ADP Text 11/6/15 Revision: Section I: Transparency of Action & Support.

As I envisage it this new agreement will see all parties submit Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC's) that contain both an Adaptation Section and a Conditional/Additional Section. These will then be subjected to both an ex ante and an ex post peer review process.

As such the function of this system will do an awful lot to enhance transparency.

For example if a nation has received support to carry out the Conditional portion of it's INDC they will have to state where that support came from at the ex post review and you can be certain that there will be a corresponding INDC boasting about the Additional support it has provided.

All INDC's will then be reviewed by peer groups in a process intended to check whether promised actions are being fulfilled.

Therefore I think that this is a section that can be dramatically reduced although I would stop short of removing it entirely.

Paragraph 140 - Here Option 4 applies only to developed parties giving developing parties an opt out. This goes against the collective responsibility of the agreement meaning that I cannot even entertain it. Option 1 is far too vague giving little to no guidance to how the transparency mechanism will function. There is really little to choose between Options 2 & 3.

Therefore I would take the bulk of Option 2 provided it is streamlined as follows;

"A common transparency framework, applicable to all Parties taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and recognizing that Parties shall progressively enhance the level of transparency such that it is strengthened and more robust relative to the level currently existing under the Convention, shall promote transparency of action and support by providing information on the implementation of each Party’s commitments / contributions in an efficient and flexible manner, recognizing that Parties with the least capacity may need additional support to do so, in order to:

(a) - Enhance clarity, comparability, accountability and mutual trust and promote ambition / progressive enhancement amongst all parties;

In the spirit of collective responsibility I've changed this to apply to all parties within the context of CBDR.

(b) - Facilitate the tracking of progress in the implementation of commitments / contributions; 

(c) - Provide the clearest possible understanding of aggregate emissions relative to emission pathways consistent with limiting the global average temperature increase to below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels;

(d) - Ensure that commitments / actions and provision of support by all countries in a position to do so are implemented and complied with and verified through a robust verification system, and facilitate the comparison of MRV of all types of support received with the needs expressed and identified by countries;
 
In the spirit of collective responsibility I've changed this to apply to all parties within the context of CBDR. Parties in need of assistance can still express and identify that need because developing, developed or any other term we may use they are all countries.

(e) - Ensure the use of mitigation outcomes resulting from international/national market-based mechanisms in the accounting of each Party’s commitments / contributions;

"Ensure" is the stronger term then "facilitate" and it's important to include both national and international mechanisms because often a national mechanism will provide the basis for an international mechanism.

(f) - Avoid double counting;

(g) - Ensure the environmental integrity of this agreement;

(h) -  I have excluded this entirely because it creates opt-outs. With nations being given the freedom to set their own targets they shouldn't then be able to opt-out of those targets or the entire agreement will become not only a failure but also a joke.

(i) - Enhance transparency and accountability on finance, technology and capacity-building support provided between Parties through robust accounting rules and an MRV system."

Again this wording better reflects the collective responsibility.

I would also include from Option 3;

"(b) - Facilitate the clarity of progress made by Parties that include an adaptation component in their nationally determined contributions;

To ensure that Adaptation is covered along with mitigation and;

(c) - Ensure that support-related commitments are implemented, complied with and verified through a robust accounting, reporting and verification system;"

To ensure that Additional support is actually being translated into Conditional action.

Paragraph 141 - I consider this fine as is.

Paragraph 142 - Here Option 2 rather misses the point which is to further establish the core principles of how the transparency mechanism will function. Option 3 is actually relevant but I don't think provides enough detail. Option 1 provides probably provides too much detail so needs to be streamlined as follows;

"The transparency framework shall encompass MRV of emissions and removals including those related to support, and shall be based on agreed rules and existing MRV arrangements under the Convention and / be guided by the following:

(a) - The principles and provisions of the Convention;

This wording includes Article 12 of the convention.

(b) - Article 3 is also included in (a) so I would cut this as a repetition.

(c) -Taking into account the differing national circumstances / common but differentiated responsibilities / the unique circumstances / and respective capabilities of Parties.

Here I've gone for Option A because I feel including "national and regional development priorities" provides too much of an opt out while this version along with the principle of CBDR throughout the document still affords protection to less capable nations.

(d) -  The purpose of the agreement is to get all countries working towards a common standard by increasing their capacity. This provides too much of an opt out undermining that purpose. Therefore this needs to be removed.

(e) - I would replace this with the better wording of Option 3 (c);

"Avoiding imposing onerous burdens on particularly vulnerable developing country Parties, including the LDCs and SIDS, with respect to support received for adaptation, capacity-building, access to and development and transfer of environmentally sound technologies"

This provides the same protection just in a more coherent sentence

(f) - Recognizing that the transparency framework will evolve, building on existing decisions / experience of existing MRV arrangements

That's a purely grammatical change

(g) - This is the entire purpose of the agreement so including it as a clause here is needless and should be removed.

(h) - Ensuring transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency;

(i) -  This is covered better by (j) so should be removed as a duplication

(j) - Building countries’ capacities over time and institutionalizing reporting capacity;

(k) - Although I would like to include language highlighting that the burden on the Secretariat should be minimised in all areas under the agreement the purpose of the agreement is to sustainably increase the burden on nations. Therefore this should be removed as it contradicts the entire agreement.

(l) - The role of the existing arrangements including the KP have already been established. Therefore this should be removed as a duplication.

(m) -  This is already covered by (o) so should be removed as a duplication.

(n) - This is already covered by (e) so should be removed as a duplication.

(o) - Consistent with the level of support provided."

Paragraph 143 - This is already covered by an INDC design that includes the Adaptation section. Therefore this should be removed as an unnecessary duplication.

Paragraph 144 - This is already covered by the proceeding paragraphs in the section. Therefore it should be removed.

Paragraph 145 - This to has already been covered by the proceeding paragraphs in the section. Therefore it should be removed as a duplication to make the section far less chaotic.

Paragraph 146 -  This is fine as it is simply allowing for new institutional arrangements to be created should the need arise.

Paragraph 147 - As I pointed out above this is really covered by the INDC design. Therefore Option 3 is unnecessarily detailed without adding anything of value. Conversely Option 2 far too vague. So here I would adopt Option 1 simply to establish biennial communications.

Paragraph 148 -  Again this is really covered by the INDC design. However I'm happy for it to continue to be included because it's short and it doesn't contradict anything.

Paragraph 149 - I consider this to be fine provided it reads;

"In line with the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) All Parties shall use common methodologies and metrics agreed by the IPCC and adopted by the governing body to determine their greenhouse gas emissions and removals."

Although it mandates that all parties should use the accepted IPCC metrics and methods it gives a small degree a wriggle room for nations that are genuinely unable to meet that standard.

Paragraph 150 - I consider this to be fine provided it reads;

"All Parties in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities, to ensure transparency of support:

(a) - MRV of support provided to be enhanced on the basis of national communications, biennial reports, ex ante and ex post peer review,  IAR and Kyoto Protocol rules using common but differentiated templates and drawing on the work of the SBSTA on methodologies for the reporting of financial information by Annex I Parties;

That is to enshrine the role that the peer review process plays in enhancing transparency.

(b) - All Parties to provide information on support received and its use, recognizing the special circumstances of countries, ensuring that no onerous reporting burdens are imposed.

This reflects the collective nature of the agreement while protecting less capable nations from having burdens placed upon them that is not accompanied by additional support to meet that burden.

(c) - All Parties in a position to do so to provide biennial reports on adaptation support, indicating the level of support that they are providing, in particular to the LDCs, SIDS and countries in Africa, so as to inform a regular review by the governing body in line with science;

(d) - International financial institutions are invited to provide information on how their development assistance finance incorporates ‘climate proofing’ measures in all forms of support;

(e) - Each Party to provide information on support provided and received, in line with its national circumstances;

(f) - The level of financial support provided by All Parties for the purchase of intellectual property rights to access environmentally sound technologies and thus enhance their action to tackle climate change."

Paragraph 151 - Here Option 2 seems to have been written to provide assurance to the less capable nations of support. In it's repetition of that point it misses out other key areas. Option 4 is wholly insufficient because I agree that there needs to be a high degree of assurance. I don't think that Option 5 provides enough support while Option 3 could certainly provide more.

Therefore I would adopt Option 1 as striking the right balance provided it is streamlined to read;

"The governing body shall elaborate the rules related to transparency of action and support, including MRV, as well as related to accounting, in particular the rules on the use of market mechanisms, and to the land sector in relation to mitigation commitments / contributions, which:
 
(a). After gathering experience with the agreed transparency system and assessing whether improvement is needed, adjust / enhance / ensure the development of the existing MRV arrangements and accounting rules, building on the experience of existing MRV arrangements, to fit the objectives and purposes of the agreement;
 
(b). Ensure harmonization and coordination of existing data systems as well as methodological consistency and commonality in defining and tracking the commitments / contributions;

(c). Use common metrics and methodologies adopted by the IPCC and agreed by the COP for the estimation of GHG emissions and removals

Here I've chosen Option B because although parties really should adopt the best scientific advice from the IPCC they should also be given the opportunity to raise concerns about the practicality of that advice.

(d). Use common guidelines related to reference levels elaborating the modalities of how methodological consistency should be ensured and under which circumstances changes to reference levels may occur;
 
(e). Use common guidelines on national MRV arrangements taking into account the respective capabilities and different national circumstances of Parties;
 
(f). Recognize the importance of greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from land-use change and forestry activities for understanding mitigation contributions and progress in achieving targets, commitments and implementing actions;

Under (f) I would strengthen the reporting of natural sinks and sources by including from Option 3 (f) the sub-points;

(i). Parties to include all major emission sources and sinks, pools and gases in their contribution;

(ii). For major sources and sinks, pools and gases that are not included, Parties to include an explanation for their exclusion, and to strive to include these over time.

(vii). Once a gas, sector, category, activity, area of land or pool is accounted towards a commitment, it shall continue to be accounted for in the future

(g). Recognize the use of market activities in relation to mitigation commitments if they meet standards, to be defined, that deliver real, permanent, additional and verified mitigation outcomes, avoid double accounting of effort, achieve a net decrease and/or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions and are in conformity with these standards;

Here I've used Option B but removed the references to the KP and the Convention to allow any market mechanisms that might be developed in the future to also be covered by the clause.

(h). Elaborate when Parties may change their baselines and related accounting approaches or methodologies;
 
(i). Recognize the importance of accounting of support for adaptation and means of implementation

(j). Use comparable accounting mechanisms for support on the basis of common templates / methodologies and common methodology for MRV for all countries in a position to do so

(k). Place greater emphasis on effectiveness of support and include better provisions for reporting on the use of international support and results achieved with support;

(l). With respect to the provision and receipt of finance:

(i). Include / enhance information, in accordance with previous decisions of the COP, on support provided and received, including on: delivery, use and impact, sources, scale, channels, instruments, and on South–South cooperation; 

(ii). Provide transparency on the levels of financing, on what financing is used for, which countries are benefiting, and whether funds are new and additional and outcomes achieved through accounting rules for: mitigation and adaptation actions and for financial support, as well as public and private resources invested; 

Here I've gone for the first option because it is simply better written and includes the same protections as the second option only within the collective spirit of the agreement.

(iii). Be enhanced on the basis of annual reporting on delivery of climate finance;

(iv). Address the need for a common agreed definition of climate finance and inconsistencies on climate finance data:
- Providing clarity on what type is most appropriate for what action;
- Building on the work done by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Research Collaborative and the SCF on methods for measuring and tracking private climate finance -Building on the work of the SBSTA; 

(m). With respect to the monitoring and reporting of support on enhanced action on technology development and transfer:
 
(i). Facilitated by the TEC / Technology Mechanism;



"Facilitated" being the stronger term then (Overseen)

(ii). Develop common format and methodologies for technology support reporting;

(n). With respect to the effectiveness of capacity-building support:
 
(i). On the basis of the impact and knowledge created in [developing country Parties][Parties not included in annex X] against performance indicators at the national level and/or by a committee on capacity-building;
 
(ii). Be conducted against needs identified by Parties;



Again a developing party is still a party.
 
(iii). Include an assessment of the effectiveness of capacity-building activities on the basis of performance indicators at the international level;
 
(iv). Supported by the Durban Forum on capacity-building and the Consultative Group of Experts on National Communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention."


At around 21:50 on 9/11/15 (UK date) I am accutely aware that there a 7 more paragraphs in this section. However I really need to consider the provisions over joint mitigation actions with a fresh set of eyes. So I will pick this up tomorrow. Possibly in a seperate post.




 

 

The Amman Terror Attack.

The hot global issue at the moment is the crash of Kogalymavia flight 7K9268 in Egypt on October 31st (31/10/15).

If this was the result of bomb then at the very least you would expect Saudi Arabia to be placed under international sanctions as Libya was following the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

Under Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter Russia is entitled to go much further then that and there is an obligation on the UN Security Council (UNSC) - on which both Russia and Egypt currently sit - to impose a Chapter 7 resolution authorising international military force against Saudi Arabia.

The big unknown at the moment is which way the US under President Barack Obama will go. Will it uphold international law and norms of behaviour or will it continue to protect Saudi Arabia - perhaps by using it's UNSC veto.

This has led to quite a lot of discussion within the US.

For example on Saturday (7/11/15) a US Navy nuclear capable "Trident" missile was fired over California where it disrupted civilian air-traffic and prompted lots of discussion amongst social media users who thought it was a UFO.

Then on Sunday (8/11/15) there was a big fire in San Francisco. With the palm trees and desert-style buildings this produced images that did look like someone had launched an air-strike against an oil rich Gulf state such as Saudi Arabia. San Francisco is of course the US' gay capital. It is a popular misconception that gay men aren't masculine or tough enough. It's long been suggested that Obama is not tough enough to be US President.

The reason for the concern over which way Obama will go in response to 7K9268 is because his track-record on Saudi Arabia is laughable.

Many people thought that Saudi Arabia had gone too far when it created the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in an attempt to overthrow the Syrian government. After all it is a clear violation of international law. However Obama responded not only by giving them permission to continue but also provided US support.

Many people also thought that Saudi Arabia had gone too far when it invaded Yemen in an effort to protect Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). After all once again this was a gross violation of international law. However once again Obama not only gave Saudi Arabia permission to continue he again provided US support.

The most comparable incident to 7K9268 are the terrorist bombings that Saudi Arabia conducted in Volgograd, Russia in the run-up to the 2014 Winter Olympics. Here Obama not only moved to protect Saudi Arabia he also fell over himself in a effort to support them.

This involved overthrowing the government of neighbouring Ukraine and starting a civil war there. Although this itself was a gross violation of international law Obama used it as an excuse to impose sanctions on Russia to punish it for it's opposition to ISIL.

Then the US launched it's campaign against FIFA in an effort to protect the 2022 Qatar World Cup while having Russia stripped of the 2018 World Cup. Qatar 2022 is of course the corrupt bid that by it's own admission cannot be delivered.

As a result a lot of people are half expecting Obama to come out and respond to 7K9268 by announcing that the 224 infidels aboard deserved to die and should be grateful they were allowed to give their lives for the Whabbist cause!

Amid this volatile situation Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu his today visiting President Obama in the US.

Obama's appeasement of the Gulf States has had an extremely dramatic and negative effect on security for both the Israelis and Palestinians.

With Obama effectively acting as little more then Saudi Arabia's butler the Palestinian Authority (PA) have got it into their heads that all they need to do is spread lies about the future of Al-Asqa Mosque to encourage Palestinians to attack Israelis. When the Palestinians are killed in the course of these attacks it will be used as an excuse for the international community to put pressure on Israel.

After almost three months of these attacks it doesn't look like anyone is falling for it. So the killings go on and on yet no-one's rewarded the PA for it's violence.

So today in Amman, Jordan a Jordanian police captain opened fire at a training camp for PA police recruits killing two American and one South African trainers before killing himself.

This seems to be an attempt to send the message that either Obama will continue to do whatever the Gulf States demand of him or the Gulf States will conduct terror attacks against the US.

The fact a South African was killed seems like the sort of bad luck you get when people start spraying bullets about. By portraying Israel as an apartheid state the Palestinians have found a lot of support in a South African government that sees the Palestinian cause as a way to prop up it's own anti-apartheid credentials.

15:10 on 8/11/15 (UK date).

ADP Text 11/6/15 Revision: Section H: Capacity Building.

As I've said before I see a large proportion of Capacity Building within this agreement being done almost as a side effect of the INDC submission and peer review process.

However I think there still needs to be a short section of the agreement establishing the principle of Capacity Building and providing a loose framework of what it involves.

Paragraph 134 - I consider this fine when written as;

"The objective of capacity-building should be to enable all Parties to identify, design and implement adaptation and mitigation actions and to enable domestic development and absorption of technologies to enhance the capacities of national governments to be able to absorb technology and finance for the implementation of the Convention."

This serves to underline that capacity building is the shared responsibility of all parties. After all a country can't hope to enhance it's capacity unless it is able to identify the deficiencies in it's current capacity.

Paragraph 135 - Fine as is.

(a) - Fine as is.

(b) - Fine as is. It is guided by rather then bound by.

(c) - This is better covered by (d) so can be cut because there is no need for both.

(d) - This is fine as is but you could also include; "Structured, predictable" to allay concerns about the cutting of (c).

(e) - Again this is covered by (d) so should be cut.

(f) - This is fine where;

(ii) "Establishes" the INDC process to give formal strength to both it and the peer review process.

(iv) Mentions only "Financial Mechanism" because that includes "Climate Finance" so the use of both terms is redundant.

(v) This needs to be removed because it places a limit at which point capacity building will stop. That is counter productive because everybody's capacity can always be enhanced.

(g) - This is fine with all the brackets included as is because it gives reassurance that a nation will not have more of a burden placed upon them then they are given support to meet that extra burden.

(h) - This gives me a bit of a problem because I understand that the private sector has an important role in both capacity building and climate finance. However I also understand that many parties political ideologies prevent them from using the private sector. Therefore I don't want to include a clause that forces those parties to change their political ideology. Nor do I want to include a clause that prevents parties that don't have that ideological barrier from using the private sector.

Therefore I think it is best to leave the matter open to each nation's interpretation by including Option C which will leave the paragraph reading simply;

"Developing countries will enhance their climate change actions subject to the provision of additional sustainable and predictable means of implementation provided by developed country Parties under the Convention through the appropriate mechanisms including the climate resilience and sustainable development mechanism."

This again reinforces the link that the actions poorer nations can take is dependent on the level of support they receive from richer nations.

(i) - This is fine when it reads; "Country Driven" because this allows nations to set their own demands.

I would also include a section (j) "Supported by the peer review process." to establish the role of that process in capacity building. In order for it to scan better I may include that earlier in the list somewhere between (b) and (f).

Paragraph 136 - Generally I am happy with this as is where (e) reads; "into all other elements." I would also like to see (b) read; "The mobilization of public and private sector capital and public engagement." so it can't be interpreted as an attempt to force capitalism on nations that don't wish to use it. After all this is an agreement to tackle climate change - not a battle of ideology.

Paragraph 137 - Here I think there should be some commitments to capacity building so Option 2 is out immediately. Option 3 is the binary approach from the Kyoto Protocol (KP) that this agreement will have to move away from. Option 1 is broadly sufficient currently reflects negotiating positions rather then the functional text of a final agreement. Therefore it needs to be refined as follows;

"All Parties in a position to do so shall cooperate to enhance global capacity to support the implementation of commitments under this agreement including South/South and triangular cooperation schemes."

That encompasses all the positions of Option 1 under the guiding Common But Different Responsibilities (CBDR) principle of the agreement by establishing that there is a common responsibility but that is shared differently depending on a nation's individual circumstances.

Paragraph 138 -  This is fine as; "The institutional arrangements established under the Convention shall enhance and intensify their work on capacity-building" because that establishes all the existing arrangements including the financial mechanism and intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations can be applied to this agreement.

• Paragraph 138.1 - This is fine where (a) reads; "by sharing experiences, best practices and lessons learned regarding the implementation of capacity-building activities." (b) doesn't include the binary brackets and (c), (ii) applies to "All Parties" but removes the language allowing the governing body to adjust commitments because that goes against the voluntary and consensual nature of the agreement no nation is going to sign up if it means the governing body can hand them a sudden and unexpected bill.

Paragraph 139 - It is clear to me that there does need to be a formal capacity building institution to assist less capable nations - particularly as part of the peer review process. As such Options 2 and 3 are not fit for purpose. Option 4 seems like an attempt to impose global capitalism which has nothing whatsoever to do with the question being asked. Therefore it is definitely out.

Containing lots of brackets and two sub-options Option 1 is thinking along the right lines but needs to be dramatically rationalised to make it part of a functional final agreement;

• Paragraph 139 - As an opener this reads fine as;  

"Building on previous and ongoing work and lessons learned from current institutional arrangements on capacity-building established under the Convention, including the Durban Forum on capacity-building an international capacity-building mechanism is to be established under this agreement: 

The subtle change in the end of the sentence allows the exact mechanism to be developed and refined seperate from the agreement as the need arises while still establishing the general principles

• Paragraph 139.1 - This is fine when it reads as;

"The purpose of the international capacity-building mechanism under this agreement, funded through the Financial Mechanism of the Convention and linked to technology- and adaptation-related institutions established under the Convention, shall be to enhance the capacity of All Parties to plan and implement mitigation and adaptation actions, including human skills development for the strengthening of domestic institutions, technology innovation and the development of endogenous technologies, and to make a structured assessment of their capacity needs and match them with support.

• Paragraph 139.2 - Here Option (B) is too weak because it fails to provide enough guidance on what the capacity building mechanism will be and how it will operate. Option (A) is again thinking in the right direction but needs to be streamlined as follows;

"The international capacity-building mechanism shall comprise;"

(a) -  This is fine where (i) reads; "All Parties" to reflect CBDR.

(b) - This is fine as is but it would work as a single sentence.

(c) & (d) - There really is no need for "Regional Capacity Building Centres" (c) and an "Institute for Capacity Building Operating in all Regions of the World" (d). This is the sort of needless duplication of work that will drain the resources of the financial mechanism leaving no money to carry out any practical action. Therefore the two should be merged to read;

"Regional capacity-building centres operating as a consortium of tertiary institutions in all major regions of the world to facilitate building capacity at the national and regional levels as a means of strengthening the ability and effectiveness of mitigation and adaptation actions."

(e)  - This is essential because it connects the regional centres created above together and is fine as is. However strictly speaking I don't think the sentence "In addition, the centre will assist developing countries...." is needed because that has long been established as the principle of Capacity Building. Whether it stays in or not though really makes little difference to me.

(f) - This is fine because if the coordination centre doesn't provide advice there's little point to it. I will need to see the word "Developing" removed though so it reads simply "Countries." That allows all countries to receive advice regardless of how their development status may change over the 80-100 year life-span of the agreement.

(g) -  This is fine as is making sure that all stakeholders are able to participate in the centres.

• Paragraph 139.3 - Simply giving the governing body the authority and freedom to establish the above this is fine as is. Unless something dramatic is going to happen in the time-scale section the brackets about the agreement entering into force in 2020 are fine to be included.

22:15 on 7/11/15 (UK date).

ADP Text 11/6/15 Revision: Section G: Technology Development & Transfer.

At their October meeting parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) produced a whole new negotiating text. As I said at the time this is completely insufficient for an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol (KP).

So what I am doing in preparation for the 21st Conference Of Parties (COP21) in Paris, France at the end of the month is continuing to work through the June 11th (11/6/15) version of the text to turn it into a workable agreement.

I understand that Section F dealing with Finance is one of the most important sections. However I also understand that it is one of the most complicated sections. So with timing running out I have decided to work through the simpler sections before tackling it.

The thinking being that if I can't turn up to COP21 100% I can at least turn up 90% ready.

Section G: Technology Development & Transfer;

Paragraph 128 - Generally I consider this to be fine. However in the second sentence when it refers to "Developed Countries" I think it should refer instead to "All Parties." This will allow for South/South transfer where it exists without removing the obligation on what were termed Developed Countries under KP to share technology.

Paragraph 129 - Here Option 3 is too binary denying the option for South/South co-operation. Option 2 is an unreadable mess. Option 1 is sufficient if it is adjusted to read;

"All Parties in accordance with their Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and evolving economic realities to strengthen cooperative action to promote and enhance technology development and transfer, including through the Technology Mechanism / institutional arrangements for technology established under the Convention and through the Financial Mechanism, in order to support the implementation of mitigation and adaptation commitments under this agreement ."

This makes clear that while all nations have a responsibility to participate in technology development and transfer that responsibility differs depending on the nation's individual economic circumstances.

Paragraph 130 - I consider this to be fine as is because it merely places a responsibility to establish a technology mechanism at some point in the future. Due to the changing nature of technology it is best that the exact rules of that mechanism are negotiated away from the main agreement.

Paragraph 131 - Although the technology mechanism should be negotiated separately the main agreement should set some ground rules of what that mechanism should include. Therefore here Option 2 of not giving any guidance is out straight away. Option 1 however is a mess that needs extensive re-writing;

• Paragraph 131.1 - This is generally fine provided it reads as;

"All Parties in a position to do so to undertake steps to address barriers to accessing technology and know-how and to establish and strengthen their necessary policy frameworks to facilitate the removal of barriers and enable and accelerate technology development and transfer while leveraging enhanced support from the private sector for technology development and transfer."

This version is simpler highlighting the non-binary approach of this agreement without loosing the obligation to provide technology.

• Paragraph 131.2 - When the above paragraph is written to cover "All Parties in a positions to do so" it covers this paragraph rendering it redundant meaning that it can be removed from the text.

• Paragraph 131.3 - This is fine as long as it is re-written as;

"All Parties shall support the development and enhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies of developing country Parties."

After all with nations like Kenya leading the world in fields like mobile Internet development it seems stupid that less developed nations shouldn't be given the option of developing their own technology rather then the charity of more developed nations that can often seem like the colonialism of old.

• Paragraph 131.4 -  This is largely covered above so I don't see the need to include Option (i) when the sub-paragraph is sufficient when re-written to apply to all parties and to include Option (ii) to read;

"All Parties in accordance with the principles of and obligations under the Convention, to establish means to facilitate access to and the deployment of safe, appropriate and environmentally, economically and socially sound technology while promoting, enhancing and rewarding innovation in adaptation and mitigation technologies on the basis of the strengthening of sustainable development trajectories and poverty eradication. Parties recognize that IPRs create an enabling environment for the promotion of technology innovation in environmentally sound technologies."

• Paragraph 131.5 - I would give this more prominence by treating it as a separate paragraph rather then a sub-paragraph. However the text it's is fine provided it reads;

"All Parties in a positions to do so to conduct an assessment of their technology needs, on the basis of national circumstances and priorities and update the same periodically, with a view to ensuring nationally determined and environmentally, economically and socially sound resulting project proposals and to effectively implement the outcomes of such an assessment, in order to support the implementation of this agreement. Parties shall provided support to improve their capacities for conducting technology needs assessments:
 
i. Parties to strengthen the process of technology needs assessment (TNAs) and enhance the implementation of the outcomes of the TNA process;
 
ii. Align TNAs more closely with bankable finance projects / Improve TNAs to result in implementable projects;
 
iii. TNAs could be linked to other processes under the Convention, such as NAMAs and NAPs; TNA process should be elaborated to address developments arising from the operationalization of this agreement."

This wording highlights that in order to receive technology transfers nations must carry out assessments of their technology needs. Although I've excluded the binary language the paragraphs highlights that less developed nations are not entirely on their own and will need to be provided with support to carry out these assessments.

• Paragraph 131.6 - This is fine when it begins; "All Parties in a position to do so." 

• Paragraph 131.7 - This is fine as is because although it doesn't continue the binary approach it ensures that nations which had an obligation under KP still have an obligation under this agreement.

• Paragraph 131.8 -  Strictly speaking I feel this is covered elsewhere in the agreement so could be cut in an effort to save space. However I have no objections to it's continued inclusion.

Paragraph 132 - I consider this fine as is.

• Paragraph 132.1 - This is fine simply reading; 

"The institutional arrangements for technology established under the Convention shall serve this agreement by facilitating enhanced action on technology development and transfer including know-how in order to achieve the objectives of this agreement."

There is simply no need for the long list of institutional arrangements.

• Paragraph 132.2 - Here Option 2 is not sufficient because I think that for capacity building if nothing else there needs to be specific guidance on strengthening the technology mechanism. However Option 1 is a bit of a mess that needs to be re-written as;

"Specific provisions on strengthening: 

(a.) The TEC and the CTCN / Technology Mechanism of the Convention shall support the operationalization and delivery of the commitments related to technology development and transfer in this agreement, under the Convention: 

(i.) Include provisions on accounting; 

(ii.) Take into account the specific needs of countries with special circumstances in Africa and the LDCs and SIDS; 

(iii.) Promote needs-based development, access, management and control, emphasizing the most marginalized.

(b.) The Technology Mechanism shall enhance cooperation and synergy with other institutional arrangements under and outside the Convention and stakeholders, as well as the coherence and effectiveness of technology action and initiatives under the Convention: 

(i.) Establish linkages between the Technology Mechanism, the Financial Mechanism and capacity-building institutions; 

(ii.) The Poznan strategic programme on technology transfer to be linked to and/or guided by the Technology Mechanism;

(iii.) Excluded as duplication of above. 

(iv.) Enhance the role of the private sector to support the implementation of the Technology Mechanism;

(v.) Facilitate the role of public research and development, incentives for commercial research and development, the development of technologies and the reaching of economies of scale;

(vi.) The Green Climate Fund, in operationalizing its adaptation and mitigation windows shall ensure adequate financial resources for technology development and transfer and capacity-building for all climate change actions; 

(vii.) Assessments of the effectiveness, adequacy and implementation of the institutional arrangements for technology development and transfer shall be conducted.

(c.) An ad hoc review and monitoring mechanism shall be established and shall conduct a periodic assessment of the effectiveness, adequacy and implementation of the Technology Mechanism and other institutional arrangements for technology development and transfer. The Technology Mechanism and other institutional arrangements shall improve their performance, and be mandated new functions as needed in accordance with the result of the assessment.

Paragraph 133 - I consider this fine as is because it simply allows for new arrangements to be developed if the need arises. 

18:00 on 7/11/15 (UK date). 







                   

The 7K9268 Dramatic Display Team.

On Sunday (1/11/15) I said that I was not happy to speculate on what may have caused Kogalymavia flight 7K9268 to crash in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Saturday (31/10/15) until I had some firm evidence to support any theory. In the three days since then no new evidence has emerged so I am still not happy to give a definitive cause.

However I should point out that my initial gut instinct is that the crash was an accident caused by either an explosion in the engine/fuel tanks or something vital falling off the aircraft.

This theory is strengthened by the fact that on November 2001 the aircraft - Airbus A321-231 Serial #663 - experienced a tailstrike at Cairo International Airport whilst being operated by it's original owner Lebanon's Middle-East Airlines.

A tailstrike is pretty self-explanatory - on either take off or landing the tail of the aircraft strikes the runway. This obviously can significantly damage the tail of the aircraft.

Following the incident 663 was repaired by Middle East Air in accordance with a design procedure mandated by Airbus. It returned to service in 2002 before being sold to Turkey's Onur Air and then Saudi Arabian Airlines. In 2011 it was sold for a fourth time to a holding company in the Republic of Ireland and was leased to Kogalymavia who operated it under the brandname "Metrojet."

At every sale 663 was fully inspected by each new owner and their insurers and it was it was subjected to yearly airworthiness inspections. The most recent certificate of airworthiness was granted by the Irish Aviation Authority in May of 2015.

As a result if this type of mechanical failure is the cause of the crash there is absolutely no suggestion of any wrongdoing on the part of the Irish owner, the Russian operator or any Egyptian mechanics who may have serviced the aircraft prior to it's final flight.

However there are long standing concerns over whether the internationally approved repair regime following a tailstrike is sufficient.

For example on May 25th 2002 (25/5/02) a Boeing 747 operated by China Airlines broke apart on a flight between Taiwan and Hong Kong. The aircraft had suffered a tailstrike in Sweden in 1980 and 22 years later that repair failed causing the plane to crash killing all on board.

While the wings provide an aircraft with the lift needed for flight the tail section provides the stability and steering. Therefore if the tail section falls off mid-flight there is very little the pilot can do to control the situation leaving what happens next in the hands of God and gravity.

If the loss of a tail section forces an aircraft into either a steep dive or a violent spin the forces exerted on the aircraft can far exceed what it is designed to cope with. This can cause all sorts of secondary problems such as causing an engine to explode or ripping open the fuel tanks in the aircraft's belly again causing an explosion.

This is what happened to TWA flight 800 just after it took off from New York's JFK airport in 1996. Following an extensive investigation that carefully ruled out both an onboard bomb and a missile strike it was found that faulty wiring had caused the centre/belly fuel tank to explode.

If either a faulty tail repair or a faulty design of the belly fuel tank caused 7K9268 to crash then this is going to get very expensive for the aircraft manufacturer Airbus. Not only will they have to compensate the families of the victims along with their aircraft operator and the aircraft owner they are facing a potential re-call of all 1,156 A321's currently in operation.

It is due to this sort of potential conflict of interest why aircraft manufacturers are forbidden from taking part in the initial stages of an air crash investigation. The nation states of France and Germany who are major shareholders in Airbus are clearly not happy about this and have suspended flights over the Sinai in an effort to muscle in on the investigation.

Just these evening the Irish Aviation Authority who may also be liable for granting an airworthiness certificate to an un-airworthy aircraft have also joined in banning all Irish registered aircraft from flying over the Sinai.

The dramatic announcement of the evening though has come from the UK which has delayed all British flights due to take off from Sharm al-Sheikh airport in the southern Sinai until British experts can check the airport's security measures over concerns that 7K9268 MAY have been brought down by an onboard bomb.

This seems mainly driven by a long scheduled visit by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to the UK tomorrow (5/11/15).

Today at Prime Minister's Question Time the leader of the opposition Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn branded el-Sisi the leader of a coup a decried him being invited to the UK.

Assuming that Corbyn is not a massive supporter of Hosni Mubarak I think he is referring to the events of June and July of 2013.

With Egypt's authoritarian, Islamist President Mohamed Morsi having failed to deliver on a single one of the changes demanded by the revolution despite 18 months in office roughly 1/3rd of Egypt's population signed a petition calling for Morsi to resign. Roughly half that number then took to the streets in protest promising to stay day-after-day, night-after-night until Morsi stepped down.

It is at this point a democratic leader would have stepped down or at least called a snap election. Unfortunately Morsi was no democrat so eventually the army had to step in to nudge him out of office just the same as they'd nudged Mubarak out of office.

Since then Egypt has held a Presidential election which el-Sisi won, a Parliamentary election and a constitutional referendum.

The problem is that Turkey's authoritarian, Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had built his nation's expansionist foreign policy around Morsi being Egypt's President for life. After all it was Erdogan who described democracy as train that you ride until your destination of power then you get off and do away with it.

So Erdogan responded to Egypt's return to democracy by supporting Islamist groups to wage a terrorist war against the Egyptian state. For the most part this has been extremely low-level such as the occasional grenade or actually more often firework attack against Egyptian police buildings/patrols.

However it happens with such frequency that it has created a situation where the Egyptian state has been forced to increase security measures rather then increase civil liberties.

It has certainly made it impossible to ask the Egyptian security forces to take the massive pay cuts needed to roll back the Mubarak-era deep state.

Although he wasn't even their first choice Morsi represented the Muslim Brotherhood who are currently sponsored by Qatar. As such Qatar has lent it's propaganda arm - Al Jazeera - to support Erdogan's terror campaign.

Unfortunately many on Britain's left have been unable to identify Al Jazeera as a propaganda platform rather then a new agency so have been taken in by the scam.

Therefore the UK announcing that it thinks Egypt needs to tighten it's security measures in response to the terrorist threat is a good way to make clear that Corbyn is a weirdo who watches too much Al Jazeera rather then someone who in anyway influences UK policy.

That said there is a small gap in security at Sharm el-Sheikh airport that could have allowed a bomb onto 7K9268 or any future aircraft. I should stress though that it is a really tiny gap.

On paper security measures at Sharm el-Sheikh are exactly the same as at any EU or US airport. However in practice those measures aren't always followed. This is something that can be solved by sending out a strongly worded memo or conducting random spot checks.

I suspect that as I write the UK security experts currently inspecting Sharm el-Sheikh will be able to expand on that advice in a lot more detail.

21:20 on 4/11/15 (UK date).

Edited at around 12:05 on 5/11/15 (UK date) to add;

In the absence of firm evidence I could spend my time spinning an almost infinite number of convoluted conspiracy theories over the crash of 7K9268.

This is exactly what the US seem to have been prompted to do by the UK's announcement on Sharm el-Sheikh. After all it is hugely embarrassing for US intelligence to be forced to admit that they are nothing more then passengers in the Middle-East and it's wide range of conflicts.

Yesterday the US announced that it increasingly believes that the aircraft was brought down by a bomb smuggled onboard by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) franchise in the Sinai which refers to itself a "Sinai Province" but is know to everybody else as Supporters of the Holy House/Ansar Bait al-Maqdis (ABM) who are little more then Bedouin gangsters and gun-runners.

This US assessment is based entirely on intercepted communications between ABM members made after the plane crash was all over the news. Therefore it seems to have zero credibility to it.

Also if you're talking about a civilian aircraft being brought down by a bomb that had been smuggled through airport security then the most likely suspects are Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) based in Yemen. They have long expressed a desire to bring down a passenger aircraft in this way and have been practising for a number of years.

AQAP were behind the failed "Underpants Bomb" on Northwestern Flight 253 in Detroit, Michigan, US on December 25th 2009 (25/12/09).

AQAP were also behind the 2010 Cargo Plane Bomb plots when two bombs disguised as printer cartridges were smuggled aboard two cargo planes bound for the US from Yemen on October 29th 2010 (29/10/10).

As both of these plots had critical flaws that rendered the bombs inoperable there is quite a lot of speculation that rather then being a legitimate terror group AQAP are in fact being run by Saudi Arabian intelligence.

The intention being to stage dramatic sounding but ultimately non-credible terror plots in order to trick US intelligence into providing security to Saudi Arabia's oppressive Monarchy.

AQAP were also responsible for the terror attacks on Paris, France that began with the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine on January 7th 2015 (7/1/15).

Those attacks were really the final straw for the people of Yemen who rose up and overthrew the Saudi imposed government of Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi who is seen as AQAP's main sponsor in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia responded to this by launching a brutal war against Yemen in order to re-impose Hadi as President.

Due to debts owed to Saudi Arabia Egypt has been forced to participate in this war despite opposition from the Egyptian public who fear a repeat of Egypt's disastrous 1962-1970 intervention in Yemen.

Therefore it would make sense for 'AQAP' to bomb a passenger jet over Egypt. The hope being that it would strengthen support for the Saudi war against Yemen amongst an Egyptian public who would be tricked into thinking that it is war against AQAP rather then a war in support of AQAP.

Then of course there are the similarities with the Lockerbie bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21st 1988 (21/12/88) which was blamed on Libya.

Although I disagree very much with the manner in which Libyan President Muammer Qaddafi was overthrown in 2011 initially the Libyan people did manage to take the first steps in forming a prosperous, secular democracy.

Unfortunately Qatar who are really leading operations in Libya thought the overthrow of Qaddafi was to bring about a chaotic, impoverished Islamist state.

So they continued to arm Islamist militia's under the banner of the "Libya Dawn." They forced the Libyan government out of Tripoli and declared themselves to be the government.

Curiously the United Nations (UN) leapt to Qatar's aid and imposed these ridiculous negotiations intended to force the elected Libyan government to accept the unelected Islamist militias as part of a government of national unity.

The main sticking point at the moment is whether Libya will be allowed to maintain it's secular identity or whether the militias will be allowed to impose a constitution making Islamic Sharia law the law of the land.

Back on October 16th (16/10/15) the US and UK authorities announced that they wished to question Abdullah al-Senussi - Libya's former head of intelligence - and Nasser Ali Ashour - a former senior intelligence officer - over the Lockerbie bombing. Both al-Senussi and Ashour are currently being held by the Islamist militias.

Therefore it seems likely that the US wants to question these men in order to grant more legitimacy to the Islamist militias.

After all the story it already been reported as; "Libyan authorities contacted over Lockerbie suspects" rather then the much more accurate; "US negotiates with Islamist terrorists over hostages they hold."

It seems that the UK went along with the plan to put pressure on the US over it's rabid claims over Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 and it's support for Libya's Islamist insurgency.

Although it's a fight amongst family there is a degree of tension between Saudi Arabia and Qatar over the Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore the Libya discussion is exactly the sort of thing Saudi Arabia would want to be in the middle of.

Edited again at around 19:45 on 6/11/15 (UK date) to add;

When an aircrash occurs the investigation can be conducted by either the nation the aircraft took from, the nation that operates the aircraft or the nation that the aircraft was flying to.

So in the case of 7K9268 the investigation can either be carried out by Egypt or Russia. Due to Russia's more advanced capabilities Egypt has agreed that they will lead the investigation although Egypt will participate.

Back on July 17th 2014 (17/7/14) Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crashed over Ukraine. Here the western nations - the US and the European Union (EU) - felt no need to wait for an investigation and immediately blamed Russia for the crash.

So we had a succession of World leaders lining up to condemn Russia and economic sanctions were immediately imposed against Russia. The then Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott even promised to have a fist fight with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

On October 13th 2015 (13/10/15) the final report into MH17 was released. It found that there was no evidence to support the claims that Russia was responsible for the crash. It did though find evidence that the Ukrainian government in Kiev was responsible through the negligent operation of it's airspace.

As I said above if the crash of 7K9268 was caused by a faulty repair to the aircraft that had been certified as safe by the aircraft manufacturer Airbus then this is going to get very expensive for the shareholders of Airbus that include the governments of many EU nations such as France and Germany.

Therefore those EU nations are now very worried that Russia will pay them pack for their misbehaviour of MH17 by not pulling any punches in their recommendations in the level of compensation Airbus will have to pay over 7K9268 and the improvements to all the other A321's in operation they will have to make.

However if an aircraft has been brought down by a deliberate criminal or terrorist act the investigation will be handled by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) rather then an individual nation state.

So although they didn't follow that procedure during the MH17 investigation western nations are now desperately playing up the terrorism angle in a hope of triggering an ICAO investigation which they hope to influence in order to reduce the costs to Airbus.

Today Russia indicated that the investigation so far is pointing strongly towards negligence on the part of Airbus. They did this by revoking licenses for Boeing 737's to operate within Russia on the grounds that the improper repair of this aircraft type had caused two accidents in 2008 and 2013 that killed  138 people.

They followed this up by announcing that they will be suspending all Russia flights to Egypt - not just Sharm el-Sheikh but all of Egypt. As Russians make up the majority of visitors to Egypt this seems intended to force the western nations to reflect on the effect on the Egyptian economy that their attempts to protect Airbus' losses are having.

The US responded to this by announcing that it is sending teams to review security at Sharm el-Sheikh airport. This is because they want to know what the UK, Egypt and Russia are all saying to each other.

Also today the UK has begun to evacuate passengers from Sharm el-Sheikh who were stranded by the decision to suspend UK flights. In true British fashion the UK government cocked this right up.

In their arrogance they assumed that UK flights being suspended meant that all flights had been suspended. This was not the case with Sharm el-Sheikh continuing to operate as normal with flights from places like Russia and Ukraine continuing to arrive and depart as scheduled.

So when the UK decided to send 29 flights to Sharm el-Sheikh there were still only 8 landing/take-off slots to accommodate them. As a result 21 of the flights had to be turned back.

The situation should slowly sort itself out over the coming days. My advice to travellers is to speak to your specific tour operator.

Of course the fact that Russia has now cancelled all inbound flights should help free up plenty of those runway slots helping smooth the situation.

Operation Featherweight: Month 16, Week 1, Day 7.

For much of last week from Baghdad to the shores of the Mediterranean the normally desert middle-east region has been deluged with torrential rain and flash flooding.

I'm taking that as a sign that I should focus on this climate change issue. After all it might not be the most immediate threat but it's certainly the biggest.

However on Friday (30/10/15) the US announced that it is sending up to 50 Special Forces operators - likely Green Berets - to assist the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the buffer-zone they have established in northern Syria between the Turkish border and the heartland of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) along the Euphrates River.

This has led to some discussion as to whether US President Barack Obama has broken his "No Boots on the Ground" promise to the American people and whether this constitutes mission creep.

On that first question I should point out that they are Special Forces. These types of unit were really devised to go to places where officially a nation's armed forces are not allowed to operate. As such they're not really covered by the normal restrictions that are placed on conventional forces. Therefore while Obama has gone right up to the line I don't think he has quite broken his promise.

However this is a situation that needs to be monitored very closely because it certainly is mission creep. I'm particularly worried that Obama seems to be repeating the mistakes of Iraq.

Here numerous Special Forces and some conventional forces have been deployed effectively as a blocking tactic. Officially their mission has been to train Iraqi troops but in reality they seem more interested in finding excuses why the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) can't liberate Iraq from ISIL.

The deployment of Special Forces to Iraq seems to be following the same plan.

Since entering the fight against ISIL at the end of September Russia has been very keen to conduct air operations on their heartland but have been blocked by the sort of protective dome the US-led coalition - Combined Joint Task Force: Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTFOIR) - have been providing to ISIL. Russia has also reached out to the SDF with a view to providing them with the equipment and close air support that CJTFOIR have been refusing to provide.

As such Obama's decision to deploy Special Forces to Syria seems to be a delaying tactic to prevent Russian air-strikes on ISIL for fear of hitting US forces and to prevent the SDF from receiving support from Russia.

It is not appropriate for Obama to put US lives - even Special Forces operators - on the line simply because he cannot make a decision of what to do next.

Even before the US Special Forces have deployed the SDF continues to resist attacks across the borders of the buffer-zone.

In the south-west on the banks of the Euphrates ISIL fired rockets against the town of Shiukh on Wednesday (28/10/15). On the same day ISIL fired rockets against the village of Ain Issa which sits just 50km (30 miles) north of Raqqa, ISIL's de facto capital in Syria.

ISIL's main efforts currently seem to be focused on the areas around Hasakah city on the south-east of the buffer-zone close to the border with Iraq. On Tuesday (27/10/15) they launched a ground attack on the town of Tel Hamees which sits around 60km (35 miles) north-east of Hasakah city. ISIL also launched a ground attack against the village of Maqluja which sits on the outskirts of Hasakah city.

These attacks prompted the SDF to launch - on Friday (30/10/15) - their first combined operation after they were formed out of the Kurdish People's Protection Forces (YPG/J), fragments of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the Syriac Military Council (MFS) and the local Arab, al-Sanadid tribe on October 16th (16/10/15).

The purpose of the operation seems to be to drive ISIL back from both Hasakah city and Tel Hamees by clearing them from an area they hold along the border with Iraq centred around the villages of Al-Hol and Al-Ghazayleh. As of today the SDF seem to have succeeded in surrounding Al-Hol.

Turkey's response to this SDF offensive against ISIL has been to attack the SDF. At around 1AM (local) on Sunday (1/11/15) Turkish artillery launched an hour long barrage against SDF positions in the strategically important town of Tel Abyad/Gire Spi which sits directly on the Turkey/Syria border. 

At around 18:30 (local) Turkish artillery again opened fire on SDF positions in the area. This barrage lasted almost 8 hours until 2AM (local) on Monday (2/11/15) morning.

Despite Turkey's willingness to attack US allies in areas where US Special Forces are operating the US still seems prepared to continue as a member of CJTFOIR and conduct operations alongside it.

On Saturday (31/10/15) Turkish and US aircraft carried out more the a dozen air-strikes against ISIL positions close between the town of Azaz and the Turkish border. 

This operation which represents the largest CJTFOIR operation against ISIL in Syria since Turkey became a member was intended to provide close air-support to allow Turkmen forces to overrun the ISIL positions.

People who have been following this conflict for a while will find that highly amusing. 

Back during the Battle of Kobane Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan demanded that Kurdish forces would have form an alliances with Arab forces before he would permit CJTFOIR to assist them. Now the Arab/Kurdish alliance has been formed in the form of the SDF Erdogan now seems to view both Kurds and Arabs as illegitimate and is demanding that CJTFOIR may only support Turkmen.

Pretty soon Erdogan is going to run out of ethnic groups and be forced to admit that his favoured force are ISIL.

The timing of this joint US/Turkish raid was particularly questionable because it occurred the day before Turkey's General Election effectively becoming part of the campaign of Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP). The AKP went on to win that election consolidating Erdogan's grip on power. 

Now the option of the Turkish people gently sidelining Erdogan from power has passed US President Obama only has the big levers left to moderate Erdogan's despotic and expansionist tendencies which are allowing ISIL to thrive.

On October 17th (17/10/15) I commented that Russia's decision to join the fight against ISIL had caused me to re-think my longstanding objections to the UK conducting air-strikes in Syria. 

It appears that the UK government has also had a change of heart with the news today that it is not going to call a vote on action in Syria because of a lack of support.

This rather validates my original objection that the UK - particularly the governing Conservative Party - did not wish to conduct air-strikes in Syria. Instead they merely wished to use that as an excuse to launch wholly illegal air-strikes against the Syrian government in an effort to support ISIL.

This is something the Conservatives first attempted back in 2013 where they tried to use the Sarin gas attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta as a pre-text to provide ISIL with air-support.

Towards the end of last week the credibility of the insurgents occupying Ghouta - the supposed victims of the Sarin attack - took a substantial knock. It was revealed that they have taken to placing members of the Alawite Muslim minority they'd taken hostage in cages and placing those cages of the roofs of buildings they use to plan their attacks.

The use of civilians - or even combatants - as human shields in this way is a clear war crime and may even constitute a crime against humanity. However despite the story being all over the Internet for the past 5 days it is only today that western media outlets have touched on the story and even that was only in passing.

The oft repeated claim that Russia is targeting moderate rebel groups that are entirely separate from ISIL rather then ISIL was also significantly undermined over the weekend with ISIL capturing of the village of Atshan in Homs province from the Syrian government.

For many months a very delicate ceasefire has existed in Atshan between the Syrian government and the Al Qaeda led Army of Conquest/Jaish al-Fatah (JAF) coalition. In return for JAF not attacking Syrian government forces or trying to capture the surrounding villages Syrian government forces have allowed JAF hold onto the village. 

This changed on Saturday (31/10/15) when JAF pledged their alligence to ISIL and welcomed them into Atshan without a shot being fired.

ISIL are now threatening the majority Christian village of Sukayk just 5km (3 miles) to the north-west.

18:10 on 3/11/15 (UK date).



  

The Crash of Flight 7K9268.

On Saturday (31/10/15) morning Kogalymavia flight 7K9268 crashed in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula killing all 224. This is the worst air disaster in Russia's history.

The aircraft's black boxes have both being recovered and an investigation is currently underway. I think it is inappropriate to speculate wildly about what may have caused the crash until more is known.

However I think I should probably discuss the wider political context in which the crash occurred.

Back on December 17th 2010 (17/12/10) a young Tunisian man named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest at constant harassment by corrupt local police. His death sparked what has become known as the Jasmine Revolution that overthrew Tunisia's dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali just 28 days later.

This inspired the people of Egypt to rise up against their dictator Hosni Mubarak overthrowing him on February 11th 2011 (11/2/11).

Sadly the most oppressive regime in the region - Saudi Arabia - saw this wave of protest as an opportunity to bring the entire Middle-East, North Africa (MENA) region under it's control.

So with the help of Qatar, Turkey and sadly the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) they flooded Libya with Islamist terrorists to overthrow the government of Muammer Qaddafi. They then flooded Syria with Islamist terrorists in an effort to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad.

When the people of Egypt decided to reclaim their revolution from the Islamist dictatorship of Mohamed Morsi that country too was flooded with Islamist terrorists located mainly in the north of the Sinai.

Collectively the Islamist terrorist in these countries grew into the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which also invaded Syria's neighbour Iraq.

Against this onslaught Russia stood largely alone - particularly on Syria.

So when Russia was hosting the Winter Olympics in February 2014 Saudi Arabia dispatched Islamist terrorists to attack the event. Despite twin bombings suicide bombings in Volgograd in December 2013 that killed 34 this plan was stopped at the very last minute.

By way of an apology for stopping Saudi Arabia's attacks on the Winter Olympics the US instructed Nazi extremists to overthrow the democratically elected government on Russia's neighbour Ukraine effectively turning the nation into ISIL's northern or Shamali Province.

Despite the US' unbridled aggression in Ukraine this coup led to Russia being placed under international sanctions. The hope being that the effect these sanctions would have on Russia's economy would cause it to drop its support for international law and allow Saudi Arabia's domination of MENA to continue unabated.

One particular incident that provided excuse for more sanctions on Russia was Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.

On July 17th 2014 (17/7/14) this was negligently flown over eastern Ukraine where it was shot down. An 18 month investigation has not been able to determine if it was shot down by the US-backed Nazis or the ethnically Russian rebels who are trying to prevent themselves being ethnically cleansed by said Nazis.

The sanctions imposed over Shamali Province have had an extremely negative impact of the Russian economy with GDP growth shrinking by around 4% and the Rouble losing around 10% of it's value. As always these tough times have led to ordinary Russians cutting back on luxury spending such as foreign holidays.

One of the main destinations for Russian holiday makers has long been the Red Sea resorts in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.

As such I've long wondered whether the secondary objective of the US' Shamali Province plan was to strengthen ISIL's Egyptian arm - Sinai Province as it calls itself - against the Egyptian government by weakening the Egyptian tourism industry to facilitate an ISIL takeover of Egypt or whether the US was just being as hopelessly naive a usual.

The fall in Russians taking foreign and even domestic holidays has also hit the Russian airline industry hard. Just on October 1st (1/10/15) Russia's second largest airline - Transaero - filed for bankruptcy. It is in these sort of tough economic conditions that airlines can be tempted to save money by cutting back on things like maintenance and safety checks just to stay in business.

As such the first thing that will have to be ruled out in the investigation into the crash of 7K9268 is mechanical failure. I don't feel that I am knowledgeable enough about aircraft design to speculate on what type of mechanical failure could be responsible.

However even I know that engine failure is unlikely. Passenger aircraft - particularly high quality ones such as the Airbus A321 involved here - are designed to cope with engine failure. Even in the extremely unlikely event that both engines fail simultaneously the A321 can glide for a period of around 25 minutes without power to make a safe albeit rough landing.

Prior to crashing 7K9269 descended around 1500 metres (5000ft) in less then a minute. This is far too fast a rate of descent for an aircraft that had experienced two let alone a single engine failure. However I should point out that in situations like this the skill of the pilot is a major factor and even the best trained can panic.

Given the rapid rate of descent a much more likely technical failure scenario is one where something vital such as a wing or a tail-plane suddenly snaps off.

However this is not the sort of thing that can be really affected by a poor maintenance regime because with aircraft come out of the factory with those sort of things already attached with the intention they will stay attached for the lifetime of the aircraft.

This particular aircraft was in the middle of it's life too early for old age to be a factor and too late for a manufacturing error to suddenly appear.

Based on the debris which sees the aircraft in two main sections spread across roughly 20km^2 ( 8 miles^2) it would appear that the aircraft split apart in mid-air. However in my completely inexpert opinion such a narrow debris field would suggest that the aircraft was in trouble before it split apart.

Therefore the second thing the investigation will have to rule out is whether an explosion occurred onboard. I should state quite clearly though that an explosion does not automatically mean a bomb. In fact the entire principle of powered flight is dependent on small explosions constantly going off in an aircraft's engines.

Back on September 9th (9/9/15) the engine of a British Airway's jet exploded on the runway at Las Vegas' McCarren International Airport in the US. Just on Thursday (30/10/15) the engine of a Dynamic International Airways caught fire in similar fashion at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Florida, US.

With these incidents occurring on the ground they were spectacular but posed no real risk to passenger safety. However if they'd occurred at the cruising altitude of 7K9268 of around 9400m (31,000ft) they'd be much more serious particularly if they went on to trigger an explosion in the aircraft's fuel tanks.

It must be said that the possibility of a bomb seems remote because even a small explosion would cause the aircraft to violently decompress tearing the airframe apart.

However it is possible that a small explosion in a less pressurised area such as the cargo hold would only weaken the airframe before eventually causing it to split apart. An attempt to equalise the air-pressures following this type of small explosion could explain the rapid descent.

Unfortunately Egypt's security screening of both passengers and cargo is not a stringent as it is in the EU or the US creating the possibility that a bomb was smuggled aboard.

If it is a bomb the complexity of the device along with the conspiracy needed to smuggle it aboard points to the actions of a nation state rather then a terrorist group. The likely suspect is Saudi Arabia in order to punish Russia for it's military action in Syria.

Such an act would also cause the issues I've mentioned above to be called into sharp focus at the Manama Dialogue that was taking place in Bahrain that day.

The Saudis would be particularly interested in MH17 because now the Dutch Safety Board report has highlighted that any criminal prosecution will first have to address the negligent operation of the aircraft desire for such a prosecution seems to have disappeared. Saudi Arabia is not the sort of country to understand these principles of justice and legal due process.

One thing the investigation can immediately rule out is ISIL's claim that they shot down the aircraft. Although there is conflict in the Sinai it is very different to the conflict that led to MH17 being shot down.

If they have access to any anti-aircraft missiles ISIL only have access to Stinger-type Man Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADs.)  Designed to shoot down helicopter gunships hese only have a range of around 3700 metres (12,000ft) so can only be used to target passenger jets on take-off or landing.

The much bigger type of missile needed to strike a jet at 9,400 metres (31,000ft) such as the BUK or the S-300 are so large that they need to be transported by a truck sized launcher and can only be fired from that launcher. This is the type of thing you would notice being driven across the Sinai desert or on a bridge across the Suez canal.

Also these type of weapons are specifically designed to bring down aircraft. As we've seen from MH17 they do this very efficiently by peppering the target with thousands of metal flechettes that cause the airframe to immediately and completely disintegrate.

Based on the debris feild this clearly did not happen to 7K9268.

18:45 on 1/11/15 (UK date).