Eight minutes. That is the length of time from the start of the
London Bridge attack to the three terrorists being killed by armed
police. The Metropolitan Police Service is rightly being heralded for
the speed, courage and effectiveness of its members in ending a
terrorist atrocity. But the success in their response which prevented
more people from being injured and killed is, besides individual
bravery, about learning from previous terrorist attacks, training and
resources.
In the pre-9/11 era, the style of terrorist attacks frequently
involved hostage takings in which terrorists sought to negotiate to
achieve some set of aims, gain wider publicity and then try to get away
with their lives. The most famous example of this was the attack at the Munich Olympics
which stretched out for several days before ending with a botched
rescue attempt at an airport and the killing of members of the Israeli
Olympic team by Palestinian terrorists.
London has also witnessed hostage takings. In 1975, a six-day stand-off occurred on Balcombe Street
in the city’s West End. Armed members of the Irish Republican Army,
responsible for a series of bombings across London over previous months,
took a couple hostage in their flat as they were being pursued by
police. The hostage taking ended peacefully with the surrender of the
terrorists.
More famously, in 1980 a group of six armed attackers stormed the
Iranian Embassy in London taking 26 people hostage. After six days, they
killed a hostage, prompting the Thatcher government to deploy the
Special Air Service (SAS). The team of crack soldiers was famously caught on television going in to end the siege.
A new template for terrorism
The November 2008 attacks in Mumbai
and the Paris attacks in December 2015 created a new template for the
police to address. In both cases, teams of heavily armed and roving
attackers attempted to kill as many people as possible while causing
mayhem in the centres of major cities. Metropolitan Police specialists
have been preparing for such a possibility for years now. Although,
thankfully, Saturday night’s attack didn’t involve terrorists with
firearms, those skills served them well in quickly dealing with the
London Bridge attackers.
In 2010, a major police training exercise,
also involving members of the SAS, took place in London with the aim of
dealing with a Mumbai-style attack. A UK government spokeswoman noted
at the time:
The police regularly train and exercise for a variety of scenarios
with a variety of partners. It is right that we learn the lessons from
previous incidents and that these inform and strengthen such procedures.
A helicopter prepares to land on London Bridge after the incident.PA
The 2015 Paris attacks only reinforced the need for police forces to
be able to respond with speed and firepower. This approach was on
display in London shortly after the Paris attacks, when officers carried
out a training exercise involving a scenario in which armed terrorists
attack a shopping mall, a scenario that occurred in Kenya in 2013.
The emphasis was on the swiftness of the response and the need for
officers to quickly engage the terrorists, even if that meant ignoring
wounded civilians and putting themselves at greater risk.
A senior police officer made it clear that speed was of the essence:
“We are asking them not to give first aid to the wounded. The most
important thing is for them to get to the threat”.
But it’s also about having the resources to deploy against a threat. In January 2016,
it was announced that 600 more armed officers would be deployed in
London by the end of that year, boosting numbers to around 2,800 (or
nearly 10% of the force). The number of armed police response vehicles
was also doubled. More armed officers have been deployed in public places as well. These trends, in a country famously known for having unarmed police, will now only escalate.
The terrorism situation in the UK is clearly in flux. At the moment,
the only pattern when it comes to terrorist attacks is that there is no
pattern. The London attack appears to be in some ways a combination of
the Westminster attack earlier in 2017 and the Lee Rigby murder of 2013. It differs greatly from the style of the May 22 Manchester attack.
Nonetheless, members of the police will continue to prepare to deal
with worst-case scenarios, based on previous attacks, that they hope
will never materialise.
Published on The Conversation
The legality of the action initiated by Prasa under dispute in court
By Ihsaan Haffejee
2 June 2017
Red Ants carrying out the eviction at the Bekezela informal settlement in Newtown. Photo: Ihsaan Haffejee
Update: Late on Friday, 2 June, the Gauteng High Court set aside Prasa’s Writ of Ejection, suspending the eviction. Justice Carlese ordered that insofar as the eviction had been carried out already, evictees were to be reinstated.
Hundreds of people from the Bekezela informal settlement in Newtown have been forced onto the streets after the Red Ant Security Relocation and Eviction Services (Red Ants) evicted them from their homes.
Residents say shortly after 8am, men carrying out the eviction descended on the informal settlement and began throwing people and their goods onto the street.
By mid-morning, Carr Street was filled with the household belongings of the residents.
Thando Hlatshwayo had just got ready to leave for work when he claims he was beaten and forced off the property without having the time to collect any of his documents or possessions.
“These people did not provide us with any warning. They just come with violence in the morning and chucked us out of our homes,” said Hlatshwayo.
Residents staged a protest. Rubber bullets were fired at them. A man whose car was stoned crashed into another vehicle.
Residents claim members of the Red Ants took their valuables, cash and cell phones.
After numerous complaints to the police, members of the Metro police searched the vehicles transporting the Red Ants and found various stolen items hidden in bags under the trucks. The items were confiscated, but no arrests were made.
The City of Johannesburg has gone to court to stop the eviction which was initiated by Prasa.
When GroundUp left the scene, people were still looking for their household items on the street. Many were unsure as to where they will sleep tonight.
Red ants carrying out the eviction at the Bekezela informal settlement in NewtownRethabile Tlaile, a migrant from Lesotho, feeds her seven-month-old baby on the side of the road after she was evicted. In the bag behind her are all the possessions she managed to salvageNelisiwe Simelane holds 11-month-old baby Zenande as she sits with some of the contents of her home on Carr Street after she was evictedResidents attempt to find some of their belongings which were dumped in the street by the Red AntsA woman searches for her belongings Thabani Mahlobo, who makes a living looking in rubbish bins for recyclable materials, tries to find his ID document. He returned home from work to find his residence trashed and contents missingA resident with his cat which was killed during the evictions. Metro Police find items which were stolen from the residents on the trucks used by the Red AntsMetro Police gather stolen goods recovered from the Red Ants
The Arc de Triomphe Is illuminated in green to celebrate the Paris Agreement’s entry into force.
In the short term, the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will certainly have ripple effects globally. But rather than fatally undermine the Paris Agreement, it will likely cause other countries to reaffirm their firm commitment to the full implementation of the climate deal.
In the White House Rose Garden, US President Donald Trump said he wanted to start to renegotiate to see “if there’s a better deal”.
“If we can, great. If we can’t, that’s fine,” he added.
Lessons not learnt from the Kyoto Protocol
Given the location of today’s announcement, some might be tempted to draw an analogy with the Kyoto Protocol, which President George W. Bush famously repudiated in the White House Rose Garden, following pressure from fossil-fuel interests, notably Exxon.
The lessons from this analogy do not flatter the United States. Although the Kyoto Protocol did not meet its full potential as a consequence of US non-participation, countries that engaged actively in its implementation not only succeeded in achieving the emission-reduction targets they set for themselves, but are much better positioned now to take advantage of the necessary transition to a low-carbon future.
As a result of the Kyoto engagement, the European Union’s legislative climate policy framework is now the most comprehensive and far-reaching in the world. The EU now has all the tools needed to deliver the greater ambition that will be needed.
Learning from the Kyoto experience, China, Korea, Mexico, Chile and other developing countries are now putting in place emissions-trading systems that will generate the cost-effective emission reductions of the future.
By choosing the Rose Garden for this second announcement, the Trump White House is only underscoring that the lessons from past mistakes may not have not been learnt.
The US could be left behind
The world of 2017 is a very different place from what it was in 2001. Back in 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, the US accounted for 19% of global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and 20% of the world economy (measured in GDP MER) whereas China accounted for only 12% and 7% respectively. By 2015, when the Paris Agreement was adopted, China had grown to become the largest emitter (23%) and the largest economy (17%), with the USA accounting for a proportionately lower share of global emissions (13%), and a smaller share of the world economy (16%).
India, a rising power of the 21st century, had nearly doubled its relative economic weight over this period (from 4% to 7% of the world economy). Both China and India are now seizing the future, working to bend their emissions pathways while growing their economies and creating thousands of green jobs through massive investments in renewable energy and plans to move towards electric vehicles by the end of the next decade.
Leadership and economic growth is now finding a new center of gravity – one in which the US risks being left further and further behind.
The scientific understanding of climate change and its effects on natural systems, human societies and economies has also progressed immensely since 1997 and engaged much larger communities including regions, cities and businesses.
In other words, the US is less important and less fundamental than it used to be in the sphere of climate policy action.
However, in some places, it may empower climate-change delialists to call for a slowdown on action, or even to support the deployment of so-called “clean coal”.
But, such risks appear limited at this stage. Russia, for example, has yet to ratify the Paris Agreement, but has recently signalled that it will continue to support the implementation of the Agreement.
Public opinion in many parts of the world may also be invigorated in favour of strong climate action, as a positive effect of the much-elevated attention for climate change as a global problem in the press and social media.
Employment in the renewable energy industry is growing
Because of the decline in renewable energy and battery-storage prices, natural gas displacing coal, as well as ongoing actions in states such as California implementing the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, methane controls and motor vehicle standards, it seems unlikely that US emissions would increase again before 2030.
The increase in employment in solar energy alone over the past three years is more than twice the total number of jobs in the coal mining industry in the United States (which are declining). This remarkable development contains a lesson and a guide for the future: maintaining the growth of job opportunities requires a continued rollout and expansion of renewable energy. If this does not happen, job opportunities will be lost.
A goal more difficult to meet but more unity
President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, combined with the repeal of domestic actions resulting in halting the decline in US emissions, will likely make it more difficult and costly overall to meet the Paris Agreement temperature goal of holding warming well below 2°C, and limiting it to 1.5°C.
If sustained, the additional US emissions, above the levels that would have occurred with the full implementation of the Obama-era package of climate policies, could add an additional warming of about to 0.1 to 0.2°C by 2100. This will need to be compensated by larger and faster reductions by others than would otherwise be necessary.
Working against the fossil fuel–driven Trump agenda are profound market developments in renewable energy and battery storage, affecting demand for coal-fired power along with the oil demand depressing effects of the ramping up of electric vehicle production.
This dynamic of reducing renewable energy and storage technology prices driving displacement of fossil-fuel power sources will play a very large role in determining the ultimate positive or negative fallout of US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the negociations that Trump seems to want to impose.
In reaction to the uncertainty about US intentions, the EU and China are coming closer together on climate and energy, united around the implementation of the Paris Agreement.
Many more countries are also beginning to realise the great risks and costs that climate change will bring unless global warming is limited. In Marrakech, over forty-five countries belonging to the Climate Vulnerable Forum committed to 100% renewable energy goals and are beginning to work on how to achieve this.
Risks and negotiations ahead
Nevertheless, there will be countries, political parties, and fossil-fuel interests that will attempt to use US withdrawal to advance a climate-denialist agenda, or at the least seek ways to defend the market dominance of fossil-fuel industries.
It can be expected that a US withdrawal may lead a number of countries to lag in ramping up their climate pledges (NDCs or Nationally Determined Contributions) under the Paris Agreement or go slow on implementing policies.
Another risk that will be exacerbated by the US withdrawal relates to the large global pipeline of coal-plant proposals, which – if built and operated – would curtail any chance of holding warming well below 2°C and limiting to 1.5°C.
Coal is projected to grow rapidly in India, Southeast Asia, Turkey, parts of the Middle East and Africa. It will take concerted diplomatic leadership, as well as courageous domestic action to ensure that this does not come about. Such a task would be difficult even with the US in the Agreement, but a US withdrawal has made it a little harder.
One of the questions now is to know if the US president can find a way to engage any new negotiations.
The longer the US remains idle the harder it will be for all of us. So what are the prospects of the US rejoining the agreement?
Looking beyond the next 3 to 4 years, rising levels of public concern and anxiety over climate change, the accelerating employment from the renewable-energy industry give grounds for optimism.
If Trump doesn’t come back to the Agreement, we will have to wait 2020 to see what happens. A new president coud seek to reenter the climate deal quickly to catch up with the market leaders, likely China, the EU and India, and to recover its political, technological and economic leadership that will be squandered by the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
With this outlook in mind and with California taking a strong lead, many states, municipalities, companies and civic society are expected to move ahead with climate action over the next few years, and if successful the US may well be in a position to catch up quickly once the Trump period passes.
US President Donald Trump and African dictator Idi Amin - different, but the same. EPA and Reuters
US President Donald Trump’s norm-breaking campaign and early reign has been compared to several other divisive historical figures, especially previous American presidents.
But when it comes to the style in which he communicates, there’s an uncanny resemblance to a notorious African dictator from the 1970s. For those that lived during Idi Amin’s vicious reign in Uganda between 1971 and 1979, there are clear echoes four decades later in Trump’s speeches and press conferences, or when he fires off his notorious tweets.
Let me say up front, Trump, who was democratically elected, can in no way be compared to Amin when it comes to how the so-called “Butcher of Uganda” came to power or the brutal way he dealt with dissent during his eight-year regime. One of the most barbaric military dictators in post-independence Africa, the death toll of his own citizens under his rule, is put at 500,000.
The comparison I am looking at is the similarity of styles and tone of communication. Even though Trump and Amin are from completely different eras with different modes of communication, there are clear parallels between the two telegenic men.
Decrees with flourish
Amin’s numerous decrees were announced on radio and television and carried in newspapers with flourish. One such decree was the expulsion of the Asian/Indian community from Uganda.
In front of international television cameras and newspaper journalists Amin accused the Indians of being “smugglers who carried five passports”. He blamed Britain for bringing them to Uganda during the colonial rule. Amin claimed that the expulsion decision was taken in the national economic interests of Uganda:
I took this decision for the economy of Uganda and I must make sure that every Ugandan gets the fruit of independence. I want to see the whole Kampala street is not full of Indians.
Fast forward 44 years. At a campaign rally Trump promised to deport illegal immigrants from Mexico, some of whom he called “rapists”. Trump also announced that he was going to build a wall barring them from entry into the United States which Mexico was going to pay for.
“Mark my words,” he said. Afterwards he proclaimed that he “loved Hispanics”.
In similar style Amin said “it’s not my responsibility to offer them (expelled British Asians) transit camps! The British High Commissioner is here and it is his responsibility”. Remarking afterwards that the British “are my great friends”.
For Amin’s Uganda, it was a devastating decision. The expelled Asians/Indians were the entrepreneurs, bankers, professional class who had formed the country’s middle class since colonial times. Six months after their departure the country’s hitherto promising African economy spiralled into recession.
Trump’s America may not suffer the expulsion of unwanted foreigners but its regional entrepreneurs such as potato and vegetable growers will suffer from the absence of cheap available labour from across the border in Mexico.
Impulsive use of technology
The two presidents have similarities in their impulsive use of quick communication technology. Trump is a compulsive tweeter while Amin loved dispatching telegrams.
Amin telegraphed disgraced American President Richard Nixon wishing him a “quick recovery from Watergate” and to Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere, his erstwhile foe, a peculiar message in lieu of peace talks at the height of a war between the true countries:
If you were a woman I would have married you … although your head is full of grey hairs.
There were even more bizarre ones to the Queen of England, saying he expected her to send him “her 25-year-old knickers” in celebration of the silver anniversary of her coronation. There was an offer of assistance to Edward Heath, the British Prime Minister to save the British economy,
If you would let me know the exact position of the mess.
A Trump tweet to Iowa voters who voted against him in the primaries had similar condescending tones:
Too much Monsanto in the corn creates issues in the brain?
It was later deleted.
There was another tweet about James Comey, the FBI Director he fired:
And then there’s this tweet about a topic that has often occupied his mind, namely his predecessor Barack Obama’s legacy:
Being fired on television
Amin loved firing his officials on radio and television. A minister of culture, Yekosofat Engur, attended a public function as guest of honour not knowing that his junior had just been appointed in his place on Uganda’s broadcast media.
Former FBI chief Comey learned in a similar fashion of his fate. He learned of his firing while addressing agents at a field office in Los Angeles – breaking news flashes on television of Trump sacking him, was the first Comey heard of it.
There are also parallels in their sabre rattling. Amin threatened to invade Israel, not holding back:
If am to prepare the war against Israel completely, I don’t want very many Army, Air force and Navy, just very few and strike inside…
“I love war,” Trump declared his passion for violence during a campaign speech in Iowa in late 2015. He added:
I’m good at war. I’ve had a lot of wars of my own. I’m really good at war. I love war in a certain way, but only when we win.
Low opinion
The two presidents both have a low opinion of women and not shy to express that. Amin remarked that he was a “good marksman” (with women) while showing off his numerous children. He had four wives and more than 30 children.
You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass …
What the two share most is their sense of self importance.
In 1977, after Britain broke diplomatic relations with his regime, Amin declared he had beaten the British. He titled himself “Conqueror of the British Empire”, short for, “His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE”. He said he would be happy to accept the Scots “secret wish” to have him as their monarch, hence the Hollywood movie title “The Last King of Scotland”.
Amin also wrenched a Doctorate of Law from Uganda’s Makerere University and henceforth considered himself in the same league with medical doctors.
As Salon wrote, the only two words former reality show host Trump has uttered more frequently than “you’re fired” are “I’m smart”. He said about Wharton, the University of Pennsylvania’s business school:
Look, I went to the best school, I was a good student and all of this stuff. I mean, I’m a smart person.
They both share a passion for control and love to be loved. The New Yorker’s Jeff Seshol reckons that Trump’s chief complaint about his own yes-men seems to be that they don’t say yes energetically enough.
It’s easier when you’re a dictator. Amin was clear:
As minister, governor, high-ranking people and the people of the country, they must love their leader. This is the point number one.
Turning into Amin
Respected East African commentator Charles Onyango Obbo believes that,
The genius of Trump is that he understands what adept guerrilla leaders figured out ages ago – do that which the opponent thinks is impossible or so unthinkable, they have not planned how to defend it.
The same went for Amin who for a long time was considered a comic buffoon while he terrorised a whole country and fanned international terrorism.
Some may think it’s alarmist, but Onyango Obbo has warned that with all the similarities,
Trump – or indeed any leader in an “advanced” democracy – can turn into an Idi Amin.
ANC leaders greet party supporters at a recent rally. Reuters/Siphiwe Sibeko
South Africa’s Constitution is clear on a number of issues related to the relationship between the country’s parliament and its executive. It lays down that if the National Assembly passes a vote of No Confidence in the cabinet, the cabinet must resign and the president must appoint another one. Or, if it passes a vote of no confidence in the president then the president and the entire government must resign.
In a presidential system the president is directly elected by the voters, normally has a fixed term, and can only be removed through processes of impeachment. This usually require passage of votes of no confidence, or their equivalent, in the responsible legislature or congress.
In contrast, in a parliamentary system, a president or prime minister assumes office by virtue of his or her capacity to command a majority in the legislature.
Despite various hybrid features, the South African Constitution is more of a parliamentary system than a presidential one. The party enjoying a majority presents its candidate to the National Assembly for election – as required by the Constitution. In practice, that person has been chosen by the governing African National Congress (ANC) outside the legislature.
That’s not to say that the ANC is acting inconsistently with parliamentary practice. By selecting its leader outside the legislature, and getting the National Assembly to rubber stamp its choice, it’s acting in a manner fully consistent with parliamentary practice. But where it’s departed substantially from that script is by making a sharp distinction between the party and state presidencies.
The terms of office of the two presidencies are not in sync with one another, resulting in a “dual power” structure operating. This is because there’s a long gap between the ANC’s election of its president and the general elections which determine which party will have the majority in parliament, and consequently who will become president of the country. This gap is a recurrent source of potential instability so long as the ANC remains the majority party.
Party president v state president
The ANC elects its presidents at its five yearly National Congresses. Notionally, the process of election is a grass roots one. Branches vote for their preference as leader. Their preferences are funnelled upwards through regions and provinces, with provincial delegations casting their vote for one of the candidates.
President Jacob Zuma. GCIS
Other ANC-linked organisations, such as the Youth League and Womens’ leagues, can also cast their votes at the congresses. But they contribute just 10% of the delegates to the National Congresses. This means that the person elected to the presidency can notionally claim to be elected by the mass of the party’s membership.
All well and good – except that in practice the ANC electoral process is distorted by money, patronage, factionalism, vote-rigging. and, quite often, violence . It can be argued, with good reason, that ANC practices negates the democratic legitimacy that it claims. Nevertheless the way in which it chooses its own presidents remains its own business, and is in no way in violation of the constitution.
What’s more problematic is first, that the ANC insists that it “deploys” its party president to the state presidency. In practice, this means that if he or she wants to remain secure in office, a president needs to command a majority in the party’s National Executive Committee. A second issue is that there is a substantial period – usually between 16 and 17 months – between the election of a party president by a National Congress and the election of a state president by the National Assembly.
When there’s consensus between the party and state presidents there is no problem. This happened after Mbeki’s election as party leader in December 1997 to succeed Mandela, who stayed on as state president until the April 1999 election.
Yet when there’s tension, the constitutional authority of the National Assembly is directly undermined. This occurred after Zuma’s victory at Polokwane in 2007, with Mbeki remaining as state president until he was told to resign the office by the party in September 2008.
It was probably more by accident than design that the elections of ANC presidents and state presidents are so badly misaligned. The ANC’s negotiators during the transition to democracy probably simply failed to identify this as a potential problem. Yet the “dual power” situation which can arise, with a state president not knowing whether or not his or her actions might be countermanded by the party, is inherently destabilising, and a recipe for intra-party factional struggle.
It’s a situation South Africa can ill afford.
The next round
The ANC’s recent National Executive Committee meeting made it clear that any MP voting for an opposition party sponsored motion of No Confidence in the president will be disciplined. This means that the motion will be defeated, even if there is a secret ballot. True, there may be a handful of dissidents on the government’s benches prepared to speak and act openly against the president. But they will do so in full knowledge that it may cost them their seats in parliament.
ANC secretary general warns party MPs not to support to oust President Zuma. Reuters/Siphiwe Sibeko
If Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma (the president’s former wife and favoured candidate) is elected party president at the next party congress in December 2017, it’s possible that Jacob Zuma may ostensibly bow to popular pressure and resign as state president. This would enable the ANC majority in the Assembly to elect her as state president.
Alternatively, Zuma may opt to remain as state president, allowing his former wife to mobilise support for the ANC around the country prior to the 2019 general election. Even if Zuma does stand down, allowing the two offices to be combined, we may assume that he will continue to be the power behind the throne, and that Dlamini-Zuma will be kept on a tight leash – at least until the election.
A victory for the Zuma faction in December 2019 could provoke the breakaway of the defeated faction, which would probably be headed by Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa. This could herald the reshaping of the South African party system and the formation of a coalition government following the 2019 election. Many would say “Bring it on!” to the idea of a split within the ANC, although a triumphant Zuma faction is likely to make major efforts to prevent that happening.
Alternatively, if the anti-Zuma faction was to win, and Ramaphosa was to be elected party president, he would likely face a massive backlash from Zuma loyalists, who would fear the loss of patronage positions and gravy. A divided ANC in which the present factional battles continued to openly wage is an ANC which could well go down to defeat.
Whatever the outcome of the present battles within the ANC, the party would do the country a favour by bringing the two presidencies into alignment. The person elected to the party leadership should be immediately presented to parliament for election as state president.
With this outlook in mind and with 
Trump – or indeed any leader in an “advanced” democracy – can turn into an Idi Amin.
Whatever the outcome of the present battles within the ANC, the party would do the country a favour by bringing the two presidencies into alignment. The person elected to the party leadership should be immediately presented to parliament for election as state president.