Monday 30 November 2015

Syria and climate change: the important synergies


As the major international news focus of the day remains on Syria and on Paris for the opening of the United Nations Conference of Parties (COP) on the international Climate Change Convention, the most widely read and probably politically influential British daily newspaper, The Sun, casts doubt on the link between the two issues.

The Sun’s front page story and ‘Sun Says’ comment (“Heir brained”) on 23 November belittled the analysis put forward by Prince Charles - and singer and climate change campaigner, Charlotte Church, earlier on BBC 1’s Question Time- that climate change may have contributed to the troubles in Syria.

However, in June last year the Ministry of Defence published a 200-page report, “Global Strategic Trends—Out to 2045”, produced by the MOD’s Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC), which describes in detail a future context for defence and security up to 2045 warning that if global temperatures continued to rise, the consequent droughts and food shortages could trigger widespread social unrest. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/global-strategic-trends-out-to-2045)

In addition, in March this year, retired US Navy Rear-Admiral David W. Titley an internationally known expert in the field of climate, the Arctic, and National Security, and Founding Director of the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at Penn State University in America (who served for 32 years in the US Navy) and while serving in the US Defense Department headquarters at the Pentagon, initiated and led the US Navy’s Task Force on Climate Change - major peer-reviewed study in March made a link between climate change and the Syrian civil war.


His analysis explains how the droughts in Syria are likely to be caused by accelerating climate change, which has led to more people leaving rural areas and coming into the cities, adding to social unrest.

Moreover, the section on ‘Climate change and resource scarcity’ in the Government’s National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478936/52309_Cm_9161_NSS_SD_Review_PRINT_only.pdf)

published on 23 November, set out the following at paragraphs 3.42-3: “By 2030, the world could face demands for 50% more food and energy and 30% more water, while their availability becomes threatened by climate change. The Middle East and North Africa region will be particularly at risk, given existing high levels of water stress and high rates of population growth. Sub-Saharan Africa may suffer from climate change impacts on crop production in particular. Rising sea levels threaten coastal cities and small islands.

More frequent extreme weather events are likely to disrupt populations, agriculture and supply chains, making political instability, conflict and migration more likely. In contrast to the West’s ageing populations, almost 50% of the world’s population is under the age of 24, the vast majority in developing countries. This presents opportunities in terms of potential for driving economic growth. But risks include under-employment, an increase in existing resource stresses, greater instability and migration pressures.”

Time warmongering, bombing favouring MPs wised-up to a wider global reality.

 

 

Friday 27 November 2015

Spending review disaster: Osborne's Comprehensive devastation of a sustainable future




Chancellor George Osborne unveiled a devastating attack on what little remains of sustainability in government policies, when he published his Comprehensive Spending Review and Autumn Statement yesterday.


He slashed the budgets of the two key green departments, DECC (energy) and DEFRA (environment) by 22% and 15% respectively.

He even failed to reveal to MPs in his Parliamentary Statement that, barely days before the major Climate Change Conference in Paris next week, he was cancelling the £1bn competition for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology – only six months before it was due to be awarded - breaking a pledge in the Conservative party’s election manifesto, and sending energy secretary Amber Rudd naked into the climate conference chamber. The announcement was sheepishly slipped out instead on a Stock Exchange news site, with the statement: “Following the chancellor’s autumn statement, HM government confirms that the £1bn ring-fenced capital budget for the CCS competition is no longer available. We will engage closely with the bidders on the implications of this decision for them.”

“This is devastating… Moving the goalposts just at the time when a four-year competition is about to conclude is an appalling way to do business. It is a real blow to confidence for companies investing in CCS. This technology is critical for the UK’s economic, industrial and climate policies,” said Dr Luke Warren, chief executive of the CCS Association.

The UK government’s own climate advisors, the Committee on Climate Change,  argued in a report released last month, Power sector scenarios for the fifth carbon budget “CCS is very important for reducing emissions across the economy and could almost halve the cost of meeting the 2050 target in the [UK’s] Climate Change Act.” (https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/power-sector-scenarios-for-the-fifth-carbon-budget/)

Shell responded by saying its own CCS project at Peterhead in Scotland was now dead and its CCS work would henceforth be based in other countries. “Shell remains committed to CCS – as our involvement in demonstration projects in other parts of the world shows – and we view it as an important part of a low-carbon energy future,” a Shell spokesman stated.

Claire Jakobsson of the manufacturers’ organization EEF, said CCS could have saved the UK £32bn a year by 2050 and abandoning the competition was a false economy: “In choosing to save a relatively small sum of taxpayer money in 2015, the government is unnecessarily committing vast amount of future energy consumers’ money.” Jenifer Baxter of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers added. “Without CCS this will mean we are locking ourselves into relying on unabated fossil fuel power for generations to come.”

Slash and burn

In other regressive moves, the Chancellor decided to cut Government-backed schemes to promote energy efficiency and low carbon technology. He slashed spending on home energy efficiency by a whopping 83%, amounting to £132m, in winding up the energy company obligation (ECO) scheme.

 

The Spending Review stated: “The government will increase funding for the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) to £1.15 billion by 2020-21, while reforming the scheme to deliver better value for money. By the end of the Parliament the government expects to have incentivised enough additional renewable heat to warm the equivalent of over 500,000 homes.”

But analysts calculate that far from increasing the RHI budget, the Chancellor will actually implement a cut of 40% - some £700m- which the Chancellor dubs “savings”. The Solar Trade Association observed: “it’s not clear yet exactly where these savings come from. There will also be budgetary caps providing a backstop on expenditure, meaning that if the forecast expenditure reaches the agreed budget, the Secretary of State will be able to take action to suspend the scheme to new applications.”

Kathy McVeigh, who is on the Solar Trade Association’s Board of Directors and the Managing Director of Northern Ireland-based solar thermal business Cool Sky Ltd commented: “We welcome the fact that the Renewable Heat Incentive will remain, despite the ominous rumours before the Spending Review. Amber Rudd has done well to protect the renewable heat sector. However deployment to date of solar thermal under the RHI has been disappointing. We look forward to working with DECC to implement some of the measures we have recommended to increase the uptake of solar thermal, including making it eligible on new build, removing the need for a Green Deal assessment and providing support for solar space heating and hybrid PV and thermal.” (http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/renewable-heatays-chancellor/)

“The chancellor is slashing renewables and energy efficiency investment, and eliminating CCS funding, making it almost impossible to meet our carbon budgets, rather than building the low-carbon infrastructure fit for the future, he has doubled down on building the infrastructure of the past,” Sepi Golzari-Munro of thinktank E3G commented caustically.

Skewed priorities


Osborne insisted that “Because the government is taking the difficult decisions to fix Britain’s finances, it can afford to prioritise investment in Britain’s long term future: in education, skills, infrastructure and science” He said that The Spending Review and Autumn Statement:

  • doubles spend on energy innovation and invests £250 million in an ambitious nuclear research and development programme
  • ensures the UK remains a world leader in science and research by investing £6.9 billion in capital and by protecting today’s £4.7 billion resource funding in real terms
  • sets out how the government will invest over £100 billion in infrastructure and extends the availability of the £40 billion UK Guarantees Scheme to March 2021
     
    The Spending Review and Autumn Statement observed on climate change

  • The UK’s security and prosperity is vulnerable to climate change, and this challenge requires a global response. The government will continue to push for a strong global climate change agreement in Paris this December, to keep the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels firmly within reach.
  • The Spending Review announces a 50% increase in funding over the next 5 years for developing countries to tackle and adapt to climate change.
  • The government will double its domestic energy innovation programme. In line with this, the UK will continue to play a leading role in international research efforts to reduce the costs of low carbon energy, working with other countries to strengthen international collaboration and transparency in clean energy research, development and demonstration.

 

Research priority failure

The chancellor announced a doubling of investment in energy research and technology over five years, singling out so called small modular reactors (SMRs) The spending review pledged investment of:

at least £250 million over the next 5 years in an ambitious nuclear research and development programme that will revive the UK’s nuclear expertise and position the UK as a global leader in innovative nuclear technologies. This will include a competition to identify the best value small modular reactor design for the UK. This will pave the way towards building one of the world’s first small modular reactors in the UK in the 2020s. Detailed plans for the competition will be brought forward early next year.

Ina written Parliamentary answer to Labour back bench MP Paul Flynn on 29 October , energy minister Andrea Leadsom revealed: “Officials within my Department have met Westinghouse on two occasions to receive their proposal on SMRs. …and it will be considered as part of Government’s wider work on SMRs which includes evidence building through the techno-economic assessment and engagement with SMR vendors where appropriate.”

 

In another answer to Flynn the previous day, Leadsom said: “A range of studies has been commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change in order to deliver a techno-economic assessment of small modular reactors. The organisations currently under contract to deliver projects for the techno economic assessment are: Atkins Limited (contracted on 22/7/15); Energy Technologies Institute LLP (contracted on 3/8/15); National Nuclear Laboratory Limited (contracted on 3/8/15); Checkendon Hill Ltd (contracted on 25/6/15); and Ernst and Young LLP (contracted on 201/10/15).”

Investing in science

The SpendingReview said: “The government will continue to prioritise investment in science to ensure the UK remains a world class centre of research. Already the UK is attracting more research and development (R&D) investment from abroad than China, Japan, Canada and Russia combined. The Spending Review and Autumn Statement reasserts the government’s firm commitment to the UK remaining at the forefront of world science by:

  • protecting today’s £4.7 billion science resource funding in real terms for the rest of the Parliament. This includes a new £1.5 billion Global Challenges fund to ensure UK science takes the lead in addressing the problems faced by developing countries whilst developing our ability to deliver cutting-edge research
  • delivering on the long term science capital commitment of £6.9 billion between 2015-2021 to support the UK’s world-class research base. This includes up to £150 million (total capital and resource) to launch a competition for a Dementia Institute, to build on the UK’s strengths in medical research”
  •  
    Mr Osborne also revealed the government is taking forward the recommendations of Paul Nurse’s independent review and - subject to legislation -  will introduce a new body to be called Research UK – which will work across the seven Research Councils. This will take the lead in shaping and driving a strategic approach to science funding, ensuring a focus on the big challenges and opportunities for UK research. The government will also look to integrate Innovate UK into Research UK in order to strengthen collaboration between the research base and the commercialisation of discoveries in the business community. Innovate UK will retain its clear business focus and separate funding stream.
    The government will also take forward a review of the Research Excellence Framework in order to examine how to simplify and strengthen funding on the basis of excellence, and will set out further details shortly.
    “We will need to scrutinise the details of the Spending Review, but I am very pleased to hear the Chancellor has listened to us and promised to protect the science budget in real terms over the course of this Parliament,” said Nicola Blackwood MP, chairperson of the Commons’ Science and Technology Committee
    Infrastructure
    The government will publish a National Infrastructure Delivery Plan next spring, the Statement revealed, setting out in detail how it will deliver key projects and programmes over the next 5 years.
    The government will also continue to make the most of domestic resources and manage our energy legacy safely and responsibly. The government will commit up to 10% of shale gas tax revenues to a Shale Wealth Fund, which MrOsborne asserted “could deliver up to £1 billion of investment in local communities hosting shale gas developments, in the north of England and other shale-producing regions. “
    It will also give the Oil and Gas Authority additional powers to scrutinise companies’ offshore decommissioning plans and take action to ensure they represent value for money, the Treasury says.
    Meanwhile, the Business, Innovation and Skills department will experience a 17% cut of its budget.

At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, Labour leader led with questions on renewable energy, putting it to Mr Cameron “This week, 55 Labour councils have made a commitment for their areas to be run entirely on green energy by 2050. With the Paris climate talks just days away, will the Prime Minister join me in commending those councils, and will he call on all Conservative councils to do the same?”

Answering from a parallel reality, Mr Cameron said: “I certainly commend all councils for wanting to promote green energy, and we have made that easier in our country by having the feed-in tariffs and the other measures, particularly solar power and wind power. We will be taking part in the Paris talks because it is absolutely vital to get that global deal, but we have to make sure that we take action locally as well as globally. I would make the point that if you compare the last Parliament with the previous Parliament, we saw something like a trebling of the installation of renewable electricity.”


 

http://assets.wwf.org.uk/img/dnussbaum_8764.jpg

WWF-UK Chief Executive David Nussbaum commented on the harsh cuts in green spending, saying: 

“Failure to invest in the natural environment that underpins our economy means the UK will lose out on growth, jobs and international competitiveness - the very issues that George Osborne is so exercised about. It’s good that the Chancellor has protected budgets for forests and national parks but it’s now vital that the Government sets out how it will work with businesses and communities to protect our natural resources, including our seas and rivers, through its 25 year plan for nature.

“Today’s cuts will imperil the environment and undermine the economy. And as we approach the Paris talks, an extensive road building programme sends a depressing signal about the gap between what the UK says on the international stage and what it is prepared to invest in at home.

“How will a depleted Defra have the muscle within Whitehall to stand up for our natural world, at a time when 60% of UK species are in decline? How will a disempowered DECC accelerate the essential transition to a low-carbon economy? And how can the UK lead internationally if we are cutting funding to improve the energy efficiency of our homes? The Government must do better than this if it is to live up to its aspiration to leave nature in a better state than it was when it took office.”





 

Thursday 26 November 2015

Syrian civilians: Must we destroy them to save them?


I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister‘s statement in Parliament on why he believes Britain should start bombing ISIS in Syria.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn asked him: “What impact does he believe an intensified air campaign will have on civilian casualties—civilian casualties—in the ISIS-held territory and the wider Syrian refugee crisis, which is so enormous and so appalling?”

Mr Cameron answered: “On the important question of civilian casualties, I believe that the truth of the matter is that British capabilities provide one of the best ways to reduce civilian casualties. In a year and three months of the action we have taken in Iraq, there have been no reports of civilian casualties. We believe that we have some of the most accurate weapons known to man.”
Incredulously, he then added: “I think extending our activities into Syria is likely to reduce civilian casualties rather than increase them.”

This analysis recalls a very famous comment on the impact of bombing in the Vietnam war. The subsequently famous Associated Press correspondent Peter Arnett, who later reported for CNN,  in reporting  the US attack Bến Tre city on 7 February 1968 wroite:

'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong.”

 

I fear the same fate awaits Syrian civilians currently existing in ISIS strongholds

Thursday 19 November 2015

In dangerous denial


 

At Prime Minister’s Question time on Wednesday this week Jeremy Corbyn asked the following important question: “Surely a crucial way to help defeat ISIL is to cut off its funding, its supply of arms, and its trade. May I press the Prime Minister to ensure that our allies in the region—indeed, all countries in the region—are doing all they can to clamp down on individuals and institutions in their countries who are providing ISIL with vital infrastructure? Will he, through the European Union and other forums if necessary, consider sanctions against those banks and companies, and if necessary countries, that turn a blind eye to financial dealings with ISIL that assist it in its work?

The war-mongering Prime Minister David Cameron responded: “ we play a leading role in ensuring that the supply of money, weapons and support is cut off. However, we should be clear about where ISIL got its money from originally. ..ISIL was able to get hold of oil, weapons, territory and banks, and they have used that to fund their hatred and their violence. We cannot dodge forever the question of how to degrade and destroy ISIL in both Iraq in Syria.. Yes, we should go after the money and the banks, and cut off supplies to ISIL, but we should not make that a substitute for the action that is required to beat those people where they are.”


The problem Cameron and virtually the entire media ignores is blow-back from an insane support policy of the Saudi Arabian Sunni regime and Sunni-led Qatar by France, the US and UK, all of whom have sold billions of euros, pounds, and dollarsworth of arms to the medievalist Kingdom.

In May this year the French news channel France24 published an article on line warning France’s arms sales to the middle east generally- and Saudi Arabia in particular - could  be at a high “strategic cost.”

It reported that when Qatar agreed to buy 24 French Rafale fighter jets in a euro 6.3 billion contract at the end of April, it represented “yet another major success for France's arms industry,” and were “hailed by Hollande and his government.”

Saudi Arabia has proved a lucrative trading partner for French arms manufacturers, most recently in a deal signed last November that saw the kingdom buy $3 billion-worth  of French weapons and military equipment.

(“Arms sales becoming France's new El Dorado, but at what cost? http://www.france24.com/en/20150503-arms-sales-becoming-france-new-el-dorado-but-what-cost-francois-hollande-saudi-arabia-rafale)

In his closing press conference to the  G20 summit in Antalya in Turkey on Tuesday, President Obama asserted: "Here at the G20, our nations have sent an unmistakable message that we are united against this [ISIS] threat." (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/press-conference-president-obama-antalya-turkey)

Not quite all: Saudi Arabia's King Salman was one of the G20 attendees. His country is still heavily supporting ISIS.

A year ago in the Daily Telegraph - and on Monday this week in the London Evening Standard - General Jonathan Shaw, (who retired as Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff in 2012), argued that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were “primarily responsible for the rise of the extremist Islam that inspires Isil terrorists.” General Shaw emphasised: "This is a time bomb that, under the guise of education, Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really. And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money and that must stop.”  

He forcefully added that the British and American air campaign would not "stop the support of people in Qatar and Saudi Arabia for this kind of activity," stressing "It's missing the point”

(Qatar and Saudi Arabia 'have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam' Daily Telegraph, 5 Oct 2014; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html)

 Currently President Obama is considering $1.29bn sale of US weapons to Saudi Arabia. He should cancel this, and read instead the detailed report, Financing of the Terrorist Organisation Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), (http://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/reports/Financing-of-the-terrorist-organisation-ISIL.pdf)

published by the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) earlier this year.

Wednesday 18 November 2015

Stop Saudi support for ISIL terrorists‏



Letter sent to the Guardian on 18 November:

Raphael Behr, in his rush to criticise Jeremey Corbyn, fails to recognise the truth in Corbyn’s analysis of the background cause of the terrorist atrocity in Paris last week (“Jihadism as a result of western policy? Corbyn must do better,” 18 November, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/jihadism-western-policy-jeremy-corbyn-isis)
The problem is not ISIS reaction to bombing their Syrian hideouts, but blow-back from an insane support policy of the Saudi Arabian Sunni regime and Sunni- led Qatar by France, the US and UK, all of whom have sold billions of euros, pounds, and dollarsworth of arms to the medievalist Kingdom

In May this year the French news channel France24 published an article on line warning France’s arms sales to the middle east generally- and Saudi Arabia in particular -  could  be at a high “strategic cost.”

It reported that when Qatar agreed to buy 24 French Rafale fighter jets in a euro 6.3 billion contract at the end of April, it represented “yet another major success for France's arms industry,” and were “hailed by Hollande and his government.”

Saudi Arabia has proved a lucrative trading partner for French arms manufacturers, most recently in a deal signed last November that saw the kingdom buy $3 billion-worth  of French weapons and military equipment.

(“Arms sales becoming France's new El Dorado, but at what cost? http://www.france24.com/en/20150503-arms-sales-becoming-france-new-el-dorado-but-what-cost-francois-hollande-saudi-arabia-rafale)

In his closing press conference to the  G20 summit in Antalya in Turkey on Tuesday, President Obama asserted:
"Here at the G20, our nations have sent an unmistakable message that we are united against this [ISIS] threat." https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/press-conference-president-obama-antalya-turkey

 

Not quite all: Saudi Arabia's King Salman was one of the G20 attendees. His country is still heavily supporting ISIS.


A year ago in the Daily Telegraph and on Monday this week in the London Evening Standard General Jonathan Shaw, (who retired as Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff in 2012), argued that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were “primarily responsible for the rise of the extremist Islam that inspires Isil terrorists.”

General Shaw emphasised: "This is a time bomb that, under the guise of education, Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really. And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money and that must stop.”  

He forcefully added that the British and American air campaign would not "stop the support of people in Qatar and Saudi Arabia for this kind of activity," stressing "It's missing the point”

(Qatar and Saudi Arabia 'have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam' Daily Telegraph, 5 Oct 2014; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html)

He is right, as is Corbyn.

Monday 16 November 2015

Saudi support for ISIS at root of terror problem‏


Letter sent to Daily Telegraph, 16 November 2015:

Just over a year ago, your Chief Foreign Correspondent David Blair reported that General Jonathan Shaw, (who retired as Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff in 2012), told The Daily Telegraph that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were “primarily responsible for the rise of the extremist Islam that inspires Isil terrorists.”
 
Mr Blair added that the two Gulf states “have spent billions of dollars on promoting a militant and proselytising interpretation of their faith” derived from Abdul Wahhab, an eighteenth century scholar, and based on the Salaf, or the original followers of the Prophet."
General Shaw  emphasised: "This is a time bomb that, under the guise of education, Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really. And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money and that must stop."  
He forcefully added that the British and American air campaign would not "stop the support of people in Qatar and Saudi Arabia for this kind of activity," stressing "It's missing the point.“
(Qatar and Saudi Arabia 'have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam' Daily Telegraph, 5 Oct 2014; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html) 
Nearly a year later, Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Ambassador  in London disingenuously wrote in the Daily Telegraph “Saudi Arabia has also had to contend with disingenuous allegations concerning the Kingdom’s role in the war against terrorist groups such as so-called Isil and al-Qaeda. The fact is that no nation is more invested in the struggle against extremism than the Kingdom, which remains the primary target of such organisations, even more so than Western nations.” (How Saudi Arabia helps Britain keep the peace: The vital strategic partnership between Britain and its Gulf ally is suddenly under threat , 26 Oct 2015; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11954146/How-Saudi-Arabia-helps-Britain-keep-the-peace.html
 
This naivity was also the line taken by foreign office minister Tobias Elwood in a written answer to veteran Labour  backbench MP Paul Flynn  in September, when he asserted
“We work closely with countries in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, to counter the threat from terrorists and extremists across the region. Saudi Arabia is a key partner on a broad range of counter terrorism questions. The Saudi government is acutely aware of the threat from terrorist groups such as Al Qaida and ISIL to their own and global security, and have been at the forefront of efforts to combat them. Saudi Arabia has a comprehensive set of laws in place to prevent terrorist financing, which we assess that it vigorously enforces.”  (answer 8060; 7 September 2015).
 
Saudi Arabia is a huge purchaser of British weapons, in multi billion pound deals. Is this the reason ministers refuse to face up to the perverse reality of Saudi support for terrorism, both against Iran-backed Shiite muslims In Syria and Iraq, and European citizens last weekend in Paris?

Sunday 15 November 2015

Saudi blowback from ISIS‏

 
Letter sent to Independent, 15 November 2015:
 
I have consumed hours of broadcast media, newspaper articles and internet reportage since the terrorist atrocity in Paris on Friday night: yet not one media outlet, aside from the blog by Channel Four News presenter Jon Snow, ("Paris attacks: Middle East’s wars arrive in Europe,"
has addressed the crucial role of our “ally” Saudi Arabia in both funding and supporting ISIS terrorists.

Fifteen months ago your middle east editor, Patrick Cockburn, wrote an important analytical article revealing how Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of the MI6 spy agency, from 1999 to 2004, in a speech at the at the Royal United Services Institute in early July last year, asserted that Saudi Arabia is involved in the Isis-led Sunni rebellion in northern Syria andIIraq.

Cockburn observed that this revelation “ has attracted surprisingly little attention. : This remains the case. Dearlove, reported Cockburn “does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq.

He further asserted: "Such things simply do not happen spontaneously."


(“Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country,” Independent

As Mohamad Bazzi  a journalism professor at New York University (and a former Middle East bureau chief at Newsday), explained carefully  in New Yorker magazine, on 29 June this year:  

"Saudi Arabia is built on an alliance between the Saud tribe, Bedouins from the Najd highlands of central Arabia, and clerics who espouse Wahhabism. The Wahhabis seek to return the religion to what they believe was its “pure” form, as practiced by the Prophet Muhammad and his followers in seventh-century Arabia. Many of the practices that the movement’s founder, an eighteenth-century preacher named Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab, banned were associated with Sufism and Shiism, two forms of Islam he particularly abhorred."

(ISIS, Saudi Arabia, and A New Wave of Terrorist Violence http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-new-wave-of-terrorist-violence)
A detailed  article on ISIS last summer included the following interesting observation: “ the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told reporters on 24 August  [2014], on his way to Afghanistan, that he believes ISIS is more of a regional threat, and is not currently plotting attacks against the U.S. or Europe.”
(ISIS: Saudi-Qatari-Funded Wahhabi Terrorists Worldwide,“ 28 August 2014
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2014/08/isis-saudi-qatari-funded-wahhabi-terrorists-worldwide)
What we have seen in Paris is a classic “blowback” from Saudi Arabia’s most important arms providers - US, UK and France- afraid to publicly demand Sunni Saudi Arabia stop supporting the ISIS fanatics, in their medievalist war against Iran dominated Shiites.