Britain: Gun Ho mentality is making a bad situation worse

The crise in Eastern Europe is set to carry on and on and on, increasing the chances of an even worse conflict to occur. Those in charge of dealing with the situation are visibly acting out of their depth and without any real understanding of the consequences of what they are doing.

Mass media are blissfully ignorant in terms of what is involved and keep the propaganda machine alive with a series of headlines that apart from being absolutely pathetic and often misguiding tend to create hatred and animosity.

In the meantime, the range of issues that continue to erode the foundations of the European Union keeps growing. It is just a matter of time when issues related to refugees generate political upheaval in the host countries. Just days ago, Lech Walesa stated that Poland and Hungary should leave the European Union since both countries are losing out because of their membership of the European Union. There are obvious disparities and differences in terms of aims within the European Union. France and Germany have their own approach to the crisis in Eastern Europe with regards to the stances of other EU countries. Unity is in very short supply and the cracks are becoming ever more visible.

While USA and others use Ukraine in a proxy war against the Russian Federation, they know full well that given the cost of a direct confrontation they would not want such direct confrontation. In the meantime, they all agree that China is a much greater threat and China is closely following events in Europe while it prepares itself to recover Chinese territories in Asia. China is no longer the retiscent China of the past. China is more than willing to engage in military conflict and incursions close to Japan and to Australia are much more than posturing. After the shambolic end of military operations in Afghanistan, there is little appetite for what would be a massive military conflict that will involve both Europe and Asia.

In Britain, what is the state of British military capabilities? Britain struggled in Iraq and struggled in Afghanistan being limited now to skirmishes across the Middle East. Britain does not have the manpower it would need for an all-out war that would very likely include the British mainland. It would take 15 minutes for a nuclear missile launched from Kaliningrad to reach London. There has been some research about the impact of a nuclear strike in London, but we must assume that should there be an all-out war all the main British cities will be targetted as a well as military installations, communications, energy production and distribution and we could not discount that there will be acts of sabotage within the United Kingdom.

Ukraine Crisis or Oil and Gas Casino?

 

Ukraine Crisis or Oil and Gas Casino

While most people and the mass media seem fixed on events linked to a mythological invasion, what is happening to oil and gas shares around the world?

 

There are all kinds of headlines linked to events in Ukraine, but what is the reality of it all? Who is really making truckloads of money speculating in international markets? With the Covid pandemic and the loss of economic activity, oil and gas prices went down as demand went down. Then suddenly, economic activity started to pick up and oil and gas prices went up again. 

 

British newspapers were mentioned that should there be shortages of oil and gas, Britain would be receiving gas from.... Australia? You only have to look at mapamundi to see that there is a lot more than meets the eye. Container ships bringing American fracking gas across the Atlantic? Container ships bringing in gas all the way from Australia? As some environmental activists complain about air traffic including the use of private jets, has anybody stopped to think about the footprint of ships carrying vast amounts of gas and oil across vast oceans of the world? At what cost? Suddenly, you can forget about environmental targets because what we are listening about has nothing to do environmental targets and a lot do with geopolitical objectives and speculation in world markets.

 

India and China were a lot more honest when it comes to energy needs and energy sources. Yes, they will not phase out their production of coal - just to give an example - and they will continue building up coal energy plants. Undoubtedly, any talk about shortages and especially shortages due to geopolitical situations will benefit certain investors. War in Europe? How much money can we make out of it?

 

Recently, a very expensive jet fighter went down in Asia. There were the usual comments about the best American technology falling into Chinese hands because the jet crash on 'unfriendly waters'. How much did the aircraft cost? Who cares? There will be another aircraft to replace the one that crashed, and monies will be made by certain 'investors' that would like to have another war, another massive war, because wars are money making machines. They could not care less about human lives lost or ruined.

 

In more than one way, those who invest in wars are exactly what the drug cartels are about: quick riches regardless of the thousands upon thousands of lives lost or ruined. This is the business of war.

 

The fat cats will continue increasing their fortunes. Their helpers like the authorities of NATO will see their bank accounts grow and grow and they will continue making inflammatory speeches because the more inflammatory their speeches are a major war is ever closer.

Johnson/Biden: Trade Deal dead in the water

 

This reminds me of couples that go around denying that their marriages are in trouble. We have never been so happy, they say. This is before the next morning announcement indicating that they have agreed to bring their marriage to an amicable conclusion.

This was said to be a meeting about climate, but right at the beginning the British Prime Minister indicated that there is not going to be a bilateral trade agreement in the foreseable future.

Reading between lines, I reckon that the beginning was not the best of beginnings, starting with an unilateral American withdrawal that left its NATO partners buffled. After that, came the announcement of a deal regarding nuclear submarines that only benefits the USA despite the fact that UK was the middleman. On top of that, it damaged the relationship with France. A UK politician tried to rest to dimish the importance of the damage caused by saying that in the last ten years Britain and France have coordinated their military with French officers in charge of British units and Britsh officers in charge of French units and so forth. Ten years are ten years, but in politics 24 hours is a lot and much of what has happend regarding AUKUS should not be underestimated. 

The rise of energy prices due to a rise of energy consumption will not make choices any easier. If gas prices and oil prices go up, coal is a natural component of the energy mix that cannot be left behind. Joe Biden can talk about financial support to be offered to poorer countries to support towards more environmentally friendly economies, but reality tells you fossil fuels will continue to be the first choice for many for many years to come.

The choice between diesel and nuclear was a logical choice to make. Firstly, it is about not using fossiel fuels and, secondly, it is about operational capabilities. While diesel vessels depend on regular refuelling, nuclear vessels can operate continuously for at least 25 years. The decision was rational, but the way it was implemented created divisions that could have been avoided. The jobs that would have been maintained or created in France will now go to the USA. USA's submarines are all nuclear so it will not be too difficult to produce a few more. In any case, it is expected that the new submarines will become operational by the year 2030, as long as there are no delays. As a British politician explained, this is not about real military capabilities in the short term. The idea is to send a message to China about the determination to prevent a Chinese military escalation in Asia Pacific.

A journalist asked who was more of a priority in terms of talking about US/UK relations: Joe Biden or Kamala Harris? In the USA, people are already talking about the American mid-term elections due to take place in November 2022 when all 435 seats of the House of Representatives and 34 or a 100 seats in the Senate will be up for election. What happens from now until the Mid-Term Elections will determine if Biden ends or does not end as a lame duck President during his first term in office.

 

China USA: on a collision course leading to war

We just came out pretty baddly in Afghanistan after 20 years of a bloody and very expensive conflict only to surrender to the same forces that we were supposed to have defeated. 

There are quite a few ongoing conflicts, but we always seem to be looking for yet another disastrous war.

As every war is an economic business and China happens to be the biggest creditor of the USA, waging war against China might seem like a good opportunity to get rid of trillons of dollars of American debt. China is using quite a few US dollars to expand its influence across several continents. This is not just about Made in China. This is also about Made for China by China in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere.

During Trump Presidency, the emphasis was on NATO countries investing more in Defence by beefing up their contributions to NATO. Now, Biden seems to be saying 'forget about NATO, let's do something new'. AUKUS (Australia, UK, US) seems to be a more appropriate of spending US dollars and in the process boot US manufacturing (at least manufacturing of nuclear submarines in the USA. Apparently, all US military submarines are already nuclear so making a few more for Australia would not be so difficult.

The call made by Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission for the EU to take a more robust approach when it comes to its own defenses seems to be part of the new realities. NATO is on the way out - ready to join the Warsaw Pakt), AUKUS is in, and the focus goes from Europe to Asia, where Japan is beginning for a stronger Western response to militarization of the Sea of China.

Ukraine will have to look for a very comfortable armchair to wait for the delivery of Western aid. Forget Middle East, forget Asia Minor, forget Europe. Some strategists in some dark hidden room might be already looking for an excuse to attack China - just in case China does not try to recover Taiwan because Taiwan is China. 

The question is: why would China want to fight a war at sea when it has all the advantages of a conflict on the continent and a massive army?

As the big boys focus their attention elsewhere - oh surprise - Argentina has gone for more fighter jets having invested more than 400 million dollars to renew its airforce. Why would Argentina needs a stronger airforce?

As the British are scaling down their military and as the attention goes elsewhere, are they planning to go for a vacation on the South Atlatic islands? During days that the Argentinian President and his vice-President that used to be the Argentinian President (Cristina Fernández de Kirchner) don't seem to be seeing eye to eye, I am sure that refloating the old plans about the Falkland Islands would be a good idea for politics sake.

  

The Embassy of Ecuador lied saying that Julian Assange was not going to be thrown out days before he was thrown out

The Embassy of Ecuador lied when it denied that Julian Assange was going to be expelled and allowed British Police to enter its headquarters in London to take Assange out by force. Will the bail violation be used to facilitate the extradition to the United States of America? Time will tell but all seems to indicate the British government will once again act as a servant of the USA and send to the USA a man who is not even an American Citizen.

To make matters worse, Australia's silence has been deafening and this should serve as a lesson for any Australian citizens who might find themselves in trouble when they are outside Australia. Will Australia protect Australian citizens? Mmmmm..... probably not.

UN Special Rapporteur indicates that US extradition of Assange would be violation of International Law

The original article was published by World Socialist Website WsWs.org . It must be stated by people from all sides of the political spectrum question what is happening. At a time when whistle blowers are encouraged to come out and talk about the wrongs happening both at governmental level and in the private sector, it is a huge contradiction in terms to be persecuting a major whistle blower.

UN Special Rapporteur: US extradition of Assange would be violation of international law

By Oscar Grenfell 
6 April 2019

Following WikiLeaks’ warning yesterday that Julian Assange faced imminent eviction from Ecuador’s London embassy, widespread opposition has emerged to the illegal plans to terminate his political asylum.

Julian Assange

Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, issued a statement calling upon the Ecuadorian government of President Lenín Moreno to “abstain from expelling Mr. Assange … or from otherwise ceasing or suspending his political asylum.”

Melzer warned that if Assange was removed from the embassy, he was “likely to be arrested by British authorities and extradited to the United States,” adding, “Such a response could expose him to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Senior Ecuadorian officials have sought to deflect any questions about WikiLeaks’ claims that a high-level source within the country’s state apparatus indicated that Assange’s expulsion from the embassy building would take place “within hours or days.”

Outside the Ecuadorian embassy Friday, the country’s ambassador to Britain, Jaime Marchan, told the press that there was “no change in the Señor Julian Assange situation” and that he was “offended” by reports to the contrary.

Marchan, who has played a central role in creating a hostile environment for Assange within the embassy, was then asked, “Is he going to be released in the next couple of hours?” He responded, “We are definitely not going to comment on that.”

The country’s foreign minister, Jose Valencia, declared on Twitter that WikiLeaks’ statements were “unfounded” and that his government would not be “giving a running commentary” on “rumours” that it found “insulting.”

Valencia then effectively confirmed WikiLeaks’ warning, stating, “Diplomatic asylum is a sovereign power of a state which has the right to grant or withdraw it unilaterally when it considers it justified.”

The suggestion that political asylum can be granted and withdrawn, based on political expediency and the immediate interests of national governments, makes a mockery of international law. Political asylum is either inviolable, or it does not exist at all. Assange’s status as a political refugee has been repeatedly confirmed by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and other international rights organisations.

Valencia pathetically added that any decisions taken by his government would be carried out in a “sovereign manner independent of other countries.”

The foreign minister’s claims notwithstanding, world public opinion already recognises that the Moreno regime is operating as a vassal of the US government. Within Ecuador, the government enjoys an approval rating of less than 20 percent and is seen by the bulk of the population as a corrupt lackey of American imperialism.

The pretext for the attempt to evict Assange from the embassy is universally viewed as a monumental fraud.

The Ecuadorian government has, over the past week, made entirely unsubstantiated claims that the leaking of Moreno’s iPhone and Gmail data to an opposition lawmaker last February was the product of a conspiracy hatched by Assange and WikiLeaks. They are well aware that the release of the material, and related documents, which implicate the regime in corruption, bribery and perjury, had nothing to do with Assange, whose internet access and communications were cut off by the Ecuadorian government in March, 2018.

The evasive and duplicitous comments of senior Ecuadorian officials result from the fact that they, along with their co-conspirators in the US and British governments, are engaged in a sordid task.

They are seeking to present their plans to illegally abrogate the political asylum of a journalist and publisher, whose only “crime” has been to expose the predatory wars, diplomatic intrigues and mass surveillance operations of the major powers, as a legitimate and proper exercise.

WikiLeaks has further exposed the backroom machinations aimed at forcing Assange from the embassy, publishing earlier today what it stated was the summary of a “press strategy” agreed upon by the Ecuadorian and British governments.

Under the secret deal, the British government would “take the lead” following Assange’s eviction. The Ecuadorian regime would state that Assange had broken the “asylum terms” contained in an illegal protocol it issued last October, banning him from making any political statements, including about his own plight.

The British government would then declare that it would not allow the Trump administration to “kill” Assange in the event of his extradition to the US and would posture as a defender of “due process.” Ecuador would present this as a “concession” and say that the initial granting of asylum to the WikiLeaks founder was only aimed at preventing him from facing the death penalty.

The agreement resembles nothing so much as a deal between criminal gangs, to carry out an extrajudicial kidnapping operation in violation of all national and international laws.

Any measures along these lines will be opposed by millions of workers and young people.

An attempt to extradite Assange to the US would rightly be viewed by the world’s population as illegal and illegitimate. It would be bitterly contested in the courts by WikiLeaks’ internationally-renowned legal team.

Last year, US prosecutors revealed, apparently by mistake, that they had already filed charges against Assange, likely over WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of the US army’s Iraq and Afghan war logs and hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables, revealing war crimes and diplomatic intrigues on a global scale.

The Trump administration, however, has signalled that it does not have a case for Assange’s prosecution that could withstand judicial scrutiny under British, US or international law, setting the stage for a protracted legal and political battle over any extradition request.

For the past three weeks, the US government has held Chelsea Manning, who leaked the 2010 documents to WikiLeaks, to try and force her to give perjured testimony against Assange. The courageous whistleblower has refused to participate in this legal travesty.

The widespread support for Assange and Manning among workers, students and young people stands in stark contrast to the silence of all of the official political parties in the United States, Britain and Australia.

Jeremy Corbyn, who, prior to becoming leader of the British Labour Party, claimed to defend Assange, has said nothing about the stepped-up assault on the WikiLeaks founder.

In Australia, the Liberal-National government of Scott Morrison, the Labor Party opposition, the Greens and the trade unions have remained silent, in line with the protracted collaboration of the entire political establishment in the US-led vendetta against Assange, who is an Australian citizen.

This demonstrates that a movement to free Assange and Manning must come from the working class, not the capitalist parties that are engaged in online censorship, an accelerating drive to war and the evisceration of democratic rights.

Workers must be made aware that the mass social and political struggles they are entering, are inseparable from the defence of courageous journalists and whistleblowers, who are being persecuted in order to establish a precedent for the suppression of all opposition to militarism, austerity and dictatorship.

The WSWS and the Socialist Equality Parties (SEP) around the world are committed to playing a central role in this crucial fight.

The SEP in Britain has called for maximum participation in protests organised outside Ecuador’s London Embassy. The Australian SEP has today issued a statement, reiterating its demand that the Australian government fulfil its responsibilities to Assange and compel the British government to allow him to leave the country, and return to Australia, with a guarantee against extradition to the US.