Western European News Digest
David Kelly Warned of Being 'Found Dead in the Woods'
British weapons inspector David Kelly told British diplomat David Broucher that he (Kelly) would probably be "found dead in the woods" if Britain invaded Iraq, Broucher testified to Lord Hutton's inquiry Aug. 21, as the BBC reported. Broucher said Kelly made what he had then considered a "throwaway remark," in February.
Kelly told Broucher that he had told Iraqis they would not be invaded if they cooperated with UN weapons inspectors. Kelly said if there were an invasion, some of these Iraqis "might be killed as a direct result of his actions," which put him in a "morally ambiguous" position.
Kelly also said that every line of the Blair Iraq dossier had been fought over before it was published last September.
Guardian's Norton-Taylor Documents Government Spin
In an Aug. 21 article, Guardian correspondent Norton-Taylor discloses some line-by-line editing over Britain's Iraq dossier, going back to September 2002.
*Press officer Daniel Pruce said the government shouldn't give the impression that the situation was "static" in Iraq. Pruce said that much of the evidence was "largely circumstantial," but the dossier should say that Iraq had "enough chemical warfare agents to kill X thousand or contaminate an area the size of Wales."
*Under a section titled "Feel," Pruce wrote: "Our aim should also be to convey the impression that things have not been static in Iraq but that over the past decade [Saddam] has been aggressively and relentlessly pursuing WMD while brutally repressing his own people."
*Blair's chief media advisor, Alastair Campbell, was reported to have told John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee: "Our public line is that the dossier will set out the facts which make HMG [Her Majesty's government] judge Iraq/WMD to represent a real threat."
*Julian Miller, Scarlett's deputy, met with Downing Street media staff on how to make the dossier convincing and make sure everyone was "on the right track."
*Philip Basset, one of Campbell's advisers, wrote on Sept. 11, 2002 on the state of the dossier: "Very long way to go, I think. Think we're in a lot of trouble with this as it stands now."
*Days later, Downing Street spokesman Tom Kelly said to Campbell: "This does have some new elements to play with, but there is one central weaknesswe do not differentiate enough between capacity and intent.... We know that [Saddam] is a bad man and has done bad things in the past. We know he is trying to get WMDand this shows those attempts are intensifying. But can we show why we think he intends to use them aggressively, rather than in self-defense? We need that to counter the argument that Saddam is bad, but not mad."
*Matthew Rycroft, Downing Street foreign policy adviser, said: "Part of the answer to 'why now?' is that the threat will only get worse if we don't act nowthe threat that Saddam will use WMD, but also the threat that Iraq's WMD will somehow get into the hands of terrorists."
*Documents also revealed that Tom Kelly wrote to another Downing Street spokesman, Godric Smith, on Sept. 24, about the "core script" for media presentations: "The weakness, obviously, is our inability to say he could pull the nuclear trigger any time soon."
Norton-Taylor emphasized the importance of the Sept. 17 private message by Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, on the dossierthat "We will need to make it clear in launching the document, that we do not claim that we have evidence that [Saddam] is an imminent threat."
Tony Blair Was Told Iraq Was No Threat
What little remains of Prime Minister Tony Blair's credibility was blown away Aug. 18, during Lord Hutton's inquiry into the death of senior weapons inspector David Kelly. A Sept. 17, 2002 e-mail was made public, written by Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, asserting, on the soon-to-be-released "dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction," that "we will need to make it clear, in launching the document, that we do not claim that we have evidence that [Saddam] is an imminent threat." This was counterposed, on the front page of the Guardian, to Blair's contention, when the dossier was released, on Sept. 24, 2002: "[Saddam] has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes."
This new revelation not only blows apart Blair, but should have devastating consequences for the Cheney's gang in the United States. Blair's Sept. 24, 2002 dossier had the crucial purpose of "legitimizing" the new U.S. "National Strategy Document" policy of "preventive war," by making it seem that Saddam's Iraq was an imminent danger to Western countries. The September 2002 Blair dossier was an important instrument, utilized by the Cheney-acs, to get their war machine rolling.
The Guardian calls the Powell e-mail, written to Joint Intelligence Committee chairman John Scarlett, "explosive," and quotes Powell saying that the dossier "does nothing to demonstrate a threat, let alone an imminent threat from Saddam.... In other words, it shows he has the means, but it does not demonstrate he has the motive to attack his neighbors, let alone the West." The weekly Independent quotes further from Powell: "If I was [sic] Saddam, I would take a party of Western journalists to the Ibn Sina factory, ... to demonstrate there is nothing there."
The Guardian and Times cite the Powell e-mail, and other evidence presented to the Hutton inquiry, to show how Blair's 10 Downing Street was "intimately involved in the events which led to the death of the government scientist Dr. Kelly." For example, there is the "devastating" (Guardian's term) e-mail, written to Powell, by Downing Street media operative Tom Kelly (no relation), insisting, "This is now a game of chicken with the BBCthe only way they will shift, is they see the screw tightening." The Guardian writes: "Mr. Kelly was referring to plans to make the scientist appear before the committees, in hope of forcing the BBC to confirm that Dr. Kelly was the source" of the BBC's report, that Downing Street had "sexed up" the September 2002 dossier.
The Independent lead editorial on all this is headlined, "Now We Know That No. 10 Did Order a Rewrite of the Dossier To Justify War."
Kelly Not Alone: British Officials Challenged Iraq Intel
On Day One of the Hutton Inquiry into the death of British weapons scientist Dr. David Kelly, a series of documents that were used by the British government in testimony, showed that there were "protests by intelligence officials" about how the Iraqi WMD "dossiers finally turned out after a series of drafts." There is already a furious battle brewing over the release of these documents to journalists, after inquiry counsel James Dingemans, showed portions of the documents on a screen in the inquiry courtroom.
These revelations could spell more trouble for Cheney and the Chickenhawks responsible for the phony information about Iraqi WMDS in Washington. According to the British Guardian of Aug. 12, "Two officials from the defense intelligence staff (DIS) wrote formal letters of protest about the way intelligence was presented in the dossier raising concerns about the use of language." However, the deputy chief of DIS, Martin Howard, said that this was nothing special because, "This sort of debate is quite normal." The Guardian notes that the evidence presented Aug. 11 was the "first formal confirmation that intelligence officials had doubts about the central claim at the heart of the affairthat Iraq could launch a banned weapons attack within 45 minutes of an order."
The Guardian says that the documents in question "give a dramatic insight" to what was going on behind the scenes in the preparation of the September 2002 Blair dossier, which was used to support the case for war. EIR sources in Washington, in political and intelligence circles, have stressed that information from the British inquiry could be valuable in cracking open the case against Cheney and his cabal.
But the Blair government continues to make the defamation of Dr. Kelly a central part of its case. They portray him as a man who was "very unhappy" over his career, having been passed over for raises and promotions, and complaining that he had fallen into a "black hole," in the Defense Ministry. They also accuse him of having "overstepped the scope of his discretion" in giving unauthorized information to journalists.
A Sampling of British Press on 'Blair-Gate'
The following headlines appeared in British press on Aug. 19, following the testimony of Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, before the Hutton Inquiry:
*BBC News: "Dossier 'failed to show Iraq threat'; Tony Blair's most senior aide told intelligence chiefs their draft dossier failed to demonstrate 'an imminent threat' from Iraq, the Hutton inquiry has heard."
*Guardian: "No. 10 knew: Iraq no threat." "One of the prime minister's closest advisers issued a private warning that it would be wrong for Tony Blair to claim Iraq's banned weapons program showed Saddam Hussein presented an 'imminent threat' to the West or even his Arab neighbours."
*Independent: "The e-mails, the rewritten dossier and how No. 10 made its case for war." "Hitherto unpublished official papers disclosed at the inquiry showed grave doubts at the highest level of government about its own case for supporting the invasion of Iraq."
*Telegraph: "No. 10 chief's doubts on dossier." "Tony Blair's chief of staff warned that the dossier being prepared by the Government to make the case for war against Iraq did not demonstrate that Saddam Hussein was a threat, let alone an imminent one, the Hutton Inquiry heard yesterday."
*Times online: "Powell admitted dossier showed 'no imminent threat.' Tony Blair's chief of staff sent an e-mail seven days before publication of last September's intelligence dossier that acknowledge that the document contained no evidence of Iraq being an 'imminent threat.'
British Seen as Distancing Themselves from Bush Administration
Commenting on what appears to be the early demise of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a senior Israeli intelligence source said Aug. 20 that the British are moving to distance themselves from the Bush Administration in order to preserve their own interests.
The source said the British establishment has two goals in dumping Blair. The first is to distance itself from the disaster the Bush Administration is heading toward. The second is to further its long-term goal of reviving the British Empire. The British are most concerned with rebuilding their position in the Middle East and Central Asia in particular, especially when it comes to oil. He observes that the British are already in competition with the U.S. in this area. In this effort, they would devise a policy that one could call "acceptable" to these countries. The British would also promote cooperation, rather then confrontation, with Russia to further these goals. The big question, for this source, is how this plays into Western Europe, which under the leadership of France and Germany, has already distanced itself from Bush.
When asked whether this was the same type of decision Winston Churchill made in World War II, to side with Franklin Delano Roosevelt rather than the Synarchists, he totally agreed. He said by siding with the U.S., Churchill saved Europe.
Russian Arms Inspector Speaks out on David Kelly's Death
Sergei Rybakov, a Russian co-worker of British weapons inspector David Kelly, said in an interview with Izvestia Aug. 11 that Kelly "could not have committed suicide." Rybakov, a leading expert in biological weapons, worked directly under Kelly on the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq 1996-98. Asked about Kelly's death, Rybakov declared: "When I heard, I simply couldn't believe it.... We worked together for a long time and spent our free time together. It was impossible to throw him off-balance. You know, working in a multinational group, where there is a language barrier, is not always easy. But no matter what happened, David remained calm and cheerful. In my opinion, such a person is incapable of committing suicide.... He showed a great love of life.... I cannot imagine, what might have happened to him over the last five years.... But it is highly improbable, that a person could change so much, as to solve his problems by suicide."
Otherwise, Rybakov emphasized the absolute lack of even the smallest signs of the existence of biological weapons in Iraq after 1996.
Chancellor Schroeder Reiterates: No German Troops to Iraq
Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, after participating in a joint press conference Aug. 18 in Berlin with visiting Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, said that he had not changed his mind on non-military priorities for Iraq:
"Germany is involved with a considerable amount of humanitarian aid, it wants to help with rebuilding through materials, but military involvement is not up for debate," the Chancellor said. Koizumi said that Japan is now investigating how it can help Iraqi reconstruction and consolidation.
Former UN Envoy: Iraq Is in a Genuine 'Insurrection'
Hans Von Sponeck, a former UN envoy, described the political climate in Iraq as a genuine insurrection, and not terrorism "imported" from neighboring states, in an Aug. 20 interview with German national radio station DLR. He called the "temptation to blame foreigners, fanatic Arabs from neighboring countries," and "Saddam loyalists" for terror attacks in Iraq, a "product of fantasy."
"I think it is a wrong interpretation of the situation in Iraq to say that outrage about the Anglo-American occupation exists only among small groups. This outrage is one of the entire people."
Because of this broad-based opposition to the occupation powers, Germany is well-advised not to send any troops to Iraq, "not to sacrifice German soldiers on the altar of a war and peace policy that is against international law," Sponeck warned.
What has to be done instead, is to work out a plan to replace the Anglo-American occupation regime with a UN-controlled process of re-sovereignization, as has been discussed for Afghanistan, Sponeck said.
Economic Revolt in Europe Underway
William Pfaff, a regular columnist for the Paris-based International Herald Tribune, headlined his Aug. 18 editorial, "Europe Faces Tough Choices."
"How far will the European revolt go against economic orthodoxy? France proposes to renationalize Alsthom, a strategic industrial group it privatized only six years ago. Both Germany and France are running deficits that defy the monetarist doctrine embedded in intellectual concrete at the European Central Bank."
Pfaff stated that Germany had been responsible for introducing the "inflexible priority given to fight inflation at the expense of growth" in the euro-zone (countries that use the euro single currency). But, "Germany has since paid the biggest price in unemployment." And Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is realizing that "his political career risks disappearing into the slough of economic despondency," unless he stimulates the German economynow officially in recession.
"France is on the same course." The conservative Jean-Pierre Raffarin government has chosen to accompany its pension reform with budget deficits and investment stimulation. And now Finance Minister Francois Mer, with President Jacques Chirac behind him, "has made the strategic decision to buy back a controlling interest in Alsthom, maker of turbines, ships and high-speed trains. The company faced bankruptcy without immediate government aid.
"France and Germany are part of a growing revolt against monetarist orthodoxy and the neo-liberal U.S. model of capitalism. Plenty of Americans agree that the model of corporate capitalism promoted since the early 1980s has enriched the rich while doing serious damage to society and economies.
"The models that have dominated economic thought for two decades had utility in their time, but times have changed. It made sense to privatize complacent and inefficient state industries in the past. It makes sense today to rescue strategic industries from the game of irresponsible takeovers and a doctrine that ranks shareholder value and managerial self-interest over the interests of workers and society, and even over national interest." Europeans, and even Americans, are beginning to realize that the theories of the recent decades simply don't work. They have to "understand that markets are impartial, but not wise. They do not automatically work in society's interest, or that of nations."
Nuclear Power 'Is Critical to Britain's Future'
Alec Broers, president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, insisted in an Aug. 18 interview with the London Times that nuclear power is vital to Britain's future. Broers, portrayed by the Times as "the country's most senior engineer," described the present government plans to generate 20% of electricity from "renewable sources" by 2020 as unrealistic.
Instead, he said, Britain must build a new generation of nuclear power stations to prevent blackouts and fight global warming. Ignoring nuclear energy would be a huge and misguided gamble. Broers added: "We need to keep working on fusion, and the engineering problems of this still remain extreme. But until we get to fusion, nuclear [fission] is the best we've got. There are no fundamental supply problems. Nuclear remains very important to our energy needs. I support entirely a very serious continuation of study of nuclear power."
The British government has to overcome "emotion and exaggeration" about the dangers of nuclear power. A positive decision in favor of nuclear is needed urgently, because without it there is a real risk that Britain would lose the engineering and technology base required to build new plants. "We had a lot of expertise in nuclear power, and that is something we've got to look at. If and when the decision comes, we have to be sure we are not without the people and the skills to do that."
|