Category Archives: Government

Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Starmer needs to recalibrate the mood

LABOUR PARTY

ELECTED to office less than three months ago, the Labour Party has begun its annual conference – this year in Liverpool – already weighed down by incumbency: rows over gifts from wealthy party donors and tickets to football games as well as rifts about Keir Starmer’s chief of staff’s pay are feeding into the public disquiet. These come amidst the burden of government in difficult economic circumstances. Coupled with the low public trust and the needless surplus of gloom, the political honeymoon period for Labour is well and truly over. We knew change was high up on the political agenda for Labour, but since day one of government it has set out with the explicit objective of dampening expectations of how soon change might come. The gloom is palpable.

There is a degree of urgency for Starmer to recalibrate the mood with a sense of optimism and purpose. He needs to give the country reasons to be glad of a Labour government in ways that go beyond relief at no longer being governed by Tory rule. New governments often come to power blaming the last for what it has inherited. The PM has given the nation an unvarnished account of the dismal legacy left for Labour; a bleak audit that covers a record of political and financial maladministration.

Conservative ministers, driven by ideological fanaticism and self-serving cynicism, squandered energy and vital resources on ill-conceived, unworkable policies. Public services were starved of the means by which they could effectively operate. With that in mind, it is easy to see that Sir Keir has a difficult job because the country is in a dire mess. Putting things right will take time. Nevertheless, that morose message has been bitterly soured by a performance of fiscal discipline, delivered without a hint of uplifting accompaniment.

The prime minister says things will get worse before they get better. His chancellor, Rachel Reeves, cites “black holes” in the budget, withdraws winter fuel payments for all but the poorest pensioners, and continually pledges that there is more pain to come. Ms Reeves’ argument is that government departments under the Conservatives overspent by £22bn in the budget and that deep cuts are needed to compensate. This is a self-imposed restriction that stems from ill-advised fiscal rules. The force of that constraint, and the zeal with which it is applied as austerity across Whitehall, is also a matter of political choice.

The government’s strategists argue that adherence to Tory spending limits was a “non-negotiable” condition of persuading the public that Labour could be trusted on the economy. Possibly, possibly not. There is no way to test the counterfactual scenario, where Ms Reeves could have fought the election with a wider range of tax-raising options still open. However, the decision to lean into unpopularity so hard, so fast, and without a countervailing narrative of hope looks like very poor strategic judgment.

Labour’s election manifesto contained plenty of reasons to expect a substantial departure from a grim status quo. A marked progressive shift was promised in the areas of workers’ rights, a robust commitment to net zero, improved relations with the rest of Europe and, perhaps most significantly, readiness to embrace a more interventionist model of economic management, including public ownership of utility companies.

The Starmerite script contains rather too much fiscal conservatism, but the hope on the left of the party is that there is a social democratic framework at its core. That would express the opposite of the Tory conviction that government’s main function is to facilitate market supremacy and then get out of the way. Many Labour MPs, activists, and Labour supporting people in the country will feel unsure which of the two strands – cringing continuity or bold departure – will dominate. Keir Starmer’s task is to answer in terms that give hope of meaningful change to come.

Standard
Government, History, Intelligence, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Technology

Hezbollah’s indignant fury

MIDDLE EAST

THE terrifying attacks this week on thousands of pagers operated by Hezbollah across Lebanon is being perceived as the Pearl Harbour of the 21st century.

When the Japanese Navy Air Service bombed Pearl Harbour in 1941, their aim was to knock out America’s air power in the Pacific and prevent the US from joining the Second World War.

But, as history shows, they achieved precisely the opposite. Roused to indignant anger, the American public were instantly committed to the Allied cause – and Japan found itself facing a new and mighty enemy.

The operation carried out against Hezbollah and the Lebanese was spectacular on its own merits (despite the wickedness of the attacks) – with at least nine fatalities and more than 3,000 seriously injured.

Yet its wider significance is certain to resonate in the months and years to come.

If Israel, like Imperial Japan before it, thought this massive attack would serve to dissuade Hezbollah’s fighters from entering a full-scale war with the Jewish state, many should fear they will be disappointed.

Already the Islamists will be plotting their revenge – and Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu has been locked in talks at his defence ministry’s HQ in Tel Aviv over how to respond to a potential escalation.

Critically, however, many will be asking how did Israel actually achieve this?

There are several competing theories. The Israelis could have planted old-fashioned booby traps in the thousands of pagers – which are said to have been delivered to Hezbollah fighters only in recent days.

More likely, is that the pagers were pre-loaded with a sophisticated computer virus that caused them to deliberately overheat, resulting in their lithium batteries catching fire.

This is a known risk of the batteries used in many electronic devices – and is part of the reason why airlines refuse to let passengers carry laptops in their checked luggage.

In whatever way Israel carried out the operation, it’s ironic that Hezbollah’s militants only recently swapped mobile phones for pagers in the belief that they were more secure.

Famously, mobiles carry GPS software that allows the devices – and therefore their users – to be tracked anywhere in the world.

A few weeks ago, Hamas’s political chief Ismail Haniyeh was hunted to a guesthouse in the Iranian capital of Tehran – and eliminated. Experts believe his assassination was possible only because his phone was being tracked.

The truth is that Israel excels at precisely this kind of warfare. Decades of facing down hostile neighbours that vastly outnumber its own citizens has led to the embattled Middle East developing a fearsome array of sophisticated military tools, from nuclear missiles and tanks to cyber-weapons.

Combined with this is the ruthlessness of its famed secret intelligence agency, Mossad, in tracking down and eliminating its enemies, from the perpetrators of the Munich Olympics massacre onwards. As we have seen, Mossad always gets its man – or men – in the end.

So, what comes next? If reports are right, and one in 30 of Hezbollah’s fighters have indeed been put out of action due to the pager attack, that will present a severe impediment to the group’s operational capability. The leadership will also be asking questions about how to communicate securely with its fighters in future.

With Hezbollah’s military organisation disrupted, the Israelis might decide to invade a portion of southern Lebanon to create a “buffer zone” that could protect civilians in northern Israel from rocket attacks.

Some experts will have concerns about this “contained” approach. For all the brutal ingeniousness of the pager attack, the consequences for regional security could be dire.

Instead, the pager operation is far more likely to be the prelude to another all-out Israel-Lebanon War – with grim consequences for world peace and stability.

Hezbollah’s allies, Iran and Syria, will inevitably be anxious and worried that Israeli intelligence could do the same to them. But even those Arab countries with diplomatic relations with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan, must now be asking themselves how safe they really are – and whether or not their communication networks are secure. This will weaken Israel’s ability to build friendships in the region.

And there could be consequences for us, too. Western democracies will already be assessing what this novel form of warfare means for them – and how they might be able to copy Israel’s methods.

History teaches us that no new military technique remains a monopoly of its inventor for long. How long before Putin or Xi Jinping works out how to make millions of iPhones around the world burst into flames in the pockets of their foes?

Standard
Britain, Government, Military, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, United Nations, United States

Kyiv missile deal edges closer

STORM SHADOW

THE visit by British Foreign Secretary David Lammy and his US counterpart Antony Blinken to battle-ravaged Ukraine in reaffirming their commitment was timely. The pair announced millions more in aid, which was welcomed, but if Ukraine is to stand any chance in defeating Putin, the West must still go further. 

It is now pressing to permit Kyiv to use US and British long-range missiles to pulverise targets deep inside Russian territory. This would allow it to strike air bases which are used to launch devastating and indiscriminate attacks against Ukraine.

The current restrictions on Ukraine using Western long-range missiles – imposed amid fears of provoking the Kremlin – are iniquitous and show timidity.

However, the mood is changing as both the US and UK have accused Russian president Vladimir Putin of escalating the war by seeking missiles from Iran.

Allowing Ukraine to use British Storm Shadow missiles would mark a major step up in capability, as they have a range of more than 155 miles. By contrast, the US-supplied Himars missiles currently being used have a range of just 50 miles. A longer-range capability would enable Ukrainian pilots to remain further from the front lines, as missiles such as Storm Shadow would penetrate much deeper inside Russian territory.

Storm Shadow is a precision-guided cruise missile with a maximum range of up to 200 miles. It has a multi-stage warhead with the initial detonation used to destroy bunkers. The main warhead is controlled by a delayed fuse which destroys whatever is being protected inside a fortified position.

It is “air-launched” and can be released from a safe distance. It travels at a low altitude to avoid radar detection and uses an infra-red seeker to latch on to its target. In May 2023, the UK confirmed it had donated a number of the missiles to Ukraine – but with the proviso that they only be used on Russian targets on Ukrainian sovereign territory.

Ukraine’s president wants Storm Shadow to destroy airfields and command and control centres deep inside Russia. President Zelensky needs to eradicate the threat posed by Russian glide bombs; he wants to strike wherever the aircraft that carry them are based. An accurate, long-range missile arsenal could also directly target Russian supply lines into eastern Ukraine and through territory surrounding Kursk province, which Ukrainian soldiers have successfully penetrated and defended.

However, the view in Washington and, to a lesser extent in London, has been precautionary. Permitting Storm Shadow to be used against targets deep inside Russia could be perceived as escalatory. The US and UK would much prefer to encourage Ukraine and Russia to reach a negotiated settlement. They would prefer, too, for Ukraine to develop its own long-range missiles, thereby avoiding further potential Western fallout with the Kremlin.

Financial reasons are also a significant factor. At £2million each, Storm Shadows aren’t cheap. Supply of them is far from infinite and Ukraine would likely use up the missiles in a short time. Also, they contain highly sensitive technologies which, should the Russians obtain them, could reduce the strategic effectiveness of Storm Shadow in the future.

Mr Blinken has said the United States is adapting to change, including how conditions on the battlefield are changing. With Russia having acquired Iranian ballistic missiles, this must surely be justification for the US to lift its restrictions. Ukraine has the right to defend itself. Nonetheless, complicating matters is that the Biden presidency has only months to run, with Donald Trump making clear he will push for a settlement in days if he wins the November election. Any such deal would likely require Ukraine to concede territory.

So, Kyiv must hold on to as much ground as it can, including areas it occupies in southern Russia. It is now or never for Storm Shadow to make a difference.

Standard