Category Archives: Society

Economic, Europe, Government, History, NATO, Politics, Russia, Society, United States

America has a role in supporting Europe. It isn’t about to turn its back…

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.

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Middle East, National Security, Society, United States

The ‘war on terror’ doctrine has failed, but why?

‘WAR ON TERROR’

Intro: The ‘war on terror’ has failed, and failed unnecessarily

It is now more than twelve and a half years since the Al-Qaeda attack on America’s Twin Towers of 9/11. Yet, despite all the efforts by the West in dealing with additional terrorist threats under its catch all phrase ‘war on terror’, al-Qaeda and its affiliate type organisations (of which there are many) now control an area the size of Britain in western Iraq and eastern Syria. This size increases still further if we factor in Afghanistan, Libya and vast swathes of Somalia.

The rapid expansion and spread of jihadi groups comes amid the west’s ongoing fight and struggle of George W Bush’s infamous war on terror doctrine. In the name of such a struggle, great sums have been expended; wars have been fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; civil rights have been curtailed; and the practices of torture, rendition, detention without trial and domestic espionage have been justified. What is so extraordinary is that the attempts made by the West to eliminate the supposed enemy have wholly failed.

It was never an inevitable outcome that organisations and splinter groups aligned to the ideology and methods of Osama bin-Laden should have survived and flourished like they have. Al-Qaeda inspired jihad is now stronger than ever.

Undoubtedly, Saudi Arabia was crucial to the rise of the original al-Qaeda based group. On the 9/11 attacks, 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudi and the Commission Report in the aftermath revealed that Saudi donors were the main financial supporters and backers for al-Qaeda. More than 28 pages of the report relating to Saudi involvement have never been published, and the Bush administration never sought for a moment to pin blame or any measure of responsibility on Saudi Arabia. This failure has enabled the Saudis to go on playing a central role in the funding and recruitment for jihadi groups across much of the Muslim world. Instead, Bush sought to wholly attribute blame for 9/11 on Saddam Hussein and Iraq, without a shred of acceptable evidence.

Policies of wrong-footedness have continued. Since the start of the Arab Spring the US, Britain and their allies have supported jihadis who manoeuvred and appeared to be on their side – much in the same way as they backed them in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Rebel groups in Syria and Libya, much like al-Qaeda, have been viewed tolerantly thanks to their opposition and denouncements of Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad. The US ambassador to Libya, J Christopher Stevens, paid with his life after Washington underestimated the danger posed by the jihadis with whom America had been cooperating.

The willingness of the US, Britain, and their allies to cooperate with theocratic absolute regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf does have aspects to it which are hypocritical. The absurd pretence that they want to establish secular democracies in Syria, Libya and Iraq is the clearest example. There is a sustained unwillingness, too, to admit that the Sunni monarchs are viscerally anti-Shia. We need to look no further than the sectarian hate propaganda proliferating on well-funded Arabic satellite television stations, across social media sites, and through the internet in general.

But ‘why’ you may ask has the West been so gentle with the Saudis (and their allies) responsible though they are for sustaining the jihadi movement. The reason is the kingdom’s financial might. Washington and London’s hunger for lucrative arms deals and the lure of consultancy contracts and other personal benefits for powerful individuals is a prime driver.

The ‘war on terror’ has failed, and failed unnecessarily. Greater accountability should have been delivered by now for those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Standard
Britain, Economic, European Union, Financial Markets, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

What will happen next following the crisis in Ukraine?

ECONOMIC REALITIES

Intro: Economic havoc and a global slump could materialise from the crisis in the Crimea

So far, financial markets in the West have remained remarkably undisturbed in the face of the crisis unfolding in Ukraine. Following Crimea’s referendum at the weekend, which effectively sealed Vladimir Putin’s grip of the Ukrainian peninsula, sanctions were always likely to follow. Whilst, then, we may anticipate just how long the sanguine calm will continue, Western leaders should also be careful of supplanting diplomacy with threats to Russia that they are unwilling or unable to back up. The decision by the European Union and United States to impose sanctions on several Russian officials is a limited response to the breach of international law that has taken place in Crimea. The measures include travel bans and the freezing of assets against individuals who were deemed to have played a major role in the referendum – a vote, officials say, in which 97 per cent of voters backed a breakaway from Ukraine and, instead, opted to join the Russian Federation.

In the years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia has steadily become more integrated into the global economy. We know that many rich Russians have shifted their gains (ill-gotten or otherwise) into more stable and secure environments, such as investing on the London Stock Exchange or by diversifying their stocks in the UK property market. In actual fact, more money has flowed into Russia than out. According to data from the Bank for International Settlements, foreign owned banks have lent the country at least $260 billion. That is nearly double the value of its estimated assets in the West. As a consequence, Russia’s bilateral trade has risen to more than $100 billion annually. Almost a third of Europe’s gas, coal and oil imports come from Russia, and there has been a huge upsurge in direct investment by foreign firms.

Rhetoric used by the international community implied that there would be consequences if the referendum went ahead while the peninsula was still occupied by Russian troops. No doubt, Mr Putin will have considered the penalty a price worth paying. The question now, though, is what will happen next. Washington insists the screw will be tightened if the situation were to escalate in Ukraine – a distinct possibility that could happen fairly swiftly since the aim of the Crimean separatists is to secede from Ukraine within a month. They also aspire to adopt the rouble and by joining the Russian time-zone.

Whilst a military response to Russian aggression has already been ruled out by Western leaders, meaningful sanctions are not really much of an option, either. A full-blown trade-war would inflict serious damage on both sides. However, capital flows between Russia and the West are already in a parlous state in anticipation of lesser action, including assets freezes and travel restrictions already imposed. In order to defend the rouble, Russians are withdrawing billions from Western banks and selling off US Treasury Bonds. Mr Putin also raised interest rates to 7 per cent; a move that will discourage capital outflights from Russia to the West, a rate of interest that will be far more attractive for Russians to invest at home. The West seems certain to reciprocate by dumping Russian assets.

Yet, this all comes at a particularly delicate time for the world economy. Emerging markets, including China, have rapidly slowed down; the Eurozone is expecting a period of deflation to start anytime soon; and, America’s economy has started to inflict severe withdrawal symptoms to many countries around the world following its tapering of quantitative easing. The global economy may be just one sharp shock away from lurching into another recession.

A standoff with Russia over Crimea’s breakaway is the last thing the world needs. Economic considerations cannot surpass the higher purpose of defending international law, and as such must be secondary to it. Nonetheless, the interplay between politics and economics is what is making this situation so dangerous and destabilising. All concerned should be aware of just how very much more disruptive this crisis could yet become.

Standard