Where I am at least the giant clock has ticked over from 23:59:59 to 00:00:00 meaning that the old year has ended and the new one has begun.
2014 began with scenes of almost medieval warfare in the streets of Ukraine's capital Kiev as neo-Nazi and Nazi thugs battled with the police. Eventually this rioting became so severe that the Ukrainian government was overthrown and the fascists took control of large parts of the country. This plunged the nation into civil war as the fascists tried to purge the country of ethnic Russians and the ethnic Russians fought back. That war continues as I write and has left at least 5,000 people dead and forced more the 1 million people to flee their homes, often into Russia.
Within two weeks of the collapse of the Ukrainian government Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 disappeared on a flight between Malaysia and China. To this day the plane and the 239 people on board remain missing. Malaysia Airlines suffered another unfortunate accident in July when flight MH17 veered off course over Ukraine's civil war and was shot down either by a missile fired from the ground or by a missile fired by a Ukrainian air force jet. Whatever the cause 298 people lost their lives that day.
By the time MH17 crashed Israel and Palestine were already engaged in a 50 day war in Gaza. Those 50 days of war claimed the lives of 2,127 Palestinians and 66 Israelis although that figure rises to 76 if you include the soldiers who committed suicide after the war had officially ended.
Just across the border from Israel in Syria the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) continued their genocidal rampage and expanded it to include much of Iraq. Through suicide bombings, executions and massacre ISIL have so far killed in excess of 9,000 people in Iraq alone and almost succeeded in wiping out the entire Yezidi religion and the wider Kurdish ethnic group before the US was begrudgingly forced to intervene. Despite almost 5 months of bombing that US-led coalition has barely succeeded in halting ISIL's advance let alone defeated them.
The rise of ISIL was nearly matched by the expansion of Boko Haram in Nigeria and Cameroon and Al-Shabaab in Somalia who have also began mounting attacks in neighbouring Kenya. Pakistan which is long used to Islamist violence also saw the worst terror attack in its history when the Pakistani Taliban attacked a school in Peshawar killing at least 132 people - the majority of them children.
While all this has been going on the Ebola virus has ravaged the west African nations of Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea destroying pretty much everything it touches and killing at least 7,890 people so far.
So if I had to raise a toast to send 2014 on it's way I would say simply; "Good f*cking riddance."
If I had to pick a highlight the year though it would obviously be the summer World Cup in Brazil. If I had to choose a cultural highlight it would be the ceremonies of the Olympic and Para-Olympic games in Sochi, Russia because it was nice to work with something of quality for a change.
01:30 on 1/1/15 (UK date).
Wednesday 31 December 2014
Tuesday 30 December 2014
Wow, Palestine's a State.
Perhaps because they'd taken the BBC's "The Honourable Woman" a little bit too literally the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Israel - no, sorry the Fatah controlled Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank - responded to the summer's war in Gaza by tonight finally forcing through a vote on Palestinian statehood at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Obviously I am somewhat less then impressed that they're asking me to deal with this on a Tuesday night when, as always, I've been to the pub.
Although due to the festive break I didn't get the opportunity to obtain let alone study the blue text I understand that despite French attempts to soften the proposal the motion tabled by Jordan still required Israel to withdraw within the 1967 borders by, my lord, 2017. If you've had a look at the state of Israeli politics in the aftermath of the summer war you would know that this is simply not possible. On a related note although mine is an endorsement Netenyahu could probably live without I think all Israelis should think long and hard about the size of man they're trying to get rid off.
Honestly I think the best outcome of a resolution being adopted would have been for Israel to look around the room and go; "Supported ISIL in Syria, Supported the UIA in Ukraine, Supported Boko Haram in Nigeria, Killed Qaddafi in Libya, Looked at Hitler in Germany and considered him a jolly nice chap." I think this is just another UN resolution we can safely ignore.
The worst outcome would be that when the next Islamic Jihad missile lands in Israel for Israel to go; "Oh look, the newly formed Palestinian state has just declared war on us. Under international law we can now invade and occupy "Palestine" until such a time as we know longer consider them a threat. In the meantime they will be expected to submit their INDC's to the UNFCCC in the first quarter of 2015."
Obviously then everyone knew that this was a stupid idea. However being vicious anti-Semites and proud Zionists as long as the al-Sauds run Zion the UK quietly supported the motion through the UNSC and UK Commonwealth members Rwanda and Nigeria. Rather then having the motion pass the UK' intention here was to put pressure on the US to veto because Obama is both a vicious anti-Semite and generally a bit of a coward. With question marks being raised over the US veto at the last minute Nigeria reversed their support to an abstention meaning that the motion fell just one vote short of the 9 vote majority that would require a veto. The UK need not have bothered though because at the very last minute the US decided to cast their veto carrying "No" vote. Australia also vote no but despite the infection no-one's ever really voted their balls.
While all this was going on I was actually watching the BBC's "Charlie Brooker's 2014 Wipe" which if you saw the Sochi 2014 Olympic Opening Ceremony you would understand is essential viewing. Despite the fact that he clearly went in hard on my little brother during the "Pharrell William's Happy is great music to run over your dog to" skit I'm going to be charitable and assume that he gave over part of the show to Adam Curtis and his "Power of Nightmares" foolishness to highlight the type of conspiracy theorist lunacy he'd be forced to accept if he was left working for Channel 4 and The Guardian newspaper full time.
After all it's quite clear Vladislav Surkov only published the article to highlight what the US is doing in Ukraine. The reason why the rest of the news is so unrelentingly miserable is that since 2010 the UK's been run by a bunch of mentals and so far Obama's been too cowardly to say "No."
00:15 on 31/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 12:10 on 31/12/14 (UK date) to add;
I've now had a good sleep and the alcohol induced headache is starting to fade. However my position on last night's vote has not changed.
As I've said throughout in order to achieve statehood Palestine must first build a functioning state in all but name. Only then can the Palestinians starting requesting that other nations recognise their state. Therefore true progress will come not from big and dramatic votes at the UNSC but a series of small agreements that strengthen the PA. Off the top of my head I would say that agreements that allow the PA to issue deeds of ownership and other building permits along with taking more responsibility for security in what will become the Palestinian state seem particularly important areas.
This very confrontational campaign for UN recognition actually seems to make that less likely. Although certainly not all Israeli Jews are are aggressive Zionist settlers people with those views make up a significant constituency within Israeli politics. The thing that the Palestinians seem unable to understand is that Israel is a democracy therefore if the government does something a large proportion of the population does not like the people will simply change the government. Through the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin it is clear that some Jewish extremists are prepared to go even further then that and simply kill Prime Ministers they don't agree with.
By aggressively pursuing the issue of statehood at the UN and in effect handing Israel a list of demands the Palestinians are substantially provoking the Jewish extremists. In response the extremists will themselves become even more aggressive and their demands will become even more extreme. This makes it next to impossible for the Israeli government to make the series of compromises that are required to allow Palestine to achieve statehood.
Then of course there is the issue of the extra responsibilities that statehood will place on the Palestinians. The one I obviously immediately think off is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) but there are also a host of other international agreements that on becoming a state Palestine must immediately abide by. If a Palestinian state cannot abide by those conventions then often there will be immediate and serious consequences. For example if rockets were to be fired from a Palestinian state rather then an Israeli occupied territory it would be viewed as an act of aggressive war. That would immediately invalidate Palestinian statehood and allow Israel - or any other nation being attacked - to invade and occupy Palestine until such a time as they are satisfied that the threat has been eliminated.
Sadly looking at the way that Palestine is now with it being divided between Fatah and Hamas and government wages not getting paid because of internal feuds I simply don't think that Palestine is ready to take on the responsibilities that statehood brings.
Although due to the festive break I didn't get the opportunity to obtain let alone study the blue text I understand that despite French attempts to soften the proposal the motion tabled by Jordan still required Israel to withdraw within the 1967 borders by, my lord, 2017. If you've had a look at the state of Israeli politics in the aftermath of the summer war you would know that this is simply not possible. On a related note although mine is an endorsement Netenyahu could probably live without I think all Israelis should think long and hard about the size of man they're trying to get rid off.
Honestly I think the best outcome of a resolution being adopted would have been for Israel to look around the room and go; "Supported ISIL in Syria, Supported the UIA in Ukraine, Supported Boko Haram in Nigeria, Killed Qaddafi in Libya, Looked at Hitler in Germany and considered him a jolly nice chap." I think this is just another UN resolution we can safely ignore.
The worst outcome would be that when the next Islamic Jihad missile lands in Israel for Israel to go; "Oh look, the newly formed Palestinian state has just declared war on us. Under international law we can now invade and occupy "Palestine" until such a time as we know longer consider them a threat. In the meantime they will be expected to submit their INDC's to the UNFCCC in the first quarter of 2015."
Obviously then everyone knew that this was a stupid idea. However being vicious anti-Semites and proud Zionists as long as the al-Sauds run Zion the UK quietly supported the motion through the UNSC and UK Commonwealth members Rwanda and Nigeria. Rather then having the motion pass the UK' intention here was to put pressure on the US to veto because Obama is both a vicious anti-Semite and generally a bit of a coward. With question marks being raised over the US veto at the last minute Nigeria reversed their support to an abstention meaning that the motion fell just one vote short of the 9 vote majority that would require a veto. The UK need not have bothered though because at the very last minute the US decided to cast their veto carrying "No" vote. Australia also vote no but despite the infection no-one's ever really voted their balls.
While all this was going on I was actually watching the BBC's "Charlie Brooker's 2014 Wipe" which if you saw the Sochi 2014 Olympic Opening Ceremony you would understand is essential viewing. Despite the fact that he clearly went in hard on my little brother during the "Pharrell William's Happy is great music to run over your dog to" skit I'm going to be charitable and assume that he gave over part of the show to Adam Curtis and his "Power of Nightmares" foolishness to highlight the type of conspiracy theorist lunacy he'd be forced to accept if he was left working for Channel 4 and The Guardian newspaper full time.
After all it's quite clear Vladislav Surkov only published the article to highlight what the US is doing in Ukraine. The reason why the rest of the news is so unrelentingly miserable is that since 2010 the UK's been run by a bunch of mentals and so far Obama's been too cowardly to say "No."
00:15 on 31/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 12:10 on 31/12/14 (UK date) to add;
I've now had a good sleep and the alcohol induced headache is starting to fade. However my position on last night's vote has not changed.
As I've said throughout in order to achieve statehood Palestine must first build a functioning state in all but name. Only then can the Palestinians starting requesting that other nations recognise their state. Therefore true progress will come not from big and dramatic votes at the UNSC but a series of small agreements that strengthen the PA. Off the top of my head I would say that agreements that allow the PA to issue deeds of ownership and other building permits along with taking more responsibility for security in what will become the Palestinian state seem particularly important areas.
This very confrontational campaign for UN recognition actually seems to make that less likely. Although certainly not all Israeli Jews are are aggressive Zionist settlers people with those views make up a significant constituency within Israeli politics. The thing that the Palestinians seem unable to understand is that Israel is a democracy therefore if the government does something a large proportion of the population does not like the people will simply change the government. Through the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin it is clear that some Jewish extremists are prepared to go even further then that and simply kill Prime Ministers they don't agree with.
By aggressively pursuing the issue of statehood at the UN and in effect handing Israel a list of demands the Palestinians are substantially provoking the Jewish extremists. In response the extremists will themselves become even more aggressive and their demands will become even more extreme. This makes it next to impossible for the Israeli government to make the series of compromises that are required to allow Palestine to achieve statehood.
Then of course there is the issue of the extra responsibilities that statehood will place on the Palestinians. The one I obviously immediately think off is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) but there are also a host of other international agreements that on becoming a state Palestine must immediately abide by. If a Palestinian state cannot abide by those conventions then often there will be immediate and serious consequences. For example if rockets were to be fired from a Palestinian state rather then an Israeli occupied territory it would be viewed as an act of aggressive war. That would immediately invalidate Palestinian statehood and allow Israel - or any other nation being attacked - to invade and occupy Palestine until such a time as they are satisfied that the threat has been eliminated.
Sadly looking at the way that Palestine is now with it being divided between Fatah and Hamas and government wages not getting paid because of internal feuds I simply don't think that Palestine is ready to take on the responsibilities that statehood brings.
Ahh, The Festive Spirit!
I've just got back from the supermarket where some guy with his infant child was having a massive meltdown in the aisles. It had absolutely nothing to do with me so I've got no idea what started, what it was about or how it ended. However the highlight I did overhear was the guy screaming at the top of his voice to the staff; "Do I come to where you work and a f*cking shout at you!!!" which really should have prompted the obvious answer of; "Well yes, clearly you do."
Like I said it was nothing to do with me but I'm pretty sure that if he'd done that in the football stadium next to the supermarket he would have been arrested under the Public Order Act and local social services would have taken responsibility for his child until he could demonstrate that he is a fit parent.
16:05 on 30/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 23:05 on 30/12/14 (UK date) to add;
I only made this post because with all the media swarming around Crystal Palace Football Club next door I felt it needed to be said even if it was slightly too long for a Tweet. However I should point out that while I have learnt to hover should I be needed the other highlight of this - I'm assuming Pakistani - faux gangster's tantrum was the moment he claimed to be a member of the Israeli Mossad and threatened to kill everyone with Krav Maga.
Obviously I've never had the responsibility of being a roughly 20 year old duty manager of the supermarket but I'm happy to leave it on the assumption that if said customer decides to return to the store he will be apologising profusely to all the minimum wage staff.
Like I said it was nothing to do with me but I'm pretty sure that if he'd done that in the football stadium next to the supermarket he would have been arrested under the Public Order Act and local social services would have taken responsibility for his child until he could demonstrate that he is a fit parent.
16:05 on 30/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 23:05 on 30/12/14 (UK date) to add;
I only made this post because with all the media swarming around Crystal Palace Football Club next door I felt it needed to be said even if it was slightly too long for a Tweet. However I should point out that while I have learnt to hover should I be needed the other highlight of this - I'm assuming Pakistani - faux gangster's tantrum was the moment he claimed to be a member of the Israeli Mossad and threatened to kill everyone with Krav Maga.
Obviously I've never had the responsibility of being a roughly 20 year old duty manager of the supermarket but I'm happy to leave it on the assumption that if said customer decides to return to the store he will be apologising profusely to all the minimum wage staff.
Sunday 28 December 2014
The End of Year Review Show.
Now Christmas day has gone even the Jews accept that the official year is coming to an end and the new one is about to begin. For many people this is a time to reflect on the year that has passed and look towards the year that is to come. I myself have recently tried to get into the spirit of things through the relatively new tradition of re-reading everything I've written over the past year and archiving it in my much tidier library at http://100badones.blogspot.co.uk/
Fortunately this year I was particularly organised so have already managed to archive the first quarter of 2014. Unfortunately this means I won't be going back over how following Irina Rodnina's carrying of the Olympic torch during the Sochi Winter Olympic opening ceremony and the start of the US overthrowing of Ukraine's government casual racism became a convenient way for nations to express their concern that US President Barack Obama isn't particularly good at his job. Given the fact the levels of racism quickly reached impressive heights it should hardly be a surprise that Obama's campaign strategy for November's US mid-term election of calling anyone who criticised him a racist failed so dramatically.
I will though get a chance to look back at both the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 which cost 239 - mainly Chinese - lives and the suspicious crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine which cost 298 people their lives. Although the majority shareholder of Malaysia Airlines is the Malaysian government these aren't even the biggest controversies surrounding Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak at the moment. Despite his nation suffering some of the worst flooding in a generation Razak has been far more interested in celebrating the Christmas break by playing golf with US President Obama in Hawaii. I'm actually a bit surprised this story hasn't received more coverage because surely there is a way to diplomatically isolate Malaysia over the 537 deaths that falls between all out war and Obama inviting their Prime Minister to join him on a family vacation.
One story I won't be reviewing because I didn't get to cover it at the time is the end of "Mare Nostrum" - an Italian led but European Union (EU) support mission to rescue illegal immigrants who have got into trouble trying to cross the Mediterranean sea from Africa. It has been replaced by "Triton" which will only patrol 48km (30 miles) from the Italian coast and won't be supported by the UK thus making the Mediterranean's reputation as "The Graveyard of Europe" much worse. The EU will though continue to support policies that are not only intended to destroy many African nations such as Libya but also tear the EU itself to pieces.
I have though decided that I won't be archiving the World Cup because I didn't consider that work.
14:40 on 28/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 19:35 on 28/12/14 (UK date) to add;
Today I seriously overslept waking up at around 12:30. So not only did I not have time to have breakfast I didn't really have time to work out what my first instinct about all this was.
However the immediate suspicion falls on Indonesia where QZ8501 took off from. The assumption being that they were trying to express their anger that Razak had been so honoured by a US President who spent his early life in Indonesia. However the next suspicion falls on Malaysia which although certainly a private company Air Asia operates from. The assumption being that Malaysia was trying to spread the blame around by making it look like Indonesia were getting angry in order to reduce the fear that passengers of Malaysia Airlines their consent to be killed which is obviously putting pressure on the business model of the state owned flag carrier.
That said the whole thing still feels to me so utterly random that much like Phil Hughes' death it might actually have been just random dumb luck.
On a somewhat related note if you're looking for more information why December 31st is officially considered the last day of the year I suggest you read up on the 1917 Anglo-French Conference on Time-Keeping at Sea. After all it is something to do but with the conference lasting 8 years no-one's in a rush to revisit that particular treaty.
Fortunately this year I was particularly organised so have already managed to archive the first quarter of 2014. Unfortunately this means I won't be going back over how following Irina Rodnina's carrying of the Olympic torch during the Sochi Winter Olympic opening ceremony and the start of the US overthrowing of Ukraine's government casual racism became a convenient way for nations to express their concern that US President Barack Obama isn't particularly good at his job. Given the fact the levels of racism quickly reached impressive heights it should hardly be a surprise that Obama's campaign strategy for November's US mid-term election of calling anyone who criticised him a racist failed so dramatically.
I will though get a chance to look back at both the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 which cost 239 - mainly Chinese - lives and the suspicious crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine which cost 298 people their lives. Although the majority shareholder of Malaysia Airlines is the Malaysian government these aren't even the biggest controversies surrounding Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak at the moment. Despite his nation suffering some of the worst flooding in a generation Razak has been far more interested in celebrating the Christmas break by playing golf with US President Obama in Hawaii. I'm actually a bit surprised this story hasn't received more coverage because surely there is a way to diplomatically isolate Malaysia over the 537 deaths that falls between all out war and Obama inviting their Prime Minister to join him on a family vacation.
One story I won't be reviewing because I didn't get to cover it at the time is the end of "Mare Nostrum" - an Italian led but European Union (EU) support mission to rescue illegal immigrants who have got into trouble trying to cross the Mediterranean sea from Africa. It has been replaced by "Triton" which will only patrol 48km (30 miles) from the Italian coast and won't be supported by the UK thus making the Mediterranean's reputation as "The Graveyard of Europe" much worse. The EU will though continue to support policies that are not only intended to destroy many African nations such as Libya but also tear the EU itself to pieces.
I have though decided that I won't be archiving the World Cup because I didn't consider that work.
14:40 on 28/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 19:35 on 28/12/14 (UK date) to add;
Today I seriously overslept waking up at around 12:30. So not only did I not have time to have breakfast I didn't really have time to work out what my first instinct about all this was.
However the immediate suspicion falls on Indonesia where QZ8501 took off from. The assumption being that they were trying to express their anger that Razak had been so honoured by a US President who spent his early life in Indonesia. However the next suspicion falls on Malaysia which although certainly a private company Air Asia operates from. The assumption being that Malaysia was trying to spread the blame around by making it look like Indonesia were getting angry in order to reduce the fear that passengers of Malaysia Airlines their consent to be killed which is obviously putting pressure on the business model of the state owned flag carrier.
That said the whole thing still feels to me so utterly random that much like Phil Hughes' death it might actually have been just random dumb luck.
On a somewhat related note if you're looking for more information why December 31st is officially considered the last day of the year I suggest you read up on the 1917 Anglo-French Conference on Time-Keeping at Sea. After all it is something to do but with the conference lasting 8 years no-one's in a rush to revisit that particular treaty.
Friday 26 December 2014
On the Second Day of Christmas...
...I came home and had a bath.
You may remember that last year I very nobly decided to spend Christmas at home with just my father for company. This was obviously because I was concerned about him getting lonely at this festive time and nothing to do with the fact I was far too tired to bother with anything. This year I made the first trip to spend Christmas with my mothers down in Salisbury. Again this was purely because I thought it was important to be around loved ones at this time of year and not at all because their house is far nicer then mine.
The big attraction this year was that my brother's girlfriend joined us and growing up in a Muslim household she'd never celebrated Christmas. Obviously Christmas in my lesbian mother's house which is right by Stonehenge isn't a particularly religious event. It was though quite fun watching a fully grow adult experience Christmas for the first time. Sadly though my suggestion of giving the couple the full childhood Christmas experience by sending them to bed by nine in the evening after having hung up their Christmas stockings and left mince pies, sherry and carrots out for Santa and his reindeer was over-ruled.
Also my mother's have a Cocker Spaniel. As the writers of Downton Abbey know Cocker's are gun dogs meaning they're bred to chase game out of the bushes and then wait while the Pheasants are shot before bringing the game back to their owners. This means that they're very, very busy dogs who always have to be running around doing something and if they're not doing that they always need to be near the humans. Perhaps because of her Muslim upbringing my brother's girlfriend is terrified of dogs which as far as the dog was concerned instantly made her the most interesting human in the house. As a result I spent most of my time with a dog lead tied around my wrist while sitting on the sofa trying to play a game known as; "Sitting down quietly." This actually suited me perfectly but doesn't make for the most action packed anecdote.
In terms of presents I'm not going to go into what everybody got mainly because my approach was very firmly in the "F*ck it you're all getting gift cards" school. I did though get the first season of "Orange is the New Black" on DVD which I very nearly brought for myself a few weeks ago so I quite literally got exactly what I wanted for Christmas. I did though decide that sitting down to watch it with my mothers would probably cross a line.
15:55 on 26/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 19:10 on 28/12/14 (UK date) to add;
Despite arriving at London Paddington yesterday (27/12/14) on the South West Trains service from Exeter St Davids my brother has finally visited my father for Christmas. So we all went to the pub. Obviously my brother's girlfriend wasn't invited because as she grew up in a Muslim household my father simply refuses to acknowledge her existence. Bear that in mind the next time I say that even my father is shocked by the fact the Jewish Underground were allowed to get away with it.
You may remember that last year I very nobly decided to spend Christmas at home with just my father for company. This was obviously because I was concerned about him getting lonely at this festive time and nothing to do with the fact I was far too tired to bother with anything. This year I made the first trip to spend Christmas with my mothers down in Salisbury. Again this was purely because I thought it was important to be around loved ones at this time of year and not at all because their house is far nicer then mine.
The big attraction this year was that my brother's girlfriend joined us and growing up in a Muslim household she'd never celebrated Christmas. Obviously Christmas in my lesbian mother's house which is right by Stonehenge isn't a particularly religious event. It was though quite fun watching a fully grow adult experience Christmas for the first time. Sadly though my suggestion of giving the couple the full childhood Christmas experience by sending them to bed by nine in the evening after having hung up their Christmas stockings and left mince pies, sherry and carrots out for Santa and his reindeer was over-ruled.
Also my mother's have a Cocker Spaniel. As the writers of Downton Abbey know Cocker's are gun dogs meaning they're bred to chase game out of the bushes and then wait while the Pheasants are shot before bringing the game back to their owners. This means that they're very, very busy dogs who always have to be running around doing something and if they're not doing that they always need to be near the humans. Perhaps because of her Muslim upbringing my brother's girlfriend is terrified of dogs which as far as the dog was concerned instantly made her the most interesting human in the house. As a result I spent most of my time with a dog lead tied around my wrist while sitting on the sofa trying to play a game known as; "Sitting down quietly." This actually suited me perfectly but doesn't make for the most action packed anecdote.
In terms of presents I'm not going to go into what everybody got mainly because my approach was very firmly in the "F*ck it you're all getting gift cards" school. I did though get the first season of "Orange is the New Black" on DVD which I very nearly brought for myself a few weeks ago so I quite literally got exactly what I wanted for Christmas. I did though decide that sitting down to watch it with my mothers would probably cross a line.
15:55 on 26/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 19:10 on 28/12/14 (UK date) to add;
Despite arriving at London Paddington yesterday (27/12/14) on the South West Trains service from Exeter St Davids my brother has finally visited my father for Christmas. So we all went to the pub. Obviously my brother's girlfriend wasn't invited because as she grew up in a Muslim household my father simply refuses to acknowledge her existence. Bear that in mind the next time I say that even my father is shocked by the fact the Jewish Underground were allowed to get away with it.
Tuesday 23 December 2014
What a Smashing Christmas.
As the Earth orbits the Sun every year it tilts on its axis. So towards the end of June the northern hemisphere is facing the Sun meaning that the days are long, the temperatures are warm and everybody is happy. However towards the end of December the northern hemisphere is facing away from the Sun meaning that the days are short, the temperatures are cold and everybody is miserable.
To break up the unrelenting misery of winter the ancient inhabitants of the northern hemisphere used to celebrate the winter solstice (when the earth is at maximum tilt) by dancing, feasting and generally setting fire to things in an effort to chase away the darkness. Being an army of occupation the Romans decided to hijack this Pagan festival by pretending Jesus Christ was born close to the winter solstice thus turning it into a Christian festival in an effort to better control the natives. Similarly they also decided to pretend that the much more important death and resurrection of Christ (Easter) occurred during the spring equinox which is the mid-way point between the winter and summer solstices. I'm pretty sure this was all being covered in the closing ceremony for the 2012 Para-Olympic games up until the point Jay-Z turned up ruining it for everyone.
Regardless of what you call it in the run-up to this big winter festival the darkness, the cold and the stress of preparing makes everyone a bit depressed causing them to become a little crazy. This year the mayhem began in the US because their November Thanksgiving festival seems designed to make the insanity begin that little bit earlier every year.
The first such incident occurred in the Los Angeles suburb of Alhambra on December 15th (15/12/14) when a car smashed into a crowd gathered to watch a light display injuring 11. Three days later (18/12/14) another car smashed into a crowd that was leaving a Christmas Church service in Redondo Beach just outside Los Angeles killing three and injuring nine. In the run up to the winter festival celebrations people tend to drink heavily and then some of them choose to drive. Due to the number of accidents it causes this drink driving has been subject to massive public education campaigns in the UK and Europe so has become totally unacceptable in the public opinion. However in the US which is a much more car dependent society the message still hasn't got through. As a result everyone was happy to put these incidents in America down to simply human stupidity rather then anything more organised.
Unfortunately France then started experience problems. The first of these occurred on the solstice itself (21/12/14) when a man walked into a police station in Tours and stabbed three police officers before being shot and killed by the police. Despite the fact the man shouted "God is Great" in Arabic (Allah Akbar) during the attack and is a recent convert to Islam I pretty much assumed this was just a suicide by cop. After all if you don't understand its ecological origins and don't drink alcohol it can be quite hard to get into the spirit of the winter festival magnifying the depressing effects of winter. I think this effect was also a trigger in the shooting of two police officers in New York City, US on the same day but in that case there were also substantially larger contributing factors. It has though since emerged that the Tours attacker was a keen online follower of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) so I might have to look at that again although there is a huge overlap between people with severe mental health problems and supporters of ISIL. In fact you could go so far as to say that around 98-99% of ISIL supporters have severe mental health problems.
The following day (22/12/14) a driver rammed his van into pedestrians in the French city of Dijon injuring 11. On a technical level this is very similar to the type of run-over terror attacks that have become frequent in Israel in the latter half of 2014 and we saw in Canada on October 20th (20/10/14) However despite the fact the driver also shouted Allah Akbar and claimed he was acting in support of the children of Palestine as far as I can tell he had no links to either Islam nor ISIL. However he has got very strong links with mental health services in France. Therefore his motivations could be something as incomprehensible as simply seeing news of the Tours incident on TV and deciding that it was a coded message from the lizard people that secretly control the world that he should also act.
Sadly though someone in the UK clearly got paranoid that the French had spotted something about the similar incidents in the US and had put on the Tours and Dijon incidents in order to have a coded discussion with the US. So the UK decided to try and muscle in on this imagined conversation by smashing a garbage truck ("bin lorry" locally) into pedestrians in and around Saint George's (A Turkish Crusader) Square in Glasgow, Scotland killing 6 and injuring 10.
Again on a technical level the St George's crash is exactly the same as a run-over terror attack. Added to that when I talk about Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIED's) being used by ISIL in Kobane I'm talking about a truck of that size packed with explosives. The route the truck took is very similar to the route a VBIED took from Turkey into Kobane on November 29th (29/11/14) along a road that is usually closed by the Turkish military. Also "bin" is commonly used in Arabic names to indicate "son of" or "originating from" - "Osama bin Laden" being probably the most famous example. Not being very good at Arabic many foreign fighters who have joined ISIL give themselves ridiculous Arab names. Therefore hearing about "Glasgow bin Lorry" you couldn't help but wonder if an ISIL moron was involved. Finally I strongly suspect that the UK intelligence services refer to the mechanism they set up to send no hopers to fight for ISIL as; "The Garbage Truck." If we're looking for suspects I would look closely at the drivers work colleagues particularly his shift supervisor because if you're dealing with someone whose obese, smokes and drinks too much inducing a cardiac arrest is just a matter of picking the right words at the right moment.
Shortly after the St George's crash another French driver smashed into a crowd of pedestrians in Nantes killing we now know 1 and injuring 9. On this occasion the driver also shouted Allah Akbar and not only appears to have attacked a Christmas market but also specifically targeted a stall selling mulled wine which is obvious haram in Islam. However it is not yet clear whether he was simply someone who was made very angry about the darkness and his own confusion over Christmas or whether he was a fully fledged supporter of ISIL who was angered by France's role in the US-led coalition which along with the Kurds is currently giving ISIL a very hard time of it.
This though is the problem with this type of lone-wolf, run-over attack. Even within Palestine no-one plans them or orders them instead they simply put the idea out there into the public consciousness in the hope something will happen. This is exactly what Al Sharpton was doing during his speech to the "Justice For All" march on December 13th (13/12/14) in which he smirked about different parts of the 'movement' embracing different methods while protesters in the New York City "Justice For All" march chanted; "What do we want?! Dead Cops! When do we want it?! Now!"
France is particularly vulnerable to this type of lone-wolf attack for a number of reasons. The main one of these is a lack of social cohesion caused by a lack of an effective urban development policy. Basically French city centres are occupied only by the rich with the poor being forced to live in suburbs on the outskirts. Pretty much every year these poor suburbs whose inhabitants are overwhelmingly black and often Muslims explode into violence and rioting. This problem has been made worse by some awful economic policies of French President Hollande which has sent unemployment and poverty soaring further damaging social cohesion and leading to the rise of the fascist National Front (FN) Party. Sadly just as Hollande realised his mistake and reversed his damaging economic policies the European Union (EU) decided that it wanted to go along with the US' plan to destroy the EU economy, sorry er, "Punish Russia for its aggression in Ukraine."
Added to these serious structural problems and FN's rampant Islamophobia France's involvement in fighting the new breed of Islamist in Mali and now Iraq has led to many of France's young, black Muslims to feel that their country doesn't want them and it at war with them. Seeing everyone busy sinning and celebrating an ostensibly Christian festival only adds to that feeling of isolation. It must be said though that France hasn't done itself any favours by being overly dramatic about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in an effort to muscle it's way into peace negotiations. For example France has sponsered the Palestinians ill-concieved bid for statehood that it wants to bring before the United Nations Secuirty Council (UNSC) on Christmas Eve of all days.
I wish I could be more reassuring to the people of France but this seems set to continue with the French police today stopping a man armed with two shotguns from mounting another attack and the army being deployed to help maintain security. So basically what everyone's hoping for from Christmas this year is for US President Obama to finally grow the f*ck up and get his a*se into gear because ISIL should have already been defeated by now.
17:20 on 23/12/14 (UK date).
To break up the unrelenting misery of winter the ancient inhabitants of the northern hemisphere used to celebrate the winter solstice (when the earth is at maximum tilt) by dancing, feasting and generally setting fire to things in an effort to chase away the darkness. Being an army of occupation the Romans decided to hijack this Pagan festival by pretending Jesus Christ was born close to the winter solstice thus turning it into a Christian festival in an effort to better control the natives. Similarly they also decided to pretend that the much more important death and resurrection of Christ (Easter) occurred during the spring equinox which is the mid-way point between the winter and summer solstices. I'm pretty sure this was all being covered in the closing ceremony for the 2012 Para-Olympic games up until the point Jay-Z turned up ruining it for everyone.
Regardless of what you call it in the run-up to this big winter festival the darkness, the cold and the stress of preparing makes everyone a bit depressed causing them to become a little crazy. This year the mayhem began in the US because their November Thanksgiving festival seems designed to make the insanity begin that little bit earlier every year.
The first such incident occurred in the Los Angeles suburb of Alhambra on December 15th (15/12/14) when a car smashed into a crowd gathered to watch a light display injuring 11. Three days later (18/12/14) another car smashed into a crowd that was leaving a Christmas Church service in Redondo Beach just outside Los Angeles killing three and injuring nine. In the run up to the winter festival celebrations people tend to drink heavily and then some of them choose to drive. Due to the number of accidents it causes this drink driving has been subject to massive public education campaigns in the UK and Europe so has become totally unacceptable in the public opinion. However in the US which is a much more car dependent society the message still hasn't got through. As a result everyone was happy to put these incidents in America down to simply human stupidity rather then anything more organised.
Unfortunately France then started experience problems. The first of these occurred on the solstice itself (21/12/14) when a man walked into a police station in Tours and stabbed three police officers before being shot and killed by the police. Despite the fact the man shouted "God is Great" in Arabic (Allah Akbar) during the attack and is a recent convert to Islam I pretty much assumed this was just a suicide by cop. After all if you don't understand its ecological origins and don't drink alcohol it can be quite hard to get into the spirit of the winter festival magnifying the depressing effects of winter. I think this effect was also a trigger in the shooting of two police officers in New York City, US on the same day but in that case there were also substantially larger contributing factors. It has though since emerged that the Tours attacker was a keen online follower of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) so I might have to look at that again although there is a huge overlap between people with severe mental health problems and supporters of ISIL. In fact you could go so far as to say that around 98-99% of ISIL supporters have severe mental health problems.
The following day (22/12/14) a driver rammed his van into pedestrians in the French city of Dijon injuring 11. On a technical level this is very similar to the type of run-over terror attacks that have become frequent in Israel in the latter half of 2014 and we saw in Canada on October 20th (20/10/14) However despite the fact the driver also shouted Allah Akbar and claimed he was acting in support of the children of Palestine as far as I can tell he had no links to either Islam nor ISIL. However he has got very strong links with mental health services in France. Therefore his motivations could be something as incomprehensible as simply seeing news of the Tours incident on TV and deciding that it was a coded message from the lizard people that secretly control the world that he should also act.
Sadly though someone in the UK clearly got paranoid that the French had spotted something about the similar incidents in the US and had put on the Tours and Dijon incidents in order to have a coded discussion with the US. So the UK decided to try and muscle in on this imagined conversation by smashing a garbage truck ("bin lorry" locally) into pedestrians in and around Saint George's (A Turkish Crusader) Square in Glasgow, Scotland killing 6 and injuring 10.
Again on a technical level the St George's crash is exactly the same as a run-over terror attack. Added to that when I talk about Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIED's) being used by ISIL in Kobane I'm talking about a truck of that size packed with explosives. The route the truck took is very similar to the route a VBIED took from Turkey into Kobane on November 29th (29/11/14) along a road that is usually closed by the Turkish military. Also "bin" is commonly used in Arabic names to indicate "son of" or "originating from" - "Osama bin Laden" being probably the most famous example. Not being very good at Arabic many foreign fighters who have joined ISIL give themselves ridiculous Arab names. Therefore hearing about "Glasgow bin Lorry" you couldn't help but wonder if an ISIL moron was involved. Finally I strongly suspect that the UK intelligence services refer to the mechanism they set up to send no hopers to fight for ISIL as; "The Garbage Truck." If we're looking for suspects I would look closely at the drivers work colleagues particularly his shift supervisor because if you're dealing with someone whose obese, smokes and drinks too much inducing a cardiac arrest is just a matter of picking the right words at the right moment.
Shortly after the St George's crash another French driver smashed into a crowd of pedestrians in Nantes killing we now know 1 and injuring 9. On this occasion the driver also shouted Allah Akbar and not only appears to have attacked a Christmas market but also specifically targeted a stall selling mulled wine which is obvious haram in Islam. However it is not yet clear whether he was simply someone who was made very angry about the darkness and his own confusion over Christmas or whether he was a fully fledged supporter of ISIL who was angered by France's role in the US-led coalition which along with the Kurds is currently giving ISIL a very hard time of it.
This though is the problem with this type of lone-wolf, run-over attack. Even within Palestine no-one plans them or orders them instead they simply put the idea out there into the public consciousness in the hope something will happen. This is exactly what Al Sharpton was doing during his speech to the "Justice For All" march on December 13th (13/12/14) in which he smirked about different parts of the 'movement' embracing different methods while protesters in the New York City "Justice For All" march chanted; "What do we want?! Dead Cops! When do we want it?! Now!"
France is particularly vulnerable to this type of lone-wolf attack for a number of reasons. The main one of these is a lack of social cohesion caused by a lack of an effective urban development policy. Basically French city centres are occupied only by the rich with the poor being forced to live in suburbs on the outskirts. Pretty much every year these poor suburbs whose inhabitants are overwhelmingly black and often Muslims explode into violence and rioting. This problem has been made worse by some awful economic policies of French President Hollande which has sent unemployment and poverty soaring further damaging social cohesion and leading to the rise of the fascist National Front (FN) Party. Sadly just as Hollande realised his mistake and reversed his damaging economic policies the European Union (EU) decided that it wanted to go along with the US' plan to destroy the EU economy, sorry er, "Punish Russia for its aggression in Ukraine."
Added to these serious structural problems and FN's rampant Islamophobia France's involvement in fighting the new breed of Islamist in Mali and now Iraq has led to many of France's young, black Muslims to feel that their country doesn't want them and it at war with them. Seeing everyone busy sinning and celebrating an ostensibly Christian festival only adds to that feeling of isolation. It must be said though that France hasn't done itself any favours by being overly dramatic about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in an effort to muscle it's way into peace negotiations. For example France has sponsered the Palestinians ill-concieved bid for statehood that it wants to bring before the United Nations Secuirty Council (UNSC) on Christmas Eve of all days.
I wish I could be more reassuring to the people of France but this seems set to continue with the French police today stopping a man armed with two shotguns from mounting another attack and the army being deployed to help maintain security. So basically what everyone's hoping for from Christmas this year is for US President Obama to finally grow the f*ck up and get his a*se into gear because ISIL should have already been defeated by now.
17:20 on 23/12/14 (UK date).
"What
do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!" - See more at:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/12/15/nyt-corrects-saturday-march-coverage-twice-ignores-nyc-we-want-dead-cops#sthash.OqJ4DIYS.dpuf
"What
do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!" - See more at:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/12/15/nyt-corrects-saturday-march-coverage-twice-ignores-nyc-we-want-dead-cops#sthash.OqJ4DIYS.dpuf
"What
do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!" - See more at:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/12/15/nyt-corrects-saturday-march-coverage-twice-ignores-nyc-we-want-dead-cops#sthash.OqJ4DIYS.dpuf
The Nut Behind the Wheel.
You may remember that during the recent COP20 Summit my PC starting suffering from very serious problems. At the half-way point in the summit these problems became terminal so I switched to a different machine and sent the original one off for repair. That repair was completed on Saturday (20/12/14).
I think it is fair to assume that the computer problems I suffer from go above and beyond what a normal high street retailer is used to dealing with. As a result the repair report I received simply declared that the machine was working again. However the suspicion has always been that the machine anti-virus software has been hijacked to install a toolkit virus allowing a third party to control it remotely for example to prevent it from logging onto the Internet by corrupting the DNS registry. Another trick has been to blast the PC with requests for data causing the Central Processing Unit (CPU) to overload in a type of Denial of Service (DoS) attack only on a single machine rather then a network. This obviously does put physical stress on the CPU increasing the chances it will fail.
Yesterday (22/12/14) my father decided to plug in the repaired machine to establish if it was working. It appears that the repair shop simply took the nuclear option of wiping the hard-disc clean and then re-installing all the system files such as the operating system. When you boot up initially from this type of repair it takes ages. For example we had to install pretty much every update ever created for Windows Vista. This process was made all the more torturous by the fact my less computer literate father decided he was going to take charge. As a result I was prevented from using any PC for most of yesterday afternoon and evening although I wasn't in a particular rush to do so.
Within a few minutes of getting onto the repaired machine this morning I was able to tell that it hadn't been repaired at all. Despite the rather shoddy system wipe the CPU rapidly overloaded crashing the machine. As a result I think the CPU is simply knackered and needs to be replaced. Mind you my father is the sort of person who if using a PC got an on-screen message saying; "A hacker wishes to install a virus to steal all your money and kill all your family" he would still find impossible to click the "Deny" button.
On the subject of computer problems China has declared that it would be irresponsible to accuse it of being behind yesterday's Internet outage in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). However one suspects not as irresponsible as the US trying to claim responsibility from what was far from a sophisticated attack.
12:10 on 23/12/14 (UK date).
I think it is fair to assume that the computer problems I suffer from go above and beyond what a normal high street retailer is used to dealing with. As a result the repair report I received simply declared that the machine was working again. However the suspicion has always been that the machine anti-virus software has been hijacked to install a toolkit virus allowing a third party to control it remotely for example to prevent it from logging onto the Internet by corrupting the DNS registry. Another trick has been to blast the PC with requests for data causing the Central Processing Unit (CPU) to overload in a type of Denial of Service (DoS) attack only on a single machine rather then a network. This obviously does put physical stress on the CPU increasing the chances it will fail.
Yesterday (22/12/14) my father decided to plug in the repaired machine to establish if it was working. It appears that the repair shop simply took the nuclear option of wiping the hard-disc clean and then re-installing all the system files such as the operating system. When you boot up initially from this type of repair it takes ages. For example we had to install pretty much every update ever created for Windows Vista. This process was made all the more torturous by the fact my less computer literate father decided he was going to take charge. As a result I was prevented from using any PC for most of yesterday afternoon and evening although I wasn't in a particular rush to do so.
Within a few minutes of getting onto the repaired machine this morning I was able to tell that it hadn't been repaired at all. Despite the rather shoddy system wipe the CPU rapidly overloaded crashing the machine. As a result I think the CPU is simply knackered and needs to be replaced. Mind you my father is the sort of person who if using a PC got an on-screen message saying; "A hacker wishes to install a virus to steal all your money and kill all your family" he would still find impossible to click the "Deny" button.
On the subject of computer problems China has declared that it would be irresponsible to accuse it of being behind yesterday's Internet outage in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). However one suspects not as irresponsible as the US trying to claim responsibility from what was far from a sophisticated attack.
12:10 on 23/12/14 (UK date).
Sunday 21 December 2014
Operation Featherweight: Month 5, Week 3, Day 1.
As it approaches its 100th day the Battle for Kobane/Ayn al-Arab is still stuck firmly in an attrition phase. In the week since my last post the Kurdish Peoples Protection Units (YPG) have continued to mount patrols on all fronts periodically engaging with Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) fighters killing 11, capturing small amounts of weapons and ammunition and liberating the occasional fighting position.
On Thursday (18/12/14) ISIL fighters inside Kobane attempted to launch a fresh assault against the YPG on the southern front. This assault was led by two Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIED's/truck bombs) and backed by a tank. However after a night of fighting the YPG were able to repel this attack resulting in the deaths of 26 ISIL fighters and the capture of large amounts of ammunition. Sadly 1 YPG fighter lost his life in this battle.
In response to the ISIL assault the YPG launched their own offensive on Friday (19/12/14) against ISIL positions at the Yarmouk School from where Thursday's attack was launched. Although as far as I can tell this operation is still going on as the YPG consolidate their position it appears to have been a complete success with the YPG liberating ISIL positions in and around the school and pushing forward to the edge of the 48 neighbourhood which is the ISIL stronghold on the southern front. During this operation 21 ISIL fighters were killed including Abu Zahra who is the commander of the Chechen Jundullah Brigade. No YPG fighters lost their lives in the operation.
The YPG have also mounted operations against ISIL positions close to the cultural centre on the eastern front and conducted commando-style raids against ISIL in the villages surrounding Kobane - most notably Ko Ali. Crucially they have also manged to maintain control of the villages for Tarmik to the south-west and Helinj and Jalabiyah to the south-east cutting ISIL supply lines to Aleppo City and Raqqa respectively.
At this point I should mention that despite being a desert country in the depths of winter the weather in Syria can actually be both very wet and very cold. Therefore the first battle that everybody people is fighting at this time is the battle to stay warm and dry meaning that there is often a drop in the tempo of fighting. However the deteriorating conditions have spurred people into action in neighbouring Iraq.
You may remember that back in August 2014 ISIL overran dozens of Kurdish villages at the foot of the Shingal/Sinjar mountains. This forced 50-60,000 ethnic Kurds of the Yazidi religion to escape onto the mountain where they faced dehydration and starvation or face certain death at the hands of ISIL. After several weeks the pressure from the press corp became too much for US President Barack Obama to bear so he belatedly launched a military operation to prevent a genocide. After a month of relentless pressure Obama went on to expand the operation to allow it to go on the offensive against ISIL.
Sadly Obama then rapidly lost his nerve, lost interest and randomly started carrying out symbolic attacks against mysterious groups like the Khorasan Group in Syria instead.
On Wednesday (17/12/14) the US-led coalition finally got it together with the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga and the Iraqi military to break the siege in Sinjar.
At dawn on Wednesday some 8,000 Peshmerga who had assembled at Zumar which is just north of Mosul Dam around 50km (30 miles) north-west of Mosul City advanced west. By the following day they had liberated all the villages and cleared all the ISIL positions within the 700km^2 (420m^2) between Zumar and the city of Shingal/Sinjar. During these two day the Peshmerga were assisted by 98 coalition air-strikes which acting in a close air-support role destroyed more then 100 ISIL targets primarily made up of check-points, fighting positions and ground units.
On Friday (19/12/14) Peshmergas from Rabia which sits on the Syria border around 125km (75 miles) north-west of Mosul pushed north-east liberating the are between Sinjar and the border from ISIL. At the same time the YPG based in Syria along with Yazidi militia pushed up the mountains from Syria to link up with the advancing Peshmerga. This now establishes a wide corridor stretching all the way from the Iraqi Kurdish capital of Arbil to the edge of the YPG's Cizire canton at Serekanyie some 350km (210 miles) away. Unfortunately in the face of the Kurdish advances a large proportion of ISIL fighters have fled with weapons and equipment both into Syria and Mosul which ISIL's stronghold in Iraq. As the US-led coalition made no attempt to cut them down as they fled it is likely that they will now re-group in both areas.
Despite this tremendous success by the Kurds the operation suffered a major setback on Monday (15/12/14) when the Al Nusra Front (ANF) backed by the Free Men of Levant (FML) and other members of the Islamist Front (IF) grouping seized the Hamidiyeh and Wadi al-Deif bases in Idlib province from the Syrian government capturing tanks, armoured vehicles and lots of advanced weapons in the process. Although a loss by the Syrian government isn't really a concern of the coalition a gain by the Al Qaeda allied ANF should be because they are covered by the same United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution as ISIL and the fact that they have begun to work with the IF grouping suggests they are getting closer to getting over their ideological differences and allying themselves with ISIL.
Yesterday the US confirmed that 1,300 extra ground troops will be sent to Iraq in January. The timing of the announcement couldn't have come at a worse time because this week the US ground troops who are definitely not combat troops had their first taste of combat. Essentially a small group of around 100 US troops had been deployed to the Ain Al-Assad base which is around 90km (54 miles) west of Ramadi in Anbar province and around 200km (120 miles) west of the Iraqi capital Baghdad. On Sunday (14/12/14) ISIL attacked the base forcing the US-troops to open fire and call in air-strikes to repel the attack. It seems the attack was successfully repelled in just over two hours although the US is remaining so tight-lipped about possible casualties they still refusing to even acknowledge that the event took place.
17:55 on 21/12/14 (UK date).
On Thursday (18/12/14) ISIL fighters inside Kobane attempted to launch a fresh assault against the YPG on the southern front. This assault was led by two Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIED's/truck bombs) and backed by a tank. However after a night of fighting the YPG were able to repel this attack resulting in the deaths of 26 ISIL fighters and the capture of large amounts of ammunition. Sadly 1 YPG fighter lost his life in this battle.
In response to the ISIL assault the YPG launched their own offensive on Friday (19/12/14) against ISIL positions at the Yarmouk School from where Thursday's attack was launched. Although as far as I can tell this operation is still going on as the YPG consolidate their position it appears to have been a complete success with the YPG liberating ISIL positions in and around the school and pushing forward to the edge of the 48 neighbourhood which is the ISIL stronghold on the southern front. During this operation 21 ISIL fighters were killed including Abu Zahra who is the commander of the Chechen Jundullah Brigade. No YPG fighters lost their lives in the operation.
The YPG have also mounted operations against ISIL positions close to the cultural centre on the eastern front and conducted commando-style raids against ISIL in the villages surrounding Kobane - most notably Ko Ali. Crucially they have also manged to maintain control of the villages for Tarmik to the south-west and Helinj and Jalabiyah to the south-east cutting ISIL supply lines to Aleppo City and Raqqa respectively.
At this point I should mention that despite being a desert country in the depths of winter the weather in Syria can actually be both very wet and very cold. Therefore the first battle that everybody people is fighting at this time is the battle to stay warm and dry meaning that there is often a drop in the tempo of fighting. However the deteriorating conditions have spurred people into action in neighbouring Iraq.
You may remember that back in August 2014 ISIL overran dozens of Kurdish villages at the foot of the Shingal/Sinjar mountains. This forced 50-60,000 ethnic Kurds of the Yazidi religion to escape onto the mountain where they faced dehydration and starvation or face certain death at the hands of ISIL. After several weeks the pressure from the press corp became too much for US President Barack Obama to bear so he belatedly launched a military operation to prevent a genocide. After a month of relentless pressure Obama went on to expand the operation to allow it to go on the offensive against ISIL.
Sadly Obama then rapidly lost his nerve, lost interest and randomly started carrying out symbolic attacks against mysterious groups like the Khorasan Group in Syria instead.
On Wednesday (17/12/14) the US-led coalition finally got it together with the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga and the Iraqi military to break the siege in Sinjar.
At dawn on Wednesday some 8,000 Peshmerga who had assembled at Zumar which is just north of Mosul Dam around 50km (30 miles) north-west of Mosul City advanced west. By the following day they had liberated all the villages and cleared all the ISIL positions within the 700km^2 (420m^2) between Zumar and the city of Shingal/Sinjar. During these two day the Peshmerga were assisted by 98 coalition air-strikes which acting in a close air-support role destroyed more then 100 ISIL targets primarily made up of check-points, fighting positions and ground units.
On Friday (19/12/14) Peshmergas from Rabia which sits on the Syria border around 125km (75 miles) north-west of Mosul pushed north-east liberating the are between Sinjar and the border from ISIL. At the same time the YPG based in Syria along with Yazidi militia pushed up the mountains from Syria to link up with the advancing Peshmerga. This now establishes a wide corridor stretching all the way from the Iraqi Kurdish capital of Arbil to the edge of the YPG's Cizire canton at Serekanyie some 350km (210 miles) away. Unfortunately in the face of the Kurdish advances a large proportion of ISIL fighters have fled with weapons and equipment both into Syria and Mosul which ISIL's stronghold in Iraq. As the US-led coalition made no attempt to cut them down as they fled it is likely that they will now re-group in both areas.
Despite this tremendous success by the Kurds the operation suffered a major setback on Monday (15/12/14) when the Al Nusra Front (ANF) backed by the Free Men of Levant (FML) and other members of the Islamist Front (IF) grouping seized the Hamidiyeh and Wadi al-Deif bases in Idlib province from the Syrian government capturing tanks, armoured vehicles and lots of advanced weapons in the process. Although a loss by the Syrian government isn't really a concern of the coalition a gain by the Al Qaeda allied ANF should be because they are covered by the same United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution as ISIL and the fact that they have begun to work with the IF grouping suggests they are getting closer to getting over their ideological differences and allying themselves with ISIL.
Yesterday the US confirmed that 1,300 extra ground troops will be sent to Iraq in January. The timing of the announcement couldn't have come at a worse time because this week the US ground troops who are definitely not combat troops had their first taste of combat. Essentially a small group of around 100 US troops had been deployed to the Ain Al-Assad base which is around 90km (54 miles) west of Ramadi in Anbar province and around 200km (120 miles) west of the Iraqi capital Baghdad. On Sunday (14/12/14) ISIL attacked the base forcing the US-troops to open fire and call in air-strikes to repel the attack. It seems the attack was successfully repelled in just over two hours although the US is remaining so tight-lipped about possible casualties they still refusing to even acknowledge that the event took place.
17:55 on 21/12/14 (UK date).
Tuesday 16 December 2014
Operation Featherweight: Month 5, Week 2, Day 3.
Before events in Australia got ahead of me this was intended to be a continuation of my previous post that can be read here; http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/operation-featherweight-month-5-week-2.html
Apart from the decision to take no action against Turkey for their material support for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and to send a further 1,300 ground troops to Iraq the main outcome from the December 3rd (3/12/14) meeting of the US-led coalition was to establish a Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) for Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) - the US' name for the operation. This brings all the nations with combat forces in the coalition together into, well, a joint task force.
This represent the beginning of the centralised command structure that I have been pressing for since the operation began. Although the exact details of how this particular CJTF will operate remain elusive it is the way that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) members of the coalition (incl Australia) are used to working together. While all nations will be represented by senior officers in the command cell the setting up of a CJTF means that there is an overall commander who is responsible for identifying the jobs that need to be done and assigning forces to get them done. This should make the coalition more effective because it gets everybody moving in the same direction rather then charging around all doing their own thing.
However this is merely a step forward rather then the task being completed because although there is now a way to co-ordinate the forces in the coalition there still needs to be an over-riding strategic plan for them to carry out. For this we have to again look to US President Obama because he either still hasn't understood how a military operation functions or he has yet to come to terms with the fact that ISIL need to be defeated on the battlefield.
The bit I liked the most about this development though is that after choosing a logo featuring Arab-style swords CJTFOIR set up a Twitter account (@CJTFOIR). I appear to have been pre-emptively blocked from following this account which I suppose is a claim to fame of sorts.
Last Sunday (7/12/14) I was tempted to rush out a quick post before lunch explaining that while I wasn't posting I continuing to keep an eye on things and giving a quick update on the situation in Kobane/Ayn al-Arab. However with my PC finally dying a death I was prevented from doing so. This seems to have been for the best because on Sunday afternoon the Israeli Air Force (IAF) carried out air-strikes against Syrian government positions at the international airport in the capital Damascus and a military airbase in the town of Dimas which is around 23km (14 miles) north-west of Damascus and around 5km (3 miles) from the border with Lebanon.
In 1967 Syria declared war on Israel during what is known as the Six-Day War. As the name suggests Israel rapidly won this war and occupied parts of the Syrian Golan Heights. Due to that occupation being unresolved a state of war still exists between Israel and Syria which means that these Israeli air-strikes against the Syrian government were entirely lawful. The target of these strikes appear to have been stores of and convoys moving S-3000 anti-aircraft missiles for the Syrian government to the Lebanon based group Hezbollah.
It is well established that Hezbollah are now fighting in Syria on the side of the Syrian government. Although this is an ideological allegiance that goes back decades it is also well established that Hezbollah are being compensated for their efforts with access to military-grade rockets from the Syrian government arsenal. Therefore this type of weapons shipment going back and forth is a pretty regular occurrence. However the S-3000 missile is a much more serious piece of equipment then anything Hezbollah currently has at their disposal. For example if the missiles had been deployed rather then loaded on the back of trucks they would have been more then capable of shooting down the IAF aircraft that destroyed them. I dread to think what they would do to a commercial airliner.
Therefore it is extremely likely that this threat and an opportunity to eliminate presented itself to the Israelis so they took it.
However whilst the strikes were going on the Saban conference taking place in Washington D.C, US. This is an annual conference on middle-eastern affairs that the US think-tank the Brookings Institute had rather unhelpfully decided to host slap-bang in the middle of COP20. Obviously the fight against ISIL and international sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program were high on the agenda. While I'm certainly not going to account for every political view held and sentence uttered in Israel particularly during an election campaign in the past I have got the impression that when Israel has demanded action on Iran's nuclear program they were in fact referring to Iran's supply of conventional weapons to Hezbollah. Therefore it is possible these strikes were timed to point out that US President Obama may be taking things a little too literally in his efforts to end Iran's nuclear program which even the Israelis describe as an existential threat.
These Israeli strikes though were particularly embarrassing for Syria's Sunni-Arab insurgent groups who take great pride in their hatred of Jews and their desire to destroy Israel. Earlier on Sunday the United Nations Disengagement Observer Forces (UNDOF) which monitors the Golan Heights presented a report to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) detailing co-operation between the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and the insurgents.
For the most part this involved allowing Syrian civilians to be treated in Israeli hospitals but there was also evidence of insurgents being allowed to cross into the Israeli occupied areas to receive medical treatment and to accompany their wounded comrades. I should point out that this is predominately humanitarian assistance and the IDF troops involved were from the Golani Brigades which was set up specifically to guard the border. That means that while the Golani Brigades are elite fighers they are also highly skilled at peacekeeping which this seems to have been part of.
However UNDOF also detailed meetings between people in civilian dress who were being guarded by members of the IDF and the insurgents. During several of these meetings mysterious boxes were handed by what we assume to be Israeli spies to the insurgents. These packages were very noticeably indistinct however they could well have contained the type of communication equipment used to identify ground targets for air-strikes.
Therefore it seems that Syria's Sunni-Arab insurgents ideological commitments are certainly negotiable, for the right price.
18:20 on 16/12/14 (UK date).
Apart from the decision to take no action against Turkey for their material support for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and to send a further 1,300 ground troops to Iraq the main outcome from the December 3rd (3/12/14) meeting of the US-led coalition was to establish a Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) for Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) - the US' name for the operation. This brings all the nations with combat forces in the coalition together into, well, a joint task force.
This represent the beginning of the centralised command structure that I have been pressing for since the operation began. Although the exact details of how this particular CJTF will operate remain elusive it is the way that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) members of the coalition (incl Australia) are used to working together. While all nations will be represented by senior officers in the command cell the setting up of a CJTF means that there is an overall commander who is responsible for identifying the jobs that need to be done and assigning forces to get them done. This should make the coalition more effective because it gets everybody moving in the same direction rather then charging around all doing their own thing.
However this is merely a step forward rather then the task being completed because although there is now a way to co-ordinate the forces in the coalition there still needs to be an over-riding strategic plan for them to carry out. For this we have to again look to US President Obama because he either still hasn't understood how a military operation functions or he has yet to come to terms with the fact that ISIL need to be defeated on the battlefield.
The bit I liked the most about this development though is that after choosing a logo featuring Arab-style swords CJTFOIR set up a Twitter account (@CJTFOIR). I appear to have been pre-emptively blocked from following this account which I suppose is a claim to fame of sorts.
Last Sunday (7/12/14) I was tempted to rush out a quick post before lunch explaining that while I wasn't posting I continuing to keep an eye on things and giving a quick update on the situation in Kobane/Ayn al-Arab. However with my PC finally dying a death I was prevented from doing so. This seems to have been for the best because on Sunday afternoon the Israeli Air Force (IAF) carried out air-strikes against Syrian government positions at the international airport in the capital Damascus and a military airbase in the town of Dimas which is around 23km (14 miles) north-west of Damascus and around 5km (3 miles) from the border with Lebanon.
In 1967 Syria declared war on Israel during what is known as the Six-Day War. As the name suggests Israel rapidly won this war and occupied parts of the Syrian Golan Heights. Due to that occupation being unresolved a state of war still exists between Israel and Syria which means that these Israeli air-strikes against the Syrian government were entirely lawful. The target of these strikes appear to have been stores of and convoys moving S-3000 anti-aircraft missiles for the Syrian government to the Lebanon based group Hezbollah.
It is well established that Hezbollah are now fighting in Syria on the side of the Syrian government. Although this is an ideological allegiance that goes back decades it is also well established that Hezbollah are being compensated for their efforts with access to military-grade rockets from the Syrian government arsenal. Therefore this type of weapons shipment going back and forth is a pretty regular occurrence. However the S-3000 missile is a much more serious piece of equipment then anything Hezbollah currently has at their disposal. For example if the missiles had been deployed rather then loaded on the back of trucks they would have been more then capable of shooting down the IAF aircraft that destroyed them. I dread to think what they would do to a commercial airliner.
Therefore it is extremely likely that this threat and an opportunity to eliminate presented itself to the Israelis so they took it.
However whilst the strikes were going on the Saban conference taking place in Washington D.C, US. This is an annual conference on middle-eastern affairs that the US think-tank the Brookings Institute had rather unhelpfully decided to host slap-bang in the middle of COP20. Obviously the fight against ISIL and international sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program were high on the agenda. While I'm certainly not going to account for every political view held and sentence uttered in Israel particularly during an election campaign in the past I have got the impression that when Israel has demanded action on Iran's nuclear program they were in fact referring to Iran's supply of conventional weapons to Hezbollah. Therefore it is possible these strikes were timed to point out that US President Obama may be taking things a little too literally in his efforts to end Iran's nuclear program which even the Israelis describe as an existential threat.
These Israeli strikes though were particularly embarrassing for Syria's Sunni-Arab insurgent groups who take great pride in their hatred of Jews and their desire to destroy Israel. Earlier on Sunday the United Nations Disengagement Observer Forces (UNDOF) which monitors the Golan Heights presented a report to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) detailing co-operation between the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and the insurgents.
For the most part this involved allowing Syrian civilians to be treated in Israeli hospitals but there was also evidence of insurgents being allowed to cross into the Israeli occupied areas to receive medical treatment and to accompany their wounded comrades. I should point out that this is predominately humanitarian assistance and the IDF troops involved were from the Golani Brigades which was set up specifically to guard the border. That means that while the Golani Brigades are elite fighers they are also highly skilled at peacekeeping which this seems to have been part of.
However UNDOF also detailed meetings between people in civilian dress who were being guarded by members of the IDF and the insurgents. During several of these meetings mysterious boxes were handed by what we assume to be Israeli spies to the insurgents. These packages were very noticeably indistinct however they could well have contained the type of communication equipment used to identify ground targets for air-strikes.
Therefore it seems that Syria's Sunni-Arab insurgents ideological commitments are certainly negotiable, for the right price.
18:20 on 16/12/14 (UK date).
Monday 15 December 2014
Best Terror Attack Ever.
At the start of the COP 20 Summit I identified Australia as a key figure within the negotiations. The largest per capita emitter of GreenHouse Gases (GHG's) in the World the Australian economy is very focused on mining things like coal which are then sold to other nations - primarily China - to set fire to releasing GHG's.
However Australia is also a nation that is very susceptible to the effects of climate change. Most of the centre of the country (the Outback) is already too hot for humans to live in and it is surrounded by coral reefs - the Great Barrier Reef being the most famous. Coral is very susceptible to changes in both ocean temperature and acidity which is caused by GHG's being diluted in water. Therefore coral is often considered the canary in the mine shaft for climate change because it shows the effects long before they can be seen elsewhere. Furthermore Australia was probably hit harder then anyone else by the hole in the Ozone layer of the 1980's and 1990's meaning that the population tends to be very aware of environmental issues.
This means that within Australian politics climate change is very much a hot button issue in the same way that abortion or gun control is in US politics. In fact a key part of current Prime Minister Tony Abbott's campaign last year was to do away with his predecessor Julia Gillard's tax on mining companies. That tax was supposed to tackle climate change even though it disregarded the market based mechanisms that absolutely everybody else is moving towards. We are still waiting to see what Abbott's climate change policy will be but I am hoping he will announce some sort of emissions trading scheme although I'm not hold my breath.
Obviously all this policy stuff is exactly the sort of thing that Australia should be including in its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) document that they will be submitting in the first quarter of 2015. However Australia appears to have gone in a very different direction.
At around 11:00 local time on December 15th (15/12/14)/ 22:00 on December 14th (14/12/14) GMT what we now know to be a lone gunman walked into a cafe in the centre of Sydney and took 13 staff and customers hostage in a siege that is still going on as I write. The near-by iconic Sydney Opera House was also evacuated amid a bomb scare because as with Kangaroos, hats with corks on them and casual swearing the opera house is one of the things most people associate with Australia. The purpose of this exercise was to exert huge amounts of pressure on the COP 20 delegates both to disrupt the process and help Australia find out where it stands. As a result I don't think there is an element of the story that you couldn't confuse as a coded reference to something else. However I think the main points are;
Economics: The cafe is located in Sydney's Central Business District (CBD). This brings up all sorts of discussions about urban planning and zoning. The fact that the CBD has been shut down during this siege promotes discussion about the possible economic impacts of climate change although the Australians seem focused on the impacts of action to precent climate change. Prime Minister Abbott has already assured Australians that it will be business as usual today. "Business As Usual" is a very big phrase in climate negotiations because one of the main objectives is to get GHG emissions below business as usual. The siege also caused restrictions to be imposed on the airspace in and around Sydney. This obviously re-visited the UK's stunt on Friday (12/12/14) when the closed all the airspace of the south of the country causing travel chaos. Whether the aviation sector is included in emission cuts is also a big issue in negotiations although I thought the point of NDC's was that nations were given the freedom to decide for themselves whether it was included or not.
Sexual Innuendo: Sydney is located in the province of New South Wales (NSW). This acronym is just one letter away from Not Suitable For Work (NSFW) which on the Internet is commonly used to mean pornography. Once you understand that all the references to the female hostages being pressed up against the glass, what they look like, what they're wearing and what they're doing automatically sounds a bit pervy. Added to that the cafe is actually part of a chocolate shop that sits on the ground floor of an office tower block. This could be interpreted as a reference to anal or gay sex particularly as we're all waiting to see if the police will roughly take the male suspect up the chocolate tower. Good luck maintaining an air of professionalism while you have that sort of discussion.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL): As is their position on most things at COP 20 the Gulf Monarchies particularly Saudi Arabia simply started threatening to unleash ISIL style Islamist terrorists on any nation that dares to sign up to an agreement. Officially an example of Islamic terrorism the Sydney siege is supposed to play up those fears by making it appear as though an urgent discussion about ISIL is going on in the US-led coalition.
For example the first thing the hostage taker did was place a banner bearing the Islamic Shahada in the window. Translating roughly as; "There is no god but Allah, Mohamed is his Prophet" this is simply a declaration of the Islamic faith that is used by all Muslims at the start of each prayer. Cleverly the way this banner was placed in the window seemed to use the logo of the Lindt chocolate company (not the brand identity they were looking for) to resemble the seal of Mohamed. This combination of the Shahada and the Prophets seal on a black background is used by ISIL as their flag. However it is also just a symbol used by all Muslims in the same way that all Christians use the Cross and all Jews use the Star of David. ISIL have stolen it in a effort to convince people they are Muslims - you could argue they are literally flying a false flag.
Despite the fact they've been disowned by pretty much all branches of Islam in the west there is still some debate over whether are ISIL are Muslims or not. For example in the UK on December 5th (5/12/14) Yusuf Sarwar and Mohamed Ahmed were jailed for travelling to fight in Syria. This prompted a wave of complaints by the MI6 allied Muslim groups who have been recruiting people to go fight in Syria. However what was really interesting about this particular case is that part of the evidence against the pair is that they knew so little about Islam before they left they had to buy books with titles like "Arabic For Beginners" and "The Qu'ran For Dummies." Australia is obviously trying to feed into this argument and when this all over I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that the suspect is actually a Protestant Christian.
Also referencing things the UK have been up to last Monday (8/12/14) British police in Birmingham were dramatically recalled to base over rumours of an ISIL inspired terror attack. This was a stunt intended to accompany UK Prime Minister Cameron's trip to Turkey. What was embarrassing about it though was that I heard about it hours in advance from several nations none of whom were Britain. The version I heard was that there were two suspects who were planning to either kidnap and then behead a police officer or simply behead a police officer in the street Lee Rigby style. However after lots of reassurance that it will be business as usual the police determined it was a hoax call and arrested a single suspect. In the early hours of the Sydney siege there was of confusion over whether there was one or two suspects involved.
On something of a related note this type of incident highlights why I often end up feeling a bit sorry for the police. Although everyone knows this is nonsense they have to treat it as if it was just normal crime. In those circumstances their priorities are the safety of the public then the safety of their officers followed by the safety of the suspect who still has the right to a fair trial.
So while I think it would be very funny just to shoot him in the head I suspect we're going to be in for a long wait amid lots of hushed rumours about negotiations.
12:00 on 15/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 16:05 on 15/12/14 (UK date) to add;
The siege in Sydney has now ended. Badly. Details are still emerging but it appears that the police raided the cafe and two people have been killed and three others are seriously wounded.
Roughly an hour before this took place the police confirmed the hostage takers identity as Man Haron Monis - an Iranian exile. Although I don't have any evidence to support this Monis will be recognised by people in the business as the type of guy the intelligence services keep on the payroll to carry out just this type of stunt. His equivalent in the UK is a guy called Amjen Choudary.
Monis seems to have been chosen for today's task because his name comes from the Latin word "Mons." If you've read my posts about ex ante and ex post review processes you will know that a lot of Latin phrases come up in climate change discussions often confusing a lot of the people involved. The Latin term "Mons" means "higher then that which surrounds it." Australia's GHG emissions are of course much higher then the nations that surround it.
Where the Australians have gone fundamentally wrong in their handling of this situation is that throughout they've treated it as a stunt which they wanted to go on for as long as possible. For example I suspect there would have been a chapter where we were forced to speculate whether Monis was reading this post despite the fact that cutting telephone lines and shutting down cellphone networks is standard practise in this type of situation. Also the US have joined in with their own hostage situation in Pennsylvania which was no doubt intended to carry on in stereo to Sydney.
Therefore I suspect that the police were ordered not to draw up an entry plan to bring this situation to an end at the time of their choosing.
This flaw was massively exposed when the hostages were split into two groups. While Monis' back was turned one of these groups tried to escape prompting Monis to open fire on them. This forced the police to rush an entry while Monis was executing hostages. We are still waiting to hear if Monis was killed or captured in the raid.
Sadly although I've been trying to keep the mood light I've always felt this sort of ending was part of the plan. The big debate about ISIL is whether Commonwealth countries like the UK, Canada and Australia should put the lives of their citizens at risk by allowing the fighters they've sent to Syria to return or simply accept those fighters choice to renounce their citizenship in order to become citizens of another, albeit unrecognised, nation. If Monis has survived while hostages have been killed that represents the fundamental dilemma in microcosm.
I of course think that if there is any decency left in Australian politics most Australians will now be waking up to the news that both Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the UK Queen's representative to Australia Peter Cosgrove have resigned in response to these events.
After all I genuinely thought that a police sniper would have shot Monis in the head a couple of hours after I went to bed last night.
However Australia is also a nation that is very susceptible to the effects of climate change. Most of the centre of the country (the Outback) is already too hot for humans to live in and it is surrounded by coral reefs - the Great Barrier Reef being the most famous. Coral is very susceptible to changes in both ocean temperature and acidity which is caused by GHG's being diluted in water. Therefore coral is often considered the canary in the mine shaft for climate change because it shows the effects long before they can be seen elsewhere. Furthermore Australia was probably hit harder then anyone else by the hole in the Ozone layer of the 1980's and 1990's meaning that the population tends to be very aware of environmental issues.
This means that within Australian politics climate change is very much a hot button issue in the same way that abortion or gun control is in US politics. In fact a key part of current Prime Minister Tony Abbott's campaign last year was to do away with his predecessor Julia Gillard's tax on mining companies. That tax was supposed to tackle climate change even though it disregarded the market based mechanisms that absolutely everybody else is moving towards. We are still waiting to see what Abbott's climate change policy will be but I am hoping he will announce some sort of emissions trading scheme although I'm not hold my breath.
Obviously all this policy stuff is exactly the sort of thing that Australia should be including in its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) document that they will be submitting in the first quarter of 2015. However Australia appears to have gone in a very different direction.
At around 11:00 local time on December 15th (15/12/14)/ 22:00 on December 14th (14/12/14) GMT what we now know to be a lone gunman walked into a cafe in the centre of Sydney and took 13 staff and customers hostage in a siege that is still going on as I write. The near-by iconic Sydney Opera House was also evacuated amid a bomb scare because as with Kangaroos, hats with corks on them and casual swearing the opera house is one of the things most people associate with Australia. The purpose of this exercise was to exert huge amounts of pressure on the COP 20 delegates both to disrupt the process and help Australia find out where it stands. As a result I don't think there is an element of the story that you couldn't confuse as a coded reference to something else. However I think the main points are;
Economics: The cafe is located in Sydney's Central Business District (CBD). This brings up all sorts of discussions about urban planning and zoning. The fact that the CBD has been shut down during this siege promotes discussion about the possible economic impacts of climate change although the Australians seem focused on the impacts of action to precent climate change. Prime Minister Abbott has already assured Australians that it will be business as usual today. "Business As Usual" is a very big phrase in climate negotiations because one of the main objectives is to get GHG emissions below business as usual. The siege also caused restrictions to be imposed on the airspace in and around Sydney. This obviously re-visited the UK's stunt on Friday (12/12/14) when the closed all the airspace of the south of the country causing travel chaos. Whether the aviation sector is included in emission cuts is also a big issue in negotiations although I thought the point of NDC's was that nations were given the freedom to decide for themselves whether it was included or not.
Sexual Innuendo: Sydney is located in the province of New South Wales (NSW). This acronym is just one letter away from Not Suitable For Work (NSFW) which on the Internet is commonly used to mean pornography. Once you understand that all the references to the female hostages being pressed up against the glass, what they look like, what they're wearing and what they're doing automatically sounds a bit pervy. Added to that the cafe is actually part of a chocolate shop that sits on the ground floor of an office tower block. This could be interpreted as a reference to anal or gay sex particularly as we're all waiting to see if the police will roughly take the male suspect up the chocolate tower. Good luck maintaining an air of professionalism while you have that sort of discussion.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL): As is their position on most things at COP 20 the Gulf Monarchies particularly Saudi Arabia simply started threatening to unleash ISIL style Islamist terrorists on any nation that dares to sign up to an agreement. Officially an example of Islamic terrorism the Sydney siege is supposed to play up those fears by making it appear as though an urgent discussion about ISIL is going on in the US-led coalition.
For example the first thing the hostage taker did was place a banner bearing the Islamic Shahada in the window. Translating roughly as; "There is no god but Allah, Mohamed is his Prophet" this is simply a declaration of the Islamic faith that is used by all Muslims at the start of each prayer. Cleverly the way this banner was placed in the window seemed to use the logo of the Lindt chocolate company (not the brand identity they were looking for) to resemble the seal of Mohamed. This combination of the Shahada and the Prophets seal on a black background is used by ISIL as their flag. However it is also just a symbol used by all Muslims in the same way that all Christians use the Cross and all Jews use the Star of David. ISIL have stolen it in a effort to convince people they are Muslims - you could argue they are literally flying a false flag.
Despite the fact they've been disowned by pretty much all branches of Islam in the west there is still some debate over whether are ISIL are Muslims or not. For example in the UK on December 5th (5/12/14) Yusuf Sarwar and Mohamed Ahmed were jailed for travelling to fight in Syria. This prompted a wave of complaints by the MI6 allied Muslim groups who have been recruiting people to go fight in Syria. However what was really interesting about this particular case is that part of the evidence against the pair is that they knew so little about Islam before they left they had to buy books with titles like "Arabic For Beginners" and "The Qu'ran For Dummies." Australia is obviously trying to feed into this argument and when this all over I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that the suspect is actually a Protestant Christian.
Also referencing things the UK have been up to last Monday (8/12/14) British police in Birmingham were dramatically recalled to base over rumours of an ISIL inspired terror attack. This was a stunt intended to accompany UK Prime Minister Cameron's trip to Turkey. What was embarrassing about it though was that I heard about it hours in advance from several nations none of whom were Britain. The version I heard was that there were two suspects who were planning to either kidnap and then behead a police officer or simply behead a police officer in the street Lee Rigby style. However after lots of reassurance that it will be business as usual the police determined it was a hoax call and arrested a single suspect. In the early hours of the Sydney siege there was of confusion over whether there was one or two suspects involved.
On something of a related note this type of incident highlights why I often end up feeling a bit sorry for the police. Although everyone knows this is nonsense they have to treat it as if it was just normal crime. In those circumstances their priorities are the safety of the public then the safety of their officers followed by the safety of the suspect who still has the right to a fair trial.
So while I think it would be very funny just to shoot him in the head I suspect we're going to be in for a long wait amid lots of hushed rumours about negotiations.
12:00 on 15/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 16:05 on 15/12/14 (UK date) to add;
The siege in Sydney has now ended. Badly. Details are still emerging but it appears that the police raided the cafe and two people have been killed and three others are seriously wounded.
Roughly an hour before this took place the police confirmed the hostage takers identity as Man Haron Monis - an Iranian exile. Although I don't have any evidence to support this Monis will be recognised by people in the business as the type of guy the intelligence services keep on the payroll to carry out just this type of stunt. His equivalent in the UK is a guy called Amjen Choudary.
Monis seems to have been chosen for today's task because his name comes from the Latin word "Mons." If you've read my posts about ex ante and ex post review processes you will know that a lot of Latin phrases come up in climate change discussions often confusing a lot of the people involved. The Latin term "Mons" means "higher then that which surrounds it." Australia's GHG emissions are of course much higher then the nations that surround it.
Where the Australians have gone fundamentally wrong in their handling of this situation is that throughout they've treated it as a stunt which they wanted to go on for as long as possible. For example I suspect there would have been a chapter where we were forced to speculate whether Monis was reading this post despite the fact that cutting telephone lines and shutting down cellphone networks is standard practise in this type of situation. Also the US have joined in with their own hostage situation in Pennsylvania which was no doubt intended to carry on in stereo to Sydney.
Therefore I suspect that the police were ordered not to draw up an entry plan to bring this situation to an end at the time of their choosing.
This flaw was massively exposed when the hostages were split into two groups. While Monis' back was turned one of these groups tried to escape prompting Monis to open fire on them. This forced the police to rush an entry while Monis was executing hostages. We are still waiting to hear if Monis was killed or captured in the raid.
Sadly although I've been trying to keep the mood light I've always felt this sort of ending was part of the plan. The big debate about ISIL is whether Commonwealth countries like the UK, Canada and Australia should put the lives of their citizens at risk by allowing the fighters they've sent to Syria to return or simply accept those fighters choice to renounce their citizenship in order to become citizens of another, albeit unrecognised, nation. If Monis has survived while hostages have been killed that represents the fundamental dilemma in microcosm.
I of course think that if there is any decency left in Australian politics most Australians will now be waking up to the news that both Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the UK Queen's representative to Australia Peter Cosgrove have resigned in response to these events.
After all I genuinely thought that a police sniper would have shot Monis in the head a couple of hours after I went to bed last night.
Sunday 14 December 2014
Operation Featherweight: Month 5, Week 2, Day 1.
Over the past two weeks I have been covering the 20th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP20). This is something I've been heavily involved in for at least 5 years now. If it fails it will put millions of lives at risk through increased climate hazards such as 2013's Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines and the 2011 East African famine. If it succeeds the agreement that is being built should last for at least the next 85 years.
Therefore I think it was worth not commenting on the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) for just two weeks. However the fact that I have not been commenting doesn't mean that I haven't been keeping an eye on things.
At the time of my last post on the subject ISIL had just launched a fresh assault on the Kurdish city of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab which sits just 1km (0.6 miles) from Syria's northern border with Turkey. This attack was short lived and repelled by the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) in a matter of hours. However this big push did succeed in emboldening ISIL fighters who have been trapped in Kobane for the best part of two months now. This led to roughly a week in which those ISIL fighters launched fresh attacks against the YPG in an effort to break out from their positions.
However by last Monday (8/12/14) those pockets of ISIL fighters had lost all initiative and the conflict returned to its usual momentum of the YPG conducting patrols and slowly liberating positions on all fronts. During these two weeks of fighting 5 YPG fighters lost their lives while 150 ISIL fighters were confirmed killed including Asadullah Al-Shishani a commander of the Chechen Brigades who were linked to the terror attacks on Russia in the run up to the 2014 Winter Olympics.
This puts the Battle of Kobane which today entered its fourth month firmly back into an attrition phase. As I've said throughout this worries me because due to Turkey's refusal to establish a supply corridor from Iraq's Kurdish region to Kobane ISIL's better suppliy lines mean that they hold the advantage in these attrition phases. On Friday (12/12/14) though the YPG decided to do something about this by seizing control of the main road between Kobane and Aleppo City - some 150km (90 miles) to the south-west - in the village of Tarmik which sits around 1km (0.6 miles) south of Kobane. Along with the YPG's control of the villages of Helinj and Jalabiyah to the south-east the gain of Tarmik means that they now control two of the three main supply routes into Kobane and have begun to totally cut ISIL positions in the south of the city off from the outside world.
The other major issue to come out November 29th (29/11/14) ISIL assault on Kobane is that a significant portion of it was planned and launched from an industrial facility that is owned and operated by the state-owned Turkish Grain Board (TMO) that is located firmly on the Turkish side of the border. As such people were waiting to see what punishment the US as leader of the anti-ISIL coalition would impose on Turkey at the meeting of the coalition that took place in Brussels, Belgium on December 3rd (3/12/14). For example the US telling Turkey that they were no longer welcome at that meeting would have sent a strong message.
Unfortunately though the US' response to Turkey's material support for ISIL was to take no action whatsoever. This failure in US leadership forced the other members of the coalition to fall in line to avoid a split. So on December 8th (8/12/14) the European Union's (EU) new High Representative for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini made her first official visit to Turkey to meet President Erdogan amongst others. Although cancelling this long scheduled trip would have been a major step it perhaps would have been wise for the EU to decline giving Turkey USD12.5 million to aid Syrian refugees and given the money to aid Syrian refugees in Lebanon instead.
Finally in the parade of shame UK Prime Minister David Cameron visited Turkey on Tuesday (9/12/14) and pledged closer co-operation between the UK and Turkish intelligence services while promising to help Turkey become a full member of the EU. On Wednesday (10/12/14) Cameron visited Poland where he was sent to the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp to think about what he'd done.
One thing that did come out of the Brussels meeting is that members of the coalition who are not America are going to send some 1,300 troops to Iraq to join the some 5,000 US troops who are already there acting as trainers/advisers to the Iraqi Army. Due to the local knowledge built up during their 8 year occupation of Iraq the UK will be providing the majority (around 500) of these troops to be stationed in three bases in an around the Iraqi capital of Baghdad and one base in the northern Kurdish region.
As these troops will be classed as advisers rather then combat troops this move is permitted by the authorisation given the UK Parliament. However I think that it something that Parliament is going to have to keep a very close eye on because a non-combat role is most certainly not the same thing as saying these troops wont be placed in danger.
ISIL have made it quite clear that they would like nothing more then to have the opportunity to kill troops from western nations which they consider members of "The Armies of the Cross." Through the recent attack on United Nations convoy on "Route Irish" which links Baghdad's Greenzone with Baghdad international airport and Wednesday's (10/12/14) suicide attack on an army base in Samarra just outside Baghdad in which 9 were killed ISIL have certainly proved that they are capable of killing troops stationed in and around Baghdad.
Also the Americans themselves rate half of Iraq's army - some 140,000 men - as either "good" or "very good." When France deployed to Mali to help defeat an enemy similar to ISIL machine gunners in the Malian army had to shout; "Bang, bang, bang, bang!" during training exercises because they didn't have any bullets to practise with. However the Islamists in Mali were still routed in under four weeks.
Therefore I think US President Obama's desire to keep sending more ground troops to Iraq is driven not by necessity but by a desire to be seen to do something without actually doing anything that might risk defeating ISIL. As such the US Congress will also have to keep a very close eye on how the fight against ISIL is progressing.
In the passing of the funding bill that finally happened last night Congress has taken a first step by passing a defence budget that allows the US to fully fund Kurdish forces at the expense of Sunni-Arab insurgent forces in Syria. The real work though will begin in January when a Authorisation for Military Force bill will be presented to the new session of a Republican controlled Congress. The White House wants a three year authorisation while I think a three month rolling authorisation would be more use in keeping Obama on the straight and narrow.
At around 17:20 on 14/12/14 (UK date) I have much more to add. However that will most likely come tomorrow because I've had at least 1.5 days lost or damaged by the COP 20 rebellion.
Therefore I think it was worth not commenting on the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) for just two weeks. However the fact that I have not been commenting doesn't mean that I haven't been keeping an eye on things.
At the time of my last post on the subject ISIL had just launched a fresh assault on the Kurdish city of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab which sits just 1km (0.6 miles) from Syria's northern border with Turkey. This attack was short lived and repelled by the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) in a matter of hours. However this big push did succeed in emboldening ISIL fighters who have been trapped in Kobane for the best part of two months now. This led to roughly a week in which those ISIL fighters launched fresh attacks against the YPG in an effort to break out from their positions.
However by last Monday (8/12/14) those pockets of ISIL fighters had lost all initiative and the conflict returned to its usual momentum of the YPG conducting patrols and slowly liberating positions on all fronts. During these two weeks of fighting 5 YPG fighters lost their lives while 150 ISIL fighters were confirmed killed including Asadullah Al-Shishani a commander of the Chechen Brigades who were linked to the terror attacks on Russia in the run up to the 2014 Winter Olympics.
This puts the Battle of Kobane which today entered its fourth month firmly back into an attrition phase. As I've said throughout this worries me because due to Turkey's refusal to establish a supply corridor from Iraq's Kurdish region to Kobane ISIL's better suppliy lines mean that they hold the advantage in these attrition phases. On Friday (12/12/14) though the YPG decided to do something about this by seizing control of the main road between Kobane and Aleppo City - some 150km (90 miles) to the south-west - in the village of Tarmik which sits around 1km (0.6 miles) south of Kobane. Along with the YPG's control of the villages of Helinj and Jalabiyah to the south-east the gain of Tarmik means that they now control two of the three main supply routes into Kobane and have begun to totally cut ISIL positions in the south of the city off from the outside world.
The other major issue to come out November 29th (29/11/14) ISIL assault on Kobane is that a significant portion of it was planned and launched from an industrial facility that is owned and operated by the state-owned Turkish Grain Board (TMO) that is located firmly on the Turkish side of the border. As such people were waiting to see what punishment the US as leader of the anti-ISIL coalition would impose on Turkey at the meeting of the coalition that took place in Brussels, Belgium on December 3rd (3/12/14). For example the US telling Turkey that they were no longer welcome at that meeting would have sent a strong message.
Unfortunately though the US' response to Turkey's material support for ISIL was to take no action whatsoever. This failure in US leadership forced the other members of the coalition to fall in line to avoid a split. So on December 8th (8/12/14) the European Union's (EU) new High Representative for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini made her first official visit to Turkey to meet President Erdogan amongst others. Although cancelling this long scheduled trip would have been a major step it perhaps would have been wise for the EU to decline giving Turkey USD12.5 million to aid Syrian refugees and given the money to aid Syrian refugees in Lebanon instead.
Finally in the parade of shame UK Prime Minister David Cameron visited Turkey on Tuesday (9/12/14) and pledged closer co-operation between the UK and Turkish intelligence services while promising to help Turkey become a full member of the EU. On Wednesday (10/12/14) Cameron visited Poland where he was sent to the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp to think about what he'd done.
One thing that did come out of the Brussels meeting is that members of the coalition who are not America are going to send some 1,300 troops to Iraq to join the some 5,000 US troops who are already there acting as trainers/advisers to the Iraqi Army. Due to the local knowledge built up during their 8 year occupation of Iraq the UK will be providing the majority (around 500) of these troops to be stationed in three bases in an around the Iraqi capital of Baghdad and one base in the northern Kurdish region.
As these troops will be classed as advisers rather then combat troops this move is permitted by the authorisation given the UK Parliament. However I think that it something that Parliament is going to have to keep a very close eye on because a non-combat role is most certainly not the same thing as saying these troops wont be placed in danger.
ISIL have made it quite clear that they would like nothing more then to have the opportunity to kill troops from western nations which they consider members of "The Armies of the Cross." Through the recent attack on United Nations convoy on "Route Irish" which links Baghdad's Greenzone with Baghdad international airport and Wednesday's (10/12/14) suicide attack on an army base in Samarra just outside Baghdad in which 9 were killed ISIL have certainly proved that they are capable of killing troops stationed in and around Baghdad.
Also the Americans themselves rate half of Iraq's army - some 140,000 men - as either "good" or "very good." When France deployed to Mali to help defeat an enemy similar to ISIL machine gunners in the Malian army had to shout; "Bang, bang, bang, bang!" during training exercises because they didn't have any bullets to practise with. However the Islamists in Mali were still routed in under four weeks.
Therefore I think US President Obama's desire to keep sending more ground troops to Iraq is driven not by necessity but by a desire to be seen to do something without actually doing anything that might risk defeating ISIL. As such the US Congress will also have to keep a very close eye on how the fight against ISIL is progressing.
In the passing of the funding bill that finally happened last night Congress has taken a first step by passing a defence budget that allows the US to fully fund Kurdish forces at the expense of Sunni-Arab insurgent forces in Syria. The real work though will begin in January when a Authorisation for Military Force bill will be presented to the new session of a Republican controlled Congress. The White House wants a three year authorisation while I think a three month rolling authorisation would be more use in keeping Obama on the straight and narrow.
At around 17:20 on 14/12/14 (UK date) I have much more to add. However that will most likely come tomorrow because I've had at least 1.5 days lost or damaged by the COP 20 rebellion.
COP 20: Permission to Christmas?
The 20th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP20) has finally ended following another bruising filibuster session in the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform (ADP). At one point organisers were forced to spin off any routine procedural votes into a separate meeting because the less capable nations were simply blocking any discussion until their demands were met.
This situation was made all the more surreal by the fact the ADP had long since stopped negotiating the text of an agreement. Instead they were discussing the wording of a non-binding decision to continue the negotiations into 2015 as planned. This decision in no way prejudices negotiations over the text making it effectively a communique. Obviously though people who are familiar with this type of negotiation understand that a three to four hour debate over whether someone "Recognises" of "Acknowledges" the need for a certain type of action in a non-binding agreement can reveal a lot about their position.
Sadly though it doesn't look as though that this is what the less capable nations were trying to do. Instead they seemed to be operating under the idea that if they got a piece of paper committing other nations to do certain things those obligations will be met. This is of course a nonsense because it seems the purpose of G8 Summits these days is to provide rich nations with a forum to announce pledges of assistance to poorer nations that they have no intention of delivering.
Therefore I think the less capable nations now really need to step back, take a deep breath and think long and hard about how tenable their current positions are and how they wish to proceed. After all a number of the more capable nations seem to have approached this summit with the plan of provoking the less capable nations into throwing just this type of tantrum. That way no agreement will be reached but the more capable nations will be able to claim they were negotiating in good faith.
A prime example of this has been Sudan who have headed the African group at COP 20. Also an example of how diplomacy can become an end in itself rather then a way to achieve an outcome I think it is fair to say that the relationship between Sudan and the US is not a good one.
In the early 2000's Israel attempted to deflect criticism of its behaviour by pointing to the situation in Darfur, Sudan in an effort to claim that Israel was being held to a different standard to everyone else. The prompted the international community lead by the US to go in hard on Sudan eventually leading to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir being indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). As Darfur wasn't even the biggest conflict in Sudan at the time the international pressure also led to the nation being split in half with the new nation of South Sudan being formed in 2011. Due to tribal rivalries South Sudan is currently in the process of tearing itself apart. However rather then admit they made a mistake the US are now trying to blame all of South Sudan's problems on Sudanese President Bashir.
On Tuesday (9/12/14) the US released its torture report into the actions of the CIA during the war on terror. This was intended to irritate everyone at COP 20 because no-one had the time to read a 600 page report particularly one featuring phrases like "anal rehydration." However it showed that the US did commit crimes against humanity. This was supposed to provoke a furious reaction particularly by people like President Bashir who are under indictment for crimes against humanity. In the end the ICC moved to take the pressure off by announcing that they're effectively ending the investigation into President Bashir. However this didn't stop Sudan's neighbour Uganda trying to bring them into its sphere of influence by launching a campaign to scrap the ICC in response to the ending of their investigation into Sudan's other neighbour Kenya.
Fortunately Sudan managed to maintain a rather level head throughout meaning the disruption was caused by individual nations rather then entire negotiating blocks.
The rebellion of the last couple of days has had an interesting effect though - suddenly news agencies in the more capable nations such as the BBC and CNN have finally acknowledged that COP 20 has been taking place. Worryingly though they seem to be describing what has become known as "The Lima Call For Climate Action" as a "draft text of the agreement" which may give the rebellious nations the entirely false impression that their little tantrum has improved their situation in any way.
12:40 on 14/12/14 (UK date).
This situation was made all the more surreal by the fact the ADP had long since stopped negotiating the text of an agreement. Instead they were discussing the wording of a non-binding decision to continue the negotiations into 2015 as planned. This decision in no way prejudices negotiations over the text making it effectively a communique. Obviously though people who are familiar with this type of negotiation understand that a three to four hour debate over whether someone "Recognises" of "Acknowledges" the need for a certain type of action in a non-binding agreement can reveal a lot about their position.
Sadly though it doesn't look as though that this is what the less capable nations were trying to do. Instead they seemed to be operating under the idea that if they got a piece of paper committing other nations to do certain things those obligations will be met. This is of course a nonsense because it seems the purpose of G8 Summits these days is to provide rich nations with a forum to announce pledges of assistance to poorer nations that they have no intention of delivering.
Therefore I think the less capable nations now really need to step back, take a deep breath and think long and hard about how tenable their current positions are and how they wish to proceed. After all a number of the more capable nations seem to have approached this summit with the plan of provoking the less capable nations into throwing just this type of tantrum. That way no agreement will be reached but the more capable nations will be able to claim they were negotiating in good faith.
A prime example of this has been Sudan who have headed the African group at COP 20. Also an example of how diplomacy can become an end in itself rather then a way to achieve an outcome I think it is fair to say that the relationship between Sudan and the US is not a good one.
In the early 2000's Israel attempted to deflect criticism of its behaviour by pointing to the situation in Darfur, Sudan in an effort to claim that Israel was being held to a different standard to everyone else. The prompted the international community lead by the US to go in hard on Sudan eventually leading to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir being indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). As Darfur wasn't even the biggest conflict in Sudan at the time the international pressure also led to the nation being split in half with the new nation of South Sudan being formed in 2011. Due to tribal rivalries South Sudan is currently in the process of tearing itself apart. However rather then admit they made a mistake the US are now trying to blame all of South Sudan's problems on Sudanese President Bashir.
On Tuesday (9/12/14) the US released its torture report into the actions of the CIA during the war on terror. This was intended to irritate everyone at COP 20 because no-one had the time to read a 600 page report particularly one featuring phrases like "anal rehydration." However it showed that the US did commit crimes against humanity. This was supposed to provoke a furious reaction particularly by people like President Bashir who are under indictment for crimes against humanity. In the end the ICC moved to take the pressure off by announcing that they're effectively ending the investigation into President Bashir. However this didn't stop Sudan's neighbour Uganda trying to bring them into its sphere of influence by launching a campaign to scrap the ICC in response to the ending of their investigation into Sudan's other neighbour Kenya.
Fortunately Sudan managed to maintain a rather level head throughout meaning the disruption was caused by individual nations rather then entire negotiating blocks.
The rebellion of the last couple of days has had an interesting effect though - suddenly news agencies in the more capable nations such as the BBC and CNN have finally acknowledged that COP 20 has been taking place. Worryingly though they seem to be describing what has become known as "The Lima Call For Climate Action" as a "draft text of the agreement" which may give the rebellious nations the entirely false impression that their little tantrum has improved their situation in any way.
12:40 on 14/12/14 (UK date).
Saturday 13 December 2014
COP 20: Extra-Time.
The 20th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP20) being held in Lima, Peru was scheduled to end at 18:00 local (23:00 GMT) yesterday. For the most part this did happen with the only exception being the Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform (ADP) which is tasked with producing a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol (KP).
Due to what was essentially a filibuster by certain less capable nations led primarily by Uganda the ADP session lasted until past 02:00 (07:00 GMT) this morning. It has also led to a stock taking session which is starting pretty much as I write. What seems to have motivated the developing nations is a desire for more elements of Section E which deals with Adaptation and Loss & Damage and Section G dealing with finance to be agreed upon.
These are of course the sections that I have been delaying dealing with because the sections dealing with INDC's need to be the priority. Also Section's E and G aren't yet developed enough to be agreed upon. There are of course some very good ideas contained within them but there are also some very bad ideas and some serious contradictions. Therefore I need more time to consider how to expand on the good ideas to solve the problems. All I have at this point is quite a long and insulting list of where some of the less capable nations have got things badly wrong.
For example the adaptation section requires that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) receives USD100 billion a year. To put that in perspective it was at this session that the GCF finally reached its 1st year funding target of USD10 billion which was considered a major achievement. The agreement is intended to last until the end of the century giving it a minimum life-span of 85 years. This would make the total contributions to the GCF around USD8.5 trillion. With the US just passing a USD1 trillion spending bill this figure isn't as outrageous as it sounds but getting governments to agree to spending commitments that will last long after all the people involved have died seems extremely unreasonable especially when the nations making the demands are also blocking alternative sources of finance.
On the Loss & Damage the less capable nations want to establish a system whereby they are compensated for loss and damage caused by climate change - farmland turning to desert for example. The problem is that such a system already exists in the form of the International Court of Justice. However the level of scientific understanding to the levels of loss and damage and the role climate plays is not sufficient to support individual compensation claims. Therefore nations that are demanding that such a system is included in a binding agreement whilst at the same time refusing to take steps to improve everyones understanding of the issue are coming across as extremely unreasonable
Hopefully some of these issues can be dealt with today the ADP can be formally closed because if this was COP 21 I would now be writing an explanation of how efforts to reach an agreement on climate failed because the nations who are most at risk from climate change simply refused to sign an agreement.
15:30 on 13/12/14 (UK date).
Due to what was essentially a filibuster by certain less capable nations led primarily by Uganda the ADP session lasted until past 02:00 (07:00 GMT) this morning. It has also led to a stock taking session which is starting pretty much as I write. What seems to have motivated the developing nations is a desire for more elements of Section E which deals with Adaptation and Loss & Damage and Section G dealing with finance to be agreed upon.
These are of course the sections that I have been delaying dealing with because the sections dealing with INDC's need to be the priority. Also Section's E and G aren't yet developed enough to be agreed upon. There are of course some very good ideas contained within them but there are also some very bad ideas and some serious contradictions. Therefore I need more time to consider how to expand on the good ideas to solve the problems. All I have at this point is quite a long and insulting list of where some of the less capable nations have got things badly wrong.
For example the adaptation section requires that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) receives USD100 billion a year. To put that in perspective it was at this session that the GCF finally reached its 1st year funding target of USD10 billion which was considered a major achievement. The agreement is intended to last until the end of the century giving it a minimum life-span of 85 years. This would make the total contributions to the GCF around USD8.5 trillion. With the US just passing a USD1 trillion spending bill this figure isn't as outrageous as it sounds but getting governments to agree to spending commitments that will last long after all the people involved have died seems extremely unreasonable especially when the nations making the demands are also blocking alternative sources of finance.
On the Loss & Damage the less capable nations want to establish a system whereby they are compensated for loss and damage caused by climate change - farmland turning to desert for example. The problem is that such a system already exists in the form of the International Court of Justice. However the level of scientific understanding to the levels of loss and damage and the role climate plays is not sufficient to support individual compensation claims. Therefore nations that are demanding that such a system is included in a binding agreement whilst at the same time refusing to take steps to improve everyones understanding of the issue are coming across as extremely unreasonable
Hopefully some of these issues can be dealt with today the ADP can be formally closed because if this was COP 21 I would now be writing an explanation of how efforts to reach an agreement on climate failed because the nations who are most at risk from climate change simply refused to sign an agreement.
15:30 on 13/12/14 (UK date).
Friday 12 December 2014
Cop 20: I'm Off to the Pub
Well actually probably the gym followed by what is now a worrying amount of housework before possibly a post-dinner snooze in front of the TV.
However the point I'm trying to make is that it turns out I haven't completely memorised the Warsaw mechanism. So even working flat out I won't be able to produce an opinion on paragraphs 24 through 36 of the December 8th draft on Adaptation, Loss & Damage and Finance until around 5 minutes before the scheduled end of the summit which won't be particularly helpful to anyone. I do though hope to be able to produce that possibly by the end of the week but certainly by the end of the month. So barring any major emergency I'm planning to keep a low profile for the rest of the day.
That said last night a draft decision for the summit was circulated. This won't prejudice the negotiating text and is really just an agreement to continue with the negotiations. Therefore I'm not concerned about it in anything like the same way I'm concerned about the text itself. However here are my quick thoughts;
Paragraph 7: Here Option 1 isn't really strong enough while Option 2 states that actions must go beyond those already undertaken. This is of course true but at this stage I think a lot of nations would be more comfortable with a commitment not to backslide rather then a commitment to increase. Option 3 allows for INDC's to include adaptation, technology and finance measures alongside mitigation which is important for capacity building. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 3.
Paragraph 9: Here Option 1 is again nowhere near strong enough because at this point we haven't even agreed on a common base year and time frame. For a final agreement I would say that Option 2 is sufficient but as this is merely a negotiating document I would say that more information needs to be submitted to aid with capacity building and shaping the final agreement. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 3 although its 9 line opening sentence needs to be simplified, possibly by a list in the annex.
Paragraph 11: Here the differences in how nations draw up their INDC's is going to pay a key role in shaping the final agreement. As such there needs to be the maximum amount of support possible to facilitate those discussions. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 3.
Paragraph 13: Again here and understanding of how implementation will occur and be measured will play a key role in shaping the agreement meaning that the maximum amount of support needs to be provided. Therefore in this paragraph I again support Option 3.
However the point I'm trying to make is that it turns out I haven't completely memorised the Warsaw mechanism. So even working flat out I won't be able to produce an opinion on paragraphs 24 through 36 of the December 8th draft on Adaptation, Loss & Damage and Finance until around 5 minutes before the scheduled end of the summit which won't be particularly helpful to anyone. I do though hope to be able to produce that possibly by the end of the week but certainly by the end of the month. So barring any major emergency I'm planning to keep a low profile for the rest of the day.
That said last night a draft decision for the summit was circulated. This won't prejudice the negotiating text and is really just an agreement to continue with the negotiations. Therefore I'm not concerned about it in anything like the same way I'm concerned about the text itself. However here are my quick thoughts;
Paragraph 7: Here Option 1 isn't really strong enough while Option 2 states that actions must go beyond those already undertaken. This is of course true but at this stage I think a lot of nations would be more comfortable with a commitment not to backslide rather then a commitment to increase. Option 3 allows for INDC's to include adaptation, technology and finance measures alongside mitigation which is important for capacity building. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 3.
Paragraph 9: Here Option 1 is again nowhere near strong enough because at this point we haven't even agreed on a common base year and time frame. For a final agreement I would say that Option 2 is sufficient but as this is merely a negotiating document I would say that more information needs to be submitted to aid with capacity building and shaping the final agreement. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 3 although its 9 line opening sentence needs to be simplified, possibly by a list in the annex.
Paragraph 11: Here the differences in how nations draw up their INDC's is going to pay a key role in shaping the final agreement. As such there needs to be the maximum amount of support possible to facilitate those discussions. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 3.
Paragraph 13: Again here and understanding of how implementation will occur and be measured will play a key role in shaping the agreement meaning that the maximum amount of support needs to be provided. Therefore in this paragraph I again support Option 3.
Thursday 11 December 2014
COP 20: Sections K and L.
Yesterday I said that the focus of negotiations needs to be on getting the rules governing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC's) finalised in order to allow INDC's to be submitted in the first quarter of 2015. As such I've leapt forward to deal with sections K (paragraphs 68 through 79) and L (Paragraph 80) of the December 8th draft.
Section K: Timeframes, Processes and Other Matters: This section deals primarily with the ex ante and post review processes. Therefore I think I should start by laying out my grand vision for what these processes should be;
I think both the review processes should resemble an academic peer review process as closely as possible. That means they should be scientific rather then providing an opportunity for political point scoring. For this to happen it is essential that all NDC's need to be published so any nation can choose to review any other nation it wishes.
However I think that as this is likely to end up with just 192 reviews of the US' NDC's there also needs to be a supervisory panel that will carry out its own reviews. It will be able to both select nations it wishes to review and accept requests by nations for it to review their work. To make sure all NDC's are reviewed and to build capacity across the board the supervisory panel should also assign nations into roundtable type working groups. Those working groups will then each carry out reviews of a handful of nations that are assigned to them by the supervisory panel.
It is vital that the process is non-punitive and non-prescriptive meaning that no party will be bound by comments made by their reviewers particularly over subjective issues like "Fairness." If this is allowed then it stops being a scientific process and becomes a political one. The fights that will cause will undermine the process and could lead to the entire agreement collapsing. However nations will be free to publish their reviews as publicly and widely as they like if they wish to attempt to embarrass a nation into taking more ambitious action.
With that in mind my thoughts on the specific paragraphs are as follows;
Paragraph 69: As there needs to be needs to be a review process Options 1 & 4 are simply insufficient. By reducing the obligations on less capable nations through the binary process Option 5 robs those nations of an opportunity for capacity building. For example I studied the physical environment at university but I have learnt more through doing this because I have been forced to work to a higher standard. Therefore I think that Option 3 here and similar options throughout the text are simply unacceptable.
Option 2 would be desirable here but it needs work firstly by removing the binary references in (a) and the word "fairness" in (b) because that politicises the process. I would also like to see the language guarding "non-prescriptive, non-intrusive and non-punitive" in (d) from Option 3 but I suspect that is already covered by 69.1(c).
Paragraph 69.2: In Options 1 & 4 the timeframe offered is too short whilst Option 2 creates an unnecessary delay. Option 3 establishes a required deadline for the ex ante process but also creates an unnecessary delay. Therefore I think the best option is wording that allows the process to begin at Option 1 but forces it to end by Option 3.
Paragraph 69.3: Clause (e) obviously creates a binary difference between parties and is therefore unacceptable to me. Obviously though the differences in capability between nations does need to be recognised however I think it should be recognised in Section L because here it creates a capacity building problem.
Paragraph 69.4: Here Option 4 is binary and therefore should automatically be excluded because you are not going to be able to find a single nation that is prepared to accept it. Option 1 is too weak because it only requires nations to consider the outcome of review. Option 3 is much stronger but forced adjustment in response to a panel decision is so close to top-down adjustment you'll struggle to find anyone willing to sign up. Therefore I think the best option is a combination of Options 1 & 2 that require nations to consider the outcome of review and invites them to voluntarily revise on the basis of review.
Paragraph 70: Here Option 4 is simply wrong because NDC's are not decisions by a governing body. Options 2 & 3 are binary and therefore rob nations of an opportunity for capacity building. Option 1 means that there is no-one with responsibility to organise the data which will quickly lead to mayhem. By my reading Option 6 doesn't actually require nations to submit NDC's which creates a loophole that undermines the entire agreement. Therefore I would support a combination of Options 5 & 6 provided that loophole can be closed. This can be supported by Option 7 if the Secretariat feels it is capable for providing an online registry.
Paragraph 72: Ideally I wouldn't allow nations to alter their NDC's ex post. However we are not yet quite sure what system will be used so there needs to be a mechanism to make changes if a nation has used the wrong rules. Therefore I would support Option 1 but only if the reference to force majeure is removed. Again this is an issue that I think needs to be brought up in Section L where it can be decided on a case-by-case basis under certain guidance. For example I don't think economic conditions should count as force majeure.
Paragraphs 68, 71 and 73-79: These all deal with ex post issues. The problem is that we're not yet in a position where we have agreed on a mechanism meaning that it is near impossible to predict how it will preform and what, if any changes need to be made. Therefore for Paragraph 71 I would go with Option 3 because it simply leaves the door open for future action. On the timeframe issue it seems to be balance between the increased ambition of 5 years versus the bureaucratic necessity of 10 years. Before I start making any firm decisions in this area I would like more time to consider the Brazilian proposal that would see a 10 year timeframe adopted but for it to be split into two 5 year portions.
Section L: Facilitating Implementation & Compliance: This section is currently just one paragraph long providing lots of freedom to imagine what role it will play in a future agreement. Therefore I should begin by laying out my personal vision of how it should function;
I think the main focus of this section and the entire agreement should be assisting nations to achieve the mitigation targets they have set for themselves rather then punishing people for failure. However it is clear that there will need to be a mechanism to discourage parties from choosing to miss the targets they have set for themselves. Therefore I propose setting up a regulatory body established along current United Nations (UN) lines with up to 15 - but always an odd number - members elected from the regional groupings on a fixed term.
The regulatory body will be divided into a facilitative/investigative branch and an enforcement branch. The investigative branch will work with parties throughout the commitment process to help them identify and solve any problems. At the end of the commitment period the investigative branch will then look to see if any nation has failed to meet its commitments and if so decide to refer it to the enforcement branch. It will also accept referrals from other parties but will be free to dismiss them if they are found to be unwarranted.
In my vision of how this hybrid agreement will work each nation will have set themselves an upper, median and minimum target. The enforcement branch will only deal with failures to meet the median or minimum targets. If a nation has off-set a failure to meet a median target then it will avoid being referred to the enforcement branch. However if a nation has opted not to off-set a median failure or has failed to reach a minimum target it will have to appear before the regulatory panel.
Functioning rather like a panel of Judges the regulatory panel will consider each case on its individual merits and circumstances. Therefore if a less capable nation has failed to meet its target because they set themselves a too ambitious target or had entered into a good faith agreement with a supplier that has then let them down the panel will simply make a note of it and take no further action other then perhaps offering them more advice to make sure the mistake is not repeated. For more capable nations the panel will be able to impose a fine that will go to the GCF or similar. In order to have a deterrent effect that fine should exceed any saving that has been made by failing to implement a policy that would have met a self-imposed target.
Obviously all parties will be able to argue Force Majeure in their defence. Like most legal systems the regulatory panel will be guided by precedent meaning that decisions that have been made in the past will be applied to the future. However on the force majeure issue I think there needs to be some guidance in the agreement.
For example I think that most people would agree that a significant natural disaster such as Japan's 2011 earthquake and tsunami would count as force majeure. Likewise I think most people would agree that a recession, even as one as great as 2008, would not count as force majeure.
However the are examples where things are less clear cut - war being a prime example. After all I look at places like Syria, Iraq and Libya and think that they're unlikely to reach their 2014 development goals. Then of course there are questions of when does violent unrest become war because although Nigeria has problems with Boko Haram I don't think they're severe enough to allow Nigeria to renege on its international obligations.
With all that in mind I think that Paragraph 80 should cover Option 1 overall with Option 1 for (a) which excludes adaptation from the process, Option 1 for (b) covering all parties and Option 2 for (d) allowing for sanctions.
20:55 on 11/12/14 (UK date).
Section K: Timeframes, Processes and Other Matters: This section deals primarily with the ex ante and post review processes. Therefore I think I should start by laying out my grand vision for what these processes should be;
I think both the review processes should resemble an academic peer review process as closely as possible. That means they should be scientific rather then providing an opportunity for political point scoring. For this to happen it is essential that all NDC's need to be published so any nation can choose to review any other nation it wishes.
However I think that as this is likely to end up with just 192 reviews of the US' NDC's there also needs to be a supervisory panel that will carry out its own reviews. It will be able to both select nations it wishes to review and accept requests by nations for it to review their work. To make sure all NDC's are reviewed and to build capacity across the board the supervisory panel should also assign nations into roundtable type working groups. Those working groups will then each carry out reviews of a handful of nations that are assigned to them by the supervisory panel.
It is vital that the process is non-punitive and non-prescriptive meaning that no party will be bound by comments made by their reviewers particularly over subjective issues like "Fairness." If this is allowed then it stops being a scientific process and becomes a political one. The fights that will cause will undermine the process and could lead to the entire agreement collapsing. However nations will be free to publish their reviews as publicly and widely as they like if they wish to attempt to embarrass a nation into taking more ambitious action.
With that in mind my thoughts on the specific paragraphs are as follows;
Paragraph 69: As there needs to be needs to be a review process Options 1 & 4 are simply insufficient. By reducing the obligations on less capable nations through the binary process Option 5 robs those nations of an opportunity for capacity building. For example I studied the physical environment at university but I have learnt more through doing this because I have been forced to work to a higher standard. Therefore I think that Option 3 here and similar options throughout the text are simply unacceptable.
Option 2 would be desirable here but it needs work firstly by removing the binary references in (a) and the word "fairness" in (b) because that politicises the process. I would also like to see the language guarding "non-prescriptive, non-intrusive and non-punitive" in (d) from Option 3 but I suspect that is already covered by 69.1(c).
Paragraph 69.2: In Options 1 & 4 the timeframe offered is too short whilst Option 2 creates an unnecessary delay. Option 3 establishes a required deadline for the ex ante process but also creates an unnecessary delay. Therefore I think the best option is wording that allows the process to begin at Option 1 but forces it to end by Option 3.
Paragraph 69.3: Clause (e) obviously creates a binary difference between parties and is therefore unacceptable to me. Obviously though the differences in capability between nations does need to be recognised however I think it should be recognised in Section L because here it creates a capacity building problem.
Paragraph 69.4: Here Option 4 is binary and therefore should automatically be excluded because you are not going to be able to find a single nation that is prepared to accept it. Option 1 is too weak because it only requires nations to consider the outcome of review. Option 3 is much stronger but forced adjustment in response to a panel decision is so close to top-down adjustment you'll struggle to find anyone willing to sign up. Therefore I think the best option is a combination of Options 1 & 2 that require nations to consider the outcome of review and invites them to voluntarily revise on the basis of review.
Paragraph 70: Here Option 4 is simply wrong because NDC's are not decisions by a governing body. Options 2 & 3 are binary and therefore rob nations of an opportunity for capacity building. Option 1 means that there is no-one with responsibility to organise the data which will quickly lead to mayhem. By my reading Option 6 doesn't actually require nations to submit NDC's which creates a loophole that undermines the entire agreement. Therefore I would support a combination of Options 5 & 6 provided that loophole can be closed. This can be supported by Option 7 if the Secretariat feels it is capable for providing an online registry.
Paragraph 72: Ideally I wouldn't allow nations to alter their NDC's ex post. However we are not yet quite sure what system will be used so there needs to be a mechanism to make changes if a nation has used the wrong rules. Therefore I would support Option 1 but only if the reference to force majeure is removed. Again this is an issue that I think needs to be brought up in Section L where it can be decided on a case-by-case basis under certain guidance. For example I don't think economic conditions should count as force majeure.
Paragraphs 68, 71 and 73-79: These all deal with ex post issues. The problem is that we're not yet in a position where we have agreed on a mechanism meaning that it is near impossible to predict how it will preform and what, if any changes need to be made. Therefore for Paragraph 71 I would go with Option 3 because it simply leaves the door open for future action. On the timeframe issue it seems to be balance between the increased ambition of 5 years versus the bureaucratic necessity of 10 years. Before I start making any firm decisions in this area I would like more time to consider the Brazilian proposal that would see a 10 year timeframe adopted but for it to be split into two 5 year portions.
Section L: Facilitating Implementation & Compliance: This section is currently just one paragraph long providing lots of freedom to imagine what role it will play in a future agreement. Therefore I should begin by laying out my personal vision of how it should function;
I think the main focus of this section and the entire agreement should be assisting nations to achieve the mitigation targets they have set for themselves rather then punishing people for failure. However it is clear that there will need to be a mechanism to discourage parties from choosing to miss the targets they have set for themselves. Therefore I propose setting up a regulatory body established along current United Nations (UN) lines with up to 15 - but always an odd number - members elected from the regional groupings on a fixed term.
The regulatory body will be divided into a facilitative/investigative branch and an enforcement branch. The investigative branch will work with parties throughout the commitment process to help them identify and solve any problems. At the end of the commitment period the investigative branch will then look to see if any nation has failed to meet its commitments and if so decide to refer it to the enforcement branch. It will also accept referrals from other parties but will be free to dismiss them if they are found to be unwarranted.
In my vision of how this hybrid agreement will work each nation will have set themselves an upper, median and minimum target. The enforcement branch will only deal with failures to meet the median or minimum targets. If a nation has off-set a failure to meet a median target then it will avoid being referred to the enforcement branch. However if a nation has opted not to off-set a median failure or has failed to reach a minimum target it will have to appear before the regulatory panel.
Functioning rather like a panel of Judges the regulatory panel will consider each case on its individual merits and circumstances. Therefore if a less capable nation has failed to meet its target because they set themselves a too ambitious target or had entered into a good faith agreement with a supplier that has then let them down the panel will simply make a note of it and take no further action other then perhaps offering them more advice to make sure the mistake is not repeated. For more capable nations the panel will be able to impose a fine that will go to the GCF or similar. In order to have a deterrent effect that fine should exceed any saving that has been made by failing to implement a policy that would have met a self-imposed target.
Obviously all parties will be able to argue Force Majeure in their defence. Like most legal systems the regulatory panel will be guided by precedent meaning that decisions that have been made in the past will be applied to the future. However on the force majeure issue I think there needs to be some guidance in the agreement.
For example I think that most people would agree that a significant natural disaster such as Japan's 2011 earthquake and tsunami would count as force majeure. Likewise I think most people would agree that a recession, even as one as great as 2008, would not count as force majeure.
However the are examples where things are less clear cut - war being a prime example. After all I look at places like Syria, Iraq and Libya and think that they're unlikely to reach their 2014 development goals. Then of course there are questions of when does violent unrest become war because although Nigeria has problems with Boko Haram I don't think they're severe enough to allow Nigeria to renege on its international obligations.
With all that in mind I think that Paragraph 80 should cover Option 1 overall with Option 1 for (a) which excludes adaptation from the process, Option 1 for (b) covering all parties and Option 2 for (d) allowing for sanctions.
20:55 on 11/12/14 (UK date).
Wednesday 10 December 2014
COP 20: Paragraphs 13-23
Rather then providing a grand theory of everything I am trying to keep up with the schedule at which the draft text of December 8th (8/12/14) is being discussed at the COP 20 Summit. Therefore I apologise if this makes no sense to people who aren't familiar with the text and limited sense to those who are.
I have to say that generally, like most people, I am pretty happy with the text much of which is pretty standard and unremarkable. However amongst these paragraphs the areas that need work are;
Paragraph 13.1: Here Option 3 is based on a binary-type agreement similar to the Kyoto Protocol (KP). As I've said throughout I do not support this approach and yesterday Canada effectively added its name to the growing list on nations that won't be signing up to a binary-style agreement. Therefore I cannot support Option 3 because of my own views of how an agreement will work and its inclusion is effectively saying that there won't be an agreement. Option 1 stresses the need for ambition to grow over time and includes reference to nations Common But Different Responsibilities (CBDR) which eliminates the need for a binary approach. Lacking the references to CBDR Option 2 is simply a weaker version of Option 1. Therefore I support Option 1 in this paragraph.
Paragraph 13.2(b): Although not listed as an official option as I pointed out in Monday (8/12/14) this carbon budget clause offers an alternative to the main agreement. As the methodology behind this idea is nowhere near strong enough it creates a loophole that undermines the entire agreement. Therefore I think this clause needs to be excluded not least because historical responsibilities are already effectively referenced in paragraph 13.2(a) lines 113 to 115. I do though think that the carbon budget idea should be expanded upon just not as part of the binding agreement.
Paragraph 15: This is where the draft text has really started to annoy me because by my reading Option 1(a) and Option 2 are the same raising the question of why they've both been included. Option 1(b) differentiates the two by taking a binary approach. As I've explained before I cannot support a binary approach. Option 3 eliminates the need for a binary approach by including reference to CBDR but will allow for backsliding which is equally unacceptable. Therefore in the this paragraph I will support Option 3 but only on the provision that the language from Option 1(a) and Option 2 regarding commitments already undertaken under the Convention or KP is included.
Paragraph 16: Here Option 3 is binary and therefore I don't support it. The only difference between Option 1 and Option 2 is that Option 1 makes reference to Article 4 of the Convention and in doing so locks in the responsibility for more capable parties to assist less capable parties. As such adopting Option 1 here will apply Article 4 to the rest of the clauses in this section simplifying them significantly. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 1.
Paragraph 16.1: Here Option 3 is binary while Option 2 relies on the carbon budget solution to the binary problem. For the reasons discussed above I can support neither. I actually don't see any problem with Option 1 because it secures NDC's as transparent, comparable and verifiable which is are the essential qualities. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 1.
Paragraph 16.3: In this paragraph I support Option 1 because it is non-binary so recognises that all nations need to raise their level of ambition over time. However it allows for flexibility for less capable nations.
Paragraph 16.4: Here I don't think there is a viable option. Option 1 is far too vague and therefore open to abuse in particular backsliding. Option 2 by contrast is far too complex and creates numerous loopholes by allowing nations to simply chose the single option from (a) to (e) which is easiest for them to achieve. Assuming Option 1 has been adopted in Paragraph 16 locking in Article 4 responsibilities there needs to be an Option 3 along the lines of "Based on CBDR all parties include all of (a) to (e) with flexibility given based on differing national circumstances."
Paragraph 16.5: Here both Option 1 which is non-binary and Option 2 which is binary both limit ambition by not allowing for a conditional (non-binding) portion of NDC's. Assuming that Option 1 has been adopted in Paragraph 16 locking in Article 4 responsibilities Options 3&4 mean exactly the same thing only with Option 4 being excessively wordy. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 3.
Paragraph 18: Here Option 2 is binary meaning that I reject it. Option 1 allows for a peer review process that Option 2 does not. Provided it is non-binding and therefore doesn't allow nations to change each others NDC's a peer review process is essential both in terms of capacity building and as a way of making sure that mistakes don't get turned into binding targets. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 1 with the details of the review process to be dealt with in the relevant section.
Paragraph 20: The issue here seems to be the level of detail and organisation provided by Option 1 versus the simplicity of Option 2 which I can see getting really messy over time as individual nations make ad-hoc changes. I don't really have an opinion on this because I think it is up for the Secretariat to decide whether it has the capability to provide Option 1.
Paragraph 23: As I see it this entire new agreement will revolve around co-operation between parties. Therefore there needs to be new mechanisms completely ruling out Option 2(b). I also think that Option 1 is far to vague to provide for effective capacity building. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 2(b).
17:30 on 10/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 21:10 on 10/12/14 (UK date) to add;
Also up for discussion today are paragraphs 24 through to 36 which cover Adaptation, Loss & Damage and Finance. These are obviously the areas that of the most important to the poor (I prefer "less capable") nations who are at the most extreme risk of climate hazards but lack the resources to do anything about them. Unfortunately it is an area that needs a lot more work.
For example for Paragraph 25 I have notes on the strengths and weaknesses of each option along with possible solutions. However these notes are longer then both of the suggested versions of the Paragraph put together but don't still leave me in a position to recommend either option. Therefore I will need a lot more time to properly conceptualise the issues involved and turn those notes into something vaguely resembling English.
I appreciate that this will be very frustrating for the less capable nations affect but it fits in with the more general timetable for the negotiations. This requires that for an agreement to be ready for signing at COP21 Paris the more capable nations will have to submit their INDC's during the first quarter of 2015. In order for that to happen the sections of the agreement dealing with mitigation need to be finalised but not fully locked down by the end of COP20 on Friday (12/12/14). While I appreciate that all parts of the agreement need to function in unison it seems prudent to make mitigation the focus of discussions now and for Adaptation, Loss & Damage and Finance to be dealt with during 2015.
However in Paragraph 25.5(e) I did pick on something that involves our old friend Rihanna who is certainly someones favourite topic of conversation. Back in, I think, December 2012 Rihanna donated some medical imaging equipment that she'd brought with her own money to a hospital in her native Barbados. This prompted people to sneer that Rihanna would have been better off putting the money into a fund rather then buying the equipment directly. Rihanna took this on board and set up the Clara Lionel Fund. Thursday's (11/12/14) Diamond Ball is ostensibly to raise money for this fund.
One of the big problems that less capable nations have is the lack of predictability of funding with projects often lasting a minimum of 10 years. However the overwhelming majority of the more capable nations produce their national budgets once a year and change their governments every 5 to 10 years. This makes it impossible for them to provide the sort of long term financing commitments that the less capable nations require.
As such a possible solution to this problem is for the funding bodies - the Green Climate Fund (GCF) being the main one - to act as long term funds setting aside reserves to cover long term projects rather then just handing out cash as soon as it comes in. After all a more capable nation is far more likely to make a one off, yearly donations rather then committing itself to long term spending that continues long after its own government has been changed several times over.
I have to say that generally, like most people, I am pretty happy with the text much of which is pretty standard and unremarkable. However amongst these paragraphs the areas that need work are;
Paragraph 13.1: Here Option 3 is based on a binary-type agreement similar to the Kyoto Protocol (KP). As I've said throughout I do not support this approach and yesterday Canada effectively added its name to the growing list on nations that won't be signing up to a binary-style agreement. Therefore I cannot support Option 3 because of my own views of how an agreement will work and its inclusion is effectively saying that there won't be an agreement. Option 1 stresses the need for ambition to grow over time and includes reference to nations Common But Different Responsibilities (CBDR) which eliminates the need for a binary approach. Lacking the references to CBDR Option 2 is simply a weaker version of Option 1. Therefore I support Option 1 in this paragraph.
Paragraph 13.2(b): Although not listed as an official option as I pointed out in Monday (8/12/14) this carbon budget clause offers an alternative to the main agreement. As the methodology behind this idea is nowhere near strong enough it creates a loophole that undermines the entire agreement. Therefore I think this clause needs to be excluded not least because historical responsibilities are already effectively referenced in paragraph 13.2(a) lines 113 to 115. I do though think that the carbon budget idea should be expanded upon just not as part of the binding agreement.
Paragraph 15: This is where the draft text has really started to annoy me because by my reading Option 1(a) and Option 2 are the same raising the question of why they've both been included. Option 1(b) differentiates the two by taking a binary approach. As I've explained before I cannot support a binary approach. Option 3 eliminates the need for a binary approach by including reference to CBDR but will allow for backsliding which is equally unacceptable. Therefore in the this paragraph I will support Option 3 but only on the provision that the language from Option 1(a) and Option 2 regarding commitments already undertaken under the Convention or KP is included.
Paragraph 16: Here Option 3 is binary and therefore I don't support it. The only difference between Option 1 and Option 2 is that Option 1 makes reference to Article 4 of the Convention and in doing so locks in the responsibility for more capable parties to assist less capable parties. As such adopting Option 1 here will apply Article 4 to the rest of the clauses in this section simplifying them significantly. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 1.
Paragraph 16.1: Here Option 3 is binary while Option 2 relies on the carbon budget solution to the binary problem. For the reasons discussed above I can support neither. I actually don't see any problem with Option 1 because it secures NDC's as transparent, comparable and verifiable which is are the essential qualities. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 1.
Paragraph 16.3: In this paragraph I support Option 1 because it is non-binary so recognises that all nations need to raise their level of ambition over time. However it allows for flexibility for less capable nations.
Paragraph 16.4: Here I don't think there is a viable option. Option 1 is far too vague and therefore open to abuse in particular backsliding. Option 2 by contrast is far too complex and creates numerous loopholes by allowing nations to simply chose the single option from (a) to (e) which is easiest for them to achieve. Assuming Option 1 has been adopted in Paragraph 16 locking in Article 4 responsibilities there needs to be an Option 3 along the lines of "Based on CBDR all parties include all of (a) to (e) with flexibility given based on differing national circumstances."
Paragraph 16.5: Here both Option 1 which is non-binary and Option 2 which is binary both limit ambition by not allowing for a conditional (non-binding) portion of NDC's. Assuming that Option 1 has been adopted in Paragraph 16 locking in Article 4 responsibilities Options 3&4 mean exactly the same thing only with Option 4 being excessively wordy. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 3.
Paragraph 18: Here Option 2 is binary meaning that I reject it. Option 1 allows for a peer review process that Option 2 does not. Provided it is non-binding and therefore doesn't allow nations to change each others NDC's a peer review process is essential both in terms of capacity building and as a way of making sure that mistakes don't get turned into binding targets. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 1 with the details of the review process to be dealt with in the relevant section.
Paragraph 20: The issue here seems to be the level of detail and organisation provided by Option 1 versus the simplicity of Option 2 which I can see getting really messy over time as individual nations make ad-hoc changes. I don't really have an opinion on this because I think it is up for the Secretariat to decide whether it has the capability to provide Option 1.
Paragraph 23: As I see it this entire new agreement will revolve around co-operation between parties. Therefore there needs to be new mechanisms completely ruling out Option 2(b). I also think that Option 1 is far to vague to provide for effective capacity building. Therefore in this paragraph I support Option 2(b).
17:30 on 10/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 21:10 on 10/12/14 (UK date) to add;
Also up for discussion today are paragraphs 24 through to 36 which cover Adaptation, Loss & Damage and Finance. These are obviously the areas that of the most important to the poor (I prefer "less capable") nations who are at the most extreme risk of climate hazards but lack the resources to do anything about them. Unfortunately it is an area that needs a lot more work.
For example for Paragraph 25 I have notes on the strengths and weaknesses of each option along with possible solutions. However these notes are longer then both of the suggested versions of the Paragraph put together but don't still leave me in a position to recommend either option. Therefore I will need a lot more time to properly conceptualise the issues involved and turn those notes into something vaguely resembling English.
I appreciate that this will be very frustrating for the less capable nations affect but it fits in with the more general timetable for the negotiations. This requires that for an agreement to be ready for signing at COP21 Paris the more capable nations will have to submit their INDC's during the first quarter of 2015. In order for that to happen the sections of the agreement dealing with mitigation need to be finalised but not fully locked down by the end of COP20 on Friday (12/12/14). While I appreciate that all parts of the agreement need to function in unison it seems prudent to make mitigation the focus of discussions now and for Adaptation, Loss & Damage and Finance to be dealt with during 2015.
However in Paragraph 25.5(e) I did pick on something that involves our old friend Rihanna who is certainly someones favourite topic of conversation. Back in, I think, December 2012 Rihanna donated some medical imaging equipment that she'd brought with her own money to a hospital in her native Barbados. This prompted people to sneer that Rihanna would have been better off putting the money into a fund rather then buying the equipment directly. Rihanna took this on board and set up the Clara Lionel Fund. Thursday's (11/12/14) Diamond Ball is ostensibly to raise money for this fund.
One of the big problems that less capable nations have is the lack of predictability of funding with projects often lasting a minimum of 10 years. However the overwhelming majority of the more capable nations produce their national budgets once a year and change their governments every 5 to 10 years. This makes it impossible for them to provide the sort of long term financing commitments that the less capable nations require.
As such a possible solution to this problem is for the funding bodies - the Green Climate Fund (GCF) being the main one - to act as long term funds setting aside reserves to cover long term projects rather then just handing out cash as soon as it comes in. After all a more capable nation is far more likely to make a one off, yearly donations rather then committing itself to long term spending that continues long after its own government has been changed several times over.
Tuesday 9 December 2014
COP 20: Capacity Building.
I am currently still slogging my way through the draft text of December 8th (8/12/14). What I am trying to do is give it the type of calm, in-depth consideration that is often hard to find in the pressure cooker environment of this type of summit. Therefore I don't think I'll really be in a position to go through it clause-by-clause, option-by-option until at least Thursday (11/12/14) not least because my brain keeps reaching a point where the information just refuses to go in.
It must be said though that it is deeply frustrating that the December 8th draft has grown by 10 pages from the earlier non-paper. After all you would hope that the point of a week of negotiation would be to reach an agreement on certain options in order to reduce the size of the text.
One thing that I am finding deeply problematic that features throughout the text though is that certain people are still clinging to the binary approach of the Kyoto Protocol (KP). So not only are there still direct references to Annex I and Annex II Parties there are also more oblique references to to "Developed" and "Developing" nations etc.
As I've said throughout I personally do not support the binary approach for the simple reason that the KP just did not work. Added to that the US, the European Union (EU) and Australia have all made it very clear that a binary approach is a red line that will prevent them signing any agreement. As these 30 odd nations represent the overwhelming majority of global economic activity and global GreenHouse Gas (GHG) emissions if people keep pushing for a binary approach they simply will not sign up and there will be no agreement.
I am particularly bothered by the description of former Annex I Parties as "Developed." This suggests that they have finished and therefore will not develop any further. This is simply not the case because it is in these nations that the majority of development in terms of scientific understanding, technological solutions and political implementation is currently taking place. Therefore I think the text needs to include new terms to distinguish between nations.
Given the preamble's commitment to Common But Different Responsibilities (CBDR) I actually think that the term "All Parties" is applicable in all but a few clauses. However if there is a need to distinguish further at this point in the evening I'm tempted to go with "Mature" and "Immature" parties. I suspect though that "More Capable" and "Less Capable" will be slightly more useful. After all if we can begin to break down the areas which make an individual nation less capable then another it makes it easier for us to go about providing solutions to increase their capacity or "develop" if you prefer.
This brings me rather neatly on to the issue of capacity building. Although this is often used as a by-word for "Give us more money" capacity building is supposed to refer to increasing a nation's capacity to respond to climate change by increasing their knowledge in areas that fall outside of direct technology transfers such as scientific understanding, political and legal expertise and education.
By requiring that all nations adhere to the same standards in the submission of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC's) and providing the assistance for them to do so the process itself takes on the role of capacity building by forcing and equipping less capable nations to improve.
Therefore I think that any party that is still clinging on to the notion of a binary system and the lower requirements it demands in the hope of leveraging it against more support for capacity building is doing themselves a great disservice. In much of the English speaking world we refer to that as; "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."
22:15 on 9/12/14 (UK date).
It must be said though that it is deeply frustrating that the December 8th draft has grown by 10 pages from the earlier non-paper. After all you would hope that the point of a week of negotiation would be to reach an agreement on certain options in order to reduce the size of the text.
One thing that I am finding deeply problematic that features throughout the text though is that certain people are still clinging to the binary approach of the Kyoto Protocol (KP). So not only are there still direct references to Annex I and Annex II Parties there are also more oblique references to to "Developed" and "Developing" nations etc.
As I've said throughout I personally do not support the binary approach for the simple reason that the KP just did not work. Added to that the US, the European Union (EU) and Australia have all made it very clear that a binary approach is a red line that will prevent them signing any agreement. As these 30 odd nations represent the overwhelming majority of global economic activity and global GreenHouse Gas (GHG) emissions if people keep pushing for a binary approach they simply will not sign up and there will be no agreement.
I am particularly bothered by the description of former Annex I Parties as "Developed." This suggests that they have finished and therefore will not develop any further. This is simply not the case because it is in these nations that the majority of development in terms of scientific understanding, technological solutions and political implementation is currently taking place. Therefore I think the text needs to include new terms to distinguish between nations.
Given the preamble's commitment to Common But Different Responsibilities (CBDR) I actually think that the term "All Parties" is applicable in all but a few clauses. However if there is a need to distinguish further at this point in the evening I'm tempted to go with "Mature" and "Immature" parties. I suspect though that "More Capable" and "Less Capable" will be slightly more useful. After all if we can begin to break down the areas which make an individual nation less capable then another it makes it easier for us to go about providing solutions to increase their capacity or "develop" if you prefer.
This brings me rather neatly on to the issue of capacity building. Although this is often used as a by-word for "Give us more money" capacity building is supposed to refer to increasing a nation's capacity to respond to climate change by increasing their knowledge in areas that fall outside of direct technology transfers such as scientific understanding, political and legal expertise and education.
By requiring that all nations adhere to the same standards in the submission of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC's) and providing the assistance for them to do so the process itself takes on the role of capacity building by forcing and equipping less capable nations to improve.
Therefore I think that any party that is still clinging on to the notion of a binary system and the lower requirements it demands in the hope of leveraging it against more support for capacity building is doing themselves a great disservice. In much of the English speaking world we refer to that as; "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."
22:15 on 9/12/14 (UK date).
Monday 8 December 2014
COP20: More Thoughts
Despite computer
problems I have now read what is available in the ADP section up to the item 3
decision of December 8th. Obviously having read more I now have more thoughts
on what I've read. However I should start by pointing out that my objective
here is to be constructive rather then critical or insulting.
As I've said
throughout a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol (KP) needs to move away from the
structure of a binary, top down agreement. That is because the KP simply failed
by reducing ambition amongst Annex I Parties and forcing Annex II Parties to
avoid actions that would increase their development. Unfortunately there are
still a small number of parties who want to continue with the binary approach
of the KP.
A prime example of
such a nation is Nepal. In their recent submission on behalf of the Least
Developed Countries (LDC's) they proposed a binary agreement with nations again
divided into annexes based on their levels of economic development. Within both
annexes it would then fall to national governments to impose mitigation actions
on their economies in order to meet emission targets. At just 9 pages this
approach is overly simplistic and I think really serves to highlight the
knowledge gap between parties. Nepal is primarily a non-industrialised country
that throughout its history has been centrally run either by an absolute
Monarchy or in the past six years a Maoist inspired government. In short it is
rather reminiscent of Chairman Mao's peasant revolution with little to no
private sector to speak of.
The problem is that
the majority of nations that this agreement is supposed to cover don't operate
like that. Instead they are lassiez faire type economies in which the government
simply sets out rules and guidelines with the private sector then expected to
provide almost everything within those rules. A somewhat relevant example of
this would be Alevo - a Swiss company that has just set up a factory in North
Carolina, US to make grid-scale batteries (30MW+) for the power grid in
Guandong, China. Although this is an important development in terms of making
grid-scale power generation more stable and therefore renewables more viable I
doubt either the Governor of North Carolina or the President of US have heard
much about the factory opening.
Therefore if these
countries were to adopt the Nepalese proposal they would immediately have to
completely change their economic and political structures. That is simply not
going to happen. As such any agreement will need to include provisions to allow
for the bottom up development that is common in nations that rely in the
private sector. After all in command-type economies such as Nepal the
government takes on the role of the private sector meaning that it's much
easier for them to sign up to a more complicated agreement but then simply
ignore the more complex provisions that don't apply to them.
Another nation that
has long supported a binary approach has been Bolivia. However in their most
recent submission although they still support the top down approach even they have abandoned the notion of dividing nations into
annexes. Instead they have proposed establishing a global carbon budget which
sets a maximum limit of the amount of GreenHouse Gases (GHG's) that can be
pumped into the atmosphere every year without causing climate change. Each
nation is then assigned a share of that carbon budget based on criteria such as
their historical emissions, their ecological footprint, state of development
and capabilities. The governments of nations who were in excess of their
budgetary share would then presumably be immediately expected to shut down
sections of their economies that were causing them to exceed their national allowance.
I must say that I do
not support this approach because it goes against core economic policies of
many nations and seems nightmarishly complicated. For example how would you
begin calculating a nations historical emissions from a time before such things
were measured and in a globalised economy does cattle grazed in Argentina for
sale as beef in the US count as part of Argentina's ecological footprint or the
US'? Also while I accept that I may have misunderstood it the method of working
out each nation's distribution index seems fundamentally flawed. For example by
using the suggested denominator of zero I discovered that every nations share
of the carbon budget was zero.
However I don't think
that Bolivia's approach to the problem is not without merit because the
establishment of a global carbon budget would provide a useful advisory tool in
the ex ante process to assess how successful the sum total of all the
nationally determined contributions are likely to be.
17:25 on 8/12/14 (UK date).
Edited at around 23:00 on 8/12/14 (UK date) to add;
I have now begun reading the item 3 decision and I am quite alarmed that Bolivia's carbon budget approach has been included in paragraph 13.2(b) as an alternative to the long term development pathways that the NDC approach provides.
As I've said above I do consider the idea of a global carbon budget to be a valid and important one and I'm actually surprised that more work hasn't been done in this area. However I see it as an advisory and guidance tool that can be used as a way to increase ambition rather then an element of the agreement itself.
The reason why I find its inclusion here so alarming is that the Bolivia's technical work on the issue is simply not up to standard and no-one else has done any work on the area. This means that the regulatory framework to support it is simply not strong enough meaning that it is ripe for abuse. Therefore including it as an alternative creates a loophole that threatens to undermine the agreement. A prime example of how this could work would be for a nation like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to choose the carbon budget approach only for them to claim that because they have only been a nation since 1971 they have no responsibility for historical emissions and therefore can continue doing exactly as they like.
Therefore as I've said before I think the less developed nations want to be a bit careful about certain states support for the binary approach. After all the UAE has already made it quite clear that it won't be contributing to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) despite being the World's 19th richest economy with a median income of around USD44,000.
Edited at around 23:00 on 8/12/14 (UK date) to add;
I have now begun reading the item 3 decision and I am quite alarmed that Bolivia's carbon budget approach has been included in paragraph 13.2(b) as an alternative to the long term development pathways that the NDC approach provides.
As I've said above I do consider the idea of a global carbon budget to be a valid and important one and I'm actually surprised that more work hasn't been done in this area. However I see it as an advisory and guidance tool that can be used as a way to increase ambition rather then an element of the agreement itself.
The reason why I find its inclusion here so alarming is that the Bolivia's technical work on the issue is simply not up to standard and no-one else has done any work on the area. This means that the regulatory framework to support it is simply not strong enough meaning that it is ripe for abuse. Therefore including it as an alternative creates a loophole that threatens to undermine the agreement. A prime example of how this could work would be for a nation like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to choose the carbon budget approach only for them to claim that because they have only been a nation since 1971 they have no responsibility for historical emissions and therefore can continue doing exactly as they like.
Therefore as I've said before I think the less developed nations want to be a bit careful about certain states support for the binary approach. After all the UAE has already made it quite clear that it won't be contributing to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) despite being the World's 19th richest economy with a median income of around USD44,000.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)