By John C. Dyer, UK correspondent
Scotland banned fox hunting in 2002, England and Wales 2004. But 14 October 2011 the hounds closed upon one fox, Liam Fox, the Coalition Defence Secretary. On the afternoon of 14 Oct 2011 Secretary Fox resigned his post as Defence Secretary, citing a blurring of his personal and professional interests. But I fear that in the excitement of the scandal and its conclusion, let’s not lose sight of the significant revelations surfacing concerning Atlantic Bridge, 3 other Coalition Cabinet Secretaries, the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary and 3 US politicians.
A Fox in trouble
Leading to the resignation today, the Guardian and Labour surfaced serious questions concerning Fox’s relationship and dealings with Fox’s friend, former intern, best man at Fox’s wedding, and, arguably, protege, Adam Werrity. Labour and the Guardian alleged Fox may have broken the Ministerial Code. The who did what and knew what when has dominated UK news outlets for several days right down to moments before news of the resignation broke.
Werrity “turned up” on a third of Fox’s official visits abroad. At least 19 in all, and at least 22 additional meetings at the Ministry of Defence. These included meetings with international businessmen and Sri Lanka politicians. Werrity described himself on business cards and in at least one programme for an event as Fox’s “advisor.” Both the Ministry of Defence and the Conservative Party denied that Werrity worked for them.
The official line from Fox in the beginning was that the contacts were social. But that explanation began to unravel as reports mounted from others involved in the growing number of reported meetings. Fox apologized in the media on October 10 and to Parliament on the 11th, but argued that he had not done anything to break the Ministerial Code or place national security at risk. He maintained that Werrity had not had access to sensitive information involving national security.
The Prime Minister ordered an investigation by the UK’s chief Civil Servant, the Civil Service Permanent Secretary. While reputedly the investigation was winding up the afternoon of the 14th, the report of that investigation is due in days.
The heat builds at the Fox’s heels.
If the Prime Minister’s office hoped that the combination of the apology, Fox’s responses to questions in Parliament, and the referral to the chief Civil Servant would mute the story, they were disappointed. The story continued to grow, with the Times alleging Werrity’s travel was funded by a combination of a private Intelligence firm, a property developer with ties to Israel and others. The Mail claims to have identified another, a US lobbyist, calling himself an advisor to Fox The Guardian has published charges that Fox was running a “shadow foreign policy” in Sri Lanka in contravention to the Coalition’s public position.
Allegedly, Werrity was the defence industry’s “go to guy” in that very important business of massaging public policy. Reputedly, one invoice and Fox is gone. The focus of the investigation appears to be who paid for what appears to have been around £150,000 in international travel. The Civil Service Permanent Secretary is set to determine whether Werrity made money from contacts among business interests which would benefit from defence procurement.
A 12 October YouGov poll shows 54% of UK voters think he should go now. In the face of now constant questions and criticism, the Prime Minister asked the public to suspend judgment pending this report. Tory back benchers and Ministers roared support and approval for the embattled arch Conservative during Prime Minister’s Questions. Fox had been an alternative candidate for leadership to David Cameron.
Atlantic Bridge
Fair enough, but the story of Liam Fox’s relationship to Adam Werrity and whether and/or how this may have influenced UK defence policy, budget decisions, and procurement has much wider implications than the reported focus. The implications stretch across the Atlantic and raise questions concerning American politicians and business interests. They also reflect on UK (and therefore US) policy toward Israel.
It has emerged that Fox’s friend ran the “charity” founded by Fox, named the “Atlantic Bridge.” The more interesting question to emerge from the Fox hunt is, who is/was Atlantic Bridge Charity and how has that charity influenced UK policy.
Atlantic Bridge lost its charity status just September 2011 following a critical evaluation from the UK Charity Commission during the prior year. The Commission concluded it was not an educational foundation as claimed but advanced a political agenda.
Neo Cons in the Fox’s den - and 3 US politicians
Liam Fox was the public principal behind the founding of Atlantic Bridge Charity in 1997. But Margaret Thatcher was its then most visible patron. Its public purpose was to promote cooperation between the US and UK on political, economic and defence issues. This turned out to translate as the coordination of a neo conservative agenda. Lady Thatcher publicly called for it to be a bulwork against the Left. Atlantic Bridge cooperated with the American Legistative Exchange Council (ALEC). It hosted events with the Center for Security Policy, the Heritage Foundation and principals in Lehman Brothers. Funding came from corporate and industrial patrons, including Pfizer, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, and, significantly, the UK Conservative Party.
The advisory board included US political figures Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham and Joe Liberman as well as the UK Conservative Party’s Michael Gove, George Osborne and William Hague. Pfizer paid Gabby Bertin, now the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary, £25,000 for her work as a “researcher” for Atlantic Bridge. She worked directly with Adam Werrity.
But another side of Atlantic Bridge was the blurring of its activities with Fox’s public functions. When Fox became Shadow Health Secretary the charity turned to exploring “scientific research and medical provisions.” When Fox became Shadow Defence Secretary the charity reemphasized defence. This ultimately was the effect cited by Fox in his letter of resignation.
In the face of these revelations, many of them “old news,” the statements of the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party that they did not know about Werrity’s activities, that Werrity did not work for them, seem just a little bit disingenuous. Especially coming from the Press Secretary.
Who is pulling the strings?
Beyond the question of what Liam Fox did to whom, when, in what corrupt manner and his future as Defence Secretary are significant questions concerning the impact of these relationships on UK policy, from UK policy in the Middle East to the Defence review decision not to commission two new air craft carriers because they were not built to take the planes of allies, to economic policy. The overriding question is not simply one of corruption (that which the Civil Service Permanent Secretary is investigating). Arguably more important questions arise. How far do the dark shadows extend in both the US and the UK? Who is pulling the Strings? Whose interests do they all serve?
Labour is promising to pursue the issues raised by the newspaper reports and renewed demands for an independent investigation. However, I am concerned about these questions being lost in the ozone of the “press cycle” now that Fox has resigned. I hope not. The questions beg answers both in the UK and in the US. They are not merely about the alleged corruption of an official.