Prime Minister David Cameron has issued a statement on the news of the death of Osama Bin Laden.
Osama Bin Laden, who was responsible for some of the worst terrorist atrocities including the 9/11 attack, was killed in a US operation in Pakistan.
Mr Cameron congratulated President Obama on the operation and said now was a time to remember all those murdered by Osama Bin Laden.
The PM said:
“The news that Osama Bin Laden is dead will bring great relief to people across the world. Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the worst terrorist atrocities the world has seen – for 9/11 and for so many attacks, which have cost thousands of lives, many of them British.
“It is a great success that he has been found and will no longer be able to pursue his campaign of global terror. This is a time to remember all those murdered by Osama Bin Laden, and all those who lost loved ones. It is also a time too to thank all those who work round the clock to keep us safe from terrorism. Their work will continue.
“I congratulate President Obama and those responsible for carrying out this operation.”
Mr Cameron also spoke on television at his residence at Chequers.
The Prime Minister said:
“This news will be welcomed right across our country.
“Of course, it does not mark the end of the threat we face from extremist terrorism. Indeed, we will have to be particularly vigilant in the weeks ahead.
“But it is, I believe, a massive step forward.
“Osama bin Laden was responsible for the death of thousands of innocent men, women and children right across the world – people of every race and religion.
“He was also responsible for ordering the death of many, many British citizens, both here and in other parts of the world.
“I would like to congratulate the US forces who carried out this brave action. I would like to thank President Obama for ordering this action.
“And I think it is a moment when too we should thank all of those who work day and night, often with no recognition, to keep us safe from the threat of terror.
“But above all today, we should think of the victims of the poisonous extremism that this man has been responsible for.
“Of course, nothing will bring back those loved ones that families have lost to terror.
“But at least they know the man who was responsible for these appalling acts is no more.”
Greg Muttitt: ‘Big oil firms are still in the driving seat when it comes to the resource war’
This week, The Independent revealed how big oil firms influenced the invasion of Iraq. Greg Muttitt, who uncovered the story, exposes the lengths to which the occupying powers went to prise the country’s oil production out of the control of the Iraqi government and into the hands of international oil companies.
Interview by Phil England
I would say the most surprising thing about my book is that someone else hasn’t written it in the past eight years. It’s an obvious question to ask, ‘what happened to the oil?’ ”
Published yesterday, Greg Muttitt’s explosive new history of post-occupation Iraq has been pulled together from hundreds of documents released under the Freedom of Information act – both here and in the US – as well as from numerous first-hand interviews. Muttitt was the source of The Independent’s front-page revelations on Tuesday that both BP and Shell had meetings with government officials in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
With more revelations inside, his book is set to turn our understanding of the war on its head. As well as documenting just how highly oil figured in the thinking of those who led what is widely thought to have been an illegal invasion, Fuel on the Fire exposes the lengths to which the occupying powers went to prise the country’s oil production out of the control of the Iraqi government, and into the hands of international oil companies, against the wishes of the Iraqi people.
It’s an absorbing account of what is a much more complex story than many pundits might prefer. “I didn’t feel it would be helpful to just chuck ammunition to one side in a polarised debate,” he explains. “I wanted to explore how this really works. I think it’s important to understand the nature of a resource war in the 21st century.”
For many years Muttitt worked as a researcher and campaigner on the social and environmental impacts of the oil industry as a co-director of campaign group Platform, and in recent weeks he has been appointed campaigns and policy director for War on Want. After eight years of piecing this all together, including three visits to Iraq and several visits to Jordan, Muttitt is confident about some of his core findings. “Oil was the most important strategic interest behind the war and it shaped the decisions of the occupying powers,” he tells me. “The primary strategic interest for the US and Britain is to have a low and stable oil price. A secondary interest is for their own corporations to do well.”
Bringing international oil companies back into Iraq, after 30 years of nationalised production, would put the country at odds with neighbouring producers such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran, whose oil production has also been in the public sector since the 1970s. Part of the strategy seems to have been about changing that political culture.
“In some of the documents I got hold of for the book it becomes quite clear,” says Muttitt. “The British government talks about using Iraq as a strong exemplar for the region and the International Tax and Investment Centre – the oil companies’ lobbying organisation – even described it as a beach-head for broader expansion of the oil companies into the Middle East.”
One of the great achievements of Muttitt’s book is to have restored an Iraqi voice to a narrative from which it had largely been erased. The fact that the Iraqi people held a strong view that oil production should stay in their hands did not deter the occupying powers and international oil companies from pursuing their privatisation agenda relentlessly. But at some point it all had to come unstuck. At the heart of Fuel on the Fire is the story of the Iraqi peoples’ fight against the Oil Law – a law which would have removed the need for parliamentary approval of contracts with oil companies.
It was a fight in which Muttitt himself played a role. At a meeting with Iraqi unions in Amman in Jordan in 2006, following his work on a report called Crude Designs, he helped make the law’s implications accessible. Although initiated by the unions, the two-year campaign which followed was joined by oil experts, religious and civil society groups, intellectuals and professionals.
Iraq’s own oil experts, who had worked in the industry for decades, made the case against foreign investment. As Muttitt notes: “The industry was at its most effective in the 1970s immediately after nationalisation and before Saddam took the country into a series of wars.”
Despite all the pressure brought to bear on the Iraqi government from outside the country – including aid and debt relief being made conditional on passing an oil law, direct briefings by oil companies, linking the surge strategy to passage of the oil law, and a threat to remove Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from office – the campaign proved too popular for parliament to pass the law.
You might think that was enough to force a rethink, but the Iraqi government went ahead and auctioned off 60 per cent of the country’s proven reserves anyway, under contracts of dubious legality, to companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon. In what was the biggest sell-off in the history of oil, some analysts believe the financial returns for the oil companies will be 20 per cent or more.
Iraqi MP Shatha al-Musawi attempted to bring a legal case against the first contract: BP’s joint deal with the China National Petroleum Corporation for the Rumaila field. But the Supreme Court said this would cost her $250,000. Her fellow parliamentarians were supportive and promised to help raise the money, but that commitment fell apart as parties jostled for position after the March 2010 elections. After she decided not to re-stand for election, al-Musawi told Muttitt: “Most of the governing institutions are working without law and violating the constitution every day because they decided not to have an effective parliament. We really have a dictatorship.”
Muttitt worries about the lack of effective political oversight at a time of massive outside investment in Iraq’s oil resources. Studies of the “resource curse”, including the World Bank’s Extractive Industries Review show that effective governance is needed before you bring in tens of millions of dollars. “Unless you manage it effectively you get a distortion of the economy, you get corruption and you get investors that don’t serve national interests.”
The Iraqi street worries about it, too. On 25 February people across the country protested against corruption and for better services in a “day of rage” where a number of people were killed by security forces. The slogans included: “The people’s oil is for the people not the thieves.” Sami Ramadani, a London-based Iraqi exile who writes regularly about the occupation, told me: “The general feeling is that Iraq’s oil is being given away and whatever is being retained in terms of income is being squandered by the regime. In terms of services, wherever you turn there is a very sharp deterioration – health, education, employment, clean water and so on.”
The legitimacy of the post-Saddam regime is coming increasingly into question. After a “million person march” against the occupation led by the Sadrists on 9 April in Baghdad (Ramadani estimates the turnout was in the hundreds of thousands), a new military order was issued that decrees that demonstrations can only take place within designated football fields. One demonstrator who defied the ban one week later quipped: “Are we going to play a football match with the police?”
Last week oil minister Abdul-Karim al-Luaibi announced another auction, this time for 12 “exploration and production” contracts, which are expected to go under the hammer in November. “Iraq has the greatest unexplored potential of any country in the world,” says Muttitt. “Most geologists reckon there’s about as much still to be found as currently exists in proven reserves. So this would tie up another chunk of Iraq’s future economic potential for 20-30 years.”
This is on top of the massive planned increase in production from 2.5 million barrels per day to 12 million bpd, already implied by the existing contracts. Even the small number of Iraqi oil experts who supported privatisation are now arguing that such a rapid increase is not in Iraq’s interest as it will likely lead to a crash of the oil price.
Muttitt says the government has been very effective in breaking organised opposition to the oil law. “The oil workers trade union still exists [although, like all trade unions in Iraq, is illegal] but has come under enormous pressure. The large group of oil experts that opposed the oil law, meanwhile, have been co-opted and broken apart. A lot of them have been offered very lucrative roles with multinationals and so on.”
Nevertheless, he still has faith in ordinary Iraqis to deal with their problems. After all, it was civil society that won the fight against the oil law and it was a coalition of civil society groups that forced Iraq’s politicians to finally form a government after five months of post-election wrangling last December. “This struggle is not over and there is hope for the future. If Iraqi civil society is given the chance and the right kind of international support, these issues are still up for being contested. In spite of the politicians, there is cause for hope in Iraq.”
“Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq” by Greg Muttitt is published by The Bodley Head
www.independent.co.uk, 22 April 2011
comments
Sort by
Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS
John Hawkins 4 days ago
Oil is the primary resource in the world today, those who complain about oil company actions would soon change their tune if they could not fill their car tanks every week.
tomfrom66 3 days ago in reply to John Hawkins
They would also complain if there was no artificial fertilizer – Haber Bosch process – to put food on their tables, and no plastics.
They might also – if the facts were put in front of them – be very afraid of what life is going to be like when oil becomes to so prohibitively expensive it cannot ‘fund’ all three aspects of the economy.
Oil is not some self-replicating substance, John.
John Hawkins 3 days ago in reply to tomfrom66
“Oil is not some self-replicating substance”
I agree Tom and did not intend to suggest oil could be used profligately, just that it is the ultimate essential to our present lifestyle.
For good or bad, bad in my view, we have put ourselves in the hands of oil producers and bankers.
Following the bilateral consular meeting that was held back in December with the Turkish authorities, the Turkish Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have confirmed that there will be permit fees for British Nationals in Turkey, it has been agreed with the British Ambassador’s request to reduce the permit fee to $80/60 Euros a year as from the first of April, the fees will be charged as followed, the first month will be charged at $25 and then $5 for each month subsequent after.
Further information can be obtained from the Alien’s dept. in your local area. The Turkish Government have been thanked for listening to concerns and its hope that British nationals will take advantage of the reduced rate and continue to regularise their stay in Turkey.
Turkish Visa System
The British Embassy have continued to ask for an expiry date to be placed on visa stickers and have pointed out how confusing British Nationals find it to receive visa stickers that state they are valid for 90/180 days which are actually just for 90 days. They have continued to ask for a notification period of 3 months in advance, Turkish authorities have not set a date for the implementation of this 90/180 day visa.
The British Embassy would like to make it clear to all Brits travelling to Turkey and gaining a holiday visa that you should be sure to leave within 90 days of the date of first issue. If you leave within 90 days and then re-enter Turkey and your stay will exceed the 90 days from the date it was issued you must buy a new visa, If you don’t you are at risk of overstaying and may be given a fine or even a ban from re-entering Turkey in the future.
The British Embassy will be having further meetings with the health authorities to clarify their position in regards to the confusion as to whether the Universal Healthcare Scheme is compulsory for British Residents. For the meantime they advise all British Nationals living overseas to obtain healthcare that covers their needs or have access to funds to cover medical care should they need it.
Property The Ministry of Foreign affairs has assured the British Embassy that the Turkish Government are working towards making buying in Turkey more secure for British Nationals and are reviewing the systematic issues that have affected British Nationals and to have been taken these matters very seriously.
The British Embassy recognise that they cannot get involved in individual disputes but are continuing to do all they can and work with the Turkish Authorities on these matters. Conclusion The British Embassy’s conclusion/feedback states that its clear the Turkish Authorities value the contributions of the British Residents and visitors that make the economy and they are willing to tackle the problems if they can.
This has been proven by the reduction of the Residence Permit Fee and the British Embassy that they are grateful to the community for identifying problems and possible solutions and will continue to meet with the Turkish Authorities and follow up the issues raised and any further issues that affect British Nationals in Turkey. You can find more information regarding this update on offical British Home Office website by visiting , if you like.
(Reuters) – More than 80,000 Britons claim payments for long-term sick leave because of obesity or drug or alcohol addiction, contributing to a 7 billion pound annual bill for Incapacity Benefit, the government said on Thursday.
Out of these, more than 21,200 alcoholics and drug addicts have been receiving the payments for over 10 years, according to the Department for Work and Pensions.
“Far from being the safety net it should be, the benefits system has trapped thousands of people in a cycle of addiction and welfare dependency with no prospect of getting back to work,” Employment Minister Chris Grayling said in a statement.
As part of its welfare reforms, the government has started reassessing the circumstances of 1.9 million people off work on Incapacity Benefit to see if they are fit enough to return to employment.
Ministers promise more help to those out of work but threaten sanctions against those who avoid getting a job.
The changes are politically risky and could provoke a public backlash, coming at a time of rising unemployment, state spending cuts and an economy weakened after a deep recession.
A senior economist accused David Cameron of being vindictive yesterday after the Prime Minister suggested he would block Gordon Brown from getting a top international job.
David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, described the PM’s stance as “small minded”.
It follows speculation that Mr Brown might be put forward to head the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Crucial for any nomination would be the endorsement of the individual’s home country.
However, Mr Cameron indicated he would block a potential bid by his predecessor as Prime Minister. He said Mr Brown “might not be the most appropriate person” for the job, because of his record in office.
In a deliberate jibe at the former Labour leader, he added that he thought the job should go to “someone who understands the danger of excessive debt”.
The Tories and the LibDems have been highly critical of Labour’s economic record since entering Coalition last year, blaming the party for leaving them with a record deficit.
Labour have defended their time in office, and claim the problems we caused by the global banking crisis.
Mr Brown gave a speech on economics to students at Edinburgh University last night, based on his book, Beyond The Crash. He was defended by current Labour leader Ed Miliband, who said he was “eminently qualified” for the job.
Mr Miliband also attacked Mr Cameron’s comments saying: “To rule someone out even before the vacancy has arisen seems to be going some, even for him.”
Asked about the PM’s remarks, Mr Blanchflower said: “This is the most vindictive thing I’ve heard from a Prime Minister in 50 years. It looks to me to be extremely small-minded.”
The role of managing director of the IMF carried a salary of around £270,000, as well as a crucial position in world finance. Countries currently in receipt of IMF aid include Greece and the Republic of Ireland.
It is expected the job could become free if current head Dominique Strauss-Kahn stands down this summer to mount a bid for the French presidency. There has also been speculation his replacement would come from countries with emerging world markets.
It is not the first time Mr Brown’s name has been linked with the job. In 2004, when he was chancellor, Downing Street was forced to shrug off rumours about him joining the IMF.
In recent months the IMF has repeatedly backed the Coalition austerity drive, including cuts of £81m in public spending.
Ironically, the Tories have also been vocally critical of Mr Brown’s workload in recent weeks.
The former PM did not speak in the Budget debate last month and has voted only a handful of times in the House of Commons since leaving Downing Street.
His office says he has concentrated on constituency work as well as writing his book.
I’ve been reading Norman Stone’s excellent Turkey: A Short History. It’s worth looking at because in all the debate about Turkey, Europe and its potential membership of the EU, there’s an underling historical hostility, and Stone provides an alternative narrative. So while Turkish atrocities down the years are well known, they were often the victims, too, and in many parts of south-east Europe Muslims were victims of a borderline genocide.
Stone argues that the Turks have been much maligned in Europe, largely because of a casual anti-Turkishness started by well-placed Greeks in 19th-century London. These Greeks “were good at playing London, certainly much better than the Turks; they had a – the – Indo-European language, had shipping money, Masonic connections and, with marriages often enough in surprisingly high places, the right invitations. They were especially good at cultivating the Liberal Party.”
A century and a half of Greco-Turkish violence began in 1770 when Catherine the Great sent Russian officers to Morea, as the Peloponnese was known at the time, under the banner of Orthodox Christianity. In 1828 a clergyman proclaimed another rising, and organised a gruesome massacre of Muslims, killing the entire Muslim population of Corinth, including women and children, and even though they had agreed to leave with safe-passage organised by the British.
The Turks in retribution hanged the Patriarch and 20 other prominent Greeks, and then massacred the inhabitants of the wrong island, Chios rather than Samos. But despite this the Turks were bound to lose the PR battle: Europe, especially Germany, was in awe to Ancient Greece, and it was easy to take sides even when the story was more complicated. The Greeks were egged on by western romantics, such as George Gordon, Lord Byron, then living in the Adriatic in his mid-30s and “running out of inspiration and money”. Byron, according to Stone, was a bit of a prat, but was nevertheless a dashing figure and started a long process “by which western writers turn up in odd places to stand on barricades and say no pasaran”.
Being anti-Turkish became fashionable in the West, even though “when it came to atrocities, the Greeks gave as good as they got. Somehow, then and later, the Muslim victims were forgotten, and the Greeks were practised hands at image-management, whereas the Turks were not.”
Turkey made great progress in the mid 19th century, but it all unravelled after the panic of 1873, which sent the world economy into depression. There was an uprising in Herzegovina against a crackdown on tobacco-smuggling (still a major industry today – read the brilliant McMafia), followed by trouble in Bulgaria. Bulgaria was filled with refugees from Russian wars, Tatars and Circassians, as well as the native Muslims, called Pomaks, who had lived there for centuries and had good relations with their neighbours. Relations between Circassians and Bulgarian Christians, on the other hand, were tense, and resulted in a massacre of the latter.
This became a cause in the West, and Liberal leader William Gladstone went up and down Britain whipping up outrage, and writing a bestseller,Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East. Yet the Bulgarians were no innocents, and the British ambassador in Constantinople, Austen Henry Layard, told the foreign secretary that Gladstone was lying. As Stone says: “A curious collection of would-be high-minded clergymen, professors of English history who did not know anything substantial about the area, seem to have acquired a caricature vision of the Turks, lolling around in harems, smoking hashish and ravishing virgins.”
The worst violence was yet to come. In 1897 there was an uprising in Crete, still part of the empire, which eventually the Greeks won, but history ignores the unfortunate fact that Crete was one third Muslim. “Within a decade, Crete was in effect free, and what the world now knows as ‘ethnic cleansing’ went ahead – the Muslims cruelly pushed out, with a great deal of killing. If, two generations later, the Turks resisted very strongly over Cyprus, where there was a comparable situation, this needs to be put in context.”
Most controversially, Stone argues that if the mass murder of Armenians in World War One was genocide, then “it could legitimately be extended to cover the fates of the millions of Muslims driven from the Balkans or the Caucasus as the Ottoman Empire receded”.
The abiding hatred between Greeks and Turks culminated with the burning down of Smyrna, the transfer of a million and a half people in 1922 and, finally in 1955, the final pogrom that ended two and a half millennia of Greek life there.
Greek culture, that is, for the Turks themselves are largely descended from Greeks, and Stone goes as far as to say they are the real heirs to Byzantium. “Byzantium had really been destroyed by the Italians, not the Turks who, if anything, had saved it. Ancient Greece had been destroyed by Celts, after Alexander, and then she had been destroyed all over again by Slavs in the eight century. She had been re-hellenized by the Byzantines, and Greek nationalists could never agree as to whether they were Hellenes or – clerically – Byzantines.”
But, Stone says, the tragedy of Greco-Turkish hatred should not overshadow the achievements of the Turkish Republic, and especially its founder, Mustafa Kemal. The Turkish worship of Atatürk is strange to foreigners, but he was certainly one of the great men of the 20th century, and the achievements of secular Turkey in contrast to the failings of the rest of the Middle East are starting. And despite Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey remains “the only country between Athens and Singapore where, judging by the refugees, people actually wanted to live”.
Turkey’s success is illustrated by this one fact. Although there are five times as many Arab as Turkish speakers, some 11,000 books are translated into Turkish every year; just 300 into Arabic.
Ed West is a journalist and social commentator who specialises in politics, religion and low culture. He is @edwestonline on Twitter.
comments