Showing posts with label international. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international. Show all posts
Wednesday 26 June 2013
It’s Time to Tackle Climate Change
Barack Obama yesterday announced a wide-range of reforms to tackle climate change to make himself the most committed president to challenging growing ecological problems. From cutting carbon emissions to developing renewable energy, the demands from the President demonstrate an acceptance that climate change is a real problem that needs to be tackled. However, is his speech simply a demonstration of rhetoric, or is there something to look forward to?
The President of the United States released his plans to the public yesterday via a document and a speech at Georgetown University, and he makes some very promising points. His commitment to reducing carbon pollution in America, following on from mercury and arsenic, is a particularly important step, making the world a safer and more sustainable place for generations beyond us and the wider animal kingdom and their habitats. Furthermore, by doing this, he is committing to developing more renewable energies, which is not only good for the environment, but it also increases employment opportunities and helps to strengthen the economy. Obama positively suggests that this can be carried out alongside keeping the economy growing.
He also addressed the problem of natural disasters that climate change has caused, by announcing plans to protect people from the adverse effects of severe weather. This is perhaps where the UK can learn a lesson. With flooding increasing in recent years, it is certain that we need to tackle the problem at its source, but also increase flood defences, strengthen bridges and protect people’s homes to ensure that people are not made homeless and lose their possessions over and over again.
However, despite Obama’s great intentions, his announcements fall short. His continued commitment to nuclear energy and fracking allow cause for great concern. Both of these energy sources are dangerous to the population, with scientists proving that the latter has been linked to rare earthquakes in the UK. It also relies on a limited amount of shale gas resources and involves the destruction of habitats and the environment in the search and extraction of it. In addition to these concerns, he neglected to make any indication as to his decision on the Keystone tar sands pipeline, only stating that climate implications would be considered before making his decision. He also failed to mention any way of combating those who emit too much carbon and pollution, such as a tax or a penalty charge. Whilst the capitalist system allows for companies to exploit the environment with no consequences, we are unlikely to see any real change from such big industries.
Unfortunately for him and environmentalists, the US political system works in such a way that the President can’t just get what he demands and anything Obama wishes to push through must first go through Congress. So, was his speech yesterday another display of rhetoric, or a real commitment to making sure the progress starts during his administration? After all, we’ve seen his previous promises about Guantanamo Bay and no real action has been made on that front.
Nevertheless, the announcements made by the President push thought on climate change in the right direction; the problem needs to be addressed and tackled before it is too late. It is hopefully a step that his citizens will climb on board with, and one that nations around the world will learn from. To tackle climate change, everyone needs to be in it together.
Monday 24 June 2013
The Illiberal Reaction of the US Government to Snowden
The revelations surrounding the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States and the Global Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) in the United Kingdom show the disturbing penetration into people’s private lives that two of the “most liberal” Governments claim the authority for. It’s been nearly three weeks since The Guardian published the information that they had received from ex-CIA employee, Edward Snowden, much in the same way as information previously provided by WikiLeaks. This case continues to demonstrate the immense difficulties and dangers presented to those few whistle-blowers.
Positively, in this case, Snowden was well aware of the consequences of his actions and prepared his line of escape, flying to Hong Kong and taking temporary refuge there. Yet, it is a dismal state of affairs that a man should seek political asylum from such a “liberal” nation for something that amounts to accountability of a tax-paid scheme. The mass surveillance programs used by the NSA were not voted for by the US citizenship and do not solely pervade the home country, but also reaches out across the world in their attempts to spy on people and their governments. Now, I’m not saying that the US Government is the worst for invading privacy, but the secret nature of these operations make them ten times worse. At least in the countries that are renowned for their lack of privacy, they are renowned for it; you know what you’re getting there. Within the US, it was a different story; it was another case of the US deciding that liberty needed to be sacrificed in the name of security, without consulting their citizens on the issue.
Snowden faces three charges from the US Government: theft of government property, unauthorised communication of national defence information, and wilful communication of classified intelligence with an unauthorised person. It is easy to take issue with each of these charges. Firstly, the US Government works for US citizens, is paid for by US citizens and is elected by US citizens, so everything it creates and receives should surely be the property of US citizens. Surely the charge here then is synonymous with “theft of public property” or “theft of civilian property”. But, Snowden is a US civilian, and he can’t steal from himself and he’s not inhibiting others’ access to it – in fact, he’s making it more accessible – so can this charge be applied. I’d argue not, but this is most certainly not a view that the US Government or, perhaps, the courts will agree on. The other two charges follow on from this point; the Government were not authorised to intrude on people’s lives by those who have the authorisation – the public – so how was Snowden supposed to get authorisation from the public to communicate the Government’s secret work? Now, you may disagree with the fact that this information and operation does indeed belong to the US citizens but there remains a case for Government accountability and a warrant for the public to know what their Government is doing in their name.
The continued reaction by the US Government only serves to deepen the frustration and anger with the administration. In their desperation to shut Snowden’s mouth, gag him and take him away to Guantanamo Bay, they are making outlandish demands on the international community; not to harbour him, or to let him travel, unless it is back to the US. With joy, many countries have ignored this command from the self-proclaimed President of the World, as Hong Kong, Russia, Ecuador and Cuba rally behind Snowden. The US’ hope that they could get away with unilaterally enforcing security in the world has failed. They are deepening the cut by continuing their hostility, secrets and heavy-handedness.
Let us join in with the international solidarity for Edward Snowden who has performed an incredible and brave action that he should most certainly not be persecuted for.
Wednesday 5 June 2013
Syria; the Unwinnable War
(Warning: this article discusses potentially traumatising and upsetting topics. Furthermore, the article will be using graphic and distressing images. Please do not read on if you feel you will be negatively affected by this.)
The Syrian Civil War has progressed into one that is hard to find a solution for. After two years with the world looking on, the battle between the Assad Regime and the Free Syrian Army is just a massive bloodbath; the normality of war has taken hold and it appears that a concept of right and wrong has been forgotten. The war is not unwinnable because it will not end, but because no matter which force is successful, there is nothing redeeming about their actions and, thus, no joy or reason to celebrate. Truly awful atrocities have taken place in the country and it is too late for them to be taken back.
Hard as it may seem, morality can exist in war. The basic principles of just war theory allow us to gain an idea of what this may look like: to be undertaken in a last resort and all actions a proportionate response to the initial provocation. I’m sure we can all agree that there are certain acts, such as rape and torture, that are abominable regardless of the situation. Not even war can justify some actions.
Yesterday, the French Government confirmed that the chemical weapon, Sarin, a nerve agent, has been used by the Syrian Government during the, now, 27 month conflict. The weapon causes the nerves in our body to act differently, inevitably resulting in our bodily deterioration (The Atlantic provides a comprehensive understanding here). The unnecessary force against the protestors in the Arab Spring was detrimental far beyond what anyone expected. A peaceful and legitimate protest has become an easily avoidable massacre of 120,000 civilians, some of those from neighbouring countries or drafted in forces. The continued use of Government forces, large-scale weapons and, now, use of the chemical weapons stock show how mindless the Government are in the slaughter of their own citizens, and anyone else caught up in the process.
Baker (in the May 23rd issue of Time) discusses, however, the true horrors of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) displayed in a video proudly uploaded to YouTube. The video, below, should be watched at your own peril. The man in the video, whose war name is Abu Sakkar (but whose real name is Khalid al-Hamad), appears to have killed a soldier and seems adamant on disgracing the pro-regime male further by cutting the heart and a lung from the body, proclaiming “I swear we will eat from your hearts and livers, you dogs of Bashar” and then raising one of the organs to his mouth and eating from it.
This one video, arguably, represents an extreme version of the mentality of soldiers in this war; we can only hope that this act of cannibalism is an isolated incident and is not repeated throughout the ranks. However, what can be confirmed is similarly horrific actions (if you ignore that murder in itself is a horrific action). Public executions, sexual assaults and the torture of children have been prominent throughout the prolonged conflict.
Furthermore, Western Intervention is looking increasingly unlikely, particularly from the USA; memories and lessons from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as an inability to back a side. The “War on Terror” has shown that even our own soldiers, who we praise and call “heroes” are not clear of blood on their hands. Bradley Manning, currently on trial in America for leaking US military documents to Wikileaks, provided the below video to show how US soldiers were so eager to play with their toy guns and got frustrated when control took too long to give permission. In the video, we see that soldiers mistake cameras for weapons and even RPGs and decline faster, more hygienic and more successful treatment for two injured children. Those “bastards”, as we hear them called, were shot down during their innocent everyday lives by bloodthirsty soldiers.
But for none to get involved is to not challenge the distressing events of the war and to allow them to continue with no consequences, disregarding the many lives that are being ruined. However, even if, hypothetically, Western nations improved their code of conduct and rules of engagement for war, it would be difficult for them to choose which side of the battle to fight alongside of. To fight on the side of pro-regime supporters would be to justify the systematic and institutionalised murders of its own citizens and to help in the process; but to fight alongside the FSA would be to condemn the Government, help with the murders of citizens and to install the leadership of those who have committed such immoral actions, essentially legitimising them. Neither of these are attractive or moral in themselves, so a third option must be discovered, but this is harder than it may seem and requires multilateral agreement (which itself is hard to find.)
However, as the war continues to spill into the neighbouring countries of Turkey, Israel and Lebanon, this difficult decision looks increasingly like it will need to be made. War must be avoided at all costs, and intervention does not necessarily mean of the military sort. Large-scale mediation can, if properly implemented, work. But, regardless of this fact, the conflict needs to be ended as quickly and with as few lives lost in the process as possible. However, with continued criticisms of existing conflicts in the Middle-East and the atrocities committed by both sides of the war, the war appears simply unwinnable.
Hard as it may seem, morality can exist in war. The basic principles of just war theory allow us to gain an idea of what this may look like: to be undertaken in a last resort and all actions a proportionate response to the initial provocation. I’m sure we can all agree that there are certain acts, such as rape and torture, that are abominable regardless of the situation. Not even war can justify some actions.
Yesterday, the French Government confirmed that the chemical weapon, Sarin, a nerve agent, has been used by the Syrian Government during the, now, 27 month conflict. The weapon causes the nerves in our body to act differently, inevitably resulting in our bodily deterioration (The Atlantic provides a comprehensive understanding here). The unnecessary force against the protestors in the Arab Spring was detrimental far beyond what anyone expected. A peaceful and legitimate protest has become an easily avoidable massacre of 120,000 civilians, some of those from neighbouring countries or drafted in forces. The continued use of Government forces, large-scale weapons and, now, use of the chemical weapons stock show how mindless the Government are in the slaughter of their own citizens, and anyone else caught up in the process.
Baker (in the May 23rd issue of Time) discusses, however, the true horrors of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) displayed in a video proudly uploaded to YouTube. The video, below, should be watched at your own peril. The man in the video, whose war name is Abu Sakkar (but whose real name is Khalid al-Hamad), appears to have killed a soldier and seems adamant on disgracing the pro-regime male further by cutting the heart and a lung from the body, proclaiming “I swear we will eat from your hearts and livers, you dogs of Bashar” and then raising one of the organs to his mouth and eating from it.
This one video, arguably, represents an extreme version of the mentality of soldiers in this war; we can only hope that this act of cannibalism is an isolated incident and is not repeated throughout the ranks. However, what can be confirmed is similarly horrific actions (if you ignore that murder in itself is a horrific action). Public executions, sexual assaults and the torture of children have been prominent throughout the prolonged conflict.
Furthermore, Western Intervention is looking increasingly unlikely, particularly from the USA; memories and lessons from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as an inability to back a side. The “War on Terror” has shown that even our own soldiers, who we praise and call “heroes” are not clear of blood on their hands. Bradley Manning, currently on trial in America for leaking US military documents to Wikileaks, provided the below video to show how US soldiers were so eager to play with their toy guns and got frustrated when control took too long to give permission. In the video, we see that soldiers mistake cameras for weapons and even RPGs and decline faster, more hygienic and more successful treatment for two injured children. Those “bastards”, as we hear them called, were shot down during their innocent everyday lives by bloodthirsty soldiers.
But for none to get involved is to not challenge the distressing events of the war and to allow them to continue with no consequences, disregarding the many lives that are being ruined. However, even if, hypothetically, Western nations improved their code of conduct and rules of engagement for war, it would be difficult for them to choose which side of the battle to fight alongside of. To fight on the side of pro-regime supporters would be to justify the systematic and institutionalised murders of its own citizens and to help in the process; but to fight alongside the FSA would be to condemn the Government, help with the murders of citizens and to install the leadership of those who have committed such immoral actions, essentially legitimising them. Neither of these are attractive or moral in themselves, so a third option must be discovered, but this is harder than it may seem and requires multilateral agreement (which itself is hard to find.)
However, as the war continues to spill into the neighbouring countries of Turkey, Israel and Lebanon, this difficult decision looks increasingly like it will need to be made. War must be avoided at all costs, and intervention does not necessarily mean of the military sort. Large-scale mediation can, if properly implemented, work. But, regardless of this fact, the conflict needs to be ended as quickly and with as few lives lost in the process as possible. However, with continued criticisms of existing conflicts in the Middle-East and the atrocities committed by both sides of the war, the war appears simply unwinnable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)