Civil society claims control over arms

One out of ten people in the world has an arm, and not precisely as a decoration item: every year 747,000 people are killed and 12 billion bullets are manufactured --that is, two bullets per each person on the planet. These figures aroused the Control Arms campaign, launched in 2003 to urge the UN to sign a treaty regulating arm manufacture and trade around the world. There are countries with similar treaties, but there is no global law effective worldwide, so these treaties are often useless. For instance, even if Spain is the sixth largest arm exporter (statistics of 2008), Spanish laws clearly ban arm trade in countries with armed conflicts, although these laws are often bypassed at the demand of arm lobbies because, like most companies, arm manufacturers also threaten the Spanish government with relocation to countries with softer regulations. 
This campaign is a clear example of how civil society pressure can change things. In 2003, some Nobel Peace Laureates and organizations from around the world launched this idea, and three years later it was supported by more than one million people. With all these signatures, Control Arms handed this global petition to Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General by that time, to claim some action. It was June 2006. By September 2006, 153 countries voted in favour of developing a global Arms Trade Treaty, scheduled for July 2012. Only one country voted against it: the United States. If it is eventually approved, it will be the first global tool to fight against this revolting trade.  
If you want to join this campaign, it is never too late, just sign here.

Sources:

1. Control Arms campaign: www.controlarms.org
2. Spanish law of 2007 about arm export control: http://exportcontrol.org/library/conferences/2516/01_Spanish_Export_Control_System--ATERO.pdf
3. About the joint report by Intermon Oxfam, Amnesty International, Fundació per la Pau (Foundation for Peace) and Greenpeace denouncing the non-compliance of Spanish law 53/2007: http://pressenza.com/npermalink/the-superpowersx-largest-arms-exporters
4. Documents about arms trade and its consequences: http://www.controlarms.org/indepth.php?lang=
5. Sign here for the Control Arms campaign: http://www.controlarms.org/join.php

How to channel your electoral outrage

When it’s time of elections, no matter which kind of elections are concerned, there is a common situation: many people wish to express their rejection towards political parties and look for alternative voting by channelling their electoral anger through blank votes, abstention, spoilt votes… However, this political act (because it is still a political act despite being caused by a rejection of the current political system) is often misunderstood in terms of its true meaning: how can I show my anger? who is going to benefit from it? how is it counted? Let’s solve these doubts.

Blank vote: a blank vote is an empty envelope or a ballot paper with no option ticked (for instance, in the election of the Spanish Senate). In some countries such as Colombia, ballot papers include the option of blank vote. However, in most countries, if the envelope contains a blank paper (not a ballot), it is not considered a blank vote but a spoilt vote. Contrary to abstention, which could be considered as protest vote or as apathy because voters prefer going to the beach rather than exercising their right to vote, blank ballots are always understood as a protest vote, meaning that citizens do not feel represented by any of the listed political parties. As for its use, a blank vote is included in the tally during vote counting in order to calculate the distribution of seats. Most voting systems (like D'Hondt method, used in Spain and in many more countries) require a minimum amount of votes for a party to be allocated a seat (3% in Spain, 10% in Turkey). Therefore, as blank votes increase the total amount of cast votes but not the amount of votes of a particular political party, blank votes usually favour large parties and coalitions over scattered small parties. The more blank votes, the more difficult for small parties to be allocated a seat.

Abstention: Abstainers are just non-voters. The problem is that there is no clue on their reason not to vote: it could be a boycott of the political system or just a lack of interest. In very few countries, voting is compulsory, so then non-voters are clearly protesting against the political system, but this is not so in most countries. Sometimes abstention is such that it outnumbers the votes of the winning political party, but it is useless because seats are divided according to the number of cast ballots, regardless of the percentage of population going to the polls. Therefore, abstaining from voting has no repercussion on the allocation of seats in the Parliament or on the election of the President. Moreover, if we take into account that the sum of non-voters plus the number of ballots in favour of the official opposition outnumbers by far the voters of the ruling party, abstention is clearly a missed chance to cast a protest vote against the current government. 

Spoilt vote: spoilt or null vote is a ballot paper not complying with polling rules, either because the voter’s will is not clear or because the ballot is not cast properly. Spoilt votes are those not meant for a standing party or those not considered blank votes. Therefore, spoilt votes include undervotes and overvotes (unintentional or deliberate) as well as envelopes containing letters or anything other than ballot papers. Those voters who express their disapproval by casting a ballot of a party which is not allowed to stand for, are considered spoilt votes too. As for the allocation of seats, spoilt votes are counted as abstention.

Vote to a disobedient party: Some elections include candidates that promise to leave their seat empty, thus not voting political decisions and not issuing any parliamentary speech. Voters of these disobedient parties are citizens who feel disappointed by the uselessness of blank votes and abstention, but wish to find a solution to blatantly express their unhappiness on the polling day and during the whole term of office. This option is not always possible because it depends on the existence of a disobedient party standing for the elections, such as None of the Above (NOTA) ballot option. Voting this option involves reducing the amount of seats for large parties. However, in practice, it is of limited use because they never cast votes in favour or against policies, so the rest of parties still have the same power. For instance, in a 100-seat chamber, absolute majority is 51. If there are 10 disobedient seats, large parties will have 10 less seats and it will be more difficult to reach the absolute majority of 51 seats to pass a proposal, but as disobedient seats do not exert their right to vote, the new absolute majority will be 46 seats (that is, half of 90 seats plus one). Therefore, voting disobedient parties is just a way of showing your unhappiness with the traditional political system by reminding people of the reason why there are empty seats.

Vote to a “non-political” party: besides traditional political parties (be them large or small, with political representation or not), there are other parties which stand for an election with the aim of gaining protest votes without having any political programme. These “non-political” parties are often made up of famous people (TV celebrities, sportsmen or sportswomen, comedians…) who, in case of being elected, will turn their speeches into a show. However, the problem is that these people do take their seat and do cast a vote in political decisions, but citizens who have voted them have no idea about their ideologies or their voting preferences, which is quite dangerous. More or less, we all know what traditional parties think (even when their ideas have nothing to do with their election manifesto). This problem is also present in those parties whose manifesto only tackles one issue: in favour or against the legality of cannabis, bullfighting, etc. Which is their vote when deciding other policies?

All these options are honourable to express a protest against an unfair political system. However, there is another way to channel your electoral anger, which is far more effective: going to the polls and voting for a party willing to change things. It is obvious that our democratic system is rather deficient and not very participative because citizens’ control over candidates is weak and evasive. But it is also true that we are not making the best of it. The best way to change what we don’t like is by butting in and participating. Health, education, pension plans, unemployment benefits, freedom of expression, civil rights or labour law may be incomplete and improved on, but we have them thanks to this system. Underestimating them means underestimating the efforts of many generations who fought to get and consolidate what we have today. There are many ways to change our world, and many of them have nothing to do with representative democracy, but we cannot dismiss this possibility.
If we vote for parties who are willing to change things, if we attend plenary sessions (which are currently empty) and if we control and punish the actions of our representatives, if we make the best of the (few and occasional) participation processes where citizens have the right to express their opinions (which have currently low attendance) and if we demand many more, if we get informed in depth about what’s going on and if we can build up our own well-reasoned opinions…. things could be different. Be outraged, complain, demonstrate and go to the polls.

Sources:

1. Voting systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system
2. D'Hondt method used in many countries for allocating seats in party-list proportional representation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method
3. Election calculus simulation based on D'Hondt system : http://icon.cat/util/elections
4. Countries where voting is compulsory : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
5. European citizens for a ‘None Of The Above’ option : http://www.cevb.org/?lng=en

Virtual water

The idea that freshwater is a finite resource which should not be wasted is gradually permeating our minds. At present, many people shudder at the mere thought of letting the tap drip without making good use of water or hearing that someone spends one hour having a shower, but this was not so in the past. In this sense, we are making good progress. However, how comes that our social awareness in water saving does not result in less water consumption? The answer is pretty simple: we are not aware of other water wasting processes. In other words, there are more ways to waste water other than a dripping tap.
If we take a look at water consumption figures worldwide, we will realise that household consumption is insignificant (less than 10%) and that most water is used in industries and agriculture. That is, our measures to save water at home are just the tip of the iceberg. Besides tap dripping water, there is the so-called virtual water, referred to the water used in the production of a good or service, which we actually don’t see. Everything manufactured or grown needs water to be produced and transported and it truly represents millions of cubic meters of wasted water. Let’s analyse some figures, but instead of cubic meters we will talk about “tap running minutes” in order to better understand its magnitude, taking into account that an average tap (without any water saving device available in the market, which are strongly recommended) pours 12 to 16 litres per minute. Therefore, our standard measurement is 14 litres of water running from an average tap every minute.
And now let’s face the figures:
To produce 100 grams of beef we need 10 cubic metres of water, equivalent to letting the tap run for 714 minutes (almost 12 hours!), whereas we only need 145 minutes of running water to produce 100 grams of rice, 178 minutes for 100 grams of milk and 47 minutes for 100 grams of potato.
The computer you are facing while reading this post requires a volume of water equivalent to 107 minutes of running water (1,500 litres).
The production of plastic products also requires huge amounts of water: 6 minutes of running water for each 1-litre bottle and 18 minutes for each 5-litre bottle.
Your jeans require 13 hours of running water and your cotton T-shirt almost 5 hours.
And for a car weighing one ton, the tap should be pouring water for almost three weeks.
Finally, we would need one year of running water to build a house.
Therefore, we can reach two conclusions: first, most water consumed is invisible to our eyes and secondly, this water does not come from our nearby rivers, sources or aquifers, but from the place of origin (production site or cultivation site) of this product. Hence, most rich countries are “importing” large volumes of water as products from Third World countries, many of them devastated or affected by droughts. We are not aware yet of our water footprint caused by consumption.

Sources:

1. Percentage of water consumption worldwide: http://www.unep.org/Geo2000/english/0099.htm
2. Virtual water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_water
3. Water saving devices: http://eartheasy.com/live_lowflow_aerators.htm
4. The data of water consumption in agriculture are taken from Worldwatch Institute report “State of the World 2004”: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1043
5. Water footprint: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home

Extrajudicial killing

Today there are 58 countries where death penalty is still legal although it is not always applied. On the other hand, some countries practise the so-called extrajudicial killing, that is, the murder of a person by governmental authorities without any previous legal proceeding or trial. This type of action is considered a human right violation from the point of view of international humanitarian law, and most democratic countries legally reject extrajudicial killing. But easier said than done: last week Osama bin Laden was killed by the US government. It is not the first case of extrajudicial killing, and sadly not the last one either, but this time there is a significant difference if compared to other extrajudicial killings so far: this murder has been wholeheartedly approved by the rest of democratic countries and by the UN.
Let’s take a look at some previous cases of extrajudicial killings to check that the other countries either condemned this action (for instance in the murder of some Antiapartheid leaders in South-Africa), or justified such killing appealing to the right of self-defence against the opponents (as in the case of the Mossad killing the members of the terrorist group Black September, alleged to have been involved in the 1972 Munich massacre on the occasion of the Olympic Games), or just remained silent.
This time, however, most US allies have officially congratulated Obama for this murder. The Spanish government issued a press release applauding this terrorist act by the US, without further legal consequences, which is quite shocking because Spain passed a law banning political parties which do not condemn terrorism strenuously. Even the UN Security Council issued a press release congratulating the US, although it was precisely the UN who drew a resolution condemning extrajudicial killings in November 1989.
These last days, we have heard arguments in favour of this killing, mostly on the bases of the massive atrocity of bin Laden’s attack to the Twin Towers. But this should never be a valid argument: criminals, as wicked as they may be, should be judged and sentenced, but never murdered. If all governments start revenging their offences with terrorist actions beyond their legal system, what moral authority is left to later condemn a citizen who kills someone who had murdered his/her family? Our history of civilization is a history of justice against the Talion Law, against revenge.

Sources:

1. Countries retaining the death penalty according to Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries
2. International Humanitarian Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_humanitarian_law
3. List of well-known extrajudicial killing cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extrajudicial_killings
4. Apartheid in South-Africa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
5. Extrajudicial killings of Operation Wrath of God directed by the Mossad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God
6. Official congratulation to the US by the Spanish government on the occasion of Osama bin Laden’s killing: http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/idiomas/9/gobierno/news/2011/02052011osamabinladen.htm
7. Political Parties Law in Spain: http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/spain.html
8. UN Security Council congratulates the US: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10239.doc.htm
9. UN resolution 44/162 of 15 November 1989 about human rights in the justice administration: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r162.htm

As English as the Queen

There are so many obvious arguments against monarchies that it is hard to understand people who still support them (except for the royals themselves, of course). A possible explanation of monarchy advocacy was given by the Spanish journalist Rafael Ramos some years ago on the event of Prince Charles and Camilla’s wedding: “European monarchies survive on three traditional pillars: their aura of mystery, their spirituality and their unavoidable institutionalism”. And there is even a fourth reason: they represent national unity, they are the symbol of their country and they stand as a stereotype of the average citizen with all national clichés (positive and negative). And this is true, as many national stereotypes have crossed borders thanks to their kings and queens: for instance, Queen Elizabeth represents British phlegm and most British clichés (as absurd as they may be) for foreigners. She is the most British of all English people, in the same way that King Juan Carlos of Spain is the most Spanish of all Spaniards. However, this is quite shocking if we take a look at their family trees. 
To being with, Queen Elizabeth II belongs to the House of Windsor, which is quite an English name. But this family name is not very old: it was founded by King George V, Queen Elizabeth’s grandfather, just at the time of the First World War, when he changed the family name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the “English” Windsor. Why? Simply because the former sounded too German and the First World War was not the best time to have a German name for the British royals. But why did this family name sound so German? Simply because it is a German dynasty made up by the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and the house of Hannover. Therefore, the British royals are of German origin.
And there is a similar story for the Spanish royals too: the House of Bourbon is a French family (Philip V of Spain was the Sun King’s grandson, that is, Louis XIV of France was his paternal grandfather) who replaced the former Spanish royal family, who were not Spanish either, but from Austria. But let’s take a look at more contemporary generations, as the grandparents of the current King of Spain were not of Spanish origin: King Alfonso XIII (Bourbon), Queen Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg (a German family living in Scotland), Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (related to the houses of Austria, Bourbon and Saxony, among others) and Princess Louise of Orleans (French).
The king of Sweden belongs to the House of Bernadotte, founded by the Napoleonic Marshal Jean Baptiste Bernadotte (thus French), who succeeded King Charles XIII of Sweden in 1818 when he died without issue.
In the case of Norway, just take a look at King Harald’s grandparents: Maud of Wales, Charles of Sweden, Ingeborg of Denmark and Haakon VII (he is the only one from Norway, but in turn his father was the King of Denmark and his mother was the Princess of Sweden).    
The House of Wettin (a family of German royals from Saxony) reigns in Belgium; 3 of the 4 grandparents of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands are German; look at the full name of Margrethe II of Denmark to check her origins: Margrethe of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and Bernadotte.
And we could go on and on with principalities or other royal families from currently republican countries like France, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Bulgaria… but I think that we made our point.
Surprisingly enough, most European people consider that someone whose grandparents were from Morocco (or Turkey or Senegal), is still Moroccan even if this person or his/her parents have never set foot in Morocco, but on the other hand royals are the true native representatives of our country.