Two years ago, I called for a more honest debate, and last year, for worthwhile action. Frankly, with both of the major crises facing us—not to mention the innumerable other lasting tragedies of our world—both of those things are lacking.

However, despite the gloom settling in for a long spell of depressing headlines, I’m reminded of what a friend occasionally points out: we’re living in one of the best of times. Ok, we’re probably in recession, and there is a long way to go in reducing inequality, and ensuring a basic standard of living for millions, but, at least in Europe, if you stop to think back for a moment to how you would have lived in the past (50, 100, 200 years ago), it becomes clear that things aren’t as devastatingly bad as many would claim.

The immediate concern of shoring up the Euro, and preventing the rot from setting in on the developed world’s economy, is increasingly used as an excuse to postpone action on climate change and the environment. “We have no money for ‘unnecessary’ eco-luxuries” is paraphrasing, but sums up one of the attitudes to environmental problems that is asserting itself now.

Of course, in reality, not only do we have the resources to tackle the problem, but we must act on one problem to solve the other. Sitting, as it does, under the most basic levels of all economic activity, environmental collapse, or at least, radical change, will do nothing to help trade and commerce in the future.

So, what chance is there that 2012 can be the year in which progress is made in dealing with the duality of economic and environmental crises?

Archive of New Year Posts (since 2007)

It’s cut a bit long, but the video above is worth a watch. I like the concept of a direct and consensus based decision making process, but…

What are the Occupy Wall Street lot, or the Indignados for that matter, calling for? In the backdrop of that video, I can see placards for every lefty cause imaginable, and in the clips of the General Assembly, they just seem to be saying “Let’s occupy Wall Street”, which is quite an ambitious demand, especially since they are already occupying Wall Street.

I have nothing against direct action; as part of the mechanism for citizens to get their voices heard, it is vital, but I always feel more than a little dismayed when direct action is portrayed as the only mechanism for change in politics. Think about it: direct action often means calling for someone else to do something. Close involvement in the political process, getting representatives elected, pushing policies, means making those changes yourself, not being at the mercy of someone else.

Brussels threatens to sue Britain to let in ‘benefit tourists’

The Telegraph

Another day, another anti-EU story in The Telegraph. Normally I resist the urge to dissect articles like this, but this one is particularly annoying. The gist of the story is that the big bad bullies in Brussels want to change British (Rule Britannia, Britannia Rule the Waves!) law to encourage everyone in Europe to steal benefits from honest, hard-working, decent and down-to-earth English people.

Naturally, that isn’t quite the case. For a start, I can personally attest that, after using the direct.gov.uk benefits calculator, I am most certainly better off signing-on in Belgium, if it came to that. The simple fact is—and this has been the case from the early days of the EEC—that there is a right of free movement of workers. It is a fundamental part of having an economic and political union. Furthermore, this is a right that is implemented with several caveats, which essentially protect host member states from having to put up with, and I quote the British Work and Pensions Secretary, Ian Duncan Smith, “paying out over £2 billion extra a year in benefits to people who have no connection to our country and who have never paid in a penny in tax”.

If I want to move to, say, France, and claim benefits, without working or studying, then I wouldn’t get very far. The right to live in another member state is only valid for people who are working, studying, or capable of supporting themselves. Directive 2004/38/EC, the relevant bit of legislation on this matter, even goes as far as to say:

Persons exercising their right of residence should not, however, become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during an initial period of residence.

OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 81

As far as I can tell, the £2.5 billion bill that Chris Grayling MP has claimed the UK will have to fork-out for the unwashed masses of Europe to come and watch daytime TV in Britain, is scaremongering, playing to a crowd that is already whipped up in an irrational fear of the foreign, barely informed on the truth of what the EU is, what it does, and what it is for. Mind you, the sort of comments that crop up below articles of that sort are always pretty funny. My favourite was this one from ‘rightrightright’:

Cameron will huff and puff to the camera and then go along with it, saying his usual “we can’t do anything else” which means “we don’t want to do anything else”.

It isn’t “just” benefits, it’s housing, hospital and school places, roads, the strain on power supplies, sewage systems and the inevitable encroachment upon our green spaces to provide for these utterly alien beings.  We pay, they play (and prey – not a spelling mistake).

P.S. I can’t let the paragraph on prisoners’ rights pass. How can a newspaper that claims the standing that The Telegraph claims, mix up two totally different international organisations?

The row is the latest example of Coalition ministers appearing powerless to halt the EU overturning UK policy. Last year, a European Court judgment forced David Cameron to agree to allow prisoners the vote.

Photograph used under a Creative Commons CC-BY licence. From ukhomeoffice on Flickr.

The danger of corruption, especially with the natural resources that the country holds, is also present, and already manifesting itself. Channeling of the proceeds from South Sudan’s natural resources, in particular oil, to individuals forming an elite, or to foreign companies, must be resisted, no matter how tempting it all seems. Another Nigerian-style race to exploit resources with little to no concern for local people would set South Sudan on a bad course.

As it finds its feet, I wish South Sudan well. It faces many struggles, but maybe now, it won’t be held down by the authoritarian practices of al-Bashir and Khartoum.

Image used under Creative Commons BY-ND Licence from Al Jazeera English on Flickr.

I’ll say it now, I love that the print media is partisan, and I love that the broadcast media is free of bias*. I think that balance of facts and debate that the media in the UK theoretically offers is vital to public debate and democracy. The problem comes with striking the balance between the proper regulation of the press to prevent illegal things like phone tapping and bribing the police, and the protection of the distinct voice that each paper maintains. Moving to a stricter regulation of the press, akin to that for broadcasting would be dangerous. It could turn the British press into little more than a bland pile of dried-up pulp.

I mentioned also, the problem of consolidating media power. For one company to own an array of highly read newspapers, in the UK and beyond, and to also have a hand in the largest commercial television broadcaster, is dangerous. It’s almost becoming a green mantra, going on the number of times we say it, and the number of things we say it about, but I really think there is some truth in the idea that monocultures are rarely a good thing. Fine, we can have papers that fly close to the wire like NotW, and we can have the mass appeal of publications like The Sun, and the popularity of Sky television and Sky News, but when these are essentially all facets of the same thing, it stunts the chance for an exchange of views, and it elevates those behind such an entity to heights lofty enough that oxygen masks might be needed.

Whatever the Government chooses to do, and whatever the opposition calls for, I really hope that there is no movement towards any sort of shackling of the press. Even a small shuffle in that direction is still basically a step along a path that, as can be seen in the case of the new Hungarian media laws, does not lead anywhere nice.

* Of course, in theory.

Lets get this straight: some MEPs thought that it was more important to go for lunch, than to do their job, finish voting from this Part Session, and make progress on an important report on a hugely important topic. I don’t know what was in the canteen today, but judging from the usual fare they offer up, I struggle to see how those hungry MEPs were unable to resist it.

The public rationale behind the Polish position seems to be that the country is so reliant on coal fired power stations, that a target for 50% cuts in emissions would be too strenuous for the country. Now I’m sorry, but does a whole continent really have to be held back by poor energy planning in one country?! Surely a better approach would be to work out a way for Poland to transition to renewables, and lower-carbon energy, while letting the rest of us get on with trying something (even if it isn’t much) to tackle the problem?

Though declared to be the winner of the much delayed (it was originally scheduled for 2005) 2010 Presidential Election, Ouatarra has, so far, only managed to take full control of the hotel in Abidjan where he is based, guarded by a significant number of UN ‘blue-helmets’, with Gbagbo refusing to hand over the reins. For the international community to do nothing in this case would be intolerable in the defence of democratic principles and the stability of West Africa. The already divided nature of Côte d’Ivoire, with a Muslim north and Christian south, and the fractious support for Gbagbo to remain in power, means that there is too much danger of an escalation of conflict in the country, and a potential return to civil war. Too many senseless acts of violence have already occurred. The question is of what should be done, and who should do it.

Though military intervention has been suggested, and arguments for it have been put forth, I would be concerned that the assessment of the resistance that will meet any foreign force attempting to oust Gbagbo is somewhat lacking.

“The mlitiary option will cause minimum loss of lives because Gbagbo is protected by a ‘rag tag’ band of soldiers. Besides, Ivory Coast does not even have a formidable air force. Neither appeasement nor sanctions is the way to force Gbagbo out of office. Sanctions will only go as far as blocking Gbagbo’s yes men from international travel.”

Tony Bello

In regionally comparative terms, the armed forces of Côte d’Ivoire are probably strong enough to pose a realistic challenge to an external force. The likelihood that a forceful intervention will be carried out, not by UN or EU forces, but by ECOWAS, enhances this problem. The capacity and experience of ECOWAS forces, when compared to those of the UN or the EU, is lesser. To act as the sole international force in an attempt to remove Gbagbo would probably mean a messy conflict, with a great degree of danger to ordinary Ivorians, caught in the middle of the fighting.

To discount military intervention and the option of doing nothing, we are left with sanctions. Though some sanctions have already been put in place, notably on cocoa exports, there is room for a more stringent set of sanctions to be enforced, especially on the part of the European Union. This solution would lessen the violent threat to civilians that military action would bring, and ultimately starve Gbagbo of the resources he needs to hold onto power. Rather than a clamour for battle, the international community (and this term includes directly neighbouring states) should seek to use every method of peaceful sanction, coupled with genuine attempts at mediation. For its part, the EU should move beyond the pointless waffle spouted by its High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton (PDF link), and seek to use its existing significant involvement in the country, and its capacity for meaningful actions, to encourage Gbagbo’s departure from office.

Photo by busy.pochi on Flickr. Used under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 2.0 licence.