Financial and business news and articles
Posts tagged Iraq
Iraq security firm joins bidding for Wall Street’s favourite detective agency
Mar 14th
Control Risks poised to table £600m bid for US corporate investigations company Kroll
Control Risks, which provides security for foreign companies in Iraq and the British government, is poised to join the bidding war for Wall Street’s favourite detective agency, Kroll.
The security firm, headed by Richard Fenning, is linking with US private equity firm General Atlantic to table a £600m bid. Additional firepower for the bid could come from British private equity group 3i, which has a 17% stake in Control Risks.
Control Risks was founded in 1975 by former army officer Timothy Royle to provide advice to insurer Hogg Robinson after a spate of kidnappings of company executives in the US and Europe by political extremists. It became independent in 1982 and offers advice on the political, economic and logistical risks of doing business abroad as well as providing crisis-management services. A large contract with the British government for work in Iraq accounted for 30% of its sales in 2008.
The firm has more than 1,000 employees in 15 countries and performs vetting, provides bodyguards and carries out anti-stalking measures for high-profile individuals. The majority of its clients are large corporations that need political and security risk assessments.
Control Risks rose to prominence in 1997 when it produced video evidence of senior Co-operative Wholesale Society executives passing information about the group to British entrepreneur Andrew Regan ahead of his planned bid for the business. But it has also grown on the back of the increase in global mergers and acquisitions activity and rising use of technology in the workplace.
“Investigating technology-based fraud and providing political and economic analysis for entrants to a particular market remains its stock in trade,” said one security analyst.
Kroll is best known for helping to uncover the hidden assets of Saddam Hussein, and for proving that the death of “God’s banker”, Roberto Calvi, found hanging from London’s Blackfriars bridge in 1982, was not suicide.
In the early 1980s, Kroll started investigating corporate raiders such as Sir James Goldsmith and Victor Posner on behalf of the companies they were attacking. During the 1990s, it also gained attention for its success in searching for assets hidden by dictators Jean-Claude Duvalier of Haiti and Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos of the Philippines.
Following the 11 September attacks in 2001 and a rash of corporate scandals during the early part of the decade – which reinforced the message that companies and investors needed to carry out proper due diligence – Kroll and other corporate security groups were in increasing demand.
However, Kroll has seen many twists and turns in its history as it pursued expansion and diversification into other areas such as computer security, forensic accounting, data recovery, employee screening and restructuring.
Kroll has offices in 33 countries and employs more than 3,800 people. By 1987, it had established a reputation as Wall Street’s pre-eminent private eye during hostile takeovers, after being hired to look into the new breed of financiers and their novel means of raising money. Kroll was hired by the Sears Tower in Chicago to review security after 9/11 and took the job of restructuring Enron, the energy firm brought down by fraud in 2001.
City sources say Control Risks and General Atlantic face fierce competition for Kroll from three American private equity bidders – Carlyle, Apax and BC Partners – with the latter teaming up with restructuring expert David Buchler. Control Risks declined to comment.
Kroll has been put up for auction by parent company Marsh & McLennan, the global insurance broker and consultancy company which acquired the firm from founder Jules Kroll in 2004 for nearly $2bn.
Carlyle is viewed as a leading contender for the business as it has historically had a strong focus on the defence and security sectors. Former prime minister John Major was once a member of its board. But General Atlantic has deep pockets – the firm has approximately $15bn (£9.8bn) of capital under management and is among the 50 largest private equity firms globally.
Analysts say that the increasing complexity of the financial markets, globalisation and the internet have presented new security challenges for companies, meaning increased opportunities for firms such as Kroll and Control Risks.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Letters: Fear and loathing in New Labour
Mar 13th
In light of the articles by Simon Jenkins (The bankers lied. And Darling, merely a puppet on their string, knows it, 12 March) and Mehdi Hasan (It’s defeatist nonsense to talk of a crisis of leftwing thinking, 12 March), it seems evident that there is the need for a rearticulating of the political discourse. The hegemony of neoliberal thinking has defined the political space for 30 years, so much so that even in the present crisis, when we all should be marching on the streets against the bankers, New Labour is still running in fear of framing the debate in social democratic terms.
For the 30 years the right have had a stranglehold on how we define freedom. The political classes have been fearful of any reference to the state as a means of solving problems. Individual freedom, essentially defined in terms of freedom from the state, has been their mantra. For example, George Osborne’s first reaction to the nationalisation of the banks was to jump enthusiastically up and down, claiming that old socialist nationalisation is here again. Cameron is careful that his slogan that there is such a thing as society is followed up by a clear rejection of any idea that this means a bigger state.
The current crisis has left both parties searching for ways to rearticulate a progressive politics, but it is up to the left to grab this opportunity, because they won’t have another like this, to reshape the political discourse and redefine the state and its relation to individual freedom. This is a hegemonic struggle to reclaim the terms of liberty and equality in social democratic terms.
Robert Proni
London
• Donald Hirsch is quite right to say that decent employers should pay a living wage of at least £7.14 an hour, and more in expensive areas (The wages of dignity, 10 March). However, we also need to realise that the legal minimum wage of £5.80 an hour is not being paid to many thousands of employees. The root of the problem is that the statutory enforcement powers are held by Revenue & Customs, and they are failing to do their job properly. That is hardly surprising as there are only 123 enforcement staff for the whole of the UK.
In Hackney, where I live, only 258 investigations have been carried out in seven years. Anecdotal evidence of illegal avoidance abounds, but the onus is on the individual to complain, and few feel able to do so. Ideally the enforcement powers should be transferred to local authorities, but in the meantime high-profile awareness campaigns could be organised by councils with advice and information points located in their buildings. This policy will be part of the Hackney Labour manifesto for the forthcoming local elections.
Tim Webb
London
• Neil Kinnock (Letters, 10 March) utterly fails to comprehend the burning sense of disillusionment that has driven so many former Labour supporters either into cynical abandonment of politics or, like John Kampfner, to embrace the Lib Dems. The charge against the New Labour project is not that it did not deliver the benefits he lists. It did, and there were others which curiously he omits, above all the lancing of the Northern Ireland carbuncle and significant constitutional reforms – devolution and human rights legislation. The charge is that it squandered its massive parliamentary majorities and the goodwill that the electorate bestowed on it to transform a divided, sick society.
On the contrary, it took to its bosom the neoliberal ideology that nourished that divide, extending privatisation; it renounced and even demonised public sector initiatives and went back on the welfare state concordat that was the hallmark of the postwar Labour settlement. So, Labour administrations have presided over the widest gulf ever between the haves and have-nots and now the inevitable massive recession. We have witnessed a generation of politicians intent on feathering their own nests, the expenses “scandal” being a minor part of this. Not to speak, as Neil Kinnock dare not, of the criminal adventure that was the Iraq war. I, a onetime Labour activist, like John Kampfner, have joined the Lib Dems, who I see as a catalyst for, and working partner of, a rejuvenated Labour party once it is purged of the New Labour virus.
Benedict Birnberg
London
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Torture and table tennis: Iraq hostage Peter Moore recounts life in captivity
Mar 12th
British IT expert held captive for more than two years after Baghdad kidnap laments not trying to escape
Watch the GuardianFilms investigation into how the hostages were taken to Iran
Peter Moore, the British IT expert who spent 31 months in captivity after being kidnapped in Iraq, has revealed how he thought he was about to be killed on the day of his release, spent his ordeal unable to see clearly without his glasses, and played table-tennis with a guard.
Moore said he regretted not trying to escape during the early days of his detention when the captives had the opportunity to kill a guard. The computer consultant from Lincoln said he had had a chance to flee when one of the two men watching over him fell ill.
The 36-year-old told Channel 4 News and the Times how he was seized, with four bodyguards, from a government building in Baghdad in May 2007. He was released in December last year and arrived home on New Year’s Day.
Moore said he and his fellow captives were stripped down to their underpants during their capture. Later, his glasses were taken, leaving the short-sighted consultant unable to see clearly until his release.
Moore paid tribute to the other four men seized, saying he was “very grateful” for their help and the medical treatment they gave him after his abduction.
Jason Creswell, Jason Swindlehurst and Alec MacLachlan were shot dead and their bodies returned to Britain last year. Alan McMenemy, the fourth bodyguard, is also believed to be dead.
Moore told Channel 4 News that early in their detention he and Creswell were asked to treat the sick guard.The hostages discussed using a syringe to inject him with air bubbles and attempting to overpower the remaining captor.
“I was concerned it was going to go out of the frying pan into the fire. There were two of them with us but 100 outside. I think we should have done it in hindsight. It was the best chance we had. I think one or two would have been killed and one made it out.
“There was a woman downstairs with a child and we would have had to kill her too.”
The men were seized at the end of May 2007, but they were held together only until July. Moore remained with McMenemy, chained side by side in cramped rooms with only a television for comfort until December, he told the Times.
Moore was training finance ministry workers how to spot misspent money when about 100 police in 20 vehicles stormed the building. Initially he believed he was being arrested. It was only when they began removing his clothes during the ride to Sadr City that he realised otherwise.
Moore, who has talked of being subjected to mock executions, said he was beaten on a near-daily basis and once subjected to severe punishment for allegedly breaking a lock.
“They tied my hands behind my back and put a chair next to the door. I was made to stand on the chair with my hands over the door and they pulled the chair out to leave me hanging. They did that four or five times. It was very painful. I was screaming in pain.”
Moore said he tried to appeal to his captors’ respect for family and religion, so invented a Brazilian wife and pretended to be Catholic. His act seemed to have worked – his kidnappers gave him a string of Islamic beads to pray with.
In early 2009, a major who spoke English ordered that Moore no longer be kept in chains. The two men watched tennis together on television. One day the major appeared with two table tennis bats and a ball.
“We got quite fast, playing for hours at a time,” said Moore. “It was a good laugh.” The kidnappers had made clear they wanted a prisoner exchange: the five British hostages for leaders who had been arrested by British forces in Iraq but held by the US military. “I just knew we were in it for the long haul,” Moore said.
As his living conditions improved, he began to suspect that the other four hostages were dead. On the morning of 30 December last year, he was woken at 5am and told to get dressed in jeans and black top because he was going to be released. Moore refused to believe them. “I was just like, ‘Go away,’ and put the blanket over my head.”
He was bundled into a car, transferred to a minibus, then to another car and finally driven to a driveway where he was met by a large group of Iraqi men in suits and others in combat gear with machineguns. “I thought, ‘S***, I am going to die,’” he told the Times.
But a man stepped forward and introduced himself as Sami al-Askari, an Iraqi MP, and told Moore: “I am from the Iraqi government and you are a free man.”
In his television interview, Moore contested Foreign Office claims that his kidnappers, from a Shia organisation, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, or the League of the Righteous, had requested a news blackout and insisted they wanted to publicise their message.
“They felt they complied with everything the British embassy said but still were not getting what they wanted,” Moore said.
A Guardian investigation reported that the hostages were taken to Iran within a day of their kidnapping in an operation led and masterminded by the Quds Force, part of Iran’s revolutionary guard.
But Moore believed he was held in houses in Basra and the cities of Hilla, Karbala and Baghdad during his captivity, although he conceded the men might have been driven across the border.
Iraqi intelligence sources told the Guardian the British captives were never made aware they had crossed the border and back within 24 hours of being seized.
The Foreign Office has continued to insist there was no evidence that Moore was held in Iran, despite claims by Iraqi intelligence that they told their British counterparts and the Foreign Office that the hostages were taken across the border.
General David Petraeus, the head of US central command, said Moore was “certainly” held in Iran for at least some of his time in captivity, although he told Reuters it was “difficult to say” what role the revolutionary guard played.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Gordon Brown rejects criticism from former military chiefs over defence spending
Mar 11th
Prime minister says former chiefs of defence staff Lord Guthrie and Lord Boyce are wrong to say military budget was insufficient for two wars
Gordon Brown today rejected criticisms from former military chiefs who accused him of starving the armed forces of funds when he was chancellor.
The prime minister also claimed it was “incredibly unfair” of Conservatives, including Sir John Major, the former prime minister, to accuse him of using a visit to troops in Afghanistan as a party political stunt ahead of the general election.
Sparks flew in the Commons chamber yesterday when David Cameron took Brown to task over comments by two former chiefs of defence staff – General Lord Guthrie and Admiral Lord Boyce – who branded his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry on Iraq “disingenuous”.
Brown insisted when giving evidence to the inquiry on Friday that he had always provided military commanders with the equipment they requested. However, the two former chiefs argued that, while urgent operational requirements were always funded, the Treasury failed to maintain the MoD’s overall budget at a level needed to fight two wars.
In an interview today with BFBS, the forces’ broadcaster, the prime minister said: “I think they are wrong. To be honest, I don’t think it is appropriate for people to criticise us for not providing what we did provide. The urgent operational requirements that were asked for by our forces were always met.”
Guthrie, the first chief of the defence staff under New Labour, insisted today that Brown had been “unsympathetic” to military spending during his tenure as chancellor.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think he was unsympathetic to defence. I think everybody who has had anything to do with defence thinks that. Particularly in the early days when he was chancellor and there was a lot of money in this country and he showered it on other departments but he didn’t give much to defence.
“I think nowadays the personal kit of people in Afghanistan, for instance, is better than it ever has been, but goodness it has taken some time to get there.”
He said attempts by Labour backbenchers to dismiss his concerns by calling him a Conservative was a “desperate act” and “rather cheap”.
Guthrie was at the centre of a Commons exchange between Brown and David Cameron yesterday that prompted several Labour voices to accuse him of being a Tory.
Guthrie told the Today programme: “I thought it was rather a desperate act and rather cheap. I don’t think everybody is a Tory. I certainly am a crossbencher and quite prepared to criticise anyone.”
Brown was also forced to respond to an accusation by Major that his visit to Afghanistan in the immediate wake of his appearance before the Chilcot inquiry last Friday and weeks ahead of a general election was “unbecoming conduct for a prime minister”.
Brown told BFBS: “I think that is an incredibly unfair accusation. I have gone to Afghanistan every year at this time for four years. I have visited Afghanistan eight times. People are making very politically loaded statements. I was doing my duty as prime minister, going to meet our forces. I wanted to thank our troops for what they had done.
“I find it quite unusual for people to criticise me for doing what I consider to be my duty. This is nothing to do with partisan politics. It is everything to do with wanting to assure our troops that they have the support and warm wishes of everybody in Britain and that we are absolutely confident they are doing the best job they can.”
In response to allegations that the government was slow to replace the soft-skinned Snatch Land Rover patrol vehicles, which are vulnerable to roadside bombs, Brown said that it was not known for some time in either Iraq or Afghanistan that enemy forces would use guerilla tactics, including homemade bombs, rather than facing allied troops in open battle.
“This happened in Iraq in about 2005-06 and it happened in Afghanistan a bit later,” he said.
“The moment people realised that this was the nature of the guerilla warfare that was going to be practised, Des Browne, the defence secretary, came to me and said we need to buy new vehicles and we approved those new vehicles immediately.”
The prime minister went on: “In 2006 we took a decision that we needed to do more and put about £90m in and bought Mastiffs and Ridgebacks. Then we decided to put out to competition a design for a light patrol vehicle and that is what we have done in the last few months.”
An inquest earlier this week into the deaths of four soldiers in Afghanistan in 2008 heard a string of criticisms over their equipment and training. Wiltshire and Swindon coroner David Masters pledged to raise his concerns with the Ministry of Defence.
He recorded unlawful killing verdicts for Corporal Sarah Bryant, 26, the first female casualty in Afghanistan, and special forces reservists Corporal Sean Robert Reeve, 28, Lance Corporal Richard Larkin, 39, and Private Paul Stout, 31, who died when their Snatch Land Rover hit a roadside bomb in June 2008.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
The battle for Wootton Bassett | Neil Burden
Mar 10th
From bikers to Islam4UK, many seek to exploit Wootton Bassett’s ‘homeland’ mystique – but its neutrality is precious
I have recently discovered the hugely unwelcome news (courtesy of an RAC road sign) that over 10,000 bikers plan to invade Wootton Bassett next Sunday, Mothering Sunday. As residents of the high street for the past 20 years, this is particularly vexing to my family. The children may have to review the planned family day at home, and take the cards, chocolates and flowers elsewhere in an attempt to escape the fumes, the noise and the congestion.
What is particularly perplexing about all this, however, is that this invasion is apparently sanctioned by the police, Wiltshire council and the MoD. The town council were not consulted. Nor were the residents. It turns out that the rally is taking place under the aegis of the charity known as Afghan Heroes. According to its website, by arranging for 10,331 registered (and who knows how many unregistered) bikers to thunder along the high street, it is “honouring the people of Wootton Bassett and the soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan”.
No one can argue against our population honouring anyone who puts their life on the line in the defence of this country and its values, whether or not they agree with the particular escapade on which those lives are lost. I hope that Afghan Heroes is also offering the victims of the war whatever practical and financial support that this government hasn’t, and I have no issue with them raising funds for this purpose by any legal means.
I can’t imagine, however, why they think that creating an unimaginable nuisance outside my front door is in any way “honouring” me. In fact, I don’t actually need to be “honoured” for attending a number of the repatriations, and I haven’t even been asked whether I want to be respected in this curious way. I imagine that I am being “honoured” in the same way as I was “honoured” in January by the upstanding members of the English Defence League and their pitbulls, who graced our high street one grey Sunday afternoon following an internet rumour that Islam4UK were going to stage an impromptu rally – on a weekend, coincidentally, that many football matches were cancelled owing to wintry weather.
I wish I failed to understand why the rally is picking on Wootton Bassett. Sadly, it’s all too obvious that the town is becoming a “homeland” symbol that confers respectability on those who can prove or imply an association, an association that such honoraries as Nick Griffin have recently attempted to exploit. The gatherings for the repatriations began quietly, honestly, almost accidentally. Due in no small part to the sterling efforts of the town council, they continue to be mostly genuine, spontaneous and apolitical, but the attempted politicisation by the media and those who seek the town’s reflected glory has been relentless. (The town now even has its own flagstaff flying the Union Jack, which mysteriously appeared overnight in the days before the visit of Charles and Camilla.)
The bigger question is: what message will this rally give out? Will it simply honour the dead and the respecters of the dead, or will it imply a call to arms? There’s a massive difference between a repatriation and a rally. Ten thousand motorbikes throbbing through the town will be noisy, smelly, thrilling, almost martial – miles away from the quiet, spontaneous and reflective commemorations of young lives lost prematurely.
Back in January, Islam4UK abandoned its widely criticised plans to hold a rally through the town, the ostensible purpose of which would have been to raise awareness and promote discussion of the wider issues of the war. While that is doubtless a debate that should be had more frequently, it was right not to have it in Wootton Bassett, thereby preserving the town’s neutrality. The Afghan Heroes parade would be a blow to Wootton Bassett’s quiet, unassuming decency and neutrality from which the town may never recover.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Former murder squad chief to head inquiry into Iraqi killings allegation
Mar 9th
Claims that British troops killed and abused prisoners are rejected by the MoD, that insists there is no credible evidence
An investigation into claims that British troops killed and abused prisoners will be led by a former head of a Scotland Yard murder squad. The case will involve seeking evidence from witnesses to a fierce battle in southern Iraq six years ago.
The huge task was announced today at the launch of a public inquiry into allegations that British soldiers murdered 20 or more Iraqis after the “battle of Danny Boy”, named after a checkpoint in Maysan province, north of Basra, on 14 May 2004.
The chairman of the inquiry, the former high court judge Sir Thayne Forbes, emphasised that he was embarking on his task “without any preconception as to where the truth may lie”. He said the inquiry was not a trial and he had no power to make any finding of criminal or civil liability. Any decision about whether witnesses would be granted immunity from prosecution based on their own evidence was up to the attorney general, he said.
Ministers and defence officials insist there is no credible evidence to support the allegations.
“There is absolutely no meeting of minds between those making the allegations and the MoD,” Lee Hughes, secretary to the inquiry, said. Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, conceded the case for an inquiry after high court judges attacked the failure of the MoD, and the military police in particular, to investigate complaints by the surviving Iraqis.
The high court attacked the MoD and its lawyers for withholding or losing relevant documents and for unnecessary secrecy. Its handling of the case was “lamentable”, the court said.
The allegations relate to the transfer of bodies and prisoners to the British base at Camp Abu Naji and Shaibah detention centre after a battle between insurgents and British troops who were involved in a bayonet charge and hand-to-hand fighting.
The inquiry is named after Hamid al-Sweady, 19, one of those who died. His uncle, and five Iraqis held at the camps, say they were not involved in fighting British soldiers. It has been suggested the Iraqis were detained because soldiers were looking for people involved in the deaths of six British military policemen murdered in nearby Majar-al-Kabir in 2003.
Jonathan Acton Davis QC, leading counsel to the inquiry, said a “police-style investigation” would be led by Stephen Condon, a former detective chief superintendent who led a Scotland Yard murder squad. He was an adviser to the defence team that helped to clear the former Kosovan prime minister, Ramush Haradinaj, of war crimes charges in April 2008.
Acton Davis said: “I anticipate it will be necessary to obtain and take witness statements from those at the battlefield,” as well as the two British bases.
Condon’s four-man team is unlikely to visit Iraq because of security concerns and will probably have to interview Iraqi witnesses in a neighbouring country.
Acton Davis said the MoD had provided more than 8,000 documents for the case.
Forbes warned that if witnesses did not co-operate, “the inquiry will not hesitate to use its compulsory powers in relation to the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses.
“I would ask that anyone who has any relevant information should provide it as soon as possible.” Public hearings are unlikely to take place before the end of the year.
The armed forces minister, Bill Rammell, said that for allegations surrounding the al-Sweady case to be true, there would have had to have been a “massive conspiracy”.
A public inquiry is already under way into the death in British army custody of Basra hotel receptionist Baha Mousa in September 2003.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Troops face tougher training to deter abuse of civilian detainees
Mar 8th
• Abuse ‘not only wrong but self-defeating’, says Rammell
• MoD to set up special unit to investigate Iraq allegations
Training of British soldiers is to be improved to avoid abuse of civilian detainees and better reflect the demands of future warfare, the government disclosed today.
In a related development, the Ministry of Defence is setting up a special unit to investigate all allegations of abuse of Iraqis by UK troops. The Iraq historic allegations team is a response to the MoD’s failure to deal with a string of complaints from lawyers representing former detainees.
The moves were announced today by Bill Rammell, the armed forces minister, on the eve of the opening of a new public inquiry into claims that British soldiers murdered and mistreated Iraqi prisoners.
“Fighting amongst the people and under judgment of the people in very difficult circumstances has become the norm, and it is increasingly likely to be that way,” Rammell told the Royal United Services Institute. “How our forces opereate in a cluttered and confusing environment will impact on support from civilians in theatre and support at home.”
He added: “More than ever before, the abuse of detainees, mistreatment of civilians and the unnecessary destruction of property or livelihood an tragic loss of civilian life – these are not only wrong but self-defeating.”
The armed forces “do not always recruit angels”, Rammell said, stressing the need for robust training for recruits who would need “to display aggression and single-mindedness in battle, coupled with self-control, judgment and sensitivity to situation and context”.
The MoD has hired a former senior police officer of the Inspectorate of Constabulary, Mark Lewindon, to monitor its training policy. It will also draw up a new report updating a study by Brigadier Robert Aitken, the army’s director of army personnel strategy, two years ago.
His report identified serious failings in army training and planning for the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath – failings since highlighted by the Chilcot inquiry. It was ordered after a number of cases alleging ill-treatment by British troops, notably the death of Baha Mousa, a Basra hotel receptionist, in September 2003.
He suffered 93 injuries while in British custody. Eight other Iraqi civilians were abused.
The Mousa case is the subject of a public inquiry which has heard evidence that British troops and their officers ignored, misunderstood, or were simply unaware of “five techniques” – wall-standing, hooding, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation, and deprivation of food and drink.
Though these were banned by the British government in 1972 following their use in Northern Ireland, Aitken found they were still not proscribed in the army’s military doctrine.
Rammell referred today to these “proscribed technques”. However, he added that “no one should jump to the conclusion that every allegation is true”, and that there was “no evidence whatsoever of a culture of widespread abuse of detainees by British service personnel”.
He said if allegations that British troops murdered and mutiliated up to 20 Iraqis after a fierce fight, known as the “battle for Danny Boy“, near the town of Majar-al-Kabir in Maysan province, north of Basra, in May 2004, were true, they must have been involved in a “massive conspiracy”.
Ministers and defence officials have always insisted that the allegations are false. However, the government was pressed by the courts to set up a public inquiry as it had failed to meet Human Rights Act obligations for a timely and independent investigation for alleged wrongdoing by agents of the state, including soldiers.
The inquiry into allegations made by six Iraqis including Khuder al-Sweady, uncle of teenager Hamid al-Sweady, one of the 20 who died during the Danny Boy incident, opens in London tomorrow.
The MoD belatedly disclosed crucial documents about the case to the high court. Contrary to evidence in court from MoD officials, the Iraqis had complained to the Red Cross about their treatment shortly after the incident, and that was known by ministers, the high court heard in pre-inquiry hearings last year.
“My greatest fear is that uncertainty created by these unproven allegations risks unfairly undermining the reputation and achievements of our armed forces,” Rammell said today.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
David Miliband: History’s verdict on Iraq war will be ‘balanced’
Mar 8th
Foreign secretary says he does not have ’sleepless nights’ about the war but he does acknowledge the problems associated with it
David Miliband said today that it would be “stupid” to pretend that the Iraq war had been a total success.
In an interview published ahead of his appearance at the Iraq inquiry this morning, the foreign secretary said that history’s verdict on the war would be “balanced” and that it could take another six or seven years before the situation in Iraq stabilised.
Asked if he agreed with the proposition that the war was justified, Miliband told the Daily Telegraph: “That falls on two counts. One, it is too glib about the loss of life and the reverses. And it’s too black and white. There’s a ledger, and it’s still being added to. There is a positive and a negative. It’s a balance, and history’s version will be a balanced judgment.”
Miliband said that he did not have “sleepless nights” about the war. But that did not mean that he did not acknowledge the problems associated with it.
“There are hard questions to be asked of anyone who supported the war,” Miliband said.
“It would be stupid to pretend the balance is all on one side of the ledger. We haven’t lost the peace, but a lot of people have lost their lives … It was much easier to win the war than the peace.”
Miliband described Iraq as a “post-conflict situation with quite a lot of conflict still going on”. He said that the next six or seven years would be “absolutely critical” in deciding how Iraq developed.
He also insisted that Britain would not have gone to war if it had been known that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
“If there was convincing evidence there were no WMD, there would have been no UN resolution and … no [parliamentary] vote.”
Miliband was an education minister at the time of the Iraq war. He became foreign secretary in 2007 and when he gives evidence to the Iraq inquiry this morning he will be asked principally about Britain’s policy towards Iraq since he has been in charge at the Foreign Office.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Martin Rowson: Explosions rock Baghdad as Iraqis go to polls
Mar 7th
A wave of bombings and mortar attacks have killed 25 people in Baghdad as insurgents bid to disrupt Iraq’s second general election since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003
Miliband’s grand Middle East delusion | Chris Phillips
Mar 12th
Posted by Chris Phillips in Politics
No comments
The foreign secretary is wrong: Britain’s soft power in the Middle East has much greater influence than its show of force in Iraq
There is a common ritual that I, like most Britons, have regularly encountered when riding a taxi in Damascus, Amman or Cairo over the past seven years. Talkative and curious, most cabbies will immediately ask where you are from and, on hearing London, raise the usual questions about Tony Blair and Iraq.
Seven years after the invasion, British citizens are still taken to task for their government’s actions in 2003. It is therefore hard to take seriously David Miliband’s claim earlier this week that the Iraq war has boosted Britain’s reputation in the Arab world.
Called before the Chilcot inquiry, the foreign secretary stated:
Though diplomats in Israel and Kuwait might support the foreign secretary’s view that Britain’s reputation was enhanced by Iraq, the reality on the Arab street is quite different. Militarily and diplomatically, London appears weak and tied to Washington, while economically it lags behind European competitors for influence in the region. The UK’s main area of success and influence is actually in the cultural sphere, where institutions like the British Council provide a degree of soft power. But military misadventures like Iraq, far from enhancing Britain’s reputation in the Arab world, serve to undermine the soft power that these institutions have spent decades acquiring.
The Iraq war did no favours for Britain’s military reputation in the region. The operations of the first Gulf war in 1990-91 and the bombing of Iraq in 1998 had already built the image that Britain’s armed forces were an extension of US forces, and the blind loyalty shown by Blair in 2003 only cemented this view. Marc Lynch has shown how, since 1998, millions of Arab viewers of al-Jazeera have watched Iraqis killed by Britain – which became a daily occurrence in 2003. On top of this, allegations of prisoner abuse by British soldiers were widely reported, as were claims about the under-funding of UK troops. Far from enhancing respect for the military, the Iraq war has allowed the Arab media to portray it as subservient, abusive and weak.
Subservience to the US has also characterised the Arabs’ perception of British diplomacy since 2003. The initial refusal to seek a ceasefire during the 2006 Lebanon war and a similar reluctance in Gaza are two prominent examples. Even recent diplomatic shifts, such as Miliband’s commendable lobbying for the relabelling of goods produced in Israeli settlements, or his visit to previously pariah Syria, are interpreted as reflecting the new priorities of the Obama administration rather than independent British initiatives. This perceived diplomatic dependence on America is emphasised by other actors’ comparative freedom in the region, notably France, which has re-engaged under President Nicolas Sarkozy, deepened its ties with Syria and Lebanon and opened a military base in the UAE.
Economically, Britain’s influence is similarly limited. While Lord Davies, the minister for trade, investment and small business was in the UAE this week trumpeting the increased trade between Britain and the Middle East, Britain lags behind Germany, Italy and France, which take a far greater share of the Arab market.
One field where Britain still excels is arms sales, particularly to Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. However, far from using this trade to leverage influence, Britain seems more eager to appease its customers. This was seen in the dropping of corruption charges in the BAE-Saudi scandal, and the continued sale of arms to Israel after the 2008-09 Gaza war.
Yet in spite of perceived military and diplomatic subservience and economic impotence, Britain does maintain an influential cultural presence in the Arab world. While critics may attack organisations such as the British Council as a waste of taxpayers’ money or “cultural imperialism”, arguably their many educational, cultural and developmental projects enhance Britain’s reputation far more effectively than the billions spent on the Iraq war. The British Council itself recognised this fact in 2007, substantially expanding its presence in the Arab and Muslim world.
Though the Arab press often hails the role of the British Council in supporting local projects, its reputation can be easily tarnished by the government’s foreign policy. In 2006, for example, when Britain was alleged to have a role in Israel’s capture of a Palestinian militant, the British Council in Gaza was attacked. Moreover, Britain is not alone in promoting cultural ties and soft power in the Arab World. France’s Institut Francais and Germany’s Goethe-Institut have expanded their impressive operations in the Middle East recently, without fearing a backlash against their government’s policies in the region.
As Chilcot continues and the British establishment tries to understand what went wrong in 2003, perhaps it should take the opportunity to reassess how Britain projects its power and influence in the Arab world. David Miliband is deluded. Displays of hard power on the coat-tails of the US won’t enhance Britain’s reputation. Military misadventures like Iraq only serve to undermine the soft cultural power that is far more effective in promoting a positive picture of Britain in the Middle East.