Category Archives: Britain

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
Britain, Government, Politics, Sport

Team GB offers a golden lesson in how to beat the world

TEAM GB

RIo Medal Table

Rio Medal Table

OVER THE PAST FORTNIGHT in Rio at the Olympic Games, Team GB exceeded the highest hopes, spreading euphoria and joy even among many who thought they were uninterested in sport.

Across a huge range and spectrum of disciplines, Team GB athletes have shown what this country can achieve at its best. It amassed a hoard of gold medals to outstrip even China with its population of 1.4billion.

Yet, the performances we have all witnessed have given us much more than an excuse to fly the flag or by raising a toast to Britain’s highest ranking in the medal tables for 108 years. Team GB has offered a daily lesson in human virtue, gruelling effort and its rewards.

See: A collection of moments from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games – Olympic Rio Gallery 2016

Interviewed after their victories, these supremely dedicated athletes, for the most part modest and unassuming, have attributed their success above all to sacrifice, determination and an unrelenting work ethic.

In the words of the immortal Mo Farah, winner of four Olympic golds: ‘If you dream of something, have ambitions and are willing to work hard, then you can get your dreams.’

These are true role models for Britain’s young, too often captivated by dreams of the effortless, vacuous celebrity of the tawdry stars of reality TV.

If our athletes’ performance spurs them to emulate the commitment of the likes of Andy Murray on the tennis court, cyclist Laura Trott, boxer Nicola Adams, taekwondo’s Jade Jones and gymnast Max Whitlock, what rich rewards this country would reap. The showjumping gold won by 58-year-old Nick Skelton and older Britons, too, also offers a lesson about the importance of refusing to give up.

 

BUT isn’t there also a lesson for politicians in our athletes’ phenomenal success?

As one victor after another has been quick to acknowledge, Team GB owes at least a measure of its triumph to the ruthlessly effective way in which the British Olympic Association and UK Sport channelled state aid and lottery money into the disciplines most likely to yield the richest crop of medals.

Wasn’t the Olympic investment strategy – focusing on fields in which Britain is strong, the competition vulnerable and the rewards enormous – a perfect model for government priorities after Brexit?

The fact is that in commerce, as in sport, Britain has huge strengths – as even the most ardent of Remainers are beginning to admit.

Indeed, US banking giant JP Morgan has become the latest promoter of Project Fear to reverse its prediction that the FTSE-100 would plummet after a Brexit vote. Now it tells investors that British shares are the safest bet in Europe.

Certainly, there are tough negotiations ahead – and the sooner they start, the sooner the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the economy will lift.

But with the right focus, there is every hope that wonderful opportunities will open up when we’re free from Brussels interference to develop industries and services of our own choosing.

In Rio, our athletes have shown what huge rewards can be achieved through self-belief and hard work, backed up by clear-thinking administrators with their minds fixed on results.

The ministers in charge of negotiating Brexit should learn from them. Instead of fighting turf wars among themselves, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and David Davis need a clear strategy to help us take on the world and win.

Team GB has shown how it can be done. Now the politicians in Britain must get on with it.

Standard