No tears for warmonger Liam Fox​

Dangerous beliefs and connections to the political underworld made him unemployable as a British minister

By Stuart Littlewood

17 October 2011

Stuart Littlewood considers the murky world of Britain’s recently-resigned defence secretary, Liam Fox, whose views and beliefs on crucial issues seem to have been shaped by Israel and lobbies than by any concern for the UK’s national interests.

Britain’s defence secretary, Liam Fox, decided to jump rather than be thrown from the battlements.

While we wait – not holding our breath of course – for the Cabinet secretary's final report on the peculiar relationship between Fox and his special friend, Adam Werrity, it's worth checking what the Ministerial Code – the “Bible” Fox failed to lived by – actually expected of him.

In his foreword to the Code, issued in May 2010, David Cameron wrote: "Though the British people have been disappointed in their politicians, they still expect the highest standards of conduct. We must not let them down."

Conflict with the Ministerial Code

The Code's first words – its General Principles – make it crystal clear that "Ministers of the Crown are expected to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety... Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests".

On overseas visits the Code says ministers should satisfy themselves that they could defend their arrangements in public. Furthermore,the relevant permanent secretary’s approval must be obtained before a special adviser accompanies a minister overseas.

As Werrity was not officially employed as an adviser and had no security clearance, one is left wondering why senior civil servants didn't query his frequent presence.

If there's a breach of the Code and if the prime minister, in consultation with the Cabinet secretary, feels it needs investigation, he is supposed to refer the matter to the independent adviser on ministers’ interests (Sir Philip Mawer). Enforcement, says the Code, is not the job of the Cabinet secretary.

Yet the Cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, is conducting the Fox-Werrity inquiry. Why?

An article in the Guardian reveals that the government has refused to set out the terms of reference of the inquiry into Fox and to explain why the issue wasn’t referred to Mawer. It seems Mawer's website has been shut down, he hasn’t produced an annual report for two years and has conducted only one inquiry since he was appointed in 2008.

How patriotic is Liam Fox?

The Ministerial Code also spells out the Seven Principles of Public Life, including this one about Integrity: "Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties."

On the strength of that, ordinary citizens like me expect a person accepting appointment as a Minister of the Crown​ to be squeaky-clean, a man of honour and an impeccable patriot. How patriotic is Liam Fox though? I ask because he’s the man who said: "In the battle for the values that we stand for ... Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together...”

“The real issue here is a British defence secretary who had a parallel advice structure designed expressly to serve the interests of another state and linked to that state’s security services. That is not just a sacking offence, it is treasonable.” Craig Murray​, former UK diplomat

He’s the man the Jewish Chronicle hailed as “a champion of Israel within the government”.
He’s a man who continually rattles the sabre against Iran which, of course, is no threat to Britain but is seen by Israel as a bitter enemy – and by Fox apparently.

Let us not forget that Iraq was Israel's enemy too, not ours, and look what happened. Liam Fox, according to the website They Work for You, "voted very strongly for the Iraq war". He’s also an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Afghanistan, and he’s been spoiling for a fight with Iran.

“Not just a sacking offence…”

Reports says that Whitehall sources have been concerned about Fox’s “maverick” foreign policy based on the neocon agenda.

Former British diplomat Craig Murray, discussing the possibility that Werrity’s strings, and therefore Fox’s, were being pulled by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, says on his blog: “The real issue here is a British defence secretary who had a parallel advice structure designed expressly to serve the interests of another state and linked to that state’s security services. That is not just a sacking offence, it is treasonable.”

For years Fox has been an Israel flag-waver at the heart of British government, a man with dangerous beliefs and demonstrably weak judgment. It is inconceivable that those who appointed him could not see that he was unemployable as a Minister of the British Crown. Unless they were similarly tainted, that is.

The powerful Israel lobby will no doubt be sad to see their man go.

His parliamentary colleagues talk of Fox “finding his way back” after a decent interval. Can they be serious? The fox won’t have changed his spots or purged the stench of Zionism. Common sense says he should have his security clearance revoked and never be allowed near the levers of power again.

Double standards

As for Libya, he told the Conservative Party Conference​ earlier this month: “Libya offered us a very clear choice: We could stand by and do nothing … or we could act. In the words of the prime minister, our action in Libya is “necessary, legal and right”.

“David Cameron's statecraft, leadership and resolve prevented what would have been a humanitarian disaster and we should be proud of what we have accomplished. Libya has shown that Britain remains a global player.”

The RAF, he said, contributed 20 per cent of coalition air strikes. Using high-tech weapon systems “we have prevented civilian causalities and shown that we value human life more than Gaddafi's brutal regime”.

That’s debatable given our casual attitude to innocent lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and occupied Palestine, and the humanitarian disasters we have helped create there. And it remains to be seen just how “necessary, legal and right” our action has been in Libya. There are deep rumblings about the conduct of the NATO operation, Britain’s role and whether it wasn’t just an ego-trip for the “Three Stooges” – Cameron, Hague and Fox. It may be some time before the full truth emerges.

“To represent Britain in war as well as in peace,” Fox told conference, “is to represent our inherent democratic values, the rule of law and respect for life”. Noble words. But his gangster friends in Israel, whose enemies he wants us to fight, represent none of those fine qualities.

His colleagues are happy to tell the media what a splendid job Fox has been doing at the Ministry of Defence. Nevertheless, the ministry remains a mean-spirited shambles, a disgrace that’s not fit to wipe the boots of our troops, let alone order them into battle.

And few will forgive Fox for scrapping the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal, along with the entire fleet of Harrier jump-jets and the new Nimrod spy planes, leaving us denuded of capability, stripped of important skills and weakened not just for now but for years, possibly decades to come.

I have just heard a Conservative Party mandarin on the BBC saying that Fox will be missed by the party and by the country. The party, 80 per cent of whose MPs are believed to be Friends of Israel, will of course miss him. And Israel will miss him. But this country is glad to see the back of him.

Calls are now being made for wider enquiries into the underworld connections of all ministers. High time too, but seeing who has the executive power in this land such an idea has a snowball’s chance in hell of being taken seriously.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian