Women's Views on News |
- Why are air strikes the only option?
- Environmental justice: consultation
- Paris talks: protect health from climate change
| Why are air strikes the only option? Posted: 30 Nov 2015 11:12 AM PST
By Mary Kaldor and Rim Turkmani. Britain's Prime Minister says we should not undertake air strikes lightly Рhe is right: we need to think about legitimate state building, not replying to terror with terror. The threat of ISIL is too serious to be treated with a knee jerk response like air strikes. It is very difficult to understand why air strikes are the only option on the table. Is it because they are the easiest way to show that we are 'doing something'? Have air strikes ever succeeded in militarily defeating an enemy without ground operations and without a political strategy? Is it really the case that are all other policies have been tried and failed? The main argument made by David Cameron in favour of airstrikes is that air strikes are having an effect in Iraq. He says that Iraqi forces with the support of airstrikes have recaptured 30 per cent of Iraqi territory and halted the ISIL advance. He does not mention that ISIL has also advanced in some places, for example, capturing Ramadi. However, even if we accept that some gains have been made, the situation in Iraq is very different from Syria. In Iraq, coalition forces are providing air support for ground operations carried out by the Kurdish peshmerger, Shi'ia militias and the Iraqi army. There is an Iraqi state that, despite its weakness, is involved in a process that could increase its legitimacy albeit slow and weak. What is more, coalition air strikes have been requested by the Iraqi government and this provides their legal basis. None of these conditions pertain in Syria. It is true that air support complemented the defence of Kobane by Syrian-Kurdish and Free Syrian Army forces, but Kobane was razed to the ground so that the inhabitants cannot return. At the same time ISIL has been expanding in Syria despite air strikes; air strikes did not prevent the take over of Palmyra nor of parts of Aleppo. Unlike Iraq, there are no other situations where ground operations against ISIL are taking place. Even though the Prime Minister talks about 70,000 moderate opposition forces who could fight ISIL, in the absence of a political solution they are more concerned with fighting the regime than ISIL. Mobilising Syrian allies on the ground would only be possible in the context of a political agreement, in which opposition armed groups operate alongside the Syrian army under a new political inclusive leadership with the bases outlined in the Geneva 1 communiqu̩. And unlike Iraq, there is no legal basis for possible air strikes. The current UN Resolution, despite what is being written in the press, does not provide a legal basis for the use of force. Although it includes the term 'by all necessary means' it does not specifically authorise any use of force and it does not mention Chapter VII. David Cameron's argument for self-defence is yet another stretching of international law along similar lines to President Bush in response to 9/11. Article 51 of the UN Charter, which sets out the right to self-defence, was intended in the case of an armed attack by a foreign state not in the case of an attack by non-state actors. It is difficult to see what can be gained from air strikes. The skies above Syria are already congested. The contribution that Britain would make, even if we suppose that air strikes are useful, is marginal. Yet there is a lot to be lost by air strikes. First of all, air strikes tend to be discussed in clinical or surgical metaphors. The debate does not seem to take into account the fact that air strikes are a form of terror. Even if they are very precise and there is no collateral damage, air strikes are terrifying; they destroy buildings and create fear. Even if targeting is precise, the intelligence on which targets are located is prone to error so that innocent people are bound to be killed. The Prime Minister says we should not undertake air strikes lightly Рhe is right, we should think seriously about their consequences. We should not reply to terror with terror unless we have very good arguments. Secondly, we have no idea about the effects of terror on radicalisation. The Prime Minister says we should strike at the heart of ISIL in their Syrian capital, Raqqa, where these attacks are planned. But are they not also planned in the suburbs of Paris and Brussels. Surely we would not consider air strikes against terror suspects there? Military action transforms terrorists into legitimate political enemies Рthey become martyrs not criminals. Can we be sure that air strikes will not play into the justifications of disaffected young people from different parts of the world who might join this horrendous version of the Salafi-Jihadist cause? Thirdly, western air strikes have not enhanced the reputation of the West among Syrian public opinion. Members of Syrian civil society to whom we have talked do not understand why the West is bombing ISIL and not doing anything to protect civilians killed by the regime. And what they find even more troubling is the failure of western air strikes so far to halt the advance of ISIL. This failure has already done great damage to their perceptions of the power of the West and made them sceptical of its intentions. So what is the alternative? As a starting point, we need much greater understanding of the nature of ISIL and also Jabhat Al Nusra (JAN), an Al Qaeda affiliate. Groups like ISIL and JAN thrive on conflict and disorder. ISIL moves into areas where governance is weak and resistance is virtually non-existent. It is unthinkable that organisations like ISIL and JAN could have expanded into and within Syria had there not been a war in the country. Those Syrian lands contested between government and opposition are the areas that are falling into the hands of ISIL and JAN. The most important thing Syrians lost because of the conflict is simply their state, which is exactly what ISIL is attempting to provide by reversing the process of state collapse. ISIL constructs state-like structures establishing a monopoly of violence in the areas it controls and providing services like healthcare and bakeries. The key to ISIL's success is that it plans and acts like a state. This explains why movement into ISIL areas is greater than movement out. JAN is different, but it is to be found in different places throughout the rebel held areas. This explains why movement into ISIL areas is greater than movement out. JAN is different, but it is to be found in different places throughout the rebel held areas. The war has also destroyed the local legitimate economy, especially in opposition-controlled areas, and has led to the rise of an illicit economy. The overall collapse of state control, the destruction of the formal economy and the lack of governance of borders are providing ISIL and JAN with opportunities to fund themselves from all kinds of illicit activities, such as trading in looted antiquities, extortion and ransom. Because ISIL controls supplies of oil, they have a monopoly on the sale of oil to opposition areas, making them dependent on ISIL. At the same time, the extremely high levels of unemployment, together with very high prices and the absence of other sources of income, has left men of fighting age, who typically have to provide for their families, in a very exposed position and vulnerable to recruitment by these organisations. The main aim of any strategy to counter ISIL must be legitimate state building. To reverse the process of state un-building in Syria, the most important step is to end the conflict. Ending the conflict requires serious commitment to an inclusive political solution that is supported by regional and international consensus. Very strong emphasis also needs to be put on restoring governance in opposition-controlled areas, especially those most vulnerable to further ISIL expansion. This includes reviving the legitimate economy and introducing specific measures such as imposing much stronger controls on the borders of ISIL areas with Turkey and Iraq, or providing fuel for opposition-controlled areas in a legitimate way and at a reasonable price and to make jobs available for men of fighting age to reduce their vulnerability to combatant recruitment. Surely, a better strategy for Britain would be to focus on policies such as these that are not being undertaken by others and, in which Britain could make use of its assets, such as its long experience of providing aid in conflict areas rather than joining a crowded and mistaken fashion for air strikes. In any case, it is only within the framework of legitimate state building that any military involvement might make sense. A version of this article appeared in openDemocracy on 27 November 2015.  |
| Environmental justice: consultation Posted: 30 Nov 2015 08:26 AM PST
By Paul Mobbs. One of the founding principles of the democratic process is the concept of ‘natural justice‘ – that all should be equal before the law, and that biased or questionable decisions by public authorities should be open to review by independent courts. A key enabler of natural justice that the costs of accessing judicial procedures should be affordable to all – otherwise, on economic grounds, those basic democratic guarantees fail to exist for the poorest in society, and may be abused by the most wealthy. In a variety of ways, over the last few years the Government has deliberately set out to undermine the public’s expectations for ‘natural justice’. They have sought to apply policy in a more dictatorial manner – reducing consultation, while at the same time making it much harder to challenge bad decisions via the courts, and have removed legal aid to support many people’s access to justice. Today, from employment tribunals to the highest court in the land, it is now much harder, and much more expensive, to challenge unjust decisions. Now another attempt to weaken the public’s rights to obtain justice is under way. Since September the Government have been running a little-publicised consultation on ‘reforming’ court costs. The proposals would diminish the financial protection for members of the public bringing environmental law cases before the courts in England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland are also likely to review their procedures if they change in England). The consultation closes on 10 December. If carried through it could have a chilling effect on environmental law and regulation in Britain – just as the budgets of our environmental regulators are set to be slashed. In November 2012, in his speech to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), David Cameron summarised his strategy to make Britain a great industrial power once more: “Consultations, impact assessments, audits, reviews, stakeholder management, securing professional buy-in, complying with EU procurement rules, assessing sector feedback this is not how we became one of the most powerful, prosperous nations on earth… “So I am determined to change this. Here’s how: Cutting back on judicial reviews; Reducing government consultations; Streamlining European legislation; and Stopping the gold-plating of legislation at home.” Citing the struggle against Hitler in the Second World War, he continued this theme by stating – “…this country is in the economic equivalent of war today and we need the same spirit. “We need to forget about crossing every ‘t’ and dotting every ‘i’ and we need to throw everything we’ve got at winning in this global race.” In what can best be described as his ‘dictatorship project‘, those reforms are pretty much complete. The Government does now consult less; it has worked to restrict the application of EU law, in areas such as environmental assessment; and more significantly, through procedural and legal reforms – most notably the much criticised reforms of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 – our ability to seek redress for bad decisions through the courts has been obstructed. In terms of the public’s ability to access justice, it is now harder and more expensive to secure a judicial review. And no longer can unions or campaign groups sponsor individuals to bring cases – anyone sponsoring a person is now equally liable for any costs which might result from the case. Arguably the Conservative’s current ‘austerity agenda’ would have run into many more legal challenges, which would have slowed its progress, had the Government not made these changes first. Now that steam-rollering of austerity is being applied specifically to environmental law. There are, however, a few remaining stumbling blocks to the Government being able to impose its will without legal challenge from the public (though most of these could be removed if Britain left the European Union… which perhaps throws a new light on that debate too). The United Nations Economic Committee for Europe’s (UNECE) Aarhus Convention creates common rights to environmental justice and access to environmental information right across Europe. The UNECE is not part of the European Union. It is bigger, covering non-EU states and Russia. Britain signed up to the UNECE’s Aarhus Convention in 1998, and ratified it in 2005. Since then the Government has been expected to implement minimum standards for public participation in environmental decision-making, access to environmental information, and access to judicial review on environmental matters. If you’ve ever tried to get information from the Government or a local authority, and wondered why ‘environmental information’ gets treated differently to everything else, this is why. Reviewing a decision by the Government or a public agency can be very expensive – often requiring those bringing the case must demonstrate that they have £100,000 to £150,000 of assets in order to pay costs should they lose the case. This has always been a significant barrier to challenging bad decisions, even for the larger national campaign groups. Of course for medium and large businesses those sorts of costs are not a barrier when often there are millions of pounds at stake. It was this economic inequality of access to justice which the ‘affordability’ clauses of the Aarhus Convention were designed to address. As a result of a case brought in relation to the cement works in Rugby in 2003, in 2013 the Government decided that costs in ‘environment cases’ should be capped for members of the public at £5,000 – or £10,000 in the case of local or national groups. This was enacted in the Civil Procedure Rules which govern the conduct of cases (although those same rules have been tightened to enact David Cameron’s efforts to reduce challenges to official decision-making). Of course, if Britain has ratified this Convention, the Government can’t just ignore these requirements… can they? What the Government are seeking to do with their current consultation is very subtle – and will be difficult for many without legal experience to understand fully. They are making very carefully worded changes to the definitions which British courts use in their interpretation of the public’s rights under the Convention. And of course, being a process based upon rules and procedure, how certain terms are defined has a significant impact upon how our Convention rights can be exercised. Firstly, what is ‘environmental law’? The Department of Justice states that not all legal challenges are covered by the Convention’s costs protection requirements. That is because they narrowly interpret Aarhus protection as applying only to European directives on environmental matters – not to UK-specific planning or heritage/conservation law even where it involves ‘the environment’. This means that many decisions which the public might want to challenge, especially those on planning, would not have their costs capped. The next significant change is the definition of what constitutes a ‘member of the public’. The Department of Justice claim that – “…wording of the current rules does not expressly specify the types of claimant which are eligible for costs protection”. In other words, when the Convention definition states ‘member of the public’, they take that to mean a single person – not a collection of people. That could exclude local and national groups from launching actions on behalf of their members. And while currently the costs cap of £5,000 or £10,000 applies irrespective of how many people bring a case, in future it would be £5,000 or £10,000 per person involved – significantly raising the costs to a community bringing a joint case. Perhaps the most chilling part of these proposals relates to the timing for when costs protection is granted to those bringing a case. Currently those applying for judicial review are told immediately if they can get costs protection for their case – and if their case fails at this first hurdle, they still only have to pay £5,000 or £10,000 at most in costs. What the Department of Justice proposes is that the public must succeed with getting leave to appeal before they are told if they can have costs protection. That would mean that those bringing the action, if they fail to get leave, might be sued by the opposing party for their full costs in defending the application – effectively preventing anyone without the means from the risk of bringing even a well-founded case before the court. To bring environmental costs into line with recent reforms to court procedure, it is also proposed that the level of costs for those bringing the case should reflect their means. The effects of these changes are complex: Firstly, the Department of Justice proposed to raise the minimum cost from £5,000 (individuals) and £10,000 (groups) to £10,000 and £20,000 – or more. They are also proposing that the defendant in the case should be able to apply to have those figures raised if they believe those bringing the case have the means to pay. Where will those defending the case get that financial information to argue for more? Those who bring the case – irrespective of the defendant being a government department or a commercial company – will have to divulge their entire personal financial circumstances to all parties involved in the action. Secondly, when bringing a case, those involved can claim that it qualifies for a costs cap under the Aarhus Convention, and the court will rule on that. Currently those defending the case have to bring an expensive, separate legal action against the court’s decision in order to challenge eligibility for the cap. What the Department of Justice proposes is that the defendant should be able to cheaply challenge the right of the parties to cap their costs under the Aarhus Convention. This would create further delay and costs. Taken together, what these proposals would create is a system: where the public would have to pay much more to get access to justice on environmental issues – assuming that their particular issue actually qualifies for a costs cap; more significantly, they would have to gamble that they can get leave to appeal, or face the prospect of getting the defendant’s full costs awarded against them without any cap; the defendant will be able to easily/cheaply challenge the decision of the court to grant a cap on the costs of the case; and even where they get a cap on costs, the level of that cap may be challenged, and they will be required to divulge personal financial information to all parties involved in the case in order to substantiate their claim for the costs cap. The stated aim is to deter challenges from the public. With a nod to the objectives stated in David Cameron’s speech to the CBI in 2012, the consultation paper states that these measures are intended to '…minimise the grant of costs protection in unmeritorious cases and act as a disincentive against bringing unmeritorious challenges to cause delay.' As outlined by groups who have challenged these proposals, such as Wildlife and Countryside Link, no evidence has been produced by the Department of Justice to demonstrate that such ‘vexatious’ claims are being brought today. For example, of all the requests for judicial review in the courts which the Department provided data for, only 2 per cent are granted. However, for the ‘environmental’ cases, which represent less than 1 per cent of all the cases brought to the courts, around 24 per cent are given leave to appeal. What the Government’s own statistics show is that environmental cases are far less ‘vexatious’ than the other cases routinely brought before the court. The fact that the Department of Justice still believes that environmental cases are vexatious demonstrates – in line with David Cameron’s comments in 2012 – that the Government holds an unreasonable ideological objection to environmental cases being brought by the public. What is more significant about these proposals, if enacted, is that their full effect will not be understood for another two or three years. The major impact upon environmental regulation in Britain today was the ‘bonfire of the Quangos’ back in 2010/11. Though budgets have been cut recently, environmental regulators – both nationally and locally – have been able to provide at least a notional protection of the environment (although practically that level of protection varies widely across the UK). What is proposed at present are even greater levels of budget cuts than were enacted under the previous coalition government. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA) budget, which funds the Environment Agency and other national environmental regulators, is being cut by half. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), which funds planning, environmental and public health within local authorities, is being cut by almost a third. Arguably the result of ‘deregulatory’ measures such as this, the last time they were enacted in the 1980s, was the creation of problems such as BSE. The level of these cuts will necessitate less staff, less monitoring and less detailed investigations – and thus result in far poorer decision-making and protection of the natural world and public health. Arguably they will no longer be able to meet their obligations to the public under the law. If the public are unable to challenge their regulators because they cannot muster the resources to do so, then any such failures are financially unactionable – and thus will pass unchallenged. The Government’s policies of ‘environmental austerity’ will be able to proceed unhindered by adverse legal rulings from the courts. Of course developers and polluters, who have the wherewithal to challenge the decisions of environmental and planning agencies, will be able to get away with more. Regulators will not have the budget to defend against any potential challenge to their decisions by well-funded corporations and large landowners – and will have to back down in the face of concerted resistance to regulatory measures. If regulators are unable or unwilling to act, and the courts are beyond the reach of the average person, what the Government’s policy is likely to produce is more direct action to prevent damage to the natural environment and local communities. That’s not a wish, or a prediction, it’s experience. That’s exactly what happened in the late 1980s/early 1990s with issues such as the roads programme. Where any state deliberately seeks to impose its will irrespective of the wishes of its citizens, protest, to varying degrees, is usually the result. As shown recently in the case of ‘fracking’, official indifference begets local resistance. I believe it is essential that as many people as possible reply, in whatever manner they are able, to the Department of Justice’s consultation on costs – before the 10 December deadline. More significantly, looking two or three years ahead, when current cuts to environmental regulators have fully taken their toll, I believe it will become essential for the public to put themselves in the way of any actions which damage the environment. If current cuts go through, regulators will be unable to do the job on their behalf. The European Court of Justice may yet over-rule the Government’s reforms of the costs system for environmental cases. But remember that cement works case which began in 2003? – it wasn’t resolved until ten years later. Even if the Government eventually lost a challenge via the UNECE, it could be at least six or eight years before that resulted in change. The business community – who Cameron addressed his agenda to in 2012 – can do a lot of irreversible damage to our environment in that time. It’s an unwelcome reality, but without action by the public David Cameron’s ideological pursuit of ‘growth at any cost’ will proceed unopposed. A version of this article appeared on The Ecologist’s website on 30 November 2015. To view the consultation, click here.  |
| Paris talks: protect health from climate change Posted: 30 Nov 2015 05:35 AM PST
The Word Health Organisation (WHO) has called for urgent action to protect health from climate change. Climate change is the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century, and health professionals have a duty of care to current and future generations. They are on the front line in protecting people from climate impacts – from more heat-waves and other extreme weather events; from outbreaks of infectious diseases such as malaria, dengue and cholera; from the effects of malnutrition; as well as treating people that are affected by cancer, respiratory, cardiovascular and other non-communicable diseases caused by environmental pollution. Already the hottest year on record, 2015 will see nations attempt to reach a global agreement to address climate change at the United Nations Climate Change (COP) taking place in Paris from 30 November to 11 December. This may be the most important health agreement of the century: an opportunity not only to reduce climate change and its consequences, but to promote actions that can yield large and immediate health benefits, and reduce costs to health systems and communities. WHO is calling on the global health community to add its voice to the call for a strong and effective climate agreement that will save lives, both now and in the future. Calling for a climate change agreement that promotes strong and effective action to limit climate change, and avoid unacceptable risks to global health; and a scaling up of financing for adaptation to climate change: including public health measures to reduce the risks from extreme weather events, infectious disease, diminishing water supplies, and food insecurity. Actions that both reduce climate change and improve health, including reducing the number of deaths from cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases that are caused by air pollution – currently over 7 million each year. WHO is committed to leading by example, by: Raising awareness of the health effects of climate change and the potential health co-benefits of low carbon pathways, among health professionals and the general public; Contributing to the development and implementation of measures to limit climate change and protect our countries, workplaces, and communities; Working to minimise the environmental impacts of our own health systems, at the same time as improving health services. "The evidence is overwhelming: climate change endangers human health," Dr Margaret Chan, WHO’s director-general said. "Solutions exist and we need to act decisively to change this trajectory." Please take action now. Sign the call and pass it on … to fellow health professionals and your wider networks. Then your collective voice will be spotlighted at COP-21 as a clarion call for the critical contribution of health to more meaningful climate action.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |