Category Archives: Britain

Britain, France, Russia, Syria, United States

Britain must now act against Syria’s regime

SYRIA

THESE are extremely dangerous times, more so than even during the years of the Cold War. Then, superpower tensions could be eased and constrained by hotline calls and summits such as those used to deliver arms reduction. The omnipresent threat of nuclear confrontation helped to concentrate the minds of the world’s leaders on peace not war.

Many of the old certainties have now gone with the complete erosion of the ideological battle-lines. These have been replaced with regional flash points, each with the potential to spill far beyond their own boundaries. The capacity of the Syrian civil war to draw other nations into its ghastly vortex has been apparent for some time. The risks are greater than ever.

. Related Lord Hague: We must act now to stop chemical warfare

The conflict now has NATO, Russia, Israel, Iran, Turkey (a NATO member but acting unilaterally and more in sync with Russia) and Saudi Arabia all involved to a greater or lesser extent, just at the very time when diplomatic communications with Moscow have irretrievably broken down for many other reasons – including electoral interference, cyber espionage and the chemical poisoning attack in Salisbury.

The apparent chemical weapons attack on Douma, a suburb of Damascus, has brought matters to a head. The U.S. had previously warned Assad to expect retaliation for breaching international law in this way and President Trump has already said there will be a heavy price to pay. He needs to make good on that threat otherwise it is meaningless. The American response needs to be surgical and proportionate.

It looks as if Israel has taken the opportunity to attack the Tiyas airbase in central Syria, which it has targeted before. This is by no means Israel’s first incursion into the civil war on self-defence grounds, but matters are complicated by Russian and Iranian backing for Syria’s despot leader. Tehran has already claimed that four Iranian nationals were killed in the raid on the airbase.

 

ON a visit to Denmark, the British Prime Minister said that, if chemical weapons were used, then the Syrian regime and their proxy backers must be held to account. But, how exactly? Russia denies a gas attack has even taken place and has threatened to retaliate if direct action is taken against Assad’s regime. With diplomatic missions being stripped down in the tit-for-tat expulsions of recent weeks, the scope for misunderstandings leading to a military clash is growing by the day. An end to the bloody civil war would clearly help calm matters; but, since Assad is winning, for what reason does he need to brook a political solution when he can use brute force to crush remaining rebel strongholds?

President Trump’s eagerness to pull out American forces has given the impression that the US has no long-term strategy for the region. Beyond pummelling ISIS and punishing Assad for breaching “red lines” over the use of chemical weapons, Washington does not wish to get involved in the Syrian imbroglio and Russia clearly knows it. The role of power-broker in Syria was ceded by Barack Obama in 2013 when he backed away from a threat to take military action in response to a sarin gas attack carried out by Assad’s air force.

America’s backtracking then was the baleful consequence of a vote in the British parliament against military action in Syria. Some may argue that Theresa May’s tough talking is unlikely to be backed up by British military action unless she can reverse that position.

It is telling, however, given this background that the first leader President Trump contacted to discuss the West’s response was not Theresa May but Emmanuel Macron of France, whom Washington presumably sees as a more reliable partner. France was also the lead country calling for the UN security council to meet to debate the Douma attack and its consequences. When Paris is the first port of call for an American president seeking an ally, the Syria conflict has shifted the balance of power in more ways than one.

Given the parlous state of UK-Russian relations, it might be tempting to let other European countries take the lead. But if the US and France are to act, Mrs May needs to ensure that the UK is not left on the sidelines unwilling to join in the punitive action she has rightly identified as being necessary.

Standard
Britain, France, Government, Russia, Syria, United States

Lord Hague: We must act now to stop chemical warfare

SYRIA

Intro: Lord Hague, the former foreign secretary, says we must hold Assad to account with force to prevent future suffering

CHEMICAL weapons will become “legitimised” and used in future wars if the West fails to take military action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. That’s the view of Lord Hague, the former foreign secretary, who says that he is in “little doubt” that if he were still in office today, he would recommend military intervention in Syria.

He also adds: “The world has succeeded for nearly a century in preventing the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. Once we accept that it is just another aspect of war that is what it will become in the conflicts of coming decades, with an arms race in chemical agents steadily expanded and legitimised.”

Theresa May has suggested that Britain was prepared to join any action by the US and France, warning that the Syrian government “must be held to account” for the “barbaric” attack on eastern Ghouta.

It is understood that Cabinet ministers are urging the Prime Minister to avoid the potential “fiasco” of a Commons defeat on military action, such as that suffered by David Cameron in 2013, and instead take direct measures.

Mrs May has been warned that failure to join a coalition with the US and France could diminish Britain’s international standing.

President Donald Trump has said that he would come to a decision on the American response to the chemical weapons attacks within the “next 24 to 48 hours”. Mr Trump who has liaised with Emmanuel Macron, the French president, has pledged a “strong, joint response”.

Potential British action could involve cruise missiles being launched from the Mediterranean or sorties flown by RAF Tornado fighter jets.

Lord (William) Hague was foreign secretary when the government lost its vote for action in Syria, which is widely considered to have emboldened the Assad regime. Recalling the aftermath of the defeat, Lord Hague says the UK became “enfeebled spectators of one of the most destructive conflagrations of our time.”

“We were left with only words, and compared to other nations financing armies or sending forces, words count for very little… We should have learnt from the fiasco of 2013 that abdication of the responsibility and right to act doesn’t make war go away.”

 

AT LEAST 70 people were killed in the attack on the rebel-held town of Douma. A US navy destroyer appeared to be getting into position to attack in the eastern Mediterranean yesterday in what is being viewed as a sign of potential cruise missile strikes. Tensions have been further heightened by a reported Israeli attack on a Syrian air base.

UK ministers are particularly concerned that Jeremy Corbyn is likely to oppose any direct military intervention in a Commons vote. The Labour leader has been criticised by his MPs for failing to single out the Assad regime, instead condemning “all violence” and “all killings”.

Many on the Conservative benches will hold the view as to why would we want to open that Pandora’s box again? They will suggest, rightly, that there’s no need to go there, and that the Prime Minister should take direct action then go to Parliament afterwards. The Government has no obligation to call a Commons vote on military action, but in recent years it has become more of a convention in doing so.

One government minister said that the chemical weapons attack was “another consequence of blinking” in the 2013 vote, and warned: “We must stand up to Syria”.

In a warning to Syria and Russia, Mrs May said: “This is about the brutal actions of Assad and his regime, but it is also about the backers of that regime.”

 

Standard
Britain, Government, Legal, Scotland, Society

The ‘right to protect property’ and ‘bash a burglar’ laws

PROPERTY AND THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE

UK ministers toughened up the laws relating to the right of self-defence when protecting property five years ago. The so-called ‘bash a burglar’ laws were introduced to dispel doubts over the right to fight back against housebreakers in England and Wales.

In Scotland, however, something of a grey area still remains.

Legislation was introduced south of the Border in April 2013 backing the ‘householder defence’, which means a homeowner, or an occupier of a property can use ‘disproportionate force’ in the heat of the moment.

A 2016 High Court ruling upheld the guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service – England’s equivalent of Scotland’s Crown Office – stating: ‘You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence.

‘This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.’

Acts of revenge, however, are outside the remit of the law.

But in Scotland, the law was not altered to give greater defensive rights to homeowners because Scottish ministers feared it would lead to a growing number of ‘have-a-go heroes’.

Under Scots law, any self-defence still must be deemed ‘proportionate and reasonable’.

A senior legal expert has said that, if accepted by a jury, self-defence would have the effect of a ‘complete defence’. An accused would be acquitted of the charge of murder or culpable homicide if self-defence was successfully established.

The closest thing in Scots law to the householder defence which exists south of the Border would be the concept of provocation.

Provocation is not a complete defence, but would have the effect of reducing a charge of murder to one of culpable homicide if successfully established.

 

A NATIONAL debate about a homeowner’s right to defend their property took place in 1999 when farmer Tony Martin blasted 16-year-old Fred Barras with a shotgun during a late-night raid at his remote Norfolk home.

Barras was hit in the back and died at the scene after escaping through a window. His accomplice, serial burglar Brendon Fearon, then 29, was also injured during the burglary at Emneth Hungate.

Bachelor Mr Martin, then 54, said he had been burgled at least ten times and had lost about £6,000 worth of furniture.

But he was given a life sentence after he was found guilty of murder by jury with a majority of ten to two.

Prosecutors claimed he lay in wait for the intruders and opened fire from close range. Mr Martin, who said he shot at the intruders in the dark after he was woken by the sound of a window being broken, later had his term cut on appeal to five years for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. He served three years in prison.

He has never returned to his home and now lives at a secret address. He is understood to have slept in his car on some occasions.

Mr Martin was arrested again in December 2015 after saying in an interview he still owned guns. No action was taken because all that was found was a faulty air gun which he held legally.

Fearon received a 20-month sentence. He has since been jailed for supplying heroin. He claimed to have been permanently disabled by Mr Martin but dropped a £15,000 civil claim when he was photographed walking and cycling.

Standard