Britain, Government, National Security, Society, United States

Spy chief speaks for the first time over unrepentant Snowden

NATIONAL SECURITY

BRITAIN’S ability to keep its citizens safe was compromised as a result of the intelligence leaks by US traitor Edward Snowden, a spy chief has revealed in an excoriating attack.

Jeremy Fleming, head of Britain’s eavesdropping agency GCHQ, said the unrepentant former spy had caused “real and unnecessary damage” to the security of the UK and its allies.

In his first remarks on the devastating impact of the security breach five years ago, he said the American fugitive, who is now living in exile in Russia, needed to be held to account for his “illegal” actions. His comments came as Snowden said he had “no regrets” about revealing sensitive information via the pages of The Guardian newspaper.

In a rare statement given on the anniversary of the biggest leak of secret documents in its history, Mr Fleming said: “GCHQ’s mission is to help keep the UK safe. What Edward Snowden did five years ago was illegal and compromised our ability to do that, causing real and unnecessary damage to the security of the UK and our allies. He should be accountable for that.”

Mr Fleming, who was deputy director general of MI5 until last year, also made clear that the agency was striving for greater transparency long before the leaks. In a pointed remark, he told The Guardian: “It’s important that we continue to be as open as we can be, and I am committed to the journey we began over a decade ago to greater transparency.”

His comments came as Snowden, 34, showed no remorse over leaking classified data from the US National Security Agency (NSA). Speaking to The Guardian, he said: “People say nothing has changed: that there is still mass surveillance. That is not how you measure change. Look back before 2013 and look at what has happened since. Everything changed.

“The Government and corporate sector preyed on our ignorance. But now we know. People are aware now. People are still powerless to stop it, but we are trying. The revelations made the fight more even.” Asked if he had any regrets he said “no”, before adding: “If I had wanted to be safe, I would not have left Hawaii.”

Snowden was living in Hawaii while he worked as a security contractor for the NSA. It was there that he acquired the data he later leaked, including details of the precise methods used by the intelligence agencies to track terrorist plots. A year after the leaks – by which time Snowden had fled to Hong Kong before subsequently settling and given immunity in Russia – it was estimated that a quarter of the serious criminals being tracked by GCHQ had fallen off the radar because they had been alerted to the covert methods being used to track them.

Theresa May, then as Home Secretary, revealed how Britain’s ability to track terrorists and crime gangs was severely damaged because of the leaks. She said police and security services were finding it harder to monitor the electronic communications used by fanatics and master criminals.

The former head of GCHQ, Sir Iain Lobban, said in 2013 that terrorists were known to be “discussing how to avoid vulnerable communications methods.” And just last month, Bill Evanina, director of the US National Counter-intelligence and Security Centre, said Snowden’s leaks would continue to cause problems for years to come. He told a conference that only about 1 per cent of the documents taken by him had been released.

Standard
Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, United States

Britain dismayed at US trade war

US TRADE TARIFFS

THE Prime Minister Theresa May has attacked Donald Trump’s “unjustified” trade tariffs amid fears that Britain’s automotive industry could be hit next.

Mrs May said she was “deeply disappointed” with the US President’s decision to impose higher import taxes on steel and aluminium from Britain and the EU.

The EU has signalled that it is prepared to hit back, making a complaint to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and finalising a list of American products it will target with tariffs of its own.

There are fears, however, that this could spark a spiralling trade war, with Mr Trump responding to any retaliation by imposing additional import levies on cars from the UK and EU.

That possibility will concern the more than 169,000 employees in the UK motor vehicle industry, on top of existing fears for Britain’s 31,000 steel workers.

International Trade Secretary Dr Liam Fox suggested that the UK may not fully support the EU’s retaliatory measures, instead saying Britain only backs the complaint to the WTO.

He said it would “take some time” for EU member states to agree their collective response, and urged the bloc to pursue compromise with the White House in the interim – even though British diplomats have previously offered their support to measures drawn up in Brussels.

Dr Fox said it would be “very, very unfortunate if we get into this tit-for-tat position, especially with one of our closest allies.”

He added: “Nobody wins in a trade war, there are only casualties. We very much regret that these tariffs were put in place.

“We think it’s of dubious legality and we will be with the EU 100 per cent in taking this to a dispute at the WTO.”

The deepening row comes just before a G7 meeting of world leaders in Quebec this week, where European leaders will air their grievances to the US President. French president Emmanuel Macron has already told Mr Trump his new tariffs on EU goods was a “mistake” and “illegal”.

Mrs May’s language was more measured, but she said: “I am deeply disappointed at the unjustified decision by the United States to apply tariffs to EU steel and aluminium imports.

“The US, EU and UK are close allies and have always promoted values of open and fair trade across the world. Our steel and aluminium industries are highly important to the UK, but they also contribute to US industry, including defence projects which bolster US national security.

“The EU and UK should be permanently exempted from tariffs and we will continue to work together to protect and safeguard our workers and industries.”

Although it is said that the Prime Minister has additional concerns over US trade tariffs, it is believed she has not expressed these in public as she hopes to tie up a comprehensive post-Brexit trade deal with the White House and does not want to inflame the situation.

The EU, which handles trade matters on behalf of the UK, has been finalising its response to the US, with measures affecting thousands of US imports to the EU worth £2.5billion, including Levi’s jeans and Jack Daniel’s bourbon, hit with tariffs of up to 25 per cent.

Cecilia Malmstrom, the EU’s trade chief, admitted the bloc was “anxious” that Mr Trump would follow through on earlier threats to impose tariffs on European cars.

She said: “This would create enormous damage, not only to the European economy but also to the US.” The US levies of 25 per cent on steel and 10 per cent on aluminium imports follow promises made by Mr Trump under his America First programme.

Earlier this year, he said: “If the EU wants to increase their already massive tariffs and barriers on US companies doing business there, we will apply a tax on their cars, which freely pour into the US.”

EU cars sold in the US face a levy of 2.5 per cent, compared to a 10 per cent tax on US vehicles brought into Europe.

How the US raised the stakes:

. Donald Trump announced in March that the EU and countries including Mexico, Canada and Brazil would be hit by increased steel and aluminium tariffs to protect US firms against imports from China, which has flooded the market with cut-price steel.

. The EU, which negotiates trade on behalf of Britain, was granted a temporary exemption while Theresa May and other leaders lobbied for a permanent reprieve.

. The UK is concerned about the effect of the measures on its resurgent £1.6billion steel industry, which employs some 31,000.

. Britain exported 350,000 tonnes of steel worth £376million to the US last year – 7 per cent of its output.

. If the EU hits back, as it has threatened to do, Britain fears that Mr Trump will retaliate by raising tariffs on cars, in a blow to the UK car industry, which employs around 169,000.

Standard
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