Under The Radar – 09 July

Saad Khonaifer on Unsplash

This week, we discuss:

1. Saudi Arabia and the UAE at loggerheads over oil production

2. The “staggeringly” high numbers of autistic people being drawn into terrorism

3. Controversial changes to the Official Secrets Act

Special Relationship on the rocks

What happened?

Oil prices hit a six-year high after the members of OPEC+ failed to agree on new oil production quotas. The United Arab Emirates scuppered agreement by rejecting Saudi Arabia’s proposed eight-month extension to output curbs, which were originally put in place to stabilise the market during the pandemic. The Emiratis want the freedom to pump out more oil, while the Saudis and the Russians are opposed.

What does it mean?

OPEC was simply a new forum for the ongoing dispute between the two Gulf nations. The chasm between the two leading members of the Gulf Cooperation Council is widening following the rare public disagreement between Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The relationship between the two Arab nations had been anchored by the personal bond between their Crown Princes and de facto leaders: Mohammed Bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed. MBS and MBZ had to date presented a united front, launching a Saudi/Emirati alliance to back pro-government forces in Yemen, boycotting Qatar and rooting out Islamic terrorism at home and abroad.

Cracks began to appear in the relationship when the UAE withdrew forces from Yemen, leaving Saudi Arabia to fight an unwinnable war. Meanwhile, the UAE was displeased at Saudi Arabia for warming its relations with Qatar, with the Saudis in turn displeased with the Emiratis for normalising their relations with Israel.

The Crown Princes’ competing visions are making reconciliation difficult. Both the Saudi and Emirati economies need foreign investment to diversify their oil-based economies, and MBS has made no secret of his attempts to make Riyadh the financial and trade capital of the Gulf, a crown currently worn by Dubai. Saudi Arabia recently warned foreign firms they could lose out on state contracts if they do not set up regional headquarters in the Kingdom and has amended rules on imports from free zones – a direct challenge to the UAE and its trade hubs.

With Saudi Arabia eating into capital that was once exclusively invested into the UAE, the Emiratis now need to boost oil production to fund their costly diversification projects. Hence they rejected the curb extension. The UAE may be flexing its muscles, but Saudi Arabia remains the regional hegemon, and they know it. The Emirates cannot defy the Kingdom indefinitely, especially if it permanently damages the alliance crucial to the peace and stability of the Gulf.

Radical changes in anti-radicalisation policies?

What happened?

A new report on the operation of terror laws in Britain noted the “staggeringly” high numbers of autistic people — including children – being drawn into terrorism.

The report’s author Jonathan Hall QC claimed that more scrutiny is needed of the links between autism and terrorist activity, saying “it is possible that we are at a point where our understanding of terrorism and the terrorist threat is going to have to shift once again”.

What does it mean?

Hall is wading into risky territory: as he himself notes, there is a very real and respectable fear that making any sort of link between autism and terrorism will lead to stigma. But he’s not wrong that our understanding of the terrorist threat may be due a reassessment. Referrals to the UK’s anti-radicalisation programmes suggest that counter-terrorist officials are dealing with a social as much as ideological problem.

The UK has two anti-radicalisation programmes: Prevent, which offers practical help to try to prevent individuals being drawn into extremism and Channel, for cases where someone is already on that path. In recent years, the number of people being referred to Prevent with mixed, unclear or uncertain (MUU) ideological beliefs has been rising steadily. In 2019-20, 51% of the 6,287 referrals to Prevent comprised individuals with MUU. Of those, 127 were adopted as Channel cases. This amounts to a 535% increase on 2018-19.

And there are increasingly more children getting involved: arrests for terrorism-related activity among the under-18s never rose above 5% of the total before 2020; nowadays, it’s between 10% and 16%.

The statistics reflect that the most dynamic category of terrorist activity does not come from Islamists but socially-isolated teenagers affected by neurodivergent conditions or poor mental health. The challenge is now to develop counter-terrorism legislation that appropriately responds to the risk while also providing necessary and sensitive support for those vulnerable youth.

Is freedom of the press taking a step backward?  

What happened?

As part of the British government’s proposed reforms to the Official Secrets Act 1989, journalists, spooks, and members of the public could face up to 14 years in prison if found guilty of unauthorised disclosures of sensitive official information. The government has also firmly rejected a recommendation made by the Law Commission for a public interest defence to be made available for anyone charged under the Act.

What does it mean?

The government consultation on Legislation to Counter State Threats (Hostile State Activity) highlighted the need for revamped legislation regarding unauthorised disclosures of official information due to the significant change in “the scale and potential impact” of such disclosures since the Official Secrets Act 1989 came into force. The government cites the development in communications technology (hey there, internet) as a catalyst for toughening up the laws.

There is no better example of the possible implications of a change to the sentencing than the recent incident in which classified Ministry of Defence documents were found left at a Kent bus stop and then extensively reported on by the BBC. Should the government’s proposed reforms come into force, it would mean both the person who ‘left’ the documents and those at the BBC involved in the reporting of them could face up to 14 years in jail if found guilty of an unauthorised breach.

Furthermore, due to the government’s rejection of the Law Commission’s recommendation for a Public Interest Defence, public servants and civilians would be deterred from reporting on “concerns of wrongdoing”. And while the government’s position is understandable, the deterioration of the public’s access to information during the pandemic indicates a worrying trend. Is the government tightening the law to prevent journalists from delivering critical reporting, whether on the pandemic or national security?

No matter how you look at it, it is hard to see how freedom of expression among the press and public is protected without a robust public interest defence, and with severe penalties for those brave enough to defy the rule of law.

This Week’s Must Reads

1. ‘Where is the Labour Party’s messiah?’ by George Chesterton for GQ

2. ‘The toppling of Saddam’s statue: how the US military made a myth’ by Alex von Tunzelmann for The Guardian

3. ‘Can Gareth Southgate deliver both victory and progressive patriotism?’ by Gideon Rachman for the Financial Times

4. ‘No Tory should want to privatise Channel Four’ by Ruth Davidson for The Telegraph

Subscribe

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Company

Industry

Under The Radar – 02 July

ZQ Lee on Unsplash

This week, we discuss:

1. Tim Berners-Lee’s eye-watering NFT

2. Blossoming relations between Israel and the UAE

3. ExxonMobil’s lobbyists get caught out by Greenpeace

What in the NFT?

What happened?

Tim Berners-Lee has sold the original source code for the world wide web in the form of a NFT for a massive $5.4m at a Sotheby’s online auction.

What does it mean?

Berners-Lee’s sale is the latest in a series of high profile NFT auctions that underscore the growing influence of the crypto world; Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, flogged his first tweet as an NFT for $2.5m, the artist Beeple sold his digital artwork for a record $69.4m, and more recently Andy Murray announced the sale of his 2013 Wimbledon triumph.

NFTs, or ‘non-fungible tokens’, are digital assets encrypted using blockchain (the same code that underpins bitcoin). Basically, imagine you’re trading special edition sports player cards, but they’re digital.

The objective value of NFTs stems from the status of becoming the official owner of the original asset. The ‘token’ is essentially a guarantee of the digital work’s authenticity. The blockchain code is unique to the asset and proves that a particular item is one of a kind as well as enabling those who buy NFTs to claim ownership of an asset that could previously be easily and endlessly duplicated.

However, given the vast sums involved, a bubble threatens the NFT market. Some conservative commentators have branded it a ‘fad’, while the head of Christie’s auction house called people who buy them “mugs”.

NFTs are the wild west of the blockchain world, but their authenticating technology clearly could be valuable for the art world. Whether they turn out to be a digital disruptor, a get rich quick scheme for the already rich, or a passing fad; like bitcoin they won’t be going away anytime soon.

Israel & the UAE: Best Friends Forever?

What happened?

Yair Lapid, Israel’s new foreign minister, has concluded a landmark visit to the United Arab Emirates. Lapid opened the new Israeli embassy in Abu Dhabi and a consulate in the commercial centre of Dubai. He held talks with his UAE counterpart Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan and signed an economic co-operation agreement on behalf of Israel with the Gulf nation.

What does it mean?

The new Israeli power-sharing agreement will one day see Lapid become Prime Minister as part of a rotating premiership. Therefore, it is wise for the UAE to establish a rapport not only with the new government, but with the leader in waiting.

Since the Abraham Accords were signed last year, trade has boomed between Israel and the UAE, reaching $675.2 million in ten months. Business ties are expanding, while tens of thousands of tourists have flocked between the new partners.

Their new friendship faced its first litmus test during the Gaza crisis. Commentators were expecting considerable backlash from the Arab world, considering hundreds of Palestinians were killed in what has often proved to be a flashpoint in regional relations. But despite some condemnation from the UAE during the hostilities, the accords have remained intact, and Lapin’s visit suggests relations will continue to improve.

This is one area of Trump-era foreign policy that Joe Biden will be keen to build on. Indeed, the White House is reportedly laying the groundwork for more Arab states to normalise relations with Israel. While the Gaza conflict highlighted how America’s commitment to the Middle East has waned, expanding the Abraham Accords will help to stabilise the region and allow the U.S to focus on challenges in the Far East.

Climate (science) control 

What happened?

Unearthed, the investigative journalism branch of Greenpeace, recorded two ExxonMobil lobbyists admitting that they had worked to undermine environmental measures in President Biden’s infrastructure bill.

One of the lobbyists also told the undercover journalist that Exxon “aggressively” fought against climate science, funding shadow groups that cast doubt on global warming.

What does it mean?

Unearthed’s sting operation comes at a time when the oil and gas industry face a wave of lawsuits filed by cities and states across the US, demanding that it pay damages for changing weather conditions.

The nearly two dozen lawsuits claim that oil conglomerates accelerated the environmental crisis by suppressing warnings from their own scientists about the impact of fossil fuels on the climate.

A case filed in Minnesota against ExxonMobil alleges that their campaign of deception amounts to fraud. Minnesota’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, claims in his lawsuit that for years Exxon “spent millions on advertising and public relations because they understood that an accurate understanding of climate change would affect their ability to continue to earn profits by conducting business as usual.” The midwestern state has seen temperatures rise faster than the US and global averages.

These lawsuits will take years to be resolved but, in the meantime, they will significantly accelerate the downfall of oil companies’ standing in the court of public opinion. The discovery that companies knew their product was harmful heralds a seismic shift in the oil and gas’ industry’s ability to impact legislation, rivalling big tobacco’s downfall after it hid the real dangers of smoking.

This Week’s Must Reads

1. ‘Iran’s balancing act: hardliners weigh social freedoms for stability’ by Andrew England and Najmeh Bozorgmehr for the Financial Times

2. ‘Matt Hancock snog scoop and media law: Sleazy, sensational and in the public interest’ by Dominic Ponsford for the Press Gazette

3. ‘Xi warns against Western “bullies”, to argue for one-party rule’ The Economist

4. ‘Whatever happens in Batley and Spen – it’s shown that Labour’s problems run deep’ by Tom Harris for The Telegraph

Under The Radar – 25 June

Bill Oxford on Unsplash

This week, we discuss:

1. Britney Spears’ case to end her controversial conservatorship

2. The landmark victory for working mothers

3. The report suggesting trust in UK news coverage has grown during the pandemic

Toxic! Britney Spears’ Conservatorship

What happened?

Britney Spears addressed a Los Angeles court this week, calling for an end to the “abusive” conservatorship that has stripped the pop icon of her independence since 2008. She told the court: “I just want my life back.”

What does it mean?

In the modern age of conveyor belt reality television and superficial stardom, one could be forgiven for assuming Britney Spears is merely just another disgruntled celebrity. She is not. The draconian conservatorship has given Spears’ father control over her estate, career, and pretty much her entire personal life for the past thirteen years.

Spears revealed in court that she has been forced to work against her will, and that the conservatorship has blocked her from getting married and even having a baby. Court records obtained by the New York Times this week showed that the arrangement was so strict that it gave her father power over who she dated and befriended, and how she designed her home.

The arrangement has faced increased and renewed scrutiny since the release of the Framing Britney Spears documentary in February earlier this year. The hashtag #FreeBritney has continued to gain traction across social media platforms as fans fight on Spears’ behalf for an end to her heavily restricted way of life. For years, campaigners have highlighted how conservatorships are predominantly intended for older and infirm people, of which, self-evidently, Spears is neither.

We often assume celebrity to be a bestowed privilege, which for the most part it is. But in the case of Britney Spears, her celebrity status means she now finds the world untangling the most private aspects of her personal life, paid as a price to fight for her freedom

Working mothers have their day in court  

What happened?

Gemma Dobson, a nurse who was sacked for refusing to take weekend shifts, won an appeal against her dismissal this week. Dobson worked fixed shifts to care for her three children, two of whom are disabled. Her case will now be reconsidered by the original employment tribunal, after the judge said it must take childcare disparity into account.

What does it mean?

The ruling has been hailed as a landmark victory for working mothers. Mr Justice Choudhury granted Dobson’s appeal on the grounds that the employment tribunal had failed to appreciate the greater burden of caring responsibilities that women bear. According to his judgement, women are less likely to be able to accommodate the same working patterns as men, making Dobson’s claim of unfair dismissal and indirect sex discrimination worth further consideration.

The judge’s statement is corroborated by grim statistics that have emerged from the pandemic. With schools shut around the world, parents lost a vital source of childcare support. And while there has been great progress over the past few decades in what men do to take on a greater proportion of child caring responsibilities, the situation is still far from equal. Women lost over $800 billion in income globally between 2020 and 2021, with more than 2.5 million leaving the workforce in the US alone.

The Government-backed Hampton Alexander review established a target of filling 30 percent of executive positions with women. It’s an admirable aim, but it means nothing without safeguards and fairer employment practices throughout the job ladder. A singular focus on targets leaves us vulnerable to reinforcing existing inequalities and failing to develop a pipeline for female talent. By guaranteeing that other working mothers will not be discriminated against for their fixed schedules, Dobson’s case will hopefully represent a huge step forward.

Trust me I’m a journalist 

What happened?

The Reuters Institute Digital News Report has revealed that trust in news coverage has grown in the UK. The survey, conducted in January, found that 36% of UK respondents “trust most news most of the time” compared with 28% in January 2020. Trust levels are still lower than they were before the Brexit referendum in 2016, when 50% said they trusted the UK media.

What does it mean?

The pandemic has predictably increased the British public’s appetite for reliable and trustworthy news.

Broadcasters like the BBC, ITV, Sky News, and Channel 4 reaped most of the rewards from pandemic news consumption, as did the Financial Times, which led the way for print despite its expensive paywall, while cheaper tabloids trailed behind. Despite the addictive design of social media’s outrage machine, which allowed misinformation to spread as fast as the virus, these results prove that in times of crisis people want news that put facts before sensationalism.

But it’s not clear whether the growth in trust means much over the long term. The media’s failings during the Brexit referendum clearly haven’t been forgiven when comparing the data to 2015, before the political positions of almost every media institution was put under the spotlight during and after the referendum.

Brexit may be ‘done’, but the legacy and divisions it created in the media landscape will take more than just time to heal.

This Week’s Must Reads

1. ‘Five years on, Brexit – and the forces underlying it – continues to shape public opinion’ Ipsos MORI

2. ‘Wirecard: a record of deception, disarray and mismanagement’ by Olaf Storbeck for the Financial Times

3. ‘The revolt against liberalism: what’s driving Poland and Hungary’s nativist turn?’ by Nicholas Mulder for The Guardian

4. ‘Channel 4 sale would damage world-leading TV production industry’ by Simon Duke for The Times

Subscribe

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

Company

Industry