Sanctions, cyberattack among possible UK moves on Russia

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson leaves 10 Downing Street in central London on Tuesday after attending the weekly meeting of the Cabinet. (AFP)
Updated 14 March 2018
0

Sanctions, cyberattack among possible UK moves on Russia

LONDON: Britain has given Moscow until midnight Tuesday to explain how a Russian-made nerve agent came to poison a former spy in Britain. If no explanation is given, Prime Minister Theresa May says Russia will be hit by “extensive” retaliatory measures.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said UK officials are speaking to allies in the EU and beyond to draw up a “commensurate but robust” response to the attack, which has left Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in a critical condition.
Britain has faced a similar crisis before. After former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko was killed in London with radioactive poison in 2006, London expelled several Russian diplomats, imposed visa restrictions, broke off intelligence cooperation and froze assets of the two prime suspects.
Critics say that response was too weak, and claim Britain was reluctant to act because London’s property market and financial sector are magnets for billions in Russian money.
What are Britain’s options now?

Expel diplomats
Britain is highly likely to expel some Russian diplomats, possibly including Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko. That would almost certainly result in the tit-for-tat expulsion of British envoys in Moscow. While that will further fray already strained diplomatic relations, it would have a limited effect on Russia.

Hit their pockets
London is a magnet for wealthy Russians, and Britain could seek to stop those suspected of involvement, or close to President Vladimir Putin, from enjoying their money and property in the UK
“Russian oligarchs over the last few months have been moving money and liquid assets back to Russia from various places around the world, but you can’t move fixed assets,” said historian Martin McCauley, a former senior lecturer on Russian affairs at the University of London. “So therefore if they’ve got property — and they have a lot of property in London and elsewhere — (May) could in fact impose a freeze or even say confiscate those assets.”
Britain has recently introduced new powers to seize money and property whose origins are suspicious, and is considering adopting a version of the US Magnitsky Act, which allows authorities to ban or seize the assets of individuals guilty of human rights abuses.
The EU — of which Britain remains a member until 2019 — has already imposed sanctions on Russian banks, businesses and officials over Moscow’s invasion of Crimea. Britain is likely to urge the bloc to toughen those measures. But several leading EU nations, including Germany, are wary of antagonizing Russia.

Sports boycott
Russia is due to host one of world sport’s biggest events, the World Cup of soccer, in June and July. Johnson has said the UK may downgrade its participation by not sending politicians or Prince William, who is president of England’s Football Association.
Some are urging a British boycott of the event, at which England is one of 32 teams competing for the trophy. But that is likely a step too far.

Military moves
Britain could seek to bolster NATO forces in the Baltic states, where Western troops have been deployed to counter an increasingly assertive Russia.
But Britain will probably stop short of invoking NATO’s principle of collective defense, under which an attack on one is considered an attack on all.
British Housing Minister Dominic Raab said May chose her words carefully when she called the attack “an unlawful use of force” against the U.K.
“The words ‘unlawful use of force’ are different and have a different meaning in international law from ‘armed attack,’” he told the BBC.

Cyber strikeback
UK intelligence officials have warned that Russian hackers are targeting the country’s telecommunications systems, media and energy networks.
So far, Britain has concentrated on strengthening its cyber defenses — but it could take offensive action of its own, possibly targeting Russian websites that generate “fake news.” That would mark an escalation in international cyber-conflict, with unknown consequences.
Britain is also under pressure to revoke the license of state-owned Russian broadcaster RT, which has been repeatedly censured by the UK broadcast regulator for a lack of impartiality.
The regulator, Ofcom, said it would wait until May outlines Britain’s response to Russia on Wednesday and then “consider the implications for RT’s broadcast licenses.”


India’s Modi faces calls for resignation over French jet deal

Updated 22 September 2018
0

India’s Modi faces calls for resignation over French jet deal

  • Indian political parties have been gunning for Modi over the 2016 purchase of 36 Rafale planes from Dassault Aviation estimated to be worth $8.7 billion, saying he had overpaid for the planes and had not been transparent.
  • Political analysts say that the BJP is “losing in the perception war.”

DELHI: India’s prime minister was under fire over allegations of corruption in a military jet deal with France after comments by former French President François Hollande. Hollande was quoted as saying Narendra Modi’s government had influenced the choice of a local partner.
Indian political parties have been gunning for Modi over the 2016 purchase of 36 Rafale planes from Dassault Aviation estimated to be worth $8.7 billion, saying he had overpaid for the planes and had not been transparent.
The opposition, led by Congress President Rahul Gandhi, spent the past year alleging that the deal is a scam, in which India is overpaying for jets and the government is allowing a private company — billionaire Indian businessman Anil Ambani’s Reliance Defense — to benefit instead of state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).
On Friday, Hollande, who cleared the intergovernmental deal when he was in office, was quoted as saying New Delhi had put pressure on Dassault to choose Reliance.
“We had no choice. We took the interlocutor that was given to us,” he was reported as telling the French news service Mediapart, fueling a political storm in India.
The Indian government, however, has insisted all along that it had nothing to do with Dassault’s decision to work with Reliance Defense.
Under Indian defense procurement rules, a foreign firm must invest at least 30 percent of the contract in India to help to build up its manufacturing base and wean off imports.
HAL was the sole contender for being the local partner of Dassault Aviation, but when the deal was sealed in 2015 during Modi’s Paris trip the Reliance Defense procured the contract .
“The PM personally negotiated and changed the Rafale deal behind closed doors. Thanks to François Hollande, we now know he personally delivered a deal worth billions of dollars to ...Anil Ambani,” said Mr. Gandhi in a tweet.
Gandhi further tweeted: “The PM and Anil Ambani jointly carried out a ... SURGICAL STRIKE on the Indian Defense forces. Modi Ji you dishonored the blood of our martyred soldiers. Shame on you. You betrayed India’s soul.”
Gandhi repeated the charge in a press conference in New Delhi on Saturday.
The BJP, however, says that there is no corruption.
“The fact that two sovereign heads of States negotiated a deal means that there is no room for corruption,” said Sudesh Verma, BJP spokesperson.
Talking to Arab News Verma emphasized that “the highest integrity was maintained in the deal. Now the Congress is not talking of corruption but favoritism. Merely by saying that Reliance Defense was favored by us would not cut any ice. These are insinuations and are irresponsible.”
Political analysts say that the BJP is “losing in the perception war.”
“No matter what the indian government says that perception is that the Indian government gave the offset contract to Anil Ambani, a guy who has no history of producing defense equipment,” says Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, a New Delhi based political analyst.
He added: “The halo around Modi has been severely diminished after the recent revelations. This is something which it would be very difficult to live it down now.”