More than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners are to be released in exchange for one serviceman Fresh lilies are regularly laid at a monument by the Tel Aviv Dolphinarium bearing witness to an evening in 2001 when 21 Israeli teenagers were killed while queuing outside a nightclub. Another 132 were injured in the attack by Saeed Hotari, a young Palestinian suicide bomber affiliated with Hamas. But last week flowers arrived more in protest than in sorrow. Husam Badran, the former head of Hamas’s military wing in the West Bank and instigator of the Dolphinarium attack, is expected to be among 477 Palestinian prisoners released on Tuesday in a deal to free Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. A further 550 will be freed within two months. “It’s surreal. It’s beyond belief,” said one young mother angrily as she looked at the monument. “I may be the only one against it, but no good deal sees the release of 1,000 killers. People say Netanyahu showed courage in agreeing to set them free, but I say he has given in to terrorism.” Over the past five years, the parents of captive soldier Gilad Shalit have won the Israeli public with their tireless campaign to free their son, demanding the Israeli government do whatever it takes to rescue him from his captors in the Gaza Strip. Israel celebrated last week when they finally succeeded. But the nation’s joy is tempered with grave misgivings. To Palestinians, the 1,027 prisoners exchanged for Shalit are freedom fighters. To Israelis, they are terrorists responsible for some of the country’s bloodiest atrocities. Israel wants Shalit free but is struggling to stomach the cost of his freedom. Gustav Specht, 47, who runs a restaurant close to the Dolphinarium on Tel Aviv Beach, shares the broad public reaction as described in the Israeli media: “I think it’s the least bad result. Everyone I know is happy Gilad will be free.” But his colleague Alon Reuvney, 28, thinks differently. His friend lost his father in a suicide attack in Jerusalem several years ago: “He heard about the release of his father’s killer on the news. No one thought to tell his family. He is very angry.” The official list of prisoners agreed for release has not been published, but several leaked versions have appeared on Arabic news websites. Israelis recognised some of the region’s most notorious terrorists. There was Muhammad Duglas, implicated in a suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizza restaurant in Jerusalem in which 15 people were killed. Abdel Hadi Ghanem of Islamic Jihad, responsible for the 1989 attack on a public bus in which 16 Israelis died. And hundreds more like them. Others were convicted of lesser offences. Few doubt that securing Shalit’s return has boosted prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s popularity but Jerusalem Post columnist Jonathan Spyer warns he has taken a gamble for public affection. “Within six months time, we will see terrorist attacks linked to these men who are being released. And at that point Bibi [Netanyahu] will pay a very serious price,” Spyer said. “In all of this, the Shalit family and Hamas are the winners; the Israeli public will be the loser.” Israeli terror expert Boaz Ganor agrees the release of these political prisoners has provided Hamas with legitimacy but predicts they will not pose an immediate threat to Israeli security. Hamas, listed by the US and the UK as a terror organisation, has proved itself a pragmatic negotiating partner. By insisting on the release of prisoners from all factions, it has regained popular support across Gaza and the West Bank, undermining the Palestinian Authority midway through its UN bid for statehood. It would not serve Hamas’s interests, Ganor says, to let the situation deteriorate by allowing released prisoners to wage a campaign of terror. “But I’m not ruling out further kidnappings. This has proved so strategically effective in the past, I believe they [Hamas] would try to kidnap more Israeli soldiers and civilians to gather more power in their hands.” Boaz also said it was the prisoner swap negotiated in 1985 by Shimon Peres — 1,150 Palestinian prisoners for three Israeli soldiers captured in the Lebanon war — that ignited the first intifada. Despite a history of militants freed in swaps killing again, Israel has always negotiated to free its soldiers. Nimrod Kahn, 33, who runs a cookery school in Tel Aviv, says, however unpalatable the deal, Israelis expect their state to make this compromise. It is a guarantee for every high-school graduate expected to devote three years to military service. “I don’t object to the releasing of these prisoners in principle; they would be released in a peace deal sooner or later. I object to this deal because it opens the gate for blackmail,” Kahn said. “But it’s expected our state will take responsibility for its soldiers. In Israel, the soldier is the holy cow – it cannot be slaughtered under any circumstances.” Israel Hamas Binyamin Netanyahu Middle East Phoebe Greenwood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Gaddafi loyalists hold out in last desperate resistance at Sirte, as families flee
October 15, 2011 No Comment
The war in Libya is almost over, but for ordinary people in Sirte’s District 2 the misery gets deeper When war came to the Libyan coastal city of Sirte, Muammar Gaddafi’s birthplace, Fajla Sidi Bey made the sort of choice that poor people have to make in a conflict. Fajla, a Malian driver who worked at the Ibn Sana hospital when the besieging government forces announced their intention to take Sirte in September, was owed 3,736 Libyan dinars, a small fortune. So while others fled he stayed in the city with his five children, aged between four months and nine years old, and his wife and a cousin. His home was in District 2, at the heart of the last remaining pocket of pro-Gaddafi loyalist fighters, still being pounded yesterday by artillery and anti-aircraft guns. Until Friday that is, when Fajla and his family slipped out. I found them sitting by a wall near the field hospital outside the city, uncertain what to do or where to go. “I left the hospital on 15 September, the day the fighting started,” he explained. “I haven’t been back since. I came to Libya 13 years ago to earn money. For 10 of those, I worked as a tailor. For the last three years, I worked in the hospital.” He showed his pass from Ibn Sana. It described him as a driver and a tailor. “The only time I went out of my house was to search for food for my children. I had a car from the hospital. After a while, they would not let me get food from the shops. All the shops were closed. They said: ‘Bring your family to the security building.’ Outside was a place where you could buy food. “We were in my house with another Malian family of three and hid in the basement. Most days I slept and hid in my house. I did not know what was happening outside. ‘We were lucky. Nothing happened to our house. All the other houses around ours were hit by shells and missiles. Most of the houses were empty. They fired during the day, but not after seven at night. Then it was quieter. “There was water, but we had no electricity. I was not frightened for myself but for my children and my family. Every day we talked about escaping. My life was in the hands of God. “Then three days ago the other family went and did not return. So on Friday, before seven in the morning, I went out of the house and walked 100 metres. No one fired at me, so I went back for the family and we walked out with the clothes that we were wearing. Then some government fighters picked us up and took us here. “I would have left Libya in February,” he added sadly. “But I needed the money.” Details of conditions for civilians and pro-Gaddafi troops in the last pocket held by Gaddafi fighters in Sirte’s District 2, a coastal strip no wider than 700
Continue reading …Joe Klein is one of those writers who drive me a little bit crazy because he either writes something I’m about to applaud until he gets to a false equivalency to offset the good thing he just wrote, or else he just completely misses the mark. This week is missing the mark week. It seems Joe took a road trip, and on that road trip he came to the conclusion that the majority of Americans are moderates who, more than anything, want compromise. As evidence, he cites the following : Lest you think these views were merely pruned and harvested me, there is a new TIME Magazine poll that vehemently reinforces the opinions of the Normal Majority: 89% of Americans want politicians to compromise on the major issues like the federal deficit; more than 70% believe the rich should pay higher taxes; 60% believe the media and politicians aren’t discussing the most important issues . There are mixed feelings about the effect of the Tea Party on American politics, but only 11% describe themselves as Tea Party supporters. The feelings about the Occupy Wall Street protesters are far more positive; a solid majority agree with the goals of the movement. (Most of my travels took place before OWS went viral; none of the people I interviewed mentioned it.) Let’s unpack those numbers just a bit: 89 percent of Americans want politicians to compromise on the major issues like the deficit. Who was it again who was uncompromising? Democrats compromised; President Obama in particular. Yet for all of that, the debt ceiling debate cost him a ton of political capital, tanking his approval rating to the lowest yet and giving heartburn to those of us who have nightmares about President Romney’s Supreme Court picks. Moving on to his other numbers, now. 70 percent believe the rich should pay higher taxes. That doesn’t really sound like a hunger for compromise to me. It sounds like one group of political actors just thumbed their noses at 70 percent of the American electorate, actually. In an uncompromising way. Finally, 69 percent believe the media and politicians aren’t discussing the important issues. Of course, he fails to tell us what those important issues that they aren’t discussing might be. I would agree that when Fox News spends hour upon hour talking about the faux-Solyndra scandal, it’s not the right thing to be talking about. Similarly, when Joe Klein comes on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show to opine about how the President is such a weak leader, it’s also not the right thing to be talking about. The problem they should be talking about, identifying, and calling for what it is without reservation or hedging is this: We have a group of crazy people who call themselves Republicans but are really just crazy right now. They’re so crazy over to the right that they’re willing to send the country into a tailspin simply because they can. Because they believe they need to destroy it to save it, or some such nonsense. We have religious zealots and tax cut worshipers bowing before the conservative gods and standing firm on their belief that doing nothing is better than doing anything. So yes. The media and politicians are dancing around the room with a lot of fancy phrases and fundraising soundbites, but no one seems willing to call these people what they are: unpatriotic fools. Klein cites even more evidence to refute his theory while claiming it supports it: Also, as expected, the poll reinforced the sense I got that most Americans think the country is on the wrong track (81%) or in decline (71%). Conveniently, Klein fails to mention the reasons most Americans feel that way. Here they are, straight from the Time Magazine topline poll results naming those having a major impact on the perceived decline: Wall Street and Corporate CEOs: 63 percent major impact; 20 percent minor impact The Rise of China: 64 percent major impact; 19 percent minor impact US Businesses investing abroad: 67 percent major impact; 17 percent minor impact People not working as hard as they should because of welfare and unemployment benefits: 60 percent major impact; 18 percent minor impact US Foreign Policy: 61 percent major impact; 21 percent minor impact Decline in the value of the dollar: 84 percent major impact; 8 percent minor impact To prove that Klein is right about the perception that the wrong things are being discussed in the media, we have this fascinating little tidbit: When asked whether spending cuts or stimulus spending is more important right now, there was a near-even split: 49 percent said to cut spending; 44 percent said spend money to stimulate the economy and create jobs; 7 percent didn’t know. However, 73 percent agreed that raising taxes on millionaires was a good thing, and 74 percent believe it wouldn’t hurt the economy at all. It would appear to me that the split on stimulus versus deficit reduction is the direct result of the daily hammering by the cabletalkers about the deficit without similar balance or attention paid to the benefits of stimulus. This is reinforced by the fact that when polled as individual provisions, respondents overwhelmingly approve of the American Jobs Act, but when asked if they approve of President Obama’s plan, the number drops. It’s no secret that Klein, as Villager extraordinaire, has practically endorsed Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee and newest Shiny Thing. His articles for Time , as well as his appearance Thursday on The Last Word (above), are big glossy ads for Romney, which is fine as long as he’s not trying to paint himself as some kind of serious objective journalist. For me it’s not fine, and here’s why. There’s been far too much intellectual dishonesty about how Barack Obama’s presidency has been reported. Instead of pointing at obstreperous Republicans and calling them the roadblocks they are, writers like Klein hem and haw around the edges while giving weight to tea party nonsense as though it’s something anyone should be taking seriously. Even in his article about the road trip, he can’t resist pointing out that a small minority of the country likes or agrees with the tea party, but never does he mention the outsized influence they currently have on our national politics. From Day One, this President has not received thoughtful coverage from any traditional media outlet on a consistent basis. I will not speculate on why that might be, only that it is. Because of that, the public has been woefully misinformed. Woefully. To leave that where it is and pick up the newest shiny object, present it to the public in the form of a glossed-over Mitt Romney is simply continuing the tradition. Somewhere, sometime, it has to stop.
Continue reading …
Government officials admit that just two dedicated specialists have been assigned to new initiative on trafficking Children’s charities have accused the government of failing to fulfil a pledge to devote more resources to tracing thousands of children who go missing in the UK each year. Three months after ministers announced a high-profile initiative led by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop) to help find missing youngsters, officials admit that only two dedicated specialists have been specifically assigned to the scheme. According to government officials, the initiative was intended to ensure a “national lead” was taken in tracking missing children. Home Office minister James Brokenshire said that 230,000 missing children reports were recorded in the UK every year and that it was “crucial we can act quickly”. But children’s charities say the scheme is under-resourced and its strategy unclear, pointing to the fact that there is no evidence of a single child being found as a direct result of its new responsibility. The only specific appeal launched by the agency to date is for Madeleine McCann, who went missing aged three on holiday in Portugal four and a half years ago. Christine Beddoe, director of the anti-trafficking charity Ecpat UK, said: “We’ve still no idea how the scheme pulls together – there is no information being circulated about the brief.” Meanwhile, before the official anti-slavery day this Tuesday, details of a new scheme designed to cut the number of children vanishing from care – particularly victims of trafficking – have been unveiled. A policy document by the Conservatives in 2008 estimated that “over half of trafficked children disappear from social services”. As many children recorded missing later return home or are found, experts believe an estimated 140,000 children go missing in the UK every year. The Ceop-backed Counter Human-Trafficking Bureau (CHTB), yet to be officially unveiled, says its anti-child trafficking plans would improve the protection and identification of vulnerable children in care at risk of going missing. The plans incorporate a national database that would enable social workers to upload, update and share trafficking assessments of vulnerable children throughout the UK. If evidence emerges that traffickers are attempting to target care homes or make contact with children, the authorities are immediately alerted. Philip Ishola, policy adviser for the CHTB, said the scale of the challenge was evident from intelligence work by police revealing that children had phone numbers and maps sewn into their clothing in case they were caught by the authorities. He said: “Nowadays they are even better primed and have been forced to memorise numbers and pick-up points. “For some communities, the incidence of disappearance from local authority care is high. With the Vietnamese trafficking gangs for instance, it’s as high as 90% because they use extreme control techniques: direct extreme violence to victims and threats to their families.” Ishola said that a specialist social work team would undertake independent assessments of suspected victims of human trafficking with the results fed directly to police. Peter Dolby, co-founder of the bureau, was confident the scheme would address the number of children going missing and who are never found. Hundreds of child-trafficking victims who have disappeared from care have yet to be found. “Failure means children being left at the mercy of serious organised criminal gangs and child abusers, a situation that goes against the British value of social justice and children’s rights,” he said. Among events planned this week to mark anti-slavery day, new research will indicate that domestic servitude remains a growing problem in the UK. During the two years before March this year 895 cases of trafficked workers were reported to the authorities. Labour MP and former Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart said: “Unless there is a completely relentless focus on protecting children then they are not going to be protected.” A Ceop spokesman said other recruits for the missing children’s unit would be sought “when they are needed and when the programme gets up to full speed”. Child protection Children Human trafficking Police Mark Townsend guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Support for Dragons’ Den star, who says he is ‘wholly non-party political’, has risen in an increasingly acrimonious campaign If Ireland elects Sean Gallagher as its next president in less than a fortnight’s time it will be akin to the UK replacing the Queen with Duncan Bannatyne as its head of state. Gallagher is instantly recognised across the country because he was one of the famous faces of the Irish version of TV show Dragons’ Den. He joins a leading pack of three presidential contenders that includes former IRA chief of staff Martin McGuinness, who has faced controversial questions relating to his past, in particular having presided over an organisation that killed nearly 2,000 people during the Troubles. Despite constant queries over his leadership of the Provisional IRA, McGuinness has scored between 16 and more than 20% in opinion polls. The Observer has learnt that a Dublin newspaper is to publish extracts of a tape recording McGuinness gave to an American radio reporter in the 1970s in which the then self-confessed second in command of the Derry Provisionals describes civilians caught up in bombs and shootings as “nosey parkers” who should not have got in the way of IRA operations. The Sinn Féin MP will also face challenges from opponents this week to publicly reverse an oath of allegiance he swore to the IRA in the 1970s which refused to recognise the legitimacy of the southern Irish state or its security forces. While McGuinness remains one of the most famous faces in one of the most controversial presidential elections in Irish history, Gallagher has accepted that TV fame as a Dragon has also been part of the reason he has become the dark horse in the race. On Friday morning, Gallagher, who has been enjoying rising support in opinion polls, called on Moneygall in Co Offaly to seek the imprimatur of another famous president – or at least Barack Obama’s distant Irish relations. During a tour of the village Obama traces his Irish roots back to, Gallagher received the backing of the most powerful man on the planet’s cousin several times removed. Henry Healy, who was instrumental in tracking Obama’s family back to Moneygall and bringing him to the village, said he could relate to Gallagher. “He has emphasised building up local communities and reviving business activity in Ireland. If Sean is elected president, he will know what he is doing on trade missions around the world promoting Irish business. Sean is a businessman who understands the pressures people are under in this recession. That is why he is the best man for the job.” Asked if his famous relative in the White House was keeping an on eye on the Irish presidential race, Healy said: “I’ll write and ask him to accept Sean’s invitation for another visit to Ireland. They will make a great double act.” After meeting parents from a local school who had organised a fund-raising “skipathon”, Gallagher told the Observer that his profile as a Dragon “had been very helpful.” However, the 49-year-old entrepreneur said he was well known throughout the state before his appearance on Dragons’ Den. “I am recognised because of my work with communities and organisations representing disabled people before being on the programme. What I want to do for the economy is what Mary McAleese did for the peace process during her presidency. I have on-the-ground experience of creating jobs and building communities. My ambition is to work alongside the government in bringing jobs and investment to Ireland during this recession.” Born with congenital cataracts, Gallagher was almost blind as a child and only pioneering surgery saved his sight. He went on to become one of Ireland’s most famous self-made men and now owns a home technology business worth €10bn that employs 70 people. Gallagher denied that his former membership of Fianna Fáil – the party in government during the boom, later punished severely at this year’s general election for the economic crash – would turn off voters. “My message is wholly non-party political. I am an independent and I want to represent all the people of Ireland,” he added. At this stage it appears the contest to succeed Mary McAleese as the country’s next president is between Labour’s frontrunner and former arts minister Michael D Higgins, Gallagher and McGuinness. McGuinness’s campaign has been dogged with questions over his role as a Provisional IRA commander. The Sinn Féin MP has said he left the IRA in 1974 – a claim challenged by, among others, a former head of the Garda Síochána who insisted he was still on the organisation’s supreme decision making “army council” until at least the late 1990s. The campaign became even more acrimonious on Wednesday night during a live debate on RTE television when Ireland’s answer to Jeremy Paxman, the presenter Miriam O’Callaghan, asked McGuinness how he squared his Catholicism with supporting IRA murders. McGuinness complained to RTE that he had been subjected to “trial by television” and demanded a one-to-one meeting with O’Callaghan after the broadcast. Terry Prone, Ireland’s most prominent PR and communications expert, said she believed McGuinnness had made a fatal error: “His core vote will be solidified by a sense of injustice. His floating vote, on the other hand, would have begun to ship water and the episode radically reduced his capacity to attract transfers. Not so much because of his rage on screen, but because, after the programme, he attacked ‘one of our own’. Irrespective of your view of Miriam O’Callaghan, she is a respected constant in the minds of the Irish public – their representative on TV, and a woman. An enraged McGuinness demanding – and getting – a post-programme private meeting with her argued a coercive sense of entitlement which did him no good at all.” Ireland Europe Martin McGuinness Dragons’ Den Sinn Féin Henry McDonald guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Chancellor backs move to boost the IMF’s bailout fund, provided a deal to stabilise the eurozone can be reached British taxpayers may have to find more cash to prop up the ailing euro after George Osborne backed a move to increase the size of the global bailout fund to rescue indebted European countries. The chancellor, speaking at the G20 summit in Paris, said he was willing to consider a plan to increase the International Monetary Fund’s firepower, provided a rescue deal had been agreed that would bring the two-year sovereign debt crisis to an end. Pumping more money into the Washington-based lender was “no substitute”, he said, for European leaders hammering out the package of financial measures required to restore stability in the eurozone. Osborne’s qualified support for the creation of a larger global safety net could see the UK commit further loans to the IMF, though officials said a comprehensive rescue deal would make extra demands unlikely. His remarks were designed to support moves by G20 finance ministers to arrive at a definitive solution to the crisis while appeasing rightwing Tory MPs who have voiced concerns about extending further loans to the eurozone. His comments came as European leaders continued to wrangle over the size and shape of the fund required to bail out Greece and prevent Italy and Spain from collapse. The make-or-break moment could come at a summit of EU leaders next Sunday (23 October) when Germany and France have promised to set out a plan that would stop the debt crisis spreading to other countries, protect Europe’s embattled banks and prevent the global economy from tipping back into recession. German chancellor Angela Merkel has refused to be drawn on whether the package will amount to the “big bazooka” demanded by financial markets. Last week she played down speculation that the €440bn European financial stability facility (EFSF) agreed by all eurozone countries would be expanded to nearer €2 trillion. The EFSF has the resources to cope with bailouts for Greece, Portugal and Ireland, but unless enlarged would be overwhelmed by the need to rescue a bigger economy such as Italy or Spain. Osborne said the Paris talks had made clear the urgency with which eurozone leaders needed to agree measures to shore up their banks, bolster the EFSF, and develop a sustainable solution for Greece – code for allowing Athens to default on at least half of its loans. “[The crisis] remains the epicentre of the world’s current economic problems,” he said. “The European council is clearly the moment when people are expecting something quite impressive.” It is understood detailed discussions over the focus of the EFSF and how to expand its remit are likely to continue up until the Cannes summit of world leaders in November. Several eurozone countries are wary of expanding the fund, fearful that it will provide a green light to Italy and Spain to relax their debt repayment plans. Holland, Finland and Austria are allied with Germany in calling for private investors, including large European banks and US investment funds, to take bigger losses on their loans to Greece as part of an overall rescue package. Investors have so far rejected plans to increase an agreed loss of 21% to nearer 40%, saying Greece remains on track to cut its debts and ease the burden on its main creditor, the European Central Bank. Concern that 20 or 30 European banks would be forced to seek extra capital, probably from taxpayers, has alarmed Brussels, increasing the urgency to find a way to protect sovereign debts without wrecking bank balance sheets. The G20 delayed a decision on boosting the IMF’s current bailout fund, which could be doubled in size, though the IMF’s dominant shareholders, including the US, Japan, Germany and China, are content with its £270bn of resources. US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner said that, like the UK, Canada and Australia, the US was open to discussions about a larger IMF fund, but that most of its resources remained available. “They [the IMF] have very substantial resources that are uncommitted,” he said. European debt crisis Euro George Osborne IMF European banks Global economy Economics Economic policy Phillip Inman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Labour and Lib Dem politicians have stepped up demands for the PM to explain ministers’ involvement with Atlantic Bridge David Cameron has been accused of allowing a secret rightwing agenda to flourish at the heart of the Conservative party, as fallout from the resignation of Liam Fox exposed its close links with a US network of lobbyists, climate change deniers and defence hawks. In a sign that Fox’s decision to fall on his sword will not mark the end of the furore engulfing the Tories, both Liberal Democrat and Labour politicians stepped up their demands for the prime minister to explain why several senior members of his cabinet were involved in an Anglo-American organisation apparently at odds with his party’s environmental commitments and pledge to defend free healthcare. At the heart of the complex web linking Fox and his friend Adam Werritty to a raft of businessmen, lobbyists and US neocons is the former defence secretary’s defunct charity, Atlantic Bridge, which was set up with the purported aim of “strengthening the special relationship” but is now mired in controversy. An Observer investigation reveals that many of those who sat on the Anglo-American charity’s board and its executive council, or were employed on its staff, were lobbyists or lawyers with connections to the defence industry and energy interests. Others included powerful businessmen with defence investments and representatives of the gambling industry. Fox’s organisation, which was wound up last year following a critical Charity Commission report into its activities, formed a partnership with an organisation called the American Legislative Exchange Council. The powerful lobbying organisation, which receives funding from pharmaceutical, weapons and oil interests among others, is heavily funded by the Koch Charitable Foundation whose founder, Charles G Koch, is one of the most generous donors to the Tea Party movement in the US. In recent years, the Tea Party has become a potent populist force in American politics, associated with controversial stances on global warming. Via a series of foundations, Koch and his brother, David, have also given millions of dollars to global warming sceptics, according to Greenpeace. Labour said it wanted to know how, in 2006, when David Cameron travelled to Norway for his famous photo opportunity with huskies to promote his new-look party’s “green” policies, his senior colleagues were cosying up to US groups that were profoundly sceptical about global warming. Writing in the Observer , the shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, said the Tories still had many questions to answer and claimed that “while David Cameron’s compassionate conservatism has been undermined by his actions at home, it could be further damaged by connections overseas”. Murphy writes: “With each passing day there have been fresh allegations of money and influence and it appears that much of the source was the Atlantic Bridge network and its US rightwing connections. We need to know just how far and how deep the links into US politics go. This crisis has discovered traces of a stealth neocon agenda. For many on the right, Atlanticism has become synonymous with a self-defeating, virulent Euroscepticism that is bad for Britain.” Fox resigned on Friday after admitting that he had allowed his friendship with Werritty, a lobbyist who portrayed himself as an adviser to the defence secretary, to blur his professional and personal interests. His resignation followed a drip-feed of revelations about the links between Werritty and businessmen and organisations with defence interests. The revelations over Atlantic Bridge have triggered questions about the role played by Fox, chair of the charity’s advisory council, and that of four of its UK members: William Hague, George Osborne, Chris Grayling and Michael Gove. As a UK charity, the organisation enjoyed tax breaks but had to comply with strict rules prohibiting it from promoting business interests. The charity’s political agenda, which it articulated in conferences devoted to issues such as liberalising the health sector and deregulating the energy markets, chimes with the thinking of many on the right of the Conservative party whom Cameron has been keen to check as he holds the Tories to the centre ground of British politics. Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshot said: “Dr Fox is a spider at the centre of a tangled neocon web. A dubious pattern is emerging of donations through front companies. We need to establish whether the British taxpayer was subsidising Fox and his frontbench colleagues. What steps did they take to ensure Atlantic Bridge didn’t abuse its charitable status?” Werritty, the group’s UK director, was funded by a raft of powerful businessmen including Michael Hintze, one of the Tories biggest financial backers whose hedge fund, CQS, has investments in companies that have contracts with the Ministry of Defence; Poju Zabludowicz, chairman of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, who chairs a US munitions company; and the Good Governance Group, a private security firm set up by a South African businessman, Andries Pienaar, who also has an investment firm, C5 Capital, focused on the defence sector. The potentially explosive mix of big business interests and politicians that triggered Fox’s demise is the subject of an investigation by the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell. Murphy said it was essential that the government then referred the wider issues to Sir Philip Mawer, the independent adviser on ministers’ interests. “He should look at the issues in their entirety to establish precisely how this never happens again,” Murphy said. Questions are being asked over the role played by an organisation called the Sri Lankan Development Trust, whose headquarters were listed at the Good Governance Group. The trust paid for three of Fox’s trips to Sri Lanka. In a statement the group said: “Our involvement with the Sri Lankan Development Trust was not done for profit or at the behest of any clients.” Arriving at the Ministry of Defence to take up his new role in charge of the department, Philip Hammond, the new defence secretary, said Fox had “done a great
Continue reading …
Labour and Lib Dem politicians have stepped up demands for the PM to explain ministers’ involvement with Atlantic Bridge David Cameron has been accused of allowing a secret rightwing agenda to flourish at the heart of the Conservative party, as fallout from the resignation of Liam Fox exposed its close links with a US network of lobbyists, climate change deniers and defence hawks. In a sign that Fox’s decision to fall on his sword will not mark the end of the furore engulfing the Tories, both Liberal Democrat and Labour politicians stepped up their demands for the prime minister to explain why several senior members of his cabinet were involved in an Anglo-American organisation apparently at odds with his party’s environmental commitments and pledge to defend free healthcare. At the heart of the complex web linking Fox and his friend Adam Werritty to a raft of businessmen, lobbyists and US neocons is the former defence secretary’s defunct charity, Atlantic Bridge, which was set up with the purported aim of “strengthening the special relationship” but is now mired in controversy. An Observer investigation reveals that many of those who sat on the Anglo-American charity’s board and its executive council, or were employed on its staff, were lobbyists or lawyers with connections to the defence industry and energy interests. Others included powerful businessmen with defence investments and representatives of the gambling industry. Fox’s organisation, which was wound up last year following a critical Charity Commission report into its activities, formed a partnership with an organisation called the American Legislative Exchange Council. The powerful lobbying organisation, which receives funding from pharmaceutical, weapons and oil interests among others, is heavily funded by the Koch Charitable Foundation whose founder, Charles G Koch, is one of the most generous donors to the Tea Party movement in the US. In recent years, the Tea Party has become a potent populist force in American politics, associated with controversial stances on global warming. Via a series of foundations, Koch and his brother, David, have also given millions of dollars to global warming sceptics, according to Greenpeace. Labour said it wanted to know how, in 2006, when David Cameron travelled to Norway for his famous photo opportunity with huskies to promote his new-look party’s “green” policies, his senior colleagues were cosying up to US groups that were profoundly sceptical about global warming. Writing in the Observer , the shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, said the Tories still had many questions to answer and claimed that “while David Cameron’s compassionate conservatism has been undermined by his actions at home, it could be further damaged by connections overseas”. Murphy writes: “With each passing day there have been fresh allegations of money and influence and it appears that much of the source was the Atlantic Bridge network and its US rightwing connections. We need to know just how far and how deep the links into US politics go. This crisis has discovered traces of a stealth neocon agenda. For many on the right, Atlanticism has become synonymous with a self-defeating, virulent Euroscepticism that is bad for Britain.” Fox resigned on Friday after admitting that he had allowed his friendship with Werritty, a lobbyist who portrayed himself as an adviser to the defence secretary, to blur his professional and personal interests. His resignation followed a drip-feed of revelations about the links between Werritty and businessmen and organisations with defence interests. The revelations over Atlantic Bridge have triggered questions about the role played by Fox, chair of the charity’s advisory council, and that of four of its UK members: William Hague, George Osborne, Chris Grayling and Michael Gove. As a UK charity, the organisation enjoyed tax breaks but had to comply with strict rules prohibiting it from promoting business interests. The charity’s political agenda, which it articulated in conferences devoted to issues such as liberalising the health sector and deregulating the energy markets, chimes with the thinking of many on the right of the Conservative party whom Cameron has been keen to check as he holds the Tories to the centre ground of British politics. Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshot said: “Dr Fox is a spider at the centre of a tangled neocon web. A dubious pattern is emerging of donations through front companies. We need to establish whether the British taxpayer was subsidising Fox and his frontbench colleagues. What steps did they take to ensure Atlantic Bridge didn’t abuse its charitable status?” Werritty, the group’s UK director, was funded by a raft of powerful businessmen including Michael Hintze, one of the Tories biggest financial backers whose hedge fund, CQS, has investments in companies that have contracts with the Ministry of Defence; Poju Zabludowicz, chairman of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, who chairs a US munitions company; and the Good Governance Group, a private security firm set up by a South African businessman, Andries Pienaar, who also has an investment firm, C5 Capital, focused on the defence sector. The potentially explosive mix of big business interests and politicians that triggered Fox’s demise is the subject of an investigation by the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell. Murphy said it was essential that the government then referred the wider issues to Sir Philip Mawer, the independent adviser on ministers’ interests. “He should look at the issues in their entirety to establish precisely how this never happens again,” Murphy said. Questions are being asked over the role played by an organisation called the Sri Lankan Development Trust, whose headquarters were listed at the Good Governance Group. The trust paid for three of Fox’s trips to Sri Lanka. In a statement the group said: “Our involvement with the Sri Lankan Development Trust was not done for profit or at the behest of any clients.” Arriving at the Ministry of Defence to take up his new role in charge of the department, Philip Hammond, the new defence secretary, said Fox had “done a great
Continue reading …
Labour and Lib Dem politicians have stepped up demands for the PM to explain ministers’ involvement with Atlantic Bridge David Cameron has been accused of allowing a secret rightwing agenda to flourish at the heart of the Conservative party, as fallout from the resignation of Liam Fox exposed its close links with a US network of lobbyists, climate change deniers and defence hawks. In a sign that Fox’s decision to fall on his sword will not mark the end of the furore engulfing the Tories, both Liberal Democrat and Labour politicians stepped up their demands for the prime minister to explain why several senior members of his cabinet were involved in an Anglo-American organisation apparently at odds with his party’s environmental commitments and pledge to defend free healthcare. At the heart of the complex web linking Fox and his friend Adam Werritty to a raft of businessmen, lobbyists and US neocons is the former defence secretary’s defunct charity, Atlantic Bridge, which was set up with the purported aim of “strengthening the special relationship” but is now mired in controversy. An Observer investigation reveals that many of those who sat on the Anglo-American charity’s board and its executive council, or were employed on its staff, were lobbyists or lawyers with connections to the defence industry and energy interests. Others included powerful businessmen with defence investments and representatives of the gambling industry. Fox’s organisation, which was wound up last year following a critical Charity Commission report into its activities, formed a partnership with an organisation called the American Legislative Exchange Council. The powerful lobbying organisation, which receives funding from pharmaceutical, weapons and oil interests among others, is heavily funded by the Koch Charitable Foundation whose founder, Charles G Koch, is one of the most generous donors to the Tea Party movement in the US. In recent years, the Tea Party has become a potent populist force in American politics, associated with controversial stances on global warming. Via a series of foundations, Koch and his brother, David, have also given millions of dollars to global warming sceptics, according to Greenpeace. Labour said it wanted to know how, in 2006, when David Cameron travelled to Norway for his famous photo opportunity with huskies to promote his new-look party’s “green” policies, his senior colleagues were cosying up to US groups that were profoundly sceptical about global warming. Writing in the Observer , the shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, said the Tories still had many questions to answer and claimed that “while David Cameron’s compassionate conservatism has been undermined by his actions at home, it could be further damaged by connections overseas”. Murphy writes: “With each passing day there have been fresh allegations of money and influence and it appears that much of the source was the Atlantic Bridge network and its US rightwing connections. We need to know just how far and how deep the links into US politics go. This crisis has discovered traces of a stealth neocon agenda. For many on the right, Atlanticism has become synonymous with a self-defeating, virulent Euroscepticism that is bad for Britain.” Fox resigned on Friday after admitting that he had allowed his friendship with Werritty, a lobbyist who portrayed himself as an adviser to the defence secretary, to blur his professional and personal interests. His resignation followed a drip-feed of revelations about the links between Werritty and businessmen and organisations with defence interests. The revelations over Atlantic Bridge have triggered questions about the role played by Fox, chair of the charity’s advisory council, and that of four of its UK members: William Hague, George Osborne, Chris Grayling and Michael Gove. As a UK charity, the organisation enjoyed tax breaks but had to comply with strict rules prohibiting it from promoting business interests. The charity’s political agenda, which it articulated in conferences devoted to issues such as liberalising the health sector and deregulating the energy markets, chimes with the thinking of many on the right of the Conservative party whom Cameron has been keen to check as he holds the Tories to the centre ground of British politics. Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshot said: “Dr Fox is a spider at the centre of a tangled neocon web. A dubious pattern is emerging of donations through front companies. We need to establish whether the British taxpayer was subsidising Fox and his frontbench colleagues. What steps did they take to ensure Atlantic Bridge didn’t abuse its charitable status?” Werritty, the group’s UK director, was funded by a raft of powerful businessmen including Michael Hintze, one of the Tories biggest financial backers whose hedge fund, CQS, has investments in companies that have contracts with the Ministry of Defence; Poju Zabludowicz, chairman of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, who chairs a US munitions company; and the Good Governance Group, a private security firm set up by a South African businessman, Andries Pienaar, who also has an investment firm, C5 Capital, focused on the defence sector. The potentially explosive mix of big business interests and politicians that triggered Fox’s demise is the subject of an investigation by the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell. Murphy said it was essential that the government then referred the wider issues to Sir Philip Mawer, the independent adviser on ministers’ interests. “He should look at the issues in their entirety to establish precisely how this never happens again,” Murphy said. Questions are being asked over the role played by an organisation called the Sri Lankan Development Trust, whose headquarters were listed at the Good Governance Group. The trust paid for three of Fox’s trips to Sri Lanka. In a statement the group said: “Our involvement with the Sri Lankan Development Trust was not done for profit or at the behest of any clients.” Arriving at the Ministry of Defence to take up his new role in charge of the department, Philip Hammond, the new defence secretary, said Fox had “done a great
Continue reading …