Veronica Lario, the wife of the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, is to ask for a divorce after a series of public disputes with her husband over the close attention he pays to younger women.
Italian media reported that Lario, 52, had contacted a lawyer to start divorce proceedings against Berlusconi, 72, whom she married in 1990.
Last week, Lario fired off an angry letter to a local news agency, Ansa, describing as "shameless rubbish" Berlusconi's reported plan to select a series of young women, including a Big Brother contestant, as candidates for the European parliament.
She also criticised her husband's decision to spend a night at a Naples disco celebrating the birthday of an 18-year-old, Noemi Letizia.
A source close to Lario confirmed the contents of a report in today's La Repubblica, which quoted Lario as stating: "I cannot stay with a man who frequents minors."
Berlusconi publicly asked Lario for forgiveness in 2007 after she wrote to an Italian newspaper complaining about his flirting with a TV showgirl at an awards ceremony. After last week's outburst, Berlusconi did not back down, claiming Lario had been swayed by misleading press reports.
Lario, a former actor whose real name is Miriam Raffaella Bartolini, was courted by Berlusconi after he saw her appear topless in a Milan theatre production in 1980. At the time, Berlusconi was married to his first wife, with whom he had two children. Lario and Berlusconi have three children.
La Repubblica reported that Lario had discussed her decision to divorce with her children. "I am convinced that at this point it would be more dignified to stop here," the newspaper quoted her saying.
Niccolò Ghedini, a lawyer for Berlusconi, said today the prime minister was not making a statement. "All affairs of this kind are personal and painful," he told Corriere della Sera.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Refugees on a wild frontier between army and Taliban
Two hours' drive from downtown Islamabad, with its leafy avenues and upmarket restaurants, a chain of jagged mountains in North-West Frontier Province marks the frontline of Pakistan's war with the Taliban.
A flood of refugees spills down from the hills and on to the plains at the edge of war-torn Buner district, bringing tales of bloodshed and destruction. Many are angry at the Pakistani army which, they say, has shelled homes and mistakenly killed civilians.
In Totalai, on the southern edge of Buner, a clutch of angry men piled off an overloaded tractor pulling a trailer filled with burka-clad women clutching cloth sacks and exhausted children.
"At night we are bombarded by the big guns and in the day by the helicopters," said Muhammad Saleh, a farmer, gesticulating wildly. They had come from Nawagai, a village caught in the crossfire, he said, pointing to a teenager with a bandaged leg, injured by army shelling.
"They should use smaller weapons. They are trying to hit a pigeon with a cannon," he said.
On another vehicle, a 30-year-old teacher, Abdul Aziz, said the head of Nawagai secondary school, Bakht Garim Shah, had been shot in his car by a helicopter gunship as he returned from an examination centre. "There were three other people with him and all were killed. And on the television the government was calling them suicide bombers!" he said. "Now we can't even get their corpses."
Last Friday, a day after the alleged incident took place, a military spokesman said the army had destroyed eight "suicide vehicles" and six vehicles containing fleeing militants.
Other refugees backed the operation, despite its heavy toll. Zakir, a 22-year-old computer store clerk, said his village, Swari, was straining under food shortages and a 24-hour curfew. But life under the Taliban had been worse, he said.
After seizing control last month, militants had robbed two banks, closed barber shops, banned music and forced people to disable their satellite television receivers, he said. They had tried to impose a crude form of justice, threatening to flog a man alleged to have made a sexual advance to another. "This is not right. There is no [use of] force in Islam," said Zakir, speaking from the safety of a house where he had taken shelter.
A journalist from the main town, Daggar, said the Taliban stole women's jewellery at gunpoint, occupied several marble factories and looted the homes of tribesmen who had dared to oppose them.
There is no official estimate of the number of refugees, but it is thought to be thousands. Many are being welcomed into Buner by al-Khidmat, the charity wing of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the country's largest religious party. Volunteers offer food, drink and an Islamist-tinged critique of the situation.
"They should not have launched this operation. The problem could be solved through negotiation," said Ghuluam Mustafa, a JI official and deputy mayor of Buner district.
Further north, along the border, on the edge of the fighting, there were no refugees. In Rustum, the army had set up artillery to fire on Taliban positions in the Ambela pass, scene of the heaviest fighting. On Saturday afternoon the main street was empty and most shops shuttered. But Muhammad Javed, an elderly watch repairman, kept his door open.
The sound of shelling, from a nearby field, was keeping him awake at night, he complained. "Our people are not bad," he said. "It's just our terrible system of governance that has caused all this."
Down the road, Khalid Khan, a teacher and landowner, said the fighting had upset his nightly sessions of online Scrabble. Instead of playing with fellow enthusiasts in England, he said, he used his internet connection to share the sound of battle with them. "Obviously they were pretty shocked," he said.
Khan said the battle was "critical" to Pakistan's future, but US fears of a Taliban takeover in Islamabad, 55 miles to the south, were ill-informed. "The concept that this is an organised army, moving towards the capital, is just wrong," he said.
Last night, though, more fighting loomed as a peace pact in neighbouring Swat hung by a thread. Tensions rose as armed Taliban started patrols in the main town, Mingora. They beheaded two security personnel and blew up a bridge; the government imposed a curfew.
President Asif Ali Zardari, who flies to Washington this week for talks with President Barack Obama, urgently needs a victory. US officials, dangling $400m in aid, have been sharply critical of his government. But it is not just Zardari's fault. Earlier efforts to tackle militancy have been hampered by poor strategy and, sometimes, the ambivalence of those fighting the battles.
Among a small number of refugees in Rustum was a paramilitary soldier with the Frontier Constabulary who said he had surrendered to the Taliban after his platoon was overrun at the Pir Baba sufi shrine last week.
The soldier, who requested anonymity, said the Taliban treated him surprisingly well – offering food, tea, a torch and even a bus fare home. The shalwar kameez he was wearing had been donated by a Talib who took his uniform, he said.
The experience made him develop a certain sympathy for the militants, he said with a shy smile. "From what I heard them say, and what I saw, I feel we are in the wrong," he said.
A flood of refugees spills down from the hills and on to the plains at the edge of war-torn Buner district, bringing tales of bloodshed and destruction. Many are angry at the Pakistani army which, they say, has shelled homes and mistakenly killed civilians.
In Totalai, on the southern edge of Buner, a clutch of angry men piled off an overloaded tractor pulling a trailer filled with burka-clad women clutching cloth sacks and exhausted children.
"At night we are bombarded by the big guns and in the day by the helicopters," said Muhammad Saleh, a farmer, gesticulating wildly. They had come from Nawagai, a village caught in the crossfire, he said, pointing to a teenager with a bandaged leg, injured by army shelling.
"They should use smaller weapons. They are trying to hit a pigeon with a cannon," he said.
On another vehicle, a 30-year-old teacher, Abdul Aziz, said the head of Nawagai secondary school, Bakht Garim Shah, had been shot in his car by a helicopter gunship as he returned from an examination centre. "There were three other people with him and all were killed. And on the television the government was calling them suicide bombers!" he said. "Now we can't even get their corpses."
Last Friday, a day after the alleged incident took place, a military spokesman said the army had destroyed eight "suicide vehicles" and six vehicles containing fleeing militants.
Other refugees backed the operation, despite its heavy toll. Zakir, a 22-year-old computer store clerk, said his village, Swari, was straining under food shortages and a 24-hour curfew. But life under the Taliban had been worse, he said.
After seizing control last month, militants had robbed two banks, closed barber shops, banned music and forced people to disable their satellite television receivers, he said. They had tried to impose a crude form of justice, threatening to flog a man alleged to have made a sexual advance to another. "This is not right. There is no [use of] force in Islam," said Zakir, speaking from the safety of a house where he had taken shelter.
A journalist from the main town, Daggar, said the Taliban stole women's jewellery at gunpoint, occupied several marble factories and looted the homes of tribesmen who had dared to oppose them.
There is no official estimate of the number of refugees, but it is thought to be thousands. Many are being welcomed into Buner by al-Khidmat, the charity wing of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the country's largest religious party. Volunteers offer food, drink and an Islamist-tinged critique of the situation.
"They should not have launched this operation. The problem could be solved through negotiation," said Ghuluam Mustafa, a JI official and deputy mayor of Buner district.
Further north, along the border, on the edge of the fighting, there were no refugees. In Rustum, the army had set up artillery to fire on Taliban positions in the Ambela pass, scene of the heaviest fighting. On Saturday afternoon the main street was empty and most shops shuttered. But Muhammad Javed, an elderly watch repairman, kept his door open.
The sound of shelling, from a nearby field, was keeping him awake at night, he complained. "Our people are not bad," he said. "It's just our terrible system of governance that has caused all this."
Down the road, Khalid Khan, a teacher and landowner, said the fighting had upset his nightly sessions of online Scrabble. Instead of playing with fellow enthusiasts in England, he said, he used his internet connection to share the sound of battle with them. "Obviously they were pretty shocked," he said.
Khan said the battle was "critical" to Pakistan's future, but US fears of a Taliban takeover in Islamabad, 55 miles to the south, were ill-informed. "The concept that this is an organised army, moving towards the capital, is just wrong," he said.
Last night, though, more fighting loomed as a peace pact in neighbouring Swat hung by a thread. Tensions rose as armed Taliban started patrols in the main town, Mingora. They beheaded two security personnel and blew up a bridge; the government imposed a curfew.
President Asif Ali Zardari, who flies to Washington this week for talks with President Barack Obama, urgently needs a victory. US officials, dangling $400m in aid, have been sharply critical of his government. But it is not just Zardari's fault. Earlier efforts to tackle militancy have been hampered by poor strategy and, sometimes, the ambivalence of those fighting the battles.
Among a small number of refugees in Rustum was a paramilitary soldier with the Frontier Constabulary who said he had surrendered to the Taliban after his platoon was overrun at the Pir Baba sufi shrine last week.
The soldier, who requested anonymity, said the Taliban treated him surprisingly well – offering food, tea, a torch and even a bus fare home. The shalwar kameez he was wearing had been donated by a Talib who took his uniform, he said.
The experience made him develop a certain sympathy for the militants, he said with a shy smile. "From what I heard them say, and what I saw, I feel we are in the wrong," he said.
Nepal communists quit in protest
A key ally of Nepal's Maoist-led government has withdrawn from the governing coalition in protest at the dismissal of the army chief.
The Communist UML party withdrew after Gen Rookmangud Katawal was sacked for defying government orders to integrate former rebel fighters into the army.
He was sacked during a special cabinet meeting which saw other parties protest by walking out.
The withdrawal leaves the Maoists with only a slender parliamentary majority.
Correspondents say the row could undermine the peace process which ended the civil war in 2006.
Anti-government protests were staged after the general's sacking
Communist UML general secretary Ishwar Pokharel said: "The party has decided to leave the coalition and withdraw support to the Maoists."
The government wants to integrate former Maoist rebel fighters into the army, and accused Gen Katawal of defying government orders to stop hiring new recruits and to get rid of eight generals.
The army chief has been refusing to integrate former Maoist fighters that he views as politically indoctrinated.
The Maoists fought the army for more than a decade before giving up their armed revolt, and the relationship between the two sides has been tense since the former rebels came into power last year.
Thirteen-thousand people died in the conflict.
The Nepalese army fought Maoists rebels for more than a decade
In March, the Nepalese Supreme Court ordered the defence ministry to put on hold its decision to retire the eight generals from the army.
Several coalition representatives walked out of the cabinet meeting in protest at the proposed sacking, but a vote went ahead.
"We have been insisting that the decision on the army chief should be taken through consensus among all political parties but the prime minister decided to ignore us," said Deputy Prime Minister Bamdev Gautam, according to the Associated Press news agency.
Gen Katawal was due to retire in four months.
The army's second-in-command, Kul Bahadur Khadka
The Communist UML party withdrew after Gen Rookmangud Katawal was sacked for defying government orders to integrate former rebel fighters into the army.
He was sacked during a special cabinet meeting which saw other parties protest by walking out.
The withdrawal leaves the Maoists with only a slender parliamentary majority.
Correspondents say the row could undermine the peace process which ended the civil war in 2006.
Anti-government protests were staged after the general's sacking
Communist UML general secretary Ishwar Pokharel said: "The party has decided to leave the coalition and withdraw support to the Maoists."
The government wants to integrate former Maoist rebel fighters into the army, and accused Gen Katawal of defying government orders to stop hiring new recruits and to get rid of eight generals.
The army chief has been refusing to integrate former Maoist fighters that he views as politically indoctrinated.
The Maoists fought the army for more than a decade before giving up their armed revolt, and the relationship between the two sides has been tense since the former rebels came into power last year.
Thirteen-thousand people died in the conflict.
The Nepalese army fought Maoists rebels for more than a decade
In March, the Nepalese Supreme Court ordered the defence ministry to put on hold its decision to retire the eight generals from the army.
Several coalition representatives walked out of the cabinet meeting in protest at the proposed sacking, but a vote went ahead.
"We have been insisting that the decision on the army chief should be taken through consensus among all political parties but the prime minister decided to ignore us," said Deputy Prime Minister Bamdev Gautam, according to the Associated Press news agency.
Gen Katawal was due to retire in four months.
The army's second-in-command, Kul Bahadur Khadka
WHO warns against flu complacency
The World Health Organization says countries must not lower their guard in the response to the swine flu outbreak.
Almost 900 cases had been confirmed across five continents, the WHO said, and authorities had to remain vigilant.
Viruses increased and decreased in activity, it said, and it was too early to tell whether the outbreak had peaked where it emerged in Mexico.
The warning came after health officials in Mexico said that cases of the virus appeared to be declining.
In Mexico, just over 100 people are thought to have died from the swine flu strain, although only 19 cases have been confirmed.
But on Sunday Health Minister Jose Angel Cordova said that the virus appeared to have peaked between 23-28 April.
"The evolution of the epidemic is now in its declining phase," he told a news conference.
The WHO said authorities should remain on alert.
The current "round of activity" might have peaked, WHO official Gregory Hartl said, but that did not mean it was over.
"There is a high possibility that this virus will come back, especially in colder periods," he said.
Health experts in the US, meanwhile, say swine flu could soon be present throughout their country, as cases have been confirmed in more than half of all states.
Outside Mexico, the effects of the virus do not appear to be severe.
In other developments:
• El Salvador says it has confirmed its first two cases of the virus, AFP reports, citing the country's health minister
• Egypt says it will continue slaughtering pigs as a precaution against swine flu, following clashes on Sunday with farmers that left 12 people injured
• A number of Mexicans remain under quarantine in cities in China, triggering a diplomatic row
'Widespread'
Late on Sunday - before the apparent confirmation from El Salvador - the WHO said it had found 898 cases of the virus across 18 countries.
Person-to-person transmission has been confirmed in six countries.
In the US, the number of confirmed cases rose from 160 to 226. Officials said this was because the results of lab tests were now coming through, rather than because of a new surge in cases.
But an expert from America's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the virus was fairly widespread.
"Virtually all of the United States probably has this virus circulating now," Dr Anne Schuchat said. "That doesn't mean that everybody's infected, but within the communities, the virus has arrived."
She said she expected cases to become more severe and to lead to deaths. She stressed that this in itself would not be unusual as every year 36,000 people die in the US after contracting seasonal flu.
WHO food safety scientist Peter Ben Embarek, meanwhile, said increased surveillance was necessary after the virus was found to have infected pigs in Canada.
But he said there was no recommendation to cull animals, and pork remained safe to eat.
"From a consumer point of view there is no risk from consuming cooked pork products," he said
Almost 900 cases had been confirmed across five continents, the WHO said, and authorities had to remain vigilant.
Viruses increased and decreased in activity, it said, and it was too early to tell whether the outbreak had peaked where it emerged in Mexico.
The warning came after health officials in Mexico said that cases of the virus appeared to be declining.
In Mexico, just over 100 people are thought to have died from the swine flu strain, although only 19 cases have been confirmed.
But on Sunday Health Minister Jose Angel Cordova said that the virus appeared to have peaked between 23-28 April.
"The evolution of the epidemic is now in its declining phase," he told a news conference.
The WHO said authorities should remain on alert.
The current "round of activity" might have peaked, WHO official Gregory Hartl said, but that did not mean it was over.
"There is a high possibility that this virus will come back, especially in colder periods," he said.
Health experts in the US, meanwhile, say swine flu could soon be present throughout their country, as cases have been confirmed in more than half of all states.
Outside Mexico, the effects of the virus do not appear to be severe.
In other developments:
• El Salvador says it has confirmed its first two cases of the virus, AFP reports, citing the country's health minister
• Egypt says it will continue slaughtering pigs as a precaution against swine flu, following clashes on Sunday with farmers that left 12 people injured
• A number of Mexicans remain under quarantine in cities in China, triggering a diplomatic row
'Widespread'
Late on Sunday - before the apparent confirmation from El Salvador - the WHO said it had found 898 cases of the virus across 18 countries.
Person-to-person transmission has been confirmed in six countries.
In the US, the number of confirmed cases rose from 160 to 226. Officials said this was because the results of lab tests were now coming through, rather than because of a new surge in cases.
But an expert from America's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the virus was fairly widespread.
"Virtually all of the United States probably has this virus circulating now," Dr Anne Schuchat said. "That doesn't mean that everybody's infected, but within the communities, the virus has arrived."
She said she expected cases to become more severe and to lead to deaths. She stressed that this in itself would not be unusual as every year 36,000 people die in the US after contracting seasonal flu.
WHO food safety scientist Peter Ben Embarek, meanwhile, said increased surveillance was necessary after the virus was found to have infected pigs in Canada.
But he said there was no recommendation to cull animals, and pork remained safe to eat.
"From a consumer point of view there is no risk from consuming cooked pork products," he said
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Rahul calls for LF defeat in WB to bring change
A day after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's stinging criticism of the Left parties, AICC leader Rahul Gandhi on Saturday followed it up saying the communist government in West Bengal had 'failed' to work for the poor and called for bringing about change in the state.
"They (communists) talk big and oppose us in Delhi. But the communist government here has failed to utilise the money sent from Delhi for welfare schemes for the poor and backward," Gandhi told an election meeting in Domkal.
Attacking the Left in its backyard, Gandhi on the second leg of campaign in the state said, "You have to think afresh and defeat the Left Front government to bring a change here."
Rahul said that the Centre had sent Rs 250 crore to the state to tackle arsenic pollution but the money was not spent. He said that Rs 18 crore was also sent from Delhi for housing for the poor, but it remained unused.
Earlier, speaking at another meeting at Domkal, Gandhi said he thought that LF government was one for the poor. "But I was surprised to see that against eight lakh job cards only 60 were given jobs (under the NREGS)."
"They (communists) talk big and oppose us in Delhi. But the communist government here has failed to utilise the money sent from Delhi for welfare schemes for the poor and backward," Gandhi told an election meeting in Domkal.
Attacking the Left in its backyard, Gandhi on the second leg of campaign in the state said, "You have to think afresh and defeat the Left Front government to bring a change here."
Rahul said that the Centre had sent Rs 250 crore to the state to tackle arsenic pollution but the money was not spent. He said that Rs 18 crore was also sent from Delhi for housing for the poor, but it remained unused.
Earlier, speaking at another meeting at Domkal, Gandhi said he thought that LF government was one for the poor. "But I was surprised to see that against eight lakh job cards only 60 were given jobs (under the NREGS)."
Bofors! no, don’t turn the page. I know your eyes glaze over every time you see the word, and that the people of India have been bored to death by 25 years of a scandal that has reached no kind of conclusion.
But I come to bury Bofors, not to praise it.
There was a phase in my life when I was what you might call a Bofors junkie. I was obsessed with the case. I knew every last detail of the deal. I could tell you exactly how much money was paid into each of the three accounts that received the commissions/kickbacks.
I interviewed CBI directors about the investigation. I went to Guildford in Surrey to trace the office of AE Services, one the three companies in question. I asked the Hindujas for their side of the story. I did one of the first interviews with Win Chaddha. I followed the libel case filed by Ajitabh Bachchan in London against a Swedish newspaper which claimed that he received the kickbacks.
But now, I am as fed up as you are.
If Bofors means nothing to you — and I suspect that’s probably true — then a brief history lesson may be in order. I promise I’ll try and keep it as short and simple as possible.
The case dates back to 1985 when India ordered howitzers from a Swedish company called Bofors. Nobody disputes that the weapons are good but the case took a different turn when Bofors itself was the subject of a corruption scandal in Sweden. As part of its investigations into this scandal, Swedish Radio reported, in early 1987, that Bofors had paid bribes to get the Indian contract.
In the arms business, the difference between illegal bribes and legitimate commissions can be difficult to discern. But clearly some money had been paid out. Chitra Subramaniam of The Hindu found documents proving that three companies had received money from Bofors: Svenska, Pitco and AE Services.
We know now that Svenska was run by Win Chaddha who was Bofors’ official agent in India. Pitco was a Hinduja company. But the identity of the owner of AE Services remains a mystery.
Even if Chaddha and the Hindujas received money from Bofors, this is not a big deal. Companies pay commissions all the time. It is not corruption unless you can prove that a) this money was passed on to a politician or an official and b) that it influenced the purchase decision
So, the Government of India’s investigators focused on AE Services which, Bofors had claimed, was a “legitimate consultant”. It was no such thing. I traced its registered office to a post box in a lawyers’ firm in Surrey. I tried to find its owners but the trail led to a secret trust registered in Vaduz, Liechtenstein.
The government’s investigators had their own theory — backed by gut instinct rather than evidence. They thought that AE Services was a Congress front which had been set up by Arun Nehru (by then Nehru had switched sides, so perhaps he told them this) and then, after Nehru left the party, been taken over by Satish Sharma or Ottavio Quattrocchi or Ajitabh Bachchan.
Twenty-five years later, we still haven’t solved that mystery. Arun Jaitley, who has investigated Bofors since 1989, says that he has proof that Quattrocchi was the beneficiary of the AE Services accounts. (But he also had ‘proof’ at one stage that Ajitabh was the beneficiary).
Perhaps Arun is right. But the Bofors investigators face three problems.
One, the ‘proof’ against Quattrocchi has not convinced courts of law in two countries. The BJP government tried to extradite Quattrocchi from Malaysia, but four different Malaysian courts threw out the evidence as not being good enough. The CBI tried again when Quattrocchi was located in South America. Once again, the courts decided there was no merit in the case.
Two, even if Quattrocchi took the money, this is not proof of corruption. Quattrocchi was a boastful, wheeling-dealing kind of guy who represented an Italian infrastructure projects company. Allegations that he made deals were routinely levelled by the Opposition in the 1980s.
To prove corruption, you need to prove that he was more than just a wheeler-dealer. You need to prove that he passed the money on to Rajiv Gandhi or somebody else in a position of authority. So far, there’s not a shred of evidence to support that claim.
Three, even if you can’t prove that Quattrocchi passed the money on to an official or a minister, you must be able to show how a bribe influenced the decision to buy Bofors.
It’s here that the Opposition runs into its biggest problem. The Army headquarters (and not the government) chose the Bofors gun over its rivals. From the time that the Army’s recommendation reached the government to the time that the decision was taken, only 24 hours elapsed.
So, even if it can be proved that Quattrocchi took the money, he could not possibly have influenced the decision unless he bought off the Indian Army as well.
And I don’t see the BJP making that allegation.
Why, then, is the Opposition still so obsessed with Bofors? Why has it lost interest in Chaddha or the Hindujas? Why is it focusing only on Quattrocchi, against whom the case seems so weak that it keeps being thrown out by courts?
Let me ask you a counter-question. Supposing the alleged beneficiary of the AE Services account had been called Golu Mittal or Mottu Singh, would the BJP have cared so much?
I think we know the answer.
The only reason they go on and on about Quattrocchi is because he is an Italian.
That, they think, is one way of getting at Sonia Gandhi. As Narendra Modi suggests, sons of the soil are persecuted while sons of spaghetti run free.
It’s a nasty, xenophobic agenda based on little more than innuendo, gossip, speculation and rumour. The case itself is full of gaps and holes.
And how much money are we talking about? Well, the entire kickback amount was Rs 64 crore. I think AE Services got something like a third of that. That’s not huge by the standards of today’s multi-crore scams.
The government has probably spent more money investigating Bofors than the beneficiary of AE Services ever earned from the deal!
It is nobody’s case that we ignore a scam only because people are bored of it. But surely, after 25 years of fruitless inquiry, we should admit that this case is never going to get anywhere? Every day the people of India are ripped off by some corrupt politician. And yet we go on and on about this relatively minor league deal from a quarter century ago.
Does this make sense?
To the BJP it does: because it keeps the Italian issue alive.
But for the rest of us?
Well, I’ll go back where I started. Yes, Bofors is a tiresome irrelevance.
And it’s no wonder that our eyes glaze over when it is mentioned.
as published in THE HINDUSTAN TIMES
But I come to bury Bofors, not to praise it.
There was a phase in my life when I was what you might call a Bofors junkie. I was obsessed with the case. I knew every last detail of the deal. I could tell you exactly how much money was paid into each of the three accounts that received the commissions/kickbacks.
I interviewed CBI directors about the investigation. I went to Guildford in Surrey to trace the office of AE Services, one the three companies in question. I asked the Hindujas for their side of the story. I did one of the first interviews with Win Chaddha. I followed the libel case filed by Ajitabh Bachchan in London against a Swedish newspaper which claimed that he received the kickbacks.
But now, I am as fed up as you are.
If Bofors means nothing to you — and I suspect that’s probably true — then a brief history lesson may be in order. I promise I’ll try and keep it as short and simple as possible.
The case dates back to 1985 when India ordered howitzers from a Swedish company called Bofors. Nobody disputes that the weapons are good but the case took a different turn when Bofors itself was the subject of a corruption scandal in Sweden. As part of its investigations into this scandal, Swedish Radio reported, in early 1987, that Bofors had paid bribes to get the Indian contract.
In the arms business, the difference between illegal bribes and legitimate commissions can be difficult to discern. But clearly some money had been paid out. Chitra Subramaniam of The Hindu found documents proving that three companies had received money from Bofors: Svenska, Pitco and AE Services.
We know now that Svenska was run by Win Chaddha who was Bofors’ official agent in India. Pitco was a Hinduja company. But the identity of the owner of AE Services remains a mystery.
Even if Chaddha and the Hindujas received money from Bofors, this is not a big deal. Companies pay commissions all the time. It is not corruption unless you can prove that a) this money was passed on to a politician or an official and b) that it influenced the purchase decision
So, the Government of India’s investigators focused on AE Services which, Bofors had claimed, was a “legitimate consultant”. It was no such thing. I traced its registered office to a post box in a lawyers’ firm in Surrey. I tried to find its owners but the trail led to a secret trust registered in Vaduz, Liechtenstein.
The government’s investigators had their own theory — backed by gut instinct rather than evidence. They thought that AE Services was a Congress front which had been set up by Arun Nehru (by then Nehru had switched sides, so perhaps he told them this) and then, after Nehru left the party, been taken over by Satish Sharma or Ottavio Quattrocchi or Ajitabh Bachchan.
Twenty-five years later, we still haven’t solved that mystery. Arun Jaitley, who has investigated Bofors since 1989, says that he has proof that Quattrocchi was the beneficiary of the AE Services accounts. (But he also had ‘proof’ at one stage that Ajitabh was the beneficiary).
Perhaps Arun is right. But the Bofors investigators face three problems.
One, the ‘proof’ against Quattrocchi has not convinced courts of law in two countries. The BJP government tried to extradite Quattrocchi from Malaysia, but four different Malaysian courts threw out the evidence as not being good enough. The CBI tried again when Quattrocchi was located in South America. Once again, the courts decided there was no merit in the case.
Two, even if Quattrocchi took the money, this is not proof of corruption. Quattrocchi was a boastful, wheeling-dealing kind of guy who represented an Italian infrastructure projects company. Allegations that he made deals were routinely levelled by the Opposition in the 1980s.
To prove corruption, you need to prove that he was more than just a wheeler-dealer. You need to prove that he passed the money on to Rajiv Gandhi or somebody else in a position of authority. So far, there’s not a shred of evidence to support that claim.
Three, even if you can’t prove that Quattrocchi passed the money on to an official or a minister, you must be able to show how a bribe influenced the decision to buy Bofors.
It’s here that the Opposition runs into its biggest problem. The Army headquarters (and not the government) chose the Bofors gun over its rivals. From the time that the Army’s recommendation reached the government to the time that the decision was taken, only 24 hours elapsed.
So, even if it can be proved that Quattrocchi took the money, he could not possibly have influenced the decision unless he bought off the Indian Army as well.
And I don’t see the BJP making that allegation.
Why, then, is the Opposition still so obsessed with Bofors? Why has it lost interest in Chaddha or the Hindujas? Why is it focusing only on Quattrocchi, against whom the case seems so weak that it keeps being thrown out by courts?
Let me ask you a counter-question. Supposing the alleged beneficiary of the AE Services account had been called Golu Mittal or Mottu Singh, would the BJP have cared so much?
I think we know the answer.
The only reason they go on and on about Quattrocchi is because he is an Italian.
That, they think, is one way of getting at Sonia Gandhi. As Narendra Modi suggests, sons of the soil are persecuted while sons of spaghetti run free.
It’s a nasty, xenophobic agenda based on little more than innuendo, gossip, speculation and rumour. The case itself is full of gaps and holes.
And how much money are we talking about? Well, the entire kickback amount was Rs 64 crore. I think AE Services got something like a third of that. That’s not huge by the standards of today’s multi-crore scams.
The government has probably spent more money investigating Bofors than the beneficiary of AE Services ever earned from the deal!
It is nobody’s case that we ignore a scam only because people are bored of it. But surely, after 25 years of fruitless inquiry, we should admit that this case is never going to get anywhere? Every day the people of India are ripped off by some corrupt politician. And yet we go on and on about this relatively minor league deal from a quarter century ago.
Does this make sense?
To the BJP it does: because it keeps the Italian issue alive.
But for the rest of us?
Well, I’ll go back where I started. Yes, Bofors is a tiresome irrelevance.
And it’s no wonder that our eyes glaze over when it is mentioned.
as published in THE HINDUSTAN TIMES
Ex-Spy Sits Down With Islamists and the West
TALKING to Islamists is the new order of the day in Washington and London. The Obama administration wants a dialogue with Iran, and the British Foreign Office has decided to reopen diplomatic contacts with Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group based here.
But for several years, small groups of Western diplomats have made quiet trips to Beirut for confidential sessions with members of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist groups they did not want to be seen talking to. In hotel conference rooms, they would warily shake hands, then spend hours listening and hashing out accusations of terrorism on one side and imperial arrogance on the other.
The organizer of these back-door encounters is Alastair Crooke, a quiet, sandy-haired man of 59 who spent three decades working for MI6, the British secret intelligence service. He now runs an organization here called Conflicts Forum, with an unusual board of advisers that includes former spies, diplomats and peace activists.
Mr. Crooke has spent much of his career talking to Islamists. In the 1980s, as a young undercover agent in Pakistan and Afghanistan, he helped funnel weapons to jihadists fighting the Soviets. Later, he spent years working with Hamas and Fatah as a negotiator for the European Union, and helped broker a number of cease-fires with Israel between 2001 and 2003. He earned a reputation for courage and tenacity, but in person he is disarmingly polite and mild-mannered, a slight-figured man with a beaky, impish smile.
The mission of Conflicts Forum, which he founded in 2004, resembles a kind of blueprint for the Obama administration’s current outreach efforts: to “open a new relationship between the West and Muslim world” through dialogue and better mutual understanding.
Yet Mr. Crooke, who is legendary for his deep network of contacts among Islamist groups across the Middle East, is not sanguine about the prospects for mere dialogue, especially with Iran.
“I think there is a real fear there will be a process of talking past each other,” Mr. Crooke said. “The Iranians will say, ‘we want to talk about justice and respect.’ The U.S. will say, ‘are you willing to give up enrichment or not?’ ”
To get past that impasse with Iran, and with Islamist groups generally, the West will need to change its diplomatic language of threats and rewards, Mr. Crooke said, and show more respect for their adversaries’ point of view.
Mr. Crooke has spent the past few years trying to explain that to suspicious Westerners, in a stream of articles, speeches and conferences. Although not an Arabist by training, he has developed a deep knowledge of modern Islamist movements, and launches easily into analyses of Palestinian politics, or even of medieval Islamic philosophy.
Recently, he has taken his explanatory efforts a bit further. In a new book, “Resistance: the Essence of the Islamist Revolution,” he deliberately avoids the most controversial subjects, like Israel and the status of women in the Islamic world. Instead, he focuses on what he calls the core of the Islamist revolution, which he defines as a metaphysical resistance to the West’s market-based definition of the individual and society. He invokes European social critics like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, endorsing their critiques of Western thinking and arguing that Islamism offers a more holistic model.
NOT surprisingly, the book has received some stinging reviews, and renewed accusations that Mr. Crooke has gone native. Even some of his fellow board members at Conflicts Forum say they are a little baffled — not by his sympathy for Islamists, but by the book’s broad philosophical themes.
Mr. Crooke says the book grew out of his own efforts to find common ground with Islamists, and to look beyond the usual stumbling blocks.
“It seemed to me there was a real need to understand what was happening inside Islamism better, and to valorize what they were saying in ways that could be understood in the West,” he said.
That project seems inseparable from his broader argument about dialogue. To illustrate it, Mr. Crooke describes an episode from the conflict in Northern Ireland in which the British put two opposing factions into a room for talks, “naïvely imagining that talking would help.” It did the opposite, reinforcing their anger. So the negotiators tried another approach: they asked both sides to write down their history and vision for the future on a piece of paper. After three more years of talks, the factions finally reached the point at which they acknowledged the legitimacy of the other side’s piece of paper.
“George Mitchell once said to me, ‘you don’t even have a political process until you accept that the other side has a legitimate point of view,’ ” Mr. Crooke said, referring to Mr. Mitchell’s landmark 1998 Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland and relating it to the many obstacles between the United States and Iran.
“Does America have the will and the patience for that?” he said. “I’m not sure we’re there yet.”
Patience, by all accounts, is something Mr. Crooke possesses. Mark Perry, the co-director of Conflicts Forum, describes an episode in Gaza in 2002 when the two men tried to establish a cease-fire between Israel and Palestinian factions. After weeks of negotiations, Israel dropped a bomb on the Hamas leader whose signature they needed, shattering their efforts.
“We were exhausted,” Mr. Perry recalled. “The next day in the hotel room, I looked at Alastair and said ‘what do we do now?’ He just said, ‘We try again.’ ”
It is not entirely clear where that steadfastness comes from. He is a little evasive about his own life and career, perhaps by training. Born in Ireland, he grew up mostly in Rhodesia, today Zimbabwe, and was educated at a Swiss boarding school and at St. Andrew’s in Scotland, obtaining a degree in economics. Before joining MI6, he worked in finance in London.
“It’s a dangerous area to work in,” he said of his years as a banker, without apparent irony, “because it’s so easy to get caught up in enrichment.”
He is barred by law from discussing his service with MI6, which included years of diplomatic work on the Israel-Palestine issue. As a negotiator in the Palestinian territories, he is said to have traveled alone, by taxi, eschewing the armed security convoys of many Western diplomats. Colleagues who worked with him say Yasir Arafat and the leaders of Hamas trusted Mr. Crooke completely, as did some high-level Israeli officials.
SOME Israelis, however, apparently complained that he was too close to Hamas. In late 2003, he was recalled to London — he had reached retirement age — and quietly ushered out of government service, with a commendation. He says he has no regrets, but some of his colleagues in Conflicts Forum say he retains some bitterness about the way he was treated.
In 2005, he moved to Beirut, where he lives with his partner, Aisling Byrne, and their 1-year-old child, Amistis, in an elegant, old French mandate-era apartment, working out of a home office.
Mr. Crooke smiles at the suggestion that Conflicts Forum may offer him a back-door route back to diplomacy, but does not entirely deny it. “We’re not implementers," he said. “What we’re trying to do is catalyze and create ideas. The second part is, how do you multiply something done by a small number of people in one room into something larger?”
But for several years, small groups of Western diplomats have made quiet trips to Beirut for confidential sessions with members of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist groups they did not want to be seen talking to. In hotel conference rooms, they would warily shake hands, then spend hours listening and hashing out accusations of terrorism on one side and imperial arrogance on the other.
The organizer of these back-door encounters is Alastair Crooke, a quiet, sandy-haired man of 59 who spent three decades working for MI6, the British secret intelligence service. He now runs an organization here called Conflicts Forum, with an unusual board of advisers that includes former spies, diplomats and peace activists.
Mr. Crooke has spent much of his career talking to Islamists. In the 1980s, as a young undercover agent in Pakistan and Afghanistan, he helped funnel weapons to jihadists fighting the Soviets. Later, he spent years working with Hamas and Fatah as a negotiator for the European Union, and helped broker a number of cease-fires with Israel between 2001 and 2003. He earned a reputation for courage and tenacity, but in person he is disarmingly polite and mild-mannered, a slight-figured man with a beaky, impish smile.
The mission of Conflicts Forum, which he founded in 2004, resembles a kind of blueprint for the Obama administration’s current outreach efforts: to “open a new relationship between the West and Muslim world” through dialogue and better mutual understanding.
Yet Mr. Crooke, who is legendary for his deep network of contacts among Islamist groups across the Middle East, is not sanguine about the prospects for mere dialogue, especially with Iran.
“I think there is a real fear there will be a process of talking past each other,” Mr. Crooke said. “The Iranians will say, ‘we want to talk about justice and respect.’ The U.S. will say, ‘are you willing to give up enrichment or not?’ ”
To get past that impasse with Iran, and with Islamist groups generally, the West will need to change its diplomatic language of threats and rewards, Mr. Crooke said, and show more respect for their adversaries’ point of view.
Mr. Crooke has spent the past few years trying to explain that to suspicious Westerners, in a stream of articles, speeches and conferences. Although not an Arabist by training, he has developed a deep knowledge of modern Islamist movements, and launches easily into analyses of Palestinian politics, or even of medieval Islamic philosophy.
Recently, he has taken his explanatory efforts a bit further. In a new book, “Resistance: the Essence of the Islamist Revolution,” he deliberately avoids the most controversial subjects, like Israel and the status of women in the Islamic world. Instead, he focuses on what he calls the core of the Islamist revolution, which he defines as a metaphysical resistance to the West’s market-based definition of the individual and society. He invokes European social critics like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, endorsing their critiques of Western thinking and arguing that Islamism offers a more holistic model.
NOT surprisingly, the book has received some stinging reviews, and renewed accusations that Mr. Crooke has gone native. Even some of his fellow board members at Conflicts Forum say they are a little baffled — not by his sympathy for Islamists, but by the book’s broad philosophical themes.
Mr. Crooke says the book grew out of his own efforts to find common ground with Islamists, and to look beyond the usual stumbling blocks.
“It seemed to me there was a real need to understand what was happening inside Islamism better, and to valorize what they were saying in ways that could be understood in the West,” he said.
That project seems inseparable from his broader argument about dialogue. To illustrate it, Mr. Crooke describes an episode from the conflict in Northern Ireland in which the British put two opposing factions into a room for talks, “naïvely imagining that talking would help.” It did the opposite, reinforcing their anger. So the negotiators tried another approach: they asked both sides to write down their history and vision for the future on a piece of paper. After three more years of talks, the factions finally reached the point at which they acknowledged the legitimacy of the other side’s piece of paper.
“George Mitchell once said to me, ‘you don’t even have a political process until you accept that the other side has a legitimate point of view,’ ” Mr. Crooke said, referring to Mr. Mitchell’s landmark 1998 Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland and relating it to the many obstacles between the United States and Iran.
“Does America have the will and the patience for that?” he said. “I’m not sure we’re there yet.”
Patience, by all accounts, is something Mr. Crooke possesses. Mark Perry, the co-director of Conflicts Forum, describes an episode in Gaza in 2002 when the two men tried to establish a cease-fire between Israel and Palestinian factions. After weeks of negotiations, Israel dropped a bomb on the Hamas leader whose signature they needed, shattering their efforts.
“We were exhausted,” Mr. Perry recalled. “The next day in the hotel room, I looked at Alastair and said ‘what do we do now?’ He just said, ‘We try again.’ ”
It is not entirely clear where that steadfastness comes from. He is a little evasive about his own life and career, perhaps by training. Born in Ireland, he grew up mostly in Rhodesia, today Zimbabwe, and was educated at a Swiss boarding school and at St. Andrew’s in Scotland, obtaining a degree in economics. Before joining MI6, he worked in finance in London.
“It’s a dangerous area to work in,” he said of his years as a banker, without apparent irony, “because it’s so easy to get caught up in enrichment.”
He is barred by law from discussing his service with MI6, which included years of diplomatic work on the Israel-Palestine issue. As a negotiator in the Palestinian territories, he is said to have traveled alone, by taxi, eschewing the armed security convoys of many Western diplomats. Colleagues who worked with him say Yasir Arafat and the leaders of Hamas trusted Mr. Crooke completely, as did some high-level Israeli officials.
SOME Israelis, however, apparently complained that he was too close to Hamas. In late 2003, he was recalled to London — he had reached retirement age — and quietly ushered out of government service, with a commendation. He says he has no regrets, but some of his colleagues in Conflicts Forum say he retains some bitterness about the way he was treated.
In 2005, he moved to Beirut, where he lives with his partner, Aisling Byrne, and their 1-year-old child, Amistis, in an elegant, old French mandate-era apartment, working out of a home office.
Mr. Crooke smiles at the suggestion that Conflicts Forum may offer him a back-door route back to diplomacy, but does not entirely deny it. “We’re not implementers," he said. “What we’re trying to do is catalyze and create ideas. The second part is, how do you multiply something done by a small number of people in one room into something larger?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)