Labour’s wildlife culls

With one week to go till the election and the two main parties neck and neck, the mood on social media is starting to become frenzied and more and more people are saying we have to vote Labour to save wildlife.

The reasons given are twofold. Firstly to protect foxes because the so-called hunting ban may be repealed if the Tories get in. Second, to save badgers from a further cull. The myth that the 2005 Hunting Act works has already been comprehensively demolished in a number of posts here.

As for badgers, it’s true that Labour says it will end the cull. But can it be trusted? It’s always more revealing to look at what parties do in government, rather than in opposition when they’ll say anything to get your vote.

So what was the record of the Labour government when in office from 1997-2010 as regards wildlife? In a word terrible! There were numerous attempts to wipe out a wide range of species – some successful, some not. This included ducks, geese, deer, cormorants, seals, hedgehogs, pigeons, rats and of course badgers too. All these attempts were either directly carried out or supported by Labour.

Most famous of these was the badger cull of 1998-2005, which in true New Labour style was spun into a “field trial” to endow it with a spurious scientific justification. In fact over 10,000 badgers had already been killed to control bovine tb since the seventies and the facts were well known. The disease isn’t caused by badgers but by the appalling abuse suffered by cows in the dairy industry. Nevertheless another 11,000 died on Labour’s watch before a consensus was reached that it did nothing to control tb in cattle and could even make the situation worse.

Perhaps the next famous cull was that of the ruddy duck. In May 2003 the government announced it would destroy the entire UK population of ruddy ducks. Their crime was flying to Spain to mate with endangered white headed ducks, who were themselves almost hunted to extinction.

The decision came after a “trial cull” had run from 1999-2002 – a ruthless exercise which led to the slaughter of 2,651 ruddys. A further 6,000 were earmarked for destruction which continued until the end of Labour’s term of office and carried on under the Tories until the last survivors were shot in 2014.

In 2002 Labour gave the go-ahead to a cull of ship rats who lived on the island of Lundy off the Devon coast. This was backed by English Nature and the National Trust, which owned the island, to counter a threat to puffin and manx shearwater populations, as rats were blamed for taking the birds’ eggs. 40,000 were wiped out. The native birds did increase but the rats had kept the rabbit population down. After the cull this grew from a few hundred to tens of thousands and in turn the rabbits were killed as well.

From 2003 over 600 hedgehogs on the Scottish island of Uist in the Outer Hebrides were given lethal injections because they were said to pose a threat to the eggs of rare wading birds. A coalition of local animal rights groups opposed the cull and Scottish Natural Heritage eventually backed down ion 2007. The rest of the hedgehogs were relocated.

Pigeons are unfairly regarded as pests and killed throughout the country. When Labour’s Ken Livingstone ran for mayor in 2000 he said he planned to declare London “a cruelty-free zone”. That didn’t include Trafalgar Square, however, and his attempt to get rid of the Trafalgar Square pigeons became a national news story.

Livingstone, who once claimed to believe in animal rights, wanted to remove all the pigeon’s food in one go. This would have resulted in slow, lingering deaths for the birds. A group called Save the Trafalgar Square Pigeons proposed reducing the food gradually. Members of STTSP took to feeding the birds but they were subject to harassment from wardens and a harriers hawk was introduced to kill and frighten away the pigeons.

Eventually STTSP reached an agreement with the Greater London Authority in which feeding was allowed every day at 7.30am. The number of pigeons did decline dramatically but in 2007 the mayor and GLA banned their feeding.

There are herds of wild goats in Wales, Scotland and the West Country. In 2006 A cull of some of the wild goats in Snowdonia was carried out with up to 40 animals shot. Their crime was damaging saplings in protected woodland and residents’ gardens. Gwynedd council said the goats were not a “pure breed”.

As well as badgers, ruddy ducks, rats, hedgehogs, pigeons and goats, a plethora of other species were indiscriminately killed, such as deer, geese, gulls, raptors, cormorants, corvids, stoats and weasels.

So that’s Labour’s record on wildlife protection while it was in office and it is a pretty miserable one. In 2007 Animal Aid published a booklet called With extreme prejudice: the culling of British wildlife. This was 10 years into Labour’s term of office and was a reaction to the alarming rise in the number of animal populations deemed a nuisance or danger and hence wothy of destruction.

Its judgement was damning:

Intolerance of other species is now so great that mass killings are rarely even commented on. Animals and birds are persecuted for daring to feed themselves and rear offspring; or for being introduced to, or abandoned in, an area where they naturally would not live.

They are shot, poisoned, trapped and snared for living in what is left of their fast-dwindling habitat or for adapting to a landscape that – thanks to human intervention – is changing rapidly. They are killed because they are considered noisy, messy or unsightly.

But most of all, they are persecuted because they pose a financial threat to industries and ‘sports’, many of which have as their primary objective the killing of other animals or birds. These are the shooting, sea fishing, angling and farming industries.

Labour was the driving force behind the extermination of a myriad of species who were viewed as inferior. At the same time the party was doing all it could to support and appease the shooting, fishing, angling and farming lobbies who love killing wild animals when they come into conflict with their profits and pastimes.

In short,  Labour in government was a party of mass animal destruction or to use that more anodyne term, culling. Just because it says it’s now on the side of wildlife , it should not trusted.

Anima Aid’s report is here:

30th April 2015


Penny Rimbaud -A Cross To Bear
Bologna Ska Jazz Ensemble -Something’s Got An Hold On Me
WETDOG -Divine Times
Houndstooth -Bliss Boats
The Hurriers -Faith To Fight
Thee Concerned Citizens -Soapbox
Tim Loud -Is That All There Is?
Poison Idea -Push The Button
Interrobang -Love It All
Oi Polloi -Resist The Atomic Menace
F-Emasculata -Who Do You Believe
Paranoid Visions -I Will Wallow


The needy and not so needy

Who needs what?

The young need support.

The old need support.

The not so able need support.

The rest of us need support. The difference being, the rest of us need to support… all of us.

We all need 3 basic primal resources;

Shelter, Water and Food.  None are running out.  However, somehow we are in a Worldwide situation whereby many millions of people are without these 3 basic resources needed by human beings.

With the young, the old and the not so able, being part of the millions, theres a human disaster to be dealt with.  Not Corporate profile needing to be made.

The young, old and not so able need support more than the rest of us.  So when they can’t get hold of Shelter, Water and Food they are being left for dead!

3 Basic resources, thats all, and they are basic, very basic.  Also, they can be found pretty much everywhere!

Water covers 71% of the earth.

10 million hectares of forest are planted worldwide.

World produces more than 1 ½ times enough food to feed everyone.

So why does your next door nieghbour have to visit a fucking for bank for tomorrow’s breakfast?! Why is “trolly woman” asking for spare change on the bus stop?! Why are children dying of starvation?!

I’ll tell you why, coz most of that food, water, and woodland is being controlled, kept, processed and sold for profit.  To make someone else’s pocket fat, whilst others die.  Its simple, its greed!

So when theTorries talk about taking from those who need it, and UKIP talk about banning public breast feding in public, Monsanto suing small time farmers, Chevron evading tax, and Ryanair Holdings plc generally treating employees and customers like shit.  Have a think about what really is important to the human race.  Coz it an’t money, fast cars, marble floors, and iPads.  Its support for those who need it.  Its seems to me, that many, many private companies are to blame, I don’t know for a fact, its my opinion – and everything I have writen in relation to parties of corporations has been found on the internet, and not varified.

It all seems quite clear that any party that wants to continue with taking from the needy and given to the not so needy shouldn’t have control over our power.  I say, Nationalise to Stabalise. Not Privatise to Profitise.

Just sayin…


Who did what, and where are we now…?


Increased public spending, could have been a bad move.  Well, what did it achive? Poverty for the young and the old fell, yes decreased, went down.  There where fewer children going to school with empty bellies, fewer pensioners freezing to death on thier own in the winter.  The increase led to those of us who are more in need, getting what they needed!  Hospitals also improved.


Decrease public spendng, could have been a good move. Well, what did it achive? Rise in numbers of  desperate people dependent on food banks.  Yea people could afford to buy the 3rd most basic need as humans!  In 2011/12 almost a million more people were driven into poverty coz 1.5 billion of support was taken away from them.

Well shit on me!  Its pretty clear cut who cares….. and it an’t UKIP…

More top-down reorganisation of the NHS and more taxpayer money spent on politicians’ salaries.  Forcing overseas visitors to pay for private healthcare instead of the NHS.  Discriminating against people coz their grandparents weren’t born locally – black people, Asian people, white people, Jewish people… No social housing for you.

I could go on, but its getting boring.  Whats important, what does the government really need to focus on?  I think Labour where heading in the right direction.  With fuck ups like war, continuing with PFI,  and not buying the banks out right people want to walk away from them and towards UKIP.  I say walk away from UKIP and towards Labour, or maybe even the Greens.  Why?  The banks fucked up, Labour just did too little too late.  The Torries started PFI, Labour where too shy to stop it.  Any Government would have gone to war, it just wasn’t their call.  Labour are the only party that show they want to support working people to support the needy.  See “The eedy and not so needy” for my take on… the needy and not so needy.

Who has control?

They have control, yes them. The people you don’t see, whos services you use, news you read, and lies you may belive!

A very small number of Corporations provide and sell to you every day.  So…?  Well – these same Corps makes lots and lots….. lots and lots, shit loads more and some more, and massive amounts of more money!  Money that they keep, don’t really do much with (because the have some much already), money that they use to stand on top of and look down on the poor, the real poor.

These Corps have control, control through services and consumerism.  Making profit from goods that humans can not go without is a crime, simple!  Its thieft, taking and driving away, nicking your shit and keeping it for themselves.

By doing this, they have  a massive amount of control over us. Control that makes us get up, go to work, buy food, use the internet, read, watch and listen to the news.  Alot of people wanna be just like them, have all that money, just like them, buy loads of luxuries just like them. 

Thats control, control over us, to fight each other in order to aim to be like them.

We have the power, but we don’t use it, we don’t have control, they do! We need to take control, its only us who knows what we need!

Who has the power?

We have the power, Us the people, we really do, we just don’t use it!

Apathy runs this country, sitting back and doing fuck all!

Voting is good, beacause you can put someone in a position closer to the rulers of the country in order to help steer society towards a happier, self supporting status.  However, without the people standing up and doing something, our power is simply being handed over to a small number a people.  This small number people, conduct alot of the operation of rule from behind closed doors.

So, vote and vote smart.  Stand up and be counted, keep your power, us your power.

Brand meets “Milibrand” and both decide they like each other

Russell Brand’s interview with “Milibrand” for his Youtube channel has gone online today. It was meant to be kept secret until the weekend but apparently one of his neighbours spotted the big limo carrying someone important and contacted the press.

Brand is the self-proclaimed voice of the disaffected and says a lot of the right things about tax avoidance, banker’s bonuses, etc, but I can’t help thinking this millionaire celebrity is more concerned with his own image than actually fighting for ordinary people.

He’s been denounced as an anarchist in certain quarters yet when he makes statements like “we want a bloke who’s in this for the right reasons, and says I’m prepared to take on Murdoch, I’m prepared to take on HSBC, I’m prepared to take on the powerful elites who’ve got control of the Tory Party”, he shows how clueless he really is.

The Labour leader naturally likes bathing in Brand’s charisma and hoping it will rub off on him. At the end of the interview Brand says: “It says a lot about Ed Miliband that he understands the way the media works now and the way the country feels and is prepared to come round here and talk to us at The Trews”.

From advocating revolution and wanting to speak out for working class people, it appears that Brand is being won over by a member of the political elite who caused the economic crisis and believes in punishing ordinary people for it in the form of austerity. Word is he is on the verge of telling us to vote Labour at next week’s election.

#13 Duygular çifti

ETİK SÜRTÜK, ALIŞTIRMA #13. Bu alıştırmanın amacı kendi duygularınız hakkında partnerinizin sizi duyabileceği şekilde konuşmanız ve partnerinizin duygularını dikkatle dinlemeniz. Her kişinin konuşmak için üç dakikası var, bu süre zarfında diğerleri onu dinleyecek.
Partner(ler)inizle aralıksız geçirebileceğiniz 30-45 dakikalık bir zaman dilimi seçin. Kimin konuşup kimin dinleyeceğini belirleyin. Saatinizi 3 dakikaya ayarlayın – çok macerası iseniz 5 dakika olabilir, ama daha fazla değil.
Duyguların duyulmak istediğini akılda tutun. Dinlerken tek söyleyecekleriniz, dinlediğinizi belli eden “Tamam”, “Evet”, “Anlıyorum.”, “Dinliyorum.” gibi şeyler olacak.
Bu bölümdeki Ben-mesajlarını okuyun. Sevdiklerimizden, biz duygularımız ve nasıl olduğumuz hakkında konuşurken bizi dinlemelerini isteyebileceğimizi aklınızda tutun. Kimsenin öylece durup suçlamalara hedef olmasını beklemek adil değil, o yüzden bu alıştırmada, “Sen” ile başlayan cümleler kapı dışarı. Alıştırma boyunca ikiniz de göz temasını korumaya özen gösterin.
Aşağıdaki metni kıskançlık hakkında konuşmak için deneyin, sonra başka duygusal durumlar için de kullanabilirsiniz.
Dinleyici: “Kıskançlık hakkında bana ne anlatmak istersin?”
Konuşmacı: “Kendi içime baktığımda, şunu görüyorum: … ” (kendini rahat hissettiği sürece konuşur)
Dinleyici (konuşma boyunca): “Evet.” “Dinliyorum seni.” “Tamam.” “Hıhı.” (vb.)
Dinleyici (Konuşmacı durduğunda): “Bana bu konuda söylemek istediğin başka bir şey var mı?”
Konuşmacı (devam edebilir, ya da): “Hayır, şimdilik bu kadar.”
Dinleyici: “Teşekkür ederim.”
Dinleyicilerin aklına sıklıkla bir sürü fikir, yorum, öneri vb. gelecek, bunları kendilerine saklamalılar. Kendi fikirlerinizi üç dakika için bir kenara koyun ve sadece dinlemeye odaklanmanın nasıl bir şey olduğuyla ilgilenin. Duyduklarınıza verecek yanıtlarla dolu olacağınız için, rolleri değiştirmeden önce biraz beklemenizi veya başka bir şeyler yapmanızı öneriyoruz.
Bunlar çok mahrem sohbetler. Partnerinize bu mücadeleleri hakkında konuşma cesaretinden dolayı duyduğunuz minneti hissettirin. Kucaklamak çok işe yarar.listening

Bu kadar yapay olmasa da, buna benzer bir alıştırmayı bir partnerimle yapmak zorunda hissettim yakın zamanda.

Genelde iletişimi tıkayan veya karşısındakini dinlemeyen benimdir, ama bu ilişkide birçok iletişim sorunumuz vardı ve ben kendimi sık sık “E ben sana bu hislerimi zaten söylemiştim.” derken buldum. Partnerimin yaşadıklarımızın benim üstümdeki etkisini hiç fark etmediğini ve hep kendi duygularına odaklandığını gözlemledim.

Bu doğru olsun olmasın, sonuçta ben partnerimin beni dinlediğini hissetmiyordum.

Bundan şikayet ettim ve beni dinlemesini istedim. Sırf bu talebimi ona iletmek bile yaklaşık yarım saatimi aldı. Telefonda tartışıyorduk. Sonunda tartışmamızın bizi bir yere götürmediğine karar verdik ve telefonu kapattık. Yaklaşık bir saat sonra beni aradı ve görüşmek istediğini söyledi; bu sefer tamamen bana odaklanacaktık. Buluştuk ve yaklaşık bir saat zaman geçirdik. Bu zaman boyunca onun yaptıklarının bana neler hissettirdiğini, hangi sözlerinin beni kırdığını vb. anlattım.

Alıştırmadaki kadar pasif bir rolü olmadı, tam anlamadığı konuları biraz daha açmamı istedi. Ama yorum yapmasına, kendini savunmasına veya bana yanıt vermesine fırsat tanımadık. (Bunu yapmaya başlayınca önce kendi durdurdu kendini.)

Bir yandan, zaten defalarca anlattığım şeyleri anlatıyordum, o yüzden faydalı olup olmadığını bilmiyorum. Bir yandan, birçok meseleyi birden aynı anda sistemli ve detaylı bir şekilde anlatınca kendimi iyi hissettim. Parçalar birleşti, en azından kendi kafamda… belki partnerim de bazı şeyleri daha iyi anlamıştır.

Sonuçta bu seans, uzun bir iletişim sürecinin başlangıcı oldu: Birbirimize dünya kadar ödev verdik, önceki alıştırmalarda geçen ve geçmeyen listeler hazırladık, listeler hakkında konuştuk ve hala da konuşuyoruz.

Is Islamic State Here To Stay?

Iraq Crisis June 2014 1An image grab taken from a propaganda video by jihadist group ISIL shows ISIL militants gathering in Nineveh Province, Iraq

Paul Rogers – Global Security Briefing – April 2015


Despite advances by Iraqi government, Shi’a militia and Kurdish forces, Islamic State remains in robust control of most of its ‘Caliphate’ in Iraq and especially Syria, as well as steadily extending its influence via franchises in Africa and Asia. This briefing looks in greater depth at three reinforcing factors that underlie the persistent appeal of Islamic State: the effects of several decades of determined proselytising of the Wahhabi tradition; the relevance of marginalisation; and the determined promotion of the narrative that Islam is under attack from the West, with Islamic State in the vanguard of its defence. Even if Islamic State is contained or fragments, tackling these long-term drivers of radicalisation is a far more sustainable policy option than the foreign and sectarian military intervention that fuels the agenda and appeal of extremist groups.

The Persistence of Islamic State

Although Islamic State is currently under considerable pressure because of many hundreds of coalition air strikes every month, there is little evidence that its capabilities are being seriously limited. Tikrit has now been taken over by the Iraqi forces but Islamic State has made advances elsewhere, a few in Iraq and rather more in Syria, including a move into one of the largest Palestinian refugee camps on the outskirts of Damascus. It continues to gain followers from abroad, both in terms of as many as a thousand recruits a month but also through extreme Islamist groups pledging allegiance, notably in Libya, Egypt and Nigeria. The Director of the CIA, John Brennan, is reported to be overseeing a complete restructuring of the Agency to prepare it for a long term response to violent extremism.

Islamic State does have some immediate advantages in addition to recruits and external support, and these include paramilitary capabilities developed over three decades in conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Pakistan, and elsewhere. The current wave of reprisal acts by Shi’ite militias in Iraq against the Sunni minority will also increase support for the movement from within that minority. Furthermore, it controls substantial territory in its proto-Caliphate, giving it a degree of freedom of action even in the face of airstrikes.

The territorial control may be a short-lived advantage since that control may be so extreme that the population eventually turns against a movement that might originally have been seen as bringing order out of chaos. This fragmentation was the experience of the Taliban towards the end of the 1990s and, to some extent, of the short-lived Chechen Republic. It could be the same for Islamic State, but is unlikely to become apparent for several years rather than months.

The Wahhabi Tradition

One of the most noted Islamic scholars of the early 14th century was Ibn Taymiyyah. His most relevant belief in the current context was that Islam must remain true to the very earliest days of the faith in the 7th century CE. His thinking was further developed over 400 years later by Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab in the 18th century in what is now Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism stems from his teachings and is the strongest religious orientation within present day Saudi Arabia, as well as the ideological inspiration for the expansion of Saudi control over most of Arabia. It can be described as a puritanical form of Salafi Islam in which Allah is at the centre of worship which eschews reverence to all others, practices an austere lifestyle and diminishes the status of women. Many Muslims would argue that this is not a true representation of the earliest days of Islam but Wahhabism does attract considerable support.

Wahhabism was deeply embedded in Saudi Arabia but it came even more to the fore after the Iranian Revolution in 1979-80, being seen as a crucial way of counteracting the revolutionary potential of a revitalised Shi’a Islam. From 1980 onwards, the vigorous export of the belief system was an important element in Saudi foreign policy, much aided by the considerable oil wealth of the Kingdom. Moreover, while not connected directly with US-Saudi relations, the support for Wahhabism was seen as a very valuable counter to revolutionary Iran, seen in Washington as the primary threat to US influence in the Middle East.

During the 1980s and 1990s, much of the emphasis in exporting Wahhabism was directed at South Asia, especially Pakistan with vast numbers of madrassas (religious schools) supported. In the 1980s this was in parallel with US and Saudi support for the Mujahidin fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. While a minority of the original Mujahidin were fighting from religious rather than nationalist motives, that element grew after the Soviets withdrew, developing into the Taliban movement which drew heavily on young men with madrassa education.

Financial and other Saudi support for Wahhabism has continued unabated and extends across the Middle East, South Asia and into North Africa and the Balkans. It is by no means directly the basis for Islamic State. Indeed, the leadership of that movement may commonly regard the Saudi royal family as inadequate for the role of Guardian of the Two Holy Places. What it has done, though, is to greatly support a climate of Sunni thinking across the Middle East that would be regarded by most Muslims world-wide as being excessively puritanical and not true to the greater spirit of Islam. In the current context, this puritanical millenarianism helps underpin Islamic State thinking and translates into support especially from young men seeking a cause. In this sense it is of continuing help to the developing movement but, more importantly, this applies to any Islamist movement that may espouse violent opposition to western states, Israel and the corrupt leaders across most of the Middle East. It is not peculiar to Islamic State and is an outlook that could long outlast that movement.


The issue of socio-economic marginalisation across North Africa and the Middle East was explored in a recent ORG briefing and in earlier ORG analyses that examined factors underlying the Arab Awakening. Pointing to the fact that Tunisia provides one of the largest numbers of Jihadist recruits relative to its population, in spite of being in the process of a democratic transition, the argument was made that this stemmed in part from the marginalisation of so many Tunisians, not least in relation to a 30% unemployment rate for graduates.

The wider issue here is that the problem of majority marginalisation extends well beyond Tunisia to encompass a number of countries across the region, especially those without significant oil export income. They include Jordan, Morocco and especially Egypt, and marginalisation was one of the main factors, along with anger at autocracy, that fuelled the Awakening itself. If the Awakening had presaged a region-wide transition to more democratic governance and if that transition had brought in policies designed to counter marginalisation, then the prospects for extreme movements such as Islamic State might have been severely damaged. That has not happened, making it easy for the Islamist proselytisers to claim that only their violent approach will work.

As with the enhancement of the Wahhabi worldview, such marginalisation is not the fundamental reason for the rise of Islamic State, yet it is a sustained advantage for the movement. It may not even be a matter of relative deprivation, but more relative exclusion which is the issue. As long as it persists it will be an aid to the development of extreme responses, whether taking the form of Islamic State or a successor movement.

Islam under Attack

Finally there is the issue of Islamic State presenting itself as the guardian of Islam under attack, principally from the West and Israel. This reaches into a much deeper belief that the most significant period of Islamic history was the Baghdad-centred Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258 CE) and that even the much more recent Ottoman Caliphate (1362-1924 CE) exemplified a relative decline. It comes to the fore with what is seen as the deliberate breakup of the Arab Islamic world by France and Britain after 1918, the rise of Zionism and its sustained support by the United States, the overthrow or isolation of democratic, Islamist or nationalist regimes, and the corrupting of autocratic heads of state across the region to bring them into the Western fold.

While there may be truth in aspects of these narratives, they cannot be solely responsible for the state of the Middle East, yet this is the claim repeatedly made. Where it has a particular resonance is in the context of the repeated western interventions and regime terminations of recent years, stretching well beyond the Middle East but essentially contained to Muslim-majority states. They include Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as well as recent action against Syria and, yet again, Iraq, but also extend to drone, special forces and other interventions to defend more secular, pro-Western regimes in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Mali and Nigeria, however poor or exclusive their governance.

This recent narrative is reasonably powerful in its own right but is even more effective when located in the broader historical narrative of the retreat of Islam and the imperative need to defend it in the present day. It appears to have significant mobilising potential among Muslim populations in European states, particularly among those who feel themselves marginalised because of their religion, ethnicity or identity.


Once again, this narrative of Islam under attack does not provide the reason for Islamic State’s recent success but along with Wahhabism and marginalisation it does help explain the more general attraction of the movement.

Islamic State does, though, have some notable weaknesses, starting with the brutality of many of its actions that are detested by so many Sunni Muslims, let alone local religious minorities and the wider international community. Also, unlike in the wider Syrian conflict, the formal coalition of states opposing it is extensive and, more importantly, both Iran and Russia have substantial concerns – Iran because of Islamic State’s deep antagonism to Shi’a Islam and Russia because of its own radical Islamist elements such as the Caucasus Emirate. Saudi Arabia and most Gulf Arab monarchies are also increasingly concerned about the threat to themselves from violent extremist groups like Islamic State. Furthermore, the control of territory may only be a short-term advantage and the likelihood of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi reaching out to the Iraqi Sunni community could substantially reduce support in Iraq.

The key point, though, is that major elements of the current environment in the region favour recourse to extreme Islamist attitudes. Even if Islamic State declines in the coming months and years, those elements will remain as long as current trends in economic exclusion, sectarian education, corrupt and autocratic governance, and external military intervention continue to dominate the Greater Middle East.

Just four years ago there was a widespread assumption that al-Qaida was in terminal decline and, with it, the problem of extreme Islamist movements. That has turned out to have been wishful thinking, indicating a need for a much more rounded analysis of the factors aiding the growth and potential of Islamic State.

About the Briefing

AuthorPaul Rogers is Global Security Consultant to Oxford Research Group (ORG) and Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford. His Monthly Briefings are available from their website at <> where visitors can sign up to receive them via a newsletter each month. These briefings are circulated free of charge for non-profit use, but please consider making a donation to ORG, if you are able to do so.

Photo: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant militants in Iraq. Source: Screenshot from World News Online (Youtube with Creative Commons license)


İklim adaletine ulaşmanın beş yolu – Helena Kennedy

İklim adaletsizliğini görmeyi öğreniyoruz. Paramparça olan yaşamlar, destansı kuraklıklar, seller ve tayfunlar, yerinden edilmiş aileler ve halkların öykülerinde görüyoruz iklim adaletsizliğini. İklim değişiminin kendisinden daha hukuki bir mesele değil iklim adaletsizliği ilk bakışta: ekonomik, politik ve bilimsel bir mesele. Ancak, her geçen yıl yüzümüzü tekrar hukuka dönüyoruz ve her yeni iklim görüşmesinden uluslararası bağlayıcılığı olan bir anlaşma umuyoruz.

Bugün, iklim değişiminin insani bedeliyle yüzleştiğimizde, dünyanın her yerinde insanlar hukuka başvuruyorlar yardım için, çare bulmak için, telafi için, ve bunun tekrar başlarına gelmemesini güvence altına almak için. İklim adaletinin karşısındaki zorlu görev budur.

Şimdiye kadar hukuk bu görevi boşlamış görünüyor. Gerçekten de, Uluslararası Barolar Birliği (International Bar Association – IBA) Çalışma Grubu’nun yakın zamanda yayınlanan raporunun (pdf) da gösterdiği üzere, hem ulusal hem uluslararası kimi yasalarımız iklim eylemini kolaylaştıracağına zorlaştırıyor. Ancak rapor birçok da öneride bulunuyor. İşte büyük bir fark yaratabilecek ve politik olarak mümkün beş öneri.

1. İklim değişimi mağdurlarının varlığını tanı.

İklim değişiminin mağdurları olduğunu kabul etmemiz ve onlara yasal bir yer açmamız gerekiyor. Rapor, devletlerin, iklim değişiminden doğrudan etkilenenlere kapı açabilecek bir “iklim değişimi için yasal model statü” benimsemelerini öneriyor. Bu büyük ölçüde prosedürlerin netleştirilmesi meselesi. Bir sonraki adım olarak IBA böyle bir model  statü için bir taslak hazırlıklarına başladı bile.

2. İnsan haklarını güçlendir.

İklim değişiminin insan haklarına zarar verdiği uzun zamandır gayet açık. Pek o kadar açık olmayan ise, mahkemelerin bu ihlalleri incelerken mevcut yasaları ve hukuki emsalleri kullanıp kullanamayacakları. Nihayetinde tüm hukuk, iklim değişiminin devasa boyutu ve aciliyeti göz önünde bulundurulmadan geliştirilegeldi. Ancak, aynı diğer insan hakları ihlallerinde olduğu gibi, iklim değişiminde de aktörler, mağdurlar ve hasarlar var. Nedensellik ilişkisini kurmak için öyle pek de hukuki hayal gücüne gerek yok. Politikacılar, avukatlar ve uluslararası toplum bu bağlantının netleştirilmesinde yardımcı olabilir.

3. Şirketlerden hesap sor.

Şu anda, çok-uluslu şirketler karbon hesap verebilirliğinden kaçabilirler – tıpkı sıklıkla yurtdışındaki iştirakleri ve tedarikçilerinin yol açtığı insan hakları ihlallerinden kaçabildikleri gibi. İnsan haklarında olduğu gibi burada da ihtiyacımız, basitçe gereken özeni göstermek. Uluslararası tedarik zincirinde karbon emisyonlarının üretimden dağıtıma ve satış noktasına kadar doğru hesap edildiğini garanti etmek olmalı hedef.

4. Uluslararası kurumları güçlendir.

Konu çevresel anlaşmazlıklar olduğunda ülkeler pek seyrek olarak uluslararası hukuki anlaşmazlıklar için dünyadaki birincil mahkeme olan Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’ndan (UAD) faydalanıyorlar.

İklimle alakalı hiçbir eylem ulaşmadı mahkemeye şimdiye kadar. Elbette bunun ardında politik nedenler var, ancak ayrıca son derece teknik meselelerde mahkemenin salahiyetiyle ilgili de endişeler mevcut.

UAD’nin güçlendirilmesi lazım. Divanın adli heyetine yapılan yeni atamalar yardımcı olabilir. Yakın zamanda ortadan kaldırılan çevre heyeti yeniden kurulabilir ve güçlendirilebilir. Mahkemeler böyle meselelerde en azından arabulucu heyetlerinden daha iyidirler. Ama, özellikle enerji yatırımcılarıyla çevre politikaları arasındaki anlaşmazlıklarda olduğu üzere, devletlerin arabuluculuğa başvurmayı seçtiği durumlarda her şey tamamen şeffaf biçimde yürütülmeli – bugün böyle bir durum yok. IBA ayrıca Lahey’deki Daimi Arabuluculuk Konseyi’nin çevresel uzmanlığını kullanmayı öneriyor.

5. Ticaret sistemini düzelt.

Ticari kuralların düşük karbon ticareti politikaları gibi iklim eylemlerini cezalandırmamasını sağlamalıyız. Onlarca yıldır bir iklim anlaşması muhabbeti çeviren hükümetler bunu yerine DTÖ’ye bakanlarını yollayarak bu meseleyi çözebilirler. Bugünkü durumda, örneğin yüksek-karbon ithalatını vergilendirmek isteyen hükümetler DTÖ’nün adli mercilerinden bir tokat yemekten korkabilirler. Bakanlıklar düzeyinde bir deklarasyon yayınlayarak bu gibi düzenlemelerin yasallaştırmak çok daha kolay bir mesele.

Elbette benzer düzenlemeler, şu anda müzakere edilen TPP (Transpacific Partnership) ve TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) gibi bütün çift-taraflı ve bölgesel ticaret anlaşmalarına da içerilmeli. Bunlar ve gelecekteki başka anlaşmaların hepsine son halleri verilmeden önce uzun vadeli iklim etkileri gözetilerek incelenmeli.


IBA raporu bu öneriler dışında birçok başka noktaya değiniyor ve bence tüm avukatların ve politikacıların okuması zorunlu kılınmalı. İklim değişiminin yol açtığı insani hasarları önlemek ve tazmin etmek konusunda ciddi kafa yormaya başlamamızın tam zamanı.


Müsteşar Helena Kennedy, IBA Başkanlığı İklim Değişimi Adaleti ve İnsan Hakları Çalışma Grubu eşbaşkanı ve IBA İnsan Hakları Enstitüsü’nün eşbaşkanı.

Bu yazının orijinali 12 Ocak 2015’te Guardian‘da “Five ways to achieve climate justice” başlığıyla yayınlandı.