Collins was one of the early donors to the TBFF, but has now stopped both donating and giving his time to it. His defection removes a key figure from the early days. Collins had helped set up Blair’s link with Yale, had provided money to help start the TBFF, put him in touch with other wealthy donors, imagining that Blair would make his priority doing reconciliation work around the globe.
Our sources tell us that Collins has become thoroughly disillusioned with Blair; that the visit to Libya was a turning point for him; that he was willing to go on supporting the TBFF as long as Ruth Turner was there, because he had a lively admiration for her. But, after her departure, he felt it was no longer a good use of his time.
Collins himself avoids talking about Blair publicly, and apparently still thinks Blair is an entertaining character, but has no interest in supporting the Faith Foundation without Ruth Turner.
He feels there is too much crossover between Blair’s businesses and his public and charitable work. Bill Clinton, he believes, has handled this a lot better.
Collins was also puzzled by Blair’s conversion to Catholicism, and asked for a robust theological explanation, which he never felt he got. He fears being tainted by Blair’s reputation.
Another director of TBFF in the USA is Alfred E. Smith IV, who ticks two key boxes for Blair: he’s a Catholic and he’s fabulously wealthy, having spent thirty-five years on Wall Street. There is also Linda Lader, wife of former US ambassador to London, Philip Lader. Philip Lader is chairman of WPP, the global media and communications firm that bankrolls Peter Mandelson’s commercial activities.
In 2014, the hole left by the departure of Tim Collins was filled by Rabbi Peter Rubinstein. Rubinstein is Rabbi Emeritus at the Central Synagogue in New York, and, according to its website, oversees the Bronfman Center for Jewish Life as the director of Jewish community at 92nd Street Y. ‘He is recognized as a leader in the changing face of the Jewish community and was ranked number 3 in Newsweek’s 2012 list of “America’s 50 Most Influential Rabbis”. He has been on the list ever since its inception.’26
There is every sign that America is where Blair sees the long-term future of the TBFF.27 He is far more comfortable these days in the USA than in Britain, for at home he is now widely disliked, whereas in the US, where faith and power are more closely linked, he is still a hero. Unlike in the UK, Blair’s religious fervour is seen as a strength in the US. Blair’s status there is such that he is now called on to sprinkle stardust at religious gatherings, such as the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. He regularly crops up in Washington society diaries.
That, insiders have told us, is the justification for continuing to have the sponsor’s name in the title of the organisation. TBFF leaders recognise that the name ‘Tony Blair’ in the title weakens the organisation in Britain. But it strengthens it in the USA, they say, which is why it’s there and why it stays.
In March 2010 the Observer reported that the former Prime Minister was preparing to launch a ‘faith offensive’ across the USA, after building up relationships with a network of influential religious leaders and faith organisations. It noted the growing TBFF activity in the USA, the relationship with Belinda Stronach, and also a relationship with what the TBFF described as ‘the Washington-based Center for Interfaith Action’. This centre, which has now changed its name to Religions for Peace following a merger, supported a meeting of major international organisations active in faith-based approaches to combating malaria, in collaboration with the TBFF.28
Another of the TBFF’s charitable activities is the sponsorship of an annual film competition under the title Faith Shorts. In 2012, the winners of this competition were announced in London on 26 November. Charles Andrew Flamiano, a sixteen-year-old Catholic filmmaker from General Santos City, Philippines, won the first prize in the 14–17 age category for a film titled Letting Go, Letting God. We first learned of this from the TBFF website but for some reason all reference to it has now been removed from the site, though you can still find newspaper coverage.29
Letting Go, Letting God is a three-minute tale, acted to mournful music, of a young woman who is told she has terminal cancer. As she walks along the hospital corridor, understandably depressed, she drops her notes containing her diagnosis in front of another young woman in a wheelchair, who picks them up, reads them, and hands her a small crucifix. She hugs the crucifix to her bosom and feels better. That’s it, except for three little slogans that pop up on the screen afterwards, the last of which is ‘Love out your faith, you’ll never know whose life you’ll touch.’
Of course it’s the work of someone very young, but, if it’s the sort of work the TBFF tries to encourage, then it seems reasonable to conclude that TBFF is, to some extent at least, a proselytising organisation on behalf of religious belief generally, and Christianity in particular.
In a 2013 advertisement for a new head of communications, the TBFF sums up its work alliteratively (Blair has always been addicted to alliteration):
Leadership: we seek to ensure that current and future leaders understand the role religion plays in the modern, globalising world.
Literacy: we educate and support young people to help them become global citizens.
Lives: we help religious communities in 140+ countries work together to save lives.
It also organises events, often in the House of Commons. We attended a ‘debate’ on ‘How faith can help deliver global health’ in one of the modern committee rooms there. It wasn’t a debate at all. The whole platform of speakers seemed to agree entirely with each other and with the views of the TBFF. Those expecting a glimpse of the former PM himself were to be disappointed. We had to make do with the Shadow Development Secretary Ivan Lewis and Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham. Burnham suggested that the Ten Commandments might be amended to include eating five pieces of fruit and vegetable per day.
The message from the TBFF at this meeting was that faith-based organisations were being used to deliver aid on the ground but not being given any say in how development policy is made. Its purpose seemed to be to argue that churches should be able to influence national aid and development policy. This was strange, because getting more say for religions in public policy is not at all what we thought the TBFF was founded for – and is arguably not a charitable objective, but a political one.
The audience was rather partisan. One member of the audience conducted his own straw poll: did anyone disagree with the notion that faith-based organisations should have a say over government policy on international aid? No one did. And what about domestic policy? Labour MP Ivan Lewis put the essential message in a nutshell, and this was what the TBFF chose to pull out for its website: ‘Faith communities should not be at the periphery of health development policy. They need to be at the centre if we are to make real progress in this area.’
Jeremy LeFroy, Conservative MP for Stafford, offered a reassuring thought: ‘Not everyone in government is a pagan – I’ve met many ministers who agree with the idea of faith playing a greater role in development.’ The director of Charles Clarke’s Religion and Society programme at Lancaster University, Professor Linda Woodhead, was there to argue that government officials need to be better informed about which channels to go through in faith communities.
There was, says the TBFF, ‘general consensus that faith communities have reach, authority and are cost-effective. But, the efficiency of health development could be improved further if governments consulted with faith communities at the point of policy development rather than delivery.’
So here we have an organisation that refuses to declare who funds it, yet argues for certain groups – religious ones – to have a greater influence over government policy, to be consulted when policy is formulated. These religious organisations to which the TBFF wants to give greater influence in International Development Policy are all represented on the TBFF’s Religious Advisory Council. Some of them support marginalisation and imprisonment of homosexuals in, say, Uganda and Nigeria. M
r LeFroy did not think that was a problem, because ‘we gave them most of these laws during the age of Empire’.
The suggestion that faiths and churches should have more say in public policy on matters such as aid, development and health policy may have achieved ‘general consensus’ on a panel hand-picked by Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation, but it remains contentious outside that room. It is, of course, an arguable view, but arguing for it might not be appropriate work for a registered charity.
It’s also a controversial view. There are many who would argue that religions should not have a say in public policy on such matters. If they are to do so, which religions get a say will become even more controversial. Is Islam to have a say along with the rest, and, if so, will those evil strands in Islam identified by Blair be excluded?
When Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation takes a stand on such matters, the question of who funds it becomes acute. No charity can ignore the views of major funders if it is to take a view on controversial matters, and the TBFF must take more notice than most because it has only major funders. A collecting tin being shaken in the street for the TBFF would not attract much money, which is probably why you never see one.
THE BIG DONORS
If the TBFF is going to take stands on such contentious issues, it ought to say where it gets its money. Otherwise there will always be the suspicion that it is funded by organisations that stand to benefit, in terms either of money or of power, from the policies it advocates.
The TBFF not only refuses to say who any of its funders are, but also refuses even to say whether Blair himself is among them. We asked for information on donors and got this:
Re the Tony Blair Faith Foundation’s finances, all information can be found in our annual report which can be found here:
http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/
news/2012/01/30-0 and is also available on the Charity Commission’s website. If you do have any questions relating to our work on the ground or indeed need any further details on the themes discussed at the event you attended please do let me know.
We pointed out that this gave no information on donors, and got this: ‘As is the case with many charities, we don’t disclose information about our donors.’ This is entirely legal – the Charity Commission demands only that accounts reveal the full amount donated, not where it comes from. It is, however, fairly unusual. Most charities reveal the names of their major donors.
In the TBFF’s case, it almost certainly has only major donors. The TBFF claims that some of its income ‘could be described as grassroots giving, smaller donations from people motivated to support a specific campaign or area of work’, but refuses to say how much.
If we were entirely reliant on the TBFF itself for our information, we would know nothing at all about its donors. In fact there are some sources of money we do know about.
Newspaper tycoon Rupert Murdoch is one, to the tune of $100,000, according to a US tax return quoted by the Daily Mirror. Blair used to be very careful of his relationship with Murdoch and his newspaper empire News Corp. When former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks was arrested on a charge of phone hacking (she was subsequently cleared), Blair got in touch with News Corp to offer her, Murdoch and Murdoch’s son James advice on a ‘between us’ basis. He advised Brooks to ‘keep strong’ and ‘take sleeping pills’.30
It was Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger who drew attention to the timing of the Blair offer, in a tweet on 21 February 2014. ‘Blair’s advice to Rebekah 7 days after Milly Dowler, 3 days after Coulson arrested & as Ed Miliband attacking Murdoch,’ he wrote.
Another major funder we know of – as we saw in Chapter 1 – is Haim Saban, creator of the Power Rangers (and one of the richest people in America, according to Forbes magazine), along with his wife Cheryl. His Saban Entertainment merged with News Corp’s Fox Children’s Productions to form Fox Kids Worldwide Inc. in 1996. It was renamed Fox Family Worldwide Inc. in 2001, then acquired by Disney and renamed Disney XD.
Saban’s political agenda is clear and straightforward, and he makes no secret of it. He says, ‘I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.’ He has also said, ‘I used to be a leftie but am now very much on the right. The reason for the switch is Israel.’
In addition to funding the TBFF, Saban contributed heavily to George W. Bush’s re-election campaign, mainly, if not entirely, because he approved of Bush’s stance on the Middle East. The other American politician Saban admires is Joe Lieberman, who has been described by an authoritative Washington-watcher as ‘among the strongest backers of Israel on Capitol Hill.’31 Lieberman was Democrat Al Gore’s running mate in the 2000 presidential election, but he split with the Democratic Party mainly over his support for the Iraq War, and now quarrels with it over Iran. By 2008 he was supporting Republican candidate John McCain against Barack Obama – and he almost became McCain’s running mate.
In 2010 he was widely quoted as saying that the Obama administration, may want to consider the fact that their relationship with their Israeli wife is more valuable than their newfound relationship with their Arab mistress. Obama was asked the same question Hillary was asked: ‘If Iran nukes Israel, what would be your reaction?’ Hillary said, ‘We will obliterate them.’ We … will … obliterate … them. Four words, it’s simple to understand. Obama said only three words. He would ‘take appropriate action.’ I don’t know what that means. A rogue state that is supporting killing our men and women in Iraq; that is a supporter of Hezbollah, which killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization; that is a supporter of Hamas, which shot twelve thousand rockets at Israel – that rogue state nukes a member of the United Nations, and we’re going to ‘take appropriate action’!32
An Israeli television interviewer once told him, ‘You really are our rich uncle in America, and we can rely on you.’ He told Israeli television of the Obama administration, ‘They are leftists, really left leftists, so far to the left there’s not much space left between them and the wall.’33
Tony Blair is publicly signed up to Saban’s view about Iran and Israel. If that were not the case, it is most unlikely that Saban would be funding his Faith Foundation. We do not, of course, suggest that Blair took this position in order to get his hands on Saban’s money – we are sure Blair sincerely holds the opinion he expresses. But it is a reminder that money comes with strings attached. Tony Blair would have to be very careful not even to appear to criticise the government in Tel Aviv, should he ever wish to do so, if he wants his Faith Foundation to keep receiving Saban’s money. If this can be said to be relatively harmless for the patron of the TBFF, it is crippling for the Quartet Representative. We are told by TBFF insiders that Saban is one of a large number of very wealthy strongly pro-Israel Jewish donors, and that there are no Muslim donors at all. Even within the organisation this is seen to be a problem Our sources also say that the senior management of the organisation are concerned about this, and anxious for it not to become public knowledge, for fear of embarrassing their patron, who, not for the first time, is wearing more hats than are entirely comfortable.
Another big funder is a Ukrainian oligarch, son-in-law of Ukraine’s former President. The scale of Victor Pinchuk’s funding of Blair’s charity emerged at a meeting he hosted at the Davos World Economic Forum in Switzerland in January 2013. He has given the TBFF $500,000 (£320,000) – a fifth of all the donations declared in its 2013 accounts.34
Pinchuk, like Saban – and, if our sources are to be believed, like a very large number of TBFF donors – is fiercely pro-Israeli, this view fuelled, in Pinchuk’s case, by bitter experience of anti-Semitism in his childhood in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine’s fourth-largest city, 280 miles from the capital Kiev.
Pinchuk, whom Forbes ranked 255th on the list of the wealthiest people in the world, with a fortune of $4.2 billion, is a steel magnate and philanthropist who made his fortune after marrying the daughter of Leonid Kuchma, Ukraine’s former President. He is also an old friend of Blair’s.
Blair apparently, according to the company’s website, said while he was there, ‘I have visited a huge number of Great Britain mills. Interpipe Steel is undoubtedly an outstanding creation. This is one of the best and most modern mills in the world. I am greatly impressed with the spectacular and almost fantastic design of the facility. It is a real pleasure for me to come to Dnipropetrovsk and see the true personification of the twenty-first-century industry. It is extremely essential for Ukraine to have such a state-of-the-art production facility as Interpipe Steel. The most up-to-date technologies, the brand-new approaches to the work – all these things are an enormous success for the country. The mill should become a platform for development – a symbol of what the modern industry must be like.’35
While he was there, Blair also gave a lecture to university students and staff from Pinchuk’s factory entitled ‘Modernising Countries in [the] 21st Century’.
TBFF priorities may have nothing to do with who gives it money, but it is also a matter of record that its activities now include an educational programme in Ukraine, launched in June 2011 in collaboration with the Victor Pinchuk Foundation.36
Blair Inc--The Man Behind the Mask Page 29