Today has seen the final of the 2015 Rugby Union World Cup between New Zealand and Australia.
Given the intense rivalry between these two rugby mad nations I was really expecting a lot of banter in the run up to the game. After all the tournament began with an argument over whether the more deserving winner would be a nation that banned US popstar Chris Brown for life or one that was prepared to let him.
As far as I can tell it actually turned out to be rather subdued. There was a of course the #AirlineWager that played out online between Qantas the Australian national carrier and Air New Zealand the New Zealand national carrier.
This started out with New Zealand challenging Qantas to paint one of their aircraft in the famous All Black colours of the New Zealand rugby team if New Zealand won. Qantas agreed but only if New Zealand painted one of their aircraft in the Green & Gold of the Wallabies if Australia won.
Sadly by the time the Chairmen of both companies had got involved and the online argument had been stopped this was downgraded to flight crews of the losing team wearing the jerseys of the winning team tomorrow.
Unfortunately I don't think anyone in the airline industry is in a laughing mood at the moment.
Then on Wednesday (28/10/15) a lesbian couple from Auckland, New Zealand took to Facebook to find a man to father their children. The UK of course kidnapped my lesbian wife in a failed effort to force her into a gay marriage to produce little lesbian babies.
Although I prefer not to be reminded of that because I still think of it as a story unfinished these seemed like an attempt to get on the good side of referee Nigel Evans. Just this afternoon I discovered that not only is he Welsh he's from the same bit of Wales as my grandmother.
As the clear favourites I don't think New Zealand really needed to appeal to the referee. Taking a leaf out of South Africa's book Australia tried to break up New Zealand's play by tackling them at every opportunity. The problem was that Australia's discipline in the breakdown was nowhere near as good as South Africa's so they ended up conceding more penalties then they won.
Evans did make an uncharacteristic mistake in the first half. With New Zealand just 6-3 in the lead they put in a forward pass. However the referee awarded a penalty which New Zealand scored for the Australian tackle that ended what was - at that point - an illegal move. This though seemed to be the result of genuine human error rather then anything more sinister.
Having added a Milner-Skudder try which was converted by Carter New Zealand went in at half-time leading 16-3. Early in the second half the All Blacks looked like establishing their overwhelming rhythm when Nonu ran in another try. Although Carter missed the conversion this gave New Zealand a massive 21-3 lead.
Australia looked they'd been handed a life-line back into the match when Ben Smith prevented an Australian try by tackling Mitchell off his feet and tipping him over the horizontal. However as this was rightly ruled to be a tip-tackle rather then a full on spear-tackle Smith avoided a red card but received a yellow card and sent to the sin bin for 10 minutes. This is the first time a player has been sin binned in a World Cup final.
With the man advantage Pocock was able to score an Australian try which was converted by Foley. Despite Smith coming back on Kuridrani scored another Australian try which was converted by Foley. By making the score 24-17 this put Australia within in one converted try of levelling the match.
However just as the All Blacks were looking rattled Carter stepped up to settle their nerves with an impressive 40 yard/metre drop goal. This extended their lead to 27-17 and Barret ended the match with a try that was converted by Carter giving New Zealand a 34-17 victory.
As a result New Zealand become the first team in history to win back-to-back World Cups and the first team in history to win three World Cups.
However I should point out that I was recently excited to discover that the first Rugby World Cup I vaguely remember - in 1987 - was in fact the first Rugby World Cup.
In a further effort to completely knock the shine off of New Zealand's fully deserved achievement I have to say that as a neutral I found the predictability of it to be a little disappointing.
On day one of the tournament it was like; "New Zealand are going to win the World Cup." Now on the final day of the tournament it's like; "New Zealand have won the World Cup."
Last night saw the Bronze Medal Match between South Africa and Argentina. Prior to the semi-finals South African rugby coach Heyneke Meyer called for this game to be scrapped from future tournaments because it was demeaning and pointless. As a result no-one was really that bothered.
The match was really a succession of South African players celebrating their final top-flight game while we all waited to see if their star winger Bryan Habana could score his 16 World Cup try moving ahead of All Black legend Jonah Lomu.
Once Habana had been taken off without scoring we all waited to see if Argentina could score a try. Displaying the sportsmanship that's common place in rugby when Orlandi did finally did get Argentina's try the South African players were amongst the first to congratulate him.
South Africa won the match 24-13 but I doubt many will remember. If I'm being totally honest I only watched about an hour of it after wandering off mid-way through.
Strangely though the Americans seemed super into last night's game.
That's because in an effort to win the 2014 mid-term elections US President Barack Obama started the racially divisive Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest movement. Listening to BLM speak you would think they were protesting against something like segregation in the US in the 1960's or apartheid in South Africa rather then something that exists mainly in their heads.
The stupidity of the BLM protesters along with Obama's desire to over-look every law to support them has led to comparisons with Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Julius Melema in South Africa. This has completely destroyed Obama's reputation as a local community organiser let alone President of supposedly the most powerful nation on earth.
Despite Obama's attempts to blame everything on racism a big problem facing America's black community is a complete lack of discipline. For example Micheal Brown who started the BLM movement died simply because he didn't think the laws against stealing from shops and attacking people in the street applied to him.
However beyond the lack of following the laws there also seems to be a complete lack of the sort of self-discipline needed to get up and go to work every morning or study to pass exams. This is a particular problem amongst black school children who experience extremely low rates of high school graduation.
The semi-final between South Africa and the All Blacks was all about self-discipline. In fact if the Blacks hadn't dramatically improved their self-discipline in the second half it would have been South Africa playing Australia in today's final.
So on Monday (26/10/15) a video emerged from Spring Valley High School in South Carolina, US that showed a white police officer tipping a black female student out of her chair and handcuffing her. South Carolina is of course the state where the Charleston shooting took place.
Although inspired by apartheid-era South Africa and Rhodesia as Zimbabwe used to be known the shooters actions may well be legally justified by the way BLM used terrorist tactics force State authorities to disregard the law in their - what is effectively at this point a kidnapping - of police officer Micheal Slager over the death of Walter Scott.
While I think even the worst rugby referee would question the presence of a desk and chair on the field the move used to remove the disruptive pupil from the classroom was similar to the sort of tip-tackle that saw Ben Smith sin binned today. Therefore you could certainly have got the impression that this was a test to see if Obama had learnt his lesson.
One thing that has bugged me about the BLM campaign is that the rest of the World sees all Americans as overly loud, aggressive and disruptive it seems that most Americans see black Americans as particularly loud, aggressive and disruptive. As we've seen in incidents like the McKinney pool party black Americans claim that they should be allowed to behave like this because it's part of their 'African heritage.'
This really annoys me because I don't think the amount of melanin in your skin determines your ability to moderate your behaviour based on the social situation. If you think it does then you're saying that segregation and apartheid are not only good ideas but completely essential ideas.
It also annoys me because unlike many of black Americans I've actually got to know people from Africa - both black and white - rather then some make believe slave ancestor. As a result I know that schools in many African nations are very big into corporal punishment.
For example I used to work with an apartheid-era South African policeman who would tell stories that could take the enamel off your teeth. One day he was talking about using a weapon called a Sjambok to break up riots in one of the townships. A sjambok is whip made from rhino tail. Where a baton is designed to bruise the skin and a knife is designed to cut the skin the sjambok is designed to tear the skin causing immense pain.
It was a this point a Nigerian guy chimed in and went; "Yeah our black teachers used those on us at school."
Therefore I find it hypocritical that black Americans demand that one aspect of their 'African culture' is respected while denying the very existence of another aspect.
As I've said there are severe problems of under achievement amongst black students in America. A large part of this problem is generations of black high school dropouts having children who go to school with no sense of self-discipline. Those children then either dropout or are expelled before having children of their own in between spells in prison.
This has become known as "The Prison Pipeline" and it needs to stop. Obviously according to Obama though it's all the result of a racist conspiracy and nothing to do with a lack of classroom discipline.
Although liberals will hate me saying so it could be worth considering introducing corporal punishment back into America's schools. Regardless of race when you're 13/14 you know nothing of the adult world so you don't understand the consequences of being expelled, being unemployable and ending up in prison.
However you do understand the immediate pain and shame of having your ass whupped in front of everyone.
So as if looking for answers from last night's Bronze Medal Match we had Hillary Clinton attending a campaign event for black voters that was disrupted by BLM protesters.
Suggesting that Obama may have failed the test with the firing of the police officer Spring Valley students held a protest in support of the officer while a video emerged from Allentown, Pennsylvania showing four police officers being injured breaking up a violent fight between two black female high school students.
Presumably they were just celebrating their heritage.
22:10 on 31/10/15 (UK date).
Saturday 31 October 2015
Truce Under Threat.
Long term readers will know that I've been on the receiving end of some pretty rough treatment by the UK state.
Back in 2006 there was the kidnapping of my lesbian wife in what became known as the Bristol Abuse Case (BAC) although that ultimately failed.
Then following the principle of harming people I care about there was the multi-year abuse of my grandmother.
This involved denying her medical treatment forcing her to walk around on a dislocated hip for two years. It also featured unnecessary medical treatment with drugs that were known to cause balance and psychological problems.The main part of the campaign though involved repeated home invasion robberies, burglaries and low level harassment behaviour such as aggravated trespass.
The cumulative effect of this caused her to lose her mind. However rather then performing a psychological assessment which is a legal requirement for deprivation of liberty she was arbitrarily diagnosed with an unspecified form of dementia. This meant that she had to pay for her own care in what was hoped would force her to sell her home to local property developers.
Unfortunately for them she died of natural causes in late 2012 before that could happen.
However the campaign against me continued. For example there was that malicious prosecution for criminal damage which lasted throughout much of Rihanna's 2013 Diamonds World Tour.
The fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) though has led to something of an uneasy truce between the UK and I.
Yesterday (30/10/15) morning I discovered that half a brick we use as a door stop for an out building had gone missing in an event that was largely forgotten. However this morning my father discovered that brick had been used to smash two windows on my grandmother's property in an attempt to gain entry. As the windows in question had been nailed shut in response to a previous burglary that attempt was unsuccessful.
Obviously this isn't a serious incident but it does represent a violation of the truce. It has been reported to the UK authorities. I assume there will be a full spectrum response.
Rather highlighting why this sort of thing is a problem when I woke up this morning I was debating whether I was going to cover today's air crash in Egypt or the Rugby Union World Cup final. As it turns out I'm here doing this instead and I didn't really get the opportunity to concentrate on the rugby. Although the police did have the decency to turn up 20 minutes beforehand and leave at kick-off.
On a completely unrelated matter while I'm here I should probably point out that a citizen of an EU member state - say Romania - has the right to seek work in the UK. They certainly don't have the right to find it though.
18:15 on 31/10/15 (UK date).
Back in 2006 there was the kidnapping of my lesbian wife in what became known as the Bristol Abuse Case (BAC) although that ultimately failed.
Then following the principle of harming people I care about there was the multi-year abuse of my grandmother.
This involved denying her medical treatment forcing her to walk around on a dislocated hip for two years. It also featured unnecessary medical treatment with drugs that were known to cause balance and psychological problems.The main part of the campaign though involved repeated home invasion robberies, burglaries and low level harassment behaviour such as aggravated trespass.
The cumulative effect of this caused her to lose her mind. However rather then performing a psychological assessment which is a legal requirement for deprivation of liberty she was arbitrarily diagnosed with an unspecified form of dementia. This meant that she had to pay for her own care in what was hoped would force her to sell her home to local property developers.
Unfortunately for them she died of natural causes in late 2012 before that could happen.
However the campaign against me continued. For example there was that malicious prosecution for criminal damage which lasted throughout much of Rihanna's 2013 Diamonds World Tour.
The fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) though has led to something of an uneasy truce between the UK and I.
Yesterday (30/10/15) morning I discovered that half a brick we use as a door stop for an out building had gone missing in an event that was largely forgotten. However this morning my father discovered that brick had been used to smash two windows on my grandmother's property in an attempt to gain entry. As the windows in question had been nailed shut in response to a previous burglary that attempt was unsuccessful.
Obviously this isn't a serious incident but it does represent a violation of the truce. It has been reported to the UK authorities. I assume there will be a full spectrum response.
Rather highlighting why this sort of thing is a problem when I woke up this morning I was debating whether I was going to cover today's air crash in Egypt or the Rugby Union World Cup final. As it turns out I'm here doing this instead and I didn't really get the opportunity to concentrate on the rugby. Although the police did have the decency to turn up 20 minutes beforehand and leave at kick-off.
On a completely unrelated matter while I'm here I should probably point out that a citizen of an EU member state - say Romania - has the right to seek work in the UK. They certainly don't have the right to find it though.
18:15 on 31/10/15 (UK date).
Friday 30 October 2015
Operation Featherweight: Month 16, Week 1, Day 3.
Away from the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria and Iraq there is still there is still the crisis of the refugees fleeing from the group.
Back on September 22nd (22/9/15) the European Union (EU) passed a package of measures to respond to the crisis. Unusually for the EU this measures were passed by majority vote with 23 nations voting in favour and four - Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary - voting against. Normally the EU likes to reach decisions through consensus between the member states.
These measures can be read in full here; http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/2015/20150923_1_en.htm
However the main points are;
1. Relocate 160,000 refugees amongst the EU member states using a quota system. This will involve deploying "Migration Management Support Teams" made up of officials form the EU's FRONTEX border agency, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), the EU police agency (EUROPOL) and the EU justice agency (EUROJUST) to designated "Hotspot" nations such as Greece, Italy and Hungary.
2. Activating the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. This allows personnel such as police officers and border guards along with humanitarian equipment (excluding food aid) to be shared between member states. This will allow for the deployment of Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABIT's) to areas where national border controls are being overwhelmed.
Both of these measures are to be funded through the EU's Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF). The hope being that this will allow for the border controls implemented between EU member states to be lifted.
3. Co-ordinate diplomatically with nations outside of the EU to help them better accommodate refugees themselves. This is primarily aimed at non-EU members states such as Serbia and Macedonia that sit between EU member states but are not themselves members.
However following the long established principle that refugees are best cared for as close as possible to the place they are seeking refuge from this will also see the EU work with Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon along with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to improve conditions in local camps by boosting funding to E1bn (USD1.11bn).
Unfortunately these measures will take time to implement. The EU has set itself the target of 6 months (April 2016) for full implementation although some of the easier steps are already being taken. For example on Wednesday (28/10/15) German police and border guards were deployed to Slovenia under the RABIT scheme.
The delay in implementation though continues to be the four EU members who voted against the measures and in particular Hungary.
Even before this current crisis Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban had crafted out a reputation for himself as a nasty little bigot. He has made it quite clear that he doesn't like Muslims, he doesn't like Jews, he doesn't like homosexuals, he doesn't like people with dark skin and he's not a big fan of women either.
So despite the measures being adopted as EU policy Hungary is continuing to refuse to implement them until the EU secures it's border like Hungary has done by building kilometres of fencing.
The problem with this is that the EU's main border is Greece which is a country made up of thousands of islands with 13,676km (8,498 miles) of coastline - the 11th largest in the World. As a result it is completely impossible to seal a border of that size without draining the sea.
Unfortunately rather then challenging Orban on his madness perhaps by getting him to explain how he intends to seal Greece's border or reminding him of the consequences of failing to implement EU policy the EU has decided to indulge him by getting Turkey to stop the flow of refugees out of it's country.
This has very serious implications for core objective of solving the problem at source by defeating ISIL. In order to achieve that aim the EU needs to be putting pressure on Turkey to end it's attacks on anti-ISIL forces in Syria and Iraq, dismantle the protective air dome it has established over ISIL's heartlands around Raqqa in Syria and stop the flow of fighters and supplies between ISIL and Turkey.
Just today two refugees from Raqqa were found beheaded in the Turkish city of Sanliurfa. This suggests that either despite all the assurances to the contrary ISIL are still being granted to freedom to cross Turkey's border at will or the Turkish state is actually operating on their behalf.
While the EU is being forced to seek Turkey's co-operation over the refugee crisis it is unable to exert that pressure on Turkey and in fact seems to be willing to make concessions to Turkey. For example at a October 15th (15/10/15) summit with Turkey the EU ended up giving away E3bn (USD3.3bn) along with visa free travel between Turkey and the EU and a promise to re-start Turkey's accession to the EU which has long stalled.
With ISIL seeming to continue to operate freely across Turkey's borders the idea of lifting border controls on visitors from Turkey to the EU seems a particularly bad idea.
Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan has clearly decided that the plight of the refugees is something that he can exploit in his never ending quest for absolute power.
So on October 21st (21/10/15) 114 refugees arrived by boat on Royal Air Force (RAF) base Akrotiri in Cyprus which is considered British sovereign territory and from where the UK is conducting it's anti-ISIL air operations.
With this being a never before used refugee route it struck me as Turkey sending the UK the message that the refugee crisis can get better or it can get worse depending on Turkey getting what it wants. After all Turkey's continued military occupation of northern Cyprus - an EU member state - is one of the main reasons why Turkey's EU membership continues to be delayed.
Erdogan then made the threat much more explicit by warning that Russian military intervention in Syria would lead to millions more refugees heading to the EU.
This is inconsistent with the situation in Syria where the advance of the Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF) has prompted millions of Syrians flee into Syrian government controlled areas around the capital Damascus. Now JAF are being pushed back with Russia help the areas they are leaving are being found to be completely empty.
The message from Erdogan though seems to be that if the EU doesn't do more to protect JAF and ISIL more refugees will simply be sent to the EU from camps in Turkey.
Despite the EU's overtures to Turkey Orban and Hungary still seem to be standing firm in their refusal to implement the common refugee policy. Sadly this has forced other EU nations to follow Hungary's example by temporarily closing their borders because Hungary can't be granted an opt out from the policy by refusing to implement it and forcing other EU members to pick up the slack.
On a slightly different note in my post on Wednesday (28/10/15) I commented on how Russia is no knocking on the door of the protective dome that the US-led coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - has created over ISIL's heartland around Raqqa. I also commented on how Russia is now reaching out to the Kurdish dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) who are located to the north of that area.
Today the US has announced that it is sending 50 Special Forces operators to assist the SDF with logistics and co-ordinating with CJTFOIR air-strikes.
If you are part of the US domestic audience this is supposed to sound as though the US is moving forward with plans to supply the SDF directly from Iraq despite Turkish opposition. However if you are part of the Turkish governmental audience it is supposed to sound as though the US is strengthening the protective dome over Raqqa by preventing Russian air-strikes against ISIL and Russia supplying the SDF.
In reality it strikes me as yet another stalling tactic intended to buy US President Barack Obama time while he decides what to do next.
This is unfortunate because I don't think Russia wants to swoop in a steal the glory of defeating ISIL from the US. However if delaying tactics are all Obama has to offer then it is going to become inevitable.
17:10 on 30/10/15 (UK date).
Back on September 22nd (22/9/15) the European Union (EU) passed a package of measures to respond to the crisis. Unusually for the EU this measures were passed by majority vote with 23 nations voting in favour and four - Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary - voting against. Normally the EU likes to reach decisions through consensus between the member states.
These measures can be read in full here; http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/2015/20150923_1_en.htm
However the main points are;
1. Relocate 160,000 refugees amongst the EU member states using a quota system. This will involve deploying "Migration Management Support Teams" made up of officials form the EU's FRONTEX border agency, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), the EU police agency (EUROPOL) and the EU justice agency (EUROJUST) to designated "Hotspot" nations such as Greece, Italy and Hungary.
2. Activating the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. This allows personnel such as police officers and border guards along with humanitarian equipment (excluding food aid) to be shared between member states. This will allow for the deployment of Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABIT's) to areas where national border controls are being overwhelmed.
Both of these measures are to be funded through the EU's Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF). The hope being that this will allow for the border controls implemented between EU member states to be lifted.
3. Co-ordinate diplomatically with nations outside of the EU to help them better accommodate refugees themselves. This is primarily aimed at non-EU members states such as Serbia and Macedonia that sit between EU member states but are not themselves members.
However following the long established principle that refugees are best cared for as close as possible to the place they are seeking refuge from this will also see the EU work with Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon along with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to improve conditions in local camps by boosting funding to E1bn (USD1.11bn).
Unfortunately these measures will take time to implement. The EU has set itself the target of 6 months (April 2016) for full implementation although some of the easier steps are already being taken. For example on Wednesday (28/10/15) German police and border guards were deployed to Slovenia under the RABIT scheme.
The delay in implementation though continues to be the four EU members who voted against the measures and in particular Hungary.
Even before this current crisis Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban had crafted out a reputation for himself as a nasty little bigot. He has made it quite clear that he doesn't like Muslims, he doesn't like Jews, he doesn't like homosexuals, he doesn't like people with dark skin and he's not a big fan of women either.
So despite the measures being adopted as EU policy Hungary is continuing to refuse to implement them until the EU secures it's border like Hungary has done by building kilometres of fencing.
The problem with this is that the EU's main border is Greece which is a country made up of thousands of islands with 13,676km (8,498 miles) of coastline - the 11th largest in the World. As a result it is completely impossible to seal a border of that size without draining the sea.
Unfortunately rather then challenging Orban on his madness perhaps by getting him to explain how he intends to seal Greece's border or reminding him of the consequences of failing to implement EU policy the EU has decided to indulge him by getting Turkey to stop the flow of refugees out of it's country.
This has very serious implications for core objective of solving the problem at source by defeating ISIL. In order to achieve that aim the EU needs to be putting pressure on Turkey to end it's attacks on anti-ISIL forces in Syria and Iraq, dismantle the protective air dome it has established over ISIL's heartlands around Raqqa in Syria and stop the flow of fighters and supplies between ISIL and Turkey.
Just today two refugees from Raqqa were found beheaded in the Turkish city of Sanliurfa. This suggests that either despite all the assurances to the contrary ISIL are still being granted to freedom to cross Turkey's border at will or the Turkish state is actually operating on their behalf.
While the EU is being forced to seek Turkey's co-operation over the refugee crisis it is unable to exert that pressure on Turkey and in fact seems to be willing to make concessions to Turkey. For example at a October 15th (15/10/15) summit with Turkey the EU ended up giving away E3bn (USD3.3bn) along with visa free travel between Turkey and the EU and a promise to re-start Turkey's accession to the EU which has long stalled.
With ISIL seeming to continue to operate freely across Turkey's borders the idea of lifting border controls on visitors from Turkey to the EU seems a particularly bad idea.
Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan has clearly decided that the plight of the refugees is something that he can exploit in his never ending quest for absolute power.
So on October 21st (21/10/15) 114 refugees arrived by boat on Royal Air Force (RAF) base Akrotiri in Cyprus which is considered British sovereign territory and from where the UK is conducting it's anti-ISIL air operations.
With this being a never before used refugee route it struck me as Turkey sending the UK the message that the refugee crisis can get better or it can get worse depending on Turkey getting what it wants. After all Turkey's continued military occupation of northern Cyprus - an EU member state - is one of the main reasons why Turkey's EU membership continues to be delayed.
Erdogan then made the threat much more explicit by warning that Russian military intervention in Syria would lead to millions more refugees heading to the EU.
This is inconsistent with the situation in Syria where the advance of the Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF) has prompted millions of Syrians flee into Syrian government controlled areas around the capital Damascus. Now JAF are being pushed back with Russia help the areas they are leaving are being found to be completely empty.
The message from Erdogan though seems to be that if the EU doesn't do more to protect JAF and ISIL more refugees will simply be sent to the EU from camps in Turkey.
Despite the EU's overtures to Turkey Orban and Hungary still seem to be standing firm in their refusal to implement the common refugee policy. Sadly this has forced other EU nations to follow Hungary's example by temporarily closing their borders because Hungary can't be granted an opt out from the policy by refusing to implement it and forcing other EU members to pick up the slack.
On a slightly different note in my post on Wednesday (28/10/15) I commented on how Russia is no knocking on the door of the protective dome that the US-led coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - has created over ISIL's heartland around Raqqa. I also commented on how Russia is now reaching out to the Kurdish dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) who are located to the north of that area.
Today the US has announced that it is sending 50 Special Forces operators to assist the SDF with logistics and co-ordinating with CJTFOIR air-strikes.
If you are part of the US domestic audience this is supposed to sound as though the US is moving forward with plans to supply the SDF directly from Iraq despite Turkish opposition. However if you are part of the Turkish governmental audience it is supposed to sound as though the US is strengthening the protective dome over Raqqa by preventing Russian air-strikes against ISIL and Russia supplying the SDF.
In reality it strikes me as yet another stalling tactic intended to buy US President Barack Obama time while he decides what to do next.
This is unfortunate because I don't think Russia wants to swoop in a steal the glory of defeating ISIL from the US. However if delaying tactics are all Obama has to offer then it is going to become inevitable.
17:10 on 30/10/15 (UK date).
Thursday 29 October 2015
Operation Featherweight: Month 16, Week 1, Day 2.
In my post yesterday I commented on the situation in Syria and how Russia's involvement there has created an urgent need for the US-led coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - to accelerate it's efforts to expel the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) from Iraq before they are expelled from Syria.
Quite apart from the strategic need to the US not to be squeezed out of the geo-politically important middle-east region there is an existing urgency for ISIL to be removed from Iraq.
Parts of Iraq have been under ISIL occupation since December 2013 - some 9 months before the US took any action against them. In this time the Iraqi government's efforts have been focused on stopping ISIL's advance and liberating the country. As a result all the things that a government does normally such as managing infrastructure have taken a back seat and after some 22 months of neglect cracks are starting to appear.
Apart from the fight against ISIL life in Iraq this summer has been dominated by anti-government protests attended by people who are angry about falling living standards and electricity shortages leading to blackouts. Policing this type of mass protest when ISIL want to send suicide bombers to attack the protesters is an absolute nightmare which places yet another huge burden on the Iraqi government.
The US' response to ISIL's invasion of Iraq seems to have been to use it as an opportunity to settle old scores with the Iraqi government. For example US President Barack Obama has frequently claimed that ISIL are simply disgruntled Sunni-Arabs who have been forced to take up arms against the oppressive Shia-Arab governments of Syria and then Iraq.
Putting aside the fact that very few ISIL members actually come from either Syria or Iraq Obama has used this excuse first to demand that the Iraqi President steps down and then that Iraq creates a Sunni-Arab state within a state before the US gives it permission to fight ISIL.
Obama's support for a sectarian agenda that he clearly doesn't understand seems to have worsened the tensions within the Iraqi government rather then making the situation any better.
A major fracture point that has arisen is between the Arab central government of Iraq and the Kurdish Regional Government in the north. Fuelled by fears that the Kurdish region could break away the Iraqi central has suspended payments to the KRG.
Starved of cash by the central government the KRG has been unable to pay its public sector workers. Fanned by opposition parties these disgruntled workers have taken to the streets in protest against the KRG. Quite apart from the increased security risk of these protests being attacked by ISIL the protests themselves have occasionally turned violent.
A particularly serious example of this occurred on October 10th (10/10/15) in the Sulaimaniyah province which is a stronghold of the Movement for Change (Gorran) party. Here protesters attacked numerous buildings including the local offices of the governing Kurdistan Democrat Party (KDP) killing at 4 people including 2 KDP MP's.
In response Gorran MP's including the Parliamentary Speaker were suspended from the KRG leading to tense scenes as the Kurdish security forces were called in to stop Gorran from storming the Parliament in defiance of the ban.
In the UK Parliament - sometimes referred to as "The Mother of Parliaments" - an MP can be suspended for using what is considered "Unparliamentary Language." There was actually an example of this just on Wednesday (27/10/15) when a Labour MP described a Conservative MP as a "Hypocrite." He was forced to immediately retract the comment or face being suspended for several days.
As such I think that banning an entire party for a minimum of three months for organising riots in which two MP's were killed is entirely reasonable. I would even go so far as to say that Gorran being allowed to return to the KRG was dependent on them rejecting such tactics in the future by apologising for the incident and assisting the authorities in making sure that any party members involved in the violence are brought to justice.
It is against this backdrop that the KRG and their armed force the Peshmerga requested US assistance to rescue 70 hostages from ISIL held Hawija on October 22nd (22/10/15) amid fears that they were about to be executed.
Although now they're not westerners it doesn't get reported on as much ISIL have in no way lost their passion for murdering hostages.
Two days after the Hawija raid on October 24th (24/10/15) ISIL released a video in which they killed a Syrian soldier they'd taken hostage by running him over with a tank. On Sunday (25/10/15) ISIL tied three hostages to the ancient columns in Palmyra and killed them by blowing up the columns. Today reports are emerging that ISIL have beheaded four Peshmerga hostages at the site of the Hawija raid.
As a result I have little doubt that there was a credible threat that ISIL were about to kill the hostages rescued from Hawija because, well, every day there is a credible threat that ISIL are about to murder hostages. However I think what provided the urgency to this particular instance was a desire by the KRG to remind the US that Hawija is still under ISIL occupation.
In March of 2015 - amid fierce opposition from the US - the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) launched a partially successful operation to liberate Saladin Province including the provincial capital Tikrit which sits around 140km (85 miles) north-west of the Iraqi capital Baghdad.
Although the ISF did eventually succeed in liberating Tikrit and the oil refinery town of Baiji which sits around 50km (30miles) to the north they failed to link up with the Peshmerga controlled city of Kirkuk which sits around 95km (58 miles) north-east of Baiji and around 120km (70 miles) north-east of Tikrit. This left ISIL in control of Hawija from where they have repeatedly attacked both Baiji and Kirkuk with the battle of Baiji oil refinery raging almost continually.
At around 18:15 on 29/10/15 (UK date) I'll pick this up after dinner.
Edited at around 19:50 on 29/10/15 (UK date) to add;
So beyond the rescue of the hostages the KRG seemed to trying to start a conversation about the US using it's superior experience to help a coalition of the Peshmerga and the ISF to devise a battle plan to liberate cities such as Mosul, Ramadi and Hawija in order to completely expel ISIL from Iraq.
Obviously in carrying out such a plan CJTFOIR would be expected to provide tactical air support to the ground forces in the from of AH-64 Apache-type helicopter gunships and A-10 Thunderbolt-type ground-attack jets to destroy ISIL tanks, armed vehicles, firing positions etc.
This would of course be a marked departure from CJTFOIR's current approach of using fast, multi-role jets in largely ineffective strategic strikes.
If I was drawing up a plan I would recommend starting with small targets that produce quick victories. This would help build up momentum and an air of inevitability about ISIL's defeat. This would do a lot to weaken ISIL - particularly amongst it's Internet fanboys that are increasing the terror threat globally.
If the US was aware that it was involved in such a discussion it's suggestion that all of Iraq's forces form up behind a single commander didn't get them off to a good start.
This would be a good idea for the ISF which is made up of the Iraqi army and the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) because the lack of co-ordinated leadership within the ISF has caused a lot a problems. For example it was really the PMF that decided to charge off into Anbar province before the Tikrit offensive had been completed. This forced the Iraqi Army to follow them into a battle that ultimately ISIL won with the fall of Ramadi.
Therefore placing the Iraqi army and the PMF under a single commander would certainly make the ISF more unified and effective. As for integrating the Sunni National Guard that the US are insisting on I've always viewed that as a delaying tactic designed to hamper the fight against ISIL so I think it should be abandoned entirely.
However the Kurdish region is considered semi-autonomous from the rest of Iraq and it's fighting force the Peshmerga has proved itself to be the most effective anti-ISIL force in Iraq. I am concerned that plunging them into the arguments between the Iraqi army, the PMF and the Sunni National Guard would undermine their effectiveness.
It should though be possible to set up a command cell in which all forces are represented but with an Iraqi Supreme Commander. The Peshmerga would be given special autonomy in how it carries out that commander's orders. Perhaps in the role of deputy commander.
However by Tuesday's (27/10/15) meeting of the US Senate Armed Forces Committee the US Defence Secretary was doing a much better job of laying out Obama's options;
He can follow the KRG's advice and put together a plan to quickly expel ISIL from Iraq and then provide the resources the Iraqis need to execute that plan. Alternatively Obama can continue to delay by using the spectre of US groundforces being killed in Iraq and it's legal/political implications in an effort to scare the US off the idea of defeating ISIL.
On whether the Hawija raid counts as US troops being used in combat despite Obama's assurances I should point out they were special forces. Special Force units were really developed to operating in exactly this sort of gray area where conventional forces cannot.
However I don't see any need to increase the number of US Special Forces operating in Iraq particularly as no-one is request them. The Iraqis simply need better air-support.
Whatever Obama decides he will have to decide quickly because Russia, Iran and Iraq are already operating a co-ordination cell in Baghdad.
That cell has already given Russian aircraft permission to attack ISIL supply conveys from Syria. Something that CJTFOIR is curiously still refusing to do.
20:40 on 29/10/15 (UK date).
Quite apart from the strategic need to the US not to be squeezed out of the geo-politically important middle-east region there is an existing urgency for ISIL to be removed from Iraq.
Parts of Iraq have been under ISIL occupation since December 2013 - some 9 months before the US took any action against them. In this time the Iraqi government's efforts have been focused on stopping ISIL's advance and liberating the country. As a result all the things that a government does normally such as managing infrastructure have taken a back seat and after some 22 months of neglect cracks are starting to appear.
Apart from the fight against ISIL life in Iraq this summer has been dominated by anti-government protests attended by people who are angry about falling living standards and electricity shortages leading to blackouts. Policing this type of mass protest when ISIL want to send suicide bombers to attack the protesters is an absolute nightmare which places yet another huge burden on the Iraqi government.
The US' response to ISIL's invasion of Iraq seems to have been to use it as an opportunity to settle old scores with the Iraqi government. For example US President Barack Obama has frequently claimed that ISIL are simply disgruntled Sunni-Arabs who have been forced to take up arms against the oppressive Shia-Arab governments of Syria and then Iraq.
Putting aside the fact that very few ISIL members actually come from either Syria or Iraq Obama has used this excuse first to demand that the Iraqi President steps down and then that Iraq creates a Sunni-Arab state within a state before the US gives it permission to fight ISIL.
Obama's support for a sectarian agenda that he clearly doesn't understand seems to have worsened the tensions within the Iraqi government rather then making the situation any better.
A major fracture point that has arisen is between the Arab central government of Iraq and the Kurdish Regional Government in the north. Fuelled by fears that the Kurdish region could break away the Iraqi central has suspended payments to the KRG.
Starved of cash by the central government the KRG has been unable to pay its public sector workers. Fanned by opposition parties these disgruntled workers have taken to the streets in protest against the KRG. Quite apart from the increased security risk of these protests being attacked by ISIL the protests themselves have occasionally turned violent.
A particularly serious example of this occurred on October 10th (10/10/15) in the Sulaimaniyah province which is a stronghold of the Movement for Change (Gorran) party. Here protesters attacked numerous buildings including the local offices of the governing Kurdistan Democrat Party (KDP) killing at 4 people including 2 KDP MP's.
In response Gorran MP's including the Parliamentary Speaker were suspended from the KRG leading to tense scenes as the Kurdish security forces were called in to stop Gorran from storming the Parliament in defiance of the ban.
In the UK Parliament - sometimes referred to as "The Mother of Parliaments" - an MP can be suspended for using what is considered "Unparliamentary Language." There was actually an example of this just on Wednesday (27/10/15) when a Labour MP described a Conservative MP as a "Hypocrite." He was forced to immediately retract the comment or face being suspended for several days.
As such I think that banning an entire party for a minimum of three months for organising riots in which two MP's were killed is entirely reasonable. I would even go so far as to say that Gorran being allowed to return to the KRG was dependent on them rejecting such tactics in the future by apologising for the incident and assisting the authorities in making sure that any party members involved in the violence are brought to justice.
It is against this backdrop that the KRG and their armed force the Peshmerga requested US assistance to rescue 70 hostages from ISIL held Hawija on October 22nd (22/10/15) amid fears that they were about to be executed.
Although now they're not westerners it doesn't get reported on as much ISIL have in no way lost their passion for murdering hostages.
Two days after the Hawija raid on October 24th (24/10/15) ISIL released a video in which they killed a Syrian soldier they'd taken hostage by running him over with a tank. On Sunday (25/10/15) ISIL tied three hostages to the ancient columns in Palmyra and killed them by blowing up the columns. Today reports are emerging that ISIL have beheaded four Peshmerga hostages at the site of the Hawija raid.
As a result I have little doubt that there was a credible threat that ISIL were about to kill the hostages rescued from Hawija because, well, every day there is a credible threat that ISIL are about to murder hostages. However I think what provided the urgency to this particular instance was a desire by the KRG to remind the US that Hawija is still under ISIL occupation.
In March of 2015 - amid fierce opposition from the US - the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) launched a partially successful operation to liberate Saladin Province including the provincial capital Tikrit which sits around 140km (85 miles) north-west of the Iraqi capital Baghdad.
Although the ISF did eventually succeed in liberating Tikrit and the oil refinery town of Baiji which sits around 50km (30miles) to the north they failed to link up with the Peshmerga controlled city of Kirkuk which sits around 95km (58 miles) north-east of Baiji and around 120km (70 miles) north-east of Tikrit. This left ISIL in control of Hawija from where they have repeatedly attacked both Baiji and Kirkuk with the battle of Baiji oil refinery raging almost continually.
At around 18:15 on 29/10/15 (UK date) I'll pick this up after dinner.
Edited at around 19:50 on 29/10/15 (UK date) to add;
So beyond the rescue of the hostages the KRG seemed to trying to start a conversation about the US using it's superior experience to help a coalition of the Peshmerga and the ISF to devise a battle plan to liberate cities such as Mosul, Ramadi and Hawija in order to completely expel ISIL from Iraq.
Obviously in carrying out such a plan CJTFOIR would be expected to provide tactical air support to the ground forces in the from of AH-64 Apache-type helicopter gunships and A-10 Thunderbolt-type ground-attack jets to destroy ISIL tanks, armed vehicles, firing positions etc.
This would of course be a marked departure from CJTFOIR's current approach of using fast, multi-role jets in largely ineffective strategic strikes.
If I was drawing up a plan I would recommend starting with small targets that produce quick victories. This would help build up momentum and an air of inevitability about ISIL's defeat. This would do a lot to weaken ISIL - particularly amongst it's Internet fanboys that are increasing the terror threat globally.
If the US was aware that it was involved in such a discussion it's suggestion that all of Iraq's forces form up behind a single commander didn't get them off to a good start.
This would be a good idea for the ISF which is made up of the Iraqi army and the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) because the lack of co-ordinated leadership within the ISF has caused a lot a problems. For example it was really the PMF that decided to charge off into Anbar province before the Tikrit offensive had been completed. This forced the Iraqi Army to follow them into a battle that ultimately ISIL won with the fall of Ramadi.
Therefore placing the Iraqi army and the PMF under a single commander would certainly make the ISF more unified and effective. As for integrating the Sunni National Guard that the US are insisting on I've always viewed that as a delaying tactic designed to hamper the fight against ISIL so I think it should be abandoned entirely.
However the Kurdish region is considered semi-autonomous from the rest of Iraq and it's fighting force the Peshmerga has proved itself to be the most effective anti-ISIL force in Iraq. I am concerned that plunging them into the arguments between the Iraqi army, the PMF and the Sunni National Guard would undermine their effectiveness.
It should though be possible to set up a command cell in which all forces are represented but with an Iraqi Supreme Commander. The Peshmerga would be given special autonomy in how it carries out that commander's orders. Perhaps in the role of deputy commander.
However by Tuesday's (27/10/15) meeting of the US Senate Armed Forces Committee the US Defence Secretary was doing a much better job of laying out Obama's options;
He can follow the KRG's advice and put together a plan to quickly expel ISIL from Iraq and then provide the resources the Iraqis need to execute that plan. Alternatively Obama can continue to delay by using the spectre of US groundforces being killed in Iraq and it's legal/political implications in an effort to scare the US off the idea of defeating ISIL.
On whether the Hawija raid counts as US troops being used in combat despite Obama's assurances I should point out they were special forces. Special Force units were really developed to operating in exactly this sort of gray area where conventional forces cannot.
However I don't see any need to increase the number of US Special Forces operating in Iraq particularly as no-one is request them. The Iraqis simply need better air-support.
Whatever Obama decides he will have to decide quickly because Russia, Iran and Iraq are already operating a co-ordination cell in Baghdad.
That cell has already given Russian aircraft permission to attack ISIL supply conveys from Syria. Something that CJTFOIR is curiously still refusing to do.
20:40 on 29/10/15 (UK date).
Wednesday 28 October 2015
Operation Featherweight: Month 16, Week 1, Day 1.
On October 16th (16/10/15) Kurdish, Arab and Assyrian/Syriac forces in the north-east of Syria formalised their Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) coalition.
This is of course made up of the Kurdish People's Protection Forces (YPG/J), Euphrates Volcano/Burkan al-Furat (BAF) and the Revolutionary Army/Jaish al-Thuwar (JAT) fragments of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) along with the Syriac Military Council (MSF) and the Arab tribal force - Al-Sanadid Forces/Jaish al-Sanadid (JAS).
Despite having called for this type of coalition for almost a year now Turkey responded to this by opening fire on the SDF positions on the town of Tel Abyad/Gire Spi. On Saturday (24/10/15) SDF positions in the town came under Turkish mortar and artillery fire. These artillery strikes continued on Sunday (25/10/15), Monday (26/10/15) Tuesday (27/10/15) and today.
SDF positions on the banks of the Euphrates River at the western edge of the SDF controlled buffer-zone also came under Turkish artillery fire on Sunday (25/10/15) and again on Monday (26/10/15). Sunday's attack in which 2 civilians were wounded coincided with a fresh offensive by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which was fortunately quickly resisted.
You may remember that Tel Abyad is a strategically important town that sits directly on the border with Turkey. It also sits mid-way between the central area that is known as the Kobane Canton and the area to the east which is known as the Cizire Canton.
It was the capture to Tel Abyad by the YPG and BAF in July that united the two cantons establishing the buffer-zone across northern-eastern Syria and Iraq. It also cut off ISIL main supply route between Turkey and their de facto capital of Raqqa around 90km (50 miles) to the south.
As such the purpose of these Turkish attacks seems to be to support ISIL in recapturing Tel Abyad both destroying the buffer-zone and allowing the re-establishment of the the ISIL supply route with Turkey.
The Turkish attacks have been accompanied by renewed ISIL attacks across the buffer-zone's border with a particular focus on the western edge around the town of Sarrin and the southern village of Ain Issa which sits on that supply route between Raqqa and Tel Abyad.
Turkey's official explanation for its actions have been surreal to say the least. According to the office of President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan ISIL, the Syrian government and now the SDF are all secretly in league with each other. The years that these groups have spent fighting each other were all part of an elaborate ruse to hide this vast conspiracy's true purpose of invading Turkey.
These latest attacks on the SDF are apparently necessary because at the end of June this ISIL/SDF/Syrian government held a meeting at which they secretly agreed to hand the area to the north of the Euphrates to the Kurdish dominated SDF.
Putting aside the sheer insanity of the conspiracy theory the problem with this is that the area north of the Euphrates has been predominately Kurdish since the nations of Turkey and Syria were formed nearly a hundred years. The only point at which this looked like changing was during ISIL's offensive into the area at the end of 2014 that was brought to a halt with the Battle of Kobane.
Kurdish forces do not operate to the south of the Euphrates and ISIL are actually located between them and the northern banks of the Euphrates.
It is this utter detachment with reality that is likely driving Erdogan's attempts to silence any critical voices within Turkey.
Just today Turkish security forces carried out raids against TV news channels operated by Koza Ipek taking them off air just three days before Turkey's November 1st (1/11/15) election. Apparently these stations are controlled by Fethullah Gulen who along with ISIL, Syria, the Kurds, the US and the EU is part of this vast anti-Erdogan conspiracy.
The reason why Erdogan feels comfortable about carrying out these attacks against the SDF is that US President Barack Obama - as the Commander-in-Chief of the US-led coalition, Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve - has still not made clear that the SDF controlled buffer-zone is a reality that Erdogan is going to have to learn to accept at least until ISIL are defeated. As a result Erdogan still thinks that the matter is up for discussion.
The US doesn't even seem to be participating in this discussion particularly effectively, Although CJTFOIR continue to block me on Twitter from other sources I know that between Thursday (22/10/15) and Tuesday (27/10/15) CJTFOIR did not carry out a single air-strike anywhere is Syria.
The single air-strike they carried out on Tuesday (27/10/15) was against an ISIL mortar position close to the town of Marea which is around 95km (60 miles) west of Sarrin on the Euphrates and around 25km (15 miles) north of the city of Aleppo. If CJTFOIR can strike ISIL mortar positions there the question is why haven't they been striking the ISIL mortar positions that have been firing on Sarrin.
While CJTFOIR is continuing to fly operations in protection of ISIL in Syria Russia has moved to expand it's operations against ISIL's heartlands around Raqqa. Over the weekend Russia offered to work with the FSA to fight ISIL.
In the first instance this seemed to be an attempt to highlight to CJTFOIR the massive flaw in their support for the FSA by asking them if they could identify any FSA units that are currently fighting ISIL rather then being allied with them. After all Russia has always indicated that it is prepared to work with any anti-ISIL force - there just seems to be a bit of a shortage of them.
Beyond that though it seemed to be Russia indicating that it is prepared to work with the SDF whom CJTFOIR continues to refuse to support at Erdogan's insistence.
With Russian air-support the Syrian government continues to make steady progress against the Al Qaeda led Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF) coalition. On an almost daily basis small villages in Latakia, Idlib, Homs and Hama provinces are being liberated from JAF. There is also a lot of speculation that the Syrian government is on the verge of launching either an operation to liberate the ancient city of Palmyra from ISIL or the city of Aleppo from ISIL and JAF.
This creates an almost air of inevitability that over the coming months the Syrian government will have rolled both ISIL and JAF back the the starting positions when the CJTFOIR began it's operations 14 months ago.
If CJTFOIR is still not in a position to push ISIL out of Iraq back into northern Syria by then there will be a lot of pressure on Russia to force ISIL out of Syria entirely and chase them into Syria. This would make Russia the hero and effectively end US influence in the oil rich region.
So the US really needs to step up it's efforts in Iraq or risk losing the race entirely. Due to the pressures of time I'll deal with that sseparately tomorrow.
18:15 on 28/10/15 (UK date).
This is of course made up of the Kurdish People's Protection Forces (YPG/J), Euphrates Volcano/Burkan al-Furat (BAF) and the Revolutionary Army/Jaish al-Thuwar (JAT) fragments of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) along with the Syriac Military Council (MSF) and the Arab tribal force - Al-Sanadid Forces/Jaish al-Sanadid (JAS).
Despite having called for this type of coalition for almost a year now Turkey responded to this by opening fire on the SDF positions on the town of Tel Abyad/Gire Spi. On Saturday (24/10/15) SDF positions in the town came under Turkish mortar and artillery fire. These artillery strikes continued on Sunday (25/10/15), Monday (26/10/15) Tuesday (27/10/15) and today.
SDF positions on the banks of the Euphrates River at the western edge of the SDF controlled buffer-zone also came under Turkish artillery fire on Sunday (25/10/15) and again on Monday (26/10/15). Sunday's attack in which 2 civilians were wounded coincided with a fresh offensive by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which was fortunately quickly resisted.
You may remember that Tel Abyad is a strategically important town that sits directly on the border with Turkey. It also sits mid-way between the central area that is known as the Kobane Canton and the area to the east which is known as the Cizire Canton.
It was the capture to Tel Abyad by the YPG and BAF in July that united the two cantons establishing the buffer-zone across northern-eastern Syria and Iraq. It also cut off ISIL main supply route between Turkey and their de facto capital of Raqqa around 90km (50 miles) to the south.
As such the purpose of these Turkish attacks seems to be to support ISIL in recapturing Tel Abyad both destroying the buffer-zone and allowing the re-establishment of the the ISIL supply route with Turkey.
The Turkish attacks have been accompanied by renewed ISIL attacks across the buffer-zone's border with a particular focus on the western edge around the town of Sarrin and the southern village of Ain Issa which sits on that supply route between Raqqa and Tel Abyad.
Turkey's official explanation for its actions have been surreal to say the least. According to the office of President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan ISIL, the Syrian government and now the SDF are all secretly in league with each other. The years that these groups have spent fighting each other were all part of an elaborate ruse to hide this vast conspiracy's true purpose of invading Turkey.
These latest attacks on the SDF are apparently necessary because at the end of June this ISIL/SDF/Syrian government held a meeting at which they secretly agreed to hand the area to the north of the Euphrates to the Kurdish dominated SDF.
Putting aside the sheer insanity of the conspiracy theory the problem with this is that the area north of the Euphrates has been predominately Kurdish since the nations of Turkey and Syria were formed nearly a hundred years. The only point at which this looked like changing was during ISIL's offensive into the area at the end of 2014 that was brought to a halt with the Battle of Kobane.
Kurdish forces do not operate to the south of the Euphrates and ISIL are actually located between them and the northern banks of the Euphrates.
It is this utter detachment with reality that is likely driving Erdogan's attempts to silence any critical voices within Turkey.
Just today Turkish security forces carried out raids against TV news channels operated by Koza Ipek taking them off air just three days before Turkey's November 1st (1/11/15) election. Apparently these stations are controlled by Fethullah Gulen who along with ISIL, Syria, the Kurds, the US and the EU is part of this vast anti-Erdogan conspiracy.
The reason why Erdogan feels comfortable about carrying out these attacks against the SDF is that US President Barack Obama - as the Commander-in-Chief of the US-led coalition, Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve - has still not made clear that the SDF controlled buffer-zone is a reality that Erdogan is going to have to learn to accept at least until ISIL are defeated. As a result Erdogan still thinks that the matter is up for discussion.
The US doesn't even seem to be participating in this discussion particularly effectively, Although CJTFOIR continue to block me on Twitter from other sources I know that between Thursday (22/10/15) and Tuesday (27/10/15) CJTFOIR did not carry out a single air-strike anywhere is Syria.
The single air-strike they carried out on Tuesday (27/10/15) was against an ISIL mortar position close to the town of Marea which is around 95km (60 miles) west of Sarrin on the Euphrates and around 25km (15 miles) north of the city of Aleppo. If CJTFOIR can strike ISIL mortar positions there the question is why haven't they been striking the ISIL mortar positions that have been firing on Sarrin.
While CJTFOIR is continuing to fly operations in protection of ISIL in Syria Russia has moved to expand it's operations against ISIL's heartlands around Raqqa. Over the weekend Russia offered to work with the FSA to fight ISIL.
In the first instance this seemed to be an attempt to highlight to CJTFOIR the massive flaw in their support for the FSA by asking them if they could identify any FSA units that are currently fighting ISIL rather then being allied with them. After all Russia has always indicated that it is prepared to work with any anti-ISIL force - there just seems to be a bit of a shortage of them.
Beyond that though it seemed to be Russia indicating that it is prepared to work with the SDF whom CJTFOIR continues to refuse to support at Erdogan's insistence.
With Russian air-support the Syrian government continues to make steady progress against the Al Qaeda led Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF) coalition. On an almost daily basis small villages in Latakia, Idlib, Homs and Hama provinces are being liberated from JAF. There is also a lot of speculation that the Syrian government is on the verge of launching either an operation to liberate the ancient city of Palmyra from ISIL or the city of Aleppo from ISIL and JAF.
This creates an almost air of inevitability that over the coming months the Syrian government will have rolled both ISIL and JAF back the the starting positions when the CJTFOIR began it's operations 14 months ago.
If CJTFOIR is still not in a position to push ISIL out of Iraq back into northern Syria by then there will be a lot of pressure on Russia to force ISIL out of Syria entirely and chase them into Syria. This would make Russia the hero and effectively end US influence in the oil rich region.
So the US really needs to step up it's efforts in Iraq or risk losing the race entirely. Due to the pressures of time I'll deal with that sseparately tomorrow.
18:15 on 28/10/15 (UK date).
Tuesday 27 October 2015
The UNFCCC October Meeting.
Between Monday October 19th (19/10/15) and Friday October 23rd (23/10/15) parties to the United Nations Framework Agreement on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held their quarterly meeting at their headquarters in Bonn, Germany.
This was the last such meeting before the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) opens on November 30th (30/11/15) in Paris, France. It is at COP21 that a new global climate change deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol (KP) is scheduled to be finalised and signed.
Unfortunately the more time I have to reflect on the October meeting the more convinced I am that it was an utterly wasted opportunity.
For example the work stream covering mitigation actions spent much of the week challenging the core principle that has stood for the last 25 years that any agreement would tackle climate change by curbing the emission of Green House Gases (GHG's).
Instead certain parties wished to discuss undefined "Climate Forcers." This seemed to be nothing more then a device by nations that had no mitigation obligations under KP to rail against what they see as the former Annex I parties to force them into taking mitigation actions.
I will be charitable and assume that this is a result of those nations failing to understand the fundamental difference between this new agreement and the KP rather then being a deliberate attempt to shirk their shared responsibility.
At the core of this new agreement there is the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Although there is a shared responsibility to be as ambitious as possible this format allows nations to determine themselves what action they will be taking and set their own reduction targets.
As a result there is no element of coercion within this agreement and nobody is being forced to do anything.
Elsewhere the Arab states tried to hijack the meeting entirely by turning it into a discussion on the Israel/Palestine conflict by demanding to know what protections would be afforded to "peoples under occupation."
This is a completely irrelevant issue because the protections under this agreement would be the exactly the same as the protections under the Geneva Conventions which cover war and military occupation.
If the Palestinians feel that the Israelis are not fulfilling its obligations under the relevant conventions there's not really much an agreement on climate change can do about that.
In fact despite my experience of both issues I wouldn't even know where to begin adapting the agreement to combine both topics.
However the diversion into such a controversial and intractable area does serve to disrupt the negotiations and reduce the chances of any agreement which of course is the primary objection of the oil rich Gulf states.
And sadly that's all the Palestinian cause is at the moment. A pawn in someone else's wider game.
The meeting ended with a decision that there will be no new negotiating text and the existing text will be carried forward as the basis for negotiation at COP21.
This is extremely alarming because the non-paper introduced at the start of the meeting is so vague as to be completely insufficient to form the basis of any agreement. I
t merely identifies areas such as "Mitigation," "Adaptation," "Finance," "Technology" and "Capacity Building" that may have some relevance to tackling climate change.
However with the section of Loss & Damage running to just 22 words it contains absolutely none of the detail required to determine how nations will act individually and collectively to address these areas as part of a functioning agreement.
The July text which grew out of the 2014 non-paper is significantly better.
However it still needs to be significantly reduced by replacing numerous options with agreed, coherent text. At the same time it needs to be expanded to include a section enshrining the peer review process and the compliance process.
This insistence that there will be no new text seems to have been borne out of a frustration by the Secretariat at the way that many nations have handled the negotiating process.
Rather then having been prepared to debate and compromise over the core concepts of the agreement many nations have simply been demanding that the Secretariat takes on board all of their slightly mad and often contradictory positions before returning with a 'miracle' text that will solve all of the problems.
Ironically many of these nations are the same ones complaining about having an agreement forced upon them.
The hope seems to be then that by making clear that there will be no new text nations will be forced to work with what they've got by deciding on options within the July text and combining them with the procedural elements from the recent non-paper.
I am far from convinced that this approach will work though because although the Mitigation, Adaptation and Loss & Damage sections of the July text are salvageable as are the procedural elements from the October non-paper key sections like the peer review and compliance processes still need to be written.
I do not understand how this will happen during the course of COP21.
As such I am becoming increasingly convinced that it is time to think the unthinkable and delay the signing of any new agreement until COP22 when hopefully the required work will have been completed.
If we are delaying the new agreement then perhaps we also need to consider whether existing climate finance arrangements can continue without a new agreement being signed.
18:00 on 27/10/15 (UK date).
This was the last such meeting before the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) opens on November 30th (30/11/15) in Paris, France. It is at COP21 that a new global climate change deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol (KP) is scheduled to be finalised and signed.
Unfortunately the more time I have to reflect on the October meeting the more convinced I am that it was an utterly wasted opportunity.
For example the work stream covering mitigation actions spent much of the week challenging the core principle that has stood for the last 25 years that any agreement would tackle climate change by curbing the emission of Green House Gases (GHG's).
Instead certain parties wished to discuss undefined "Climate Forcers." This seemed to be nothing more then a device by nations that had no mitigation obligations under KP to rail against what they see as the former Annex I parties to force them into taking mitigation actions.
I will be charitable and assume that this is a result of those nations failing to understand the fundamental difference between this new agreement and the KP rather then being a deliberate attempt to shirk their shared responsibility.
At the core of this new agreement there is the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Although there is a shared responsibility to be as ambitious as possible this format allows nations to determine themselves what action they will be taking and set their own reduction targets.
As a result there is no element of coercion within this agreement and nobody is being forced to do anything.
Elsewhere the Arab states tried to hijack the meeting entirely by turning it into a discussion on the Israel/Palestine conflict by demanding to know what protections would be afforded to "peoples under occupation."
This is a completely irrelevant issue because the protections under this agreement would be the exactly the same as the protections under the Geneva Conventions which cover war and military occupation.
If the Palestinians feel that the Israelis are not fulfilling its obligations under the relevant conventions there's not really much an agreement on climate change can do about that.
In fact despite my experience of both issues I wouldn't even know where to begin adapting the agreement to combine both topics.
However the diversion into such a controversial and intractable area does serve to disrupt the negotiations and reduce the chances of any agreement which of course is the primary objection of the oil rich Gulf states.
And sadly that's all the Palestinian cause is at the moment. A pawn in someone else's wider game.
The meeting ended with a decision that there will be no new negotiating text and the existing text will be carried forward as the basis for negotiation at COP21.
This is extremely alarming because the non-paper introduced at the start of the meeting is so vague as to be completely insufficient to form the basis of any agreement. I
t merely identifies areas such as "Mitigation," "Adaptation," "Finance," "Technology" and "Capacity Building" that may have some relevance to tackling climate change.
However with the section of Loss & Damage running to just 22 words it contains absolutely none of the detail required to determine how nations will act individually and collectively to address these areas as part of a functioning agreement.
The July text which grew out of the 2014 non-paper is significantly better.
However it still needs to be significantly reduced by replacing numerous options with agreed, coherent text. At the same time it needs to be expanded to include a section enshrining the peer review process and the compliance process.
This insistence that there will be no new text seems to have been borne out of a frustration by the Secretariat at the way that many nations have handled the negotiating process.
Rather then having been prepared to debate and compromise over the core concepts of the agreement many nations have simply been demanding that the Secretariat takes on board all of their slightly mad and often contradictory positions before returning with a 'miracle' text that will solve all of the problems.
Ironically many of these nations are the same ones complaining about having an agreement forced upon them.
The hope seems to be then that by making clear that there will be no new text nations will be forced to work with what they've got by deciding on options within the July text and combining them with the procedural elements from the recent non-paper.
I am far from convinced that this approach will work though because although the Mitigation, Adaptation and Loss & Damage sections of the July text are salvageable as are the procedural elements from the October non-paper key sections like the peer review and compliance processes still need to be written.
I do not understand how this will happen during the course of COP21.
As such I am becoming increasingly convinced that it is time to think the unthinkable and delay the signing of any new agreement until COP22 when hopefully the required work will have been completed.
If we are delaying the new agreement then perhaps we also need to consider whether existing climate finance arrangements can continue without a new agreement being signed.
18:00 on 27/10/15 (UK date).
Sunday 25 October 2015
Everyone Ready for the Big Brown Bash.
Today saw the second Rugby Union World Cup semi-final between the "Pumas" of Argentina and the "Wallabies" of Australia. After yesterday's political intensity between South Africa and New Zealand this was pretty much just a rugby match.
Inspired by Aussie Rules Football the Wallabies had a lot of Ireland's pass and dance about them. However they brought with them a level of muscle the Irish clearly lacked.
So when the Puma's went in for their chop tackles the Australians just sort of carried on trying to work out why there was a little Argentinian clamped to their ankles. Likewise when the Pumas made their attack the Australian defence simply cut them down.
What really undid the match though was Australia's Simmons intercepting an early pass from Argentina's Sanchez and running through a converted try to give the Aussies a 7 point lead after just 90 seconds.
Although Sanchez tried to redeem himself with a 3 point penalty Ashely-Cooper quickly ran in another unconverted try. Along with another converted Ashley-Cooper try and two Puma's penalties this gave Australia a 19-9 half-time lead and plenty of excuse to take their foot off the gas in the second half.
While a further two Sanchez penalties took Argentina within a converted try of a draw Ashley-Carter became only the second player in history to score a semi-final hat-trick of tries giving Australia a 29-15 victory.
The only real issue was the performance of the English referee Wayne Barnes.
Having utterly humiliated himself in last Saturday's (17/10/15) quarter-final between South Africa and Wales Barnes seemed an odd choice to referee at this level. After all on election day any questionable decision by an Englishman against the Argentinians is likely to raise hell about the Falklands/Malvinas.
For the most part Barnes seemed to be attempting to dispel any allegations of anti-Welsh bias by demonstrating that he was an utterly incompetent referee. So there was poor decision after poor decision benefiting no team in particular.
There was an interesting moment when Argentina's Levani tackled low on Australia's Folau. Failing to use his arms to grab and taking Folau over the horizontal this was somewhere between a penalty and a yellow card.
However as it clearly wasn't a spear-tackle I would have erred towards penalty in an incident that was similar to Lydiate's tackle that prompted Mike Brown's tantrum in the England v Wales game.
Initially Barnes was happy to give the penalty. However the Television Match Official (TMO) put him on the spot and enquired as to whether with the quarter-final he was following the letter or the spirit of the law. Under pressure Barnes decided he was again following the letter of the law and sent Levani to the sin-bin for a harsh yellow card.
The big incident came late on with Ashley-Carter's final try. If Barnes had gone to the TMO and we'd all got our protractors out eventually we would have concluded that this was technically the result of a forward pass. However with both players running forward, the ball not being taken out of the way of a defender and it being a fine margin watching it live I think it was a spirited try.
Plus while the Argentinians will continue to dream of what might have been in the dying minutes it was really the difference between them losing 22-15 and them losing 29-15.
Anyway Australia now go on to meet New Zealand in Saturday's (31/10/15) final.
Although never in history have rugby fans rioted like football fans this is likely to be a grudge match between two rugby mad rivals driven largely by decades of New Zealanders being forced to say; "No actually I'm from New Zealand."
It's likely to be spiced up slightly by growing political tensions between the two nations. Due to a mutual visa free travel arrangement during Rihanna's 2013 Diamonds World Tour I temporarily designated Auckland, New Zealand as an Australian city.
However former Australian Prime Minister Abbott's anti-immigration policies have seen large numbers of New Zealander's deported after being released from prison. This has prompted the New Zealand government to sort of respond by going; "Oi, We're white, this sh*t isn't meant to apply to us. Plus you're Australian, most of you are f*cking criminals!"
Then there is the Chris Brown issue. In what I understand is now a final decision Australia banned him over his domestic violence convictions. However in an attempt to show loyalty to the English hosts of the tournament New Zealand then welcomed him with open arms.
We look forward to the matter being settled once and for all.
21:45 on 25/10/15 (UK date).
Inspired by Aussie Rules Football the Wallabies had a lot of Ireland's pass and dance about them. However they brought with them a level of muscle the Irish clearly lacked.
So when the Puma's went in for their chop tackles the Australians just sort of carried on trying to work out why there was a little Argentinian clamped to their ankles. Likewise when the Pumas made their attack the Australian defence simply cut them down.
What really undid the match though was Australia's Simmons intercepting an early pass from Argentina's Sanchez and running through a converted try to give the Aussies a 7 point lead after just 90 seconds.
Although Sanchez tried to redeem himself with a 3 point penalty Ashely-Cooper quickly ran in another unconverted try. Along with another converted Ashley-Cooper try and two Puma's penalties this gave Australia a 19-9 half-time lead and plenty of excuse to take their foot off the gas in the second half.
While a further two Sanchez penalties took Argentina within a converted try of a draw Ashley-Carter became only the second player in history to score a semi-final hat-trick of tries giving Australia a 29-15 victory.
The only real issue was the performance of the English referee Wayne Barnes.
Having utterly humiliated himself in last Saturday's (17/10/15) quarter-final between South Africa and Wales Barnes seemed an odd choice to referee at this level. After all on election day any questionable decision by an Englishman against the Argentinians is likely to raise hell about the Falklands/Malvinas.
For the most part Barnes seemed to be attempting to dispel any allegations of anti-Welsh bias by demonstrating that he was an utterly incompetent referee. So there was poor decision after poor decision benefiting no team in particular.
There was an interesting moment when Argentina's Levani tackled low on Australia's Folau. Failing to use his arms to grab and taking Folau over the horizontal this was somewhere between a penalty and a yellow card.
However as it clearly wasn't a spear-tackle I would have erred towards penalty in an incident that was similar to Lydiate's tackle that prompted Mike Brown's tantrum in the England v Wales game.
Initially Barnes was happy to give the penalty. However the Television Match Official (TMO) put him on the spot and enquired as to whether with the quarter-final he was following the letter or the spirit of the law. Under pressure Barnes decided he was again following the letter of the law and sent Levani to the sin-bin for a harsh yellow card.
The big incident came late on with Ashley-Carter's final try. If Barnes had gone to the TMO and we'd all got our protractors out eventually we would have concluded that this was technically the result of a forward pass. However with both players running forward, the ball not being taken out of the way of a defender and it being a fine margin watching it live I think it was a spirited try.
Plus while the Argentinians will continue to dream of what might have been in the dying minutes it was really the difference between them losing 22-15 and them losing 29-15.
Anyway Australia now go on to meet New Zealand in Saturday's (31/10/15) final.
Although never in history have rugby fans rioted like football fans this is likely to be a grudge match between two rugby mad rivals driven largely by decades of New Zealanders being forced to say; "No actually I'm from New Zealand."
It's likely to be spiced up slightly by growing political tensions between the two nations. Due to a mutual visa free travel arrangement during Rihanna's 2013 Diamonds World Tour I temporarily designated Auckland, New Zealand as an Australian city.
However former Australian Prime Minister Abbott's anti-immigration policies have seen large numbers of New Zealander's deported after being released from prison. This has prompted the New Zealand government to sort of respond by going; "Oi, We're white, this sh*t isn't meant to apply to us. Plus you're Australian, most of you are f*cking criminals!"
Then there is the Chris Brown issue. In what I understand is now a final decision Australia banned him over his domestic violence convictions. However in an attempt to show loyalty to the English hosts of the tournament New Zealand then welcomed him with open arms.
We look forward to the matter being settled once and for all.
21:45 on 25/10/15 (UK date).
Saturday 24 October 2015
Damn Blacks.
Today has seen the racially charged Rugby Union World Cup semi-final between the "Springboks" of South Africa and the "All Blacks" of New Zealand.
Although it is changing now the game has gone professional Rugby Union has this long tradition of being a game you only really start playing properly at university. After graduating you then take a few years off to play at the top level before retiring to get on with your professional career as like a doctor or a lawyer.
This culture may be one possible explanation why some 25 years after the end of apartheid South Africa's rugby team still has so few black players.
After all apartheid has been replaced by a sort of economic apartheid where the white families that did well under the old system continue to do well sending their children - and now grandchildren - off to private school and the best universities while the black families like the Marikana miners riot to earn enough simply to send their kids to school.
The issue of black South Africans access to higher education has been hot news this week. On Wednesday (21/10/15) South Africa's Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene released a mid-term budget. The headline of the budget was a 6% increase in university tuition fees.
Although the South African government will continue to subsidise black university students to make up for the inequalities of the apartheid era this increase risked taking a university education out of the reach and would certainly make it much more expensive.
Needless to say this announcement was met with vigorous protests by students and their supporters. The most violent of these protests occurred on Friday (23/10/15) outside the seat of the South African government - the Union Building - in Pretoria in which saw fires set. rocks thrown and the police responding with tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets in some of the worst rioting South Africa has seen since the end of apartheid.
Although for the the most part the protesters have been as ethnically diverse as South Africa is there have been attempts by the radical Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party of Julius Malema to turn the protests into a race issue - in the EFF world everything is a race issue. For example EFF MP's had to be removed from Parliament because they kept disrupting the budget speech with chants of "Fees Must Fall" which was the slogan of the protests.
Malema and the EFF are exactly the sort of people who would support the All Blacks over the Springboks despite New Zealand not exactly being famous for its racial diversity.
For a while now the EFF have been reaching out to South Africa's students in the hope of getting them to act as a street army for the party.
For example they were a driving force behind the protests earlier this year to get the statue of Cecil Rhodes removed from the grounds of Cape Town university in case black students found this symbol of colonialism intimidating. They also want to see the Afrikaans portion of South Africa's multi-lingual national anthem removed for the exact same reason.
I personally don't see either of these as really the main issue facing modern South Africa at the moment.
The EFF's outreach to students is heavily inspired by US President Obama's own Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The fact that EFF is also heavily influenced by Zimbabwe's (nee Rhodesia) Robert Mugabe explains why BLM has really destroyed Obama's credibility as leader.
It was of course further destroyed by BLM's decision to react to the Charleston shooting which had strong links to both apartheid era South Africa and Rhodesia by demanding that statues of US Civil War generals were removed - just like the EFF and Cecil Rhodes.
In response to the Union Building protests South African President Jacob Zuma caved and scrapped the 6% fee increase for at least the next year. This struck me as extremely weak leadership.
If the fee increase is something Zuma needed to introduce for the sake of the national economy then he needs to be prepared to stare down the protests no matter how violent they get. I know I make that sound really tough but it could involve some concessions around the edges such as increasing grants to the poorest students.
If the fee increase isn't something Zuma needed to do for the good of the nation the question is really why the hell did he try doing it in the first place?
It is obvious that Zuma is going to have to do something because aside from the fees issue the rest of the budget was pretty grim. Growth forecasts have been cut from 2 & 2.4% to 1.5 & 1.7%, tax revenues have fallen by R35bn (USD 2.45bn) and government debt has increased to R600bn (USD42bn) pushing South Africa bonds closer to junk status and the country closer to a Greek-style collapse.
Although there are some global pressures such as falling demand for commodities and the flight of investment into the BRIC economies following the 2008 financial meltdown most of South Africa's problems stem from the fact Zuma's African National Congress (ANC) have ruled South Africa as an effective one party state for the past 20 years. The lack of competition has made them fat and lazy.
However I think we all know what the pro-apartheid AWB will blame while the EFF are blaming "Colonialism."
South Africa's problems actually had a lot of relevance to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that concluded in Bonn, Germany on Friday (23/10/15).
For example efforts to create a new climate change agreement are known as the "Durban Platform" after Durban, South Africa where is was conceived. The incompetence US President Obama has show in his support for BLM has also unsettled the negotiations. Finally South Africa is the current head of the Group of 77 (G77) less developed nations in negotiations.
Within those negotiations there was lots of discussion about how nations will switch from making intensity reductions to absolute reductions as their economies grow. I should point out that the peer review process will not only provide that but also a mechanism for nations obligations to reduce as their economies shrink. Sadly that seems to be the path that South Africa is currently on.
The ANC's fat and lazy leadership was on full display during the Bonn meeting. Admittedly speaking on behalf of the wider group South Africa made clear that it would veto any agreement that required all nations - regardless of economic circumstance - to take action to tackle climate change.
This is a very unwise position to take because although all nations will have to take some action there is a lot of freedom in what that action can be depending on a nation's economic circumstance.
For example the Least Developed Countries (LDC) could well fulfil their obligation by teaming up with a charity to provide solar powered lamps to farmers or simply by spending money on adaptation work they were going to do anyway.
There are also a lot of co-benefits to taking action.
Using South Africa as an example under the apartheid system only whites were allowed to live in the cities and suburbs while the blacks were locked away in townships like Soweto. Economics means that much of this system is largely in place forcing the residents of the townships to travel great distances into the cities.
If South Africa were to invest in clean, low carbon transport from the townships to the cities it would help reduce emissions in the transport sector and therefore count towards their contribution. There may even be extra money available to help South Africa solve what is considered a wider social problem.
South Africa's big problem though is the electricity crisis. This too has it's roots in apartheid when they only built enough power stations for the whites. However the ANC has had more then 20 years to build more power stations even if their Communist wing are opposed to it. If South Africa were to build clean, renewable power stations it would certainly count towards the nation's commitments and probably bring money with it.
Although it seemed to just be a rugby match today's game could well have served as a metaphor for many of the issues surrounding South Africa's political woes.
As we saw from the quarter-final against France the All Blacks are simply too good. If they're given the freedom to pass and move the ball around they become able to completely overwhelm their opposition in way that even for a neutral can be painful to watch.
In today's game the Springboks were clearly aware of the danger and focused their efforts on denying the All Blacks the opportunity to establish that devastating rhythm. They did this by tackling the moment any All Black got the ball forcing the break-down and then the ruck.
Although to an outsider it can just look like a pile of men all lying on top of each other there are actually a vast number of highly technical rules that apply during break-downs and rucks. For example you have to stay onside, you can't enter from the side, you have to roll away or release the ball at appropriate time and as always you must never pass the ball forward.
These highly technical rules are actually different depending on whether it is a break-down or a ruck. To confuse matters further the only difference between a break-down and a ruck seems to be that at some point the referee will shout either "Tackle!" meaning it's still a break-down or "Ruck!"
One area where I think rugby is better then football is that it is a great test of character for a player to follow all these complex rules while they're frustrated at the play breaking down and they've got one big bloke stamping on their ankle while another elbows them in the face. As a result self-discipline is considered a big thing in rugby and even the top players sometimes fall short.
A prime example of this occurred on 38 minutes when New Zealand's Kaino got his yellow card. A experienced player at that level knows full well that he can't run in from off-side and go for the ball. But in the heat of the moment that's exactly what he did.
Having not really been forced to play like this all tournament the All Blacks self-discipline was sorely lacking in the first half.
Despite Kaino scoring the only five point try of the half which was converted by Carter for two points the All Blacks still ended the half 12-7 down with all of the Springbok's points coming from three point penalty kicks.
With Kaino still in the sin-bin Carter shocked the 'boks early in the second-half with a three point drop (kick) goal. Beauden Barrett then added a try that was converted by Carter who also scored pretty much the only penalty the 'boks conceded all game.
The big difference though is that while the 'boks were tiring from all the tackling the All Black's discipline dramatically improved. In the first half they conceded nine penalties while in the second they only conceded two both of which were scored.
As a result New Zealand won the game 20-18 and progress to the final while I'm obligated to end this post with the phrase;
"Look what the blacks can achieve when they learn to control themselves!"
21:10 on 24/10/15 (UK date).
Although it is changing now the game has gone professional Rugby Union has this long tradition of being a game you only really start playing properly at university. After graduating you then take a few years off to play at the top level before retiring to get on with your professional career as like a doctor or a lawyer.
This culture may be one possible explanation why some 25 years after the end of apartheid South Africa's rugby team still has so few black players.
After all apartheid has been replaced by a sort of economic apartheid where the white families that did well under the old system continue to do well sending their children - and now grandchildren - off to private school and the best universities while the black families like the Marikana miners riot to earn enough simply to send their kids to school.
The issue of black South Africans access to higher education has been hot news this week. On Wednesday (21/10/15) South Africa's Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene released a mid-term budget. The headline of the budget was a 6% increase in university tuition fees.
Although the South African government will continue to subsidise black university students to make up for the inequalities of the apartheid era this increase risked taking a university education out of the reach and would certainly make it much more expensive.
Needless to say this announcement was met with vigorous protests by students and their supporters. The most violent of these protests occurred on Friday (23/10/15) outside the seat of the South African government - the Union Building - in Pretoria in which saw fires set. rocks thrown and the police responding with tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets in some of the worst rioting South Africa has seen since the end of apartheid.
Although for the the most part the protesters have been as ethnically diverse as South Africa is there have been attempts by the radical Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party of Julius Malema to turn the protests into a race issue - in the EFF world everything is a race issue. For example EFF MP's had to be removed from Parliament because they kept disrupting the budget speech with chants of "Fees Must Fall" which was the slogan of the protests.
Malema and the EFF are exactly the sort of people who would support the All Blacks over the Springboks despite New Zealand not exactly being famous for its racial diversity.
For a while now the EFF have been reaching out to South Africa's students in the hope of getting them to act as a street army for the party.
For example they were a driving force behind the protests earlier this year to get the statue of Cecil Rhodes removed from the grounds of Cape Town university in case black students found this symbol of colonialism intimidating. They also want to see the Afrikaans portion of South Africa's multi-lingual national anthem removed for the exact same reason.
I personally don't see either of these as really the main issue facing modern South Africa at the moment.
The EFF's outreach to students is heavily inspired by US President Obama's own Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The fact that EFF is also heavily influenced by Zimbabwe's (nee Rhodesia) Robert Mugabe explains why BLM has really destroyed Obama's credibility as leader.
It was of course further destroyed by BLM's decision to react to the Charleston shooting which had strong links to both apartheid era South Africa and Rhodesia by demanding that statues of US Civil War generals were removed - just like the EFF and Cecil Rhodes.
In response to the Union Building protests South African President Jacob Zuma caved and scrapped the 6% fee increase for at least the next year. This struck me as extremely weak leadership.
If the fee increase is something Zuma needed to introduce for the sake of the national economy then he needs to be prepared to stare down the protests no matter how violent they get. I know I make that sound really tough but it could involve some concessions around the edges such as increasing grants to the poorest students.
If the fee increase isn't something Zuma needed to do for the good of the nation the question is really why the hell did he try doing it in the first place?
It is obvious that Zuma is going to have to do something because aside from the fees issue the rest of the budget was pretty grim. Growth forecasts have been cut from 2 & 2.4% to 1.5 & 1.7%, tax revenues have fallen by R35bn (USD 2.45bn) and government debt has increased to R600bn (USD42bn) pushing South Africa bonds closer to junk status and the country closer to a Greek-style collapse.
Although there are some global pressures such as falling demand for commodities and the flight of investment into the BRIC economies following the 2008 financial meltdown most of South Africa's problems stem from the fact Zuma's African National Congress (ANC) have ruled South Africa as an effective one party state for the past 20 years. The lack of competition has made them fat and lazy.
However I think we all know what the pro-apartheid AWB will blame while the EFF are blaming "Colonialism."
South Africa's problems actually had a lot of relevance to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that concluded in Bonn, Germany on Friday (23/10/15).
For example efforts to create a new climate change agreement are known as the "Durban Platform" after Durban, South Africa where is was conceived. The incompetence US President Obama has show in his support for BLM has also unsettled the negotiations. Finally South Africa is the current head of the Group of 77 (G77) less developed nations in negotiations.
Within those negotiations there was lots of discussion about how nations will switch from making intensity reductions to absolute reductions as their economies grow. I should point out that the peer review process will not only provide that but also a mechanism for nations obligations to reduce as their economies shrink. Sadly that seems to be the path that South Africa is currently on.
The ANC's fat and lazy leadership was on full display during the Bonn meeting. Admittedly speaking on behalf of the wider group South Africa made clear that it would veto any agreement that required all nations - regardless of economic circumstance - to take action to tackle climate change.
This is a very unwise position to take because although all nations will have to take some action there is a lot of freedom in what that action can be depending on a nation's economic circumstance.
For example the Least Developed Countries (LDC) could well fulfil their obligation by teaming up with a charity to provide solar powered lamps to farmers or simply by spending money on adaptation work they were going to do anyway.
There are also a lot of co-benefits to taking action.
Using South Africa as an example under the apartheid system only whites were allowed to live in the cities and suburbs while the blacks were locked away in townships like Soweto. Economics means that much of this system is largely in place forcing the residents of the townships to travel great distances into the cities.
If South Africa were to invest in clean, low carbon transport from the townships to the cities it would help reduce emissions in the transport sector and therefore count towards their contribution. There may even be extra money available to help South Africa solve what is considered a wider social problem.
South Africa's big problem though is the electricity crisis. This too has it's roots in apartheid when they only built enough power stations for the whites. However the ANC has had more then 20 years to build more power stations even if their Communist wing are opposed to it. If South Africa were to build clean, renewable power stations it would certainly count towards the nation's commitments and probably bring money with it.
Although it seemed to just be a rugby match today's game could well have served as a metaphor for many of the issues surrounding South Africa's political woes.
As we saw from the quarter-final against France the All Blacks are simply too good. If they're given the freedom to pass and move the ball around they become able to completely overwhelm their opposition in way that even for a neutral can be painful to watch.
In today's game the Springboks were clearly aware of the danger and focused their efforts on denying the All Blacks the opportunity to establish that devastating rhythm. They did this by tackling the moment any All Black got the ball forcing the break-down and then the ruck.
Although to an outsider it can just look like a pile of men all lying on top of each other there are actually a vast number of highly technical rules that apply during break-downs and rucks. For example you have to stay onside, you can't enter from the side, you have to roll away or release the ball at appropriate time and as always you must never pass the ball forward.
These highly technical rules are actually different depending on whether it is a break-down or a ruck. To confuse matters further the only difference between a break-down and a ruck seems to be that at some point the referee will shout either "Tackle!" meaning it's still a break-down or "Ruck!"
One area where I think rugby is better then football is that it is a great test of character for a player to follow all these complex rules while they're frustrated at the play breaking down and they've got one big bloke stamping on their ankle while another elbows them in the face. As a result self-discipline is considered a big thing in rugby and even the top players sometimes fall short.
A prime example of this occurred on 38 minutes when New Zealand's Kaino got his yellow card. A experienced player at that level knows full well that he can't run in from off-side and go for the ball. But in the heat of the moment that's exactly what he did.
Having not really been forced to play like this all tournament the All Blacks self-discipline was sorely lacking in the first half.
Despite Kaino scoring the only five point try of the half which was converted by Carter for two points the All Blacks still ended the half 12-7 down with all of the Springbok's points coming from three point penalty kicks.
With Kaino still in the sin-bin Carter shocked the 'boks early in the second-half with a three point drop (kick) goal. Beauden Barrett then added a try that was converted by Carter who also scored pretty much the only penalty the 'boks conceded all game.
The big difference though is that while the 'boks were tiring from all the tackling the All Black's discipline dramatically improved. In the first half they conceded nine penalties while in the second they only conceded two both of which were scored.
As a result New Zealand won the game 20-18 and progress to the final while I'm obligated to end this post with the phrase;
"Look what the blacks can achieve when they learn to control themselves!"
21:10 on 24/10/15 (UK date).
Thursday 22 October 2015
ADP: We're Doomed.
Prior to the 20th Conference of Parties (COP21) the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) produced a draft negotiating text of the agreement that is scheduled to be signed at COP21.
The idea was always that nations would add and modify this text before it became an actual agreement. However this process rapidly spiralled out of control with nations all trying to add their own little exemptions. As a result the text quickly grew from 30 pages to close to 90 pages and some sections not only became unworkable but utterly unreadable.
My hope for the UNFCCC meeting that is currently taking place in Bonn, Germany is that the text would be dramatically cut down to size as individual exemptions were removed and options were agreed upon.
However just before the meeting the Secretariat produced an entirely new draft text that had been cut to probably less then it's bare bones.
This text does included useful sections on the procedural elements of the agreement such as how certain terms will be defined and where the agreement will be deposited after signing. However in terms of the meat of the agreement such as mitigation and adaptation this new draft is so vague as to be utterly useless.
I think the intention was that over the course of the week nations would go off and add to this draft using elements of the previous draft. Unfortunately nations - particularly the poorer and less capable ones - have go off and repeated the exact mistake. That is to say they have simply produced a long list of exemptions for their particular circumstances.
This is extremely alarming because it shows that just 51 days before the deadline many nations still haven't made the break through in thinking that is needed to create a successful agreement.
They still seem to be under the impression that this new agreement will be an agreement like the Kyoto Protocol which it replaces that will last for 10 to 20 years. Under this type of agreement every specific little detail about a nation's individual circumstances does need to be accounted for in the agreement text.
However the type of agreement we are trying to create here is intended to last for 80-100 years. What we're trying to do now is establish the framework under which future arguments will be had.
For example by including a conditional/additional portion on the INDC's we are creating a mechanism whereby poorer nations with good ideas can secure funding for those ideas from richer nations.
In this type of agreement not every detail about a nation's specific circumstances needs to be established within the text because those circumstances will change over the lifetime of the agreement.
A particular example of the problem is that the new text includes vague provisions for a global stock take of progress. This is something that will occur simply as a by-product of an ex post review process. However neither draft of the text outlines a process by which an ex post review will take place.
What I hope will happen over the final day of this meeting and in the weeks running up to COP21 is that nations will go back to June draft and streamline the text by identifying the options they can accept.
For example the reason why I've been going through the June text section by section is because with the changes I've made I consider those sections on mitigation adaptation and loss & damage to be ready for inclusion in the agreement.
I will agree though that I and others need to do more work on streamlining the remaining sections while producing wording for sections that currently do not exist. A section dealing with the peer review process for example.
Unless this work is done prior to COP21 then there simply won't be an agreement to sign and the specific exemptions and reassurances that nations have worked so hard to have included in the text won't apply to anyone.
19:30 on 22/10/15 (UK date).
Edited at around 11:25 on 23/10/15 (UK date) to add;
When I rush I tend to rant.
However another example of how the big picture is perhaps being lost in all the specific details is this issue of transition. Across the course of this meeting nations have been trying to devise a mechanism of how nations that currently submit intensity reductions transition to submitting absolute reductions. The peer review process already provides this mechanism.
As part of the ex ante review nations such as India and China who are on the verge of having to make the transition will likely find two or three nations criticising them for not having already done so. Assuming a group size of eight though this won't be enough to change the synthesis report.
At the first ex post review they may well find that three or four nations are raising the issue. However because the swing nation doesn't feel strongly enough about it the criticism will be left out of the synthesis report.
At the next ex ante these nations might find that it's five or six nations raising the issue changing the outcome of the synthesis report. At the next ex post review the majority of the group will indicate that it's time for the nation to change.
At this point the nation will know that it's next submission will have to be an absolute reduction rather then an intensity reduction having been given 15 years of constructive warnings.
Added to that you will have the work of the compliance committee that this meeting has been trying to develop. However that is an area that still requires a lot of work.
I should point out though that I am deadly serious about there not being an agreement. If either the June text or the new text is presented as an agreement to be signed at COP21 my advice will be that no-one should sign up to it.
I am even at the point of considering delaying the signing to allow the negotiations to continue for another year.
I say that fully understanding that there isn't another year to waste. However it has got to be better to take no action for one year rather then spending the next 10,20,30 years taking action that isn't going to work anyway.
The idea was always that nations would add and modify this text before it became an actual agreement. However this process rapidly spiralled out of control with nations all trying to add their own little exemptions. As a result the text quickly grew from 30 pages to close to 90 pages and some sections not only became unworkable but utterly unreadable.
My hope for the UNFCCC meeting that is currently taking place in Bonn, Germany is that the text would be dramatically cut down to size as individual exemptions were removed and options were agreed upon.
However just before the meeting the Secretariat produced an entirely new draft text that had been cut to probably less then it's bare bones.
This text does included useful sections on the procedural elements of the agreement such as how certain terms will be defined and where the agreement will be deposited after signing. However in terms of the meat of the agreement such as mitigation and adaptation this new draft is so vague as to be utterly useless.
I think the intention was that over the course of the week nations would go off and add to this draft using elements of the previous draft. Unfortunately nations - particularly the poorer and less capable ones - have go off and repeated the exact mistake. That is to say they have simply produced a long list of exemptions for their particular circumstances.
This is extremely alarming because it shows that just 51 days before the deadline many nations still haven't made the break through in thinking that is needed to create a successful agreement.
They still seem to be under the impression that this new agreement will be an agreement like the Kyoto Protocol which it replaces that will last for 10 to 20 years. Under this type of agreement every specific little detail about a nation's individual circumstances does need to be accounted for in the agreement text.
However the type of agreement we are trying to create here is intended to last for 80-100 years. What we're trying to do now is establish the framework under which future arguments will be had.
For example by including a conditional/additional portion on the INDC's we are creating a mechanism whereby poorer nations with good ideas can secure funding for those ideas from richer nations.
In this type of agreement not every detail about a nation's specific circumstances needs to be established within the text because those circumstances will change over the lifetime of the agreement.
A particular example of the problem is that the new text includes vague provisions for a global stock take of progress. This is something that will occur simply as a by-product of an ex post review process. However neither draft of the text outlines a process by which an ex post review will take place.
What I hope will happen over the final day of this meeting and in the weeks running up to COP21 is that nations will go back to June draft and streamline the text by identifying the options they can accept.
For example the reason why I've been going through the June text section by section is because with the changes I've made I consider those sections on mitigation adaptation and loss & damage to be ready for inclusion in the agreement.
I will agree though that I and others need to do more work on streamlining the remaining sections while producing wording for sections that currently do not exist. A section dealing with the peer review process for example.
Unless this work is done prior to COP21 then there simply won't be an agreement to sign and the specific exemptions and reassurances that nations have worked so hard to have included in the text won't apply to anyone.
19:30 on 22/10/15 (UK date).
Edited at around 11:25 on 23/10/15 (UK date) to add;
When I rush I tend to rant.
However another example of how the big picture is perhaps being lost in all the specific details is this issue of transition. Across the course of this meeting nations have been trying to devise a mechanism of how nations that currently submit intensity reductions transition to submitting absolute reductions. The peer review process already provides this mechanism.
As part of the ex ante review nations such as India and China who are on the verge of having to make the transition will likely find two or three nations criticising them for not having already done so. Assuming a group size of eight though this won't be enough to change the synthesis report.
At the first ex post review they may well find that three or four nations are raising the issue. However because the swing nation doesn't feel strongly enough about it the criticism will be left out of the synthesis report.
At the next ex ante these nations might find that it's five or six nations raising the issue changing the outcome of the synthesis report. At the next ex post review the majority of the group will indicate that it's time for the nation to change.
At this point the nation will know that it's next submission will have to be an absolute reduction rather then an intensity reduction having been given 15 years of constructive warnings.
Added to that you will have the work of the compliance committee that this meeting has been trying to develop. However that is an area that still requires a lot of work.
I should point out though that I am deadly serious about there not being an agreement. If either the June text or the new text is presented as an agreement to be signed at COP21 my advice will be that no-one should sign up to it.
I am even at the point of considering delaying the signing to allow the negotiations to continue for another year.
I say that fully understanding that there isn't another year to waste. However it has got to be better to take no action for one year rather then spending the next 10,20,30 years taking action that isn't going to work anyway.
Swedish School Attack.
This morning (22/10/15) a masked man walked into a school in Trollhaten, Sweden and proceeded to attack staff and students with what is being described as a sword.
In the last few moments the death toll has risen to two. This includes and adult teacher and a student aged around 16 years old. With one other student seriously injured this death toll could rise as high as three. The attacker was shot and seriously wounded by police at the scene.
Although it has not been confirmed the attack was initially described as being at a school for immigrants. However I suspect once the initial shock and translation issues have been worked through this means a school in an area with a high immigrant population.
This is obviously a reference to the migration/refugee crisis that Europe finds itself in due to the conflicts in Iraq/Syria and Libya.
It is also a reference to the anti-migrant/refugee violence that has begun to emerge in Europe in response to the crisis.
In the former Soviet East Germany groups such as PEGIDA have been very active in staging sometimes violent anti-immigrant street protests including a protest marking the first anniversary of the group in Dresden on Monday (19/10/15). On Saturday (17/10/15) a pro-refugee Mayoral candidate was stabbed in Cologne by an assailant who is reported to have shouted anti-immigrant slogan. Fortunately she survived and went on to win the election.
These have simply been the headline grabbing incidents that have been part of a wave of low level attacks against refugees and facilities for refugees such as processing centres across numerous European nations. Just on Tuesday (20/10/15) Swedish authorities announced that they would be keeping secret the addresses of refugee housing units following 15 arson attacks against such locations this year.
Sweden actually has a very specific issue with refugees. Following the Balkan wars of the 1990's Sweden took in a lot of predominately Muslim refugees. Unfortunately it didn't do enough to integrate these newcomers instead leaving them to set up ghettos mainly in the Biskopsgarden area of Gothenburg. As often happens these ghettos have become havens for organised crime and this summer has seen a big gang war with tit-for-tat killings carried out with guns grenades and car bombings.
As a result during the negotiations over a European Union (EU) quota system lots of countries have expressed concern that it would lead to them experiencing the same problems as Sweden. Obviously though if they were to drop their opposition there could be an EU-wide discussion of the urban planning/human geography methods that can be employed to avoid Sweden's problems.
The use of the sword is a reference to the violence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated groups. After all when people talk about violent Jihad they often talk about "The Jihad of the Sword" and I think we're all familiar with ISIL's fondness of beheadings.
Due to its earlier failure to integrate Muslim immigrants Sweden has seen a relatively high proportion of its citizens travel to join ISIL. Although Sweden didn't seem particularly worried about them leaving like much of Europe it is now very worried about them returning - possibly disguised as refugees - in order to carry out terror attacks.
The fact a school was targeted is a reference to the school shootings in the US such as the Newtown massacre and the recent shooting at Umpqua Community College. US President Barack Obama has long tried to exploit these to further his own gun control agenda.
Sweden has much tighter gun control legislation but this seems to have done nothing to stem the gang violence in Sweden's ghettos. As such a sword attack on a school being stopped by guns seems to be a complete rejection of President Obama's leadership.
Coming in from Sweden this is very significant. Not only has Sweden provided many fighters to ISIL they have also been very active supporters of US sanctions against Russia over ISIL's Northern/Shamali Province - "Ukraine" if you still insist on using the Kuffar name.
This week also sees the October meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany. As I've mentioned before Obama's incompetence along with the threat of terrorism both against nations that might benefit from a new agreement and the Paris, France venue itself have long been used to unsettle negotiations where issues such as urban planning/human geography come up frequently.
Therefore I can't say that I'm particularly happy that Sweden have gone with such a dramatic move today. After all the hour I've spent writing this up is an hour that I could have spent on the climate change issue itself.
However I suppose you could argue that a sign that Obama's support is collapsing and being replaced by a united European front is reassuring.
It's also worth pointing out that today US Secretary of State John Kerry is in Germany to meet with EU, Palestinian and Israeli leaders to discuss the current violence in Jerusalem which is closely linked to ISIL even if no-one will admit it.
Tomorrow will see a poorly scheduled meeting between the US, the EU, Russia and Saudi Arabia on the conflict in Iraq/Syria.
14:10 on 22/10/15 (UK date).
In the last few moments the death toll has risen to two. This includes and adult teacher and a student aged around 16 years old. With one other student seriously injured this death toll could rise as high as three. The attacker was shot and seriously wounded by police at the scene.
Although it has not been confirmed the attack was initially described as being at a school for immigrants. However I suspect once the initial shock and translation issues have been worked through this means a school in an area with a high immigrant population.
This is obviously a reference to the migration/refugee crisis that Europe finds itself in due to the conflicts in Iraq/Syria and Libya.
It is also a reference to the anti-migrant/refugee violence that has begun to emerge in Europe in response to the crisis.
In the former Soviet East Germany groups such as PEGIDA have been very active in staging sometimes violent anti-immigrant street protests including a protest marking the first anniversary of the group in Dresden on Monday (19/10/15). On Saturday (17/10/15) a pro-refugee Mayoral candidate was stabbed in Cologne by an assailant who is reported to have shouted anti-immigrant slogan. Fortunately she survived and went on to win the election.
These have simply been the headline grabbing incidents that have been part of a wave of low level attacks against refugees and facilities for refugees such as processing centres across numerous European nations. Just on Tuesday (20/10/15) Swedish authorities announced that they would be keeping secret the addresses of refugee housing units following 15 arson attacks against such locations this year.
Sweden actually has a very specific issue with refugees. Following the Balkan wars of the 1990's Sweden took in a lot of predominately Muslim refugees. Unfortunately it didn't do enough to integrate these newcomers instead leaving them to set up ghettos mainly in the Biskopsgarden area of Gothenburg. As often happens these ghettos have become havens for organised crime and this summer has seen a big gang war with tit-for-tat killings carried out with guns grenades and car bombings.
As a result during the negotiations over a European Union (EU) quota system lots of countries have expressed concern that it would lead to them experiencing the same problems as Sweden. Obviously though if they were to drop their opposition there could be an EU-wide discussion of the urban planning/human geography methods that can be employed to avoid Sweden's problems.
The use of the sword is a reference to the violence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated groups. After all when people talk about violent Jihad they often talk about "The Jihad of the Sword" and I think we're all familiar with ISIL's fondness of beheadings.
Due to its earlier failure to integrate Muslim immigrants Sweden has seen a relatively high proportion of its citizens travel to join ISIL. Although Sweden didn't seem particularly worried about them leaving like much of Europe it is now very worried about them returning - possibly disguised as refugees - in order to carry out terror attacks.
The fact a school was targeted is a reference to the school shootings in the US such as the Newtown massacre and the recent shooting at Umpqua Community College. US President Barack Obama has long tried to exploit these to further his own gun control agenda.
Sweden has much tighter gun control legislation but this seems to have done nothing to stem the gang violence in Sweden's ghettos. As such a sword attack on a school being stopped by guns seems to be a complete rejection of President Obama's leadership.
Coming in from Sweden this is very significant. Not only has Sweden provided many fighters to ISIL they have also been very active supporters of US sanctions against Russia over ISIL's Northern/Shamali Province - "Ukraine" if you still insist on using the Kuffar name.
This week also sees the October meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany. As I've mentioned before Obama's incompetence along with the threat of terrorism both against nations that might benefit from a new agreement and the Paris, France venue itself have long been used to unsettle negotiations where issues such as urban planning/human geography come up frequently.
Therefore I can't say that I'm particularly happy that Sweden have gone with such a dramatic move today. After all the hour I've spent writing this up is an hour that I could have spent on the climate change issue itself.
However I suppose you could argue that a sign that Obama's support is collapsing and being replaced by a united European front is reassuring.
It's also worth pointing out that today US Secretary of State John Kerry is in Germany to meet with EU, Palestinian and Israeli leaders to discuss the current violence in Jerusalem which is closely linked to ISIL even if no-one will admit it.
Tomorrow will see a poorly scheduled meeting between the US, the EU, Russia and Saudi Arabia on the conflict in Iraq/Syria.
14:10 on 22/10/15 (UK date).
Tuesday 20 October 2015
Operation Featherweight: Month 15, Week 4, Day 3.
Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are this week meeting at their Headquarters in Bonn, Germany. This will be the final such meeting prior to the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) in Paris, France on November 30th (30/11/15) where a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol is set to be signed.
As a result I really need to be focusing on that this week rather then providing comprehensive updates on the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated group. However there is one issue that seems to cut across both topics.
On Saturday (17/10/15) a British national - Jacqueline "Jacky" Sutton - was found dead in the toilets at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, Turkey by two Russian nationals.
Ms Sutton was the Iraq director for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) a non-profit organisation that was founded in 1991 to provide balanced reporting from what was at the time Yugoslavia.
IWPR's current Chairman is Sir David Bell a former Chairman of the Financial Times newspaper and its members include Christiane Amanpour, CNN's Chief International correspondent, Christina Lamb, Chief International correspondent for the London Times newspaper and Anne Applebaum who sits on the board of the Washington Post. Ms Sutton herself has previously worked for both the BBC and the Economist newspaper.
Apparently all the CCTV cameras in the area of the airport where Ms Sutton died were either broken, switched off or the footage has disappeared. However the Turkish version of events is that Ms Sutton had missed her connecting flight to Erbil, Iraq where she was travelling to on IWPR business.
On being told that she would have to buy another ticket which she was apparently unable to afford Ms Sutton - as an experienced traveller both in and out of warzones - didn't think to contact her employer or even her friends or family to ask them to pay for the new ticket. Instead she went straight to the bathroom and hung herself with her boot-laces.
Curiously in footage from elsewhere in the airport Ms Sutton was not wearing boots - laced or otherwise.
Suspicions that Ms Sutton was murdered by agents of the Turkish state are strengthened by the fact that intimidation and violence against journalists has become all too common in Turkey. This is particularly true for journalists who produce facts that are critical of either Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan or his Justice and Development Party (AKP).
For example on October 3rd (3/10/15) twin suicide bombings struck a peace rally that was organised in part by the Turkish Kurdish Peoples Democratic Party (HDP) in Turkey's capital Ankara killing 102 people - mainly Kurds.
Turkey's first response to this was to ban the publication of any images of the scene of the bombing. This included not only the bombing itself and the aftermath but also images of the scene taken before the bombing. As a result even train spotter blogs containing photographs of Ankara train station were removed and 12 people were arrested for violating the ban.
That ban has only been lifted today (20/10/15) with the identification of Yunus Emre Alagoz as one of the Ankara bombers. Yunus Emre is the brother of Seyh Abdurrahman Alagoz who carried out the bombing of a rally by the youth wing of the HDP in Suruc on July 20th (20/7/15). It seems odd that in the mass security crackdown that followed Turkish authorities didn't get around to questioning the bomber's brother.
On September 8th (8/9/15) supporters of the AKP and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) went on the rampage in Ankara setting fire to the offices of the HDP and Hurriyet newspaper. On September 15th (15/9/15) this was followed up by a police raid on the Headquarters of the Dogan media group which published Hurriyet which AKP constantly accuse of being part of a conspiracy to overthrow Erdogan.
On October 1st (1/10/15) Hurriyet columnist and CNN Turkey host Ahmet Hakan was viciously assaulted by four men outside his home in Istanbul. Despite CCTV footage showing the attackers following Mr Hakan from the CNN Turk studios Turkish police remain adamant that it was just a random road rage attack.
Against this backdrop of violence against journalists the location of Ms Sutton's death - Ataturk Airport - could be viewed as significant. The airport is named after modern Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who established the nation's aggressively secular constitution.
The Kemalist Republican People's Party (CHP) are obviously very supportive of that constitution while members of Turkey's mythical "Deep State" including members of the MHP are sworn to uphold it at all costs. The AKP's attempts to change that constitution including by allowing Erdogan to rule as President have fuelled numerous rumours of a coup by the Deep State to protect the values of Ataturk.
As such in Turkey's conspiratorial politics there seems to have been a hope that Ms Sutton's death would be viewed as an attempt by the Deep State to reach out to the UK as part of the conspiracy to oust Erdogan. After all in the minds of the AKP the entire universe is one giant conspiracy to oust Erdogan.
Those who enjoy a good conspiracy theory are likely to be very interested in Ms Sutton's death because it seems like a plotline from the US TV spy Show "Homeland."
Specifically the plotline from season 4 of Homeland in which the Saul character is kidnapped from an airport by rogue members of the Pakistani intelligence services who conveniently switched off all the CCTV cameras.
Season 5 of Homeland is currently revealing its secrets but for the most part it is set in Berlin, Germany which has both large Turkish and Kurdish ex-pat communities. Episode 2 saw the main characters travel to a camp for Syrian refugees in Lebanon in what looks like being one of the seasons major themes.
Ms Sutton of course was very familiar with the Dohuk camp for Syrian refugees in Iraqi Kurdistan which Turkey keeps threatening to bomb.
In terms of the UNFCCC meeting whenever you have a political meeting of this type that brings together delegates from across the world - often including Heads of Government/State (HOGS) there is always a concern that there will be political violence.
For example six of the people killed aboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014 were on their way to the International AIDS Conference that was being held that year in Australia. There remains a persistent suspicion that MH17 was chosen specifically to kill those delegates.
This is also why the Shrien Dewani case became such a major international issue. That occurred in the host of COP17 just as delegates were arriving for COP16 in Cancun, Mexico where violence by the drugs cartels was a concern.
Although security plans are good and the risk is low COP Summits are incredibly stressful affairs. Once people start getting stressed and overtired paranoia start to creep in and that paranoia can be used to disrupt the summit.
For example at the extremely stressful COP18 Summit in Qatar there were a string of news stories about celebrities and scientists falling to their deaths in suspicious circumstances along with rumours that Yasser Arafat had been assassinated with Polonium like Russia dissident Alexander Litvinenko. These were all intended to make delegates extra nervous at a Summit where some were hoping the entire process would collapse.
One of the main reasons why Saudi Arabia conducted the 2015 Paris attacks was to show - weeks after COP20 - that it could and would attack the COP21 host nation to prevent an agreement being signed. As a result the security plan for COP21 is shaping up to be one of the most comprehensive ever.
By getting everyone gossipping about potential political assassinations Turkey seemed to be trying to ratchet up the tension even further.
17:40 on 20/10/15 (UK date).
As a result I really need to be focusing on that this week rather then providing comprehensive updates on the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and associated group. However there is one issue that seems to cut across both topics.
On Saturday (17/10/15) a British national - Jacqueline "Jacky" Sutton - was found dead in the toilets at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, Turkey by two Russian nationals.
Ms Sutton was the Iraq director for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) a non-profit organisation that was founded in 1991 to provide balanced reporting from what was at the time Yugoslavia.
IWPR's current Chairman is Sir David Bell a former Chairman of the Financial Times newspaper and its members include Christiane Amanpour, CNN's Chief International correspondent, Christina Lamb, Chief International correspondent for the London Times newspaper and Anne Applebaum who sits on the board of the Washington Post. Ms Sutton herself has previously worked for both the BBC and the Economist newspaper.
Apparently all the CCTV cameras in the area of the airport where Ms Sutton died were either broken, switched off or the footage has disappeared. However the Turkish version of events is that Ms Sutton had missed her connecting flight to Erbil, Iraq where she was travelling to on IWPR business.
On being told that she would have to buy another ticket which she was apparently unable to afford Ms Sutton - as an experienced traveller both in and out of warzones - didn't think to contact her employer or even her friends or family to ask them to pay for the new ticket. Instead she went straight to the bathroom and hung herself with her boot-laces.
Curiously in footage from elsewhere in the airport Ms Sutton was not wearing boots - laced or otherwise.
Suspicions that Ms Sutton was murdered by agents of the Turkish state are strengthened by the fact that intimidation and violence against journalists has become all too common in Turkey. This is particularly true for journalists who produce facts that are critical of either Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan or his Justice and Development Party (AKP).
For example on October 3rd (3/10/15) twin suicide bombings struck a peace rally that was organised in part by the Turkish Kurdish Peoples Democratic Party (HDP) in Turkey's capital Ankara killing 102 people - mainly Kurds.
Turkey's first response to this was to ban the publication of any images of the scene of the bombing. This included not only the bombing itself and the aftermath but also images of the scene taken before the bombing. As a result even train spotter blogs containing photographs of Ankara train station were removed and 12 people were arrested for violating the ban.
That ban has only been lifted today (20/10/15) with the identification of Yunus Emre Alagoz as one of the Ankara bombers. Yunus Emre is the brother of Seyh Abdurrahman Alagoz who carried out the bombing of a rally by the youth wing of the HDP in Suruc on July 20th (20/7/15). It seems odd that in the mass security crackdown that followed Turkish authorities didn't get around to questioning the bomber's brother.
On September 8th (8/9/15) supporters of the AKP and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) went on the rampage in Ankara setting fire to the offices of the HDP and Hurriyet newspaper. On September 15th (15/9/15) this was followed up by a police raid on the Headquarters of the Dogan media group which published Hurriyet which AKP constantly accuse of being part of a conspiracy to overthrow Erdogan.
On October 1st (1/10/15) Hurriyet columnist and CNN Turkey host Ahmet Hakan was viciously assaulted by four men outside his home in Istanbul. Despite CCTV footage showing the attackers following Mr Hakan from the CNN Turk studios Turkish police remain adamant that it was just a random road rage attack.
Against this backdrop of violence against journalists the location of Ms Sutton's death - Ataturk Airport - could be viewed as significant. The airport is named after modern Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who established the nation's aggressively secular constitution.
The Kemalist Republican People's Party (CHP) are obviously very supportive of that constitution while members of Turkey's mythical "Deep State" including members of the MHP are sworn to uphold it at all costs. The AKP's attempts to change that constitution including by allowing Erdogan to rule as President have fuelled numerous rumours of a coup by the Deep State to protect the values of Ataturk.
As such in Turkey's conspiratorial politics there seems to have been a hope that Ms Sutton's death would be viewed as an attempt by the Deep State to reach out to the UK as part of the conspiracy to oust Erdogan. After all in the minds of the AKP the entire universe is one giant conspiracy to oust Erdogan.
Those who enjoy a good conspiracy theory are likely to be very interested in Ms Sutton's death because it seems like a plotline from the US TV spy Show "Homeland."
Specifically the plotline from season 4 of Homeland in which the Saul character is kidnapped from an airport by rogue members of the Pakistani intelligence services who conveniently switched off all the CCTV cameras.
Season 5 of Homeland is currently revealing its secrets but for the most part it is set in Berlin, Germany which has both large Turkish and Kurdish ex-pat communities. Episode 2 saw the main characters travel to a camp for Syrian refugees in Lebanon in what looks like being one of the seasons major themes.
Ms Sutton of course was very familiar with the Dohuk camp for Syrian refugees in Iraqi Kurdistan which Turkey keeps threatening to bomb.
In terms of the UNFCCC meeting whenever you have a political meeting of this type that brings together delegates from across the world - often including Heads of Government/State (HOGS) there is always a concern that there will be political violence.
For example six of the people killed aboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014 were on their way to the International AIDS Conference that was being held that year in Australia. There remains a persistent suspicion that MH17 was chosen specifically to kill those delegates.
This is also why the Shrien Dewani case became such a major international issue. That occurred in the host of COP17 just as delegates were arriving for COP16 in Cancun, Mexico where violence by the drugs cartels was a concern.
Although security plans are good and the risk is low COP Summits are incredibly stressful affairs. Once people start getting stressed and overtired paranoia start to creep in and that paranoia can be used to disrupt the summit.
For example at the extremely stressful COP18 Summit in Qatar there were a string of news stories about celebrities and scientists falling to their deaths in suspicious circumstances along with rumours that Yasser Arafat had been assassinated with Polonium like Russia dissident Alexander Litvinenko. These were all intended to make delegates extra nervous at a Summit where some were hoping the entire process would collapse.
One of the main reasons why Saudi Arabia conducted the 2015 Paris attacks was to show - weeks after COP20 - that it could and would attack the COP21 host nation to prevent an agreement being signed. As a result the security plan for COP21 is shaping up to be one of the most comprehensive ever.
By getting everyone gossipping about potential political assassinations Turkey seemed to be trying to ratchet up the tension even further.
17:40 on 20/10/15 (UK date).
Monday 19 October 2015
ADP Ex Ante Review: My Thoughts
Back on September 24th (24/9/15) I
asked people to think about how the ex ante review process would function under
the agreement. Since then I have given the issue some thought and come up with
my answers to those questions;
I see the first stage
of the review process being the parties whose submissions are being reviewed
giving a presentation to the review group on their submission. After all it
seems to have been agreed that while there is to be an online register/library of
submissions this will simply provide an overview. The presentation will allow
nations to expand privately on detail they may wish to keep out of the public
domain.
Following the
presentations which hopefully would happen during the annual Conference of Parties
(COP) or at the first meeting following the COP each nation will go off and
write a report on the submissions they are to review. This report will focus on
the minimum criteria for submissions laid out in the appropriate technical
annex.
So for example if I
was reviewing the US' submission I would begin;
Type: Here I would
complement the US on submitting an absolute reduction target explaining that
seems appropriate for their status as a highly developed economy.
Scope: Here I would
complement the US on using the IPCC standard. However if I was reviewing a
nation that wasn't using the IPCC standard I would use this opportunity to
identify it as a weakness.
For example Morocco
doesn't intend to measure F-gases. As I've explained before I think this is a
problem because F-gases could be a growth area in Morocco's emissions so it is
important to establish what the current levels are.
Coverage: Again I
would complement the US' use of the IPCC standard. However if I was reviewing a
nation that used a different measure this is where I would express concern
along with a detailed explanation of my concerns.
Baseline: Here I
would express concern that the US is using 2005 as the baseline rather then the
more widely used 1990 standard. This obviously leads to some confusion when
comparing the US' submission to its peers.
Timeframe: Here I
would again express concern that the US is using a five year timeframe rather
then the 10 years mandated by the agreement. Not only does this make it more
difficult comparing the US to other submissions but it leaves a five year
period within the 10 year cycle were there is no indication that the US will be
taking any action. That is hardly fair nor ambitious.
Reduction: Here I
would have to look at what action the US has taken in the past, how it's
current action compares to others and if there is anything obvious the US could
do to make a bigger reduction.
Obviously I don't really have time to do that
now but I should point out that a critique of a reduction is not binding
forcing the nation to make changes. Instead it is to help the nation to make
further reductions which it may not have identified on its own.
Metric: Here I would
complement the US on using the standard IPCC metric because it increases
transparency and makes for easier comparison. If not I would include any strengths/weaknesses of the metric they were using
Methodology: Again
here I would complement the US for using the IPCC standard or offer an assesment of the method used.
Means of
Implementation: Here I would assess the mechanisms that a nation will use to
achieve it's reductions to determine if they are viable or not.
In the US example
every time they claim that they are going to use the Clean Air Act to regulate
emissions from power stations I would highlight the recent Supreme Court
rulings that have overturned attempts to use the Clean Air Act to limit
emissions.
I may then go onto suggest that the US made need to introduce new
legislation to achieve its targets. This would lead me to express concern over
the US' ability to introduce that legislation and suggest a public education
campaign to increase public support for such legislation.
Where the US claims
that it intendeds to use its existing framework to further reduce vehicle
emissions I would obviously highlight the recent Volkswagen scandal and express
concern that the US testing regime is not sufficient to enforce the existing
legislation. If I was an expert on the mechanics of vehicle emissions testing I
would use this opportunity to suggest improvements the US could make to its
regime.
As with all other
sections of the peer review the Means of Implementation is non-binding and a
forum for discussion. However I think it is amongst the most important sections
in terms of capacity building. After all no nations wants to sign up to a
target they know they can't meet and which will incur them a large fine.
Market Mechanism:
Here I would express disappointment that the US - as one of the World's most
capitalist economies - is not using market based mechanisms. In expressing this
disappointment I would highlight how market mechanism can bring great success
not only in reducing emissions but by generating income to assist other nations
in reducing emissions.
If the nation reviewed was intending to use market based mechanisms this is where I would
take a very close look at the type of mechanism it was and whether the
accountancy methods used were rigorous enough to avoid fraud double counting
and whether they were compatible with the mechanisms used by other nations.
Conditional/Additional:
Here I would again express disappointment that by failing to include an additional
portion the US had given no consideration to how it can bring down global
emissions at relatively low cost by assisting less developed nations.
Percentage of
Emissions Covered: Here I would complement the US on covering 100% of its
emissions because it aids with transparency and comparison. However on a more
complicated submission such as Ethiopia's which is using an intensity measure I would look
assess how accurate their calculations are.
Adaptation: Here I
would criticise the US for failing to provide any information on its adaptation
actions and in doing so showing a blatant disregard for the need to build
capacity though the sharing of professional expertise.
However if an
adaptation section had been included I would do a quick assessment of how
viable and cost-effective the proposed actions were along with the nation's
ability to deliver them in terms to cost, expertise etc.
Emissions Pathway:
Here I would criticise the US for not including an emissions pathway that
shows it is committed to the overall goal of the agreement and how this
submission contributes to that goal.
Obviously though if
the US had included a pathway I would assess how accurate their calculations
are and give and opinion as to whether this individual submission was fair and
ambitious in terms of meeting that pathway or if the US is leaving itself far
too much work to do in later rounds of submissions.
Once each nation has
produced its own report on all the submissions before the group I think they
should give that report to each other member of the group. The group will then
work together to produce a synthesis report.
I think this process
is vital for capacity building because it allows each nation in the group to
learn from each other.
Once the synthesis
report has been prepared it is sent along with the individual reports to the
submitting nation. Having considered the reports the submitting nation can then
decide to make changes to its submission before it is formalised.
I appreciate that
getting nations to agree on a synthesis report can be extremely difficult, time
consuming and sometimes impossible. Therefore while I think it should be
deterred it should be possible for the process to continue without a synthesis
report with the submitter nation having to make do with just the individual
reports.
Due to nations having
to prepare multiple reports and then develop multiple synthesised reports I
think it would be better to have a large
number of small working groups. Based on 160 participants I'm thinking in terms
between of 32 groups of 5 and 20 groups of 8.
In terms of the
membership of each group I think that for the purposes of capacity building the
groups do need to represent the different groups within the convention such as
the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), Least Developed Countries (LDC's) etc.
However I think it is best for them to be randomly assigned from within each
sub-category.
This can function
rather like the draw for a sporting competition such as a football world cup.
You start by randomly assigning say a former Annex I party to a group then you
randomly assign a SIDS to the same group followed by a LDC. The process
continues until each group has one of each of the sub-categories. Any nations
that are unassigned at that point are then put into a general draw with say
China having the same chance of being drawn to a group as say Barbados.
I don't think there
is any need for there to be a wider geo-political weighting to how group
membership is assigned. However I think there should be a mechanism to allow a
country to ask to withdraw from a particular group upon presenting a valid
reason - such as being at war with another member of their group - to the
Secretariat who will make the final decision.
In terms of how each
submission is assigned to a group I'm perfectly happy with it being almost
completely random. However I do think there should be a mix of absolute and
intensity reductions in each group.
Therefore you would divide the submissions
to be randomly assigned to groups with each group getting an absolute
submission followed by an intensity submission. If you run out of one or the
other - as hopefully we will do with intensity submissions - you just carrying
on randomly assigning the remaining submissions.
Obviously there needs
to be a rule that no group can review the submission of one of its members.
However this is simply solved by assigning the submission to the next group
along the line and drawing another submission.
Beyond the peer review
process I think the Secretariat should be able to randomly select submissions
for it to review. I really think it is up to the Secretariat to decide whether
it wishes to exercise this privilege. Nations should also be able to request a
review by the Secretariat.
With none of these
reviews being binding it doesn't really matter if an individual report, a
synthesised report or a Secretariat report differ. In fact it is likely improve
capacity building by encouraging discussion and debate over the differing
perspectives.
When it comes to the
issue of timeframes I'm at a bit of a disadvantage because not participating in
the ex ante review I won't be doing the work which makes it quite difficult for
me to dictate how long the work will take.
However I can see the
task being completed in 15 months with the assigning of the groups taking place
at the third quarter meeting just before the COP. The presentations can then
take place at the COP with the individual reports being presented at the first
quarter meeting following the COP. The synthesised reports that then be
presented at the second quarter meeting leaving the submitting nation 6 months
to make any changes.
Obviously due to time
pressure any changes can't be fully peer reviewed but applications could be made to
the Secretariat for individual review.
At this point I am
tempted to make the assigning of the groups and submissions into a World Cup or
Hunger Games style event. Although it's unlikely to get much conventional TV
coverage a webcast could be a way to build expectation ahead of the COP.
To aid with the
development of the preperation of the next round of submissions I think there
needs to be an ex post review process at the five year mark. Obviously for that
to pheaseable there needs to be 10 year commitment periods which is really the
right length of time to implement an idea and assess its progress while
allowing ambition to grow at regular intervals.
I think the groups used for the ex post review should be the same groups used for the ex ante review. Obviously not having to assign new groups saves time and allows nations to spend more time concentrating on actual climate change.
However much of the
ex ante review will be based on guess work and prediction. Bringing the
submissions back to the same group after five years not only allows the
submissions to be assesed but also the performance of the original reviewers.
Obviously no-one likes having their mistakes pointed out to the but I think the
professional people involved in the process understand that it's not possible
to improve by pretending that everything is fine and you're absolutely
brilliant at everything.
As such going back to
the same groups for the ex post review will help with capacity building by
forcing the reviewers to examine whether their methods have been successful or
not.
In terms of translating this idea into actual language of an argeement I have to say that after a quick skim read there still isn't a section dealing with the review process in the latest non-paper. I have say though that I am reassured that it's been reduced from close to 90 pages down to just 20.
20:35 on 19/10/15 (UK date).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)