Air-strikes in Northern Syria: Who wins?

David Cameron today made a speech stating that the UK cannot and should not stand a-side and let other countries carry the burden of ISIS – and asks in the commons: ‘If not now, when?’ The PM has urged MPs to back anti-ISIL UK airstrikes in Northern Syria, saying that ISIS are using the sanctuary of Northern Syria to launch plots with deadly intent against the British people.

Smoke rises over Syrian town of Kobani after an airstrike, as seen from the Mursitpinar border crossing on the Turkish-Syrian border in the town of Suruc in this file October 18, 2014 file photo.

Earlier this month the Foreign Select Committee issued a report to MPs urging caution surrounding air strikes in Syria – the Foreign Select Committee in the UK expressly state that airstrikes in Syria would have ‘minimal effect’ – it has been argued that Syria will just end up becoming another Iraq-esque disaster. Critics against proposed airstrikes in Syria have continually pointed out that, like Libya and Iraq, the UK does not have any post-air strike plans to support the innocent civilians who will be directly affected by UK airstrikes in the region – but in a mirrored image of the 2003 invasion of Iraq – innocent civilians are not in the forefront of our high ranking MPs thoughts nor are they the number one concern for the majority of the British public.

The phenomenon of Islamic extremism strongly divides opinion. We are living in fear of an imminent terror attack following the Paris attacks a little over 10 days ago. By all accounts, the worst terror attacks on France to date. Many lives affected drastically both direct and indirectly by young cold-hearted gunmen. It is difficult for one to imagine such events taking place in Paris prior to the actual sustained incidents. As a western and European country, one would imagine France will be thoroughly aware of the danger posed by the sickening death cult Daesh, infamously known as ISIS. Did the victims pay the price for the failures from the security services? Was it an inevitable outcome; owing to France’ involvement with the on-going war on terror? Nothing is certain in the face of such real horror. Images of blood stained pavements and shattered glass windows echoed the accounts of rampant terror the night before. Unanswered questions from the mainstream media, forced most to turn to social networking sites for live developments and instant information, horrific moments that shocked world over. Some question if there sufficient warnings fatally ignored by the French government.

An overview of ISIS controlled zones

Friday November 13^th was like any other day in the city of Paris but the night will not easily be forgotten, such is true particularly for the residents and families of the victims. The beautiful city of Paris of left tarnished by the unsuspecting terror unleashed upon its streets. Islamic state quickly claimed responsibility for the horrific wave of attacks. We are told often, young people who join the ranks of ISIS are suffering from social exclusion and pressures which leads them into the direction of so-called Jihadist groups. The security forces in Paris were assembled relatively quickly, a marker which distinguishes the West and other regions. The recent attacks in Tunisia, which saw a lone wolf terrorist shoot and use grenades to target tourists, exposed just how long it takes their security forces to assemble. Similarly also security measures in Egypt were recently scrutinized. How tough should the West be in the fight against terror? That is the primary question that our politicians must address. We all have a breaking point, western states have retaliated and Britain remains tentative in our effort to engage in Syria, whilst seemingly strengthening our security.

The innocent people going about their lives in Syria should not be forgotten

Prime Minister David Cameron has tried to expedite the decision-making process regarding Syria – he is demanding that Britain takes action. But in order for this to happen Cameron needs to convince the House of Commons – specifically Labour MPs to vote for anti-ISIL airstrikes. It is currently unknown whether the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will allow his Labour MPs to vote individually on the bill – Corbyn has been very clear in his thoughts that the UK should not be involved in yet another conflict in the middle-east on the back of the disaster surrounding UK aggression in Iraq and Libya. However, David Cameron has stated that a new government in Syria is required to meet the needs of the Syrian people. Incidentally, the same rhetoric was used by MPs before the invasion of Iraq and before Gaddafi was ousted as Libyan leader. Following the war in Iraq it is estimated that up to 500,000 Iraqis have died with around 118,000 of those being innocent civilians whilst thousands of Libyan civilians died following the 2011 invasion of the country. Clearly, the Iraqi people nor the Libyan people are not any better off following UK invasions in the aforementioned countries – so why should Syria be any different?

Winston Churchill said that ‘those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it’ and it seems that the only losers are the families of UK military men and women and the millions of innocent civilians who feel the stings of rich MPs and their voting ballots.

Political Imperialism is not the Answer to Terrorism

Friday night gave the western world their clearest glimpse yet into the atrocities that ISIS are capable of. 129 people were murdered in Paris by ISIS gunmen and ISIS made bombs with many more injured. The barbarity of the acts committed by ISIS has left the world in mourning for the people of Paris and rightly so, the hashtag #prayforparis has been trending across social media since the attacks took place. The French President Francois Hollande declared that France is at war and has since shut France’s borders to all Muslims, the country has also stepped up its air strikes against ISIS. The harrowing picture on the left which has been shared all over social media indicates the animosity the public feel towards ISIS following the Paris attacks but it is important to remember that hatred breeds hatred and violence breeds violence – the war against terrorism is not a war that France nor any other country can win. Imperialistic politics simply does not work in the long term.

Political imperialism has been a basic component of foreign policy throughout history. Japanese, Chinese, Roman, Byzantine and Persian empires have all established the practice of political imperialism in order to gain power, influence and money. The British post-colonial theorist Robert Young writes that Imperialism is a state policy and is developed for ideological as well as financial reasons. Indeed, at the heart of political imperialism is war and violence – remember, despite the cruelties caused, war is extremely profitable for some people.

A Lockheed Martin created missile design

Defense and security companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing directly profit from war. In 2014, Lockheed Martin recorded profits of over $3.6 billion whilst Boeing’s net profits in 2014 were over $5.4 billion. The more war the more profit for Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors. Pope Francis recently spoke of how many companies across the world profit from war, he stated that these corporations make money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.

It was the Bush administration that took America and indeed Tony Blair’s Labour government to war with Iraq back in the early 2000s. Troops were also deployed in Afghanistan. President Bush’s war on terror probably did kill terrorists, however, it also killed millions of innocent civilians as well as ruin the lives of a countless amount of innocent people – the human cost of war is astronomical – and did Bush’s war on terror halt, stall or eradicate terrorism from the world? Absolutely not.

Under the Obama administration things have not changed. Indeed, US weapons exports under Obama have risen 23% since the Bush administration – not since World War 2 have US weapons exports been so high. It seems that the only plan the US seems necessary to implement on the fight against terrorism is to spend billions of dollars on weapons in order to ‘eradicate terrorism’. As history tells us – this plan does not work – terrorism has increased ten fold since 9/11 yet western governments are spewing out the same rhetoric again and again and again.

Since the Paris attacks David Cameron, Barack Obama and Francois Hollande have all stated how the western world is ‘under attack’ from these terrorists and that the only way to eliminate the threat of terrorism is to kill them – of course in political double speak world leaders do not word this in such a way. However, as aforementioned this does not work – Bush and Blair went to war to eliminate the threat of terrorism but they only succeeded in creating more terrorists at the cost of countless human lives and billions upon billions of dollars.

It goes without saying that the killing of innocent lives in order to adhere to a political agenda is both inhumane and not tolerated and rightly so, but to fight violence with violence is equally inhumane and has proven to just increase the threat of terrorism. The political commentary following the Paris attacks has bordered on barbaric. Twitter users and journalists alike across the western world have rightly criticised terrorism but with this has come vile hate speech directed at the entire religion of Islam – European citizens have demanded their borders be closed so as not to allow any more potential terrorists into their country – it seems that terrorists are ideologically from the middle east in nationality and are Muslim in religion – this suits western government narratives nicely. The consciousness of nations are being poisoned with imperialistic politics, we have unconsciously accepted that the only way to fight against violence and terrorism is to use our own breed of violence and terrorism.

Pro war/anti war comparison of news sources during the 2003 Iraq war

The political imperialism of western countries in recent decades has unfortunately created many of the terrorist organisations that we see today – ISIS included. In the short term imperialism is a very profitable foreign policy – in terms of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, defence contractors made money through the sale of weapons whilst the American government profited heavily from the occupation Iraqi oil fields. But fast forward 10 or so years and the foreign region where imperialism has been practiced (in this case Iraq) has been completely decimated and the people who once lived peacefully with their families (or at least more peacefully than they do now) have now turned to terrorism in order to initiate revenge against their oppressors.

Of course imperialism has its justifications – British social scientist John Hobson identifies this justification on the grounds that: “It is desirable that the earth should be peopled, governed, and developed, as far as possible, by the races which can do this work best, i.e. by the races of highest ‘social efficiency'”. As far as this description of imperialism is concerned these imperialist regimes fully believe that they have the worlds best interests at heart.

Each time a terrorist incident is recorded in the western world governments and the general public go into deep mourning in respect of the lost lives – after that governments increase their ground forces and/or air strikes against terrorist occupied reasons and a circle of death and ruin is created – this circle like terrorism will not come to an end so long as political imperialism and violence is used as a foreign policy.

 

 

 

 

 

Shaker Aamer and America’s Torture Culture

Shaker Aamer, a British citizen who has been held in Guantanamo Bay for 14 years without trial or charge has finally been released to the UK; but it’s 14 years too late.

If you are unsure of the circumstances surrounding Aamer then here are the facts: In 2001 Aamer was seized in Afghanistan by bounty hunters and handed over to US forces, two months later he was rendered to Guantanamo Bay. Aamer, who had been a legal British resident before his imprisonment was held in Guantanamo for 14 years despite repeated demands for his release from the UK government. Today without ever being charged, tried or convicted of anything Aamer has finally been released.

According to documents in the Guantanamo file leak it was believed that Aamer had led a unit of fighters in Afghanistan; this was the reason he was arrested, however, his lawyer stated that the evidence against him would never stand up in court. Aamer was cleared for release in 2007 when the Bush administration actually acknowledged it had no evidence against him. Eight years since the US cleared his release and 14 years after he was first arrested Aamer has finally been allowed to leave Guantanamo. It is widely believed that the US refused to release Aamer because it was feared that he would expose illegal torture inside the Guantanamo prison, torture that is operated by US military forces throughout the world.

Whilst held in prison, Aamer has been described as Guantanamo’s unofficial spokesman for detainees. He has spoken up for the welfare of prisoners, organised hunger strikes [he organised and participated in a hunger strike in 2005 in which he lost half of his body weight] and demanded the prisoners be treated according to the Geneva Convention. Whilst in Guantanamo a motion by Aamer’s lawyers stated that he was held in solitary confinement for 360 days, tortured by beatings, exposed to temperature extremes and deprived of sleep.

A 2010 award winning article by law professor Scott Horton explained that Aamer, in 2006 had been brought to a US secret interrogation black site known as “Camp No”. At Camp No, Aamer stated that he was “trapped to a chair, fully restrained at the head, arms and legs. When military personnel pressed on pressure points all over his body: his temples, just under his jawline, in the hollow beneath his ears. They bent his nose repeatedly, pinched his thighs and feet. They inflicted pain to his eyes, bent his fingers until he screamed and then they cut off his airway and put a mask over him, so he could not cry out.” In a letter to The Independant, Aamer referring to Guantanamo and Camp No said:  Please torture me in the old way … Here they destroy people mentally and physically without leaving marks.” Horton’s article outlines that this same technique had been used on three prisoners who had died on the day Aamer was sent to Camp No.

Clearly torture is rife throughout USA. President Obama has repeatedly made clear that torture is unacceptable under any circumstances but contrary to Obama’s promises the US military still permits torture. One of Obama’s pledges before becoming president was to close down Guantanamo, however, six years later Guantanamo remains open and still acts as a torture chamber for prisoners deemed dangerous to the public and in the case of Shaker Aamer, prisoners who have not been charged and are held without trial.

Despite managing to lecture countries such as Russia and China for human rights abuses and political prisoners, the United States continues to be, by far, the greatest police state in the world. With only 5 percent of the world’s population, the US has 25 percent of the world’s prison population. Within this pervasive prison-industrial complex, many thousands of prisoners are held in extended solitary confinement, which alone undoubtedly constitutes torture. One UK judge stated that: “America’s idea of what is torture… does not appear to coincide with that of most civilised nations.” Clearly whilst America on the outside continues to showcase its democratic, law abiding and role model-est exterior, on the inside it hides its systematic torture regime, human rights abuses and totalitarian like state.

Today, UK Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn described the release of Aamer as “great news”. Intercept journalist Glenn Greenwald compared the news of ‘a major western leader celebrating the release of a Guantanamo detainee’ to finding “water in a desert”. Greenwald also describes the treatment of Aamer by the USA as “high on the list in the hierarchy of evil”.

Hypocrisy has always been described as claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs then is the case, plainly, this describes US foreign policy to a tee. The US claims to spread peace and democracy around the world as well as lecturing the world on freedom and human rights, however they do this while arming and funding tyrannies across the world. Political language is used constantly in order to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable; in place of “torture” we hear the phrase “enhanced interrogation”, in place of abduction we hear “extraordinary rendition” and in place of “held captive for years” we hear “detained”. Torture has become part and parcel of US foreign policy, american officials and White House PR staff are up in arms when a country such as Russia or China are accused of human rights abuses without seeming to acknowledge how their own country conducts similar abuses of there own. Plainly torture is wrong and should not happen, the US knows this, China knows this and so does Russia but it will not stop them from doing it.

Russia and NATO: Who is the provocateur?

Following Russia’s recent intervention in Syria tensions between the west and Russia are at an all-time high. Suggestions that Putin wants Russia to become the leading global super-power have littered the western press in recent years. Looking through western eyes, NATO has been in place as a deterrent to ‘anti-democracy’ countries such as Russia and as a peaceful alliance for each of the countries that make up NATO.  On the other hand, NATO has been encroaching upon Russia’s position for years whilst the de-stabilisation of countries surrounding Russia has become more and more common. Clearly a political war is at place between Russia and the west with the outcome looking more likely to be a warm war as adverse to a cold one.

Considering the fact that we have moved beyond the Cold War era, some could argue strongly that the relationship between Russia and the West improved positively in the early 90s, interactions were more pleasant and more frequent. Russia accepted the expansion of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) also, the air of cooperation was clear to observe. There were joint efforts to combat the war on terror. It is important to note also the co-actions in Afghanistan. Despite the seemingly rosy relationship there were noticeable disagreements; the war in Kosovo in 1999 for one, also, shortly after the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the sizeable task of managing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Russia makes every effort to prevent the US from installing its National Missile Defence System in both Central and Eastern Europe; also the most significant issue today is the intervention in Syria.

It appears the US and its allies made a crucial and significant strategic error since the creation of NATO, mainly because they excluded Russia from the post-Cold War order. Eastern Europe and Central states were considered and welcomed whereas Russia was distanced and handed the ‘outsider’ status. The West by all accounts ignored and underestimated Russia and showed no regard for the fact that Russia was wholly unhappy. History outlines quite clearly the changing attitudes between Russia and the West. Some might suggest that the US acts freely and unrestrained but furthermore, behaves as though Russia was not as relevant. It is this discourse and rhetoric which some might feel hardened Russia and steered Russia towards authoritarianism and in turn drift away from democracy. This strengthened the Putin regime in denouncing the West and its policies.

President Putin has repeatedly been criticised of fixing parliamentary votes in his favor

As things stand it is difficult to cultivate the development of this tension-filled relationship. The Baltic States that surround Russia pose strategic problematic implications, especially because Russia wants to increase regional influence and prevent the West from doing so in Central and Eastern Europe. Increasingly, the tension is solidified between Russia and the NATO alliance and to some extent the EU. Although NATO professes intentions on creating stability and restabilising security in Eastern European countries, Russia ultimately perceives this move as an attempt by the West to encroach and further expand its influence in a bid to weaken Russia. These strategic movements are perceived to be placing Russian security capabilities weakened and in danger. It is no secret that Ukraine has showed considerable interest in joining NATO.

It is believed that NATO is now faced with a greater challenge of a revived and relatively reborn Russia, strengthened and resilient. Russia remains a regional power and remains a strong opposition to the US. Putin publicly disagrees and criticises American presidents and opposes American foreign policy and endeavours to remind America that there is more than one global superpower. Mainstream media pushes the provocations to the forefront. The recent tensions in Ukraine revealed that mother Russia remains assertive when her interests are threatened. The issue one has to contend with is whether NATO will allow Russia to increase its scope and sphere of influence.

Although members of NATO are part of an alliance, this does not mean that they see eye to eye on every matter. Eastern Europe prioritises territorial defence whereas the UK and the US have other agendas closer to their national interests. This has proved difficult for NATO; this is particularly evident when Russia annexed Crimea last year. It was difficult for NATO to put out assurances of collective defence, as some of its members were dependent on Russian oil and gas imports. The sanctions against Russia were weak for that reason and also they did not want to be faced with mass migration. However, the US would not be directly affected due to their geographical location. These events exposed flaws in the alliance and clearly divisions in Europe and NATO are welcomed by Russia.

Map indicating the placement of NATO bases and armed forces

Due to Putin’s recent actions in Ukraine and Syria, NATO are able to justify their existence and relevance. However, it is worth noting that some critics argue that it is NATO and not Putin who are the provocateurs. NATO has been encroaching closer to Russian territory for years, a map of NATO military bases indicates how Russia is surrounded by NATO forces. The recent conflicts in Ukraine and Syria could be a sign of NATOs attempts to step foot into Russia’s back garden, in a sense this provides justification for Russia’s annexation of Crimea and his support for a tyrannical regime in Syria; Putin does not want ‘American democracy’ for his country or allies.

NATO remains important and the body tries to maintain and even strengthen relationships among its members. Since Germany joined in the 90s, some structures were set in place to reinforce transparency, balance of power, security in order to reassure and bring about solidarity and increased cooperation. NATO certainly excelled in its initial mission of ensuring collective security for the West and NATO has been a key influence in securing peace and ensuring stability in EU states. However, many struggle to see whether NATO will continue beyond this century not to mention its objectives are rather vague in the eyes of the global community.

Commentators and critics argue that NATO needs to be more certain and cohesive in their perceived collective threats, there needs to be more structure regarding security concerns. Their vision must be revisited and refined in order to secure a future. It is collective agenda that will keep the member states of NATO in unity. Putin’s unrepentant actions and provocations in Ukraine certainly revived the debate about the role of NATO but his support for Assad have since intensified tensions and reinvigorated NATO, particularly the US. Putin’s actions have spurred the Atlantic alliance but also made it difficult for Ukraine to join NATO; he will not allow this partnership to formulate. Russia’s actions are largely opposed by Western states but there are elements of compromise when national interests are at stake. There is still a sense of insecurity where Eastern and Central European countries are concerned.

MH17: Putting the Pieces Together From a Russian and Western Perspective

Yesterday, the Dutch safety board released its final investigations into the crash of MH17 and they have concluded that a Buk missile system was used to down the aircraft. Theories surrounding MH17, the downed Malaysian airlines passenger plane, have been widespread and constant ever since the disaster occurred in July 2014. The whole story of what actually happened to the plane is unknown but what is clear is that there have been various different conclusions as to what happened to flight MH17. Politics Bulletin discuss the view points that have been portrayed by western countries such as USA and Germany to the differing views given by Russia.

MH17s original flight plan

The fact is the Malaysia Airlines flight, a Boeing 777 which departed from Amsterdam ought to have arrived at Kuala Lumpur at 6:10am their local time. The flight left Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport but never arrived at its destination. The Boeing 777 plane was flying at the reasonable altitude of 33,000 feet. As an international flight the Boeing was granted transit over the Ukrainian territory. According to reports from the airline, communication ceased indefinitely at 14:15 GMT, it was not far off the Russian-Ukraine border. It is essential to consider the circumstances surrounding the crash of flight MH17. Until now it has been a case which revived the international blame game; a race to credibly unearth the nation responsible for the plane’s destruction.

Flowers for the victims of MH17

Certainly, in the event of an aircraft accident, it is necessary to investigate as quickly and as thoroughly as possible not only to eliminate but also to draw sharp focus on the facts and possible causes. Naturally this process is strenuous on the families and relatives along with other interested bodies. The ultimate aim is to provide a credible narrative, a plausible account based on factual information obtained throughout the investigation. Ukraine transferred the responsibility to investigate the incident over to the Dutch Safety Board to find out the cause of the crash of flight MH17. The list of countries involved in the investigation grew, understandably so. The countries involved were; Ukraine, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, United States and of course the Netherlands.

Western POV:

The western point of view concludes that MH17 was shot down in an area of Ukraine which was controlled by the Donbass People’s Militia; a separatist organisation supported by Russian armed forces. US and German government intelligence state that the plane was shot down by pro-Russian insurgents in an area of Ukraine controlled by pro-Russian separatists, i.e the Donbass People’s Militia. US government sources state that they heard voice print analysis of the separatists conversation in which they claim credit for the strike. US intelligence also claim that pro-Russian separatists were bragging about shooting down a passenger plane via social media. Furthermore, it is  reported that a Russian made Buk anti-aircraft missile system was used to down the passenger plane. Dutch investigators yesterday confirmed that their research into the disaster found that a Buk missile did in fact hit the plane, this quashed all rumors of how MH17 was downed. The Dutch investigation team also concluded that the plane was “most likely downed by a Russian unit, probably manned by a Russian crew, although other possibilities have not been ruled out.”

Dutch officials investigating debris from the crash

Journalists from the Associated Press in Snizhne, Ukraine reported seeing a Buk M-1 enter the town operated by a man “with unfamiliar fatigues and a distinctive Russian accent” escorted by two civilian vehicles, which then moved off in the direction where the shoot-down later occurred. According to Ukrainian counter-terrorism chief, Vitaly Nayda, after downing the plane under separatist direction, the launcher’s Russian crew quickly moved it back across the border into Russia. Seemingly, all the western fingers point towards Russia.

The news headlines all over the western world on the day after flight MH17 crashed were all systematically blaming Russia and specifically Vladimir Putin’s government. Headlines such as “Putin’s Missile” and “Putin killed my baby” were used by British tabloids. America’s CNN reported that MH17 was downed due to “pro Russian Separatists” targeting the airliner with anti-air craft missiles.

U.S. officials state that the plane was shot down by Russian missiles over the Donetsk region. They rubbish Russian theories of a close air-to-air strike and instead support the view that it was brought down by a surface-to-air missile. This theory has now been backed up by the Dutch Safety Board The Vice President of the United States claims that it was not an accident and others have branded the incident an ‘international crime’ in particular Ukraine’s Prime Minister.

Russian POV

The Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) claim that American intelligence agencies have not released any data on which they base their conclusions. Russian officials have stated that Ukraine “bears full responsibility” for the crash because it occurred in Ukraine airspace and caution was not taken by Ukraine with its airspace. Additionally, on 21 July 2014, the MoD held a press conference where they said that whilst MH17 was crashing a Ukrainian ground attack aircraft approached to within 3-5k of the airliner, insinuating that a Ukrainian jet may have downed MH17 with an air-to-air missile. The MoD also stated that satellite photographs showed that the Ukrainian army and not pro Russian separatists moved a Buk SAM battery to the area close to the territory controlled by the rebels on the morning of 17 July, hours before the crash. They said the installation was then moved away again by 18 July.

A Buk SAM battery that the Dutch Safety Board said brought down flight MH17

The Dutch report stated that it was a Russian Buk missile that was used to down MH17. However, according to the maker of the Buk missile system, Almaz-Antey, the missile that was fired was an older missile which has been decommissioned by Russian armed forces. Russia claims that they no longer use the older missiles in question. Furthermore, the manufacturer states that a test they conducted proves that the missile was not fired from the area in which the pro Russian separatists were situated despite the Americans saying that it was.

All sorts of theories surrounding the demise of MH17 have come out into the open: The news channel RT have stated that MH17 may have been shot down by Ukraine in a failed attempt to assassinate Russian president Vladimir Putin, in a plot which was organised by Ukraine’s “western backers.” Theories linking the unrest in Ukraine to a western backed coup in the country have been spoken about leading to a conclusion which suggests that western powers such as America deliberately created the unrest in Ukraine in order to de-stabilize Russia. Vladimir Putin has spoken about this theory, he believes that western powers may have deliberately set the whole Ukrainian civil war in motion by giving the countries government an ultimatum; namely, ‘it’s either Russia or us.’ On the back of yesterdays report from the Dutch Safety Board, the main accusation from Russia has been that Ukraine should have closed its airspace and that they “must accept responsibility for airspace.” Russia deemed Ukraine’s decision to leave open their airspace directly above a war torn region a catastrophe waiting to happen, (families of MH17 are suing the Ukrainian government for negligence). Although, the onus should also be on the airlines. It goes without saying that airlines should not put there passengers at risk, additionally, share prices in Malaysia Airlines plummeted after the incident.

Conclusion

It is clear that the west is blaming Russia for the downing of flight MH17 whilst Russia is claiming that the western propaganda machine is accusing Russia despite zero evidence. The White House has been firm in its position that MH17 was hit by a pro Russian separatist missile despite the fact that the criminal probe which is investigating the crash doesn’t publicize its results until December. It seems to be the case that the US evidence is seemingly only backed up by the fact that pro-Russian separatists were bragging about downing MH17 via social media. The information regarding the social media chatter has not been released to the public.

A Boeing 777 airliner, the same model as MH17

Although the accusations are transparent, the evidence produced by both sides is not. The American government continuously blame Russia despite what seems like a distinct lack of evidence. Accusations are laid bare on both sides, the truth is hard to come by; what the west call pro-Russian separatists the Russians call anti government forces.

The politics and media reporting around the incident are certainly questionable. Putin’s annexation of Crimea, and the root cause of the unrest and military conflict in eastern regions of Ukraine have to some extent received overtly biased, representational and highly divisive Western media coverage and the flight MH17 incident is not different. Messages surrounding the crash are at best mixed and it is certainly not difficult to unearth the competing narratives and rhetoric taking place. What is difficult however, is determining what impact Western media reporting on Ukraine and Russia has on the public’s reception of the news confirming the plane was shot down by Russian missiles. An argument could be presented, stating that the normal processes of reporting objectively are not taken into consideration. Not all sides of this story are considered on the international platform, information is being used to smear Russia and to place sole blame on Russia. It is relevant to also state that Ukraine is being dangled and represented as an object of a power dispute between Russia and the West by the Western media.

The west has never removed from its position of blaming Russia for the MH17 disaster. If western media has ever been united on a story then it is this one. Media on both sides are continuing to spin the information in one way or another. Propaganda points are being used by Ukraine, Russia and the west. Ukrainian officials have stated that the missile was launched by “Russian professionals and coordinated from Russia.” They say the downing of MH17 was a terrorist attack committed with the help of Russia. But, like the US, this information is not truly backed up by anything, or at least not anything that has been made public. Russia and the west have been reluctant allies ever since the ending of the Cold War. The two sides continue to look to score points over each other on a variety of different topics from Syria to MH17 with both looking to blame and criticise the other. Point scoring will continue to occur over the topic of MH17 until there is a conclusion surrounding the actual cause of the crash, but what is clear is that we do not fully understand the reasons surrounding why or how the airliner crashed and unfortunately for the families and friends of the victims of the disaster we probably never will.

 

Do failed states pose a threat to the west?

Russian President Vladimir Putin at the UN General Assembly

View this article and many others on our brand new website! http://politicsbulletin.co.uk/do-failed-states-pose-a-threat-to-the-west/

On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin used the U.N. platform to make very clear to the world, his commitment and support for the current Syrian President Bashar Assad. He further expressed strong rhetoric against the Islamic State militant group and other terrorist organizations; he spoke of irresponsibility and hypocrisy with regards to the approach of dealing with the terrorists. According to President Putin, the West is partially responsible for the creation and flourish of Islamic State by rejecting the Assad regime and instead aiding opposition rebel fighters. His claims have been rejected and at times ridiculed by western governments and journalists. Since then, Putin has launched air strikes claiming to target IS fighters. Could Putin be onto something, however, regarding the links between failed states and terrorism and the long interfering hand of the West.

According to American political scientist and author Francis Fukuyama, ‘since the end of the cold war, weak and failing states have arguably become the single most important problem for international order’. Failed states present a major problem for the international community. Those concerned with development and especially the strategists, for them: failed states are considered to be ‘places where terrorists could step into the vacuum produced by non-functioning governments’. Common questions most scholars in the security field are faced with is the task of trying to untangle the many reasons behind why African and Middle Eastern states are seemingly more vulnerable to religious terrorism. It is fact also that, of the states ranked highest on the Failed States Index, most are African states. There is an abundant array of terms used to describe the very weakest and failing states: ‘crisis states’, quasi states’, ‘collapsed states’ and the list stretches on. The one most commonly used is the term ‘failed states’. The concept of failed states bundles together states that are internally quite different with regards to economic and governmental structures. For example, while Somalia until recently had no functioning government, Pakistan clearly does. One reason for the lack of consensus over labels is that many of them seem to possess negative connotations. Those living in the states prescribed as ‘failed states’ for the most part reject having such terminology attached to their country.

Some people in our Western society are susceptible to extremist messages originating from the media and internet, as the BBC has revealed in a recent documentary and also in the case of the Boston Marathon Bombings. On the other hand, others who consume the same information do not fall under the delusions of the extremist messages. American journalist Paul Williams states that ‘scholars and politicians often disagree about the root of terrorism.’ He further points towards the idea that while some focus mainly on the conditions, some turn their attention to particular conflicts and others render it purely down to extremist ideologies. However, Williams also declares that ‘despite these differences of emphasis…they all aim to…reduce the motivation for individuals to join terrorists groups’.

The US foreign policy model has many critics

The literature on ‘state failure’ has received considerable attention across the range of social science enquiry. In recent times, the failure of US interventions in Somalia, Haiti and Iraq, and the flourishing of terrorist organisations in Afghanistan have heightened academic and foreign policy interests in conceptualizing the notion of ‘failed states’.

The turn of the new century has witnessed a continuing shift in the nature of conflict and security. Attention has turned to issues such as threats and attacks by non-state actors, the response of states regarding threats from terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the idea of post-conflict rebuilding and interestingly also the recent migrant crisis.

According to the definition issued by Fund for Peace, a state that is failing has several attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Other attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and the inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. If security is one of the crucial functions of the state, then increasing a failed states’ capacity to protect citizens from threats, both internal and external is vital. The worst nations in the world as compiled by the Fund for Peace are sources of considerable concern in international politics namely Syria, Afghanistan and Libya.

The list of ‘failed states’ in our contemporary age includes oil rich countries and some which are graced with mineral resources and even diamonds. Solving territorial legitimacy problems proves an ever growing challenge for failed or failing states. There are numerous features which are attributed to the diminishing state. There is a strong correlation between armed conflict and state failure: a majority of the ten most failing states have been torn apart by war in recent years. The war-torn state is further faced with internal civil disturbance and a rise of non-state actors competing and threatening legitimacy.

Africa leads the list f the continent with the most failed states

There are various terrorist groups which exist now and have made their mark on the global arena. American author Phillip Bobbitt explains that these terrorist groups are a product of the “decentralized, outsourcing, privatized, globalised, networked world” in other words the ‘new market state’. While it is true that such market states are generally economically well off and possess more opportunities that the traditional states. However, he makes it clear that these new market states are more vulnerable and more susceptible to the threat of global terrorist ideology which seeks to cause limitless destruction and terror among the population. A particular concern for many is the consideration of the ‘failed state’ as a safe haven for terrorists, and nowhere is the commitment to tackling state collapse more prominent than in the 2013 French intervention in Mali. However, commitment is evidently less and more complex when considering the plight of Syrian refugee’s and those fleeing from Libya.

Palestine has been shrinking ever since the end of World War 2

The Palestinian example is arguably the most severe examples of state failure as the country no longer exists. Indeed, it is not strictly on the Failed States Index. The Palestinian territory would rank extremely low, the Index is a US creation and the US does not recognize Palestine as a state to paraphrase American philosopher Noam Chomsky. Tyrannical Saddam Hussein murdered Iraqis in their millions, invaded Kuwait, and was most likely striving for nuclear weapons and endangering a large portion of the global oil supply. Now it appears the international community is at odds when it comes to President Assad.

The Middle East provides many case studies with the causes of failing often spanning centuries of colonial oppression. Some argue that US brinkmanship in global security perpetuates the causes of state decline. Chiefly, in fermenting resentment through civilian casualties, as in Iraq, or from drone campaigns in Yemen and Pakistan, which makes recruitment easy for destabilizing agents like Islamic State. It is difficult to know if a terrorist leader killed by drone strikes is more valuable in the long-term than the devastation caused by the collateral damage; it engages all sorts of questions on morality and ethical responsibilities when engaging and adopting such foreign policy. It is remarkable just how much the subject in question divides opinions. However, it is not surprising that with the wealth of information produced, there is not yet a consensus regarding the approaches to failed states and the solutions to international terrorism. It is critically commonplace now; there needs to be a sharp refocus on aspects of international terrorism which directly affects citizens of so called ‘failed states’, the likes of Syria and Libya. Migrants are travelling across the sea risking their lives so that they can flee the unbearable turmoil in the countries aforementioned. Some believe strongly, that the fight against terrorism is making significantly visible progress, in Africa and arguably, in the Middle East. Despite the fact that there are instances whereby there are undeniable terrorist influences in states that are failing: it is argued firmly that, the idea of a clear link between the two is vague at best and inconclusive.

Putin’s plan to eliminate the threat of Islamic State: “West should work with the Syrian President rather than against him to eliminate the ISIS threat”

In dueling speeches directed to the UN General Assembly, (UNGA) US president Barack Obama branded the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad a “child-killing tyrant” whilst Russian president Vladimir Putin stated that he doesn’t think it is the “responsibility of western nations to choose the leadership of another country.”

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA)

Recent weeks have seen western aggression in Syria escalate with the news that French air forces have carried out air strikes in the war torn country. Earlier this week the office of the French President confirmed that the country had carried out its first strikes against ISIS in Syria, expanding it’s aerial campaign from Iraq. Speaking from the sidelines at the UNGA, French president Francois Hollande described Islamic State [IS] as “a threat to our country” whilst also telling journalists “Bashar al-Assad is the main person at fault, the future of Syria cannot happen with Bashar al-Assad.”

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

Unquestionably the Syrian crisis remains the biggest stumbling point to western and Russian foreign relations. Although Putin does believe that the presence of IS in Syria is a genuine threat, he does not agree with the western foreign policy theory that Assad is the main protagonist. Speaking at the UNGA Putin declared that “It is an enormous mistake to reject the Syrian troops who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face.” Putin was speaking on the back of Obama’s speech, which suggested that Assad should be replaced by a new leader.

The two leaders gave differing view points on numerous topics from Ukraine to Libya with Putin saying that “Instead of democracy and progress [in Libya] – violence, poverty and social catastrophe.” To sum up, Putin wants western powers to assist in his backing of Assad rather than backing Syrian rebels [Syrian free army] in order to bring down the growing IS threat in the area.

Essentially, Putin sees the strategy of fighting alongside Assad against IS as considerably more feasible than creating two enemies in the region and Western nations are slowly starting to accept Putin’s idea. A spokesman for the UK Prime Minister stated that David Cameron is ready to work with Putin to defeat IS even if that means keeping Assad in power for the short term. Public opinion on British aggression in middle eastern countries is at an all time low after the disasters of the conflicts in Iraq and Libya. Both countries and there people have been left in turmoil on the back of western aggression.

If the past tells us anything it is that western aggression and ‘democracy’ in middle eastern countries has failed; the people of Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya have all experienced what western democracy and aggression feels like and none of them will tell you that it has been pleasant. The French have started. The Australians are in on it. The British have done so and will do more and the Americans are leading the way. If Obama has his way he will do the same to Syria as America and the west did to Libya et al. For all the scaremongering characteristics surrounding Putin and Russia, Putin’s plan to tackle IS comes across as sufficiently more humane than America’s usual air strike and plunder tactics.

UK Government Won’t ‘Rule Out’ More Drone Killings in Syria

The UK Defence Secretary has stated that the government will not rule out further drone attacks after two British I.S. jihadis were killed in an aerial raid in Syria.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon

Michael Fallon said that the strike that targeted and killed Reyaad Khan, from Cardiff, and Ruhul Amin, from Aberdeen, was “necessary and proportionate”.

Prime Minister David Cameron told MPs that Khan and Amin were orchestrating an attack on British soil and the strike was necessary in order to protect the British public.

However, the fact that the air strikes were ordered without the approval of the House of Commons – and two years after MPs voted no to military action in the country – has provoked questions about the legality of the strike.

This is not the first time that British forces have used military force in Syria within the past two years. It was revealed in July 2015 that David Cameron knew British pilots were carrying out air strikes in Syria despite MPs voting no to military action in the country.

On the back of the news that the UK will be accepting 20,000 Syrian refugees into the country, the Conservative government has not ruled out further ‘self defence’ air strikes in Syria, Mr Fallon said the government “would not hesitate for a second to keep this country safe”.

The SNP, however, have demanded to see the intelligence which prompted the “extra-judicial killing without trial” of Scottish resident Amin.

MSP Humza Yousaf stated that the UK government has “ridden roughshod” over parliaments answer of ‘NO’ to military action in Syria.

“If it were truly an act of self-defence it would be helpful for the UK Government to share the intelligence behind that, if that is sharing it with party leaders or sharing it with Parliament,” he told BBC Radio Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland programme.

It seems that the phrase ‘war is peace’ has been maintained as the catch phrase of British and American foreign policy.

 

Top 10 largest banks in the world by profit

You can now view this article on our brand new website: http://politicsbulletin.co.uk/london-mayoral-election-2016-candidate-rosalind-readhead/

Love them or hate them, (you should probably hate them) there’s no escaping from banks in today’s modern society. Whether or not banks are making their money for the right reasons is a topic to debate over, but us here at Politics Bulletin we have compiled a list of the top 10 most profitable banks in the world in 2015.

10. TD Bank Group (Toronto-Dominion Bank) Profits: £4.4 Billion

TD bank is the largest bank in Canada although not the most profitable (See 6). The Bank was created in 1955 and employs over 79,000 people and has well over 20 million clients throughout the world.

9. Citigroup Profits: £4.5 Billion

Citigroup was one of the major U.S banks that was crippled during the 2008 financial crisis. The bank suffered huge losses and had to be bailed out by the U.S government. This essentially meant that the banks debts became our debts (the U.S government used tax payers money to bail out the banks) and now Citigroup has huge profit margins again whilst the tax payer is none the better off.

8. Banco Santander (Santander Group)Profits: £4.9 Billion

Picture courtesy of Creative Commons

Banco Santander is a Spanish bank and the Santander Group is the largest bank in the euro zone by market value. UK based bank and building society Abbey National was one of many subsidiaries that was re-branded under the Santander name. Santander actually profited from the 2008 financial crisis as it was able to purchase the 75% of Sovereign Bancorp that it did not own for a greatly reduced share price.

7. Commonwealth Bank Profits: £5.1 Billion

Commonwealth bank is an Australian Bank which was privatised by the Australian government in 1996. It has the largest profit margins of any Australian bank in 2015. However, there have been a multitude of controversies surrounding Commonwealth Bank; from profiting from activities destructive to the Great Barrier Reef to the dishonest concealment of material facts.

6. Royal Bank of Canada Profits: £5.3 Billion

The most profitable bank in Canada in 2015, the Royal Bank of Canada was founded in 1864. Like most banks it has had its fair share of controversies: In 2007 it was reported that the bank refused people of certain nationalities to open U.S. dollar accounts with the bank in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks.

5. HSBC Holdings Profits: £8.6 Billion

HSBC Bank, picture courtesy of Creative Commons.

The British bank HSBC was first founded in 1865 in Hong Kong as the Shanghai and Hong Kong Bank. However, these days HSBC is known for all the wrong reasons. The bank has been littered with controversy in recent times, it is said to have taken an active part in many crimes such as money laundering, it has helped clients dodge billions of pounds in taxes and has supported criminals including Mexican drug cartels.

4. JPMorgan Chase Profits: £13.5 Billion

American bank JPMorgan Chase is currently the largest of the American banks with assets estimated at £1.6 trillion. The bank has come under scrutiny many times, one controversy involving the bank came in 2011 when JPMorgan Chase admitted that it wrongly charged several thousand military families for their mortgages, including active duty personnel in Afghanistan.

3. Wells Fargo Profits: £14.7 Billion

Wells Fargo bank, picture courtesy of Creative Commons.

Wells Fargo is America’s biggest bank by profit margins in 2015. Wells Fargo, along with JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America make up America’s ‘Big Four Banks”. During the 2008 financial crisis the U.S. government bailed out Wells Fargo to the tune of over £25 billion.

2. Bank of China Profits: £17.6 Billion

As the name suggests, Bank of China is a state owned Chinese Bank and is the oldest bank in mainland China that is still in existence.

1. ICBC (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China) Profits: £28.6 Billion

The bank with easily the largest profit margins of 2015, Chinese bank ICBC is the largest bank in the world in terms of total assets and market capitilisation.

ICBC Bank. Picture courtesy of Creative Commons.

Well there we have it, the 10 banks with the biggest profits in 2015. We here at Politics Bulletin believe that knowledge is power so we will leave you with two notable quotations surrounding banks.

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” —Henry Ford

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson

Who’s really to blame for the ‘migrant crisis’?

It was only several weeks ago when David Cameron called for an immediate end to the “swarm of migrants” attempting to cross the border into England. The British Prime Minister pledged to deport people who arrived in Britain illegally. However, due to increasing public pressure the Conservative government has said that it will accept up to 20,000 Syrian migrants into British borders. This has split public opinion, many believe accepting 20,000 migrants into the country is a disaster waiting to happen whilst other think that Britain should be allowing more migrants through their borders. The conservative government has so far treated migrants as problems and nuisances but one question must be asked, who or what created the problem in the first place?

Power, it seems, is an evolving concept. The notions of power have changed, there is no singular definition of the term. Power is very much in the foreground, it drives debates in the international sphere and political arena. The influence of power is far-reaching, over-arching and at times unexpected. Above all one must not forget the old saying ‘power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. There is sufficient evidence on the international platform which exposes the wiles of the West.

The illegal eruption of an extended conflict which began back in 2003, the killing of Muammar Gaddafi and the drawn out civil war in Syria, to name a few. These global events are clearly either orchestrated or heavily influenced by the Western governments and yet they cannot justify adequately, the invasion and exploitation of non-western states, the constant delay of the Chilcot report is a clear indication of this point. Still, our politicians continue to manipulate us and the media is used to reinforce this fact.

Professor Noam Chomsky

Relatively, what springs to mind is the five classes of filters discussed in Manufacturing Consent- The Political Economy of the Mass Media, a book by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. The arguments highlight how easily the masses are swayed by the media and explores how the status quo is ultimately upheld. The book details the dominance of the neo-liberal agenda and stresses how other ideas are effectively ignored. Such is the case in our contemporary society.

The recent migrant crisis in Calais allows us to clearly see this in operation. Control of the political agenda does not necessarily have to be reinforced through decision-making. Control over individual’s preferences and real interest is a key aid to maintaining political power. Culprits include Cameron, Farage and other prominent political figures determined to dehumanize and demonize the ‘migrants of Calais’.

Migrant Voice UK, a website and social media account dedicated to changing the way that migrants are portrayed reported in the media, feel it is “particularly challenging when some media and politicians use negative language and rhetoric” when describing migrants.

There is no doubt that things must be done properly and legally. However, it must be said that, the tactics employed by our political leaders are nothing short of reckless and shameful. There is an issue of social determinism, keeping the status quo and a statement of false class consciousness; these factors by and large skew the thought process of the populations. People are manipulated, through fear and scaremongering tactics. Fear of migrants stealing our jobs; taking all the school spaces, randomly attacking us and taking our benefits, but this is simply a manifestation, of how our powerful media operates.

Governments utilise the concept of ‘power-over’, invisible power which reinforces and magnifies the sense of powerlessness in society, causing individuals to act against what is considered their best interest. There is no form of coercion or force required, as this form of power is internalized and normalized in society. It is this power that causes a strain on our democratic society and causes us to idly sit by in the face of the misfortune of others. People are left with very limited choices or none at all.

The migrant situation that we are witnessing has certainly manifested due to the decisions made by the west.  American and British aggression in Middle Eastern countries are without doubt the cause of the vast majority of migrant problems in the UK. We are already aware of the circulating rumors that western countries helped to create militant groups such as ISIS by initially arming them to help with the fight against Gaddafi. However, back then ISIS were simply called “rebels” and those same “rebels” were seen as our allies, now they are thought to be the largest threat in our world at this time.

The foreign policy of our western countries can rightly be blamed for the predicament we are faced with whether it’s the situation of migrants or terrorist incidents. The power bestowed on our governments is perpetuated through the invisible hand of hegemonic domination and corruptible mainstream media. The news headlines and newspapers portray the migrants as dangerous. Bear in mind most of these migrants are genuine refugees who have survived and escaped civil war, genocide and other encroaching threats to their lives not least of all poverty. Wars which are more often than not orchestrated by western nations.

(U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Tony R. Tolley)

It is imperative to remember that the migrants who are attempting to cross the border into the UK are not doing so in order to create an annoyance for British migrant officers, these people are trying to seek a better life. Many of the migrants are from war-torn countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq and for those with bad memories I’ll remind you, it is Britain that has, over the past 15 years, systematically bombed every one of these countries and now we are seeing first hand one of the many consequences that war mongering agendas can have. Western countries and their citizens need to start realising that bombing other nations is not a solution to terrorist problems, it never has been.

Power is not everywhere, but rather invisible and dominates individual’s interests. Opinions are molded and controlled by the powerful. Predominantly, individuals conform to the interests of the powerful willingly without any form of intimidation but they commit solely because of manipulation. So I do not blame the public for the chaotic hysteria surrounding the crisis in Calais. As a population we must realise firstly that there is an agenda and secondly, our response to this crisis should be more measured and thoughtful. As intelligent individuals we must not absorb the negative rhetoric spewed by Mr. Cameron and co.

If you agree or disagree with anything we have written please do not hesitate to leave a comment below and one of our writers will gladly have a discussion with you!