Mongolian Independence and the British: The Chinese Backdown
Matteo Miele
Download PDF
Aug 19 2022 •

Riska Parakeet/Shutterstock
This is a preprint excerpt from Mongolian Independence and the British: Geopolitics and Diplomacy in High Asia, 1911–1916, by Matteo Miele. You can download the book free of charge from E-International Relations.

LONG READ 

A year after the Russo-Mongol Agreement, in a declaration signed in Peking on November 5, 1913 (October 23 of the Russian calendar), ‘[l]a Russie reconnaît que la Mongolie Extérieure se trouve sous la suzeraineté de la Chine’, while the Chinese accepted Mongolian autonomy (‘La Chine reconnaît l’autonomie de la Mongolie Extérieure’).[1] The Russians had come to that agreement after having faced several difficulties.

Indeed, in April 1913, while preparing to leave Urga, Korostovets had confessed to Morrison the complexity of dealing with the Mongols and also of enforcing the 1912 treaty:

My position here is a trying one in every respect and the Mongols very difficult people to deal with. I have made my best to satisfy both sides that is my own people and the Government of Urga but have hardly succeeded. The treaty has been signed nearly six months ago and according to my opinion is not enforced yet and perhaps will not be. The new Consul General Miller must arrive in a fortnight and will continue my work, but on what lines and in what direction I do not venture to say. [2]

According to the agreement, Peking still had to grant Outer Mongolia ‘le droit exclusif’ in internal administration, in commercial and industrial matters and the newborn Republic of China could not send soldiers, civilian or military officials and obviously not even settlers. Likewise, the Russians also undertook not to colonize the country, nor to send soldiers, except for the consular guards, nor to intervene in the country’s internal affairs. In an exchange of separate notes between Vasiliy Krupenskiy, Russian minister in Peking,[3] and Sun Pao-ch’i, the foreign minister in the Chinese government of Hsiung Hsi-ling,[4] the two countries agreed on the extension of the territory of Outer Mongolia, that is, those territories that had been under the jurisdiction of the amban of Urga, the ‘Général tartare’ of Uliastay and the Chinese amban of Hovd. Actually, as there were no detailed maps of the country and due to the vagueness of the administrative divisions, the Russians and Chinese agreed for a new meeting (already scheduled in point V of the agreement) to define the country’s borders. That point in fact provided for ‘pourparlers ultérieurs’ on questions relating to the interests of Russia and China in Outer Mongolia, but the exchange of notes required Mongolian involvement in these future negotiations. Furthermore, according to the exchange of notes between the foreign minister of the Republic of China and the Russian minister in Peking:

En ce qui concerne les questions d’ordre politique et territorial, le Gouvernement Chinois se mettra d’accord avec le Gouvernement Russe par des négociations auxquelles les autorités de la Mongolie Extérieure prendront part.

Not having obtained a copy of the agreement from the Russians, the Japanese minister in Peking had confidentially handed over to Beilby Alston, of the British embassy in China, the text of the document that the British diplomat had taken care to send to Grey.[5] However, the Russian minister in Peking pointed out to Alston the approximate borders of Outer Mongolia:

On the China Inland Mission atlas, published 1908, map 22, the Russian Minister pointed out to me that the frontier of Outer Mongolia, comprising the four Aimaks[6] of Tsetsen, Sassaktu, Sainoin, Tuchetu, follows closely their boundaries as therein indicated. The exact definition will not be settled until the meeting of the conference which is proposed to hold. The western frontier is roughly the Altai range ; the southern follows the dotted line across the Gobi desert.[7]

Not yet informed of the signature the day before, Sir Edward Grey had therefore written to Alston on November 6, explaining that he had suggested to the India Office and the Board of Trade to get in touch with the Mongolian government ‘with a view to recognising their autonomy and securing fair terms for British commerce’.[8] Furthermore, Grey also proposed to inform Russia of the favorable acceptance by the British of the Sino-Russian Agreement and the Russo-Mongol Treaty of 1912 ‘provided that a satisfactory commercial arrangement can be arrived at with the autonomous Mongolian Government, who were being approached in the matter’.[9] For the head of the Foreign Office it was necessary for ‘the maintenance of the “ open door ” for British commerce’.[10] More important than the commercial conditions was the case of Tibet and the possibility of exploiting for British advantage, as mentioned previously, the changed conditions in Mongolia. However according to Grey – who had spoken to Sazonov – this was not the most suitable time to open the question with Saint Petersburg:

Sir E. Grey has taken into consideration the possibility of making terms with Russia with regard to the Thibetan question in connection with the Russo-Chinese Agreement, but is of the opinion that it would be unwise to do so at present in view of the declared attitude of the Russian Government and the views expressed by M. Sazonof in his interviews with Sir E. Grey and Lord Crewe.[11]

However, the Sino-Russian Agreement was to become the model for an Anglo-Chinese agreement on Tibet and the Russian motivations for arriving at that document on Mongolia were the same as the British on Tibet:

This would not, however, preclude His Majesty’s Government from pointing out to the Russian Government should the necessity arise, that the same reason which has forced the Russian Government to stipulate with China for an autonomous Mongolia forces His Majesty’s Government to make the same stipulation with regard to Thibet, in doing which they are not, as long as they do not ask for anything in Thibet beyond the scope of the pre-existing convention, taking any action contrary to the terms of the Anglo-Russian Agreement.[12]

The problem was linked to the broader question of industrial and railway loans which had been defined in September at the Paris Conference by France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan and precisely Russia, thus opening up the possibility of aid from these states to their respective private companies in China.[13] Grey wrote about the agreement:

At meeting of groups yesterday industrial and railway loans were eliminated from the scope of the Sextuple Agreement, and at the same time the Triple and Quadruple Agreements were formally terminated. His Majesty’s Government are therefore at liberty forthwith to support independent firms and groups in obtaining concessions or making industrial loans to China, since they will henceforth interpret article 17 of the Reorganisation Loan Agreement as precluding the issue but not the negotiation of loans before 5th February next.[14]

The Russian government did not like the terms of the new agreement, and authorized the signing only to avoid isolation from the other powers.[15] Indeed, Russia feared a danger to its interests in Manchuria, Mongolia and Chinese Turkestan.[16] Therefore, following his line of not entering into conflict with Saint Petersburg on Mongolia, Grey wrote on November 13 to Hugh O’Beirne, an official of the British embassy in Russia, to reassure the tsar’s government that British intentions did not aim at prejudicing Russian interests in Manchuria and Mongolia.[17] While recognizing the special interests of Saint Petersburg in Chinese Turkestan, British interest in that region was much higher than in Mongolia, considering the proximity to India, as well as the presence of many British subjects in the territory.[18] So on November 19, O’Beirne communicated to the Russian government a memorandum with Grey’s indications.[19] Probably, according to Jordan, it was precisely on Chinese Turkestan that the Russians could ask for ‘some form of compensation’, in exchange for consent to a redefinition of the 1907 agreement on Tibet.[20] The basis of this consideration was a dispatch by Buchanan from Saint Petersburg addressed to Grey, dated July 22, 1913, where this type of exchange had already been envisaged:

Russia had not, as he [Sazonov] expressed it, a policy in Kashgar as she had in Ili, Mongolia, or Manchuria. She would confine her attention to the protection of her subjects ; and I might give you the positive assurance that she would take no action of a political nature in Kashgar, except in agreement with His Majesty’s Government, as he quite understood the interest which its proximity to British India caused them to take in this question.

M. Sazanof spoke to me in such frank and categorical terms that I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of his assurances. His use, however, of the words “ except in agreement with His Majesty’s Government ” confirm the impression which I have more than once expressed, that, in the event of our proposing to revise the Anglo-Russian Agreement to our advantage with regard to Thibet, he will ask for some counter concessions in Kashgaria.[21]

There was indeed a significant disproportion between Mongolia and Tibet; the status of Tibet had been regulated by the 1907 Convention, while this was not the case for Mongolia. Therefore, any British claim in the new order of High Asia that emerged from the end of the Ch’ing Empire, however logical in geopolitical terms, had to challenge the agreement that had put an end to the Great Game. British requests had to interfere with the delicate balance that had assigned the respective roles in Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet. The Russian interventions in Mongolia, on the other hand, did not formally touch the agreement, even if those actions could mean – without too much imagination – a possible reopening of the issues on the Roof of the World, given the strong link between Urga and Lhasa. Therefore, it was not even possible for Saint Petersburg to pass any alteration of things in Mongolia as unrelated to a broader redefinition of balances and influences in High Asia. Formally, however, the British had to revise a treaty that had been signed in very different geopolitical and institutional conditions, when Tibet and Mongolia were still both within the Manchu imperial system, and not two territories that claimed their independence from a newborn Republic of China.

Therefore, in the event of a modification of the agreement, the British ambassador in Peking advised Grey to also take into consideration China, whose authorities for months had already suspected an Anglo-Russian negotiation on Tibet.[22] A possible loss of territory, without any involvement of Peking, could – according to Jordan – damage the British image in China to such an extent as to put British interests in severe crisis:

any agreement made independently with a third Power, which affected a portion of Chinese territory, would cause deep resentment throughout the country, impair our prestige as traditional upholders of Chinese integrity, and inflict serious damage upon British interests in China, for which any concession in Thibet would be a poor compensation.[23]

Grey found Robert Crewe-Milnes in favor of the position of not communicating to the Russians – for the moment – London’s position on the Tibetan question.[24] The head of the India Office, however, suggested that he wait to inform Saint Petersburg of British views on Mongolia until the Russian attitude towards Tibet was clarified.[25] Crewe-Milnes, knowing the imminent disclosure of the matter, wanted to ascertain in advance the possible Russian reaction:

The Marquess of Crewe agrees with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it is not desirable to couple the Thibetan question with that of Mongolia at the present stage. But as it seems likely that the former question will shortly have to be taken up with the Russian Government, there might be advantage in deferring any communication to them on the subject of Mongolia until their attitude in regard to Thibet has been ascertained. His Lordship would therefore suggest for Sir E. Grey’s consideration that this matter should be held in abeyance for the time being.[26]

In managing relations with Mongolia, prudence was necessary. British interests in the country were extremely limited, but any connection between Urga and London could turn, as a counterpoint, into a pretext for contact between Lhasa and Saint Petersburg:

Lord Crewe is scarcely in a position to estimate the importance of British commercial interests in Mongolia. He agrees, however, as to the desirability of maintaining the “ open door ” for British trade ; and he sees no objection to the course of action proposed, provided Sir E. Grey is satisfied that direct negotiation with the Mongolian Government will not, in the event of our citing the analogy of Russian proceedings in Mongolia in support of our proposals regarding Thibet, lead to a demand by Russia for similar direct negotiation with the authorities at Lhasa.[27]

Furthermore, for Crewe-Milnes it was necessary, in the aftermath of the Sino-Russian Agreement on Mongolia and during the negotiations on Tibet in Simla, to clarify the legitimacy of the treaty between the Tibetans and the Mongols, and therefore to know whether that text had been actually authorized or not by the political leader of Tibet.[28] According to Crewe-Milnes and Grey, therefore, it was necessary to ask the Tibetan minister (blon-chen) Bshad-sgras[29] for clarification on the matter.[30] We have the reply of the blon-chen Bshad-sgras which is explained in a telegram from the Government of India to the Marquis of Crewe:

He pretends to know nothing of conclusion of agreement in question, but does not deny that Thibet and Mongolia have all along had an alliance of mutual support and assistance, and that, irrespective of any new agreement, this is still in force. He adds that Dorjief was given two letters by Dalai Lamai [sic], the first of which laid down that the two countries should give each other help for benefit of Buddhism, while the second authorised Dorjief to work to this end. This second letter confers powers as wide as, if not wider than, those which Lonchen himself now holds ; it was given to Dorjief when Dalai Lama was in Urga, despondent about help from China or His Majesty’s Government, and in close relations with Russia. To judge by phraseology of third article agreement of November 1912 between Russia and Mongolia, and by chain of thought which runs consecutively through series of Mongolian agreements which runs consecutively through series of Mongolian agreements, it appears quite probable that Russia inspired the Thibet-Mongolia agreement ; and whether or not existence of new agreement is admitted by Dalai Lama, we see no reason why its existence should be considered uncertain, or why we should doubt that its terms are as Korostovetz reported. Further, in absence of any provision in it for ratification, Dalai Lama may find difficulty in repudiating it even if he wants to do so, and would, in any case, have difficulty in refusing to Mongolia privileges for which it makes provision.

We think that, in these circumstances, it is safer to reckon on the agreement as really existing, and to get it produced openly.[31]

So, there was a letter from the dalai lama authorizing Dorzhiyev to negotiate with Urga and, according to the Government of India, the Russians were likely at the bottom of the agreement between Lhasa and Urga. It was therefore necessary for the British to act taking into account, without any doubt, the existence of that document.

The Board of Trade was also in favor of Grey’s position:

The Board concur with Sir E. Grey in thinking that, in the interest of British trade, it would be desirable for His Majesty’s Chargé d’Affaires to be instructed to get into touch with the Mongolian Government with a view to concluding an arrangement for securing fair terms and the maintenance of the “ open door ” for British trade, and that the Russian Government should also be informed that His Majesty’s Government are prepared to receive favourably the Russo-Chinese Agreement and Russo-Mongolian Treaty and Protocol, provided that reasonable conditions can be secured for British subjects and their commerce.[32]

According to the Board the Russians were guaranteed the right to import ‘goods of any origin free of duty’.[33] For the Board of Trade equal rights had to be guaranteed to the British and also


that no import, transit, or other duties shall be imposed on the produce or manufactures of any part of His Majesty’s territories which are not equally imposed on those of any other foreign countries.[34]

A draft agreement with the Mongolian authorities was also proposed by the Board; according to that, Britain was to be granted the status of most favored nation.[35] Naturally, the Board was more interested in the economic-commercial aspects, than in the broader function, in the Asian context, of the Mongolian question and therefore no political analysis was required.

Sayn noyon han Namnansüren’s letter to the British ambassador

In December 1913, Sayn noyon han Namnansüren,[36] president of the Mongolian Council of Ministers and chargé of the extraordinary mission, wrote a letter to the British ambassador in Saint Petersburg, George Buchanan.[37] In the document, the Mongolian politician ‘PAR la volonté de […] le Souverain de Mongolie, et de son Gouvernement’ communicated the transition to independence of Mongolia,

[a]u moment de la chute en Chine de la dynastie mandchoue, à laquelle elle était liée par un pacte spécial […] à l’effet de sauvegarder son unité et son indépendance nationales et l’intégrité de son territoire.

The text is particularly important: it clearly expresses the position of the Mongolian government on the issues at the center of the Sino-Russian dialogue on Urga and it was a further implicit brick of the political-diplomatic pillar that lay at the basis of the Simla agreement. The Mongols told the British that their link with the Empire was to be considered a link with the Manchu dynasty and not with the new Republic. Regarding the Mongol-Russian agreement of 1912, but also that of November (October, according to the Russian calendar) of 1913, Namnansüren expressed enthusiastic terms, considering the documents as proof of the recognition of Mongol independence not only by the Russians, but even by the newly formed Republic of China:

Le Gouvernement mongol a pu constater avec la plus vive satisfaction que lesdits documents comportaient la sanction de la part de l’Empire de Russie et de la République chinoise de l’indépendance de l’État mongol, auquel était garantie pleine liberté dans toutes les affaires touchant à l’administration intérieure, au commerce, à l’industrie, aux lignes de chemin de fer et de télégraphe, et dans toutes les questions financières et économiques, avec toutes les conséquences résultant de cet état de choses, ainsi qu’une parfaite liberté de traiter amicalement avec d’autres États souverains.

The Mongols were evidently not satisfied with the Chinese recognition of internal autonomy. The letter to the British clarified Urga’s interpretation of the agreements of 1912 and 1913, namely that of full Mongol sovereignty, also in terms of foreign affairs. The break with the Republic of China was total and therefore no suzerainty was recognized and the Mongolian government also claimed the right to annex territories inhabited by Mongols, beyond the limits set by the 1913 convention, which although still not defined with absolute certainty, excluded, without any doubt, Inner Mongolia:

Néanmoins, le Gouvernement de Mongolie a cru de son devoir de rappeler aux Gouvernements de l’Empire de Russie et de la République chinoise qu’il a toujours maintenu, et maintient encore, que la Mongolie a rompu définitivement tous liens avec la Chine et qu’aucun droit de suzeraineté ne peut être reconnu à personne sur la Mongolie sans son approbation. En conséquence, le Gouvernement mongol se réserve une parfaite liberté d’appréciation touchant certains points de la déclaration et des notes diplomatiques ayant trait aux relations entre la Caine [sic, ‘Chine’ recte] et la Mongolie. En particulier, la Mongolie affirme son droit d’annexer les territoires qui ont toujours fait corps avec elle et à une telle délimitation de ses frontières qui comprendrait toutes les peuplades de race mongol qui ont déjà adhéré à l’État mongol. Sous ces réserves le Gouvernement de Mongolie se déclare prêt à prendre part aux pourparlers entre la Russie, la Chine et la Mongolie, prévus par la déclaration et les notes susindiquées.

In order to reach a peaceful condition between Mongolia and its neighbors, Namnansüren nevertheless communicated that his government had issued an order to suspend military activities against the Chinese:

De plus, le Gouvernement de Mongolie, désireux de rétablir le plus tôt possible la bonne entente entre la Mongolie et les États limitrophes, a donné ordre à ses troupes de suspendre les opérations militaires contre les troupes chinoises et d’évacuer les positions avancées qu’elles occupaient, et il a adressé en même temps, par l’intermédiaire du Ministre des Affaires Étrangères de Russie et du Ministre de Chine à Saint-Pétersbourg, l’invitation au Gouvernement chinois d’avoir à retirer les troupes qui ont envahi le territoire de la Mongolie intérieure dont la population est intimement liée avec nous par affinités de race.

Naturally Ivan Korostovets, the architect – for the Russian side – of the 1912 agreement, had denied to Buchanan that kind of interpretation of the 1913 treaty: there had been no recognition of sovereignty to the Mongols as regards the railways, the telegraphs and foreign policy, nor, of course, was granted the right to annex parts of Inner Mongolia.[38] Korostovets recognized the fact that in the 1912 agreement, by Mongolian will, the name of the country was simply «Mongolia», without the adjective «Outer», but according to Korostovets it was Russia that had the right to define the borders of the territory covered by the convention.[39] Russian foreign minister Sazonov had also confirmed Korostovets’ statements to Buchanan and had also communicated to the British diplomat that a meeting of Russians, Mongols and Chinese had soon be held to define the borders of Outer Mongolia.[40] Russia, of course, did not want to surrender on the Inner Mongolian issue, because, as seen above, it had already committed to a secret agreement with Japan and could not therefore allow that region to end up inside independent Mongolia:

Their task would not be an easy one, and he need not remind me that Russia was precluded by her secret convention with Japan from allowing any portion of Inner to be incorporated in Outer Mongolia.[41]

[1] Full text of the Déclaration in French and Russian (with exchange of notes between the foreign minister of the Republic of China and the Russian minister in Peking): Извѣстія Министерства иностранныхъ дѣлъ, Третій годъ нзданія, 1914, К. І, С.-Петербургъ 1914, Ст. 2801. Высочайшее повелѣніе, предложенное Правительствующему Сенату Министромъ Юстицій. Объ утвержденіи Деклараціи о признаніи автономія Внѣшней Монголіи и двухъ нотъ, дополняющихъ означенную Декларацію, N. 270, 6 Декабря 1913 г., Отдѣлъ первый, pp. 14-20.

[2] The Correspondence of G. E. Morrison 2013, n. 588, Korostovets to G. E. Morrison, April 19, 1913, p. 134.

[3] ONON – PRITCHATT 1989, p. 66.

[4] KUNG SHU-TO 龚书铎 ET AL., Chung kuo chin tai shih kang 中国近代史纲, ti erh pan 第二版, Pei-ching 北京 1993, p. 367.

[5] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 421, Mr. Alston to Sir Edward Grey, November 8, 1913, p. 397*.

[6] Ajmag, in Chinese: 艾馬克 (ai-ma-k’o).

[7] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 421, Mr. Alston to Sir Edward Grey, November 8, 1913, p. 397*; the atlas cited by Alston is: E. Stanford, Atlas of the Chinese Empire, London 1908.

[8] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 417, Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Alston, November 6, 1913, p. 394. The text of the letter from the Foreign Office to Board of Trade is in TNA, FO 535/16, No. 420, Foreign Office to Board of Trade, November 7, 1913, p. 396; the text of the letter from the Foreign Office to the India Office is in TNA, FO 535/16, No. 421, Foreign Office to India Office, November 7, 1913, pp. 396-397.

[9] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 417, Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Alston, November 6, 1913, p. 394.

[10] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 420, Foreign Office to Board of Trade, November 7, 1913, p. 396.

[11] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 421, Foreign Office to India Office, November 7, 1913, p. 397.

[12] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 421, Foreign Office to India Office, November 7, 1913, p. 397.

[13] TNA, FO 405/212, No. 168, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation to Foreign Office, September 26, 1913, pp. 111-112.

[14] TNA, FO 405/212, No. 171, Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Alston, September 27, 1913, p. 112. The notes of the agreements are in the annexes of TNA, FO 405/212, No. 178, Mr. Addis to Foreign Office, September 29, 1912, pp. 112-116A.

[15] TNA, FO 405/212, No. 183, Mr. O’Beirne to Sir Edward Grey, October 5, 1913, p. 118.

[16] TNA, FO 405/212, No. 183, Mr. O’Beirne to Sir Edward Grey, October 5, 1913, p. 118.

[17] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 425, Sir Edward Grey to Mr. O’Beirne, November 13, 1913, p. 401.

[18] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 425, Sir Edward Grey to Mr. O’Beirne, November 13, 1913, pp. 401-402.

[19] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 438, Mr. O’Beirne to Sir Edward Grey, November 19, 1913, p. 417; TNA, FO 535/16, Enclosure in No. 438, Memorandum, pp. 417-418.

[20] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 443, Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey, November 27, 1913, p. 427.

[21] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 327, Sir G. Buchanan to Sir Edward Grey, July 22, 1913, p. 328.

[22] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 443, Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey, November 27, 1913, p. 427.

[23] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 443, Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey, November 27, 1913, p. 427.

[24] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 437, India Office to Foreign Office, November 19, 1913, p. 417.

[25] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 437, India Office to Foreign Office, November 19, 1913, p. 417.

[26] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 437, India Office to Foreign Office, November 19, 1913, p. 417.

[27] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 437, India Office to Foreign Office, November 19, 1913, p. 417.

[28] TNA, India Office to Foreign Office, November 17, 1913, FO 535/16, No. 432, p. 412.

[29] Blon chen Bshad sgra dpal ’byor rdo rje. Transcribed as Lonchen Shatra in the British documents.

[30] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 432, India Office to Foreign Office, November 17, 1913, p. 412.

[31] TNA, FO 535/16, Enclosure in No. 459, Government of India to the Marquess of Crewe, December 9, 1913, p. 442.

[32] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 444, Board of Trade to Foreign Office, November 27, 1913, p. 427.

[33] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 444, Board of Trade to Foreign Office, November 27, 1913, p. 427.

[34] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 444, Board of Trade to Foreign Office, November 27, 1913, p. 427.

[35] TNA, FO 535/16, Enclosure in No. 444, Board of Trade’s proposal for an agreement with Mongolia, p. 428.

[36] Sayn noyon han Tögs-Ochirϊn Namnansüren.

[37] Full text of the letter: TNA, FO 535/16, Enclosure in No. 471, Letter left at British Embassy in St. Petersburgh by Member of Mongolian Mission (Traduction), le [missing] jour du mois moyen d’hiver de la IIIa année de l’ère “Olana ergougdeksn”, December 1913, pp. 461-462.

[38] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 471, Sir G. Buchanan to Sir Edward Grey, December 24, 1913, p. 460.

[39] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 471, Sir G. Buchanan to Sir Edward Grey, December 24, 1913, p. 460.

[40] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 471, Sir G. Buchanan to Sir Edward Grey, December 24, 1913, p. 461.

[41] TNA, FO 535/16, No. 471, Sir G. Buchanan to Sir Edward Grey, December 24, 1913, p. 461.

Further Reading on E-International Relations

New Book – Mongolian Independence and the British: Geopolitics and Diplomacy in High Asia, 1911–1916

Mongolian Independence and the British: Twentieth-Century Geopolitical Notes

London and Mongolian Independence

Mongolian Independence and the British: At the End of the Great Game

The End of the Manchu Dynasty and Tibetan Independence

Opinion – Challenges for the Expansion of the BRICS

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Matteo Miele is an Affiliated Assistant Professor at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS) of Kyoto University and a Fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Between August 2011 and July 2012, he was a Lecturer at the Sherubtse College, Royal University of Bhutan. He received his Ph.D. (Dottorato di Ricerca) from the University of Pisa in 2014.

This Economy Is Proving  Too Hard for Economists

Analysis by Jared Dillian | Bloomberg

August 19, 2022 

The latest buzzword among many economists and investors is “ noise.” It’s being used to refer to any piece of economic data that doesn’t fit the prevailing narrative, which is happening a lot these days. Don’t get me wrong — this economy is proving hard to understand. It is very strong in some respects and very weak in others. The official government data shows gross domestic product just shrank for two consecutive quarters, meeting the technical definition of a recession, but it doesn’t feel like a true recession.

No sooner had the Labor Department said earlier this month that economy added 528,000 jobs in July, more than double the forecast and exceeding every one of the more than 70 estimates in a Bloomberg survey, than economists dismissed the results as “noise.” They trotted out the word again when the government said on Aug. 10 that the consumer price index was unchanged in July from the month before, an outcome all but four of 63 economists predicted. They expected an increase. And just this week we heard a lot of economists respond with “noise” when the Commerce Department said this week that retail sales for July among a control group that is used to calculate GDP rose more than forecast.  

This is all very confusing to many, and I get it. But just because the data doesn’t fit Wall Street’s longstanding models that worked in the pre-pandemic era doesn’t mean that it’s ”noise.” It probably means the models are in dire need of updating.

Take the inflation data. The no change in the monthly CPI was surprising, but probably not an outlier. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does a pretty good job of gathering and analyzing data. If it is showing that inflation was unchanged, it does really mean inflation slowed. It also means we can still debate about why inflation slowed. My pet theory is that faster inflation was the result of the lagged effects of fiscal stimulus in response to the shutdowns in the early days of the pandemic, and now that the stimulus is moving farther away in the rear-view mirror, price gains will slow. The data is what it is, but it can still be subject to interpretation

The strong retail sales number might also be dismissed as “noise.” Retail sales excluding auto purchases rose 0.4% in July, versus a forecasted contraction of 0.1% in a Bloomberg survey. Sales among the control group rose 0.8%, well above the pre-pandemic monthly average of 0.3%. The latest results don’t exactly fit the narrative that the economy is in a recession. 

So, the options are to either dismiss data that doesn’t meet the numbers spit out by the models or apply some brainpower to figure out why the models seem to be getting critical parts of the economy so wrong lately. Maybe consumers aren’t as tapped out by inflation as we are led to believe. Maybe the massive amount of money still sitting in household savings accounts thanks to the unprecedented fiscal stimulus when combined with an unemployment rate that, at 3.5%, represents a 53-year low, means consumers are mostly undeterred by rising prices. 

This isn’t to say there is no volatility in economic data. There are occasional anomalies. Sometimes the seasonality calculations are off due to an extraordinary event, like an unexpected government shut down due to the debt ceiling being reached or a natural disaster. This is why many economists look at moving averages and data series over a period of time to get a truer picture of trends.  

Everything happing in the economy right now is happening for a reason – a reason that many economists and investors are struggling to understand. As I’ve written before, none of models used by economists are useful in predicting the aftermath of an economy that stops on a dime, jettisons some 17 million from the workforce over two weeks and contracts 31% only to rebound just as quickly on the back of free-money government programs that injected trillions of dollars directly into the pockets of consumers to go along with negative real interest rates and quantitative easing policies from the central bank. On top of that, global supply chains were massively disrupted, creating shortages of goods, which in turn led to higher prices for those that were available. 

It will take quite a few years before all of this is sorted out and we return to something resembling a normal business cycle. The broad economic slowdown we are experiencing is likely nothing more than a pullback from the artificially induced sharp recovery from the lockdowns. It may not fit the model of a conventional business cycle, but once you accept that this is not a normal business cycle and view the data through a different lens, then the unexpected begins to make sense and not something to be dismissed as “noise.”

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Jared Dillian is the editor and publisher of the Daily Dirtnap. An investment strategist at Mauldin Economics, he is author of “All the Evil of This World.” He may have a stake in the areas he writes about.

More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion

©2022 Bloomberg L.P.

 

Soldiers, Saints, and Shamans

• 

Book:

Soldiers, Saints, and Shamans: Indigenous Communities and the Revolutionary State in Mexico's Gran Nayar, 1910–1940
Nathaniel Morris
Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 2021, ISBN: 9780816546930; 392pp.; Price: £35.00

Reviewer:

Dr Mark Lawrence
University of Kent

Citation:

Dr Mark Lawrence, review of Soldiers, Saints, and Shamans, (review no. 2463)
DOI: 10.14296/RiH/2014/2463
Date accessed: 19 August, 2022

The period 1910-40 was tumultuous in Mexican history. The armed phase of the Mexican Revolution (1910-20) was followed by fragmented attempts by Revolutionary politicians to assert Federal control and modernisation in the face of military rebellion, resistance to social reform, two major religious revolts known as the Cristiada, and ongoing, albeit often unremarked, agency from Mexico’s indigenous populations. This latter aspect is the focus of research in Nathaniel Morris’s excellent new history.  The author's specific attention is on the Wixárika, Naayari, O'dam, and Mexicanero communities of the Gran Nayar region along with adjoining locations along the Sierra Madre Occidental highlands.

Nathaniel Morris’s work is a landmark study of ethnohistory and a highly original addition to our knowledge of Mexico’s revolutionary and counter-revolutionary era of 1910-1940. His focus is the Gran Nayar, a region centred on Nayarit, but also including parts of the states of Sinaloa, Jalisco, Zacatecas, and Durango, during the armed phase of the Mexican revolution and the Cristero wars. Soldiers, Saints and Shamans fills a void in the historiography. As Morris correctly points out, there has been very little historical analysis of indigenous agency in the Mexican Revolutionary period, and ‘the Gran Nayar remains entirely absent from most Mexicans’ mental map of the period’ (p. 11). Throughout the 19th century, any Indian initiative was written off as a ‘caste war’, and irreconcilable with White and mestizo nation-building.(1) 20th-century historians and anthropologists mostly assumed that Mexico’s indigenous populations were either passive recipients of Revolutionary nation-building schemes or defiant outsiders from the mestizo state. A landmark study of caudillos (political/military ‘strongmen’) in the Independence Wars represented Indians as ‘apolitical’.(2) Indigenous agency was usually explained as a defence of ‘old ways’, and the amorphous collection of rituals, everyday representations, and beliefs lumped together as a static rather than dynamic ‘costumbre’ (customs). Condescending, and even racist, interpretations died hard, as Nathaniel Morris’s separate study of the 19th-century Manuel Lozada revolt in a similar region has shown.(3) The outsized role played by indigenous communities in religious revolts, including the Cristiada, was explained as being motivated by religious devotion and an ingrained scepticism towards the Mexican state.(4) More recent scholarship has shifted the dial somewhat, demonstrating the considerable degree to which indigenous peoples collaborated with White/mestizo state-building all the same, often by turning against their defiant (‘bronco’) kin.(5) But Soldiers, Saints and Shamans should be considered a breakthrough.

Soldiers, Saints and Shamans draws on unused archives, conversations with veterans and their descendants, and on ethnographic research, to produce a remarkable analysis, all amidst the challenges posed in this region by the ongoing drugs war. Dr Morris has lived with host communities and sensitively interprets conflicting oral history testimonies, while maintaining the rigour of the historian. Readers will feel for themselves the intimacy of these sources, as well as the natural confusion made between elderly eyewitnesses and descendants regarding particular chronologies, risings, and battles. The author sanely makes a disclaimer as to his own fallibility. But the result is as objective as can be reasonably hoped. Morris avoids the condescending and romanticised biases of earlier anthropologists. The millenarianism which cloaked most comments on pre-Columbine populations’ religious and political practices is here explained. Morris shows an excellent grasp of indigenous metaphysics. Indian responses to the Revolution and the Cristiada in the Gran Nayar were a sophisticated expression of local power politics. Revolutionary reforms, such as the government-appointment of headmen of O’dam communities, threatened a meta-apocalypse, according to the O’dam worldview. These reforms destroyed the spatial rather than linear perception of time, and would result in a catastrophic failure of the rains. But Morris shows how Indian communities were not solely metaphysical in their calculations. They also reacted as logically as mestizos to the pendulum swings of armies and the threats and opportunities these posed.

Thus, Morris explains how fiercely independent indigenous communities used external initiatives to consolidate their own interests. The O’dam of Durango were amongst the least Catholic people in Mexico, if the presence of priests is anything to go by. Yet they were amongst the most enthusiastic Cristeros of the 1920 and 30s. Federal threats to ancestral lands and costumbre made the anti-Federal Cristero revolt a convenient vehicle for defending local interests. Here, Jean Meyer’s model of popular, rather than elite, agency in the Cristero rebellion religious militancy in the Cristiada is revised further. Religion, or at least Catholicism, comes as a close second, if that, in motivations. Morris’s work develops the findings of other regional studies in Mexican history which, over the past 30 years, have stressed peripheral and horizontal agency in matters of reform in land, religion, and education. Some local elites backed the Federal government, using paramilitary militias (defensas) as a vehicle for their ambition, whereas others backed revolts, especially the Cristiada, relying on forced conscription rather than the faithful voluntarism of legend. The fact that this indigenous region had long remained peripheral to Liberal and Revolutionary nation-building projects meant that both defensas and Cristeros were empowered in the national political crises of 1926-29, and the 1930s. 

Morris also shows how indigenous communities clung to the very costumbre which had historically defined them. The indigenous communities ‘traditionalised’ the Revolution, in the same way that post-Columbine Indians incorporated and parodied Catholic rituals into their original religious fiestas (p. 266). After three decades of intra- and inter-communal violence, and the encroachments of the mestizo state, the 1940s found the Gran Nayar in a state of despondent cynicism. Indigenous attitudes towards any authority figures connected with external revolution and counter-revolution, whether priests, teachers, government officials, or caciques, were poisoned for generations.

There are definitely a few jagged edges and discontinuities in the writing. However, this is never a boring read. Dr Morris has produced a vital text for understanding the Mexican Revolution and its aftermath from the perspective of indigenous populations. Dr Morris should be congratulated on bringing clarity and interest to this neglected aspect of history, and the work should be strongly recommended to any serious scholar of modern Mexico.

Notes

1. In Mexico, the term mestizo (lit. "mixed") is used to refer to an identity of those of mixed European (mainly Spanish) and indigenous Mexican descent.Back to (1)
2. John Lynch, Caudillos in Spanish America, 1800-1850 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 134.Back to (2)
3. Nathaniel Morris, Manuel Lozada, la ‘leyenda negra’, y el nacimiento del agrarismo en la conformación de Nayarit (Tepic: Consejo Estatal para la Cultura y las Artes de Nayarit, 2017).Back to (3)
4. E.g. Edwin Lieuwen, Mexican Militarism, the Political Rise and Fall of the Revolutionary Army, 1910-1940 (New York: Praeger, 1981), p. 84.
   Back to (4)
5. Julia O’Hara, ‘The Slayer of Victorio Bears his Honors Quietly’, in Nicola Foote and René D. Harder Horst (eds.), Military Struggle and Identity Formation in Latin America: Race, Nation and Community During the Liberal Period (University of Florida Press, 2010), pp. 224-242.Back to (5)

Bibliography
Lieuwen, Edwin, Mexican Militarism, the Political Rise and Fall of the Revolutionary Army, 1910-1940 (New York: Praeger, 1981)
Lynch, John, Caudillos in Spanish America, 1800-1850 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991)
Morris, Nathaniel, Manuel Lozada, la ‘leyenda negra’, y el nacimiento del agrarismo en la conformación de Nayarit (Tepic: Consejo Estatal para la Cultura y las Artes de Nayarit, 2017).
O’Hara, Julia, ‘The Slayer of Victorio Bears his Honors Quietly’, in Nicola Foote and René D. Harder Horst (eds.), Military Struggle and Identity Formation in Latin America: Race, Nation and Community During the Liberal Period (University of Florida Press, 2010), pp. 224-242.

Iran Calls on Western Gov'ts to Stop Ignoring Israeli Crimes Against Palestinians


TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran blasted the international community for keeping mum on Israeli aggressions against Palestinian people, and urged the Western countries to support the Palestinian nation’s rights instead of denying realities about the Zionist regime’s crimes.

“In line with what has been stipulated in many official documents… and countless reports by human rights institutions, the Zionist regime is an apartheid regime, which is culpable for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity,” Foreign Ministry Spokesman Nasser Kana’ani wrote Twitter on Thursday.

He advised the Western governments to stop denying “objective facts” regarding the Israeli regime’s apartheid character and instead start backing the Palestinian nation’s human rights.

Numerous human rights organizations have condemned the Israeli regime for its practicing apartheid by systematically oppressing the Palestinians via military occupation and racist laws.

Leading human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have equated Israeli policies against Palestinians to apartheid.

Iran has repeatedly stressed the international community should force Israel to account for human rights violations and crimes against Palestinians. Tehran stated that Washington-supported barbarity will not change the inevitable fate of the Tel Aviv regime.

Israel unleashed a wave of air raids on the Gaza Strip during the last week. Forty-nine Palestinians, including 17 children and two Islamic Jihad commanders, were martyred in the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Hundreds of Palestinians were also wounded.

United Nations Human Rights Chief Michelle Bachelet has sounded the alarm about the high number of Palestinians, including children, killed and injured by Israel in 2022.

Almost 40 Palestinian children have been killed so far this year in the occupied territories and in many incidents, Israeli forces appear to use lethal force in a manner that violates international human rights law, Bachelet said.

The toll of civilian casualties in the Israeli attack on Gaza “was heavy”, the UN rights chief added.

Iran describes Israel as the root cause of instability in the region, but says the regime's US-supported barbarity will not change the inevitable fate of the Tel Aviv regime.

Iranian President Seyed Ebrahim Rayeesi strongly condemned the new crime committed by Tel Aviv in the Gaza Strip, and noted the Israeli regime is on a fast-track towards decline because of the resistance of the Palestinian people in the besieged enclave.

"Through its crime last night, the Zionist regime once more showed its occupationist and aggressive nature to the world," President Rayeesi stated on Saturday.

He praised the Palestinians for standing firm in the face of Israeli atrocities, and added, "The resistance of the people of Gaza will speed up the decline of this child-killing regime."

US says 'concerned' by Israeli raids on Palestinian rights groups

Issued on: 19/08/2022 -

Washington said Thursday it was "concerned" by the Israeli government's forced closure of several Palestinian NGOs operating in the occupied West Bank.

The Israeli military announced earlier in the day that it had conducted overnight raids of seven organisations in Ramallah, the West Bank city where the Palestinian Authority's headquarters are located.

Six of the Palestinian organisations were labeled last October as terrorist organisations by Israel for their alleged links to the leftist militant group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), though Israeli officials have not publicly shared any evidence of the links.

The NGOs have all denied any links to the PFLP, which many western nations have designated a terrorist group.

"We are concerned about the Israeli security forces' closure of the six offices of the Palestinian NGOs in and around Ramallah today," said US State Department spokesman Ned Price at a press briefing.

"We have not changed our position or approach to these organisations," said Price, though he noted that Washington does not fund any of them.

"We have seen nothing in recent months to change (our position)" he added.

US officials have reached out to their Israeli counterparts "at the senior level" to obtain additional information, which Israel has promised to provide, according to Price.

The seventh organisation raided by Israel on Thursday, the Union of Health Work Committees, was banned by Israel from working in the West Bank in 2020.

(AFP)

‘Israel only knows one language’: Gideon Levy on why Israel bombed Gaza
Mohamed Hashem   19 August 2022 

‘Israel uses only one language and is refusing to try an alternative, which is not violence.’

Israeli journalist Gideon Levy speaks to MEE on the latest Israeli assault on Gaza, which killed at least 49 Palestinians, including 17 children

Pegasus: English court rules Saudi dissident's case against kingdom can move forward

Ruling for Ghanem al-Masarir, who was allegedly targeted by Saudi Arabia with spyware and assaulted, could set precedent for legal action taken by other UK-based dissidents

Almasarir outside the Saudi Arabian embassy in London in October 2018, 

calling for justice for Jamal Khashoggi (AFP)

By Dania Akkad
Published date: 19 August 2022

A Saudi Arabian dissident who alleges that Riyadh installed spyware on his phones and ordered an assault on him can proceed with his lawsuit against the kingdom, England's high court ruled on Friday.

The judgement in Ghanem Almasarir's case is the first ever ruling in a UK court involving spyware and a foreign country, and could set precedent for other Britain-based dissidents alleged to have been the targets of state-sponsored surveillance on British soil.

Almasarir said it was a "huge relief" that the judgement had gone in his favour and said the alleged targeting with spyware and assault had had "a profound effect" on his life.

"I no longer feel safe and I am constantly looking over my shoulder. I no longer feel able to speak up for the oppressed Saudi people because I fear that any contact with people inside the kingdom could put them in danger," he said.

"I look forward to presenting my full case to the court in the hope that I can finally hold the kingdom to account for the suffering I believe they have caused me.”

Almasarir used his YouTube channel, which had more than 300 million views at the height of its popularity in 2018, to make fun of the Saudi royal family, particularly Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

'I no longer feel safe and I am constantly looking over my shoulder. I no longer feel able to speak up for the oppressed Saudi people'

- Ghanem Almasarir

The lawsuit accuses the Saudi government of infecting Almasarir’s phone in June 2018 with Pegasus, military-grade spyware that it acquired from Israeli company NSO Group.

His phone was examined by experts at University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, who confirmed that he had been sent malicious texts associated with Pegasus and concluded “with a high degree of confidence” that Saudi Arabia was responsible, Almasarir’s lawyers have said.

Once installed, it would have allowed them to access his microphone and camera to hear and record what he was doing, as well as examine location data, all stored messages and images and the phone's browser history.

The lawsuit also alleges that the Saudi government directed an attack against Almasarir across the street from Harrods in London on 31 August 2018, an incident that was caught on film and appeared on social media accounts linked to the authorities in Riyadh.

He is bringing a claim for personal injuries resulting from both alleged attacks. States are normally shielded from most litigation in the UK, thanks to the State Immunity Act of 1978, enacted before spyware existed.

But the judgement handed down on Friday ruled that Almasarir’s case is an exception.

The ruling could open doors other UK-based dissidents and civil society leaders trying to bring legal action in Britain over claims they were targeted with spyware by Gulf countries in recent years.

They include Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed, two prominent Bahraini activists living in London, who are trying to sue Bahrain over allegations that the kingdom infected their personal computers with FinSpy surveillance software.

Three others - Saudi human rights defender Yahya Assiri, Anas Altikriti, head of the Cordoba Foundation, and Mohammed Kozbar, chairman of Finsbury Park Mosque - have also taken legal action in the UK over spyware allegations.

In April, their lawyers notified NSO Group, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that they plan to sue them in the high court over allegations that the two states infiltrated their phones with the Israeli firm's spyware.

SYRIA

Al-Bab massacre | Over 50 civilian casualties in (ASSAD) regime bombardment on market and residential neighbourhoods

On Aug 19, 2022

Aleppo province: SOHR activists have confirmed the increase of the number of casualties due to the massacre committed by regime forces which shelled an outdoors market and residential neighbourhoods in Al-Bab city in Aleppo countryside with artillery to over 50 civilians. Until now, SOHR activists have documented the death of 14 civilians, including five children, and the injury of 38 others, including women, children and elderly people.

It is worth noting that this is the most horrific massacre of those committed by regime forces in months.

Observatory sources have just reported a spike in the number of civilians who were killed and wounded in regime artillery fire on an outdoors market and residential neighbourhoods in Al-Bab city in Aleppo countryside, where the death of nine civilians, including children, was confirmed. In addition, 30 other civilians sustained various injuries and taken to hospitals in Al-Bab city.

SOHR sources confirmed that the artillery shells were fired from regime positions in the northern countryside of Aleppo as a response to the killing of regime soldiers in airstrikes by Turkish fighter jets on positions in Ain Al-Arab countryside a few days ago

.

Death toll update | Nearly ten people killed and over 30 others injured in regime artillery attack on Al-Bab city

On Aug 19, 2022

Aleppo province: SOHR activists have documented a spike in the number of civilians who were killed and wounded in regime artillery fire on an outdoors market and residential neighbourhoods in Al-Bab city in Aleppo countryside, where the death of nine civilians, including children, is confirmed. In addition, 30 other civilians have sustained various injuries and now receiving medical treatment in hospitals in Al-Bab city, which may raise the death toll further.

SOHR activists had confirmed that the number fatalities in today’s artillery attack on an outdoors market and residential neighbourhoods in Al-Bab city, which is controlled by Turkish forces and their proxy faction, jumped to seven civilians, including children, as well as the injury of 23 others.

SOHR sources also confirmed that the artillery shells were fired from regime positions in the northern countryside of Aleppo as a response to the killing of regime soldiers in airstrikes by Turkish fighter jets on positions in Ain Al-Arab countryside a few days ago.

How a British union leader secretly lobbied for Israel against Lowkey


Despite a history of trade union solidarity with Palestine, rapper Lowkey was de-platformed by the Trade Union Congress after a secret letter from the head of GMB Union, a move that Sohaib Benessa writes betrays the foundations of union organising.


Lowkey addresses the crowd as thousands of people attend a protest and block Whitehall to demonstrate against the Israeli bombing of Gaza and repression of Palestinian people in Jerusalem and the West Bank on May 11, 2021 in London, England. [Getty]

Sohaib Benessa
16 Aug, 2022
Perspectives

Held every year since the 1930’s, the Tolpuddle Martyrs Festival celebrates the six Dorset labourers who formed the first trade union in the United Kingdom in 1834. The festival commemorates their legacy in establishing union movements.

In a shocking move this year, the Trade Union Congress decided to dedicate the Sycamore tree that hosted their secret meetings to the Queen, the same power that deported the Tolpuddle martyrs to a British penal colony in Australia, for her platinum jubilee.

Nigel Costley, the South West regional secretary for the Trade Union Congress, justified the move stating that, “The monarchy played a very different role in the 1800s and this dedication will raise awareness of how far we have come.”

"Lowkey has established his voice as solidly anti-racist and strongly opposed to militarism. The GMB, on the other hand, is a well-documented supporter of the arms trade"

Another strange subtext to this year’s Tolpuddle Martyrs Festival was the decision to disinvite British-Iraqi hip hop artist Lowkey from performing. Lowkey’s de-platforming occurred following a secret lobbying campaign by General Secretary of the GMB Union, Gary Smith, who sent a letter to Costley smearing Lowkey and leading to the rapper being disinvited.

Incidentally, the letter sent by Smith wrongly refers to Lowkey as Raheem, when in fact, his name is Kareem. One wonders why Smith would have such trouble with Arabic names. In the letter, he also falsely claims that Lowkey has "promoted conspiracy theories that allege an Israeli state plot to promote conflict between Ukraine and Russia” with no offer of evidence for this assertion.

Smith then proceeds to declare that the views (which he falsely attributes to Lowkey) "have nothing in common with the proud history of industrial struggle that we commemorate at Tolpuddle.”

Lowkey has established his voice as solidly anti-racist and strongly opposed to militarism. The GMB, on the other hand, is a well-documented supporter of the arms trade and has worked closely with GMB-funded Labour MP Ruth Smeeth to push this agenda in parliament.

Ruth Smeeth was designated as a “strictly protect” informant for the US Embassy in cables revealed by Wikileaks. She was also the director of public affairs and campaigns at Britain’s largest Israel lobby group BICOM, which has a campaign currently pushing to remove Lowkey’s music from Spotify through its ‘We Believe In Israel’ project.

However, aside from these more structural aspects, it is important to examine the record of Gary Smith himself and identify the likely root of these allegations.

There is clear evidence that Gary Smith has a history of weaponising anti-Semitism smears against political opponents; as GMB leader in Scotland he was a key participant in the campaign against Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard. He also led a campaign against Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on the same issue.

Smith has also been publicly promoted by the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), a group entwined with the main settlement-building organisation in Palestine, known as the Jewish National Fund (JNF). This wouldn’t be the first time the CAA has got it wrong either. In 2017, the CAA had to remove a false claim about Lowkey from their website, after misquoting his Fire in the Booth performance on BBC Radio 1 in a failed attempt to de-platform him.

RELATED

An attack on Lowkey is an attack on allies of Palestine

Perspectives

Shareefa Energy

The group also published a dossier to prompt an investigation into anti-Semitism in the NUS, to prevent the new pro-Palestinian president-elect from taking her position. The dossier features Lowkey heavily. Considering these circumstances, it seems likely that the CAA is the source of Gary Smith's false allegations against Lowkey, contained in this secret lobbying letter.

The Chief Executive of the CAA is Gideon Falter, who simultaneously serves as the Vice Chair of the JNF UK. Initially, the director of communications for the CAA was Jonathan Sacerdoti who at the same time worked as director of the Zionist Federation. The CAA is also funded by Natan, an organisation which is chaired by Tony Felzen, a key supporter of Friends of the IDF.

The JNF UK is a key land grabbing and settlement building organisation in occupied Palestine and has stated that it collaborates on projects with “elite IDF units.” It has deep relationships with several Israeli organisations which provide direct passage into the Israeli army.

In 2005, JNF UK was investigated by the UK Charity Commission. The Charity Commission reported that "It is not open for the charity to support the State of Israel, since this does not itself denote a charitable purpose." The Charity Commission report continued to say that, "They should try to ensure that they refrain from indicating moral/political support for the state of Israel, rather explain the focus of their charitable activities.”

"For the Tolpuddle Martyrs Festival to be used to de-platform pro-Palestinian artists, possibly based on a dodgy dossier provided by an organisation complicit in the settler colonial occupation of Palestine, is a travesty against its very foundations"

What’s more, JNF UK Honorary Treasurer Gary Mond was exposed to having made Islamophobic comments online. Earlier this year, JNF UK chair and former Israeli intelligence officer Samuel Hayek was also revealed to have made Islamophobic remarks, which led to the UK Charity Commission opening an investigation into the organisation on January 13th.

For the Tolpuddle Martyrs Festival to be used to de-platform pro-Palestinian artists, possibly based on a dodgy dossier provided by an organisation complicit in the settler colonial occupation of Palestine, is a travesty against its very foundations.

There is a long tradition of solidarity with Palestine among British trade union movements, and the Trade Union Congress must not allow Israeli lobbyists to erode this history.

Sohaib Benessa is a British-born Moroccan writer based in London. His work focuses on social justice for marginalised groups within and without the UK, with specific attention to Africa and the Middle East.

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.

UK
NHS leaders warn energy costs could create public health crisis


The NHS Confederation has written to the chancellor to warn of catastrophic results if the government doesn’t help people with energy costs.

JOANNA ROBERTSON

THE BIG ISSUE
19 Aug 2022

Rising energy costs could place a greater strain on the NHS as households cut back on heating and food. 

Image: Li Lin/Unsplash


NHS leaders have warned of a “humanitarian crisis” as the fallout from rising energy costs could impact people’s health.

In a letter to the chancellor, the NHS Confederation outlined concerns that unaffordable household energy bills could lead to a public health emergency, which would increase health inequalities and place a high demand on NHS services.

“The country is facing a humanitarian crisis,”said Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents organisations across the UK with more than 1.5 million healthcare staff. “Many people could face the awful choice between skipping meals to heat their homes and having to live in cold, damp and very unpleasant conditions.

“This in turn could lead to outbreaks of illness and sickness around the country and widen health inequalities, worsen children’s life chances and leave an indelible scar on local communities.”

Soaring energy costs have added to a cost of living crisis which is only set to increase in the coming months. Real-terms inflation is predicted to reach nearly 18 per cent for those on the lowest incomes this autumn and energy bills could exceed universal credit payments.

Many of the most vulnerable are already cutting back on essential costs, with disability charity Sense reporting that a third of disabled people skip meals to save money.

A government spokesperson said “we have taken action to help households with £37 billion worth of support, which includes specific support to help people through the difficult winter ahead”. But the rise in household energy costs is expected to outpace government support promised so far when prices rise in October and again in January.

The letter warned of a dramatic upsurge in respiratory conditions, undernutrition, and hospital admissions in children, as well as an increased risk of heart attacks, stroke and falls for older people living in cold conditions.

“These outbreaks will strike just as the NHS is likely to experience the most difficult winter on record,” he continued, as the high demand on health services will coincide with predicted high levels of flu, norovirus and potentially further Covid outbreaks. Rising energy costs could also have a major impact on mental health, wellbeing and social care services.

“Not being able to afford a warm home and healthy food causes untold stress and anxiety,” said Katie Schmuecker, principal policy advisor at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

The letter calls for the Westminster government to “set out a more targeted and detailed support package for those households who need it most in advance of the decision on the new energy price cap next week.”

“With bills expected to go up by 82 per cent, we believe the government’s current policy of providing £400 (paid in monthly installments) is not going to be nearly sufficient, even alongside the one-off payments for recipients of universal credit, disability benefits and the winter fuel allowance.

“Failure to go beyond this risks a public health emergency and this must be avoided at all costs.”

Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the two candidates to replace him in September, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and former Chancellor Rishi Sunak, have all so far refused to detail how they would address the problem.

Earlier this summer, The Big Issue teamed up with former prime minister Gordon Brown to call on the government to take urgent action to prevent a “poverty time bomb” going off in October.

Writing in The Big Issue, Brown said: “With funds for charity starting to dry up, and food banks under pressure, only one group of people can make the difference. Johnson, Truss and Sunak must take time off from holidays and hustings and lead Britain, its regions and nations, away from an autumn and winter of misery.”

Wes Streeting, shadow health and social care secretary, said: “Families are really worried about how they are going to afford soaring energy bills this winter. Many will be plunged into poverty by this cost of living crisis and be forced to make choices between eating and heating.

“NHS leaders are absolutely right to raise concerns about the impact on health. The vaccines minister has admitted that elderly people unable to heat their homes this winter will be at greater risk of flu and other illnesses.

“Labour would freeze energy bills this winter, saving households £1,000. We will pay for it with a windfall tax on the excess profits of oil and gas companies, who are making more money than they know what to do with.”

A government spokesperson said: “We know that rising prices are affecting how far people’s incomes go, which is why we have taken action to help households with £37 billion worth of support, which includes specific support to help people through the difficult winter ahead.

“Eight million of the most vulnerable households will see £1,200 extra support, provided in instalments across the year, and everyone will receive £400 over the winter to help with energy bills. That’s on top of action earlier this year including a record fuel duty cut and a National Insurance cut worth up to £330 a year for the typical employee.

“We are also working closely with the NHS at pace to ensure we are ready for the pressures ahead by increasing capacity, boosting NHS 111 and 999 support, tackling delayed discharge and using new innovations such as virtual wards.”