As EU leaders continue to grapple with the economic effects of COVID-19, the issues surrounding what measures should be included in its recovery fund remain. The questions about exactly what will trigger growth in the eurozone countries are still being asked, but progress is being made toward ensuring that the fund has a “green” focus.

Last Thursday EU leaders provided the European Commission (EC) with the opportunity to resolve this complex task. Any recovery fund would be linked to the EU budget, but European leaders failed to agree on how the recovery fund will support the green transition they claim they are committed to.

A ‘Green’ Recovery Fund

EC President Ursula von der Leyen urged her counterparts to remember that the bloc’s biggest challenge is to repair the “crisis damage” that the coronavirus has caused. EU leaders agreed that the precise amount of the recovery fund that will be used to fund the bloc’s economic recovery should be of an “unprecedented magnitude.”

One of the key questions that the EU has to answer is whether conditions⁠ — green or otherwise ⁠— should be imposed on state aid to struggling companies. For now, the EC has restricted leverage to enforce green conditions on state aid to businesses.

Euractiv reports that on Monday, the Netherlands floated their own ides to ensure that EU leaders could trigger a green recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. The Dutch suggested an “exclusion list” for economic activities like nuclear power, which they believe should be banned from receiving state aid.

Fierce Debate Raging Over Whether Fund Should Include Nuclear Power

Apparently decisions on how to spend EU recovery funds should be guided by an EU-wide green finance taxonomy which rewards investments in clean technology. To qualify for the green investment label, an economic activity must provide a significant contribution to at least one of the six pre-defined environmental objectives, which includes migration and climate change. It immediately disqualifies activities that purportedly do “significant harm” to the other five objectives.

For example, it excludes coal and gas power from being classified as green unless industrial plants are provided with carbon capture and storage technology which allows them to curb their emissions below a specific threshold.

One of the issues that this proposal faces is that it has already triggered intense debate over whether the “do no harm” principle should exclude nuclear power. However this matter will be debated at a technical level later this year.

The EU Faces Many Other Challenges

However, many challenges remain for EU leaders. As Iain Begg from the London School of Economics suggests, the EU needs to prevent itself from being tangled up in a situation where it does too little, too late. In the weeks leading up to May’s meeting on the recovery fund, they need to focus on resolving the following issues.

EU leaders need to decide how the recovery fund should function. One possible model is the European Fund for Strategic Investment, with guarantees from the EU budget that would allow investors to borrow more than they would be able to raise themselves.

Then there is the matter of whether more of the recovery effort should be in the form of grants to nations as opposed to loans, as the latter would severely harm the ability of heavily indebted nations like Italy from being able to repay their debts.

Von der Leyen has suggested that the permitted ceiling for EU spending should rise to 2 percent of GDP, up from a current maximum of 1.2 percent. She wants the time period for this proposal to be two to three years, but it will cause alarm in several capital cities. That is why EU leaders must decide whether the EU budget should be temporary or permanent.

Although EU leaders face many obstacles in the weeks building up to May’s crucial meeting that will determine what the bloc’s COVID-19 recovery fund will look like, it is clear that the emphasis will be on green initiatives.

L'articolo What Will the EU’s COVID-19 Recovery Fund Look Like? proviene da InsideOver.

A recent report by the American newspaper New York Times has claimed that a new finding suggests that American and Dutch authorities hid the real reason behind the 2009 crash of a Turkish Airlines plane in the Netherlands. The allegation comes at a point when the American manufacturer is suffering heavy economic losses and the loss of trust due to two deadly incidents in 2018 and 2019. This news may come as the ultimate blow for the company and it may also raise questions on how investigations are carried out.

On 25 February 2009, a Turkish Airlines aircraft crashed at the Netherlands’ Schipol Airport, killing nine people and injuring 117 others. The report by authorities claimed that the main cause of the incident was the pilots’ fault. The report mentioned that during the moment of the plane’s landing, the two altimeters of the plane were showing different values which caused a malfunction in the aircraft’s autopilot system. The main responsibility, in this case, was related to the pilots as they did not intervene to fix the issue but no other problem was pointed out in the findings. However, the New York Times article stressed that some aviation safety experts, such as Dr Sidney Dekker, accused Boeing of concealing their risky design choices and faulty safety assessments as the company didn’t inform pilots before the malfunction occurred. Furthermore, the necessary information for pilots to prevent this malfunction wasn’t included in pilot guidebooks according to the latest findings. The New York Times said that American authorities changed the details on the report to prevent any accusations against Boeing. A professor from Ohio State University and advisor to Federal Aviation Administration David Woods mentioned that “the Turkish Airlines accident should have awakened everyone.”

Nine years after the Turkish Airlines crash at Schipol airport, another incident shocked the world when a Lion Air Flight 610 crashed into the Java sea soon after taking off from Jakarta. All 189 people on board were killed. This was the first crash that involved the 737 Max 8 aircrafts introduced in 2017. Initial reports after the crash suggested that the aircraft’s airspeed indicators malfunctioned, similar to the 2009 crash. The system failure was again related to design flaw, where the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System of the 737 Max series caused an automatic nose-down trim. Following the reports, both the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing warned all operators on how to avoid such events to prevent another crash such as the Lion Air Flight 610. However, like some global task forces claimed, Boeing failed to sufficiently explain the malfunctions related to the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System, and after only five months, another fatal crash took place, which again involved a Boeing aircraft.

The Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 from Addis Ababa to Nairobi on 10 March 2019 crashed only six minutes after taking off. All 157 people on board the flight lost their lives. The Boeing 737 Max 8 was again at the centre of controversy. Following both incidents related to the same aircraft, a majority of airline companies started grounding Boeing 737 Max 8 aircrafts and cancelled their orders from the American manufacturer. Initial studies on the black box of the plane showed clear similarities with the Lion Air Flight 610 crash and again the system forced the aircraft to perform an automatic nose-down trim. Pilots failed to respond to the event. Despite the lack of action by the pilots, acclaimed pilot Chesley Sullenberger defended them, sayıng: “Even knowing what was going to happen, I could see how crews would have run out of time and altitude before they could have solved the problems.”

A total of 355 people were killed in three crashes related to Boeing and all of the cases were caused by similar malfunctions according to the findings. The New York Times article claimed the similarities between these three events (sensor failure) and said that if the reason behind the 2009 crash was aired transparently, the following two deadly incidents could have been prevented. The New York Times article will again draw attention to Boeing’s design choices and faulty safety assessments, initiating a new test of trust for the American giant. However, the credibility of investigators will also be questioned by the public and the power of aircraft companies and their influence will also become a serious matter of investigation. The theory of parallelism between the crashes emerging from these claims and the real link between the incidents will emerge after a series of investigations is conducted appropriately on the matter. Despite these needs, the news is perhaps filling the gaps on some unanswered questions from 2009. The former CEO of Turkish Airlines, Temel Kotil at that time claimed that Dutch authorities prevented Turkish Airlines officials to reach the crash site by handcuffing them. The event caused many conspiracy theories at the time, with some media outlets claiming the involvement of the FBI in the event.

Many years have passed since the Turkish Airlines crash but the New York Times article may reopen some closed cases to find new details about the three deadly crashes. Of course, it is difficult to forecast what action authorities might take next and whether new investigations will be carried out. However, what people are now asking is what measures authorities might take and whether new investigations will be carried out? What remains certain though is people asking themselves, “would it have been possible to prevent the deaths of over 300 people if they had taken the case of Turkish Airlines seriously?”

L'articolo Boeing’s Role in the 2009 Turkish Airlines Crash proviene da InsideOver.

The Hague, August 9. The protesters march silently, a sizzling intensity surrounding them. No beating drums, no blaring megaphones. Just signs. I want to speak, reads a fluttering banner; I am robbed, states another. Police officers flank the noiseless procession – their job is to keep the peace. But should the veiled women stray into a public building – a hospital, say – that dynamic would change. In theory, at least. The Netherlands has joined a growing list of European nations to adopt a so-called ‘burqa ban’ – a law against full face coverings in public spaces. But with police, hospitals, transport providers and politicians vowing to snub the new law, many doubt its purpose and practicality.

For years, a ban on facial coverings had been mooted by the Dutch far-right, but proposals never advanced beyond the political fringe. That changed in 2018, when politicians approved the ‘Partial Ban on Face-Covering Clothing Act’, which came into force on August 1. Any item that obstructs the face – ski masks, full-face helmets, balaclavas and religious garb – are illegal in certain public areas, including hospitals, transport hubs and police stations.

Legislators deny that the new rules have a racial dimension, but there’s little doubt of the intended target – veil-wearing Muslim women. The phrase ‘burqa ban’ has become synonymous with the restrictions, though it is in fact the niqab – a less obscuring garment – that is invariably seen on European streets. Wearers of the banned attire will be given the chance to remove the offending item, the law states, or face a fine of up to €415.

But Dutch Muslims needn’t worry too much, it seems. Unanimous in their rejection of the new rules, medical and transport groups have said they won’t uphold the ban. “It is not the job of the hospital,” read a pithy statement from the country’s medical association; “…the law is unworkable,” stressed a railway spokesman. Lack of resources will likely hinder police enforcement also, said Rotterdam’s mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb, adding that his city “has bigger problems – murder, drugs, the undermining of society”.

Such definitive opposition hasn’t dampened the spirits of the ban’s most forthright proponent, Geert Wilders. First floating the idea in 2005, Wilders’ far-right ‘Party for Freedom’ has long championed the restriction on facial veils. “The next step [is] to make sure that the headscarf could be banned in the Netherlands as well,” he said as the new rules took effect, quashing any notion of the law’s religious neutrality.

Wilders is of a political ilk that now dominate European policy making. As the mid-decade migrant crisis drove a growth of nationalist populism, centrists across the continent – desperate to remain relevant – shifted rightward. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland have all adopted burqa bans in some form or another. Even in the United Kingdom, where calls for action have been resisted, support for face-cover regulation hovers around the 50% mark.

In common with many of its ban-embracing neighbours, the Netherlands has relatively few niqab-clad citizens. While precise figures aren’t available, Dutch academics estimate that no more than 400 women wear the full veil. Those who do aren’t the victims of familial subjugation or misogyny, research suggests, as is often inferred by advocates of the ban. Rather than freeing the women of conservative Islam’s supposed strictures, the law infringes on their personal liberties, says Dutch anthropologist Annelies Moors.

Thus the movement against facial coverings appears to be largely symbolic. Fearing the wrath of an increasingly right-leaning electorate, Dutch politicians have alighted on the burqa ban as a way of burnishing their anti-immigration credentials. That’s according to critics of the regulation, who believe it is more surface than substance. But for niqab wearers, the real-world consequences could be devastating. With their garb forbidden in police stations and hospitals, their ability to seek help when it’s most desperately needed is, theoretically, in jeopardy.

Then there’s the threat of violence. While official police enforcement is unlikely, the prospect of vigilantism can’t be overlooked. Technically a crime, niqab-wearers run the risk of a citizen’s arrest, which would allow for their physical detainment until authorities arrive. Though no such incidents have been reported, threats involving the action are not uncommon, especially online. Coupled with the new restrictions on transport, veiled women are feeling “a chilling effect on their freedom of movement,” notes Tom Zwart, professor of cross-cultural law at Utrecht University.

But amid the adversity, a remarkable stirring of solidarity can be observed, says Zwart. Expressing their support, men and women of all backgrounds joined the Hague protesters – and a new group, ‘burqa buddies’, has emerged to protect those affected by the law. Enlisting the help of regular citizens, organisers hope to safeguard niqab wearers by pairing them with local volunteers. Two weeks since its launch, nearly 6,000 people have joined.

It’s a positive step, say opponents of the ban, but still the risk of criminality hangs above the women. And with the new law going unenforced, some worry politicians may double-down with even more restrictive legislation. This would be good news for the ban’s proponents, who say it promotes security and gender equality.

These are welcome advances, if ever they materialise, but their price – personal liberty and community cohesion – is simply too great for many. This costly trade-off helped confine the burqa ban to the Dutch political fringe for years. It’s out in the open now, and only time will tell the true consequences.

L'articolo The Dutch “Burqa Ban” Could Have Huge Consequences proviene da InsideOver.