Ideally I would have liked to have blocked off a couple of days to concentrate on climate change issues. After all it turns out that building a mutually beneficial consensus between nations requires a very different mindset to war.
Unfortunately events on the ground didn't allow me that opportunity so I have to write a quick and almost disrespectfully brief update.
It is well established that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's (ISIL) main base of operations is the Syrian city of Raqqa which sits on the banks of the Euphrates River almost in the centre of the north of the country.
On June 15th (15/6/15) the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) succeeded in liberating the town of Tel Abyad which sits on the border with Turkey some 90km (53 miles) to the north of Raqqa. Tel Abyad is the mouth of ISIL's main supply route between Turkey and Raqqa. From Tel Abyad the YPG swiftly moved on to liberate the village of Ain Issa which sits just 50km (30 miles) north of Raqqa. Over the weekend the YPG liberated villages in the south-east of the Kobane Canton further cutting one of ISIL's supply routes between Raqqa and Aleppo which sits around 90km (53 miles) to the west. Obviously it is not my role to explain to ISIL what the YPG's plan may or may not be. However it's is clear that ISIL have viewed these recent gains as preparation for the YPG to sweep in and liberate Raqqa from ISIL.
On Saturday (4/7/15) through to Sunday (5/7/15) the US-led coalition carried out a series of relatively intense air-strikes against Raqqa. This operation was a textbook example of strategic bombing. Of the 18 strikes 16 of them destroyed bridges in and around Raqqa with the clear and stated intent to cripple ISIL's ability to move around the city. This came two days after the UK Parliament debated joining the air-strikes in Syria in response to the June 26th (26/6/15) terror attack in Tunisia which killed 30 British citizens. As such it seemed to be a completely political move on the part of the US intended to encourage the UK to join in with the bombing of Syria in the hope of adding fresh momentum to a morally and strategically questionable campaign which has been running out of support of late.
As is almost the objective of strategic bombing these strikes also had a negative impact on Raqqa's civilian population who are now unable to use those 16 bridges to travel to work, shops, hospital appointments etc. As it is what humans do it seems extremely likely that these civilians will blame the US-led coalition for this disruption to their lives playing into ISIL's narrative that the US is at war with all Muslims. This will increase support for ISIL - particularly in Raqqa. To make matters worse the strikes also killed around 6 civilians including children.
Given the significant impact on Raqqa's civilians along with the clear political rather then military motive behind these air-strikes I would say that they bordered dangerously close to terrorism.
The strikes also fed ISIL's belief that a YPG assault on Raqqa from Ain Issa was imminent. However the clearly did nothing to inhibit ISIL's ability to move so yesterday they launched an offensive to capture Ain Issa from the YPG. Despite provoking it the US-led coalition gave the YPG no prior warning that this offensive was about to take place and failed to provide air-support to resist it. As a result ISIL succeeded in capturing Ain Issa from the YPG. Although this is clearly not a defeat for ISIL and I would have preferred the YPG to hold Ain Issa it is not a huge village so this isn't a massive set back. It is one the coalition could have done without though
In terms of the fight against ISIL in Iraq it's on hold. Neither the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) nor the Kurdish Peshmerga are engaged in any offensive operations to dislodge ISIL from any territory. I can't say that this is a wholly bad thing because a lot of the ISF's problems stem from attempting more then they can achieve with the Shia-Arab Popular Mobilisation Force (PMF) militia being a particular problem. Being a militia rather then a regular military unit and contrary to popular myth not being controlled by Iran the PMF have a tendency to be rather hot headed constantly rushing from one battle to another. For example after liberating Tikrit city rather then consolidating their position by liberating areas around the city the PMF charged off into Ramadi contributing to the fall of the city. The area around Tikrit remains significantly unstable.
Unfortunately rather then using this pause to work with the ISF and the PMF to tighten up their operations the US under President Barack Obama is continuing to invent reasons to prevent the Iraqis fighting ISIL. For example the US is slowly committing ever more ground troops to Iraq and moving them closer to the front-line in Vietnam-style "Lillypad" bases from where they can act as forward air controllers directing air-strikes. Quite why the US can't train Iraqi troops to preform this role is a bit beyond me. After all even UK Prince Harry managed it in Afghanistan.
More worryingly the US now seems to have mandated that no Iraqi may fight a member of ISIL until a national guard force of Iraq's Sunni-Arabs has been created. Apart from the fact that this is going to take ages if anything it is likely to make the PMF more hot-headed. Iraq is a majority Shia-Arab nation but the US-led coalition refuses to accept this seeming to demand that the Sunni minority are placed in charge of the nation. This has led to a belief by the PMF that the US is trying to break the nation up into a Sunni section, a Shia section and a Kurdish section. As such the PMF are rushing to defeat ISIL before this can happen.
Building up an armed Sunni state within a state is certainly doing nothing to reassure the PMF and seems to be granting legitimacy to their fears. In his letter to Congress over the arming of the Peshmerga US Secretary of State John Kerry himself made clear that this will undermine the fight against ISIL.
09:25 on 7/7/15 (UK date).
Tuesday, 7 July 2015
Monday, 6 July 2015
ADP Text 11/6/15 Revision: Section D.
Section D:
Mitigation.
Having established in
Sections A and C that ambitious cuts to Green House Gas (GHG) emissions are
required to stop global temperatures exceeding a 2C increase parties have
decided to use this section to explain why they couldn't possibly be expected
to make those cuts. The result of everybody piling in their own specific opt
outs is utter carnage.
The first 18
paragraphs are just about readable although they need extensive re-writing
before any of the options can be included in the agreement itself. However the text
then leaps into what I can only assume is Option (4) of paragraph 21. It then
continues with the start of paragraph 21 for a bit before crossing into
paragraph 26 before reverting back to paragraph 21. It sticks with paragraph 21
for about a page before leaping on to paragraph 32 before moving on to
paragraph 27 and so on.
I spent a good five
hours on Friday (3/7/15) reading and re-reading this section but still could
not make any sense of it.Not only does it fail to function as the basis for a
durable international agreement it doesn't even work as a negotiating document
giving a coherent indication of parties differing positions. I still think the specific author should be commended for a sterling effort under the circumstances though.
The only good thing I
can say about this section is that it really serves to highlight my point of
just how unproductive certain parties obsession with the negotiating text at
the expense of all else truly is. I'm thinking specifically of Uganda's bizarre
one man protest at the end of COP20 when they wouldn't let anyone discuss any
other issue - even whether there would be a COP21 - until certain phrases had
been voted into the negotiating text.
The problem is that
certain parties - particularly the less capable/developed ones - think that we
are preparing an agreement similar to the Kyoto Protocol that will last for 10
years before being replaced a new agreement. As such they think that every
specific concern they have about their individual circumstances need to be
included in the text.
However what we're actually trying to do is create an
agreement that will last for at least the next 80-100 years. Within that
agreement there will be multiple commitment periods of either 5 or 10 years.
There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss nations changes in circumstance
and specific concerns at each one of those commitment periods. The discussions
could even last for a full ten years if the agreement opts for a 10 year
commitment period.
Therefore rather then
trying to regulate for every individual nations circumstances over the next
century this section should be about establishing a standard format for nations
to submit their individual plans to mitigate the causes of climate change over
the commitment period. It is much easier to achieve this by discussing the benefits and problems presented by individual case studies then by arguing over complex
phrases in little brackets.
Fortunately around the time of COP20 someone circulated a template for the format of these submissions. Since then 17 nations including the 28 member European Union (EU) have submitted examples of what these submissions should look like in practice with some following the suggested template and others opting not to. Mexico's contribution is certainly worth a read.
What I will be doing now is carefully reading through those submissions looking commonalities that can be used to establish clauses in the agreement. For example if it's agreed that the same format can be used for both AERT's and DEMA's and that they have to include both a baseline year and a business as usual (BAU) baseline then most of the current text can be replaced with a simple list of criteria
Obviously this is going to be quite a long task so unfortunately I can't make any promises about when it will be completed.
15:50 on 6/7/15 (UK date).
US 'Wins' Women's World Cup.
Ever since FIFA President Sepp Blatter opted to resign rather then suspend the CONCACAF federation after it was revealed that it has been plagued by epic levels of corruption it has been obvious to all that Team Nike would win the North American Soccer Cup by four bajillion points.
In last night's final things started getting really obvious at the scoring of the second goal which came on the 5th minute. Prior to the set-piece being taken the eventual goalscorer Carli Lloyd was being marked in box. However then an order came from the touchline and Lloyd's marker walked away giving her all the space she needed to score. This was so blatant that even before the ball had been kicked the BBC commentator - who has been doing this for most of this life - was going "Oh look, they're going to let Lloyd score again." After the US were 4-0 up inside 16 minutes Japan scored a goal of their own just to show what they could do if they were trying to win.
At the start of the second half even the Americans had worked out what was going on so just before I went to bed Johnston smashed the ball into her own net in an effort to make the scoreline respectable. Japan were having none of it and went on to grant the US a 5-2 victory.
10:30 on 6/7/15 (UK date).
In last night's final things started getting really obvious at the scoring of the second goal which came on the 5th minute. Prior to the set-piece being taken the eventual goalscorer Carli Lloyd was being marked in box. However then an order came from the touchline and Lloyd's marker walked away giving her all the space she needed to score. This was so blatant that even before the ball had been kicked the BBC commentator - who has been doing this for most of this life - was going "Oh look, they're going to let Lloyd score again." After the US were 4-0 up inside 16 minutes Japan scored a goal of their own just to show what they could do if they were trying to win.
At the start of the second half even the Americans had worked out what was going on so just before I went to bed Johnston smashed the ball into her own net in an effort to make the scoreline respectable. Japan were having none of it and went on to grant the US a 5-2 victory.
10:30 on 6/7/15 (UK date).
Sunday, 5 July 2015
ADP Text 11/6/15 Revision: Section C.
Section C: General Provisions.
This section covers the general provisions of the agreement. With Section A functioning as something of a mission statement for the agreement there has been some debate as to whether this section is strictly necessary with many of its provisions being covered in more detail later on in the agreement.
I think it is because it provides an opportunity to expand further on the ideals of the agreement and the principles established here will apply to the other sections of the agreement. So for example if it is established here that all parties have a Common But Different Responsibility (CBDR) to take mitigation and adaption measures we don't have to re-state that throughout the sections on mitigation and adaptation making for a more concise, readable document. Plus once we've agreed on all the options and removed all the unnecessary paragraphs Section C should only be a page to two pages long.
P1 - I consider this to be fine as is because that is the objective of the agreement and the wording does nothing to prejudice individual parties CBDR's.
P2 - I consider this to be fine provided that it "aims to achieve universal participation" because aiming to include everyone is certainly something the agreement should strive to do. The "principles and provisions of the convention" are implied by the simple use of the word "convention" so I don't think it needs to be re-stated. It has to be "All parties to the convention" in order to achieve the aim of universal participation.The existing commitments and decisions are also implied by the use of the word "convention" so I would exclude that part of the phrase but keep the part about "and to strengthen the multilateral rules-based regime under the Convention in order to achieve the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2."
P3 - Here Option (1) is the binary approach relying on the concept of those dreaded "historical responsibilities." As I've explained in my discussion of Section A and in pretty much everything else I've written on the subject this line of thinking is deeply flawed so it will not be adopted - even by me. Therefore it cannot be included in the text and I really don't think there is time to waste discussing the matter further.
Option (2) is better because it abandons the binary approach. However the phrase; "take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties" is still attempting to give the former Annex II parties an opt out. This is not acceptable. While my entire plan for a working agreement depends on nations with the ability to do so providing financial and technical support to nations lacking in ability the way that the issue is addressed here sounds more like a begging letter rather then the concise language of a durable agreement.
Option (3) is clearly the best option because it places an obligation on all parties "to strive to achieve low greenhouse gas, climate-resilient economies and societies" However I would strengthen it further by basing it on the principle of evolving CBDR etc to make it clear that while all parties have a common responsibility meeting that responsibility means different things for different nations at different points in time. I would also provide reassurance that less capable nations will receive assistance by finishing with the phrase; "In order to achieve this common goal there must be co-operation between all parties with the most capable taking a leading role."
P4 - As is the entire underpinning of the concept of global commons it is not physically possible for nations to prevent pollutants such as Green House Gases (GHG's), smoke or even noise generated within their jurisdiction travelling into another jurisdiction. Therefore this clause is completely unworkable on a practical level so needs to be excluded for the agreement to have any credibility.
P5 - Here Option (3) is far too weak only requiring that all parties take action but offering no detail of what the scale of that action has to be. Although Option (2) doesn't fall into the trap of the binary approach it still reads rather more like a begging letter from the less capable nations to the more capable nations rather then the text of a durable international agreement. These requirements will change as time and technology passes so I think they're better dealt with during the negotiations at each cycle of the agreement rather then being set in stone in the agreement itself.
Therefore here I can only support Option (1) but provided that it requires "All parties to take action" in accordance with "their evolving CBDR and respective capabilities" Of the sub-options Option (c) is too weak failing to set out reduction targets while the targets set out in Option (d) are too severe and therefore will be missed. Option (b) is unachievable for former Annex II parties whose goal is for their emissions to peak rather then immediately bring about absolute reductions. As such I support Option (a) because it strikes the right balance between ambition and achievability.
P6 - Generally I consider this to be fine as is but it does tend to wander off into the twin traps of the binary approach and incoherence. As such I would re-write it as follows;
"Parties recognise that the level and pace of mitigation efforts will determine the extent to which Parties will need to adapt and address loss and damage and the associated costs thereof, as well as the need to explore holistic and mutually reinforcing approaches to enhancing mitigation and adaptation efforts. The overall level of achievement in both mitigation and adaptation will depend on the level of finance and technology available."
I think this wording further reinforces the fact that the level of mitigation actions actually taken is inversely proportional to the level of adaptation actions that will have to be taken. It also makes clear that to successfully carry out mitigation or adaptation actions there needs finance and technology available without falling into the binary trap of only allowing certain nations to provide that assistance and only allowing certain nations to benefit from it.
P7 - Here Option (4) is the famous Bolivian global carbon budget. As I said when it was first suggested it actually strikes me as an extremely good idea. However only really being at the inception phase there is nowhere near enough research to support the idea so it cannot be included in the agreement. Option (3) is far too weak while Option (2) is far too wordy and slips into the binary trap. So here I support Option (1) provided it is not limited to just mitigation action.
P8 - Generally I consider Option (1) to be fine as is provided it reads simply; "Parties with the highest capability to demonstrate leadership" removing any trace of "historical responsibility." In P8.1 I would disregard both brackets and instead write "Parties included in Annex I of the KP." This provides the assurance that previous agreements will be honoured while at same time making clear that the binary approach will not be repeated.
P9 - Generally I consider Option (1) to be fine as is but I would amend the final line to read; "to reflect their efforts in the context of sustainable development and their specific needs and special situations."
P10 - Here Option (3) is the binary approach placing different obligations on different parties. This is not what theis new type of agreement is about so it cannot be included. To my mind there is very little difference between Option (1) and Option (2) and I think Option (1) is sufficient because with this being an agreement under the convention there seems to be no need to re-state that the provisions and principles of the convention apply.
P11 - Clearly a reference needs to be made and I think Option (1) is sufficient as is because there are already extensive international mechanisms to decide whether a specific action constitutes a restriction on trade.
P12 - Here I consider Option (1) to be fine as is because it allows the existing SB's to continue under the agreement but allows them to be amended should the need arise.
P13 - Subnational and non-state actors have a vital role to play in combating climate change so it is only right that they are referenced in the agreement. However I would amend the wording of Option (1) to remove the phrase; "to scale up their actions" because that can be interpreted as giving license to some of the more questionable 'NGO's' to undermine national sovereignty by subverting government policy.
P14 - Here I support Option (1) because it throws the widest net increasing the ways that nations can help each other to combat climate change. One of the many objections I have to the binary approach is that it dictates that only developed nations can help developing nations. So for example if Brazil was to develop a better way of managing rainforests it would be prevented from sharing that information with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). That strikes me as extremely silly.
P15 - This is unnecessary and should be removed because it is already covered in P33 of Section A.
P16 - I consider this to be fine as is because it allows scope for the convention's institutions and institutional arrangements to evolve and develop if required over the 80-100 year lifespan of the agreement.
16:45 on 5/7/15 (UK date).
This section covers the general provisions of the agreement. With Section A functioning as something of a mission statement for the agreement there has been some debate as to whether this section is strictly necessary with many of its provisions being covered in more detail later on in the agreement.
I think it is because it provides an opportunity to expand further on the ideals of the agreement and the principles established here will apply to the other sections of the agreement. So for example if it is established here that all parties have a Common But Different Responsibility (CBDR) to take mitigation and adaption measures we don't have to re-state that throughout the sections on mitigation and adaptation making for a more concise, readable document. Plus once we've agreed on all the options and removed all the unnecessary paragraphs Section C should only be a page to two pages long.
P1 - I consider this to be fine as is because that is the objective of the agreement and the wording does nothing to prejudice individual parties CBDR's.
P2 - I consider this to be fine provided that it "aims to achieve universal participation" because aiming to include everyone is certainly something the agreement should strive to do. The "principles and provisions of the convention" are implied by the simple use of the word "convention" so I don't think it needs to be re-stated. It has to be "All parties to the convention" in order to achieve the aim of universal participation.The existing commitments and decisions are also implied by the use of the word "convention" so I would exclude that part of the phrase but keep the part about "and to strengthen the multilateral rules-based regime under the Convention in order to achieve the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2."
P3 - Here Option (1) is the binary approach relying on the concept of those dreaded "historical responsibilities." As I've explained in my discussion of Section A and in pretty much everything else I've written on the subject this line of thinking is deeply flawed so it will not be adopted - even by me. Therefore it cannot be included in the text and I really don't think there is time to waste discussing the matter further.
Option (2) is better because it abandons the binary approach. However the phrase; "take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties" is still attempting to give the former Annex II parties an opt out. This is not acceptable. While my entire plan for a working agreement depends on nations with the ability to do so providing financial and technical support to nations lacking in ability the way that the issue is addressed here sounds more like a begging letter rather then the concise language of a durable agreement.
Option (3) is clearly the best option because it places an obligation on all parties "to strive to achieve low greenhouse gas, climate-resilient economies and societies" However I would strengthen it further by basing it on the principle of evolving CBDR etc to make it clear that while all parties have a common responsibility meeting that responsibility means different things for different nations at different points in time. I would also provide reassurance that less capable nations will receive assistance by finishing with the phrase; "In order to achieve this common goal there must be co-operation between all parties with the most capable taking a leading role."
P4 - As is the entire underpinning of the concept of global commons it is not physically possible for nations to prevent pollutants such as Green House Gases (GHG's), smoke or even noise generated within their jurisdiction travelling into another jurisdiction. Therefore this clause is completely unworkable on a practical level so needs to be excluded for the agreement to have any credibility.
P5 - Here Option (3) is far too weak only requiring that all parties take action but offering no detail of what the scale of that action has to be. Although Option (2) doesn't fall into the trap of the binary approach it still reads rather more like a begging letter from the less capable nations to the more capable nations rather then the text of a durable international agreement. These requirements will change as time and technology passes so I think they're better dealt with during the negotiations at each cycle of the agreement rather then being set in stone in the agreement itself.
Therefore here I can only support Option (1) but provided that it requires "All parties to take action" in accordance with "their evolving CBDR and respective capabilities" Of the sub-options Option (c) is too weak failing to set out reduction targets while the targets set out in Option (d) are too severe and therefore will be missed. Option (b) is unachievable for former Annex II parties whose goal is for their emissions to peak rather then immediately bring about absolute reductions. As such I support Option (a) because it strikes the right balance between ambition and achievability.
P6 - Generally I consider this to be fine as is but it does tend to wander off into the twin traps of the binary approach and incoherence. As such I would re-write it as follows;
"Parties recognise that the level and pace of mitigation efforts will determine the extent to which Parties will need to adapt and address loss and damage and the associated costs thereof, as well as the need to explore holistic and mutually reinforcing approaches to enhancing mitigation and adaptation efforts. The overall level of achievement in both mitigation and adaptation will depend on the level of finance and technology available."
I think this wording further reinforces the fact that the level of mitigation actions actually taken is inversely proportional to the level of adaptation actions that will have to be taken. It also makes clear that to successfully carry out mitigation or adaptation actions there needs finance and technology available without falling into the binary trap of only allowing certain nations to provide that assistance and only allowing certain nations to benefit from it.
P7 - Here Option (4) is the famous Bolivian global carbon budget. As I said when it was first suggested it actually strikes me as an extremely good idea. However only really being at the inception phase there is nowhere near enough research to support the idea so it cannot be included in the agreement. Option (3) is far too weak while Option (2) is far too wordy and slips into the binary trap. So here I support Option (1) provided it is not limited to just mitigation action.
P8 - Generally I consider Option (1) to be fine as is provided it reads simply; "Parties with the highest capability to demonstrate leadership" removing any trace of "historical responsibility." In P8.1 I would disregard both brackets and instead write "Parties included in Annex I of the KP." This provides the assurance that previous agreements will be honoured while at same time making clear that the binary approach will not be repeated.
P9 - Generally I consider Option (1) to be fine as is but I would amend the final line to read; "to reflect their efforts in the context of sustainable development and their specific needs and special situations."
P10 - Here Option (3) is the binary approach placing different obligations on different parties. This is not what theis new type of agreement is about so it cannot be included. To my mind there is very little difference between Option (1) and Option (2) and I think Option (1) is sufficient because with this being an agreement under the convention there seems to be no need to re-state that the provisions and principles of the convention apply.
P11 - Clearly a reference needs to be made and I think Option (1) is sufficient as is because there are already extensive international mechanisms to decide whether a specific action constitutes a restriction on trade.
P12 - Here I consider Option (1) to be fine as is because it allows the existing SB's to continue under the agreement but allows them to be amended should the need arise.
P13 - Subnational and non-state actors have a vital role to play in combating climate change so it is only right that they are referenced in the agreement. However I would amend the wording of Option (1) to remove the phrase; "to scale up their actions" because that can be interpreted as giving license to some of the more questionable 'NGO's' to undermine national sovereignty by subverting government policy.
P14 - Here I support Option (1) because it throws the widest net increasing the ways that nations can help each other to combat climate change. One of the many objections I have to the binary approach is that it dictates that only developed nations can help developing nations. So for example if Brazil was to develop a better way of managing rainforests it would be prevented from sharing that information with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). That strikes me as extremely silly.
P15 - This is unnecessary and should be removed because it is already covered in P33 of Section A.
P16 - I consider this to be fine as is because it allows scope for the convention's institutions and institutional arrangements to evolve and develop if required over the 80-100 year lifespan of the agreement.
16:45 on 5/7/15 (UK date).
Saturday, 4 July 2015
Operation Featherweight: Month 12, Week 1, Day 7.
Unfortunately necessity has dictated that I take a short step back from the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in order to concentrate on global efforts to combat climate change. Mind you given ISIL's nihilistic desire to watch the World burn you could almost say that this was an act of resistance.
However it has certainly heightened my sense of pedantry and my awareness of what are termed "translation issues." This has a very specific relevance to the UK's response to the June 26th (26/6/15) ISIL attack in Tunisia which killed 30 British citizens.
In response to that attack the UK Prime Minister David Cameron gave a series of speeches and media interviews. In one in particular given to BBC Radio 4 Cameron said that as a country we could all do more to combat ISIL's poisonous ideology particularly by referring to them as "ISIL" rather then "ISIS" or "Islamic State."
Displaying the sort of barmy left-wing thinking that saw "Top Gear" cancelled but the "BBC Three" channel preserved the BBC - in it's role as the UK's national broadcaster - quickly shot back that they couldn't refer to ISIL as ISIL because that would show bias against the group undermining the BBC's role as an impartial news broadcaster.
If I was being polite I would say that the BBC's position is utter nonsense. If I was being impolite I would just let fly with a long string of expletives highlighting that this is not the battle ground the BBC wants to pick amid it's arguments with the government over the renewal of it's Royal Charter.
In 2013 a group of Islamic terrorists in Iraq headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi were expelled from Al Qaeda for being too extreme. This forced them to change their name from "Al Qaeda in Iraq" to "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām." Although acronyms tend not to be used in Arabic for the purposes of Tweets this was shortened to "Da'ash" or "Daesh."
As the long Arabic "a'a" sound doesn't really exist in English and I don't want to get world famous Armenian Kim KarDASHian" any more involved in this then she needs to be when writing about the group in English I simply use the direct translation which is "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or the acronym ISIL.
On June 29th 2014 (29/6/14) ISIL declared the territory they held in Iraq and Syria to be a nation state; "The Islamic State" and their leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to be their head of state. However if you've followed the Palestinians or the Kurd's quests for statehood you would know that it is a lot more complicated then that.
In order to be considered a "Nation State" under international law you must be both a nation in fact (de facto) and in law (de jure).
Whether a state is a de facto nation is determined by the 1933 Montevideo Convention. This requires there to be a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other nation states. Even if the BBC feels that ISIL fulfil that criteria article 11 of the convention prevents them from being a de facto nation because their territory was established through force of arms.
Whether a state is a de jour nation is determined by whether it is recognised as a nation by other nations. In the modern age this means recognition by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). As far as I am aware ISIL have not applied for recognition by the UNGA and even if they were to obtain the required majority vote it would be vetoed by the UN Security Council (UNSC) due to the group's clear disregard for the sovereignty of both Iraq and Syria in violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter.
So no, by referring to ISIL as ISIL the BBC - nor any other news agency - would not be displaying bias against them. They would simply be providing an accurate translation of the group's name for non-Arabic speaking viewers. I consider that to be one of the basic functions of an international news outlet.
However the BBC would be showing bias in favour of ISIL by referring to them as "ISIS" because with most people failing to realise that it stands for; "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Eng; "the Levant")" they could get confused into thinking that ISIL's activities have something to do with the Syrian government. This is a nasty little trick that US broadcaster CNN has been playing on their viewers for a good few years now.
The BBC and any other news outlet would certainly be showing bias in favour of ISIL if they were to refer to them as "Islamic State" because they are most certainly not a state. They are in fact an violent insurgent group operating primarily within the territory of the sovereign states of Syria and Iraq.
So it's rare that I agree with David Cameron but I think it is long past time for UK broadcasters to drop their clear pro-ISIL bias.
20:25 on 4/7/15 (UK date).
However it has certainly heightened my sense of pedantry and my awareness of what are termed "translation issues." This has a very specific relevance to the UK's response to the June 26th (26/6/15) ISIL attack in Tunisia which killed 30 British citizens.
In response to that attack the UK Prime Minister David Cameron gave a series of speeches and media interviews. In one in particular given to BBC Radio 4 Cameron said that as a country we could all do more to combat ISIL's poisonous ideology particularly by referring to them as "ISIL" rather then "ISIS" or "Islamic State."
Displaying the sort of barmy left-wing thinking that saw "Top Gear" cancelled but the "BBC Three" channel preserved the BBC - in it's role as the UK's national broadcaster - quickly shot back that they couldn't refer to ISIL as ISIL because that would show bias against the group undermining the BBC's role as an impartial news broadcaster.
If I was being polite I would say that the BBC's position is utter nonsense. If I was being impolite I would just let fly with a long string of expletives highlighting that this is not the battle ground the BBC wants to pick amid it's arguments with the government over the renewal of it's Royal Charter.
In 2013 a group of Islamic terrorists in Iraq headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi were expelled from Al Qaeda for being too extreme. This forced them to change their name from "Al Qaeda in Iraq" to "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām." Although acronyms tend not to be used in Arabic for the purposes of Tweets this was shortened to "Da'ash" or "Daesh."
As the long Arabic "a'a" sound doesn't really exist in English and I don't want to get world famous Armenian Kim KarDASHian" any more involved in this then she needs to be when writing about the group in English I simply use the direct translation which is "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or the acronym ISIL.
On June 29th 2014 (29/6/14) ISIL declared the territory they held in Iraq and Syria to be a nation state; "The Islamic State" and their leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to be their head of state. However if you've followed the Palestinians or the Kurd's quests for statehood you would know that it is a lot more complicated then that.
In order to be considered a "Nation State" under international law you must be both a nation in fact (de facto) and in law (de jure).
Whether a state is a de facto nation is determined by the 1933 Montevideo Convention. This requires there to be a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other nation states. Even if the BBC feels that ISIL fulfil that criteria article 11 of the convention prevents them from being a de facto nation because their territory was established through force of arms.
Whether a state is a de jour nation is determined by whether it is recognised as a nation by other nations. In the modern age this means recognition by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). As far as I am aware ISIL have not applied for recognition by the UNGA and even if they were to obtain the required majority vote it would be vetoed by the UN Security Council (UNSC) due to the group's clear disregard for the sovereignty of both Iraq and Syria in violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter.
So no, by referring to ISIL as ISIL the BBC - nor any other news agency - would not be displaying bias against them. They would simply be providing an accurate translation of the group's name for non-Arabic speaking viewers. I consider that to be one of the basic functions of an international news outlet.
However the BBC would be showing bias in favour of ISIL by referring to them as "ISIS" because with most people failing to realise that it stands for; "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Eng; "the Levant")" they could get confused into thinking that ISIL's activities have something to do with the Syrian government. This is a nasty little trick that US broadcaster CNN has been playing on their viewers for a good few years now.
The BBC and any other news outlet would certainly be showing bias in favour of ISIL if they were to refer to them as "Islamic State" because they are most certainly not a state. They are in fact an violent insurgent group operating primarily within the territory of the sovereign states of Syria and Iraq.
So it's rare that I agree with David Cameron but I think it is long past time for UK broadcasters to drop their clear pro-ISIL bias.
20:25 on 4/7/15 (UK date).
ADP Text 11/6/15 Revision: Section A.
At November 2014's 20th Conference of Parties (COP20) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform (ADP) produced a draft, negotiating text for an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol (KP). At the February 2015 Geneva Climate Change Conference this text was debated and streamlined. At June's 42nd meeting of the Subsidiary Body (SB42) to the UNFCCC the ADP text was debated and streamlined further.
Having missed both the February meeting and SB42 it has become vital that I take a break from the war in order to catch up. This is particularly true because it appears that my definition of the term; "Streamlining" differs wildly from the definition used by many of the delegates.
I take "streamlining" to mean reducing the size of a document by reaching agreement on areas of contention and eliminating duplications and other unnecessary elements. ADP delegates though have taken it to mean massively increasing the size of the document by including extra elements of text that more specifically reflect their positions. I understand that this is a vital part of the negotiation process. However if we are to end up with an agreement that can be signed up to at the November 2015 COP21 we need a coherent and workable text. That is what I am setting out to achieve here;
Section A: Preamble;
Obviously this text has to start somewhere so Option (1) of simply leaving a placeholder is not possible meaning that we have to go with Option (2).
P1 - I consider this to be fine as is because surely no party can object to being referred to as a party to the convention for the purposes of the agreement.
P2 - I consider this to be fine as is because the "pursuit of the ultimate objective" acknowledges that while there is a final destination to the activity different parties are at different stages on their journey towards that destination.
P3 - I consider this to be fine as is because the global ecosystem is a common responsibility meaning that everybody must take action to protect it - not just a select few. The paragraph goes on to acknowledge the need for sustainable development in accordance with the relevant articles of the convention.
P4 - I think this should read; "In accordance with" because it is more robust then "guided by." I would reject the phrase "In particular" because although they are important enough to mention specifically I don't think the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity should be elevated above the objectives they are listed alongside in Article 3.
I object to the use of the term "historical responsibilities" here and everywhere else it is used in the document. I appreciate that it is being used almost as a euphemism for the fact that nations which got rich releasing Green House Gases (GHG) during the 19th century should do more to help less developed nations. However in this specific context it creates a massive loophole for nations like South Sudan which don't have a long history and therefore don't bear much of a historical responsibility. This group includes nations such as Saudi Arabia (est; 1932), Qatar (est; 1971) and the United Arab Emirates (est; 1971). These nations produce much of the World's fossil fuels which in turn produce much of the World's GHG's. In doing this they have built up vast Sovereign Wealth Funds that could be used to fund all sorts of the mitigation and adaptation efforts. So saying that they have only a limited responsibility under the agreement strikes me as extremely counter-productive.
I would end the paragraph with the bracketed text beginning "and the provisions of Article 4." This makes reference to "evolving Common But Different Responsibilities (CBDR)" which I consider to be hugely important because it underlines that while everybody bears a common responsibility more economically and scientifically capable nations also bear a responsibility to help less capable nations. The use of the term "evolving" indicates that this can change over time because if the government of a less capable nation isn't trying to improve then I would say that it is failing it's citizens.
P5 - Here I support Option (a) because "Recalling" acknowledges that there was a binary approach under KP providing a loose guide to everyones CBDR's. "Reaffirming" declares that the binary approach is going to continue. It's not. Due to the use of the binary approach the KP failed so if it is included again in this agreement KP Annex I parties simply won't sign up to it and I won't be able to criticise them for doing so.
P6 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P7 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P8 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P9 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P10 - Here Option (c) seems to have been included to give less capable nations an opt out from taking action. This is not acceptable. Option (b) is less of a loophole and seems intended to give reassurance to less capable nations that their differing responsibilities will be taken into account. In the interests of a concise text I don't think this is really necessary because the concept of CBDR is well established both elsewhere in the preamble and in the rest of the document. Therefore I support Option (a) with the phrase "widest possible" because it conveys the ambition that everybody will do everything in their power. That seems to be what the agreement should aspire to at least in the preamble/mission statement section.
P11 - I consider this fine as is because if parties don't agree to that it rather begs the question of what we are doing here.
P12 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P13 - I consider this fine as is but strictly speaking I think it should be the assessments of the IPCC rather then a specific (5th) assessment.
P14 - I consider this fine as is because again if parties don't agree to that there's not really a lot of point to them being here.
P15 - Option (b) is clearly trying to create another loophole by referencing those notorious "historical responsibilities." In terms of what it is trying to achieve I consider Option (a) to be just fine but the way it is written in no way constitutes a coherent paragraph. Therefore I propose that it is re-written as follows;
"Recognising that deep and urgent cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and that such cuts must be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."
It needs to reference "GHG emissions" rather then simply "emissions" because the IPCC has spent decades defining exactly what GHG emissions are and what impact they have. The looser term "emissions" allows nations to pick and choose what emissions they count. For example Morocco has opted not to count F-gases as part of their emissions. Although Morocco's F-gas emissions are practically zero this strikes me as bad science because there really needs to be a baseline to monitor change.
P16 - I consider this fine as is because again if parties don't agree to that it rather begs the question of what we are doing here.
P17 - I consider this to be fine with the use of "2C" and "zero emissions within the second half of this century" because in the interests of a coherent text I don't think we should get excessively specific in the preamble section.
P18 - I consider this fine as is because they do. I would even be open to the idea of a global carbon budget if the research was in place to allow it.
P19 - I consider this fine as is because carbon pricing is important. However in the interests of a concise text I'm not convinced it is strictly necessary in this section. As such I really don't have a strong opinion about whether it is cut or kept.
P20 - Now this is completely unnecessary because while it is a valid point it is one that has already been raised in P3.
P21 - Option (b) is the binary approach. Although I appreciate that less capable nations will need help to adapt to the effects of climate change this is not the way to go about it because the binary approach has been tried before and it failed. As such it will not be signed up to again.
Option (a) is fine provided it is "Emphasizing" rather then noting "that adaptation is an global challenge and a common responsibility that requires global solidarity that must be addressed with the same urgency as mitigation and recognising that both climate-resilient development and adaptation to the impacts of climate change will be essential." I consider this simplified version to include the elements of "political/legal parity" and "international cooperation" to be covered by the equivalency to mitigation and the references to solidarity.
P22 - I consider this fine as is because it establishes the link between a failure to mitigate the causes of climate change and the need to adapt to the effects of climate change. It also underlines that all parties have a role to play in adaptation helping to further clarify P21.
P23 - This just re-states P22 making it unnecessary meaning that it should be cut from the text.
P24 - I consider this unnecessary because although once something has been lost or damaged it can't be replaced you still have to adapt to it's loss or damage. Therefore I don't think that it is distinct from adaptation. However I will be prepared to keep it in as a guide to how the rest of the agreement deals specifically with the issues of loss & damage and adaptation.
P25 - I consider this fine as is although again I have to question whether it will needed in the preamble when the section on loss & damage has been completed.
P26 - I consider this fine as is.
P27 - I consider this to be largely fine provided the binary references such as "developed/developing parties" or "Parties in Annex X/Y" are removed and replaced with the non-binary term of simply "All Parties."
P28 - I consider this unnecessary because it just re-states P27.
P29 - I consider this fine as is because private sector finance is going to be essential.
P30 - I consider this fine as is because special consideration does need to be given to the SIDS and the LDC's.
P31 - I consider this fine as is because climate change does pose a threat to the existence of low laying island nations presenting a very unique set of problems.
P32 - I consider this unnecessary because the link between the level of mitigation efforts and the need for adaptation efforts has already been established in P22.
P33 - Having extensive experience of the problems created by failures of job creation in North African societies such as Tunisia and Egypt and having read the warnings about sub-Saharan Africa I fully support the concept behind this paragraph. However people who talk about "Mother Earth" in an effort to bog down discussions about climate science in gender politics have long annoyed me. Also I don't think the preamble is really the place for long lists of every specific problem. As such I think this should be re-written as follows;
"Stressing that all actions to address climate change and all the processes established under this agreement should ensure gender equality and intergenerational equity, take into account environmental integrity and respect human rights in accordance with nationally determined development goals."
After all it means exactly the same thing. It's just easier to understand.
P34 - With human rights being covered in P33 this is just unnecessary.
P35 - I consider this fine as is because done right action on climate change will also improve these other areas.
P36 - This is fine but obviously I think that it is already covered by my version of P33.
P37 - This is simply a Chinese loophole. It is intended to give China and it's clique an opt out from climate actions on the grounds they would adversely impact on economic development. This is entirely against the spirit of the agreement not least because it only grants certain parties the opt out and therefore cannot be included. Also with the frequent references to "sustainable development" and "national development goals" already providing plenty of wriggle room it strikes me as completely unnecessary.
However I agree that the text does need to better establish the link between climate actions and social economic development so the paragraph should be re-written as follows;
"Reaffirming that responses to climate change should be coordinated with social and economic development in an integrated manner taking into full account the legitimate priority needs of all parties and their right to equitable access to sustainable development and to achieve economic growth and eradicate poverty."
P38 - Again this is an attempt to create a loophole but all nations do have a right access natural resources and consume energy in order to achieve sustainable social and economic development. As such this should be re-written as follows;
"Also reaffirming that all parties need access to the resources required to achieve sustainable social and economic development and that, in order to progress towards that goal, their energy consumption will need to grow, taking into account the opportunities for achieving greater energy efficiency and for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including through the application of new technologies."
After all in terms of cutting emissions it makes far more sense to allow nations to develop by taking advantage of new technologies then forcing developed nations to shut down completely.
Although less capable nations have included the phrase; "on terms that make such an application economically and socially beneficial" in order to increase the assistance they receive I have excluded because it creates an unintended loophole.
For example the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently struck down parts of the Clean Air Act on the grounds that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had not considered the cost of fitting new filters to power stations. Therefore I think that phrase is likely to see more capable nations opting out entirely rather then handing out more assistance.
P39 - I consider this fine as is because climate change does adversely affect human health and this should be recognised in the agreement.
P40 - Subnational authorities (like Mayors and local councils), intergovernmental organizations, civil society, indigenous peoples, local communities, the private sector, financial institutions all have a vital role to play in combating climate change. However Option (a) thinks they should be used to "catalyse" national action while Option (b) thinks they should be used to "strengthen" national action. To my mind the private sector, financial institutions and foreign NGO's catalysing changes in government policy undermines national sovereignty. Therefore Option (b) is the better option.
P41 - I'm fine with this as is because it simply acknowledges that in order to achieve it's objectives new procedural rules and methodologies may have to be established in the future as our understanding of the problem develops.
P42 - This simply establishes the mandate for the agreement.
P43 - This simply establishes the international legal framework in which the agreement will function.
P44 - Read as; "Have agreed to further enhance the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention as follows;" this simply establishes that what follows in the text is intended to implement the UNFCCC.
Section B: Definitions.
As the name suggests this simply covers the definitions of certain terms. I won't be spending time on this because under existing UN rules there are only so many ways you can interpret terms like; "Party to the Convention," "Party to the Agreement" and "Present and Voting."
I will say though that there is no need to define VIII and IX covering parties to the different binary annexes because there won't be binary annexes. As I've explained twice in this post alone the binary approach was tried under the KP and it failed. As such if it is included in this agreement many nations will simply refuse to sign and walk away. As I personally am very opposed to the binary approach I will be in no rush to chase after them.
17:25 on 4/7/15 (UK date).
Having missed both the February meeting and SB42 it has become vital that I take a break from the war in order to catch up. This is particularly true because it appears that my definition of the term; "Streamlining" differs wildly from the definition used by many of the delegates.
I take "streamlining" to mean reducing the size of a document by reaching agreement on areas of contention and eliminating duplications and other unnecessary elements. ADP delegates though have taken it to mean massively increasing the size of the document by including extra elements of text that more specifically reflect their positions. I understand that this is a vital part of the negotiation process. However if we are to end up with an agreement that can be signed up to at the November 2015 COP21 we need a coherent and workable text. That is what I am setting out to achieve here;
Section A: Preamble;
Obviously this text has to start somewhere so Option (1) of simply leaving a placeholder is not possible meaning that we have to go with Option (2).
P1 - I consider this to be fine as is because surely no party can object to being referred to as a party to the convention for the purposes of the agreement.
P2 - I consider this to be fine as is because the "pursuit of the ultimate objective" acknowledges that while there is a final destination to the activity different parties are at different stages on their journey towards that destination.
P3 - I consider this to be fine as is because the global ecosystem is a common responsibility meaning that everybody must take action to protect it - not just a select few. The paragraph goes on to acknowledge the need for sustainable development in accordance with the relevant articles of the convention.
P4 - I think this should read; "In accordance with" because it is more robust then "guided by." I would reject the phrase "In particular" because although they are important enough to mention specifically I don't think the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity should be elevated above the objectives they are listed alongside in Article 3.
I object to the use of the term "historical responsibilities" here and everywhere else it is used in the document. I appreciate that it is being used almost as a euphemism for the fact that nations which got rich releasing Green House Gases (GHG) during the 19th century should do more to help less developed nations. However in this specific context it creates a massive loophole for nations like South Sudan which don't have a long history and therefore don't bear much of a historical responsibility. This group includes nations such as Saudi Arabia (est; 1932), Qatar (est; 1971) and the United Arab Emirates (est; 1971). These nations produce much of the World's fossil fuels which in turn produce much of the World's GHG's. In doing this they have built up vast Sovereign Wealth Funds that could be used to fund all sorts of the mitigation and adaptation efforts. So saying that they have only a limited responsibility under the agreement strikes me as extremely counter-productive.
I would end the paragraph with the bracketed text beginning "and the provisions of Article 4." This makes reference to "evolving Common But Different Responsibilities (CBDR)" which I consider to be hugely important because it underlines that while everybody bears a common responsibility more economically and scientifically capable nations also bear a responsibility to help less capable nations. The use of the term "evolving" indicates that this can change over time because if the government of a less capable nation isn't trying to improve then I would say that it is failing it's citizens.
P5 - Here I support Option (a) because "Recalling" acknowledges that there was a binary approach under KP providing a loose guide to everyones CBDR's. "Reaffirming" declares that the binary approach is going to continue. It's not. Due to the use of the binary approach the KP failed so if it is included again in this agreement KP Annex I parties simply won't sign up to it and I won't be able to criticise them for doing so.
P6 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P7 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P8 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P9 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P10 - Here Option (c) seems to have been included to give less capable nations an opt out from taking action. This is not acceptable. Option (b) is less of a loophole and seems intended to give reassurance to less capable nations that their differing responsibilities will be taken into account. In the interests of a concise text I don't think this is really necessary because the concept of CBDR is well established both elsewhere in the preamble and in the rest of the document. Therefore I support Option (a) with the phrase "widest possible" because it conveys the ambition that everybody will do everything in their power. That seems to be what the agreement should aspire to at least in the preamble/mission statement section.
P11 - I consider this fine as is because if parties don't agree to that it rather begs the question of what we are doing here.
P12 - I consider this fine as is for the reasons laid out above.
P13 - I consider this fine as is but strictly speaking I think it should be the assessments of the IPCC rather then a specific (5th) assessment.
P14 - I consider this fine as is because again if parties don't agree to that there's not really a lot of point to them being here.
P15 - Option (b) is clearly trying to create another loophole by referencing those notorious "historical responsibilities." In terms of what it is trying to achieve I consider Option (a) to be just fine but the way it is written in no way constitutes a coherent paragraph. Therefore I propose that it is re-written as follows;
"Recognising that deep and urgent cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and that such cuts must be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."
It needs to reference "GHG emissions" rather then simply "emissions" because the IPCC has spent decades defining exactly what GHG emissions are and what impact they have. The looser term "emissions" allows nations to pick and choose what emissions they count. For example Morocco has opted not to count F-gases as part of their emissions. Although Morocco's F-gas emissions are practically zero this strikes me as bad science because there really needs to be a baseline to monitor change.
P16 - I consider this fine as is because again if parties don't agree to that it rather begs the question of what we are doing here.
P17 - I consider this to be fine with the use of "2C" and "zero emissions within the second half of this century" because in the interests of a coherent text I don't think we should get excessively specific in the preamble section.
P18 - I consider this fine as is because they do. I would even be open to the idea of a global carbon budget if the research was in place to allow it.
P19 - I consider this fine as is because carbon pricing is important. However in the interests of a concise text I'm not convinced it is strictly necessary in this section. As such I really don't have a strong opinion about whether it is cut or kept.
P20 - Now this is completely unnecessary because while it is a valid point it is one that has already been raised in P3.
P21 - Option (b) is the binary approach. Although I appreciate that less capable nations will need help to adapt to the effects of climate change this is not the way to go about it because the binary approach has been tried before and it failed. As such it will not be signed up to again.
Option (a) is fine provided it is "Emphasizing" rather then noting "that adaptation is an global challenge and a common responsibility that requires global solidarity that must be addressed with the same urgency as mitigation and recognising that both climate-resilient development and adaptation to the impacts of climate change will be essential." I consider this simplified version to include the elements of "political/legal parity" and "international cooperation" to be covered by the equivalency to mitigation and the references to solidarity.
P22 - I consider this fine as is because it establishes the link between a failure to mitigate the causes of climate change and the need to adapt to the effects of climate change. It also underlines that all parties have a role to play in adaptation helping to further clarify P21.
P23 - This just re-states P22 making it unnecessary meaning that it should be cut from the text.
P24 - I consider this unnecessary because although once something has been lost or damaged it can't be replaced you still have to adapt to it's loss or damage. Therefore I don't think that it is distinct from adaptation. However I will be prepared to keep it in as a guide to how the rest of the agreement deals specifically with the issues of loss & damage and adaptation.
P25 - I consider this fine as is although again I have to question whether it will needed in the preamble when the section on loss & damage has been completed.
P26 - I consider this fine as is.
P27 - I consider this to be largely fine provided the binary references such as "developed/developing parties" or "Parties in Annex X/Y" are removed and replaced with the non-binary term of simply "All Parties."
P28 - I consider this unnecessary because it just re-states P27.
P29 - I consider this fine as is because private sector finance is going to be essential.
P30 - I consider this fine as is because special consideration does need to be given to the SIDS and the LDC's.
P31 - I consider this fine as is because climate change does pose a threat to the existence of low laying island nations presenting a very unique set of problems.
P32 - I consider this unnecessary because the link between the level of mitigation efforts and the need for adaptation efforts has already been established in P22.
P33 - Having extensive experience of the problems created by failures of job creation in North African societies such as Tunisia and Egypt and having read the warnings about sub-Saharan Africa I fully support the concept behind this paragraph. However people who talk about "Mother Earth" in an effort to bog down discussions about climate science in gender politics have long annoyed me. Also I don't think the preamble is really the place for long lists of every specific problem. As such I think this should be re-written as follows;
"Stressing that all actions to address climate change and all the processes established under this agreement should ensure gender equality and intergenerational equity, take into account environmental integrity and respect human rights in accordance with nationally determined development goals."
After all it means exactly the same thing. It's just easier to understand.
P34 - With human rights being covered in P33 this is just unnecessary.
P35 - I consider this fine as is because done right action on climate change will also improve these other areas.
P36 - This is fine but obviously I think that it is already covered by my version of P33.
P37 - This is simply a Chinese loophole. It is intended to give China and it's clique an opt out from climate actions on the grounds they would adversely impact on economic development. This is entirely against the spirit of the agreement not least because it only grants certain parties the opt out and therefore cannot be included. Also with the frequent references to "sustainable development" and "national development goals" already providing plenty of wriggle room it strikes me as completely unnecessary.
However I agree that the text does need to better establish the link between climate actions and social economic development so the paragraph should be re-written as follows;
"Reaffirming that responses to climate change should be coordinated with social and economic development in an integrated manner taking into full account the legitimate priority needs of all parties and their right to equitable access to sustainable development and to achieve economic growth and eradicate poverty."
P38 - Again this is an attempt to create a loophole but all nations do have a right access natural resources and consume energy in order to achieve sustainable social and economic development. As such this should be re-written as follows;
"Also reaffirming that all parties need access to the resources required to achieve sustainable social and economic development and that, in order to progress towards that goal, their energy consumption will need to grow, taking into account the opportunities for achieving greater energy efficiency and for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including through the application of new technologies."
After all in terms of cutting emissions it makes far more sense to allow nations to develop by taking advantage of new technologies then forcing developed nations to shut down completely.
Although less capable nations have included the phrase; "on terms that make such an application economically and socially beneficial" in order to increase the assistance they receive I have excluded because it creates an unintended loophole.
For example the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently struck down parts of the Clean Air Act on the grounds that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had not considered the cost of fitting new filters to power stations. Therefore I think that phrase is likely to see more capable nations opting out entirely rather then handing out more assistance.
P39 - I consider this fine as is because climate change does adversely affect human health and this should be recognised in the agreement.
P40 - Subnational authorities (like Mayors and local councils), intergovernmental organizations, civil society, indigenous peoples, local communities, the private sector, financial institutions all have a vital role to play in combating climate change. However Option (a) thinks they should be used to "catalyse" national action while Option (b) thinks they should be used to "strengthen" national action. To my mind the private sector, financial institutions and foreign NGO's catalysing changes in government policy undermines national sovereignty. Therefore Option (b) is the better option.
P41 - I'm fine with this as is because it simply acknowledges that in order to achieve it's objectives new procedural rules and methodologies may have to be established in the future as our understanding of the problem develops.
P42 - This simply establishes the mandate for the agreement.
P43 - This simply establishes the international legal framework in which the agreement will function.
P44 - Read as; "Have agreed to further enhance the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention as follows;" this simply establishes that what follows in the text is intended to implement the UNFCCC.
Section B: Definitions.
As the name suggests this simply covers the definitions of certain terms. I won't be spending time on this because under existing UN rules there are only so many ways you can interpret terms like; "Party to the Convention," "Party to the Agreement" and "Present and Voting."
I will say though that there is no need to define VIII and IX covering parties to the different binary annexes because there won't be binary annexes. As I've explained twice in this post alone the binary approach was tried under the KP and it failed. As such if it is included in this agreement many nations will simply refuse to sign and walk away. As I personally am very opposed to the binary approach I will be in no rush to chase after them.
17:25 on 4/7/15 (UK date).
Wednesday, 1 July 2015
Operation Featherweight: Month 12, Week 1, Day 4.
In response to Friday's (26/5/16) terror attack in Tunisia that is believed to have killed 30 Britons there have been suggestions that the UK expands it's air campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to include targets within Syria. Although it's clear that something has to be done in response I have to say that this particular suggestion strikes me as a very bad idea.
For the most part the US-led coalition air campaign - particularly in Syria - has fitted into what is known as strategic bombing. The principle behind this idea is that if you bomb an enemy's infrastructure such as it's factories, power plants, roads, railways etc it will cause so much disruption to the way their society operates that the society will collapse in on itself rendering the enemy unable to fight. The idea was pioneered during the Second World War by Britain's Royal Air Force (RAF) under the command of Arthur "Bomber" Harris and led to things like the 1945 bombing of Dresden in which some 25,000 German civilians were killed in two days of air-strikes. It was also used extensively by the US during the Vietnam war particularly against what was termed the "Ho Chi Minh Trail."
On both of these occasions strategic bombing failed and I can't immediately think of an example where it has ever succeeded. As such I've long thought that the US is only employing strategic bombing against ISIL because they know full well that it won't work. However it does give the public the impression that the US is trying really hard to defeat ISIL it's just that the Syrian and Iraqi governments are so evil they make ISIL too strong to defeat. Therefore I think that Britain is likely to do more damage to ISIL by continuing to very pointedly refuse to engage in the US' campaign in Syria until the US comes up with a better strategy.
If ISIL are to be defeated there needs to be a force on the ground to go in and forcibly remove ISIL from the territory that they occupy. The role of the coalition's air-power is to provide close air-support to this ground force. If the US-led coalition is going to continue to refuse to work with the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) in Syria then finding a ground force to support is going to be extremely challenging.
Even after decades of experience in fighting asymmetric warfare in places such as Vietnam, Afghanistan and even Northern Ireland it is next to impossible to talk about the conflict in Syria in terms of competing armies. If anything it functions more like the street gangs you see operating in places like the US and the UK. That is to say that you have a patchwork of different armed groups. Some fight on the orders of wealthy benefactors while others fight for control of smuggling routes and areas with large local populations that can be taxed for profit. Discipline is almost completely lacking amongst these armed groups meaning not only that allies can fall out with each other almost at the drop of a hat but it's also quite common for members to leave one group in order to join up with a completely different group.
A few months ago I tried bringing some order to the chaos by talking about the main coalitions of these different groups. Alongside ISIL, the Al Qaeda affiliated Al Nusra Front (ANF) and the Syrian government most groups could be divided into either the Islamic Front (IF) or the Free Syrian Army (FSA) coalitions. The FSA coalition was made up of the most secular groups while the IF was made up of Islamist groups like the the Islamic Movement of Freemen of the Levant/Ahrar ash-Sham (FML) and the Brigade of Islam/Jaish al-Islam (JAI) who share much of ISIL's ideology but have avoided formally allying themselves with the group on the advice of their benefactors. Saudi Arabia in particular has given a lot of assistance to the FML.
Since then the situation has changed with the FSA almost entirely disappearing. They do have a small presence fighting alongside the YPG which is known as the "Euphrates Volcano (Burkan al-Firat)" and it's important not to overlook their contribution. However I think it is obvious to all that the YPG are the senior partner in that relationship. Groups who were once part of the FSA have since gone on to join members of the IF to form a larger coalition which is known as the "Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF)." It is this group that the US-led coalition is now training and equipping in Turkey and Jordan. The JAF coalition is headed by Al Qaeda's ANF.
In terms of territory held and areas of operation ISIL's main presence is centred around the Euphrates River. They used to hold everything to the north-east of the country before the YPG pushed them back. The centre of the country is still held by Syrian government forces who control most of the country. The JAF are mainly centred around the north-west of the country in Idlib and Aleppo provinces and with increased levels of support from the US-led coalition have been making progress advancing on Latika province.
Although they are supposed to be fighting ISIL the JAF enjoy a close enough relationship with them to move across their territory to operate in south of the country even getting as far as the outskirts of the capital Damascus. You may remember that back in April the JAF colluded with ISIL to allow ISIL to enter the Yarmouk camp for Palestinian refugees in the Damascus suburbs in order to wipe out the Palestinian Aknaf Beit al-Maqdis (ABM) group who are opposed to JAF.
The situation in the south-west of Syria along the borders with Jordan and Israel including the Golan Heights is even more complicated. Up until a few weeks ago this really was the last hold-out of the FSA coalition. However recently the groups there have began to co-operate with the JAF if not quite fully joining the coalition. On June 15th (15/6/15) the previously FSA groups and the JAF groups in the area entered the village of Khadar which is home to members of the Druze religious minority group. They proceeded to massacre dozens of civilians.
At this point Israel made it quite clear that this was a red line for them and if the massacres continued Israel would enter Syria to establish a safe haven for the Druze in order to fulfil their obligation both to Israel's Druze population and their international obligation to prevent genocide. As it is extremely unlikely that Israel and it's well equipped army would follow the US's softly, softly approach in doing this the previously FSA groups suddenly reconsidered their relationship with JAF and officially separated from them - particularly the JAI who were blamed for the massacre.
Today JAI took the unprecedented step of releasing a 20 minute ISIL-style execution video. The twist though was that the 18 people being executed are alleged to be ISIL members. This is clearly a publicity stunt intended to reassure sceptics that the JAF - of which the JAI are part - are committed to fighting ISIL rather then being allied to them. However the reasons given for the executions is that ISIL are not radical enough in their sectarian hatred of Shia Muslims and that ISIL have betrayed Sunni Muslims by allying themselves with the Syrian government. This is obviously an attempt to boost support for the JAF's objective of overthrowing the Syrian government by further contributing to the oft-repeated but completely untrue conspiracy theory that ISIL are allies of the Syrian government in the hope of confusing ISIL's crimes with the actions of the Syrian government.
So as I've said on numerous occasion the US-led coalition must stop arming and training Syria's insurgent groups because their ideology is too extreme and they simply cannot be trusted. Also while we may not like it the Syrian government has a vital role to play in the defeat of ISIL by disrupting all the different armed groups communicating with each other.
If the Syrian government falls before ISIL are defeated it is likely that ISIL will formally ally themselves with the JAF and all but the most extreme members of the coalition with be wiped out. When that happens the US-led coalition will find itself in the extremely difficult position of fighting groups that it has armed and trained in order to ensure that ISIL are completely wiped out. In short this is unlikely to be possible.
16:10 on 1/7/15 (UK date).
For the most part the US-led coalition air campaign - particularly in Syria - has fitted into what is known as strategic bombing. The principle behind this idea is that if you bomb an enemy's infrastructure such as it's factories, power plants, roads, railways etc it will cause so much disruption to the way their society operates that the society will collapse in on itself rendering the enemy unable to fight. The idea was pioneered during the Second World War by Britain's Royal Air Force (RAF) under the command of Arthur "Bomber" Harris and led to things like the 1945 bombing of Dresden in which some 25,000 German civilians were killed in two days of air-strikes. It was also used extensively by the US during the Vietnam war particularly against what was termed the "Ho Chi Minh Trail."
On both of these occasions strategic bombing failed and I can't immediately think of an example where it has ever succeeded. As such I've long thought that the US is only employing strategic bombing against ISIL because they know full well that it won't work. However it does give the public the impression that the US is trying really hard to defeat ISIL it's just that the Syrian and Iraqi governments are so evil they make ISIL too strong to defeat. Therefore I think that Britain is likely to do more damage to ISIL by continuing to very pointedly refuse to engage in the US' campaign in Syria until the US comes up with a better strategy.
If ISIL are to be defeated there needs to be a force on the ground to go in and forcibly remove ISIL from the territory that they occupy. The role of the coalition's air-power is to provide close air-support to this ground force. If the US-led coalition is going to continue to refuse to work with the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) in Syria then finding a ground force to support is going to be extremely challenging.
Even after decades of experience in fighting asymmetric warfare in places such as Vietnam, Afghanistan and even Northern Ireland it is next to impossible to talk about the conflict in Syria in terms of competing armies. If anything it functions more like the street gangs you see operating in places like the US and the UK. That is to say that you have a patchwork of different armed groups. Some fight on the orders of wealthy benefactors while others fight for control of smuggling routes and areas with large local populations that can be taxed for profit. Discipline is almost completely lacking amongst these armed groups meaning not only that allies can fall out with each other almost at the drop of a hat but it's also quite common for members to leave one group in order to join up with a completely different group.
A few months ago I tried bringing some order to the chaos by talking about the main coalitions of these different groups. Alongside ISIL, the Al Qaeda affiliated Al Nusra Front (ANF) and the Syrian government most groups could be divided into either the Islamic Front (IF) or the Free Syrian Army (FSA) coalitions. The FSA coalition was made up of the most secular groups while the IF was made up of Islamist groups like the the Islamic Movement of Freemen of the Levant/Ahrar ash-Sham (FML) and the Brigade of Islam/Jaish al-Islam (JAI) who share much of ISIL's ideology but have avoided formally allying themselves with the group on the advice of their benefactors. Saudi Arabia in particular has given a lot of assistance to the FML.
Since then the situation has changed with the FSA almost entirely disappearing. They do have a small presence fighting alongside the YPG which is known as the "Euphrates Volcano (Burkan al-Firat)" and it's important not to overlook their contribution. However I think it is obvious to all that the YPG are the senior partner in that relationship. Groups who were once part of the FSA have since gone on to join members of the IF to form a larger coalition which is known as the "Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF)." It is this group that the US-led coalition is now training and equipping in Turkey and Jordan. The JAF coalition is headed by Al Qaeda's ANF.
In terms of territory held and areas of operation ISIL's main presence is centred around the Euphrates River. They used to hold everything to the north-east of the country before the YPG pushed them back. The centre of the country is still held by Syrian government forces who control most of the country. The JAF are mainly centred around the north-west of the country in Idlib and Aleppo provinces and with increased levels of support from the US-led coalition have been making progress advancing on Latika province.
Although they are supposed to be fighting ISIL the JAF enjoy a close enough relationship with them to move across their territory to operate in south of the country even getting as far as the outskirts of the capital Damascus. You may remember that back in April the JAF colluded with ISIL to allow ISIL to enter the Yarmouk camp for Palestinian refugees in the Damascus suburbs in order to wipe out the Palestinian Aknaf Beit al-Maqdis (ABM) group who are opposed to JAF.
The situation in the south-west of Syria along the borders with Jordan and Israel including the Golan Heights is even more complicated. Up until a few weeks ago this really was the last hold-out of the FSA coalition. However recently the groups there have began to co-operate with the JAF if not quite fully joining the coalition. On June 15th (15/6/15) the previously FSA groups and the JAF groups in the area entered the village of Khadar which is home to members of the Druze religious minority group. They proceeded to massacre dozens of civilians.
At this point Israel made it quite clear that this was a red line for them and if the massacres continued Israel would enter Syria to establish a safe haven for the Druze in order to fulfil their obligation both to Israel's Druze population and their international obligation to prevent genocide. As it is extremely unlikely that Israel and it's well equipped army would follow the US's softly, softly approach in doing this the previously FSA groups suddenly reconsidered their relationship with JAF and officially separated from them - particularly the JAI who were blamed for the massacre.
Today JAI took the unprecedented step of releasing a 20 minute ISIL-style execution video. The twist though was that the 18 people being executed are alleged to be ISIL members. This is clearly a publicity stunt intended to reassure sceptics that the JAF - of which the JAI are part - are committed to fighting ISIL rather then being allied to them. However the reasons given for the executions is that ISIL are not radical enough in their sectarian hatred of Shia Muslims and that ISIL have betrayed Sunni Muslims by allying themselves with the Syrian government. This is obviously an attempt to boost support for the JAF's objective of overthrowing the Syrian government by further contributing to the oft-repeated but completely untrue conspiracy theory that ISIL are allies of the Syrian government in the hope of confusing ISIL's crimes with the actions of the Syrian government.
So as I've said on numerous occasion the US-led coalition must stop arming and training Syria's insurgent groups because their ideology is too extreme and they simply cannot be trusted. Also while we may not like it the Syrian government has a vital role to play in the defeat of ISIL by disrupting all the different armed groups communicating with each other.
If the Syrian government falls before ISIL are defeated it is likely that ISIL will formally ally themselves with the JAF and all but the most extreme members of the coalition with be wiped out. When that happens the US-led coalition will find itself in the extremely difficult position of fighting groups that it has armed and trained in order to ensure that ISIL are completely wiped out. In short this is unlikely to be possible.
16:10 on 1/7/15 (UK date).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)