Daily Archives: July 7, 2021

Everyone has found pandemic restrictions frustrating. Few see them on the spectrum of state coercion tending inevitably towards the Gulag. But the hysterical minority is overly represented in the Conservative party. As a result, the language of political emancipation is misapplied to something that would, in a more rational setting, be discussed in terms of clinical outcome. With so many people vaccinated and so many businesses craving customers, it makes sense to adjust the risk calculus, but for Tory MPs to speak of a freedom day is pantomime.

They mean freedom from the face mask, asserting their own right to no longer care about Covid infections, while making it sound like freedom from the disease itself. This is the same reflex that wanted to celebrate Brexit with an independence day on the grounds that EU membership equated to colonisation by a foreign power. It is the familiar revving of ideological engines, racing through the rhetorical gears from metaphor to hyperbole to paranoid delusion and fantasies of joining the resistance in people whose only political struggle has been for selection to a safe Tory seat.

Boris Johnson is, as ever, torn between the need to associate himself with happy feelings of liberation and fear of taking responsibility for the consequences of a policy unmoored to evidence. The prime ministers public statements are often an exercise in self-persuasion. He only knows what he believes by trying it out on an audience. When he cautions against getting demob happy he is reminding himself that he cannot get Covid done, as he claimed he could with Brexit, although he is obviously bored with the pandemic plotline in the story he wants told about his leadership.

The next volume has chapter headings without meaningful contents. Britain will build back better and level up, bridging inequalities with infrastructure and jobs in low-carbon industries. There is a lot of blank space to be filled and technical policy is not Johnsons genre. Also, the whole thing has to pass through the editorial process of the Treasurys three-year spending review in the autumn.

The cabinet battle for finite resources will be the story of the autumn as departments put pressure on the chancellor, either by leaking tales of the dire consequences of underfunding or briefing that support has been promised as a way to make it so. Johnsons aversion to difficult choices and face-to-face confrontation will make him an absent arbitrator, spreading confusion where he should be dictating priorities.

It is possible that a coherent model for post-pandemic government will emerge from that tussle, but not likely. Instead, levelling up will continue to be a euphemism for pork-barrel politics, with funds that are nominally earmarked for the neediest towns deployed in constituencies where Tory MPs must repay the former Labour voters who switched sides.

There is nothing subtle about this process. The transactional character of the Conservative electoral offer has been explicit in recent local council and byelection contests. The message put out in Hartlepool and, less successfully, Batley and Spen, is that it pays to send a Tory MP to Westminster because that is where all the money is kept. That resonates with people who associate the physical degradation and social decay in their towns not with Johnsons Conservatives but with decades of local Labour incumbency. Sometimes the charge of complacency and neglect is earned, but it is perverse that Keir Starmers party should feel the backlash for council cuts made inevitable by George Osbornes austerity budgets.

There is something of the mafia protection racket about this dynamic. The Tories break things up and then saunter around the vandalised site, full of feigned sympathy and slippery charm steeped in menace, announcing that the way to avoid such distress in the future is to pay tribute to the Johnson syndicate. It is an effective system as long as the promise of protection is made good. That imperative sets Downing Street strategy more than any ideological conviction.

It also carries the risk of neglecting places that have been voting Conservative for much longer and with a different conception of what they get in return for that allegiance. When the safe seat of Chesham and Amersham was lost to the Liberal Democrats, party managers were quick to attribute the swing to specific grievances planning reform and the HS2 rail line. But in private, Tory MPs admit that a wider malaise was involved. Lifelong supporters of the party, many of whom voted remain in 2016 but had no hesitation in preferring Johnson and Theresa May to Jeremy Corbyn as candidates for prime minister, are uneasy about the aggressive and mercenary style of the government.

This is not (or not exclusively) resentment of fiscal transfers from affluent southern Tory heartlands to newly captured territories in the north. It is an accumulation of unease at the character of an administration that evokes the Wildean cynic who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. It is the constant hum of petty sleaze, cronyism and a supercilious way with power that makes it hard for liberal-minded Tories to glean any civic pride from association with the ruling party.

That effect should not be overstated. Johnson is still a unique performer: part raconteur, part escapologist, talking his way out of troubles that would sink other leaders. But a consequence of that shtick is the growing gap between heroic language and grubby practice. It is the duality inherent in any failing ideological project that must keep cranking the rhetoric of abstract ideals higher to cover the stoop to ever shabbier methods. The support it generates is widely spread, but maybe also shallow; a popular consumer choice, lacking the connective tissue of shared and consistent beliefs.

The Tories are impatient to cry freedom from Covid, just as they were impatient to declare independence from Brussels, believing that they have been held back, with much pent-up governing to do. In reality, getting Brexit done, then riding out the pandemic has spared them the embarrassment of the empty page where the point of Boris Johnson has yet to be written.

Continued here:

Boris Johnson cries freedom to fill the void where his leadership should be - The Guardian

At first glance, the freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) conducted in the summer of 2023 mirrored previous U.S. actions taken to contest excessive maritime claims in the South China Sea. A U.S. Navy vessel sailed within twelve miles of Mischief Reef while conducting routine training maneuvers. However, in a departure from previous operations, the ship did not engage in man overboard drills as part of that training. It would have been odd to do so, since there were no humans aboard the vessel.

***

As this vignette suggests, the time has come for the U.S. Navy to pass the freedom of navigation mission set to unmanned systems. This shift would provide significant benefits, including substantial cost savings, a reduced risk to human life, increased flexibility in escalation dynamics, and an asymmetric answer to geographically advantaged peer competitors in distant oceans.

Moreover, using unmanned systems for FONOPs could help to establish the desired U.S. government precedent regarding these platforms and the law of the sea. The U.S. Navys proactive demonstration of unmanned system operation across the globe could clearly communicate expected norms regarding their usage under existing conventions and customary law.

A FONOPs Primer

In order to understand the future of FONOPs within the context of unmanned systems, one should first examine the genesis of the U.S. Navys freedom of navigation program, as well as the successes and challenges attributed to it by observers throughout its forty years of existence.

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea codifies customary international legal concepts pertinent to maritime claims. As President Ronald Reagan outlined in his 1983 speech on oceans policy, the United States will exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the convention.

Despite substantial commercial and government support for the convention, the U.S. Senate has not joined over 160 other countries in ratifying the 1982 law of the sea agreement. Initially, American opponents of ratification feared that the conventions provisions for the governance of deep-seabed mining would run counter to domestic interests. More recently, concerns including sovereignty issues and environmental restrictions have prevented the necessary Senate ratification vote from occurring. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama pushed aggressively for ratification, yet failed due to political opposition. And while the current administration has largely remained quiet on any renewed efforts, in 2007 then-Senator Joe Biden led an unsuccessful attempt to move forward with ratification as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Even without congressional ratification of the convention, legal experts cite enduring maritime law traditions that can create widely accepted customary rules without a specific requirement for binding international agreements. Based on this fundamental concept of customary international law, over the last four decades the U.S. freedom of navigation program has combined diplomatic efforts with at-sea operations across the globe, sailing or flying through excessive maritime claims to reinforce the American interpretation of customary maritime claims.

Through these operations, the U.S. government contests claims against allies and antagonists alike with a military presence in the disputed zone. Each year, a number of these excessive claims are contested. In Fiscal Year 2020, for instance, the Department of Defense challenged 28 separate excessive claims made by 19 different countries. Each challenge can represent a larger tempo of operations, as one listed maritime challenge may include multiple passages by U.S. assets throughout the year.

Proponents of FONOPs assert that the program deserves credit for the freedom of the global commons enjoyed by maritime shipping today, the continued expansion of global sea trade over the last forty years, and a normalization of maritime claims in line with convention standards. The 2016 Chinese refusal to recognize the arbitral tribunals decision regarding disputes in the South China Sea bolsters the case for U.S. FONOPs, highlighting the difficulty in enforcing the convention through purely diplomatic efforts at the international level.

FONOPs detractors, meanwhile, perceive the program as unnecessarily offensive in nature, emphasize the persistent threat of collision at sea with resulting escalation concerns, and question whether any behavioral changes can actually be attributed to military contestations.

Activity under the freedom of navigation program, which is approved and directed at the presidential level, has largely remained steady during recent administrations. This trend implies that American leadership values the program and supports the conclusion that FONOPs will remain a vital and visible part of U.S. national security policy going forward.

The Advantages of Unmanned Systems During FONOPs

While forty years have elapsed since FONOPs inception, the tools used to execute the mission in 2021 still resemble those used in 1981. Twenty-first century unmanned systems technology offers opportunities to mitigate past weaknesses and amplify current strengths. By saving money and reducing risk while providing a response to rapidly expanding adversarial fleets, the U.S. Navy can leverage unmanned FONOPs to breathe new life into the program during a vital period in its existence.

An Efficient Use of Assets

The Department of Defense can realize significant and much-needed cost savings by using unmanned platforms for the freedom of navigation mission set. The state-of-the-art Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyer, a likely candidate for completing FONOPs in the twenty-first century, has an estimated unit cost of $1.8 billion versus approximately $35 million for a medium-sized unmanned system prototype. Beyond the reduced initial investment, experts estimate daily operating costs for the manned destroyer at $700,000 versus a $20,000 daily price tag for unmanned surface systems, such as the Sea Hunter. In a time of flat-line Department of Defense budgets and a stated Department of the Navy desire to focus further on unmanned systems, employing drone technology for these operations provides clear cost advantages while aligning with modernization efforts.

Besides monetary savings, the use of unmanned systems for these missions allows more-capable manned platforms to focus on those tasks that require different competences or a human touch. FONOPs fall neatly into the category of dull, dirty, and dangerous operations that best fit unmanned systems. An unmanned system can easily refute a challenged nations excessive maritime claim that requires prior permission for innocent transit by conducting an unannounced straight-line passage through disputed waters, freeing a manned vessel and its crew to conduct more in-depth operations elsewhere.

Robots Can Reduce Risk While Providing Flexibility

In the event of a miscalculation on either side during an unplanned encounter at sea involving unmanned assets, metal and electronics may incur damage, but no human life will be lost. As recent non-FONOP ship collisions have shown, when two large-tonnage vessels collide at sea, a tragic loss of life may result. By removing the potential for this loss of life from a collision in contested waters, the use of unmanned systems during FONOPs allows technology to accomplish a potentially dangerous mission with no requirement for physical human presence.

Beyond the inherent heartbreak involved, the loss of human life also has implications for escalation. A recent study examined the different emotions generated from the loss of an unmanned system versus a manned system, and its findings demonstrate de-escalation advantages from an unmanned loss. In simple terms, the destruction of an unmanned system does not generate the same visceral and escalatory response as the loss of a human life. This vital difference adds flexibility following a collision at sea or a hostile act during FONOPs. While unmanned systems do not negate the potential for an escalation spiral, their use provides de-escalation options to decision-makers that do not exist with manned platforms. As geopolitical tensions continue to grow, opportunities to decrease potential escalation spirals stemming from collisions during FONOPs should not be ignored.

An Asymmetric Response to Being Outnumbered

Much attention in recent years has focused on the impressive scope of Chinese shipbuilding capabilities. In the waters of the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy already finds itself outnumbered even more significantly so when one includes the tremendous size and coercive capabilities of the Chinese maritime militia. According to the 2020 annual Department of Defense report to Congress, China has built the largest navy in the world, comprising 350 ships compared to the U.S. Navys 293 ships. This disparity exists primarily in smaller hull classes, and further emphasizes the benefit of using lower-cost unmanned systems to even the numerical playing field. The maxim that quantity has a quality all its own will likely hold true in a dynamic twenty-first century battlespace. As recent budget submissions demonstrate, the U.S. Navy simply does not have the necessary capital to match adversary numbers at traditional major surface combatant shipbuilding costs.

Low-cost unmanned systems will facilitate the dispersion of the naval assets necessary to ensure the successful conduct of peacetime FONOPs, while also enabling the execution of the distributed maritime operations wartime concept. The deployment of unmanned systems to counter current asymmetry creates an achievable and efficient option to execute assigned missions, such as FONOPs, while countering increasing naval proliferation across the globe.

Concerns Addressed

The near-term extensive use of unmanned systems during FONOPs necessitates both prudent planning and measured operational execution. The U.S. government should establish a favorable precedent for the legal status of unmanned systems under existing conventions and enforce suitable repercussions for external interference with unmanned systems operating in accordance with customary international law.

Setting a Precedent

There is debate in legal circles over whether unmanned systems qualify as warships a classification advantageous to the execution of freedom of navigation missions. Unfortunately, any comprehensive solution to this complex question will likely suffer due to the frayed relationships in todays global environment, which make consensus difficult.

With this obstacle in mind, the best path forward for ensuring unmanned systems ability to conduct operations in accordance with accepted standards is through clear communication of intent and routine usage across the globe. Just as the U.S. government has relied on its interpretation of convention provisions to dictate its actions around the world and reinforce customary international law, a transparent and publicly accessible U.S. policy on unmanned system use on the seas could combine with at-sea operations to provide the necessary foundation for global acceptance.

Signaling Resolve During Unmanned FONOPs

Important questions also remain as to whether challenged nations will treat unmanned systems in accordance with the norms afforded to manned systems during FONOPs. Numerous instances already exist of nations capturing or destroying unmanned systems, including the shooting down of a U.S. Navy surveillance drone by Iran in 2019. In that case, media reporting indicated that Iranian forces specifically chose their target based on its unmanned nature in an attempt to avoid further escalation. If an adversary believes they can target unmanned systems without any retribution, effective unmanned system usage across all mission sets will suffer.

With that consideration in mind, clear policy guidance prior to the execution of unmanned system FONOPs can signal the resolve and set the expectations necessary to ensure successful operations. The U.S. government should credibly and consistently communicate that any actions taken to inhibit the navigation of these systems will be met with determination. Signaling could be accomplished via pre-negotiated international agreements or clear warning statements disseminated via the appropriate forum.

By credibly signaling resolve with respect to the execution of unmanned FONOPs, the U.S. government could provide escalation expectations and manage risk effectively. The same escalation options available for the loss of a manned asset would be available for the loss of an unmanned asset, but with additional and less-escalatory rungs to climb along the way. These additional escalation steps include using manned assets to accomplish the mission, or a proportional military response when merited. In practice, certain and likely most circumstances will lend themselves to unmanned systems usage while rare situations may require more traditional means of contestation.

Preventing Technology Loss

Another commonly mentioned concern is the potential loss of technology resulting from the loss of unmanned systems. In this scenario, an unmanned system taken captive by a rival nation results in the loss of sensitive technology or information. This drama has already played out in real time, as witnessed by the capture of a U.S. Navy oceanographic survey glider in 2016 and subsequent Chinese technological advances.

Before condemning unmanned systems for this fault, however, one should note that this problem is not unique to them. The 2001 emergency landing of a manned U.S. Navy EP-3 in Hainan, China, resulted in the loss of sensitive materials. Going back further, the capture of the USS Pueblo and its crew in 1968 by North Korean forces also infamously compromised classified information and hardware, including ten encryption machines and thousands of pages of top secret documents.

Notably, unmanned systems may experience a higher likelihood of attempted tampering or interference than traditional assets due to the same traits that contribute to their de-escalation advantages. Ensuring the protection of sensitive information lies not in eschewing the use of unmanned systems, but rather in ensuring fail-safe methods for destroying relevant data when in danger of exploitation. As with their manned counterparts, unmanned systems operations should be approached from a continuing perspective of potential exposure with mitigations in place to avoid technological theft.

While manned systems can resort to a human and an axe in attempts to destroy equipment, unmanned systems hardware needs to automatically revert to a zeroized, or unusable, state in case of distress. Initiation of this process can be triggered by a command from its home station, the shock from a significant collision, or an extended loss of communication with its handler, inhibiting the loss of critically sensitive information and exploitation of the hardware itself.

Perhaps unexpectedly, unmanned systems possess at least one advantage in this realm. Unmanned systems negate the adversarys ability to leverage human crews for nefarious purposes, such as the creation of damaging propaganda or the receipt of additional sensitive information via interrogation.

Unmanned Systems as the Platform of Choice for FONOPs

By properly executing a transition to unmanned system FONOPs, the United States can use technological advances to ensure a continuing ability to provide a legal order that will, among other things, facilitate peaceful international uses of the oceans. Properly leveraged, unmanned systems will execute this mission at a significant cost savings, with a reduction in risk, and at a scale needed in a twenty-first century defined by great-power competition.

Trevor Prouty is an active-duty Navy commander with more than 20 years of service. He is currently the Navy Fellow assigned to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program.He has served in three helicopter aviation tours, most recently leading asquadron during the adoption of the MQ-8B Fire Scout, an unmannedhelicopter system.

The views expressed here do not represent those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or the U.S. government.

Image: U.S. Navy (Photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Shannon Renfroe)

Read more from the original source:

Freedom of Navigation Operations: A Mission for Unmanned Systems - War on the Rocks

The modern iteration of the National Rifle Association as a political force opposed to any measure of gun safety was familiar to Fred Guttenberg even before his 14-year-old daughter, Jaime, was killed along with 16 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida, on 14 February 2018.

The groups response to Parkland was the same as after 26 people, including 20 children, were killed at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, the same as after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, after Sutherland Springs, after Pulse Nightclub, amid gun violence that claims 100 lives a day in the US: the only solution to gun violence is more guns, everywhere. Or, to quote the NRAs longtime executive vice-president, Wayne LaPierre, following Sandy Hook: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

The day after his daughter was killed, a distraught Guttenberg attempted to put words to the unfathomable at a vigil. My job is to protect my children, he said, voice cracking, and I sent my kid to school, where Jaime was supposed to be safe. When he returned home, the first thing Guttenberg said to friends and family was Im going to break the fucking gun lobby, he told the Guardian. Because I knew the NRA and I knew their influence.

The Price of Freedom, a new documentary on the history of the NRA and the toll of its mythology, reveals, in meticulous detail, the artifice and apparatus behind that influence. The searing 95-minute film, directed by Judd Ehrlich, surveys the National Rifle Associations evolution from its founding as a hunting sports club in 1871 to the most powerful gun lobbyist group in the country an insular and dogmatic organization, ruthless in its politicization of gun ownership and unyielding in its fantasy of guns as central to American identity. The NRAs figuring of gun culture as synonymous with Founding Fathers patriotism, and safety measures as antithetical to Americas founding principles, has become so saturated into the American populace, Ehrlich told the Guardian. And we have to understand that if we want to combat that.

It wasnt always this way; as the film explains, gun control is as much a part of Americas founding as the second amendment. Delaware banned firearms at election sites in 1776, for example; Louisiana prohibited concealed carry of firearms in 1813. The NRAs deification of the cowboy figure the lone ranger striding in with a gun to save the day, embodied by the former western star Ronald Reagan, the first president endorsed by the NRA is a fantasy of vigilante lawlessness. States across the country had, by the late 1800s, adopted gun safety measures that seem like political fantasies in 2021: regulation of gunpowder (Texas, 1839), compulsory registration of weapons (Illinois, 1885), bans on ownership for dangerous persons (Kansas, 1868), prohibition of firearms in churches and schools (Arizona, 1889).

With the input of historians and journalists who have covered the NRA for years, The Price of Freedom traces the metastasis of the NRAs absolutist rhetoric into legislation that has contributed to an epidemic of gun violence in the US far greater than any other developed nation. The film focuses on a little-known but extremely consequential leadership coup in 1977, when former president Harlon Carter, who changed the spelling of his name to evade attention for a murder committed when he was 17, ousted most of the organizations leadership at its annual convention in Cincinnati, Ohio. Carter, who held a sweeping and ravenous view of the second amendment, shifted the NRAs focus from hunting sports and environmental conservation the group supported the Gun Control Act of 1968 to political lobbying for gun rights, and positioned the NRA as a PR-savvy organization ready to amass power at moments of fear or unrest.

When you look at all those things and you think, what if this powerful organization had gone in a different direction, its hard not to conclude that we would be at a very different place in terms of how we talk about guns in this country, said Ehrlich. Take, for instance, the proliferation of so-called Stand Your Ground laws, which essentially allow citizens to shoot to kill at their own discretion a convenient loophole for racial bias, among many disastrous outcomes. The Price of Freedom draws a straight line from the politicization of gun ownership as a natural, fundamental right at least for white people, as the NRA had no issue limiting the second amendment when it was the Black Panthers accessing guns to video of Kyle Rittenhouse, a white teenager from Illinois, patrolling the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, in with an AR-15 in August 2020, acting as a vigilante unimpeded by police, even after he shot and killed two Black Lives Matter protesters. Guttenberg taped his interview for the film during the early afternoon of 6 January, as an armed mob of Trump supporters stormed the nations Capitol.

Guttenberg, who channeled his grief into activism for gun safety and the marginalization of the NRA, has been vocal about cracking its stranglehold on the status quo of no action in Washington. One of the brilliant things the NRA did was create this environment where as a country, we believe gun safety legislation can never pass through Washington DC this country cant do it, he said. Guttenberg is one of several figures in the film whose advocacy for commonsense gun safety legislation is rooted in losses to gun violence, including Representative Lucy McBath, whose 17-year-old son was shot by a white man after an argument over loud music; X Gonzalez, a founder of the March for Our Lives movement; and Gabby Giffords, the congresswoman from Arizona shot in the head during a meeting with constituents in 2011.

We have to break through that wall, Guttenberg said, pointing to the confirmation of David Chipman to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the first permanent director since 2015, and legislation for background checks as immediate priorities under the Biden administrations push for gun reform. And once you do, and lets do it with background checks, then its no longer a matter of whether or not you can or cant, its about whats possible. Listen, after my daughter was killed, we did what seemed impossible we got gun safety legislation passed in Florida. So it is no longer about not being able to do it, its about what more can we do.

The Price of Freedom points to the aftermath of Parkland as a turning point for the NRA the March for Our Lives movement sparked a strong public and corporate backlash to the group; the 2018 midterm elections brought candidates who ran on gun reform, including McBath and Crow, to Washington. Under public pressure, companies such as Dicks Sporting Goods stopped selling semi-automatic rifles and prohibited all sales to customers under age 21. The NRA faces financial crisis, internal revolt and potential dissolution after an investigation by the New York attorney generals office revealed corruption and fiscal malfeasance by its leadership, particularly LaPierre.

Whether or not the organization continues on, the NRAs cultivation of an entire community and identity around an extreme view of the second amendment will probably outlive it, casting a long shadow over American life. But Guttenberg echoed several figures in the film with an eye on changing what can seem impossibly entrenched. I have no choice but to remain hopeful and optimistic, he said. And when I go across the country and meet people in every community, even the communities where people say, ah, thats a gun community, everywhere I go, people actually believe that we can do more.

I dont hate the second amendment thats always been the big lie. I hate gun violence, said Guttenberg. So my hope is all based in the idea that everyone else hates gun violence, too. And if we can agree on that, then lets fix this together.

The rest is here:

We have to break through that wall: inside Americas battle for gun control - The Guardian

July 05, (THEWILL) The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed a lawsuit, asking the court to compel President Muhammadu Buhari to disclose spending details of the overdrafts and loans obtained from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) since May 29, 2015, including the projects on which the overdrafts have been spent, and repayments of all overdrafts to date.

SERAP is also seeking an order to compel the President to explain and clarify whether the $25bn (N9.7trn) overdraft reportedly obtained from the CBN is within the five-percent limit of the actual revenue of the government for 2020.

The suit followed SERAPs Freedom of Information (FoI) request to President Buhari, stating that: Disclosing details of overdrafts and repayments would enable Nigerians to hold the government to account for its fiscal management and ensure that public funds are not mismanaged or diverted.

In the suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/559/2021 filed last week at the Federal High Court, Abuja, SERAP is also seeking: an order directing and compelling President Buhari to disclose details of overdrafts taken from the CBN by successive governments between 1999 and 2015.

SERAP claimed that: Secrecy and the lack of public scrutiny of the details of CBN overdrafts and repayments is antithetical to the public interest, the common good, the countrys international legal obligations, and a fundamental breach of constitutional oath of office.

Joined in the suit as respondents are the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN; the Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning, Zainab Ahmed; and the Governor of CBN, Godwin Emefiele.

SERAP is also arguing that: Ensuring transparency and accountability in the spending of CBN overdrafts and loans would promote prudence in debt management, reduce any risks of corruption and mismanagement, and help the government to avoid the pitfalls of excessive debt.

According to SERAP: By the combined reading of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Freedom of Information Act, the UN Convention against Corruption, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, there are transparency obligations imposed on the government to disclose information to the public concerning details of CBN overdrafts, loans and repayments to date.

The Nigerian Constitution, Freedom of Information Act, and these treaties rest on the basic principle that citizens should have access to information regarding their governments activities.

The suit filed on behalf of SERAP by its lawyers Kolawole Oluwadare and Ms Adelanke Aremo, read in part: Transparency and accountability in the spending of CBN overdrafts would also ensure that public funds are properly spent, reduce the level of public debt, and improve the ability of the government to invest in essential public goods and services, such as quality education, healthcare, and clean water.

It is the primary responsibility of the government to ensure public access to these services in order to lift millions of Nigerians out of poverty and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.

Transparency and accountability in the spending of CBN overdrafts and loans would also improve the ability of the government to effectively respond to the COVID-19 crisis. This means that the government would not have to choose between saving lives or making debt payments.

The recent overdraft of $25.6bn (about N9.7trn) reportedly obtained from the CBN would appear to be above the five-percent limit of the actual revenue of the Federal Government for 2020, that is, N3.9trn, prescribed by Section 38(2) of the CBN Act 2007. SERAP notes that five-percent of N3.9trn is N197bn.

While Section 38(1) of the CBN Act allows the Bank to grant overdrafts to the Federal Government to address any temporary deficiency of budget revenue, sub-section 2 provides that any outstanding overdraft shall not exceed five-percent of the previous years actual revenue of the Federal Government.

Similarly, Section 38(3) requires all overdrafts to be repaid as soon as possible and by the end of the financial year in which the overdrafts are granted.

The CBN is prohibited from granting any further overdrafts until all outstanding overdrafts have been fully repaid. Under the CBN Act, no repayment shall take the form of a promising note or such other promise to pay at a future date, treasury bills, bonds or other forms of security which is required to be underwritten by the Bank.

Similarly, the Fiscal Responsibility Act provides in section 41 that the government shall only borrow for capital expenditure and human development. Under the Act, the government shall ensure that the level of public debt as a proportion of national income is held at a sustainable level.

Section 44 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act requires the government to specify the purpose of any borrowing, which must be applied towards capital expenditures, and to carry out cost-benefit analysis, including the economic and social benefits of any borrowing. Any borrowing should serve the public good, and be guided by human rights principles.

SERAP has consistently recommended to the Federal Government to reduce its level of borrowing and to look at other options of how to finance its budget, such as reducing the costs of governance, and addressing systemic and widespread corruption in ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) that have been documented by the Office of the Auditor-General of the Federation.

Our requests are brought in the public interest, and in keeping with the requirements of the Nigerian Constitution; the Freedom of Information Act; the Fiscal Responsibility Act; the Central Bank Act; the Debt Management Office Act; and the countrys international legal obligations.

There is a statutory obligation on the respondents, being public officers in their respective public offices, to proactively keep, organize and maintain all information or records about CBN overdrafts, loans, and repayments in a manner that facilitates public access to such information or records.

Mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public duty in the performance in which the applicant has a sufficient legal interest.

Unless the reliefs sought by SERAP are granted, the respondents will not provide SERAP with the information requested and will continue to be in breach of their constitutional responsibilities and the countrys international legal obligations and commitments.

No date has been fixed for hearing of the suit.

Read the original post:

SERAP Wants Court To Compel Disclosure On What Buhari Did With N9.7trn Overdrafts From CBN - thewillnigeria

Published: 7/4/2021 10:00:03 PM

Modified: 7/4/2021 10:00:05 PM

As summer comes into full swing in the Upper Valley and COVID-19 restrictions are lifted, it feels as though the nightmare of the pandemic is finally coming to a close. However, in a global sense, the effects of the pandemic are still crushing.

Prior to the pandemic, 1 in 9 people were hungry worldwide and 736 million people lived in extreme poverty, according to a 2018 World Health Organization report. Because of the pandemic, there has been a global reduction in job opportunities, lower wages, less access to health care assistance, difficulties transitioning to remote learning and food insecurity. All of these issues contribute to a rise in hunger and extreme poverty. Currently, the pandemic is slated to push 150 million more people into extreme poverty globally, reversing decades of progress.

So, not only has the already-staggering rate of global hunger and extreme poverty increased due to the pandemic, only 0.9% of people in low-income countries are fully vaccinated. This means that the pandemic is not even close to over in these areas, and conditions are worsening for those living in these nations.

The presence of large unvaccinated populations also is a risk for everyone. We have already seen variants appearing, and variants will continue to do so until we reach a sufficient number of fully vaccinated people. This is why it is essential for Congress to support a coordinated COVAX initiative to globally distribute vaccines and create a plan to share the 553 million excess vaccinations that will be left over after every American is fully vaccinated.

Additionally, we need to urge our leaders to prioritize lifesaving aid in subsequent COVID-19 relief bills and in the fiscal 2022 appropriations bill for the State Department, USAID and other development agencies.

CLARISSE BROWN

Grantham

Professor Randall Balmers great op-ed column on our founders intent describes the logjam we are now in with some Supreme Court justices (Originalism and the Second Amendment, June 6). I believe that the original intent is clear, because they wrote it down.

It is in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And it is in the Constitution: We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If the current mass shootings are someones idea of domestic Tranquility, Id hate to see what chaos is. If unalienable Rights include freedom of and from religion Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof I wonder what the founders would think about laws based on some churches teaching that are not fair to everyone, or churches supported by town taxes (from the 19th century, now done away with), or the required Sunday closing of stores, etc. (which lasted into the 20th century, now done away with), or reproductive freedom and privacy of intimacy being debated again in the guise protection.

HOWARD SHAFFER

Enfield

The University of Illinois is planning to heat its Urbana campus with a new, underground nuclear reactor with a fuel cartridge that lasts 20 years. The university is working with Seattle-based Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp. to partially replace a coal-fired plant, seeking Department of Energy funding and preparing a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license application.

Dartmouth College has already rebuilt its hot-water circulating district heating system in anticipation of plans for a wood chip burning plant, now dropped. Dartmouth continues to burn 3.5 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil annually as it seeks a better energy source. The Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp. reactor generates 15 megawatts of heat, approximately the demand from the Dartmouth campus.

ROBERT HARGRAVES

Hanover

The rest is here:

Forum, July 5: The pandemic is still threatening the entire globe - Valley News

Market News: FTSE 100 7,100 -64.03 -0.89% FTSE 250 22,895.36 -127.04 -0.55% FTSE AIM 1262.87 -2.47 0.20%

The FTSE 100 fell 0.89% on Tuesday as weaker economic data drove markets lower and stronger sterling weighed on overseas revenue earners. "European markets have slumped alongside US indices, which appear to be resurfacing from their extended weekend with a largely pessimistic tone," IG Group's Joshua Mahony says. Inflation concerns also appear to have gripped U.K. investors Tuesday after a report from the government's public spending watchdog cautioned that high public debt levels are more vulnerable than ever to rising interest rates, AJ Bell's Danni Hewson says. "Today has felt like an adjustment off the back of yesterday's 'freedom focused' boost," Ms. Hewson says.

Kinovo's FY 2021 Pretax Profit Dropped on Lower Revenue

Kinovo PLC reported Tuesday a significant decline in pretax profit for fiscal 2021 as a result of a Covid-19 driven fall in revenue, and said that it is confident about its future.

---

Microsaic Systems Says 1H Revenue Recovered

Microsaic Systems PLC said Tuesday that first-half revenue rose sharply and exceeded pre-pandemic levels after a change of business model in early 2021.

---

Mulberry to End Paris Lease Early, Return When International Tourism Recovers

Mulberry Group PLC said Tuesday that its wholly owned subsidiary in France has agreed to terminate the lease of its store in Paris and exit the property early for 13.2 million pounds ($18.3 million).

---

Mattioli Woods Expects to Report FY 2021 Profit in Line With Views

Mattioli Woods PLC said Tuesday that it expects to report profit in line with management expectations for the year ended May 31.

---

Globalworth Mulls Implications of Recent Change of Control

Globalworth Real Estate Investments Ltd. said on Tuesday that it was notified late on Monday by CPI Property Group SA and Aroundtown SA about a number of transactions related to their existing holding, which have resulted in Zakiono Enterprises Ltd. holding a total of 51.5% of shares in the company.

---

Building-Materials Distributor Lords Group to Raise GBP30 Mln in AIM Float

Lords Group Trading PLC, a distributor of building materials in the U.K., said Tuesday that it will raise 30 million pounds ($41.5 million) as part of its proposed initial public offering on London's junior AIM market.

---

New Amsterdam Invest Raises EUR49.1 Mln in Amsterdam Listing

New Amsterdam Invest NV said Tuesday that it has listed on Euronext Amsterdam and raised funds in a placing with a total offer value of 49.1 million euros ($58.3 million).

---

Logistics Software Company Microlise Group Plans to Float on London's AIM

Microlise Group PLC said Tuesday that it plans to float on London's junior AIM market.

---

Kavango Resources Directors Invest GBP60,000 in Company

Kavango Resources PLC said Tuesday that directors Ben Turney and Mike Moles have invested a further 60,000 pounds ($83.070) in the company, taking total funds raised under a placing disclosed Monday to GBP2 million.

---

Oil Companies Are Ordered to Help Cover $7.2 Billion Cleanup Bill in Gulf of Mexico

Some of the world's largest oil companies have been ordered to pay part of a $7.2 billion tab to retire hundreds of aging wells in the Gulf of Mexico that they used to own, capping a case that legal experts say is a harbinger of future battles over cleanup costs.

---

CMO Group to Raise GBP27.3 Mln in London IPO

CMO Group PLC, an online building-materials retailer, said Tuesday that it plans to raise 27.3 million pounds ($37.8 million) at a valuation of GBP95 million, as part of its initial public offering on London's junior AIM market.

---

TP Group Appoints David Lindsay as Interim CEO

TP Group PLC said Tuesday that it has appointed David Lindsay as interim chief executive officer with immediate effect.

Lloyd's of London Insurers Battle Back from Downturn

1254 GMT - Lloyd's of London insurers are acting to bounce back from an industry downturn, says J.P. Morgan Cazenove. While the Lloyd's sub-sector was one of the best-performing in European insurance between 2008 and 2017, it deteriorated after 2017 due to consecutive years of heavy catastrophe losses, casualty-related reserving concerns and the pandemic impact, JPM says. "There remains some uncertainties around casualty and cyber risks in particular, but we believe management teams are taking steps to address them," JPM analyst Ashik Musaddi says, upgrading Beazley and Hiscox to overweight from neutral. Still, it cuts Lancashire Holdings to neutral from overweight, saying it's more exposed to climate-change risks through higher catastrophe losses, as well as competition from third-party capital in reinsurance.

---

Ultra Electronics Update Reinforces Strong Balance Sheet an Asset

1134 GMT - Ultra Electronics' 1H underlying performance was strong and exceeded expectations with an order book ahead of last year, Jefferies says. Net debt at the end of May was GBP32 million helped by strong advance payments and lower-than-expected capital expenditure, the U.S. bank says. Although there is some benefit from capex and R&D being lower than expected, the programs on which the defense-equipment provider has secured work promised good order intake at some point, Jefferies says. The update largely reflects what was likely to unfold in fiscal 2021 and reinforces the view that the strong balance sheet is an asset, Jefferies says.

---

Sainsbury Sales Rise But It Needs to Keep Up Momentum

1100 GMT - J Sainsbury needs to stay on the ball despite a first-quarter sales boost and an increase in full-year profit guidance, AJ Bell says. Bell says the company is benefiting from continued online shopping after the pandemic, development of new delivery partnerships and price-cutting. That could increase potential takeover interest in the company and its rivals following a recommended $8.7 billion takeover bid for rival Wm. Morrison Supermarkets, the brokerage says. "A year into his tenure and Chief Executive Simon Thomas is sitting relatively pretty, but the supermarket sector is an extremely competitive and demanding one, so there's no room for complacency, particularly given the uncertainty over the direction Morrisons will take under its new ownership," Bell's investment director Russ Mould says. Shares gain 0.8%.

---

Land Securities, British Land Face Downgrades on Looming Costs, Jefferies Says

1044 GMT - The cost of doing business for Land Securities and British Land is rising, with earnings dependency on shops and retail and impending hits from decarbonizing costs, Jefferies says. Jefferies reduces its dividend forecasts for the two major British real-estate companies. Given looming business model impairments, which at their most extreme could significantly weaken these business, the U.S. bank cuts its ratings for British Land and Land Securities to hold from buy. Instead, Jefferies reiterates it buy rating on "beds, meds and sheds" real estate trusts, like Tritax Big Box, LXI REIT, Big Yellow and PRS. Shares in British Land are down 3.6% at 503.6 pence, and Land Securities is down 3.6% at 679.6 pence.

---

Purplebricks' New Pricing Model Should Build Up Share Price

1036 GMT - Online real estate agent Purplebricks is launching a new pricing model in July following trials in the north west of England, Peel Hunt says. Purplebricks' new money-back guarantee and simplified two-tier offer should support its medium-term 10% share ambition, which in turn is likely to result in 20% revenue growth a year and deliver significant upside to the current share price, the brokerage says. "As has been highlighted elsewhere, a lack of stock is a wider concern for the market, but the group is hopeful of an improving picture post the summer," Peel Hunt says, retaining its buy rating and target price of 120 pence.

Contact: London NewsPlus, Dow Jones Newswires; +44-20-7842-931

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

July 06, 2021 12:11 ET (16:11 GMT)

See more here:

FTSE 100 Slips on Weak Data and Inflationary Concerns - Morningstar.com

Solarwinds, Orion Platform, a scalable infrastructure monitoring and management platform designed to ... [+] simplify IT adminstration recently fell victim to Russian Hackers. STAR MAX File Photo: A Solarwinds Logo shot off an iPhone. Photo by: STRF/STAR MAX/IPx 2020 12/24/20

Afghanistan was not the USs longest war. Not even close.Weve been at cyberwar for half a century and were losing.Globally,the US is losing, and the homeland is far from safe.Hell, why not just hack a municipality for a few hundred k?Its easy.Theres no cybersecurity strategy good enough to win a cyberwar. Sure, everyone talks a good game, but the very structure of American (and other businesses around the globe) makes it nearly impossible to, for example, deliberately and significantly reduce EBITDA to prepare for cyber warfare.

Its Sometimes Horrible to Be Right

I predicted this:

The number of severity of cyberattacks will explode in 2020.Cyberwarfare has now leveled the playing field in industry, in government, and in national defense:why spend ten or fifteen billion dollars on an aircraft carrier when you can disable it digitally?Why spend billions on new product R&D when you can hack into your competitions strategic plans?Why not just phish around municipalities for a quick $100K?Cyberwarfare is a cost-effective solution to all sorts of problems and opportunities:cyberwarfare is a revenue stream, a new business model, digital transformation with its own unique flavor but regardless of inexplicably unheeded warnings, (its) much worse than its ever been.Why?Simply because its the cheapest, easiest, fastest and most effective form of warfare weve ever seen, and because cyberwarfare defenses are more vulnerable than theyve ever been.

Tom Steinkopf, writing here,offered more predictions:

Hello, Is Anyone There?

So why do long lists of valid threats go unheeded and under-funded?As Ive reported here frequently, years ago, I assessed a huge enterprises vulnerability to cyberattacks.When my team finished its assessment, the results were downright scary.When I took the results to the CFO (to which technology weirdly reported), his only question was,whats all this going to cost me?,which of course was the wrong question.

Cyberwarfare is also inevitable because governments are reluctant to police themselves.Listen to what Andy Greenberg, writing inWired Magazinein 2019 said about why governments have been unwilling to deal with cyberthreats:

More fundamentally, governments haven't been willing to sign on to cyberwar limitation agreements because they don't want to limit their own freedom to launch cyberattacks at their enemies.America may be vulnerable to crippling cyberattacks carried out by its foes, but US leaders are still hesitant to hamstring Americas own NSA and Cyber Command, who are likely the most talented and well-resourced hackers in the world.

As usual, the US is the best, but in this case, it isnt.First,as Nicole Perlroth suggests, theres the hubris:

The hubris of American exceptionalism a myth of global superiority laid bare in Americas pandemic death toll is what got us here.We thought we could outsmart our enemies.More hacking, more offense, not better defense, was our answer to an increasingly virtual world order, even as we made ourselves more vulnerable, hooking up water treatment facilities, railways, thermostats and insulin pumps to the web, at a rate of 127 new devices per second.

But way back in 2016,Paul D. Shinkman suggested that America Is Losing the Cyber War:

Russia, China, Iran and North Korea routinely launch cyberattacks on civilian areas, hacking private companies or undermining foreign militaries, using online tools to manipulate information or digital propaganda to shape others' opinions, and employing digital mercenaries to do the work.

The Chinese military stole U.S. plans to the technically sophisticated F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, allowing Beijing to create the copycat J-31.Hackers with connect-ions to the Iranian government were charged earlier this year for attacks on U.S. banks and a dam in New York.North Korean operatives released a trove of damaging emails from Sony as the entertainment company planned to release a comedy with an unflattering portrayal of the country's leader.And Russia is widely suspected in a hack of the Democratic National Committee that could amount to a bid to undermine the integrity of the upcoming U.S. election the U.S., as of right now, is not fully prepared to match incidents like these.

John Donnelly and Gopal Ratnam, reporting forCQ-Roll Call, believe the US is Woefully Unprepared for Cyber-Warfare:

This inadequate attention is manifest in how infrequently U.S. leaders talk about cyber issues.On congressional defense committees, cyber is essentially an afterthought compared to weapons hardware and military pay and benefits.In the Senate Armed Services press release in May on its fiscal 2020 authorization bill, cyber was barely mentioned at the end.

Likewise, Bayer and his team found a dearth of cyber references in Navy leaders' speeches and a scarcity of cyber-related events on their calendars.

"You wouldn't even know that cyber is a Top 20 problem," he says.

Measured in dollars, cyber also does not stack up. Unclassified cyber spending across the federal government in fiscal 2020 budget request totals just over $17 billion, considerably more than it was a few short years ago, but that is only a bit more than 2% of the roughly $750 billion annual national defense budget.

Is Cyber Warfare the Last Competitive Advantage & Risk?

You bet it is.Theres not a government or company on the planet that can ignore cyberwarfare and cybersecurity.Everyone must developboth offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. Competitiveness depends upon digital security on every level.Without security, governments and companies cannot operate.Public companies are especially vulnerable because they have shareholders and (sometimes) responsible Boards of Directors looking after the shareholders. Not to mention the entire US infrastructure which whenever a break occurs its treated like a Black Swan event, not a pattern or a predictor of things to come. No, just an isolated event to which a response is uniquely crafted.

Even60 Minutesthinks SolarWinds was a big deal.On Sunday, July 4, 2021,60 Minutes examined the SolarWinds breach of government systems.The segment felt like a voice crying in the wilderness.As a professional in the field of business technology, I was stunned to hear descriptions of how the attack occurred and how trusted systems management software was used to breach and infect thousands of computers and the networks on which they run.But what stunned me the most was when one of the experts said the only way to guarantee that the virus is completelygone is to replaceallof the computers it touched.I was immediately reminded of the CFOs question:whats this all going to cost me?But then I remembered another axiom:pay me now or pay me later.Common sense?Obviously.Commonly shared sense?Not even close.If the SolarWinds breach is not enough to see massive increases in cybersecurity spending and fundamental changes in preparation and response protocols, theres nothing that will move CFOs to open their wallets or C-Suiters to about face in spite of how many times they assure their shareholders and customers that everything is under control (when its clearly not).

Whats It Going to Take?

Cyber warfare and cybersecurity are human challenges.Not in the traditional definition of human, but in the human inability toproactivelydeal with most anything.Individuals abuse their health even though they know that will pay later.Companies underinvest in infrastructure even though they know eventually they will have to pay later.How many times do floods occur in exactly the same place? Or why public transportation isnt there?Or why hospital beds, ventilators, masks and toilet paper cant be found when we need them most?Or why crisis management is an oxymoron?I wrote about that too:

How many companiespreparefor cyberbreaches, infrastructure failures, terrorist events, environment problems, sexual harassment lawsuits, product safety recalls, social media attacks, regulatory surprises and talent shortages, among lots of other events that everyone knows will occur.Yes, this costs money, but its cheaper to prepare than react in a state of chaos.Everyone knows that, right? Then why do so few companies invest in the inevitable?Companies should work from anticipatory playbooks, not reactionary debates over Zoom, Webex, Skype and Teams.But do they?Hardly any.

Way back in 2003by Mitroff and Alpaslan described a 20-year study about crisis preparedness:

For most of the two decades, crisis-prepared companies were in a small minority:between 5% and 25% of theFortune500 companies at most.In other words, at best, 75% of companies are not equipped to manage an unfamiliar crisis.At worst, 95% are unprepared, which, of course, is extremely worrying.

Much more recently, Butler, Menkes and Michel suggest:

Whether the original crisis is self-inflicted or caused by external events, lack of preparation almost always makes the outcome much worse.And only one in 10 companies is prepared only one in five companies had ever simulated what a crisis might look like, four in 10 had no plan at all, and 53 percent of companies struck by crisis did not regain their previous share price.

Worse:

Many executives at even well-managed companies secretly believe that they can work their way out of a crisis when the time comes without having a plan beforehand.As a result, they treat crisis preparation as a less-than-useful scenario-planning exercise that, if it must, can be conducted sporadically.

All this suggests theres no cybersecurity strategy good enough to win a cyberwar.Sure, everyone talks a good game, but the very structure of American (and other businesses around the globe) makes it nearly impossible to, for example, deliberately and significantly reduce EBITDA to prepare for cyber warfare.Only Congress can spend money trillions of dollars to prepare for wars the country will never fight.Thats because the government has no shareholders or Boards of Directors, just lobbyists. Companies simply cannot even if they actually have the money invest heavily preparing for crises whose occurrence are uncertain and infrequent, even if the crises are crippling.Once crises occur, of course, theres always money to fight the competition, the government and hackers, Russian and otherwise.CEOs love to talk about how effective theyre managing the crisis at hand, while shockingly no one ever asks why they didnt avoid the crisis in the first place or prepare adequately for the crisis before it arrived.

Another reason why60 Minutesstories like SolarWinds are only interesting, is because individual leaders almost always seek immediate tactical gratification, seldom long-term strategic success.Thats because corporate leaders too often optimize personal gratification over long-term corporate health since in all likelihood the leader will be gone in the long-term. Its the same reason why newly public company C-Suiters dump stock shortly after their IPO lockups expire.Personal rewards within the control of corporate leaders are usually maximized over long-term corporate rewards (which may have something to do withGordon Gekkos famous greed is good advice).

If, on the other hand, corporate boardsandshareholdersinsistthat management invest in cybersecurity and cyber warfare regardless of the impact on profitability or prices thingscould change,but only if the insistence is both positively and negatively incentivized:boards would have to pay C-Suiters to do the right thing or remove them if they failed to do what they ask.Thats the wakeup call they would take.Until then, we can expect more devastating cyberwars, more denials about whos to blame and more grandstanding about how well the wars are being managed.All that is also all too predictable.

See the article here:

Cyber Warfare Is The Last Competitive Advantage No One Sees & Why SolarWinds Is The Wakeup Call No One Heard. - Forbes

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

As a child, I was a fan of the books of Jan Terlouw.

I dreamt about the hero, Stach, who slew a dragon and escaped by jumping from the tallest church tower into a pile of pillows created by the cooperating townsfolk.

Today, I dream of a different kind of cooperation: EU-topia. A federal Europe where everyone has equal opportunities to realise their unique potential. Where we pursue the highest standards of human, social, environmental, and technological development together. A Europe that protects democracy and the rule of law.

Only Europeans that work together can overcome the challenges of the 21st century. That cooperation, however, is not yet possible because our European society is paralysed by the stranglehold of national politics.

The various measures that followed the COVID-19 crisis are exemplary of the Pavlovian reaction of nation-states in times of crisis: everyone for themselves. Instead of coordinating the response to a threat that by definition does not know borders, borders were closed unilaterally, export bans on medical goods were established, and European citizens had to deal with absurd variations in public health measures.

Although Europe has learned a lot in terms of fighting the pandemic in the last year, and there were some great examples of solidarity, later on, it reveals a pattern that was overly dominant in recent decades. When faced with complex challenges, nation-states think first and foremost of themselves.

Such was the case in the refugee crisis. Instead of replacing the existing inadequate European asylum policy with a system that would distribute the pressure among Member States, a number of EU countries closed their borders.

While some took responsibility, others refused out of xenophobia or a fear of losing votes. National politics dominates the solutions - or non-solutions - of international problems.

Jan Terlouw, who as well as writing children's adventure books is a former Dutch minister of economic affairs, put the problem aptly: "I hope (...) that these times will make us realise that we have to look more internationally. The problems are becoming more global, while politics does not go along with that at all".

Across Europe, history is taught in schools from a national perspective. Such a perspective focuses on 'our heroic nations past and forges an "us" versus "them" thinking that is incomplete and short-sighted. It does not teach that the nation-state is a relatively new construct, spurred on by the nationalism of the 19th and early 20th century.

It is assumed that the nation-state has gradually learned from its history and has decided in all its wisdom to slowly but surely cede more sovereignty to the European Union. A misconception has therefore crept into the collective memory: The European Union exists by the grace of the nation-states.

But recent European history reveals a different story. After the catastrophe of the Second World War, European leaders realised that they had to work towards a transnational Europe, not only to secure peace within Europe but also for geopolitical reasons. The fall of the Iron Curtain brought independence for eastern European states eager to shelter under the umbrella of the EU.

Across the continent European integration served to protect the nation-states, and it did so very effectively.

By allowing for local differences, shaping common bonds through cooperation and common arenas for political debates, the EU and its predecessors achieved a prolonged phase of peace and prosperity. So it is actually the other way round: the nation-state exists by the grace of the European Union.

Angela Merkel said when discussing the Franco-German proposal for a 500 billion EU recovery fund that the nation-state alone has no future, but, as shown repeatedly in recent years, there is no longer a shared idea about where Europe should go. European integration has stalled and the European Union is limping along.

Competences are divided and shared between the EU and nation-states in a way that utterly paralyses the European project. There is a European currency union, but no fiscal union and no European competence to levy taxes, leading to the accumulation of fiscal imbalances and inequality across member states.

There is freedom of services, but no equal social policy. There is freedom of movement, but your rights to vote do not move along with you across borders. There is a transnational European Parliament, but its parties are national.

The inconsequential nature of the EU makes Brussels an easy scapegoat and leads to irritation and misunderstanding. To move forward, however, Europe does not only need to be consequential in terms of fiscal integration and social policy, the EU needs a new story - a story of a pan-European democracy.

A pan-European democracy cannot exist without pan-European parties. The current set-up of the European Parliament is just as logical as a national democracy that only has local parties.

This is where Volt, a pan-European political party with members in every EU member state, comes in. Volt presented itself as a European party in the last European elections. Under the same name and with the same electoral programme, Volt participated in elections in eight EU countries.

Volt's ambition is to participate in local, regional and national elections in Europe. We already have local representatives in Germany, Italy and Bulgaria, members of the national parliament in the Netherlands, and one seat in the European Parliament. Volt wants to go beyond the "us and them" mentality and the limited national perspective, to put the collective European well-being first.

The lack of a European perspective in the national debate often causes people to blindly follow their government's position within Europe. How often do Dutch people hear that, in the eyes of Italians, they are stealing their tax money?

How often do Italians hear that their budget deficit could be largely reduced by addressing their black-market economy? How often do Austrians hear that their country is amongst the biggest net beneficiaries of the single market?

Every time, the answer is: almost never. Yet todays challenges have a European dimension that needs to be acknowledged in national discourse. The times where a Dutch Prime Minister says Italy is "geographically unlucky" to have to deal with the influx of refugees must come to an end.

De facto, Italy and the Netherlands along with all the other Member States of the EU share the responsibility of dealing with the challenges of the 21st century. That is why a European perspective in national debates is important.

When asked whether we are capable of change, Jan Terlouw, referring back to the comment that politics must become more global, replied:

"As a politician, I say that it remains to be seen whether politics will have the courage to seize the opportunity."

The greatest changes take place in the context of crises. The world is getting smaller, the problems are cross-border and the solutions must be sought together, in Europe and beyond.

National politics is a dead end. We need more European parties. Therefore, my appeal to the reader is to join or start a pan-European party, or encourage your political party to truly merge with like minded parties in other countries.

A political European space needs a variety of European parties representing all visions and ideas for a common European democracy that are present in our societies, let it be socioliberal, conservative, more leftist, or ecologist visions.

Only then can we free ourselves from the stranglehold of national politics. Only then can we say goodbye to the flaws in the current EU that gives ammunition to the - sometimes very justified - criticism of Eurosceptics. Only then, we can find in true democratic competition the right solutions for the challenges on our continent.

I am sure there are countless obstacles. A thousand reasons not to do it, but things always seem impossible until they're done.

Do you, like Stach on the edge of the tallest church tower, have the courage to take the plunge?

See original here:

Pan-European politics: The EU 'needs a new story' to help solve its problems - Euronews