troops do you believe are attributable, at least in part, to lack of equipment or poorly functioning equipment?

Mr Brown has long been the silent partner in the Labour Government’s decision to go to war in Iraq. He has played the backroom bureaucrat in the Government’s prosecution of that conflict. Today he needs to make clear his belief — or otherwise — in that war, and his part in it.

[tx_ned]

March 11, 2010


If you lived on a street where a neighbour frequently and flagrantly broke the law, you would want something done about it, especially if that neighbour took part of your garden, replaced the fence with a 30ft wall, cut down your trees and redirected your water supply.

Suppose the authorities to whom you complained merely denounced the illegalities and took no action? You might think that this situation is inconceivable. But that is precisely what has been happening to the Palestinians for the best part of 60 years.

On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ) produced a strong advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied territories.

Fourteen of 15 judges agreed the core findings: that the construction was contrary to international law, both human rights and humanitarian; that it should be dismantled with reparations being made for all damage caused. This was adopted by a UN General Assembly resolution on July 20, 2004.

This resolution, like so many before it concerning violations perpetrated by Israel, was fundamentally ignored. The ICJ had not only specified the obligations owed by Israel under international law but also spelt out very clearly the obligations incumbent on third-party states to ensure that the core values or peremptory norms — such as the right to self-determination — are upheld by those states that break them. This is a matter of common sense and ordinary reason; for, were it to be otherwise, the rule of law and the authority of international justice would be completely undermined.

It was in this context that the Russell Tribunal was reconvened in Barcelona on March 1 to 3 to examine the legal responsibility for violations in the Palestinian Territories. Four more international sessions are planned.

The tribunal has an illustrious history with its origins in the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation launched in 1963. The first tribunal concerned the war in Vietnam, and led to citizens’ commissions of inquiry held in several American cities. A second tribunal was established to investigate human rights violations in South America in 1974-75.

These are tribunals of conscience, created in response to the demands of citizens in many countries who feel that perpetrators must be held to account and that states cannot be allowed to act with impunity; which is often the result of inaction and complicity by others.

The first session examined the responsibility of the European Union and its member states. The hearings dealt with six topics: self-determination; the annexation of East Jerusalem; settlements and the plundering of natural resources; the EU Israel Association agreement; the Gaza blockade/Operation Cast Lead; and the wall.

Proceedings were opened by Stéphane Hessel, a co-author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, followed by 27 witnesses with a range of expertise and experience (lawyers, academics, aid workers, human rights advisers, members of the European and British parliaments and a military adviser).

Israel’s violations are well known and well documented through to the Goldstone report on the invasion of Gaza in early 2009 and were summarised in the tribunal’s report under ten separate headings. The Palestinian Territories determined that a form of apartheid is being practised. The EU and its member states were found to have transgressed the EU Treaty itself as well as international obligations under the UN Charter and the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The real question, however, is not just inaction but positive action undertaken by Europe that supports the illegality. This can be exemplified by the export of weapons and components; the trade in produce from settlements in the occupied territories and above all the multibillion EU Israel Association agreement that confers benefits on Israel. The EU is the third most important trading partner for Israel and the EU Parliament has passed a resolution requiring the suspension of the association agreement, but like so much else this has not been implemented.

It was obvious to the tribunal, therefore, that the EU may not be prepared to comply with international law. In these circumstances it is necessary for concerned citizens to examine ways in which accountability may be effected. There are a number of legal avenues that can be pursued against individual European governments and their agencies, and individual private companies that maintain the regime of illegality. Additionally Israeli perpetrators of war crimes are susceptible to universal jurisdiction and are liable to be arrested should they travel to Europe.

So far the exercise of this power has not been overwhelmingly embraced by European states; instead it has been left to the endeavours of committed individuals on behalf of the victims and their families in the Palestinian Territories.

The author, a QC, was one of the eight member international jury panel of the RTP. See their full report at www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com

[tx_ned]

Tony Halpin, Moscow
March 15, 2010

A spoof television report that President Mikheil Saakashvili had been assassinated in a new Russian invasion of Georgia led to mass panic and furious opposition protests yesterday.

The 30-minute programme claimed that Russian forces were advancing on the capital Tbilisi and had bombed its airport, and that opposition leaders had sided with the Kremlin.

The primetime broadcast on the private Imedi TV channel carried only a brief notice that it was a “simulation” of possible events following Georgia’s war with Russia in 2008.

The emergency services were deluged with callers who believed the broadcast was genuine. Some viewers reportedly suffered heart attacks as they watched footage of Russian tanks entering Georgia and people began to flee the northern city of Gori, which was occupied during the last war.


The station broadcast fake clips of President Medvedev telling security chiefs to “neutralise” Mr Saakashvili and of President Obama urging Russia to halt military action.

It said that Nino Burjanadze and Zurab Nogaideli, two opposition leaders who have met Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, in Moscow recently, had backed Russia and encouraged Georgian troops to mutiny.

Mrs Burjanadze, a former ally of Mr Saakashvili who has turned against him, accused the Government of inspiring the programme to smear the opposition. Imedi is run by a former minister and close ally of the pro-Western President.

“This Government’s treatment of its own people is outrageous. I am sure that every second of this programme was agreed with Saakashvili,” she said.

“Every word about me was malicious slander and I will sue both Imedi television and the authorities.”

Eka Tkeshelashvili, the head of Georgia’s National Security Council, denied that the Government had had advance knowledge of the broadcast, saying: “This programme was an extremely unpleasant surprise to the authorities.”

Mr Saakashvili appeared to defend its contents, however, telling Georgian television: “It was indeed a very unpleasant programme but the most important thing is that it is extremely close to what can happen and to what Georgia’s enemy has conceived.”

In remarks aimed at Mrs Burjanadze, he added: “Those who are shaking hands with people who have Georgian blood on their hands will never be respected.”

The channel apologised after Saturday’s broadcast, saying that it should have been clearer that the events were not real. But it defended the programme as a means of “obstructing Russia’s aggressive plans” towards Georgia.

Russian tanks came within 20 miles (32km) of Tbilisi and troops occupied large swaths of Georgia during the war over South Ossetia.

Mr Medvedev has stationed thousands of combat troops in South Ossetia and nearby Abkhazia, which he has recognised as independent states but which legally are still part of Georgia.

Russia’s ambassador to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, accused Mr Saakashvili of spreading “lies and shocking provocations” through the programme. “This is a sick and dangerous man and his actions are criminal,” he added.

[tx_ned]

Anjana Ahuja
March 18, 2010

Children used to dread nuclear war but we could now be terrorising them with too much talk of global warming

I spent my childhood bedtimes waiting for war. As the fading evening light turned the roses on my pink curtains into sinister faces, I would wonder why my father had not dug us an underground bunker in the garden. Because one day, I reasoned, someone was going to push the red button, and a mushroom cloud would billow over the horizon and suffocate us in its deadly, iconic grip; and thanks to my stupidly optimistic parents we’d be the only unbunkered family on the street.

Children of the Seventies were defined by a dread of being nuked. It permeated our collective subconscious through television, books and newspapers. Our morbid fears were stoked by When the Wind Blows, the bleak Raymond Briggs tale about a couple who retreat into a shelter after a nuclear attack, and Protect and Survive, a public information leaflet that would have been distributed if nuclear war was a serious possibility, complete with instructions on how to build a fall-out shelter.

So pervasive was the fear that in 1978 the American Psychiatric Association set up a task force to study it. Researchers found that 44 per cent of schoolchildren lived in permanent fear of nuclear war; one 11-year-old girl said that her biggest worry was not having the time to commit suicide if it came to pass.

Today, it is not the mushroom cloud that threatens to suffocate children psychologically but carbon emissions. The new bogeyman is climate change: submerger of nations, polluter of skies, slayer of polar bears.

This week the Advertising Standards Authority issued a ruling on the Government’s £6 million climate-awareness advertising campaign, which has attracted nearly 1,000 complaints. While most focused on whether the evidence for climate change was strong enough, a notable proportion thought that the ads were unnecessarily frightening and distressing.

The television advert, which escaped ASA censure, features a father and daughter reading a bedtime book about what happens as the world warms; and includes pictures of a cartoon dog drowning. There can be no doubt that children are feeling the fear: last year Habitat Heroes, an Australian social-networking site for environmentally aware children, commissioned a telephone poll of 500 children aged between 6 and 11, which found that one in three thought the planet would not be around when they reached adulthood.

“More and more parents are telling me that they are worried about how their children are dealing with the climate issue,” says Dr Angharad Rudkin, a clinical child psychologist based in Hampshire. “The difference between today’s generation and previous ones is that there’s too much information. Our generation [Rudkin is 35] watched Newsround and possibly News at Ten if we were up late enough, and that was it. But today, we have rolling news and government advertising to convey socially responsible messages.

“A lot of children just can’t deal with that level of information, and it creates anxiety. I also wonder whether today’s kids are being asked to shoulder a lot of responsibility. It’s seen as a good thing to make children green as early as possible, because it is their generation that will make the difference. But I wonder if that hasn’t become a burden on them,” says Dr Rudkin.

Children aged 7 or 8, who are beginning to appreciate that there is a world beyond their own lives, can become particularly concerned; at this age, it is common to fear natural disasters. But, Dr Rudkin says, parents shouldn’t fret too much: if it were not climate change, children would find other issues to fixate on: “My personal opinion is that we all need something to worry about.”

Teaching children about man-made climate change — which is very real and threatens our wellbeing — and persuading them to adopt green habits is essential, but it can be done without scaring them witless. Dr Rudkin advises that children should not be allowed to watch television beyond the watershed, and that parents should not leave children alone while they are using computers.

The Australian Psychological Society provides useful tips on how information should be couched to raise awareness but not alarm (psychology.org.au). It points out that “young children tend to think that the world revolves around them (e.g., ‘Will a cyclone come and destroy our house too?’). Small details can quickly turn into large generalisations (e.g., ‘If the planet is getting hotter, will we all get burnt?’).”

For primary-school children, it advises: “One result of trying to teach children too early about abstract concepts, like rainforest destruction, ozone holes and whale hunting, can be dissociation. When we ask children to deal with problems beyond their cognitive abilities, they can become anxious, and tune out of the issues.”

Raphael Rossiter,10, North London

If I was to rate my worry on a scale of one to ten, I’d put myself at six or seven. A politician came to my school and told us how climate change threatened countries with floods. He said the North Pole will melt. I just gasped. I hadn’t thought about it until then. The politician also said we should have less meat and fish on our school menu, because that was more sustainable.

When I think about climate change, I imagine floods and no blue sky. My friend told me that if floods came in the winter, it could create an ice age and you’d have to be as high as a church to be safe. Mum always has BBC News on in the car, and there’s always scientists talking about some update on climate science. I think there’s a 50-50 chance we’ll be OK in the future. People are starting to do something. My family uses as little electricity as possible and recycles everything.

Abigail Burden, 8, Middlesex

I think it’s all to do with the Sun getting warmer and all the ice melting. It doesn’t worry me and I don’t usually talk about it with my friends. The teachers don’t really mention it. Nothing scares me. But I do think about the polar bears. They are dying out because they don’t have enough food and that makes me sad.

I walk to school every day and turn the tap off when I brush my teeth. I turn the lights off when I leave a room and I recycle. I try not to waste anything.

Parker Liautaud, 15, London

The Eton College student will spend his Easter holiday skiing 70 miles (110km) from the Barneo Ice Station, in the Arctic, to the North Pole, to raise awareness of climate change.

Climate change is a big part of my life. I think about it all the time, as much as I think about GCSEs, which are less than two months away. I started getting really concerned last March when I went on an expedition to Antarctica. We saw dead penguins because there was not enough food, and collapsing icebergs. We went to a summer feeding frenzy for humpback whales; instead of dozens, we only saw a few.

I do wonder what the world will be like in 50 years’ time. A lot of people are sceptical but I’m optimistic at the positive steps people are taking. We have to keep going down the right path, because if governments lose interest there could be a serious problem. The effects of climate change will be mostly felt by my generation, and we need to be informed and interested in it.

Finn Dawson, 9, Stirlingshire

My mum told me that the sea level is rising and I know that loads of oxygen is being wasted. I used to watch the TV programme Axemen and think it was cool how the trees fell down but now I don’t think it’s good. The other thing about cutting down trees is that loads of animals are losing their homes. But I’m not too worried, it’ll be OK if everyone does their bit. At school, we pick up litter and save water and energy. I tell my parents to turn off taps and switch off lights. And we should stop going on so many trips with planes.

Angus Carnie, 14, Wiltshire

We talked about global warming in geography, mainly about what people can do to stop it and how we are running out of natural resources like oil and stuff. I haven’t really thought about how it might affect me. I’m more worried about the polar bears than what is going to happen here. They won’t have anywhere to live if the ice melts. I suppose it is happening here too, but it isn’t that obvious as you can’t see it in the same way. I think it will affect us all in the end because most people are not really helping a lot.

Iona Haig, 15, Edinburgh

Throughout my school life we have had talks on climate change, and what we can do to prevent it. People my age are terrified of what might happen to our planet; it has been drilled into our brains at school, home and even on TV. We watch the news and see earthquakes, flooding, tsunamis, and we hope that by the time we are our parents’ ages we will not be having to cope with these routinely. It is fair to say that adults “terrorise” us into recycling and switching off lights, but we care too. It’s got to the stage that every time I throw away a piece of paper, I frantically search for a recycling bin.”

Interviews by Melanie Reid, Simon de Bruxelles and Anjana Ahuja

[tx_ned]

Anthony Loyd in Peshawar
March 20, 2010

They have been attacked from the air by American drones and on the ground by the Pakistan Army. Hundreds have been killed or injured on the battlefields of Afghanistan — but the foreign fighters, or “global terrorists” of the North West Frontier Province, remain a formidable presence.

First-hand accounts from locals in the lawless areas of Pakistan close to the Afghan border, combined with those of Pakistani officers in the region, suggest that there is no shortage of Islamic foreigners willing to join the fray. Britain claims that these fighters are still the source of 75 per cent of terror plots against it.

Among this disparate group are al-Qaeda’s Arab fighters, with a reputation for being well heeled and well mannered; Uzbeks from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), regarded as tough, rough and poor; and the Punjabis of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), viewed by their hosts as arrogant but militarily competent.

One Pakistani brigadier told The Times last week that his men had encountered more than 1,500 Uzbek militants during operations last autumn in South Waziristan. Another brigade commander said that 10 per cent of the 300 militants that his men had recently killed in Waziristan were foreign, including Arabs.

A Pakistani general spoke of a “huge concentration” of militants from Central Asia along the tribal belt. A doctor from Miram Shah, in North Waziristan, where he is the director of a 20-bed private clinic, said: “There’s a lot more [foreign fighters] there now than a year ago. They have moved into Miram Shah since leaving South Waziristan last autumn.

“I’ve treated about 70 wounded foreign fighters and 300 local militants over the past five years,” he continued, adding that numbers peaked a year ago,when he was seeing between two and three a week.

“Some have been wounded by drones in Miram Shah, others by bullets and shrapnel inside Afghanistan.”

The fighters from the IMU and its splinter group, the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU), moved to Pakistan’s tribal belt after being driven out of Afghanistan with the Taleban in 2001. They brought with them thousands of family dependants.

The skill of their nurses has become something of a legend in insurgent lore. More significantly, they are viewed as a growing threat by countries such as Germany, where they have succeeded in penetrating the Turkish expatriate community, as well as recruiting German Muslim converts.

However, the Uzbeks have had a dysfunctional relationship with the local tribes. There have been upsurges of fighting between the two groups three times in the past six years.

Considered poor — one young IJU recruit recently admitted to being paid $20 (£13) a month, with a stipend of $7 per child — they are not the tenants of choice. Furthermore, their cultural norms are far removed from those of the Pashtuns. But when it comes to action their tenacity is acknowledged.

“They normally fight to the end, they don’t surrender,” said Major-General Tariq Khan, whose Frontier Corps troops are frequent adversaries of the Uzbeks.

The al-Qaeda Arabs, likened by General Khan to a “pinch of salt in a bag of flour”, are less likely to get involved in frontline action, although they fall prey to drone strikes with the greatest frequency.

The Arabs, regarded by locals as good, quiet tenants, paying up to 20,000 rupees (£160) in rent per month, now reportedly move around chaperoned by another key group of international terrorists: the Punjabi Taleban fighters belonging to Kashmiri militant groups such as LeT, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harakat-ul-Mujahidin.

“The Punjabis are very experienced in IEDs,” a tribal member said. “They and the other Kashmiri groups are like a regular army.

“The Arabs stay with them in the homes we have left behind. They trust them more than the local Taleban.”

However, not everyone is happy with their presence. “It’s because of them that the army has come to our land and destroyed our homes,” one local tribesman said. “Because of them our businesses are wrecked. Because of them we live as internal refugees.


“I’ve met ordinary people who say that they’d even welcome Israel or India if they helped us get rid of these Arabs and their friends.” Angus McFarlane wrote.

[tx_ned]

Sean O’Neill, Adam Fresco, Russell Jenkins
March 22, 2010

Apart from the severe haircut given to Sahil Saeed by his kidnappers, there are few remaining outward signs of the little boy’s ordeal in Pakistan. The camera crews have gone from outside his family’s terraced house in Shaw, Oldham. Inside, Sahil, five, is said to have been playing with his sisters as if nothing had happened.

But for Britain’s large Pakistani community, the Punjab kidnapping — despite its happy ending — will have huge repercussions.

More than 400,000 people travel to Pakistan every year — to visit relatives, attend weddings and see their ancestral villages. Many are now coming to the realisation that the country they regard as their homeland has become unsafe to visit.

It is not only the random and violent threat of terrorism that is frightening, but the increasing possibility that they and their children will be identified as targets for kidnapping gangs.

The Times has learnt that, of 25 international kidnappings of Britons reported to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) last year, 19 occurred in Pakistan. The figure is almost double that of 2008, when ten abductions were notified to Soca.

“The victims are British nationals or Britons with dual nationality who are, more often than not, going back to their roots,” said a source.

“They are unfamiliar with their surroundings, they might never have been there before, or perhaps not for 20 years. But they are perceived, because they come from the UK, as having money.”

Criminal kidnappings — those conducted for money rather than political motives — are reported to be on the rise globally, with Pakistan just one of the countries where incidents have become more frequent. Lloyd’s insurance market says that the kidnap situation worldwide “could be set to deteriorate as the global recession continues to bite”.

Control Risks, the security specialist, has identified a shift in activity, from Latin America to Asia. In 2003, 65 per cent of reported kidnaps were in Latin America. By 2009 that had fallen to 37 per cent with Asian kidnappings making up 36 per cent (compared with 19 per cent six years before).

The perception of wealth that lies behind the British-Pakistani kidnap phenomenon is usually mistaken. Few of the victims’ families are well-off and, when ransoms are raised, they have to depend on help from their local community.

The kidnaps rarely make headlines. Before Sahil’s case, the victims in this new crime trend had almost all been adults. Many abductions were resolved quickly in Pakistan before the authorities were informed.

Investigators make no criticism of families for such actions because they share the belief that the safe release of the hostage is the priority. They also know that kidnapping gangs regard their hostage as a commodity and that there are frequent cases of the victim being sold on if demands are not dealt with quickly.

British police and agencies such as Soca become involved in overseas investigations only when there is a demand from the kidnappers for the ransom to be paid here. When Sahil’s kidnappers made their demand for £110,000 and instructed his businessman father, Raja Saeed, 28, to return to Britain to get the money, it created an opportunity to solve the case.

Pakistani officials created a false trail to deceive the kidnap gang — dropping hints to the media that the boy’s family might be implicated in the plot. In reality, Mr Saeed returned to Manchester Airport to be met by Soca operatives and Greater Manchester Police officers, with whom he would co-operate to crack the case.

While the British Government has a policy of not meeting ransom demands in political kidnappings, police view the kidnappers’ greed as their biggest weakness.

The police do not give families money to be paid to kidnappers, but they do not discourage them from raising it and will “facilitate” the handover negotiations.

In Sahil’s case that meant French undercover police discreetly tailing Tauseer Ahmad, the boy’s uncle, for two days as he walked the streets of Paris with a trolley suitcase packed with used notes awaiting instructions from the gang.

The kidnappers were also watching, telling Ahmad to keep moving from park to hotel to fast-food outlet as they checked to see that he wasn’t accompanied by police. Eventually he was told to leave the bag on a park bench. The police then watched as a man and a woman picked it up. They would wait until it was confirmed that Sahil was free before moving in. By then, the ransom had been driven across the border and Spanish police had taken over surveillance.

The arrests were made in Constanti, near the holiday resort of Salou in northeastern Spain, an area with a growing Pakistani population.

“Quite a lot of ransoms are paid,” said a source, “but it is very, very rare that we lose the money. The biggest risk the criminals take is when they collect the money, and we aim to exploit that risk.”

In one recent British-Pakistani kidnap, where a sizeable ransom demand was made, the operation ended with an armed raid by Soca and police on a Holiday Inn close to the M1, where the criminals were toasting their success with champagne.

Specialist insurers and security firms say Pakistan is not alone in having a mounting kidnapping problem.

“Not only has the number of countries harbouring serial kidnap groups expanded, but so has the range of victim profiles and demands,” says Control Risks’ RiskMap 2009.

Richard Scurrell, divisional director of Special Contingency Risks, which specialises in kidnap insurance, says: “Countries that did not previously have an endemic kidnap problem are developing one.

“We are seeing a growing problem in countries where five or six years ago there wasn’t a problem, such as Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

Soca reports an increase in the kidnapping of expatriate visitors to Bangladesh as well as Pakistan. The agency has also issued an official warning about a surge in kidnaps in South Africa, where people have been lured by the promise of investment opportunities only to be abducted and held for ransom.

Its anti-kidnap Unit reported another new trend in January, when a Briton was lured to Nigeria after establishing a romantic online relationship, only to be held hostage for four days until a ransom was paid.

According to Lloyd’s, kidnapping is on the rise “where political instability, social deprivation and weak or corrupt law enforcement offer fertile conditions for the crime to flourish”.

As Pakistan’s political and security problems persist, the kidnapping threat there is likely to continue to rise.

One sign of hope, detected by British sources, is the willingness of Pakistani police to co-operate with international inquiries.

The Sahil Saeed investigation has now moved into the “intelligence phase” — the forensic examination of telephones, computers and other material seized from those arrested.

Sahil’s ordeal may be over, but the investigation continues and those leading it believe that the rigorous pursuit of kidnappers is the key deterrent to a crime that is threatening to become a global epidemic.

[tx_ned]

Philippe Naughton,
Catherine Philp and James Hider,
Jerusalem
March 23, 2010

Britain has expelled Mossad’s chief representative in London after a criminal investigation blamed the Israeli spy agency for the cloning of British passports used in the assassination of a senior Hamas operative in Dubai.

The diplomat's expulsion was announced in a statement to Parliament by David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, who said that Israel's "intolerable" misuse of British passports had shown a "profound disregard" for the UK's sovereignty.

"The fact that this was done by a country which is a friend, with significant diplomatic, cultural, business and personal ties to the UK, only adds insult to injury," Mr Miliband said.

"No country or government could stand by in such a situation," he added. "I have asked that a member of the Embassy of Israel be withdrawn from the UK as a result of this affair and this is taking place."

The 12 passports were among at least 26 forged European and Australian identity documents used by the members of an Israeli hit squad which murdered the Hamas armourer Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel on January 19.

Mr Miliband said that an investigation carried out by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca), which sent officers both to Dubai and Israel, had shown that the owners of the passports had been the unwitting and innocent victims of official identity fraud.

"Given that this was a very sophisticated operation, in which high-quality forgeries were made, the Government judges it is highly likely that the forgeries were made by a state intelligence service," he said.

"Taking this together with other inquiries, and the link with Israel established by Soca, we have concluded that there are compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible for the misuse of the British passports.

"The Government takes this matter extremely seriously. Such misuse of British passports is intolerable... I have asked that a member of the embassy of Israel be withdrawn, and this is taking place."

Mr Miliband did not identify the expelled diplomat nor identify them as an intelligence officer, but sources told The Times that it the senior Mossad representative at the Israeli Embassy had been told to leave.

Israel said it regretted the British move. “The relationship between Israel and Britain is mutually important. We therefore regret the British decision,” said Yigal Palmor, the spokesman for the Foreign Ministry.

While the government was measured in its response to the new diplomatic crisis erupting with the UK, MPs from the far right were quick to denounce the British as “dogs” who were not to be trusted.

"I think the British are behaving hypocritically and I don't want to offend dogs on this issue, since some dogs are utterly loyal," MK Aryeh Eldad, of the National Union, an ultra-nationalist pro-settler party, told Sky News. "Who are they to judge us on the war on terror?"

Mr Eldad called for a tit-for-tat expulsion of a senior British diplomat, but Israeli officials said such a move was out of the question.

Another National Union MP, Michael Ben-Ari, added, "The British may be dogs, but they are not loyal to us, but rather to an anti-Semitic system, and Israeli diplomacy partially plays into their hands. This is anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism".

Other, more centrist MPs said however that Israel’s policy of refusing to respond to such accusations had served it well and allowed it to weather the diplomatic storm that erupted when Dubai police accused Mossad of killing the Hamas leader.

"I believe keeping silent was a good policy at the height of the Dubai crisis, and certainly it is now, when it is nearly behind us," said Tzahi Hanegbi, a member of the opposition Kadima Party who chairs the parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee.

Mr Al-Mabhouh, a founding member of the militant group, was murdered in a Dubai hotel room on January 19. Results of a toxicology report show that he was injected with a fast-acting sedative before being suffocated.

His killers fled the country within hours, some flying to Hong Kong, South Africa and the United States. They are all now believed to be back in Israel.

The Mossad hit squad also used forged German, French and Australian passports, prompting a major diplomatic row with the European Union. Mr Miliband said that he had spoken in the past 24 hours with the foreign ministers of those other countries.

Today's expulsion comes as Israel tries to control a slump in relations with the United States prompted by Israel's decision to announce the construction of 1,600 new homes in Arab east Jerusalem during a visit earlier this month by Joe Biden, the US Vice-President.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, was to meet President Obama in the White House today, but has already made clear that the settlements would go ahead.

Mr Miliband told MPs that he had demanded, and received, an assurance from Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli Foreign Minister, that Israel would never again be party to a similar abuse.

As the Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, noted in his reply, however, the then Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, gave Geoffrey Howe a similar assurance in 1987 after a similar row over forged UK passports. "It would seem that thoese assurances have not been upheld," he said.

Mr Miliband said 11 of the 12 British victims had now been given biometric passports which would be harder to counterfeit. He also said the Foreign Office’s travel advice for Israel would be amended to highlight the risk of papers being cloned, and how it can be minimised.

[tx_ned]

March 25, 2010
Tony Halpin, Moscow
and
Michael Evans, Pentagon Correspondent


The US and Russia are on the verge of clinching a key nuclear arms treaty after President Obama signalled that his Administration was refocusing on foreign policy in the aftermath of the bruising healthcare battle.

A Kremlin official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said last night that the two sides had agreed on “all documents” for a new deal to slash their nuclear arsenals, replacing the landmark 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start). The Czech Republic also announced that a date had been set for Mr Obama and President Medvedev to meet in Prague and sign the treaty, raising hopes of an accord at Easter.

American officials were more cautious, declaring that the deal was “close, but not finished”. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Mr Obama and Mr Medvedev still had to have a conversation to wrap up the wording of the treaty. “But we’re very close to an agreement,” he said, adding: “I would anticipate that when we have something to sign it will be in Prague.”

Mr Obama spent an hour in the White House yesterday briefing Senator John Kerry, the Democrat chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Richard Lugar, the committee’s ranking Republican. Both would play major roles in American ratification of the treaty.

A new Start treaty would be a triumph for American diplomacy and for Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, who visited Moscow last week for talks about the Middle East and a new strategic arms agreement.

Two senior US officials said there were still technical issues to resolve in an annexe to the main treaty but predicted that there would be no hurdles to completing the entire deal within days. Mikhail Margelov, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the upper house of Russia’s parliament, said that “a political compromise” had been reached on a link in the treaty between missile defence and the reductions in nuclear warheads. The US has been pushing hard for agreement before the President hosts a nuclear summit in Washington on April 12.

The choice of Prague is symbolic as it was the venue for Mr Obama’s speech last year in which he outlined his ambition for “a world without nuclear weapons”. The new 20-page treaty would be a step towards that goal, committing both sides to cutting stockpiles of warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675 each within seven years and reducing the number of long-range missiles to a maximum of 1,100. The US has 2,200 operational warheads at present and Russia 2,790.

This week has brought mixed fortunes for Mr Obama. His controversial healthcare reform passed after a bitter battle, but relations with Israel are at a low over the issue of settlements, and a visit by the Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, resulted in frosty talks. A replacement to Start would be Mr Obama’s first significant foreign policy achievement and a major shot in the arm to his presidency.It would also boost American efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions — a subject on which Moscow seems to be closer to backing the US.

[tx_ned]

Michael Evans,
Pentagon Correspondent
March 27, 2010


It took no more than 15 minutes yesterday for President Obama and President Medvedev to agree on the final wording of a treaty that will lead to significant cuts in American and Russian strategic nuclear warheads.

The hard work had already been carried out by US and Russian negotiators in Geneva, but the two leaders spoke to each other on the telephone briefly to seal the agreement that will cut nuclear arsenals on each side to 1,550 warheads — down from 2,200 — and reduce stockpiles of missiles and launch systems.

Within minutes of Mr Obama making an announcement at the White House, Moscow claimed that the treaty would establish a legally binding link between strategic weapons and missile defence systems, hinting that it might impose restrictions on America’s anti-missile programme, which the Russians oppose.

However, Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, who attended the announcement ceremony at the White House yesterday, insisted that the treaty would not prevent the US from “improving and deploying” missile defence systems in Europe and elsewhere.

The deal, to be signed by Mr Obama and Mr Medvedev in Prague on April 8, marks the American President’s most significant foreign policy achievement since taking office.

Hillary Clinton, who was present at the ceremony, said that it would also send a message to Iran and North Korea, both locked in nuclear stand-offs with the West, that the US and Russia were committed to preventing proliferation. The Secretary of State said that the treaty, which has to be ratified by Congress and the Russian Duma, will be subject to a rigorous verification regime. She recalled the phrase often used by Ronald Reagan in his talks on the issue with President Gorbachev: “Trust — but verify.”

Mr Obama described the cutback not only as a sign of his long-term dream of a world without nuclear weapons but also as a reflection of the “reset” relationship between Washington and Moscow. “When the United States and Russia can co-operate effectively it advances the mutual interests of our two nations and the security and prosperity of the wider world,” he said.

Mr Gates emphasised that nuclear weapons remained a pillar of America’s defence posture “both to deter potential adversaries and to reassure more than two dozen allies and partners who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their security”.

However, he added: “It is clear we can accomplish these goals with fewer nuclear weapons.”

[tx_ned]

Bojan Pancevski in Skopje
March 28, 2010

SAUDI ARABIA is pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into Islamist groups in the Balkans, some of which spread hatred of the West and recruit fighters for jihad in Afghanistan.

According to officials in Macedonia, Islamic fundamentalism threatens to destabilise the Balkans. Strict Wahhabi and Salafi factions funded by Saudi organisations are clashing with traditionally moderate local Muslim communities.

Fundamentalists have financed the construction of scores of mosques and community centres as well as handing some followers up to £225 a month. They are expected not only to grow beards but also to persuade their wives to wear the niqab, or face veil, a custom virtually unknown in the liberal Islamic tradition of the Balkans.

Government sources in traditionally secular Macedonia (official title the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), said they were monitoring up to 50 Al-Qaeda volunteers recruited to fight in Afghanistan.

Classified documents seen by The Sunday Times reveal that Macedonian officials are also investigating a number of Islamic charities, some in Saudi Arabia, which are active throughout the Balkans and are suspected of spreading extremism and laundering money for terrorist organisations.

One of the groups under scrutiny is the International Islamic Relief Organisation from Saudi Arabia, which is on a United Nations blacklist of organisations backing terrorism. It did not respond to inquiries, but has previously denied involvement in terrorist activities, calling such claims “totally unfounded”.

According to its website, it works in 32 countries to provide relief to the victims of natural disasters and to carry out humanitarian, health and educational projects.

“Hundreds of millions have been poured into Macedonia alone in the past decade and most of it comes from Saudi Arabia,” said a government source. “The Saudis’ main export seems to be ideology, not oil.”

Sulejman Rexhepi, leader of the Islamic community in Macedonia, said a number of mosques had been forcibly taken over by radical groups. Four in central Skopje are no longer under the control of the official Islamic authorities. New imams claim they have been “spontaneously” installed by the “people”.

“Their so-called Wahhabi teachings are completely alien to our traditions and to the essence of Islam, which is a tolerant and inclusive religion,” said Rexhepi.

In some mosques believers are being told that Macedonia, which sent 200 soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan, has been tricked into supporting a crusade against Islam spearheaded by Britain and America. Radical clerics have shown footage from Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian territories to illustrate their claims that the West is waging war on Islam.

Rahman, a 35-year-old cab driver from Skopje, Macedonia’s capital, said he had stopped going to his local mosque since it was taken over by extremists. “Following the Haiti earthquake the new imam said God would punish the West for their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with natural disasters,” he said.

Bekir Halimi, an imam trained in Syria, runs Bamiresia, an Islamic charity that has been investigated for alleged terrorist links and money laundering. Police raided its offices but failed to find any evidence of terrorist links.

“We are fully entitled to receive funding from both governmental and non-governmental organisations from Saudi Arabia,” said Halimi, who refuses to name the sources of his funding but rejects any suggestion of criminal activity.

Macedonia’s law enforcement agencies warn that the European Union and America have failed to recognise the growing problem of Islamic extremism in the Balkans.

Baroness Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief, has declared stability in the region to be her top priority, but local politicians complain that the EU and Nato are reducing their presence in troublespots such as Bosnia and Kosovo.

Last month, Bosnian security forces raided a village strongly influenced by Salafi extremists and found a weapons cache.

In raids elsewhere rifles, bombs and rocket-propelled grenades have been uncovered.

The West has put considerable political and financial efforts into helping build democracy in Bosnia following its civil war in the 1990s. Saudi organisations have also asserted considerable influence, giving more than £450m to build more than 150 mosques and Islamic centres.

In Macedonia, Fatmir, a former disc jockey, explained how he became an adherent of Salafism. The father of two has grown a beard and instructed his wife to wear a niqab. He now makes his living by selling Islamist literature. “Ours is the Islam of the 21st century,” he said.