The SDG Summit gets underway in the General Assembly hall at UN Headquarters in New York. September 2023. Credit: UN Photo/Cia Pak
Opinion by Simone Galimberti (kathmandu, nepal)
Inter Press Service
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Sep 22 (IPS) – What does transformative and sweeping really mean in the overarching efforts to achieve the Agenda 2030?
With the conclusion of the second edition of the SDG Summit, it is time for stocktaking on what was agreed at the United Nations HQ in New York this week. At the core of the Summit were not the several Leaders’ Dialogues that, as important as it can be to have heads of state and government reflecting on the Agenda, are just talking shops without any practical implications.
Instead, what deserves more scrutiny is the Political Declaration that was issued during the Summit after months of negotiations facilitated by the governments of Ireland and Qatar. The document has been heralded as truly significant, a “transformative and sweeping” game-changer that will be able to reposition sustainable development at the center of the global deliberations.
But is it really so?
Certainly, the Declaration contains some bold language that truly makes an attempt at securing the international community’s steadfast leadership towards the Agenda 2030. Yet would this be enough to command not only the commitment of the world’s government to achieve it but also a through follow up and implementation in the months and years ahead?
As we know, the SDGs are far from being on track and each report being published, confirms it. The fact that the Declaration is comprehensive because it covers the whole spectrum of policy making that is covered by the 17 SDGs contained in the Agenda, is hardly enough.
After all, the expectations were high as the document was supposed to be an actionable and provide impetus for change.
Real leadership means and implies actions and after the conclusion of the Summit, no one can be optimistic that the governments will concretely step up. The reality, no matter how much the UN is trying to portray it in a such a way, those expecting doable, concrete and detailed advances, are now feeling disappointed and frustrated and rightly so.
It is true that the final text does offer a lot of attention has been given to the inter-linked challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. Yet for these two global issues, any figures estimated to address them, disappeared from the final approved document.
Indeed, any references to the goal of delivering 100 billion US Dollar by 2025 (yearly, let’s not forget it, even if this detail did not make even in one of the initial draft circulated) did not find space in the approved Declaration. The same could be said for the $700 billion biodiversity fund included in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
A consolation could be found in having the proposal of an SDG Stimulus, one of the key proposals being pushed by the UN Secretary Geneal, being mentioned. Unfortunately, also in this case, the number of $ 500 billion annually proposed by Mr. Guterres did not make the final cut.
With the industrialized nations struggling to deliver on their promises in the field of climate action, having a paragraph, even though a brief one on the Stimulus, can be seen as a victory especially for Mr. Guterres. The Secretary General might feel mixed emotions about the final Political Declaration.
It is true that his ambitious idea of the Summit of the Future, scheduled in 2024, got included even though apparently without much enthusiasm from the international community. Yet, on the other hand, the concept of a New Social Contract, so central to the reform agenda of Mr. Guterres, was completely ignored.
This might be unsurprising considered the political implications (and consequences) of what can be described as a bold attempt at reviewing and renewing the relationships and dynamics between the state and its citizens.
After all, at the United Nations everything that sounds too political (and truly transformative) is going to be strongly pushed back by the member states, especially those which have their own “unique” understanding of democracy and human rights.
Positively and probably unexpected was the attention that the Declaration gave to the latter. Indeed, human rights found acceptance in the document not only once but multiple times and this is praiseworthy, albeit, only symbolically.
A disappointment is the fact that no space was given to the importance of civic engagement, itself an element instrumental to bring forward the idea of a New Social Contract. Yet, even without any linkages to this overtly progressive idea, civic engagement and with it, one of its greatest manifestations, volunteering, did not find any space in the document.
Apparently UNV was not particularly active in the drafting process nor throughout the jamboree of side events organized around the SDG Summit and this is quite alarming. Even more is the fact that the Declaration does not offer any transformative plans or promises to empower youths.
On this regard, the establishment of an UN Youth Office, another key part of the reform agenda of Mr. Guterres, while significant, it is not at all transformative if tools and mechanisms are not created to enable youths to participate.
The issue of localization of the SDGs, probably, the best approach to involve and mobilize citizens, especially the youths in the pursuit of the Agenda 2030, also did not find due prominence. Likewise, the whole process of the Voluntary National Reviews or VNRs was not highlighted the way it should have been.
It remains quite incomprehensible why the member states are not so keen to translate the SDGs at local level. “We will continue to integrate the SDGs into our national policy frameworks and develop national plans for transformative and accelerated action” reads the Declaration.
“We will make implementing the 2030 Agenda and achieving the SDGs a central focus in national planning and oversight mechanisms”, the document further adds.
This acknowledgement is certainly welcomed but only a lot of political capital and commitment will be able to translate these lofty sentences in a truly revolution in the way policy making is currently carried out that is, far too remote and disconnected from the people.
Yet localizing the SDGs should have been seen as a true game changer and much more focus should have been devoted to. We should have gone well beyond the statement found in the Declaration, according to which, the Leaders says that “will further localize the SDGs and advance integrated planning and implementation at the local level.”
The Political Declaration is a positive document but, in no measure, a game changing one. The reality is that governments are not truly held accountable to implement their SDGs.
The VNRs mechanism is utterly inadequate and not only because it is voluntary but it is so also structurally speaking. Ultimately, there is no real watchdog with powers over the countries lacking their commitments in terms of delivering the SDGs nor the UN System has any real leverage to force the member states to submit their VNRs through a binding timeframe.
I wish the SDG Summit would resemble a COP Process like the annual one related to Climate Change with real pressure and real negotiations occurring. As per its current design, the leaders at the Summit just come to talk, preach, complain or condescending but there is no real high-level bargaining.
That’s why, for example, the wording on climate change, mentioned throughout the document, as significant as they are, do not touch the real debate of phasing down and phasing out fossil fuels.
In this context the fact that the Political Declaration did not mince a word on the ongoing but stalled negotiations on a legally binding mechanism or Treaty on Business and Human Rights, becomes, unfortunately, something superfluous and expendable.
The Writer is the Co-Founder of ENGAGE and The Good Leadership and is based in Kathmandu.
Miriam Poma stands in the electromechanical workshop for high-end vehicles that she co-owns in the city of El Alto, adjacent to La Paz, Bolivia. In the past, she had several jobs in the informal sector and also had to overcome a lot of resistance to working as an automotive mechanic. CREDIT: Franz Chávez / IPS
by Franz Chavez (la paz)
Inter Press Service
LA PAZ, Sep 21 (IPS) – In Bolivia, more and more women have gone from being homemakers or street vendors to joining the noisy world of engines, their hands now covered in grease after learning that special touch to make a car work. But they frequently have to put up with machismo or sexism, injustice and mistrust of their skills with tools.
Automotive mechanics is traditionally associated with masculine men wearing oil-stained coveralls. In La Paz and other Bolivian cities over the years many auto repair shops have upgraded from precarious workshops on the street to modern facilities with high-tech equipment.
Vehicles have also transitioned from human-operated nut-and-gear systems to cars governed by electronics.
But openness to women has not evolved in the same way in the profession, as it is unusual to find female mechanics.
And auto repair shops do not appear in studies on informal employment in Latin America by the International Labor Organization (ILO), although mechanic shops are very much present in the informal sector.
“At the age of five I learned about fractions through tears. My father would ask me for a fork wrench (middle wrench, in Bolivia), but since I didn’t know which one it was, he would throw it at my head,” Miriam Poma Cabezas, a senior electromechanical technician, now 50 and divorced, told IPS.
Since that incident, a mixture of anecdote and forced apprenticeship, 45 years have passed, most of them dedicated to the profession of mechanics specializing in engines and now in the electronics of high-end vehicles, in a workshop of which she is co-owner in the city of El Alto, next to La Paz, the country’s political capital.
On a busy street in the La Paz neighborhood of Sopocachi, Ana Castillo uses complex techniques to dismantle rubber tires, identify the damage, and clean and apply chemicals to fix them. At 56, she is an expert in the trade.
She charges about a dollar and a half for each repaired tire, which involves exerting vigorous effort to loosen rusted lug nuts, in order to find the puncture in worn tires amidst the fine black dust that has darkened her hands for 20 years.
“God put me here and I love it because you have to use your strength. I would go crazy sitting still,” Castillo, who completed law school, though she never practiced law, tells IPS as she quickly operates a wrench that creaks as it loosens one of the nuts, stuck hard and moldy from water and dirt.
But she does not only repair tires. She is also a specialist in rebuilding classic cars, an activity for which she is becoming very well-known.
Ana Castillo checks one of the rims she has on the sidewalk of her workshop on a busy street of the Sopocachi neighborhood in the Bolivian city of La Paz. Automotive mechanics holds no mysteries for Castillo, who is also a specialist in rebuilding antique cars. CREDIT: Franz Chávez / IPS
With a great deal of effort, Poma managed to set up her own high-level electromechanical repair shop, but before that she had spent years working as an informal self-employed worker, not only in automotive mechanics.
For her part, Castillo complained about the municipal seizure of a piece of land where she wanted to build the mechanic shop of her dreams, together with her husband Mario Cardona. A court ruling granted them the right to use the land and a city council resolution upheld it, but they still have not been given back the land.
A case like so many others
The automotive mechanics sector is just one example of those in which the participation of Bolivian women is particularly difficult, because they are seen as traditionally male professions and there is strong resistance to women breaking into the field, whether out of necessity or a sense of vocation.
The 2018 Annual Report of the UN Women agency, based on figures from the National Institute of Statistics, states that seven out of 10 women in Bolivia are economically active, work in informal conditions and lack labor rights, which makes it difficult to specifically identify how many work as mechanics.
UN Women highlights that Bolivia “is the third country in the world, after Rwanda and Cuba, with the highest political participation of women”: 51 percent in the Chamber of Deputies and 44 percent in the Senate.
But this high female presence in politics in this South American country of 12.3 million inhabitants does not translate into a boost for women in other areas, particularly business and formal employment.
The president of the Chamber of Businesswomen of Bolivia (Camebol), Silvia Quevedo, told IPS that there is no “state incentive (for women’s participation) in any particular job” and encourages “women themselves to forge their own way, based on the quality of their work.”
Camebol emerged in the department of Santa Cruz, the most economically developed in the country, and has since spread to six of Bolivia’s nine regions. It has a thousand members and its purpose, together with strengthening its institutional framework, is to influence public policies to promote equal opportunities in business.
A study conducted by the ILO on Bolivian self-employed women workers in the informal sector shows that the department of La Paz accounts for 31.8 percent of this segment, with an average age of 45 years and eight years of schooling, below the 12 years of compulsory basic education.
In the city of La Paz, 75 percent of self-employed women work in commerce, 15 percent in manufacturing and eight percent in community services. In the other two largest cities in the country, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz, the proportions are similar, according to the report.
Electromechanics specialist Miriam Poma checks on a screen the problems of a high-end vehicle in her specialized workshop in the Bolivian city of El Alto, adjacent to La Paz. CREDIT: Franz Chávez / IPS
Experienced hands
Miriam Poma told IPS that she began to create her own source of employment at the age of 16, on the bustling commercial Huyustus Street in La Paz, where thousands of vendors sell all kinds of merchandise. She sold shoes and handbags.
But soon after, she decided to devote herself full time to repairing Volkswagen vehicles, and ended up as head mechanical assistant to her father, Marcelino Poma, who competed in rally races until he was 70 years old.
Creativity to adapt at a young age to the opportunities of street commerce led Ana Castillo to sell pork sandwiches. She was 14 years old at the time, forced by the responsibility of caring for her two younger brothers after they had all been abandoned by their mother.
“I know how to make everything: sausages, pickles, sauces; I’m not afraid to start from scratch,” Castillo, who helped her two younger brothers earn degrees in business administration and social communication, told IPS enthusiastically.
In the formal economy, “foreign trade has a woman’s face,” said Quevedo, the president of Camebol, based on surveys of the participation of its members in export companies.
Quevedo is an economist with extensive knowledge in agriculture who specializes in exports.
In 2022, international sales of non-traditional products amounted to 9.7 billion dollars, according to the Bolivian Institute of Foreign Trade (IBCE), in a country with a GDP of 41 billion dollars.
But there are still prejudices about women’s efficiency in men’s jobs, as the two women mechanics noted.
Poma said the customers in her father’s repair shop initially did not trust her to tune their engines, and tried to keep her from working on their vehicles.
Her brother, Julio Poma, would say he had done the work, and only after the client expressed complete satisfaction would he reveal that the work was actually done by his sister.
Recently, Poma tried to pass on her knowledge to men in the field of motor electronics, but no one was interested in a female instructor who was also a racing driver in 2006. In order to attract students, she had to hire a foreign expert.
A study carried out by the Women’s Institute of La Paz, belonging to the city government, indicated the level of interest in learning gastronomy, computer technology, cell phone use and education in small business finances.
Among the non-conventional trades, the respondents called for training in masonry, plumbing and electricity, a spokesperson for the Institute told IPS. The Institute conducts training workshops for 1,450 low-income women heads of households between the ages of 25 and 70.
NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 20 (IPS) – Despite the dominance of the “Big Three” cereal crops and a steady rise in meat consumption, an overlooked food sector is projected to become ever more central to Africa’s food security and rural economic growth between now and 2050.
Over the next three decades, the remarkable yet humble yam, sweetpotato, cassava and other roots are forecast to create $140 billion in additional market value. This compares to $41 billion for rice, millet and maize, and $70 billion for meat. Meanwhile, banana and plantain are set to add another $50 billion to this balance sheet.
These hardy, locally suited and cost-effective crops are already staple ingredients across the entire continent, accounting for more than 40 per cent of total food production. Their importance is only growing as farmers, particularly female ones, face more challenging growing conditions and weather extremes.
Yet, despite their affordability and resilience, the starring role of roots, tubers and bananas in Africa’s climate-smart food systems of the future is not guaranteed and relies on the kind of united but agile approach on display at the first Africa Climate Summit recently held in Nairobi, Kenya.
When it comes to adapting to the already inevitable impacts of climate change, root crops can naturally withstand heat and drought better than cereals, legumes and vegetables. Cassava, in particular, is an unusual example of a food crop that may even benefit from rising temperatures, with research suggesting increases in climate suitability of up to 17.5 per cent.
Credit: CIP 2023
However, for Africa to get the full benefit of these environmental superfoods, the continent needs coordinated efforts to optimise, scale up and mainstream these robust and valuable crops.
More and novel, de-risking investment models into genetic improvement research programmes and inclusive governance systems would be one place to start. Although root crops are traditionally difficult to breed, recent scientific breakthroughs have made it possible to produce varieties that are even more drought tolerant, heat resistant and tolerant of increased salinity.
Genomics-assisted breeding has further accelerated this progress, which is fundamental for delivering next generation varieties that are both climate-smart and more nutritious. Hardier and more nutritional root crops would benefit populations in both rural areas where they are grown, and urban areas, where it can be more challenging to supply fresh, healthy and perishable produce.
Developing Africa’s capacity to use agricultural science and research to improve the qualities of root crops according to regional and local differences also requires greater scientific cooperation. A regional roots, tubers and bananas partnership is leading the way, encompassing national research programs, CGIAR crop research centers and international science partners.
Climate variability across Africa means the impact on roots and related crops will differ country by country. For instance, some evidence suggests future climates may impact potato production in Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda, but would favour potato systems in Burundi and Rwanda.
The continent would therefore benefit from more integrated and cross-border breeding programmes that pool resources and brain power for efficiency, while simultaneously creating the capacity needed to respond to the specific needs of different contexts.
Finally, and equally relevant, the latest and most suitable varieties must get to the farmers who need them through efficient and accessible seed delivery systems.
In Africa, improved varieties of most crops have an adoption ceiling of about 40 per cent, which means the majority of farmers are using seeds and planting material that have not been optimised for today’s conditions. The average age of a variety in farmers’ fields is often 10 years or more, leaving farmers and food supply chains missing out on a decade of ever-increasing agricultural advancements.
Finding and developing the most effective ways to reach farmers, whether through informal channels, cooperatives, government initiatives or non-profits, is vital to accelerate the adoption of new, climate-smart varieties.
The recent Africa Climate Summit demonstrated the power of a unified voice to address the common challenges facing the entire continent. Yet it also recognised the country-level nuances inherent in dealing with an emergency like the climate crisis.
When it comes to climate-proofing food security, local staple crops such as roots and tubers offer the greatest potential, and with more investment and collaboration, they can become multi-purpose solutions that meet Africa’s needs. The Green Revolution that transformed global cereal production is yet to happen for roots, tubers, and bananas. Harnessing advancements in science, environmental lessons, and regional political leadership, the moment is at hand for these crops to put Africa on a track for a food-secure future. Hugo Campos, roots, tubers and bananas breeding lead at CGIAR, the world’s largest publicly funded agriculture research organisation
Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram (kuala lumpur, malaysia)
Inter Press Service
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Sep 20 (IPS) – The growing and changing material requirements for new technologies have triggered natural resource scrambles for strategic minerals, generating dangerous rivalries fought out in the global South.
Scrambles for resources
Jayati Ghosh, Shouvik Chakraborty and Debamanyu Das have analyzed these new scrambles for mineral resources in developing countries triggered by major new innovations since the electronics boom.
Jomo Kwame SundaramNatural resources here refer to naturally occurring solid, liquid or gaseous materials in or on the Earth’s crust. When extracted and exported commercially, they are considered primary commodities.
All technologies – both peaceful and military – have specific material requirements. For example, energy transitions need particular minerals for renewable energy generation, transmission and storage.
New technologies, with specific material requirements, are changing the nature of rivalries – among states, corporations and individuals – seeking to control these mineral resources.
Feasible mass use of renewable energy requires extracting needed natural resources, which incurs costs and has adverse consequences. Commercial feasibility implies profitable extraction of desired minerals.
Thus, addressing global warming by generating more energy from renewable sources – while desirable and necessary – in turn generates new problems and challenges which need to be addressed.
Rare earths
Despite their name, rare earth elements (REE) may not actually be scarce. But most REE are difficult and costly to extract as they are usually found together with other minerals. Unsurprisingly, REE demand and supplies have changed greatly in recent years.
For the time being, demand for at least 17 ‘rare earth’ minerals is expected to grow. The inter-governmental International Energy Agency (IEA) projects supplies of some critical minerals will increase at least 30-fold over the next two decades.
Extracting lithium and other such minerals also has very problematic environmental implications. Mined all over the world, REE are usually processed and separated by several stages of often complex and costly extraction and chemical processing, with many harmful to the environment.
China currently leads the world in rare earth production, with over a third of the world’s known REE reserves. While Chinese companies dominate some supplies, China’s rare earth imports currently exceed its exports.
Nevertheless, China dominates ‘downstream’ processing of REEs. Chinese companies control over 85 per cent of the costly REE processing processes. Unsurprisingly, China also accounts for over 70% of the world’s photovoltaic solar panel production and over 90% of its silicon wafer manufacturing.
Lithium
Lithium is one of the minerals over which control has been hotly contested. Lithium is particularly needed for processes to replace mechanical energy generation using fossil fuels. It is also needed for many industrial, office and household appliances, including rechargeable batteries, electric vehicles and electronic goods.
Batteries – including rechargeable lithium-ion electrical grid storage devices – account for three-quarters of current supply. The IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario expects demand to rise 42-fold in less than two decades!
In 2021, there were almost 89 million tons of known lithium resources, mainly in developing countries. For decades, lithium mining has been very controversial, largely due to increasingly better known adverse environmental impacts.
As pure lithium is very chemically reactive, it is often mined as ore, as in West Australia. It is also obtained from salt flats and brine pools in the southern cone of South America, particularly in Bolivia, Chile and Argentina.
For decades, China has led the world in lithium mining. Australia and the US were second and third by the start of the pandemic, with 12% and 9% respectively. While Australia is the world’s largest exporter, lithium is mainly and increasingly mined in developing countries by a relatively few companies.
Undermining communities
REE mining has adversely impacted various ecosystems and communities. Mineral deposits may have to be raised from subterranean sources, or ‘concentrated’ by evaporation.
Such techniques typically deplete, contaminate and otherwise reduce access to fresh water. Local water systems – used by people, animals, including livestock, and plants, including crops – are often badly compromised as a consequence.
Extractive mining and related operations have worsened such environments. But mining companies can often get their way with impunity, often intimidating communities with the help of local politicians, government officials and police.
Such ecological damage has devastated forest and vegetation cover, caused biodiversity loss, and compromised hydrological systems. Thus, extractive operations often involve abuses, with adverse effects for local communities.
Economic gains to local communities are typically modest compared to mining’s adverse consequences. Benefits largely accrue to local ‘enablers’ while costs vary within communities with circumstances.
The authors also urge majority government ownership of mineral extracting and processing companies. This will reduce foreign reliance and meddling, including by big powers such as the United States and China.
Government transparency and accountability, including independent audits, can help ensure less adverse consequences and fairer compensation for all involved.
This also prevents elite capture, abuse and deployment of mineral rents in their own interest. Avoiding such abuses is necessary to ensure resource rents actually advance sustainable development, as Bolivia is striving to do.
Sustainability undermined?
New frontiers for mineral extraction are emerging, especially as innovation creates new extraction and processing possibilities. This implies a vicious circle as global warming becomes both cause and effect of such mineral extraction.
Mining practices threaten ecological fragility and vulnerability. Similarly, polar and seabed exploration and mining may well trigger disastrous environmental consequences, including mass extinctions of vulnerable polar and marine life.
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Sep 19 (IPS) – It’s a year since a photo of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini – bruised and in a coma she would never recover from after being arrested by the morality police for her supposedly improperly worn hijab – went viral, sending people onto the streets.
The protests became the fiercest challenge ever faced by Iran’s theocratic regime. The unprecedented scale of the protests was matched by the unparalleled brutality of the crackdown, which clearly revealed the regime’s fear for its own survival.
Led by women and young people, mobilisations under the ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’ banner articulated broader demands for social and political change. They spread like wildfire – to streets across Iran, to universities, even to cemeteries where growing numbers of the regime’s victims were being buried. They were echoed and amplified by the Iranian diaspora around the world. The Iranian people made it abundantly clear they wanted the Islamic Republic gone.
A year on, the theocratic regime still stands, but that doesn’t mean nothing has changed. By sheer force, the authorities have regained control – at least for now. But subtle changes in daily life reveal the presence of active undercurrents that could once again spark mass protests. The regime knows this, hence the fear with which it has awaited this date and its redoubled repression as it neared.
A glimpse of change
Last December, as protests raged and the authorities were busy trying to stop them, women could be seen on Iranian streets without their hijabs for the first time in decades. After the protests were quelled, many simply refused to resubmit to the old rules. A tactical shift followed, with mass street mobilisation turning into more elusive civil disobedience.
Women, particularly Gen Z women just like Mahsa, continue to protest on a daily basis, simply by not abiding by hijab rules. Young people express their defiance by dancing or showing affection in public. Cities wake up to acts of civil disobedience emblazoned on their walls. Anti-regime slogans are heard coming from seemingly nowhere. In parts of the country where many people from excluded ethnic minorities live, protest follows Friday prayers. It may take little for the embers of rebellion to reignite.
Preventative repression
Ahead of the anniversary, family members of those killed during the 2022 protests were pressured not to hold memorial services for their loved ones. The lawyer representing Mahsa Amini’s family was charged with ‘propaganda against the state’ due to interviews with foreign media. University professors suspected to be critical of the regime were dismissed, suspended, forced to retire, or didn’t have their contracts renewed. Students were subjected to disciplinary measures in retaliation for their activism.
Artists who expressed support for the protest movement faced reprisals, including arrests and prosecution under ridiculous charges such as ‘releasing an illegal song’. Some were kept in detention on more serious charges and subjected to physical and psychological torture, including solitary confinement and beatings.
Two months ago, the regime put the morality police back on the streets. Initial attempts to arrest women found in violation of hijab regulations, however, were met with resistance, leading to clashes between sympathetic bystanders and police. Women, including celebrities, have been prosecuted for appearing in public without their hijab. Car drivers carrying passengers not wearing hijab have been issued with traffic citations and private businesses have been closed for noncompliance with hijab laws.
The most conservative elements of the regime have doubled down, proposing a new ‘hijab and chastity’ law that seeks to impose harsher penalties, including lashes, heavy fines and prison sentences of up to 10 years for those appearing without the hijab. The bill is now being reviewed by Iran’s Guardian Council, a 12-member, all-male body led by a 97-year-old cleric.
If not now, then anytime
In the run-up to 16 September, security force street presence consistently increased, with snap checkpoints set up and internet access disrupted. The government clearly feared something big might happen.
As the anniversary passes, the hardline ruling elite remains united and the military and security forces are on its side, while the protest movement has no leadership and has taken a bad hit. Some argue that what made it spread so fast – the role of young people, and young women in particular – also limited its appeal among wider Iranian society, and particularly among low-income people concerned above all with economic strife, rising inflation and increasing poverty.
There are ideological differences among the Iranian diaspora, which formed through successive waves of exiles and includes left and right-wing groups, monarchists and ethnic separatists. While most share the goal of replacing the authoritarian theocracy with a secular democracy, they’re divided over strategy and tactics, and particularly on whether sanctions are the best way to deal with the regime.
Ever since the protests took off last year, thousands of people around the world have shown their support and called on their governments to act. And some have, starting with the USA, which early on imposed sanctions on the morality police and senior police and security officials. New sanctions affecting 29 additional people and entities, including 18 members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and security forces, were imposed on the eve of the anniversary of the protests, 15 September, International Day of Democracy. That day, US President Joe Biden made a statement about Mahsa Amini’s inspiration of a ‘historic movement’ for democracy and human dignity.
The continuing outpouring of international solidarity shows that the world still cares and is watching. A new regime isn’t around the corner in Iran, but neither is it game over in the quest for democracy. For those living under a murderous regime, every day of the year is the anniversary of a death, an indignity or a violation of rights. Each day will therefore bring along a new opportunity to resurrect rebellion.
LONDON, Sep 18 (IPS) – The author is Commonwealth Secretary-GeneralIn today’s increasingly interconnected world, marked by grave economic, environmental, and security crises that transcend global boundaries, it’s abundantly clear that our interdependence is an undeniable reality.
Rt Hon Patricia ScotlandThese challenges loom large as countries from across the world gather at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Our world is under pressure, and people are looking to its leaders for action.
Since world leaders last gathered in New York, we have seen a litany of natural disasters continue to devastate our world. Flooding, wildfires, storms and droughts have hit countries across the Commonwealth and the world. From Rwanda to India, the USA to New Zealand the whole world is feeling the impact of climate change.
If you listen to individuals from all walks of life, you can hear the fear and the desperation in their conversations, the anxiety that though we all recognise the problem, leaders are not taking the action we all need to tackle the challenges we face.
Our history serves as a poignant reminder that our choices boil down to two paths: cooperation, where we harness our collective humanity or to suffer in isolation.
The capacity to unite behind the moral force of our principles enshrined in our Commonwealth Charter, and the power of our practical purpose, is the foundation and beauty of the modern Commonwealth.
Our independent member states, stretched across five continents and home to one-third of humanity embody a remarkable blend of ingenuity and determination. This fusion of qualities not only propelled India to land a spacecraft on the moon but also instilled in us the shared resolve to stand united in confronting the challenges of climate change, instability, and economic adversity.
On the margins of the General Assembly, the citizens of the Commonwealth can be assured that our Foreign Affairs Ministers, and our Environment Ministers, will meet to further deepen their commitment to action on the threats to resilience and sustainability in our member states, and the wider world. Moreover, in a recent milestone, youth ministers, education stakeholders, and young leaders from across the Commonwealth convened in London just last week. Together, they forged agreements on policies and initiatives designed to bolster and empower our youth. At the core of these discussions were our young leaders, whose energy, passion and innovation we will need to take us forward.
United in purpose, we remain steadfast in our commitment to advancing pioneering initiatives, exemplified by the Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub, an endeavour that has successfully mobilized over $250 million in crucial support for the countries most in need. Simultaneously, intensifying calls for reform in global development finance to equip the most vulnerable nations with the resources they need to tackle the long-term impacts of environmental breakdown.
When we gather this week in New York, we seek to bridge the gap between rhetoric and implementation, deepening the alliances which transcend borders and self-interest, and advance the vital work to build a resilient and sustainable future for all.
We will set the stage for the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) which is to be held in Samoa in October 2024.
The road to CHOGM 2024 starts in New York and winds its way through the great capitals of our Commonwealth Family before culminating in Apia. And while we can never underplay the scale of the challenges we face, the fact that the Commonwealth nations sit together as partners with an equal voice and an equal stake in a shared mission means that we approach them – like India’s space mission – with the mindset of what is possible.
Our ministers will gather to reaffirm our dedication to resilience, sustainability, and equitable development. We are never just observers; we are active participants, ready to tackle the urgent issues of our time. We will act to bridge the gap between words and deeds, working together to build a better future.
In October next year when our Heads of Government meet in Samoa, we know that our strength will be in our unity. Progress is always difficult, and the challenges we face sometimes seem insurmountable, but we know that through the Commonwealth, and our unwavering commitment to unity and collective action, we shall prevail.
Experts are calling on countries to change their policies to protect locally produced products. For example, Nigeria is an exporter of rubber but imports tyres; Ghana exports cocoa, but Switzerland is known for chocolate. Here a worker in a factory in Abidjan holds a block of rubber meant for export for processing into finished products abroad.
by Isaiah Esipisu (dar es salaam)
Inter Press Service
DAR ES SALAAM, Sep 15 (IPS) – Experts at the Africa Food Systems Forum (AGRF) in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, have called on African governments to make and review existing policies to protect the processing and agro-industrialisation of locally produced agricultural products.
During the launch of the Deal Room, Mohammed Dewji, President of MeTL Group of Companies in Tanzania, observed that agriculture will remain meaningless without agri-processing. https://www.ipsnews.net/2021/05/kenyas-dryland-farmers-embrace-regenerative-farming-to-brave-tough-climate/
“Tanzania produces cotton, and it is perhaps the third largest producer. How come it has only three textile firms? We are farming the cotton, ginning it, and exporting the same to China, where the final product is produced, died, and printed, and then it is sent back to us. Because of taxes involved at the local manufacturing level, we cannot compete,” he said.
“Unless we put in place correct policies that will favour local manufacturing, we will continue talking about cocoa from Ghana and chocolate from Switzerland,” he told delegates at the Deal Room.
The Deal Room is a matchmaking platform hosted at the AGRF, aiming to drive new business deals and commitments, where companies in the agriculture and agribusiness sectors can access finance, mentorship, and market entry solutions to support their growth objectives.
According to Wanjohi Ndagu, the Partner and Investment Director at Pearl Capital Partners Ltd based in Uganda, many African governments have policies that favour importation even when farmers in those countries have bumper harvests of the same product.
“We need policies that are able to protect farmers and local production,” he said.
Other than cocoa in Ghana and chocolate from Switzerland, countries like Ivory Coast and Nigeria are net exporters of natural rubber, which is processed and brought back to them as car tyres, footwear, and rubber-based industrial goods.
Tanzania, Mozambique, and Ivory Coast are net exporters of cashew nuts but importers of roasted and processed cashew nuts, cashew butter, and other value-added cashew products.
Kenya is currently delving into the exportation of raw avocado, but the country has always imported particularly avocado cosmetic products.
However, all is not lost.
Rwanda was showcased as one of the success stories in Africa where, through favourable policies, the country has created a conducive environment attracting investment into the agro-processing sector.
“Our country’s Strategic Plan for Agriculture Transformation has enabled us to move the sector from subsistence to a knowledge-based, value-creating sector,” said Nelly Mukazayire, the Deputy CEO of the Rwanda Development Board (RDB).
To make work more accessible and attractive to investors, the country has created a one-stop-centre where investors in any given sector, including agro-processing, are given services right from the search for a business name, business registration, generation of unique identification of the registered business, the opening of the business bank account and issuance of relevant permits and licenses, and the entire process takes a maximum of eight hours for the business to become a legal entity.
In many other African countries, such processes can take more than four months and, in some cases, a year for a business to get proper registration, and this, according to the delegates at the AGRF, slows down the rate of investment.
“Investors in the agriculture sector in Rwanda also have an opportunity to get up to seven years of tax holiday and reduced corporate income taxes on exports,” said Mukazayire.
After the COVID-19 pandemic, the country launched what is today known as the Manufacture and Build to Recover Programme (MBRP), aiming to boost economic recovery efforts with specific incentives for the manufacturing, agro-processing, construction and real estate development sectors.
Through MBRP, manufacturers with a capital of USD1 million and above are given import duty exemption and Value Added Tax (VAT) exemption for imported construction materials unavailable in East Africa, VAT exemption for machinery and raw materials sourced domestically and VAT exemption for construction materials sourced domestically.
However, the capital for agro-processing was capped at USD 100,000 to support the sector’s growth.
During the AGRF Deal Room event, Brent Malahay, the Chief Strategy Officer at the Equity Group, called on investors to take advantage of the bank’s ‘Africa recovery and resilience plan,’ whose aim is to capacitate, finance and connect East African Community value chains to global supply chains.
“Through this plan, Equity Group will leverage off a region that gives access to critical raw materials, supports industrial capacity needs and an entrepreneurial and innovative local workforce, and the one that provides a sizeable market that is increasingly becoming more integrated,” said Malahay.
During the event, Isobel Coleman, Deputy Administrator at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), announced an investment of USD4 million into VALUE4HER, AGRA’s Deal Room product, which is a continental initiative aimed at strengthening women’s agribusiness enterprises and enhancing voice and advocacy across Africa.
Sara López (C) and other members of the Regional Indigenous and Popular Council of Xpujil are seen here in a photo from 2020, while campaigning against the environmental problems posed by the Mayan Train, which will run through part of southern and southeastern Mexico. The Secretariat (ministry) of National Defense has been put in charge since September of the construction and administration of the Mexican government’s flagship project. CREDIT: Cripx
by Emilio Godoy (mexico cityhttps://ipsnoticias.net/2023/09/mexico-gira-hacia-los-militares-empresarios/)
Inter Press Service
MEXICO CITYhttps://ipsnoticias.net/2023/09/mexico-gira-hacia-los-militares-empresarios/, Sep 14 (IPS) – Courage, sadness and impotence are expressed by Mayan indigenous activist Sara López when she talks about the Mayan Train (TM), the Mexican government’s biggest infrastructure project, which will cross the town where she lives and many others in the Yucatan Peninsula.
“These are things that cause damage. In the communities, both the National Guard (a civilian security force, but made up mostly of military personnel) and the army are present. People tell us they have lost the peace they used to have. There are communities that have been invaded, there has been a very strong impact,” the member of the non-governmental Regional Indigenous and Popular Council of Xpujil told IPS.
“The entire Yucatan peninsula is militarized,” she said from Candelaria, in the southeastern state of Campeche. Agriculture and livestock are the main activities in the municipality of some 47,000 inhabitants, which will be the site of a TM station.
The megaproject consists of seven sections along some 1,500 kilometers and will also cross the states of Quintana Roo and Yucatan, which share the peninsula with Campeche together with the states of Chiapas and Tabasco.
The railway will run through 41 municipalities and 181 towns, with 20 stations and 14 stops.
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who begins his sixth and final year in office on Dec. 1, has transferred the administration of ports, airports and rail transport to the Secretariat (ministry) of National Defense (Sedena).
This is despite the fact that there are no records of their performance in the management of these key areas in the recent history of the country, in which their experience has been limited to the production and sale of supplies.
Aleida Azamar, a researcher at the public Autonomous Metropolitan University, argued that uniformed personnel are not prepared for these tasks.
“The military are not trained for many functions. The government is concerned about economic growth and development, and to preserve that model it has put the military in charge. They think it will be achieved through infrastructure and extractive projects,” Azamar, who is coordinating a new book on the military and natural resources in Mexico, told IPS.
“In their view, the fastest way to finish them is with the army, because it is more difficult for the public to put up opposition when they see someone with a gun. It is not the most adequate solution.”
López Obrador announced on Sept. 4 the transfer of control of the Mayan Train from the state-owned National Tourism Development Fund (Fonatur) to Sedena, in an intensification of the trend of ceding more civilian responsibilities to the military, by handing over his flagship megaproject.
The president’s argument for this strategy is that he aims to reduce corruption in public works. But actually it may be due to other reasons, such as the culture of discipline in following orders so that the works advance as quickly as possible and thus meet the deadlines set.
Sedena will be responsible for the completion of sections five, six and seven of the railroad, whose works were started by Fonatur in July 2020 and which López Obrador promised would begin to operate by Dec. 1. Other sections are being built by private companies.
The resistance to deploying the military into the TM and other civilian areas is also due to its actions since 2006, when then President Felipe Calderón launched the so-called “war against drugs” using the military, which led to extrajudicial executions, disappearances, human rights violations and impunity, according to local and international organizations.
In fact, so far this century the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the highest regional court attached to the Organization of American States, has condemned Mexico on at least five occasions for military crimes such as forced disappearance, sexual violence and arbitrary detention.
The government promotes the TM as a major new engine of socioeconomic development in the southeast of the country and its trains will transport thousands of tourists, and cargo such as transgenic soybeans, palm oil and pork, the main products in the area.
The administration claims that it will create jobs, boost tourism beyond traditional attractions, and invigorate the regional economy, which has sparked highly polarized controversies between its supporters and critics.
The Mayan Train will run 1,500 kilometers, through 41 municipalities and 181 towns in the south and southeast of Mexico, with a cost overrun that already exceeds 28 billion dollars. CREDIT: Fonatur
From the barracks to business
Historically, the armed forces had been limited to producing supplies and building government facilities, such as hospitals and other infrastructure.
However, thanks to the policies of the current government, Sedena has created the corporations Tren Maya, Aerolínea del Estado Mexicano, Grupo Aeroportuario, Ferroviario, de Servicios Auxiliares y Conexos Olmeca-Maya-Mexica (Gomm) and the Felipe Ángeles International Airport, located in the state of Mexico, adjacent to the Mexican capital.
Gomm is also involved in the operation of 12 airports, and will receive more in the future.
In addition, it will operate the revived Compañía Mexicana de Aviación, the country’s oldest airline and one of the first in the region, privatized in 2005 and closed since 2010. Under the new name Aerolínea del Estado Mexicano, the government resuscitated it in January, buying the brand. The armed forces will also manage hotels along the TM route.
At the same time, the Secretariat of the Navy (Semar) manages five shipyards in various areas of the country.
To run seven airports, including Mexico City’s, out of the 19 facilities under state control, Semar created the company Casiopea.
Mexico has 118 ports and terminals, of which 71 have been given in concession in 25 administrations of the National Port System. Since 2017, Semar has been administering the ports.
This scheme requires a lot of money, provided by the public budget. The clearest case is the TM, whose cost rose threefold, from the initial projected investment of 7.2 billion dollars to the current estimate of over 28 billion dollars.
For 2024, Sedena has already requested 6.7 billion dollars for the railroad, the second highest figure for the TM since 2020, when allocated funds totaled 349 million dollars.
Military requirements for all civilian sectors under their administration have grown, as Sedena requested 14.55 billion dollars, compared to 6.27 billion in 2023, and Semar asked for 4.02 billion, compared to 2.34 billion this year – in both cases more than double.
Behind this is the fact that state-owned companies under military management are not yet profitable, so they require subsidies. The non-governmental organization México ¿Cómo Vamos? calculates that it will take 17 years to recoup the investment in the TM and 22 years in the case of the Tulum International Airport, under construction in the state of Quintana Roo.
The Navy manages the Mexico City International Airport and six other airports, although it lacks experience in running this type of air transport infrastructure. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
Potential threats
As in the case of military involvement in security and public safety, military business management poses risks of information concealment, corruption and economic losses.
The armed forces are the institutions that most violate human rights, including cases of murder, torture and sexual violence. Between 2007 and 2020, some 70,000 people suffered physical aggression after being apprehended by the army, according to the Citizen Security Program (PSC) of the private Ibero-American University.
The number of military personnel involved in public security already exceeds the total number of municipal and state police, in a proportion of 261,644 to 251,760, according to data reported by the PSC.
López the activist and Azamar the academic warned of the risks of military management.
“Only the government knows how much they have spent, how much is going to be spent,” said López. “There is no real report on what they are doing. Since the megaproject began, there has been no real information. They have never talked to us about environmental, cultural or economic impacts. It has caused us problems, it has been chaos for us. And once it is operating, the situation is going to get worse because of tourism.”
Azamar warned of increasing reliance on the military, the potential erosion of civil rights, a distorted perception of the approach to security and public safety and the undermining of trust in civilian institutions.
“There is a problem of lack of transparency and accountability: what is spent and how. It is risky, because there is no real, disaggregated data. This creates an environment of impunity that allows secrecy to continue and does not make it possible for other information to be made public. If there are no effective oversight mechanisms, abuses could be committed. We are in a gray area, because we do not know who controls them,” she argued.
In November 2021, López Obrador classified the TM as a “priority project” by means of a presidential decree, a strategy that facilitates the fast-tracking of environmental permits and thus hides information under the broad umbrella of national security.
This despite the fact that a month later, the Supreme Court reversed the national security agreements to annul the reservation of information, due to an appeal by the autonomous governmental National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data.
Mexico’s problems will not end in the short term, as pro-military policies will condition the next administration that will take office in December 2024, regardless of where it stands on the political spectrum, although the polls point to presidential hopeful Claudia Sheinbaum of the National Regeneration Movement (Morena), López Obrador’s party, as the favorite.
OAKLAND, California, Sep 13 (IPS) – In the wake of the recent Africa Climate Summit, which convened in Nairobi from September 4-6, 2023, the world’s attention was drawn to the pressing challenges facing the African continent as it grapples with the devastating effects of climate change.
Accounting for less than 4 percent of global emissions, Africa is owed a significant climate debt by historical polluters, yet has received only 12 percent of the US$300 billion in annual financing it needs to cope with climate-related challenges.
The three-day Summit culminated in the adoption of the Nairobi Declaration, which articulates the shared position of African countries as they prepare for the upcoming COP28 climate change. Reflecting the deep historical injustices that have left the continent disproportionately vulnerable to worsening climate shocks, the declaration calls for “a new financing architecture that is responsive to Africa’s needs,” including debt restructuring and relief, as well as a “carbon tax on fossil fuel trade, maritime transport and aviation, that may also be augmented by a global financial transaction tax.”
However, these calls for justice ring hollow when examining the investments and initiatives actually prioritized at the Summit, revealing a striking paradox. During the gathering, the agenda primarily revolved around the expansion of carbon markets – a dangerous and false climate solution that opens up the continent to green colonialism and reinforces the status quo of North/South power imbalances.
In one of the event’s most anticipated deals, investors from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) committed to purchase US$450 million worth of carbon credits from the Africa Carbon Markets Initiative (ACMI). Climate Asset Management – a joint venture of HSBC and climate investment firm Pollination – also announced a US$200 million investment in projects that produce ACMI credits.
Launched at COP27 by the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet, Sustainable Energy for All, The Rockefeller Foundation, and UN Economic Commission for Africa, ACMI hands disproportionate control of Africa’s carbon markets to wealthy countries and oil interests, allowing polluters to continue emitting with impunity while Africa supplies them with carbon credits. Instead of serving the interests of the African continent, the financial pledges made during the Summit threaten to exacerbate existing inequalities and further extractivism.
However, heads of state and leaders celebrated these investments, advancing the flawed belief that carbon markets represent a viable source of climate financing. Kenyan President William Ruto described carbon sinks as an “unparalleled economic goldmine,” while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pitched “true carbon credits” as a “solution that would unlock huge resources for climate action in Africa.”
US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry similarly declared that “Africa needs a thriving carbon market as a tool to fight the climate crisis.” Contrary to these assertions, carbon markets mainly benefit foreign developers and financial intermediaries – wealthy individuals, firms, and organizations based in the Global North – with host countries and local communities often only receiving a small fraction of the revenues generated.
While the Africa Climate Summit was dominated by false solutions, the breakthrough came in the form of the alternative Real Africa Climate Summit, which brought together over 500 civil society groups – showcasing the power and vibrancy of the African climate movement.
In response to the failings of the official Summit, civil society groups organized an alternative People’s Assembly and March, which catalyzed conversations and collaboration among grassroots movements, farmer organizations, Indigenous communities, activists, and faith-based actors.
The outcome of this counter-mobilization is the African People’s Climate and Development Declaration, which provides a vision for African climate action that is far more ambitious than the Nairobi Declaration. Centered around African solutions, climate justice, and a people-centered approach, the People’s Declaration outlines the real solutions African leaders must demand at the upcoming COP28 and beyond.
These include a redefinition of development away from perpetual growth, people-centered renewable energy, agroecology and food sovereignty, ecosystem protection and restoration, a socially just transition away from fossil fuels, and the dismantling of transnational corporations’ power.
Addressing the climate emergency cannot come at the expense of those who contributed the least to it. Nor can it be tackled with the same extractive and neocolonial system that created it in the first place.
As we move forward towards COP28 in Dubai, African nations must reject false climate solutions that surrender control over their natural resources to wealthy countries in the Global North.
Instead, African leaders must listen to the calls of civil society and prioritize genuine solutions that pave the way for a just transition and prioritize the well-being of African people.
Eve Devillers is a Research Associate at the Oakland Institute, an independent policy think tank bringing fresh ideas and bold action to the most pressing social, economic, and environmental issues of our time. www.oaklandinstitute.org
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Sep 12 (IPS) – While climate change is relentlessly progressing, threatening life on earth, world leaders continue to meet while planning for a future where this immense menace to human existence remains a minor item on the agenda.
A partial view of the exterior of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, that was destroyed by a truck bomb on August 19, 2003. Credit: UN Photo/Timothy Sopp
Opinion by Khaled Mansour (new york)
Inter Press Service
NEW YORK, Sep 08 (IPS) – Twenty years ago this month, a colleague saved me from a likely gruesome death. He insisted I stay in his Baghdad office of the World Food Programme (WFP) for a hot drink. “You can’t leave us without trying the tea I made for you! The best in Iraq.”
I drove back to my office half an hour later than scheduled. Near the grim building of the Canal Hotel, the UN headquarters in the Iraqi capital, I caught sight of a column of smoke and a grey cloud forming on the horizon.
A tragedy was unfolding. People were shouting and crying, while dust, sweat and the scent of molten iron irritated my eyes and nostrils. An American soldier stopped me, brandishing his weapon. He and his unit usually stood idly by their armoured vehicle, leaving the main entrance under the care of local security men. “Let me through, this is my office, I work here!!”
The soldiers didn’t speak or argue; they were tense and firm as they held their weapons in a ready position. What happened while I was away? Why couldn’t I get into my office? I felt an urge to force my passage through the soldiers, to enter the apocalyptic grounds.
Khaled Mansour
The gate at the back of the compound was open.
Inside, survivors were scattered, their faces pale and covered with a film of dust, sweat and blood. Many were sitting on the grass scorched by the summer heat in the spacious garden or on the grounds of the parking lot, staring into nothingness, while others trembled in tears as they embraced each other.
“Sérgio is dying,” cried a colleague before collapsing into my arms.
I slipped through a small back door and onto my office on the second floor. The broken glass of shattered windows crushed under my feet as I cautiously took one step after another in dim dusty corridors. I passed over doors torn off their hinges by the force of the blast, thrown onto the ground or leaning against the wall. Desks, drawers, shelves and paper littered the corridors.
My laptop was there but many keys had popped out due to the force of the explosion. Large, sharp glass fragments had lodged in the back of my chair. Had I been there, any of them could have pierced my back.
I walked in darkness until a soldier stopped me at the office of Sérgio Vieira de Mello, the head of the UN mission in Iraq. De Mello had been sent there a few weeks earlier by the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. His mission was to help the invading Americans reach a political way out and hand over power to Iraqis, after the military and political foundations of Saddam Hussein’s regime had been destroyed earlier that year in an ill-conceived and illegal war that had not even been sanctioned by the UN Security Council.
I asked the soldier to let me through. With a vacant look in his eyes, he said, “There’s no ‘through’. There is nothing there; that part of the building is vaporised. If you stepped behind that door, you’d fall several stories onto rubble, iron rods, and concrete blocks.”
A partial view of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad that was destroyed by a truck bomb on 19 August 2003. Credit: UN Photo/Timothy Sopp
I entered the adjacent office where a colleague and I used to smoke whenever we had the chance. Her cigarettes and lighter were on her desk covered by a thin layer of dust that enveloped everything in the room. She was among the missing, and I would later learn that she died in the explosion.
What I had missed
It took hours for us to piece the initial story together. Around 4:30pm on 19th August, 2003, a suicide bomber drove a truck heavily loaded with explosives into the UN compound. His deadly cargo detonated upon impact, destroying a whole corner of the building, burying those inside it under the collapsed floors. The attack killed 22 people, most of whom were UN staff members.
I spent the evening that day in a UN vehicle with colleagues moving from one hospital and medical centre to another, checking on the wounded and searching for some missing UN staff. We ferried some walking wounded back to their hotels.
For a few days, we worked all our waking hours, surrendering ourselves to an immense flow of adrenaline, meetings, calls, and emails.
There was no time to be angry about the UN failure to anticipate the attack or better protect its staff. There was no time to be angry at the mindless, murderous terrorists, or to contemplate the role of the US invasion and the disastrous de-Ba’athification policy, and the emerging Baath/jihadi coalitions which created a wave of terror that haunts the region today. There would be time for that, later.
I remained oblivious to how the attack impacted me psychologically for several weeks until the long-delayed recognition of the enormity of this horror finally arrived after I returned home to New York. I began tough journey of recovery, where I had to deal with survivor’s guilt and disturbing flashbacks, not to mention what happens usually in such circumstances when upsetting memories swept under the rug of the unconscious creep up and pull you down to very dark caves.
I was very fortunate (and the UN was probably very worried about liability and litigation) to be able to have a fully paid year of leave during which I underwent intensive psychotherapy, also paid for by my health insurance. Millions of Iraqis, including UN contractors, were not that lucky.
It took years to fully integrate this harrowing experience and move on. I now accept, rather than avoid, the waves of sadness—and sometimes anger—this memory brings. I know now how not to inflict my suffering on others. This required hard, personal work, and the support and love of friends, family members, and professionals.
I managed to return to work, including in conflict zones, after about a year.
Who was accountable?
The direct responsibility for this horrific attack rested with the terrorist Al-Qaeda group. For them the UN was a proxy target, easier to hit than the US military, which was then their nemesis, but had been an ally of their jihadi ideological fathers in Afghanistan in the 1980s. A wave of propaganda relying on a grain of truth that the UN was whitewashing the American invasion dominated Iraqi and even wider Arab conversations about the international organisation. Al-Qaeda recruiters exploited it cleverly to convince volunteers and followers that the UN was a legitimate target.
In a few months, the UN completed a detailed investigation and pointed the internal fingers of blame at dysfunctional security systems and officials. It shied away from directly blaming the decision-making process for hasty deployment of such political and humanitarian aid missions to danger zones without adequate planning, especially when such decisions were pushed by interested influential capitals.
I remember long discussions among senior UN officials and colleagues before and after the attack on how humanitarian aid had become too politicised and how this had turned us, aid workers, into a soft target for attacks which had been increasingly aimed at civilians and civilian infrastructure.
The day of the attack
On 19th August, 2003, a few hours before the attack, a colleague was trying to park our car inside the UN compound after passing through extensive security checks. As I got out of the car, I noticed a woman and a child behind a side unguarded gate. The child had managed to insert himself in the slight opening of the gate held together by a rusty chain and an old padlock. His slim figure was almost inside the compound when he noticed me. We exchanged conspiratorial smiles. Before he could fully push his body through, his mother grabbed his arm and pulled him back.
I thought I should inform the UN security officer, who was walking towards me, about what had just happened. They had excessive security measures at the main entrance while leaving that side gate easily passable for a small person. Before I could utter a word, the security officer shouted, “Move your car from here, these spots are reserved for the mission leadership!”
We exchanged some terse words. I pointed towards the gate. The woman and the child had already left. I said that this was a serious security lapse. He got angrier and shouted, “This is my job, don’t teach me my job, move your car now!”
A few hours later, the explosives truck drove into this rickety side gate dislodging it.
Undoubtedly, there was a clear failure and negligence on the part of security personnel and systems. Some of them faced subsequent administrative sanctions. However, understanding how the flawed security system allowed the terrorists to easily carry out the attack does not help us understand why they considered and planned such an attack against the UN in the first place.
How the UN became a target
Over the past 30 years, many people, especially in societies that receive aid or are affected by the UN resolutions and interventions, have increasingly viewed the organisation as a part of a scheme to maintain a western-dominated international order. From jihadists and armed militias to aid-receiving governments and communities, the UN has increasingly been perceived as subservient to neoliberal ideologies and western capitalist interests. My colleagues and I have heard this from government officials in Khartoum and Kabul, militia men in Darfur and Faizabad, and from refugees and displaced people in Palestine and Lebanon. Those who receive UN assistance always appreciated the help but often complained that aid had not addressed the root causes of their misery. They sometimes raised doubts about the motives of big aid agencies.
In the face of complex and unresolved conflicts, it is easier to adopt a superficial and simplistic view of how the UN works and claim that its myriad of organisations and programmes are mere tools of western foreign policy. And there is probably a grain of truth to such claims, especially since the end of the Cold War. Western capitals provide over 75 per cent of the funding for humanitarian organisations, they dominate their governance systems, and monopolise the top positions in the most important global humanitarian organisations, namely Unicef, WFP and the UNHCR. The first two have almost always been led by Americans, some of whom had served in senior political positions in their governments.
During the 20th century, the aid enterprise became increasingly intertwined with transnational politics. In addition to altruistic motivations and legal underpinnings, it was also increasingly influenced by realpolitik considerations to ensure that conflicts, poverty, and natural disasters did not undermine the stability of strategically important interests or region.
With the evaporation of the Soviet bloc in the late 1980s, disintegrating states and armed non-state actors emerged as the main threat to the international world order championed by the west. Al-Qaeda, though a former ally of the US in its global anti-Soviet campaigns, attacked the US on the home front. The murderous terrorist carnage on 11th September led to a massive and excessive response by the US and its allies in Afghanistan in 2001 and then in Iraq in 2003. The humanitarian enterprise played a large, albeit secondary, role to mitigate the impact of these wars on civilians. This role was largely shaped and funded by the US and its allies.
Since then, ideologically driven armed militias, remnants of the hard Stalinist left, and also some liberal and realist circles, started to perceive UN organisations as largely dominated by western capitals, and as a part of their toolbox in global undertakings, whether peaceful or military.
These are factual elements that fed the conspiratorial world view which enabled the bombing of Baghdad UN offices 20 years ago.
Modern humanitarian aid has not been free from political prerogatives since its formal evolution in the early 20th century. It became one of the Cold War battlegrounds after World War II. Then it metamorphosed again in the 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the dominant powers tried to subject it to their national priorities. This was evident in several conflict areas in the 1990s. For example, in the Balkans, the UN created safe havens to partly prevent the flow of refugees to western Europe. While food and shelter were provided, protection was not available, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Bosnians in places like Srebrenica.
Humanitarian organisations operate in a hyper-political environment while striving to adhere to principles of neutrality, independence, and impartiality. It is true, however, that UN senior leaders and staff on the ground can sometimes take inappropriate decisions and carry out their work in ways that are inconsistent with UN values. Such actions taint the entire UN and contributes to blanket perceptions such as “the UN is corrupt”.
None of this is to excuse, much less justify, a vicious strategy by armed groups involved in acts of terror that target international aid groups. It is to try to understand the environment in which these groups recruit and operate. It is also to show how innocent people can be crushed between the political machinations of the international community and the armed groups (or states) that control their lives.
How the train of politics twisted the tracks of humanitarian work
The politicisation of humanitarian aid was evident when I joined the UN in 1999 in Afghanistan, where the Taliban on the ground and donors in Washington and other capitals held many of the levers for the allocation and delivery of aid.
After 11th September, meetings with USAid in Islamabad focused on trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan after the US invasion. Afghanistan was already suffering from cyclical droughts, poor social services and a crumbling economy after being dominated by armed conflict for decades. They did not want to allow the Taliban to use the humanitarian cost of the war against them. The UN flooded the country with flour, oil and essential food items, and the feared famine never materialised.
Aid politicisation went into a higher gear of integration in 2002, during the months leading up to the Iraq War. The then US Secretary of State Colin Powell believed that foreign aid provided political incentives, supported free market democracy, and helped counter disorganised transnational migration.
In the autumn of 2002, humanitarian plans by UN organisations were shared with Washington. Before the war broke out organisations sought firm financial commitments from the US to start pre-positioning supplies.
Predictably, the shift in Middle Eastern and South Asian public opinion against the UN and aid agencies continued with rising allegations of bias and subservience to western interests. The complexity of functions, the competition for funding and a perception of clashing roles and priorities within UN organisations further complicated efforts to counter these allegations.
For example, the UN Security Council has at various stages imposed sanctions on Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Syria—measures that have severely affected the civilian populations rather than the targeted regimes and their proxies. Meanwhile, UN aid organisations like Unicef, the UNHCR, and the WFP continued to spend hundreds of millions of dollars (the total global budget of these organisations in 2022 exceeded $26bn) on millions of refugees, internally displaced persons and those harmed by the war and by these very sanctions.
Some of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, notably Russia and the US, have been implicated in strikes on medical and health facilities during conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, launching drone attacks against enemy targets killing many civilians in the process (what they call collateral damage), assassination attempts against opponents and arbitrary detentions. At the same time, they joined other western countries and Japan in providing the largest share of humanitarian needs (over $20bn in 2022 ), sometimes in the same places where they carry out or support seemingly endless military conflicts, such as in Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan.
These examples illustrate the complexity of behaviours of states and international organisations driven by often clashing motives and considerations.
However, in an era of dis- and misinformation and the quest for the ultimate sound bite, it becomes easier to view the UN as a failed international humanitarian conglomerate serving western political interests, incapable of leading the world to achieve just peace, enhance sustainable development or better protect human rights. (These were the three main pillars of the UN when its charter was put together after World War II.)
On the other hand, the authorities in recipient countries influence decisions about aid distribution: who receives assistance and who gets local contracts. A well-documented report in 2022 about aid operation in Syria revealed transactions involving tens of millions of dollars between UN organisations and private sector companies, some of which were owned or controlled by security agencies or senior Syrian officials who had been subject to western sanctions. These companies received around 47 per cent of the total UN contracts in 2019 and 2020.
Until the bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq in 2003, humanitarian workers took simple and logical security precautions—most notably, the display of their insignias on their offices, homes, and vehicles. The message that we, the UN, were neutral and impartial largely worked.
This started to change in the 1990s and early 2000s with new concepts such as the Responsibility to Protect, which started to give the UN a role that could be seen as interventionist. The reputation of UN organisations started to suffer. Many people, especially in recipient communities, increasingly perceived the UN as a western agent or a weak, subservient actor. Those who work with the UN have consequently become easier targets for criticism and, tragically, attacks.
In 2000 and 2001, I rode in rundown yellow taxis to go to the market in Kabul, where Taliban soldiers roamed the streets. I drove my own car bearing UN license plates to tribal areas in Pakistan, where jihadist groups, drug gangs, and arms dealers were present.
A few years later, during my missions in conflict zones, I needed security clearances to be able to leave my well-fortified offices. I wore a bulletproof vest and used two cars, one of them armoured, to attend meetings.
Relief workers started to be separated from people they were meant to assist, not merely by protective helmets and vests, but they also stayed inside homes and offices surrounded by sandbags and shock-absorbing barriers. These buildings became isolated behind barbed wires and high-security systems in locations far removed from the communities they were meant to serve. The walls around UN offices grew taller, and most of those working in conflict zones moved to live within fortified sanctuaries. International organisations also sent fewer international staff to unsafe areas.
All these changes help explain the decrease in casualties among foreign relief workers.
In 2003, a total of 117 local relief workers were killed, injured, or abducted, compared to 26 of their international colleagues. By 2022, the number of casualties among local workers had risen to 421, while the number of foreign relief worker casualties had decreased to 23. It is evident that the risks have increased, but their distribution has radically reversed, with local workers bearing much more of the burden.
Why I returned
My actual return to work in 2005 did not mean that I returned to who I was on the morning of 19th August, 2003, before the Baghdad attack occurred. In addition to my emotional and psychological shifts, I have also become more aware of limitations of humanitarian interventions and the urgent need for reforms in the international aid system.
By the time I decided to leave the UN in 2013, I had voiced almost all my concerns about the aid industry while working within the system.
Now, on the anniversary of the Baghdad explosion that I survived, I think a lot about the person I was 20 years ago when I lost 22 of my colleagues. I reflect on the price I paid and how much I have changed. I cherish the memory of friends and colleagues who lost their lives, were wounded or abducted over the past two decades—around 6,000 of them. The most recent was my late colleague, Moayad Hameidi, the head of the World Food Programme office in Taiz, Yemen, who was gunned down in late July. He survived Iraq but not Yemen.
The senseless Baghdad explosion compelled me to change, hopefully for the better, but the UN has been much slower in reforming itself while fully adhering to the principles on which it was founded—most importantly, humanity. Overhauling massive institutions might be much harder than healing and changing individuals. Perhaps our only choice here is to continue to work patiently to advance reforms step by step, programme after programme, until the UN better embodies the spirit of its charter, signed in San Francisco nearly 80 years ago.
Khaled Mansour is a writer, consultant and an adjunct professor on humanitarian aid, human rights and peacekeeping. He spent 13 years working for the United Nations, including for Unicef, peacekeeping missions and the World Food Programme
Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram (kuala lumpur, malaysia)
Inter Press Service
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Sep 06 (IPS) – After decades of resistance by rich nations, African governments successfully pushed for the United Nations to lead on international tax cooperation. All developing countries and fair-minded governments must rally behind this initiative.
All countries must now work to ensure progress on financing to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and climate justice after major setbacks due to the pandemic, war and illegal sanctions.
Jomo Kwame SundaramRich countries had blocked an earlier tax cooperation initiative at the Addis Ababa Financing for Development (FfD) summit in mid-2015. With grossly inadequate funding, the SDGs were condemned to a still birth.
The SGR on options to strengthen international tax cooperation is, arguably, the most important recent proposal – remarkably, from a beleaguered and much ignored UN – to enhance FfD for SDG progress.
It proposes three options: a multilateral tax convention, an international tax cooperation framework convention, and an international tax cooperation framework. The first two would be legally binding, while the third would be voluntary in nature.
Eurodad proposal
In response, the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad) has made a proposal – supported by the Global Alliance for Tax Justice (GATJ) – noting: “It is time for governments to deliver … … cooperate internationally to put an end to tax havens and ensure that tax systems become fair and effective.
“International tax dodging is costing public budgets hundreds of billions of Euros in lost tax income every year, and we need an urgent, ambitious and truly international response to stop this devastating problem.
“We believe the right instrument for the job is a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation and we call on all governments to support this option…
“For the last half century, the OECD has been leading the international decision-making on international tax rules and the result is an international tax system that is deeply ineffective, complex and full of loopholes, as well as biased in the interest of richer countries and tax havens.
“Furthermore, the OECD process has never been international. Developing countries have not been able to participate on an equal footing, and the negotiations have been deeply opaque and closed to the public.
“We need international tax negotiations to be transparent, fair and lead by a body where all countries participate as equals. The UN is the only place that can deliver that.”
A big step forward?
Strengthening international tax cooperation is expected to be the major issue at the one-day UN High-level FfD Dialogue on 20 September 2023.
A UN resolution on international tax cooperation – for General Assembly debate after September 2023 – should plan a UN-led inter-governmental process. After all, developing such solutions is a key purpose of the multilateral UN.
The Africa Group at the UN had appealed for a Convention on Tax in 2019, to help curb illicit financial outflows. After all, such tax-related flows are international problems, requiring multilateral solutions.
International tax cooperation should be inclusive, effective and fair. The EURODAD-GATJ proposals deserve consideration by all Member States negotiating a UN tax convention. The outcome should include: • Create an inclusive international tax body. The Convention should create international tax governance arrangements, using a Conference of Parties (CoP) approach, with all countries participating as equals. Currently, international tax rules are decided in various bodies where developing countries never participate as equals. • Enable an incremental approach to achieve other intergovernmental agreements. The outcome should be a framework convention, with basic structures, commitments and agreements enabling further updating and improvements later. • Incorporate developing countries’ interests, concerns and needs to achieve tax justice. The Convention should address developing countries’ interests, concerns and needs, replacing current tax standards and rules favouring wealthier nations. • Enhance international coherence. The Convention should develop a coherent system for all nations, including developing countries. It should eventually replace the plethora of existing bilateral and plurilateral tax treaties and agreements with a coherent overall framework. This should improve effectiveness and cut tax dodging. • Strengthen international efforts against illicit financial flows, especially involving tax avoidance and evasion, with simpler, more coherent and straightforward rules and standards to improve transparency and cooperation among governments. • Eliminate transfer pricing. The Convention should eliminate transfer pricing by replacing existing rules enabling such abusive practices. • Tax transnational corporations globally. Transnational corporations’ consolidated profits should be taxed on a global basis. Tax revenue should be distributed among governments with a minimum effective corporate income tax rate based on a fair and principled agreed formula recognizing developing countries’ contributions as producers. • End coerced acceptance of biased dispute resolution processes. The Convention should not require countries to accept biased processes, such as binding arbitration, favouring those who can afford costly legal resources. Effective dispute prevention would reduce the need for dispute resolution. Alternative mechanisms for resolving disputes could also be negotiated – using inclusive and transparent decision-making processes – under the Convention. • Enhance sustainable development and justice. The Convention should promote progressive taxation at national and international levels. It should ensure improved international tax governance supports government commitments and duties, especially relating to the UN Charter and Sustainable Development Goals. • Improve government accountability. The Convention should ensure transparent and participatory tax decision-making, with governments held accountable to national publics. • Ensure transparency. The Eurodad proposal emphasizes the ‘ABC of tax transparency’, i.e., Automatic Information Exchange, Beneficial Ownership Transparency, and Country-by-Country reporting.
Actual progress will not come easily, especially after the strong-arm tactics – used by the G-7 group of the biggest rich economies and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – to impose its tax proposals at the expense of developing countries.
Opinion by Marianne Buenaventura Goldman, Reitumetse Nkoti Mabula (cape town, south africa)
Inter Press Service
CAPE TOWN, South Africa, Sep 05 (IPS) – The Role of the New Development Bank in Monitoring Project Impacts on Communities
The 15th BRICS Summit held in Johannesburg, South Africa this month has once again put the spotlight on the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) as a shining example of multilateralism and the New Development Bank’s (NDB)commitment to financing sustainable development projects within BRICS countries and other developing countries. During the 2023 BRICS Summit, the New Development Bank and the Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA) signed a 3.2 billion Rands loan agreement for the implementation of Phase Two of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) in Lesotho. This funding complements contributions by other financiers, notably the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA).
LHWP is a multi-phased water infrastructure project which involves construction of a number of dams in Lesotho to transfer water to South Africa, while generating hydropower for Lesotho. The entity that is responsible for implementation of LHWP in Lesotho is the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA). The TCTA, a state-owned entity charged with financing bulk raw water infrastructure in South Africa, is responsible for financing and building the LHWP.
News of the signing of this agreement was received with some interest and enthusiasm in many quarters in Lesotho, partly because of the participation of Prime Minister Matekane during the Summit, as an observer, and largely due to the perceived benefits of this loan for Basotho. On the other hand, the news was also viewed with skepticism by civil society organisations working with communities directly affected by LHWP in light of the adverse social, economic, environmental and gender impact which communities continue to experience daily. The truth is, whilst it is laudable and important for both Lesotho and South Africa that the NDB provided this crucial financing for socio-economic development of their peoples, it is equality imperative that this development should not come at a cost to vulnerable and marginalised communities who have been forced to host this project.
The benefits for communities in South Africa are straightforward; according to the media release issued by the NDB on the 21st of August 2023, LHWP Phase II will increase the water yield of the Vaal River Basin by almost 15%, supporting economic growth and livelihoods of approximately 15 million people living in Gauteng Province, including communities in three other provinces which also stand to benefit from increased water supply. However, these benefits are not guaranteed for thousands of people and communities directly affected by this project in Lesotho.
LHWP Phase II has garnered its fair share of criticism and controversy recently, for its operations and impact on the people of Polihali, Mokhotlong. These include heavy handed police intervention against people who rightfully express dissent and protest to some aspects of the project or how it is implemented. There are also complaints about the project’s implementing authority, the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA)’s compensation policy. These include unfair compensation amounts to communities which were based on unilaterally determined compensation rates and periods, non-payment of communal compensation which has prevented communities from developing income generating projects, and lack of developments such as provision of water and sanitation for communities.
Implementation of LHWP requires acquisition of land from local communities; it is estimated that 5,000 hectares of land will be flooded by the Polihali Dam.1 This acquisition of land will result in significant negative impacts on the livelihoods and socio-economic status of the local populations. Communities are going to lose arable land, grazing ranges for livestock which is the main store of wealth for communities in the area, medicinal plants, useful grasses and wild vegetables which form the basis of livelihoods for communities.
Another challenge of the construction of this Dam is the required resettlement and / or relocation of communities. It is currently estimated that 270 households and 21 business enterprises will need to be relocated, mainly due to the impoundment of Polihali reservoir.2 About 12 communities will be relocated, and an additional 5 communities will be required to resettle entirely, a process that will have great economic and socio-economic and cultural implications for generations to come. Regrettably, there is no livelihood restoration strategy that has been developed by the LHDA to ameliorate the plight of these communities or at least no such strategy has been shared and/or discussed with communities and their representatives.
Negative gender impacts have also been noted; women within LHWP Phase II project area are already marginalised because of cultural stereotypes and practices which prevent them from owning land. The LHWP Phase II Compensation Policy has only served to solidify and exacerbate the problem of gender inequality through its gender biased payout of compensation procedure which deprives women of compensation for land previously managed or shared. This increases their economic vulnerability and susceptibility to gender-based violence. In fact, there have been concerning news reports in recent months, of increasing number of gender-based violence cases including teenage pregnancies and girl-child school dropouts, sex work/transactional sex, sexual violation especially of young girls, and increased HIV infection prevalence. These have been linked directly to the influx of immigrant contractors and labour workers who have come to work on the LHWP, continuing a trend which was first observed during implementation of the previous phases of this project. It is worrying to note, that at this point in the of implementation LHWP Phase II, there is still no gender policy, and the implementing authority still insists on turning a blind eye to the vulnerability of women as a result of this project.
The news of the NDB providing a loan for Phase 2 of the LHWP, totaling an amount of 3.2 billion Rands (US $ 171.5 million) raises further questions on the NDB’s policies and practices concerning transparency, accountability and its environmental and social safeguards, including gender. The NDB has indicated its plans to further strengthen gender mainstreaming in all its projects in its second five year General Strategy (2022-2027). As called by BRICS civil society organisations since the start of NDB operations, the NDB needs to urgently put in place a gender policy, with support of gender specialists at the NDB to oversee that gender is integrated in all aspects of its projects, in strong partnerships with its clients such as the TCTA and the LHDA.
All eyes are on the former Brazil President, Dilma Rousseff, new President of the NDB on her ability to transform the NDB from a multilateral development bank whose track record appears to be gender neutral towards one can proactively empower women and delivering on gender equality as part of New General Strategy and operations. In a recent statement, Rousseff explained that a priority of the NDB will be to “…promote social inclusion at every opportunity we have. The NDB needs to support projects that help to reduce inequalities and that improve the standard of living of the vast communities of the poor and excluded in our countries.”
The NDB has now grown beyond the BRICS countries, and recently included new member countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, Egypt and Uruguay and has greater aspirations to add many more countries. Given the NDB’s expansion, it is critical that the NDB begin to live its vision of being an accountable institution for the South, by the South. The NDB should urgently put into practice its policies such as on Information Disclosure. By doing so, the NDB will enable communities to access information on projects that directly affect their lives and livelihoods. The NDB also needs to work more closely with its clients to follow through on the NDB guidelines provided in its Environmental and Social Framework. The Civil Society Forum of the NDB (South Africa / Africa), including Lesotho community-based organisations calls on the NDB to learn from past mistakes experienced during the implementation of Phase 1 of the LHWP. During Phase II of the project, the NDB and other development finance institutions such as the DBSA and AfDB should ensure that the LHDA convenes effective and timely community consultations, provide basic services such as clean water, and ensure adequate and fair compensation to all affected communities – especially women who have in the past been left behind.
During the 2023 BRICS Summit, which took place on 22-24 August, Minister Naledi Pandor of South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation underscored the need for the NDB to do outreach at the local level in terms of sharing information on the projects the NDB funds, including vital project information, including the $3 billion the NDB plans to invest in South Africa. All eyes are now on South Africa and Brazil with leadership from NDB President Rousseff and Minister Pandor to push for stronger and more inclusive development outcomes of the NDB, with women front and centre of all future NDB projects.
The LHWP Phase II is an example of the challenges faced by communities affected by large infrastructure projects with funding from Public Development Banks (PDBs) such as the NDB, AfDB and the DBSA. As the hundreds of PDBs convene at the 4th Finance in Common Summit (FICS) in Cartegena, Colombia on 4-6 September to join forces to transform the financial system towards climate and sustainability, it will be important that PDBs transform their models to be more effective in promoting positive development outcomes for communities. PDBs have been advocating to increase volumes of finance for development. Civil society across the globe are in solidarity, making their voices heard at the FICS expressing concerns that limited attention is being given to the need to shift the quality of that finance to ensure it does not exacerbate the current crises and to ensure it shifts the power in decision making. Such attention is even more needed as the current financial architecture hinders the ability of governments to protect people and the planet.
Marianne Buenaventura Goldman is co-Chair, Civil Society Forum of the NDB (Africa) & Project Coordinator, Forus Reitumetse Nkoti Mabula is Executive Director, Seinoli Legal Centre
NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 05 (IPS) – When a continent with 65% of the world’s arable land struggles to feed its 1.4 billion people, we know something is wrong. The African and global food systems need a rethink. The urgent and pressing need to address a more productive, transparent, equitable food system, poverty and the far-reaching effects of climate change requires us to forge alliances among diverse stakeholders and sectors.
In this case, our collective efforts spanning agriculture, poverty alleviation, and the environment is a powerful force to drive lasting change and support thriving communities. Together, we are dedicated to strengthening the continent’s food producers to cultivate a more resilient and sustainable food system.
Africa can lead a global movement toward food system transformation, but challenges like extreme climate impacts, limited access to resources, and power imbalances thwart its effort.
The role of agriculture in poverty alleviation is indisputable; it impacts employment, GDP, food security, and countless livelihoods. To harness this potential, we need a holistic food systems approach that transforms lives while confronting the climate crisis. With global support, Africa can build a food system that enhances food security, prosperity, and ecological equilibrium.
A significant asset on this journey is Africa’s youth, comprising nearly 60% of the continent’s population. By empowering young farmers through training, entrepreneurship, and technology, Africa can tap into their potential for innovative, climate-sensitive agriculture.
These young leaders are already making strides in sustainable agriculture, but they require support to flourish. With secure land rights, financial backing, and proper training, Africa can unleash the full potential of its “agripreneurs”, securing a sustainable agricultural future.
Urbanization, often seen as a challenge, can be turned into an opportunity. As cities grow, so does the demand for locally produced food. Connecting farmers and agribusinesses to urban markets can create thriving agricultural value chains benefiting both producers and consumers.
Investing in agricultural research and technology is paramount. Innovation, digital solutions, and research-driven practices can optimize productivity, resource efficiency, and market insights. This includes precision agriculture, improved seeds, water management, pest control, climate-smart strategies, and supportive policies.
Research, adapted to local contexts, plays a pivotal role in refining and disseminating these strategies, enhancing productivity, sustainability, and resilience. Furthermore, climate-resilient agricultural practices are essential. Blending indigenous knowledge with modern technologies can optimize productivity while reducing the environmental footprint.
Africa’s journey toward agricultural leadership requires support from the global community. International organizations can provide funding, expertise, and knowledge exchange to promote sustainable agriculture and climate resilience.
Collaboration is the cornerstone of success. Through collective action, Africa can tap into its unity and address complex issues more effectively. Organizations like ONE.org, The Environmental Defense Fund, and the Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU) actively collaborate to advocate for policy changes, knowledge sharing, and support for sustainable and resilient food systems.
Policy reforms are imperative to create an enabling environment for agricultural development. Governments must incentivize climate-smart practices, support value addition, and promote sustainable investments. The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), for example, offers a roadmap for policy reforms, coordination, and transparent resource allocation.
Despite challenges, Africa’s agricultural potential is boundless. To overcome obstacles, we must attract financing, harness the innovative spirit of the youth, promote climate-resistant practices, invest in research and technology, and collaborate across sectors.
Climate change is a defining factor in Africa’s ability to feed itself and the world. It demands investments in infrastructure, innovation, and a new generation of climate-sensitive farmers and agripreneurs. This journey requires multi-sector partnerships and collaborative efforts, fueled by various forms of funding, from philanthropy to commercial investments.
Africa’s future, in fact the world’s future, marked by sustainability, inclusivity, and prosperity, is within reach, and it beckons us to act now.
Angela Churie Kallhauge is the Executive Vice President, Impact at the Environmental Defense Fund (HQ in DC); Ishmael Sunga is the Chief Executive Officer of the Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (South Africa); and Serah Makka is ONE’s Executive Director for Africa (South Africa).
CARTAGENA, Colombia, Sep 04 (IPS) – In the midst of a complex web of crises, spanning climate change, biodiversity depletion, constraints on civic space and mounting debt burdens, civil society organizations and human rights defenders from over 50 countries have united their voices to call for immediate and impactful action from Public Development Banks (PDBs).
The global coalition’s message is clear: when it comes to financing for development, principles of rights, justice, sustainability, transparency, accountability and dignity for all cannot remain mere slogans. They must form the core of all projects undertaken by all Public Development Banks.
The Finance in Common Summit has become a pivotal platform for Public Development Banks from around the world. The fact that this year’s summit is taking place in Cartagena, Colombia, the deadliest country in the world in 2022 for human rights, envrionmental and indigenous activists, development banks must acknowledge and integrate the protection of human rights into their projects.
“Development banks are advocating to play an even bigger role in the global economy. But are they truly fit for this purpose? Unfortunately, the stories of communities around the world show us that development banks are failing to address the root causes of the very problems they claim to solve. We need to hold them accountable for this,” says Ivahanna Larrosa, Regional Coordinator for Latin America at the Coalition for Human Rights in Development.
“When PDB projects cause harm to people and the environment, PDBs must remedy these harms. All PDBs should implement an effective accountability mechanism to address concerns with projects and should commit to preventing and fully remediating any harm to communities,” adds Stephanie Amoako, Senior Policy Associate at Accountability Counsel.
The ongoing crises demand a transformation in the quality of financing and a power shift to include the voices of communities. The existing financial architecture not only impedes governments’ ability to safeguard both their citizens and the environment but also contributes to the escalating issue of chronic indebtedness. Policy-based lending and conditionalities enforced by International Financial Institutions have steered countries toward privatization of essential services, reduced social spending and preferential treatment for the private sector. This burdens the population with higher taxes, inflation, and weakened social safety nets.
“The same multinational companies that have polluted and violated human rights in Latin America are now obtaining financing from development banks for energy transition projects. Another example is the development of the green hydrogen industry in Chile, which carries a very high environmental and social risk,” says Maia Seeger, director of the Chilean civil society organization Sustentarse.
Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive and sustainable transformation of the financial architecture as well as holistic reforms and synergies with civil society and communities. Environmental and neo-colonial debts need to be a thing of the past and equitable reforms the thing of the present.
Global civil society, in response to these challenges, demands bold and decisive actions in a collective declaration signed by over 100 organisations. The demands are the result of a 4-year process in which a coalition of civil society organisations has come together to call on all PDBs at the Finance in Common Summit to embrace tangible actions that genuinely prioritize and protect people.
Just last month we have seen that change is possible when communities are involved, as the people of Ecuador voted to ban oil drilling in one of the most biodiverse places on the planet, the Yasuní National Park in the Amazon rainforest.
“The global financial system needs not just a rethink but a surgical operation, and that requires bold action. Governments and institutions such as the Public Development Banks must cancel the debt of the countries that require it and put in place concrete and immediate measures to put an end to public financing of fossil fuels, to have financing based on subsidies so as not to fall into the debt trap once again. It is time for the rich countries, the biggest polluters and creditors, to offer real solutions to the multiple crises we are currently experiencing,” says Gaïa Febvre, International Policy Coordinator at Réseau Action climat France.
“Public and Multilateral Development Banks must divest from funding false climate solutions and projects that harm forests, biodiversity and communities. Instead, they should redirect finance to support gender just, rights based and ecosystems approaches that contribute to transformative changes leading to real solutions that address climate change, loss of biodiversity and create sustainable livelihoods for Indigenous Peoples, women in all their diversities and local communities. Public funds must support community governed agroecological practices, small scale farming and traditional animal rearing practices instead of large scale agri-business which perpetuates highly polluting and emitting industrial agriculture and unsustainable livestock production, the root cause for deforestation and food insecurity,” adds Souparna Lahiri, Senior Climate and Biodiversity Policy Advisor at the Global Forest Coalition (GFC).
The call to action emphasizes that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), effective climate action aligned with the Paris Agreement and successful implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework require Public Development Banks to pivot from a top-down profit-driven approach to one that prioritizes community-led involvement and human rights-based approaches.
“It is important that civil society participation be strengthened at the Finance in Common Summit (FICS). In previous years, civil society has been sidelined. Clearly, there is still some room for improvement for civil society participation to become truly meaningful. The lack of civil society representative on the opening panel this year is just one example of that. PDBs should promote and support an enabling environment for civil society and systematically incorporate civic space, human rights and gender analysis. This year, we are working towards ensuring that civil society voices, including those from communities are heard at the FICS. In collaboration with the FICS Secretariat, Forus seeks to establish a formal mechanism between civil society and PDBs and to ensure that civil society is recognised as an official engagement group,” says Marianne Buenaventura Goldman, Project Coordinator, Finance for Development at the global civil society network Forus.
Mushroom workers rally, Sunnyside, Washington, April 18, 2023. Credit: Peter Costantini
by Peter Costantini (seattle, usa)
Inter Press Service
SEATTLE, USA, Aug 31 (IPS) – The Yakima River runs southeast from the Cascade Mountains through central Washington state to merge with the Columbia a little north of Oregon. From the small city of Yakima on down, its course broadens from a winding canyon into a wide valley bounded by austere low ridges of gray-green sagebrush and tawny grasses. In mid-April, the new leaves of the willows and cottonwoods light up the riverbanks with luminous chartreuse.
The valley beyond the river bottom was once mostly semi-arid rangeland punctuated by basalt cliffs. But as irrigation systems spread across it in the early 20th Century, it morphed into rich farmlands. Expanses of vineyards stretch across the valley and climb the hills. One part of the Yakima Valley Highway has been renamed “Wine Country Road”, and at intersections, signs point to wineries and tasting rooms.
Tall frameworks of wood and wire stand waiting for hop vines to grow up them. The Yakima Valley produces more than three-quarters of the hops grown in the United States. Apple and pear orchards are beginning to bloom. In fields of corn and beans, the first green shoots are just poking up.
The town of Sunnyside drapes over a hill about 30 miles southeast of Yakima city. The town’s 16 thousand residents are 86 percent Hispanic, and Yakima County is over 52 percent, in a country where the Hispanic population is approaching one-fifth of the total and growing.
Yearly per capita income in Sunnyside is $15,570 and the poverty rate is 18.6 percent, compared with $43,817 and 9.9 percent for the state of Washington. That means that average yearly income here is a bit more than one-third that of the state, and poverty is almost twice as high.
Sign at mushroom workers rally, Sunnyside, Washington, April 18, 2023. Credit: Peter Costantini
At the south end of town, across Interstate 82, Midvale Road is lined with industrial processing and service facilities: warehouses, pipelines, silos, and tanks for dairy, candy, feed, fertilizer and equipment. At the end of this agribusiness stronghold, rows of long white structures looking like opaque greenhouses are identified by a sign: “Windmill Farms”. Inside, on multi-level bins in windowless, climate-controlled rooms, mushrooms are growing. The delivery trucks parked outside the farm still have “Ostrom Farms”, the name of the previous owners, painted on their sides.
Along the road outside the mushroom farm one April afternoon, workers, their families, and their supporters walk a picket line. Crimson flags bearing a black Aztec eagle on a white circle flutter in a stiff wind. Red, white, blue and green undulate as well: a young boy hoists an American flag as an older man waves the Mexican tricolor. Homemade signs say “We Feed You” and “La Union Es La Fuerza” (“The union is strength”), and “Queremos unión – Protesta (“We want a union – Protest).
From a portable sound system, the Mexican ranchera (country) music of Joan Sebastian and Los Tigres del Norte lends an upbeat accordion and guitar cadence to the proceedings.
These mushroom workers are picketing Windmill Farms to demand that it right some flagrant wrongs that Ostrom Farms, the former owner, inflicted on them before selling the farm. The new owners, they say, have not remedied the problems.
Over a year ago, Ostrom workers began to raise complaints about working conditions, wages, and management, working with organizers from the United Farm Workers union. Getting no response, they voted overwhelmingly to form a union to bargain with the company. Ostrom responded by laying off all its workers and selling the farm to Windmill Farms, which is controlled by an investment firm. Windmill told the former workers that they could reapply to work there, but would have to accept restrictions on their workplace rights.
Before the sale, Ostrom had replaced most of its workers, who were predominantly Hispanic women living in the area, with male “guest workers” brought in from Mexico on H-2A temporary agricultural visas. They have limited labor rights and can easily be fired and deported. A few of the original workers were hired back, but some not at their old jobs.
The demonstrators are demanding that Windmill rehire workers who were fired, address their grievances, recognize their union and bargain a contract with it. Members of other unions have come from around the state to show solidarity.
The president of the United Farm Workers, Teresa Romero, has come up from California. She addresses the crowd in Spanish:
“We’re here today fighting for all of you. But we can’t do this without the leadership, that you’ve demonstrated. It’s not easy. Many of you have been fired for demanding your rights. But we’re going to keep fighting for the workers who are still inside and who are afraid. And the fear they feel is very justified because many of you were fired. … Here we are and we’re not leaving! Thanks to all who are supporting us from outside of the farm workers movement, but who realize how hard it is for workers in the fields to organize.”
She ends her speech with “¡Sí, se puede!” (“Yes we can!”), the traditional farm workers grito. And the crowd continues cheering, “¡Sí, se puede!”.
Next, an animated man with a goatee and sunglasses smiles at the assembly. José Martínez is one of the leaders in forming the union. He was fired by Ostrom, but then rehired by Windmill. His Spanish is hoarse and passionate:
“I want to send a very clear message to the company: we don’t want to destroy you. The only thing we want is that you treat us with dignity, equality and respect as human beings. And to have a union, that’s what we’re fighting for. Thanks to all of you who have come from different places to support our cause. We won’t leave until we reach this goal. ¡Viva la causa!¡Viva César Chávez!¡Viva la unión!¡Siempre pa’adelante!” (“Long live the cause! Long live Cesar Chavez! Long live the Union! Always forward!”)
Daniela Barajas was fired by Ostrom but found a job with a different company. She tells the crowd in Spanish:
“We’ve just begun to fight. Although I haven’t worked in the mushroom farm more than a year – I was one of those who was fired – I continue supporting the people who are there those who don’t have jobs to feed their families. They have a right to better treatment at work. And we’re not going away until they recognize a union there..”
Her speech is echoed by chants of: “¿Que queremos? ¡Unión!” (“What do we want? Union!”).
The union’s Secretary of Civic Action, Juanito Marcial, drove over with some other workers from the Seattle area to offer solidarity to the mushroom workers. The Chateau Sainte Michelle winery there, where he works, is the site of the United Farm Workers’ first contract in the state. Workers won it in 1995 after an eight-year struggle, and it remains in force. Most of the UFW’s membership, however, is in California where the union began.
Marcial recalls that history in Spanish: “We’re here, the comrades who work at Sainte Michelle under a union contract. And I want to tell you that we now have an average of 27 years, the only agricultural site that has a contract , and that we’re enjoying various benefits for workers. We’re saying to you, comrades, that this is just the first step, we can’t weaken. Hasta la victoria siempre! (Until victory always!)”
The UFW regional director, Victoria Ruddy, closes the rally by thanking the workers for a year of struggle. “As don José says, ‘¡No vamos a parar hasta ganar unión!’” (‘We won’t stop until we win a union!’) And the crowd ambles over to a nearby park for a picnic.
“Yes, we can! The union is strength!” UFW rally, Sunnyside, Washington, April 18, 2023. Credit: Peter Costantini
New bosses, but still no union
“Yes, we can! The union is strength!” UFW rally, Sunnyside, Washington, April 18, 2023. Photo: Peter Costantini
Sign at mushroom workers rally, Sunnyside, Washington, April 18, 2023. Photo: Peter Costantini
The road that led the mushroom workers to their April 18 rally outside of Windmill Farms was riddled with corporate switchbacks and legal potholes.
In 2019, Ostrom Mushrooms closed a mushroom farm in western Washington state, laid off more than 200 workers, and moved its operations to Sunnyside. The firm received generous public subsidies from different levels of government for construction of a new $60 million plant.
In Sunnyside, Ostrom hired a new workforce varying between 200 and 300 workers. Most were local Hispanic women. At that time, CEO Travis Wood complained of a shortage of labor despite the advantages of year-round work and controlled-climate conditions inside the facility.
“In mid-2021,” The Washington State Attorney General found, “Ostrom hired new management to improve its production. believed Ostrom needed to replace its largely female workforce because had childcare obligations and could not work late hours or weekends. … anagement decided to replace its domestic workforce with workers from the H-2A guest worker program.”
Consequently, Ostrom employees elected a leadership committee to raise issues about wages and working conditions with management. They began to consult with United Farm Workers organizers and the non-profit Columbia Legal Services.
In June 2022, the workers submitted a petition to Ostrom calling for “fair pay, safe working conditions, and respect”. It alleged that managers had threatened and bullied workers, instituted mandatory overtime shifts and raised production quotas to excessive levels. Workers were overworked and undervalued, said Ostrom worker Joceline Castillo. But Ostrom stonewalled the petition.
Meanwhile, in August 2022, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a civil complaint against Ostrom under state laws. Ferguson accused Ostrom of discrimination and unfair employment practices based on employees’ sex, citizenship, or immigration status, and of retaliating against employees who opposed these violations. Ostrom had gone ahead and replaced most of its local female workers with male “guest” workers brought in from Mexico, whose H-2A temporary visas give them fewer labor protections. However, the H-2A program requires that the employer first demonstrate that it cannot hire enough workers from the local workforce, which was evidently not the case.
The complaint also charged Ostrom with “engaging in unfair and deceptive practices … by misleading actual and prospective domestic pickers with regard to job eligibility requirements, wages, and availability of employment.”
However, Ferguson was unable to directly address retaliation against union organizing or the use of H-2A workers to replace resident workers. These issues fall under federal law, while the state attorney general can enforce only state laws.
The National Labor Relations Act, the 1935 federal statute that regulates union organizing and collective bargaining, excludes farm workers and domestic workers from its coverage. So the Ostrom workers were not able to go through formal legal procedures for union recognition or to invoke the law’s protection against retaliation for union organizing.
Nevertheless, in September 2022 the workers announced their vote, held under UFW auspices: 70 percent chose to form a union. They asked management to sit down and bargain on wages and working conditions. Ostrom refused.
The Ostrom workers and UFW organizers upped the ante in their campaign by marshalling community support. They organized periodic informational pickets at the Ostrom farm in Sunnyside. And in a reprise of the farm worker boycotts of the 1960s and 1970s, they began in November to picket outside of a supermarket in Seattle. They asked consumers not to buy Ostrom mushrooms, but instead to seek out mushrooms from two unionized farms in California.
In November, the State Department of Labor & Industries responded to a complaint and found working conditions at Ostrom that could cause injuries to workers. The agency fined the grower only $4,000, but also investigated another complaint.
Then on February 14, the campaign hit a roadblock. According to the UFW, Ostrom Mushroom Farms management held a company-wide meeting to tell all its workers that they were fired immediately. As of that midnight, Ostrom’s facility would be sold to Greenwood Mushroom Sunnyside IA, LLC, a new entity owned by Windmill Farms. Based in Ashburn, Ontario, Canada, Windmill also uses the Greenwood Mushrooms label at farms in Ontario and Pennsylvania. In turn, Windmill is owned by Instar Asset Management, a Toronto-based private equity firm.
The fired Ostrom workers were told they could reapply for jobs under the new management. But they would have to fill out new applications, possibly accept different jobs, and sign arbitration agreements that forbade suing the employer or unionizing.
The Windmill and former Ostrom workers, including those now unemployed, pushed ahead with their campaign. Some of the original workers who were rehired complained that they ended up in worse jobs with lower pay.
Under Windmill Farms management, working conditions were still “pretty bad”, according to workers committee leader José Martínez, who had worked at Ostrom for three years. “They want you to go fast” to meet an hourly quota of picking 50 pounds of mushrooms, he told me. “They put you on probation for 90 days. If you don’t make they’re gonna let you go.” The biggest problem, though, is that “there’s no communication with them. Sometimes one supervisor comes and tells you one thing, and then another one comes after and changes the whole thing.” If the company recognizes the union, he said, “everything is gonna be fine.”
Shortly after the rally, though, Martínez was fired by Windmill, which claimed he wasn’t meeting production demands. But he suspected he may have been fired because of his pro-union activism.
Finally on May 16, the Washington State Attorney General’s Office announced that Ostrom and Greenwood had signed a consent decree. Ostrom agreed to pay $3.4 million into a fund to compensate workers who suffered discrimination or retaliation for reporting it – over 170 may be eligible. In the agreement, Greenwood agreed to discontinue the “unfair and discriminatory employment practices” identified under Ostrom, and established a framework for compliance training and monitoring to prevent future violations.
“Ostrom’s systematic discrimination was calculated to force out female and Washington-based employees,” Ferguson said in a statement. “I want to thank the workers who spoke out against this discrimination in the face of so much danger and stood up for their rights. My team fought for them and today we secured an important victory.”
Beyond substantial compensation for the workers, the settlement avoided a drawn-out court battle. But because it was based on state law, it could not compel recognition of the union or rehiring by Windmill of the fired workers, nor could it address the prohibited use of H-2A temporary workers to replace resident workers.
A worker still employed by Windmill, Isela Cabrera, commented: “I am very happy for my coworkers who experienced humiliations and retaliations by Ostrom management.” She said that she hoped the consent decree would help begin to improve conditions, “as this new management continues to commit favoritism and retaliation. We want our fired friends to get their jobs back and for Windmill Farms to recognize our union.”
UFW President Romero explained to me that one focus of the union campaign will be on persuading Instar’s investors, some of which may be union pension funds, to pressure Windmill Farms to recognize the union.
The state branch of the AFL-CIO, the main national labor confederation, announced the formation of a solidarity committee. Its president, April Sims, emphasized: “All workers deserve fair treatment at work and the freedom to join together to negotiate for better wages and working conditions. Workers at Windmill Farms are getting neither of those things. We stand in solidarity with these brave mushroom workers and we will fight side-by-side until we win a union contract at Windmill Farms.”
On August 10, the U.S. Department of Labor announced fines totaling some $74,000 and awards of unpaid wages amounting to over $59,000 to compensate 62 H-2A temporary workers at Ostrom who had been underpaid and misled about housing and meals. But did not announce any action against Ostrom for claiming that they could not find enough local workers, as the H-2A program requires, while simultaneously firing large numbers of them.
Windmill Farms, Sunnyside, Washington, April 14, 2023. Credit: Peter Costantini
Catching a national wave of union organizing
The Ostrom / Windmill campaign joins a nascent national upswelling of union organizing across many industries. These initiatives, however, are swimming against half a century of anti-labor riptides.
Union membership in the U.S. in 2022 was 10.1 percent of wage and salary workers, with only 6.0 percent in the private sector, a post-WWII nadir. In 1955, 33.2 percent were unionized, more than three times as many. Union activists are frequently though illegally fired for organizing, and bargaining requirements for employers are often poorly enforced.
Agricultural and domestic workers were excluded from national labor protection laws in the 1930s, a relic of Jim Crow segregation that has never been remedied. The low-wage workers in those two fields at the time were mostly Black, Mexican or Filipino. Today they are mainly Hispanic, and among those most in need of strong labor protections.
If the former Ostrom workers had been in an industry other than agriculture or domestic work, they would have been covered by a federal law that protects worker efforts to unionize and forbids retaliation. And if rules had been enforced requiring businesses to show a dearth of local workers before hiring H-2A “guest” workers, the resident Ostrom workers could not have been legally replaced.
Despite these obstacles, a labor resurgence seems to be gaining momentum nationally. Mainly in low-wage service industries, most visibly at major employers like Starbucks and Amazon, organizing drives are making headlines. A 2022 Gallup opinion poll found that 71 percent of the U.S. public approve of labor unions, up from 48 percent in 2010 and 64 percent before the pandemic.
The Ostrom / Windmill campaign is also a protagonist in the renewed activism among agricultural workers. The United Farm Workers, founded in the early 1960s in California, reached a zenith in the later 1960s and 1970s, when it won numerous contracts and improved conditions in the fields. Its boycotts of grapes, lettuce and wine focused national attention on the widespread exploitation and abuse of farmworkers.
On the political front, the UFW spearheaded major improvements in labor laws, mainly in California. In 1975, a union campaign won the state’s approval of the landmark Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which recognized farm workers’ right to organize.
Over the next two decades the UFW’s organizing waned and membership shrank. But in this century, membership has reportedly doubled and the union has spearheaded new campaigns for farm worker rights and against wage theft and sexual harassment.
Recently, Washington state’s Democratic government passed legislation guaranteeing farm workers at least the state minimum wage, which is currently $15.74 per hour, and time-and-a-half overtime pay for more than 40 hours weekly beginning January 1, 2024.
The 1995 UFW contract won by workers at the Chateau Sainte Michelle winery is still in force today. And the Sunnyside workers are urging consumers to buy mushrooms grown on two unionized California farms. According to the UFW, over three-quarters of the fresh mushroom industry in California is unionized, as are thousands of workers on vegetable, berry, winery, tomato, and dairy farms.
That black Aztec eagle in a white circle on a crimson flag may have to soar long and high outside of Windmill Farms and its owners’ offices to win a contract there. And many unions may have to walk picket lines outside of other farms, stores, and warehouses – and also city halls, statehouses and Congress – to ensure safe work environments and a decent living for all human beings who do “essential” work.
Yet despite the barriers erected against them, agricultural laborers are pursuing new strategies with old-fashioned grit to defend their workplace rights and build collective power.
The 2023 SDG Summit will take place on 18-19 September 2023 in New York. It will mark the beginning of a new phase of accelerated progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals with high-level political guidance on transformative and accelerated actions leading up to 2030. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elias
by Thalif Deen (united nations)
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 30 (IPS) – The United Nations will host six “high-level” meetings, including two summits of world leaders– over a short span of five consecutive days, beginning September 18.
The back-to-back meetings, described as unprecedented, includes the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Summit on September 18-19; a high-level dialogue on Financing for Development (FfD) on September 20; and a ministerial meeting of the Summit of the Future on September 21 (with the summit itself scheduled to take place September 2024).
The agenda of the 78th sessions of the General Assembly also include high-level ministerial meetings on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response (September 20); Universal Health Coverage (September 21), and the fight Against Tuberculosis (September 22).
The UN is also expected to announce a Climate Ambition Summit—scheduled to take place in September 2024.
But these summits and high-level ministerial meetings come at a time when UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres says he needs action, not empty promises or political rhetoric.
At the BRICS summit on August 24, he complained about the unfulfilled promises by Western donors.
“We need action to save our planet. Developed countries have a particular responsibility and so they must lead and they must deliver. They must also keep their promises to developing countries.”
He singled out the annual $100 billion pledge to developing countries; the proposed loss and damage fund; the doubling of adaptation finance; and the replenishment of the Green Climate Fund—promises made mostly at high-level meetings.
And on unimplemented plans for early warning systems, which are aimed “to protect every person in the world – including the 6 in 10 Africans who still lack those systems”. As a matter of justice, Africa must be considered a priority in all these crucial commitments, he noted.
Still, the months ahead will be vital.
“From the Africa Climate Summit, where I will be in Nairobi in two weeks times, the G20 Summit, to the SDG and Climate Ambition Summits at the United Nations in September, to COP28 in December – we have important opportunities to set a path to a better, more peaceful and more just world,” he said.
According to an article in the European Network on Debt and Development (EURODAD) website September 2022, developed countries agreed in 2009 to mobilise 100 billion dollars per year by 2020.
This deadline was then extended to 2025, with a view to setting a new global climate finance goal by 2025. At the time, developed countries hailed this as a seminal commitment that would ensure that developing countries in the global south were also able to tackle climate change.
Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders, told IPS high-level summits that are usually preceded by intensive preparation play an important role by providing governments with a platform to express commitments and enabling the public to hold them accountable for their action or inaction. and of the international campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly
The Sustainable Development Goals summit this year is crucial as it marks the half-way point in implementing Agenda 2030, he said.
“At the time, civil society will convene for its own meeting across the UN building, the Global People’s Assembly, to provide its perspective and remind world leaders of their promises,” he said.
Jens Martens, Executive Director of Global Policy Forum Europe, a think tank based in Bonn, told IPS the SDG Summit offers the Governments of the Global North the chance to demonstrate that they are serious about their much-vaunted global solidarity.
Because at the mid-term of the 2030 Agenda, the results are devastating: According to the United Nations, the countries are only on track with 15 percent of the targets. For the remaining 85 percent, progress is insufficient, or development is even heading in the wrong direction, he pointed out.
“A key reason for this is the failure of countries in the Global North to provide the necessary means to implement the SDGs. At the SDG Summit, they must declare their political willingness to change this”.
What is needed, he argued, is the mobilization of new and additional public resources to finance the SDGs. The UN Secretary-General has proposed an SDG Stimulus of $500 billion per year for this purpose.
“This would be extremely important. But what is also needed is effective debt cancellation, increased cooperation on tax matters at the UN level, and reforms in the international financial architecture”.
“If governments of the Global North do not make concessions on these issues, the SDG Summit will fail. And then the Summit of the Future planned for September 2024 is also doomed to fail. In view of the global crises, we cannot afford for that to happen”, he declared.
Purnima Mane, past President Pathfinder International and former Assistant Secretary General & Deputy Executive Director, UN Population Fund (UNFPA), told IPS the large number of meetings this September could be interpreted as a genuine effort to make up for the difficulties experienced over the last three years in coming together to monitor progress and enhance commitment on varied, equally relevant themes to push forward a collectively designed, multilateral agenda.
But the results of these meetings are also expected by the Secretary-General (SG) to be different from those held earlier, in that instead of empty promises and political rhetoric, these meetings would lead to action, she added.
“While this is a welcome move from the SG, it is not clear what steps will be taken to ensure that this in fact happens and what it will take to motivate Member States towards the action they needed to have taken all along”.
And more meetings than usual on critical themes — all of which demand minimally, for action to occur, commitment of political leadership at all levels, adequate resources, and solid planning and accountability measures, will not necessarily ensure that such action will follow, especially during this period of our history when the world is divided by increasing tensions that occupy the attention of national leadership.
She said the appeal the SG makes to the Western donors, in particular, in his message to them, is to live up to their promises to fulfill, what he refers to as a Rescue Plan for People and Planet.
The Plan demands better support to developing countries, and considerable changes to the international financial architecture which will amount to sacrifices on the part of groups like the G20.
“Whether these changes will happen is to be seen. Demanding action is obviously fully justifiable and we can hope that the action will occur but the track record so far has not been promising”, said Mane, currently an independent consultant on gender and development and global health, focusing on sexual & reproductive health.
Speaking during the International Day against Nuclear Tests August 29, Csaba K?rösi, President of the General Assembly was critical of public funds being diverted.
He noted that global military spending reached a record 2.2 trillion dollars in 2022.
When public funds are diverted in this way, the President said, “and when our own words are ignored, we have a duty to ask: “How serious are our pledges to focus on overcoming poverty and curbing pollution, climate change, or biodiversity loss?”
“Will we protect our newest human right: the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment? Or are our lofty pledges nothing but words?”, he asked.
While the challenges associated with achieving the 2030 Agenda remain complex, the slow progress in Africa is, fortunately, redeemable. Africa possesses abundant assets to achieve the SDGs. The challenge lies in effectively harnessing these resources to turn Africa’s comparative advantages into global competitive advantages.
As a first step, we need to develop new narratives that move away from portraying Africa as a “victim” and instead emphasise Africa’s position as a solutions powerhouse for rescuing the SDGs and climate mitigation.
Cobalt and platinum, in particular, are critical minerals for the energy transition and electrification of transport systems. However, Africa’s extractive sector is an enclave with insignificant linkages to local economies.
Secondly, we must go beyond the logic of resource extractivism that locks the continent in perennial booms and busts that accentuate Africa’s vulnerabilities to global shocks. To address this, African governments must implement smart industrial policies, foster local value addition, develop regional value chains, and promote resource-driven industrialisation.
These should be supported by well-constructed and executed local content and national suppliers’ development programmes, which will ultimately lead to the emergence of well-performing local small- and medium-scale enterprises.
The evidence is clear that climate action will generate dividends for the continent. To this effect, we need to go beyond GDP metrics. For instance, many African countries, including those in the Congo Basin, possess vast natural wealth, which often goes unaccounted for in official statistics.
Therefore, we need to strengthen the capacities of national statistical systems to incorporate natural capital accounting into national accounts. With this, countries can assess the monetary value of their natural wealth to design ecological compensation schemes, participate in carbon markets, reinforce the value proposition of nature conservation, and secure more fiscal space.
At the right price (e.g., US$120/ton of C02 sequestrated), carbon credit markets could generate US$82 billion of innovative financing per year, with the Congo Basin being a hotspot for this.
However, the fundamentals must be right to secure macroeconomic stability and sustainable financing. These include enhanced trade, sustainable industrialisation, and economic diversification to reduce the continent’s vulnerabilities, improve the share of tradeables in total exports, and generate the millions of jobs that Africa needs for its youthful population.
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), ratified in 2019, offers great potential for trade and investment on the continent, helping to catalyse the development of regional value chains and enable the continent to climb the ladder in global value chains. African multilateral development banks also play an important role in de-risking investments on the continent on the road to making Africa a globally competitive investment destination.
Looking ahead, we should also build on the outcomes of the recently held UN Food Systems Summit and 2nd Stocktaking Moment and accelerate the implementation of the Common African Agro-industrial parks Programme (CAAPs) to promote continental agro-industrialisation and integration.
These agro-industrial parks have the potential to stimulate public and private investment in agro-industries, ensure greater food security across Africa, and increase the value of Africa’s food and agriculture product exports.
Additionally, access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy is crucial to achieving many of the SDGs, ranging from poverty reduction and advancements in health, education, water supply, and industrialisation to mitigating climate change, yet Africa faces a huge energy gap. Building the Inga III and IV dams must be prioritized to increase access to renewable electricity.
To finance these and other transformational projects, dormant funds in our pension funds should be mobilized as efforts to reform the global financial architecture and reduce the cost of borrowing for our countries continue.
Africa must keep its eye on the prize and chart its own path to rescuing the SDGs. Isolated solutions and “business as usual” projects will no longer suffice. We need to strengthen Africa’s institutions and agency by building ecosystems for transformational change and leadership.
Drawing inspiration from the ‘moonshot’ programmes that led to the historic moon landing in 1969, economist Mariana Mazzucato highlights the importance of creating structures that foster collaborative, mission-oriented thinking, and a shared sense of purpose.
To build such an environment on the continent, ultimately, we need leaders from all walks of life who are responsive and transparent, embrace multi-stakeholder consultations, and work inclusively towards strengthening social compacts and domestic accountability to fully harness Africa’s potential for achieving the SDGs.
Antonio Pedro is Acting Executive Secretary, UN Economic Commission for Africa and UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network Leadership Council Member
Opinion by Sharon Behn, Ignacio Blanco (bangkok, thailand)
Inter Press Service
BANGKOK, Thailand, Aug 28 (IPS) – When Lisa Huyen first set up her company, Vinasamex, which specializes in certified organic cinnamon and star anise grown in the mountainous and poorer provinces of Viet Nam, she faced daunting challenges including market access and securing financial support from banks.
“Developing an inclusive business model around an agricultural product can be challenging,” Lisa says of the difficulties faced by many similar enterprises in the region. “But you can do it if you have enough love, patience and a clear mission.”.
Her perseverance, work and investments in human capital have since paid off not just financially, but also resulted in positive social impact for thousands.
“Ten years ago, our farmers had an average yearly income of $250 per hectare. Now they earn an average of $5,000 per hectare per year. The increased income means they can pay for their children to go to school and have more opportunities in life,” Lisa says.
Vinasamex also provides their farmers and factory workers from minority ethnic and lower-income communities – 95 per cent of whom are women – with training on international certification standards, ICT and gender equality.
In recent years, the concept of inclusive business — enterprises that go beyond the usual “profit-first” market approach to provide affordable goods, services and livelihoods to low-income people — has been gaining traction in Asia and the Pacific.
Inclusive businesses aim to make often forgotten communities an integral part of their operations. They collaborate with them as suppliers, distributors, retailers or even customers, creating a meaningful value chain that benefits everyone involved. By catering to the needs of low-income consumers and finding innovative ways to do so, these companies manage to both serve the community and generate profits.
As part of its support for inclusive growth, ESCAP has partnered with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to promote inclusive business models in agriculture in India, Thailand and Viet Nam. This collaboration seeks to address the needs of thousands of farmers by improving access to technologies, services and platforms in the region.
Credit: Safe Harvest
Safe Harvest was started in 2009 by a group of eight farmer collectives and non-governmental organizations, with the objective of selling pesticide-free agricultural products to the urban consumer. Initially, the company struggled to attract investments and break into wholesale and retail markets, but today its products are present in modern retail format stores, e-commerce platforms, specialty organic stores and its product basket is available in 17 cities in India.
“Our impact is three-fold: We are working with more than 100,000 smallholder farmers across 12 states through more than 30 farmer organizations. We pay our farmers as much as five per cent above the price being offered in the closest organized wholesale market. We plan ahead of the cropping season with our partners to enable them to meet our demands in terms of volumes and quality, and this planning helps the farmers with their sowing schedules,” says Rangu Rao, CEO of Safe Harvest.
Aside from its core innovation of creating a new “pesticide-free food” product category in India, Safe Harvest has also helped its mostly smallholder farmers to form collectives known as farmer-producer organizations (FPOs). “This is a relatively new concept in India, which combines the best of cooperatives and private limited companies. By working collectively, these farmers can more efficiently pool their input purchases and market their produce,” adds Rangu.
Credit: Urmatt Limited
Based in Thailand, Urmatt Limited is among the world’s largest producers of organic jasmine rice, working as a fully organic inclusive business since 1999. “The reason was simple: I saw a need on the ground here in Thailand, where the majority of the population are farmers who are constantly indebted and needed help,” explains Urmatt CEO Arvind Narula.
“Following fair trade principles, we aim to create opportunities for economically disadvantaged and socially marginalized farmers. We do this by buying top-quality rice products from our farmers who would not normally be able to access markets in economically developed countries. We also make sure to extend our support to women farmers so that they can take on more equal roles and have a chance to earn an independent income,” says Arvind.
Urmatt has a strong R&D department and is now looking at ways to achieve zero waste as well as use automation and AI in farming. The company has developed food packaging made from rice straw that is 100 per cent home compostable, creating a usable product out of rice by-products, which gives the farmers additional revenue streams.
There is clear potential for inclusive businesses to deliver solutions at scale. ESCAP is working closely with governments and the private sector on policies that generate greater awareness of inclusive business models, recognize and reward them with targeted incentives, and facilitate services and investments that enable companies to develop inclusive business models.
By merging profit-driven strategies with a genuine concern for social and environmental impacts, inclusive businesses can pave the way for a region that thrives on sustainability, inclusivity and shared prosperity.
Sharon Behn is Consultant, Trade, Investment and Innovation Division (TIID); and Ignacio Blanco is Programme Management Officer, TIID. Other contributors include Marta Pérez Cusó, Economic Affairs Officer, TIID and Kavita Sukanandan, Public Information Officer, Communications and Knowledge Management Section (CKMS).
Anti-government protest in Sri Lanka on April 13, 2022. Credit: Wikipedia
Opinion by Asoka Bandarage (washington dc)
Inter Press Service
WASHINGTON DC, Aug 25 (IPS) – Sri Lanka has been faced with an unprecedented political and economic crisis since the beginning of 2022.
The dominant narrative attributes the crisis to the confluence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine conflict, China’s ‘debt trap diplomacy’ and – most importantly – the corruption and mismanagement of the ruling Rajapaksa family.
Western mainstream media celebrated the so-called aragalaya (struggle, in Sinhala) protest movement that led to the ouster of the Rajapaksas and upholds the IMF bail-out as the only solution to the dire economic situation.
The aragalaya protests emerged from genuine economic grievances, but failed to develop an analysis beyond the ‘Gota, Go Home’ demand for Gotabaya Rajapaksa to resign. Influenced by local and external interests with their own agendas, the protestors exhibited little-to-no awareness or critique of the global political economy and the financial system at the root of the country’s crisis.
In 2022, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) reported that 60 percent of low-income countries and 30 percent of emerging market economies are ‘in or near debt distress.’ While the details differ from country to country, the historical patterns of subordination that have given rise to global crises are the same.
The Sri Lankan crisis is an illustrative example of convergent global debt, food, fuel and energy crises facing much of the world. It is corporate media bias and narrative control that deflects from this analysis.
The island’s severe debt and economic crisis must be seen in a broader global context as the culmination of several centuries of colonial and neo-colonial developments, and the disastrous and inevitably self-destructive capitalist paradigm of endless growth and profit. Debt is not “a straightforward number but a social relation embedded in unequal power relations, discourses and moralities…and…institutionalized power.”.
Colonialism and Neocolonialism
The development of export agriculture and the import of food and other essentials under British colonialism turned Sri Lanka into a dependent ‘peripheral’ unit of the global capitalist economy.
Adopting ideologies of modernization and development and theories of comparative advantage, the capitalist imperative integrated self-sustaining indigenous, peasant, and regional economies into the growing global economy, through the appropriation of land, natural resources, and labor for export production.
Monocultural agriculture, mining, and other export-based production disturbed traditional patterns of crop rotation and small-scale subsistence production that were more harmonious with the regional ecosystems and cycles of nature.
Plantation development contributed to deforestation, loss of biodiversity and animal habitats. While a small local elite prospered through their collaboration with colonialism, most people became poor, indebted, and dependent on the vagaries of the global market for their sustenance.
Although colonized countries including Sri Lanka gained political independence following World War II, unequal exchange continued under neo-colonialism. Terms of trade disadvantaged the ‘Third World’ with their labor, resources and exports grossly undervalued and imports overvalued.
The dynamic is better understood as poorer countries being over-exploited rather than under-developed. Rising populations combined with corruption and inefficiency of local governments gave rise to endemic foreign exchange shortages and economic crises in Sri Lanka and many other countries.
The debt relief and aid given by the IMF, the World Bank and bilateral institutions from the Global North have been mere band-aids to keep the ex-colonial countries tethered to the global financial and economic structures. Post-independent Sri Lanka went to the IMF 16 times before the current 2023 bail-out which seeks to further perpetuate the county’s cycle of debt dependence.
The transfer of financial and resource wealth from poor countries in the global South to the rich countries in the North is not a new phenomenon. It has been an enduring feature throughout centuries of both classical and neo-colonialism. Between 1980 and 2017, developing countries paid out over $4.2 trillion solely in interest payments, dwarfing the financial aid they received from the developed countries during that period.
Currently, international financial institutions – notably the IMF and the World Bank – remain outside political and legal control without even ‘elementary accountability’. As critics from the Global South point out, “The overwhelming power of financial institutions makes a mockery of any serious effort for democratization and addressing the deteriorating socioeconomic living conditions of the people in Sri Lanka and elsewhere in the Global South.”
Financialization and Debt
Corporate and financial deregulation which accompanied the rise of neoliberalism starting in the 1970s has given rise to financialization, and the increasing importance of finance capital. As more and more aspects of social and planetary life are commoditized and subjected to digitalization and financial speculation, the real value of nature and human activity are further lost.
As a 2022 United Nations Report points out; food prices are soaring today not due to a problem with supply and demand but due to price speculation in highly financialized commodity markets.
A handful of the largest asset management companies, notably BlackRock (currently worth USD $ 10 trillion) control very large shares in companies operating in practically all the major sectors of the global economy: banking, technology, media, defense, energy, pharmaceuticals, food, agribusiness including seeds, and agrochemicals.
Financial liberalization advanced when interest rates dropped in the richer countries after the global 2008 financial crisis. Developing countries were encouraged to borrow from private international capital markets through International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs) which come with high interest rates and short maturation periods.
Although details are not available to the public, BlackRock is reportedly the biggest ISB creditor of Sri Lanka. Most of Sri Lanka’s foreign debt is ISBs, with over 80% of Sri Lanka’s debt owed to western creditors, and not – as projected in the mainstream narrative – to China.
IMF debt financing requires countries to meet its familiar structural adjustment conditions: privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), cutbacks of social safety nets and labor rights, increased export production, decreased import substitution and alignment of local economic policy with US and other Western interests.
These are the same aims as classical colonialism, they are just better hidden in the more complex modern system and language of global finance, diplomacy and aid.
A vast array of policies exacting these aims are well under way in Sri Lanka, including the sale of state-owned energy, telecommunications and transportation enterprises to foreign owners, with grave implications for Sri Lanka’s economic independence, sovereignty, national security and the wellbeing of her people and the environment.
The IMF approach does not address long-term needs for bioregionalism, sustainable development, local autonomy and welfare. A small vulnerable country such as Sri Lanka cannot change the trajectory of global capitalist development on its own.
Regional and global solidarity and social movements are necessary to challenge the deranged global financial and economic system that is at the root of the current crisis.
Global South Resistance
Since the 1970s, major collaborative projects have been initiated by developing countries and the UNCTAD to develop a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring. Yet they are futile in the face of the powerful opposition of creditors and the protection given to them by wealthy countries and their multilateral institutions, and the UN has failed to uphold commitment and implement a debt restructuring mechanism.
Sri Lanka was a global leader in efforts to create a New International Economic Order, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace in the 1960s and 70s. In the early years of their political independence, countries throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America sought to forge their own paths of economic and political development, independent of both capitalism and communism and the Cold War.
These included African socialist projects such as Tanzania’s Ujamma, import substitution programs in Latin America and left-wing nationalism and decolonization efforts in Sri Lanka and many other countries.
Almost without exception, these nationalist efforts failed, not only due to internal corruption and mismanagement but also due to persistent external pressure and intervention. Massive efforts have been taken by the Global North to stop the Global South from moving out of the established world order.
A case in point is the nationalization of oil companies owned by western countries in Sri Lanka in 1961 and the backlash against the left-nationalist Sri Lankan government which dared to take such a bold move.
The western response included the 1962 Hickenlooper Amendment passed in the U.S. Senate stopping foreign aid to Sri Lanka and to “any country expropriating American property without compensation.” As a result, Sri Lanka lost its credit worthiness, the domestic economic situation worsened, and the left-nationalist government lost the 1965 elections (with some covert US election support).
Observing those developments, political economist Richard Stuart Olsen wrote: “…the coerciveness of economic sanctions against a dependent, vulnerable country resides in the fact that an economic downturn can be induced and intensified from the outside, with the resulting development of politically explosive ‘relative deprivation’…”
These observations resonate with Sri Lanka’s current repetition of the same vicious cycle: an externally dependent export-import economy; worsening terms of trade; foreign exchange shortage; policy mismanagement; external political pressure; debt crisis; shortages of food, fuel and other essentials; mass suffering; and political turmoil.
Geopolitical Rivalry
Sri Lanka’s present economic crisis – the worst since the country’s political independence from the British – must be seen in the context of the accelerating neocolonial geopolitical conflict between China and the USA in the Indian Ocean. Many other countries across the world are also caught in the neocolonial superpower competition to control their natural resources and strategic locations.
There is much speculation as to whether the debt default on April 12, 2022 and political destabilization in Sri Lanka were ‘staged’ or intentionally precipitated to further the US’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy, the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the Quadrilateral Alliance (USA, India, Australia and Japan) in its competition to confront China’s $1 trillion Belt and Road Initiative and counter China’s presence in Sri Lanka.
It is widely recognized in Sri Lanka that ‘The policy of neutrality is the best defence Sri Lanka has to deter global powers from attempting to get control of Sri Lanka because of its strategic location.’ Although President Gotabaya Rajapaksa claimed to pursue a ‘neutral’ foreign policy, the Rajapaksas were seen as closer to China than the west. After Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and President Gotabaya Rajapaksa were forced to resign, Ranil Wickramasinghe – a politician who was resoundingly rejected in the previous elections by the electorate but is a close ally of the west – was appointed as President in an undemocratic transition of power.
To what extent were Sri Lanka and her people victims of an externally manipulated ‘shock doctrine’ and a regime change operation, sold to the world as internal disintegration caused by local corruption and incapability?
While it is not possible to provide definitive answers to these issues, it is necessary to consider the available credible evidence and the geopolitics of debt and economic crises in Sri Lanka and the world at large.
Paradigm Shift
As the locus of global power shifts from the west and a multipolar world arises, new multilateral partnerships are emerging for development financing, such as the New Development Bank (NDB) – formerly referred to as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) Development Bank – as alternatives to the Bretton Woods and other western dominated institutions.
However, given controversial projects, such as China’s Port City and India’s Adani Company investments in Sri Lanka as well as their projects elsewhere, it is necessary to ask if the BRICS represent a genuine alternative to the prevailing political-economic model based on domination, profit and power?
Dominant political power in our era is about propaganda, control of narratives and exploiting ignorance and fear. In the face of worsening environmental and social collapse across the world, there is a practical need for a fundamental questioning of the values, assumptions and misrepresentations of the dominant neoliberal model and its manifestations in Sri Lanka and the world.
At the root of the crisis, we face is a disconnect between the exponential growth of the profit-driven economy and a lack of development in human consciousness, i.e., in morality, empathy, and wisdom.
Ultimately, dualism, domination and the unregulated market paradigm need to be questioned to find a balanced path of human development, based on interdependence, partnership and ecological consciousness. Such a path of development would uphold the ethical principles necessary for long-term survival: rational use of natural resources, appropriate use of technology, balanced consumption, equitable distribution of wealth, and livelihoods for all.
This article is derived from the author’s new book: Asoka Bandarage, CRISIS IN SRI LANKA AND THE WORLD: COLONIAL AND NEOLIBERAL ORIGINS: ECOLOGICAL AND COLLECTIVE ALTERNATIVES (Berlin: De Gruyter,2023) https://www.degruyter.com/document/isbn/9783111203454/html?lang=en]
