US may start a war on Iran and force Abu Dhabi to pay for it, in 'their best interests'. - Comments on FACEBOOK

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Comments posted on FACEBOOK:

Ghulam Muhammed As is well acknowledged in knowledgeable circles, the crisis over Dubai debts was orchestrated to milk Abu Dhabi's huge surplus of 750 billions. History repeats itself. British deported Shaikh Shakhbut one fine morning, to pounce on his oil wealth, that he preferred to keep under his huge bed, rather than in the banks. Only after the new Emir was installed that Abu Dhabi was positioned to grow into one of the most modernized enclaves in the Gulf. US/UK/Israel axis will not rest till Abu Dhabi's surplus is wiped out to help their agenda. In the past, Kuwait's 105 billion 'future generation' fund was wiped out helping US fight the first US invasion on Iraq under US President George Bush, the senior. US may start a war on Iran and force Abu Dhabi to pay for it, in 'their best interests'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8411215.stm

Abu Dhabi gives Dubai $10bn to help pay debts

Dubai's property market has been a serious concern for investors Dubai's government has announced it has been given a $10bn (£6.13bn) handout from United Arab Emirates neighbour Abu Dhabi to help it pay off its debts. It will use $4.1bn (£2.5bn) of the money to bail out the government-owned investment company Dubai World. The company's property development operation, Nakheel, needed the money to pay investors in an Islamic bond which was due to mature on Monday. The news lifted investor sentiment around the world. Wall Street's Dow Jones ended Monday trading up 0.3% to a 14-month high, while the UK's FTSE 100 added 1%, with banking stocks among the biggest risers. Market boost ANALYSIS Ben Thompson, Middle East business reporter, Dubai It was a long time coming and many here wondered if it would come at all. And so the news that Abu Dhabi would, once again, bail out Dubai came as a surprise. Not least of course, because the government had gone to great lengths to distance itself from the debts of Dubai World. The company - it said - was responsible for its own actions and its own debts. And so why the sudden U-turn? Some say Abu Dhabi just couldn't let Dubai fail. Too much was at stake - for both national unity and the country's international reputation. The deal also comes with a promise to improve transparency and offer better protection to creditors. Reforms that are long overdue, according to many analysts. But in many respects, this bail-out raises more questions than it answers. In the short term, Dubai now has the cash it needs to pay back its most pressing debts. But in the long-term the city still owes much, much more. Getting access to that extra cash will prove difficult, despite any reform and restructuring. News of the payment earlier boosted share markets in the United Arab Emirates. Dubai's main share index closed 10% higher, while Abu Dhabi's rose more than 7%. Meanwhile, the value of both the euro and the pound improved. Both currencies have been unsettled in recent weeks by news of Dubai's debts. But the head of Middle East government ratings at Standard and Poor's, Farouk Soussa, said the bail-out raised questions about government policy in Dubai. "It's a positive in terms of the debt being repaid, it's a positive in terms of support from Abu Dhabi, but I believe the grey shadow cast over this is really the coherence of policy." There had been speculation that Abu Dhabi would have demanded certain assets in return for the money. However, an unnamed Dubai government source, quoted by the Reuters news agency, said this was not the case. "There are no conditions. This is a government-to-government fund, the terms of that fund are internal to the government of Abu Dhabi and Dubai." 'Crucial' lifeline The payment that was due on Monday was an Islamic - or sukuk - bond, designed to be compliant with Islamic law which prohibits interest payments. There had been fears the Nakheel would not be able to pay off the bonds when they matured and analysts say Abu Dhabi's bail-out came as a surprise. Dubai's fellow emirate has helped its neighbour out before. Their relationship is close, as both are part of the seven-member UAE. Their ruling families are from the same tribe. But unlike Dubai, whose economy is largely a service sector one, Abu Dhabi has substantial oil reserves.  It will take time for the implications to unfold. I highly doubt this kind of money has no strings attached  John Sfakianakis On 25 November, Dubai's government had said it would ask its creditors for a freeze on Dubai World's $26bn (£16bn) debt repayments. In a statement earlier on Monday the chairman of Dubai's Supreme Fiscal Committee, Sheikh Ahmed bin Saaed al-Maktoum, said: "The government of Abu Dhabi has agreed to fund $10bn to the Dubai Financial Support Fund that will be used to satisfy a series of upcoming obligations on Dubai World." He added: "We are here today to reassure investors, financial and trade creditors, employees, and our citizens that our government will act at all times in accordance with market principles and internationally accepted business practices." He also announced the implementation of new bankruptcy law. "This law will be available should Dubai World and its subsidiaries be unable to achieve an acceptable restructuring of its remaining obligations," he said. John Sfakianakis, the chief economist of Banque Saudi Fransi-Credit Agricole, in Riyadh, called the handout a "crucial and essential lifeline". He told Reuters: "That should bring in a lot of confidence, basically Abu Dhabi is footing the bill. "It will take time for the implications to unfold. I highly doubt this kind of money has no strings attached." Fahd Iqbal, the Gulf region strategist for EFG-Hermes, said the latest development did not necessarily change the "longer-term outlook". He added his investment banking firm still had other concerns regarding the "hit in confidence" Dubai had experienced, Reuters reported.

Reply

Reply to all

Forward

War crime case against Tony Blair now rock-solid - THE FIRST POST | 'Sycophant' Tony Blair used deceit to justify Iraq war, says former DPP - Guardian UK

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57361,news-comment,news-politics,war-crime-case-against-tony-blair-is-now-rock-solid?DCMP=NLC-daily

War crime case against Tony Blair now rock-solid

Neil Clark: A trial would be warmly welcomed by millions – so what happens next?

BY NEIL CLARK

LAST UPDATED 7:04 AM, DECEMBER 14, 2009

Share

Share3

Tony Blair's extraordinary admission on Sunday to the BBC's Fern Britton - that he would have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein regardless of the issue of Iraq's alleged WMDs - is sure to give fresh impetus to moves to prosecute our former prime minister for war crimes.

The case against Blair, strong enough before this latest comment, now appears rock solid. Going to war to change another country's regime is prohibited by international law, while the Nuremburg judgment of 1946 laid down that "to initiate a war of aggression", as Blair and Bush clearly did against Iraq, "is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

Blair's admission, that he "would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam]" regardless of the WMD issue, is also an acknowledgement that he lied to the House of Commons on February 25, 2003, when he told MPs: "I detest his [Saddam's] regime. But even now he [Saddam] can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully. I do not want war... But disarmament peacefully can only happen with Saddam's active co-operation."

The view that Blair is a war criminal is now mainstream: when comedian Sandi Toksvig, host of Radio Four's News Quiz, called him one on air, the BBC, according to the Mail on Sunday, did not receive a single complaint.

But while it is easy to label Blair a war criminal, what are the chances of him actually standing trial - and how could it be achieved? Various initiatives have already been launched.

The Blair War Crimes Foundation, set up by retired orthopaedic surgeon David Halpin, has organised an online petition, addressed to the President of the UN General Assembly and the UK Attorney General, which lists 14 specific complaints relating to the Iraq war, including "deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war" and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the occupying powers.

The campaigning journalist George Monbiot, who attempted a citizen's arrest of the former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, for his role in the Iraq war, said at the Hay Literary festival in 2008 that he would put up the first £100 of a bounty payable to the first person to attempt a non-violent citizen's arrest of Blair.

Monbiot has also called for the setting up of national arrest committees in countries which, unlike Britain, have incorporated the 'Crimeof Aggression' into their domestic law. These committees would exchange information with one another and make sure that Blair "would have no hiding place".

If Blair is to face an international trial, then the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague - to which Britain is a signatory - would be the likeliest forum. While the ICC has said that it will not conduct prosecutions for the Crime of Aggression until it has been defined by its own working group, the court's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, told the Sunday Telegraph in 2007 that he would be willing to launch an inquiry into US/UK war crimes in Iraq. Charges could also be brought against Blair at the ICC for failing to prosecute the war in a "proportionate manner".

From Iraq itself, there are also moves to bring Blair to book. It has been reported that lawyers acting for Tariq Aziz, the former deputy leader of the country, now held in captivity, have written to Britain's top legal adviser asking permission to prosecute Blair for

Lawyers acting for Tariq Aziz have written to Britain's top legal adviser asking permission to prosecute Blair for war-crimes

war-crimes, in the light of his latest comments.

Whichever way it comes about, if Blair is forced to stand trial, there can be no underestimating the event's significance. Up to now, the only political leaders who have faced war crimes trials since World War Two are those who fell foul of the west - and in particular the United States of America. But the notion of international justice will never be taken seriously if western politicians are deemed to be exempt from the same rules that leaders in Africa and elsewhere are supposed to adhere to.

The prospect of Teflon Tony finally having to answer for his crimes in a court of law, would be warmly welcomed by millions of people throughout the world, not least all those who marched for peace through central London in February 2003, one month before the Iraq invasion.

There is widespread contempt for a man who has made millions while Iraqis die in their hundreds of thousands due to the havoc unleashed by the illegal invasion, and who, with breathtaking arrogance, seems to regard himself as above the rules of international law.

The next decade will tell us whether that is indeed the case. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/14/tony-blair-ken-macdonald-deceit

'Sycophant' Tony Blair used deceit to justify Iraq war, says former DPP

Sir Ken Macdonald, director of public prosecutions between 2003 and 2008, says Blair misled and cajoled the British people into a war they didn't want

• Comments (193)
• Buzz up!
• Digg it

• Andrew Sparrow, senior political correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 14 December 2009 09.22 GMT
• Article history

Macdonald said that Blair's fundamental flaw was his 'sycophancy towards power' and that he could not resist the 'glamour' he attracted in Washington. Photograph: Ron Edmonds/AP

Tony Blair used "deceit" to persuade parliament and the British people to support war in Iraq, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, said today.

In an article in the Times, Macdonald attacked Blair for engaging in "alarming subterfuge", for displaying "sycophancy" towards George Bush and for refusing to accept that his decisions were wrong.

Macdonald's comments about Blair's decision to go to war are more critical than anything that has been said so far by any of the senior civil servants who worked in Whitehall when Blair was prime minister.

Macdonald was DPP from 2003 until 2008 and he now practises law from Matrix Chambers, where Blair's barrister wife, Cherie, is also based.

In his article Macdonald highlighted a remark Blair made in an interview broadcast yesterday about supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein regardless of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to explain why he thought the former prime minister was guilty of deceit.

But Macdonald also expressed concerns about the Iraq inquiry, suggesting that some of its questioning so far had been "unchallenging" and that Sir John Chilcot and his team would be held in "contempt" if they failed to uncover the truth about the war.

Macdonald wrote: "The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions, and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage.

"It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner, George Bush, and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn't want, and on a basis that it's increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible."

Macdonald said that Blair's fundamental flaw was his "sycophancy towards power" and that he could not resist the "glamour" he attracted in Washington.

"In this sense he was weak and, as we can see, he remains so," Macdonald went on.

"Since those sorry days we have frequently heard him repeating the self-regarding mantra that 'hand on heart, I only did what I thought was right'. But this is a narcissist's defence, and self-belief is no answer to misjudgment: it is certainly no answer to death."

Macdonald said that, with the exceptions of some of the interventions from Sir Roderic Lyne, the questions asked when the Chilcot inquiry has been taking evidence from witnesses have been tame.

"If this is born of a belief that it creates an atmosphere more conducive to truth, it seems naive. The truth doesn't always glide out so compliantly; sometimes it struggles to be heard," Macdonald said.

Many commentators have criticised the fact that all members of the Chilcot team are establishment figures – Chilcot himself is a former permanent secretary – and Macdonald said the inquiry needed to prove its independence.

"In British public life, loyalty and service to power can sometimes count for more to insiders than any tricky questions of wider reputation. It's the regard you are held in by your peers that really counts, so that steadfastness in the face of attack and threatened exposure brings its own rich hierarchy of honour and reward.

"Disloyalty, on the other hand, means a terrible casting out, a rocky and barren Roman exile that few have the courage to endure."

Macdonald said Chilcot and his team needed to tell the truth without fear of offending the Whitehall establishment.

"If Chilcot fails to reveal the truth without fear in this Middle Eastern story of violence and destruction, the inquiry will be held in deserved and withering contempt," Macdonald said.

Yesterday, in an interview with Fern Britton broadcast on BBC1, Blair said he would have backed an attack on Iraq even if he had known that Saddam had no WMD.

"If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?" Blair was asked.

He replied: "I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]".

Blair added: "I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat."

Ex-senior public servant blasts Blair over Iraq war - AFP

Ex-senior public servant blasts Blair over Iraq war

(AFP) – 3 hours ago

LONDON — One of Tony Blair's most senior public servants launched a scathing attack Monday on the former prime minister over the Iraq war, accusing him of "sycophancy" towards Washington.

The former top prosecutor Ken Macdonald issued the attack after Blair admitted on the weekend that the country would have backed the Iraq war even if he knew it did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Blair, who controversially backed then US president George W. Bush in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, said he would "still have thought it right to remove" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein because of the threat he posed to the region.

Blair's comments to the BBC sparked outrage Sunday and calls for his prosecution for war crimes, while one commentator said it was a "game-changing admission" for Britain's ongoing official inquiry into the war.

Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, writing in The Times newspaper, accused Blair and using "alarming subterfuge" to mislead the British people into the conflict.

"This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage."

Macdonald said the US seat of power "turned his head and he couldn't resist the stage or the glamour that it gave him".

"It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn't want, and on a basis that it's increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible."

Macdonald, who works at the same law chambers as Blair's wife, challenged the head of the inquiry into the war "to reveal the truth without fear."

Blair is due to give evidence to the inquiry, led by former civil servant John Chilcot, early next year.

Blair justified the war on the basis of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and its non-compliance with UN weapons inspections, in defiance of numerous UN resolutions.

The alleged chemical and biological weapons were never found, but Blair said he would have gone to war even if he had known they were not there.

"I would still have thought it right to remove him (Saddam Hussein). Obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat," he said.

Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.