Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, says: …
… ‘We have just over 8 per cent of the UK’s population and 1 per cent of the EU’s population. But we have 90 per cent of the UK’s hydro capacity, 64 per cent of the EU’s oil reserves, 25 per cent of the EU’s offshore wind and tidal power potential, and 10 per cent of its wave power potential…. Our energy resources can power much of Europe – our energy innovation can power the world.’
Scotland’s Referendum: Vote Yes
AMERICA & EUROPE IN COUNTERING THE THREAT FROM RUSSIA
A European crisis has, once again, brought the ambitions of a second-term American president into the sharp light of day. Mr Obama could never have wished that he would land in Europe with the sole task of rallying some of his country’s oldest allies against the expansionist threats posed by Vladimir Putin of Russia. And yet, this is precisely the situation Barack Obama finds himself in.
Mr Obama arrived in The Hague and described Europe’s idiosyncratic collection of comatose economies as the ‘cornerstone of America’s engagement with the world’. His presence was enough to underline the realities of a new and emerging Cold War message: one to which America remains the ultimate guarantor of European security.
Whatever the intrinsic American wishes are, America cannot abdicate from that role. While history may reflect back the words of Franklin Roosevelt who pledged that America would never send US troops to fight in Europe, or even during Mr Obama’s own reign in office when he pronounced America’s ‘pivot’ and orientation towards Asia, Putin’s provocative stance and actions in Crimea has made such a profound difference to how the US reflects upon Europe. The United States accepts that the threats posed by Russia are serious and interconnected, and is turning away from the Pacific to behave in a way that every president from Truman to Reagan would have recognised.
Predicting what Putin will do next to enhance and strengthen his Russian Federation is difficult to determine. As a former KGB officer, he knows the high value placed on keeping his intentions as mysterious and covert as possible.
Psychology is also at play. The flint-eyed incumbent of the Kremlin strongly believes that Mr Obama is a president motivated far more by what is happening in the Pacific. To Mr Putin’s eye Barack Obama is a leader that is fundamentally uninterested in Europe and viscerally reluctant to use force of any kind. The Russian leader observed how Mr Obama steered clear of intervening in Libya by allowing Britain and France to claim the credit for toppling the Gaddafi regime. America’s role in that campaign was leadership from the back, rather than the front dynamism many would otherwise have expected.
And no-doubt the Kremlin hardliner would have taken special note when Bashar al-Assad made a mockery over Mr Obama’s ‘red lines’ and gassed hundreds of innocent Syrian civilians without paying a military price.
Mr Putin may even have thought this was an American president who could be pushed around. The disarmament treaty with Moscow, signed in 2010, for example, imposed far greater cuts on the US arsenal than was made to the Russian inventory.
Russia has remained committed in driving a wedge between Europe and America. Along with its actions in Ukraine, Russia has demonstrated the compelling necessity of NATO and the Atlantic Alliance. Such miscalculations may even impel Europe to realise the mistakes of continuously running down its defences.
America and Europe seem certain to respond with skill and resolve. Such a partnership can only make the world a safer place.
CRIMEA
Intro: The current situation in Ukraine has been described as the biggest crisis in Europe since the turn of the 21st century
Russian troops are now controlling Crimea in the south-east of the country. The chaos in the former Soviet state is the most troubling development on European soil since the turn of the millennium. The crisis has all the hallmarks of a 20th century conflict; one that resembles the days of the Cold War, or even beyond it. The American missile destroyer USS Truxton has arrived in the Black Sea and will permitted to stay there for a period of only 21 days under the Montreux Convention, an international agreement that allows a warship of any non-Black Sea country to be in its waters.
Whilst European leaders have spoken about ramping up tough diplomatic measures against Russia, Vladimir Putin is unperturbed and so far seems untroubled by the prospect of their disapproval. Mr Putin is determined to see the Crimean peninsula become part of his wider Russian Federation, particularly given the economic advantages to the Russian economy of its offshore gas fields. There also remains a strong pro-Russian element in the Crimea, a factor that Mr Putin will wish to capitalise upon. It was, after all, fierce disagreement over whether Ukraine should forge closer links with the European Union or Putin’s Russia which brought about the crisis in the first place. The very idea that former Soviet states be integrated into the European Union is an anathema to Mr Putin as he seeks, instead, to build a Russian dominated Eurasia Union.
The American missile destroyer USS Truxton has arrived in the Black Sea and will permitted to stay there for a period of only 21 days under the Montreux Convention.
But with European measures to find a solution reaping little success, the arrival of a US destroyer in the region seems likely only to exacerbate the situation. Russia has a strong naval presence in the Crimean port of Sevastopol, the deployment of US gunboat diplomacy surely misreads the temperature in the Ukraine and the temperament of the Russian president. The Americans insist that Truxton is merely participating in a ‘planned exercise’, but the timing of its arrival will be more suspicious to those who doubt such an announcement.
Observers and analysts have turned to the 20th century to draw parallels with the actions that led to both world wars. It is not unthinkable that the crisis in Ukraine could be allowed to escalate with similar consequences.
On 16 March, the people of Crimea will be offered two choices in a referendum – they can either vote to become subjects of the Russian Federation or by favouring the restoration of the 1992 Crimean constitution (which would be a declaration of independence from Ukraine). Transparent democracy seems the only hope for a peaceful solution.
Crucially, however, this referendum doesn’t offer citizens the choice to remain with the status quo, with Crimea as an autonomous republic within Ukraine. The options on offer are either to join with Russia or declare independence, then join with Russia soon after.
The referendum has no credibility. How can it be when the outcomes it promises amount to no more than a stitch-up? The West should be concerned that the people will be asked to make a decision while their homeland has effectively been seized by Russian forces. Putin may tell the world that his troops are there to protect Russian speaking people, but that argument ran out the very moment Russian soldiers displayed their intention to protect by pointing their threatening weapons in the direction of their Ukrainian counterparts.
Mr Putin’s troubling empire-building is at the heart of the issue. It may well be that a majority of the people of Crimea will choose to enter the Russian fold. We would have no concerns if such a transition took place openly and democratically, and in full view of the world. A vote is needed that is open, honest and fair, and a plebiscite that is carried out without Russian soldiers prowling the streets.
Arts, reviews & current affairs 