Today in Baltimore, US the first of six trials into the April 12th (12/4/15) death of Freddie Gray has begun.
As always with trials this is likely to start slowly with lots of procedural motions such a jury selection. However it is likely that the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest movement along with their supporters in the US media will soon work themselves up into an absolute frenzy about the justice they have won.
The truth is that the trials have been scheduled to demonstrate the complete and exact opposite.
As I may have mentioned once of twice today also sees the start of the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate (UNFCCC) in Paris, France.
The agreement that COP21 is set to produce has not yet been written. As a result at this point it is difficult to say what it is let alone what it is like. However it is shaping up to be very different from the Kyoto Protocol (KP) it replaces.
Essentially what happened under the KP is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mandated cuts that 34 nations would have to make to their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As this ceded national sovereignty the US did not sign up to it.
The KP actually expired in 2012 and the first battle of every COP summit since has been to renew it on a yearly basis to prevent action on climate change stopping completely.
This new agreement is centred on getting all nations to accept that man-made climate change is real and that they need to determine for themselves what action they need to take to prevent it. It then lays out the rights and responsibilities of all nations have in taking action.
So for example everybody has the responsibility to take action. However they have the right to prioritise certain development goals - such as providing enough food for their populations - ahead of action on climate change.
If I were to reduce what is a very complex agreement down to the level of a simple sound-bite I would say that it is a "Climate Constitution."
Probably the most famous constitution - particularly in the US - is the US Constitution.
This is the document that US President Obama has repeatedly defied, disregarded and defiled in the hope that BLM would sweep his Democrat Party to victory in both the November 2014 mid-term elections and the upcoming 2016 Presidential election.
The Freddie Gray case has been a particularly worrying example of this.
Although I'll need to check my notes the prosecution has involved numerous, serious violations of the Constitution. In particular the 5th amendment that prevents arrests being made without a Grand Jury indictment and the 6th amendment which should guarantee a fair trial by preventing the wild accusations the prosecution have made to the media including the malicious filing of a wrongful arrest charge.
Throughout the case there has been a persistent suspicion that the prosecutor - Marilyn Mosby - is wilfully and criminally attempting to pervert the course of justice in an effort to get her husband - Nick Mosby re-elected as a city councilman. This suspicion has increased with Mr Mosby's political ambitions which now see him standing as a candidate for city Mayor.
As such this trial could well begin with Ms Mosby standing up to deliver her opening statement only for the Judge to order her arrested and declare a mis-trial with prejudice under the concept of double jeopardy.
Therefore the Freddy Gray trials are scheduled to coincide with COP21 to act as a bullhorn to the world that Obama has no understanding of nor respect for the concept of a constitution. As such COP21 delegates may as well not bother.
The fact that BLM actually cost the Democrats victory in 2014 handing the Republicans their biggest majority in Congress since the 1940's is also intended to undermine confidence that Obama will be able to get any deal ratified by Congress.
As for the specifics of the trials they begin with the case of William Porter. This is considered the strongest case because although I've not had the opportunity to read them I've been led to believe that in his statements Mr Porter claims that Mr Gray told him that he was feeling unwell during the ride in the police van.
Therefore it seems likely that the prosecution will attempt to argue that this is clear evidence that Mr Porter et al wilfully refused Mr Gray medical attention causing his death.
However it is also likely that the defence will argue that this is clear evidence that Mr Gray repeatedly lied about his medical condition. This refusal on Mr Gray's part to provide truthful information made it impossible for Mr Porter et al to exercise their duty of care towards him.
In short Mr Gray's death was the result of his own actions and therefore not a criminal matter.
Having spent so much time on the case already I would like to follow the trial(s) in more detail. Unfortunately it's hard to imagine a worse time for the US to schedule them for.
18:05 on 30/11/15 (UK date).
Monday, 30 November 2015
Cameron Rejects Syria Air-Strikes.
Here in the UK politicians are currently tearing themselves apart over Prime Minister David Cameron's plan to seek permission to conduct air-strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria.
For people familiar with the conflict this entire argument seems deeply surreal.
The current situation is that British aircraft from the Royal Air Force (RAF) take off from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus and fly over Syria for a bit before returning to base. However they are not allowed to conduct air-strikes in Syria because they lack permission from Parliament.
If Parliament were to give that permission then RAF aircraft would take off from Cyprus and fly over Syria for a bit before returning to base. However they would not be allowed to conduct air-strikes because they lack permission from Turkey.
Unless the UK is prepared to challenge that status quo this Parliamentary vote is nothing more then a symbolic gesture. It could even make the situation worse by reinforcing that status quo.
As I've said before there are numerous diplomatic means the UK could use to alter that status quo.
For example it could use it's membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to make sure that organisations Article 5 mutual defence clause is invoked. As a NATO member this would make clear to Turkey that fighting ISIL is not optional and it can't impose conditions preventing other NATO members from defeating them.
The UK could also use its seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) - the UK was actually President of the UNSC throughout November - to re-affirm UNSC resolution 2170 (2014) by condemning Turkey's attacks on anti-ISIL forces in both Syria and Iraq.
Again this would make clear to Turkey that fighting ISIL is not optional and it cannot provide support to the group by attacking groups who are fighting ISIL.
On Sunday (29/11/15) another diplomatic opportunity presented itself with Turkey requesting a summit with the European Union (EU) over the crisis of the refugees fleeing Syria.
Listening to Turkey express concern for these refugees is something of a sick joke. After all by continually supporting ISIL and blocking all attempts to defeat them Turkey is the main driving force creating these refugees.
Turkey also seems to view the refugees as nothing more then a bargaining chip is can use to get the international community - particularly the EU - to do as it pleases.
For example in October 21st (21/10/15) a group of refugees landed on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. With them being able to penetrate a military base from where anti-ISIL missions are being flown this seemed to Turkey gesturing it's intent to attack forces - even NATO members - fighting ISIL.
Then of course there is the Paris Massacres of November 13th (13/11/15). It is well established that two of the attackers entered the EU disguised as refugees. It remains to be confirmed whether the Turkish state assisted them in this effort.
It is these threats and the ease with which the international community is intimidated by them that gave Turkey the confidence to invade Syrian air-space to shoot down a Russia jet last Tuesday (24/11/15). The thinking being that - as it has done before - the international community would ignore all facts and back Turkey to the hilt imposing sanctions against Russia.
Therefore the logical thing for the Cameron to do would be to reject this summit. Instead he would announce that the assistance that Turkey was seeking would go to Lebanon and Jordan who per capita have taken in far more refugees than Turkey with none of the militancy.
Failing that you would expect Cameron and the other EU leaders to extract a very high price from Turkey in return for any assistance.
For example Turkey would have to immediately stop the flow of ISIL fighters in and out of Syria and immediate cease its aggression towards its neighbours. Turkey's continuing military occupation of northern Cyprus could also have been on the table.
Instead though Cameron and the EU simply caved in and gave Turkey everything they wanted. This includes USD3.5bn in cash, speeding up Turkey's membership of the EU which has long been blocked by the occupation of Cyprus and visa-free travel from Turkey to the EU.
This last concession seems particularly insane because the steady flow of refugees and terrorists from Turkey is already forcing many EU countries to re-introduce border controls restricting the movement of EU citizens. Just the day before (28/11/15) Russia announced that it was scrapping a similar arrangement with Turkey citing security concerns.
In return for all this Cameron and the EU has received absolutely nothing. They even went to far as to re-affirm Turkey's 'right' opt out from the fight against ISIL and its 'right' to attack anti-ISIL forces by framing the discussion of security in terms of UNSC statement 2249 rather then the UNSC resolution 2170 that applies.
So unless I see something dramatic in the wording of the motion presented to Parliament it seems clear that Prime Minister Cameron has already rejected the notion of fighting and defeating ISIL. As such he cannot expect to be granted permission to bomb Syria.
I suppose though it's still an improvement on 2013 when Cameron wanted to go and fight for ISIL.
12:20 on 30/11/15 (UK date).
For people familiar with the conflict this entire argument seems deeply surreal.
The current situation is that British aircraft from the Royal Air Force (RAF) take off from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus and fly over Syria for a bit before returning to base. However they are not allowed to conduct air-strikes in Syria because they lack permission from Parliament.
If Parliament were to give that permission then RAF aircraft would take off from Cyprus and fly over Syria for a bit before returning to base. However they would not be allowed to conduct air-strikes because they lack permission from Turkey.
Unless the UK is prepared to challenge that status quo this Parliamentary vote is nothing more then a symbolic gesture. It could even make the situation worse by reinforcing that status quo.
As I've said before there are numerous diplomatic means the UK could use to alter that status quo.
For example it could use it's membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to make sure that organisations Article 5 mutual defence clause is invoked. As a NATO member this would make clear to Turkey that fighting ISIL is not optional and it can't impose conditions preventing other NATO members from defeating them.
The UK could also use its seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) - the UK was actually President of the UNSC throughout November - to re-affirm UNSC resolution 2170 (2014) by condemning Turkey's attacks on anti-ISIL forces in both Syria and Iraq.
Again this would make clear to Turkey that fighting ISIL is not optional and it cannot provide support to the group by attacking groups who are fighting ISIL.
On Sunday (29/11/15) another diplomatic opportunity presented itself with Turkey requesting a summit with the European Union (EU) over the crisis of the refugees fleeing Syria.
Listening to Turkey express concern for these refugees is something of a sick joke. After all by continually supporting ISIL and blocking all attempts to defeat them Turkey is the main driving force creating these refugees.
Turkey also seems to view the refugees as nothing more then a bargaining chip is can use to get the international community - particularly the EU - to do as it pleases.
For example in October 21st (21/10/15) a group of refugees landed on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. With them being able to penetrate a military base from where anti-ISIL missions are being flown this seemed to Turkey gesturing it's intent to attack forces - even NATO members - fighting ISIL.
Then of course there is the Paris Massacres of November 13th (13/11/15). It is well established that two of the attackers entered the EU disguised as refugees. It remains to be confirmed whether the Turkish state assisted them in this effort.
It is these threats and the ease with which the international community is intimidated by them that gave Turkey the confidence to invade Syrian air-space to shoot down a Russia jet last Tuesday (24/11/15). The thinking being that - as it has done before - the international community would ignore all facts and back Turkey to the hilt imposing sanctions against Russia.
Therefore the logical thing for the Cameron to do would be to reject this summit. Instead he would announce that the assistance that Turkey was seeking would go to Lebanon and Jordan who per capita have taken in far more refugees than Turkey with none of the militancy.
Failing that you would expect Cameron and the other EU leaders to extract a very high price from Turkey in return for any assistance.
For example Turkey would have to immediately stop the flow of ISIL fighters in and out of Syria and immediate cease its aggression towards its neighbours. Turkey's continuing military occupation of northern Cyprus could also have been on the table.
Instead though Cameron and the EU simply caved in and gave Turkey everything they wanted. This includes USD3.5bn in cash, speeding up Turkey's membership of the EU which has long been blocked by the occupation of Cyprus and visa-free travel from Turkey to the EU.
This last concession seems particularly insane because the steady flow of refugees and terrorists from Turkey is already forcing many EU countries to re-introduce border controls restricting the movement of EU citizens. Just the day before (28/11/15) Russia announced that it was scrapping a similar arrangement with Turkey citing security concerns.
In return for all this Cameron and the EU has received absolutely nothing. They even went to far as to re-affirm Turkey's 'right' opt out from the fight against ISIL and its 'right' to attack anti-ISIL forces by framing the discussion of security in terms of UNSC statement 2249 rather then the UNSC resolution 2170 that applies.
So unless I see something dramatic in the wording of the motion presented to Parliament it seems clear that Prime Minister Cameron has already rejected the notion of fighting and defeating ISIL. As such he cannot expect to be granted permission to bomb Syria.
I suppose though it's still an improvement on 2013 when Cameron wanted to go and fight for ISIL.
12:20 on 30/11/15 (UK date).
Sunday, 29 November 2015
COP21: ADP Text 28/11/15 Revision.
On Monday (30/11/15) the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) opens in Paris, France.
Its scheduled close on December 11th (11/12/15) it is expected to see the signing of a global agreement to tackle climate change which will replace the Kyoto Protocol.
Back at 2014's COP20 the UNFCCC Secretariat introduced a draft negotiating text. This went through various revisions with the most recent occurring on June 11th 2015 (11/6/15).
Then at the UNFCCC's October 2015 meeting an entirely new text was introduced. As I said at the time this October text is wholly insufficient as the basis for a climate change agreement.
Therefore I have been continuing to work through the 11/6/15 revision in an effort to develop it into a durable agreement. Back on November 7th (7/11/15) I said that I wouldn't even be attempting the vital section dealing with finance because if I couldn't turn up to COP21 100% ready the hope was that I could at least turn up 90% ready.
The truth is that I'm currently still only 70% ready and I'd really hoped to have been able to to this last Sunday (22/11/15).
However my version of the text can be downloaded here; http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=47687243978332120607
It now includes 14 sections labelled A to N. I have numbered the paragraphs in each section independently of each other so you would refer to Paragraph A.9 or Paragraph F.6.
The reasoning behind my decisions can be found here;
For my own peace of mind if nothing else I would like to go through the finance section. Therefore I may produce a more complete text as COP21 progresses.
However now that the day is upon us I suspect I'm really going to have to play things by ear.
For example there are now lots of urgent security issues regarding the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Islamist terrorism in general that simply cannot be ignored any longer. If for no other reason the to keep a wall of separation between those discussions and the COP21 negotiations I may have to concentrate on them entirely.
I should though remind everyone that the agreement being negotiated is not scheduled to come into force until 2020. The way it is written above the first immovable deadline in the start of the ex ante review process in June 2018.
Therefore it would be better to wait until COP22 in 2016 to sign the right deal rather then rushing to sign a bad deal now.
The first person to use the phrase;
"We Must Sign Something!, Anything! To Show The Terrorists That We Are Not Afraid!!
Gets a slap.
16:40 on 29/11/15
Its scheduled close on December 11th (11/12/15) it is expected to see the signing of a global agreement to tackle climate change which will replace the Kyoto Protocol.
Back at 2014's COP20 the UNFCCC Secretariat introduced a draft negotiating text. This went through various revisions with the most recent occurring on June 11th 2015 (11/6/15).
Then at the UNFCCC's October 2015 meeting an entirely new text was introduced. As I said at the time this October text is wholly insufficient as the basis for a climate change agreement.
Therefore I have been continuing to work through the 11/6/15 revision in an effort to develop it into a durable agreement. Back on November 7th (7/11/15) I said that I wouldn't even be attempting the vital section dealing with finance because if I couldn't turn up to COP21 100% ready the hope was that I could at least turn up 90% ready.
The truth is that I'm currently still only 70% ready and I'd really hoped to have been able to to this last Sunday (22/11/15).
However my version of the text can be downloaded here; http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=47687243978332120607
It now includes 14 sections labelled A to N. I have numbered the paragraphs in each section independently of each other so you would refer to Paragraph A.9 or Paragraph F.6.
The reasoning behind my decisions can be found here;
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/adp-text-11615-revision-section-a.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/adp-text-11615-revision-section-c.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/adp-text-11615-revision-section-d.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/adp-mitigation-section-general-thoughts.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/adp-text-11615-revision-section-d_22.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/adp-text-11615-revision-section-e.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/adp-text-11615-revision-section-e-loss.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/adp-ex-ante-review-general-concepts.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/adp-ex-ante-review-my-thoughts.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/adp-text-11615-revision-section-g.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/adp-11615-text-revision-section-h.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/adp-text-11615-revision-section-i.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/adp-text-11615-revision-section-i_10.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/adp-text-11615-revision-section-j-time.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/adp-text-11615-revision-section-o-peer.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/adp-compliance-my-thoughts.html
- http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/adp-text-11615-revision-section-k.html
For my own peace of mind if nothing else I would like to go through the finance section. Therefore I may produce a more complete text as COP21 progresses.
However now that the day is upon us I suspect I'm really going to have to play things by ear.
For example there are now lots of urgent security issues regarding the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Islamist terrorism in general that simply cannot be ignored any longer. If for no other reason the to keep a wall of separation between those discussions and the COP21 negotiations I may have to concentrate on them entirely.
I should though remind everyone that the agreement being negotiated is not scheduled to come into force until 2020. The way it is written above the first immovable deadline in the start of the ex ante review process in June 2018.
Therefore it would be better to wait until COP22 in 2016 to sign the right deal rather then rushing to sign a bad deal now.
The first person to use the phrase;
"We Must Sign Something!, Anything! To Show The Terrorists That We Are Not Afraid!!
Gets a slap.
16:40 on 29/11/15
Saturday, 28 November 2015
America's Terrorist Problem.
On Monday (30/11/15) the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will open in Paris, France.
Despite all his sloganeering US President Barack Obama remains violently opposed to this process and a solid supporter of climate change.
For example in an effort to disrupt COP19 Obama dispatched the pop-star Rihanna on her 2013 "Diamonds" World Tour. The intention being that this would sow so much discord amongst nations that they would be unable to work together at COP19 at the end of the year.
Even before I got involved this seemed like a poor plan. For example in 2010 a US made film "The Losers" was released mocking Rihanna's role as a super spy. In 2011 a European film "Columbiana" was released mocking Rihanna's reputation as a highly skilled assassin.
Therefore it should have come as little surprise that Rihanna had very little impact on COP19. In fact during the summit I came under a bit of pressure for continuing to concentrate on a topic no-one was interested in rather then the work.
Then of course much of 2014 - particularly the Winter Olympic ceremonies - were spent mocking the US' Rihanna efforts.
The problem is that Obama remains a huge supporter of climate change so will continue to attack the UNFCCC process.
Now of course if Obama had sent something new to COP21 this could have been a problem. However if he sent a spent force like Rihanna there would be no effect to the attack.
So we've all spent the last year desperately trying to pretend Rihanna's worth a second thought in an effort to convince the US she's still an active threat. This effort has been led by Samsung who - alongside the Green Climate Fund (GCF) - is based in the Republic of Korea (RoK/South).
On Monday (23/11/15) Rihanna - using a super secret Samsung app that you had to register to download and would only work on Samsung devices - announced that she was going on tour again in 2016.
Nobody cared.
Realising that they'd staked everything on a busted flush the US is now desperate for people to pay them attention on the run-up to and throughout COP21.
Certainly since the Paris Massacres of November 13th (13/11/15) COP21 has been closely linked to the issue of Islamist terrorism.
As I've been detailing for the past 16 months President Obama has pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and continues to act on their behalf. This is a problem because ISIL is at war with the US so Obama cannot remain President of a country that he is at war with.
The concern though is that if Obama was removed from office and charged with treason who would send his boot-boys of the "Black Lives Matter (BLM)" movement onto the streets to continue the campaign of violence they have been conducting throughout the past 16 months.
Due to the similarities between this and the Muslim Brotherhood the US has been very keen to play up this angle during the recent elections in Egypt.
Matters really came to a head of Wednesday (25/11/15).
Looking at the recent terror attacks most people identifies a pattern indicating that the next attack would occur on Thursday (26/11/15) or Friday (27/11/15). The attacks would then become daily throughout COP21. On Thursday German authorities did indeed seem to prevent a terrorist attack planned for Berlin.
Obama however stood up and assured the American people that there was absolutely no indication that an attack was imminent. It's a long running scandal of the Obama Presidency that if an intelligence report is prepared containing information that Obama doesn't want to hear he will simply order the report re-written.
So yesterday the US experienced an active shooter situation at a "Planned Parenthood" reproductive health/abortion clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado in which one police officer was shot and killed.
Black Lives Matter activists immediately swamped Twitter demanding that the shooter be treated as a terrorist because he'd used violence to intimidate the government into changing it's policy. In short they were tricked into queueing up to announce;
"We Are Terrorists! We Need to be Arrested!"
The main focus though was the Republican Party.
When I talk about South Africa I often cite the lack of a credible opposition to keep the African National Congress (ANC) honest as a major cause for the countries problems.The Republicans are currently the party of opposition in the US. However theyseem to be completely neglecting their role.
For example over the summer Obama invited Turkey into the US-led coalition against ISIL. As a condition Obama formally agreed that US-led coalition would stop fighting ISIL. You would have thought that the Republicans would have absolutely torn Obama to pieces over this and the terrorism of BLM.
Instead though the Republicans decided to cover it all up by launching a weird campaign to shut down Planned Parenthood.
11:55 on 28/11/15 (UK date).
Despite all his sloganeering US President Barack Obama remains violently opposed to this process and a solid supporter of climate change.
For example in an effort to disrupt COP19 Obama dispatched the pop-star Rihanna on her 2013 "Diamonds" World Tour. The intention being that this would sow so much discord amongst nations that they would be unable to work together at COP19 at the end of the year.
Even before I got involved this seemed like a poor plan. For example in 2010 a US made film "The Losers" was released mocking Rihanna's role as a super spy. In 2011 a European film "Columbiana" was released mocking Rihanna's reputation as a highly skilled assassin.
Therefore it should have come as little surprise that Rihanna had very little impact on COP19. In fact during the summit I came under a bit of pressure for continuing to concentrate on a topic no-one was interested in rather then the work.
Then of course much of 2014 - particularly the Winter Olympic ceremonies - were spent mocking the US' Rihanna efforts.
The problem is that Obama remains a huge supporter of climate change so will continue to attack the UNFCCC process.
Now of course if Obama had sent something new to COP21 this could have been a problem. However if he sent a spent force like Rihanna there would be no effect to the attack.
So we've all spent the last year desperately trying to pretend Rihanna's worth a second thought in an effort to convince the US she's still an active threat. This effort has been led by Samsung who - alongside the Green Climate Fund (GCF) - is based in the Republic of Korea (RoK/South).
On Monday (23/11/15) Rihanna - using a super secret Samsung app that you had to register to download and would only work on Samsung devices - announced that she was going on tour again in 2016.
Nobody cared.
Realising that they'd staked everything on a busted flush the US is now desperate for people to pay them attention on the run-up to and throughout COP21.
Certainly since the Paris Massacres of November 13th (13/11/15) COP21 has been closely linked to the issue of Islamist terrorism.
As I've been detailing for the past 16 months President Obama has pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and continues to act on their behalf. This is a problem because ISIL is at war with the US so Obama cannot remain President of a country that he is at war with.
The concern though is that if Obama was removed from office and charged with treason who would send his boot-boys of the "Black Lives Matter (BLM)" movement onto the streets to continue the campaign of violence they have been conducting throughout the past 16 months.
Due to the similarities between this and the Muslim Brotherhood the US has been very keen to play up this angle during the recent elections in Egypt.
Matters really came to a head of Wednesday (25/11/15).
Looking at the recent terror attacks most people identifies a pattern indicating that the next attack would occur on Thursday (26/11/15) or Friday (27/11/15). The attacks would then become daily throughout COP21. On Thursday German authorities did indeed seem to prevent a terrorist attack planned for Berlin.
Obama however stood up and assured the American people that there was absolutely no indication that an attack was imminent. It's a long running scandal of the Obama Presidency that if an intelligence report is prepared containing information that Obama doesn't want to hear he will simply order the report re-written.
So yesterday the US experienced an active shooter situation at a "Planned Parenthood" reproductive health/abortion clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado in which one police officer was shot and killed.
Black Lives Matter activists immediately swamped Twitter demanding that the shooter be treated as a terrorist because he'd used violence to intimidate the government into changing it's policy. In short they were tricked into queueing up to announce;
"We Are Terrorists! We Need to be Arrested!"
The main focus though was the Republican Party.
When I talk about South Africa I often cite the lack of a credible opposition to keep the African National Congress (ANC) honest as a major cause for the countries problems.The Republicans are currently the party of opposition in the US. However theyseem to be completely neglecting their role.
For example over the summer Obama invited Turkey into the US-led coalition against ISIL. As a condition Obama formally agreed that US-led coalition would stop fighting ISIL. You would have thought that the Republicans would have absolutely torn Obama to pieces over this and the terrorism of BLM.
Instead though the Republicans decided to cover it all up by launching a weird campaign to shut down Planned Parenthood.
11:55 on 28/11/15 (UK date).
Friday, 27 November 2015
ADP Text 11/6/15 Revision: Section K: Facilitating Implementation & Compliance.
As I said here; http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/adp-compliance-my-thoughts.html
Because nobody wishes to talk about the section dealing with implementation and compliance was not well developed enough for me to simply chose between a variety of options. Instead I had to set about writing my own version.
Almost two weeks later I have finally completed that task.
Unfortunately it is not quite as polished as I would like. Therefore even more then usual I am happy to hear contributions from the more talented and the more experienced
Because nobody wishes to talk about the section dealing with implementation and compliance was not well developed enough for me to simply chose between a variety of options. Instead I had to set about writing my own version.
Almost two weeks later I have finally completed that task.
Unfortunately it is not quite as polished as I would like. Therefore even more then usual I am happy to hear contributions from the more talented and the more experienced
Section K:
Facilitating Implementation & Compliance.
Paragraph 1: "In order
to facilitate and promote implementation and to enforce compliance the
governing body is to establish a subsidiary body for Implementation and Compliance."
This simply gives the governing body the authority to establish a subsidiary body.
Paragraph 2: "Recalling Article 10 of the convention the primary objective of the body will be to enable all
parties to achieve the commitments laid out in their respective INDC's."
I envisage this new subsidiary body to essentially function as the existing Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) only with some added features such as compliance powers to allow it to serve this new agreement. I view the recalling of Article 10 as sufficient for this purpose.
Paragraph 3: "Nations are obligated
to refer themselves to the body and invite it to assist them if they identify
any problems with progress towards implementing their commitments. This is to
be considered the primary referral mechanism."
What I'm trying to do is make sure that nations only have penalties imposed on them if they have acted in bad faith and refused all the assistance offered to them. However it would place a huge burden on the subsidiary body to monitor every nation's progress in detail. Therefore I think it is important to place an obligation on nations to self-report problems and seek assistance.
Paragraph 4: "Beyond the obligation
to self-report the body will also independently monitor the progress in
implementation and compliance within the following areas;
(a). The Total
Emissions Reduction,
(b). The Scope of the
Emissions Reduction,
(c). The Coverage of
the Emissions Reduction,
(d). The Percentage
of the Total Emissions Covered by the Emissions Reduction,
(e). The Metric Used
to Calculate the Emissions Reduction,
(f). The Methodology
Used to Calculate the Emissions Reduction,
(g). Any Other
Criteria Laid Out in Technical Annex (X) as Agreed by the Governing Body."
Although the primary obligation is on the party to self-report this allows the body to monitor progress. It goes beyond the delivery of the final target to increase transparency and stop parties using accounting tricks.
However nations are only being examined on the criteria they chose to include on their INDC. Therefore if a nation states that it is using a different metric from the IPCC standard it cannot be punished for failing to use the IPCC standard. It can though be punished if it deviates from it's stated metric.
Paragraph 5: "The body will also
be guided by the results of the peer review process and the periodic review of
the Secretariat."
This simply allows the subsidiary body to use the results of those review processes to identify parties that may be in trouble.
Paragraph 6: "In the event that
the body identifies cause for concern with the implementation of a nation's
INDC it shall write to the party informing them of those concerns."
This simply establishes a procedure for the body to contact parties that may be in need of assistance.
Paragraph 7: "Upon receipt of the
aforementioned letter a party may invite the body to assist it."
In order not to undermine national sovereignty nations must be free to refuse assistance from the body.
Paragraph 8: "In the event that a
nation is struggling to implement its commitments and upon invitation the body
has the power to;
(a). Assign experts
from the technical mechanism(s) serving this agreement to advise and assist
said nation,
(b). Instruct the
financial mechanism(s) serving this agreement to prioritise funding to said
nation to allow it to implement it's commitments,
(c). Facilitate
private sector support for nations that request it."
This simply establishes that in order to help parties implement their plans the body can assign resources from the technical and financial mechanisms along with the private sector for nations that are happy to work with the private sector.
Paragraph 9: "If at the end of a
commitment cycle a party has failed to implement their INDC they are to be
referred to an adjudication panel."
Although this is where things get unpopular if a party fails to comply with a commitment it has set for itself despite all the assistance made available there needs to be consequences otherwise this agreement becomes completely meaningless.
Paragraph 10: "Upon referral the
party concerned is invited to make representations to explain its failure to
implement it's INDC."
Obviously before a party is punished it has to be given an opportunity to explain itself.
Paragraph 11: "The adjudication
panel is to established according to rules that are guided by the common
practices of the United Nations and set by the subsidiary body and approved by
the governing body.
It is to be made up
of;
·
Two
members of the African group of nations,
·
Two
members of the Asian group of nations,
·
One
member of the Eastern European group of nations,
·
One
member of the Latin American & Caribbean group of nations,
·
One
member of the European states & others group of nations."
This simply establishes the composition of the adjudication panel in accordance with common UN practice. In the interests of fairness I have given the African group 2 seats because it represents roughly 1/3rd of all nations on earth. I have also given 2 seats to the Asian group because it represents a similar number of nations and is home to roughly 1/3rd of the World's population.
Paragraph 12: "In the interests of
fairness no nation may adjudicate on itself. Therefore alternate panel members
will also be elected to act in cases of conflict of interest."
This is standard and self-explanatory clause however it still needs stating.
Paragraph 13: "In the event of
Force Majeure conditions such as war or extreme natural event the panel may
take no further action."
In the event a nation's failure to implement has been brought about by a large-scale event beyond it's control it is unfair to punish them further. This clause prevents that from happening. Although I'm mentioned war and extreme natural events as possible examples I have deliberately left the definition vague. It is best decided on a case-by-case basis guided by precedent.
Paragraph 14: "In making it's
decision the panel must consider;
(a). The parties
individual circumstances in line with the principle of Common But
Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR),
(b). Any failures by
third parties that where unforeseeable after due diligence but fall short of
Force Majeure,
(c). The parties
level of co-operation with the subsidiary body and good faith shown throughout
the commitment period."
This establishes that the adjudication panel must consider mitigating factors.
So for example if a party with a low capability has missed it's target because a third party supplier who was endorsed by the Technology mechanism sold them faulty equipment - I'm thinking Volkswagen - but it has worked tirelessly with the subsidiary body to avoid missing their target they will be punished much less harshly then a nation that has simply ignored all warnings and offers of assistance.
So for example if a party with a low capability has missed it's target because a third party supplier who was endorsed by the Technology mechanism sold them faulty equipment - I'm thinking Volkswagen - but it has worked tirelessly with the subsidiary body to avoid missing their target they will be punished much less harshly then a nation that has simply ignored all warnings and offers of assistance.
Paragraph 15: "For minor failures of
implementation the panel may issue of formal letter of censure to the party
detailing the reasons for it's failure in order to assist the party in setting
more achievable commitments in future."
Again the objective of this section is to help nations meet their targets rather then punishing them for missing them. So if a nation has simply set itself a too ambitious target it is better to help them build capacity then reduce their capacity by fining them.
Paragraph 16: "No nation may
receive more then three letters of censure for failures to implement a Total
Emission Reduction or for infractions in the same area."
Obviously though we can't have parties repeating the same mistake over and over again. Therefore based on 8 commitment cycles I think it's fair to limit letters for the most serious failure - missing a target - to two. For less serious failures - such as not keeping a accurate inventory - it is better to allow for three opportunities to build capacity in that specific area.
Obviously though we can't have parties repeating the same mistake over and over again. Therefore based on 8 commitment cycles I think it's fair to limit letters for the most serious failure - missing a target - to two. For less serious failures - such as not keeping a accurate inventory - it is better to allow for three opportunities to build capacity in that specific area.
Paragraph 17: "In cases of more
serious failures of implementation or repeated failures of implementation the
panel may impose a financial penalty on the party that is;
(a). Is in accordance
with a sliding scale of penalties that has been set by the subsidiary body and approved
by the COP,
(b). Is approximate
to any financial gain accured by the failure of implementation."
If a failure is of the nature of a party simply refusing to implement it's commitment or repeatedly failing to improve after letters of warning there needs to be the capacity to impose fines.
I think this wording leaves the body itself a lot of freedom to draw up and alter the level of those fines as appropriate separate from the agreement itself. However those rules will have to be agreed by the COP.
To avoid just complete disregard for commitments I've also included language that links the scale of those fines to the financial gain a party has made by ignoring it's obligations.
Paragraph 18: "Decisions of the
panel are to be guided by the precedent set by previous decisions."
This simply establishes the principle of precedent allow the adjudication panel to learn as it grows while preventing political abuse of the system.
Paragraph 19: "Decisions of the
panel are to be reached by a majority of five of its seven members"
This prevents one hold out nation stopping one of it's allies being punished by still requires agreement from the representatives of three of the groups
Paragraph 20: "If a party feels
that the penalty imposed on it by the panel is unfair they can appeal to the
governing body which can refer the matter to the COP. If a two thirds majority
of the COP vote to reject a decision by the panel it is overturned and the
matter is referred back to the panel."
Obviously there needs to be an appeal process but to prevent abuse it needs to be a strict one. Here a party must first convince the governing body that it has been treated unfairly and then 2/3rds of the COP. The criteria of fairness are laid out in the rest of this section including the principle of precedent.
Paragraph 21: "The proceeds of any
financial penalties are to be used to further climate change action through the
financial mechanisms of the agreement [ A special fund is hereby created to be
used by the subsidiary body to facilitate implementation ]"
This is any area that I would have liked more time on. Rather then having the subsidiary body bossing the other financial mechanisms about and nations stalling implementation to jump the funding queue it would be better if the body had it's own account funded through fines to facilitate implementation. However given the time constraints I've not been able to even begin to think about how that would function.
Even without the bracketed text though I think that this wording allows for such a fund to be set up in the future.
Paragraph 22: "Penalties imposed by
the panel remain in force even if a nation withdraws from the agreement."
This removes the incentive for a nation that has been fined to simply withdraw from the agreement.
Paragraph 23: "New institutional arrangements or strengthened institutional
arrangements may be needed to serve this agreement."
The standard clause that allows from new arrangements - such as that special fund - to be established if they are required.
18:20 on 27/11/15 (UK date).
18:20 on 27/11/15 (UK date).
Anyone For Paranoia?
On October 31st (31/10/15) a terrorist bomb brought down a Russian passenger jet over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula killing 224 civilians.
Fourteen days later on November 13th (13/11/15) terrorists attacked multiple targets across Paris, the capital city of France killing 130 civilians.
Seven days later on November 20th (20/11/15) terrorists attacked a hotel in Bamako, the capital of Mali killing 22 civilians.
Four days later on November 24th (24/11/15) terrorists attack in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia killing 12.
A very quick analysis of these attacks reveals a pattern with the gap between the attacks halving every time. If that pattern were to continue then the next attack would take place either yesterday (26/11/15) or today (27/11/15)
So when US President Barack Obama stood up on Wednesday (25/11/15) and announced that there was no indication of an imminent terrorist threat no-one in intelligence circles heard what Obama said next because it was drowned out by the noise of their collective jaws dropping to the floor in disbelief.
In fact many responded by circulating photographs of Obama at the White House Turkey Pardon that was held later that day. The photographs show Obama standing there seemingly completely oblivious to the giant Turkey right under his nose.
The White House itself has taken to circulating similar photographs itself in an effort to find out what everybody else was laughing at.
It is in this context that yesterday authorities in Brussels, Belgium announced that a suspicious white powder - suspected of being anthrax - had been found at the cities Grand Mosque. It was later found to be harmless. Annoyingly this is one of those things that I cannot discuss in too much detail.
However I feel I should reassure people that this was simply spies mucking about rather then another terrorist attack or an anti-Muslim hate crime in response to all the terrorist attacks.
The main focus of the stunt seemed to be an attempt to muscle in on French President Francois Hollande's visit that day with Russian President Vladimir Putin. It seemed to have been inspired by a proposal introduced before the Russian Parliament earlier that day to return the Hagia Sophia site in Turkey to the control of the Orthodox Christian religion.
Sitting in what is now known as Istanbul the Hagia Sophia was built as an Orthodox Christian Cathedral in 537. In 1453 the Ottoman Turkish Empire invaded Istanbul and ordered the Hagia Sophia to be turned into a Mosque. It remained as a Mosque until 1935 when it became a museum and a protected UNESCO site in 1985.
Although it has been attacked in Turkey as "Islamaphobic" the purpose of this Russian Parliamentary motion was to highlight Turkey's support for the April - June 2015 Northwestern Syria offensive which allowed the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to seize control of the ancient city of Palmyra which is also a protected UNESCO site.
ISIL have since set about destroying Palmyra. Therefore Russia's message was simply that Turkey clearly cannot be trusted to protect UNESCO sites.
As for Hollande's recent travels I should start by pointing out that two weeks ago France saw 130 of it's citizens murdered on the streets of it's capital.
Since then France has deployed 5,000 troops to the streets and suspended certain civil rights such as warrant-less searches. This is not something that a democracy does lightly.
On Monday (30/11/15) France will be hosting the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris. With more then 100 world leaders attending this was also going to be a stressful event. It now seems to be shaping up as a prime target for terrorist attack.
The response of Barack Obama - supposedly the President of one of France's oldest allies - has to been to almost completely blank Hollande. Rather then meeting with him Obama went off on what was effectively an 11 day holiday to Turkey and Malaysia.
Therefore when I say this I do so fully understanding the extreme pressure that Hollande has been placed under. As such I am saying it in an effort to be constructive rather then critical or insulting.
However it must be said that Hollande's efforts to be seen to be doing something through his little diplomatic tour has bordered on the extremely counter-productive.
For example there is the statement 2249 that France placed before the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) last Friday (20/11/15).
Precisely because it attempts to undermine the standing resolution 2170 this is nothing more then an empty gesture. However it muddied the diplomatic waters at precisely the time the fight against terror needs greater clarity.
The attempts to bring Russia into the US-led coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - is even more misguided.
The problem with CJTFOIR is that - particularly since Turkey joined the Air Tasking Order (ATO) - is that it is not fighting ISIL. Instead it is acting to protect ISIL.
For example the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) - which include the Kurdish Peoples Protection Units (YPG) - are coming under pretty much constant artillery fire from ISIL both on the banks of the Euphrates River and surrounding the village of Ain Issa.
Destroying this type of fixed, heavy firing position is exactly what air-support is designed to do. However day after day the attacks continue and there's not a CJTFOIR air-strike to be seen.
So the consequence of bringing Russia into CJTFOIR would be that nobody would be attacking ISIL.
16:45 on 27/11/15 (UK date).
Fourteen days later on November 13th (13/11/15) terrorists attacked multiple targets across Paris, the capital city of France killing 130 civilians.
Seven days later on November 20th (20/11/15) terrorists attacked a hotel in Bamako, the capital of Mali killing 22 civilians.
Four days later on November 24th (24/11/15) terrorists attack in Tunis, the capital of Tunisia killing 12.
A very quick analysis of these attacks reveals a pattern with the gap between the attacks halving every time. If that pattern were to continue then the next attack would take place either yesterday (26/11/15) or today (27/11/15)
So when US President Barack Obama stood up on Wednesday (25/11/15) and announced that there was no indication of an imminent terrorist threat no-one in intelligence circles heard what Obama said next because it was drowned out by the noise of their collective jaws dropping to the floor in disbelief.
In fact many responded by circulating photographs of Obama at the White House Turkey Pardon that was held later that day. The photographs show Obama standing there seemingly completely oblivious to the giant Turkey right under his nose.
The White House itself has taken to circulating similar photographs itself in an effort to find out what everybody else was laughing at.
It is in this context that yesterday authorities in Brussels, Belgium announced that a suspicious white powder - suspected of being anthrax - had been found at the cities Grand Mosque. It was later found to be harmless. Annoyingly this is one of those things that I cannot discuss in too much detail.
However I feel I should reassure people that this was simply spies mucking about rather then another terrorist attack or an anti-Muslim hate crime in response to all the terrorist attacks.
The main focus of the stunt seemed to be an attempt to muscle in on French President Francois Hollande's visit that day with Russian President Vladimir Putin. It seemed to have been inspired by a proposal introduced before the Russian Parliament earlier that day to return the Hagia Sophia site in Turkey to the control of the Orthodox Christian religion.
Sitting in what is now known as Istanbul the Hagia Sophia was built as an Orthodox Christian Cathedral in 537. In 1453 the Ottoman Turkish Empire invaded Istanbul and ordered the Hagia Sophia to be turned into a Mosque. It remained as a Mosque until 1935 when it became a museum and a protected UNESCO site in 1985.
Although it has been attacked in Turkey as "Islamaphobic" the purpose of this Russian Parliamentary motion was to highlight Turkey's support for the April - June 2015 Northwestern Syria offensive which allowed the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to seize control of the ancient city of Palmyra which is also a protected UNESCO site.
ISIL have since set about destroying Palmyra. Therefore Russia's message was simply that Turkey clearly cannot be trusted to protect UNESCO sites.
As for Hollande's recent travels I should start by pointing out that two weeks ago France saw 130 of it's citizens murdered on the streets of it's capital.
Since then France has deployed 5,000 troops to the streets and suspended certain civil rights such as warrant-less searches. This is not something that a democracy does lightly.
On Monday (30/11/15) France will be hosting the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris. With more then 100 world leaders attending this was also going to be a stressful event. It now seems to be shaping up as a prime target for terrorist attack.
The response of Barack Obama - supposedly the President of one of France's oldest allies - has to been to almost completely blank Hollande. Rather then meeting with him Obama went off on what was effectively an 11 day holiday to Turkey and Malaysia.
Therefore when I say this I do so fully understanding the extreme pressure that Hollande has been placed under. As such I am saying it in an effort to be constructive rather then critical or insulting.
However it must be said that Hollande's efforts to be seen to be doing something through his little diplomatic tour has bordered on the extremely counter-productive.
For example there is the statement 2249 that France placed before the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) last Friday (20/11/15).
Precisely because it attempts to undermine the standing resolution 2170 this is nothing more then an empty gesture. However it muddied the diplomatic waters at precisely the time the fight against terror needs greater clarity.
The attempts to bring Russia into the US-led coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - is even more misguided.
The problem with CJTFOIR is that - particularly since Turkey joined the Air Tasking Order (ATO) - is that it is not fighting ISIL. Instead it is acting to protect ISIL.
For example the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) - which include the Kurdish Peoples Protection Units (YPG) - are coming under pretty much constant artillery fire from ISIL both on the banks of the Euphrates River and surrounding the village of Ain Issa.
Destroying this type of fixed, heavy firing position is exactly what air-support is designed to do. However day after day the attacks continue and there's not a CJTFOIR air-strike to be seen.
So the consequence of bringing Russia into CJTFOIR would be that nobody would be attacking ISIL.
16:45 on 27/11/15 (UK date).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)