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).
Saturday, 28 November 2015
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).
Thursday, 26 November 2015
Operation Featherweight: Month 16, Week 5, Day 2.
Today the UK Prime Minister David Cameron laid out to Parliament the case for conducting air-strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria as well as Iraq. This is seen as a precursor to a Parliamentary vote authorising those air-strikes which may occur as early as next Tuesday (1/12/15).
However there is still little guarantee that such an authorisation will be given or that a vote will even be called. That is because there remain very serious questions over whether Cameron can be trusted to act within the bounds of international law and whether there is the strategic vision needed for a successful campaign.
Throughout the past 16 months of this fight against ISIL the main problem has been that US President Barack Obama - the supposed Commander-in-Chief of the US-led coalition - does not view ISIL as an enemy. Instead he views them as a key strategic partner helping the US achieve it's goal of ridding the Middle-East of Shia Muslims.
Quite why ridding the Middle-East of Shia Muslims is a strategic objective of the US is something that we are all still waiting for Obama to explain.
This failure to recognise ISIL as an enemy to be defeated has caused Obama to tie himself up into all sorts of knots.
Take for example the torturous debate over the use of United States Air Force (USAF) base Incirlik in Turkey against ISIL. This has led to Obama making all sorts of ridiculous concessions to Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan and has been going on for so long that Erdogan changed jobs during.
Quite why Erdogan thinks that he has the right to refuse the use of a USAF base in an operation that has been authorised under Chapter 7 of the United Nations (UN) Charter is again something that we are all still waiting for Obama to explain.
The reason why Obama has become fixated on Incirlik is that it is much closer to both Iraq and Syria then the bases in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Jordan that the US is currently flying missions from. The theory being that the closer the airbases are to the targets the quicker the turnaround time meaning more targets can be attacked.
Putting aside the fact that the US-led coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - is currently operating at less then 10% of capacity if you look on Google Maps at either Camp Speicher which is just outside the Iraqi city of Tirkit or al-Baghdadi airbase which is just outside the Iraqi city of Fallujah the outdated aerial photographs actually show US aircraft lined up on the runways.
Therefore if Obama was serious about upping the volume of strikes against ISIL then he would use these bases and numerous other ones across Iraq rather then Incirlik.
Although he has yet to provide any explanation for his decision making I suspect that Obama would argue that in order to do this he would also have to send in force protection troops to protect those aircraft on the ground as Russia has done in Syria. This would violate his pledge of; "No Boots on the Ground."
However this is an entirely false argument because Obama has already deployed ground forces in Iraq in violation of that pledge. At al-Baghdadi airbase in particular have not only been deployed but have also engaged in combat there.
So effectively Obama has already deployed force protection troops to these bases. He is simply refusing to the deploy a force for them to protect.
The real reason why Obama is refusing to allow aircraft to operate from within Iraq is because to do so would massively increase the effectiveness of the operation quickly liberating Iraqi territory from ISIL. As I've said Obama does not want to see that happen because he still views ISIL as an ally.
Obama's conduct in Syria has been even worse. There he's not involved in a war against ISIL. Instead he has been involved in a marketing exercise.
Although they first invaded Iraq in December 2013 it was not until August of 2014 and the genocide of the Yezidi in Sinjar/Shingal that the world's media was no longer able to turn a blind eye to ISIL's horrors.
With the "ISIL" brand poisoned in the eyes of the public Obama put on a big show of flying lots of planes over Syria and bombing the occasional patch of desert.
However this was merely a distraction while Obama poured resources into other groups so they could continue the job of ridding the Middle-East of Shia Muslims only under a brand name that was more acceptable to the public.
The two main groups that have been supported are the Al Nusra Front (ANF) who are affiliated with Al Qaeda and listed alongside ISIL in the Chapter 7 resolution and the Islamic Movement of the Freemen of the Levant/Harakat Ahrar ash-Sham al-Islamiyya (FML). Together with some other smaller groups they are known as the Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF) coalition.
The Army of Conquest share ISIL's ideology and is every bit as brutal as ISIL. They have in the past fought alongside ISIL particularly against the Yamouk camp for Palestinian refugees in Damascus and the 2015 Northwestern Syria offensive which allowed ISIL to seize control of the ancient city of Palmyra.
Aside from being allied with ISIL the Army of Conquest - particularly the FML branch - is allied with Turkey. For example when on August 9th (9/8/15) Erdogan ordered FML to cede the town of Marea to ISIL that is exactly what they did.
The hope being that this would provide a pre-text for a formal Turkish invasion of Syria to re-establish the supply lines with ISIL that had been cut the the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) - a group that Erdogan is forbidding CJTFOIR from assisting.
That brings me rather neatly onto the current tense stand-off between Turkey and Russia over the shooting down - by Turkey - of a Russian Su-24 in Syria on Tuesday (24/11/15).
Yesterday (25/11/15) Turkey released two versions of recordings of warnings it alleges to have sent to this aircraft. The first was released by a Turkish news channel while the second was released by the Turkish military. They differ substantially meaning the version released by the news channel was fake.
This obviously could have been intended as a talking point about the fake Syrian passports that the attackers in Paris on November 13th (13/11/15) used to disguise themselves a refugees. However I've had contact with that particular news channel before so think that is unlikely.
What is interesting about the Turkish military recordings is that they reveal the warnings were issued on what is known as the "Guard" frequency. Designated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) this is an public, unencrypted radio channel for use in emergencies.
As it is public, unencrypted and known by all it is inappropriate for communication between Russian and CJTFOIR aircraft over Syria. This is why the two nations went through a lengthy negotiation process to establish a dedicated frequency under the October 20th (20/10/15) Memorandum of Understand (MOU).
As a CJTFOIR member Turkey would have been fully aware that the Guard frequency was not being used and therefore was not being monitored by the Russian aircraft.
Therefore Erdogan's claim that warnings were issued is a bit like a man whose phoned his doctor being unable to understand why his pizza hasn't been delivered.
As I've said before the issue of whether a warning was issued is irrelevant. This procedure for this type of situation is well established - particularly with Turkish military aircraft violating Greek air-space 2,244 time in 2014 alone.
The intercepting aircraft must establish radio contact. They must then issue a warning followed by instructions and wait for those instructions to be followed. If it is unable to establish radio contact it must establish visual contact to make sure the intercepted aircraft isn't suffering from a broken radio or that the pilots have been incapacitated.
Once the intercepting aircraft has established visual contact it must the determine that the intercepted aircraft poses a direct and imminent threat.
If at any point the intercepted aircraft leaves the air-space there is no longer any right to intercept. There is certainly no right to follow it into the sovereign air-space of another country.
Regardless of whether it was issued to the Russian aircraft or not the first Turkish radio message lasted 15 seconds. Two seconds later the aircraft left Turkish air-space.
Where Turkey has got confused in all this is that it views Syria to be part of Turkey.
As such it sees the shooting down of the Russian aircraft as legitimate to protect Turkish forces operating in the Latakia mountains. These Turkish forces operate under the name; "Syrian Turkmen Brigades (STB)."
The STB is sometimes also referred to as the "Moderate Syrian Opposition." However from their machine gunning of the Russian pilots as they parachuted to the ground and their attacks on medical helicopters sent to rescue I think we know how 'moderate' they are.
Tuesday's (24/11/15) incident also gave us a clearer picture of just how Syrian the STB are. The spokesman they put forward to speak to the media has been identified as Alpaslan Celik. Not only is he Turkish he is the son of the Mayor of a Turkish city representing the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).
Therefore while I understand the urgent need to defeat ISIL and have understood it for more then 16 months now I remain hesitant giving the UK government permission to bomb Syria until they have indicated that they understand these problems and have some idea of how to solve them.
If they don't then not only will any military action be wholly illegal it will also be doomed to certain failure.
I would of course be reassured if the UK used it's NATO membership to ensure that Article 5 is invoked in response to the Paris Massacres. This would help to underline to Turkey that is simply does not have an option here.
I would also like to see the UK use it's seat on the UN Security Council (UNSC) pass a resolution condemning Turkish attacks on anti-ISIL forces on Syria and Iraq. This would show me that Cameron finally understands that Article 51 (self-defence) cannot apply when a Chapter 7 resolution is already in effect.
Making Turkey aware of this legal reality should also further underline to them - and sadly Obama - that they simply do not have the option of supporting ISIL and associated forces.
I would also be reassured if the UK were to formally designate the YPG and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) coalition they operate as part as allies in the fight against ISIL. They are of course a predominately Sunni Muslim force.
17:45 on 26/11/15 (UK date).
Edited at around 19:20 on 26/11/15 (UK date) to add;
Based on the evening news shows the big talking point about today's debate was a claim by Cameron that there are 70,000 moderate forces in Syria prepared to fight ISIL
The SDF has a strength of 64,000. Although I certainly do not share Cameron's optimism about the Free Syrian Army (FSA) I don't doubt that another 6,000 moderates can be found.
Therefore it goes back to the question of whether we will support the SDF or follow Erdogan's orders that we treat them as enemies and ISIL as allies?
However there is still little guarantee that such an authorisation will be given or that a vote will even be called. That is because there remain very serious questions over whether Cameron can be trusted to act within the bounds of international law and whether there is the strategic vision needed for a successful campaign.
Throughout the past 16 months of this fight against ISIL the main problem has been that US President Barack Obama - the supposed Commander-in-Chief of the US-led coalition - does not view ISIL as an enemy. Instead he views them as a key strategic partner helping the US achieve it's goal of ridding the Middle-East of Shia Muslims.
Quite why ridding the Middle-East of Shia Muslims is a strategic objective of the US is something that we are all still waiting for Obama to explain.
This failure to recognise ISIL as an enemy to be defeated has caused Obama to tie himself up into all sorts of knots.
Take for example the torturous debate over the use of United States Air Force (USAF) base Incirlik in Turkey against ISIL. This has led to Obama making all sorts of ridiculous concessions to Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan and has been going on for so long that Erdogan changed jobs during.
Quite why Erdogan thinks that he has the right to refuse the use of a USAF base in an operation that has been authorised under Chapter 7 of the United Nations (UN) Charter is again something that we are all still waiting for Obama to explain.
The reason why Obama has become fixated on Incirlik is that it is much closer to both Iraq and Syria then the bases in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Jordan that the US is currently flying missions from. The theory being that the closer the airbases are to the targets the quicker the turnaround time meaning more targets can be attacked.
Putting aside the fact that the US-led coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - is currently operating at less then 10% of capacity if you look on Google Maps at either Camp Speicher which is just outside the Iraqi city of Tirkit or al-Baghdadi airbase which is just outside the Iraqi city of Fallujah the outdated aerial photographs actually show US aircraft lined up on the runways.
Therefore if Obama was serious about upping the volume of strikes against ISIL then he would use these bases and numerous other ones across Iraq rather then Incirlik.
Although he has yet to provide any explanation for his decision making I suspect that Obama would argue that in order to do this he would also have to send in force protection troops to protect those aircraft on the ground as Russia has done in Syria. This would violate his pledge of; "No Boots on the Ground."
However this is an entirely false argument because Obama has already deployed ground forces in Iraq in violation of that pledge. At al-Baghdadi airbase in particular have not only been deployed but have also engaged in combat there.
So effectively Obama has already deployed force protection troops to these bases. He is simply refusing to the deploy a force for them to protect.
The real reason why Obama is refusing to allow aircraft to operate from within Iraq is because to do so would massively increase the effectiveness of the operation quickly liberating Iraqi territory from ISIL. As I've said Obama does not want to see that happen because he still views ISIL as an ally.
Obama's conduct in Syria has been even worse. There he's not involved in a war against ISIL. Instead he has been involved in a marketing exercise.
Although they first invaded Iraq in December 2013 it was not until August of 2014 and the genocide of the Yezidi in Sinjar/Shingal that the world's media was no longer able to turn a blind eye to ISIL's horrors.
With the "ISIL" brand poisoned in the eyes of the public Obama put on a big show of flying lots of planes over Syria and bombing the occasional patch of desert.
However this was merely a distraction while Obama poured resources into other groups so they could continue the job of ridding the Middle-East of Shia Muslims only under a brand name that was more acceptable to the public.
The two main groups that have been supported are the Al Nusra Front (ANF) who are affiliated with Al Qaeda and listed alongside ISIL in the Chapter 7 resolution and the Islamic Movement of the Freemen of the Levant/Harakat Ahrar ash-Sham al-Islamiyya (FML). Together with some other smaller groups they are known as the Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF) coalition.
The Army of Conquest share ISIL's ideology and is every bit as brutal as ISIL. They have in the past fought alongside ISIL particularly against the Yamouk camp for Palestinian refugees in Damascus and the 2015 Northwestern Syria offensive which allowed ISIL to seize control of the ancient city of Palmyra.
Aside from being allied with ISIL the Army of Conquest - particularly the FML branch - is allied with Turkey. For example when on August 9th (9/8/15) Erdogan ordered FML to cede the town of Marea to ISIL that is exactly what they did.
The hope being that this would provide a pre-text for a formal Turkish invasion of Syria to re-establish the supply lines with ISIL that had been cut the the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) - a group that Erdogan is forbidding CJTFOIR from assisting.
That brings me rather neatly onto the current tense stand-off between Turkey and Russia over the shooting down - by Turkey - of a Russian Su-24 in Syria on Tuesday (24/11/15).
Yesterday (25/11/15) Turkey released two versions of recordings of warnings it alleges to have sent to this aircraft. The first was released by a Turkish news channel while the second was released by the Turkish military. They differ substantially meaning the version released by the news channel was fake.
This obviously could have been intended as a talking point about the fake Syrian passports that the attackers in Paris on November 13th (13/11/15) used to disguise themselves a refugees. However I've had contact with that particular news channel before so think that is unlikely.
What is interesting about the Turkish military recordings is that they reveal the warnings were issued on what is known as the "Guard" frequency. Designated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) this is an public, unencrypted radio channel for use in emergencies.
As it is public, unencrypted and known by all it is inappropriate for communication between Russian and CJTFOIR aircraft over Syria. This is why the two nations went through a lengthy negotiation process to establish a dedicated frequency under the October 20th (20/10/15) Memorandum of Understand (MOU).
As a CJTFOIR member Turkey would have been fully aware that the Guard frequency was not being used and therefore was not being monitored by the Russian aircraft.
Therefore Erdogan's claim that warnings were issued is a bit like a man whose phoned his doctor being unable to understand why his pizza hasn't been delivered.
As I've said before the issue of whether a warning was issued is irrelevant. This procedure for this type of situation is well established - particularly with Turkish military aircraft violating Greek air-space 2,244 time in 2014 alone.
The intercepting aircraft must establish radio contact. They must then issue a warning followed by instructions and wait for those instructions to be followed. If it is unable to establish radio contact it must establish visual contact to make sure the intercepted aircraft isn't suffering from a broken radio or that the pilots have been incapacitated.
Once the intercepting aircraft has established visual contact it must the determine that the intercepted aircraft poses a direct and imminent threat.
If at any point the intercepted aircraft leaves the air-space there is no longer any right to intercept. There is certainly no right to follow it into the sovereign air-space of another country.
Regardless of whether it was issued to the Russian aircraft or not the first Turkish radio message lasted 15 seconds. Two seconds later the aircraft left Turkish air-space.
Where Turkey has got confused in all this is that it views Syria to be part of Turkey.
As such it sees the shooting down of the Russian aircraft as legitimate to protect Turkish forces operating in the Latakia mountains. These Turkish forces operate under the name; "Syrian Turkmen Brigades (STB)."
The STB is sometimes also referred to as the "Moderate Syrian Opposition." However from their machine gunning of the Russian pilots as they parachuted to the ground and their attacks on medical helicopters sent to rescue I think we know how 'moderate' they are.
Tuesday's (24/11/15) incident also gave us a clearer picture of just how Syrian the STB are. The spokesman they put forward to speak to the media has been identified as Alpaslan Celik. Not only is he Turkish he is the son of the Mayor of a Turkish city representing the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).
Therefore while I understand the urgent need to defeat ISIL and have understood it for more then 16 months now I remain hesitant giving the UK government permission to bomb Syria until they have indicated that they understand these problems and have some idea of how to solve them.
If they don't then not only will any military action be wholly illegal it will also be doomed to certain failure.
I would of course be reassured if the UK used it's NATO membership to ensure that Article 5 is invoked in response to the Paris Massacres. This would help to underline to Turkey that is simply does not have an option here.
I would also like to see the UK use it's seat on the UN Security Council (UNSC) pass a resolution condemning Turkish attacks on anti-ISIL forces on Syria and Iraq. This would show me that Cameron finally understands that Article 51 (self-defence) cannot apply when a Chapter 7 resolution is already in effect.
Making Turkey aware of this legal reality should also further underline to them - and sadly Obama - that they simply do not have the option of supporting ISIL and associated forces.
I would also be reassured if the UK were to formally designate the YPG and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) coalition they operate as part as allies in the fight against ISIL. They are of course a predominately Sunni Muslim force.
17:45 on 26/11/15 (UK date).
Edited at around 19:20 on 26/11/15 (UK date) to add;
Based on the evening news shows the big talking point about today's debate was a claim by Cameron that there are 70,000 moderate forces in Syria prepared to fight ISIL
The SDF has a strength of 64,000. Although I certainly do not share Cameron's optimism about the Free Syrian Army (FSA) I don't doubt that another 6,000 moderates can be found.
Therefore it goes back to the question of whether we will support the SDF or follow Erdogan's orders that we treat them as enemies and ISIL as allies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
