Country’s coal capital exemplifies hostility to a looming pollution levy, which has made prime minister Julia Gillard very unpopular They call this city “carbon central”. But in the polarised Australian climate change debate, this mining hub is not central at all, but firmly positioned at one extreme. Wollongong, 50 miles south of Sydney in New South Wales, is home to 300,000 people and millions of tonnes of coal. The steep hills around Wollongong afford views of endless queues of ships on the watery horizon, waiting for their cargo of black gold. Coal has been the lifeblood of the city for 150 years and the backbone of its steel industry. Regardless of the climate extremes, the droughts, wildfires, cyclones and floods that are ravaging Australia, locals do not want to give it up. “It’s all right for greenies to say this carbon tax has to happen, but we can’t all hug trees for a living,” said Brett Withers, who has worked as an industrial cleaning contractor in the steelworks for 20 years. “It might just be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. If the tax comes in, this area will be devastated. It’s not just the steel industry – it’s the butcher, the hairdresser and the baker. Everyone will suffer.” Withers’ remarks illustrate a furious backlash against imminent government plans to introduce a carbon tax. Labor prime minister Julia Gillard plans to announce the level of tax to be levied on pollution on Sunday 10 July. The levy was proposed by Gillard, who needed support from Greens in a hung parliament. But the plan has divided Australia like no other issue of recent years. An opinion poll on Tuesday 28 June showed Gillard’s disapproval rating at 62%. Another poll suggested barely one in four Australians would vote for her, making her government the most unpopular in 40 years. Cities such as Wollongong have led the assault, as blue collar voters – who have done well on the back of the mining boom – desert the prime minister in droves. Australia is the world’s largest producer of iron ore and coal, much of it bound for China’s hungry construction industry. As commodity prices have skyrocketed, so have profits. Australia’s commodity export earnings are expected to rise 18% to a record $270bn (£180bn) in the next year. It is an industry that sustains a lot of livelihoods, and a lot of voters. “If the polls as they stand now persist, then Labor will suffer a landslide thrashing in two years’ time,” said Nick Economou, senior lecturer in politics at Melbourne’s Monash University. “They’re in terrible, terrible trouble.” Gillard is not the first Australian leader to be unsettled by the climate and carbon debate. Her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, dropped his planned emissions trading scheme after failing to get it through parliament. It was the beginning of the end of his tenure. In last year’s election campaign, Gillard promised there would be no carbon tax if she was elected. But then came the hung parliament, with a majority of just one. With her political survival suddenly based on support from the Greens, she quickly changed her mind. “You’re really going to test the credulity of the electorate if you say one thing on a carbon tax and then do another,” said Economou. Post-election, Gillard set up a multi-party committee to hammer out details of the carbon tax. The scheme will start with a government-fixed price on carbon, moving to a market-set price after three years. The committee is expected to finalise the details of the tax within days but negotiations have dragged on for months, further damaging the government’s credibility. Over the weekend, Gillard announced that petrol would not be included in the tax but there is still no certainty on what the price of carbon will be under the scheme, which industries will be in or out and, crucially, what the compensation to households will be. Gillard’s standing has taken a battering and many voters have stopped listening to her. The conservative opposition – led by climate sceptic, Tony Abbott, who once described human-induced climate change as “crap” – has capitalised on the uncertainty and on Gillard’s flip-flop. His slogan about a “great big new tax on everything” has been drilled home, along with the message that a carbon tax will hurt ordinary Australians. His party has proposed “direct action” to meet the bipartisan agreed target of reducing CO² emissions by 5% by 2020 (based on 1990 levels). Abbott’s voluntary scheme includes, among other things, planting 20m trees. Rightwing shock jocks have also rammed home the anti-tax message, arguing that whatever Australia does will make little difference to the world’s climate. They have called Gillard “Ju-liar” and launched scathing personal attacks on senior government advisers on climate change as well as scientists. Some have even been subjected to death threats. The growing number of climate change deniers put recent events like this year’s devastating floods in Queensland and the most powerful cyclone in Australia’s history ( cyclone Yasi in February 2011 was as powerful as hurricane Katrina) down to freaks of nature rather than climate change. From his inner city veggie patch stocked with lettuce, beetroot and cabbage, Sydney resident Greg Bearup despairs at the government’s handling of the carbon tax debate. “I just can’t see how we went from 60-70% support for action on climate change to a position where Gillard looks like she could lose her job over it,” he said. “It’s unbelievable it could have been handled so badly.” Bearup’s street is just 15 minutes from the centre of the city, but a world away from the glistening blue of the harbour. The area has been gentrified but remains a concrete jungle with first world war era houses. Two years ago Bearup and his neighbours dug up the concrete in front of their homes and planted gardens. He says the concrete was acting as a heat bank. Removing it has lowered the temperature in the summer, reducing the need for air conditioning. He said a carbon tax will make sure heavy polluting industries like mining pay their fair share for the damage they are causing to the environment. “Everyone should be making an individual contribution to tackling climate change,” he said. Australia Natural disasters and extreme weather Julia Gillard Carbon emissions Energy Coal Fossil fuels Climate change scepticism Mining Climate change Mining Climate change Alison Rourke guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Change.org | Start an Online Petition » [Please sign the petition, above, and ask Boston to stop allowing the federal government to turn our local police into border patrol agents.] Boston has made one mistake too many in trying to enforce federal immigration law. The city is currently enrolled in the federal program with the Orwellian name Secure Communities (S-Comm), which forces local police to check the immigration status of anyone they arrest. The Obama administration wants to force every local police force in the U.S. to enroll in this program by 2013, but states and localities across the nation are resisting. If migrant communities are afraid to go to their local police officers to report crimes, then all residents are less safe. Following the governors of Illinois and New York, the governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, recently declined to participate in the program. While the program is under review in Boston, the latest Boston Globe article from Maria Sacchetti makes clear that the time for Boston to terminate its S-Comm program is now. With DREAMer Lizandra DeMoura now in deportation proceedings, this program has manifestly done enough damage to our communities. In 2006, one of the first official acts of Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis was to refuse then Gov. Mitt Romney’s request to use local police forces to enforce federal immigration law . What wouldn’t be made public until four years later is that while Davis was publicly decrying the involvement of local police in enforcing federal immigration law, privately, the Boston Police Department was the pilot for a program that would check the immigration status of everyone they arrested, a program which would later come to be known as S-Comm. It’s easy to understand why the federal government approached Boston about doing this. As one of the most pro-migrant major cities in the U.S., involving Boston early would blunt criticism against S-Comm later. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also promised all participants in S-Comm that the purpose of the program would be to target the worst of the worst for deportation. As is typical, if you give an inch, power takes a mile. Freedom of Information Act requests have exposed S-Comm as a program which has ensnared low-level offenders and non-criminals in a bid to deport the “worst of the worst.” Boston has one of the worst rates of deporting the “worst of the worst” in the country. According to ICE Statistics , 52.73% of those deported between Nov. 2008 and Sept. 30, 2010 were non criminals. Only 10.67% percent of those deported were “the worst of the worst” or level 1 offenders. In the face of these horrible statistics, and with Gov. Patrick refusing to voluntarily sign Massachusetts to onto S-Comm, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has directed Police Commissioner Davis to review Boston’s involvement in the program . Davis, in turn, has asked the federal government to review the cases of non-criminals that have been deported under S-Comm . The fact that Boston doesn’t know exactly who’s being deported under the S-Comm should be reason enough to terminate the program, not to mention the fact that we now have strong evidence of migrant communities in Boston being torn apart by this program. The fact that undocumented youth Lizandra DeMoura was ensnared by S-Comm is also further proof of the federal government deporting DREAMers despite assurances to the contrary from the Obama administration. As long as the immigration system is broken and the federal government is refusing to act, localities shouldn’t be forced to use their limited resources to enforce broken laws. The maxim that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere reigns true when it comes to local police enforcing federal immigration law. If unauthorized migrants don’t trust the local police and don’t report crimes, then we are all less safe. The Boston Police have broken a lot of trust with migrant communities by enrolling in this program and not telling anyone about until four years later. The review of the program ordered by the Mayor is welcome but the case of Lizandra DeMoura, among others, makes clear that Boston needs to terminate the program, now, and start rebuilding trust with migrant communities. Sign the petition if you haven’t done so already. Kyle de Beausset is a pro-migrant blogger at Citizen Orange .
Continue reading …This is a story about redistricting, local politics, and a lazy local newspaper. By now you have probably seen the ads here and elsewhere about what an incredibly dangerous man Elton Gallegly is, particularly since he is the chairman of the House Immigration Committee. An entrenched Republican, Gallegly courts the local Tea Party while stoking anti-immigrant hate wherever he goes. You may also have heard that Gallegly is in danger of being redistricted out of office . California’s redistricting plans are being drawn by citizens. It is bipartisan and the commission has drafted a plan that ends the incessant gerrymandering that allows people like Elton Gallegly to be elected over and over again. But. There’s always a but. This area is a weird blend of hardcore racist types and a younger, more hip demographic. The redistricting plans are actually quite sensible, splitting Simi Valley away from the coastal cities and including them in a district that extends into Los Angeles County. Yes, that Simi Valley, the conservative bedroom community where people who work in the Valley live so they don’t have to live in the Valley. Turns out, Simi Valley folks don’t care for this plan . Not only don’t they like it, they made their feelings known loudly, clearly, and obnoxiously about a week ago. David Atkins wrote this for Calitics : Finally, as to the character of the local Republicans and conservatives, it was clear once again that the GOP has a massive demographic problem. The vast majority of those who gave conservative testimony at the commission were white and over the age of 65, while those on the left-hand side skewed somewhat younger and considerably browner. The refrains included a panoply of coded racial resentments (“culture”, “lifestyle” “our interests” and “our heritage” being among them) expressing outrage, as the Ventura County Star’s Timm Herdt aptly notes, at being associated with Los Angeles, Oxnard or other dreaded areas where (gasp!) brown people might congregate: David Atkins is one of the finest progressive activists we have in this county. He makes it his business to actually get out and do something instead of talking about it. And he attended that meeting. Not only did he attend that meeting, he sent out some live tweets about it in real time. As you might imagine, he wasn’t shy about calling out the old white Republican demographic for what they were: bigoted , selfish racists . Of course, this is nothing new when it comes to racists “> the abuse this commission has been taking from the tea party and its minions. It’s not new, this “not in my backyard” attitude. In 2005 and again in 2008 I stood against an effort to break off the local high school from the Oxnard Union High School District, which was initiated by east county residents in Camarillo who didn’t want their kids going to school with the kids whose parents pick the strawberries they had for breakfast that morning. Fortunately, both efforts failed, but I’m certain they’ll be revived again. David Atkins spoke the truth about Republicans in this area. And now he’s being hounded and harassed, Breitbart-style. You know that style. It’s the one where they attack you and amplify it, hoping that at some point you’ll just get so sick of the hounding you’ll give up. David isn’t giving up , despite the best efforts of Ventura County Star’s Republican thug blogger’s efforts to make him. Of course, this follows the Star putting a story on their front page about the local Democrats distancing themselves from Atkins’ remarks. Because in this county, we cannot actually call these xenophobic folks on Social Security and Medicare who always vote for do-nothing thug Republicans the bigots that they are. Atkins: But on a larger note, this incident has become about taking a stand. Not just taking a stand against racism, but taking a stand against trollery and Breitbartism . The usual rabid wingnut commenters at the Star have made intimations about calling my company’s client list and otherwise harrassing me in my personal life, and are trying to force me out of the Democratic Central Committee to make an example of me and stop me from doing my work here. Ingemunson and his friends and allies have a gameplan–one that they have seen work in the past with ACORN, Van Jones, and Shirley Sherrod: gin up faux outrage, try to get a scalp, and assume that Democrats and the left will panic and “make the problem go away” rather than stand up to the bullies and fight for what’s right. In this case, we’re not going to give them the satisfaction. We’re going to continue to defend the rights of those who are not traditionally paid attention to in our County, to have their voices heard without fear of intimidation or discrimination. And, outside of the misguided few Lieberman-loving centrists and Proposition 8 supporters who have opposed and tried to poison the well locally against my and my allies’ reform efforts from the beginning, most of us are ready to stand and fight for what we know is right. All politics is local. And this one’s in my back yard, and the thugs are attacking someone who is working hard to make this county (and country) better. So yeah, David. You bet we’ll get your back. No worries.
Continue reading …Britain’s photogenic royals have Canada in a tizzy, but not all Quebecois bid them a hearty bienvenue. Prince William and his wife Catherine were welcomed to French-speaking territory by the mayor of Quebec City, bearskin helmeted troops of the 22nd regiment, and even a doleful glance from the regimental goat, Baptiste. Just down the road,
Continue reading …Boost to both brands, but English-language search results will be censored to meet Chinese government’s demands Microsoft has signed a deal with Baidu, the biggest search engine in China, to provide English-language search results — but they will be censored to meet the Chinese government’s demands. The announcement of the deal is a boost to Microsoft, which has been struggling to boost the position of its Bing search engine against Google’s dominance in almost every country around the world. It will also be a boost for Baidu, which has ambitions internationally. Baidu has roughly 83% of the Chinese search market, but there are also up to 10m English searches per day, the company said. The Chinese market comprises roughly 470m users, despite only about 30% of the population having internet access. Bing — which filters out results in China relating to controversial subjects, such as political dissidents, Taiwan or pornography, to be able to operate in the country — has a negligible share of the market, while Google has nearly 20% counting visits to its offshore sites, making it the second-biggest in China. Yahoo has 6% and Microsoft’s Bing 4%, according to Net Applications. English-language searches to Baidu will be redirected through Bing. Kaiser Kuo, a spokesman for Baidu, said that Bing searches would not be censored any more “than they already do”. Google withdrew from the Chinese market in 2010 after alleging that government-inspired hackers had broken into the systems for its email and source codes to its wider network. Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, had been unhappy at the idea of submitting to China’s censorship for search results, and declared after the hacking incident that they would stop censoring them. That required them to withdraw from the country. Some analysts were sceptical over how much demand there would be for English search on Baidu. “It’s a good thing, but I see very minimal impact for Baidu. I don’t see a lot English keywords going through Baidu. It goes through Google,” said Wallace Cheung, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Credit Suisse. Search engine marketing company Greenlight said it saw the deal as positive for both sides, and could envisage the new partners dominating the Chinese search-advertising market. “Whilst it represents an opportunity for Bing to make more money from the Chinese market, Baidu gets what it needs to expand overseas when it is ready to do so,” said Greenlight Chief Operating Officer Andreas Pouros. “Microsoft has entered the Chinese market slowly and has made some friends, in a way that the Chinese government will have no issue with. This should leave Baidu and Bing to control the Chinese search ad market without too much difficulty.” Baidu made $1.2bn in online marketing revenues last year, up 78% from 2009. Microsoft’s total online advertising revenue in fiscal 2010, including a small contribution from Bing, was $1.9bn. However Bing loses almost as much money as it takes in. Microsoft may be satisfied with delivering censored results. It acknowledged as long as as 2006 that it filtered certain words, including “democracy” and “freedom” from the Chinese version of MSN. At the time Brad Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, said that it was better to do business inside the country than to boycott it. “We certainly think it is better for us to be present around the world rather than not,” Smith said in 2006 . Search engines Microsoft Internet Computing Google Yahoo China Censorship Technology sector United States Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Howard Kurtz and his panel on CNN’s Reliable Sources had high praise for Mark Halperin Sunday, but they did not endorse his use of an expletive to describe President Barack Obama. “Having seen the clip, I’m struck by the fact, if I’m Mark Halperin sitting there, I think the hosts are telling me to speak my mind,” The Weekly Standard ‘s Matthew Continetti told Kurtz. “I didn’t see any sarcasm in Mika or Joe… I’m on Mark Halperin’s side here. They were egging him on.” “Now the indictment is being expanded to saying Mark Halperin is the epitome superficial theater criticism and, you know, empty beltway conventional wisdom,” Kurtz noted. “Mark Halperin has earned his reputation as a serious journalist,” The Hill’s A.B. Stoddard insisted. “I worked with him at ABC News. He is tireless. He’s devoted and he’s also as a commentator, I always find him quite measured and cautious. So, it is a surprising episode but I don’t think there’s anything to criticize in Mark’s past.” “Halperin had been on this program a number of times,” Kurtz said. “He’s a substantive guy. The show that he was on, Morning Joe , three hours a day of guests sitting around talking about policy and politics may be the most substantive show on cable news so it seems to me this indictment that — yes, they do the theater of politics like everybody does, like we do here on CNN — but it seems to me that he is now the poster boy for superficiality strikes me as a bit unfair.”
Continue reading …More consultation needed over price tag of capping care costs and higher asset threshold, says health secretary The farthest reaching proposals in more than a decade for the funding of long-term care for the elderly and disabled have met with a cautious government response , amid fears in Whitehall over the £1.7bn cost of the scheme. As the economist Andrew Dilnot received thanks in the Commons for his “immensely valuable contribution”, government sources expressed concerns about implementing the plans in full. “We genuinely like this report, which has clever and innovative ideas,” one senior government source said. “But it does come with a price tag.” The government raised concerns about the Dilnot commission after the former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies outlined plans to overhaul the system for funding care. The commission set out a plan by which no one would have to pay more than 30% of their savings and assets towards meeting their needs. As well as the proposed cap, it suggested raising the limit on assets a person may hold while qualifying for state help from £23,250 to £100,000. People would still be liable for the costs of accommodation and food in a care home, but this would be limited to £10,000 a year. The package would add an initial £1.7bn a year to government spending, rising to £3.6bn by 2025. But Dilnot said this was equivalent to 0.25% of public spending and described it as “a price well worth paying” to take away people’s fear of having to sell their homes and spend almost all their wealth on care. Charities, welfare groups and care providers largely welcomed the commission’s proposals, which were based on a suggested cap of £35,000 on the amount any individual should have to pay towards their lifetime care costs. The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, warmly thanked Dilnot. But, in a Commons statement signed off by the Treasury, he doused expectations of complete and early acceptance of the proposals by referring repeatedly to them as merely “a basis for engagement” and announcing a further process of consultation. A white paper, previously promised by the end of the year, would now appear next spring and legislation would follow “at the earliest opportunity thereafter”, he said. Lansley said: “The commission recognise that implementing their reforms would have significant costs which the government will need to consider against other funding priorities and calls on constrained resources. In the current public spending environment, we have to consider carefully the additional costs to the taxpayer of the commission’s proposals against other funding priorities.” The Dilnot commission said it wanted to see implementation of its plan “with pace”. But Dilnot said he had not expected ministers to immediately accept it and he was relaxed about the idea of a white paper before next Easter with implementation “in the area of” 2014. Government sources indicated that ministers considered the plans thoughtful but ambitious and costly. Three key proposals which impressed them were: • The cap, which would, according to ministers, enable a proper private insurance market to work. • A simplified means testing system. • Better national standards. The government source said: “This government does have an appetite for big reforms. But reform of long-term care must stick for decades. It is better to introduce this with consensus. This needs to include how we fund this.” Ed Miliband attempted to pre-empt the government by calling for cross-party talks to open with David Cameron and Nick Clegg before the summer recess. The Labour leader offered to drop his party’s tentative proposal at last year’s general election to introduce compulsory contributions to fund long-term care. This was dubbed a “death tax” by the Tories, prompting the collapse of all-party talks. The three main parties are moving with immense care to ensure that neither is blamed if another round of cross-party talks fail after the publication of Dilnot’s findings, the most ambitious report since the royal commission into long-term care chaired by Lord Sutherland in 1999. Government sources believe Labour support for the Dilnot plans would give them cover to help people rich in assets. John Healey, the shadow health secretary, described the Dilnot report as “a starting point”. He echoed language Cameron used in his “big, open and comprehensive offer” to the Liberal Democrats after the general election. Healey added: “The Labour leader has made a big offer to the prime minister to put politics aside and to work to see a better, fairer and lasting system of support for our older and disabled people in England.” Commission member Dame Jo Williams said she would be disappointed if the report was kicked into the long grass. “But disappointment is not an adequate word; ‘disgusted’ comes to mind,” she added. Although the commission was appointed by the coalition government as one of its first acts, the Treasury is known to be highly anxious about the cost implications of the recommendations – even though they would fall largely after the scheduled clearing of the fiscal deficit. Charities and lobby groups were near-unanimous in calling on the government to act without delay. In a joint statement, 23 leading care organisations welcomed the commission plans as “a strong foundation” for reform and said: “It is now vital that government sets out a clear timetable for change and does so quickly.” Mark Goldring, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, said: “Now is the time for monumental change and it is vital that the government does not bury social care reform.” One note of dissent was struck by Stephen Burke, chief executive of charity United for All Ages, who said the proposals were regressive because richer families would benefit disproportionally from the cap. He warned: “This could be seen as a care poll tax for the so-called ‘squeezed middle’.” The commission hopes that its recommendations, which apply in the first instance to England but which could also be picked by the Welsh government in a forthcoming social services bill, would spark the insurance sector to offer policies that people could take out to cover their capped liability. However, the commission is calling also for all local councils to offer loans to homeowners against the value of their properties. The loans, on which interest would be charged to cover councils’ costs, would be repayable on sale of the properties after death. Long-term care Older people Social care Health Public services policy Welfare Health policy Andrew Lansley David Brindle Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The former prime minister once blamed Prince Charles for ‘screwing’ his government, Alastair Campbell’s diaries claim Tony Blair has launched a staunch defence of the Prince of Wales after the former prime minister was quoted as saying the heir to the throne was guilty of “screwing” his government. In a letter to the Guardian, Blair confirms that he voiced critical remarks of the prince in private after his former communications chief Alastair Campbell chronicled their differences in his diaries. But Blair, who was quoted as describing the prince’s decision to boycott a banquet in honour of the former Chinese president in 1999 as “silly”, said he found their discussions “immensely helpful”. He writes: “A prime minister may sound off from time to time, especially when sensitive discussions with members of the royal family leak into the papers, in the middle of some high-profile issue. “However, I want to make it clear that I always found my discussions and correspondence with Prince Charles immensely helpful. I thought he had a perfect right to raise questions and did so in a way that was both informative and insightful. So I welcomed his contributions, and have no doubt he will continue to raise issues with the new government as he is entitled and indeed it is his job to do, and that they will also find it helpful.” The Guardian published extracts from Campbell’s diaries over the weekend. These revealed that Blair believed the prince publicly interfered in government policy in a manner that occasionally stepped over constitutional boundaries. Campbell wrote that Blair became particularly frustrated when the prince made “deeply unhelpful” interventions during the foot-and-mouth crisis in 2001. Campbell wrote on 16 March 2001: “TB … said he knew exactly what he was doing. He also asked whether Charles had ever considered help when 6,000 jobs were lost at Corus [the steel manufacturer]. He said this was all about screwing us and trying to get up the message that we weren’t generous enough to the farmers.” Tony Blair Prince Charles Alastair Campbell Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Military sources ‘baffled’ about events surrounding disappearance of soldier, despite Taliban capture claims The British soldier who went missing on Monday was stationed at a new base in the Nahr-e Saraj district of Helmand province, which recently came under sustained attack by insurgents. He had been on sentry duty at Checkpoint Salaang on Sunday night and early Monday, and had just finished his shift. It would most likely have been quiet at that time, but still warm: in Helmand at this time of year, the temperature rarely falls below 25C. His colleagues from 4th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, and those from the Afghan army who are also at the heavily fortified compound had expected him to return to quarters. Instead he appears to have left the base on his own. Within hours stories were circulating about what happened to him next. The Taliban claimed he had been captured by insurgents and killed in a skirmish as Nato forces tried to rescue him. Another report said he had been seen walking to the nearby Nahr-e Bughra canal, perhaps to go for a swim. Without having complete clarity themselves, military officials in London were as certain as they could be that these stories were untrue. But his disappearance was considered serious enough for David Cameron to cancel a trip to the British base at Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand, and for the full might of Nato forces – surveillance planes, helicopters and hundreds of extra troops – to flood into the area to seek him. Sources in London said they were baffled by what had happened and were still trying to establish what had encouraged the soldier to leave his post without telling colleagues. Just days ago, a patrol of Royal Marines from 45 Commando came under attack from insurgents hiding just 300 metres from the base, so security would have been at its highest level. “He had been on ‘Stag’ [sentry duty] at a small vehicle checkpoint and had just finished his shift,” said one source. “And then, for whatever reason, he walked off. Instead of going back into the base where the other soldiers were, he headed out of the base – and that was the last that was seen of him. “We are trying to work out exactly what has happened. There was no battle or fight or anything like that as far as we know.” The Ministry of Defence was told that the soldier was seen heading down the road away from the checkpoint by Afghan soldiers, who then reported him missing. As the search got under way, the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) issued a brief notice stating that a soldier had “been listed as duty status whereabouts unknown in southern Afghanistan. There is an active search effort in progress.” Reporters travelling with the prime minister were told too, as the entourage was diverted – at Cameron’s request – away from Helmand to the capital, Kabul. The Taliban were quick to claim responsibility for the soldier’s disappearance. Speaking to the Guardian, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, a Taliban spokesman, gave one detailed account. “Yesterday afternoon … our mujahideen ambushed some soldiers and captured a British soldier. At 8pm, the foreign forces operation began to rescue him and continued until 3am. “During that operation, the British soldier was killed, along with four to six other foreigners. Now the foreigners are saying that he was alone. But he was not alone. “They are not brave enough to come even two steps out of their base alone. His body was left in the battlefield. I don’t know where it is now.” Ahmadi said he did not know how the soldier was killed. The MoD said this account was not true. “There are always claims of responsibility for incidents,” said one Whitehall official. “But we can only work with what we know. And all we know is that he has gone. “At the moment, we cannot even be absolutely sure he is in the hands of the Taliban. There are criminal gangs operating in this area too. A huge search operation is under way. That has to be our focus right now.” The reports from Afghanistan also prompted the defence secretary, Liam Fox, to address MPs. “I recognise there will be many questions, but speculation on an issue of this nature is unhelpful. I would urge restraint from colleagues and the media and assure the house the United Kingdom and Isaf are taking all necessary and appropriate action.” Two hours after that statement, officials confirmed that the soldier’s body had been found and he had become the 375th British serviceman to die on duty in Afghanistan. If the insurgents have claimed another victim, it will serve as a chilling reminder that the fighting in Afghanistan is far from over and the Taliban – despite the pounding they took over the winter months – are still capable and resilient. Isaf commanders repeatedly warned that insurgents would seek publicity over the summer months with high-profile international targets, and so far they have been proved right. Last week suicide bombers attacked the Intercontinental hotel in Kabul and before that targeted a hospital in Logar. Two months ago the Taliban orchestrated an audacious escape from Kandahar prison. Monday’s incident comes during a particularly difficult time for UK forces in Afghanistan. Eight British soldiers have died on duty in the past five weeks as the Taliban seeks to reassert itself in areas where it had apparently lost control. Commanders have also been at odds with their political masters over whether British and American forces are being pulled out of the country too soon. This latest episode could not have been timed better from the insurgents’ point of view. In just over a fortnight the “transition” process – Nato forces handing over control of parts of the country to the Afghan army and police – is due to begin. The safest districts are to be in the first tranche of transition, and those currently under British control are included in this first wave. The improvement in security at Lashkar Gah is often cited as a British success story and the district is scheduled to be transferred to the Afghan authorities on 21 July. Adopting the counterinsurgency doctrine that has become synonymous with US general David Petraeus, British commanders have taken a high-profile role in the city, spending time with locals and working with Afghan police and army officers to keep the peace. But even here there has been trouble. In May the Taliban attacked a number of Afghan checkpoints – one rocket exploded near a police station and killed the daughter of a police commander. The compound of the governor, Gulab Mangal, was also hit. The military would argue that the security situation is better, and there is some evidence to back the claim. In May 2010 British troops in Helmand had “contact” with insurgents 160 times in four weeks (15 in the first week of May, 30 in the second, 50 in the third and 65 in the fourth). In May 2011 the total was 96 “contacts” (11, 10, 45, 30). If the established pattern continues, the figures for June are likely to be higher. But military officials know that impressions count and if insurgents appear able to target British troops, local people will question whether they are ready to put their security in the hands of the less experienced Afghans. The total number of security incidents across the country may not reassure Afghans either, with the number of incidents barely changing year on year, despite the best efforts of the American “surge”. Commanders argued that this lack of improvement was predictable as the Taliban attempted to regain lost influence and territory. They have also insisted the surge should only be judged after two full years. But this is a luxury they no longer have. Barack Obama has ordered all 30,000 extra US soldiers sent to Afghanistan last year back home by autumn 2012. Cameron, meanwhile, is expected to announce that the British will withdraw another 500 troops next year, in addition to the 450 leaving this year. Nato countries now have a blueprint to get out of the country and an end goal – by December 2014 they will be in Afghanistan for training and overseeing purposes only, not for fighting. The entire process is predicated on the belief that Afghanistan will be comparatively stable by then, with their security forces able to take over. But those are two very big assumptions in a country where Nato has learned not to assume anything. Additional reporting by Saeed Shah in Islamabad Military Afghanistan Nick Hopkins Saeed Shah guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …