Former PM visited Gaddafi during Libyan loan negotiations by JP Morgan, the bank that employs him as an adviser Tony Blair is facing calls for greater transparency in his role as Middle East peace envoy after it emerged that he visited Muammar Gaddafi in 2009 while JP Morgan, the investment bank that employs Blair as a £2m-a-year adviser, sought to negotiate a multibillion-pound loan from Libya. Blair also championed two large business deals in the West Bank and Gaza involving telecoms and gas extraction which stood to benefit corporate clients of JP Morgan, according to a Dispatches investigation to be broadcast on Monday night. Blair, who represents the diplomatic Quartet on the Middle East – the US, European Union, Russia and the United Nations – flew to see the former Libyan leader in January 2009 as JP Morgan tried to finalise a deal for the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) to loan a multibillion-pound sum to Rusal, the aluminium company run by Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska. LIA was set up by Gaddafi to manage the country’s wealth and was estimated to be worth $64bn (£41bn) last September. Emails obtained by anti-corruption campaign group Global Witness and seen by the Guardian reveal JP Morgan’s vice chairman, Lord Renwick, invited the then vice chairman of LIA, Mustafa Zarti, to “finalise the terms of the mandate concerning Rusal before Mr Blair’s visit to Tripoli which is scheduled to take place on around 22 January”. The meeting went ahead, but a spokesman for Blair denied the former prime minister had been involved in the proposed Rusal deal. A spokesman for JP Morgan said Blair had no knowledge of the proposal but could not explain why Blair’s visit to Gaddafi was raised in the email. “Neither Tony Blair nor any of his staff raised any issue to do with a Russian aluminium company,” Blair’s spokesman said. According to a Rusal presentation obtained by Global Witness, the aluminium company had been seeking a $4.5bn loan in the form of a convertible bond, but the deal never happened. In Palestine while working as the quartet envoy, Blair persuaded the Israeli government to open radio frequencies so mobile phone company Wataniya could operate in the West Bank. The company’s owner, Qtel, a Qatari telecoms company, is a client of JP Morgan and its deal to buy Wataniya was funded with a $2bn loan that JP Morgan helped arrange. “I would say his [Blair's] prime contribution to Wataniya was negotiating the release of the frequencies,” Bassam Hannoun, Wataniya’s chief executive, told Dispatches. “That was a milestone. November 2009 we were nothing … and since then we have done fantastically well. We have captured 23% of the market.” The second deal saw Blair champion the development of a gas field off the coast of Gaza as a priority for the territory. The owner of the rights to operate the field is BG Group, a client of JP Morgan. “There seems to be growing evidence that Tony Blair’s business activities across the middle east may be in conflict with his peace envoy role,” said Robert Palmer, a spokesman for Global Witness. “It is time he came clean about all of his interests in the region and who they are benefitting.” A spokesman for Blair said the former prime minister had no idea JP Morgan had connections with Wataniya or BG Group and said it considered claims of a conflict of interest to be defamatory. “Tony Blair has advocated for both the Wataniya project and the Gaza gas development at the direct request of the Palestinians,” a spokesman said. “It is his responsibility as Quartet representative to work to build the Palestinian economy and the Wataniya project represented the single largest foreign direct investment there has been into the Palestinian authority. That is good news for the Palestinians. The fact that we have been doing so is hardly a revelation: it is listed on our website. Both were long-standing demands of the international community. “In neither case was Mr Blair even aware JP Morgan had a connection with the company. He never discussed it with them. They never raised it with him.” JP Morgan stressed it was one of several investment banks who acted as advisers to Qtel and said it had a minor role. “Mr. Blair is a strategic advisor to our management team on high-level geopolitical issues and trends,” a spokesman said. “We have never raised or discussed with him the two projects mentioned. Any suggestion of a conflict of interest is baseless.” Since leaving Downing Street in June 2007, Blair has established various structures for his commercial work and good causes. He has established three charities, the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, the Tony Blair Sports Foundation and the Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative. On the commercial side, he runs a consultancy, Tony Blair Associates, and he has paid advisory roles with Zurich, a Swiss insurer, as well as JP Morgan. Tony Blair Middle East JP Morgan Libya Muammar Gaddafi Gaza Palestinian territories BG Banking Robert Booth guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Research suggests defence bill may be seven times government estimate, prompting calls for full spending breakdown The true cost of the UK’s involvement in the Libya conflict could be as high as £1.75bn – almost seven times as much as government estimates, according to a new study. Research by a respected defence analyst suggests that the government has given a misleading picture of the costs of supporting the military operation, now in its seventh month, leading to demands for a proper spending breakdown. Although Muammar Gaddafi’s regime has crumbled in recent weeks, RAF airstrikes against forces remaining loyal to him have continued at an exceptionally high rate, depleting stockpiles of expensive precision weapons the Ministry of Defence will want to replace. That will add to the overall bill, which is still rising and which the Treasury has promised to meet from its special reserves. Concern over funding for the operation has been mounting as government departments, including the MoD, have to cope with deep spending cuts because of the fragility of the economy. Reacting to the latest analysis, Labour renewed its call for ministers to provide more details of military costs and promise there will be no knock-on effect for the MoD budget, which is under huge strain. “It is vital we have transparency on this,” said Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary. The Treasury has still not paid the MoD for the “wear and tear” costs of equipment used in Iraq, raising further concerns within the military about the long-term consequences of the deployment to Libya. This month the MoD revealed that UK combat aircraft had flown more than 1,600 missions over Libya – around one fifth of all Nato strike sorties – and destroyed or damaged about 900 targets. Those figures will have risen significantly in the last fortnight. The UK has also deployed 32 aircraft, Apache attack helicopters, warships, a helicopter carrier, a submarine and anti-mine vessels. Using data provided in answers to parliamentary questions, and figures provided by the RAF since the campaign started, the defence expert Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, was able to make two sets of detailed calculations about the costs of the Libya operation in the first six months. Using one method, he estimated the cumulative cost of the operation to the end of August at between £1.38bn and £1.58bn. Using a second method, the costs were potentially even higher – between £850m and £1.75bn. In June, the government said the overall costs of the Libya campaign were in the region of £260m. An earlier estimate by the chancellor, George Osborne, put the operation in the “tens of millions.” Tusa did not include the cost of the most recent sorties, which have included several RAF Tornados flying on numerous occasions from the UK to Libya, or the “start-up” costs that were incurred when, in the early weeks of the mission, the MoD hired fleets of Eddie Stobart trucks and trailers to take equipment from here to the military base in Gioia del Colle, Italy. “Where there has been any doubt, I have underestimated rather than overestimated in my calculations,” Tusa said. “With the number of missions the RAF has flown in the last fortnight, I am sure the cost of the campaign has gone up considerably.” Tusa’s detailed calculations and analysis by him, are available on the Guardian’s datablog. Murphy said the government needed to be open about the costs, and challenged the way ministers had appeared to deliberately downplay the money spent so far. “Labour supported the conflict in Libya. £1bn is much higher than the initial estimate and if it is correct we will want to see detailed breakdowns. We will also want to know why Danny Alexander [chief secretary to the Treasury] was so wrong when he said the conflict would cost ‘hundreds of millions’.” He added: “It is vital we have transparency on this, as the British people will want to know that our military strategy balances advanced kit and equipment with cost-effective decisions. Many have questioned whether the decisions made in the rushed defence review left our forces stretched and may have cost the country more in this unforeseen conflict. It is up to ministers to answer that charge. “At a time when redundancies are being made and cuts to equipment are biting, it is important that the core defence budget is protected as much as is possible. Replenishments of munitions used in Libya, therefore, must come out of the Treasury reserve.” Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a former director of development at the MoD, said the department had to look out for being charged for “hidden costs” that would further erode its budget. “Despite government assurances, every operation has hidden costs that are never recovered,” he said. “Although a substantial proportion of the costs of the Libya operation will come out of the Treasury reserves, this does not take into account the ‘wear and tear’ on ships, airframes and equipment caused by a higher tempo and intensity of activity. “These hidden costs include the extra provision required for missed training and exercising, the depletion of munitions and spares stocks, which are not always replaced on the basis of like-for-like, and the extra loading placed on those units not directly involved in the conflict. These usually have to cover for deployed units, or have to give up manpower and equipment to support it.” Parry said that mandarins had, in the past, used “opaque, complex accounting practices” to conceal the true costs of military operations. This meant that “the full impact of a conflict on the armed forces in operational capability terms is obscured in the short term, but over time results in a progressive hollowing-out of effective capability.” When the government said Libya would cost taxpayers £260m, it gave limited information about how it had reached the figure. It said that £120m was needed to cover the cost of day-to-day running, over and above the money already set aside for training and exercises. The other £140m represented the cost of the munitions used so far. Neither the Treasury or the MoD said it had anything further to add at this stage. Giving evidence to the defence select committee in June, the MoD’s chief of defence materiel, Bernard Gray, was asked whether the Treasury had yet paid for the wear and tear costs from the war in Iraq. When asked if it was true the MoD had received “nothing so far”, he replied: “Yes.” Defence policy Libya Middle East Africa Muammar Gaddafi Foreign policy George Osborne Jim Murphy Military Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Despite enduring a second jellyfish sting, 62-year-old swimmer Diana Nyad is continuing her 103-mile swim from Cuba to Florida , and has reached the halfway point, reports the AP . Despite getting out of the water last night to receive treatment for the stings, Nyad is still allowed to continue her record…
Continue reading …Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal arrive in city following release under $1m bail deal mediated by Oman and Iraq last week Two Americans released from an Iranian prison have landed in New York after being held for more than two years on spying charges. Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer arrived in the US on Sunday after being released and flown to Oman last week under a $1m (£640,000) bail deal. They were greeted by friends and relatives including Sarah Shourd, their fellow hiker who was freed last year. The three were detained in July 2009 along the Iran-Iraq border. They say they were only hiking in Iraq’s relatively peaceful Kurdish region. Since her release last year, Shourd has lived in Oakland, California. Bauer, a freelance journalist, grew up in Onamia, Minnesota, and Fattal, an environmental activist, is from Philadelphia. United States Iran Middle East Oman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal arrive in city following release under $1m bail deal mediated by Oman and Iraq last week Two Americans released from an Iranian prison have landed in New York after being held for more than two years on spying charges. Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer arrived in the US on Sunday after being released and flown to Oman last week under a $1m (£640,000) bail deal. They were greeted by friends and relatives including Sarah Shourd, their fellow hiker who was freed last year. The three were detained in July 2009 along the Iran-Iraq border. They say they were only hiking in Iraq’s relatively peaceful Kurdish region. Since her release last year, Shourd has lived in Oakland, California. Bauer, a freelance journalist, grew up in Onamia, Minnesota, and Fattal, an environmental activist, is from Philadelphia. United States Iran Middle East Oman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal arrive in city following release under $1m bail deal mediated by Oman and Iraq last week Two Americans released from an Iranian prison have landed in New York after being held for more than two years on spying charges. Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer arrived in the US on Sunday after being released and flown to Oman last week under a $1m (£640,000) bail deal. They were greeted by friends and relatives including Sarah Shourd, their fellow hiker who was freed last year. The three were detained in July 2009 along the Iran-Iraq border. They say they were only hiking in Iraq’s relatively peaceful Kurdish region. Since her release last year, Shourd has lived in Oakland, California. Bauer, a freelance journalist, grew up in Onamia, Minnesota, and Fattal, an environmental activist, is from Philadelphia. United States Iran Middle East Oman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …NASA’s just-crashed UARS satellite may have been the size of a bus and weighed 6 tons, but, because of its speed and uncertainty about the exact time it hit the Earth, scientists say they don’t know exactly where their space junk crashed, reports the Chicago Tribune . “We may never know,…
Continue reading …A Mexican woman was found decapitated yesterday, for what the Texas-border Zetas drug cartel claimed were her postings on a local social networking website. It is thought to be the third killing this month for drug-related comments posted online in Nuevo Laredo, reports the AP . The head of Marisol Macias…
Continue reading …There is no prospect now of any UK-Russian thaw, and Russia itself faces a long period of political and economic stagnation Spare a thought for poor Dmitry Medvedev. It was US diplomats who back in November 2008 cruelly dubbed him Robin, to Vladimir Putin’s Batman. The phrase stuck. Over the past four years Medvedev has done nothing to dispel the impression that he is anything other than a useful seatwarmer, his time in the Kremlin a legalistic blip in an epoch of endless Putin rule. It wasn’t always like this. At the start of Medvedev’s presidential term there were faint hopes that he might preside over a partial liberalisation of Russian society. The president himself spoke of ending “legal nihilism”. Commentators, meanwhile, scrambled to make sense of Russia’s historically anomalous ruling arrangement – the “tandem”, as it became known. In the shadow world of Kremlin politics it was hard to work out what was going on behind the scenes. Some looked in vain for signs of an intra-leadership struggle. Others speculated that Medvedev might eventually escape from Putin’s gravitational pull, or even fire his mentor. The Obama administration tried to reach out to Medvedev in the hope this would nudge Russia’s foreign policy away from its hawkish Putin vector towards a more constructive approach. By 2010, however, US diplomats had concluded that Project Medvedev was hopeless. Medvedev’s position became one of humiliation. I heard one expert describe Russia’s ruling model not as a tandem but as “a bicycle with a child’s seat in the front”. US diplomats even cabled back to Washington the following joke: Medvedev sits in the driver’s seat of a new car, examines the inside, the instrument panel, and the pedals. He looks around but the steering wheel is missing. He turns to Putin and asks: “Vladimir Vladimirovich, where is the steering wheel?” Putin pulls a remote control out of his pocket and says: “I’ll be the one doing the driving.” Medvedev’s announcement on Saturday that he was stepping down to allow Putin a third presidency came as a surprise to no one, then. Medvedev’s only significant act as president was to extend Russia’s presidential term from four years to six, hardly a democratic step forwards. This was seen, rightly, as teeing up the conditions for a triumphant comeback during elections in the spring of 2012: Putin’s. So what now? Putin’s return means the west faces another decade of difficult relations with Russia. During his first two stints as president, the former KGB agent demonstrated his gift at G8 gatherings and other international get-togethers for sardonic repartee mixed with snide remarks about western hypocrisy and double-dealing. We can expect more of this. There is no prospect of any real improvement in UK-Russian relations. David Cameron did manage to meet Putin this month during his trip to Moscow, the first contact with him for four years. But until Downing Street caves in to the Kremlin’s demand that it resumes co-operation with Russia’s FSB spy agency – suspended after Alexander Litvinenko’s polonium murder – no “reset” is possible. The prospects for Russia itself are equally gloomy. The country now faces a long period of political and economic stagnation and single-party rule. Increasingly the Putin era resembles that of the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev, another too-long authoritarian period sustained by a commodities boom, which left ordinary citizens frustrated. Increasing numbers of talented but Disenfranchised Russians are voting with their feet and moving abroad. In theory Putin could go on until 2024, when he will be 72. Or longer. This week, however, the blogger and anti-corruption campaigner Alexey Navalny predicted that Russia’s kleptocractic system would collapse well before that. “People now realise it doesn’t work. It worked between 2000-2005. There was stability up until 2008,” he said. “But now it’s useless, even for the corrupt people who benefit from it.” With no political mechanism for removing Putin from power, Navalny said, another Russian revolution was inevitable. At some point, he said, frustrations would boil over. “Maybe in five months, maybe in two years, maybe in seven years,” he said. Asked what would spark it, he suggested: “The Caucasus.” Many observers have plausibly argued that Putin is tired of being leader. So why did he come back? The Kremlin, of course, is more prestigious that then prime minister’s office, and gives Putin an international platform. More than this, though, it allows Putin to protect his own alleged secret assets and those of his team, US diplomats believe. And it allows him to avoid potential law enforcement prosecution – inevitable, once he steps down from power. Vladimir Putin Dmitry Medvedev Russia Europe Luke Harding guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …