Click here to visit worldaudit.org
Click here to visit newnations.com  
  



   

World Audit Links

Login
This one-time registration is for participation in this blog.It also enables you free access to all newnations.com reports and to receive newsletters.
If you are already registered with newnations all you now need to do is log-in.
Click Here to login/register

Search


Mission
We tell the world about the world



Our mission is to further the promotion of liberal democracy and the safeguarding of the environment by the actions of accountable governments. To advance this cause we report, without fear or favour, the affairs of nations that are in transition, their politics, economics, business, finance and human rights - and we tell it how it is, consistently, calmly, and objectively.



Newnations PRESCRIPTIONS:
(For Some of the Worlds Problems)
   
NEW TOPICS        READERS CHOSEN TOPICS
OTHER TOPICS:

Other Topics: Shafting Al-Jazeera
Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 01:41 PM


SHAFTING AL-JAZEERA

"In November 2005 we produced a special report "Shafting al Jazeera," based on a leaked memo from the office of Prime Minister Blair of a conversation between him and President George.W Bush.

Just about now, the British civil servant David Keogh, and political researcher Leo O'Connor are due to go on trial under the Official Secrets Act, for allegedly leaking the document.

We forecast that the story would "run and run, well into this century," but we got that wrong, because the British Government threatened dire consequences to any of the media that published the leaked memo, which of course we have not seen.

Various explanations of Bush's comments have been offered and rebutted, as can be seen in our background below.



BACKGROUND

Extract from "The War On Al Jazeera" from "The Nation"

Nothing puts the lie to the Bush Administration's absurd claim that it invaded Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East more decisively than its ceaseless attacks on Al Jazeera, the institution that has done more than any other to break the stranglehold over information previously held by authoritarian forces, whether monarchs, military strongmen, occupiers or ayatollahs. The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001, shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests in April 2003, killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad and imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantánamo), some of whom say they were tortured. In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government banned the network from reporting in Iraq.

Then in late November came a startling development: Britain's Daily Mirror reported that during an April 2004 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, George W. Bush floated the idea of bombing Al Jazeera's international headquarters in Qatar. This allegation was based on leaked "Top Secret" minutes of the Bush-Blair summit. British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has activated the Official Secrets Act, threatening any publication that publishes any portion of the memo (he has already brought charges against a former Cabinet staffer and a former parliamentary aide). So while we don't yet know the contents of the memo, we do know that at the time of Bush's meeting with Blair, the Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The meeting took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was one of the few news outlets broadcasting from inside the city. Its exclusive footage was being broadcast by every network from CNN to the BBC.

WIKIPEDIA ON AL JAZEERA
On April 8, 2003 Al Jazeera's office in Baghdad was hit by a U.S. missile, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub and wounding another.[48] Al Jazeera, in order to avoid coming under US fire, had informed the U.S. of the office's precise coordinates prior to the incident. Dima Tareq Tahboub, the widow of Tareq Ayyoub, continues to seek justice for her husband's death and has among other things written for the Guardian and participated in a documentary broadcast on Al Jazeera English.
On January 30, 2005 the New York Times reported that the Qatari government, under pressure from the Bush administration, was speeding up plans to sell the station. However, as of 2007, the station/network has not been sold and it is unclear whether there are still any plans to do so.

Al Jazeera bombing memo
On November 22, 2005, the UK tabloid The Daily Mirror published a story claiming that it had obtained a leaked memo from 10 Downing Street saying that U.S. President George W. Bush had considered bombing Al Jazeera's Doha headquarters in April 2004, when U.S. Marines were conducting a contentious assault on Fallujah.
In light of this allegation, Al Jazeera has questioned whether it has been targeted deliberately in the past - Al Jazeera's Kabul office was bombed in 2001 and another missile hit its office in Baghdad during the invasion of Iraq, killing correspondent Tariq Ayoub. Both of these attacks occurred subsequent to Al Jazeera's disclosure of the locations of their offices to the United States.

Details of the memo
The five-page memorandum is said by the Mirror to be a record of the meeting between the two leaders which took place on 16 April 2004 at the height of Operation Vigilant Resolve, an assault on Fallujah by U.S. Marines and Iraqi security forces. Al Jazeera reporters were in the city providing video footage of the conflict. The day before the meeting, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld described Al Jazeera's coverage as "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable." Al Jazeera reporters defended their live broadcasts of the civilian casualties by stating "the pictures do not lie".
The White House has dismissed the allegations made in the article. Given that Qatar is an ally of the United States and the United Kingdom in the Iraq War, many commentators have speculated that even if the reports of the memorandum are accurate, they may simply be recording a statement which the President did not intend to be taken seriously. A White House official told CNN "We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response," and a Pentagon official called the Daily Mirror report "absolutely absurd."[3] A BBC News correspondent has suggested that if President Bush did indeed make the comments they were intended as "some kind of joke."[4]
Writing in The Independent on 28 November Andreas Whittam Smith countered, observing that "official note takers don't normally record jokes". He also pointed to the alleged leaker's "25 years' experience of tough postings in place such as Islamabad and Khartoum, ... often involved in intelligence work" and concluded that he "must have felt exceptionally troubled by what he was seeing."[5]
According to a report in The Daily Telegraph[6]:

"People who have seen the document say the real reason that it is being suppressed by the Government is because it contains a potentially damaging private discussion between the two leaders about the controversial United States attack on the Iraqi city of Fallujah last year."

The report also stated that, when questioned about the matter at the Commonwealth conference in Malta, Blair branded the claims a "conspiracy theory."
David Keogh, a civil servant at the Cabinet Office, and Leo O'Connor, a research assistant to former Labour MP Tony Clarke, have been charged under the Official Secrets Act for the unauthorised disclosure of the memo (Keogh under section three, O'Connor under section five). When O'Connor gave the memo to Clarke, Clarke returned it to Downing Street. All news organizations in the United Kingdom have been warned by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith against further publication of information from the leaked memo; Goldsmith has mentioned the possibility of prosecution under section five of the Official Secrets Act, 1989 if published details from the memorandum are considered to damage interests of the United Kingdom abroad[7]. On 29 November 2005, Keogh and O'Connor appeared in Bow Street magistrates' court in central London


FROM CBS NEWS 22 NOVEMBER 2005:

Did Bush Want Al Jazeera Bombed?
(LONDON, Nov. 22, 2005)
London Paper Alleges Blair Urged Bush Not To Bomb Arab TV Station

"If the report is correct then this would be both shocking and worrisome not only to Al-Jazeera but to media organizations across the world," it said.

The network said that if true the report would "cast serious doubts" on the Bush administration's explanations of earlier incidents involving Al-Jazeera journalists and the American military.

An Al-Jazeera journalist died in April 2003 when the channel's Baghdad office was struck during the U.S. bombing campaign. The State Department said the strike was a mistake.

Al-Jazeera's office in Kabul, Afghanistan, was destroyed by a U.S. missile in November 2002. None of the crew was inside. U.S. officials said they believed the target was a terrorist site and did not know it was Al-Jazeera's office.

Britain's tabloids are known for their aggressive, but not always accurate, reporting. The Daily Mirror lost some of its credibility after it printed photos last year that purported to show British troops abusing Iraqi detainees. The pictures turned out to be fake, the Mirror apologized and its top editor resigned.

The document was described as a transcript of a conversation between Bush and Blair.

Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh is accused of passing it to Leo O'Connor, who formerly worked for former British lawmaker Tony Clarke. Both Keogh and O'Connor are scheduled to appear at London's Bow Street Magistrates Court next week.

Peter Kilfoyle, a former defense minister in Blair's government, called for the document to be made public.

"I think they ought to clarify what exactly happened on this occasion," he said. "If it was the case that President Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera in what is after all a friendly country, it speaks volumes and it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces," the newspaper quoted Kilfoyle as saying.

Sir Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrats, said that, if true, the memo was worrying.

"If true, then this underlines the desperation of the Bush administration as events in Iraq began to spiral out of control," he said. "On this occasion, the prime minister may have been successful in averting political disaster, but it shows how dangerous his relationship with President Bush has been."




>>>                  1 Comment

Other Topics: African Yellowcake & the Intelligence Stew
Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 01:35 PM

OTHER TOPICS:

Shafting Al-Jazeera


AFRICAN YELLOWCAKE & THE INTELLIGENCE STEW


On 28 January 2003 President George W Bush gave his annual State of the Union address and as part of the build-up for invading IRAQ included an “infamous 16 words” quoting British Intelligence sources, relating to IRAQ procuring Uranium from Niger. “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

It is now agreed by all, that whilst there was some circumstantial evidence of Iraqi interest some years before, a letter purporting to prove this, had been professionally forged. As is well known, the furore that followed sent the various allied intelligence communities involved into a flat spin. To read them at their most devious, the leaks and plants that followed are well illustrated in the Wikipedia extract we include below in ‘Background’.



>>> Read full article: 'African Yellowcake & the Intelligence Stew' (784 Reads)                  Comments?

Other Topics: Essentials of democracy
Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 08:21 AM
TOPIC: "ESSENTIALS OF DEMOCRACY"

In the current edition of www.WorldAudit.org our Publishers Overview makes the following observations:

ESSENTIALS OF DEMOCRACY

We find the term democracy being consistently misused by people who should know better, particularly in the current middle-eastern context, as merely the opportunity to register a vote.


Without the depth of the other key democratic criteria, that just makes no sense. What kind of choice is possible for a democratic citizen, when the only available decision is between a repressive military government and a religious party seeking to turn the clock back to the seventh century. (Egypt and Algeria were recent examples of such a stark choice, Iran's version is that all candidates have to be approved by the religious authority, (just as in the USSR all candidates had to be communists). Iraqi elections, with the addition of an ethnicity (Kurds), became effectively a census between Shia and Sunni Moslems, with secular parties nowhere.

The essentials to create a platform for democratic choice are: Justice for all: uncontaminated by special interests, clan loyalties or bribes; with judges at all levels independent of the nation's executive arm.

Freedom of Speech: as exemplified by media activities - and we would still value the Sharansky test (of Condaleezza Rice).

Human Rights: expressed by the absence of arbitrary arrest and confinement; the superiority of due process, the illegality of torture and to avoid semantic hair-splitting, similar "maltreatment".

Public Corruption: most nations have laws against corruption but only in genuine democracies are these enforced against the bigger players - and not always then, as shown by the recent British example of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which had an investigation of big-time corruption arbitrarily shut down by UK government fiat.

The Political Right to Vote is only meaningful in transparently honest elections, with genuine voter choice of parties and people. The stakes are obviously very high in national elections and at any level 'power undoubtedly corrupts', but the more developed democracies have an even higher duty to make certain that elections are fair, and honestly reflect the will of the people who have recorded their vote. We observe that the most mature democracies ensure that the administration of the electoral process is out of the control of party political officers.

The 1999 US presidential elections in Florida in particular failed to meet these specifications, being under the ultimate control of a politically partisan governor, the brother no less, of one of the two main presidential candidates. Since the outcome of the whole 2000-2004 US national election pivoted on this one state's result, it is not surprising that there was widespread concern at the scandalous way in which the electoral administrative procedures seemed to be grotesquely distorted in favour of the State Governor's brother, who indeed won by this process. When challenged at the level of the US Supreme Court, the politically appointed highest Justices in the land, 'voted the party-line,' and supported the candidate of the party that had nominated them. This whole sequence of events inevitably shocked America's friends and admirers, and sadly brought the US electoral, and inevitably its independent justice process, into disrepute.

We assert that the term democracy is abused and improperly used, unless obligatory high standards are at least the objectives genuinely striven for, and that nations so described can be seen to make a clear effort to achieve these interlocking institutions of democracy.

It can be summed up by the ultimate test of genuine accountability - the unrestrained ability if needs be, for the citizens of any country "to throw the rascals out."

>>>                  1 Comment

Other Topics: Has US democracy lost its way?
Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 08:20 AM
TOPIC : “HAS US DEMOCRACY LOST ITS WAY?”

Our newnations.com Special Report, "The Ministry of Truth" asked this question from which comes this extract:

DEMOCRACY AMERICAN STYLE

This presidency may be judged as having achieved something many would have previously have thought of as impossible. The USA, which despite its less than full respect for human life, and uneven record on domineering foreign policy - Central and Latin America in particular come to mind - had managed to hold to an image as a model of what democracy could be, a beacon of light for an oppressed world. Because this coincided with being the militarily most powerful nation on earth, the leader of the winning side in the cold war, America could be and was represented as being the national equivalent of the moral high ground. There was always an ugly side, but by straight comparison with that half of the world led by the USSR, given the balance of good versus evil in the rival systems, the US was then undoubtedly a long way ahead. But Bush/Cheney have radically altered this perception of America.

HAS US DEMOCRACY LOST ITS WAY?

In the field of US elections, on recent form it appears to the outside world that in order to get the presidential nomination of one of the two parties of power, it comes down very largely, not as one might expect to a declared policy program, but to the campaigning money that a candidate can deliver. That is either because he or his family are personally ultra-rich, or because his name is dynastic, or otherwise has a resonance with the voters (the new cult of celebrity is relevant here), who as a result will contribute the money.

The reason for the big money is that the key to success with an electorate is TV advertising, so it is possible that one candidate could have zero hours of political advertising, whilst his opponent could have mega-hours. Yeltsin in Russia, with US campaign managers, won his second term that way. Advertising exists because it works, but it is a free market product and in the US, political slots have to be paid for. An interesting revelation recently was that Donald Rumsfeld intended to run for president back in '86/'87, but had to give up that aspiration because he couldn't raise the money!

The UK system is that the candidates must have equal time for their free TV and radio commercials. The broadcasters are bound by law to provide this (and are carefully monitored). This, more or less is the norm in European democracies, precisely to avoid the critical criterion in election for high office, to be favouring the candidate with the most money. [The present US presidency is the best example of what you get if the qualification is a famous (family) name backed by mega- bucks and a highly (paid) professional team to manage the campaign].

Because the elections are conducted on a collegiate basis, the presidential candidate favoured by the popular vote does not necessarily win. Leaving aside the shady business in Florida, it is not disputed that Al Gore had nation-wide, totaled hundreds of thousands more votes than Bush in the 2000 election, but to no avail. The Electoral College takes representatives from all of the states, each mandated to vote according to the results in their own state. The nature of self-interest being what it is, the opposing political parties have gerrymandered electoral boundaries to the point where the great majority of constituencies are likely to remain entirely predictable, so apart from the ballyhoo, the actual contest is fought out in just a handful of states and there, in just a small number of constituencies. The skills of the professional election managers and the unlimited resources available for such swing-states, means that the winner of the most powerful office in the world may then be determined by the clever manipulations of the election hucksters, of whom Karl Rove is the apotheosis.

The USA with 300 million citizens, with a pre-eminent military, the leading economy and seemingly imperial pretensions, is never going to be insulated from problems. Surely the President as Chief Executive for at least four years, probably eight, no matter from which party, should come from the ranks of the brightest and the best; a first class mind - a man or woman who has already 'achieved', in a competitive world? There is in the US an abundance of such tried and talented individuals available (all presidential cabinets are put together this way). Proven judgement and executive ability in the president including the choice of his team, are the most important factors, but as long as the candidate is chosen by the criteria of raising the TV campaigning war-chest, then the system has indeed lost its way.


>>>                  2 Comments

Other Topics: Wanted a world leader
Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 08:20 AM
TOPIC : “WANTED A WORLD LEADER”

In November 2006 newnations.com published a Special Report with the above title, regretting that the constructive world leadership the USA offered throughout the Cold War, and indeed the Balkans wars, has been dissipated by the Bush/Cheney administration. Now there is a leadership vacuum. Who else we asked, could give world leadership? In the absence of any obvious candidates we observed:-

Whilst it is true that no other single nation state has the standing to provide unique world leadership it is not unreasonable that a group of nations may at least collectively provide this in areas in which the US will not, or for other reasons, does not engage.

NOMINEE LEADERS

Perhaps an intelligent or at least interesting solution to raise the action level, and avoid sterile circular debate with little achieved, would be for some of the topics (illustrated by the selection above), to be raised by a group of nations in the UN General Assembly. There they would seek the power to second one of their number to lead in devising an action plan, with an invitation to all nations to take part in its implementation. Perhaps the US could be shamed into acquiescence and reassert its ability to lead, not to go even further out on a self-indulgent limb.

Thus upright UN members with special expertise (and sometimes also the moral authority), could lead in formulating the policy required, to be placed on offer to all nations to opt in, or earn the scorn of their peers by staying out.

Our nominees would include Japan on Nuclear Non-Proliferation; Norway on Environmentally careful Oil exploration; Switzerland on spreading Democracy; Global warming - Brazil or Sweden; Netherlands on 'offshore' Extra-judicial Penal Colonies; the European Union collectively to address the problem of Tyrannical Nations; an agenda, with benchmarks, to restart the Middle-East Peace Process, perhaps to be devised by Canada, Ireland, or any other respected democratic nation that has loaned troops to peace keeping-duties there, and has no significant domestic pressure groups, to seek to skew the process.


>>>                  1 Comment

 

Links
Special Reports
Archived Countries
Archives

Countries
Afghanistan
Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Bosnia Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Estonia
Georgia
Greece
Hungary
India
Iran
Iraq
Kazakstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Libya
Macedonia
Moldova
Montenegro
North Korea
Pakistan
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Vietnam
Uzbekistan
Zimbabwe