Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 753)
Sudan partition leaves rebel Nuba region feeling betrayed

Secession will see Nubian people ruled by Khartoum with scant hope that the south will support calls for autonomy As southern Sudan prepares for independence on Saturday, residents of the Nuba mountains near the new border are pushing for a breakaway state rather than affiliation with the north or the south. The region lies in the Arabised north of Sudan, although its people have long been sympathetic to the south. But conflict in the area in recent weeks has cast a shadow over independence and bodes ill for the stability of Sudan after partition. “There is no way for me to be part of the north anymore,” said 35-year-old Yohanes Mudier. “I haven’t fought for so many years just to fall under the same government again.” Like many of his fellow Nubians, Mudier joined southern Sudan’s rebel movement at the start of the 1983-2005 Sudanese war to support what he thought would be a struggle towards freedom. He spent 14 years in the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) without going to see his family. When he came back to the Nuba mountains in 2006, after peace deals had been signed, many of his relatives were dead. Mudier says there is no reason for him to celebrate independence. “I am part of the SPLA, but I feel I have been left behind. We will never get anything out of Khartoum through a political process. There is no point in talking to them any more.” His remarks reflect the views of a growing number of Nubians who feel betrayed by all the players involved in the peace agreement: the Sudanese government, the international community, and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), the political wing of the SPLA. Most Nubians are still affiliated with the northern wing of the movement, but many would prefer independence to joining the south. In the past weeks, the SPLM-dominated government in south Sudan has stressed that it will not engage in another war against Khartoum. Still bearing the scars of 20 years of a devastating conflict, the leadership of the south will focus on development rather than putting its new sovereignty in jeopardy by throwing its military weight behind the Nuba people. There are those who still have faith in the SPLM, insisting that after Saturday’s independence, troops and weapons will start flowing from Juba, the capital of south Sudan, to the Nuba mountains. But others, such as Montasir Nasir Waren Kalo, are more sceptical. In 2005, he was part of a Nubian youth delegation that lobbied the SPLM not to sign the peace agreement. “We have been the wheel of freedom for the whole African people of Sudan, but we never enjoyed the fruits of our struggle. We were always sacrificed for the benefit of others, and the [peace deal] is no exception to that,” he said. The recent misfortunes of Nubians started in 2005 when John Garang, the long-time leader of the SPLA/M, died in a helicopter crash a few days after the war ended. His Mandela-style vision of a united “new Sudan”, where Arabs and Africans would coexist under a new political leadership, was then substituted by the new SPLM leaders with a more achievable goal: the independence of the south. But according to the 1956 Sudanese borders, on which the peace agreement is based, the Nuba mountains will fall under the control of the north. “When I read the conditions of the [peace deal], I thought the southern leadership had sold us off,” said a local social worker, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. “When the SPLM/A was marred by internal division in the 90s, Nubians were the ones who supported Garang. Without us, the movement would have died and the south would have never been independent.” Instead of the referendum on independence given to southerners, the Nuba mountains were granted only ill-defined “popular consultation” to express their opinion on the peace deal. Six years later, no date has been set for the consultations. Many here believe the Khartoum government will never allow them to take place. Nubians are divided between those who want complete independence, and those who still support the SPLM/A as the best hope of freedom; but they are united in their determination to control their own destiny. “A wrong peace is worse than a war,” said a Nubian SPLM MP, who asked for anonymity. “We would rather take our weapons again to achieve a just one, than settle for the current situation.” His opinion is shared by Mudier: “If the south does not help us, we will have to fight the northern regime to the last man,” he said. “Maybe only our grandchildren will see that day.” Sudan Africa guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Prince William and Kate heckled by protesters in Quebec

Anti-monarchist separatist movement tells ‘parasite’ duke and duchess to go home Prince William and the royal party could have been forgiven for not noticing, but there was a part of Quebec that had no intention of welcoming him and his wife, except with whistles, saucepan lids, vuvuzelas and, incongruously, bagpipes. The prince – a rare British royal venturing into the heart of francophone, would-be separatist Quebec – received a formal welcome and inspection parade outside the city hall by the bearskin-helmeted members of the locally recruited 22nd regiment, known as “Les Van Doos”. The mayor’s words of welcome were warm, and even the regimental goat, Baptiste, looked benignly upon him. So far, all in a day’s work. But a few streets away, around 300 demonstrators had a different message. Mostly young, T-shirt clad and some facially studded, but with a scattering of older folk, they had gathered outside an Irish pub to bellow, toot and whistle the message that the monarchy should get out of Canada. Blue and white fleur-de-lys Quebec flags were waved, as was the green, white and red standard of the failed insurrection of 1837. Their handmade banners told the story: “Parasite go home” said one, “And don’t come back” added another. “Pay for your trip” said a third. “William dégage ” was the message. Even more bluntly and in English: “Kate go UK yourself”. And one for students of Britain’s victory over France in the seven years war: “We are still waiting for your excuses for 1755.” Their cries scarcely wafted up the hill to the prince in city hall – a double line of gendarmes prevented the demonstrators from getting any closer – but they lacked nothing in passion. The arrival of a busload of reinforcements from Montreal was greeted with passionate fraternal cheers. It may be rather doubtful, however, if those storming the Bastille in 1789 handed out leaflets urging: “No violence will be tolerated in the ranks, nor towards the admirers of royalty, nor the police or other demonstrators … gardez votre calme .” “We have no bad feelings about the British empire,” explained Julien Gaudreau, 23-year-old spokesman for the Quebec Resistance Movement. “We want to change the constitution here, not because of what happened in the past, but what will happen in the future. We have hired a plane to fly overhead with a banner for free Quebec, but we don’t know whether it is going to be able to take off with the weather around. “We think the monarchy should be abolished in Quebec. It may not be a good time for independence, but we are all right with that. We are young and we are going to be about for a long time. Independence is not going to go away.” Polls indicate that a majority of francophone residents support the idea of independence, but don’t see its practicality, and the separatist Bloc Québécois was thrashed in May’s federal election, losing all but four of its 47 seats. Up the hill, the prince was trying out his schoolboy French – ” C’est un honneur pour nous d’être parmi vous … merci votre patience avec mon accent ” – and was cheered for doing so. Overhead, the plane and its banner finally made an appearance – a $1,000 gesture it looked as though the demonstrators could ill afford. There was also a demonstration at the couple’s earlier engagement in Montreal on Saturday evening when a group of young protesters with placards gathered outside the Sainte-Justine university hospital next to a larger crowd of wellwishers. This was a minor quirk in a day of engagements: a tree-planting and meeting with war veterans in Ottawa, the hospital tour to visit sick children and premature babies, and to conclude a cookery lesson at a training college for chefs in Montreal. The latter is the sort of thing the royals have to endure on tours: a strangely artificial demonstration of ordinariness at which they are either supposed to show surprising aptitude or – all the better for the media – hopeless ineptitude. There, the prince was shown how to prepare a lobster souffle and Kate was given instruction in the not-too-difficult creation of an amuse-bouche of foie gras on a toasted brioche. Theresa Rindress, the student asked to show the duchess how to do it, confided afterwards: “She was fantastic. She was very competent with the knife. I asked her if she liked to cook at home and she said she likes to cook but does not do fancy things. She more makes big batches, throws a few ingredients together, trying new things. That’s how chefs experiment.” Last night the royals were heading back to anglophone Canada – to Prince Edward Island, land of one of the duchess’s favourite books, Anne of Green Gables – and the prince’s spokesman could afford to be condescending towards the demonstrators: “The couple are taking it in their stride. They are getting a very warm welcome. They consider [the demonstrations] as all part of the rich fabric of Canada.” Canada Prince William Kate Middleton Monarchy Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Syria: Man appears to film himself being shot by sniper

Youtube video follows footage of ‘activist and blogger’ Diyya al-Najjar being shot in the head by security forces in Homs Shocking video footage has emerged from the Syrian city of Homs in which a young man filming against a background of gunfire in the streets appears to be shot dead in cold blood by the sniper he zooms in on. A clip circulating on YouTube begins with a male voice describing “someone shooting at citizens in Karm al-Sham on July 1st without any reason and no demonstrations.” The cameraman is filming from an upper floor against a background of slogans being chanted. Jerky images of the street and balconies are followed by a blurred glimpse of a man in olive green, standing in the shadows, carefully moving forward and raising and firing a weapon – followed by a single shot, moaning, and distraught voices pleading for help. The cameraman’s identity is not known. Foreign journalists and human rights groups are largely banned from Syria and it has not been possible to authenticate the video. The caption describes the gunman as a member of the Shabiha, a militia used by the Assad regime. Last Friday’s demonstrations were described as the biggest yet during the three and half month uprising. Human rights groups say the death toll in Homs, Syria’s third city, is continuing to rise as security forces and gangs loyal to the Assad regime seek to crush protesters who come out in growing numbers in separate neighbourhoods on a daily basis. Tanks remain positioned in the city. Separate films posted online on Saturday and Sunday appear to show the killing of a young man named as Diyya al-Najjarwhen security forces opened fire on protesters gathered in the al-Qarabis neighbourhood of Homs. Crowds are seen running and scattering as gunfire rings out. One young man is shot in the middle of the street, as two men point weapons from the cover of parked cars. On Friday a witness told Human Rights Watch. “I saw Diyya al-Najjar shot by a sniper in his head right in front of me. The sniper was in a Land Cruiser car four or five meters away from protesters.” Al-Najjar was being described by some Syrian sources as an “activist and blogger.” His body was taken to al-Barr hospital in Homs, where a doctor confirmed to Human Rights Watch that he died from a bullet to the head. According to the doctor, 10 protesters wounded by bullets had arrived at his hospital by 6pm on Friday. Video showed the bodies of two men identified as al-Najjar and Bassam Saqeene. Al-Najjar’s face was surrounded with flowers, his body wrapped in the Syrian flag. Saqeene was killed in Homs on Thursday, according to Syrian opposition sources. • Nidaa Hassan is a pseudonym for a journalist in Damascus Syria Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Nidaa Hassan Ian Black guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

It becomes increasingly difficult to watch “This Week with Christiane Amanpour”. Part of it is that the woman does have a history of asking penetrating questions and standing up to people in power, so it’s disappointing that, week after week, she now simply swallows the Villager version of reality and regurgitates it with little pushback. Even the guest roster is frequently weighted in favor of conventional thinkers. So why watch her at all? Well, it’s important that you first understand the real purpose of the Sunday shows. They’re not aimed at us, and neither are the commercials. There’s a quid pro quo happening here: The ad rates for the Sunday shows are far out of proportion to the number of viewers. It’s about demographics. The Villagers watch these shows carefully, and read the entrails. As for the commercials — you may have noticed that they’re not actually aimed at consumers; they’re aimed at the Villagers. The policy makers and the media. And those high ad rates are how those multinational corporations remind the networks how financially painful it would be, should they ever actually question their God-given right to rape and pillage in pursuit of the bottom line. That’s why people like George Will, with his yearning for the good old days of the Gilded Age, are allowed to blather on. Here’s an unabashed elitist who, while he insists we need to close our borders, also says we should “staple a green card” to the diplomas of science and math graduates who come from other countries to attend our colleges. For someone who loves the classics, the man is so completely intellectually incurious. The implication, of course, is that the citizens who are already here aren’t really worth the trouble of educating. And Amanpour doesn’t ask him, “What should we do?” but rather, “What is politically possible?” Way to lower the bar, Christiane. And why is Michelle Rhee on this show yet again? When we know her ideas don’t work, that her “success” is grounded in at least some cheating on tests, why is she considered a credible source on anything — other than how to win influential friends? Jose Antonio Vargas, the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who recently disclosed he’s an undocumented immigrant, and former Sen. Mel Martinez add the only grace notes to the program, speaking movingly about what America means to the people who immigrated here: “In many ways, I represent … just how broken the immigration system is,” former Washington Post reporter Jose Vargas said on “This Week” of his decision to publish an account of his illegal status. “In many ways the goal was to expose just how incredibly dysfunctional and irrational the whole system is and has been for quite some time.” Vargas was joined on the panel by former Florida Senator Mel Martinez, former chancellor for the District of Columbia Public School system Michelle Rhee, and ABC News’ George Will – many of whom argued that the shortage of highly-skilled laborers demands a more inclusive immigration approach. “There are some things that we need to do just for the good of the country, for the good of our economy,” said Martinez. “We have a tremendous shortage of people in the high-tech fields, the STEMS as we call them – science, technology and mathematics – where we really need people from other countries who are learning these skills to be able to come here and create jobs.” Michelle Rhee, who has devoted much of her time to founding the group Students First since leaving her controversial tenure in the Washington school system, described a gap between the skills American schools are preparing students for and the skills needed to sustain a strong American economy. “In the next twenty years in this country,” Rhee said, “we are going to have 125 million high-skilled, high-paid jobs. And at the rate that the current public education system is going, we’re only going to be able to produce 50 million American kids who have the kills and the knowledge to take those jobs. That means we’re talking about potentially outsourcing the rest of those jobs, the majority of those jobs, overseas.” “Let me give you another reason why we need immigrants,” Will told Amanpour. “When we started Social Security there were about 42 workers for every retiree. Today we’re down to three point some. … The Social Security Trustees Report assumes the continuing high level of immigration to replenish the workforce, to make the entitlement system work.” So Rhee doesn’t mention the fact that our science and math graduates are as good as anyone else’s — when they graduate from well-funded, stable school districts with low poverty rates — or that poverty has much more to do with this problem than whether they attend charter schools. She’s shilling for her own interests, as usual. And Will, the “intellectual”, doesn’t seem to know the simple fact that undocumented immigrants have been paying into the Social Security system all along — they’re using fake Social Security numbers, and will never be able to claim benefits. Just another week at “This Week.”

Continue reading …
Fareed Zakaria: Ending Bush Tax Cuts Would Solve Budget Deficit

There are times when the idiocy oozing from the mouths of America's television commentators sickens me. Consider Fareed Zakaria, who after telling NPR Friday, “CNN is getting smarter,” actually said on the program bearing his name two days later that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire “would provide the federal government with $3.9 trillion in revenues over the next decade and basically solve the deficit problem” (video follows with transcript and commentary): FAREED ZAKARIA: The most important difference between Greece and America is this — America has many paths to solve its deficit problem. Were it to implement the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Plan, for example, it would instantly give America among the strongest public finances of any rich country. Were Congress would simply allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, returning rates to where they were under Bill Clinton's presidency, when America created almost 25 million jobs. That one action would provide the federal government with $3.9 trillion in revenues over the next decade and basically solve the deficit problem. We would still face the long-term problem of entitlements, especially health care costs, like every other rich country, but the short and medium-term crisis would be over. This is the same guy that told NPR Friday, “CNN is getting smarter, and you can feel it in the stories, you can feel it in the depth with which they're covered, the kinds of people in terms of guests who are brought on air, the way in which issues are discussed.” Really? Well, we currently have a $1.5 trillion deficit. Assuming allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would actually generate $390 billion in extra revenues without having a negative impact on the economy that resulted in lower receipts, the deficit would still be over $1.1 trillion. It seems to me that either Zakaria doesn't understand simple arithmetic, or he's so in the tank for raising taxes that he's willing to intentionally misrepresent the benefit regardless of the absence of truth. Whichever it is, this man is clearly unqualified to discuss budget matters on national television. As he should also recuse himself from foreign policy issues due to his private meetings about such things with President Obama, one has to wonder what Zakaria should be allowed to talk about on his weekly program. I'd suggest the weather, but he believes carbon dioxide is warming the planet.

Continue reading …
Bill Kristol Hits Republicans Again for Saying We Need to Lower the Corporate Tax Rate

Click here to view this media Holy cow, Bill Kristol actually said something two weeks in a row on Fox News Sunday that I agree with — we don’t need to be lowering the corporate tax rates when these companies are sitting on hoards of cash already and are not hiring. BREAM: Well, if they have such a hard time doing things like getting the continuing resolution, getting a budget done, getting this debt ceiling done, I mean, who thinks they have the appetite for actually tackling the tax code? EASTON: Actually, as James Baker said to me not long ago, doing that is actually — you have gives on both sides, because Democrats get to close loopholes and Republicans get a lowering (ph) of the corporate tax rate. So it actually is — there is a — (CROSSTALK) KRISTOL: I’m the only, like, conservative Republican in the country that actually does not think lowering the corporate tax rate is really the key to America’s future. BREAM: You’re the one. KRISTOL: Corporations have trillions of dollars. If the corporate tax rate is such a burden, how come they have all this money? They’re not hiring. The tax rates on labor are much more onerous, in my view, than the tax rates on corporations. But in any case, this is a heterodox view among conservatives. But nonetheless, this is why this deal can’t happen in a year. I mean, there’s a lot of debates that have to happen among Republicans. I think Michele Bachmann probably has a slightly different view of our tax future than Mitt Romney, and this isn’t going to happen before November, 2012.

Continue reading …
Krauthammer Challenges Shields: Where Is Democrat Budget? What’s Their Plan?

As he normally does on “Inside Washington,” PBS's Mark Shields Friday was waxing moronic about Republican plans to balance the budget. Not pleased by the fictional account on display, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer challenged his fellow panelist saying, “Democrats have not even produced a budget for 2012. What’s their budget?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): MARK SHIELDS: Consistency has not been a problem with Republicans. They have endorsed the Ryan plan, which of course does not provide for a balanced budget, and now they are pushing for a balanced budget. 103 House Republicans have already gone on record as saying they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless there is a cap of eighteen percent of government spending, federal spending, which is seven percent below what we're spending right now. In addition to that, they insist on a constitutional amendment and to cut spending by half, the deficit by half next year, all of which are impossible. Every serious person who has looked at this, whether in a group or a study group or commission or whatever, knows that there have to be revenue enhancements, taxes raised, as well as spending cuts. And the idea of just trying to do it with spending cuts alone is just irrational. CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Democrats have not even produced a budget for 2012. SHIELDS: The, the, the, the… KRAUTHAMMER: What’s their budget? SHIELDS: The case is there. The President is on… KRAUTHAMMER: Where are their numbers, where is the plan? SHIELDS: The President has… KRAUTHAMMER: Where are their numbers and where is the plan? SHIELDS: It’s right there in the President… KRAUTHAMMER: Where? SHIELDS: Look, I mean, the president in the dealings with Joe Biden, and the sixth, and the Senators and Congressmen. It is there. What nonsense. The inconvenient truth for liberal media members is Congressional Democrats haven't proposed a budget since the fiscal 2010 one was passed on April 3, 2009. That's 27 straight months without a budget proposal from a Democrat in either the House or the Senate, and people like Shields have the gall to go on television and complain about proposals from Congressional Republicans. The idea that in the midst of a serious budget crisis in this country, one political party has completely abdicated its primary responsibility should be drawing media ire on a daily basis. Instead, these shills point fingers at the only party trying to rectify the situation. It really makes you wonder how they look themselves in the mirror when they brush their teeth.

Continue reading …
Muammar Gaddafi: rebels tell leader he can stay in Libya

Opposition says post-surrender deal could allow Gaddafi to remain in Libya under international supervision Muammar Gaddafi can live out his retirement in Libya if he surrenders all power, the country’s opposition leader has said. Gaddafi is facing an international arrest warrant and has resisted all demands to step down, but members of his inner circle have indicated they are ready to negotiate with the rebels, including on the Libyan leader’s future. Mustafa Abdel Jalil, who heads the rebels’ national transitional council, told Reuters: “As a peaceful solution we offered that he can resign and order his soldiers to withdraw from their barracks and positions, and then he can decide either to stay in Libya or abroad. “If he desires to stay in Libya, we will determine the place and it will be under international supervision. And there will be international supervision of all his movements.” Speaking in the rebels’ eastern Libyan stronghold of Benghazi, Jalil, who was formerly Gaddafi’s justice minister, said he made the proposal about a month ago through the UN but had yet to receive any response from Tripoli. He said one suggestion was that Gaddafi could spend his retirement under guard in a military barracks. The Libyan government has repeatedly insisted that Gaddafi is a symbolic figurehead who has no involvement in the day-to-day running of the country. The regime’s spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, said it was willing to “set down in writing” that Gaddafi would have no political or military powers under a new constitution. Asked if this would leave Gaddafi’s role comparable to that of the Queen in the UK, Ibrahim added: “Maybe for the sake of argument, something like that.” But pressed on the latest concession by Jalil he was dismissive, saying that any such decisions should be left to the Libyan people. “What we are doing is legally and morally and politically far more convincing,” he said. “We are saying Libyans should decide for everyone on the position of the leader. Now who is more democratic, us or the rebels?” Gaddafi’s daughter Aisha has said her father would be prepared to cut a deal with the rebels though he would not leave the country, and his son, Saif al-Islam, said the leader would step down if that was the will of the Libyan people. Turkey, which had close economic ties to Gaddafi before the uprising, has pledged £125m in aid for the rebels in addition to the £62m it announced in June. “Public demand for reforms should be answered, Gaddafi should go and Libya shouldn’t be divided,” Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu told Reuters in Benghazi, adding that he saw the rebel council as the “legitimate representative” of the people. The conflict in Libya is close to deadlock, with rebels on three fronts unable to make a decisive advance towards Tripoli and growing strains inside Nato about the cost of the operation and lack of a military breakthrough. Libya Muammar Gaddafi Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest David Smith guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Muammar Gaddafi: rebels tell leader he can stay in Libya

Opposition says post-surrender deal could allow Gaddafi to remain in Libya under international supervision Muammar Gaddafi can live out his retirement in Libya if he surrenders all power, the country’s opposition leader has said. Gaddafi is facing an international arrest warrant and has resisted all demands to step down, but members of his inner circle have indicated they are ready to negotiate with the rebels, including on the Libyan leader’s future. Mustafa Abdel Jalil, who heads the rebels’ national transitional council, told Reuters: “As a peaceful solution we offered that he can resign and order his soldiers to withdraw from their barracks and positions, and then he can decide either to stay in Libya or abroad. “If he desires to stay in Libya, we will determine the place and it will be under international supervision. And there will be international supervision of all his movements.” Speaking in the rebels’ eastern Libyan stronghold of Benghazi, Jalil, who was formerly Gaddafi’s justice minister, said he made the proposal about a month ago through the UN but had yet to receive any response from Tripoli. He said one suggestion was that Gaddafi could spend his retirement under guard in a military barracks. The Libyan government has repeatedly insisted that Gaddafi is a symbolic figurehead who has no involvement in the day-to-day running of the country. The regime’s spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, said it was willing to “set down in writing” that Gaddafi would have no political or military powers under a new constitution. Asked if this would leave Gaddafi’s role comparable to that of the Queen in the UK, Ibrahim added: “Maybe for the sake of argument, something like that.” But pressed on the latest concession by Jalil he was dismissive, saying that any such decisions should be left to the Libyan people. “What we are doing is legally and morally and politically far more convincing,” he said. “We are saying Libyans should decide for everyone on the position of the leader. Now who is more democratic, us or the rebels?” Gaddafi’s daughter Aisha has said her father would be prepared to cut a deal with the rebels though he would not leave the country, and his son, Saif al-Islam, said the leader would step down if that was the will of the Libyan people. Turkey, which had close economic ties to Gaddafi before the uprising, has pledged £125m in aid for the rebels in addition to the £62m it announced in June. “Public demand for reforms should be answered, Gaddafi should go and Libya shouldn’t be divided,” Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu told Reuters in Benghazi, adding that he saw the rebel council as the “legitimate representative” of the people. The conflict in Libya is close to deadlock, with rebels on three fronts unable to make a decisive advance towards Tripoli and growing strains inside Nato about the cost of the operation and lack of a military breakthrough. Libya Muammar Gaddafi Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest David Smith guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Alastair Campbell diaries: MI6 warned Blair over dangers of Brown rift

Latest volumes of former spin doctor’s diary reveal fears that rivalry risked harming Britain’s interests on the world stage MI6 handed Tony Blair a private intelligence assessment which showed that the French and German governments drew up plans to exploit his divisions with Gordon Brown, according to Alastair Campbell. In a sign of how the rivalry risked harming British interests on the world stage, Campbell wrote in his diary that Blair was told by “the spooks” that Paris and Berlin hoped to use his rivalry with Brown to “divide them even further”. The latest volumes of Campbell’s diaries, serialised in the Guardian today, will also undermine the attempt by Ed Balls to claim that he was not a divisive figure during Blair’s premiership, after damaging private papers were published recently by the Daily Telegraph. Blair repeatedly told Campbell that Balls, then Brown’s chief lieutenant, was a highly disruptive influence who used to treat him like a junior official. “TB … said he had just about had enough of Ed Balls talking to him like something on his shoe,” Campbell wrote on 25 April 2001. Balls breached Treasury rules by leaking details of the government’s response to the fuel duty protests – that fuel duty would be frozen for two years – before Brown’s pre-budget report in November 2000, according to Campbell. “It was wrong to leak tax measures … it was misleading,” Campbell wrote after Brown outlined plans for Balls to brief the Times and the Mirror. But the diaries also show that Balls and Brown helped save Britain from direct involvement in the current Greek euro debt crisis after Blair made clear in private – at one point even to the Sinn Féin leadership – that he would take Britain into the euro. Brown campaigned hard against Blair on the euro and in October 1999, as they finalised plans for the launch of the Britain in Europe group, said to his face: “Do you want to be held responsible for mass unemployment?” Campbell left much of the Blair-Brown tensions out of the first condensed version of his diaries, which were published in 2007 shortly after Blair stood down as prime minister. But in the latest volume, covering the years 1999-2001, Campbell provides vivid details of their turbulent relationship. He reveals that: • Brown put pressure on Blair to give a date for his departure before the 2001 election – earlier than had been thought. In April 2001 Brown told Blair he was “crap” and that he should stand down to allow for the restoration of cabinet government. • Just two months before the 2001 election Brown accused Blair of having “betrayed” him when he stood for the Labour leadership in 1994 and of having taken “that job away from me”. • Before the 2001 election Blair said he expected Brown to strike against him. He appealed to Campbell to remain on board on the grounds that he was his “Exocet”. • On the day before the 2001 general election Blair told his inner circle he had “sadly, very sadly” reached the conclusion that Brown was working against him. But he said it was impossible to sack him or move him from his position as chancellor. • Relations became so fraught that in 2000 Blair asked Lord (Richard) Attenborough, the veteran actor and film director, to mediate. Attenborough was told by the Brown camp that Blair needed to say in 2003 when he would stand down. • Blair said that Brown lied to him in 2001 when he tried to secure money for schools and hospitals. • Blair turned “white with fury” – and later rebuked Brown in private – when his chancellor responded with “venom and contempt” to his question at a presentation by Treasury officials. • On 9/11 Blair declined to invite Brown to a smaller ministerial meeting in Downing Street, following the main Cobra crisis meeting, because his answers had become “monosyllabic” in recent discussions. Campbell believed that the splits were being picked up in Europe. On 12 October 2000 he wrote: “TB showed me a piece of intelligence which showed that the Germans assessed our problems on Europe not as one of public opinion, or the Tories, but a sense that TB and GB were on a different track to each other. So it was out there, probably picked up when some Foreign Office people were in Berlin.” A few months later at an EU summit in Nice, on 7 December, Campbell wrote: “The French and Germans, according to the spooks, were exploiting the fact that GB was seen as a rival to TB, to try to divide them further.” Campbell also shows that Brown had never reconciled himself to Blair’s election as Labour leader in 1994 after he stood aside as part of the “Granita pact”. Brown saw this as a noble and selfless act; Blair saw it as a recognition of his status as the frontrunner. Nearly a decade later this was on Brown’s mind even at the height of the foot and mouth crisis. On 11 April 2001 Campbell wrote: “He [TB] said on Monday, GB had started a conversation with him straight out with the words: ‘You betrayed me. You said you would never challenge me and you took that job away from me.’ TB said GB was still very sore, and operated on the basis there was a genuine grievance, which TB did not accept. GB was back to saying TB had an operation ready to roll in 1994.” The diaries also show that Brown was the decisive strategic thinker in the government who often outshone Blair in cabinet. Blair regarded him as one of the top five politicians of the 20th century, on a par with Lloyd George. Campbell told the Guardian on Sunday that, for all his faults, Brown was indispensable. Campbell said: “As Tony made clear in his book, he viewed Gordon as both brilliant and impossible. What is interesting from these extracts is that even when we felt Gordon was wanting Tony out, and the division was causing real damage, Tony was always able to see the strengths that made him want to keep him as chancellor and later support him as leader. “I shared that ambivalence which is why even though I lived through some of these difficulties and divisions, when push came to shove I went back to try to help Gordon in the last election campaign. He could be a complete nightmare, but he could also be absolutely brilliant and it is important people remember that. Tony was always the more rounded figure, and in my view a remarkable political leader, but Gordon also had formidable strengths.” Tony Blair Gordon Brown Ed Balls Alastair Campbell MI6 Labour Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …