Category Archives: Russia

G7, Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, United States

Boris Johnson is right in cancelling his Moscow trip

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Boris Johnson was due for crunch talks with Russia over the Syria crisis but cancelled the trip.

The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has come under fire both from Russia and political opponents at home for pulling out of a planned visit to Moscow in the wake of the Syrian chemical weapon atrocity.

Rather than travelling to Moscow to meet Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, he travelled to Italy for a G7 meeting, where he will seek political consensus for Russian President Vladimir Putin to pull his troops from Syria.

His Russian visit would have been the first by a United Kingdom Foreign Secretary in five years and was cancelled after discussions with the US, which is sending Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow to deliver a “clear and co-ordinated” message to the Kremlin. It has inevitably opened Mr Johnson to the charge that he has ceded our diplomatic position to the US and left the UK with little by way of a credible independent voice of its own.

Moscow has predictably seized on this point, saying his decision casts doubt on the value of speaking to the UK “which does not have its own position on the majority of present-day issues, nor does it have real influence on the course of international affairs, as it remains ‘in the shadow’ of its strategic partners.”

But that should not be allowed to be a smokescreen by missing the greater issue at stake here: the Assad regime did indeed cross a line on a bombing mission which resulted in the use of chemical weapons against civilians and children in particular.

It is surely now up to President Putin who has defended the Assad regime to distance himself from an action that has outraged the world and to bring pressure to bear to ensure that there is no repetition of this appalling crime.

Indeed, until there is some clear indication from Moscow that it is open to movement on this point, the most appropriate response from the UK would be to leave in no doubt Russia’s isolation from normal diplomatic exchanges. These proceed on the basis of a shared commitment to respect for international law and UN-approved protocols that govern behaviour in armed conflict.

The ball is now firmly in Moscow’s court. And now is the time to press home the point that those who have backed the Syrian regime and extended Assad’s grip on power cannot be expected to enjoy normal diplomatic courtesies. The Foreign Secretary’s decision to lend UK support to a joint G7 call for a response is likely to carry more clout than the UK pleading on its own. Indeed, it is just the sort of co-ordinated international response that opposition parties would be urging in this situation.

Standard
Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

Moscow is colluding with Syria’s Assad

SYRIA

Idlib

Syria conflict: ‘Chemical attack’ in Idlib has claimed the lives of 72 people. More casualties are expected.

Last September, President Barack Obama expressed doubt as to whether the United States could expect Russia to help end the bloody insurrection and civil war in Syria. In a speech that Mr Obama gave, he claimed that there were ‘gaps of trust’ between the two governments. Some seven months on, those gaps have become chasms. The very notion that the Russians could be entrusted to act responsibly over one of the most volatile regions in the world now appears fanciful.

Every iota of evidence from the recent ghastly atrocity in Syria’s rebel-held Idlib province indicates that the forces of President Bashar al-Assad committed war crimes. The Russian version of events – that an airstrike hit a rebel armoury, releasing toxic agents and nerve gases – has been roundly dismissed by every serious political actor.

According to Britain’s ambassador to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, the attack ‘bears all the hallmarks’ of Assad’s regime. It is believed that a nerve agent, sarin nerve gas, was used in killing dozens of innocent people.

Mr Rycroft says there is no intelligence to suggest rebel groups can access the sort of chemical weapons that appear to have been used in the strikes.

The suspected chemical attack has so far claimed 72 lives, with the death toll likely to rise as rescue and aid workers search for survivors. All the while, Russia has opposed a UN resolution drafted by Britain, France and the US which condemns chemical attacks in Syria and urges the government’s co-operation in an investigation.

Many will believe that Russia’s stance is little short of collusion, and for all the frustration that is being felt in the UN at present, it is imperative that more pressure is brought on Moscow as well as the Chinese to ensure Assad makes good on his previous pledge to give up his chemical weapons stockpile.

Standard
Britain, NATO, Russia, United States

US-UK relations on NATO and Russia

WASHINGTON-LONDON

trump-may-reaffirm-us-uk-special-relationship

Ties between the US and Britain have “never been stronger”, US President Donald Trump said as he welcomed British Prime Minister Theresa May to the White House.

President Donald Trump is 100 per cent behind NATO, Theresa May has declared.

Following their first talks in the White House, the Prime Minister has said that the U.S. and UK were united in their “unshakeable commitment” to the alliance, and that both leaders recognise NATO as the “bulwark of our collective defence”.

However, the pair are set for a collision course on how to handle Vladimir Putin after President Trump said he hoped to have a “fantastic relationship” with the Russian leader. The British Prime Minister said she strongly supported continuing sanctions against Russia, but Mr Trump’s newly assembled administration said the lifting of sanctions was on the table.

Earlier this month, the president caused alarm across Europe as he dismissed NATO as “obsolete” and expressed a desire for warmer ties with Mr Putin. During his election campaign Mr Trump even suggested he could withdraw the US from the military alliance if other European members did not spend more money on defence.

Mrs May has pledged to work in persuading other EU leaders to meet their NATO commitment of spending 2 per cent of national income on defence. She has said that member states need to make sure they are equipped to fight terrorism and cyber warfare, as well as combatting conventional forms of war.

But, there are clear differences between the US and UK on Russia. In comments that would have been alarming to No 10, the president said of Mr Putin: ‘I don’t know the gentleman. I hope we have a fantastic relationship. That’s possible and it’s also possible that we won’t. We will see what happens.’

President Trump, said: ‘I have had many times where I thought I would get along with people and I don’t like them at all… And I have had some where I didn’t think I was going to have much of a relationship and it turned out to be a great relationship.’

Mr Trump has also said that he hoped for a ‘great relationship’ with China.

Mrs May said the UK would not back down on Russian sanctions amid suggestions Mr Trump could agree to lift them.

The Prime Minister said: ‘As far as the UK is concerned on sanctions for Russia in relation to their activities in the Ukraine, we have been very clear that we want to see the Minsk agreement (aimed at resolving the conflict between Ukraine and pro-Russian rebels) fully implemented.

‘We believe the sanctions should continue until we see that Minsk agreement fully implemented, and we’ve been continuing to argue that inside the European Union.’

Mr Trump has not answered directly whether he would remove the measures. A senior adviser to the U.S. President said that US sanctions against Moscow, and other issues, would be on the table.

Barack Obama’s administration and the EU hit Moscow with sanctions for sending in troops and supporting pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine. Earlier this month Mr Trump suggested his administration could lift them in return for a nuclear arms deal – irrespective of whether Mr Putin withdrew troops from the Ukraine.

The comments have sparked fears that an emboldened Russia could launch a full-scale invasion in the Ukraine or Baltic States.

Responding to the possibility of sanctions being lifted, the former head of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said: ‘I would urge strong caution against reversing any sanctions on Russia without concrete concessions.

‘Easing sanctions will only embolden Russia’s aggression in the region, putting the security interests of Ukraine and the United States in jeopardy.’

The U.S. softens its stance on torture

Donald Trump has dropped his controversial threat to revive the use of torture. This follows a warning from Theresa May who said it would force Britain to curb intelligence sharing.

In what will be seen as a dramatic about-turn, the US President has indicated that he would not now order secret service interrogators to use torture despite maintaining “it works”. Mr Trump said he would defer to his security advisers who are overwhelmingly opposed to the use of torture.

Mr Trump sparked an angry backlash when he first spoke out in favour of waterboarding, saying the West had to “fight fire with fire” in the war on terrorism.

His comments sparked alarm in the British intelligence community, with sources warning rules banning intelligence sharing with states that use torture would prohibit vital co-operation with the US. The U.S. President said he was bowing to the advice given to him by his Defence Secretary, General James Mattis, who has seen active service in the Middle East and who is opposed to torture.

Protagonists argue that extreme interrogation methods should be used if it saves lives.

Standard