The Reason Review—April 2017
It’s election time in Europe again! On both sides of the Channel candidates are steeling themselves to battle for the hearts and minds of their citizens. While France’s election appears a close contest between far-right and centre-left, in the UK the story is quite different; many assume the election result to be a foregone conclusion, after which we usher in another five years of Conservative rule.
While we can’t say for certain what the outcomes of either race will be, we can guarantee that this month’s Reason Review also includes a whale packed with plastic, an angry letter from oceanographers, the privatisation of one of the UK’s most prolific environmental enterprises and fresh drama in North Korea. We hope you’re sitting down…
Electioneering
When reports began to circulate that Theresa May would make an unscheduled statement around 11am on Tuesday 18th of April, pundits were quick to suggest that the PM would call for a snap general election. And, despite repeatedly claiming that she wouldn’t be calling an election before 2020, Prime Minister May did just that.
Naturally, opinions on this political maneuver varied. Some called it a “genius” move which could “strengthen [her] hand in her negotiations with Brussels,” while detractors have claimed it indicative of a “soft megalomania” on May’s part, whose real aim is to diminish opposition voices, and minimise any dissent surrounding Tory governance.
There is less variety to be found however, when it comes to predicting the outcome of the election. Across the media, indeed the country, there’s a general consensus that the Tories will win, and comfortably so. The only question is, by how much? In response, staunch opponents of the Conservatives—as well as neutrals committed to seeing a healthy opposition — have advocated for “tactical voting” in the hopes of averting a landslide victory for a party looking to implement controversial policies.
But if the past year has taught us anything at all, it’s that nothing in politics is certain. The Lib Dems and the Green party appear to be promising second referendums; Labour have seen surprise gains in the polls despite recent gaffes and Corbyn’s apparent ‘inability’ to lead; and Prime Minister May continues to display a lack of tact in Brexit negotiations—Jean-Claude Juncker was less than complimentary about the PM and her vision of a post-Brexit Britain.
Regardless of where you might fall on the political spectrum, the 2017 General Election is shaping up to be an interesting race indeed.
Is Le Pen Mightier than Macron?
As election fever begins to take hold of the UK, France is in the midst of its own General Election — the result of which will have just as profound an impact on the face of Europe as Britain’s.
Already in its second and final round, the French electorate have been presented with two candidates to choose from: former investment banker, senior civil servant and Centrist Emmanuel Macron, and far-right firebrand Marine Le Pen — former president of the Front National and granddaughter of FN founder Jean-Marie Le Pen. According to recent polls Macron looks set to win by a margin of around 30 points; but as we not know all too well, polls have a knack for missing the mark.
Le Pen has styled herself as the anti-establishment “candidate of the people”. Tough on immigration — as you’d expected from a former FN president — against “the reign of big money” and decidedly against the EU, Ms Le Pen’s platform reflects the rapid ascent and rising popularity of protectionist policies and nationalist rhetoric sweeping across the west.
Move closer to the centre and you’ll find Emmanuel Macron: A “progressive” amongst conservatives, former member of Hollande’s government, and a passionate believer in reforming and strengthening the EU. While opposed to Le Pen’s proposal to drastically cut immigration and restrict nationality rights, he is a staunch proponent of secular values, and wants to beef up border security.
The two candidates have drastically different visions for France, but regardless of who triumphs, come the May 7, Europe is set to undergo yet another seismic shift.
Bayer’s Ban
On April 28, German chemical giant Bayer was successful in its court battle to ban protesters from demonstrating outside its AGM, on the basis that their presence might constitute a “terrorist threat.” The protests at the World Conference Centre in Bonn, Germany, were intended to challenge Bayer’s continued production of products containing Glyphosate, a chemical known to be carcinogenic, and their use of neonicotinoids, proven to cause continued damage to bee colonies.
“In the preparations for the event a comprehensive analysis of the danger was carried out,” read court documents from the case. “The measures taken are necessary on the one hand, in order to ensure a proper course of action and prevent disturbances and crimes, such as housebreak and injustice. Independent of this, they are also justified on the basis of the current terrorist threat situation and the defence of targeted massive business damage.”
The “terrorist threat situation” refers to a recent spate of attacks across the country, particularly a pair of brutal machete and axe attacks in Dusseldorf in March. Likewise the “defence of targeted massive business damage” may refer to a bomb attack carried out against a Monsanto research centre in Italy on April 16.
Both corporations have found themselves in the media spotlight a great deal over the past 12 months, following the announcement of their planned merger. A deal was rumoured in early 2016, but both parties finally confirmed their plans in September of the same year. The merger has been criticised as an effective monopolisation of the global food and agrochemical markets, but both parties insist it is not their “plan or our ambition or our intent to prevent farmers from having choice.”
Green Bank Buyout
In 2012 the coalition government founded the Green Investment Bank (GIB) to attract private funds for investment in environmental preservation and improvement. Until now it has been the driving force behind Britain’s creation of offshore wind farms, a sector in which the nation is now a world leader. But since late 2016 the Conservative government has been considering offers for a private buyout of the bank.
In April it was confirmed that Australian investment bank Maquarie would buy GIB from the state in a deal worth some £2.3 billion. Though the deal has been in the negotiation stages since late 2016 and was expected to be confirmed in January, it has faced strong bipartisan opposition amid fears that Maquarie will asset strip the bank—the GIB was divided into 14 different companies in the lead up to the sale, usually a portent of future asset stripping. The deal has since been rushed through to ensure it cannot be further delayed by the general election and compromised by the terms of purdah.
Maquarie is a divisive choice for the sale given their heavy investment in the fossil fuel industry and history of asset stripping the companies it acquires. In 2006 it purchased Thames Water, which has since paid huge dividends to shareholders, run down its company capital and paid negligible amounts of tax in the UK. It then sold its 26% share for £1.35 billion in March of this year. But Maquarie has insisted that it only plans to split, not strip, the bank once it takes ownership — an assurance that affords little optimism for Green Party leader Caroline Lucas.
“Even if we were to trust Macquarie’s intentions with regards the Green Investment Bank — and their track-record remains deeply alarming — there are serious concerns about the lack of safeguards that will protect the future of the GIB as an enduring funder of the low-carbon economy,” she said in a statement to Bloomberg.
This is not the only example of the government selling state bodies to private companies. It is currently looking for investors to buy large chunks of student loan debt while increasing interest rates and tuition fees for both current and recent students.
Oceanographer’s Open Letter
On April 18 a group of 25 oceanographers wrote an open letter in i requesting that supermarkets curb the use of plastic packaging in their stores and, as an initial measure, introduce an aisle that only sells products packaged in biodegradable materials.
“Sir,” opens the letter, “a whale washed up off the coast of Bergen, Norway, earlier this year was found to have died as a result of the sheer volume of plastic clogging up its stomach. The world’s oceans are brimming with litter, and the rubbish patch is set to grow rapidly in the decades ahead. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation forecasts that there will be more plastic than fish in global seas by 2050.”
Unusually, the letter also calls out recycling as being a false solution to the problem of plastic waste. “Recycling is often heralded as the answer to the pollution problem, yet every piece of plastic ever made — unless it has been burned — still exists. Despite increasing rates of recycling in the UK the vast majority of the 300 million tons of plastic produced globally each year remains unrecyclable.
“A blanket ban on plastic packaging is unrealistic, although a cultural shift away from plastic to biodegradable packaging is achievable with the support of UK plc. Britain’s supermarket chains have made some progress in recent years on nudging consumers away from plastic bags, but could still do much more to stem the tide of ocean pollution.”
The letter points to activist organisation A Plastic Planet, who aim to empower consumers to reject goods packaged in plastic, and encourage producers to find alternative packaging solutions.
Chemical violence in Syria
At least 89 people were killed and a further 541 were injured in an apparent chemical weapons attack upon Khan Sheikoun, a rebel-held town in northwest Syria.
Witnesses report that, in the early hours of Tuesday April 4, an aircraft dropped a bomb onto a single storey building, with the resulting explosion creating a mushroom cloud of thick yellow gas. Those who inhaled the gas, including many who rushed to the site to help after the initial blast, suffered symptoms consistent with Sarin gas poisoning. Subsequent tests by The Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons proved that the victims had been exposed to Sarin or a similar substance.
The attack was immediately condemned by western political leaders and human rights organisations alike, holding Bashar al-Assad’s government accountable — a claim immediately denied by the Syrian military and by al-Assad himself, who dismissed the attack as “a fabrication”. Meanwhile Russia, al-Assad’s ally in the civil war, suggested that Syrian planes may have hit a warehouse containing chemical weapons belonging to the rebels. Vladimir Putin later claimed that the attack was a rebel-mounted false flag operation.
Among those who rejected these alternate theories was President Trump, who swiftly reacted by authorising a major airstrike against Al Shayrat airfield — the Syrian military base thought to be the origin of the chemical attack, according to US intelligence. The airfield was targeted with 59 Tomahawk missiles, resulting in a further six deaths as the base was wiped off the map.
While the attack was described by US officials as “a one-off” rather than the start of a bombing campaign, Trump’s retaliation nonetheless represents a shift in foreign policy. As The Guardian reports, the Trump’s administration has changed its stance many times in recent weeks, offering five different policies over the space of a fortnight.
One month on from the attack, the Human Rights Watch has alleged that the use of chemical weapons in Syria has become “widespread and systematic.”
Un’s More Into the Nuclear Breach
Nuclear war didn’t quite break out on the Korean peninsula in April, but that didn’t stop the prospect from seeming worryingly close at times.
Tension started to brew early in the month as North Korea test-fired a medium-range ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan, launching from Sinpo, a port on the country’s eastern coast. The launch took place just before Chinese President Xi Jinping flew to the US to meet with Donald Trump. In a subsequent series of tweets, Trump announced that the reclusive nation had been a major topic of conversation during their summit.
“I explained to the President of China that a trade deal with the US will be far better for them if they solve the North Korean problem!” he proclaimed, before ominously adding, “North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them!”
Many pundits predicted that North Korea would attempt another launch — perhaps even a nuclear test — on April 15, to commemorate the birthday of nation founder Kim il-Sung. To mark this happy occasion, the US responded by sending a significant naval force to the Korean peninsula, where it was soon joined by several Japanese warships.
In the final event, North Korea did fire an unidentified missile from Sinpo, but it exploded almost immediately after launch. Later in the month, another test missile broke apart after being fired from Pukchang airfield.
But while the missiles suffered technical issues, this had little impact on the rhetoric flying back and forth from both sides. North Korea has loudly asserted its right to defend itself, threatening nearby Australia to stay out of the current stand-off. Meanwhile, the US is reportedly considering ways to shoot down airborne nuclear missiles, while Trump remains worryingly ambivalent about the prospect of military action.
For now, happily, the world keeps turning.
Weapons of Reason issue #4: Power, is available to order now.
