Pages

Saturday, 12 January 2013

Tony Blair: The man who turned amorality into an art form | Mail Online


He's taken millions from dictators and cosied up to warlords. As it's reported 'Teflon Tony' is plotting an alliance with a super-rich financier, a devastating critique of the... Man who turned amorality into an art form


By IAN BIRRELL



When Tony Blair visited Beijing a few weeks ago to open a prestigious conference on philanthropy, he showed he had lost none of the evangelical fervour that once dazzled British voters.

Giving an impassioned sermon to an  A-list audience on the crucial role of  compassion, the former Prime Minister spoke of how societies should be measured not just by what people do for themselves, but by what they do for others.

'The best philanthropy is about changing the world,' he proclaimed. 'Flourishing philanthropy is an essential part of a flourishing society.'

Moral blindness: Former Prime Minister Tony Blair turned amorality into an art form

Moral blindness: Former Prime Minister Tony Blair turned amorality into an art form

Blair told well-heeled listeners paying nearly £1,500 a head how he found a new role after politics doing good deeds around the globe. He had seen how people's  lives had been improved through his efforts, he said.

It was the perfect start for China's first major forum on philanthropy, where guests included Bill Gates, the multi-billionaire Microsoft founder who is giving away much of his fortune, and Andrew Forrest, Australia's richest man and another generous charity donor.

 

'We need philanthropy to lessen hostility towards the rich,' Blair warned them.

Heartfelt words for a man said to have raked in nearly £20 million last year, big chunks of it by delivering platitudes dressed up as profundities to gullible global paymasters.

It was the sort of event the former Labour leader seems to love: a private jet to take him there, a £3,000-a-night hotel suite, and networking with the super-rich.

Yet his sanctimonious speech was little more than hypocritical hogwash coming from a man who, to my mind, has turned amorality into an art form.

Sorid: Blair's disgraceful 'deal in the desert' nine years ago with Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi

Sorid: Blair's disgraceful 'deal in the desert' nine years ago with Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi

Saif Gaddafi, son of Colonel Gaddafi- whom Blair infamously helped with his dodgy PhD thesis at the London School of Economics - called Blair 'a personal family friend'

Saif Gaddafi, son of Colonel Gaddafi- whom Blair infamously helped with his dodgy PhD thesis at the London School of Economics - called Blair 'a personal family friend'

For all his honeyed words about serving humanity, this is a man who used his contacts book from Downing Street to launch a lucrative career advising absolute monarchs, wealthy bankers and despots.

Yesterday, it emerged that his money-making operation may be about to expand even further after talks over a commercial alliance with one of the most highly-paid bankers in the world.

Michael Klein, 48, an American who was once the leading investment banker in London for the huge firm Citigroup, is now an international deal-broker who once earned $10 million for two weeks' work. He is described as 'very clever and a very canny operator', and it is thought that he and Blair have worked on a number of deals together in the past.

The combination of their two enterprises would create an extremely powerful and lucrative platform for Blair to ply his trade around the world: the Prime Minister who promulgated an ethical foreign policy already spends much of his time serving the sleazy interests of repressive autocrats from Africa to central Asia. His moral blindness has no borders.

No boundaries: Blair used his contacts book from Downing Street to launch a lucrative career advising absolute monarchs, wealthy bankers and despots

No boundaries: Blair used his contacts book from Downing Street to launch a lucrative career advising absolute monarchs, wealthy bankers and despots

Take the mystery of his fee for that Beijing speech. Sources in China said he was handed about $200,000 (around £125,000) to deliver the lecture on philanthropy.

But when I asked his office if he was paid — which might seem at odds with the spirit of both the conference and his speech — they flatly denied it. His spokeswoman gave me an unambiguous, one-word answer: 'No.'

Yet when I queried this, saying that it conflicted with what I had heard from Beijing, her reply changed. He was not personally paid, she said, but a payment went to one of his charities.

Such smokescreens are all too familiar from this politician with such a tenuous relationship to the truth. Most shamefully, this was shown with the distortion of intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq, which backfired so badly with disastrous consequences for millions of people.

Not that Blair, 59, shows any signs of guilt, or of retreating to a quieter life. Indeed, he seems obsessed with trying to recreate the whirlwind world he once inhabited as Prime Minister.

Recently he has been to a dizzying list of countries including Germany, Guinea, India, Jordan, Kuwait, Liberia, Nigeria and the U.S., as well as China, nurturing his byzantine web of businesses, charities, consultancies, speechmaking and diplomacy.

Friends and admirers say he is making pragmatic efforts to improve governance around the world. 'I don't think he is this money-grabbing, morally compromised individual he is made out to be,' said one. 'On the whole, I still give him the benefit of the doubt.'

But critics fear that divisions between his many operations are blurred. Anti-corruption campaigners have raised concerns that some of his business links conflict with his diplomatic role as a peace envoy in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, young executives from J.P. Morgan, the bailed-out U.S. bank paying him a reported £2.5 million a year, are put to work at the heart of African governments advised by one of his charities.

But criticism seems to have no effect on Teflon Tony. Recently he was back in Britain, joking with journalists in Westminster at a Lobby lunch. He sidestepped a question about his earnings while undermining the policies of current Labour leader Ed Miliband, an ally of his detested successor Gordon Brown.

Another friend of the former British PM was ousted Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, who used to lend Blair a luxury villa on the Red Sea for holidays

Another friend of the former British PM was ousted Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, who used to lend Blair a luxury villa on the Red Sea for holidays

The appearance was a reminder that he still holds ambitions for a leading role on the world stage, perhaps as President of Europe. Unfortunately, it coincided with a key Palestinian official giving a damning verdict on his peacemaking role as 'useless, useless, useless'.

The lunch also came days after another sharp reminder of one of the most sordid episodes in Blair's decade in power — his disgraceful 'deal in the desert' nine years ago with Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, which brought the despot in from the cold in return for him renouncing his weapons of mass destruction programme.

Less publicised was the apparent agreement for our intelligence services to act as outriders for a regime infamous for its barbarity. 

Now, the British Government has given £2.23 million to a Libyan dissident and his family to stop a court case threatening to reveal embarrassing details of how British officials helped to round up Gaddafi's enemies across the world.

Blair has apparently now formed a commercial alliance with Michael Klein, one of the most highly-paid bankers in the world

Blair has apparently now formed a commercial alliance with Michael Klein, one of the most highly-paid bankers in the world

Sami al-Saadi says he was forced on board a plane in Hong Kong, flown to Tripoli, imprisoned and tortured. Britain did not admit liability, but it is safe to assume that hush money would not have been paid if the allegations were groundless.

Now, I understand from lawyers that a second case, involving Gaddafi's most prominent opponent, is likely to go ahead.

Abdul Hakim Belhaj, the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group who led the attack on Gaddafi's Tripoli fortress in 2011, wants his story heard in open court unless there is an official apology.

He says that MI6 was involved with his detention in Malaysia in 2004, from where he and his pregnant wife were flown in hoods and shackles to Libya. Once there, he claims he was tortured and isolated for four years by Gaddafi's goons.

Blair, who held private meetings with Gaddafi after leaving office, dodged questions on these cases last month on the grounds that legal action was being pursued.

Perhaps he should offer to recompense taxpayers for the multi-million-pound payout, given how his government prostituted British interests to appease a bloody dictator.

Days after Gaddafi's fall, I stood in the wrecked home of the British high commissioner to Libya and found piles of secret documents revealing the disturbingly close links between Blair and the oil-rich tyrant in Tripoli.

There were obsequious letters from Downing Street to Gaddafi, suggested questions from our security services to put to detained dissidents, and even offers to use British special forces to train the regime's most feared troops.

Little wonder that Saif Gaddafi — whom Blair infamously helped with his dodgy PhD thesis at the London School of Economics — called him 'a personal family friend'.

Another friend of the former British PM was ousted Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, who used to lend Blair a luxury villa on the Red Sea for holidays. When the Arab Spring erupted and protesters poured into Cairo's Tahrir Square, Blair hailed his corrupt pal — who embezzled billions — as 'a force for good'. 

Pariah: Last summer the South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu pulled out of a summit on leadership in Johannesburg because of his attendance

Pariah: Last summer the South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu pulled out of a summit on leadership in Johannesburg because of his attendance

Blair spoke in Bejing, proclaiming 'The best philanthropy is about changing the world. Flourishing philanthropy is an essential part of a flourishing society'

Blair spoke in Bejing, proclaiming 'The best philanthropy is about changing the world. Flourishing philanthropy is an essential part of a flourishing society'

These days he ignores such uncomfortable facts as he jets around the world discussing good governance and declaiming support for democracy movements in the Middle East.

But then this is the man who earned a seven-figure sum advising the Kuwaiti royal family, now facing growing protests from a generation frustrated by the lack of real democracy in that country.

Or take his dubious activities in central Asia. Three years ago, Blair was thought to have been paid £90,000 by an obscure oligarch to officially open a methanol plant in Baku. 'I've always wanted to visit Azerbaijan,' he gushed.

Despite immense wealth from natural resources, one in five of this troubled nation's citizens has fled in search of a better life elsewhere. Human rights activists have recounted savage beatings by security forces, while the website Wikileaks revealed that U.S. diplomats had compared the president, Ilham Aliyev, to mafia dons in the Godfather film trilogy.

Prime Minister Tony Blair greets president of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, who is reported to have paid an astonishing $13¿million to hire him in 2011

Disheartening: Tony Blair greets president of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, who is reported to have paid an astonishing $13¿million to hire him in 2011

Mr Blair, however, met Aliyev and praised a leader with 'a very positive and exciting vision for the future'.

Even more disheartening are Blair's dealings in Kazakhstan, where President Nursultan Nazarbayev is reported to have paid an astonishing $13 million to hire him in 2011.

The Kazakh government was delighted by the coup: 'We could not have a better adviser,' said one official. No wonder — a nasty regime had bought itself a fig-leaf of respectability, albeit for a small fortune.

It seems they did not just get Blair but his acolytes: former spin doctor Alastair Campbell was spotted at the airport in the capital Astana, and Lord Mandelson has reportedly been paid to speak by the state's sovereign wealth fund. Business leaders close to New Labour are also active there.

Blair insists that the money he was paid by the Kazakhs is being spent on supporting political, economic and social reform there, and praises the country's progress. He does, however, seem to have a soft spot for oil-rich nations run by repressive rulers.

Paul Rusesabagina sent Blair a letter recently begging him to use his influence to stop the bloodshed in the Congo

Paul Rusesabagina sent Blair a letter recently begging him to use his influence to stop the bloodshed in the Congo

Nazarbayev is a former Soviet leader who wins elections with unbelievable levels of support, jails human rights activists, tortures prisoners, shoots striking workers and intimidates independent journalists. His family is said to have salted away more than $1 billion.

One leading rival was found shot dead three weeks before an election. The official verdict was that he shot himself twice in the chest before shooting himself in the head.

On YouTube there is a long and tedious Soviet-style video exalting this supposed visionary. Prominent among those giving praise is Blair, who says that Nazarbayev is putting his country on the right path, even comparing it to thriving Singapore.

It is hard to equate this toe-curling tribute to a tyrant with the pious politician who claims to be driven by the desire to shape a better world.

One New Labour insider told me that Blair was transfixed by money and power. 'His view of the world is totally realist,' the source said. 'So there is nothing to inhibit him from doing business with some of the world's most awful people.'

Blair is already a pariah in some places. Last summer the South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu pulled out of a summit on leadership in Johannesburg because of his attendance.v

'My appeal to Mr Blair is not to talk about leadership, but to demonstrate it,' he said.

Now, another African human rights hero is calling on Blair to stop propping up the regime in Rwanda, which is accused of atrocities and war crimes.

Paul Rusesabagina is the hotel manager who became a Hollywood icon thanks to the film Hotel Rwanda. It told how this gentle man defied savagery when genocide engulfed his nation, saving the lives of 1,268 people who sought sanctuary behind his gates.

Since then, he has displayed similar courage standing up to the murderous regime of President Paul Kagame. It has clamped down on internal dissent, sent hit squads to kill dissidents overseas and provoked chaos in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, inflaming the world's deadliest conflict since  World War II.

Blair supports monstrous Rwandan President Paul Kagame has sent hit squads to kill dissidents overseas, through his personal charity

Blair supports monstrous Rwandan President Paul Kagame has sent hit squads to kill dissidents overseas, through his personal charity

Kagame has been helped by huge sums in foreign aid, but in recent months even his biggest backers in Britain and America suspended funding after the United Nations showed that he was fomenting unrest again in the Congo.

Blair, however, still supports this monstrous man through his personal charity, the African Governance Initiative, which is advising governments in five countries in Africa. Indeed, their relationship is so close that Kagame even put a £30 million private jet at  his disposal.

Paul Rusesabagina sent Blair a letter recently begging him to use his influence to stop the bloodshed in the Congo.

'Please do not let your personal friendship with President Kagame stand in the way of your conscience,' he implored. 'Show the moral leadership that I know you are capable of and denounce President Kagame.

'The price that has been paid to carry you and President Kagame around on these planes is too high.'

Will Blair listen to this admirable man, who pledged to fight for human rights amid the carnage of genocide? Don't hold your breath.

For all that fine talk about philanthropy and serving others, it is hard not to wonder these days if any price is too high for Mr Blair.



Tony Blair: The man who turned amorality into an art form | Mail Online


He's taken millions from dictators and cosied up to warlords. As it's reported 'Teflon Tony' is plotting an alliance with a super-rich financier, a devastating critique of the... Man who turned amorality into an art form


By IAN BIRRELL



When Tony Blair visited Beijing a few weeks ago to open a prestigious conference on philanthropy, he showed he had lost none of the evangelical fervour that once dazzled British voters.

Giving an impassioned sermon to an  A-list audience on the crucial role of  compassion, the former Prime Minister spoke of how societies should be measured not just by what people do for themselves, but by what they do for others.

'The best philanthropy is about changing the world,' he proclaimed. 'Flourishing philanthropy is an essential part of a flourishing society.'

Moral blindness: Former Prime Minister Tony Blair turned amorality into an art form

Moral blindness: Former Prime Minister Tony Blair turned amorality into an art form

Blair told well-heeled listeners paying nearly £1,500 a head how he found a new role after politics doing good deeds around the globe. He had seen how people's  lives had been improved through his efforts, he said.

It was the perfect start for China's first major forum on philanthropy, where guests included Bill Gates, the multi-billionaire Microsoft founder who is giving away much of his fortune, and Andrew Forrest, Australia's richest man and another generous charity donor.

 

'We need philanthropy to lessen hostility towards the rich,' Blair warned them.

Heartfelt words for a man said to have raked in nearly £20 million last year, big chunks of it by delivering platitudes dressed up as profundities to gullible global paymasters.

It was the sort of event the former Labour leader seems to love: a private jet to take him there, a £3,000-a-night hotel suite, and networking with the super-rich.

Yet his sanctimonious speech was little more than hypocritical hogwash coming from a man who, to my mind, has turned amorality into an art form.

Sorid: Blair's disgraceful 'deal in the desert' nine years ago with Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi

Sorid: Blair's disgraceful 'deal in the desert' nine years ago with Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi

Saif Gaddafi, son of Colonel Gaddafi- whom Blair infamously helped with his dodgy PhD thesis at the London School of Economics - called Blair 'a personal family friend'

Saif Gaddafi, son of Colonel Gaddafi- whom Blair infamously helped with his dodgy PhD thesis at the London School of Economics - called Blair 'a personal family friend'

For all his honeyed words about serving humanity, this is a man who used his contacts book from Downing Street to launch a lucrative career advising absolute monarchs, wealthy bankers and despots.

Yesterday, it emerged that his money-making operation may be about to expand even further after talks over a commercial alliance with one of the most highly-paid bankers in the world.

Michael Klein, 48, an American who was once the leading investment banker in London for the huge firm Citigroup, is now an international deal-broker who once earned $10 million for two weeks' work. He is described as 'very clever and a very canny operator', and it is thought that he and Blair have worked on a number of deals together in the past.

The combination of their two enterprises would create an extremely powerful and lucrative platform for Blair to ply his trade around the world: the Prime Minister who promulgated an ethical foreign policy already spends much of his time serving the sleazy interests of repressive autocrats from Africa to central Asia. His moral blindness has no borders.

No boundaries: Blair used his contacts book from Downing Street to launch a lucrative career advising absolute monarchs, wealthy bankers and despots

No boundaries: Blair used his contacts book from Downing Street to launch a lucrative career advising absolute monarchs, wealthy bankers and despots

Take the mystery of his fee for that Beijing speech. Sources in China said he was handed about $200,000 (around £125,000) to deliver the lecture on philanthropy.

But when I asked his office if he was paid — which might seem at odds with the spirit of both the conference and his speech — they flatly denied it. His spokeswoman gave me an unambiguous, one-word answer: 'No.'

Yet when I queried this, saying that it conflicted with what I had heard from Beijing, her reply changed. He was not personally paid, she said, but a payment went to one of his charities.

Such smokescreens are all too familiar from this politician with such a tenuous relationship to the truth. Most shamefully, this was shown with the distortion of intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq, which backfired so badly with disastrous consequences for millions of people.

Not that Blair, 59, shows any signs of guilt, or of retreating to a quieter life. Indeed, he seems obsessed with trying to recreate the whirlwind world he once inhabited as Prime Minister.

Recently he has been to a dizzying list of countries including Germany, Guinea, India, Jordan, Kuwait, Liberia, Nigeria and the U.S., as well as China, nurturing his byzantine web of businesses, charities, consultancies, speechmaking and diplomacy.

Friends and admirers say he is making pragmatic efforts to improve governance around the world. 'I don't think he is this money-grabbing, morally compromised individual he is made out to be,' said one. 'On the whole, I still give him the benefit of the doubt.'

But critics fear that divisions between his many operations are blurred. Anti-corruption campaigners have raised concerns that some of his business links conflict with his diplomatic role as a peace envoy in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, young executives from J.P. Morgan, the bailed-out U.S. bank paying him a reported £2.5 million a year, are put to work at the heart of African governments advised by one of his charities.

But criticism seems to have no effect on Teflon Tony. Recently he was back in Britain, joking with journalists in Westminster at a Lobby lunch. He sidestepped a question about his earnings while undermining the policies of current Labour leader Ed Miliband, an ally of his detested successor Gordon Brown.

Another friend of the former British PM was ousted Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, who used to lend Blair a luxury villa on the Red Sea for holidays

Another friend of the former British PM was ousted Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, who used to lend Blair a luxury villa on the Red Sea for holidays

The appearance was a reminder that he still holds ambitions for a leading role on the world stage, perhaps as President of Europe. Unfortunately, it coincided with a key Palestinian official giving a damning verdict on his peacemaking role as 'useless, useless, useless'.

The lunch also came days after another sharp reminder of one of the most sordid episodes in Blair's decade in power — his disgraceful 'deal in the desert' nine years ago with Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, which brought the despot in from the cold in return for him renouncing his weapons of mass destruction programme.

Less publicised was the apparent agreement for our intelligence services to act as outriders for a regime infamous for its barbarity. 

Now, the British Government has given £2.23 million to a Libyan dissident and his family to stop a court case threatening to reveal embarrassing details of how British officials helped to round up Gaddafi's enemies across the world.

Blair has apparently now formed a commercial alliance with Michael Klein, one of the most highly-paid bankers in the world

Blair has apparently now formed a commercial alliance with Michael Klein, one of the most highly-paid bankers in the world

Sami al-Saadi says he was forced on board a plane in Hong Kong, flown to Tripoli, imprisoned and tortured. Britain did not admit liability, but it is safe to assume that hush money would not have been paid if the allegations were groundless.

Now, I understand from lawyers that a second case, involving Gaddafi's most prominent opponent, is likely to go ahead.

Abdul Hakim Belhaj, the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group who led the attack on Gaddafi's Tripoli fortress in 2011, wants his story heard in open court unless there is an official apology.

He says that MI6 was involved with his detention in Malaysia in 2004, from where he and his pregnant wife were flown in hoods and shackles to Libya. Once there, he claims he was tortured and isolated for four years by Gaddafi's goons.

Blair, who held private meetings with Gaddafi after leaving office, dodged questions on these cases last month on the grounds that legal action was being pursued.

Perhaps he should offer to recompense taxpayers for the multi-million-pound payout, given how his government prostituted British interests to appease a bloody dictator.

Days after Gaddafi's fall, I stood in the wrecked home of the British high commissioner to Libya and found piles of secret documents revealing the disturbingly close links between Blair and the oil-rich tyrant in Tripoli.

There were obsequious letters from Downing Street to Gaddafi, suggested questions from our security services to put to detained dissidents, and even offers to use British special forces to train the regime's most feared troops.

Little wonder that Saif Gaddafi — whom Blair infamously helped with his dodgy PhD thesis at the London School of Economics — called him 'a personal family friend'.

Another friend of the former British PM was ousted Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, who used to lend Blair a luxury villa on the Red Sea for holidays. When the Arab Spring erupted and protesters poured into Cairo's Tahrir Square, Blair hailed his corrupt pal — who embezzled billions — as 'a force for good'. 

Pariah: Last summer the South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu pulled out of a summit on leadership in Johannesburg because of his attendance

Pariah: Last summer the South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu pulled out of a summit on leadership in Johannesburg because of his attendance

Blair spoke in Bejing, proclaiming 'The best philanthropy is about changing the world. Flourishing philanthropy is an essential part of a flourishing society'

Blair spoke in Bejing, proclaiming 'The best philanthropy is about changing the world. Flourishing philanthropy is an essential part of a flourishing society'

These days he ignores such uncomfortable facts as he jets around the world discussing good governance and declaiming support for democracy movements in the Middle East.

But then this is the man who earned a seven-figure sum advising the Kuwaiti royal family, now facing growing protests from a generation frustrated by the lack of real democracy in that country.

Or take his dubious activities in central Asia. Three years ago, Blair was thought to have been paid £90,000 by an obscure oligarch to officially open a methanol plant in Baku. 'I've always wanted to visit Azerbaijan,' he gushed.

Despite immense wealth from natural resources, one in five of this troubled nation's citizens has fled in search of a better life elsewhere. Human rights activists have recounted savage beatings by security forces, while the website Wikileaks revealed that U.S. diplomats had compared the president, Ilham Aliyev, to mafia dons in the Godfather film trilogy.

Prime Minister Tony Blair greets president of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, who is reported to have paid an astonishing $13¿million to hire him in 2011

Disheartening: Tony Blair greets president of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, who is reported to have paid an astonishing $13¿million to hire him in 2011

Mr Blair, however, met Aliyev and praised a leader with 'a very positive and exciting vision for the future'.

Even more disheartening are Blair's dealings in Kazakhstan, where President Nursultan Nazarbayev is reported to have paid an astonishing $13 million to hire him in 2011.

The Kazakh government was delighted by the coup: 'We could not have a better adviser,' said one official. No wonder — a nasty regime had bought itself a fig-leaf of respectability, albeit for a small fortune.

It seems they did not just get Blair but his acolytes: former spin doctor Alastair Campbell was spotted at the airport in the capital Astana, and Lord Mandelson has reportedly been paid to speak by the state's sovereign wealth fund. Business leaders close to New Labour are also active there.

Blair insists that the money he was paid by the Kazakhs is being spent on supporting political, economic and social reform there, and praises the country's progress. He does, however, seem to have a soft spot for oil-rich nations run by repressive rulers.

Paul Rusesabagina sent Blair a letter recently begging him to use his influence to stop the bloodshed in the Congo

Paul Rusesabagina sent Blair a letter recently begging him to use his influence to stop the bloodshed in the Congo

Nazarbayev is a former Soviet leader who wins elections with unbelievable levels of support, jails human rights activists, tortures prisoners, shoots striking workers and intimidates independent journalists. His family is said to have salted away more than $1 billion.

One leading rival was found shot dead three weeks before an election. The official verdict was that he shot himself twice in the chest before shooting himself in the head.

On YouTube there is a long and tedious Soviet-style video exalting this supposed visionary. Prominent among those giving praise is Blair, who says that Nazarbayev is putting his country on the right path, even comparing it to thriving Singapore.

It is hard to equate this toe-curling tribute to a tyrant with the pious politician who claims to be driven by the desire to shape a better world.

One New Labour insider told me that Blair was transfixed by money and power. 'His view of the world is totally realist,' the source said. 'So there is nothing to inhibit him from doing business with some of the world's most awful people.'

Blair is already a pariah in some places. Last summer the South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu pulled out of a summit on leadership in Johannesburg because of his attendance.v

'My appeal to Mr Blair is not to talk about leadership, but to demonstrate it,' he said.

Now, another African human rights hero is calling on Blair to stop propping up the regime in Rwanda, which is accused of atrocities and war crimes.

Paul Rusesabagina is the hotel manager who became a Hollywood icon thanks to the film Hotel Rwanda. It told how this gentle man defied savagery when genocide engulfed his nation, saving the lives of 1,268 people who sought sanctuary behind his gates.

Since then, he has displayed similar courage standing up to the murderous regime of President Paul Kagame. It has clamped down on internal dissent, sent hit squads to kill dissidents overseas and provoked chaos in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, inflaming the world's deadliest conflict since  World War II.

Blair supports monstrous Rwandan President Paul Kagame has sent hit squads to kill dissidents overseas, through his personal charity

Blair supports monstrous Rwandan President Paul Kagame has sent hit squads to kill dissidents overseas, through his personal charity

Kagame has been helped by huge sums in foreign aid, but in recent months even his biggest backers in Britain and America suspended funding after the United Nations showed that he was fomenting unrest again in the Congo.

Blair, however, still supports this monstrous man through his personal charity, the African Governance Initiative, which is advising governments in five countries in Africa. Indeed, their relationship is so close that Kagame even put a £30 million private jet at  his disposal.

Paul Rusesabagina sent Blair a letter recently begging him to use his influence to stop the bloodshed in the Congo.

'Please do not let your personal friendship with President Kagame stand in the way of your conscience,' he implored. 'Show the moral leadership that I know you are capable of and denounce President Kagame.

'The price that has been paid to carry you and President Kagame around on these planes is too high.'

Will Blair listen to this admirable man, who pledged to fight for human rights amid the carnage of genocide? Don't hold your breath.

For all that fine talk about philanthropy and serving others, it is hard not to wonder these days if any price is too high for Mr Blair.



Hotel Rwanda Hero Still Fighting for Justice and the Truth - The Huffington Post


Hotel Rwanda Hero Still Fighting for Justice and the Truth

With the takeover of the city of Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo ("Congo") last year by M23 rebels, and with Rwanda receiving a seat on the UN Security Council last year as well, I wanted to talk to Rwanda's most famous son, Paul Rusesabagina, about Rwanda's role in supporting the M23 militia. Paul Rusesabagina was famously portrayed in the movie Hotel Rwanda by Don Cheadle. My first question to Paul was about the criminal charges brought against him in 2010 by the Rwandan government for his questioning the role of Paul Kagame (now Rwandan president) and his RPF forces in the Rwandan civil war and in the Congo. The government accused him of allegedly advocating a "double genocide" theory.
PR: This is what happens to any person who has really been advocating about the genocide that happened in 1994. I was on the inside, and I sensitized the whole world. I called for help. I tried to help people during that period of time. And afterward, I still fought for the truth to come out until I noticed that that was not what the Rwandan government wanted to do. They wanted power -- not shared -- and they wanted to demonize the rest of the population so that the army appeared to be the only nice people. For that I was not considered a nice guy. I had no choice but to go into exile. In exile, I was the one who spoke real loudly about the Rwanda genocide -- the Rwandan genocide; not two genocides ... If we Rwandans don't reconcile, and sit down honestly and talk, then we might see history repeating itself because the Rwandan government as of now also has been involved in many massacres. This is what I talk about. The Tutsi government has been involved in many massacres. And they are still doing it. So that's what they have been doing in the Congo. If you look at the situation as it has been analyzed, for example, in the Mapping Report which you may be aware of. People analyzing that are recording a genocide.
DK: I think that is right. You are referring to the United Nations Mapping Report which shows that in fact huge amounts of fatalities in terms of where Rwanda had invaded and also where they are supporting the M23 rebels if I'm not mistaken. And I see numbers of close to 6 million dead as a result of that activity.
PR: Actually M23 is not the first militia proxy army to be helped and funded by the Rwandan government; it is one among many others. Since 1996 when the Rwandan army invaded the Congo, they have killed more than 300,000 refugees -- Hutu refugees. And they killed them because they were Hutu refugees. And also, they have killed millions of Congolese ... Rwanda has provided these proxy armies, including now the M23, with munitions, arms and uniforms. And the result of this is that more than 6 or 7 million people have been killed. Hundreds of thousands of women have been raped. Babies have been butchered. This has been done by [Rwandan President Paul] Kagame in the fields by proxy militas.
DK: And what is the U.S. role in all of this?
PR: Well, all I can say is that Paul Kagame was, how do I say it, "our guy" if you can say it that way. He was trained in intelligence here in the United States in Fort Levenworth [in 1990 before the genocide], and he became an ally to the United States.
[Editor's Note: To read more about how Paul Kagame is "our guy," Read here].
DK: Did the U.S. approve of his invasion into the Congo in 1996?
PR: I can't say they approved, but still no one disapproved.
DK: And, they knew he was going to do it, because he told the world he was going to invade.
PR: Yes, since 1996 through 2012, for more than 15 years, no one has disapproved, so they have approved.
DK: Was placing Rwanda on the Security Council ("SC") last year ratification of their conduct?
PR: Let's say that this is upsetting. This is upsetting for the cause of human rights. I can't say what all human rights organizations would say, but I can tell you, someone who has been invading neighbors as Rwanda has, and who has been raping the women of their neighbors, I don't see Rwanda as teaching any lessons of conflict resolution. If you go online and see how many babies are being butchered, if you see how women are being raped, if you see how many young boys are being killed, this [placing Rwanda on the SC] is like a lion guarding the cattle.
[Paul talks at length about his work on fighting inequality in Rwanda, and then stuns me with the following statement]:
PR: And, the governing elite has a special program of sterilizing men so that they don't produce.
DK: Excuse me, did you say sterilizing men?
PR: Yes, sterilizing Hutu men. Yes, and what did you call this? Is this not a genocide? This is not the people's choice; it is the government's choice.
DK: I read somewhere that you think there needs to be a new truth tribunal in Rwanda. And, why is this, what was wrong with the first international criminal tribunal on Rwanda? What were the shortcomings there?
PR: This is the problem. In 1990, the RPF rebels, composed almost entirely of of Tutsis living in exile, invaded Rwanda from Uganda. So, when they invaded Rwanda, there was a civil war for four years. In that civil war, that army, those rebels, we called them rebels at that time, were killing each and every person, every Hutu on their way. People fled their homes. They were occupying slowly. And, by 1993, early 1994, before the genocide, we had about 1.2 million displaced people who were surrounding Kigali the capital city, having to bathe in town, going to sleep in the open air in camps, dying every day, hungry. So, in 1994, these rebels, who had already signed a peace accord with the government, killed the president. That is a fact which almost everyone knows. So, when they killed him, the genocide broke out. Now, we were in a civil war where civilians were being killed by both sides. The civil war never stopped. The genocide happened within a civil war. Both sides killed, and now, afterwards, in July 1994, when the period of the genocide ended, after three months, 90 days, the Tutsi rebels took power. They took power in blood from both sides. And, the international community gathered the United Nations, and they decided to put up a tribunal for Rwanda. That tribunal was supposed to try and convict Rwandans who killed Rwandans for a period of time from January 1 through December 31 of that year [1994]. From January 1 through December 31 of that year, I saw myself with my own eyes, this [RPF] army tying people with their hands behind their backs and beating their chests, breaking it, throwing them into containers, burning their bodies, and spraying their ashes into the national game preserve. I am a witness to this. But, because the Hutus lost the war, they are the only ones being tried and convicted. So, the international tribunal, the international criminal court for Rwanda, is a court for the losers. But, both have been killing civilians. They say that the Hutus committed the genocide, but the Tutsis also committed war crimes, crimes against humanity.
DK: I've seen a couple of reports saying that more Hutus were killed during that period than Tutsis; is that possible?
PR: Yes. That is correct. Because Hutus killed Hutus, and Hutus killed Tutsis, and Tutsis killed Hutus exclusively. But the killing of Hutus never ended. I'll give you an example. On April 17, 18, 19 and 20, 1995, the new army, the Tutsi army that took power in 1994, killed, destroyed actually, a displaced camp within the country by bombardment, helicopter bombardment, and, machine guns on the ground. At that time, in that camp, we had 8,500 people, Hutus only. So, of those people, how many were killed, how many escaped? That is the problem. So, the killing never stopped. And, what took place in the Congo was something else.
DK: What you're saying, Paul, jives with things that I've read as well. So, it is interesting that at the end of the movie, Hotel Rwanda, it really leaves the impression, and really more than that, it really says that once the Tutsis took power, everything was fine, the genocide ends. I would think you would have some disagreement with the end of that movie.
PR: Well, the movie is something different. And, I would tell you that I did not want to portray the genocide as such, but I wanted to teach a lesson. And, this lesson was to young people on how to make a difference. That was my mission. Many companies like HBO wanted to portray my story, but we could not agree on how to make it. So, the movie had to have, had to show, a kind of small island of peace in a kind of sea of fire, so that people can see something that was supposed to be better, nicer. This is why you see it that way. The ending was supposed to be a happy ending. And, I did not leave Rwanda, as you see in the movie, with the Canadian general telling me to go to Tanzania. I did not leave the country, but the movie had to end somewhere anyway. I did not leave the country until September 6, 1996 when I was almost assassinated myself. When I was almost assassinated myself, I said that is enough, I've had enough, and I decided to leave the country in exile.
DK: So, it's a Hollywood movie, so it needed a Hollywood ending.
PR: Well, I think that the Hollywood ending is a better message to the world than that the massacres went on and on and on.
DK: But that is your perception -- that they did go on and on and on, really?
PR: If we see what is going on in the Congo, what do we think they are doing within their own country? Their main objective has always been to take the international community's attention from the real target which is Rwanda to a different place. That does not mean that Rwanda is safe; that does not mean that the killings have ended in the country.
DK: I will say, Paul, that from a quick Google search, it appears that your willingness to say these things has drawn a lot of fire for you. I mean you could have retired with that Academy Award nomination for Don Cheadle and been a happy guy but you've, you know, the things you are saying are good, you speak the truth, but it's very controversial, and I'm sure it has not been easy for you.
PR: I know when I started talking out it was around 2004, the Rwandan Patriotic propaganda campaign was so powerful that they have convinced each and everyone, listen guys, we are the good guys, and everyone else are the bad guys. They have travelled all over the world to convince the world of that. So to get people from the international community on my side took a while and a lot of energy you can imagine.
During the genocide, there were 10,000 people being killed every day. You can imagine what happens after three months, almost 15 percent of the population were already dead. No one can understand that.
DK: You really could have rested on your laurels. You could have gone around high-fiving everyone, but instead you've continued the work, really treading some controversial waters, and I really applaud you for doing that.
PR: If I had been willing to sit down and shut up, yes, I would maybe be a better-off man. But, I would still have my conscience which would tell me otherwise. My conscience would not agree.

Hotel Rwanda Hero Still Fighting for Justice and the Truth - The Huffington Post


Hotel Rwanda Hero Still Fighting for Justice and the Truth

With the takeover of the city of Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo ("Congo") last year by M23 rebels, and with Rwanda receiving a seat on the UN Security Council last year as well, I wanted to talk to Rwanda's most famous son, Paul Rusesabagina, about Rwanda's role in supporting the M23 militia. Paul Rusesabagina was famously portrayed in the movie Hotel Rwanda by Don Cheadle. My first question to Paul was about the criminal charges brought against him in 2010 by the Rwandan government for his questioning the role of Paul Kagame (now Rwandan president) and his RPF forces in the Rwandan civil war and in the Congo. The government accused him of allegedly advocating a "double genocide" theory.
PR: This is what happens to any person who has really been advocating about the genocide that happened in 1994. I was on the inside, and I sensitized the whole world. I called for help. I tried to help people during that period of time. And afterward, I still fought for the truth to come out until I noticed that that was not what the Rwandan government wanted to do. They wanted power -- not shared -- and they wanted to demonize the rest of the population so that the army appeared to be the only nice people. For that I was not considered a nice guy. I had no choice but to go into exile. In exile, I was the one who spoke real loudly about the Rwanda genocide -- the Rwandan genocide; not two genocides ... If we Rwandans don't reconcile, and sit down honestly and talk, then we might see history repeating itself because the Rwandan government as of now also has been involved in many massacres. This is what I talk about. The Tutsi government has been involved in many massacres. And they are still doing it. So that's what they have been doing in the Congo. If you look at the situation as it has been analyzed, for example, in the Mapping Report which you may be aware of. People analyzing that are recording a genocide.
DK: I think that is right. You are referring to the United Nations Mapping Report which shows that in fact huge amounts of fatalities in terms of where Rwanda had invaded and also where they are supporting the M23 rebels if I'm not mistaken. And I see numbers of close to 6 million dead as a result of that activity.
PR: Actually M23 is not the first militia proxy army to be helped and funded by the Rwandan government; it is one among many others. Since 1996 when the Rwandan army invaded the Congo, they have killed more than 300,000 refugees -- Hutu refugees. And they killed them because they were Hutu refugees. And also, they have killed millions of Congolese ... Rwanda has provided these proxy armies, including now the M23, with munitions, arms and uniforms. And the result of this is that more than 6 or 7 million people have been killed. Hundreds of thousands of women have been raped. Babies have been butchered. This has been done by [Rwandan President Paul] Kagame in the fields by proxy militas.
DK: And what is the U.S. role in all of this?
PR: Well, all I can say is that Paul Kagame was, how do I say it, "our guy" if you can say it that way. He was trained in intelligence here in the United States in Fort Levenworth [in 1990 before the genocide], and he became an ally to the United States.
[Editor's Note: To read more about how Paul Kagame is "our guy," Read here].
DK: Did the U.S. approve of his invasion into the Congo in 1996?
PR: I can't say they approved, but still no one disapproved.
DK: And, they knew he was going to do it, because he told the world he was going to invade.
PR: Yes, since 1996 through 2012, for more than 15 years, no one has disapproved, so they have approved.
DK: Was placing Rwanda on the Security Council ("SC") last year ratification of their conduct?
PR: Let's say that this is upsetting. This is upsetting for the cause of human rights. I can't say what all human rights organizations would say, but I can tell you, someone who has been invading neighbors as Rwanda has, and who has been raping the women of their neighbors, I don't see Rwanda as teaching any lessons of conflict resolution. If you go online and see how many babies are being butchered, if you see how women are being raped, if you see how many young boys are being killed, this [placing Rwanda on the SC] is like a lion guarding the cattle.
[Paul talks at length about his work on fighting inequality in Rwanda, and then stuns me with the following statement]:
PR: And, the governing elite has a special program of sterilizing men so that they don't produce.
DK: Excuse me, did you say sterilizing men?
PR: Yes, sterilizing Hutu men. Yes, and what did you call this? Is this not a genocide? This is not the people's choice; it is the government's choice.
DK: I read somewhere that you think there needs to be a new truth tribunal in Rwanda. And, why is this, what was wrong with the first international criminal tribunal on Rwanda? What were the shortcomings there?
PR: This is the problem. In 1990, the RPF rebels, composed almost entirely of of Tutsis living in exile, invaded Rwanda from Uganda. So, when they invaded Rwanda, there was a civil war for four years. In that civil war, that army, those rebels, we called them rebels at that time, were killing each and every person, every Hutu on their way. People fled their homes. They were occupying slowly. And, by 1993, early 1994, before the genocide, we had about 1.2 million displaced people who were surrounding Kigali the capital city, having to bathe in town, going to sleep in the open air in camps, dying every day, hungry. So, in 1994, these rebels, who had already signed a peace accord with the government, killed the president. That is a fact which almost everyone knows. So, when they killed him, the genocide broke out. Now, we were in a civil war where civilians were being killed by both sides. The civil war never stopped. The genocide happened within a civil war. Both sides killed, and now, afterwards, in July 1994, when the period of the genocide ended, after three months, 90 days, the Tutsi rebels took power. They took power in blood from both sides. And, the international community gathered the United Nations, and they decided to put up a tribunal for Rwanda. That tribunal was supposed to try and convict Rwandans who killed Rwandans for a period of time from January 1 through December 31 of that year [1994]. From January 1 through December 31 of that year, I saw myself with my own eyes, this [RPF] army tying people with their hands behind their backs and beating their chests, breaking it, throwing them into containers, burning their bodies, and spraying their ashes into the national game preserve. I am a witness to this. But, because the Hutus lost the war, they are the only ones being tried and convicted. So, the international tribunal, the international criminal court for Rwanda, is a court for the losers. But, both have been killing civilians. They say that the Hutus committed the genocide, but the Tutsis also committed war crimes, crimes against humanity.
DK: I've seen a couple of reports saying that more Hutus were killed during that period than Tutsis; is that possible?
PR: Yes. That is correct. Because Hutus killed Hutus, and Hutus killed Tutsis, and Tutsis killed Hutus exclusively. But the killing of Hutus never ended. I'll give you an example. On April 17, 18, 19 and 20, 1995, the new army, the Tutsi army that took power in 1994, killed, destroyed actually, a displaced camp within the country by bombardment, helicopter bombardment, and, machine guns on the ground. At that time, in that camp, we had 8,500 people, Hutus only. So, of those people, how many were killed, how many escaped? That is the problem. So, the killing never stopped. And, what took place in the Congo was something else.
DK: What you're saying, Paul, jives with things that I've read as well. So, it is interesting that at the end of the movie, Hotel Rwanda, it really leaves the impression, and really more than that, it really says that once the Tutsis took power, everything was fine, the genocide ends. I would think you would have some disagreement with the end of that movie.
PR: Well, the movie is something different. And, I would tell you that I did not want to portray the genocide as such, but I wanted to teach a lesson. And, this lesson was to young people on how to make a difference. That was my mission. Many companies like HBO wanted to portray my story, but we could not agree on how to make it. So, the movie had to have, had to show, a kind of small island of peace in a kind of sea of fire, so that people can see something that was supposed to be better, nicer. This is why you see it that way. The ending was supposed to be a happy ending. And, I did not leave Rwanda, as you see in the movie, with the Canadian general telling me to go to Tanzania. I did not leave the country, but the movie had to end somewhere anyway. I did not leave the country until September 6, 1996 when I was almost assassinated myself. When I was almost assassinated myself, I said that is enough, I've had enough, and I decided to leave the country in exile.
DK: So, it's a Hollywood movie, so it needed a Hollywood ending.
PR: Well, I think that the Hollywood ending is a better message to the world than that the massacres went on and on and on.
DK: But that is your perception -- that they did go on and on and on, really?
PR: If we see what is going on in the Congo, what do we think they are doing within their own country? Their main objective has always been to take the international community's attention from the real target which is Rwanda to a different place. That does not mean that Rwanda is safe; that does not mean that the killings have ended in the country.
DK: I will say, Paul, that from a quick Google search, it appears that your willingness to say these things has drawn a lot of fire for you. I mean you could have retired with that Academy Award nomination for Don Cheadle and been a happy guy but you've, you know, the things you are saying are good, you speak the truth, but it's very controversial, and I'm sure it has not been easy for you.
PR: I know when I started talking out it was around 2004, the Rwandan Patriotic propaganda campaign was so powerful that they have convinced each and everyone, listen guys, we are the good guys, and everyone else are the bad guys. They have travelled all over the world to convince the world of that. So to get people from the international community on my side took a while and a lot of energy you can imagine.
During the genocide, there were 10,000 people being killed every day. You can imagine what happens after three months, almost 15 percent of the population were already dead. No one can understand that.
DK: You really could have rested on your laurels. You could have gone around high-fiving everyone, but instead you've continued the work, really treading some controversial waters, and I really applaud you for doing that.
PR: If I had been willing to sit down and shut up, yes, I would maybe be a better-off man. But, I would still have my conscience which would tell me otherwise. My conscience would not agree.

-“The root cause of the Rwandan tragedy of 1994 is the long and past historical ethnic dominance of one minority ethnic group to the other majority ethnic group. Ignoring this reality is giving a black cheque for the Rwandan people’s future and deepening resentment, hostility and hatred between the two groups.”

-« Ce dont j’ai le plus peur, c’est des gens qui croient que, du jour au lendemain, on peut prendre une société, lui tordre le cou et en faire une autre ».

-“The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.”

-“I have loved justice and hated iniquity: therefore I die in exile.

-“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

READ MORE RECENT NEWS AND OPINIONS

Popular Posts

WebMD Health Channel - Sex & Relationships

Love Lectures

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

David DeAngelo - Dating Questions For Men

Christian Carter - Dating Questions For Women

Women - The Huffington Post

Recent Articles About Effective Communication Skills and Self Development