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, Foreign Affairs, France, Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, Ukraine

UK blames Russia for ‘huge cyber-attack’

SECURITY

War of words: The Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson

BRITAIN has publicly blamed the Russian government for a “reckless and destructive” cyber-attack.

In an extraordinary move likely to spark a diplomatic storm, the Foreign Office accused the Kremlin of “malicious cyber activity”.

The attack, which occurred last year, targeted Ukraine and spread across Europe. Its primary targets were the Ukrainian financial, energy and government sectors.

But it was designed to spread further and affected other European and Russian firms in June.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson accused Vladimir Putin of “ripping up the rule book”.

Mr Williamson said: “We have entered a new era of warfare, witnessing a destructive and deadly mix of conventional military might and malicious cyber-attacks.

“Russia is ripping up the rule book by undermining democracy, wrecking livelihoods by targeting critical infrastructure, and weaponising information. We must be primed and ready to tackle these stark and intensifying threats.” Ukraine has been locked in a simmering conflict with Russia-backed separatists since Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014.

Foreign minister for cyber-security Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said the UK’s decision to identify the Kremlin as responsible for the attack underlines the fact the Government will not tolerate “malicious cyber-activity”.

He said: “The UK Government judges that the Russian government, specifically the Russian military, was responsible for the destructive Not-Petya cyber-attack of June 2017.

“The attack showed a continued disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. Its reckless release disrupted organisations across Europe costing hundreds of millions of pounds.”

He added: “The Kremlin has positioned Russia in direct opposition to the West, yet it doesn’t have to be that way. We call on Russia to be the responsible member of the international community it claims to be rather than secretly trying to undermine it.

“The United Kingdom is identifying, pursuing and responding to malicious cyber-activity regardless of where it originates, imposing costs on those who would seek to do us harm.

“We are committed to strengthening, co-ordinated international efforts to uphold a free, open, peaceful and secure cyberspace.”

His comments point to UK intelligence agencies discovering evidence indicating the involvement of the Russian military.

Meanwhile, the Defence Secretary has risked igniting a diplomatic firestorm by claiming there is no point in Britain listening to Emmanuel Macron.

Mr Williamson has taken aim at the French president amid growing concerns in London at his hard-line position on Brexit.

He spoke out after Mr Macron threatened to launch strikes on the Syrian government for allegedly using chemical weapons against civilians. Mr Williamson, who has been tipped as a potential future Prime Minister, said the UK felt no need to “copy” decisions in neighbouring countries.

“What is the point in listening to French politicians,” he said. “We have our own foreign policy, we don’t need to copy.”

He said he would “dutifully study” Mr Macron’s comments but refused to be drawn on a change in the UK’s policy.

The UK refused to join retaliatory strikes launched by Donald Trump in Syria last year over suspected chemical weapons use. Former defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon later said Britain would support similar actions if “legal, proportionate and necessary”.

Mr Williamson’s dismissal of Mr Macron, during a ministerial meeting at NATO’s Brussels headquarters, will stoke fears that ties between Paris and London are under increasing strain.

Mr Macron threatened a major escalation in Syria this week by threatening to launch air strikes against president Bashar al-Assad’s government.

The warning followed claims that Syrian government forces dropped a chlorine bomb from a helicopter on Saraqeb, a rebel-held town, earlier this month.

The Syrian Government has denied the accusations, while Mr Macron said that French officials had yet to find enough evidence to launch a strike.

Standard
Books, France, History

Book Review: At The Edge of The World

REVIEW

The remarkable story of the French Foreign Legion, and its dramatic rise throughout the nineteenth century.

Intro: Murderers, gamblers, criminals on the run – French Foreign Legion soldiers were the toughest in the world and would march in 50C heat till their . . . Boots filled with blood.

You may not have been alone when younger if you more than half-wondered if the French Foreign Legion was an invention of Hollywood.

Cary Grant and Gary Cooper capered about in the desert wearing those distinctive hats with the white hankies dangling down the backs of their necks.

Laurel and Hardy ran away to join the Foreign Legion, as did Jim Dale in Carry On… Follow That Camel, which was filmed in exotic Camber Sands. Marty Fieldman directed, co-wrote and starred in The Last Remake Of Beau Geste, with Peter Ustinov as the sadistic sergeant.

Edith Piaf had a famous song about a night of hectic passion with a tattooed recruit, which she compared to “a thunderstorm through the sky”. And it is her image of the moody and uncompromising Legionnaire, attracted by the promise of “blood, bullets, bayonets and women in an Arab land”, that gets closest to the historical and psychological truth, as laid before us in this gripping, disturbing and controversial account of the Legion’s first century.

For the all-volunteer corps of the French Army, founded in 1831, was neither comical, nor an excuse for high-spirited larks. It was brutal and often monstrous.

Created to participate in France’s colonial expansion to Algeria, Morocco, Madagascar, Indochina and Mexico, “we scare people, we inspire fear and perhaps admiration, which is a little too thin a reward sometimes; but love, never”.

Even the unique right to hire men regardless of their nationality was a cynical move.

 

SINCE Napoleon and his casualties were still a living memory, the French government wanted an army “that could face danger and human losses without drawing the political backlash that French-born victims would elicit”.

Out of this came the Legion’s legendary appeal to ne’er-do-wells, broken-hearted lovers, criminals, political refugees and ‘scions of aristocratic families leaving behind gambling debts’.

Anyone physically fit was accepted, especially if they had teeth strong enough to bite the biscuit rations. No questions were asked at the headquarters in Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria.

“You can choose a new name if you like,” recruits were told. “We don’t ask for documents.”

As mercenaries, the men fought for the Legion itself, united against everyone else.

‘Legio Patria Nostra,’ ran the motto – the Legion is our country. ‘We don’t give a damn what we fight for. It’s our job. We’ve nothing else in life. No families, no ideals, no loves.’

By 1900, there were 11,500 men in this band of scary outcasts. Blanchard calculates that between 1831 and 1962, when Algeria was grudgingly granted independence and the French left North Africa, approximately 600,000 people had enlisted.

“The substantial majority of them were Germans or Northern Europeans,” we are informed. The rest were Belgians, Spaniards and Britons. There was one Turk, one New Zealander and lots of Americans during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Exhausting route-marches in Saharan temperatures of 50C with heavy backpacks, where “acid sweat burned your skin” and “you march with your shoes full of blood”, would not be many people’s idea of military adventure. But, according to Blanchard, the typical Legionnaire was a man who found “redemption and an existential purpose through camaraderie and abnegation”.

A Legionnaire who was shot in the stomach and lying on the ground with his intestines escaping was heard to murmur to his captain: “Are you happy with me?” This is the kind of stoicism that was expected.

“Excessive revelry” was condoned by the generals, who believed “one did not build empires with virgins”. Sex with prostitutes was encouraged, despite the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, as were heavy drinking and brawling. How hilarious it must have been to terrorise the natives – the Legionnaires “can hardly keep beating, so hard they laugh”, ran a report.

The French government maintained that this imperial experiment was to bring ‘reason, progress, science, culture and freedom’ to backward jungle regions and wildernesses.

The Legionnaires were expected to fight ‘in the professed name of civilisation and’ – here comes the catch – ‘in the name of racial superiority’.

While we can applaud their achievements as engineers – digging and building roads, constructing forts and laying telephone lines – the fact remains that, for these mercenaries, “the gift of French civilisation” in practice meant the opportunity for the savage conquest of African tribes and, in Indochina, the Vietnamese patriotic resistance.

Legionnaires went about “civilising the barbarians of this world with cannonballs”. Villages were pillaged, ransacked and burned, the women raped, the men decapitated. “We were allowed to kill and plunder everything,” recalled a soldier. “We went to the villages and surprised the people in bed.”

One Legionnaire received no censure when he made a tobacco pouch from cured human skin. Nevertheless, killing civilians must have taken its toll – indeed, Legionnaires were among the most screwed-up soldiers in history.

In a group of 350 men, 11 deaths were put down to suicide, but there may have been many more, disguised in the record as death from disease. The belief was: ‘It was better to be dead than go through hell.’ There was alcoholism and much illness – typhoid, tropical fever, dysentery, malaria.

The deliberate hardship was not unlike that of a religious order, with its renunciation of worldly comforts – though entertainment involved lots of drag shows.

 

LEGIONNAIRES made “splendid female impersonators”. Homosexual activity was commonplace with “5,000 young solid males, boiling with vigour and vitality” at a loose end in the fort.

When Kaiser Wilhelm tried to discourage Germans from joining up by publishing articles warning against sexual abuse in the desert, men with Heidelberg duelling scars raced to enlist.

As 43 per cent of the corps was German, perhaps it is no surprise the Foreign Legion didn’t rescue France when the country was occupied by Nazis during World War II.

Blanchard’s story concludes with the centenary of the corps in 1931, the parades and so forth.

Reading about post-colonial activities in a further volume might be appealing, particularly because, since 1962 when Sidi Bel Abbes was abandoned for a new HQ in Marseille, some 50,000 men have felt the need to run away by joining the Legion.

It is perhaps chilling to discover that Jean-Marie Le Pen spent a formative three years in the Legion, and that recently a retired commander was arrested for making anti-Islam protests in Calais.

To avoid any confusion of doubt, it is only officers enlisted to the French Foreign Legion who must be of indigenous French origin and nationality.

–   At The Edge of The World by Jean-Vincent Blanchard is published by Bloomsbury for £20.

 

Standard