- Tesco withdraws application for Ledbury superstore
- Tar-Sands protests continue as Obama decision imminent
- Armed private mercenaries to be allowed on UK ships

Tesco withdraws application for Ledbury superstore

Tesco withdrew its application to build an out of town superstore in the Herefordshire market town of Ledbury 24 hours before it was due to be debated by council planners. The Hereford Times reported Herefordshire Council’s main planning committee had been expected to refuse the application for a 5,000 square metre retail store and 291 space car park on the New Mills Industrial Estate in Ledbury.

Campaign group Ledbury Opposes Out of Town Superstores (LOTS) had previously handed over a 3,000-signature petition while 347 letters of objection had also been received by Herefordshire Council. The group said it would now turn its attention to Sainsbury’s application to build a similar sized store on the same industrial estate.

Read Taimour Lay's in-depth investigation of Tesco's plans and the campaign against it here.

Tar-Sands protests continue as Obama decision imminent

Around 6,000 protesters surrounded the White House on Sunday 6 November to voice their opposition to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to take crude oil from the tar sands in Alberta to refineries in Texas. The 1,600-mile pipeline is facing mounting opposition from a variety of groups, including Canadian First Nations communities, farmers and climate activists. In the UK, activists surrounded a model of the White House at the US Embassy in London in solidarity.

The issue is receiving widespread media coverage in the US, where it is being spun as a choice between the climate and the economy, jobs versus environmental protection and 'ethical oil' versus 'conflict oil'. The Obama administration is due to make a final decision on the pipeline by the end of the year, though some officials have been suggesting that this deadline could slip amidst the controversy. Even if the administration does allow the pipeline to go ahead, as looks likely, there are likely to be delays caused by various legal challenges, including those made by the state of Nebraska over the threats it poses to an important aquifer.

Eight pipeline lobbyists have recently been exposed as having worked on the Obama and Hilary Clinton presidential campaigns, or for having ties to Bill Clinton. These include Paul Elliot, the main lobbyist in Washington for TransCanada pipeline company and a senior official on Clinton's campaign in 2008 as well as Jeff Berman, now of Bryan Cave LLC, who at the time was described as “Obama's secret weapon” in his contest against Clinton.

Environmental campaigner Bill McKibben said: "In a fair fight, we would have won this battle long ago because the science is clear and most people have a sincere desire to build a different kind of world that will work best for their kids. But the battle is not being fought on science, but on money. There is an enormous interest within the fossil-fuel industry to prevent change for even a few more years while they wrack up records profits. It's the biggest obstacle we face."

Emily Coats, from UK Tar Sands Network, commented: “We are particularly concerned about the Keystone XL pipeline here in the UK, because US companies are already expressing their desires to use the pipeline to bring tar sands oil to Europe. Given the UK government’s reluctance to embrace legislation that would prevent that, it is even more important that the pipeline does not get built, so we can stop the flow of this dirty oil at its source.”1

For more information about the pipeline, please see Corporate Watch's previous article here.

For more information on campaigns against tar sands, see Tar Sands Action, the Indigenous Environment Network and the UK No Tar Sands Network.

Armed private mercenaries to be allowed on UK ships

David Cameron has said he intends to introduce new legislation enabling ships sailing under the union jack to carry armed guards, allowed to shoot-to-kill to protect UK cargoes from Somali 'pirates'. These guards are likely to be provided by private mercenary companies, eager to take advantage of new business opportunities resulting from defence budget cuts and increasingly privatised military services. They will be used to protect the huge amounts of cargo from the relatively small risk of attack, which the 'pirates' themselves describe as their way of exacting an unofficial tax for the use of their waters, without an established government to do so officially.

This is an unprecedented and controversial move, with many predicting the move likely to escalate the levels of violence. It is as yet unclear how other countries, in whose waters armed guards are not permitted, will react, though Egypt has recently announced that armed guards would not be allowed on ships sailing through the Suez canal.

Few commentators however have remarked on the likelihood that it will be private security companies, who are not bound by the same modes of engagement as the armed forces, nor subject to the same public scrutiny, providing the muscle. Attempts to privately militarise the protection of trade routes could have significant consequences and requires more attention.