Category Archives: Society

Arts, History, Russia, Society, Soviet Union, United States

Short Essay: The Start of The ‘Cold War’

(1946-1948)

AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR the responsibility for supervising the defeated Germany was divided among the Allied victors. West Germany was occupied by British and American troops, while East Germany was occupied by Russia. Berlin, the capital of Germany, was also divided into East and West, but embedded within East German territory.

On 24 July 1948, Soviet troops set up a blockade, severing the road and rail links between West Germany and Berlin. It was a calculated act of aggression against the West, and was felt as such. The West came close to declaring war on Russia and was only put off by the thought of Stalingrad. In fact, it later turned out that Stalin did not have sufficient troops or equipment in the Russian sector (later East Germany) to launch a war on the British and American sectors (later West Germany). If the British and American troops had fought their way through the Soviet blockade, there would probably have been no further military action from Moscow, but at the time the level of risk was unknown.

The day after the Berlin blockade started an airlift began, with British and US aircraft flying in food and supplies for the people living in West Berlin – some 2million of them. The blockade continued and by September the aircraft were ferrying in 4,500 tons of supplies a day. The blockade was maintained for almost 18 months.

Relations between the West and the Soviet Union naturally cooled over the Berlin blockade. The US Presidential adviser Bernard Baruch described the situation as a “Cold War”, coining the phrase that would characterise the state of the world for the next half-century. The Soviets were not firing guns at anyone, but their behaviour was certainly hostile and intimidating.

This state of frozen hostility went on for over 40 years. It led directly to a dangerous arms race in which the latest atomic weapons were stockpiled. As the science of rocketry developed, America and the Soviet Union equipped their arsenals with rockets and missiles that could carry nuclear warheads right across the Arctic Ocean or from one side of Europe to the other. The cost of these intercontinental ballistic missiles (IBMs) was enormous, a huge drain on the economic resources of the countries involved.

A climate of fear was generated. Both sides wanted to test their latest nuclear bombs, and the bomb test explosions were in themselves intended to deter the enemy. By the late 1950s it was evident that dangerous levels of radiation were being pumped into the atmosphere by these test explosions, and anxious people were concerned their life expectancy was being shortened by the increase risk of serious illness. In the West, there was also a heightened fear that real, full-scale war would break out, a Third World War that might be shorter but far more violent than the two previous world wars, a war that could and probably would destroy both sides.

Perhaps in the knowledge that an old-style military war would probably annihilate everything and everyone, America and the Soviet Union played out their fierce rivalry in a Space Race. The competition to launch satellites, space probes and land men on the Moon was a kind of displacement activity, an acting-out of the Cold War in a contest of supremacy over space technology.

. Appendage

Cold War

Standard
Economic, European Union, Government, Italy, Politics, Society

A provocation and insult to democracy

ITALY

ITALY has had no fewer than 65 governments since the War – with an average survival rate of just over a year. The country is hardly renowned as a beacon of democratic stability.

Even by the standards of this volatile nation, however, the current political crisis is becoming more troubling and bizarre by the day. It proves yet again the disastrous folly of imposing the one-size-fits-all euro on countries for which it is so obviously unsuitable. Pertinently, it demonstrates that Brussels has no qualms about trampling on democracy to keep the dream of a European superstate alive.

Italy’s national finances are in a dire state. Marooned in a sea of debt, with a stagnant economy and crippling unemployment rate, citizens of that beleaguered land renounced their mainstream Europhile parties in a general election just three months ago. They rightly blamed membership of the single currency for their misery and elected a coalition of unashamedly populist, Eurosceptic parties – led by the maverick Five Star movement and Right-wing Northern League.

Yet, when radical economist Paolo Savona – a passionate opponent of the euro – was named finance minister he was vetoed by Italy’s slavishly pro-Brussels president Sergio Matarella, who then nominated his own man as prime minister and invited him to form a totally unelected government. It has no mandate of course and will soon fall. Mr Matarella could possibly be impeached for overreaching his powers. But what an affront to democracy.

Had this happened in some Third World state, it would have quickly been denounced as tyrannical and corrupt. Not in Europe. In both Paris and Berlin, Mr Matarella is being praised for his courage. There is no better example or illustration of how people across the European continent are being disenfranchised – and just why they are crying out for change.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, National Security, Politics, Society

The Galileo satellite project

BREXIT

Galileo is Europe’s Global Satellite Navigation System (GNSS), providing improved positioning and timing information with significant positive implications for many European services and users.

BREXIT talks have turned into an extraordinary row over security cooperation as Brussels accused British negotiators of “chasing a fantasy”.

A senior EU official even threatened to bring talks to a halt due to acrimony over the EU’s Galileo satellite project and a post-Brexit security pact.

Brussels says Britain should not have full access to the £9billion satellite navigation system after it leaves the EU.

Britain has hit back by threatening it could demand the return of £1.2billion of taxpayer investment if Brussels goes through with its threat.

The UK also warned that the bloc’s hard-line approach to future cooperation on crime and security issues was in danger of creating “unnecessary risks to public safety”.

A senior EU official then struck back by warning of a halt to Brexit talks, insisting Brussels “would not negotiate under threat”.

The official claimed that British negotiators were “chasing a fantasy” and ignoring the “consequences of Brexit”.

The comments are likely to have infuriated the Government and Brexiteers, with talks now at a critical juncture ahead of a key summit at the end of next month.

The EU’s approach to Galileo has particularly enraged ministers, because Britain has already invested hundreds of millions in the programme.

Jean-Claude Juncker’s close ally Martin Selmayr is thought to be behind the tough approach, which has caused a split with other EU states that want security cooperation with the UK. Britain wants access to high-security elements of the Galileo programme, started in 2003 to rival America’s dominant GPS system, that have been factored into British military planning.

But Brussels claims that as a non-EU country, the UK should be treated similarly to partners such as America.

Britain warned the bloc that failure to provide the UK access to encrypted parts of Galileo would create an “irreparable security risk” and could cost the EU a total of £2billion.

Brexit negotiators said the EU would face a £880million bill if the UK continues to be frozen out of the programme – as well as a three-year delay beyond its expected completion in 2020.

In a position paper, the UK also said it would seek to claim back its £1.2billion taxpayer investment if Brussels refused to offer immediate unrestricted access. And the Government reiterated that it would push ahead with the development of its own alternative.

The UK’s demands were outlined in a combative paper presented to the EU negotiating team. The UK text said: “An end to close UK participation will be to the detriment of Europe’s prosperity and security and could result in delays and additional costs to the programme.”

The paper suggested that Brussels was deliberately overlooking the UK’s “considerable contribution” to European security.

It added: “The Commission suggestion that UK involvement in such exchanges and discussions ‘could irretrievably compromise the integrity’ of the system risks being interpreted as a lack of trust in the UK.” Brexit Secretary David Davis added: “A relationship based solely on existing third country precedents, as some seem to be suggesting, would lead to a substantial and avoidable reduction in our shared security capability.”

EU officials suggested that handing the UK security codes to the system would give them the ability to turn it off single-handedly while outside the EU.

An official also claimed that UK calls for reimbursement of its investments could breach a so-called “backsliding” clause that could allow talks to be frozen.

 

ARE the bureaucrats running the European Commission determined to damage the continent’s security in the pursuit of their grand project? There is no other way to explain the decision to try and exclude Britain from the Galileo satellite project after Brexit.

If this is an attempt to use Galileo to teach Britain a lesson it’s a mistake. This country’s vast military spending and world leading intelligence services mean the cards are overwhelmingly stacked in our favour. Far too often Britain’s negotiators have underplayed their hand. But rightly they have now issued an ultimatum: access to Galileo or our £1billion investment back, with the threat that Britain could go it alone – or join forces with Australia.

Meanwhile, the European Commission ought to consider much graver threats to the grand projects – Italy, crippled by debt and run by a ragtag coalition united only by loathing for Brussels, and the continuing rise of Eurosceptic opinion across more than half the continent.

Standard