Category Archives: United States

Britain, France, Russia, Syria, United States

Britain must now act against Syria’s regime

SYRIA

THESE are extremely dangerous times, more so than even during the years of the Cold War. Then, superpower tensions could be eased and constrained by hotline calls and summits such as those used to deliver arms reduction. The omnipresent threat of nuclear confrontation helped to concentrate the minds of the world’s leaders on peace not war.

Many of the old certainties have now gone with the complete erosion of the ideological battle-lines. These have been replaced with regional flash points, each with the potential to spill far beyond their own boundaries. The capacity of the Syrian civil war to draw other nations into its ghastly vortex has been apparent for some time. The risks are greater than ever.

. Related Lord Hague: We must act now to stop chemical warfare

The conflict now has NATO, Russia, Israel, Iran, Turkey (a NATO member but acting unilaterally and more in sync with Russia) and Saudi Arabia all involved to a greater or lesser extent, just at the very time when diplomatic communications with Moscow have irretrievably broken down for many other reasons – including electoral interference, cyber espionage and the chemical poisoning attack in Salisbury.

The apparent chemical weapons attack on Douma, a suburb of Damascus, has brought matters to a head. The U.S. had previously warned Assad to expect retaliation for breaching international law in this way and President Trump has already said there will be a heavy price to pay. He needs to make good on that threat otherwise it is meaningless. The American response needs to be surgical and proportionate.

It looks as if Israel has taken the opportunity to attack the Tiyas airbase in central Syria, which it has targeted before. This is by no means Israel’s first incursion into the civil war on self-defence grounds, but matters are complicated by Russian and Iranian backing for Syria’s despot leader. Tehran has already claimed that four Iranian nationals were killed in the raid on the airbase.

 

ON a visit to Denmark, the British Prime Minister said that, if chemical weapons were used, then the Syrian regime and their proxy backers must be held to account. But, how exactly? Russia denies a gas attack has even taken place and has threatened to retaliate if direct action is taken against Assad’s regime. With diplomatic missions being stripped down in the tit-for-tat expulsions of recent weeks, the scope for misunderstandings leading to a military clash is growing by the day. An end to the bloody civil war would clearly help calm matters; but, since Assad is winning, for what reason does he need to brook a political solution when he can use brute force to crush remaining rebel strongholds?

President Trump’s eagerness to pull out American forces has given the impression that the US has no long-term strategy for the region. Beyond pummelling ISIS and punishing Assad for breaching “red lines” over the use of chemical weapons, Washington does not wish to get involved in the Syrian imbroglio and Russia clearly knows it. The role of power-broker in Syria was ceded by Barack Obama in 2013 when he backed away from a threat to take military action in response to a sarin gas attack carried out by Assad’s air force.

America’s backtracking then was the baleful consequence of a vote in the British parliament against military action in Syria. Some may argue that Theresa May’s tough talking is unlikely to be backed up by British military action unless she can reverse that position.

It is telling, however, given this background that the first leader President Trump contacted to discuss the West’s response was not Theresa May but Emmanuel Macron of France, whom Washington presumably sees as a more reliable partner. France was also the lead country calling for the UN security council to meet to debate the Douma attack and its consequences. When Paris is the first port of call for an American president seeking an ally, the Syria conflict has shifted the balance of power in more ways than one.

Given the parlous state of UK-Russian relations, it might be tempting to let other European countries take the lead. But if the US and France are to act, Mrs May needs to ensure that the UK is not left on the sidelines unwilling to join in the punitive action she has rightly identified as being necessary.

Standard
Britain, France, Government, Russia, Syria, United States

Lord Hague: We must act now to stop chemical warfare

SYRIA

Intro: Lord Hague, the former foreign secretary, says we must hold Assad to account with force to prevent future suffering

CHEMICAL weapons will become “legitimised” and used in future wars if the West fails to take military action against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. That’s the view of Lord Hague, the former foreign secretary, who says that he is in “little doubt” that if he were still in office today, he would recommend military intervention in Syria.

He also adds: “The world has succeeded for nearly a century in preventing the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. Once we accept that it is just another aspect of war that is what it will become in the conflicts of coming decades, with an arms race in chemical agents steadily expanded and legitimised.”

Theresa May has suggested that Britain was prepared to join any action by the US and France, warning that the Syrian government “must be held to account” for the “barbaric” attack on eastern Ghouta.

It is understood that Cabinet ministers are urging the Prime Minister to avoid the potential “fiasco” of a Commons defeat on military action, such as that suffered by David Cameron in 2013, and instead take direct measures.

Mrs May has been warned that failure to join a coalition with the US and France could diminish Britain’s international standing.

President Donald Trump has said that he would come to a decision on the American response to the chemical weapons attacks within the “next 24 to 48 hours”. Mr Trump who has liaised with Emmanuel Macron, the French president, has pledged a “strong, joint response”.

Potential British action could involve cruise missiles being launched from the Mediterranean or sorties flown by RAF Tornado fighter jets.

Lord (William) Hague was foreign secretary when the government lost its vote for action in Syria, which is widely considered to have emboldened the Assad regime. Recalling the aftermath of the defeat, Lord Hague says the UK became “enfeebled spectators of one of the most destructive conflagrations of our time.”

“We were left with only words, and compared to other nations financing armies or sending forces, words count for very little… We should have learnt from the fiasco of 2013 that abdication of the responsibility and right to act doesn’t make war go away.”

 

AT LEAST 70 people were killed in the attack on the rebel-held town of Douma. A US navy destroyer appeared to be getting into position to attack in the eastern Mediterranean yesterday in what is being viewed as a sign of potential cruise missile strikes. Tensions have been further heightened by a reported Israeli attack on a Syrian air base.

UK ministers are particularly concerned that Jeremy Corbyn is likely to oppose any direct military intervention in a Commons vote. The Labour leader has been criticised by his MPs for failing to single out the Assad regime, instead condemning “all violence” and “all killings”.

Many on the Conservative benches will hold the view as to why would we want to open that Pandora’s box again? They will suggest, rightly, that there’s no need to go there, and that the Prime Minister should take direct action then go to Parliament afterwards. The Government has no obligation to call a Commons vote on military action, but in recent years it has become more of a convention in doing so.

One government minister said that the chemical weapons attack was “another consequence of blinking” in the 2013 vote, and warned: “We must stand up to Syria”.

In a warning to Syria and Russia, Mrs May said: “This is about the brutal actions of Assad and his regime, but it is also about the backers of that regime.”

 

Standard
Britain, Government, NBC Warfare, Russia, Society, United Nations, United States

Britain expels 23 Russian spies in biggest reprisal since Cold War

BRITAIN

MOSCOW has vowed revenge against Britain after Theresa May ordered the biggest purge of Russian spies since the Cold War.

In a barely-veiled threat, the Kremlin said its response to what it described as a “hostile” package of measures announced by the Prime Minister “would not be long in coming”.

The United States has vowed to stand shoulder to shoulder with the UK in its response to Russian involvement in the Salisbury chemical attack.

Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, said: “If we don’t take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be the last place we see chemical weapons used. They could be used here in New York, or in cities of any country that sits on this council. This is a defining moment.”

Britain’s deputy UN ambassador Jonathan Allen accused Russia of deploying “a weapon so horrific it is banned from use in war”.

In a forceful statement to MPs, Mrs May said the Kremlin would be made to pay for its role in the Salisbury attack.

She confirmed that Moscow had failed to meet a deadline to explain how the Russian-produced military nerve agent Novichok came to be used in the attempt to murder former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.

She said Russia had “treated the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance”. She added: “There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder.”

The PM outlined a series of tough sanctions, including the expulsion of 23 suspected spies posing as diplomats as well as the threat of financial sanctions against Russian oligarchs and cronies of President Putin with assets in London.

The expulsion of diplomats is the biggest since 1985 and is designed to “fundamentally degrade Russian intelligence capability in the UK for years to come”.

High-level diplomatic relations will be scrapped, with an invitation to Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov to visit the UK revoked.

Mrs May also suggested that covert reprisals would be undertaken – in an apparent hint at cyber attacks aimed at damaging the Russian state’s propaganda machine.

British sources said Mrs May was willing to unveil even tougher sanctions if the Kremlin hit back.

A senior government official said: “We are responding in a way that is robust, it gives us the ability to respond if the Russians escalate but it is also in line with the rule of law, all of which is in stark contrast to the way the Russian state has behaved both in this instance and wider areas of policy. Further options remain on the table.” The official said that if the measures fail to produce a change in behaviour from the Kremlin… “we will look again.”

But Moscow has warned that the UK would face reprisals for the “groundless anti-Russian campaign.” The Prime Minister told MPs that the UK “does not stand alone in confronting Russian aggression”, with messages of support already received from key allies such as the US, France, Germany and NATO.

She added: “This was not just an act of attempted murder in Salisbury, nor just an act against the UK. It is an affront to the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and it is an affront to the rules-based system on which we and our international partners depend.”

Veteran Conservative MP Kenneth Clarke said the “bizarre and dreadful” use of a nerve agent appeared to be “a deliberate choice by the Russian government to put their signature on a particular killing so that other defectors are left in no doubt that it is the Russian government”.

Mrs May confirmed that Prince William and Prince Harry will join ministers in boycotting this summers football World Cup in Russia, but Government sources say that, although she called on the FA “to consider their position”, she will not order the England team to withdraw as there is no sign that other countries would join a walkout.

Labour MP Stephen Kinnock said: “The Russia World Cup risks vindicating the Putin regime. We should look at postponing the World Cup and hosting it in another country.”

Revised Foreign Office travel advice for Russia has warned of an upsurge in “anti-British sentiment or harassment” in a country plagued by violent football hooliganism. A Whitehall source said the estimated 2,000 fans who have bought tickets were likely to be issued with “very robust” travel advice.

 

Standard