A ‘pro-Russian monster’ or a force for common sense? A new party is reshaping the German political landscape
By Tarik Cyril | RT | January 20, 2024
Germany is in severe crisis. Between a tanking economy and an increasingly unpopular government, the country has begun to show just how much stress it is under. Half a year ago, the head of German carmaker Volkswagen warned that “the roof is on fire,” while The Economist concluded that “disaster,” meaning not just the decline but collapse of the German car industry, is “no longer inconceivable.”
At this moment, the wintry beginning of 2024, German farmers are staging large-scale and escalating protests and forcing the ruling coalition into concessions, the trains are not running on time due to a strike, the country’s wholesale sector has dropped to pandemic-level pessimism, “dampening hopes of a rapid rebound in Europe’s largest economy,” as reported by Bloomberg, residential property prices are in record decline, and the office real estate market “has collapsed,” according to leading German news magazine Der Spiegel.
The Economist finds Germany to be “down” politically as well – in fact, self-relegated – from its status as leader of Europe (or, at least, the EU) to less than second fiddle (that would be France, perhaps): while “Angela Merkel was the continent’s undoubted leader, Olaf Scholz, has not taken on her mantle.”
That is a very British understatement. In reality, in the toxic yet key relationship with the US, Germany, with its hapless attempt to transfer the management concept of “servant leadership” to geopolitics, has now subordinated itself so thoroughly to American neocon-type interests that it has no leverage left at all. Because once you make your loyalty unconditional, you will be taken for granted: Selling oneself may be inevitable for any but the greatest powers. Selling oneself for free takes a special lack of foresight.
We could go on heaping up examples of malaise. But the gist is simple: Germans may love to lay it on thick when it comes to venting their misery and “angst” (I should know, being German), but, clearly, something has to – and will – give. The question is what.
One political force that stands to gain from the crisis has just been established. (Another fairly new party that is profiting is the AfD.) Long rumored and in the making, 8 January saw the official founding of a new party, the Bündnis Sarah Wagenknecht – Vernunft und Gerechtigkeit (Alliance Sarah Wagenknecht – Reason and Justice), or BSW for short. Its leader Sarah Wagenknecht used to be the most popular top politician of the hard-Left party Die Linke, which she left with a bang.
As the name BSW suggests, the new party is, in part, a vehicle for Wagenknecht’s considerable personal political acumen and charisma. Opponents of “Red Sarah,” as the popular, generally right-leaning newspaper Bild still calls her, like to stereotype her as an “icon.” Yet, wiser from the failure of an earlier attempt to strike out on her own (under the label “Aufstehen,” roughly: “Stand Up”), this time, Wagenknecht has gone out of her way and made sure to do her homework, preparing a well-crafted organization, a set of junior leaders around her, and, last but not least, a solid program. This is politically significant: Unlike “Aufstehen,” the BSW will not fold quickly under the weight of its own problems.
On the contrary, the party’s chances of making a strong impact from the get-go are very good, as polls consistently indicate. The most recent one – commissioned by Bild and carried out just days after the party’s founding by a top pollster – shows that 14% of Germans would vote for the BSW in a federal election.
For comparison: the SPD, traditionally one of the core parties of Germany and the political home of Chancellor Olaf Scholz, reaches 14% as well. For the BSW this is an impressive figure, but for the SPD it is catastrophic. Meanwhile the Greens, the second partner in Berlin’s governing “Ampel” coalition, are at 12%. The FDP, the third “Ampel” component, would fail to get any seats at all (due to not crossing Germany’s electoral threshold of 5%). Sarah Wagenknecht’s own former party, Die Linke, would suffer the same fate. The only two parties that would do better than the BSW are the traditional center-right CDU (27%) and the populist-right/far-right AfD (18%).
In sum, with BSW, we are witnessing not the making of a fringe but a core movement in what seems to be emerging as Germany’s re-shaped party system, consisting of three traditional parties (SPD, CDU, and the Greens) and two new forces. The latter are coming from the right and left periphery but are likely to re-define the center, directly and by their pressure on the traditional players.
Representatives of the threatened traditional parties and their expert and mainstream media surrogates often denounce the challengers from the wings as extremists or, at least, irresponsible populists (just another way of saying “demagogue”). But they only have themselves to blame: The true cause of this tectonic movement is the failure of the traditionals. The challengers’ rise marks a reaction to it. Wagenknecht is right about this: Germany’s “democracy is imperiled most of all” by government policies that make ever more citizens feel left alone or alienated.
Against that background, the BSW promises more generous social policies, such as on education, wages, and pensions (and higher taxes for the wealthy). As Germany is doing badly economically, this will resonate. And Wagenknecht, a political “natural,” knows how to signal: She has just taken the side of the protesting farmers – as do the majority (68%) of Germans, according to polls.
Mainstream media are making desperate attempts to frame the rebellious farmers as serving extremists and somehow playing into the hands of – guess which country! – Russia. The ever more besieged minister of the economy Robert Habeck has even detected financing by – guess who! – “Putin!” (without, of course, providing any evidence). This time, these tired scare tactics are failing to catch on. Wagenknecht’s public call for chancellor Olaf Scholz to apologize to the farmers will fare better.
Crucially, Wagenknecht and the BSW have combined socially left approaches with a set of traditionally conservative stances, challenging, for instance, the hypertrophic development of new gender categories or, in general, “symbolical struggles” over hyper-sensitive terminology, so fashionable with what Wagenknecht dismisses as the “lifestyle Left.”
While this push-back against political correctness is a largely symbolic, though effective, operation, migration is a more substantial field. There as well, Wagenknecht has adopted positions closer to the right and center than the liberal left, stressing the need for control and limits. The fact that she herself had a Persian father and that prominent BSW heads are also non-ethnic Germans gives her a strong starting position for this kind of debate, shielding her points from dismissal as racist or xenophobic.
Given how many Germans feel, left alone in an economic crisis and also alienated by especially Green attempts at re-education in the spirit of urban upper class multiculturalism and gender obsessions, it will be hard to counter the BSW’s brand of socially left but otherwise centrist and even conservative policies. No wonder then that opponents are trying to portray Wagenknecht as a monster, along with the new party. Their playbook is predictable and boring: namely to smear them as being pro-Russian or even working in the service of Russia.
In reality, Wagenknecht has positioned her new party to resist the push for ever more confrontation with Moscow, especially with regard to Ukraine. At this moment, for instance, she is speaking up against the delivery of German Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine, which is the latest fad among the insatiable “miracle weapon” addicts. More generally, she is demanding to shift from a policy of military confrontation by proxy to one of negotiation and compromise, which makes, of course, perfect sense.
For her enemies, there is an irony waiting to catch them: They may hope that accusing Wagenknecht of being too friendly toward Russia will weaken her appeal. Yet that ship has sailed. The days of making hay with unbridled neo-McCarthyism are ending. It is more likely, fortunately, that the BSW’s reasonable approach to foreign policy will only get it more sympathy and voters. As it should. Because remember: At this point, Germany is so dependent on the US that it is treated not only like a vassal, but like a vassal whose wishes and interests do not count. Even Germans who distrust Russia will come to understand that this is fundamentally unsound. In its own national interest, Germany must re-establish some balance by rebuilding its relationship with Russia.
Tarik Cyril Amar is an historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul.
An Epoch of Great Changes Is upon Us
Russian Avangard Hypersonic Missile
By William Schryver | imetatronink | January 19, 2024
One of my current X followers posted earlier today:
“I am against the Ukraine war from the very beginning (mainly because for the first time a foreign war can actually get ME killed with Russia’s missiles), but at this point I also think we can’t just let Russia win which means we lose and that would mean a lot of negative things.”
I will not speak to his fears of “Russia’s missiles”, except to say I am convinced Russia will not strike anyone that hasn’t done something to provoke it in a manner that warrants such a response — at least not so long as the Putin regime remains in charge.
In any case, Russia WILL win this war. Decisively. She will dictate the terms of its cessation. Russia will emerge from this war significantly more powerful than she was just two years ago, and on a trajectory to become even more powerful in coming years.
As I wrote in a recent article:
“… the Russian armed forces, fighting on their own ground, on and under their adjacent seas, and in the air above their spheres of control, constitute the most potent and battle-hardened military force on the planet.”
As for the US empire’s European vassals: at no point in the last 500 years has Europe been more militarily, politically, socially, and spiritually debilitated. If the entire current military capacity of Europe were combined, it would not stand a chance of defeating Russia in a war. Rather, it would be systematically and comprehensively slaughtered.
And, as I have argued in crescendo over the past several years, the long-pervasive belief in American military supremacy is a myth; a mirage; a fallacious narrative fashioned from fables and Hollywood films.
The US military has not won a war since WW2. They have mercilessly bombed the crap out of many smaller, weaker countries, killed millions of people, and yet never once achieved strategic victory.
Not since WW2 have they faced anything even faintly approximating high-intensity warfare.
Indeed, never at any time in history has the US military fought against a great power adversary at the height of its strength.
And now, here in 2024, the US military has never been in a more weakened state relative to any of its potential great power adversaries — namely, Russia, China, and Iran.
Iranian Shahed-238 loitering cruise missiles, three variants.
As I repeat often, I am convinced the failed US/NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine will produce the following results:
— It will greatly accelerate the decline of the American Empire.
— NATO will cease to be a credible military/political alliance.
— The EU will cease to be a credible monetary/political alliance.
And, as the broken hegemon rapidly recedes, political, economic, and social chaos is certain to engulf much of the world as the major and minor players on the planet scramble to secure their respective spheres of influence and establish new centers of global and regional power.
An epoch of great changes is upon us.
Pyongyang’s Poseidon? North Korea Unveils New ‘Tsunami’ Underwater Nuclear Weapon
Sputnik – 19.01.2024
Apparently nonplussed by the recent joint naval drills held by the US, Japan and South Korea near the Jeju Island, North Korea has responded by touting its latest advancement in the field of nuclear weaponry.
North Korea revealed that it has tested an underwater nuclear drone this week.
A spokesman for North Korea’s Defense Ministry said in a statement that, “the Underwater Weapon System Institute under the DPRK Academy of Defense Science conducted an important test of its underwater nuclear weapon system ‘Haeil-5-23’ under development in the East Sea of Korea.”
Little is known about this new North Korean weapon, other than its name which translates as “tsunami.” Nonetheless, one can surmise – based on the available data – that it is an electric underwater drone that can follow a predetermined path and carry a nuclear payload, said Dmitry Kornev, founder of the MilitaryRussia.ru news portal.
“It is a craft that can guide itself to some floating or stationary target and then blow itself up there,” he surmised.
As Kornev pointed out, this is not exactly a novel concept as similar designs were considered in the Soviet Union before finally being implemented decades later in the “Poseidon” project. He did note, however, that Russia’s “Poseidon” – also an underwater drone with a nuclear warhead – has a nuclear propulsion unit whereas North Korea’s creation likely has electric propulsion.
Regarding the reason why North Korea developed such a weapon, Kornev said that he sees certain merit in Pyongyang’s rhetoric about needing nuclear weapons to ensure North Korea’s safety and to deter possible attacks from the West and its “lackeys.”
“If about 20-30 years ago any missile tests in North Korea evoked serious reaction from the global community, today the global community stays mum because North Korea has nuclear weapons and is ready to use them. Whether it is a good or bad thing, everyone can decide for themselves,” he remarked.
Dennis Kucinich Files to Run for the US House
By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | January 19, 2024
Dennis Kucinich earned a reputation for independence during his time as a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1997 to 2013. Repeatedly, he would, with commentary and legislative action, advance peace and respect for liberty in the national legislative body in the face of opposition from his Democratic House leadership, and the Republican House leadership as well.
Thus, it seems fitting that when Kucinich filed on Thursday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) his paperwork for running again for the House he did so as an independent.
Kucinich, whose formal campaign announcement is reported to be scheduled for Wednesday, is expected to compete in the 2024 general election against both a Republican and a Democrat in the seventh Ohio district. The district extends from Cleveland southward. Kucinich served in the House before from Cleveland and, in the late 1970s, was the city’s mayor.
Kucinich is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
PM Orbán: EU parliament wants to rob citizens of a choice on Ukraine funding
MAGYAR NEMZET | JANUARY 19, 2024
By forcing through a four-year, €50 billion aid package to Ukraine just a few months ahead of European elections, members of the European Parliament want to rob people of the right to choose their future, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán wrote on X.
“Liberal MEPs attacked Hungary once again in the European Parliament yesterday. They want to give money to Ukraine for 4 years, while the European elections are just 5 months away. They essentially want to strip people of their rights to make decisions on their future. What an anti-democratic position! Hungary disagrees. If we want to help Ukraine, let’s do it outside the EU-budget and on a yearly basis! This is the only democratic position just 5 months before the elections,” Orbán wrote.
On Wednesday, two key debates were held in Strasbourg. The first focused on the previous and upcoming EU summits, while the second was entitled: “The situation in Hungary and frozen EU funds.”
After the EU parliament discussed funding to Hungary, the agenda was supposed to focus on the EU summit set for Feb. 1. However, MEPs were so fixated on Hungary, that the country dominated their conversations for nearly the entire session, so much so that even Romanian Socialist MEP Maria Grapini pointed out that the debate was fixated on the vilification of Hungary and the previous session’s discussion on Ukraine.
Trump is the Republican’s candidate but the “deep state” has its own plan, says Chronicles editor
By Ahmed Adel | January 19, 2024
It is certain that Donald Trump will be the candidate of the Republican Party, but it is also certain that the establishment, known as the American “deep state,” will not allow him to be the next president of the USA, according to Dr. Srđa Trifković, foreign policy editor of the American magazine Chronicles.
Former American President Donald Trump won the Republican internal party elections in Iowa, while Florida Governor Ron DeSantis won second place. More than 60% of voters turned out for the elections, and Trump received 50.6% of the votes, while Desantis won 21.4% of the votes. Behind them was the former US ambassador to the United Nations and avid war hawk Nikki Haley.
The intra-party election in Iowa officially started the 2024 US presidential election race, and Trump is clearly popular with the voters but is hated by the top of the party.
“The popularity of numerous challengers in the form of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis or former US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley cannot be compared to the popularity that Trump enjoys among pro-Republican voters and party members on the ground,” said Trifković.
“This, of course, does not mean that the Republican establishment, that is, the leadership of the Republican Party in the Senate and the House of Representatives of Congress, as well as in the apparatus of the top of the party, is enthusiastic about Trump – on the contrary,” he stressed.
The editor highlighted, as an example, how the late Senator John McCain belonged to the wing of the Republican Party that had the slogan – ‘Never Trump.’ McCain’s legacy is still present today, but it is evident that among registered Republicans, Trump’s popularity remains indisputable.
Nonetheless, this will not exempt Trump from facing immense opposition, in his run to become president again, from the Democratic Party, the FBI, the military-industrial-complex, and the media. According to Trifković, these are different branches of the “deep state,” and they are conspiring to prevent Trump from running in key states, with “an experiment” already made in Colorado after the Supreme Court of that state, which Democrats control, disqualified Trump from the race for president.
“[The court] used an obscure amendment to the Constitution of 1866 that was expressly intended to prevent Confederate officials from running for public office after the North’s victory in the American Civil War,” the editor said, adding that holding Trump accountable for the attack on the Capitol in 2021 was “absurd, but in the politicised world of the American judiciary, anything is possible.”
It cannot be ruled out that since Trump is currently accused of 92 misdemeanours, the former president’s opponents will time some of the court decisions right before the election so that he is disqualified at the last minute by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or Georgia, which Democrats control. This would mean that he cannot appear on the ballots in those states.
According to a poll from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the University of Georgia, Trump (45%) leads President Joe Biden (37%) in the swing state of Georgia. Biden narrowly won Georgia in 2020, the first time a Democratic presidential candidate won the state since 1992, but it is almost certain that a Republican will win in this year’s election. For this reason, the “deep state” is attempting to disqualify Trump from such key states.
If Trump cannot be prevented from becoming president again by disqualifying him from key states, Trifković said there is a “Plan B,” which is to repeat “the theft from November 2020, when we witnessed the bizarre spectacle that in the key cities of the key counties, the counting stopped around three in the morning, and then at six in the morning continued with additional tens of thousands of votes for Biden that were mysteriously created from a pool of postal votes.”
“It was a blatant theft that is statistically absolutely inexplicable, but you can’t say that publicly in America today because the very claim that the election was stolen is criminalised and demonised,” he added.
It is telling that more than 70% of Republicans would be satisfied with Trump as a nominee in comparison to the 57% of Democrats who would feel the same about Biden being the Democratic Party’s choice. Biden is barely the Democrat’s first choice, which makes it easy to see why he is not Americans overall first choice as president.
Every recent poll finds that most respondents would vote for Trump in a match-up with Biden. As Trump would quickly wind down the war in Ukraine and slowly de-escalate tensions with Moscow, the “deep state” is desperate to ensure he does not come to power.
In conclusion, Trifković said: “The paranoia with which the establishment deals with those who doubt the legitimacy of the election already indicates the extent to which they were dubious.”
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Israeli reserve soldiers refuse to fight in Gaza
The Cradle | January 18, 2024
About half the soldiers of an Israeli reserve battalion refused to fight in the Gaza Strip and were released from duty by their commander, Al-Arabi Al-Jadeed reported on 17 January.
The Qatari outlet cited Israel’s Kan Reshet Bet radio as reporting that reserve soldiers were called up to form a new brigade in the Israeli army to carry out protection tasks in the areas surrounding Gaza and the occupied West Bank. However, the soldiers received permission to leave the battalion after the army tried to send them to fight and carry out combat missions within Gaza for which they were not qualified or adequately equipped.
The soldiers were called up in late December, but the new brigade was poorly organized, did not have a deputy brigade commander, and was short on weapons and officers.
During the training period, soldiers complained of serious gaps in equipment, professionalism, and a lack of human resources.
The soldiers were then further angered to learn their mission had changed, and they would be sent to Gaza for combat missions.
The radio quoted one soldier as saying: “We received the conscription order, and we responded to that. They told us that our specialty would be to protect the towns, and after about a week of training that took place in a horrific manner, without ammunition, and without officers, we were suddenly told that there was an order that the Israeli army needed us to enter the Gaza Strip to clear homes.”
The soldier added, “We were shocked. We are all combat soldiers. I personally was in the Nahal Brigade, and the rest of the soldiers are from former infantry brigades, but we had not carried out reserve missions for years. We were given an M16 weapon, which fell apart in our hands, and there was no ammunition for training. We collected bullets off the ground so that we have something we can fire.”
The radio station quoted another soldier as saying, “There are people who trained without military uniforms. There are soldiers who were not given shirts or slippers at first. The means that were available were not suitable for training. The brigade, which was supposed to include four battalions, barely reached one and a half battalions. It is not understandable how they wanted to introduce such a completely unqualified force into the Gaza Strip.”
The report comes amid the announcement that the 36th division, which comprises armored, engineering, and infantry companies, withdrew from the Gaza Strip after 80 days of fighting.
The Israeli government says this is part of a planned transition away from the “intensive manoeuvring stage” of its Gaza military campaign to a more targeted phase to last until the end of this year.
At the same time, some speculate that Israel has been forced to withdraw some of its forces due to heavy losses inflicted by fighters from Hamas’ military wing, the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades.
Israel is also facing economic difficulties, with the government having to pay salaries for hundreds of thousands of reserve soldiers called away from their civilian jobs.
Israel also has large numbers of soldiers on the northern border to support operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Israel’s army chief said Wednesday the likelihood of a full-scale war with the Lebanese resistance group has become “much higher.”
“I don’t know when the war in the north is, I can tell you that the likelihood of it happening in the coming months is much higher than it was in the past,” Israeli army chief Herzi Halevi said in a statement during a visit to northern Israel.
Biden Warns Congress Lack of Ukraine Aid Could Lead to US Troops on Ground
Sputnik – 18.01.2024
WASHINGTON – President Joe Biden met with congressional leaders and warned them that not approving additional funding for Ukraine could possibly result in the deployment of US troops to that country, White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said on Thursday.
“The president conveyed a sense of urgency about the stakes for our NATO partners in the region, what it would mean for our NATO partners in the region, and certainly we don’t want to see our own troops put in a position where we might need to put boots on the ground,” Jean-Pierre said.
On Wednesday, US House Speaker Mike Johnson said that the United States’ status quo on Ukraine is unacceptable.
Johnson also said Congress needs a clearer explanation from the Biden administration about its strategy in Ukraine, the endgame and accountability for US funds. The speaker also added that US border security must be the top priority.
Biden’s supplemental request includes more than $60 billion for Ukraine.
Hungary proposes plan to end Ukraine conflict
RT | January 17, 2024
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has called for a halt to all Western military aid to Ukraine, saying the massive influx of weapons – as well as Kiev’s reluctance to negotiate – has made peace impossible.
Asked what should be done to achieve a ceasefire in Ukraine in an interview with Austrian news site Exxpress, Szijjarto said ending foreign arms shipments to Kiev is a top priority.
“The more weapons that are supplied, the longer the war lasts. And the longer the war lasts, the more people will die,” the minister continued. “It is obvious that what has been done so far has not been successful. Many weapons were delivered, but the war was only prolonged. A lot of money has been paid to Ukraine, but the destruction of Ukraine continues.”
Pressed on the possibility that Russian troops would “march all the way to Kiev” in the event Ukraine is left “defenseless,” the diplomat said this could only be avoided with negotiations and a renewed peace process.
“This should be prevented by ending the war now. As long as that doesn’t happen, the war threatens to intensify further and more people risk dying. The war should have ended yesterday,” he said.
Szijjarto went on to argue for more dialogue between the warring parties and countries willing to mediate talks, saying “the most important requirement is to keep communication channels open.” He noted that he is often “insulted by many European colleagues, and by Brussels” after meetings with his Russian counterpart, but said “there is no hope at all for peace” without negotiations.
Western sanctions have also failed to “bring the Russian economy to its knees” as intended, the foreign minister said, suggesting the more aggressive approach had backfired and could not bring an end to the fighting.
Budapest is among a small number of EU states that have refused to join the sanctions campaign or provide weapons to Ukrainian forces, opting instead to maintain ties with Moscow. Despite pressure from other members in the bloc, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has declined to approve Brussels’ latest aid package to Kiev, holding up the funds since December.
The Hungarian leader has also threatened to veto Ukraine’s accession to the union, arguing that it poses many risks to the bloc and its economy, as well as the fact that Kiev is still “at war.”
The EU impasse comes at a time when Ukraine’s largest Western backer, the United States, has run out of aid money, as a $61.4 billion spending package remains stalled in Congress. Kiev’s foreign minister, Dmitry Kuleba, has acknowledged his country has no “plan B” should the funds run dry, saying there is no alternative to US largesse.
Britons Mock Warmongering Lecture by UK Defense Secretary
Sputnik – 17.01.2024
The United Kingdom’s Defense Secretary Grant Shapps warned of potential war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea within the next five years in a widely mocked speech in London this week.
Shapps delivered the address to promote greater investment in military spending in the UK and its European allies.
“The era of the peace dividend is over,” said Shapps in remarks he also shared on his profile on the X social media platform. The so-called “peace dividend” was a proposed reinvestment of government finances toward domestic concerns after the end of the Cold War.
The comment may leave many Britons wondering when exactly they enjoyed a peace dividend, as the British government has imposed a policy of economic austerity for a number of years. The UK was also perhaps the US’ strongest ally in the so-called “War on Terror,” which led to the deaths of more than 4.5 million people across the Middle East according to some estimates.
The comments come as European media is reporting on supposed “leaked documents” that allege Russian President Vladimir Putin is planning to launch an attack on Germany and other NATO members in the near future. The claims were dismissed as “fake news” by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
Britons greeted Shapps’ remarks with ridicule, with multiple posts by the defense minister being “ratioed” on the X platform, meaning they received more comments than likes as users piled on to jeer the jingoistic speech.
“Obviously, the best way to deter enemies and lead allies is by pouring billions of pounds into the military industrial complex,” responded one user sarcastically.
“You do know we were involved in bloody and unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?” added another. “Can you explain how British soldiers killed in Helmand or in Basra were at all beneficiaries of this so-called era of the peace dividend?”
“The people need to prepare for a new era of conflict with you bastards,” wrote user John Wight, expressing widespread antipathy towards governing elites in the West. “Wars happen when the government tells you who your enemy is. Revolution happens when you work it out for yourself.”
Bypassing the UK parliament; the royal prerogative; and bombing Yemen
By Binoy Kampmark | MEMO | January 16, 2024
There is something distinctly revolting and authoritarian about the royal prerogative. It reeks of clandestine assumption, unwarranted self-confidence and, most of all, a blithe indifference to accountability before elected representatives. That prerogative, in other words, is the last reminder of divine right, the fiction that a ruler can have powers vested by an unsubstantiated deity, the invisible God, and a punishing force beyond the reach of human control. And that such powers can in turn be vested in the government of the day. It is anathema to democracy, a stain on republican models of government, a joke on any political system that has some claim on representing what might be called the broader citizenry.
The UK government, in league with the US and with support from a number of other countries, attacked Houthi positions in Yemen on 11 January. The decision was made without recourse to parliament and was justified by reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter as “limited, necessary and proportionate in self-defence”.
In his statement on the attacks, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pointed to the Houthi’s role in staging “a series of dangerous and destabilising attacks against commercial shipping in the Red Sea, threatening UK and other international ships, causing major disruption to a vital trade route and driving up commodity prices.” He made no mention of the Houthis’ own justification for the attacks as necessary measures to disrupt Israeli shipping and interests in response to their systematic, bloodcurdling razing of the Gaza Strip.
Lip service has been paid by the executive within Westminster to parliament’s importance in deciding whether the country commits to military action or not.
The stark problem is that the action is always decided upon in advance, and no dissent among parliamentarians will necessarily sway the issue. Motions can be proposed and rejected but remain non-binding on the executive emboldened by the royal prerogative.
The British decision to commit to the egregious invasion of Iraq in 2003 was already a foregone conclusion, despite preliminary debates in the House of Commons and huge public protests against the measure. On 18 March, 2011, the then British Prime Minister David Cameron informed the Commons of his intention to attack Libya, leading to a government motion on 21 March that the chamber “supports Her Majesty’s Government… in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-protected measures.”
That same year, the then Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in the UK acknowledged that a convention had crystallised in parliament that the House of Commons should be availed of “an opportunity to debate the matter [of committing troops] and said that it proposed to observe that convention except when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.”
The broadly worded nature of the caveats – in cases of emergency or when it would not be appropriate – have made something of a nonsense of the convention. In April 2016, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon made much of the “exception”, arguing that it was “important to ensure that this and future Governments can use their judgment about how best to protect the security and interests of the UK.”
Parliament, in short, should be put in its place when necessary. Governments, it is reasoned, know best when it comes to matters of national security; parliamentarians less so. “In observing the Convention,” Fallon goes on to explain, “we must ensure that the ability of our Armed Forces is to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations, is not compromised.” In such cases, matters could be dealt with retrospectively, with the government of the day subsequently informing parliament after the fact.
An example of this absurd policy was played out in the decision by the UK government in April 2018 to target the Assad regime’s chemical weapons facilities in Syria. Hiding behind the weasel claim of humanitarianism, the explanation for avoiding parliament was shoddy and leaden. “It was necessary,” came the explanation from the PM’s office, “to strike with speed so we could allow our Armed Forces to act decisively, maintain the vital security of their operations, and protect the security and interests of the UK.”
The Yemen strikes eschew humanitarianism (the humanitarian justifications advanced by the Houthis in protecting Palestinian civilians has been rejected), but, in any case, shipping interests take priority. Armed Forces Minister James Heappey, apparently, was satisfied that an exception to the convention to consult parliament had presented itself. “The prime minister,” the minister parroted, “needs to make decisions such as these based on the military, strategic and operational requirements. That led to the timing.”
With the horse having bolted merrily out of the stable, Heappey remarked with all due condescension that parliament would, in time, be able to respond to the decision to strike Yemen. An “opportunity” would be made available “when parliament returns for these things to be fully discussed and debated.” The sheer redundancy of parliament’s role in matters of state, and that of MPs, could thereby be affirmed.
Much agitated by this state of affairs, former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell opined that no military action should take place without parliament’s approval. “If we have learnt anything in recent years it’s that military intervention in the Middle East always has dangerous and often unforeseen consequences,” said McDonnell. “There is a risk of setting the region alight.”
Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesperson Layla Moran was of the view that parliament should not be bypassed in matters of war, yet opted for the rather fatuous formula arising out of the 2011 convention. “Rishi Sunak must announce a retrospective vote in the House of Commons on these strikes, and recall parliament this weekend,” she said.
The use of the royal prerogative in authorising military action remains one of those British perversions that makes for good common room conversation but offends the sensibilities of the democratically minded elector. A far better practice would be to make the PM of the day accountable to that most essential body of all: parliament. That same principle would be extended to other constitutional monarchies, which are similarly weighed down by the all too liberal use of the prerogative when shedding blood. If a country’s citizens are to go to war to kill and be killed, surely their elected representatives should have a say in that most vital of decisions?
Featured Video
Iran War Just Got Much Bigger / Matt Bracken & Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Invisible harm from ionizing radiation
By Bjorn Hilt | International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War | December 8, 2015
Besides the terrible effects of the burst of light that causes eye damage, the heat that sets everything flammable on fire, the electromagnetic pulse that knocks out all electronic devices, and the blast that produces winds with ten times the force of a hurricane, demolishing everything, the detonation of nuclear weapons also leads to the emission of large amounts of ionizing radiation, which has serious deleterious effects on humans and many other species. Ionizing radiation is, in fact, a lurking danger as we cannot see it, we cannot smell it, we cannot hear it, and we cannot feel it immediately. But we certainly get harmed from it.
To reduce exposure to ionizing radiation and the risk of deleterious effects, we doctors usually warn our patients against having frequent examinations or procedures that involve x-rays. That is because x-rays are ionizing radiation that can harm your body in the same ways as radiation emitted by nuclear detonations. The main difference is that, for medical purposes, the radiation is applied in a controlled way.
The international standard unit for the dose of ionizing radiation is the Sievert. National guidelines in many countries warn against people having a cumulative dose of ionizing radiation exceeding 0.001 Sievert/year. The dose from a full body CT scan is 0.01 – 0.03 Sievert.
The ionizing radiation to which everybody in the vicinity of a nuclear detonation is exposed is so high and immediate that measuring in Sievert does not have much meaning. Such exposures are measured in Gray, where five Gray is reckoned to be lethal to 50% of those exposed (LD50). Even though these types of exposures are not directly comparable, for the common types of ionizing radiation, 1 Gray equals approximately 1.3 Sievert. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israeli military court sentences Palestinian journalist to 4 years for ‘incitement’
- Iran, Russia, China Demand Guarantees Against Further Attacks on Iranian Nuclear Sites
- How the Latest Iran Sanctions Could Impact Central Asia
- Pakistan threatens Yemeni strikes on KSA ‘could trigger’ Mecca defense pact
- Iran War Just Got Much Bigger / Matt Bracken & Lt Col Daniel Davis
- Qatar Warns of ‘Industrial Catastrophe’ If Strait of Hormuz Remains Closed
- Israeli Army Closes Tulkarem Zakat Committee Headquarters
- Blaming the Victim in the Gaza Genocide
- Yemeni drones reportedly struck Saudi oil, military sites
- It’s OK to fight for a foreign army (as long as they’re our friends)
- If Americans Knew
- ISRAELI MEDIA: Revealed: Netanyahu Received an Explicit Warning Days Before Oct. 7. He Didn’t Brief Israel’s Security Chiefs
- “Israel is a wonderful, safe place,” according to this totally objective expert
- The UK just announced it will comply with Int’l Court of Justice ruling from 2024. What does the ICJ ruling require states to do?
- Israel’s Quadcopter Drones Have Become a Weapon of Everyday Killing in Gaza
- Israel’s grip on American politics is finally being questioned
- Photos: Palestinians rebuild Gaza’s ruins with mud bricks, scrap
- Too many preemies in Gaza, no room in the NICU – Daily Update
- Front Row At the Revolution: Angry Americans are demanding liberation from the Israeli yoke
- Evangelical Zionist Huckabee attacks Jewish Ed Miliband, accuses UK government of ‘Jew hate’
- Macklemore Responds to Backlash Over “Free Palestine” Plea: “Wanting All Humans to Be Treated Equal Should Never Be Controversial”
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
- News-Making Nepal Region Has Had As-Warm Or Warmer Periods Than The 2000s In The 1600s, 1700s, 1800s
- 2025 Study: ‘There Exists No Unequivocal Experimental Evidence For The CO2 Greenhouse Effect’
- 2026 Atlantic Cyclone Energy Index Running At 85% Below Normal!
- New Research Shows Soil Respiration And Temperature Drive CO2 Change, Not Humans
Aletho News 