More mongering of EU trying to recreate New Cold War -- Mission accomplished

UK warns over 'Russia aggression'

Gordon Brown's comments came ahead of a European summit UK prime minister Gordon Brown has said Nato and the EU must reassess their relations with the Kremlin to prevent further "Russian aggression". His comments came amid fears Russia could cut oil and gas flows in the row over Georgia. Mr Brown, writing in the Observer, urged the EU to do a "root and branch" review of relations with the Kremlin. On Saturday President Dmitry Medvedev and Mr Brown spoke by phone as Russia moved to ease tensions with Europe. Rights and responsibilities Mr Brown wrote in Sunday's Observer newspaper one day ahead of a summit of European heads of state to discuss the South Ossetia crisis. The conflict in the region began on 7 August when Georgia tried to regain control of South Ossetia by force, which was followed by a Russian counter-attack deep into Georgia. Mr Brown said: "When Russia has a grievance over an issue such as South Ossetia, it should act multilaterally by consent rather than unilaterally by force." He went on: "My message to Russia is simple. If you want to be welcome at the top table of organisations such as the G8, OECD and WTO, you must accept that with rights come responsibilities. "We want Russia to be a good partner in the G8 and other organisations, but it cannot pick and choose which rules to adhere to. "That is why I will argue tomorrow that Russia should accept Georgia's territorial integrity and international mechanisms for addressing these conflicts, and withdraw troops to their previous positions. "And, in the light of Russian actions, the EU should review - root and branch - our relationship with Russia." He added: "We are also reflecting on the Nato response. We must re-evaluate the alliance's relationship with Russia, and intensify our support to Georgia and others who may face Russian aggression." Mr Brown also said the summit "must add urgency to the work on Europe's energy agenda". "We must more rapidly build relationships with other producers of oil and gas," Mr Brown said. 'Very clear message' The prime minister said he had told Mr Medvedev to expect a "determined response" from European leaders. Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said European states should resist a rush to sanctions and instead exert long-term pressure. "It is very important for the EU now to reassess its relationship with Russia and send a very clear message," he told Sky News. "I do not think the measures looked at tomorrow should be cheap or quick. This requires clear and united and patient firmness over a sustained period of time." He added: "It is wrong that it is now easier for Russian citizens to get visas into European countries than it is for Georgians. "Georgia is a transparent democracy, an open society. Russia is clearly going in the wrong direction in that respect." Former Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, said it could be dangerous to isolate Russia. "I think we've got to make clear our displeasure about the way in which Russia has acted outrageously," he told the BBC. "But if by doing so, in a particular way and with particular language, we drive Russia into isolation, then sulking Russia, in isolation, will be even more difficult to deal with. "And that's why when people talk about expulsion from the G8 and things of that kind, I think they've got to understand what the possible consequences of that would be to the Russian government's attitude." 'Disregard for principles' Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said there is no excuse for the violation of international law. Writing in the Mail on Sunday, he said: "Russia has become the aggressor - it has gone from claiming to defend Russian passport holders in regions of Georgia to seeking the break-up of the state, showing disregard for the principles of modern international relations. "The immediate instinct of the prime minister and I was clear: to speak out against aggression, to call for respect for human rights and international law and to rally world opinion behind these principles." During his conversation with Mr Brown, Mr Medvedev said Russia was in favour of the deployment to Georgia of additional monitors from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. In a separate development, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke to his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier. They agreed on the need to "put an end to attempts to use the situation surrounding Georgia... to raise tensions in Europe by speculating on non-existent threats concerning other post-Soviet countries", said the Russian foreign ministry. Georgia has cut diplomatic ties with Russia after Moscow recognised the independence of the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Original article posted here.

More kangaroo courts, more assault on rule of law. This time in UK

PM announces emergency legislation to allow anonymous evidence in trials

Gordon Brown today announced that emergency legislation on the use of anonymous witnesses in criminal cases would be rushed through parliament next week.

The move follows the collapse of an Old Bailey murder trial and a warning from police that dozens of other prosecutions might now be in jeopardy.

The prime minister told MPs during Commons question time that he hoped to gain cross-party support for the measures that will be brought forward next week to rescue pending trials, including more than three terrorism cases, one of which is due to start in the autumn.

Police said yesterday there are 40 to 50 cases either going through the courts, or about to start, that could be affected by last week's Law Lords ruling. The ruling stated defendants have a right to know the identity of the witness giving evidence against them if the testimony is decisive.

The Crown Prosecution Service yesterday sought an adjournment in all cases using anonymous witnesses so the implications of the judgment can be assessed. Scores of defendants convicted on anonymous evidence may also appeal.

The justice secretary, Jack Straw, was trying to reach agreement over a way forward with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Any immediate moves might be resisted in the House of Lords because of concerns over civil liberties, and anxiety that any new legislation will be rushed.

The intense political activity was sparked when the £6m trial of two men for the murder of businessman Charles Butler, 50, was halted at the Old Bailey. Defendants Douglas Johnson and David Austin are likely to face a retrial next year.

The decision to stop the proceedings came as a direct result of the ruling last Wednesday in the case of Iain Davis, who was convicted of a double murder at the Old Bailey in 2004. The five law lords said he was denied a fair trial because the identities of three witnesses who named him as the gunman were concealed. Witnesses gave evidence from behind a screen, their voices were distorted, and lawyers were banned from asking any questions that would reveal their identities.

The judges said English common law and European human rights law require that a defendant be able to confront his accusers and cross examine them properly. Lord Bingham, the senior law lord, said Davis's counsel was required "to take blind shots at a hidden target," adding: "A trial so conducted cannot be regarded as meeting ordinary standards of fairness."

Police and prosecutors have increasingly resorted to promising anonymity in recent years to persuade frightened witnesses to testify. The device has been successful in tackling gun crime, say police.

The law lords acknowledged the public interest in bringing dangerous offenders to justice, but said it was for parliament, not judges, to deal with the problem.

Any new legislation will have to comply with the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Human Rights Act. Finding a model which achieves this will not be easy.

Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said yesterday the damage caused by last week's ruling could be wider than feared. "It could stifle current investigations. This isn't an esoteric legal point, it effects real people."

He said that witnesses in past cases will also need to be reassured if appeals are lodged. "In an appeal, there is a possibility of anonymity being challenged by defence lawyers. We have made promises to people and are determined to keep them."

The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said she saw no obstacles to fixing the issue, and Edward Garnier, the shadow justice minister said the Tories would work with the government.

"We clearly need to ensure fairness in all trials both for defendant and prosecution," he said. "But we are all acutely aware of the issues around gangland crime, intimidation of witnesses and so on. We will approach this difficult question constructively."

Original article posted here.

No, the "New World Order" is not a conspiracy theory

Brown's secret talks on 'new world order'

By Andrew Grice

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a "new world order" and "global society".

Brown is drawing up plans to expand the number of permanent members in a move that will provoke fears in his country that the veto enjoyed by Britain could be diluted eventually.

The United States, France, Russia and China also have a veto but the number of members could be doubled to include India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and one or two African nations.

Brown has discussed a shake-up of a structure created in 1945 to reflect the world's new challenges and power bases during his four-day trip to China and India. British sources revealed "intense discussions" on UN reform were under way and Brown raised it whenever he met another world leader.

The Prime Minister believes the UN is punching below its weight. In 2003, it failed to agree on a fresh resolution giving explicit approval for military action in Iraq. US President George W. Bush then acted unilaterally, winning the support of then British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

His aides are adamant that the British veto will not be negotiated away. One option is for the nations who join not to have a veto, at least initially. In a speech in New Delhi, the Prime Minister was to say: "I support India's bid for a permanent place - with others - on an expanded UN Security Council." However, he is not backing Pakistan's demand for a seat if India wins one.

Brown will unveil a proposal for the UN to spend £100 million ($257 million) a year on setting up a "rapid reaction force" to stop "failed states" sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached.

"There is limited value in military action to end fighting if law and order does not follow," he will say. "So we must do more to ensure rapid reconstruction on the ground once conflicts are over and combine traditional humanitarian aid and peace-keeping with stabilisation, recovery and development."

THE UNITED NATIONS: EYE ON THE WORLD
* The UN Security Council's membership has remained virtually unchanged since it first met in 1946.

* Great Britain, the United States, the then Soviet Union, China and France were designated permanent members of the powerful body.

* Initially, six other countries were elected to serve two-year spells on the council in 1946. They were Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, the Netherlands and Poland.

* The number of elected members, who are chosen to cover all parts of the globe, was increased to 10 in 1965. They are currently Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam.

* Decisions made by the council require nine "yes" votes out of 15. Each permanent member has a veto over resolutions.

* The issue of UN reform has long been on the agenda. One suggestion is that permanent membership could be expanded to 10 with India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and South Africa taking places. Any reform requires 128 nations, two-thirds, to back it in the assembly.

Original article posted here.

The future of Iraq and the Neo Con project to bring democracy to Iraq

British pullout stokes Iraq's southern fire

By Sami Moubayed

DAMASCUS - When then-US secretary of state James Baker suspended talks with the Palestinian Liberation Organization on June 20, 1990, he famously said, "Our telephone number is 202-456-1414. When you are serious about peace, call us."

This is what British Prime Minister Gordon Brown should have said to Iraqi leaders while visiting southern Iraq last week. After all, thanks to the indifference of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and a completely paralyzed central government in Baghdad, the British-controlled city of Basra has become a hotbed for militants and Islamic fundamentalists.

Instead, Brown chose to speak to his own countrymen - downplaying unquestionable failure in Iraq - saying, "Your war is over. We have managed now to get Iraq into a far better position." Brown's statement was far more realistic than the 2003 speech of President George W Bush, in which he said, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

Brown did not say, however, that the British had succeeded. He literally could not say that because it would have been factually incorrect - very incorrect. He also did not say, however, that they had failed. British troops will remain in Basra, he claimed, training and assisting Iraqi authorities, until the spring of 2008. Their military role is over, however, as of mid-December.

Maliki had recommended a rapid two-week transfer of local authority in Basra, and Brown - eager to rid himself of the Iraqi burden - immediately said yes. Brown acknowledged, "Not that violence has ended, but we are able to move to provincial Iraqi control and that's thanks to everything you [British soldiers] have achieved."

Let's take a closer look at what all of this means for Brown, Bush and Iraq. Brown is effectively ending a three-year military operation that has cost the lives of over 170 British personnel. It has become very unpopular in Great Britain. Brown never endorsed the Iraqi adventure, but was always too afraid to strongly oppose it, but since coming to power in June has wants to bring it to an abrupt end.

What he has done is drop British forces in Iraq to about 2,500. Good news for the British - bad news for the White House. Shortly before the British announcement, Australia and Poland also said their forces will be leaving Iraq in 2008. Some in Washington are distressed, claiming they are being abandoned by their closest ally in Iraq. They see that Brown's announcement is a de facto defeat for Great Britain and coalition forces in the war-torn country.

It makes it very difficult for Bush to tell the American public, "Wait and see, I was right on Iraq." What makes life a little easier for the US president is that if the US loses Britain, it still has France. Tony Blair's departure from the premiership coincided with the rise of Nicolas Sarkozy, a man who is willing to bury all previous animosity between his predecessor Jacques Chirac and the White House.

But France is not an active player in Iraq. It does not have troops stationed in Iraq, and apart from a recent visit by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner to the country, the French have been absent from Iraqi affairs since 2003. And although a staunch ally of Washington, Sarkozy has already parted with the US on a variety of issues, primarily in his willingness to engage with Hezbollah (which the US claims is a "terrorist" organization) to advance presidential elections in Lebanon.

Brown hopes that any tension in British-US relations will be resolved when the Bush team leaves the White House in January 2009, almost certain that post-Bush America will be ruled by the Democrats, who are more opposed to the military adventure in Iraq. Additionally, Brown will now be able to call for early elections in 2009, without having the headache of explaining what British troops are doing and why they are dying in relatively large numbers in a war that according to most people in Britain does not concern them.

When Blair ordered 46,000 troops to Iraq in 2003 (one third of the army's land forces) many wondered whether these soldiers even knew where they were heading. Operation Telic, as it was called, was the largest operation of the British army since World War II. With time, it became increasingly difficult to justify what the British were doing. Saddam Hussein was arrested; it was clear that he had no weapons of mass destruction and was not cooperating with al-Qaeda. And territories under British control were not becoming a haven for democracy, as Bush and Blair had been saying since 2003.

The British will not part with the Americans completely, however, keeping a large number of civilian personnel in Iraq, hoping to transfer their mission from a military one into an economic and developmental one that can serve bilateral British-Iraqi relations. The fact that Iraqi forces in Basra are unable - by their own account - to take over from the British seems to mean little to Brown. General Jalil Khalaf, the police commander of Basra, confirmed that his men cannot deal with the security vacuum that will be left by the British, noting that recently 40 women were killed in Basra by Islamic fundamentalists for not adhering to Islamic dress code.

Their bodies were mutilated - and this while the British were there - shedding light on what will likely happen to Basra the minute the British leave. Even at the House of Commons in London, the Defense Select Committee expressed doubt over Brown's decision to pull out, fearing that a post-British Basra will become a city swarming with violence, "dominated by criminals and Shi'ite militias".

Brown promised a phased withdrawal on reaching 10 Downing Street this summer. In October, he announced that the 5,000 troops in Basra would be dramatically reduced by mid-2008, and completely returned by Christmas 2008. That was simultaneous with (and regardless of) relative US success in arming Sunni militias to combat al-Qaeda in al-Anbar province. Brown wants to portray himself as a patriot who is gravely concerned about the wellbeing of British troops in Iraq.

He reads polls well - and realizes that for the first time in 20 years the opposition Conservative Party is 11 points ahead of the Brown government. Earlier, Brown had been accused by British servicemen in Iraq of showing "contempt" for the British war effort, failing to provide his men with needed equipment and funds while serving as minister of finance. General Lord Guthrie, the former chief of defense staff, claimed that a success story in Basra "could have been made available earlier if adequate funding had been found sooner" adding, "Brown must take most of the blame."
Simultaneously, Anthony Seldon, in his biography of Blair, The Blair Effect, confirmed that when Brown was arguing with Blair over the 2004 budget, he said, "You're giving away too much and being outrun by those military bastards!" By simply evacuating his troops from Iraq, with little regard to consequences, Brown hopes that this chapter of his career will be turned - for good.

But let's go back to when Blair started this phased withdrawal from Basra in February. He had been hinting at troop withdrawal since visiting Baghdad in May 2006. The US insisted then - and now - that this does not mean a change of strategy, nor does it spell failure for the international coalition in Iraq. American statesmen repeated that eventual withdrawal was what the West had in mind for Iraq ever since they got there in 2003.

National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe downplayed the importance of Blair's words at the time, saying they were not failure, but rather a "sign of success". Then, Blair commented on phased withdrawal, saying, "What all of this means is not that Basra is how we want it to be. But it does mean that the next chapter in Basra's history can be written by the Iraqis."

Let's try to imagine a post British-Basra; the second-largest city in Iraq with over 2.5 million inhabitants. Blair said that it was safer than Baghdad because the Iraqi capital was witnessing at the time what he labeled "an orgy of terrorism". True, the British in Basra did help reopen schools, equip hospitals, improve waterworks and secure oil platforms. Blair said that in Basra, there is "no Sunni insurgency, no al-Qaeda base, little Sunni or Shi'ite violence".

This is where both Blair and Brown made and are making a huge mistake. Blair purposely ignored all the violence that had taken place in Basra in 2006. Brown continues to deny the horrific situation there, claiming that the city - healed or not - will have to deal with its own affairs after the American and British messed it up in 2003.

The Basra that Brown wants to leave is one dominated by Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. His pictures are plastered on the walls and monuments of Basra, showing how powerful he really is. Alcohol is banned and veiling is becoming a must; those who refuse are arrested or beaten by religious militias who act as morality police squads. Merchants who sell alcohol have been beaten by the fundamentalists. Some have been even executed.

On April 21, 2004, a series of bombs ripped through the British-controlled city, killing several Sunnis, including a university professor. Armed men also stormed a police station, killing 11 policemen, and burning down two buildings. Sunnis have migrated en mass from Basra, fearing for their lives, and the British have been unable to protect them. A report by the US Department of State in 2006 on Basra described it saying, "Smuggling and criminal activity [continue] unabated. Intimidation attacks and assassination are common. Unemployment is high and economic development is hindered by weak government."

Supporters of the British prime minister point to a six-month truce pledged by Muqtada, saying there will be no violence in Basra. They claim that Muqtada is currently busy purging the Mahdi Army of devious and sectarian people who infiltrated because of their anti-US credentials since 2003. The new Mahdi Army will be one based on principle and character, where membership is based on strict criteria and recommendations of an earlier member in good standing. That is what Muqtada wants the world to believe, and it is very true - but for different reasons. Muqtada is conducting a facelift to make himself look nicer in Iraq. He is doing it to restructure, organize and empower himself to take over Basra.

Just because it is not carrying out military operations does not mean that the Mahdi Army is gone - or has become peaceful. On November 15 it reminded the world of how strong it is with a massive demonstration in Najaf, attended by tens of thousands of Sadrist supporters, commemorating the death of their master's father, Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr.

The young cleric made a statement which was music to the ears of his supporters, saying: "I tell the evil Bush, leave our land, we do not need you or your armies. I tell the occupiers, you have your democracy and we have our Islam: get out of our land." He then unleashed a fiery war of words against everybody cooperating with the Americans, including Maliki, his Da'awa party and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the pro-Iranian and yet pro-American Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC).

Some analysts in Washington and Europe claim that Muqtada's "new vision" is being funded by Iran. They want to transform the Mahdi Army into another Hezbollah. These speculations surfaced in late 2006, published in The New Yorker by veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. He wrote that the Bush White House had pressured Israel to wage its war on Hezbollah because he was afraid of repeating the Hezbollah model in failed states like Iraq.

All conditions that enabled Hezbollah to emerge and remain independent of US policy since the 1980s can be found today in Iraq. That is why Bush was seemingly very interested in wiping out the Lebanese group during the Israeli war - a target that was never achieved. The Lebanese military group, after all, has been a tremendous success in Lebanese politics and has managed to uplift and protect the Shi'ites of Lebanon since its inception in 1982.

The situation in Iraq is very similar to that of the Lebanese civil war. There is chaos, anger, occupation, arms - plenty of them - indoctrination, Shi'ite loyalties, and a strong patron like Iran. Riad Kahwaji, an expert on Iranian affairs, said, "Iran is definitely interested in having its own proxy political and military forces in Iraq, just like Lebanon. All the indicators so far are that Iran has invested a great deal in the Mahdi Army."

A source close to the SIIC's Hakim, who in turn is very close to Iran, confirms that the Shi'ite leader received assurances from Tehran, at the highest level, that the Islamic Republic would not abandon the SIIC in favor of the Mahdi Army. Hakim and Muqtada have been at odds for generations over control of the Iraqi Shi'ite community. Muqtada's spokesman Salah al-Obeidi, based in Najaf, denied these rumors, saying that although Muqtada admires Hezbollah, he does not plan to transform his army into a mirror image of the Lebanese group.

Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.

Original article posted here.

International Relations as Cult of Personalities. When UK tries to exert a mere shard of sovreignty, Moron turns towards French Poodle and Rottweiler

Britain 'no longer closest Bush ally'

By Toby Harnden in Washington

The White House no longer views Britain as its most loyal ally in Europe since Gordon Brown took office and is instead increasingly turning towards France and Germany, according to Bush administration sources.

Audio: Why Brown is no longer Bush's best friend Brown accused over Iraq pullout 'stunt' Toby Harnden: Gordon Brown's break with the White House "There's concern about Brown," a senior White House foreign policy official told The Daily Telegraph. "But this is compensated by the fact that Paris and Berlin are much less of a headache. The need to hinge everything on London as the guarantor of European security has gone." Nicolas Sarkozy is seen by many as the man Bush can best do business with in Europe With Tony Blair departed, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, is seen by many as the man George W Bush can best do business with in Europe. Although Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has not lived up to initial expectations in Washington, she is still seen as far preferable to her predecessor Gerhard Schröder. The White House official added that Britain would always be "the cornerstone" of US policy towards Europe but there was "a lot of unhappiness" about how British forces had performed in Basra and an acceptance that Mr Brown would pull the remaining 4,500 troops out of Iraq next year. Speedy Sarkozy named and shamed Britain has become a 'permissive' environment for terrorists Analyisis: Brown's numbers game in Iraq "Operationally, British forces have performed poorly in Basra," said the official. "Maybe it's best that they leave. Now we will have a clear field in southern Iraq." Another White House official described Mr Brown as "challenging" and far less close to the US than Mr Blair. There has been a notable reduction in contact between Downing Street and the White House since Mr Blair left and US officials have remarked on how few British ministers have visited Washington in recent months. Mr Brown and Mr Bush are understood to have spoken twice by telephone in three months since they met at Camp David in June, whereas Mr Blair and Mr Bush held video-link conferences, often weekly. Kurt Volker, a senior State Department official with responsibility for Europe, disagreed with the White House official's view, arguing that the British withdrawal to the airport in Basra was a "tactical" decision and that the predicted chaos "hasn't happened". He told The Daily Telegraph that Mr Brown had shown "a lot more steadiness than maybe people expected" and while his style had been very different from that of Tony Blair there had been "a lot of consistency" over policy. But Mr Volker emphasised that "things are changing in Europe" and paid tribute to Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, both for visiting Iraq and for warning over Iran that the world had to "prepare for the worst and the worst is war". "Kouchner's comments were very helpful because what he is indicating is that this is serious. It's not just a matter of playing out diplomacy forever with no result. It's got to provide a result." Privately, White House aides accept that Mr Brown would not support military action against Iran. There is also disquiet about what US officials view as double dealing by special advisers briefing an anti-White House message in London and a more favourable one in Washington. "That sort of manoeuvring is not appreciated," said one diplomatic source. The wariness about Mr Brown could open doors to the Conservative Party. Owen Paterson, the shadow Northern Ireland secretary, recently met several key White House officials, including Barry Jackson, who recently took over many of Karl Rove's duties as a policy adviser to Mr Bush. A British diplomatic source said: "In the White House there's a sense of enormous change from Blair. They used to be on the phone to Blair all the time and that's no longer the case because Brown clearly wants to be the unBlair. "At the Pentagon, there's a feeling that Britain is letting the side down on Iraq. The new best friend is Sarkozy and that means Brown taking a step back doesn't matter as much. In White House eyes, Sarkozy is taking up the slack from Blair. "When things get tough, however, they're likely to turn to Britain again." Original article posted here.

More Momentum Towards the Inevitable Admission of a Lost War

US anger at Brits' move out of Basra

Michael Smith and Sarah

BRITAIN is preparing to hand over control of Basra to the Iraqi army as early as next month, sparking renewed claims from the US that the British are preparing to "cut and run".

The Iraqi army is on course to take control of Basra province by autumn - with October seen as the earliest point at which it would be ready - according to Whitehall officials.

It could allow Gordon Brown to announce the handover in his widely expected statement on Iraq to the Commons when MPs return from the summer recess.

The handover would enable most of the 5500 British soldiers to leave Iraq, although negotiations are under way to base some troops in Kuwait.

According to defence sources in Washington, US commanders in Baghdad have accepted that British troops are on their way out of Iraq, prompting further criticism this weekend from American military commentators.

Frederick Kagan, of the American Enterprise Institute, said it was "hard to imagine" conditions that would allow a handover next month.

General Jack Keane, an architect of the US troop surge, said the handover plans had "much more to do with conditions in the UK" than those in Iraq.

Government attempts to play down the simmering row with the US were hampered by two British military commanders' fierce criticism of Washington's policies.

Major General Tim Cross, the top British officer involved in post-war Iraq planning, said he raised serious concerns with then US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the country could descend into chaos.

But Mr Rumsfeld "ignored" or "dismissed" his warnings, he told the Sunday Mirror newspaper.

In 2003, General Cross was the deputy head of the coalition's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance.

"Right from the very beginning, we were all very concerned about the lack of detail that had gone into the post-war plan - and there is no doubt that Rumsfeld was at the heart of that process," he said.

"I had lunch with Rumsfeld in Washington before the invasion in 2003 and raised concerns about the need to internationalise the reconstruction of Iraq and work closely with the United Nations.

"He didn't want to hear that message."

Last weekend, the former head of the British army, Mike Jackson, also criticised the US's handling of post-war Iraq.

Sir Mike described the approach taken by Mr Rumsfeld in post-war Iraq as "intellectually bankrupt" and said Mr Rumsfeld was "one of the most responsible for the current situation in Iraq".

The growing irritation in Washington will only be increased by renewed claims that the British have done a deal with the Shia militias to ease their way out of Basra.

The lawyer for a Briton held without trial in Basra detailed a number of secret meetings in which the British agreed to a phased release of militants - including known killers.

The Ministry of Defence denied any such deal, but a senior defence source said secret talks mediated by the Iraqi special police had been "going on for weeks" to ensure a safe withdrawal from Basra Palace.

The Prime Minister has promised President George W. Bush that the British will continue to monitor the progress of the Iraqi troops for the foreseeable future. That will require about 2500 troops, including a 1500-man quick-reaction force.

Officials emphasised that a number of different plans were under consideration but senior military commanders were pushing to base the force in Kuwait.

Whitehall sources confirmed last week that Britain was speaking to the Kuwaiti Government about "moving some of the functions currently carried out at Basra airport to Kuwait".

Original article posted here.

Gordon Brown: New World Order tool

Follow the Moron and break your military

Pull troops out now and stand up to Bush, inquiry tells Brown

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor

British troops should be pulled out of Iraq even though the violence is likely to get worse, a cross-party commission has told Gordon Brown.

The commission co-chaired by Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, called for an end to offensive military operations by British forces and a "clear exit strategy".

The findings stepped up the pressure on the Prime Minister to seek a change of policy on Iraq at his forthcoming summit with President Bush. The report said the UK should "actively and urgently ... pursue changes of policy from our allies".

Mr Bush rejected a vote by Democrats in the House of Representatives last week for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by April next year. But Lord Ashdown, who turned down a post in Mr Brown's Cabinet, warned that delaying withdrawal until the US "surge" in Iraq has reduced violence would hand the initiative to the insurgents.

"Our withdrawal rate should be determined not by the security situation - which allows the militias, the insurgents, to determine our withdrawal - but by the state of training of the Iraqi forces," Lord Ashdown said on the BBC TV AM programme.

"If we can no longer suppress the violence, we are in a sense a target for the violence," he added. "Therefore, we need to hand this process over to the Iraqis.

"Will things get worse for a bit? They may but they are probably going to anyway. The evidence was that if we cannot suppress the violence we cannot prevent it getting worse. What we need to do is train up the Iraqis."

He said Tony Blair had "failed to use the leverage" he had to influence Mr Bush's policy in Iraq and urged Mr Brown not to make the same mistake.

"We committed the cardinal sin of these interventions, which is to have ridiculously over-ambitious aims; to recreate Washington in Baghdad, to recreate a fully-functioning Western-style democracy in a Middle Eastern country," said Lord Ashdown.

The commission's recommendations called on the Government to refocus the military objectives to give British troops "a clear exit strategy".

It said: "This means ceasing offensive military operations and focusing on completing the training of Iraqi security forces. When this job is done, we can withdraw the troops. Our forces should only stay as long as they have a job to do - not on the basis of a set date or artificial timetable."

The commission was set up by the Foreign Policy Centre, an independent London-based think-tank, and interviewed more than 50 witnesses including Lt-Gen Jay Garner, the former US administrator in Iraq, General Sir Mike Jackson, former head of the British Army, Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former UN ambassador, the Baghdad blogger, Salam Pax, Dame Pauline Neville Jones, the former intelligence chief and Denis MacShane, a former Foreign Office minister.

The former Labour cabinet minister Baroness Jay, who co-chaired the commission, said: "Iraq needs an economic road map which ensures that as the security situation improves on the ground the economic benefits of peace take root as soon as is humanly possible."

Original article posted here.

Gordon Brown wasting no time to lay the foundation for his anti-terror legislation

Ex-CIA Man Exposes Hysteria Of Car "Bomb" Terror London car bombs would not have killed anyone, government using terrorist tactics by hyping fear to morph society

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Sunday, July 1, 2007

Countering the frothing rabid hysteria that is being whipped up by a fervent media in response to three failed car "bomb" attacks in the last few days in the UK, ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson joined Keith Olbermann to underscore the truth behind the madness - that the so-called bombs were primitive at best and would not have killed anybody.

Watch the video below.

In the immediate aftermath of the discovery of a Mercedes parked outside a London night club containing up to 60 litres of petrol and a similar second vehicle, authorities claimed that the bombs would have caused "carnage" had they been detonated, killing hundreds of people.

A burning Jeep that was driven into a terminal building at Glasgow Airport yesterday was also believed to contain petrol, but failed to explode beyond simply burning out the interior of the vehicle.

The truth about the "deadly" car bombs that led to airports and other transit systems being closed across the country as well as the UK terror threat level being raised to critical is that they displayed an almost laughable level of proficiency and would not have killed anyone.

"This is not one of the truck bombs or car bombs we see going off in Iraq - what's really striking about this today is that you had two non-bombs in London when we had at least five bombs in Baghdad in which U.S. soldiers were killed in one of those so I think it's just out of proportion - this was an incendiary, this was not a high explosive," said Johnson.

Johnson said that had the gas been ignited properly, there would have been a loud boom that would have split the tank but that no projectiles would have even exited the vehicle.

"If someone was within 20, 30 feet of it they would have ear damage but not much more," said Johnson.

Johnson contrasted how the media glaze over deadly car bombings in Iraq which occur every day "And then you have a non-event in London and we're going to battle quarters and beginning to give the hairy eyeball to every Muslim."

Olbermann called the terrorists, "the graduating Al-Qaeda bomb squad that need remedial work" while attacking the concept that we're fighting them in Iraq so as to not have to fight them over here."

He also called out the so-called counter-terrorism experts who have hyped this non-event on television to enhance the profile of the counter-terror companies that they head up.

As Johnson outlines, fewer than 50,000 people worldwide have died as a result of terror attacks since the 60's, and as we recently highlighted, accident causing deer, swimming pools and peanut allergies have all proven more deadly than international terrorism.

The true extent of the damage that could have been caused by these recent attacks pales in comparison to the overblown exaggerated hype that the authorities have claimed and that the media has willingly parroted.

Similar attacks were a staple of the 60's and 70's but the government and the media downplayed them because they were of minimal threat to anyone and to hype such non-events was handing a propaganda victory to the terrorists.

Since the very definition of terrorism is to influence government policy not by the attack itself but by hyping fear of new attacks, the government of Gordon Brown is engaging in terrorism by strongly intimating that fresh attacks are inevitable.

Brown came to power with an agenda to push through new anti-terror laws including wiretaps being admissible in court and extending the 28-day detention without charge law to 90 days. Though such proposals failed under Blair and Brown was expecting a fight to get them passed, expect them to breeze through Parliament with little opposition following the outright panic that has been generated as a result of recent events.

Original article posted here.

Britain fighting for paper rights, legal fictions and symbolic rhetoric. Nice.

Germany sets collision course with UK on rights


Ian Traynor in Brussels

Germany threw down the gauntlet to Britain yesterday over one of the issues that will dominate a crucial EU summit starting today in Brussels. Addressing one of Tony Blair's "red line" subjects, the Germans made clear they want the so-called charter of fundamental rights to be legally enforceable as part of a new deal on how Europe is run.

The charter is a comprehensive catalogue of human, civil and social rights agreed by the EU in 2000 but never enforced. Though it will not be at the heart of any new treaty, the German government, chairing the summit, said it should still be referred to as "legally binding".

Both Mr Blair and Gordon Brown are flatly opposed to the charter becoming European law, and thus enforceable by the European court of justice.

"It's a proposal from the [German EU] presidency and it does indeed contain a proposal to make the charter legally binding," said a senior Berlin government official closely involved in planning the summit and drafting the new treaty. The case for the charter was overwhelmingly supported by the rest of the EU, he added. "Some see that as a concession because they want it in the treaty. They absolutely insist on the legally binding charter."

The charter enshrines everything from the right to strike to the right to preventative medical treatment. EU trade unionists demonstrated in Brussels in support of it yesterday, but it is strongly opposed by Britain's business leaders and the government has said it will not tolerate any European interference in the UK's social and labour law.

The charter formed chapter two of the proposed European constitution that died two years ago after France and the Netherlands voted against it.

Signalling a possible way out of the impasse, however, the German official also acknowledged that Britain's common law system made the UK a special case in the EU, and indicated that the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, could negotiate terms exempting the UK from the charter's application. A senior commission official said: "The Germans have told the UK that opt-outs can be organised."

The constitution was officially buried on Tuesday night in Brussels when Mrs Merkel's team tabled a mandate for a new reform treaty which seeks to salvage much of the constitution, minus its symbolic and solemn trappings. "We need to mutilate the constitution in order to save it," said another senior German official.

German officials hope that, if consensus can be reached, the treaty will be accepted at the summit scheduled for today and tomorrow, but which is expected to run into Saturday. EU government officials would then meet for a couple of months in the autumn to dot the i's and cross the t's in the new treaty.

The new pact would reshape the way the EU is run by giving it a full-time president, a European foreign policy supremo, a slimmed down commission, and a new "double majority" voting system based on a country's population size, which will raise Germany's clout relative to other members for the first time.

The latter change is seen as the biggest threat to a summit triumph for Mrs Merkel because Poland, wary of German domination, is demanding to reopen the issue of voting weights.

Other British sore points include the role and powers of a European foreign minister (who would be called something else), and the surrender of Britain's veto on criminal justice and home affairs.

British officials admit that reaction to Downing Street's demands among other EU states this week has been "vituperative". But diplomats in Brussels yesterday characterised the German proposals as a shrewd piece of drafting that appeared to leave enough flexibility to secure a deal at the high-stakes summit.

Original article posted here.

Political rights will continue to dwindle under Gordon Brown as Prime Minister

Gordon Brown Plans New Anti-Terror Laws

By TARIQ PANJA

LONDON (AP) - Britain's incoming leader Gordon Brown will unveil a raft of new hardline anti-terrorism measures when he replaces Prime Minister Tony Blair later this month, British newspapers reported Sunday.

The Sunday Times and The Observer both carried detailed outlines of proposals that they say Treasury chief Brown will make public this week.

In 2005, British lawmakers rejected the government's bid to allow police to detain terror suspects without charge for up to 90 days, forcing it to accept a compromise of 28 days. But Brown will seek to revive the proposals, the papers said.

He will also call for judges to have greater powers to punish terrorism by making it an aggravating factor in sentencing, and will call for a review of laws banning the use of phone tap evidence in court.

The security services have long resisted calls for intercept intelligence to be used as evidence, saying it give could terrorists an insight into their methods.

The Sunday Telegraph said that Brown would promise at all stages to give the courts and Parliament "greater oversight" over his proposed counter-terror measures, following clashes between government and opposition groups including the judiciary and civil liberty groups.

"We must maintain a commitment to liberty, British traditions and the British way of life," the paper quoted an unnamed Brown source as saying.

At a meeting with members of his Labour Party in Scotland on Saturday, Brown gave an indication that he is seeking changes to the country's anti-terrorism laws.

"We must be vigilant for the benefit of security in this country," he said. "Anti-terror must be more sophisticated, with earlier intervention. That is why I support an increase in the length of detention to build up evidence across nations and I support post-charge questioning with an increase in police resources."

Any moves by Brown to strengthen the terrorism laws are likely to be met by the same tough opposition that Blair had.

Blair suffered his first major domestic defeat in 2005 when lawmakers, including members of his Labour Party, rejected his plan to allow police to hold terror suspects for up to 90 days without charging them with an offense. The government also has been constantly overruled by the judiciary in its attempts to deport foreign nationals it suspects of being engaged in extremist activities.

Last week Blair launched an attack on against opponents of the government's approach to anti-terrorism, saying that they imperiled Britain's safety by putting civil liberties ahead of Britain's security.

Original article posted here.

Breaking bad news to the Moron: Britain is bolting

Bush gets ready for Iraq U-turn by Brown

By Tim Shipman in Washington, Philip Sherwell and Patrick Hennessy, Sunday Telegraph
Gordon Brown is prepared to risk the future of the "special relationship" with the United States by reversing Tony Blair's support for the Iraq war, President George W Bush has been warned.

He has been briefed by White House officials to expect an announcement on British troop withdrawals from Mr Brown during his first 100 days in power. It would be designed to boost the new prime minister's popularity in the opinion polls.

The President recently discussed with a senior White House adviser how to handle the fallout from the expected loss of Washington's main ally in Iraq, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

Details of the talks came as a close ally of Mr Brown called for a quicker withdrawal of British troops. Nigel Griffiths, a former minister, said: "We should get out of Iraq as soon as is practicable. We should consult the Iraqi government - but they cannot have a veto. This cannot be delayed."

Mr Griffiths, who resigned as deputy leader of the Commons this year over the decision to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, spoke out as reports suggested that Mr Brown would use an early trip to Iraq to reassess Britain's role and accelerate the withdrawal. Revelation of the US fears will reinforce expectations in Westminster that Mr Brown will make a decisive break with Mr Blair's support for the war.

	Tony Blair during a surprise 'farewell trip' to Iraq yesterday

During a surprise "farewell trip" to Iraq yesterday, Mr Blair suggested that his successor would continue his policy. Speaking shortly after a mortar attack by insurgents on Baghdad's fortified "green zone", the Prime Minister said: "I have no doubt at all that Britain will remain steadfast in its support for Iraq, for the Iraqi people and for the Iraqi government as it tries to make sure it overcomes the threat of terrorism and continues to make progress.

"The policy I pursue is one for the whole of the Government, so even when I leave government I am sure that support will continue."

However, it can be revealed that senior figures in the National Security Council, the Pentagon and the State Department in Washington have expressed fears about Mr Brown.

They believe that cordial relations between the two leaders will be "at an end" if the incoming premier plays "gesture politics" over Iraq.

One senior official said: "There is a sense of foreboding. We don't know if he will be there when we need him. We expect a gesture that will greatly weaken the United States government's position."

Mark Kirk, a Republican congressman who discussed Iraq policy at the White House last week, said: "The American view is that he's a much weaker political leader than Blair. There's the fear in Washington that he won't be as strong an ally."

President Bush's aides fear that Mr Brown will boost Democrats' demands for a timetable for a US pullout from Iraq and encourage wavering Republicans to defect - leaving the President more isolated.

Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 who sits on the Senate foreign affairs committee, said Mr Brown would support Democrats' calls for the Iraqi government to meet "benchmarks" for progress or for war funding to be cut off.

A source close to the Chancellor said last night: "These fears are unfounded. Gordon is a committed Atlanticist who wants to strengthen and deepen our ties with America around our shared values, and who wants to persuade the rest of Europe to work in closer co-operation with America."

The number of British troops in Iraq is being cut from 7,100 at the start of the year to 5,500 - but there is no official timetable for full-scale withdrawal.

Original article posted here.