Category Archives: Britain

Britain, Economic, Foreign Affairs, G8, Government, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United Nations, United States

Restraint by the West over Ukraine is needed…

UKRAINE

Intro: Mr Kerry infers a Russian policy of the playground bully, laying claim to another country’s territory and assets, because – perhaps accurately in calculation – there is no one with the strength to defy him

Throughout history, a host of rules have been built up about how nations should relate to one another. International diplomacy, largely a game of manners and etiquette, seeks to operate through points of protocol. A president, for example, as head of state, will outrank the standing of that country’s prime minister. But these rules may also be fundamental points of law, where the use of force, say, removes another country’s territorial sovereignty. In such circumstances, ostracism has to be the best punishment.

Diplomacy, as it happens, is also a game of power. When a nation with vast power and strength confronts one that has very little, there is not much the weaker party can do. This is reflective of what we are now seeing between Russia and Ukraine.

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is likely to claim that by occupying Crimea is solely to do with protecting ethnic Russians and his country’s strategic interests. Such an argument was used by Mr Putin when Russian forces invaded Georgia in 2008 (in claiming the tiny mountain enclave of South Ossetia). The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, has said, however, that this should be deemed in the pretext of being ‘completely trumped-up.’ Mr Kerry infers a Russian policy of the playground bully, laying claim to another country’s territory and assets, because – perhaps accurately in calculation – there is no one with the strength to defy him.

This has become a crucial question for the West. Russia refuses to be constrained by international niceties, not only with its neighbours, but others too. Consider the example in Britain. Even if the Kremlin did not sanction the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian turned British spy, on British soil, it certainly did its level best to block and impede the investigation. If Mr Putin is willing to flagrantly breach the rules of the club of nations, why, then, should he be allowed to profit from membership?

While we should not be arguing that East-West relations be thrown back towards a Cold War philosophy, it is right that Western leaders question why Russia is worthy of G8 membership on its current form. Sochi was to play host to G8 in June, but that is now in jeopardy following Russian military manoeuvres in Ukraine.

It is generally accepted that there is little we or our allies can do, other than supporting the new government as best we can on the ground in Ukraine. Whether Mr Putin aims to seize wider territory in Ukraine, a gamble which seems unlikely, there is little doubt that Crimea is now de facto Russian territory and has been annexed.

Western countries will be fearful of confrontation with Russia, because it can seriously hurt Europe (at least in the short-term, economically). Russia controls the levers of oil and gas that flows through the Siberian Straits, any disruption to Europe would be hugely costly.

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, National Security, Syria

Recent peace talks in Syria have been a complete failure…

SYRIA

The recent round of peace talks in Geneva concerning Syria collapsed in just under 30 minutes. If anyone believed that the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, and his enemies had the slightest intention of making peace, this latest setback should be evidence enough of just how difficult it is going to be in bringing about a peace treaty. At this stage it seems wholly impossible. Just to get the blood-stained dictator and a selection of his foes to the negotiating table required almost three years of international endeavour and a death toll that has now reached 140,000 people since the civil war started. All efforts to bring about peace in Syria have ended in failure.

The crisis has usurped even the bleakest of forecasts. Last year, it seemed reasonable and rational to believe that Assad’s agreement to disable his poisonous gases and chemical weapons would at least rid the conflict of these ghastly weapons. But even that deal is unravelling.

Under the agreed timetable, 700 tons of Assad’s most dangerous chemical agents should have been shipped out of Syria by 31 December, 2013. In January, the best estimate was that a mere 4 per cent had actually been removed. It is understood that a further shipment (of an undisclosed size) has taken place since, but it will not have altered the overall stockpiles of chemical agents being held by the Syrian regime by that much. The agreement was designed to destroy Syria’s entire inventory of some 1,300 tons; less than 50 tons has been deemed to have been disposed of.

More worryingly, hundreds of British Muslims have travelled to Syria’s war-torn country to join the most radical rebel groups, most of which are aligned to Al-Qaeda. British intelligence and senior police officers are gravely concerned of the prospect of these people returning home to the UK with their newly-found skills acquired from Al-Qaeda run training camps disbursed throughout Syria and neighbouring countries in the Middle East. No counter-terrorism official doubts that such radicalised individuals threaten our national security.

Syria is systematically destroying itself before our very eyes. Millions of refugees have been displaced and are placing an intolerable strain on neighbouring countries as they seek refuge and shelter. All efforts to bring peace to this blood-soaked land have been foiled, and have created in the process a new generation of jihadists.

No one should forget that Assad has been aided in his mission – and been given a licence to do what he has been doing – through Russia and Iran who have sustained this war by arming and funding the Syrian regime.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Energy, Environment, Government, Politics, Scotland

The development of hydro-electric power in the Scottish Highlands was a revolution…

A SECOND REVOLUTION?

Intro: An investment appraisal and feasibility study is currently underway between the Scottish Government and Scottish Power for a new development of hydro-electric storage at Cruachan, beside Loch Awe

The development of hydro-electric power in the Scottish Highlands was seen as a revolution. It provided for a big leap in living standards, not just because residents in northern Scotland could have a reliable and dependable supply of electricity to light and heat their homes, but also because it became an engine of growth for industry and commerce.

The First Minister in Scotland, Alex Salmond, has announced a second expansion of hydro power. In conjunction with a feasibility study being carried out by Scottish Power, a major utility company, the aims are to more than double the current generation of electricity. Some suggest this could amount to a second revolution.

The technical feasibility is investigating the costs involved in doubling the generating capacity of Scottish Power’s Cruachan pumped storage plant located beside Loch Awe.

In principle, an expansion of pumped storage would be hugely beneficial, because it is regarded as the only reliable means of storing wind energy – which gets generated at times when there is no demand for it. Increasing the storage capacity would help to make wind a far more reliable source of energy supply, and also by reducing carbon emissions.

However, we should not dismiss the fact that this is a feasibility study that will take up to two years to complete. The associated costs and employment creation potential of the project are, at this early stage, a rough guesstimate. It may turn out that the Cruachan expansion plans, like Scottish Power’s schemes for carbon capture and storage at Longannet, and its proposals for the Argyll Array offshore wind farm, are too technically difficult or too costly for it to go ahead.

For it to work (effectively) as a 1,000 megawatt storage battery for wind power, there is the additional problem that the reservoir halfway up Ben Cruachan will have to be increased in size quite dramatically. The obstacles in overcoming resistance from environmental campaigners should not be overlooked, either.

The Scottish Government appears to regard the project as one that is more likely than not to come to fruition. But, notwithstanding whether the project ever goes ahead or not, this will become an investment decision that will serve a valuable political purpose. That decision is to be made after the referendum for Scottish independence in September.

In this context, energy is a problematic issue for Mr Salmond. Expansion of Scottish renewables – which, undoubtedly, the Scottish Government will see as a major source for employment as well as cutting the country’s carbon footprint – is largely dependent on a subsidy which is mostly financed by energy consumers in England and Wales.

Implicit in the First Minister’s arguments is that, such will be England’s needs, the people and businesses south of the Border will be willing to continue paying their ‘foreign’ neighbour the subsidy in maintaining continuity of supply. That’s a difficult assumption to make and certainly holds no guarantee.

History may be tempted to record that if the hydro revolution being envisaged fails to materialise, Mr Salmond has cleverly waved a diversionary red flag for political purposes. We can only hope, though, that the project investment at Cruachan gets the green light.

Under an independent Scotland, energy policy would be under the direct control of the Scottish Government.

Standard