Category Archives: Britain

Britain, Foreign Affairs, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United States, Yemen

Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the West…

YEMEN

yemen-houthi

Map depicting Houthi controlled Yemen and the struggle for control

Intro: Saudi Arabia should limit its war in Yemen. Despite the difficulties of late the West should be in a position to help, not by rescinding an almost century-old alliance.

The recent air strike earlier this month that hit a funeral in Sana’a did far more than kill some 140 civilians and wounding 500. For once, it drew rare attention to Saudi Arabia’s 20-month war in Yemen and the strained relationship which now exists with America. That alliance is now under threat with the U.S. reconsidering its military support for the campaign.

Critics are adamant that it is time for the West to abandon its embarrassing alliance with the Saudis. They ask, how can the West denounce the bloodshed and carnage in Syria when its own ally is indiscriminately bombing civilians in Yemen? If the Saudis, with Western support, can intervene to defend the government of Yemen, why shouldn’t Vladimir Putin of Russia not defend the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria?

Morally, and perhaps also legally, the U.S. and Britain are directly implicated in Saudi actions: they sell warplanes and provide munitions and armaments to the Saudi regime; they assist with air-to-air refuelling and help with targeting. Critics also point to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a woeful ally against jihadism. They insist that the Saudis are inflaming global extremism through its export of intolerant Wahhabi doctrines.

Such arguments do have strength. On balance, though, the West should not forsake the Saudis. Rather, it should seek to restrain the damage of their ongoing air campaign, and ultimately aim to bring it to an end. Western support cannot be deemed to be unconditional.

Consider first the moral position and balance. The two conflicts are both ghastly, but not equally so. Around 10,000 have died in Yemen, too many, but far fewer than the 400,000 or so that have perished in Syria. The Saudi-led coalition has not used chemical gas – although it has undoubtedly been careless. It has bombed several hospitals, and its blockade of Yemen and the subsequent damage to its infrastructure has caused dire hardship. A famine now looms, with more than half the country deemed to be hungry or malnourished.

The political context is also different. The Assad regime wrest power in a coup, and has held onto it through tyrannical brutality. Its deliberate crushing of peaceful protests and dissent in 2011, and its indiscriminate and repeated slaughter since then, has removed any speck of legitimacy it may have had. By contrast, Yemen’s president, Abd-Rabbo Mansour Hadi, though ineffectual and flawed, has at least presided over a broad coalition that was established through UN-backed negotiations (which followed the resignation of the former strongman, Ali Abdullah Saleh). The Shia Houthis and Mr Saleh, backed by Iran, overturned that deal by force. They frequently fire missiles indiscriminately at Saudi cities, although the damage is often limited.

While the West has little reason to join the war, it has much at stake if it goes wrong. Al-Qaeda’s local franchise has been strengthened, and the Houthis have begun firing missiles at ships in the Bab al-Mandab strait, one of the world’s vital sea lanes. America launched cruise-missile strikes against Houthi-controlled radar sites after attempts were made to attack one of its warships patrolling the region.

The West’s involvement with the Al Sauds is important to understand. Its long alliance, which dates back nearly a century, was also built on its extensive commercial interests that the West has had in the Gulf. Over the decades, the Saudis have put up with many American blunders in the Middle East, such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They were shocked, too, by how the West abandoned the former Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak, during the mass protests and upheaval of 2011. Last year’s deal between America and Iran to restrict Tehran’s nuclear programme, and Mr Obama’s skewered rhetoric and offhand tone about the Saudis, has deepened their own fear of abandonment. And, the Congressional approval for a bill to allow the families of victims of the 9/11 attacks of 2001 to sue Saudi Arabia, overriding Mr Obama’s presidential veto, is further evidence that the disenchantment is mutual.

Yet, despite this, there are still good reasons for the West to maintain ties to Saudi Arabia. The alternative to the Al Sauds is not liberalism but some form of radical Islamism. Saudi Arabia remains the world’s biggest oil exporter, and holds guardianship of Islam’s two holiest shrines. Better surely that these be in the hands of a friendly power than a hostile one. Whilst slow to respond to the emerging threats of fundamental Islam, it is now a vital partner in the fight against jihadism. It will be better placed than the West to challenge their nihilistic and radical ideologies. The chaos of the Middle East, a tinderbox of tension and hatreds, stems at least in part from Sunni Arabs’ sense of dispossession. The best hope of containing the volatility is to work and collaborate with Sunni powers like Saudi Arabia.

As uncomfortable as it is, the West should stay close to the Saudis. Riyadh should be encouraged to reform economically and politically, while acknowledging widespread concern in the Gulf about the spread of Iranian influence. As the U.S. has said, Western support cannot be ‘a blank cheque’; the more the West helps Saudi Arabia wage war in Yemen, the more it becomes exposed and liable for war crimes. If the Saudis want to fight with Western weapons, they must be obliged to respect the laws of war.

But above all, the West should use its influence and diplomatic powers to help the Saudis end the bloody stalemate. It should promote a reasonable power-sharing agreement that directly involves the Houthis. That would make Yemen a model by which the future of Syria could also follow suit.

 

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Islamic State, Libya, United Nations

MPs blame Cameron for the rise of Islamic State

LIBYA

Intro: British chaotic intervention in Libya left a vacuum that has let jihadis thrive

Members of Parliament on the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee have warned that the ‘ill-conceived’ military intervention in Libya by David Cameron has helped to fuel the growth of Islamic State and left the world a more dangerous place.

In a devastating verdict, MPs have savaged the former prime minister’s judgement in rushing to war in 2011, saying the intervention was based on ‘erroneous assumptions’.

The cross-party committee accuses Mr Cameron of ignoring military chiefs and a lack of reliable intelligence to pursue an “opportunistic policy of regime change” in Libya.

And it says he gave little thought to how Libya would fare following the removal of dictator Colonel Gaddafi setting the scene for the country’s descent into anarchy and chaos.

The committee says that Mr Cameron’s Libyan adventure ‘was not informed by accurate intelligence’, with ministers underestimating the threat that the country could become an Islamist stronghold.

It concludes: ‘By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunistic policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-Gaddafi Libya.

‘The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of Islamic State in North Africa. Through his decision making in the National Security Council, former prime minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.’

The report, dated September 14, 2016, says Mr Cameron’s failings in Libya means Britain now has a “particular responsibility” to assist the war-ravaged country and help deal with the flood of migrants heading from its shores to Europe.

But it says ministers should not deploy troops to the country until it becomes more stable, warning they would become “an accessible Western Target” for IS and other militants. The committee’s chairman, Conservative MP Crispin Blunt, said: ‘The UK’s actions in Libya were part of an ill-conceived intervention, the results of which are still playing out today.’

An international coalition led by Britain and France launched airstrikes against Gaddafi’s forces in March 2011 after the regime threatened to attack the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

Mr Cameron claimed the intervention was necessary to prevent a massacre of civilians, but the new parliamentary report says that, despite appalling human rights abuses over 40 years, Gaddafi had no record of large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.

It says that the Government ‘selectively took elements of Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value’ without assessing the real threat.

MPs find that ministers and officials should have realised that the rebels included a “significant Islamist element”. They add: “The possibility that militant extremist groups would attempt to benefit from the rebellion would not have been the preserve of hindsight.”

The report also criticises Mr Cameron for ordering military action despite the reservations of the then Chief of the Defence Staff Lord Richards and MPs are scathing about the lack of post-war planning for the country.

The report cites unpublished research by the House of Commons Library showing Britain spent £320million bombing Libya, but just £25million on reconstruction.

Mr Cameron did not give evidence to the inquiry, saying he was too busy. A Foreign Office spokesman said the decision to intervene in Libya was an international one, called for by the Arab League and authorised by the UN.

18 September, 2016:

When David Cameron’s legacy as prime minister is written into the history books, his decision for Britain to join France in the 2011 military intervention against Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is not likely to count in his favour. Insisting he had learnt the lessons and the litany of failures of the Iraq war, Mr Cameron was keen to emphasise that, so far as Libya was concerned, Britain had the full backing of a UN Security Council resolution, and that military intervention was vital if Gaddafi was to be prevented from massacring thousands of anti-government protesters in Benghazi.

But as the damning report by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Libya makes clear, Mr Cameron’s attempt to develop a new paradigm for military intervention in rogue states was as flawed as Tony Blair’s arguments for invading Iraq. The report concludes that the decision to intervene was not based on accurate intelligence, the threat to civilians in Benghazi was overstated and the government failed to grasp that among the rebel factions were a significant number of Islamist radical fighters.

As Mr Cameron has already announced his decision to stand down from the House of Commons, he has avoided of being in the position of defending his government’s record in Libya (and also of explaining the role Mr Blair played in encouraging him to act).

Theresa May is yet to make clear her views on how she intends Britain will respond to future global challenges. But with conflicts in places such as Syria continuing to dominate the headlines, it is vital that, if Britain does need to respond militarily, it does not end up repeating the same mistakes Mr Blair and Mr Cameron made.

Standard
Britain, Climate Change, Energy, Government, Science

The UK’s energy dilemma

UK ENERGY NEEDS

Intro: Britain is facing a pressing problem in coping with its complex energy demands

DELAYS to the construction of the controversial Hinkley point raises a number of important questions on how the UK might meet its future energy needs. Pressingly, as the UK searches for options in how its future baseload power can be met without heavily polluting the environment, a solution in bridging the energy-gap will soon be required.

Britain is facing a pressing problem in coping with its complex energy demands. It needs to provide extra energy to meet rising demands for power in the future but at a reasonable cost – while also reducing carbon emissions by considerable levels in order to meet its climate change commitments. This will not be an easy combination to achieve. Hinkley Point, however, was considered by many experts to be a crucial determinant in reaching these goals.

Equipped with a massive 3.2bn watt capacity, Hinkley Point C has capacity in providing 7% of the nation’s electricity if completed. That would help to generate the power that would keep the nation working while renewable energy sources, mainly wind turbines, would provide the rest of the electricity needed by domestic households and firms. As one spokesperson from the Grantham Research Institute said: ‘You have to have some baseload source to provide power when it is utterly calm and renewables are not providing energy . . . Gas and coal plants – which can also supply that baseload – will no longer be viable in the future because of their carbon emissions (which cause global warming). You are then left with nuclear.’

This dilemma exposes a major drawback that affects renewable energy. Wind and solar plants are intermittent power supplies. They often provide power when it is not needed but fail to provide it when it is most needed. Until a method of storing energy on an industrial scale is developed, this drawback will continue to impede its deployment across the country. Research into ways to store energy on a large scale is now being pursued across the globe but may take decades. Other game-changing energy projects are also being worked on.

One of the most important of these future developments is fusion power (see annotation below).  This aims to recreate the process that provides the Sun with its energy. Nuclei of hydrogen atoms are fused together at colossal temperature inside huge reactors to create helium nuclei. The process also creates vast amounts of excess energy but with little pollution or radioactive contamination. Nonetheless, current devices – in particular, the international ITER fusion reactor, being built as a collaborative programme in France with British involvement – are years behind schedule and vastly over budget. Few experts believe fusion will get us out of our current energy problem.

Alternatively, we could continue to utilise carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process which uses fossil fuel plants which takes their carbon dioxide emissions, liquefies them and pumps them underground into porous rocks. Furthermore, Britain has huge, empty North Sea oil fields which many geologists and energy experts believe would be ideal for storing liquefied carbon dioxide. Several test projects were set up in recent years, with the government pledging to provide funding of up to £1bn. In November last year, though, it abruptly cancelled the programme, halting work on all major CCS projects. As devastating that announcement was to those engaged in development work, such technology is critical for the UK’s economic, industrial and climate policies.

Annotation:

Fusion.gif

A fusion reaction involves the combining (or fusing) of two or more atoms to make one single atom. Fusion reactions are the ones which power our stars. In a simple fusion reaction shown, two isotopes of hydrogen combine to form one atom of helium.

Standard