Category Archives: Politics

Britain, Climate Change, Environment, Government, Politics, Society

The urgency of the IPCC climate report

CLIMATE

AGAINST a backdrop of orange skies, as vast wildfires sweep through Greece and California, the sixth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was published. In western Germany, thousands of homes remain without running water or other vital utilities following the devastating floods of July. In the Siberian city of Yakutsk, deemed the coldest winter city on earth, residents were warned last month to stay indoors as forest fires filled the air with acrid and toxic smoke, following extraordinary heat waves that began in the spring.

The IPCC’s report which took eight years to compile, and which was authored by the world’s leading climate scientists and approved by 195 national governments, confirmed the meaning of the evidence before our eyes: the cumulative impact of human activity since the Industrial Revolution is “unequivocally” causing rapid and potentially catastrophic changes to the climate. The predictions that environmental scientists foresaw with such alarm when the IPCC produced its first report three decades ago has arrived.

Without an accelerated reduction in greenhouse gases during the next decade, the ambition of the 2015 Paris climate agreement to limit global heating to 1.5C will not be met. The price of failure will be a world vulnerable to irreversible and exponential effects of global heating: there will be worse floods more often, more frequent heatwaves, devastating and repeated droughts, and an increase in mortality through disease.

The science is irrefutable. Less certain is the political will to act upon it. The burden of responsibility upon this generation of world leaders as humanity finds itself at a fork in the road is immense. The decisions and actions taken or foregone during the next 10 years will define the parameters of what is possible for future generations. A step-change is required, but across the world green rhetoric continues to translate into policymaking at a pace which is fatally slow. China has committed to the target of net zero emissions by 2050, but it continues to build coal-fired power stations both at home and abroad. Along with the top carbon-emitters such as Russia and India, it refused to endorse the 1.5C goal at an April summit convened by the American president, Joe Biden. As Mr Biden’s special envoy for climate, John Kerry, has said, if countries such as these cannot be persuaded to enact faster reductions over the next decade, the target looks unachievable.

Whilst this treacherous turning point in history must be dealt with, Britain finds itself both uniquely placed and unprepared to host the crucial Cop26 climate summit in Glasgow. The government’s climate minister and Cop26 president, Alok Sharma, has tried to use the IPCC report as a means of concentrating minds. Speaking in the last few days, he said that the world was almost “out of time” in dealing with the effects of global heating. Yet, ahead of arguably the most important summit held on British soil since the second world war, delay and equivocation have become the government’s trademark response to the greatest challenge of our times. The publication of a net zero strategy, which had been due in the spring, has been delayed until the autumn amid fears over the possible cost. Some backbenchers have also begun to lobby for a slower transition, based on the false presumption that poorer families will disproportionately bear the burden of change.

It is imperative that a fair transition to net zero is set. With the right forms of intervention and subsidies, it is eminently achievable. The experience of the Covid-19 pandemic has taught us that the most daunting challenges can be met by political leaders who recognise that exceptional times require exceptional measures. Thus far, though, there is little sign that Boris Johnson’s government is willing to treat the climate crisis in the same way. The stark conclusions of the IPCC study, and Britain’s vital convening role at Cop26, make that position untenable. The science is unequivocal. The verdict is clear. There is no more room for political manoeuvring, delay or prevarication in dealing with an emergency which is this generation’s responsibility to address.

Standard
Government, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Politics

The west must engage with Iran’s new president

MIDDLE EAST

IRAN has a new hard-line president. With an inexperienced government in Israel threatening military action against Tehran, a lethal shadow war is escalating in the Middle East. Iran’s ally and proxy, Hezbollah, is firing missiles into Israel from a dysfunctional and chaotic Lebanon. Hostage-taking has led to a bitter exchange of words from London. And US fears are growing that the Vienna nuclear talks have failed. With or without a deal, it is suggested that Iran may soon be able to build an atomic weapon.

The position in the Gulf is perilous, and a particularly portentous moment for the multifaceted conflict between Iran and the west. Ebrahim Raisi, who was sworn in as president last Thursday after a rigged election, offered very little for optimism. “Tyrannical sanctions” imposed by the Trump administration, which have ravaged the country since 2018, must be lifted, he said. But he offered no plan to achieve it and nothing in the way of concessions.

Raisi’s ascent to power marks a definitive triumph for the fiercely conservative, anti-western factions associated with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Raisi’s predecessors – Hassan Rouhani and Mohammad Khatami – fought a long, losing internal battle for rapprochement with the US and Europe. Now, hardliners control all the Islamic republic’s main institutions: the military, judiciary and parliament.

Such a clean sweep poses ominous implications. Backed by the powerful and influential Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Raisi, ironically, now has the political clout to cut a deal in Vienna that Rouhani lacked. He may well do so. Iran’s economy is in dire straights with inflation and shortages wreaking havoc. Official figures show the poverty rate doubled over two years, to 30% in 2019. That statistic could have deteriorated even more by now. A limited agreement on sanctions relief could ease the public’s pain.

Raisi and the ageing, hawkish Khamenei, however, remain ardent nationalists who believe strongly in the virtues of self-reliance, both on ideological and religious grounds. They passionately argue that, in the future, Iran’s centrally directed economy, increasingly dominated by IRGC interests, should not depend on private sector trade with a US-dominated west. They aim to eliminate forever the political leverage that sanctions have afforded Washington. They don’t want to be friends with America.

Raisi’s insistence on increased self-reliance also presages an expansion of Iran’s regional sway, not least by reinforcing the “axis of resistance” with allies in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon. Similarly, closer strategic alliances with China and Russia are in prospect. Tehran recently signed a 25-year trade and military partnership with Beijing. Vladimir Putin has been quick in heartily congratulating Raisi on his election victory.

The Gulf drone attack on the Israel-linked tanker MV Mercer Street, which killed a Briton and Romanian last week, augers ill for the Raisi era. As always, Iran denies responsibility. Britain and the US say they can categorically prove otherwise. Tehran’s suspension of talks on an international prisoner swap is another blow, as is the shocking and unjust 10-year jail sentence given to a British-Iranian, Mehran Raoof. Richard Ratcliffe, husband of harshly imprisoned Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, is right to raise the alarm in urging the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab to do much more.

Alarming, too, is the sudden outbreak of hostilities across the Israel-Lebanon border and now with Hamas in Gaza. In an unusual statement, Hezbollah has admitted launching missiles against Israeli targets. Such an open declaration looks like a message for Naftali Bennett, Israel’s untested prime minister, sent with Iran’s approval. After the tanker attack, an incensed Tehran threatened direct military action. Such a contest between new leaders Raisi and Bennett is something the Middle East cannot afford.

Concerns are growing in Washington that smouldering tensions involving Tehran and other regional actors, fanned by the changes of leadership in Iran and Israel, could ignite. Earlier this year, there was talk of easing the tensions between Iran and its arch-rival, Saudi Arabia. Officials from either side met in Baghdad, but all that hope has now vanquished. The Saudis snubbed an invitation to Raisi’s inauguration. Back to square one.

The Biden administration also has worries of its own. It had hoped tensions with Iran could have been defused with the reviving of the 2015 nuclear pact that was petulantly abandoned by Trump. It’s chastening to reflect that his foolish decision did as much as anything to assure the ascent of Raisi and the hardliners. Even if there is a compromise and the pact is reinstated, many in the US now argue it’s already too late. Iran, it is suspected, has gained so much bomb-making know-how, it simply will not be interested in any revival of the agreement with the west.

Understandably, this thought alone is deeply troubling for Israel’s leaders. It should also worry the region and their not-so-distant European neighbours. But further sabre-rattling and proxy-war fighting is not the way to respond. The EU sent a representative to Raisi’s inauguration, which was the right thing to do. At this perilous juncture, the US and Britain, too, must urgently strive to keep the door open and advance dialogue with Tehran. For his part, Raisi should stop posturing and show some statesmanship by immediately releasing all western hostages.

Standard
Broadcasting, Government, Media, Politics, Society

Public interest journalism under threat

REFORMS TO OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT

JOURNALISTS could be hit with lengthy prison sentences if their stories and reports upset the Government under “sweeping reforms” to the Official Secrets Act.

Proposals for legislation to “counter state threats” risk criminalising public interest journalism.

There are concerns that reporters could be branded spies if, for example, they handle leaked documents.

The proposals could also expose whistleblowers to “harsh new penalties”.

A Home Office Consultation, which closed this week, is seeking to reform the 1989 Act to account for changes in the modern age. It could increase the maximum two-year sentence for “unauthorised disclosure”.

The Law Commission recommended a public interest defence, which would protect journalists, should be included.

But the Home Office rejected this, saying it would “undermine our efforts to prevent damaging unauthorised disclosures, which would not be in the public interest”. The News Media Association (NMA), which speaks for UK media organisations, warned the plans could “open the floodgates” to the media and its sources being prosecuted “despite acting in the public interest”. A source at the NMA said: “As part of any thriving democracy, the public and a responsible press must be free to shed light on the state’s injustices.

“The proposed measures will deter whistleblowers from coming forward with vital information which the public have a right to know and place a chill on investigative journalism which holds power to account.” Newspaper and media bodies are strongly urging the Government to reconsider these measures and instead work with the industry to place appropriate protections for journalism at the heart of the Official Secrets Act so that freedom of speech is enhanced by the new regime rather than weakened further.

The NMA has called for a public interest defence to be introduced, and a Statutory Commission to be created to provide redress for whistleblowers. The National Union of Journalists said the proposals were “truly chilling”. A spokesperson for the NUJ said: “Government proposals to reform the Official Secrets Act are truly chilling and authoritarian. They could brand journalists spies, just for doing their job.

“They could remove the defence for whistleblowers and reporters of publishing information in the public interest and water down protections on the police being able to seize journalistic material”.

Standard