New calls for inquiry into Climate Change Committee
Net Zero Watch | March 11, 2024
Campaign group Net Zero Watch is again calling for an inquiry into the Climate Change Committee (CCC), the Government’s official advisers on decarbonisation. The move follows revelations at the weekend that the organisation’s chief executive, Chris Stark, had tried to use obfuscation to “kill” questions over the adequacy of its energy system model, rather than addressing them directly. This behaviour put Stark in direct breach of the Nolan standards for public officeholders.
The scandal, published in the Sunday Telegraph, is just the latest of a series of controversies that have dogged the CCC since its inception.
-
In 2013, it was revealed that CCC chairman Lord Deben had a conflict of interest, retaining his position as chairman of a company involved in windfarm installations after his appointment. He had told the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee that he would divest himself of all such interests if appointed.
-
In 2019, it was revealed that Lord Deben’s family company was still taking large sums of money from businesses working in the environmental sphere.
-
In 2023, it was revealed that those payments to Lord Deben’s company were not properly disclosed in the Register of Interests.
-
In 2021, it was revealed that the CCC had used spurious weather data in their modelling, thus enabling them to reduce the capacity of electricity generation and storage equipment apparently required.
-
It was also revealed that the CCC used spurious figures for the cost of electric vehicles, thus reducing the apparent costs.
-
The CCC tried to hide its model from public scrutiny, spending tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money fighting a lawful Freedom of Information request.
-
More recently, the CCC admitted that its electricity system modelling is inadequate. The resulting understatement of costs is as much as tens of billions of pounds per year.
-
It has also been revealed that the CCC “waves away” most of the cost problem, simply by assuming extraordinary cost reductions in future. With current technology, the cost of Net Zero will be hundreds of billions of pounds higher.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
The list of scandals at the Climate Change Committee seems to be endless, but Parliamentarians seem to want to let them get away with it. If the House of Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee again fails to launch an inquiry into the governance of the CCC, and in particular Chris Stark’s management and the adequacy of the modelling that underpinned the 2019 Net Zero report, it will look very bad.
The UK Government Is Considering a New, Looser Definition of “Extremism”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 9, 2024
The authorities in the UK are continuing with attempts to broaden the definition of “extremism” and behavior deemed as “undermining/overturning” British values.
Critics say the whole wiggly thing is the road to authoritarianism.
A new step said to be in that direction is a proposal presented by Communities Secretary Michael Gove, who is reportedly using previous initiatives to usher in a new definition of extremism.
Likely to cover all political and ideological bases, Gove is mentioning both “Islamists” and “far Right” organizations and their harmful activities that slip under the radar as the reason the current understanding of extremism is “too narrow.”
But there doesn’t seem to be consensus on this in the cabinet, with some ministers voicing fears that a lot of groups taking a stance on several issues – such as those opposed to lockdowns, religious organizations that are anti-abortion, gay marriage, trans-gender women in places designated as same-sex, “radical” student groups, etc. – could get caught up in this widened “definition dragnet.”
The problem with that is that these groups are now operating lawfully, according to the Equality Act 2010.
And if the definition is also made enforceable, even political parties, such as the Scottish National Party, could end up on the wrong side of the new rules, reports say.
Right now, extremism in the UK is defined (since 2011) as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
This definition is not statutory, which means it effectively prevents only the government and other administrative bodies from working with or funding such groups.
But Gove wants to “fix” this by making the broader definition statutory.
To achieve this, the current paragraph would get this addition:
“The promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values; or threaten the rights of individuals or create a permissive environment for radicalization, hate crime and terrorism.”
Rather than just “broader,” this reads as straight-up and worrisomely vague.
And when some political representatives, MPs among them, try to wrap their heads around the very concept of “British values,” it becomes clear that the conundrum of defining such things in a way acceptable to everyone becomes mission impossible.
“What does it even mean to undermine British values’ when there is no consensus – and certainly no legal definition – of what those values are?,” MP Miriam Cates summed it up.
Public is Not Being Told the True Cost of Net Zero, Warns Former World Bank Economist
BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | MARCH 6, 2024
Bankrupt, blackout Britain where the ever-expanding ranks of the poor get clobbered, open borders place intolerable burdens on public spending and services, the rich spivs get richer backing heavily-subsidised energy white elephants – and those of a certain age look back to the good old days of the 1970s. That isn’t quite how Professor Gordon Hughes spells it out in his excellent new report that crunches the energy transition numbers of the collectivist Net Zero project, but it might be considered a fair summation of reading between the lines.
The insanity of Net Zero becomes clearer by the day. The idea that hydrocarbons – a natural resource whose use from medicines to reliable energy is ubiquitous in modern industrial society – can be removed within less than 30 years is ridiculous. In his report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Hughes concerns himself with the transition from hydrocarbons to ‘green’ technologies such as wind and solar. Forget all the politically-inspired low-ball figures of transition, he is suggesting. Looking at you, Climate Change Committee. It is likely that the amount of new investment needed for the transition will be a minimum of 5% of gross domestic product for the next 20 years, and might exceed 7.5%. Gordon Hughes is a former World Bank economist, and is Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh.
There is no chance of borrowing such an “astronomical” amount, notes Hughes, and the only viable way to raise the cash for new capital expenditure would be a two decades-long reduction in private consumption of up to 10%. “Such a shock has never occurred in the last century outside war, and even then never for more than a decade,” he notes.
Recent polling in the U.S. has shown that the desire of a majority of citizens to pay for Net Zero barely stretches to more than the ‘chump’ change in their back pockets. “Commitment to the energy transition is a classic ‘luxury belief’ held most strongly by those who are sufficiently well-off not to worry about the costs… Indeed at least some of those who promote the transition most strongly are among those who expect to gain from the business opportunities.” On this latter point, Hughes was possibly recalling the recent activities of rising media star Dale Vince (£110 million in wind subsidies to date, and counting).
Politicians sometimes blather about the pioneering role taken by European countries in Net Zero. Hughes points out that leaders in China and India are not fools. “Posturing about targets that are patently not achievable and might be economically ruinous is unlikely to convince anyone, although most will be too polite to point this out,” he observed.
Writing a foreword, Lord Frost identified a make-believe world inhabited by Net Zero proponents where it is claimed costs will magically come down, new technologies will somehow be invented and promised green growth will pay for everything. “But they never give any evidence for believing this – and, where we can check what they say, for example in the real costs of wind power, we can see that these cost reductions are simply not happening,” he said.
On the immigration front, Hughes notes a 1% increase in the British population every year. He notes that 4% of GDP must be invested every year in new (not replacement) capital per head. Of course nothing like this is being spent and capital per head is falling rapidly. “Just maintaining the amounts of capital per head will eat up an amount of investment equivalent to that required for the energy transition,” he states.
Squeezing domestic consumption, in other words making the already squeezed poor even poorer by removing all their remaining luxuries in life (older cars, cheap foreign holidays, meat), is the only realistic way to fund the enormous sums required for the Net Zero energy transition. Possibly a glimmer of reality is creeping into political circles with the opposition Labour party having gone through “agonies” and ditched its £28 billion a year green deal. “Clearly, they concluded that it was impossible to sell an increase in the tax burden of that magnitude to a reluctant electorate,” he said. In fact, the sums involved in the Labour plan were only a fifth of the estimated cost of transition.
Any future Government wishing to travel the path of Net Zero must make the choices of reducing public services and mandating savage cuts in household expenditure. Needless to say, the general population is in almost total ignorance about these realities. Hughes notes that the electorate has given no indication that they are willing to bear the costs involved. “Indeed until now all they have been told is that there are few or no trade-offs required, and technology will somehow magically solve everything.”
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
UK media chiefs defend coverage of Gaza war as study exposes pro-Israel bias
Press TV – March 7, 2024
UK news chiefs have defended their biased coverage of Israel’s brutalities in Gaza even as a new report has exposed significant distortions in the Western coverage of the war.
The report, Media Bias Gaza 2023-24, by Center for Media Monitoring (CFMM) was launched on Wednesday and analyzed data from 28 UK online media websites for a period of one month starting from October 7, 2023.
The study that examined more than 200,000 articles and TV reports said the British media had failed to represent the conflict in Gaza in a fair manner.
Speaking at the event hosted by CFMM in the House of Parliament, Richard Burgess, director of news content at the BBC, said it was unlikely that there would be no mistakes made by a 24-hour news channel.
“It’s impossible not to make mistakes, we will make mistakes,” Burgess said while justifying their coverage.
The CFMM report, however, found that “many prominent media personalities, senior editors and journalists regurgitated Islamophobic tropes about Muslim belief and identity, with the aim of undermining the Palestinian cause and/or Palestinian advocates.”
The study also found “how some media outlets and commentators have framed the conflict as being between Muslims and Jews.”
“Muslim opposition to Israel has been framed as anti-Semitic by some publications and commentators,” the study said
Defending the distortion of facts while reporting the war, Jonathan Levy, managing director and executive editor at Sky News, disputed criticism of a number of points made in the report, including reducing the conflict to “Israel-Hamas” war.
The study showed Israelis were 11 times more likely to be referred to as “victims of attacks” compared to the Palestinians, while 76 percent of online articles framed the conflict as an “Israel-Hamas war.” Only 24 percent mentioned “Palestine/Palestinian,” which they said indicated a lack of context.
Marwan Yaghi, a Palestinian diplomat in the UK, described the media coverage as “appallingly biased.”
Right wing news channels and right-wing British publications were at the forefront of misrepresenting pro-Palestinian protesters as anti-Semitic, the report said.
It also mentioned that pro-Palestinian voices faced misrepresentation and vilification by media outlets, with allegations of anti-Semitism and terrorism weaponized to discredit legitimate advocacy efforts.
It highlighted the lack of scrutiny around a number of stories perpetuated in the press, noting 361 mentions of the false “beheaded babies” story.
‘Too many people watched’ – George Galloway explains why RT was banned
RT | March 5, 2024
Fresh from his election to the British parliament, MP George Galloway spoke with RT on Tuesday about the state of media freedom in Britain and London’s disastrous policies in the Middle East and Ukraine.
Galloway trounced both Tory and Labour candidates in last week’s Rochdale by-election, winning twice as many votes than both major parties combined. PM Rishi Sunak denounced the result as “beyond alarming” and a threat to “our democracy itself.”
As Galloway pointed out, however, he has been elected to Parliament a total of seven times – far more than Sunak or Labour leader Keir Starmer.
“These people are hypocrites. Things like democracy, human rights, rule of law, rules-based international order, it’s just lipstick on a pig. They wipe the lipstick off whenever they no longer feel the need to look prettier,” he claimed.
“As Sunak’s speech outside Number 10 [Downing Street] on Friday about my election makes clear, it’s not beyond them even to cancel elections,” he added.
British authorities have banned RT and the Iranian PressTV outright, refused to renew the license of China’s CGTN, and blocked outlets like Venezuela’s TeleSur.
“The reason is pretty simple if you think about it: Too many people were watching these TV channels. Too many people were watching RT. Not just in Britain, but even more so in Germany. That is why RT was closed down. Because too many of the public were watching it. How’s that for freedom?” said Galloway.
The best illustration of press freedom in the UK is that “a good friend of mine is lying in the dungeon of Belmarsh top security prison,” Galloway said.
“His name is Julian Assange He is convicted of no crime. And yet he is being held with mass murderers and terrorists in the worst prison for the worst people in England. And for what? For telling the truth as a publisher.”
He admitted the government might retaliate against him for speaking to RT, but said, “I don’t care.”
“I give interviews to everybody. I’m a free man, I’m an elected free man. I have the right to speak and I will go on speaking to whomsoever wants to hear me. Nothing is solved by covering things up. Nothing is solved by denying people access to a different point of view,” Galloway said, recalling RT’s long-time slogan, “Question More.”
Galloway is no stranger to RT. He has written many op-eds for the outlet and hosted his own TV show called ‘Sputnik Orbiting the World’ during his hiatus from Parliament.
Gaza is paying the ultimate price for decades of media pandering to Zionist bigotry
By Jonathan Cook | March 6, 2024
The Guardian and other media continue to prioritise the ‘sensitivities’ of an ideological minority over the public’s right to protest against a genocide in which our elites are complicit
We all understand that, shamefully, a number of Zionist Jews and non-Jews identify so completely with Israel that they are not only willing to excuse the mass slaughter and starvation of civilians in Gaza but think others should not even be allowed to express disquiet at the slaughter.
Hardline Zionists tell us they find concern for the welfare of Palestinians “offensive”, and that they feel “unsafe” when others raise such concerns or call for a ceasefire to end the bloodshed.
The question for the rest of us is: How do we deal with those “sensitivities”, and how much do we prioritise the “offence” taken by hardline Zionists?
Not unreasonably, most ordinary people place very little weight on the “sensitivities” of those who believe mass slaughter and the starvation of children should be allowed to proceed, at least when weighed against the sensitivities of those opposed to mass death.
What’s so weird is the way, as far as official bodies and the western media are concerned, those priorities have been turned upside down.
Here, in typical fashion, the Guardian falls over backwards to indulge the “feelings” of a few Jewish Arsenal fans because they “felt unsafe” and “betrayed” by their club for not more aggressively stopping protests last weekend at a Women’s Super League game by other fans over the complicity of the UK government in Gaza’s genocide.
No evidence is produced by either the fans or the Guardian that any Jewish fan was in any danger whatsoever. Just that a few Palestinian flags were smuggled into the stadium, that leaflets and stickers were handed out, and that some protesters tried to “engage” with fans as they arrived at the stadium – presumably in that dangerous tradition of trying to persuade others of the validity of one’s position.
But the Guardian sympathetically dedicates a great deal of space to relaying the concerns of the handful of Jewish fans who “believe their safety was compromised by security staff not curtailing the protest” – that is, those who wanted to prevent an entirely peaceful demonstration taking place in a public space outside the ground.
The story is risible. It is news as therapy for Zionists and gaslighting for the rest of us.
But it is decades of nonsense journalism about Israel and its apologists of precisely this kind that has led us to the dismal place we are today.
The constant indulgence by the political and media class, the constant elevation of these kinds of ugly, ignoble “feelings” – feelings that dehumanise and vilify Palestinians, as well as anyone acting in solidarity with their suffering – the constant treatment of Zionist bigotry as warranted, as justified, as normal, that has gotten us to a position where Israel can commit genocide and its western allies and parts of their Jewish populations can treat it as “offensive” to raise the matter.
If we had not got so entirely used to it, we would immediately understand how completely nuts – and catastrophically inhumane – the coverage is.
Germany and NATO Caught Red-Handed in War Planning
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 6, 2024
German military leaders may have bungled foolishly over their private discussions regarding operational plans against Russia. However, the security of their incompetent communication – while laughable – does not lessen the seriousness of what was being discussed.
Lt. General Ingo Gerhartz and his aides were earnestly weighing up the technical and propaganda means by which to strike Russia with long-range ballistic missiles. In short, a NATO member was caught red-handed hatching an act of war against Russia.
After Russian media published the audio of the conversation, the German reaction has been to dismiss it as a cerebral war-gaming exercise and as an attempt by Russian disinformation to undermine the government of Olaf Scholz.
This obfuscation by Berlin will not wash. The incontrovertible fact is that the German commanders were deliberating on how to “optimize” the Ukrainian offensive capability to hit Russian targets with the long-range German Taurus cruise missile. The weapon has supposedly not yet been supplied to the Ukrainian regime due to concerns among some German politicians that doing so would escalate the war with Russia. It is clear from the audio tape that the German military chiefs are frustrated by the politicians not ordering the supply of the Taurus.
Gerhartz, the head of the German air force, tells his subordinates in no uncertain terms: “We are now fighting a war that uses much more modern technology than our good old Luftwaffe.”
There you have it: the top German commander says unequivocally, “We are now fighting a war”.
He also goes on to disclose that the American, British, and French militaries are deeply involved in the logistics and planning of attacks by the Ukrainian forces.
We know from numerous other sources that the NATO militaries are involved on the ground in Ukraine fighting against Russian forces. American HIMARS and Patriot missile systems, and the British Storm Shadow and the French Scalp cruise missiles are operated with military expertise from these NATO members.
Still, what is highly damaging from the German military leak is the extent to which the commanders endeavor to conceal the involvement of Germany in a war with Russia. The tortuous conversation about how to avoid the imputation of the German military makes it clear that the German high command knows full well the gravity of what they are organizing. They are discussing the conduct of a covert war against Russia. This is tantamount to the crime of aggression and it runs the risk of starting a full-on war which would no doubt escalate into a nuclear conflagration.
At one point in the discussion with his interlocutors, Lt Gen. Gerhartz talks about the need to conceal direct military involvement by Germany in supplying the Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
He says: “I understand what you are talking about. Politicians may be concerned about the direct, closed connection between Büchel [German air base] and Ukraine, which could become direct participation in the Ukrainian conflict. But in this case, we can say that the exchange of information will take place through MBDA [the German manufacturer of Taurus], and we will send one or two of our specialists to Schrobenhausen. Of course, this is a trick, but from a political point of view, it may look different. If information is exchanged through the manufacturer, then this is not associated with us.”
This is self-incriminating evidence that the German high command is participating in a conspiracy to expand the war against Russia. The only reservation is not to be identified publicly in waging war acts. With utmost cynicism, the German military leaders are looking for a way to claim plausible denial after the crime.
Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the National Security Council, called it correctly when he said of the leaked audio tapes that they show Germany is planning war against Russia.
Berlin dismissed Medvedev’s claim as “absurd”. Berlin is the one being absurd if it thinks that the conversation of its military leaders can be palmed off as simply idle banter and theoretical war gaming.
In the 38-minute discussion, the Luftwaffe commander and his underlings explicitly talk about supplying up to 100 Taurus missiles for Ukrainian regime forces to strike deep into Russia. The German top brass refer to the Taurus as a “super tool” and they specifically identify the destruction of an important bridge in the east, which is presumably the Kerch Bridge linking the Russian mainland to Crimea.
The German missile has a range of over 500 kilometers which is twice that of the British or French weapons.
It looks like the German military is taking on the task of leading deep strikes into Russia. London is reportedly urging Berlin to supply the Taurus missiles despite the embarrassment of the leaked private conversation.
This week it is reported that a railway bridge was destroyed in Russia’s southwest Samara province near the city of Chapaevsk. The location is further east than Moscow and is around 1,000 km from the NATO-backed Kiev regime’s front lines in Ukraine. The attack appears to have been a precision strike.
As the German commanders noted in their discussions, collapsing a bridge is one of the most difficult aerial operations that requires precision capability and sophisticated radar evasion. Their conversation took place on February 19. The leak was published last weekend. Media reports say the German government is opposed to signing off on supplying the missiles. But with so much going on behind the public’s back who knows if and when these weapons are released? Have they been already?
If it is confirmed that the bridge near Chapaevsk was hit by a missile then it would appear that the NATO war against Russia has reached a new ominous threshold.
Some Western media outlets commented that the Russian publication of the Luftwaffe audio tape last weekend was aimed at embarrassing the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz into definitely ruling out any supply of Taurus missiles to Ukraine. However, such speculation assumes that Scholz is in control of his military commanders. Most likely they don’t answer to him; they answer to the occupying power in Germany – the United States.
Latest European Propaganda: Russia Is Flooding Europe With Illegal Migrants
By Robert Bridge | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 5, 2024
Western media is in full-blown hysteria mode, asserting that Vladimir Putin is ‘weaponising’ the flow of migrants in an effort to destabilize upcoming European elections.
Right up there with ridiculous claims of “little green men” and “tractor protests from Moscow,” Europe is now accusing Russia of fielding paramilitary forces and private mercenaries for the purpose of directing waves of migrants from Africa across the Mediterranean Sea and into the heart of Europe, an apparent effort to ratchet up the spring fever just in time for general elections across the continent.
With no loss of irony, Western propagandists are disseminating allegations that the Kremlin is in the process of agitating those African nations that for so long suffered from European colonial rule, namely Burkina Faso, Mali, Sudan, Ghana, Central African Republic and Libya, a formerly highly developed country that was destroyed by a U.S.-led attack in 2011.
The Telegraph would have its British readers believe it has “seen” intelligence documents detailing plans for “Russian agents” to create a “15,000-man strong border police force” comprising former militias in Libya to control the flow of migrants. Anyone hoping to review something like photographic evidence of this massive army would be advised not to hold their breath. Apparently, the thousands of Russian recruits are so technologically advanced they are invisible to spy satellites.
While it stands to reason that millions of desperate refugees from these turbulent nations would seek shelter in Europe, or possibly even in the United States, risking a trans-Atlantic journey to reach the wide-open U.S.-Mexican border, Brussels simply hopes to deflect attention away from its immigration failures onto Moscow, a sham that is transparent to anyone with even a half-functioning brain.
Let’s not forget that we’ve heard such allegations before.
Without so much as a single apprehended trespasser, Moscow was accused of trying to foment a refugee crisis by transferring asylum seekers to its border with Finland, thus prompting the new NATO lackey to close its land crossings with Russia in contravention of all diplomatic norms. The truth of the matter is that Helsinki was aggravating Russophobia to make the bitter pill of increased spending on Western-made (read: American) armaments go down smoother for Nordic voters.
Belarus, Russia’s closest ally, has also been accused – once again, without a shred of evidence – of sending immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa to its borders with Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.
The latest wave of Russophobia to strike the European capitals comes at a time when migration is set to be a key issue in general elections on the continent, as well as in the UK, where the drumbeat about Russian-sponsored migrant invasion parties resonates the loudest.
An unidentified security source reportedly told the Telegraph : “If you can control the migrant routes into Europe then you can effectively control elections, because you can restrict or flood a certain area with migrants in order to influence public opinion at a crucial time.”
“A failure to control the number of migrants coming to the UK is already seen as a major weakness for Rishi Sunak who is struggling to push through a scheme to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda to stop the flow of small boats across the Channel,” the British daily continued.
Sunak made “stopping the boats” one of his top priorities as Prime Minister, though a survey of British sentiment earlier this year showed that three-quarters of voters believe the pledge has not gone well.
Since June 2023, over 52,000 illegal migrants were recorded as entering the UK, up 17 percent on the previous year. Data released last month revealed that the number of illegal migrants granted asylum in the UK hit a record high in 2023 as border guards waved through thousands of applications “in an attempt to clear a huge post-pandemic backlog.” What is even more laughable, albeit totally predictable, is that the people doing the “waving through” were British border officials, not secret “Russian agents.”
With EU elections in June, the European parliament looks set to shift hard to the right, with migration already proving to be a key issue for voters. Who best to blame for this approaching debacle? Certainly not Angela Merkel, who is personally responsible for much of the mess. Once again, Russia serves as a convenient bogeyman for the blockheaded decision-making processes coming out of the EU, and we’ve heard such accusations before.
In February 2016, one year after Merkel opened the floodgates to some 2 million migrants, many of them Muslims from Syria, U.S. General Philip Breedlove, Head of NATO forces in Europe, blamed Russia for working to exacerbate the refugee flows in a dastardly ploy to destabilize and destroy the EU. In a testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, he said, “Together, Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponizing migration from Syria. In an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.”
Nearly a decade later, the same reckless utterances are being made, although this time around the European public, more skeptical about ‘Russia the enemy’ narrative following the Nord Stream fallout, is prepared to express its anger at the ballot box come June during elections for European Parliament. Far-right populist parties are polling well in several EU countries, notably in Austria, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. This terrifies Brussels, as the threat of a right-wing takeover appears imminent, and Europe has only itself to blame for that.
The conflict in the Red Sea and the reaction of the world community
By Viktor Mikhin – New Eastern Outlook – 04.03.2024
During the discussion that took place on 14 February 2024 at the UN Security Council meeting, questions were raised about the unlawful shelling by the US and UK in Yemen in violation of all international laws and regulations. This serious issue was discussed in detail due to the violations of international law and human rights that accompany these shellings. The UNSC participants condemned these actions by the US and the UK as illegal and unacceptable. Despite demagogic statements about the fight against terrorism and alleged support for international security, such shelling by Western powers located tens of thousands of kilometres away from the Red Sea basin only exacerbates the humanitarian situation in Yemen and causes irreparable harm to the lives of civilians, including primarily children and women. At the meeting, the panellists rightly raised the need to put an urgent end to this shelling and to return to negotiations for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. It was noted that another wave of violence by Western countries would only exacerbate the situation in that poor Arab country and hinder the achievement of sustainable peace in the region.
Russia’s and China’s opinion
Russia and China have deemed the US and UK bombing of Yemeni territory illegal and contrary to the United Nations Charter, accusing them of illegally attacking Yemen, whose residents support the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip in the face of the Israeli regime’s bloodbath. Russia’s Deputy Ambassador to the UN Dmitry Polyansky and China’s representative to the UN Zhang Jun stressed that the UN Security Council has never authorised military action against Yemen. For his part, the UN special envoy for Yemen, Western representative Hans Grundberg, said that the US and UK attacks and the American declaration of the Ansar Allah resistance movement in Yemen as a “specially designated terrorist group” were merely “of concern.” And what exactly could this so-called envoy, who is entirely on Washington’s payroll and receives all instructions from White House officials, have said.
Mr Polansky correctly emphasised that the root cause of the current situation is Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, which have provoked angry reactions in West Asia, including from Yemenis. “An immediate ceasefire in Gaza will help stabilise the situation in the Red Sea, and de-escalation will in turn unblock the efforts of Special Envoy Grundberg,” he said. The Chinese envoy also expressed concern over the escalation of tensions in the Red Sea region, in particular “the continuation of military operations by certain countries” against Yemen. He called for an immediate halt to the Yemeni hostilities against merchant shipping and stressed the fact that the UN Security Council has not authorised the use of force against Yemen.
“At this critical moment, China hopes that all parties in Yemen will put the interests of the people first, show determination and resolutely push the political process forward to achieve final results,” Zhang Jun added. He also emphasised that “the most urgent task is to immediately promote a ceasefire in Gaza and take responsible measures to prevent further escalation in the region.”
Aggressive actions of the US and UK
For weeks, the United States and Britain have been waging a fierce bombing campaign on Yemeni territory. The reason is well known – this Arab country has boldly declared its open support for the Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip against the Israeli carnage since 7 October last year, in which some 30,000 civilians, especially the elderly, women and children, have already been killed. The US, being one of the leading superpowers and a global factor, has stated its brazen stance on the issue of shelling Yemen. They deny their direct involvement in the conflict, claiming that they are only supporting military assistance and supplies to Saudi Arabia, which in turn is conducting operations to defeat the Houthis. However, human rights advocates and humanitarian organisations have raised accusations of US involvement in human rights and civilian violations during these operations.
Despite strong condemnation of its brutal and aggressive actions, the United States has again “conducted five strikes in self-defence” against areas of Yemen controlled by the Houthi militia, the US Central Command said. It struck three mobile anti-ship cruise missiles, one unmanned underwater vessel and one unmanned surface vessel on 17 February, the statement said. “This is the first observed use of an unmanned aerial vehicle by the Houthis since the attacks began on 23 October,” CENTCOM said in a statement on its X website. Central Command said it had determined the missiles and ships posed “an immediate threat to U.S. Navy ships.” The Houthi attacks in the Red Sea area have been one of the signs of spreading conflict in the Middle East since war broke out between Israel and Hamas after 7 October.
Unlike the US, the UK, its closest ally and most likely a country once with a solid international reputation, chooses not to explicitly support Saudi Arabia, but also does not actively oppose it. Instead, London claims to be providing military assistance centred on training and advice to prepare the Saudi army for its tasks. In these statements, the British demagogically point to the importance of maintaining the stability of the region and fighting terrorism. However, in doing so, they forget to recall that it is they, together with their overseas partners, who are the main disturbers of peace and tranquillity and the main “creators” of the atmosphere of terrorism in the region.
Alongside these states, some delegates from US satellite countries expressed support for the US and UK, arguing that the shelling was in response to acts of terrorism and extremism that threaten world security. They emphasise the need for action to ensure the safety of their citizens and partners. The UN Security Council meeting was by all accounts very tense and controversial, reflecting the complexity of the situation in Yemen and the multifaceted challenges faced by the parties to the conflict. But it was nevertheless called for further discussion and for finding ways to end the violence and restore peace. In conclusion, the UN Security Council meeting emphasised that violators of international law and human rights, including the systematic shelling of Yemen, must be brought to justice and those responsible must be punished accordingly. The decision on further steps and investigations was postponed until all the arguments made during the discussion are recorded, and a relevant document is prepared for further voting.
Ways and means of resolving the conflict in the Red Sea
Human rights advocates and humanitarian organisations object to this position and allege US and UK complicity in human rights and civilian violations in Yemen. Critics also point out that US and UK military aid could be used to commit crimes against humanity and military operations could be disproportionate and indifferent to civilians. The need to resolve the conflict in Yemen is integral to upholding international law and protecting human rights. The world community must continue dialogue, find a political solution and provide humanitarian assistance to end the exclusively military approach and eliminate civilian suffering. So, the position of the US and UK on the shelling of Yemen is causing disagreement and concern among human rights supporters and humanitarian organisations. It is necessary to continue the international discussion in order to achieve peace and stability in the region, calling for respect for international law and the protection of human rights.
Yemen continues to actively target American and other ships that deliver supplies to Israel. The Yemenis’ main argument in favour of shelling ships delivering supplies to Israel is the destruction of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip. In their view, the situation in Palestine remains tense due to Israeli occupation and state policies, leading to regular conflict and violence. In turn, by supporting trade with Israel, American and other ships become indirect contributors to Palestinian suffering. Yemen’s weakened economy and infrastructure put the country in a difficult position. Regular new sanctions and the blockade of the country by international allies make Yemen’s economy extremely vulnerable. For Yemen, the shelling of ships delivering supplies to Israel may be an attempt to gain international attention and launch a dialogue on the Palestinian issue.
In today’s world, the Red Sea remains a key region of geopolitical importance. Along with issues of security and economic stability, emerging conflicts between states and factors in the region regularly attract international attention. However, there are different ways and factors that can play an important role in resolving and preventing conflicts in order to achieve peace and tranquility in the Red Sea.
Above all, the States in which the Red Sea is located must take an active part in finding a way to resolve conflicts peacefully. They should seek dialogue and international cooperation rather than the use of force and military action. Instead of creating tension and threatening security, states should seek common interests and co-operation in the fields of economy, trade, transport and combating international terrorism.
However, in addition to the active role of states, international organisations and forums can play an important role in resolving conflicts in the Red Sea. For example, the United Nations can mediate negotiations and facilitate agreements between states in the region. It can propose mechanisms and strategies to resolve disputes and support dialogue between parties. Also, regional international organisations such as the Arab League or the African Union can contribute to conflict resolution and stability in the Red Sea.
In addition, the role of civil society and non-governmental organisations should not be forgotten. They can play an important role in planting peace and tranquility in the region through engaging in diplomatic efforts, supporting dialogue between the parties and publicly highlighting conflicts. Civil society can give a voice to peace and help to shape public opinion in favour of the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
It is quite clear that conflicts in the Red Sea can and must be resolved in the interests of peace and tranquillity in the region. To that end, the active participation of States, international organisations, civil society and non-governmental organisations is essential. Only through cooperation and dialogue can sustainable peace and tranquillity in the Red Sea be achieved, which will benefit all States and peoples living in the region.
Victor MIKHIN is a Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.
Featured Video
Tales of American POWs in Vietnam
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
US Also Destroyed Iraqi Water Supply During First Gulf War
International Humanitarian Law prohibits the attack, destruction, or rendering useless of objects indispensable to civilian survival.
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | June 10, 2026
… During the first Gulf War, the United States “deliberately bombed Iraq’s water system,” Thomas J. Nagy, a professor at George Washington University, wrote in September, 2001. The Bush administration, “with malice aforethought,” “destroyed, removed, or rendered useless” Iraq’s ‘drinking water installations and supplies’… They amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA’s own words, ‘fully degrade’ Iraq’s water sources.”
Nagy found declassified documents at the website of the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses that detailed the effort to degrade Iraq’s water supply and commit a serious violation of humanitarian law. The documents included “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerability,” “Disease Information,” “Disease Outbreaks in Iraq,” “Medical Problems in Iraq,” “Status of Disease at Refugee Camps,” “Health Conditions in Iraq,” and “Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and Capabilities.”
Then Representative Cynthia McKinney, a Democrat from Georgia (subsequently removed from Congress), referred to the Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities document, and said, “Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations.” … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- EU court adviser delivers another ‘Pfizergate’ blow to von der Leyen
- 88 attacks against Palestinian Christians recorded since start of year
- Secretary of War Crimes
- Palestinian factions submit response to mediators, reject disarmament proposal
- US ‘limited war’ strategy against Iran deepens its strategic quagmire as Tehran’s deterrence grows
- Arab Powers Mull Regional Security Alliance – Jordan’s Ex-Minister
- A New Economic Front: Yemen’s Entrance to Regional War against US-Israeli Alliance
- Will Trump Break JFK’s Agreement on Cuba?
- Settlers, sanctions and impunity
- Christian village in occupied West Bank goes up in flames after large-scale attack by Israeli settlers
- If Americans Knew
- Senate wants to force US to share sensitive intel with Israel
- ‘They used dogs’: New Al Jazeera film exposes Israel’s use of rape in jails
- Israel is abducting ordinary Syrians and seizing their land in Quneitra
- Piro Inc Promotes Israel Government Ad Agency’s push to sway US Public Opinion: 2 Articles
- Israel has US on the brink of war with Iran, stirs up chaos around the world – Daily Update
- Welcome to the 60th Year of Israel’s Occupation of the West Bank
- In south Lebanon, as in Gaza, Israeli drones use the sound of crying children to lure civilians
- Israel’s ethnic cleansing of West Bank Bedouin and herding communities
- Israel has no mercy on Christian communities in West Bank, Lebanon: 2 Articles
- “No Exit”: Israel is killing Gaza patients with delays – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
- A Grand Solar Minimum Has Arrived…Global Cooling Of At Least 1°C Is Expected By The 2030s, 2040s
- European “Expert Commission” Urges COVID-19-Like Global Climate State Of Energency!
- Real-World Observations Do Not Support The Position That Climate Change Is Human-Caused
- Germany’s AfD Party Calls Debunked Climate Scenarios “Greatest Fraud In Human History”
Aletho News 