Europe

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on China, Xinjiang and sanctions: the gloves are off | Editorial

      by

      China’s response to criticisms of horrifying human rights violations in Xinjiang is clear and calculated. Its aims are threefold. First, the sanctions imposed upon individuals and institutions in the EU and UK are direct retaliation for those imposed upon China over its treatment of Uighurs. That does not mean they are like-for-like: the EU and UK measures targeted officials responsible for human rights abuses, while these target non-state actors – elected politicians, thinktanks, lawyers and academics – simply for criticising those abuses.Second, they seek more broadly to deter any criticism over Xinjiang, where Beijing denies any rights violations. Third, they appear to be intended to send a message to the EU, UK and others not to fall in line with the harsher US approach towards China generally. Beijing sees human rights concerns as a pretext for defending western hegemony, pointing to historic and current abuses committed by its critics. But mostly it believes it no longer needs to tolerate challenges.Alongside the sanctions, not coincidentally, has come a social media storm and consumer boycott targeting the Swedish clothing chain H&M and other fashion firms over concerns they voiced about reports of forced labour in cotton production in Xinjiang. Nationalism is a real and potent force in China (though not universal), but this outburst does not appear spontaneous: it began when the Communist Youth League picked up on an eight-month-old statement, and is being egged on by state media.China has used its economic might to punish critics before – Norway’s salmon exports slumped after dissident Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel peace prize – and often with the desired results. But this time, it is acting far more overtly, and it is fighting on multiple fronts. Some clothing companies are already falling into line. Overall, the results are more complex. The sanctions have drastically lowered the odds of the European parliament approving the investment deal which China and the EU agreed in December, to US annoyance. Beijing may think the agreement less useful to China than it is to the EU (though many in Europe disagree). But the measures have done more to push Europe towards alignment with the US than anything Joe Biden could have offered, at a time when China is also alienating other players, notably Australia. Foreigners – who in many cases have offered more nuanced voices to counter outright China hawks – are already becoming wary of travelling there, following the detention and trial of two Canadians, essentially taken hostage following their country’s arrest (on a US extradition request) of a top Huawei executive. The sanctioning of scholars and thinktanks is likely to make them more so. Businesses, though still counting on the vast Chinese market, are very belatedly realising the risks attached to it. Those include not only the difficulty of reconciling their positions for consumers inside and outside China, but the challenges they face as the US seeks to pass legislation cracking down on goods made with forced labour, and the potential to be caught up in political skirmishes by virtue of nationality. For those beginning to have second thoughts, rethinking investments or disentangling supply chains will be the work of years or decades. But while we will continue to live in a globalised economy, there is likely to be more decoupling than people foresaw.The pandemic has solidified a growing Chinese confidence that the west is in decline, but has also shown how closely our fates are tied. There can be no solutions on the climate emergency without Beijing, and cooperation on other issues will be both possible and necessary – but extraordinarily difficult.Beijing’s delayed response to the UK sanctions suggests it did not anticipate them, perhaps unsurprising when the integrated review suggested we should somehow court trade and investment while also taking a tougher line. But the prime minister and foreign secretary have, rightly, made their support for sanctioned individuals and their concerns about gross human rights violations in Xinjiang clear. Academics and politicians, universities and other institutions, should follow their lead in backing targeted colleagues and bodies. China has made its position plain. So should democratic societies. More

    • 238 Shares159 Views

      in UK Politics

      Von der Leyen takes swipe at UK over ‘transparency’ and says AstraZeneca must ‘catch up’ on vaccines to EU

      by

      European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has taken a swipe at the UK over “transparency” on vaccine exports, casting fresh doubt on hopes for a resolution to the ongoing dispute between London and Brussels over jabs.Europe’s top official said she had not seen any evidence that any British-made vaccines had been exported, despite EU-made doses going to into the UK.The tone was in start contrast to an earlier joint statement that said Britain and the EU were hoping for a “win-win” to end tensions.Speaking after an oline summit of EU leaders, Ms Von der Leyen said saying AstraZeneca “has to catch up, has to honour the contract it has with the European member states, before it can engage again in exporting vaccines.”She added: “We have worldwide supply chains that have to be intact and it is of the utmost importance that we get back to an attitude of openness.”Read more:Asked about how many vaccines the UK had exported, she told reporters: “I have no knowledge so far of UK exports, perhaps I am mistaken and waiting for their transparency.”So far some 31 million doses of vaccine have been administered in the UK to more than half of the adult population, compared to the more than 60 million jabs given across EU countries containing a total population of 446 million.As a result, the bloc has enacted a policy allowing member states to block shipments of jabs due for export in the event the immunisations are needed within the European Union.Tensions have persisted between the bloc and the UK throughout their respective vaccine rollouts. The UK maintains that it did a better job of securing cast iron vaccine contracts quickly, while the EU side believes Britain should share more with the continent.Read more:Meanwhile, Angela Merkel told the summit the EU was hoping for”a win-win situation … that is, we want to act in a politically sensible way.”Limiting trade in vaccines has proven to be an ideological sticking point in Europe, with some officials believing it serves a necessary purpose while others claim it undermines the bloc’s reputation as a free trading union.Seeking to counter accusations of “vaccine nationalism”, Ms Von der Leyen presented slides showing that 77 million vaccine doses had been shipped from EU plants to over 40 countries since the start of December.Belgian prime minister Alexander de Croo said that he believed the dispute “can be resolved” as he referred to a phone call with Mr Johnson last week.“We think that the discussion we have with the United Kingdom can be resolved based on good agreements,” Mr de Croo told a Brussels press conference.Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte echoed that, saying he was “cautiously optimistic.”“I think that on Saturday or soon after, they could come to an agreement which would be very helpful because we are friends, the UK and the rest of Europe, and we need each other,” he told reporters.Additional reporting by Reuters More

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Polish writer charged for calling president a 'moron'

      by

      A Polish writer faces a possible prison sentence for insulting President Andrzej Duda by calling him a “moron” over comments the latter made about Joe Biden’s US election victory.Jakub Żulczyk, the screenwriter behind the popular TV series Blinded by the Lights and Belfer, said prosecutors had charged him under an article in the criminal code for insulting the head of state in a Facebook post.“I am, I suspect, the first writer in this country in a very long time to be tried for what he wrote,” he said on Facebook.In his post on 7 November last year, Żulczyk commented on a curiously worded tweet in which Duda congratulated Biden for his “successful presidential campaign” but said he was waiting for “the nomination by the electoral college”.Duda, who is supported by the populist rightwing Law and Justice (Pis) party, was a close ally of Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, who unsuccessfully contested the election result.Aleksandra Skrzyniarz, a spokeswoman for Warsaw district prosecutors, told Polish news agency PAP on Monday that charges had been filed against a man, naming him only as “Jakub Z”.“The defendant was accused of committing an act of public insult on 7 November last year on a social networking website against the president of the Republic of Poland, by using a term commonly recognised as insulting,” the spokeswoman said.She added that the charge had been filed earlier this month and that the suspect had been questioned but “did not admit to committing the alleged act and gave explanations”.“He indicated that the statement constituted a critical assessment of the president’s actions,” she said.In his post, published in the days immediately after the 3 November election, Żulczyk said that “there is no such thing as ’nomination by the electoral college’”, adding that Biden’s confirmation as US president was “a mere formality”.“Andrzej Duda is a moron”, the post said.Poland has been criticised repeatedly over its different insult laws, including one law on offending religious feeling and another on insulting the flags of Poland or other countries. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in UK Politics

      Covid vaccines: EU ‘set to block AstraZeneca exports to UK’

      by

      The European Union is set to block exports of Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines to the UK, according to reports.Senior officials told Bloomberg news agency that any requests for doses produced in Europe would be reviewed “very severely” until the British-based company fulfilled its contract with the bloc.Any vaccines and ingredients produced in European factories “will for now be reserved for local deliveries,” the source added.The comments were made ahead of a meeting of EU leaders to discuss a possible export ban on Thursday.It comes after defence minister Ben Wallace said any attempt to block Covid-19 vaccine exports to the UK would be “counterproductive”.Mr Wallace added: “The grown-up thing would be for the European Commission and some of the European leaders to not indulge in rhetoric but to recognise the obligations that we all have.”Read more:An EU export ban could delay the UK’s vaccination programme by two months, according to analysis carried out for the Guardian . However the same analysis found the EU programme would only be sped up by a week if it kept the supplies meant for the UK.Reuters reported the vaccine row is focused on a factory in the Netherlands which features in AstraZeneca contracts signed with both Britain and the EU.An EU official claimed that whatever was produced in the plant, run by the subcontractor Halix in Leiden, had to go to Europe.“The Brits are insisting that the Halix plant in the Netherlands must deliver the drug substance produced there to them. That doesn’t work,” the official added.Downing Street declined to comment specifically on the reports.Boris Johnson is expected phone EU leaders early this week to urge them ot to blockade vaccines manufactured in Europe.The EU has complained that AstraZeneca is not respecting its contract to supply vaccines to member countries, while apparently fulfilling its obligations under its contract with the UK.European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said earlier this week that “we didn’t get anything from the Brits while we are delivering vaccines to them”.It follows a diplomatic row earlier this month after European Council president Charles Michel claimed the UK had imposed an “outright ban” on the export of Covid vaccines.Foreign secretary Dominic Raab rejected the suggestion as “completely false”.EU officials say that the UK is using a clause in its supply contract with AstraZeneca that prevents export of vaccines produced in Britain. More

    • 63 Shares119 Views

      in World Politics

      Influence Has Become Democracy’s Influenza

      by

      Two months after the departure of Donald Trump, the world is seeking to understand the contours of the new administration’s still hesitating foreign policy. US President Joe Biden made a bold step forward this week when he vowed to pursue the fantasy of Russiagate, the Democratic equivalent of QAnon. He may fear that without the Russian bugbear, MSNBC, the news channel that contributed so effectively to his election, will see its audience plummet even further than in the weeks since the inauguration. Russiagate alone kept MSNBC’s audience hooked through four years of Donald Trump.

      CNBC delves into the private thoughts of a president who now apparently feels empowered to judge the moral status of other leaders: “President Joe Biden says he believes Russian leader Vladimir Putin is a killer with no soul.” Biden intends to make the Russian president “pay a price” for interfering in the 2020 US election.

      A Deeper Look into Hong Kong’s Evolution

      READ MORE

      Biden’s remarks followed a report issued by US intelligence that included the following observation: “A key element of Moscow’s strategy this election cycle was its use of people linked to Russian intelligence to launder influence narratives including — misleading or unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden — through US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, some of whom were close to former President Trump and his administration.”

      One may forgive the incoherence of the author’s punctuation, but no reasonable reader can fail to deplore the confusion of the charges, highlighted by the use of phrases such as “people linked to” and “some of whom.” And then there is the semantic enormity of the phrase, “launder influence narratives.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Influence narrative:

      Anything any politician or diplomat of any nation happens to utter in speech or writing. The basis of all political discourse.

      Contextual Note

      In his book, “The Ultimate Goal,” former Indian spy chief Vikram Sood explores the way governments and their intelligence arms build and promote their self-interested narratives. Like a modern Machiavelli, Sood offers today’s princes the basic recipe: “Manage narratives to manage your destiny … tell your story first, any other story thereafter will only be a reaction.” That sums up the business of the CIA. The fact that US intelligence operatives want people to feel shocked that Russia might be using “influence narratives” reveals more about the CIA and its belief in the naivety of the US public than it does about Russia. The report itself is a perfect example of an “influence narrative.”

      Covering the same topic for The Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima confusingly repeats the CIA’s metaphor of laundering when she cites the report’s claim that Russians used “Ukrainians linked to Russian intelligence to ‘launder’ unsubstantiated allegations against Biden through U.S. media, lawmakers and prominent individuals.” “Launder,” in this context, is clearly a metaphor in spy language borrowed from the idea of “money laundering,” the act of pushing dirty money through indirect channels to return to the economy with a clean appearance. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      It may seem odd to apply a metaphor borrowed from the banking world and apply it to the hyperreal field of political narrative. But given the intelligence community’s well-documented predilection for dirty information — otherwise known as lies — it should hardly surprise us that the masters of plots and subplots see the public narrative as something that needs to be laundered. Sood, after all, tells us that the political language in any official narrative “is designed to make lies sound truthful and to give an appearance of solidity to the pure wind.”

      Since the idea of “laundered narrative” belongs specifically to spy vocabulary, it may seem disconcerting that Washington Post journalists have uncritically adopted the term and feel no need to explain what it means. Could it be that they are corrupted by their incestuous relations with the spymasters in Langley, Virginia, who feed them much of their most valuable content and which they reprint uncritically? In contrast with The Post, Al Jazeera took the liberty of substituting a different verb, writing: “Moscow sought to ‘push influence narratives’ that included misleading or unsubstantiated claims.” 

      “Launder” has become part of The Post’s standard vocabulary. In September 2020, during the presidential election campaign, Post columnist Josh Rogin had used the term concerning the same claims about Moscow’s interference. According to Rogin, Democratic leaders demanded “a briefing based on concerns that members of Congress were being used to launder information as part of a foreign interference operation.”

      This pushes the accusation a little further by supposing that the members of Congress referred to were actively involved in making the dirty information look clean. But that’s exactly how the fabricated Russiagate narrative is designed to play out: Putin’s accomplices and useful idiots can be found under every table. Just like in the good ol’ days of Joe McCarthy. After all, if the narrative tells us there’s a threat, we really do need to feel threatened. That’s the CIA and the media doing their job. Who doesn’t remember all the al-Qaeda sleeper cells that populated every American city following 9/11?

      Historical Note

      The website Strategic Culture offers a succinct explanation of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird that permitted it to infiltrate domestic media in the US. The journalist, Wayne Madsen, writes: “A major focus of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency from its very inception was the penetration of the news media, including the assignment of CIA agents to the newsrooms and editorial offices of America’s largest media operations, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, Hearst Newspaper, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, and other major newspapers and broadcast networks.” That has been ever since one of the harder components of US soft power.

      This week, Matt Taibbi interviewed the famous whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who, in 1971, leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, exposing the embarrassing truth about the war in Vietnam that had been carefully hidden from the media. Taibbi recounts how “Ellsberg described a vicious cycle, in which leaders lie pervasively, then learn to have so much contempt for the public that swallows those lies, that they feel justified in lying more.”

      In its own dissemination of the content of the intel report released this week, The New York Times admits that the “report did not explain how the intelligence community had reached its conclusions about Russian operations during the 2020 election.” The report itself explains: “The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the specific information on which it bases its analytic conclusions, as doing so could endanger sensitive sources and methods.” In other words, don’t ask for evidence, you won’t get it. Glenn Greenwald reminds his readers that when, last October, the story broke concerning Hunter Biden’s laptop that intel attributed to Moscow’s meddling, the FBI had already “acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.”

      .custom-post-from {float:left; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      When the same discredited story reappeared months later with no significant changes and still with zero evidence, instead of casting doubt on the entire story, the obedient media interpreted it as confirmation of the original narrative. What better illustration of Vikram Sood’s principle, “tell your story first, any other story thereafter will only be a reaction”?

      Perhaps the most neglected dimension of this debate concerns the official role of intelligence. A month after John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, former President Harry Truman complained in an op-ed for The Washington Post that the CIA — an agency he had created — had betrayed its straightforward mission of gathering information to clarify the president in his decision-making. Truman insisted that “the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions.” When Operation Mockingbird under the direction of Cord Meyer was launched during Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency, the CIA had not only begun focusing on influencing the president, it realized that the best way of influencing executive decisions was to control the narrative that the media would share with the public.

      The result is visible today, though no public figure will admit it. Democracy itself is engulfed within an elaborate system coordinated between the intelligence community, vested interests and the commercial media that generates and disseminates an endless stream of influence narratives.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Dutch Prime Minister in Line for 4th Term Following Victory for ‘Center-Right’

      by

      Mark Rutte’s party convincingly won the Dutch elections. But wins by liberal-democrats can force him to compromise on his critical European stances.LEIDEN, the Netherlands — Mark Rutte, one of Europe’s longest-serving leaders, saw his Party for Freedom and Democracy win big in Dutch elections on Wednesday, setting him up for a fourth term as prime minister of the Netherlands.“We have to bring this country back to where it should be, as one of the best performing countries in the world,” Mr. Rutte said in a televised victory speech. “I have enough energy for even 10 more years.”Mr. Rutte, who describes his party as “center-right,” must now form a coalition with other parties to obtain a majority in Parliament. D66, a liberal-democratic party led by the former United Nations diplomat Sigrid Kaag, came in second. Mr. Rutte and Ms. Kaag are set to lead talks over forming a new government.Mr. Rutte’s party gained three seats as compared with similar elections in 2017, according to exit polls published by the public broadcaster NOS on WednesdayMr. Rutte and his cabinet had resigned in January over a scandal involving the tax authorities’ targeting of people, mostly poor, who had made administrative mistakes in their requests for child benefits. Many were ruined financially after being forced to pay back benefits to which they had been entitled.The scandal did not play a significant role during the campaign, however, nor did Mr. Rutte’s wavering polices for dealing with the coronavirus. He and his cabinet stayed on in a caretaker role until the election in order to manage the pandemic response.“This has been a corona election, and most of those in power have been rewarded,” said Tom-Jan Meeus, a political columnist for NRC Handelsblad. He said the dispersed wins by several right-wing parties combined did not go beyond their usual threshold of about 18 percent.“These elections are a victory for parties in the political middle, no change for the radical right and a loss for the left,” he added.Mr. Meeus said that he did not expect big shifts in policy, “but there will be more pressure on Mark Rutte to have more pro-European policies, from the parties he has to govern with.”Ms. Kaag, a career diplomat who speaks multiple languages including Arabic, is a staunch supporter of the European Union, as is her party. She served in the outgoing cabinet as minister of international trade and development.Last May, Mr. Rutte led a group of nations that refused blank-check payments for southern European countries to support their economies during the pandemic. He will now be forced to compromise on such stances if he enters into a coalition with D66.Voters in the Netherlands had cast their ballots in one of the first major European elections to take place during the coronavirus pandemic that has swept across the continent in successive waves.Neighboring Germany is also entering a packed election season, with national and state votes coming in a year that will bring to an end the 16-year chancellorship of Angela Merkel.Geert Wilders, a populist who has opposed immigration from Muslim countries and called for a ban of the Quran, saw his Party for Freedom lose two seats, though it remained the third largest.Another right-wing party, the Forum voor Democratie, led by Thierry Baudet, at the height of its popularity appeared ready to win 26 seats, according to opinion polls taken in 2019, but public infighting led some prominent politicians to leave and start their own party. Mr. Baudet’s party won six new seats for a total of eight, according to exit polls late Wednesday.The elections are among of the first to take place in Europe since the coronavirus broke out last spring, sparking repeated lockdowns across the continent as the death toll grew. Portugal voted in presidential elections in January, re-electing the center-right Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa for a second term in office.The pandemic has changed the usual dynamic of organizing elections in the Netherlands, but did not seem to affect turnout on Wednesday. Long lines of socially distanced voters stood waiting in the early afternoon in the historical center of Leiden, a university town near The Hague. At many polling stations voters were allowed to take home the red pencils they used to cast their ballots, a measure to help prevent the virus from spreading.“There is no way anyone can get corona with all these measures,” said Niels Romijn, a civil servant, as he entered a public library to cast his ballot. “Everybody was super chill,” he said, happily showing off his free red pencil. “Civil duty,” he said with a laugh.Polling stations had been open nationwide since Monday to allow vulnerable voters to avoid crowds. Voters over 70 were encouraged to vote by mail. And campaigning mainly took place on television, making it hard for voters to spontaneously confront politicians as is typical practice in the Netherlands.A temporary polling station in the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam.Jeroen Jumelet/EPA, via ShutterstockCoronavirus cases are once again surging in the Netherlands, prompting the authorities to warn of a third wave. Last year, it took Mr. Rutte’s government until November to ramp up testing, and now, the vaccination process has been advancing slowly.However, local issues, not the government’s handling of the coronavirus, dominated the election campaign.Broader policies put forward by Mr. Rutte, who has been in power since 2010, were also a focus on the campaign trail, with opponents questioning his government’s repeated cutbacks in health care, policing and other essential services.Mr. Rutte has ruled out any form of cooperation with Mr. Wilders’ Freedom Party, meaning that he will likely have to engage with other parties. Wednesday’s vote brings a record of 17 parties to the 150-seat Dutch parliament. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in UK Politics

      Russia condemns UK plan to increase nuclear weapons as threat to ‘international stability’

      by

      Russia has condemned the decision by the UK government to boost its arsenal of nuclear weapons, saying the move would harm international stability.The UK will increase the cap on its nuclear warhead stockpile by more than 40 per cent, prime minister Boris Johnson revealed as part of his foreign and defence policy review on Tuesday.Moscow described the British plans – which ends decades of gradual disarmament since the fall of the Soviet Union – as a serious blow to arms control.“We are very sorry that Britain has chosen the path of increasing the number of nuclear warheads,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. “This decision will harm international stability and strategic security.”Russia said it would take Downing Street’s move into account when working on its own military planning, the RIA state news agency reported the country’s foreign ministry as saying on Wednesday.The UK had previously been committed to cutting its stockpile to 180 Trident programme warheads by the mid-2020s. However, the review by Mr Johnson’s government said the policy would now be to increase capacity to 260 warheads.Increasing the stockpile would be a violation of international law, campaigners and experts have warned – pointing to the UK commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.Mr Johnson’s review also stated that the UK reserves the right to withdraw assurances that it will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear armed state “if the future threat of weapons of mass destruction … or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact makes it necessary”.British foreign secretary Dominic Raab claimed the UK’s stockpile of Trident programme warheads were the “ultimate insurance policy” against threats from hostile states.Keir Starmer questions ‘purpose’ of increasing number of nuclear warheadsAsked why the government wanted to end three decades of gradual disarmament, Mr Raab told the BBC: “Because over time, as the circumstances change and the threats change, we need to maintain a minimum credible level of deterrent.“Why? Because it is the ultimate guarantee, the ultimate insurance policy against the worst threat from hostile states.”The Labour opposition criticised the plans to increase the size of the stockpile, though the party supports the renewal of Trident nuclear programme in general.Labour leader Keir Starmer said the plan “breaks the goal of successive prime ministers and cross-party efforts to reduce our nuclear stockpile,” adding that Mr Johnson had failed to explain the “strategic purpose” behind the move. More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on defence and foreign policy: an old-fashioned look at the future | Editorial

      by

      The integrated review offers a nostalgic – at times, even anachronistic – response to the challenges of the 21st century. Its intent is laudable: acknowledging that attempting to defend the status quo is not enough, and seeking to carve out a path ahead. It recognises the multiple threats that the UK faces – from future pandemics to cyber-attacks – and the need for serious investment in science and technology. But overall, “global Britain” offers a hazy vision of a country that is looking east of Suez once more, wedded to the symbolic power of aircraft carriers, and contemplating a nuclear response to cyberthreats.The policy paper is in essence a response to three big shifts: the rise of China, the related but broader decline of the existing global order, and Brexit. Two of these confront democracies around the world. But the last is a self-inflicted wound, which the government appears determined to deepen. And the need to deal with the first two is not in itself a solution to the third, as this policy paper sometimes seems to imagine.The plan essentially recognises the move that is already taking place towards a warier, more critical approach to China, away from the woefully misjudged “golden era” spearheaded by George Osborne, and the fact that parameters will be set for us by the tougher approach of the US, in particular. It accepts that we must engage on issues such as climate change, and that we are not in a new cold war – we live in a globalised economy – albeit that there is likely to be more decoupling than many anticipated.But it does not try to explain how the UK can square the circle of courting investment while shielding itself from undue Chinese influence and expanding regional alliances. Australia is currently finding out what happens when Beijing is angered by a strategic shift.The tilt to the Indo-Pacific may – like Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia” – fail to live up to its advertising. But it is true that Britain has paid insufficient attention to Asia, and is wise to pursue stronger ties with Five Eyes nations and other democracies in the region. These relationships will sometimes be problematic; India is the world’s largest democracy, but under Narendra Modi is looking ever less democratic. The pursuit of new partnerships could have been “in addition to” rather than “instead of”. Yet Britain is snubbing old, reliable, largely like-minded friends with clear common interests. The review is written almost as if the EU did not exist, preferring to mention individual member states. That seems especially childish when it also identifies Russia as an “active threat”. Nor is it likely – even if the UK joins the Trans-Pacific free-trade pact – that countries thousands of miles away can fully compensate for the collapse in trade with the EU that saw Britain record a £5.6bn slump in exports to the bloc in January. Geography matters.Behind the rhetoric of the review is a country that has failed to match its words and ambitions to its actions. Britain boasts of its soft power and talks of upholding the rule of law internationally – yet has declared itself happy to break international law when it considers it convenient. Though the paper promises to restore the commitment to spending 0.7% of GDP on aid “when the fiscal situation allows”, slashing the budget is not only undermining the UK’s standing, but global security and stability too.Most strikingly, after 30 years of gradual disarmament since the end of the Soviet Union, and despite its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty, Britain is raising the cap on its nuclear warheads – a decision met with dismay by the UN Elders and others, and bafflement by analysts. Mr Johnson has not deigned to explain why.The review has rightly asked difficult questions. While Joe Biden has brought the US back to multilateralism, his predecessor has shown that the longer-term parameters of US policy may not be as predictable as Britain once believed. Old certainties have gone. But the new challenges cannot be met by turning back to nukes and aircraft carriers. The government should have looked closer to home and been bolder in addressing the future. More