The Reason Review — March 2017
We’ll level with you; in 2017 it’s pretty hard to keep up with the global news cycle, particularly when developments in the US, UK and Europe are coming as thick and fast as they have in March. No sooner have executive orders been written than they are quashed and abandoned, key budget legislation is scrapped in mere days, and threatening right-wing parties rise up and then collapse, perhaps for good. All this in just a small corner of the globe.
All of which is to say that this month’s Reason Review is by no means exhaustive, but offers some analysis of a handful of major developments, as well as uncovering a few things you might have missed.
Pesky Pesticides
Unless you’re a dedicated pursuer of organic produce, you’ve probably made peace with the fact that your shop-bought fruit and veg have been perfumed with chemicals. This, we tell ourselves, is a necessary evil — an essential way for farmers to protect their crops from insect pests.
That’s certainly the narrative spun by the global pesticide industry, valued at $50bn (£41bn). Earth’s population is set to swell to 9 billion by 2050, and chemical manufacturers argue that their insect-killing wares are vital for maintaining the agricultural output to support this increased demand. But according to a report published by the UN Human Rights Council this month, this claim is a load of old rhubarb.
“Using more pesticides is nothing to do with getting rid of hunger,” said Hilal Elve, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food, speaking to The Guardian. “According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are able to feed 9 billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.”
Indeed, contrary to the claims of the sector, pesticides have “catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole” and are responsible for an estimated 200,000 deaths each year, via acute poisoning. Exposure to pesticides has also been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, as well as hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.
The report concludes: “Scientific research confirms the adverse effects of pesticides, proving a definitive link between exposure and human diseases or conditions or harm to the ecosystem presents a considerable challenge. This challenge has been exacerbated by a systematic denial, fuelled by the pesticide and agro-industry, of the magnitude of the damage inflicted by these chemicals, and aggressive, unethical marketing tactics.”
In more positive pesticide news, the Europe Commission is considering a total ban on insecticides across Europe, in an effort to protect the dwindling bee population.
Tax Fiasco
March has not been an easy month for the much-maligned Leader of the Opposition. In the early days of the month Corbyn was dragged into a pseudo-scandal surrounding his tax returns, and though it’s now evident that he did nothing wrong, the furore of the initial reports have done little to assuage doubts about his ability to lead the Labour Party.
Events were set in motion when, in an effort to be more transparent in his affairs and to put pressure on other political leaders, Corbyn published his tax returns for 2015–16 on his website. The documents showed a total income of £114,342, on which he paid £35,298 in tax. Questions were raised as to the apparent absence of a sum of around £40,000 that Corbyn would have received due to his role as Leader of the Opposition. Media outlets and political commentators pounced on this apparent lapse, “without verifying or confirming the facts” according to a Corbyn spokesman.
A spokeswoman for Corbyn added that this opposition leader’s pay had been counted under his ‘benefits’ figure, which was also around the £40,000 mark, and that his tax return was “complete and accurate” and in accordance with HMRC guidelines. Corbyn’s office hit out against “media barons” who have “tax questions of their own to answer” for the apparent skewed coverage of this story. Indeed, skeptics might take this most recent witchhunt as yet further evidence of the press’ supposed opposition to Corbyn.
Bugged Out
It’s certainly expected that stories about the President of the United States come regularly. The news events revolving around the Trump administration however are markedly different from what we have become accustomed to, and this month’s ‘wiretapping’ scandal is no exception. Since Trump first tweeted that “Obama had ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower” there’s been a flurry of media activity — from the White House and beyond — attempting to clarify his accusation and get to the bottom of the issue.
The previous administration immediately responded, stating that no “White House official under Obama ever ordered surveillance of any U.S. citizen”. Trump’s tweetstorm showed no signs of slowing down however; armed with two thumbs and 140 characters he pushed to make this a story worthy of a ‘gate’ suffix. Things took yet another dramatic turn when Press Secretary Sean Spicer seemed to intimate that GCHQ, the British intelligence agency, had a hand in these surveillance operations. GCHQ was quick to throw its two pennies in and promptly dismissed these claims as “utterly ridiculous” and “nonsense”.
The theatre of the Trump administration, an administration still in its first act, is as gripping and controversial as ever. However, as off-the-wall as these recent claims seem to be, they have brought the issue of privacy in America back to the forefront. The country is still reeling from Snowden’s 2013 revelations around the PRISM surveillance programme — and with FBI director James Comey stating that “There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America” as well as growing fears around smartphone and smart TV hacks, individual freedoms in the ‘land of the free’ have never felt so fragile.
Repeal and Replace
Alongside “build that wall,” “repeal and replace” was a key message repeated by President Trump on his campaign trail — a solemn pledge to bring an end to the healthcare coverage of some 22 million poorer Americans under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. “Obamacare” as it was dubbed by the Republicans, represents ideological anathema for the GOP, who fiercely oppose the intervention of the state in any domain in which private companies prevail.
Since Trump took office in January, repealing the ACA has been high on his list of priorities. “Obamacare is collapsing — and we must act decisively to protect all Americans,” Trump said in Congress. “Action is not a choice — it is a necessity. So I am calling on all Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to work with us to save Americans from this imploding Obamacare disaster.”
In spite of this being a key policy and the Republican party’s dominance over the White House and both houses of Congress, on March 24, Trump categorically failed to repeal the ACA. Trump’s administration were unable to get The American Health Care Act through the Congress largely due to a lack of support from both moderate and conservative Republicans, and the realisation of even hardline conservatives that Trump’s hastily-planned alternative would have a negative impact on many of their constituents. For a bill that proposed to shrink Medicaid by 25% over a decade and offered tax breaks to the rich, it seems an obvious conclusion.
As ever Trump was gracious in defeat, saying “I’ve been saying for the last year and a half that the best thing we can do politically speaking is let Obamacare explode — it is exploding right now.
“A lot of people don’t realise how good our bill was because they were only viewing phase one, but if you look at phase two and you add phase three, it’s really a very good bill. Premiums would have gone down and it would have been very stable. It would have been very strong, but that’s okay… I think the real losers here are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer because now they own Obamacare.”
Having celebrated the demise of the repeal bill last Friday, Democrats have since been warned that the war on Obamacare is far from over. “Their celebration is premature,” said House Republican whip, Steve Scales of Louisiana. “I think we’re closer today to repealing Obamacare than we’ve ever been before, and surely even closer than we were Friday.”
An Enemy Within
On March 22, 52-year-old British citizen Khalid Masood drove a car into pedestrians crossing Westminster Bridge, injuring 50 and killing three. From there he ran into New Palace Yards in front of the Palace of Westminster, and fatally stabbed an unarmed police officer. He was shot by an armed policeman and died less than an hour later.
Since then many column inches have been dedicated to dissecting the making of this murderer, to the extent that Masood became a fetish object in the mainstream media, at least for a few days. But what Masood’s senseless attack really exposed was how quickly the MSM and right-wing politicians now jump to conclusions about the motives behind a terrorist attack, using them to support their own agenda.
Shortly after the incident, police stated, without evidence, that Masood had an interest in jihad, although it was later revealed he had no links with any known terrorist organisation. The following morning in the US, Nigel Farage appeared on Fox News to make the case for tightening immigration restrictions, even though Masood was British born.
“Frankly, all those people out protesting in Fifth Avenue in New York and elsewhere need to have a good, long hard think about what they are doing,” he said in an interview with Sean Hannity. “…If you open your door to uncontrolled immigration from Middle Eastern countries, you are inviting in terrorism.”
Farage has since had to admit that the attack had nothing at all to do with immigration, but refused to apologise for making the link in his Fox appearance. “The point is that there are lots of terror attacks taking place across Europe,” he said, “and many of them are people who literally just arrived. Now that’s a bigger problem for France and Belgium than it is for us… but we still have to be on our guard.”
Brexit Meant Brexit
“Where were you when Article 50 was triggered?” is a question we may all be asking ourselves for years to come, although hopefully we’ll have better things to do. Either way March 29 2017 will go down in history as the day the UK officially began the process of divorcing itself from the EU. For over nine months the British government has been getting its house in order to establish the terms under which negotiations will take place. Prime Minister Theresa May has twice attempted to bypass the House of Commons in the negotiation process, blocking them from their democratic duty to vote on new legislation.
But in triggering Article 50 May abandons all semblance of control over the process, and puts Brussels in the driving seat when it comes to the agreement of terms. In a letter conveyed to European Council President Donald Tusk, May set out “the … deep and special partnership we hope to enjoy — as your closest friend and neighbour — with the European Union once we leave.” Which all sounds friendly enough, although her tone changes markedly as the letter progresses.
“We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values,” she continues, “leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats … We therefore believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union.”
Crucially though, even these veiled threats to Tusk cannot mask the fact that the EU is capable of punishing the UK for its transgressions, and perhaps will need to do so as a warning to other EU member states not to rattle the EU cage. With right-wing populism growing in support across the continent, this is a major concern for the Commission.
In response, Tusk said, “paradoxically there is also something positive in Brexit. Brexit has made us, the community of 27, more determined and more united than before. I am fully confident of this, especially after the Rome declaration, and today I can say that we will remain determined and united also in the future, also during the difficult negotiations ahead.
“This means that both I and the Commission have a strong mandate to protect the interests of the 27.”
Weapons of Reason issue #4: Power, is available to order now.
