Monthly Archives: November 2013

Environment, Global warming, Government, Research, Society

The catastrophe in the Philippines is not due to global warming…

EVIDENCE BASED ARGUMENT

Typhoon Haiyan, which struck the Philippines with devastating and deadly effect a few days ago, is overshadowing the UN climate summit in Warsaw. A group of delegates along with some climate campaigners have been quick to suggest that global warming was to blame for the disaster and catastrophe that is unfolding. Nothing, though, could be further from the truth.

The Atlantic hurricane season, which many forecasters predicted would be more active in 2013 than normal, has turned out to be inaccurate. Take a closer inspection of the cyclones and tropical storms this year and an observer would easily conclude that something quite remarkable has happened. For the first time in 45 years, no major hurricane made landfall. This year, too, has been marked by the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982, and the first since 1994 when no major hurricane formed. Indeed, U.S. weather experts have confirmed that 2013 has been one of the weakest hurricane seasons since modern record-keeping began some 50 years ago. Paradoxically, then, if the alleged cause, global warming, has inhibited hurricanes on one side of the world how has it managed to trigger typhoons on the other side?

Empirical evidence is important here. Whilst climate activists claim that tropical cyclone activity (including the frequency and intensity of typhoons) has increased as the global temperature has gone up, scientific observations published in many journals show that despite the moderate warming during the 20th century, the number of tropical cyclones making landfall in the Philippines did not increase and has remained unchanged for more than 100 years.

Just hours before the typhoon hit the Philippines, authorities moved almost 1 million people to evacuation centres. Sadly, many of these structures collapsed when the tropical storm hit coastal towns and villages. As many as 10,000 people, including 4,000 children, have been killed. The death toll could yet be much higher. Much of the initial destruction that killed so many was caused by winds blowing at 235 kilometres per hour. In retrospect, however, it didn’t really have to be that way.

A superstorm of similar magnitude, Cyclone Yasi, hit Queensland, Australia, in February 2011. The cyclone hit Queensland with an eye of 100km in diameter and wind speeds of up to 285km/h. Crucially, however, local disaster management plans had been implemented long in advance. Evacuation, including that of hospitals, was completed more than four hours before the cyclone struck. Because Australia is an advanced and prosperous nation that can afford to implement highly effective disaster warning systems, not a single person died as a result of this destructive cyclone.

Many people around the world who are exposed and susceptible to natural hazards are increasingly relying on the effectiveness of warning systems. Disaster warning systems are most effective for natural catastrophes that develop gradually and relatively slowly, such as floods or tropical cyclones. Just two months ago, a fierce and ruthless cyclone ripped along India’s east coast. It only killed 25 people as millions of people were evacuated in advance of the tropical cyclone, minimising greatly the number of fatalities. 14 years earlier, more than 10,000 people were killed in a similar cyclone that arrived without much warning.

Even some poor countries known for their vulnerability to cyclones have learnt how to prepare for the recurrent threat and have succeeded in significantly reducing cyclone-related deaths. Bangladesh is one such example. The two deadliest cyclones in Bangladesh’s history occurred in 1970 and 1991, killing 500,000 and 140,000 people respectively. In the last two decades, Bangladesh has introduced better warning systems that have helped to substantially reduce deaths and injuries from cyclones. In 2007, for instance, Bangladesh suffered a severe cyclone that claimed the lives of 4,234 people, a 100-fold reduction compared with the devastating cyclone that hit the country in 1970.

Research carried out by the eminent US scientist, Indur Goklany, with his findings published and documented in numerous papers, states that the average annual deaths and death rates from all extreme weather events has declined by more than 90 per cent since 1920. This decline occurred despite a vast increase in the population at risk and more complete coverage of extreme weather events. Goklany also shows that, globally, the number of deaths and death rates due to storms – including hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes and typhoons – have declined by 47 per cent and 70 per cent respectively since the 1970s.

Economic development and technological advancement has allowed many countries to become increasingly better at coping with and adapting to the effects of extreme weather events. Goklany highlights that many advocate the spending of trillions of dollars to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases, in part to forestall hypothetical future increases in mortality from global warming. But, as he says, spending even a fraction of such sums on the numerous higher priority health and safety problems plaguing humanity would provide greater returns for human well-being.

Standard
European Union, Government, Iran, Middle East, Politics, Society, United Nations, United States

Negotiations between Iran and the West on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions…

A NEED FOR AN AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

Expectations of an agreement over the Iranian nuclear programme have been high ever since the recent trip to Washington by Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, who declared to the United Nations he wanted better relations with the West. It is little surprise, however, that such a realisation has not been met. The immense difficulties facing the negotiations in Geneva in the last few days faded into the background amid speculation of a ‘historic deal’ and an imminent end to decades of mutual suspicion and misunderstanding. The Geneva talks concluded last weekend without any deal in sight, with many analysts branding the discussions a failure.

Related:

There is still some cause for optimism. Since Mr Rouhani took over the Iranian presidency from the bellicose and belligerent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June, the rhetoric emanating from Tehran has been markedly softened in tone and style. With international sanctions – both EU and US – biting hard on ordinary Iranians, domestic pressure for a deal on its nuclear programme with the West cannot be ignored. Particularly so given that inflation is running at 40 per cent, and that Iran’s economy has shrunk by more than 5 per cent since the imposition of sanctions took effect. The number of families below the poverty line has doubled to four in ten, exasperated by several currency devaluations that have had an adverse effect on the net worth of many Iranian families. Assets have depreciated and net incomes have been seriously eroded. Focusing minds, too, is the threat of Israeli air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, not to mention the Islamic Republic’s pivotal position in a volatile and unstable region, including that of Syria.

The difficulties for the West in reaching a mutual agreement with Tehran still rest upon two primary sticking points. One is the question about the future of the heavy-water reactor being built at Arak. The other is what to do with Iran’s existing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and centrifuges. Tehran appears determined to retain its ‘rights to enrichment’ (enriched uranium is required and allowed for its medical programmes), though the international community, not unreasonably, remains sceptical. Enriching uranium to weapons grade material that would fit into the head of a ballistic missile is easily enough done.

Yet, we are far from stalemate. Just as those predicting immediate success were unduly hasty, so are those now rendering and calling for defeat. John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, spent eight hours at the negotiating table, the longest such high-level talks between the US and Iran since 1979 – no small achievement in itself. Mr Kerry’s assertion that ‘we are closer now than when we came’ cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. With negotiations to restart in a week’s time – albeit between diplomats rather than foreign ministers – the process is far from over.

Coupled into the equation is the danger of the moment. Barack Obama’s critics in Congress, largely fuelled by Israeli’s inflammatory opposition to a deal, are already pushing for more sanctions. In Iran, the frustration of public demands for immediate relief could well erode support for further discussions that many Iranians feel infringe on national sovereignty. Apparent divisions in the international community, exemplified by France’s outspoken warnings about a ‘fool’s game’ before the Geneva talks were concluded, will not help either.

Perseverance in seeking a deal along current lines remains key as no other constructive alternative exists, but in reaching an agreement concessions will be required from both sides. The notion that the Islamic Republic continues with some degree of uranium enrichment may not be palatable and will be contested by those who remain deeply sceptical of Iran’s objectives. However, it is allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and – in return for close controls and even closer oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – it is a better and plausible option than either accepting an Iran with nuclear weapons or by attempting to bomb them out of existence.

A deal with Iran may have a high price, but the value will be enormous. This will not only patch up one of the world’s most dangerous and intractable disputes but, an accord between Iran and the West could also help to resolve any number of issues bedevilling the Middle East, not least the internecine civil war and bloody conflict in Syria.

Standard
Afghanistan, Britain, Government, Military, National Security

The court martial of a Royal Marine sergeant and two others…

VERDICTS

Society’s norms are cast adrift in a world of firefight and ambush, where air strikes leave disfigurement and random death in its wake. Protagonists could argue that society has no real business judging people who live and operate in a world of war-torn combat.

That is why it has been imperative that the Royal Marine Sergeant found guilty of murdering a wounded Afghan insurgent in September 2011 was tried in a court martial. Some may suggest the guilty verdict is an outrage; after all, there was no disagreement that the victim was an armed enemy combatant sworn to kill British soldiers if he could.

Others, too, may consider the not guilty verdicts of two other Royal Marines in the dock also appalling. The cleared two had been present at the killing, did not try to prevent it, and therefore, by the standards applied by most criminal courts, equally guilty – even though they did not pull the trigger. This kind of scenario, however, is one that never gets put before a civilian court.

Afghanistan was a war zone in which the participants – British soldiers and Afghan fundamentalists – were not only trying to kill each other but also, in the case of the Royal Marines, had lawful justification for doing so when in a firefight.

What is more, Helmand is a notorious battlefield where the Royal Marines’ enemies do not obligingly wear uniform. One moment they can be innocent and virtuous civilians, the next a lethal and devastating enemy intent on murdering soldiers, a juxtaposition that makes counter-insurgency operations especially difficult. Amid such severe brutality and death there is an altered morality.  Because the rules of engagement that soldiers operate under may result in a killing and may seem bizarre to some, this could also generate sympathy for the marines caught up in a situation that has become ever-more bitter.

Nevertheless, rules do exist for a very good reason. Morality may be altered, but it still exists. The code of the Geneva Convention, to which British armed forces have long subscribed, says that combat ends when the enemy either surrenders or is incapacitated to such an extent that fighting becomes impossible. Killing the enemy after either of these points has been reached becomes murder.

The court martial heard recordings of the conversation held by the Royal Marines at the time the Afghan insurgent was murdered. They show that the soldiers knew of the rules, especially the one convicted who was a sergeant in command of the others. In an attempt to vindicate himself the sergeant assumed the victim would not have respected the Geneva Convention and would have happily murdered the Royal Marines had he been in a position to do so. He claimed, which was also recorded, that he believed the man was dead before he shot him through the chest.

As the outcome of the court martial has shown this was rightly rejected. There is no justification at all. The Royal Marines were deployed to Afghanistan in a humanitarian cause which was to aid the removal and suppression of a Taleban regime which not only supported and facilitated killing and the terrorising of other nations including ours, but also brutalised their own people. The Afghan insurgent murdered by the Royal Marine sergeant is in complete violation of his rules of engagement. And he knew it.

Standard