POLITICS
The Ashcroft Affair is about honour: the Times's honour
BRUCE ANDERSON
Newspapers ought to investigate wrong- doing, especially in public life. The papers are also entitled to scrutinise the operation of political parties, and especially their finances. So the Times had every right to examine Michael Ashcroft's affairs.
But rights imply responsibilities. A paper of the Times's historical reputation ought to acknowledge a responsibility to facts and to the truth. That is a responsibility which the Times has systematically violated. In a leader on Wednesday, the newspaper claimed that it had started its Ashcroft investigation for two reasons. The [Tories] had come to be unduly reliant on the financial support of a single individual', an individual, moreover, whose 'reputation and business interests in Belize and the Caribbean' were open to question.
So far, so legitimate. But, having asked its questions, the Times has failed to come up with a single incriminating answer. The Times began its inquiry by publishing a false assertion. It claimed that Mr Ashcroft was donating £360,000 a month to the Tory party. This was instantly denied, and the true figure, £1 million a year, became pub- lic knowledge. But the Times persisted with its invented figure for at least a fortnight. When it started to use the true figure, there was no apology to its readers.
It is clearly undesirable that the Tories should be so dependent on a single financial source, even if it is for ten per cent of the party's budget rather than 40 per cent. But, during the last Parliament, Lord Harris of Peckham and his friends were at least as crucial to the Tory party's finances as Mr Ashcroft now is. No one ever complained, because there was no suggestion that Phil Harris was buying influence. Nor has Michael Ashcroft. There is no evidence that he has ever acted improperly in his dealings with the Tory party.
That leaves Belize. The Times tells us that `officials in Belize . . . feel intimidated by Ashcroft's dominance of the economy and the damage that would result should he withdraw his huge investments there'. No doubt there are such officials, but their fears are groundless. All healthy economies need investment, and small countries like Belize cannot pick and choose their investors. By investing in Belize, Mr Ashcroft is helping its economy to grow; entrepreneurs attract other entrepreneurs. As for Mr Ashcroft selling up in Belize, this seems highly unlikely, for two reasons. He has always behaved like a long-term investor: you do not bother to negotiate a 25-year tax deal if you are only interested in a quick killing. Second, it would be very hard for Mr Ashcroft to sell out, unless he could find another Mr Ashcroft. As soon as he started to dispose of Belizean assets, the price of such assets would collapse. His best hope of making money in Belize would be to see the Belizean economy grow to such an extent that his predominance was eliminated. As so often, the interests of the capitalist co- incide with those of the wider society.
How fortunate for the Times that it was able to discover unnamed officials whose grasp of economics we have to take on trust but who will express convenient anxieties. But there has been another reaction from Belize. The government has expressed annoyance with the 'ragbag of unsubstanti- ated allegations in the British press'. But the Times did not pass on this information to its readers. I wonder why?
It has been guilty of a far more serious instance of suppressio yeti. Central to the Times's case against Mr Ashcroft was the claim that the American government was unhappy about his banking operations in the Caribbean, believing that he had an over-lax attitude towards the laundering of drug money. But, on Tuesday, the Americans stated that they had never 'raised specific concerns about Ashcroft with either the Belizean or the British government'. By choosing to ignore that statement, the Times proves that it prefers innuendo to facts and that it is willing to censor and distort its news pages in pursuit of an editorial line.
There is another fact which the Times has failed to share with its readers. Michael Ashcroft is involved in banking in Belize: onshore. He does have an offshore bank, — in the Turks and Caicos Islands, a British dependency and therefore subject to British law. Drug-money laundering is a worldwide problem, and offshore banks are a tempting target. But no agency has suggested that the Belizean offshore banks have been used for money laundering. The Americans have warned that there could be a problem in future unless the Belizean authorities are vigilant. But that is true of all offshore banking, in any jurisdiction, and of any financial transaction in which large sums of cash can be used. The Jockey Club in Lon- don is concerned about the use of on- course betting to launder drug money. Hitherto, British racing has been far more useful to drug-money launderers than Belizean offshore banking has.
As for Michael Ashcroft, there is no evi- dence that he has laundered a single dollar. But the Times has found cunning methods of creating ersatz evidence: juxtaposition and false syllogisms. There is drug dealing in the Caribbean; Michael Ashcroft has business interests in the Caribbean: the readers are invited to draw the obvious conclusion. Some Caribbean banks are involved in money laundering; Michael Ashcroft has Caribbean banking interests: ditto. This use of suggestio falsi to weasel around the libel laws is contemptible.
The Times is also believed to have acquired details of Caribbean journeys which Mr Ashcroft has made aboard his private plane. So we can expect stories along the lines of: 'Michael Ashcroft flew to Colombia. There is drug dealing in Colombia. Nudge nudge.' Michael Ashcroft flew to Panama. There is money laundering in Panama. Wink wink.' No tittle-tattle is too trivial, no innu- endo too base. The Ashcroft Affair has now become a matter of the Times's editor's pride, or pique, so the vendetta seems set to continue indefinitely. But the forces of truth are not exhausted. The Neill Committee,' named after its chairman, Lord Neill of Bladen, is charged with upholding stan- dards in public life. It should consider Mr Ashcroft's conduct, and the Times's.
There is a further subject which Lord Neill ought to examine, given the spinelessness of other authorities. Last week, some Foreign Office documents were published in the Times. The suggestion is that they were among other material which would have been sent via No. 10 to the Honours Scrutiny Committee. No. 10 is a small building. Politi- cal appointees and civil servants work in close quarters. It is much more likely that the leak came from there than from the FO. So far, neither the head of the civil service nor the law officers appear to have done any- thing to trace the leaker. But the Blair gov- ernment is good at intimidating officials and violating procedures.
In its leader, the Times mocked Michael Ancram for using the word 'honour' apro- pos of Mr Ashcroft. The Times obviously regards honour as a matter for mockery, just as it regards facts as a matter for inven- tion and truth as an irrelevance.
Previous page
