Category Archives: United Nations

Economic, G20, Government, Politics, Society, United Nations

The ‘inequality emergency’

ECONOMIC

Intro: Rising economic division is destabilising nations and eroding accountability. Joseph Stiglitz’s G20 blueprint proposes a way toward global economic renewal. For the first time the G20 has declared a global inequality emergency

WAS it a diplomatic nicety when Swiss tycoons and business magnates handed Donald Trump a gold bar and a Rolex watch, gifts that were reciprocated by a cut in US tariffs? No. It was a reminder of how concentrated wealth seems to buy access and bend policy. Alarmingly, this might just become the norm if the global “inequality emergency” continues. That’s the clear message being sent out in the most recent work by the Nobel laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz. The economist sees the widening gap between rich and poor as a human-made crisis which is destroying politics, society, and the planet. He’s not wrong.

The problem is no longer confined to a few fragile states. It is a global harm, with 90% of the world’s population living under the World Bank’s definition of “high income inequality”. The US sits just below that threshold and is the most unequal country in the G7, followed by the UK. Prof. Stiglitz’s insight is that the current system’s defenders can no longer explain its mounting anomalies. Hence he wants a new framework to replace it. His blueprint for change is contained within the G20’s first-ever inequality report, endorsed by key European, African, and middle-income nations.

It warns that the richest 1% captured 41% of all new wealth since 2000, while the bottom half gained just 1%. On average, someone in the global top 1% became $1.3m richer; a person in the poorest half gained $585. Meanwhile, 2.3 billion people are now moderately or severely food insecure – 335 million more than in 2019. Wealth concentration far outstrips income concentration, with the total assets of billionaires’ worth one-sixth of global GDP. Shockingly, billionaire wealth is rising almost in lockstep with global food insecurity.

The report argues that extreme inequality is a policy choice – produced by specific economic, political and legal decisions rather than by “globalisation” or technology. Financial deregulation, weakening labour protections, and privatisation all aid rising inequality. As does cutting corporate and top income tax rates. The report stresses that the most dangerous consequences are political, with highly unequal countries seven times more likely to experience democratic backsliding or authoritarian drift. Stiglitz points out that the super-rich account for a disproportionate share of carbon emissions, worsening climate risks borne by the poor. He rejects the pro-market argument that inequality is good for growth.

The G20 inequality report lays out a comprehensive redesign of global economic governance reminiscent of 1944’s Bretton Woods accord. What led to that overhaul is being identified again today: global rules and institutions that are generating crises, instability, and inequality. Prof. Stiglitz wants structural change – suggesting a rewrite of intellectual property rules as well as trade and investment treaties, a reform of global lenders, and an update of tax systems as well as sovereign debt arrangements.

A fairer global order must start where every paradigm shift begins: with knowledge, scrutiny, and shared facts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the UN-backed body assessing scientific opinion – was created in 1988 to give global authority to that knowledge. It reshaped climate politics. Prof. Stiglitz argues that the time has come for an International Panel on Inequality. Hundreds of experts agree. Endorsing it is by no means radical; it is simply the first step towards a saner world. Without it, the gold-bar diplomacy circling Trump will surely proliferate.

Standard
Britain, China, Defence, Government, Military, National Security, Politics, United Nations, United States

Chagos deal risks the UK’s nuclear deterrent

CHAGOS ISLANDS

BRITAIN’S nuclear deterrent would be at risk from Chinese interference if the Prime Minister capitulates over the Chagos Islands.

A covert satellite system used to direct British and US nuclear missiles would be compromised if Keir Starmer signs off a deal with China-friendly Mauritius, it is feared.

The UK is currently locked in negotiations, led by Attorney General Lord Hermer and National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, over handing over the strategically important islands in the Indian Ocean following a UN ruling.

The archipelago, controlled by the UK for more than two centuries, is home to the joint UK-US Diego Garcia military base. Britain is set to pay billions to Mauritius to lease the base back for 99 years under the terms of the deal.

But concerns have been raised that the UK’s system for coordinating nuclear missiles relies on connection points on the Diego Garcia base. To function properly, these “nodes” require physical protection and British control of the island’s electromagnetic spectrum.

However, the deal includes a clause saying other countries could also use the spectrum, from which Mauritius could profit.

This could offer Beijing a gateway to jamming the highly classified Automated Digital Network System 3 (ADNS 3), which is shared by the Royal Navy and the US Navy, and, which crucially, is part of the “Nuclear Firing Chain” (NFC). The deal would enhance UK national security, but without it, Britain would lose access to the spectrum. The future operation of the base without a deal would clearly be at risk.

Nonetheless, critics suggest that the government’s arguments are totally fabricated. They say that the islands are far more important than just this and the potential threat to our operations from a no deal is a total fiction from the pen of the Cabinet Office – and, by extension, the human rights law firm, Leigh Day.

Lord Hermer was a go-to barrister for Leigh Day before his appointment as Attorney General last year and he has been accused of a deference to international law over domestic needs.

Leigh Day is currently representing asylum seekers who claim they were trapped on the Chagos Islands after being rescued at sea by the Royal Navy. In 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled that Britain’s continued administration of the islands was unlawful.

Despite the UK ignoring the ruling, it was subsequently ratified by the UN General Assembly, which found the islands rightfully belonged to Mauritius. Sir Ben Wallace, a former defence secretary, said: “Many of the UN judges who made the flawed ruling come from totalitarian states including China.

“Is the PM really going to put their opinions before that of Britain’s security? Diego Garcia is British and must remain so.”

And, MP Tom Tugendhat said that in his former role of security minister, he had seen the advice on the implications of the deal, but the version being presented to the public was “nonsense”.

The settlement could also mean that the Royal Navy could be prevented from entering a buffer zone which Mauritius intends to set up around the islands.

Without any protection from Western navies, there is heightened fear that China could get close enough to the sensitive military facilities.

It is known that ADNS 3 provides assured tactical wide area networking between ships and shore around the world to support full battlespace connectivity.

Britain’s nuclear threat is carried by the Royal Navy’s bomber submarines. Any breakdown of communications or hostile interception of messages which are part of the NFC, or any other breach, would mean Britain losing its nuclear deterrent.

This is a highly technical matter, involving a lot of classified systems, which, according to critics, is being overlooked by government lawyers.

This part of the world is key to China’s expansionist agenda, and any deal with the UK would appear to facilitate that. These systems rely on guarantees around the security of Diego Garcia.

Standard
Government, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Politics, United Nations, United States

Israel widens the war. Iran could soon be the arch enemy

MIDDLE EAST

NOT since the Saxon nobility were wiped out in the Battle of Hastings, including King Harold and his brothers, almost 1,000 years ago, has one side annihilated the leadership of its arch enemy so suddenly and thoroughly.

First the Israelis killed, blinded, and maimed thousands of middle-ranking Hezbollah fighters, by triggering explosions in their pages and walkie-talkies.

Then, in the last few days, in a series of surgical strikes – precise as they were powerful – Israel’s air force dropped up to 16 bunker-busting bombs onto the underground lair where Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah was huddled with his top brass.

They must have believed they were safe in their reinforced concrete hideaway, but for so many essential figures to be gathered in one place displayed reckless hubris which was ruthlessly punished.

Around 20 senior militia commanders were killed, including the security head of the organisation, Ibrahim Hussein Jazini, and Nasrallah’s closest confidante, Samir Tawfiq Dib. Nabil Qaouk, a key figure in Hezbollah’s central council, was killed in a separate air attack.

By any sane rationale, the war between Israel and Hezbollah should be over. But fanatics are neither sane nor rational.

This is a fighting force whose lower ranks are obsessed with martyrdom. They have been comprehensively defeated, but that does not mean they will surrender.

Until now, the Islamist militia was rigidly disciplined, with Nasrallah wielding supreme control. But with the decapitation of their leadership and the destruction of their communications network, the minions of Hezbollah will have nothing to guide them but their own maniacal – and perhaps suicidal – initiatives.

As much as half their stockpiles of rockets, shells, and artillery has been destroyed, but there is still a mass of weapons at the disposal of local commanders eager to burnish their own combat reputations and leadership ambitions.

Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu will probably feel he has no choice but to order a ground invasion of southern Lebanon to stamp out the smouldering remains of Hezbollah. But that is a high-risk strategy for three reasons.

Firstly, Israeli casualties will be higher. In the featureless plains of Gaza, their enemy has nowhere to hide. But in the hilly terrain of Lebanon, it can dart in and out of cover and wreak havoc with its armour-penetrating missiles.

Secondly, a ground invasion will create a huge refugee crisis. In the past week alone, some 80,000 civilians have fled Lebanon for makeshift camps in Syria. The Lebanese prime minister Najib Mikati has warned up to a million people could be displaced.

This exodus could be the perfect cover for Hezbollah’s scattered remnants to spread insurgency across Europe. Unable to attack Israel, some might prefer to increase international pressure by exporting misery and violence to Israel’s supporters – with Britain chief among them.

Thirdly, perhaps ominously, the sheer effectiveness of Israel’s megaton assassinations is likely to accelerate the Iranian nuclear weapons programme.

Israel has already shown it has no compunction about killing enemies on Iranian soil, with the elimination in July of the Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. Now, the knowledge that no underground bunker is safe will galvanise Iran’s leaders. While under huge internal pressure to retaliate against Israel directly, they fear the consequences – be they their own assassinations, or airstrikes against their nuclear facilities.

The mullahs will not want to provoke such an attack, especially as they are only weeks away from producing enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb, according to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

They are likely to conclude it makes more sense to challenge Israel using its proxy militias, such as the Houthis in Yemen, whose rocket attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea are designed to strangle Israel economically.

For Iran to create a viable nuclear weapon, it will also need a detonator – not an easy piece of technology to build. But this project, too, could be near completion, possibly with North Korean help.

If Iran does successfully test an atom bomb, international efforts to avert nuclear war will become increasingly hysterical. The UN Security Council could attempt to persuade Iran to freeze its nuclear programme in return for a ceasefire, but this would have little chance of success without the cooperation of the US, who might take the view there is no way to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle once a test has been conducted.

It appears that Israel has won a spectacular tactical victory over Hezbollah. But the main strategic enemy could soon be a nuclear-armed Iran. Armageddon beckons for one side – or both.

Standard