Does Rory provide a flicker of hope for the Centre Right in the UK?

Is Rory Stewart’s recent success in campaigning for the Tory leadership a flickering light of hope for the return of a centre right presence in UK politics?  

For the past 3 years, since that referendum on 23 June 2016, Brexit has been the focus of all political discussion.  Deep differences of opinion that have been fermenting in the UK seemed to have gone unnoticed.  Suddenly it is as if a rock was lifted and the thriving and complex life underneath was revealed, as the media attempted to understand how the leave campaign won.  The existence and characteristics of these deep divisions entered the media and public consciousness.  Why hadn't we noticed it before? 

The Brexit referendum did not cause these divisions in public attitudes, it just served to expose them. The media was suddenly aware of the seemingly intractable view-points between people in metropolitan and rural locations, blue collar and white collar workers, those supporting internationalism and those who favour nationalism. This reality burst into the consciousness in the lead up to the vote, when Thomas Mair, a self-radicalised white supremacist, shot and killed the Labour MP Jo Cox.  Ms Cox had campaigned for remaining in the EU and lobbied for a more generous refugee policy.  As Mair stood over his victim’s body, he shouted: “Britain first. Keep Britain independent. This is for Britain.”

Commentators declared the return of the sort of extreme views that were once popular across Europe.  There suddenly seemed to be no shortage of individuals and political parties holding right wing and ultra-nationalist views. These people say they want to maintain or protect their heritage and that of their people.  Refugees, Muslims, empowered women and the EU will, or have already, changed our societies.  That change is seen as a bad thing, which they want to reverse.  The term right-wing generally refers to the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system.  These groups hold views that favour a return to the status quo or the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary society.   Right-wing political views often include the ideas that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.  Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or the competition in market economies.  The term extreme right-wing has also been applied to movements like fascism, Nazism and racial supremacy.

A variety of fascism favouring governments were formed during the 1930s, in Greece, Lithuania, Poland, and Yugoslavia. The fascist Iron Guard movement in Romania soared in political support during the 1930s.  There were riots in France involving the fascists and multiple far-right suppporters in 1934.  France had two major movements in the Action française and the Jeunesses patriotes (founded by the champagne magnate Pierre Taittinger in 1924 as a direct-action squad of students and youths).  Romania had its National-Christian movement devoted to strikebreaking, disrupting liberal professor’s classes, and campaigning to restrict the number of Jews in universities and the professions. In Britain, Oswald Mosley’s fascist movement was significant in the late 1920s and 1930s.  Spain of course had the Franco government from 1939 to 1947 and Portugal had Salazar, who was Prime Minister from 1932 to 1945; and Mussolini’s dictatorship in Italy lasted from 1925 to 1945.  In Germany the Nazi party was formed in 1920 and its popularity and hold over government lasted until the end of WWII.  

The political debates surrounding Brexit have served to show that these sort of ideas are popular again with some, in the UK.  A drift to the extreme right has also been observed in European countries.  Ahead of the European Parliament elections in May 2019, far-right parties throughout Europe were joining forces, forming a new alliance, known as the European Alliance of Peoples and Nations (EAPN). Initiated by Italy’s Interior Minister, EAPN is intended to gather a broad nationalist front in the EU Parliament.  This alliance includes the Netherland's Party for Freedom, Alternative for Germany party, the right-wing populist Danish People’s Party to the Finns Party.  The parties that have joined The Movement are often called “conservative”, “extreme-right”, “nationalist”, “anti-European” or “anti-immigrant”. These right-wing and nationalist parties have gained a sizeable number of seats in the 2019 European Parliament elections.  In the UK, the Brexit Party won the most seats and similar successes for like-minded parties were seen in Italy, France, Poland and Hungary.  Previously, these political parties were forced into some level of cooperation with moderates, while they sat in other parliamentary groups.  Now that they have formed a new alliance, the fear must be that in unity they will become more influential, and more dangerous.  Some of their leaders have already been openly flirting with Nazi-style rhetoric.   The language used by our politicians matters.  It can give hope and create solidarity; it can also do the opposite. 

What is so wrong with the popularity of these political parties? It is because at the heart of their beliefs is the intrinsic hate for and fear of "the other".  They have an open hatred for the EU.  They pose a huge danger to Europe’s future peace and stability.  If there has been one thing that the EU has achieved it is a period of 70 years without a major war like WWII.  The same fear of the other has driven the UK into Brexit.  While many may think choosing to leave the EU was mainly driven by the wish for sovereignty, in fact it has more to do with being able to close the borders to immigrants, thereby "protecting" the UK from these others.  

In amongst all this darkness, over the last few weeks, there came a flickering of something positive, balancing out the political debate.  During the battle for the Conservative leadership, and the Prime Minister’s job, in the UK, a centrist candidate captured the public’s heart.  He’s an unknown, a dark horse, and he is a master communicator.  In a surprise move, the International Development Secretary, Rory Stewart, put himself forward for the top job.  His performance in the campaign has sparked talk of parallels with the remarkable triumph of Emmanuel Macron in France.  

Macron is an independent centrist who has stared down the far-right National Front's Marine le Pen and has continued to defend liberal European values in Europe. But being called a centrist might not sit comfortably with the French President, as he has maintained that the left and right in politics are irrelevant and out of fashion.  His ideas are definitely in line with the centre. He would not accept stigmatising people for their religion, or religious-based bigotry, within France and is an ardent supporter of the EU.  He has called for an "international roadmap" to combat militant Islamism, and described Africa as a region with risks and all opportunities for France. Recent developments have reassured commentators that the centrist movement is also alive and well in Europe.  Macron hosted a meeting with other centrist European political parties in the European Parliament.  These include Spain's Ciudadanos, the Dutch VVD and D66, and Belgium's Open VLD and the Reformist Movement, Germany's Free Democrats, Hungary's Momentum and Austria's New Austria and Liberal Forum (NEOS). This gathering is just a first step, in the view of Macron’s officials.

In the UK, Rory Stewart's profile and popularity surged, in response to traditional Tory messages of fiscal conservatism with modernising ambitions on the environment and investing in the North. His message and style of communication have caught the imagination of the media and public. But is Britain ready for its Macron moment? Apparently not. Such generational changes are usually reserved for the wilderness years of opposition, not at a time when a party and a nation is going through its most challenging moment. Rory was eliminated from the race for the top job, but his impressive performance and growing popularity have placed him in a position of high visibility on the political landscape. Today his colleagues deride him for enjoying support beyond the Tory base and brand him with the ultimate insult of “remainer”. It hasn't gone unnoticed that he shares almost nothing of their values or creed. In short, he was prepared to ask critical questions and to tell the truth.

Australia and Timor-Leste border dispute: can Conciliation help good neighbours stay good friends

Australia and Timor-Leste's dispute over rights to the oil and gas rich reserves of the Timor Sea is now before a Conciliation Commission in the Hague.  Timor-Leste wants to have its maritime boundaries with Australia officially delineated, despite having signed a treaty that puts a 50 year stop on deciding the boundary in 2006.  

Timor-Leste and Australia commenced conciliation proceedings under Article 298 and Annex V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) , to which both are a signatory. This is the first ever Conciliation process under Article 298 and Annex V of UNCLOS.  The result of this process is likely to have ramifications for Australia's border negotiations with Indonesia. 

Conciliation is one of the methods available under UNCLOS for resolution of disputes.  
Conciliation is a process of dispute resolution, similar to mediation.  It is a voluntary and flexible, interest based process (like mediation)  through which the parties seek to reach an amicable dispute settlement with the assistance of the conciliator, who acts as a neutral third party.

It is not a formal process, (like Arbitration) with arguments being put before a Tribunal, leading to a legally binding decision. In disputes between individuals conciliation is a way of resolving things without the need to go to court. It involves an independent third party (a mediator) who helps both sides come to an agreement. 

For this dispute between countries a Conciliation Commission has been set up of mutually acceptable experts.  The Commission engages with the parties to resolve the issues in question and it may make proposals and recommendations. Australia and Timor-Leste appointed two commissioners each, who  then chose the Chair.  Ambassador Peter Taksøe-Jensen, of Denmark was chosen to Chair, and the other Commissioners are Rosalie Balkin from Australia, Abdul G. Korma of Sierra Leone, Canadian Donald McRae and Rüdiger Wolfram of Germany.  

The Timorese argue that the 2006 treaty should be scrapped on the grounds that it was disadvantaged during the negotiations because Australia had bugged Timorese cabinet rooms during negotiations.

Australia and Timor Leste - who should decide?

If, like me, you have been wondering on who would best decide on the maritime border dispute between Australia and Timor Leste, we may soon have the answer. Timor Leste has asked the UN to do just that, but the question remains - by what mechanism?  I read recently that Timor-Leste has launched a compulsory conciliation process under the 1982 UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).  Its aim is to get Australia to the negotiating table in order to conclude an agreement on permanent maritime boundaries.

Part IX of UNCLOS provides that the conciliation procedure can be used where one party in the dispute has withdrawn from the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures (as Australia did in 2002), two months before Timor-Leste’s independence.  Australia has refused to accept that a binding settlement on sea boundaries should be decided by international tribunal. But under the conciliation process, a commission would hear the parties arguments and both would then be obliged to negotiate in good faith on the basis of its report, which (while not binding) carries political pressure.

Part XV of UNCLOS requires Parties to settle their disputes by the peaceful means indicated in the UN Charter. However, if that fails to reach a settlement, they are obliged to resort to the compulsory dispute settlement procedures entailing binding decisions, subject to certain limitations and exceptions. 

Article 298 allows exceptions for three types of disputes and only disputes concerning sea boundary delimitation are subject to compulsory conciliation.  A State making an Article 298 declaration is also obliged to submit to conciliation. However, excluded from this obligation are disputes that arose before the entry into force of UNCLOS. So,… is this a dispute that arose before the entry into force of UNCLOS? That is a very good question!

The question of delimitation of the maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea came up when Portugal withdrew as administering authority and Indonesia subsequently annexed East Timor in 1975.  Australia’s recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor in 1979 paved the way for negotiations between Australia and Indonesia on the area known as the ‘Timor Gap’ which had been left undelimited by the 1972 seabed treaty between Australia and Indonesia.

As Australia and Indonesia could not agree on a permanent seabed boundary, they entered into a joint development agreement which provisionally dealt with the area in dispute, called the ‘Timor Gap Treaty’. Upon East Timor’s independence on 20 May 2002, Australia and East Timor signed the ‘Timor Sea Treaty’ which entered into force in April 2003. It also created a joint development area to enable exploitation to continue pending final delimitation of the maritime boundary.

It is quite clear that there was a dispute between Australia and Indonesia in that each State’s claim regarding the boundary was opposed by the other. But is the current dispute with East Timor is merely a continuation of that old dispute with Indonesia and thus as a past dispute excluded from the UNCLOS compulsory conciliation, or whether East Timor’s independence creates a break in the chain. 

The effect of state succession on the question of ‘past disputes’ has not been tested. However, as a new State is involved in the matter, its likely to be considered a new dispute. So the case is unlikely to qualify for exclusion on this basis.

In the event that all the prerequisite requirements were to be satisfied, and if none of the exclusions apply, conciliation can be instituted, by written notification addressed by one party to the dispute to the other party or parties. The other party to the dispute is obliged to submit to such proceedings. The conciliation commission can be established under Article 3 of Annex V whether or not the other party is willing to cooperate in the appointment of the members of the commission.  The commission is required to report within 12 months of its constitution.  However, even if all this occurs, here's the clincher the report of the commission, including its conclusions and recommendations, is not binding upon the parties. Analysts say that such a report would carry with it significant political pressure.

East Timor-Australia maritime border to be negotiated before United Nations: Careful what you wish for

Reports about my hospitalisation for post Easter stomach-pumping have been greatly exaggerated. Who knew that the human body had an upper limit of tolerance for chocolate?

My physician has advised a drastic reduction in chocolate consumption - impossible when you live in Switzerland.  It seems that my dream of living inside chocolate heaven and eating my way out would has a dark side.

So what else has been going on in the world ..... there have been developments on my favourite maritime border dispute with huge implications for oil and gas resources in Australia. It looks like East Timor is going to get what they have wished for.  Today Matthew Doran writes in SMH that Timor is taking Australia to the United Nations to solve the dispute over its maritime border under international maritime law. Timor has long argued current arrangements mean it is missing out on billions of dollars in revenue from offshore oil and gas fields. It has now approached the UN to begin a formal conciliation process conducted by an independent panel of experts.

Timor has been trying to wriggle out of its current Treaty arrangements and to settle the border dispute for some time. There have been a number of protest rallies in East Timor, the last  one reportedly taking place on 30 March, according to the SMH and the Guardian.  The Timorese claim that they have lost $6.6 billion in oil and gas revenues to Australia under the current Treaty arrangements for resource sharing. Instead, Timor believes that if the maritime boundary was at the half way point between the two countries, most of the oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea would lie within their territory.  In response, there is no particular response from the Australian government, who is happy to talk but not about the border dispute.  Julie Bishop was busy touring Indonesia and opening the new embassy building in Jakarta, the largest constructed by Australia. DFAT updated its travel advice on 21 March (asking travellers to exercise a high degree of caution). Apparently, some some embassy employees from Dili got gardening leave back in Canberra.  Never mind, they can enjoy, along with Witness K, the Kingston cafes and the balmy autumn sunshine that Canberra is known for at this time of year.

Why is this all so hard? Well, Timor believes if the maritime boundary was decided under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),  most of the oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea would lie within their territory.  However, Australia has withdrawn from the maritime boundary jurisdiction of UNCLOS.  In 2002 Australia made a declaration excluding the setting of maritime boundaries from compulsory dispute resolution, the view being that any maritime boundary dispute is best settled by negotiation rather than litigation.

So what does that mean? - a Convention is an agreement between countries, usually developed by the UN or other international organizations. Governments that ratify Conventions have to incorporate them into their own (domestic) laws and to make sure that they are applied and respected. At the time of agreeing to a Convention, Governments can also say that they do not agree with certain parts of its text.  These are called distinctions, restrictions, exclusions, etc.  So even once ratified, Conventions will not apply to exclusions.  This means that although Australia applies UNCLOS, they do not agree that those mechanisms described in it, will be applied by Australia for maritime boundary issues.  This is important for this case,  because the first problem to be solved is to decide who can make the decision on where the border between Australia and East Timor lies.

Lets face it, I could make the decision, but nobody would listen to me - so it has to be an authority that both sides will respect.  Timor latest attempt is to ask the UN to begin a formal conciliation process conducted by an independent panel of experts.
So watch this space...  This opens up a whole lot of other questions - like how will this panel operate, who is qualified to be on this panel, and is it possible for Timor to get a better deal than they already have... and  many more.

Browse, North West Shelf back on the shelf - implications for other possible white elephants

Australia's hopes of the resources boom continuing have well and truly faded.  There was further bleak news with the announcement by Woodside and its energy giant partners, last week that they would put the $40 billion Browse back on the shelf, indefinitely.  Pardon the pun! Its no joke.

The North West Shelf is an extensive oil and gas region off the coast of Western Australia, in the Indian Ocean.  The region has estimated hydrocarbon reserves of 33 trillion cubic feet (930 km3).  It is Australia’s largest resource development project and has a considerable number of oil and gas wells, pipelines, production areas and support facilities.  It involves the extraction of petroleum at offshore production platforms, onshore processing and production and export of liquefied natural gas. This was the largest engineering project in the world in the early 1980’s with investments so far of around $A 25 billion.  Only about one third of the reserve is estimated to have been produced to date. Woodside is the project operator, along with five other partners: BHP Billiton; BP; Chevron; Royal Dutch Schell (which also owns 24% of Woodside through Shell Australia); Japan Australian LNG (a venture between Mitsubishi and Mitsui).  There's a nice map on Wikipedia.

The main reason given for this delay is the current low oil price and the LNG price in a similar slump, combined with the large volumes of LNG currently coming onto the market from other Australian projects.  Large volumes are also expected from the US in the coming years.  The circumstances have conspired to create a situation of over-supply and weak demand.

A recent report in the International NY Times (INYT) suggests that similar shelving could be on the cards for other 'potential white elephant' projects in Canada and Mozambique, for example.  The INYT also reports that Australia's woes have been exacerbated by an LNG price war with Qatar, and predicts that demand for LNG will not improve until after 2023.

Those following this blog would know of my preoccupation with the development of the Greater Sunrise area.  My recent prediction that the joint development between Australia and Timor L'Este is likely to languish in the ‘too hard’ basket, or the 'white elephant' basket, might just come true.  I said in my previous post, some commentators are projecting that thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil available – but no buyers. Maybe we won't have to wait that long for that to be a reality.

Australia and Timor-Leste: a brawl between neighbours or rules-based international order?

The debate about Australia's border dispute with Timor-Leste continues to entice bloggers, reporters, experts and others to put forward emotional positions.

These are based on imagination and occasionally rational thought and sometimes (very rarely) on principles of international law.  

Australia says it is committed to rules-based international order, according to Prime Minister Turnbull.  Unilateral actions are in nobody’s interest. They are a threat to the peace and good order of the region on which the economic growth and national security of all our neighbours depend. These differences should be resolved by international law.  

He might have been talking about the border dispute with Timor-Leste.

Allastar Cox says that Australia's treaties with Timor-Leste in fact form part of the Government's commitment to a rules-based international system. 

It was a Super Tuesday!

Hillary Clinton strengthened her momentum, with a  sweep of the Southern states on Super Tuesday.  Democratic delegate count for Hillary = 1,121 compared to 481 for Sanders. 

Republican delegate count for Trump = 382, putting him ahead of his rivals making him the favourite for the nomination.  

You wouldn't really know how Super the result was for Clinton from most media headlines. That's why I like to look at the impeccably accurate Washington Post and the Guardian.

Who would make the best President for the energy industry?

Hillary Clinton has been cited as being against offshore oil drilling, against the Keystone XL pipeline, and against drilling in the Arctic. 
Should Clinton become president, she may be inclined towards new regulations that may harm utilities, conventional energy companies, and would support environmental policies and support alternative energy - solar and wind power companies.  
This suggests a negative impact on conventional energy firms and boosting prospects for investors in the alternative energy sector.

Donald Trump is on record as wanting to confront OPEC and making the U.S. energy independent. He is a vocal advocate for oil and its importance to the U.S. economy. A Trump presidency would boost prospects for investors in most conventional energy companies, with a negative impact on the alternative energy sector.

Oilprice.com also discusses the implications of other candidates policies.