Exclusive: Arab states arm rebels as UN talks of Syrian civil war

Syrian rebels are being armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, The Independent has learnt, in a development that threatens to inflame a regional power struggle provoked by the 15-month-old uprising against the Assad regime.

Rebel fighters from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) have received weapons from the two Gulf countries, which were transported into Syria via Turkey with the implicit support of the country's intelligence agency, MIT, according to a Western diplomat in Ankara. Opposition fighters in Syria have hitherto been handicapped by a reliance on an old and inadequate arsenal, while the regime in Damascus has been able to rely on a supply of arms from Russia and Iran. Moscow is arming Syria with attack helicopters, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, claimed yesterday. "We are concerned by the latest information we have that there are attack helicopters on the way from Russia to Syria, which will escalate the conflict quite dramatically," she told a conference in Washington.

Since the start of the uprising, anti-regime activists have only smuggled small quantities of weapons, purchased on the black market, from Hatay in southern Turkey into Syria's Idlib province.

However, three weeks ago, members of the loose assortment of rebel groups that comprises the FSA said they had received multiple shipments of arms including Kalashnikov assault rifles, BKC machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank weaponry from Gulf countries and that Turkey was assisting in the delivery of the weapons.

"The Turkish government helped us to be armed," said one member of the FSA living in the Turkey-Syria border area. He claimed that the weapons had arrived at a Turkish port via ship and were then driven to the border without interference from Turkish authorities.

Saudi officials have in the past made clear their feeling that the rebels should be armed, with Saudi King Abdullah saying dialogue was "futile".

An Ankara-based Western diplomat, who spoke on a condition of anonymity, confirmed that the delivery of "light weapons" to the rebels was a "recent development", one that involved unmarked trucks transporting the weapons to the border for rebel groups. "There are arms coming in with the knowledge of the Turks," he said. The Syrian National Council (SNC), the main umbrella organisation of groups opposed to the regime, vetted the consignment.

The SNC is seen as having lost nearly all of its legitimacy with Syrian activists inside the country after failing to unite the fractured opposition. Yet, it appears that Turkey insisted the SNC vouch for the specific FSA groups that would receive the weapons before allowing the arms to cross the border.

"Officially, they are not going to admit it," the diplomat said. However, the SNC are "their guys", he said, referring to MIT. The vetting process was aimed at preventing the weapons from falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. Yet, the diplomat voiced concerns that, in practice, the weapons have only been delivered to rebels sympathetic to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, the dominant group within the SNC. "Only Muslim Brother groups are getting weapons," he said. Activists along the border not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood said they had not heard of the weapons being delivered until just a few days ago

However, the true strength of the Muslim Brotherhood inside Syria is still debated. The diplomat added that the SNC was "finished" due to pervasive in-fighting and that the rebels – who have become the dominant force in the revolution – "might grow a beard" to attract the attention of wealthy religious benefactors for a conflict he characterised as a "civil war".

Saudi and Qatari officials did not return requests for comment. At a "friends of Syria" conference in Tunisia in February, the Saudi delegation walked away from proceedings, warning that firmer action was needed. Before leaving, the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, described the arming of the Syrian rebels as "an excellent idea".

A Turkish official said: "Turkey is not providing arms to anybody, nor sending armed elements to any neighbouring country, including Syria." He also reiterated that Western countries were still only providing "non-lethal" aid.

While it has hosted members of the FSA in refugee camps in Hatay, Turkey has been hesitant to directly involve itself in the conflict. However, following several cross-border shootings and reports that the regime is supporting Kurdish militants who have engaged in a 30-year conflict with Turkey, the country is changing course, said Andrew Tabler, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"Assad did not implement the Annan plan at all, that's the biggest thing," he said. "Turkey can see exactly the hurricane that is gathering."

Mr Tabler said videos uploaded to the internet showed more regime tanks were being destroyed, but cautioned that the weapons would not decisively turn the tide of the conflict. "These weapons are helping harass the regime forces, but these alone are not enough to bring down the regime," he said.

A rebel officer said their forces now control much of Bab al-Hawa, a Syrian town with a border gate to Turkey, and that having received the weapons and communications equipment, were preparing for an offensive in the coming days.

Middle East: Where they stand on Syria

Lebanon

The uprising against Assad has spilled into Lebanon several times this year, raising fears of renewed sectarian and ethnic strife in Syria's smaller neighbour which for decades has been the battleground for a proxy war that pits Iran and Syria against Israel.

Saudi Arabia

The kingdom seems to reckon that toppling the Assad regime in an effort to curtail Iranian influence is worth the risk of intervention. Riyadh led efforts to create a formalised pay structure for the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and is now understood to be shipping arms to the rebels.

Qatar

Another anti-Iran Gulf state, Qatar also calculates that the benefit of removing Assad outweighs the risk of intervening. Along with Saudi Arabia, the country is now understood to be shipping weapons to the rebels. Syrian expatriates living in Doha are also said to be funnelling millions of dollars to the FSA.

Turkey

Erstwhile ally Turkey turned on President Assad's regime last August after repeated calls for reform and dialogue with the rebels went unheeded. Turkey closed its embassy in Damascus in March and began co-ordinating diplomatic support for the Syrian opposition movement in April.

Iran

Syria's closest ally in the region denies that it is aiding Assad's forces with advisers, riot gear and surveillance equipment, but last month a top Iranian general, in an apparent slip-up during an interview, seemed to unwittingly reveal that crack Iranian troops had entered the country.

Iraq

Baghdad voted to expel Syria from the Arab League despite its links to the pro-Assad government in Tehran. In an inversion of events during the US occupation of Iraq, weapons and militants are travelling north into Syria as refugees flood south.

Israel

Israel broke a year of official silence this week to condemn the state-sponsored "genocide" in Syria and called for Assad to go, despite fears that his regime's arsenal of chemical weapons could fall into the hands of anti-Israel extremists.

Egypt

Street action in Egypt helped inspire Syrian protesters last spring but Egypt has been too pre-occupied with its own revolution to be a major player in regional affairs. It withdrew its ambassador in February to signal to Damascus its "dissatisfaction" with the Assad regime's crackdown.

Jordan

King Abdullah II was the first Arab leader to call on Assad to step down, but his government fears that the rise of Islamist groups within Syria and the influx of Syrian refugees to Jordan could destabilise his country.

Julius Cavendish

Rupert Murdoch did try to dictate government policy on EU, says Sir John Major

Rupert Murdoch threatened the Conservatives that unless they changed policy on Europe they would lose the support of his newspapers, Sir John Major revealed yesterday, in the starkest evidence so far of the media tycoon's interference in politics.

The former Prime Minister told the Leveson Inquiry that the proprietor of The Sun and The Times made the threat over dinner in February 1997.

"Mr Murdoch said he really didn't like our European policies," he told Lord Justice Leveson. "That was no surprise to me. He wished me to change our European policies. If we couldn't change our European policies his papers could not, would not support our Conservative Government."

"As I recall he used the word 'we' when referring to his newspapers," added Sir John, who was Prime Minister between 1990 and 1997. "He didn't make the usual nod to editorial independence." The comments flatly contradict Mr Murdoch's evidence to the inquiry on 25 April, when the News Corp chief executive said under oath: "I have never asked a Prime Minister for anything."

Explaining the circumstances of the meeting, which he said took place on 2 February 1997, Sir John said: "Just before the 1997 election it was suggested to me I ought to try to make some effort to get closer to the Murdoch papers. I agreed I would invite Mr Murdoch to dinner."

During the discussion, Mr Murdoch was "edging towards" a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. Sir John, who fought running Parliamentary battles with Tory eurosceptics, added: "There was no question of me changing our policies."

Saying he remembered the discussion clearly, the 69-year-old told Lord Justice Leveson: "It is not often someone sits in front of a Prime Minister and says to a Prime Minister 'I would like you to change your policy or my organisation cannot support you'. It is unlikely to be something I would have forgotten."

A News International spokeswoman did not contradict Sir John's remarks, but pointed out that its titles did not act in unison at the 1997 election: "The Sunday Times supported John Major, The Times was neutral, and The Sun and the News of the World supported Labour."

Calling for tougher controls on irresponsible journalism, Sir John criticised Mr Murdoch and parts of his empire. He said that the "sheer scale" of Mr Murdoch's perceived influence was "an unattractive facet in British national life," noting that he held considerable power despite being unable to vote in the UK.

In a lighter moment, he was also asked about an incident involving the then editor of The Sun, Kelvin MacKenzie. According to Fleet Street folklore, at the height of the "Black Wednesday" exchange rate crisis in 1992, Sir John phoned the editor to ask him how he would cover the story.

"Well, John, let me put it this way – I've got a large bucket of shit lying on my desk and tomorrow morning I'm going to pour it all over your head," Mr MacKenzie is said to have replied.

But yesterday Sir John said he could not remember that particular phrase.

"I have read the alleged conversation with a degree of wonder and surprise," he said, "I frankly can't recall the bit that has entered mythology.

"I'm sure I would not have forgotten that but I don't recall it." Confirming that the call did take place, he told the inquiry it had been the only time he had telephoned Mr MacKenzie and added: "I was certainly never going to do so again."

Sir John also gave personal examples of bad behaviour by newspapers. In one episode, he said, he was called and falsely told his son's girlfriend required emergency surgery after an accident, but that the hospital needed to know first of all whether she was pregnant or not.

Gay marriage is one of worst threats in 500 years, says Church of England

The Government’s plan to introduce same-sex marriage is one of the most serious threats to the Church of England in its 500-year history, senior clergy claim.

The Church today outlines its opposition to the Government’s proposals in scathing terms. Anxiety among Church leaders is so acute that they raise the spectre of disestablishment, warning that any attempt to alter the definition of marriage could fatally undermine the Church’s privileged position.

Ever since the reign of Henry VIII the Church of England has been the country’s official religion, facing down threats to its establishment as severe and varied as the Spanish Armada and the English Civil War. That senior clergy have raised concerns about same-sex marriage in a similar context indicates how seriously they view the Government's attempt to redefine marriage – as a potential attack on the role of the Church itself.

Critics have dismissed the Church’s stance as overly dramatic and called on bishops to follow the lead of established religious bodies in Iceland, Sweden and Denmark who largely embraced gay marriage.

The Church’s position, which was drawn up by senior bishops and lawyers, is confirmation that despite supporting civil partnerships eight years ago, the Church believes extending marriage rights to same sex couples is simply a step too far. The clerics say that the plans for same-sex marriage “have not been thought-through properly and are not legally sound”.

Downing Street has insisted that its plans to bring in equal marriage laws will go ahead. In March the Government launched a three-month consultation process calling on supporters and opponents to put forward their views with the deadline for submissions closing later this week.

The Church of England’s response lists a number of key reasons why they cannot support same sex marriages both theological and practical. At the heart of the debate is whether the definition of marriage can be changed from the lifelong union of a man and woman to that of any couple.

The government insists the change is a simple one which would allow “all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.” No religious organisation would be compelled to conduct a wedding ceremony as they would not take place in religious buildings.

But the Church counters that the proposals changes the very meaning of marriage, which is defined by both canon and parliamentary law.

Speaking to The Independent yesterday the Bishop of Leicester, Tim Stevens, criticised the speed with which the consultation on same sex marriage was being pushed through and added that “unintended consequences” could threaten the church’s historical role.

“If a category of marriage is created which separates the Church’s understanding of marriage from that of the state, it is bound to have some effect on the relationship of the church and its locality,” he said.

“That begins to raise questions about the nature of establishment as we’ve understood it.”

Lawyers acting for the Church have advised that the current proposals could leave it vulnerable to legal attacks precisely because it is the established religion that is tasked with officiating marriages to everyone in their parishes. There is particular concern that the European Court of Human Rights might force them to conduct gay wedding ceremonies if the meaning of marriage under British law was changed to include a couple regardless of their gender.

“It seems to me to be on the face of it at least possible, and perhaps more likely probable, that a challenge would be brought before the courts,” predicted Bishop Stevens. “And that it could be argued that for the established church not to make its premises available to people purely on the grounds of their sexuality could be regarded as discriminatory. The lawyers are arguing that it’s very likely that there’s a serious prospect that a successful challenge could be mounted in the courts.”

The Church’s stance will please its traditionalist and social conservative wings but will cause dismay among more liberal congregations who have campaigned to see it embrace equal marriage rights.

Symon Hill, from the Christian think-tank Ekklesia, commented: "The Church of England has missed an opportunity to move on from the defensiveness which has characterised many debates over same-sex marriage. This is particularly disappointing given that many of the Church of England's own members are far more positive about same-sex marriage than this official statement suggests.”

He added: “Marriage has been redefined many times throughout history. When married women were given the right to own property in 1882, there were those who argued that the new law undermined marriage. Similar claims were made when laws were passed to protect women from domestic violence and rape. Marriage has meant many things in many cultures.”

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, added: “It's an important issue of religious freedom that any denomination should be free to decline to celebrate long-term same-sex partnerships. Conversely, that means that a Church should not be entitled to prevent other institutions or the state from recognising them either.”

Iran Arab prisoners at risk of execution, Amnesty warns

Iranians gather at the site of an explosion in Ahwaz, a town populated mainly by Arabs in south-west Iran, in October 2005. Photograph: -/AFP/Getty Images

Amnesty International has warned against the imminent execution of five members of Iran's Ahwazi Arab minority convicted of "enmity against God".

Abd al-Rahman Heidari, Taha Heidari, Jamshid Heidari along with Mansour Heidari and Amir Muawi were sentenced to death in April 2011 on charge of killing a law enforcement official. Three of the men are brothers.

Amnesty says the men, who come from Iran's southern province of Khuzestan, were all tried "unfairly" and moved to an unknown location at the weekend, prompting fears that they may face imminent execution.

"Iran must urgently halt any plans to execute these five Ahwazi men. The death sentences of all who languish on death row in Iranian prisons should be overturned or commuted," said Ann Harrison, the deputy director of Amensty International's Middle East and North Africaprogramme.

"Their families must be informed immediately of their whereabouts and fate, and they should be allowed access to lawyers of their choice. While held, they must be protected from all forms of torture or other ill-treatment and granted all necessary medical care."

In March, reports emerged that the death penalty for the five men had been upheld, according to Amnesty.

"Their families have said the men 'confessed' to murder, but did so under torture or other ill-treatment. Iranian courts frequently accept 'confessions' extracted under duress as evidence," Amnesty said.

Ahwazi Arabs in Iran often face state discrimination in spheres including education, employment politics and culture. In recent years, many members of the community have taken to the streets to protest at the discrimination against them. Groups advocating a separate Arab state have also been demonstrating, but not all protesters have been separatists.

Amnesty says it has received the names of 27 people who were "allegedly killed in clashes with the security forces" in a protest in April 2011, held to mark the anniversary of unrest in 2005.

Harrison said: "Ahwazi Arabs – like everyone else in Iran – have the right to peacefully express their opposition to government policies. Iran's authorities must review legislation which discriminates against Ahwazi Arabs and other ethnic and religious minorities. Otherwise, the cycle of grievance, protest and unrest will only continue."

"The authorities must launch independent, impartial investigations into the ongoing reports of torture and other ill-treatment in Iranian prisons and detention centres – whether of Ahwazi Arabs or others – and bring to justice anyone found responsible for abuses."

Baha Mousa death: army doctor 'ignored cries of tortured men'

Baha Mousa death: army doctor 'ignored cries of tortured men'

Dr Derek Keilloh faces allegations he helped cover up the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees. Photograph: Dave Thompson/PA

A British army doctor present at the death of hotel worker Baha Mousawas a criminal who ignored the cries of men who were being tortured, a tribunal has heard.

Dr Derek Keilloh is appearing before the medical practitioners tribunal service in Manchester, the judicial arm of the General Medical Council, accused of a cover-up over the death of Mousa, who was beaten to death by British soldiers in September 2003.

Keilloh claimed he only saw dried blood around the nose of the hotel receptionist, who had 93 separate injuries after being detained by soldiers from the 1st Battalion Queen's Lancashire Regiment.

On Wednesday, the tribunal heard from Ahmed al-Matairi, who waived his legal right to anonymity. Speaking through an interpreter, he described how he and staff from the Basra hotel he co-owned – including Baha Mousa – were detained and tortured by British soldiers.

Matairi said he was taken to see Keilloh after he had undergone days of beatings by soldiers who would kick him in the kidneys, legs and in the location of a hernia. He was in a "bad state" and "between life and death" when he was finally taken to the medical centre.

Naked from the waist down, he was handcuffed when Keilloh examined him, he said. He claimed the doctor warned soldiers not to hit him any more or he could die. "He just had a look at my hernia, leg, kidney and said to them don't hit me. He is a criminal. He should not be a doctor." He said the doctor's medical centre was near where the detainees were being tortured.

Matairi added: "He heard our cries and he didn't do anything. And he was not far from us for three days and he didn't do anything … He should have fulfilled his role as a doctor."

Mousa, 26, was hooded, handcuffed and beaten before he died, 36 hours after first being taken to the detention centre in Basra. His injuries included fractured ribs and a broken nose.

Keilloh, 37, who is from Aberdeen, supervised a failed resuscitation attempt of Mousa.

The tribunal has heard that a fellow medic, a corporal, remarked "Look at the state of him!" after Mousa was taken to the medical centre, but Keilloh – at the time a captain and battalion regimental medical officer – always maintained he did not see the catalogue of injuries.

Matairi said he had been suffering from kidney stones and a small hernia before he was detained but that the soldiers would "aim" kicks at his kidneys if they wanted him to fall to his knees. He said after days oftorture his hernia had swollen to five or six inches and his leg, below the knee, had also swollen up.

Matairi said despite his condition the doctor gave him no medication. "He didn't give me anything," he said.

When the doctor finished the examination he was taken back to the room where the other detainees were being kept and tortured, the tribunal heard. Describing his state before he went to see the doctor, he said: "I was finished. I was between life and death."

The hotel owner also described hearing Baha Mousa's final words. He said he was being kept in the room next door and was being tortured. He heard him say: "I am innocent. I am not a Baathist. My wife died six months ago. My children are going to become orphans. I am going to die."

Asked by Rebecca Poulet QC, counsel for the GMC, what his last words were, he responded: "Blood blood, I am going to die. My children are going to become orphans."

Matairi also described how soldiers aimed "karate kicks" at the prisoners and how they would laugh at them. He said the soldiers were trying to "degrade" and "humiliate" them.

The tribunal, which is expected to last for four weeks, continues.

Baha Mousa death: army doctor 'ignored cries of tortured men'

US cables back Guardian claims that Mexican presidential election frontrunner has been paying for favourable TV coverage






One US cable from 2009 claimed it was widely accepted that Televisa provided the then governor of Mexico State, Enrique Peña Nieto, with an extraordinary amount of coverage. Photograph: Reuters
US diplomats raised concerns that the frontrunner in Mexico's presidential election, Enrique Peña Nieto, was paying for favourable TV coverage as far back as 2009, according to state department cables released by WikiLeaks.

Allegations that coverage by the country's main television network was biased in favour of Peña Nieto have triggered a wave of student demonstrations in the runup to the election on 1 July. The claims are supported by documents seen by the Guardian, which also implicate other politicians in buying news and entertainment coverage.

One cable, written shortly after US embassy officials were taken on a tour of Mexico State when Peña Nieto was governor, says: "It is widely accepted, for example, that the television monopoly Televisa backs the governor and provides him with an extraordinary amount of airtime and other kinds of coverage." The document, which dates from September 2009, was titled: "A look at Mexico State, Potemkin village style".

Another cable from the start of the same year emphasises the importance the then governor Peña Nieto was giving to securing convincing electoral victories for the Institutional Revolutionary party in his state in the upcoming midterm congressional elections that summer.

Peña Nieto, the cable says, "has launched significant public works projects in areas targeted for votes, and analysts and PRI party leaders alike have repeatedly expressed to [US political officers] their belief that he is paying media outlets under the table for favourable news coverage, as well as potentially financing pollsters to sway survey results".

The cables leaked from the US embassy in Mexico contain frequent mentions of the power that Televisa, and the other main commercial network, TV Azteca, exert over the country's political elite. The two networks control around 90% of free channels and are widely perceived to be political kingmakers.

This is particularly clear in cables dealing with a new communications law that privileged established interests and was approved by the legislature in the middle of the 2006 election campaign.

One cable dates from February 2006, shortly after the bill was approved by the lower house in just seven minutes with no debate, and before it had been voted on in the upper house.

"With the campaign season in full swing, no one seems to want to upset Televisa or Azteca (which also stands to gain much from the bill) for fear of losing prime advertising slots at good prices."

The cable surmises that it is "doubtful that any senator will want to risk their future political careers by rocking the boat at a time when all of the parties are deciding their political future". Similarly, the unnamed diplomat who wrote the cable assumed there was almost no chance that the then-president, Vicente Fox, would veto the law "and risk alienating Televisa".

Some legislators did make a stand after the bill was approved and a legal challenge was eventually mounted in the supreme court, where the most controversial parts were declared unconstitutional.

In what appeared to be a form of revenge by the political elite on the networks, the newly elected legislature approved an electoral reform in 2007 that banned all paid political propaganda during electoral periods and restricted it outside of them as well.

This, however, was not fulfilling its aim of releasing politics from media pressure, according to one WikiLeaks cable dated June 2009.

"At any rate, parties and candidates are skirting the restrictions," the cable says. "Journalists and their bosses have been more or less free to engage in the time-honoured Mexican electoral tradition of selling favourable print and broadcast coverage to candidates and parties."

WikiLeaks reveals US concerns over Televisa-Peña Nieto links in 2009

US cables back Guardian claims that Mexican presidential election frontrunner has been paying for favourable TV coverage






One US cable from 2009 claimed it was widely accepted that Televisa provided the then governor of Mexico State, Enrique Peña Nieto, with an extraordinary amount of coverage. Photograph: Reuters
US diplomats raised concerns that the frontrunner in Mexico's presidential election, Enrique Peña Nieto, was paying for favourable TV coverage as far back as 2009, according to state department cables released by WikiLeaks.

Allegations that coverage by the country's main television network was biased in favour of Peña Nieto have triggered a wave of student demonstrations in the runup to the election on 1 July. The claims are supported by documents seen by the Guardian, which also implicate other politicians in buying news and entertainment coverage.

One cable, written shortly after US embassy officials were taken on a tour of Mexico State when Peña Nieto was governor, says: "It is widely accepted, for example, that the television monopoly Televisa backs the governor and provides him with an extraordinary amount of airtime and other kinds of coverage." The document, which dates from September 2009, was titled: "A look at Mexico State, Potemkin village style".

Another cable from the start of the same year emphasises the importance the then governor Peña Nieto was giving to securing convincing electoral victories for the Institutional Revolutionary party in his state in the upcoming midterm congressional elections that summer.

Peña Nieto, the cable says, "has launched significant public works projects in areas targeted for votes, and analysts and PRI party leaders alike have repeatedly expressed to [US political officers] their belief that he is paying media outlets under the table for favourable news coverage, as well as potentially financing pollsters to sway survey results".

The cables leaked from the US embassy in Mexico contain frequent mentions of the power that Televisa, and the other main commercial network, TV Azteca, exert over the country's political elite. The two networks control around 90% of free channels and are widely perceived to be political kingmakers.

This is particularly clear in cables dealing with a new communications law that privileged established interests and was approved by the legislature in the middle of the 2006 election campaign.

One cable dates from February 2006, shortly after the bill was approved by the lower house in just seven minutes with no debate, and before it had been voted on in the upper house.

"With the campaign season in full swing, no one seems to want to upset Televisa or Azteca (which also stands to gain much from the bill) for fear of losing prime advertising slots at good prices."

The cable surmises that it is "doubtful that any senator will want to risk their future political careers by rocking the boat at a time when all of the parties are deciding their political future". Similarly, the unnamed diplomat who wrote the cable assumed there was almost no chance that the then-president, Vicente Fox, would veto the law "and risk alienating Televisa".

Some legislators did make a stand after the bill was approved and a legal challenge was eventually mounted in the supreme court, where the most controversial parts were declared unconstitutional.

In what appeared to be a form of revenge by the political elite on the networks, the newly elected legislature approved an electoral reform in 2007 that banned all paid political propaganda during electoral periods and restricted it outside of them as well.

This, however, was not fulfilling its aim of releasing politics from media pressure, according to one WikiLeaks cable dated June 2009.

"At any rate, parties and candidates are skirting the restrictions," the cable says. "Journalists and their bosses have been more or less free to engage in the time-honoured Mexican electoral tradition of selling favourable print and broadcast coverage to candidates and parties."