Category Archives: Britain

Britain, France, Government, Middle East, Syria, United Nations, United States

President Obama’s ‘red-lines’ and America’s moving goal posts…

IS AMERICA SERIOUS ABOUT ITS RED-LINES?

On August 20, 2012, President Obama delivered a statement of huge significance on the Syrian crisis. But just 12-months on, many are pondering whether the ‘red lines’ which he laid down amount to anything other than political rhetoric. During a White House press briefing a year ago, the President said: ‘We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilised… That would change my equation.’

Syrian rebels and opponents of the Assad regime claim to have substantive evidence that Bashar al-Assad has done more than just ‘move around’ stockpiles of chemical munitions. Accusations are such that Mr Assad has utilised nerve agents, such as sarin or vx nerve gas, to kill between 500 and 1,300 people. Photographs have beamed the world this week depicting scores of dead children with no visible signs of injuries. It is highly likely that chemicals were used.

If this attack is proved, which must come from tests carried out by UN inspectors, then it would amount to the deadliest attack of this kind since Saddam Hussein gassed tens of thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq in 1988. Saddam Hussein used chemicals left-over from the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, but much of it still remains unaccounted for.

Mr Obama’s red-line would appear to have been crossed, and with that his ‘equation’ (or calculus) has also been changed. The ante has been upped with both Britain and France expressing the view that some reaction is now necessary. An emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was called for by Britain, though no one ever expected permanent council members Russia and China to change their indifferent stance to a raging civil war in Syria that has now claimed more than 100,000 lives and the deaths this week of more than 1,000 civilians in what seems an almost certain chemical attack. France, too, has been angered and has warned Syria of a forceful response.

What President Obama will do remains to be seen, but any decisive action will be tempered by the complex situation on the ground. The American public will be wary of putting weaponry in the hands of some rebel groups affiliated with radical Islamists such as Al-Qaeda, and any attempt to establish a no-fly zone would be tantamount to a declaration of war because its longer-term aim would be to decapitate Assad’s air defences. Russia continues to supply Assad with arms and refuses outright to bring those supply lines to an end. This has become a significant contributory factor in a bloody war that can only exasperate the death toll and worsen the humanitarian crisis as refuges flock in their tens of thousands to neighbouring countries for safer sanctuary.

Mr Obama’s foreign policy is hardly helping the situation, either, which has turned into an almost stagnated Zen. The U.S. refused to act earlier in Syria because it would have meant military action in the middle of the presidential election; he spoke out against the Assad regime yet failed to offer real support to the rebels; and, he has moved his red-lines to such a degree that they are now almost impossible to cross. America’s attitude towards Egypt, too, has a similar pattern to it, where Mr Obama has swung from tolerating one dictatorial regime to another.

The United States needs to be at the forefront in seeking a solution to the Syrian crisis. As impregnable as the situation has become, that is no excuse for America to avail itself of responsibility. Mr Obama is the leader of the free world, and as such should be striving harder to bring this ghastly war to an end.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Middle East, Politics, Syria, United Nations, United States

Syria, chemical weapons and direct intervention…

SYRIA

Television and media images from Syria have been truly horrendous. Pictures have been depicted showing dozens of bodies laid out in rows, many of them children. Others, including very young infants, are seen suffering convulsions and spasms – symptoms that are typical of a major gas attack.

Ghastly as the images are, however, is all as clear cut as it seems? Photographs and video productions have been circulated by Syrian opposition activists; their release, as a UN team arrived to investigate the reported use of chemical weapons, maybe perceived as being opportunistic with powerful propaganda value.

The conundrum here is whether any leader, even one as beleaguered and brutal in defence of his presidency as Bashar al-Assad, be so heedless and perverse of the consequences as to launch such an attack just as the UN inspectors were arriving. Assad has denied he did it, but many say he would have if he had done it.

The alternative is even less plausible – that the Syrian rebels staged, exaggerated or even manipulated an attack on areas they hold with the intention of persuading both the UN inspectors and international opinion towards a Western intervention.

Whichever it is, we should constantly bear in mind the barbaric and brutal lengths to which a desperate regime will go to keep power.

Whilst the response from most international leaders has been one of outrage, comments have been tempered, rightly, with a measure of caution. ‘If proven’ is the crucial phrase that has emanated from Britain, France, and from others who are calling for more direct action. Legally, it is also a pointer as to what the priority should now be: to establish, so far as is possible, the truth of what happened. To fulfil that end, the UN inspectors must be granted immediate and unfettered access to the area of the alleged atrocity.

Establishing the truth is vital because the stakes are so high. The use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict was defined by President Obama as a ‘red line’ when he said almost a year ago that if the Assad regime deployed chemical weapons, ‘the whole calculus would change’. This was widely interpreted as a condition for the U.S. to intervene, either directly or by arming the rebels.

Yet, nor can it be excluded that the rebels have attempted to orchestrate something in which they might force America’s hand. So far, an EU investigation has only reported small scale use of sarin nerve gas on both sides. But if such an extensive attack, as seems to have taken place this week, is found to be the work of Syrian government forces, that could not but ‘change the calculus’.

Crucially, though, would it (or should it) prompt Western intervention? Intervention can take various forms, from air strikes targeting Syrian weapons, cruise missile launches from the naval fleet operating in the region, or a full ground incursion with boots on the ground. But as we know from Iraq and Afghanistan, even limited intervention tends to produce perverse and unwieldy results. In Syria it could be even more riskier, given the regional complexity and its ever more volatile neighbourhood.

At the present moment, doing nothing seems less perilous than direct intervention. Being sucked into a bloody civil war that is increasingly sectarian with regional alliances taking hold – Iran and Hezbollah siding with the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia arming the rebels – direct intervention would certainly appear the worse of two evils. But even now the case has still not been made for direct intervention in Syria.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Energy, Environment, Government, Politics, Society, Technology

Fracking and drilling for shale gas…

SHALE TRAIL

Will the UK Government’s latest ‘dash for gas’ with fracking be a golden repeat of the North Sea oil boom or become a serious risk to public health and safety?

Opinion is divided between green opponents of attempts to cash in on the controversial resource and those proponents who argue vast deposits of gas below much of the country will dig Britain out of its energy crisis.

The debate has been stoked following claims in June by the British Geological Society that there could be more than 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas under the North of England alone.

At current predictions, around 10 per cent of this should be recoverable – enough to fuel the nation for about 40 years, according to supporters.

And last month Chancellor George Osborne unveiled some of the most generous tax breaks in the world to kick-start this energy revolution in Britain.

The Treasury says that taxation on shale gas will be cut from 62 per cent to just 30 per cent, which the Chancellor reckons could boost investment in the industry to £14 billion a year.

It won’t just be companies that will gain. Local communities in those areas where extraction takes place will scoop 1 per cent of production revenues, as well as £100,000 per fracking well.

The United States has already benefited from its own shale gas boom, relying far less on oil imports now and providing energy consumers with a much cheaper alternative. According to the ratings agency Moody’s, the shale gas boom in America has generated more than 1 million US jobs.

For investors, too, the potential is huge.

If fracking’s potential is as good as we’re being told it could be, there will soon be a surge in profitability, rising share prices and attractive returns on offer for shareholders of those firms leading the charge. While there remains a long road to travel yet in terms of legislation and testing, the excitement building in the City of London is tangible.

Companies with licences for British shale areas have understandably welcomed the tax break announcements by the Chancellor. Those set to benefit include Aim-listed IGas and Dart Energy, equipment-maker John Wood Group and British Gas-owner Centrica – which acquired 25 per cent of Cuadrilla Resources in June.

Of course, the environmental concerns have to be weighed against the commercial benefits. But even the most ardent green lobbyist must recognise that Britain is facing a crisis of epic proportions when it comes to security of energy supply.

The UK is already a net importer of gas. Any interruption in supplies risks hiking up domestic and business energy bills or even seeing some customers cut off. Our coal-fired plants are closing or already shuttered.

Meanwhile, nuclear energy is in disarray with no new plants likely for at least another decade. There is still no sign of agreement on the crucial strike price – the guaranteed minimum EDF would get for power generated at a new plant.

Green technologies like wind are as yet incapable of fulfilling all our everyday energy needs.

The introduction of a tax regime that levels the playing field for shale gas with small offshore oil and gas fields must surely be a welcome step in the right direction.

But the industry will need to be tightly regulated to minimise the chances of something going wrong. Lobbyists have legitimate concerns over the chemicals used in the fracking process contaminating local water supplies, and the anecdotal evidence elsewhere that drilling for shale gas can increase the risk of earthquakes.

Drilling and fracturing must be strictly controlled. Three government agencies, plus the local authority, will have to sign-off on every project. Environmental impact assessments will be necessary along with permits to be agreed before fracking begins.

Standard