Did we bug Kofi Annan?
Ewen MacAskill, Patrick Wintour and Richard Norton-Taylor
 

against Katharine Gun, the GCHQ officer-turned-whistleblower. She claimed that the intelligence services had been bugging Mr. Annan's private phone for years, especially in the pivotal period in the run-up to the Iraq war last year. She said she had seen the transcripts. Mr. Blair, at his monthly Downing Street press conference, accused her of behaving irresponsibly but did not deny the allegation. He claimed that he could not comment out of duty to protect the intelligence services. Ms. Short said later: "What is the PM going to say? Either he has to say it's true we are bugging Kofi Annan's office, which he doesn't want to say, or he's got to say it's not true and he'd be telling a lie, or he's got to say something pompous about national security. "There is no British national security involved in revealing that Kofi Annan's private phone calls have been improperly revealed and there is no danger to anyone working in the British security services by making this public. "What will happen is it will stop and Kofi Annan will have the privacy and respect he should have." Her allegation wrecked Mr. Blair's press conference, which he had hoped would be a showcase for a new initiative on Africa.

 

Ms. Short's claim was a particular embarrassment to him, given that he described Mr. Annan as a personal friend. Apparently furious, he said the "intelligence services were performing a vital task for our country and it really is the height of irresponsibility to expose them to this kind of scrutiny and questioning in a way that can do this country no good". The combination of Ms Short's allegation and the collapse of the court case against Ms Gun has left the Official Secrets Act in tatters. The government is to conduct a cross-departmental review to see if the legislation can be tightened to prevent further leaks. Its scale is not yet clear, and it may ultimately prove fruitless. Mr. Annan's officials opted yesterday to present a relatively calm exterior in public, but behind the scenes they were raging. One UN official described the revelation as "outrageous". Another said: "We're looking at the legal side, whether intercepting by satellite is as illegal as bugging under the Vienna convention. "The initial reaction of the legal counsel was that it's against civil, criminal and international law. "But we're still going over the books." Mr. Eckhard said Mr. Annan's office was regularly checked for bugs but he did not say whether anything had been found. Ms. Short chose to unleash her latest attack on Mr. Blair on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the same forum that led to the allegation of Downing Street tampering with Iraq intelligence and the Hutton inquiry. Asked whether Britain was involved in the bugging, she said: "Yes, absolutely." But in later interviews, she did not specify whether the intelligence gathering had been conducted by US or British agents. Any bugging would have probably been conducted by US agents, given that New York is on the doorstep of the US national security agency. Some cabinet ministers would like to discipline Ms Short for her repeated outbursts against the prime minister's integrity, but as she admitted yesterday, she is acting as a free agent. "I am not trembling in my shoes," she said. Party disciplinary action against her is likely to backfire by making her appear to be a martyr. The bugging row came as the government struggled with the fallout from the Gun affair. The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, made an emergency statement to peers setting out the reasons the government dropped its case against the whistleblower. He insisted that the decision had been taken solely on legal grounds "free from any political interference". He also said the decision to abandon the case had nothing to do with his view on the legality of the war. But lawyers familiar with the case pointed out yesterday that the legality of the war would have been an important feature of the case, had it gone ahead.

 

Saudis accused British diplomats of terror

Compensation claim by tortured Britons exposes allegations of MI6 plot against kingdom's royal family

David Palister and Paul Kelso
 

Saudi Arabia accused two senior British diplomats of orchestrating an MI6 bombing campaign to undermine the Saudi royal family, it emerged yesterday. The allegations were revealed as seven British men tortured and falsely accused of carrying out the bombings launched legal action against Saudi officials, including the interior minister, Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz. They are seeking compensation for more than two years' imprisonment and torture. Five of the men appeared in televised confessions claiming responsibility for a wave of anti-western explosions that killed one Briton and injured several others. The Saudis said the bombings were the result of a turf war between western bootleggers, although they were widely acknowledged to be the work of dissident Islamist groups. The men said their Saudi interrogators had pressurised them to admit they were low-level MI6 agents acting on orders from Simon McDonald, then the deputy head of mission and consul general, and Ian Wilson, then consul in Riyadh. Shortly after the Foreign Office learned of the allegations both men were moved to other posts. Mr. McDonald went on to become private secretary to Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and is now the ambassador to Israel. Mr. Wilson is consul in Beijing. The Foreign Office admitted last night the allegations against the diplomats had been investigated by British police, who visited Riyadh. "The allegations were found to be baseless," a spokeswoman said. The former detainees and their lawyers said they were disappointed the Foreign Office had not acknowledged their innocence while clearing the officials. Naming the two diplomats, William Sampson, who spent more than a year in solitary confinement, said: "I was tortured and forced to confess to spying for the British government. At the same time two diplomats were investigated by the Foreign Office. They have been cleared but we have not." Glen Ballard, who was detained without charge for 10 months, said: "I was forced to say I was a low-level MI6 agent trying to undermine the Saudi royal family." Mr. Sampson, Sandy Mitchell and Les Walker, represented by Geoffrey Bindman, have issued writs in the high court. Lawyers representing the other four said they would join the action shortly. Mr. Bindman's clients have been given permission to take the case directly to the court of appeal, where they are expected to be joined to the case of another Briton, Ron Jones, who was accused of causing an explosion in which he was seriously injured. All the men are likely to face opposition from the British government. Mr. Jones is seeking to challenge the State Immunity Act 1978, but government lawyers are preparing to lodge an argument next week formally defending the act. Requests for a meeting with the Saudi ambassador to London, Prince Turki-al Faisal, have gone unanswered. Five of the men are said to have produced "compelling and credible" medical evidence of torture, including beatings and sleep deprivation, after examinations at the Parker Institute, a torture treatment centre in Denmark. In their report institute experts said there was "a high degree of consistency between the findings at physical examination and the allegations of torture". Mr. Bindman called on the government to acknowledge the men's innocence and to be more vocal in supporting their case. He said they were having difficulty finding work because, technically, they were convicted terrorists and murderers. "I find it extraordinary that the government has not acknowledged the innocence of these men nor acknowledged that they have been tortured," he said. "Privately they have acknowledged it." Richard Scorer, who represents James Cottle, James Lee, Peter Brandon and Mr. Ballard, said: "We have mixed feelings abut the Foreign Office ... now we have compelling evidence of torture we hope they will be more vocal than in the past." The men said they were still suffering as a result of their treatment. Describing his torture, Mr Mitchell said: "I still suffer from the shame of being broken physically and mentally. The pain was excruciating to the point where dying was preferable to living. It was the fact that I was innocent that kept me going."