Fallujah twice - shame on me

Wartime Secrets
Did President Bush want to bomb television station Al-Jazeera, only for Tony Blair to talk him out of it? If not, why is the government trying to stop the press from revealing details of the conversation in a secret memo, as two civil servants stand trial in connection with the leaking of the document? Neil Mackay investigates

When civil servant David Keogh and former researcher Leo O’Connor step into the dock this week they will find themselves in the odd position of being accused of involve ment in the leak of a document whose very existence has yet to be officially confirmed.
Its contents – details of a conversation between Tony Blair and George Bush in April 2004, in which the US President suggested bombing the Arabic television station Al-Jazeera – have already proved explosive.
The UK government refused to confirm the conversation, or the document – but immediately warned newspaper editors that anyone who printed details from it would be charged under the Official Secrets Act.

That same legislation was used to charge Keogh, a Cabinet Office civil servant, and O’Connor, who once worked for former Northampton MP Tony Clarke – an anti-war campaigner who was passed the mystery document and handed it over to Downing Street.

Despite the government’s warning, every newspaper has been desperately trying to get its hands on the document, which also included information on the movement of troops.
Al-Jazeera itself yesterday demanded that the document be made public. Ahmed el-Sheik, the station’s editor-in-chief, said last week: “Leaving things vague is terrifying. The British government has to explain ... It is terrifying in our era, and from a country known to be leading in terms of promoting human rights, freedom of the press and transparency.” The station’s director-general, Wadah Khanfar, arrived in the UK this weekend demanding a meeting with Tony Blair over the report.

In an e-mail, Al-Jazeera staff said that if the reports on the leaked memo were true then it “would confirm previous American threats against Al-Jazeera ... it would also confirm that bombing Al-Jazeera bureaux in Kabul and Baghdad, and the consequent death of our colleagues ... were deliberate and premeditated acts against Al-Jazeera and its journalists ... it is not an act against Al-Jazeera only, but against the freedom of expression and a distortion of the meaning of democracy and freedom”.

Al-Jazeera’s Kamal Samari added: “It would mean that journalists have become legitimate targets by democratic governments.” The TV station is now considering going to court to get the memo released, and its staff have staged protests at bureaux in Doha, Beirut and Gaza City calling on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to force “the American administration and the British government to explain their attitude to this matter”.

The station’s chief Cairo correspondent, Hussein Abdel Ghani, added: “It’s crazy that the threat came from a country that we used to consider as a model for us in the Arab world.”

Al-Jazeera was always unlikely to be Bush’s favourite news service. Early in the war on terror, it provoked controversy by broadcasting messages from al-Qaeda and showing American prisoners of war and their captors.

US military commanders were furious at the station for showing pictures of fighting inside Fallujah, and US Brigadier-General Mark Kimmet reportedly called for the removal of its journalists from the city. Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, described the station’s reporting as “vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable” and accused it of being in bed with terrorists.

Bush himself said the channel peddled “hateful propaganda”, and Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the invasion of Iraq, claimed in July 2003 that Al-Jazeera was “endangering the lives of American troops”. The station was banned from Iraq by the US-installed Iraqi Governing Council and accused of being pro- Saddam. Former Home Secretary David Blunkett once said it was “linked” to Saddam Hussein’s regime, a comment which came just a week after the channel won an Index On Censorship award for independent journalism.

Al-Jazeera’s office in Baghdad was bombed by the US – who insisted it was not intentional – in April 2003, when journalist Tarek Ayoub was killed. Al-Jazeera had given the precise location of the office to the US to prevent just such an attack happening accidentally .

The office in Kabul, the Afghan capital, had previously been levelled by US forces in November 2002, because, said American officials, the target was considered a terrorist site. Al-Jazeera reporter Sami al-Haj was also captured and taken to Guantanamo Bay.

The station’s reporters were also banned from Iraq under Saddam, and the infamous Ba’athist information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf (aka Comical Ali), once responded to reports that America was succeeding quickly in conquering the country: “I blame Al-Jazeera – they are marketing for the Americans!”

Al-Jazeera now plans to launch a new English language channel next spring, employing the talents of major media figures such as David Frost.

The document, which caused such controversy last week, is allegedly a memo of a discussion which took place between the allied leaders at the White House on April 16, 2004. It took place against the backdrop of the US marines’ first assault on the town of Fallujah – described by the coalition variously as a terrorist hotbed, a rebel stronghold and the centre of the insurgency. US troops were to go on to attack Fallujah again in November.

During the meeting, Bush allegedly voiced a desire to bomb Al-Jazeera in Doha, the capital of Qatar, a Gulf nation which is one of the USA’s key tactical allies. The president is also alleged to have discussed strong-arm moves to defeat the insurgents in Fallujah. The document suggests that Blair managed to talk Bush out of both plans and that he gently expressed displeasure at American tactics. It is known that many British officials and senior army officers were strongly opposed to US conduct in Fallujah, and General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the British army, expressed unease about the behaviour of American troops.

We now know that US troops used the chemical weapon White Phosphorus against the city as well as thermobaric weapons – one round from a shoulder-launched thermobaric rocket can bring down a building from 100 metres. Many civilians were trapped in the city and a large number died in the attack.

If the Bush administration was actively considering taking the war directly to parts of the press deemed inimical to US interests, then the leaking of the document has forced the UK to act against journalists – this time using the courts rather than cruise missiles.

The attorney-general, Lord Goldsmith, announced after the leaking of the memo that newspapers would be charged under the Official Secrets Act if they published any further material in the document. Opposition MPs such as the Liberal Democrat David Heath claim Goldsmith’s threat was based “not on the grounds of national security but on the grounds of potential embarrassment to the Prime Minister or to any presidents he happens to have conversations with”.

Downing Street is worried that more leaks could damage the transatlantic alliance, but it is unheard of for journalists to be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act – as they haven’t signed up to it as civil servants do when they enter their job. However, a part of the act does allow prosecutions for possessing a government document without lawful authority – but only if the information is disclosed and deemed to be damaging. Any prosecutions are likely to be held in camera with the press excluded. The attorney-general has to consent to prosecutions under the act.

Rather than quelling the whole scandal, the attorney-general’s move has actually inflamed outrage in the Arab world – particularly in Qatar – as it seems to indicate that not only was the threat true (why would anyone issue a gagging order about a memo that didn’t exist?) but that Britain was trying to cover the back of the US President. Significantly, the White House has not denied the conversation took place – it has merely said that it would not “dignify” reports on the matter with a comment.

Former Labour defence minister Peter Kilfoyle tabled a Commons motion declaring that MPs were “appalled” by the contents of the memo and demanding that the document be released in its entirety to the public.

Goldsmith denied his warning was an attempt to stop newspapers embarrassing politicians, when he was interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday. “I wasn’t seeking to gag newspapers,’’ he said. “What I said to newspapers was: ‘You need to take legal advice.’

“I am acting in my independent role, this is not the government acting … it is me acting in my independent role to protect the administration of justice, because there is a live case going on at the moment which mustn’t be prejudiced, and secondly to protect the law.

“The point I am making is that the fact that there is a prosecution does not mean, whatever may be the substance of that – and I am making absolutely no confirmation as to the contents of that material, certainly not confirming the stories that have appeared at all – that does not mean that that is now all alright [to put] into the public domain.

He added: “It is not being used to save the embarrassment of a politician. That is completely not the case at all.”

Media organisations around the globe have reacted with horror to the alleged contents of the memo. Ann Cooper, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, said the threat had “grave implications for the safety of media professionals”.

Reporters Without Borders added that if Bush had made a threat to attack Al-Jazeera then “this would be extremely serious and would constitute a major and unprecedented violation of the right to information. If this report turns out to be true, it offers a new insight into the motives of the US forces, which have already bombed Al-Jazeera offices twice.”

The big question for Bush is whether the leak will damage him with US voters. Regardless of growing disapproval in the US towards the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the President is unlikely to suffer much of a hit, judging by comments from Americans on Al-Jazeera’s own website.

One simply read: “Bush to bomb Al-Jazeera … good idea. USA.” 27 November 2005