On the Death Penalty

In the early hours of Thursday last Troy Davis was executed by the US State of Georgia by lethal injection. He had spent 16 years on death row, throughout which time he protested his innocence. All but two non-police witnesses have withdrawn their testimonies since his conviction, many of them citing coercion on the part of the police to ensure Davis’ conviction. One of the two remaining witnesses is the alternate chief suspect who is implicated by 9 separate witnesses’ affidavits. The case for Davis’ conviction was also completely devoid of any physical evidence.

Now, I am no legal expert nor do I claim to have any particularly unique knowledge of this or any other legal case. However, one of the most integral principals of any Democracy based on Rule of Law is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The issues with evidence Davis’ conviction raised above would seem enough to cast considerable doubt as to Davis’ guilt, certainly enough to warrant clemency of execution.

Davis is dead now. The US State of Georgia killed him. There is no going back on that decision. No future revelations will make any difference now that the ultimate punishment has been dealt. That a man can be sent to his death by a modern, democratic state on seemingly questionable evidence, all the while adamantly protesting his innocence seems bizarre, if not barbaric.

The Troy Davis case, if nothing else, raises serious questions about the use of the death penalty by any state and has added credence to the many advocates calling for its abolition.

An individual is only justified in the taking of a life in cases of self defence. Otherwise, they are deemed “murderer”, the most heinous form of criminal. Should not a similar moral code apply to a state? The killing of a convict is not in self defence; it is an act of revenge, of punishment, of a twisted justice.
What kind of message does a government that kills its own citizens in pursuit of “justice” send out? Violence begets violence, begets violence. It legitimates violence as a valid form of pursuing justice.

130 people have been released from Death Row in the US following their eventual proving of their innocence. How many were not so lucky? The Northwestern University School of Law Center on Wrongful Convictions has found there to be at least 39 cases where executions have taken place in the US with serious doubts about guilt or with compelling evidence of innocence. Surely the Troy Davis case moves this to 40.
It is as important for a legal system to ensure that no innocent people are punished as to ensure that the guilty are brought to justice. The death penalty simply does not conform to this norm of the Rule of Law. It is a cruel, irreversible punishment on behalf of a state. It is also an ineffective form of punishment.

For one it is tremendously expensive. True, the actually cost of execution is not that much as compared to paying for a convicts stay in prison for years and years. However, any state with even a smattering of respect for the Rule of Law and the principle of “innocence until proven guilty” has a lengthy and incredibly expensive appeals process that dwarfs the expense of keeping a convict in prison.

It is also an ineffective form of deterrent. True, it is better in this regard than the alternative offered by states such as Ireland and the United Kingdom where the death penalty has been replaced by ever dwindling prison sentences where a killer being released in under a decade is a fairly common event.

In Canada, however, the death penalty has been replaced by prison sentencing where “life means life”. Capital murder resulting in a mandatory 25 years in prison. Here, murder rates have seen a steady decline since the abolition of the death penalty in 1976. The rate of conviction for murder has also been doubled to 20% as juries are much more comfortable casting judgement when their decision will not result in the killing of the convicted.

The death penalty is a barbaric throwback to a less civilised, more violent world. It is time to move on and the European Union should take the lead in promoting the norm already established internally that the death penalty is just plain wrong.

First published in:
Issue 1 68th International Conference Paper of the European Youth Parliament in Zagreb

Other version published in Trinity News, 4 October 2011

What Are We Talking About?

It has become apparent to the global community that a globe spanning treaty to both combat and adapt to Climate Change is necessary for our collective future. However, a conclusive, effective agreement has proved elusive, to say the least.

Huge time and resources have been spent in negotiations on the subject. Massive summits of global leaders have been called in Kyoto, Copenhagen and Cancun (to name only the most prominent) and yet, climate change continues unabated.

The agreements usually fall on the issue of how to share the burden between the developed and developing world. Developed countries argue that they are already doing their bit to reduce their emissions of fossil fuels and point out that even if they reduced such emissions to virtually zero, if the developing world’s emissions rise as predicted, it will not be enough and global emissions will still rise.

As China and India are poised to overtake the US as the world’s largest polluters and South American and African countries set to quickly catch up, it is apparent that it is in the developing world that efforts must be concentrated to combat climate change.

However, as leaders of developing countries ranging from Brazil to India are quick to point out, to put the burden on their shoulders is hardly unfair. Their economies are still developing and expanding and their populations are increasing; aall causal factors in increasing the emission of greenhouse gases. It’s easy for the developed world with dwindling populations and loads of money to develop in sustainable energy but as long as coal, gas and other fossil fuels remain the cheapest energy sources, economic development will continue to lead to higher emissions. It is not fair of the developed world to expect the rest to curb their own economic growth when they themselves have been heavy polluters for so long and done far more than their fair share of environmental damage already.

The developed world and its major economies need to take this on board and commit to aiding the developing world to develop sustainable into economies. Like democracy and human rights, the development of sustainable energy sources and the reduction of carbon emissions should become essential components of any bilateral and multilateral trade deals between the developed and developing nations.

The developing world should begin to fund development projects that promote the necessary infrastructure for the development of green economies across the developing world. They must provide the necessary assistance so that the developing world’s economies can develop in an environmentally friendly and sustainable fashion.

They must also take not of specific circumstance and realise that a broad sweeping, elegant solution is likely not possible. For example, Brazil is one of the world’s biggest contributors to climate change. However, its energy sources are incredibly environmentally friendly and put most of the rest of the world to shame. It is Brazil’s vast deforestation that must stop for a sustainable global environment to come about.

Hopefully, next time around the developed world take on board the reasonable concerns of the developing regions of our planet and come to appreciate the intricacies that will be involved in any successful agreement. Hopefully, they do this and together we can put in place a framework to combat climate change and adapt successfully for the future.

Originally published in:
Green Piece, Issue 2 (p.17)

Official paper of the European Youth Summit on Climate Change and Adaption Strategies, Friedrichshafen, August 2011

Climate At Its Extreme

One of the more pressing concerns raised by climate change is its effect on extreme weather conditions. Extremes in levels of precipitation levels and in terms of high temperatures can have devastating consequences on human life.

According studies launched on behalf of the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety committee in 2005, if unchecked, climate change will result in severe heat waves such as the one that swept Europe in occurring almost every second year. We have seen hurricane intensity increase by 70%, terrible floods sweep European plains and severe droughts are now 75% more likely, due to human influence.

The WHO has verified over 22,000 deaths as a result of the 2003 heat wave. 2005, the year of the EU study, had seen 26 tropical storms in the region, 14 of which went on to become hurricanes and 4 of these reached the United States of America. All of these figures are records for European storms and one of the hurricanes, Wilma, reached the highest intensity level ever recorded. Storms causing €1 billion or more in damages are now to be expected every 2-3 years. We have seen a marked increase in extreme rainfall events and, on the other end of the spectrum, the world area suffering from drought has doubled since the 1970s to include much of southern Europe.

All these indicators show that action needs to be taken.

Such action must be two pronged. The ENVI committee here at Lake Constance must come up with innovative ways for Europe to deal with natural disasters and extreme weather conditions as they happen while also working to reduce the liklihood of their occurrence (or at least prevent an increase in such a probability).

I look forward to seeing what they come up with.

Originally published in:
Green Piece, Issue 2 (p.4)

Official paper of the European Youth Summit on Climate Change and Adaption Strategies, Friedrichshafen, August 2011

Stop Lying!

A Populous poll of 1,000 people in the UK revealed that 1 in 4 did not believe that climate change was taking place. This is despite numerous, rather rigorous, studies from the foremost authorities on the issue which demonstrate that climate change is a fact that we must face. It is clear from numerous scientific studies that global temperatures are rising and are doing so at an ever increasing rate.

We (I am referring to the other 75% who are here in Friedrichshafen to offer solutions to a problem we know we must address) dismiss the “sceptics”, the “deniers” as “loonies”, “crazies”, “cranks”. We consider them enemies of science, of progress. Their view flies in the face of reason and the conclusions of scientific research, a form of research that is, in many ways, the pinnacle of human reason.

However, I think we are wrong to do so.

A much more telling poll was recently conducted by the Gallup polling agency reveals that a staggering 48% of Americans believe that claims regarding climate change by the scientific community are “generally exaggerated”. They are not necessarily wrong.

Al Gore came to global prominence (or more precisely regained global prominence) in his efforts to spread the message of the ills of climate change chiefly through his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth. This film helped shape a growing consensus behind the validity of the threat posed by global
warming, bringing to light the evidence of countless scientists.

The real inconvenient truth that we need to realise is that this consensus is largely based on lies, falsifications, exaggerations and pseudo science.

People don’t like being duped. They hate being lied to. Yet, in their arrogance, this is what the people that we label the “scientific” community have been doing. We were lied to about the rate that temperatures are rising (numerous IPCC reports). We were lied to about the number of freak weather incidents afflicting us (Webster et al. Science Magazine, 2005). We were shown graphs skewed to fit the propaganda exercise (Mr Gore’s infamous” hockey stick” graph).

The public would be too stupid to react quick enough to the facts as they were, or so these “experts” said. They needed to be sold a fabrication to react with the necessary rapidity.

And oh, how we are all now paying for the arrogance of these individuals. The old adage goes “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. Once lied to once by the “scientific” community, the words of scientists are now taken with a pinch of salt. Now, when consensus is required more than ever to combat the real problems of climate change, it is weakening. Skepticism is on the rise.

We need to have faith in humanity. The truth is shocking enough. No more lies. No more exaggeration, just the plain, honest-to-God, truth. That is the only way public trust can once again be forged into the consensus necessary to save the pale blue planet. Let’s just hope it happens before it is too late.

Originally published in:
Green Piece, Issue 1 (pp. 6-7)

Official paper of the European Youth Summit on Climate Change and Adaption Strategies, Friedrichshafen, August 2011

GOP Primary Debate: New Hampshire

I have just watched the June 13th New Hampshire GOP Primary debates between the 7 current candidates to become GOP presidential nominee for the 2012 US Presidential Election. What follows if a snappy paragraph on each of them and what I think think of their performance in the debate and my conclusions on the debate as a whole.

Rick Santorum

Opened very weakly and did not seem at all comfortable dealing with the economy. Endorsed Paul Ryan’s proposals stronger than he did his own campaign for much of the debate. He did, however, come to light on social issues setting himself up as a leader for the implementation of a definitively conservative agenda.

Jobs are going to be at the heart of this campaign, jobs and the economy. If he does not start coming across stronger on economic issues, Santorum stands no chance. He certainly came across strongest in terms of the social conservative agenda which may win him a certain amount of support amongst Republicans, however, it does make his ability to win over America’s moderates questionable at best. Certainly few Democrats will be rushing over to support Santorum for president after this debate.

Michelle Bachmann

Came across well. Emphasised committment to family values and was able to get across her care for 23 foster children on a number of occasions. Set out a consistent stance of repealing basically the entirity of Obama’s legislative record.

This performance puts Bachmann down as a credible candidate in the election. Her strong ties to the Tea Party may be a boost in the primaries along with her committment to family values. She is very much the candidate for those who oppose everything Obama stands for. Would be polarising in the national campaign but combining all the positives of Palin as a candidate with articulate ideas and brains, Bachmann is one to watch out for.

Newt Gingrich

I’m not hugely impressed. Admittedly, he was the one candidate of whom I had a very negative view before he started speaking. In fairness, he did tackle the issues reasonably well but failed entirely to differentiate (even on Foreign Policy where others succeeded). Also never really came across as presidential material. Seems to lack a certain charismatic quality or gravitas.

Mitt Romney

The same could not be said for Romney. He was, by far, the most presidential seeming of all the candidates on the stage. He dealt with all the questions reasonably well and in a field lacking seriously in differentiation between candidates, Romney benefits hugely as the supposed runner up in 2008.

I’m not madly impressed myself in that regarding social issues and foreign policy Romney seems very much willing to go with the flow and say what is popular. Same could possibly be said regarding Romneycare versus Obamacare. However, he was by far the most confidant dealing with the economic issues and it is there that the campaign will be fought.

Tim Pawlenty

I was disappointed with Pawlenty’s performance. He was far too focused on jumping atop the bandwagon and railing against Obama. Most unimpressively he backtracked on criticism of Romney of what he termed “Obamneycare”.

Romney is currently leading the field. If someone else is to get the nomination they have to beat him, to challenge him. Failure to do so seriously damaged Pawlenty’s chances.

There seems to be potential in this candidate. On foreign policy he was strong, going against the grain with a strong, interventionist stance. He also offered glimpses of innovation, talking about his own solutions regarding Medicare and about government protecting people of faith.

Pawlenty could be a decent candidate but will not be long in the race if there are repeats of this debate performance.

Ron Paul

Was by far the most ideological of candidates. However, what came across was that for all his ideology, in terms of actual policy on the issues raised, Ron Paul did not break with the general consensus. His libertarian credentials seem somewhat weakened when he conforms to the conservative consensus on marriage, abortion and “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. It does not seem consistent.

His adamant non interventionist stance came through a lot and served to differentiate him somewhat. He also performed well coming across confidantly but also connected with the audience. However, didn’t come across anywhere near as maverick as could have been expected.

Herman Cain

I was actually somewhat impressed. I can’t see him getting the nod though as there is no concrete reason to vote for him over any other candidate and he lack political experience. In fairness to him, he dealt with the questions as well as any of his rivals and came across with some decent points.

His political naivety was most apparent, however, when he was challenged about his supposed discomfort in having a muslim in his cabinet. The impression I got was not that he is bigotted but he dealt terribly with the original interview and the view of Herman Cain as anti-Muslim will stick and will damage him. Also, chances of further slip ups seem more than possible.

Little to no chance of getting the nominee but I think he brings something to the campaign. His input as an outsider to the political process is, I think, a positive.

Conclusion

I think that the most profound and revealing line of the debate was Herman Cain’s. He said “we’re not all that far apart on all the big issues”. He could say that again.

There was a remarkable conformity of views across the candidates in the debate. A huge emphasis on states’ rights, opposition to advancement of gay rights, opposition to Obamacare opposition to abortion, strong stances on tackling illegal immigrants and general vilification for the sitting president of the US were common to all. There was some differentiation on foreign policy but even there an move away from interventionism was apparent. The consensus was so string that candidates were unwilling to even challenge each other which seems ridiculous considering that they’re competing for the same nomination.

If the field remains as is (which it won’t with Huntsman entering the fray in the next few days and others such as Rick Perry considering a run) Romney will walk away with it. Without a willingness to challenge him and without differentiation, there is no good reason for Republicans to turn to another candidate over Romney and in any case, in terms of appearence and presentation, Romney seemed the most presidential. He looked like a president in waiting and seemed ready to take teh fight to Obama at a moment’s notice.

Hopefully we will see the entrance of a few more candidate into the fray to spice things up, hopefully breaking with the consensus apparent currently amongst the candidates. Personally I am disappointed that we are not seeing the emergence of any Republicans of a more Rockefeller vein. A bit of social liberalism in the field would be nice.

Anyway at present I am predicting Romney to get the nomination and to lose to Obama. I also think that this would be my preferred outcome barring the emergence of a new, strong Republican candidate which would throw any predictions out the window.

Reflections on the Middle East

The recent death of Osama Bin Laden has brought the Middle East and questions about the West’s involvement therein into bold relief. What is the current status on the “War on Terror”, why are the US and their allies still in Afghanistan and Iraq and what are we, in the West, to make of what we are now calling the “Arab Tide”?

The killing of Osama Bin Laden is a most significant event. For almost a decade he has made a mockery out of the US’ “War on Terror” through his continued ability to evade detection by, what we are told is, the world’s most advanced military and intelligence power in the world. He is also a mass murderer who brought death and destruction onto the presumed peaceful shores of the United States. Where once a nation was happily esconced in its worries about property bubbles and market turbulences, survival was put on the agenda.

His death will be seen by many as justice. Whether or not it should be seen in such a light is another question that I hope to deal within the near future but it is undeniable that this is the perception of many in the West. It is being seen as a victory over the Terrorists, a victory over Al Qaeda.

However, this victory is largely of a symbolic nature. Al Qaeda means “The Base” in Arabic. The original, hierarchical organisation is no more and is growing more and more irrelevant to the modern Arab world in its original guise. However, it has sown the seeds for numerous offshoots including a particularly dangerous one in Yemen.Through these “subsidiary” groups, the Al-Qaeda franchise (to borrow an analogy used by Richard Haass on Monday’s “Colbert Report” ) has become entangled in numerous conflicts across the Islamic world, ie; in Sudan and Somalia.

Bin Laden’s death will have no material impact on these conflicts. His death will bring a large psychological blow as figurehead of this Jihadist movement but operationally Bin Laden had become irrelevant. The only fear now is that he may become a martyr and that his death may inspire retaliatory attacks.

As I have argued before and likely will again, there is little long term impact in the destruction of particular incarnations of Terroristic movements. Like the Lernaean Hydra, chopping off the heads of terror is largely futile. You destroy one cell and in doing so likely inspire another to be set up. It is the source of these terroristic movements that must be tackled if we are to win the “War on Terror”. Yes, it is necessary to defeat terroristic cells such as Bin Laden’s but such conflicts will continue in perpetuity unless we combat the issue at its source.

That is why it is so important that Western policy in the Middle East takes the correct approach.

Afghanistan and Iraq are both embroiled in this “War on Terror”. The dangerous perception currently prevailing is  that the goal of the War on Terror was to defeat Al Qaeda and kill Bin Laden would suggest that the West withdraw from these countries as soon as possible now that we have our scalp. No decision could be more misguided.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan are at crucial stages in establishing their stability. Yes, I think it was right that the West went in and ousted two brutally oppressive regimes. However, the result has been the creation of a power vacuum. If the West is to leave without fostering the development of stable, functional state institutions the result would be violent anarchy. Not only would such a move be utterly immoral, basically condemning Afghanis and Iraqis to yet further years of indiscriminate violence, but such a setting would be the perfect background for the emergence of another regime antithetical and dangerous for the West.

Fukuyama argues in his 2004 State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century of the importance of strong state institutions for a state’s survivability. What the West needs to do is foster the development of such institutions in the countries that, until now, have served as breeding grounds for terror. We need to help these countries develop state apparatuses capable of self governance, security forces capable of keeping their citizens safe and the institutions necessary to ensure their democratic and human rights.

This democratic element is important.  Democratic Peace Theory which has been floating around since Immanuel Kant holds that no two democracies go to war with each other. Certainly, the development of democratic rule in countries severely lessens the risks that they pose to the West. That is not to even touch on the myriad reasons beneficial to these countries’ citizens of democratic rule and based on their rights to rule themselves.

In fact, Western ambivalence towards Democracy in the Middle East has been a major failure of our policies in the Middle East. The West has a long history of propping up non-democratic regimes in exchange for “pro-Western” policy stances. Not only are we therefore implicit in denying democratic voices to swathes of citizens of developing countries but this policy has time and time again come back to haunt us. Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Mugabe being just a few prescient examples.

This Arab Tide is an opportunity for the West to change this. The Arab youth are demanding democracy and it is time that we stood up for Western Values and stood with them.

Is Islam anti-democratic? In many ways, yes. But then again, so was Catholicism. However, with the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church moved away from supporting dictators such as Franco and Mussolini and began to promote democracy. This change being a major factor in what Huntington termed the Third Wave of democratisation in the 70s and 80s. Religious movements can change and such changes can be instrumental in the spread of democratic rule. It is highly conceivable  that this “Arab Spring” represents a shift towards the legitimisation of Democracy through the eyes of Islamic through. Hopefully, what we are seeing is a 4th “Islamic” Wave of democratisation.

Every person deserves the right to live in peace and to have a say in their government. By continually propping up dictators worldwide the West denies these rights to many in the Developing World. Not only that, but we are helping nurture terror.

The heart of terror is the injustice wreaked upon subjugated peoples. Terror movements arise out of, at least perceived, inequalities. Just look at the IRA, PLO and Hamas. If we want to defeat terror we need to remedy the causes of terror. One major step towards this is the enfranchising of the Developing World with a democratic voice, we should be 100% committed to supporting any movement towards democratisation in the Islamic world and beyond.

Ave duci novo, similis duci seneci

Michaél Martin cuts an impressive political figure. He is articulate, intelligent and comes across with a degree of sincerity lacking in Fianna Fáil’s leadership for some time.This strong media persona likely lies behind the recent Sunday Business Post’s RedC poll that showed an estimated 31% of the electorate preferring Martin as our next Taoiseach (as opposed to Enda Kenny on 19% and Eamon Gilmore on 26%) making him the public’s favoured choice.
What’s most impressive about Martin, in my view, however, is that, unlike many politicians, he has no qualms about talking about substantive policy issues. He seems incredibly eager to debate them. In fact, within days of being elected, he was laying out an interesting policy stall on programmes such as Newstalk’s Breakfast show.
However, on analysing the contents of Mr Martin’s policy stall, I can’t help but feel that if he wishes to maintain support at this level, currently twice that of the party he now leads, he might be better off staying quiet.
Fianna Fáil has always proudly proclaimed itself to be the Republican Party. Since its founding, Fianna Fáil has always propounded Republican ideals and commitment to the eventual reunification of the Irish island into a 32 County Republic has always been a core value of the party.
Those who hold such a value dear will not be encouraged byMartin’s leadership if his pronouncements on Newstalk are anything to go by. When asked by Ivan Yates whether or not he supported a unified, unitary Irish state. He responded “no”. Commitment to Irish Unification seems to have been, unceremoniously, thrown out the window.
As harmful as this, likely unpopular, shedding of a once core Fianna Fáil value may prove to be for the party, it is Martin’s resurrecting of a few old Fianna Fáil values, I had hoped long dead and buried, that are more worrying for the country at large.
In this same Newstalk interview, Martin stated his opposition both to our current multi-seat constituencies and to the adoption of a list-based electoral system.

Instead he advocates an electoral system based on single seat constituencies.

Fianna Fáil has tried to bring this in before but thankfullythe Irish people had the sense to reject the proposal in referenda in 1958 and again in 1968.
Single seat electoral systems are inherently unfair. They are not proportional and are therefore less representative of the electorate. They are simply not as democratic as the PRSTV system we currently have in place.
To illustrate this we need only take a glance across the Irish Sea to our neighbours in Britain, where one of the more well known single-seat constituency electoral systems operates.
In 2005, Michael Howard’s Conservatives lost by less than 3% to Tony Blair’s New Labour. Blair’s party, however, won a substantial majority in the House of Commons. They needed just 35.2% of the vote to return over 55% of seats. On the other end of the spectrum, the Liberal Democrats received 22% of the vote but ended up with less than 10% of the seats. That is hardly a fair representation of the will of the electorate.
Single-seat constituency based systems are heavily biased towards large parties and those with strong geographical vote concentrations. If Fianna Fáil had been able to push such a system through, they would have enjoyed perpetual single partygovernance ever since as they have yet to receive less than 39.1% in a General Election, decidedly more than the British Labour Party won in 2005.
Such as system would squeeze out the smaller parties, they would be virtually nonexistent, and would severely limit the representation in the Dáil of minority interest groups.
It would be hard to argue that such as system would be more democratic or preferable to what we currently have. Yet, that is what Mr Martin wants.
It is, however, not the only archaic Fianna Fáil ideal thatMartin desires to resurrect.
The unfortunate ignoring of pertinent social issues has long been a cornerstone of the Irish political establishment. It has been left to the Catholic Church to run our social system; our schools, our hospitals, our foster homes and it has been left to the Courts to force legislation on socially progressive issues.

At pains to insist that he is “not a raging liberal now, at all” Martin lost his usual coherence when dealing with social issues. When asked directly about Abortion and Gay marriage, he waltzed around the issues. Such social issues are far from the forefront of Martin’s agenda. He seems more than content with how they are legislated for at present.
However, rulings from the European Courts and conversationwith any of those affected by such legislation make it clear that current legislation is not adequate. These are issues that must be tackled by the next government, yet Martin seems unwilling to take them on.
Michéal Martin is, undeniably, a man of charisma and sizeable intellect, yet the policies that he espouses are far from progressive or encouraging and are not what we need to move Ireland successfully into the future. I am forced to agree with Leo Varadkar’s characterisation of the new Fianna Fáil leader as simply “old wine in a new bottle”. He is just more of the same.

First published in Trinity News 8 February 2011.

(http://issuu.com/trinitynews/docs/issue7/1 Page 19)