I have no way of knowing how many people are actually reading this blog. It's main purpose is to allow me to clear my head of some of my more long-winded thoughts so that I have space for new ones. But Blogger tells me that about 25 people have come over to read my posts, so that's very heartening indeed! So, on the off chance that you have returned, I have a question for you. I came across this paragraph in a Guardian article this morning and thought to ramble about it. But then I realised I actually don't know enough to express any well reasoned opinions. I still want to talk about it though, so if you have thoughts to share, please do so and we can ramble together!
Lifted from 'Gulf oil spill: Big problems' in the Guardian, 4 June 2010:
"[T]here are also major questions to be asked about big British business and its approach to risk. Whether it is BP, Prudential and its bull-headed attempt to buy a giant Asian insurer (finally killed this week) or RBS and its possibly fatal takeover of Dutch rival ABN Amro, UK plc has coined a way of doing business that is about acting first and thinking later; doing the megadeal rather than attempting slower, more sustainable growth. It is an approach that has partly been shaped by America-envy (deals are always bigger and flashier on Wall Street) but also by a subservience to the City and its demands for quick growth and shareholder returns. It is an approach that has too much froth and too little substance".
Friday, 4 June 2010
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
Smooth Operator
I woke up to the news that BP will likely be the subject of thorough criminal investigations in the United States and may even see itself banned from operating in America altogether. As I waited for the kettle to boil and recovered from a false alarm involving an empty teabag box, I found myself grinding my teeth as I heard excerpts of a speech by Barack Obama to the following effect: “[this] oil spill is the greatest environmental disaster of its kind in our history; if laws were broken leading to this death and destruction, my solemn pledge is we will bring these people to justice". I wasn’t grinding my teeth because I disagree with the strong stance being taken by the White House. Far from it in fact. This is an extremely welcome development! I wasn’t grinding my teeth because I don’t think that there should be a criminal investigation into BP’s role in this spill. There should be. Immediately, if not sooner! And I definitely wasn’t grinding my teeth because I have excessive sympathy with Big Oil (though I do need to watch my tongue when speaking of Big Oil now!). I was grinding my teeth because for all the strong words and welcomed scrutiny of Big Oil, all of our attention seems to be focused on what is happening off the gulf of Mexico. One can’t be faulted, based on media coverage and leaders’ strong words, for believing that the gulf oil spill is the only presently on-going spill. It’s not. One can’t be faulted for believing that this is one of the first times that Big Oil has selectively shared information with government authorities, international agencies and the media. It’s not. One perhaps can’t even be faulted for agreeing, whole heartedly, with the Obama administration when it says that BP should pay every dime in compensation for this oil spill. Hold that thought though, because as easy as it is to blame Big Oil for, well, a lot, let’s not kid ourselves here. Someone gave Big Oil the green light to go ahead with offshore drilling. Someone did this despite a plethora of academic and scientific evidence that the risk of a colossal spill is extremely high with this sort of extraction method. Someone assured Big Oil that it was in compliance with regulatory standards when it purchased and began using this kind of drilling equipment from a third party. So before we tell off Big Oil (and we should!), let’s make sure we reserve some harsh words for our administrations who legislated to permit off-shore drilling. Let’s ask ourselves who here has primary responsibility for the safety of individuals and the environment. Let’s ask ourselves if we are really all that surprised that this oil-spill happened. Then ask who here has been criminally negligent.
The oil spill off the gulf of Mexico is a disaster. It deserves every bit of media coverage it is getting, if not more. It deserves to have the Obama administration, if not the entire international community, come together to hammer out tighter operating standards for Big Oil. But it does not deserve to be cast as the greatest environmental disaster of its kind. Because in a land far, far away, gallons of oil are gushing out of corroded pipes, poisoning drinking water and destroying livelihoods of some of the worlds poorest as we speak. Big Oil knows this. In fact, repeated complaints have been made to Shell and others operating there, but no one’s listening. No one ever comes. One of the differences between this distant spill and the one off the gulf of Mexico is that the distant spill has been going on for half a century. That’s right. 50 years. Take any one of those 50 years, and you will find that more oil was spilled in this far away land than has been spilled off the gulf of Mexico. Another difference is that a spill in the Niger Delta just isn’t sexy. We don’t care about what goes on there, much like we don’t care about the war in the DRC or the prospect of famine rearing its ugly head again in Ethiopia. Except, I do care. I know lots of you do too. So if you get the chance, challenge people when they say “this is the worst disaster of its kind”. It’s just not.
I almost spit out some of my fourth cup of tea when I read this statement from Barack Obama (at this point I would just like to say that I am not saying the US, or President Obama, is the only one that is wilfully blind to the politics of Big Oil. I mention him repeatedly only because he has featured most heavily in the media recently. So please, no more wrist slapping!): "There has been a scandalously close relationship between oil companies and the agency that regulates them". Um, no kidding. There is a lot that could be inserted here about Big Oil, beds and government regulators but, as I said, I have to be more careful now. So I’ll just say this: this is far from the first time that Big Oil has successfully managed its size and power to negotiate favourable contract terms and selectively share information with regulators. In Uganda, Big Oil has negotiated some of the most shocking contracts with the government that I have ever seen. Not only has Big Oil (read as their very, very talented lawyers!) managed to convince the government to in effect pledge not to enact any new environmental standards, tax regulations or even, arguably, human rights laws, but they have also convinced the Ugandan government to compensate Big Oil if the international price per barrel of oil drops below a certain designated amount. Read that again. The government of a developing African economy will have to pay Big Oil to extract said African economy’s own natural resource. WHAT!? If Uganda ever refuses, it will promptly be dragged before an international arbitral tribunal who will slap them with a damages award/fine likely to be larger than the GDP of the country. Just ask Argentina. The same will happen if Uganda decides that it would like to enforce a higher minimum wage, or better protect the environment or…you get the gist. Suffice it to say that America is not the only one to have been out-smarted by Big Oil.
Before I sign off, I have a question (I genuinely have no idea what the answer is): do you think that if the company involved in the oil spill had not been BP, but rather an American oil giant, the reaction of the US would have been exactly the same? If it had been American pensions, rather than British ones, that were likely to be knocked by this criminal investigation, do you think it would proceed in the same manner. I wonder….
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
Do you hear it?
Without internet or the desire to purchase a newspaper while on vacation, I was blissfully unaware of the carnage in Lahore, the escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula and the ‘situation’ with the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. I won’t blame you for being somewhat disgusted by my use of the rather tepid term ‘situation’ here. In fact, I want you to demand that what happened aboard the flotilla be couched in more definitive, perhaps even aggressive, terms. I want you to demand that of me because something frightening is happening all around us. Something more frightening to me than the fact that armed militia stormed a mosque in Lahore and murdered nearly 100 followers of the Ahmaddiya sect of Islam. While they prayed. Oh, then they attacked a hospital. The accident and emergency ward, no less. Something more frightening than the fact that Israel seems to care less and less about the international repercussions of its military actions. Something more frightening than the fact that for all our scientific and safety advancements and investments, we seem completely baffled by this oil spill off the gulf of Mexico. It’s our discourse that is more frightening- the words we and our leaders have chosen to use when talking about the ‘situation’ with the Gaza flotilla. It’s frightening me, and I’ll gladly tell you why. It might take me a while though because this is not an academic submission and there is no client breathing down my neck making sure that I do not exceed the billable limits s/he set for me. This means I get to ramble as much as I want along the way to my conclusion!
It was precisely at the end of the chapter on the use of force and humanitarian intervention that I decided I was going to become a public international lawyer. As it turns out, I do more private international work than public, but that’s not quite the point here. Before you wonder, this is definitely not going to be some long winded account of my understanding of humanitarian intervention or what ‘the law’ has to say about Israel’s latest shenanigans. It’s about what you had to say about it. It’s about what your president or prime minister, foreign secretary and UN representative had to say about it.
Barack Obama is “heartbroken”. He is “outraged”. He says he “will not relent until the people unjustly victimised by this manmade disaster are made whole”. Powerful and reassuring words. Words that are consistent with what he said when accepting his Nobel prize: "I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace". Too bad heartbreak and outrage had absolutely nothing at all do with what happened aboard the flotilla. Those words were about the oil spill. Don’t get me wrong, I am really glad that BP is having to face mounting pressure over this spill from a White House that actually gives a toss about the environment and international press that, miraculously, is paying attention. But against the backdrop of these powerful words about the oil spill, the Obama administration’s attempt “to understand the circumstances surrounding the tragedy" leaves much to be desired, don’t you think? Where’s the outrage? Where’s the condemnation? I have been slapped on the wrist in the past for being too critical of the foreign policy of the United States of America. I also deplore the facebook status updates of some of my facebook ‘friends’ who seem to blame everything from Israeli military action to the Pakistani cricket team’s inability to bat, bowl or field on America. So let’s blow right past what the Obama administration didn’t say.
Nick Clegg and David Cameron said….what was it? Oh right, nothing really. So I’ll skip to the response of Ban Ki-moon: “I heard the ships were in international water. That is very bad”. Very bad? All the Secretary General of the United Nations could come up with was ‘very bad’!? People died. People died trying to get aid to an area that has been under economic blockade for far too long now. An area where there is a lack of fresh of water, electricity and medical supplies. An area where even members of MSF have been told they cannot go. An area where people have been reduced, in the words of a UN official, to a ‘sub-human existence’. So, yes Mr. Secretary-General, what happened is very bad. Let alone a blatant violation of international laws, including the laws of the sea and use of force. It was an act of aggression which, as per the UN Charter’s own definitions, could justify the use of force against Israel. So how can it be that some of the world’s most prominent leaders had so little of value to say? How can it be that we, as an international community, accept those statements? Don’t say it’s because ‘Israel has Uncle Sam on its side’. Don’t say it because it reeks of ignorance and it is simply not enough to dismiss the attitudes of our heads of state and international bodies apparently dedicated to the promotion of peace, security and the alleviation of poverty. Don’t say its because the Jewish lobby is too strong in the United States. Don’t say its because no one cares about the Muslims/Arabs. Dig deeper.
If you listen carefully enough, you might hear the dying gasps of that elusive doctrine that not even the greatest legal minds- one of which (Professor Ian Brownlie) we bid farewell to earlier this year- were able to define: humanitarian intervention. If you are too young to recall the horrific images of the Yugoslav war, I’m sure you will have read about it in class at some point. I bring up the Yugoslav war because people really thought that the Bosnian capital, and before long all of Bosnia, was about to be eradicated. People were starving under a relentless blockade, much like they are now in Gaza. Aid agencies were constantly subject to disruption, much like they are now in Gaza. Then came the intervention. Some will say it was based on a humanitarian impulse. Others, including myself, will say that there was more at play than humanitarian impulse. None of us should be so naïve as to think that massive, multilateral military operations are based on absolutely nothing other than a desire to help the helpless. But that is not the point here. The point is that international discourse of the 90’s embraced the idea that the international community may sometimes need to disregard the oft reified notion of sovereignty in the name of humanity. Public international law was enriched by discussion after discussion about the nature and limitations of humanitarian intervention. We talked about a duty to protect. It wasn’t just limited to the Yugoslav war. Remember the intervention in Somalia? Think a few decades back and you might even remember the Berlin airlift. Now don’t get me wrong; all of the so-called humanitarian interventions have been deeply problematic. The French intervention in Rwanda, for example, was dubious to say the least. I don’t deny that humanitarian intervention has often served as a justification for States to act in conflicts where there is no domestic support for more straightforward political interventions. These ramblings are not meant to serve as an unqualified tribute to humanitarian intervention. I am rambling because, at the expense of sounding dramatic, I am mourning the dying discourse on humanitarian intervention. For a brief period after WWII, I think the international community, via the United Nations and other organisations gave people hope. Mine is starting to fade. We the people have made a lot of pledges. Pledges to eradicate poverty, pledges to end long standing wars, I could go on and on. But think back to recent crises and you’ll find that more times than not, we simply watched. Burma: ASEAN didn’t want to touch the crisis with a mile long pole; Gaza 2008-9: the BBC wouldn’t even air an aid appeal, let alone talk about NATO staging a humanitarian intervention.
I know humanitarian intervention has always been a matter of political preference of the person making the argument. That is the frightening part. Those who walk the corridors of power today seem not to have a preference for humanitarian intervention. So the argument, and with it the entire doctrine, is dying. Here’s hoping that at the very least, a sense of humanity survives.
It was precisely at the end of the chapter on the use of force and humanitarian intervention that I decided I was going to become a public international lawyer. As it turns out, I do more private international work than public, but that’s not quite the point here. Before you wonder, this is definitely not going to be some long winded account of my understanding of humanitarian intervention or what ‘the law’ has to say about Israel’s latest shenanigans. It’s about what you had to say about it. It’s about what your president or prime minister, foreign secretary and UN representative had to say about it.
Barack Obama is “heartbroken”. He is “outraged”. He says he “will not relent until the people unjustly victimised by this manmade disaster are made whole”. Powerful and reassuring words. Words that are consistent with what he said when accepting his Nobel prize: "I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace". Too bad heartbreak and outrage had absolutely nothing at all do with what happened aboard the flotilla. Those words were about the oil spill. Don’t get me wrong, I am really glad that BP is having to face mounting pressure over this spill from a White House that actually gives a toss about the environment and international press that, miraculously, is paying attention. But against the backdrop of these powerful words about the oil spill, the Obama administration’s attempt “to understand the circumstances surrounding the tragedy" leaves much to be desired, don’t you think? Where’s the outrage? Where’s the condemnation? I have been slapped on the wrist in the past for being too critical of the foreign policy of the United States of America. I also deplore the facebook status updates of some of my facebook ‘friends’ who seem to blame everything from Israeli military action to the Pakistani cricket team’s inability to bat, bowl or field on America. So let’s blow right past what the Obama administration didn’t say.
Nick Clegg and David Cameron said….what was it? Oh right, nothing really. So I’ll skip to the response of Ban Ki-moon: “I heard the ships were in international water. That is very bad”. Very bad? All the Secretary General of the United Nations could come up with was ‘very bad’!? People died. People died trying to get aid to an area that has been under economic blockade for far too long now. An area where there is a lack of fresh of water, electricity and medical supplies. An area where even members of MSF have been told they cannot go. An area where people have been reduced, in the words of a UN official, to a ‘sub-human existence’. So, yes Mr. Secretary-General, what happened is very bad. Let alone a blatant violation of international laws, including the laws of the sea and use of force. It was an act of aggression which, as per the UN Charter’s own definitions, could justify the use of force against Israel. So how can it be that some of the world’s most prominent leaders had so little of value to say? How can it be that we, as an international community, accept those statements? Don’t say it’s because ‘Israel has Uncle Sam on its side’. Don’t say it because it reeks of ignorance and it is simply not enough to dismiss the attitudes of our heads of state and international bodies apparently dedicated to the promotion of peace, security and the alleviation of poverty. Don’t say its because the Jewish lobby is too strong in the United States. Don’t say its because no one cares about the Muslims/Arabs. Dig deeper.
If you listen carefully enough, you might hear the dying gasps of that elusive doctrine that not even the greatest legal minds- one of which (Professor Ian Brownlie) we bid farewell to earlier this year- were able to define: humanitarian intervention. If you are too young to recall the horrific images of the Yugoslav war, I’m sure you will have read about it in class at some point. I bring up the Yugoslav war because people really thought that the Bosnian capital, and before long all of Bosnia, was about to be eradicated. People were starving under a relentless blockade, much like they are now in Gaza. Aid agencies were constantly subject to disruption, much like they are now in Gaza. Then came the intervention. Some will say it was based on a humanitarian impulse. Others, including myself, will say that there was more at play than humanitarian impulse. None of us should be so naïve as to think that massive, multilateral military operations are based on absolutely nothing other than a desire to help the helpless. But that is not the point here. The point is that international discourse of the 90’s embraced the idea that the international community may sometimes need to disregard the oft reified notion of sovereignty in the name of humanity. Public international law was enriched by discussion after discussion about the nature and limitations of humanitarian intervention. We talked about a duty to protect. It wasn’t just limited to the Yugoslav war. Remember the intervention in Somalia? Think a few decades back and you might even remember the Berlin airlift. Now don’t get me wrong; all of the so-called humanitarian interventions have been deeply problematic. The French intervention in Rwanda, for example, was dubious to say the least. I don’t deny that humanitarian intervention has often served as a justification for States to act in conflicts where there is no domestic support for more straightforward political interventions. These ramblings are not meant to serve as an unqualified tribute to humanitarian intervention. I am rambling because, at the expense of sounding dramatic, I am mourning the dying discourse on humanitarian intervention. For a brief period after WWII, I think the international community, via the United Nations and other organisations gave people hope. Mine is starting to fade. We the people have made a lot of pledges. Pledges to eradicate poverty, pledges to end long standing wars, I could go on and on. But think back to recent crises and you’ll find that more times than not, we simply watched. Burma: ASEAN didn’t want to touch the crisis with a mile long pole; Gaza 2008-9: the BBC wouldn’t even air an aid appeal, let alone talk about NATO staging a humanitarian intervention.
I know humanitarian intervention has always been a matter of political preference of the person making the argument. That is the frightening part. Those who walk the corridors of power today seem not to have a preference for humanitarian intervention. So the argument, and with it the entire doctrine, is dying. Here’s hoping that at the very least, a sense of humanity survives.
Thursday, 20 May 2010
It's as good a time as any!
I have often remarked that when I open my mouth to say something, there is always more in there than I thought. It doesn't always make sense. Sometimes it's not even related to the discussion being had. I have decided to throw my 2 cents about anything and everything out into cyberspace. Maybe someone will be listening, maybe they won't, but either way I think it's time that I take a few moments out every week to rant & rave, or maybe just share a tale of my shananigans (the ones that are appropriate for sharing in polite company, of course!). I am meant to be working right now, so I'll be back later!
xx
xx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
