Category Archives: Government

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
Britain, Government, History, Intelligence, Military, United States

RAF Cold War missions over the former Soviet Union…

COVERT FLIGHTS

The RAF flew covert spying missions over the former Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

After decades of secrecy, CIA documents show British pilots were involved in the U-2 flights in 1959 and 1960.

These missions gathered vital intelligence which was regarded by the American intelligence services as being worth ‘a million dollars’.

Until now the Ministry of Defence has neither confirmed nor denied the participation of the RAF in the controversial missions, a position it will no longer be able to maintain.

The first U-2 flights over the Soviet Union started in July 1956, but despite the valuable information gathered, President Dwight Eisenhower was concerned about the ramifications of such a flagrant breach of Russian air space if they were discovered.

Unfortunately for the Americans, even though the high-tech U-2s flew at more than 70,000ft, the Russians were still able to track the planes.

The Soviets sent a strongly worded protest to Eisenhower, who developed second thoughts about the missions and suspended such flights in December 1956.

But the CIA was extremely keen for the spying missions to continue and looked for ways, in the words of one CIA document, ‘to increase the possibility of plausible denial’.

The solution was to use British pilots for the sensitive missions. During the spring of 1957, negotiations took place between the CIA and the chief of MI6, Sir Dick White, who saw the immediate benefits for Britain.

By the summer of 1958, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had given his authorisation, and four RAF officers, Squadron Leader Christopher Walker and Flight Lieutenants Michael Bradley, John MacArthur and David Dowling – all of whom were in their twenties and single – were sent to train on flying the U-2s in Texas.

Flying the U-2s, however, was not without risk, and on July 8, 1958, Walker was killed when his plane crashed. The cause was never definitively established, but it is believed the aircraft disintegrated at high altitude.

He was immediately replaced by Wing Commander Robert Robinson. By 1959 all four men had finished their operational conversion to the U-2 and were sent to a secret air base in Turkey. From there they launched their flights over the Soviet Union and the Middle East.

In order to emphasise American denials of the operation, the U-2 planes were formally transferred on paper to the British Government. Eisenhower wrote to Macmillan, stating: ‘British missions are carried out on your authority and are your responsibility.’

And the flights remained a secret in Britain, too. The pilots were no longer paid by the RAF, but by MI6, and the public was told the airmen were engaging in ‘high-altitude weather-sampling missions’.

The first mission was flown by Wing Commander Robinson on December 6, 1959, over the Kapustin Yar missile test range and a squadron of long-range bombers in the Ukraine.

The missions proved to be hugely successful and proved the Soviets did not have as many bombers as they claimed – a vital piece of intelligence at the height of the Cold War. The head of the CIA referred to photographs taken by Wing Commander Robinson as being worth ‘a million dollars’.

The second British U-2 mission over the Soviet Union was flow by Flight Lieutenant John MacArthur the following month. Although his brief was to look for missile sites around the Aral Sea, he ended up uncovering a new type of Soviet bomber called the Tupolev Tu-22 at Kazan.

The Americans later resumed their involvement in the U-2 missions, but this came to an abrupt end in the wake of the Soviets shooting down and imprisoning US pilot Gary Powers in May 1960. The British ordered the RAF officers to leave Turkey immediately.

The following year, all four British RAF pilots received the Air Force Cross, although their citations in the London Gazette did not mention exactly why. After more than half a century, the truth has now been revealed.

Standard