UK news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US congressman urges Biden to ban six UK lawyers for ‘enabling’ oligarchs

      by

      US congressman urges Biden to ban six UK lawyers for ‘enabling’ oligarchsSteve Cohen says the US must establish ‘deterrents’ against lawyers accused of carrying out ‘unscrupulous work’ A US congressman has urged the Biden administration to ban six British lawyers from entering the US amid accusations that the lawyers have “enabled” “Putin’s” oligarchs by engaging in “abusive” lawsuits against journalists as part of an alleged effort to silence them.Steve Cohen, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee, said in a letter to the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, that the US needed to begin establishing “deterrents” against lawyers whom he accused of performing “unscrupulous work” that ultimately undermined democratic values.“Despite our close ties with the United Kingdom, the nature of its libel laws and the vast amount of blood money in its financial system make it an ideal place for oligarchs to abuse the law to harass and intimidate,” Cohen wrote. He also cc’ed the US attorney general, Merrick Garland.Most of the six lawyers named by Cohen have represented Russian interests who have pursued legal action against journalists, publishers and authors in the UK in connection to their reporting on Russia-related matters.Four lawyers named in the letter were involved in legal action against Catherine Belton, a former journalist at the Financial Times, and her publisher HarperCollins, who were sued following the publication of her book Putin’s People. The lawyers include: Nigel Tait of Carter-Ruck, John Kelly of Harbottle & Lewis, Hugh Tomlinson, and Geraldine Proudler of CMS.A letter published by 19 free press organisations last November expressed “serious concern” at the legal proceedings, which were brought at the time by the now-sanctioned Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich; Rosneft, the Russian energy company, and three other Russian billionaires. The organisations said they believed the cases against Belton and HarperCollins were so-called Slapps, a “form of legal harassment used by wealthy and powerful entities to silence journalists”.HarperCollins settled the claims, agreeing to make a number of changes to the text.Keith Schilling of Schillings was accused in Cohen’s letter of being “well known for bringing abusive suits against journalists” and working “tirelessly” to protect the Malaysian fugitive Jho Low, who has been accused by US prosecutors of running a money-laundering scheme in connection to the Malaysian state investment fund 1MDB.Another lawyer, Shlomo Rechtschaffen, who is representing Walter Soriano – who was accused by Cohen of being an “enabler” of Oleg Deripaska, Abramovich and Dmitry Rybolovlev – has according to Cohen filed an allegedly “abusive” lawsuit against the American journalist Scott Stedman.Cohen said the visa denials could be implemented under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which calls for “anti-kleptocracy and human rights bans”, and that ideally the bans would be made public.All of the lawyers named in Cohen’s letter responded to the Guardian’s request for comment on the allegations set out by the congressman.A spokesperson for Carter-Ruck said the claims by Cohen against the firm were “misconceived and are rejected entirely”.“In addition to other matters, we are not working for any Russian individuals, companies or entities seeking to challenge, overturn, frustrate or minimise sanctions. We have never acted for Russian individuals, companies or entities seeking to challenge sanctions,” the spokesperson said, adding that Carter-Ruck condemned the Russian government’s decision to invade Ukraine and said the firm would not be acting for any individual or company associated with the Putin regime.A spokesperson for Harbottle & Lewis, where Kelly is a litigator specialising in “reputation protection, privacy and defamation”, said in a statement that the firm had acted at all times in accordance with its professional and legal obligations and took these matters very seriously.Harbottle & Lewis added in connection to litigation involving Belton’s Putin’s People: “The firm has not engaged in an abusive lawsuit as alleged, and there was no such suggestion made when the proceedings were considered by a high court judge who reviewed the book and ruled that it contained a number of defamatory allegations. As such there is no basis for any such steps to be taken.”A representative for Tomlinson said: “Regulatory rules for lawyers are very strict and work to ensure equal entitlement to independent legal advice. Mr Tomlinson acted properly and in accordance with those rules throughout and has never acted as Mr Cohen suggests. There is therefore no proper basis for Mr Cohen’s request.”A spokesperson for Proudler’s firm, CMS, said it “strongly rejected” allegations of impropriety against CMS and Proudler. “We have reviewed the steps taken in our media litigation practice and are confident that these were compliant with all professional regulations as well as our wider responsibilities at the time.”The spokesperson added that CMS had, since the invasion of Ukraine, not accepted new instructions from Russia-based entities or individuals with connections to the Russian government.Proudler resigned last month from the board of the Guardian Foundation, the charitable arm of the media group’s parent company, as well as from the Scott Trust review panel, which adjudicates editorial complaints.A spokesperson for Schilling said the firm was not acting for any “sanctioned entities” and that it hoped sanctions would foreshorten the war in Ukraine.“We do not comment on client matters and indeed are not permitted to do so, but we fail to see how any representation of the Malaysian national named by Congressman Cohen could in any circumstances support the (in any event wholly misplaced) allegations that we are acting in the manner alleged in relation to Russian ‘oligarchs’,” the spokesperson said, adding that there was “no basis for any allegations that we have in any way behaved other than in the highest traditions of the legal profession in upholding the rule of law”.Rechtschaffen, who is representing Soriano in a case against Stedman, claimed he did not work for an oligarch or an enabler of an oligarch, and claimed that his case against Stedman was not abusive and not a case of “libel tourism” or any other abuse of process.In an letter published in February 2022, 15 free press organisations, including Index on Censorship, the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation, English PEN, and Reporters without Borders, argued that the case against Stedman had “many of the hallmarks of a Slapp”.The letter said Stedman’s website, Forensic News, had published six articles and a podcast about Soriano, a British-Israeli security consultant, after he had been summoned by the US Senate intelligence committee. The letter said all the defendants in the case were based in the US, but that the lawsuit had been brought in London. Soriano was born in Argentina, and immigrated to Israel before moving to London.The US letter comes as British MPs are engaged in a similar debate about “intimidation lawsuits”, with some arguing that expunging London’s alleged “dirty money” problem would require that oligarchs of any nation were not allowed to use the English legal system to silence free speech.Last month, MPs in the UK accused three of the lawyers named in Cohen’s letter – Proudler, Tait and Kelly – of deliberately filing oppressive legal actions against an investigative journalist in an attempt to intimidate her. Similar allegations were also made against Tomlinson. They all denied the allegations.Arabella Pike, HarperCollins’ publishing director, said in a tweet that she applauded the Cohen letter.Belton declined to comment on the Cohen letter but in recent testimony before the House of Commons said it was clear that a lot of journalists had faced “a barrage of threats and intimidation, and our democracy has been so much poorer for it” because the public had not been able to learn properly about the background of oligarchs until recently.“The entire population should have known the story about how Roman Abramovich won his fortune, but they had been deprived of that until now,” she said.TopicsUS newsUS politicsJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Calls for US to issue visa bans for UK lawyers enabling Russian oligarchs

      by

      Calls for US to issue visa bans for UK lawyers enabling Russian oligarchsAnti-corruption campaigner Bill Browder says ‘whole class of British lawyers’ making money out of lawsuits against journalists, dissidents and whistleblowers The anti-corruption campaigner Bill Browder is calling on the US to issue visa bans against British lawyers who he has accused of “enabling” Russian oligarchs.The US-born financier, an outspoken and longtime critic of Russian president Vladimir Putin, has said that installing such a ban would strike at the heart of what he described as a persistent problem of oligarchs using the UK legal system against journalists and whistleblowers, tying them up in expensive lawsuits.Browder suggested sanctions could ultimately be targeted at any legal and financial experts who it could be shown have helped oligarchs hide their assets, but said his initial proposed blacklist was focused on British lawyers involved in libel cases.Russia warns US of repercussions if it sends more arms to Ukraine – reportsRead moreBrowder described “this whole class of British lawyers” instructed by Russians and those with links to Russia to bring “lawsuits against journalists, dissidents and whistleblowers, myself included, and they make money”.“There’s this industry,” Browder said. “It will be pretty hard to legislate away the idea that a plaintiff can hire a lawyer to sue for libel, because how do you define what’s good and what’s bad? But if you identify a lawyer who has been doing this on a regular basis – going after people – the United States does not have to give them a visa to come to this country.”The activist has proven to have influence on Capitol Hill. In a recent statement, US senator Ben Cardin called Browder a “hero” to “many” in the Senate, for his work in passage of the Magnitsky Act, an Obama-era bipartisan bill named after Browder’s former tax lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who died in police custody in Russia in 2009.The act was designed to allow the US to punish officials linked to Magnitsky’s death, but also authorises the US to sanction human rights offenders and ban them from entering the country.Browder said he was seeking the support of senators and members of Congress to write a letter to the US Department of State with a list of names of specific lawyers, whose visas he felt ought to be taken away. He did not name the lawyers who might appear on the list.Browder also argued that targeting oligarch-enablers such as lawyers and accountants would be an effective way of finding their money, at least half of which he said ultimately finds its way to Putin’s coffers, as part of the Kremlin’s pact with the oligarchs.“There’s going to be a whole lot of smart law enforcement work looking at sanctions evasion now. These people have been running circles around us in the past,” Browder said. “They have set up the most robust asset protection mechanisms with trustees, holding companies, nominees and proxies offshore.”Finding the oligarchs’ money, he said, would be an “almost impossible task”. He said he would like to add an amendment to sanctions law to hold lawyers, accountants, bankers and other financial advisers liable – including possible prison time – if they are found to have created structures to evade sanctions.“Very quickly the whole system would become very transparent,” he said.Browder’s remarks follow his recent testimony before the Helsinki Commission, an independent body that consists of nine members of the US House, nine senators, and one member of the US state, defence and commerce departments. The commission is meant to help formulate policy in connection to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the hearing was focused on western “enablers” of Putin’s regime.Among Browder’s recommendations in his testimony was for the US to create a list of law firms, PR firms and investigative firms involved in “enabling dictatorships and oligarchs to persecute journalists” and prohibiting the US government from doing business with those firms; canceling the visas of “foreign enablers”, enforcing rules in which lawyers and public relations firms are meant to disclose their work for foreign governments; and creating new laws to protect journalists from so-called SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suits that are meant to intimidate the press.TopicsUS newsUS politicsVladimir PutinRussiaUkrainenewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Tax the rich: these one percenters want people like them to pay higher taxes

      by

      Tax the rich: these one percenters want people like them to pay higher taxesMembers of the Patriotic Millionaires say the income gap in the US has become a disaster – and it’s time to ‘take that money back’ The sound system played Pink Floyd’s Money as the Patriotic Millionaires assembled in the boutique Eaton hotel in Washington DC last week. After compulsory Covid tests there was a lot of well-heeled hugging and laughter among a crowd that looked like extras from Succession as they sat down at tables stacked with M&Ms stamped with “tax the rich”.This was the first time since the pandemic that the Patriotic Millionaires had assembled together in person. The group, founded in 2010, is made up of high net worth individuals who believe – counterintuitively these days – that the really rich should pay more taxes. And after a dozen often frustrating years some of them now believe change is coming.In the White House, Joe Biden has proposed new taxes on households worth more than $100m. The war in Ukraine has shown that the international community can, and will, crack down on oligarchs. Some of the workers who made fortunes for Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Starbucks’s Howard Schultz have successfully formed unions despite the millions both companies spent fighting them off.“No one was talking about taxing the rich when we started,” said Morris Pearl, chair of the Patriotic Millionaires and a former managing director at BlackRock, the largest money manager in the world.Even the conversation seemed ridiculous under Donald Trump, Pearl added. “We have seen a huge change. You have a president talking about taxing the rich, people are talking about wealth taxes – those weren’t even fringe ideas 10 years ago. I’m not saying it’s going to happen and pass into law but there are conversations at the highest levels.”Part of the reason why those conversations are happening is that the situation has got so bad. Speaker after speaker at the one-day conference highlighted how the very, very rich have hijacked the political system around the world, run down wages and exacerbated income inequality, ramming home the title of the conference: Oligarchs vs All of Us: The Fight for Power & Money.Another member, Gary Stevenson, a British trader turned inequality economist, believes things are only going to get worse. Billionaires made fortunes from soaring stock markets, property prices and other assets during the pandemic. Government handouts have largely helped the rich, he argues. “If nothing is done this is going to be a massive disaster,” he said. “However bad you think things are, I guarantee they will get much, much worse.”When the pandemic struck there was talk of it being a great leveler – we were all in this together. In fact, Covid-19 exacerbated economic and racial inequalities. US billionaires received a $1.1tn windfall as their wealth soared to record levels. The billionaire class boomed in Asia and reached record levels in the UK. But as we emerge from the shadow of Covid-19, hoi poloi find themselves struggling with soaring inflation and rising cost of basics such as rent, utilities and food.For Stevenson this enormous explosion of wealth is “end of civilization stuff”. “There is one thing and one thing only that we can do,” he said. “We have got to take that money back.”But are rich – and overwhelmingly white – people the right people to push that message? Abigail Disney thinks so. Disney, the granddaughter of Roy Disney, co-founder of the Walt Disney Company, sees her family as a synechdoche for what has happened to the rest of America.The Disneys were already super-rich by the time Disney, 62, was born but their wealth grew enormously just as the gap between rich and poor has grown. “Money changed my family,” she said, and not for the better. Now, she says, those rich people live in another world and are unable to see what the consequences of rising inequality will be. Hearing that from one of their own breaks that barrier, she believes.“The only people billionaires will listen to are other billionaires and multimillionaires. You need at least the two commas. And if they won’t listen, there are their children and their wives, and they will listen,” she said.While her money opens the doors of power, Disney finds her message also discombobulates ordinary Americans. She is regularly assailed on Twitter for daring to suggest rich people should pay more taxes. The problem is that people have been convinced that “every single person in this country is a billionaire waiting to happen”, in an orchestrated campaign she believes was engineered to protect the wealth of the 1%.The last four decades have seen a massive redistribution of wealth. Only problem is it went to those who were already wealthy. https://t.co/anTolPYv5g— Abigail Disney (@abigaildisney) April 5, 2022
      Hearing one of the 1% suggest that maybe that dream is a nightmare makes people crazy, she said. “The pushback I get is: ‘You never worked a day in your life! You don’t know anything!’ Well, you are right, you are making my point for me! I should not have this power and influence. Just keep making my point for me,” she said.“For me to be speaking out against my own supposed self-interest has a wow factor that catches the attention. I don’t want to ever stop doing that. We need to model what it looks like to not defend your own self-interest all the time. When you are fine and other people are not, you put aside your own self-interest and stick up for somebody else.”The chance of Biden’s tax cuts making it through Congress are slim. US politicians rely too heavily on the wealthy and some Democrats as well as Republicans will balk at taxing them more. But Disney argues that the debate has changed. After the pandemic, US oligarchs aren’t the heroes they once were and, notably, Republicans have so far steered clear of an all-out attack on Biden’s proposal.“Four years ago if you’d said ‘billionaires tax’ then they would have said you can’t bash billionaires, you’re encouraging class warfare. I haven’t heard a whiff of that,” said Disney. “Let’s not kid ourselves, the other side has tested that and found it isn’t working. That class war rhetoric isn’t working any more. And that’s good news. Because if we don’t ruffle some feathers now, we are going to have a class war. A real one.”TopicsUS income inequalityIncome inequalityUS politicsInequalityUS taxationfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US ‘will not entertain’ UK trade deal that risks Good Friday agreement

      by

      US ‘will not entertain’ UK trade deal that risks Good Friday agreement US congressman Richard Neal says peace deal must not be held ‘hostage over domestic politics’ A bilateral trade deal between the US and the UK is “desirable” but will not progress while the Northern Ireland peace deal is being used for domestic political purposes, one of the most powerful American congressmen has warned.Richard Neal, the chairman of the ways and means committee, has told the Guardian: “We will not entertain a trade agreement if there is any jeopardy to the Good Friday agreement.TopicsNorthern IrelandBrexitEuropeIrelandForeign policyEuropean UnionUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Saudi executions are glossed over for oil | Brief letters

      by

      Saudi executions are glossed over for oilImproved human rights | A chant for Putin | Dame Caroline Haslett | Boycotting P&O During his trip to Saudi Arabia, Boris Johnson praised the country’s improved human rights record (Boris Johnson upbeat on Saudi oil supply as kingdom executes three more, 16 March). As only three men were executed during his visit there, compared with 81 at the weekend, is that what Johnson means by an improving human rights record?Jim KingBirmingham During the Vietnam war, when Lyndon B Johnson was US president, demonstrators chanted daily outside the White House: “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” The same question would no doubt be asked of Putin by Russians (Survivors leaving basement of Mariupol theatre after airstrike, say officials, 17 March), if they did not live yet again under a repressive dictatorship.David WinnickLondon Alas, Dame Caroline Haslett can’t quite claim Haslett Avenue, Crawley, in the name of balancing up memorials to women (Letters, 17 March). Crawley Development Corporation declared the new road in the name of her father, Robert, a popular railwayman, rather than the electrifying dame herself.John CoobanCrawley, West Sussex Can you publish a list of all companies owned by P&O and its parent firm DP World, so that we consumers can ensure we never use them again (‘Scandalous betrayal’: MPs condemn P&O Ferries for mass sacking of 800 staff, 17 March)?Michael Griffith-JonesLondonTopicsSaudi ArabiaBrief lettersBoris JohnsonHuman rightsMohammed bin SalmanOilUS politicsVladimir PutinlettersReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Ukraine-Russia crisis: who’s winning the international influence war?

      by

      Ukraine-Russia crisis: who’s winning the international influence war? The balance of power in the diplomatic battle is shifting constantly. But are any of the key players making real advances?Briefly raised hopes of averting a “horrendous” war in Ukraine are fading again after the US predicted an invasion in the “next several days” and British officials said they believed Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, had decided to attack.The mood in Washington and London had shifted abruptly after Russian-backed separatists shelled Ukrainian targets in the disputed eastern Donbas region. Moscow claimed Kyiv’s forces opened fire first. Clashes are continuing.Analysis: what can the west expect if Putin gives order to invade?Read more US president Joe Biden said that Russia was “engaged in a false-flag operation to have an excuse to go in” and was increasing, not reducing, troop numbers. That analysis was echoed in other Nato and EU countries, which are preparing punitive sanctions. Diplomatic efforts to halt the slide to war are not yet exhausted. Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, is due to meet his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in Europe this week – assuming there is no invasion. They will discuss Russia’s demands, delivered in writing last week, for a Nato withdrawal from eastern Europe and curbs on US missile deployments. Lavrov will also insist Ukraine be permanently denied Nato membership.In the documents, which are a formal response to American proposals for continued dialogue, Russia warns it will be forced to take measures of an unspecified “military-technical character” if its concerns are not addressed.Western leaders, including Boris Johnson, Kamala Harris, the US vice-president, Olaf Scholz, Germany’s chancellor, and Ukraine’s president will discuss the crisis this weekend at the annual Munich security conference. Unusually, Russia and China will not attend.Meanwhile, global stock markets reacted badly to increased fears of war, with share prices falling sharply. Gloom about the prospects for peace overwhelmed a midweek surge of optimism, sparked when predictions that Russia would invade last Wednesday proved wrong. Instead, Putin said he was pulling back some forces from Ukraine’s border. It seemed catastrophe had been averted. Yet within hours US and Nato officials were claiming the pullback was illusory. The White House flatly accused Russia of lying, saying troop numbers have swelled to around 150,000.For his part, Putin alleged, without evidence, that “genocide” against ethnic Russians was under way in the Donbas – another possible pretext for invasion. He continues to insist his troops are withdrawing and that there is no intention to attackWho and what to believe? The next few days could be a turning point. Or the stand-off could drag on inconclusively for months. The only certainty is that the future of Ukraine, and of relations between Russia and the west, hangs in the balance this weekend. Although an armed invasion has not yet happened, the 2022 “war for Ukraine” is already being waged on multiple non-military, political, diplomatic, economic, technological and covert fronts. So who’s winning so far?Vladimir PutinThe question on everyone’s lips: what does Putin want? One theory is this former low-level KGB officer and part-time taxi driver has a massive chip on his shoulder.He has a small man’s visceral need to prove his (and Russia’s) superiority to the western victors of the cold war – but also to the former Soviet elites, from whose ranks he was excluded.A less complex explanation is that Putin views Ukraine as an integral part of historical Russia and Ukrainians and Russians as one people. He claims Ukraine is not a real country. For him, re-absorption into the fatherland is natural and logical, while efforts by Kyiv’s leaders to align with the west are anathema.Experts say Putin is intent on recreating the supposed glories of the Soviet era. He calls the collapse of the Soviet Union a geopolitical tragedy.Looked at this way, a conquest of Ukraine is part of a larger scheme to rebuild a Russian sphere of influence encompassing eastern Europe and central Asia. More mundanely, Putin’s actions can be explained by genuine fear that Russia’s security is threatened, his (disputed) belief that Nato broke a pledge not to expand up to Russia’s borders, and concern that it may accept Ukraine’s membership. Putin, a de facto dictator, feels threatened by a pro-western, democratic Ukraine on his doorstep.Is he winning? Putin has succeeded in forcing the west to consider his security concerns. He has intimidated Ukraine. And he has reminded a rattled Europe of its dependency on Russian gas.At the same time, he has hugely reinvigorated Nato, permanently changed western security assumptions, united the US and Europe against him, and reinforced Russia’s reputation as a rogue state that ignores international law and breaks its word.Joe BidenThe US president was relatively quick out of the blocks over Ukraine. He needed to be. Last year’s chaotic US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and the resulting damage to Nato’s credibility were laid at his door. With Covid and economic woes already hurting his domestic approval ratings, Biden could not afford a repeat foreign policy disaster.Having made promotion of democracy and human rights around the world a key foreign policy objective, Biden could also not stand back as Russia threatened a free, independent, democratic state.Biden’s approach to the crisis is influenced by two additional strategic factors. One is his aim to reboot the transatlantic alliance, undermined by his predecessor Donald Trump. The other is his desire to demonstrate to China, Russia’s ally, that the US will stoutly support its friends, be they in Ukraine or Taiwan.Biden has sent US troops to reinforce Nato’s eastern flank, assured Kyiv of non-military US support, and stiffened European backbones via an intense diplomatic offensive. In an unusual step, the US continues to disclose detailed (mostly unsubstantiated) intelligence about Russian intentions in an apparent attempt to pre-empt and forestall Putin’s next move.Biden’s tactics may have succeeded in heading off an invasion until now. There are two large caveats. One is that Washington’s attempts to find a diplomatic solution have struggled, while its tough stance may have compromised European efforts. This vacuum is dangerous. The other big reservation is that Biden controversially vowed from the start that US forces would not fight to defend non-Nato Ukraine – despite past US interventions in non-Nato Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere.Putin could yet take catastrophic advantage of this most un-American display of caution.Volodymyr ZelenskiyUkraine’s president impressed world leaders in the Munich security conference this weekend with a brave and punchy speech after ignoring warnings to stay at home for fear of a Russian-inspired coup attempt. His response to the unfolding crisis has surprised some in the west. Criticising alarming claims in Washington and London about an “any day” invasion, Zelenskiy said such suggestions risked causing panic and harming his country’s economy. As Russian military pressure increased last week, the official tone in Kyiv shifted. But by and large Ukrainians appear unimpressed by frantic talk of war. A “day of unity” last Wednesday – the supposed invasion D-day – was not widely supported. As western diplomats and nationals hastily evacuate, most Ukrainians are firmly staying put.One explanation is that people have learned to live with threats from Russia. Low-intensity conflict with Russian-backed Donbas separatists has become the new normal since 2014, when Moscow annexed Crimea. Last week’s passage of a resolution in the Russian Duma (parliament) supporting independence for the breakaway Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics” in the Donbas was an attempt to increase Putin’s leverage. Such a unilateral move would spell the end for the so-called Minsk accords, whose terms are disputed by both sides.Ukraine’s aspiration to join Nato lies at the heart of the crisis. Zelenskiy is being pressed by European governments to drop this objective, a key Russian demand, and adopt a neutral, non-aligned status. So far at least, the Kyiv government, cast in the role of underdog, has benefited from increased international support, weapons deliveries and financial aid. It says any war would be about Europe’s future, not just Ukraine’s.True or not, Ukrainians will be the big losers if Putin resorts to force.Emmanuel Macron and Olaf ScholzEmmanuel Macron, the French president who also holds the rotating presidency of the EU council of ministers, has thrust himself into the diplomatic frontline. As the Americans and Russians haggled over Moscow’s demands for new security arrangements in Europe, Macron met Putin in Moscow and sketched possible compromises.These ideas, including recognition of Russian concerns about Nato expansion, its forward deployments in eastern Europe, and current and future US missile capabilities in Poland and Romania, may yet provide the basis for a deal. Macron also raised the possibility of Ukraine adopting neutral status, not unlike Finland during the cold war.Macron publicly supports the US-orchestrated plan to impose severe sanctions on Russia should it invade, and insists he acts in close consultation with Washington. But his Moscow talks raised eyebrows. British officials accused him of appeasement and of undermining the west’s united front.While Macron can shrug off criticism from London, he needs the backing of Germany, the biggest European player. But Olaf Scholz, its newly elected chancellor, has appeared in two minds. On the one hand he wants to salvage the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia. On the other he is under intense pressure from Biden to abandon it in support of anti-Kremlin sanctions.Yet Scholz surprised his critics last week when he met Putin in Moscow. He delivered a feisty performance, raising questions about media freedom and human rights.That may have reassured hawkish allies such as Poland and the Baltic republics, which have accused him of being “soft” on Russia. At the same time, Scholz extracted a commitment from Putin to continue dialogue in line with Macron’s approach.The EU commission has been sidelined during the crisis. But the French and German leaders have emerged with reputations enhanced. So far.Boris JohnsonBeset by scandals arising from illegal lockdown parties and reportedly anxious to change the subject, Boris Johnson seized on the Ukraine crisis in late January after having previously largely ignored it.At his direction Downing St began briefing about a big, cross-departmental Whitehall push to tackle the crisis. Britain, Johnson claimed, would lead western attempts to deter Russia. But saying it does not make it so. Suggestions that this new effort to aid Ukraine was part of so-called Operation Save Big Dog to rescue his career were denied, naturally.The UK has since sent extra troops to Estonia, missiles to Ukraine, and placed Royal Navy ships on alert. It is typically iffy about accepting refugees, but has offered humanitarian aid.But Britain’s emphasis on muscular deterrence has come at the expense of diplomacy. It has contributed almost nothing to peace-making efforts. When Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, met Lavrov in Moscow, their talks ended in an icy standoff.Johnson has gratuitously undermined Macron’s Moscow initiative while Ben Wallace, the UK defence secretary, spoke disparagingly of a “whiff of Munich”. Meanwhile, the government has yet to enforce effective measures to curb Russian money-laundering in London.All else aside, the Ukraine crisis has brutally underscored Britain’s diminished international influence abroad. Separated by choice from the EU, the UK is now viewed in Russia (and much of Europe) as little more than a cheerleader and errand boy for America.When Johnson asked Biden what else the UK could do in a phone call last week, the US president replied: “We’re not going anywhere without you, pal.” That summed up Britain’s war to date. The rule of thumb for post-Brexit foreign policy: ask politely what Washington wants, then follow directions.TopicsUkraineThe ObserverRussiaVladimir PutinUS politicsJoe BidenVolodymyr ZelenskiyEmmanuel MacronfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      The BBC’s flat Earth policy should be roundly condemned | Letters

      by

      The BBC’s flat Earth policy should be roundly condemnedHelen Johnson, Bob Ward, Dr Richard Milne and Piers Burnett on the BBC’s director of editorial policy and his pursuit of impartiality It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry at the BBC’s latest pronouncement rejecting cancel culture, when the example given is the willingness to give a fair hearing to flat-Earthers (BBC does not subscribe to ‘cancel culture’, says director of editorial policy, 11 January). It’s nothing new for the BBC to give a platform to fantasists, of course; but there did seem to be an acknowledgment post-Brexit that it had perhaps been wrong to give equal weighting to fact and delusion. And there must be someone at the national broadcaster who regrets affording quite so many opportunities to Nigel Lawson to deny climate change reality on the airwaves.Which other minority beliefs can we now expect to be expounded in the 8.10am interview on the Today programme? It’s surely time we looked seriously at the view that the Covid vaccine is connecting us to a vast AI network, and that upstate New York was once inhabited by giants. There are also apparently people who still believe that Boris Johnson is a great prime minister, though finding a government minister to represent that view this week may be beyond even the bending-over-backwards, non-cancelling capacity of the BBC.Helen JohnsonSedbergh, Cumbria It was disappointing to read that David Jordan, the BBC’s director of editorial policy, told a House of Lords committee that “if a lot of people believed in flat Earth we’d need to address it more” in order to ensure impartiality. He appears to have forgotten that the BBC’s editorial guidelines also state that the broadcaster is “committed to achieving due accuracy in all its output”. Or perhaps he is genuinely unaware that for the past couple of millennia the shape of the Earth has not been just a matter of opinion, but instead has been established as a verifiable scientific fact.Either way, let us hope that the BBC’s new action plan on impartiality and editorial standards does not lead the broadcaster to promote more of the daft and dangerous views of those who believe that Covid-19 vaccines do not work or greenhouse gas emissions are not heating Earth.Bob WardPolicy and communications director, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment The BBC’s stated policy to “represent all points of view” is worrying on two levels. First, where does the policy stop? There are people out there who think the value of a person depends upon their gender or skin tone – should those views be represented? What about Holocaust deniers? And those who think homosexuality, or marrying the wrong person, should be punished by death?Second, one of the BBC’s worst failures this century has been to present ill-informed opinion as being equal in value to professional expertise – most notably on climate change. At the absolute minimum, it needs to make crystal clear who is and who is not an expert. A lot of misinformation originates from well-funded pressure groups, which need no help getting their message across. So if we must hear ill-informed opinions, let it be from a person on the street – then at least the defence of representing public opinion would have some merit.Dr Richard MilneEdinburgh According to your report, David Jordan, the BBC’s director of editorial policy, told a Lords committee that the corporation does not subscribe to “cancel culture” and that everyone should have their views represented by the BBC, even if they believe Earth is flat, adding that “flat-Earthers are not going to get as much space as people who believe the Earth is round … And if a lot of people believed in flat Earth we’d need to address it more.”I understand that many Americans fervently believe in the QAnon conspiracy theory and most of the Republican party believes that Donald Trump won the last presidential election – and here in the UK there are substantial numbers of anti-vaxxers. I assume that Mr Jordan will now ensure that the views of these groups are given airtime on the BBC’s channels commensurate with their numbers.In fact, it appears that Mr Jordan has no genuine editorial policy – which would require him to make judgments based on facts and values – only a desperate anxiety to appease the cultural warriors on the right of the Conservative party.Piers BurnettSinnington, North YorkshireTopicsBBCHouse of LordsConservativesClimate crisisCoronavirusBrexitQAnonlettersReuse this content More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in World Politics

      Has Britain Achieved a Post-Racial Politics?

      by

      The most closely guarded secrets of the British government are currently being reviewed by Priti Patel, the home secretary, or minister of the interior, as she would be described in most countries. It is her duty to receive the reports of the secret services: MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. Patel has to take those most difficult of decisions: which threats from Britain’s enemies to act on and which to ignore.

      The Far Right and the Politics of Feeling

      READ MORE

      Rishi Sunak holds the economic future of the country in his hands through his control of the Treasury as chancellor of the exchequer. Kwasi Kwarteng is Sunak’s deputy, as secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy. Sajid Javid is in charge of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.

      Facing them across the House of Commons sits David Lammy, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary. Rosena Allin-Khan is Labour’s minister of mental health, and the woman charged with getting her party from the opposition into government is Shabana Mahmood, Labour’s national campaign coordinator.

      Minority Representation

      These men and women have little in common politically. Some are passionate capitalists, others fervent socialists. But all are members of Britain’s ethnic minorities. Some have family backgrounds in the Indian subcontinent. Others — an admittedly smaller number — can trace their roots to Africa. It is a little commented-upon fact that in Britain today, ethnic minorities are almost numerically represented in Parliament. Some 14% of the British population has an ethnic minority background, and 10% of MPs elected at the last general election in 2019 are black or Asian.

      The key point is not simply the numbers, but rather that they are as likely to be found on in the governing Conservative Party as they are in the opposition Labour Party. Back in 1987, the situation was very different. Four ethnic minority MPs were elected that year: Diane Abbott, Paul Boateng, Bernie Grant and Keith Vaz. All were Labour members.

      Embed from Getty Images

      As the House of Commons Library points out, “Their number has increased at each general election since then — most notably from 2010 onwards … But if the ethnic make-up of the House of Commons reflected that of the UK population, there would be about 93 Members from ethnic minority backgrounds … Of the 65 ethnic minority Members, 41 (63%) are Labour and 22 are Conservatives (34%). There are two Liberal Democrat MPs from an ethnic minority background.” These MPs have not languished in obscurity. They have been promoted to the highest political offices of the land, by both major political parties.

      The policies they would pursue could hardly be more different. Priti Patel has been roundly criticized by Labour for her virulent hostility to unrestricted migration and her determination to crack down on smuggling refugees over the English Channel from France. Her plans for “pushbacks” using the navy to deter migrants have been described as “inhumane, unconscionable and extremely reckless.”

      Patel’s background — her family came to Britain in the 1960s before dictator Idi Amin’s mass expulsion of Asians from Uganda in 1972 — appears to have had little influence on her opinions or policies. Little wonder that she is a favorite of the Conservative right and a potential successor to Boris Johnson as prime minister.

      Zero Tolerance

      The significance of the rise of Britain’s ethnic minorities through the ranks is that neither of the two main parties that dominate the country’s politics can any longer tolerate the kind of overt racism that was once a regular part of British culture. Patel and Allin-Khan may be poles apart politically, but neither would accept policies of the kind that once were espoused by the likes of the Enoch Powell.

      His notorious “Rivers of Blood” speech from 1968, in which he warned against the impact not just of immigration but also of a bill before Parliament designed to fight racism, was widely welcomed. The Conservative right hailed him as a champion, and Labour-supporting London dockers marched to Parliament to show their support.

      Does this imply that racism in Britain is a thing of the past? Emphatically not. But given Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system, it means that only fringe parties, with little chance of winning seats in Parliament, are likely to take up the issue.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      Overt racism is still nurtured by a section of British society. The Brexit referendum in 2016 brought out the worst in some communities. The attacks on Poles were particularly disgraceful, given the bravery of their pilots, over 8,000 of whom fought in the critical Battle of Britain over the skies of England during World War II. No fewer than five neo-Nazi groups are banned in the UK, with Patel condemning “evil white supremacist groups, who target vulnerable people across the world.” A third of all terror plots uncovered in Britain emanate from the far right.

      None of this should be ignored. It is not inconceivable that overtly racist politics will rear its head once more in Britain, but neither the Conservative Party nor Labour is likely to support it. Only in extreme circumstances are they likely to flourish. As such, it may be that British politics can today be considered post-racial.

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