History > 2006 > UK > Politics > Prime Minister (IV)

Dave Brown

The Independent

17.10.2006

Blair refuses

to 'undermine troops'

with Iraq inquiry

Tuesday October 31, 2006
Guardian
Tania Branigan, political correspondent

The prime minister has refused to give in to demands for an inquiry into the war in Iraq because it would undermine British troops on active service, his official spokesman insisted before today's Commons vote on the issue.

The Conservatives have warned they may back the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, who have tabled a motion calling for a public review by senior MPs of the lead-up to war and its aftermath, despite having supported military action.

The SNP leader, Alex Salmond, acknowledged that the government was likely to win the vote but predicted an embarrassingly narrow victory for Tony Blair. The nationalists already have Liberal Democrat support and say they expect about 30 Labour backbenchers to rebel.

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said yesterday the Tories would consider supporting the motion unless the government agreed to an inquiry. "It will be a great pity if the government are dogmatically setting their face against a proper inquiry into what has gone right or wrong in Iraq. We are not asking for such an inquiry to be established immediately - only a commitment that one will be established eventually, before this time next year," he said.

But Mr Blair's official spokesman warned: "We have troops who are operating in the field of combat. We have an enemy who is looking for any sign of weakness at all, any sign of a loss of resolution or determination. The important thing is that we do not give any signal that we are anything less than fully determined to see the job through."

Asked whether Mr Blair would accept an inquiry once British troops had left, he replied: "Given the way in which any such announcement would be treated, I think the question answers itself."

The SNP-Plaid Cymru motion calls for a full review into the way the government's responsibilities were discharged in relation to Iraq before military action and afterwards. It would be carried out by seven MPs who are also privy councillors and would sit in public. The Conservatives advocate bigger, private hearings with former military personnel. But they may split on the issue, and Labour MPs who opposed the war may fall into line tomorrow.

"People are very reluctant on opposition debates to ever vote against the government. The idea of giving the nationalists the satisfaction puts them off," said one. Another, Graham Allen, said: "I will certainly be supporting the government tomorrow. We did our bit at the time [by opposing the invasion]; sadly, Conservatives as well as some of our colleagues backed George Bush's timetable. Where we are now is a very different place."

    Blair refuses to 'undermine troops' with Iraq inquiry, G, 31.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1935565,00.html

4.15pm update

Britain will hold nerve on Iraq,

says Blair

· Iraqi deputy PM: don't cut and run
· Lib Dem leader calls for exit debate
· Beckett: Iraq could split into parts

Monday October 23, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Oliver and agencies

The Iraqi deputy prime minister today said the international community must not "cut and run" from the country, but stressed that Iraqis were working hard to take over security.

Speaking after talks with Tony Blair, Barham Saleh said "seven or eight" of Iraq's 18 provinces could be under Iraqi control by next year, adding that he understood that the UK had not given an "open-ended commitment".

Mr Blair's official spokesman indicated the prime minister had told Mr Saleh that Britain would hold its nerve, saying UK troops would remain in Iraq until the job was done.

The spokesman said the talks were focused on ensuring that the process of handing over control of Iraqi provinces continued "as quickly as possible". However, he added that it would be wrong to say Mr Blair was pressing Mr Saleh for an exit strategy.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Democrats - the only major party that opposed the war - today called for a Commons debate on whether the British military should remain in Iraq.

"If we are to salvage anything from Iraq, the essential first step is an admission from the prime minister and President Bush that they got it wrong," Sir Menzies said in statement. "Their strategy is in ruins.

"In March 2003, parliament was allowed to debate whether military action should be taken. Surely parliament should now be allowed to debate whether we stay or go. The government owes that to the Commons, but most of all to the British people."

In an indication that government policy on Iraq was shifting, the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, acknowledged that the country could eventually break up into multiple parts.

Iraq is made up of three main regions - the Kurdish north, the predominantly Sunni central area, and the mainly Shia south, which contains the majority of Iraqi oil.

Asked about the possibility of separation, Ms Beckett said: "That is very much a matter for the Iraqis. They have had enough of people from outside handing down arbitrary boundaries and arbitrary decisions."

In an interview on the BBC's Today programme, she was asked whether historians would come to judge the Iraq invasion as a foreign policy disaster for Britain and replied: "Yes, they may. Then again, they may not."

London and Washington have been putting increasing pressure on Iraqi leaders to accelerate improvements in the capability of domestic security forces.

"We need to demonstrate progress on the ground," Mr Saleh said, adding that the training of Iraqi forces - which he said now amounted to more than 300,000 personnel - had been improved.

At the weekend, the foreign minister, Kim Howells, claimed that the Iraqi police and army could be given complete authority over the southern region within 12 months.

Mr Saleh did not comment directly on the claim, but said he had spoken to Mr Blair about how the Iraqi government was taking "more and more responsibility" on security.

He said it was a "tough transition" after "35 years of tyranny" under the former dictator Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi deputy prime minister referred to last week's fighting in Amara, in the southern Maysan province, where Iraqi forces retook control from Shia militia while British troops waited outside the city in case they were needed.

He said this pattern would be seen more and more in the future, and also warned Iran and Syria not to interfere in Iraq's affairs.

Earlier, he told the Today programme that he disagreed with recent comments made by the head of Britain's armed forces, Sir Richard Dannatt, that the presence of UK troops had exacerbated security problems.

Major General Richard Sheriff, the commander of British troops in Basra, said there were "huge problems" in Iraq amid a "push back" against soldiers by insurgents.

However, he told the Today programme he was "absolutely certain [we are] beginning to win the battle of hearts and minds". "There is a paradox here," he added. "We are seen as occupiers, but we are also seen very firmly as part of the solution. The people in the city here realise this place is not going to get better by magic."

British defence officials hope to cut the number of troops based in Iraq from around 7,000 to between 3,000 and 4,000.

Mr Howells yesterday said he believed there would be "adequately trained Iraqi soldiers and security forces" to take over duties from British and US-led troops within a year.

The defence secretary, Des Browne, declined to back up the prediction, saying British forces would be "out when the job is done".

UK troops relinquished control of the southern Muthana province in July and the neighbouring Dhi Qar province last month, leaving US-led soldiers in control of the southern Basra and Maysan provinces.

The Ministry of Defence today said it was expected that Maysan would be handed over to Iraqi authorities either next month or early next year.

A total of 119 British troops have died since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. More than 2,780 US personnel have died.

    Britain will hold nerve on Iraq, says Blair, G, 23.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1929432,00.html

Blair gives Iraq 12 months to be ready for handover

· PM to meet Iraqi leaders in Downing St today
· Former envoy warns that 'only bad options' remain

Monday October 23, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour and Michael Howard

Tony Blair will put pressure on the Iraqi government today to demonstrate that its security forces will be ready to take over from the British army in southern provinces within roughly a year.

Amid mounting international concern over escalating violence, Mr Blair is expected to use today's Downing Street talks with Iraq's deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh, to discuss plans for an exit strategy for British troops, with some ministers openly contemplating withdrawal inside a year.

In an attempt to demonstrate that the British army will not be bogged down in Iraq indefinitely, the defence secretary, Des Browne, said yesterday he expected that Iraq's security forces would have the capacity within a year to take over from British forces, a point also pushed home by the Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells. Mr Howells said: "I would have thought that certainly in a year or so there will be adequately trained Iraqi soldiers and security forces - policemen and women and so on - in order to do the job."

But the challenges facing the Iraqi security forces were underlined yesterday when a bomb blast and ambush on a convoy of buses near the town of Baquba killed 13 police recruits. Another 25 were injured and several were kidnapped.

Mr Blair will again insist at today's talks that British troops will not pull out prematurely, but is likely to seek a private assessment of whether the Iraqi government can do more to boost its security forces, and to dispel the impression that, pushed by sectarian violence, Iraq's parliament is endorsing a form of federalism that will undermine the Sunni minority.

The talks come amid increasingly pessimistic assessments of the situation in Iraq from senior military and diplomatic figures. Yesterday Mr Blair's closest former adviser on Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former British ambassador to the UN, described the invasion as "a failure" and "a mess". Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, and other senior officers have also issued bleak public statements in the last fortnight.

Sir Jeremy warned: "There are only bad options from the coalition for now on," and predicted that a solution to the fighting would require a "massive new effort of regional diplomacy" involving Syria and Iran - something that would constitute a huge change in US policy.

The continued hints of a British drawdown of its troops next year contrast with a growing mood of desperation in Washington over the intensity of the fighting in Iraq, and signs of a possible break-up of the country. The Bush administration was reported yesterday to be drafting an urgent plan to pressure the Iraqi government into dealing with increasing violence in the country.

If Iraq fails to meet crucial milestones, then US officials hold open the possibility of sanctions, though they stress that would not include the immediate withdrawal of US troops.

In a separate but revealing development the White House was forced on to the defensive after a senior US state department official gave the frankest assessment yet of US policy in Iraq. Alberto Fernandez, Washington's top foreign affairs spin doctor, described it as "a failure", and accused his government of "autocratic thinking". Speaking in Arabic on al-Jazeera television Mr Fernandez, director of public diplomacy at the bureau of near eastern affairs, said: "We tried to do our best, but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq."

In Britain, the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, said a British review should match the strategy rethink under way in Washington. He suggested the Tories will be demanding a full Commons debate on the crisis next month.

    Blair gives Iraq 12 months to be ready for handover, G, 23.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1929000,00.html

Disarm the militias and take control

White House issues demands

to embattled PM

· Sanctions threat if al-Maliki fails to meet timetable
· Move reflects US frustration

Monday October 23, 2006
Guardian
Michael Howard in Sulaymaniya

The Bush administration, alarmed by the increasing violence and lawlessness gripping much of Iraq, has decided to force the hand of the embattled prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki. It will push him to agree to a timetable of specific measures aimed at disarming the militias, halting sectarian violence, and shouldering more responsibility for the country's security.

General George Casey and US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the senior US military and civilian officials in Iraq, are drafting a document that will require Mr Maliki and his government of national unity to commit to a schedule of measures designed to foster reconciliation, reconstruction and stability, according to a report in yesterday's New York Times.

The plan is being drawn up in consultation with Iraqi officials as well as figures in the Pentagon, and is likely to cover the period until the end of 2007. It is expected to go to Mr Maliki by the end of the year.

If Iraq fails to meet the crucial milestones, then US officials hold open the possibility of sanctions, though they stress that would not include the immediate withdrawal of US troops. "If the Iraqis fail to come back to us on this, we would have to conduct a reassessment" of the US strategy, the paper quoted a senior Pentagon official as saying.

In Baghdad, nervous Iraqi leaders have been monitoring the US debate, viewing with dismay the growing political pressure for a troop pullout. But yesterday a senior Iraqi official said discussions between the two governments on measures for greater Iraqi control were continuing.

"We have only seen the newspaper reports as to the existence of this plan, but in general we are working together to achieve the right balance between coalition and Iraqi responsibility for security," said the official, who requested anonymity. He added: "We don't need threats to tell us that the sectarian violence has reached a dangerous stage and requires radical political and security measures."

In recent weeks top Pentagon officials have expressed their growing frustration at the apparent inability of the government of Mr Maliki to stem the activities of militias and death squads, some of which have direct links to Mr Maliki's ruling Shia Alliance.

The senior Iraqi official said, however, that the government was already drawing up a two-pronged plan of action against the militias, to be put in action simultaneously.

"Disarming the militias is a priority," he said. "Both those who are connected to the government and those who are part of the so-called resistance must disarm, and be seen to have verifiably disarmed."

He said that talks between Iraqi officials and some nationalist Sunni insurgent groups were ongoing.

The US is also reported to have been contacting former Baathist leaders in Jordan, thought to have influence over the insurgent groups in the Sunni Triangle.

Other Iraqi politicians said that any new tactics by either the US or the Iraqi governments would be a case of "too little too late". "For now, Baghdad and Iraq are finished. Heaven help us from the terrorists, the Americans, and our own leaders," said Sheikh Faris al-Mohammed, a member of parliament.

In his weekly national radio address, President Bush said that US commanders on the ground were "constantly adjusting their approach to stay ahead of the enemy, particularly in Baghdad". But he said the US strategy in Iraq remained unchanged. "There is one thing we will not do. We will not pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete."

The revelation of the new US blueprint for Iraq, said to be far from finished, appeared in part to be aimed at showing an increasingly sceptical US public that the Bush administration was not stuck fast in the quagmire.

Some observers said it was also an attempt to pre-empt the findings of the independent commission on Iraq led by former secretary of state James Baker. The commission is reported to have considered ideas such as dividing Iraq into its constituent Kurdish, Sunni and Shia parts, setting a clear timetable for a phased withdrawal of troops, and engaging Iran and Syria in Iraq's future security.

With crucial mid-term elections looming and the Democrats well ahead in the polls, a Newsweek survey at the weekend suggested that most Americans believe the US is losing ground in its efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq.

"We're trying to come up with ways to get the Iraqis to step up to the plate, to push them along, because the time is coming," a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times. "We can't be there forever." The White House however dismissed the paper's report, saying it was "not accurate".

Conflict on five fronts

Insurgents v US-led coalition

October was one of the deadliest months for US forces in Iraq since George Bush declared an end to major hostilities on May 1 2003. Nationalist insurgents, including Sunni and Shia tribesmen and militias, as well as former members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, are waging a sophisticated and unrelenting campaign against multinational forces, using roadside bombs, mortar and rocket attacks and snipers. "We operate wherever there are foreign troops," a former insurgent in Baghdad told the Guardian.

Sunni v Shia

Despite high-profile security crackdowns by US and Iraqi forces, Baghdad appears to be in the process of being torn into two distinct Sunni and Shia parts. Violence by radical armed Shia groups on the one hand, and Sunni jihadists and former Ba'athists on the other, has seen formerly mixed neighbourhoods becoming either wholly Shia or Sunni. One saving grace may be that that the violence appears to be neither spontaneous nor popular, yet intolerance and mistrust, especially among the city's youth, is growing. The Sunni-Shia violence has also spread to towns such as Balad, Baquba and Mahmudiya.

Shia v Shia

The two main protagonists in the struggle for supremacy for the Shia heartlands of southern Iraq are the Badr brigade, linked to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and the Mahdi Army, loyal to the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Wars between the two, seen at the weekend in Amara, threaten to undermine the unity of the governing Shia Alliance in Baghdad.

Arabs v Kurds

The ethnic faultlines coursing through the northern oil-rich city of Kirkuk form the backdrop to a surge in suicide and car bombings and politically motivated assassinations. The city is an increasingly tense mix of Kurds, who claim it as their historic capital, Turkomen, who reject the Kurdish claims, and Arabs, many of whom were moved to the area as part of Saddam's programme of Arabisation in the 80s and 90s. Various Sunni Islamic militant groups, such as al-Qaida in Iraq, Ansar al-Islam and Ansar al-Sunna, are thought to be behind most of the bombings, while Sunni tribesmen from nearby Hawija proclaim loyalty to Saddam and attack US forces and Iraqi security forces.

Sunni tribal leaders v al-Qaida

Fed up with the activities of foreign Arab jihadis in Iraq, who have shown little hesitation in attacking Shia civilian communities, a number of senior Sunni tribal leaders in the restive Anbar province, west of Baghdad, have decided to rid their region of al-Qaida activists. The Sunni tribal leaders also insist it is the duty of the domestic insurgency to kick out all foreign troops from Iraq. However, radical Sunni Islamist groups in Anbar continue to stage shows of force in cities such as Ramadi and Falluja.

    Disarm the militias and take control - White House issues demands to embattled PM, G, 23.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1929003,00.html

Blair:

troops may quit Iraq in 10-16 months

· PM adjusts stance as mood changes in US
· Security situation will dictate withdrawal date

Thursday October 19, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour


Tony Blair yesterday shifted ground on the continuing presence of British troops in Iraq by saying it was government policy to leave the country within 10 to 16 months - so long as the security situation allowed.

The prime minister also agreed with the chief of the general staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, that the presence of British forces could become a provocation, but disagreed with Gen Dannatt by insisting it was still the government's aim to secure a liberal democracy in Iraq.

Mr Blair's comments at prime minister's questions appear to be an attempt to pacify the restive mood of the British army, as well as to reflect the developing view in Washington that some radical policy change is imminent after the US mid- term elections.

In a change of tone, Mr Blair told MPs the aim was to leave the Iraqi forces to organise security, adding: "Otherwise, of course, we are a provocation rather than a help to them."

Mr Blair added: "I told the [Commons] liaison committee just a few months ago: 'I suspect over the next 18 months there will obviously be opportunities to draw down significant numbers of British troops because the capacity of the Iraqi forces will build up'. I said it then. I say it now."

He added that in August General George Casey, US commander of forces in Iraq, also called for a withdrawal over 12 to 18 months. Gen Casey, Mr Blair reminded MPs, had said: "I don't have a date, but I can see over the next 12 to 18 months the Iraqi security forces progressing to a point where they can take on the security responsibilities for the country".

But Mr Blair refused to abandon his aim to secure democracy in the Middle East saying: "I believe that the maintenance of democracy is absolutely essential for us, in Iraq and in Afghanistan."

He added: "I don't want to dismay our allies or hearten our enemies by suggesting we will do anything else other than stay until the job is done."

Washington is waiting for a report from the former secretary of state, James Baker, setting out fresh options for Iraq, including asking Iraq's neighbours to help with security in the country.

Mr Blair balanced his remarks with a more familiar insistence that it would be disastrous for allied forces to leave prematurely. His spokesman said later that British troops would be provocative if they stayed after the Iraqi government had asked them to leave, or the Iraqi security forces were deemed capable of dealing with the insurgency.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, said it was clear the government's strategy had failed and the choice was stark - to change strategy or get out. But Mr Blair insisted that only the "progressive" withdrawal of British forces, as the Iraqi security capability built up, would work.

The US army has reported that by August this year security responsibilities had been transferred to 86 Iraqi battalions against a target of 114, and an increase from 37 in January. But the number of Iraqi units judged to be fully operationally independent is kept as classified information. There has been widespread criticism at the poor level of training of Iraqi forces by the US army, including the lack of language skills.

Opinion-polling in Iraq conducted last month showed 71% of Iraqis want coalition troops out within a year. Seventy eight per cent thought the presence of coalition troops was provoking more conflict than preventing it. Fifty-eight per cent thought that if the US left within six months, it would decrease violence.

This is not a view shared by many senior Iraqi leaders, who still believe a precipitate withdrawal would increase the already high levels of violence. The number of Iraqis who believe Iraq is going in the right direction has fallen to 47%, down from 64% in January.

The polling, led by World Public Opinion was conducted between September 1 and September 4 in all 18 Iraqi provinces.

    Blair: troops may quit Iraq in 10-16 months, G, 19.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1925440,00.html

2.45pm

Blair backs school in veil row

Tuesday October 17, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

The prime minister today took sides in the debate over Muslim women's right to wear the veil, saying he backed the school which suspended a teacher for refusing to take off her niqab.

Mr Blair also described the veil as "mark of separation" which made people from outside the Muslim community "uncomfortable".

Speaking at his monthly press conference in Downing Street, the PM refused to be drawn on the detail of the row in Dewsbury, but said he backed the school and the local education authority's handling of the case - which saw them suspend Aishah Azmi.

Mr Blair told reporters: "They [Kirkless council] should be allowed to take that decision."

But he added: "I do support the authority in the way that they have handled this."

Asked whether he specifically backed the teaching assistant's suspension from Headfield Church of England junior school in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, he added: "I simply say that I back their handling of the case.

"I can see the reason why they came to the decision they did."

Mr Blair said the issue of the veil, and the larger issue of the integration of Muslims in society, was an issue facing almost every country in Europe.

"Difficult though these issues are, they need to be raised and confronted," he said.

Perhaps most controversially, Mr Blair said there was also an issue, which was apparent across Europe, about how Islam "comes to terms and is comfortable with" the modern world.

When asked at the news conference if a Muslim woman wearing a veil could make a contribution to society, he replied: "That's a very difficult question. "It is a mark of separation and that is why it makes other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable.

"We have to deal with the debate," he said. "People want to know that the Muslim community in particular, but actually all minority communities, have got the balance right between integration and multiculturalism."

Mr Blair added: "No one wants to say that people don't have the right to do it [wear the veil]. That is to take it too far. But I think we need to confront this issue about how we integrate people properly into our society."

The PM did say it was regrettable the way that the debate had come into the public arena.

The row - sparked by an article by Commons Leader Jack Straw in his local newspaper in Blackburn, where he revealed that he asked female constituents to remove their veils - has now lasted more than two weeks and shows no sign of ebbing.

Mr Blair said it was now a debate taking place across "every village, town and city in the British nation". A poll of Daily Express readers today claimed 98% wanted to see the veil banned.

The PM was quizzed on the government's recent decision to force newly founded faith schools to admit 25% of pupils who were not of that faith.

The move has been interpreted by some as being targeted at Muslim schools, as they form the bulk of new schools in the pipeline.

Mr Blair pointed out that it was his decision to end the ban on Muslim faith schools in the first place.

"We would not be having this debate were it not for people's concerns about this question to do with integration and separation of the Muslim community," he added.

    Blair backs school in veil row, G, 17.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1924473,00.html

4.15pm

PM hits back over escaped suspects

Tuesday October 17, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

Tony Blair today threw back criticism of the escape of two terror suspects being held under control orders - pointing out that opposition parties and law courts had opposed the "much tougher" restrictions originally put forward by the government.

With pressure growing on the home secretary, John Reid, to offer an explanation as to how and when the escapes were made, the prime minister said the compromise control orders would never be as effective as detention.

But - speaking at his monthly press conference - Mr Blair confirmed the two men were being sought by the police after breaching their control orders.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, has demanded Mr Reid come to the Commons and explain the disappearances.

Mr Davis also all but accused the home secretary of misleading the house by not mentioning the abscontions earlier.

Referring to a previous statement on control orders on September 11 - when one of the men had already escaped - Mr Davis told the Speaker of the Commons there had been "no mention of a breach of the orders, no mention of an escapee, no mention of the risk to the public."

He added: "I am sure that the home secretary would not wish it to be thought that he had in any way misled the house, and would seek to correct any misunderstanding immediately."

In the aftermath of the September 11 2001 attacks the government initially legislated for the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects - something the law lords later ruled unlawful, as it discriminated between UK and foreign terror suspects.

After marathon sittings of the Commons and Lords, the government eventually got through compromise legislation allowing for control orders to be placed on suspects, tagging them, limiting their visitors, and putting curfews on them leaving their homes.

Mr Blair today defended the government's original intentions, saying: "Control orders were never going to be as effective as detention.

"But of course, we've got to make sure that if someone breaches their control order, then they're properly sought-after and we will do that and that's a job for the police," he added.

"We wanted far tougher laws against terrorism, we were prevented by the opposition in parliament and then by the courts in ensuring that was done," he said.

"Some of the self-same people who are criticising us on control orders today were leading the charge against the legislation that would have allowed us to detain these people," he said.

A major police investigation is ongoing after the men's disappearance, with ports and airports on watch to prevent them leaving the country.

One man is believed to have absconded through the window of a secure mental unit.

The British suspect is accused of wanting to go to Iraq to fight. He had been subject to a control order since March.

The second man is thought to have been missing for some months.

Mr Davis has described the escapes as "extraordinary".

He said the government had been warned about weaknesses in the operation of the orders, adding: "It's more than an embarrassment. These are people they describe as being a danger to the public."

Nick Clegg, for the Liberal Democrats, said: "The danger of control orders is that they short-circuit due process and keep suspects in a state of limbo."

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of human rights group Liberty, said control orders did not work.

"If someone is truly a dangerous terror suspect, why would you leave them at large?

"On the other hand it is completely cruel and unfair to label someone a terrorist and to subject them to a range of punishments for years on end without ever charging them or putting them on trial."

    PM hits back over escaped suspects, G, 17.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1924518,00.html

We must not 'break' army, warns top general after triggering Iraq storm

PM insists he 'agrees with every word' of defence chief's comments on British troops

Saturday October 14, 2006
Guardian
Will Woodward and Richard Norton-Taylor

Government efforts to quell the firestorm created by a critique of the crisis in Iraq from the head of the army were undermined yesterday when he warned British forces could "break" if they stayed in the country for more than a few years.

General Sir Richard Dannatt was forced to try and dampen the impact of his unprecedented broadside on the prime minister's policy toward Iraq. But the attempt backfired as he warned that British troops should come home in two years, contradicting Mr Blair's refusal to put a deadline on their presence in Iraq.

Mr Blair last night said he "agreed with every word" in a series of radio and television interviews designed to hose down the crisis created by General Dannatt's interview in the Daily Mail in which he said Britain's presence in Iraq was harming Britain's security.

The interview - in which Gen Dannatt also suggested the original ambitions for Iraq were naive - put him at odds with the government. But after overnight discussions with Des Browne, the defence secretary, Gen Dannatt said there was not "a piece of paper, however thin" between him and the government.

The general refused to back down on the substance of his remarks and to some degree compounded them. "I am not a maverick in this sense. I am soldier speaking up for his army. I am just saying come on, we can't be here forever at this level," he told Radio 4's Today programme.

"I have got an army to look after which is going to be successful in current operations, but I want an army in five years time and 10 years time. Don't let's break it on this one."

In another interview, with Sky News, Gen Dannatt said: "The army is exceptionally busy so I want to see this mission successfully concluded, but I also want to make sure I've got an army that's not so exhausted that it's still there and can do the job in five years' time, in 10 years' time ..."

The prime minister's official spokesman said the way the Daily Mail interview was presented, "did raise questions" but the general had dealt with them.

In a written statement yesterday, the general said: "We have been in southern Iraq for three-and-a-half years and we have made significant progress ... The point that I'm trying to make is the mere fact that we are still in some places exacerbates violence from those who want to destabilise Iraqi democracy."

Last night Mr Blair - speaking at the end of talks on Northern Ireland talks - went further. "What he is saying about wanting the British forces out of Iraq is precisely the same as we're all saying," he said. "Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq when the job is done.

"When he's talking about how our presence can exacerbate the problems in Iraq he's absolutely right. I've said the same myself ... We'll withdraw completely from Iraq as the Iraqi forces are able to handle their own security."

No 10 was caught off guard on Thursday evening when reports of the Mail story first surfaced. Gen Dannatt was contacted and spoke to Mr Browne. According to government sources, he volunteered to return to London from the south coast to give interviews clarifying his position.

Downing Street also dismissed as "fabrication" BBC claims that the White House had intervened. There was also speculation that the interview helped the government to push the Americans into allowing an early exit from Iraq but this was discounted by official sources.

Loyalist Labour MPs said the general was reflecting a view that the situation had changed. David Winnick, a senior backbencher who supported the Iraq war, said: "I think there is now a growing political consensus, including those who support military action, that there now must be a limited timeframe for British forces to remain in Iraq. There is no evidence whatsoever that the daily slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians by terrorist sectarian groups is being hindered in any way by the military presence of the coalition troops."

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said it was a "refreshing change" for a senior military figure to make these remarks in public.

Mike Penning, a former Grenadier Guard and now Tory MP for Hemel Hempstead, said: "Frankly I'd have been chuffed if I was serving under Sir Richard that he'd come forward with the truth, no political spin, no politics, just put his troops first, and they would be very proud of him, like I am."

But the official Tory response betrayed a nervousness about appearing to break ranks with the government on Iraq. Ex-ministers said he had gone beyond his brief. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former foreign secretary, says in interview to be broadcast on Sunday that the general had made "an honest mistake" and it should be a case of "two strikes and you're out".

He tells GMTV: "I think senior generals ... musn't cross over that line into expressing political views at variance with the government of the day. He did do that, I suspect not intentionally. He'll be sadder and wiser this weekend."

    We must not 'break' army, warns top general after triggering Iraq storm, G, 14.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1922440,00.html

Blunkett: PM suffered heart trouble since his 30s

Thursday October 12, 2006
Guardian
Nicholas Watt and Will Woodward

Tony Blair began suffering from heart problems in his mid 30s, casting doubt on Downing Street's statements about his health, David Blunkett says today.

As No 10 and the Treasury united against the former home secretary, after a series of embarrassing disclosures in his diaries, Mr Blunkett today increases the pressure by saying that the prime minister first experienced heart problems in 1988. This indicates that Downing Street may have been less than frank when it initially gave the impression, after Mr Blair was first admitted to hospital in 2003, that he had not suffered previous heart problems.

"Tony told me when I spoke to him on the telephone that he had had the heart problem, on and off, for 15 years, but this time he had had to go into hospital, which is why it became public knowledge," Mr Blunkett writes of a conversation two days after the prime minister was admitted to hospital for a heart murmur on October 19 2003.

A week later Downing Street gave the impression that Mr Blair had not suffered a problem before. "We are mystified," his official spokesman said after Bill Clinton indicated that the prime minister had told him about his problem five years before. "This was the first time that the prime minister had suffered from such a condition. The prime minister did not, and never had, a heart condition."

Mr Blunkett also describes the prime minister's difficult relationship with Gordon Brown today. He writes that in 2001 they had a "slanging match" over local government financing.

Mr Blunkett, who jokes about Mr Brown's parsimony, adds that the chancellor is a difficult colleague. "I do find Gordon very hard to negotiate with. Every time something is raised he becomes defensive, but you simply have to override it..."

Downing Street and the Treasury distanced themselves from Mr Blunkett who claimed yesterday that Mr Blair threatened to sack Mr Brown on the eve of the 2003 Iraq war. Sources close to Mr Brown described Mr Blunkett's claim as "offensive".

Mr Blunkett also says that John Reid had an "enormous row" with Mr Brown in cabinet in July 2002. He also says Mr Brown questioned whether the government needed to implement its manifesto commitment on House of Lords reform.

In an interview for Channel 4's Dispatches tonight Mr Blunkett will indicate that the US bombing of the Baghdad offices of al-Jazeera TV in 2003 might have been justified.

He says: "I don't think for a minute in previous wars we'd have thought twice about ensuring that a propaganda mechanism on the soil of the country you were invading would actually continue being able to propagate against you."

    Blunkett: PM suffered heart trouble since his 30s, G, 12.10.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/blunkett/story/0,,1920172,00.html

4.30pm update

Blair: Northern Ireland final settlement within reach

Wednesday October 4, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matt Weaver and agencies

A "final settlement" to the political stalemate in Northern Ireland is within reach, Tony Blair declared today after an independent commission concluded that the IRA was no longer a terrorist threat.

"The IRA has done what we asked of it," the prime minister said this afternoon. His comments come after the Independent Monitoring Commissioning (IMC) said earlier that the IRA had abandoned terrorism irreversibly.

The conclusion of the commission meant there was now was a "unique opportunity" to reach agreement on power sharing in the province, he said. "The door is now open to a final settlement."

Mr Blair said he understood why unionists were sceptical of the commission's assessment that the IRA was committed to democratic politics. But he added: "It is a statement based on the IMC objective assessment."

Earlier, in a clear message to unionists, the Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Hain, said: "It is a fantastic opportunity, which politicians ought to take. If they cannot bring themselves to do it, then they themselves will close the door on devolution."

But he added: "This report leaves no party the excuse to dodge its responsibilities.

"No party should dodge its responsibility - that includes Sinn Fein on policing; that includes all the parties. They should all work together to make it possible for each other to do the deal."

The findings will be the focus of a Northern Ireland summit in Scotland next week, ahead of the deadline for restoring power sharing on November 24.

The prime minister, Tony Blair, and the Irish taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, hope the report will build unionist confidence in Sinn Fein's credentials as a future partner in a devolved government.

The report found that the IRA had stopped targeting members of the security forces, procuring weapons, recruiting and training, and had wound down its department for developing bombs.

It also revealed that people who had tried to join the IRA were directed instead to Sinn Fein as the republican movement shifted towards being a purely political path.

However, the report also acknowledged that individuals within the organisation were still involved in criminality, lining their pockets through their involvement in money laundering and robberies.

The Democratic Unionist party was to seek urgent talks with the IMC to assess whether the progress made by the IRA on paramilitarism and criminality was irreversible, its leader, Ian Paisley, said today.

He said the assessment that the provisional IRA was progressively abandoning its terrorist structures showed the pressure brought to bear on republicans by his party was working.

However, he expressed concern at the continuing involvement of IRA members in criminality, and at the commission's failure to state whether the organisation in April murdered the former Sinn Fein official turned British spy Denis Donaldson.

"Real and serious doubts remain about the murder of Denis Donaldson, and this report has not ruled out the possibility that the provisional IRA were behind this killing," the North Antrim MP said.

"We will be meeting with the IMC at the earliest opportunity to discuss issues surrounding IRA criminality and whether the progress that has been made is permanent and irreversible."

He added: "It is for republicans to demonstrate in a practical and convincing way that their days of criminality and terror are gone for good.

"Democrats have nothing to prove, and if Sinn Fein wish to be treated on the same basis as everyone else, then it is for them to now support the police, the courts and the rule of law. There can, and will, be no toleration for those who are half in and half out of the democratic club."

Policing is seen as one of the critical issues that will need to be resolved at next week's talks.

While three of the four parties that could form a power-sharing government at Stormont support and encourage their community to cooperate with the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), Sinn Fein has so far refused to recognise the body as the legitimate force of law and order.

Sinn Fein's leader, Gerry Adams, has signalled his party's willingness to have a special conference to debate any change to its policing policy.

However, while his party insists there must be a devolved government before Sinn Fein can move on policing, the DUP wants republicans to commit themselves first to publicly endorsing the PSNI before a devolved government can be formed.

Commenting on today's report Mr Adams said: "It's very, very clear that the republicans have kept to all their commitments. A deal could be done tonight."

Mr Ahern welcomed the IMC's conclusions. He said: "These positive and clear-cut findings are of the utmost importance and significance. They are evidence that the security landscape in Northern Ireland has been radically altered. It is now clearly apparent that the IRA has neither the intent nor the interest in restarting its paramilitary campaign."

Mr Ahern said he and Mr Blair believed, ahead of next week's talks, that sustainable partnership government was achievable in Northern Ireland and that the province could now move forward with confidence that the past had been left behind.

"The governments will play their part, but we expect the parties to shoulder their responsibilities and to come to Scotland ready to address the final obstacles and open to agreement. The context for political engagement has never been better."

    Blair: Northern Ireland final settlement within reach, G, 4.10.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,,1887436,00.html