Monthly Archives: October 2013

Britain, Business, Energy, Government, Politics, Society

Energy firms and the responsibilities they have…

UK ENERGY FIRMS

The decision by Britain’s biggest energy firms to send junior executives to face a grilling by MPs at this week’s select committee inquiry into soaring utility bills beggars belief.

The distinct absence of energy bosses, who are paid mega-buck salaries, goes to the heart of important issues of power, responsibility and accountability in this country. The nonappearance of chief executives also suggests that energy firms have learned little from recent history about the relationship between large consumer businesses and the customers they profess to serve.

It is not inconceivable to think that the absent bosses had in mind the cross-examinations endured by bank chiefs (including Fred Goodwin of RBS) by MPs in the wake of the government bailout of two of Britain’s major banks. Mr Goodwin – formerly Sir Fred, who has since been stripped of his knighthood – and his colleagues had to make humbling apologies for their actions as MPs held them to account.

If energy bosses had hoped to body-swerve a similar scenario as they are being held to account for inflation-busting price hikes, then they have fundamentally misunderstood their privileged position in British society, and their responsibilities in relation to regulations set out by Parliament.

Energy firms cannot take the view that their business is a private matter between them, their shareholders and their consumers. If that ever was the case – and the apparent powerlessness of the OFGEM regulator has often made it seem so – it is certainly not the case now.

Energy bills and the way they are being calculated now stand at the nexus between industry, politics and austerity. The ‘cost of living’ factor is a key voter concern and has become a major political issue in the run-up to the 2015 General Election. The main topic of political discourse was thrown open ever since Ed Miliband threw down the gauntlet at the Labour party conference, promising a price freeze and cutting electricity and gas bills if he made it into Downing Street. For the Conservatives, former prime minister Sir John Major floated the notion of a windfall tax on the energy firms, should a particularly harsh winter produce bumper profits. In Scotland, the Scottish Nationalist Party produced its own riposte, with a pledge that energy bills would be reduced by 5 per cent in an independent Scotland. The political battle over energy is heating up.

With the cost of living set to continue to be the most pressing political concern, Britain’s energy bosses need to accept they can run, but they cannot hide. They need to engage with this process – by listening, explaining and being open to market reform – or they will end up on the receiving end of both political and public indignation.

Standard
Foreign Affairs, Government, Intelligence, Military, United States

Drones and the unproven efficacy of these weapons…

U.S. DRONE POLICY

The unedifying and continued use of drones has once again brought the issue to the door of the United States.

Nabila Rehman and her brother Zubair, aged 9 and 13 respectively, were picking okra in their garden. They posed no threat to the U.S. or anyone else, but their innocence did not keep them safe. The pair were injured by shrapnel from a drone-missile that killed their grandmother and wounded five other children at the family home in North Waziristan, in Pakistan’s north-western border zone.

Earlier this week, they confronted the U.S. Congress with the ugly and devastating reality of the drone attacks. Under President Obama, use of drones has become an increasingly important weapon in response to dealing with terrorism.

Attack from the air is always terrifying, but unmanned aerial vehicles – controlled and guided by faceless operatives thousands of miles away – are in a definite league of their own. The ethical objections to their use, however, not as battlefield weapons but as tools of assassination with inevitable collateral death and injury to the innocent, have been swept aside by their ostensible military effectiveness.

For both the U.S. and the Pakistani government, which have secretly colluded in the drone strategy, drones may have seemed the perfect answer to liquidating dangerous militants and extremists in Pakistan’s treacherous no-man’s land. North Waziristan is a notoriously difficult region for western intelligence services and monitoring the movements and activities of insurgents always risks others being unwittingly caught up in the crossfire.

But the fury and anger drones provoke, as Nabila and Zubair’s testimony bears out, can make them counter-productive. As President Obama and other western leaders know, far from helping to secure peace in the West, drones frequently embolden its enemies. Indeed, those flocking to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in their droves were done so in seeking refuge and protection from the continued onslaught of U.S. drone attacks.

A RESPONSE TO THE ECONOMIST

On 8th February, 2013, MD responded to an article on The Economist, ‘The debate over drones’. That response is reproduced:

“The Fifth Amendment to the US constitution protects “any person” (not just US citizens) from being “deprived of life . . . without due process of law.”

Until the 9/11 attacks, the legal position was unambiguous: in war, active combatants could kill and be killed, subject to rules governing surrender and the use of banned weapons. But the ‘law of war’ applied only to conflicts between armed forces of opposing states, invoking the right of self-defence. Confrontations with insurgents and terrorists were strictly governed by human rights law, which requires state use of force to be reasonable in the circumstances. This ‘reasonable force’ requirement invokes a necessary and human restraint over soldiers’ actions and, as a direct extension, must surely apply to drone targeters. The rule of war is not being adhered to in places where drones are operating as “suspects” are being killed without much compunction.

The states that deploy drones argue that they are operating under war law, where human rights are less relevant. The US argues that it is in an ‘armed conflict with al-Qaeda . . . and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defence . . . including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning to attack us.’ However, this statement prompts many questions. For instance, how can you have an ‘armed conflict’ without an enemy state? Or, what criteria is being used for putting names on the secret death list or what is the required degree of proof before suspects are targeted and killed?

There are no accountability mechanisms for the use of drones – no inquests, and often not even a casualty list which is a direct contravention of the normal rules of war and engagement. The US does, though, announce and celebrate when it hits a ‘high-value target’.

In aerial drone warfare, there is no fairness or due process to enable potential victims, their relatives or any outside body to challenge the accuracy of the information on which the targeting decisions have been made.

Some analysts may suggest that drone strikes are an exercise in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But Article 51 applies only to attacks by other states, not by terrorist groups. Yet, what is becoming increasingly of concern is that the record of drone attacks demonstrates that very often individuals are targeted when they constitute no clear or present danger.

Drone killings in tribal areas of Pakistan and Yemen have taken the lives of targets who are armed and who presented a clear danger, but others have merely been attending weddings or funerals or emerging from hospitals or mosques. ‘Decapitation strikes’ in Pakistan have resulted in families being killed by mistake and which have severely damaged US relations with a politically tense and nuclear-armed nation that is not at war with the US.

American officials also say that the Fifth Amendment could not avail a US citizen who joined an enemy force. This is correct as far as it goes, but the Fifth Amendment must entitle a citizen or his family to know whether he is on a death list and to apply to have himself taken off it.

Those who press the Hellfire buttons in Nevada do not pause to consider whether their targets are engaged in combatant missions or not. The criteria for drone use are covert CIA prerogatives, beyond the jurisdiction of the courts or the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.”

© MarkDowe2013: all rights reserved

Standard
Britain, Government, Health, Research, Society

UK health inequality…

LIFE EXPECTANCY & THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR

Publication of life expectancy figures this week reveals a population living longer, healthier, and according to some analysts, happier lives. The persistent and alarming gap, however, in life expectancy between those at the top and bottom is largely obscured.

Broadly, health has improved, but much at the same rate as it has for over 100 years. Analysis by the Equality Trust, though, has found that in the last 20 years alone, the gap in life expectancy for those in different local authority areas has increased 41 per cent for men, and an astonishing 73 per cent for women.

East Dorset has been declared as the Local Authority with the highest male life expectancy, with men there now expecting to live almost a decade (8.9 years) longer than those in Blackpool, the authority with the lowest life expectancy. The gap is just as striking for women. Those in Purbeck live over 7 years longer than those in Manchester, and there is now a dramatic 18 year difference in ‘healthy life expectancy’ between women living in Richmond (72 years) and Tower Hamlets (54 years).

The reasons for widening health inequalities are complex, but one contributing factor is the huge growth in economic inequality in the UK over the past 30 years.

A well-established social gradient exists for life expectancy and health, with poorer people experiencing worse health than the affluent. A growing body of research suggests that this is because socio-economic inequality is itself a root cause of health inequalities. In short, due to the unequal distribution of income, wealth and power, the wealthy are able to protect and improve their health; the poor are not.

Economic inequality in the UK has grown monumentally since the early 1980s. The richest 10 per cent of households now own 40 per cent of the UK’s wealth. This equates to being 850 times the wealth of the bottom 10 per cent. If income distribution was the same as it was in 1977, the bottom fifth would be £2,000 a year better off and the top fifth £8,000 less. Given this growth in economic inequality, it should not be unsurprising to see a similar growth in inequality in health outcomes. A recent report from Health Scotland argues that the only way to reduce the social gradient in health is to reduce inequality in income and wealth.

Yet, it is not only those at the bottom who should be concerned with widening inequality – it is something that could affect everyone. The socio-economic observations are important to note. Most developed countries enjoy a similar rate of improvement in life expectancy regardless of their rates of economic growth. But, when inequality increases, improvements in health are a little slower (and when it decreases they are a little faster). In the event of a really catastrophic change in inequality occurring this can push health improvements into reverse. This happened in some Eastern European countries following the social and political upheavals of the early 1990s. In these countries life expectancy dropped dramatically, with some still not having made up for the lost ground more than 20 years later.

The complex nature of health inequality poses a number of specific challenges for policy makers. For example, how can government possibly calculate a fair and reasonable retirement age when there are such wide fluctuations in life expectancy in different areas?

There is a real danger that the Coalition Government in the UK will sweep under the carpet the damaging effects of growing disparities in health. A recent Office for National Statistics consultation in response to budget cuts has proposed that statistics on health inequalities no longer be collected. If this proposal is accepted this would create an almost insurmountable barrier to those wishing to identify and address health problems.

Further analysis shows that economic inequality is not only just a health issue. More unequal societies, for instance, are more likely to experience poorer literacy rates, a higher incidence of drug addiction, greater levels of violence and a myriad of other social ills. In the last few days government advisers have called for measures to reduce inequality in order to reduce child poverty and in the removal of barriers to social mobility. Such measures would allow more people to live longer, healthier and more productive lives.

If we want a healthier society the Government must start taking steps now to reduce the UK’s dangerous and corrosively high levels of economic inequality.

Standard