Regular contributor Sanket Jain appears third from left on the bottom row in an announcement that he is among the Top 10 finalists for the Oxfam 2021-22 Journalism for an Equitable Asia Award.
We are honored regular contributor Sanket Jain has been named a Top 10 finalist for Oxfam’s 2021-22 Journalism for an Equitable Asia Award. With his eye for detail, Sanket has sensitively reported on and photographed the stories of several rural Indians. All of his subjects have felt the pain of losing their livelihoods as the country locked down at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Indian government provided little to no recompense for the 833 million people who live in rural India.
The award winner will be announced at 2 p.m. Bangkok time on March 15. The event can be attended in person and watched online by registering here.
We at Toward Freedom congratulate Sanket for being recognized for his rare coverage from India’s countryside. This work continues our 69-year legacy of documenting oppressed people’s struggles.
Sean Blackmon, activist, organizer and broadcaster, currently serving as co-host of Radio Sputnik’s “By Any Means Necessary”; Jacqueline Luqman, Black Alliance for Peace Mid-Atlantic Region Co-Coordinator, co-host of Radio Sputnik’s “By Any Means Necessary” and host of “Luqman Nation” on the Black Power Media YouTube channel; Kamau Franklin, former practicing attorney, first program director of New York City Police-Watch and co-founder of Black Power Media; and Karanja Gaçuça, a U.S.-based Kenyan journalist, publisher of thebriefscoop.com and executive editor of panafricmedia.org; discussed the power of story at the first-ever African Peoples’ Forum. The event was held December 11 at the Eritrean Civic & Cultural Center in Washington, D.C. Journalist Hermela Aregawi and activist Yolian Ogbu moderated.
The first and second panels can be viewed here and here.
TF editor Julie Varughese reported on this event being held to counter the Biden administration’s U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit.
The Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development joined climate campaigners in June in The Philippines’ financial district to sound the alarm on several Asian companies for their continued financing of fossil fuels amid the climate emergency / Twitter/AsianPeoplesMovement
The Asian Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) 2021, a meeting of hundreds of civil society organizations and others interested in clean energy policy, was underway on June 15 in Manila, The Philippines, when one session came to a halt.
An Asian-led network of over 250 civil society organizations from around the world called NGO Forum on ADB decided to disengage from a session it was co-hosting alongside the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The session in question was about ADB’s draft energy policy. ADB is a multilateral bank that finances development projects, specifically involving fossil fuel energy across Asia.
“The focus of the ACEF discussions were topics like energy transition and of course these are important,” said Lidy Nacpil, coordinator of the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), a member organization of the NGO Forum on ADB. “But we believe their approach to transition is not fast enough and not ambitious enough considering what we need to prevent climate catastrophe.”
In May 2020, the ADB released a draft of its energy policy. Titled “Energy Policy: Supporting Low Carbon Transition in Asia and the Pacific,” the document is a revision of the bank’s 2009 energy policy. The draft signals a shift away from coal financing, but it allows for financing of natural gas projects. And so, given a nod for continued financing of fossil fuel projects in an era of climate change, ADB’s energy policy has been criticized. Whether the bank will actually engage with such criticism though is another question.
“ADB has opened up consultations with civil society groups, but the meetings for these consultations are very brief,” Nacpil said. “There isn’t enough space for dialogue and debate about important passages in the energy draft, like the usage of false solutions like carbon capture and storage.”
Scientists have criticized technologies like carbon capture and storage for being “expensive, energy intensive, risky and unproven.”
The reasons for disengaging from the clean-energy forum included the lack of transparency, inclusivity and meaningful consultation with civil society in the ADB energy-policy review process. For many civil society organizations from across central, southern and southeast Asia, they did not experience anything but a one-sided push aimed at informing rather than engaging with participants.
NGO Forum on ADB added the ADB Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department (SDCC) has not provided any information about the timeline for consultations or the process by which inputs provided by groups like NGO forum on ADB will be taken into account before the draft is finalized.
This reporter sent questions to Bruno Carrasco, director general and chief compliance officer of the ADB SDCC regarding the lack of transparency and a need for Engagement, but received no comment.
Grassroots Voices Left Out
“The name ‘Asian Clean Energy Forum’ is a misnomer. ACEF is neither Asian nor clean,” said Vidya Dinker, national president of the Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) and coordinator of Growthwatch, a research and advocacy group in India. INSAF is another member of NGO Forum on ADB. “It’s a networking event for ADB to reach out to people who they think will broaden their reach and business.”
In a press briefing held on June 18, Hasan Mehedi from the Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN) Bangladesh, said, “ADB is continuing to finance fossil fuels including Liquified Fossil Gas and Waste to Energy while global scientific communities warn about any further investment for fossil fuels.” But Mehedi said ADB has yet to reach out to the project-affected communities on the ground. “Without consulting the affected communities and local civil society, how can ADB finalize such an important policy which has a direct impact on local communities and on the environment?”
Nacpil noted a need to “overhaul” ADB as an institution. The reasons, she explained, includes “neoliberal paradigm and strategies,” “undemocratic governance system” and the “use of loans as leverage to reshape Asian economies, according to its private sector and market driven growth framework.”
In a statement submitted as part of the Fossil Free ADB campaign, APMDD said “financing of fossil fuel projects has largely been in the form of loans. In addition to the grave impacts and implications of its fossil fuel financing on people, communities and on the climate, we are also deeply concerned that ADB’s fossil fuel financing has also exacerbated the debt burdens of its member countries. It is only fitting that the ADB Energy Policy Review also address the loans involved in its fossil fuel financing.”
The Fossil Free ADB campaign is aimed at ensuring a “no fossil fuels” ADB energy policy. It is organized by a group of civil society organizations, researchers and activists, including NGO Forum on ADB, Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), 350.org and the Consortium for Energy, Environment and Demilitarization.
The Therma Visayas Energy Project is a 340-megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant operating since 2019 in Cebu Province, Philippines.
APMDD called on ADB to adopt a policy and take action that will address accountability for impacts of ADB-financed coal projects and ways to ease the debt burden created by ADB lending, especially lending to harmful projects.
“In their draft energy policy, they acknowledge coal projects have been problematic and that’s why we need to shift to clean energy now,” Nacpil explained. “But they are not taking into consideration the economic impacts of the projects they have funded, the kind of financial burden these projects have brought to countries.”
Rayyan Hassan, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB, said that with ADB’s coal ban having yet to be implemented, it is logical to consider calls for decommissioning old plants and the loans associated with them. Examples of such plants include the Masinloc and Visayas thermal power plants in The Philippines, the Tata Mundra coal plant in India, and Jamshoro coal plant in Pakistan.
In response to questions about debt relief, Dr. Yongping Zhai, chief of the energy sector group at ADB said that for ADB, “offering any form of debt relief to any of its borrowing member countries will compromise its preferred creditor status, which underpins ADB’s strong credit ratings. Our strong credit rating is critical for ADB to offer low-cost funding to all borrowing member countries, in support of their development efforts.”
“Yongping Zhai is speaking as a banker, not a development banker who is concerned about member countries’ debt burdens,” Dinker said.
As of now, the draft energy policy does not specify if any debt relief will be provided in relation to fossil fuel projects. It remains to be seen if this undergoes a change as deliberations with civil society groups and activists move ahead. The draft is up for submission to ADB’s board of directors later this year.
Rishika Pardikar is a freelance journalist in Bangalore, India.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping attended in July 2019 the presentation of an investment project already implemented—an automobile plant built in Russia’s Tula Region / credit: Kremlin.ru
Editor’s Note: This analysis was produced by Globetrotter.
On January 21, 2022, Vice Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach attended a talk in New Delhi, India, organized by the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses. Schönbach was speaking as the chief of Germany’s navy during his visit to the institute. “What he really wants is respect,” Schönbach said, referring to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. “And my god, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost.” Furthermore, Schönbach said that in his opinion, “It is easy to even give him the respect he really demands and probably also deserves.”
The next day, on January 22, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba summoned Germany’s ambassador to Ukraine, Anka Feldhusen, to Kyiv and “expressed deep disappointment” regarding the lack of German weapons provided to Ukraine and also about Schönbach’s comments in New Delhi. Vice Admiral Schönbach released a statement soon after, saying, “I have just asked the Federal Minister of Defense [Christine Lambrecht] to release me from my duties and responsibilities as inspector of the navy with immediate effect.” Lambrecht did not wait long to accept the resignation.
Why was Vice Admiral Schönbach sacked? Because he said two things that are unacceptable in the West: First, that “the Crimean Peninsula is gone and never [coming] back” to Ukraine and, second, that Putin should be treated with respect. The Schönbach affair is a vivid illustration of the problem that confronts the West currently, where Russian behavior is routinely described as “aggression” and where the idea of giving “respect” to Russia is disparaged.
Aggression
U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration began to use the word “imminent” to describe a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine toward the end of January. On January 18, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki did not use the word “imminent,” but implied it with her comment: “Our view is this is an extremely dangerous situation. We’re now at a stage where Russia could at any point launch an attack in Ukraine.” On January 25, Psaki, while referring to the possible timeline for a Russian invasion, said, “I think when we said it was imminent, it remains imminent.” Two days later, on January 27, when she was asked about her use of the word “imminent” with regard to the invasion, Psaki said, “Our assessment has not changed since that point.”
On January 17, as the idea of an “imminent” Russian “invasion” escalated in Washington, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rebuked the suggestion of “the so-called Russian invasion of Ukraine.” Three days later, on January 20, spokeswoman for Russia’s Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova denied that Russia would invade Ukraine, but said that the talk of such an invasion allowed the West to intervene militarily in Ukraine and threaten Russia.
Even a modicum of historical memory could have improved the debate about Russian military intervention in Ukraine. In the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian conflict in 2008, the European Union’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, headed by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, found that the information war in the lead-up to the conflict was inaccurate and inflammatory. Contrary to Georgian-Western statements, Tagliavini said, “[T]here was no massive Russian military invasion underway, which had to be stopped by Georgian military forces shelling Tskhinvali.” The idea of Russian “aggression” that has been mentioned in recent months, while referring to the possibility of Russia invading Ukraine, replicates the tone that preceded the conflict between Georgia and Russia, which was another dispute about old Soviet borders that should have been handled diplomatically.
Western politicians and media outlets have used the fact that 100,000 Russian troops have been stationed on Ukraine’s border as a sign of “aggression.” The number—100,000—sounds threatening, but it has been taken out of context. To invade Iraq in 1991, the United States and its allies amassed more than 700,000 troops as well as the entire ensemble of U.S. war technology located in its nearby bases and on its ships. Iraq had no allies and a military force depleted by the decade-long war of attrition against Iran. Ukraine’s army—regular and reserve—number about 500,000 troops (backed by the 1.5 million troops in NATO countries). With more than a million soldiers in uniform, Russia could have deployed many more troops at the Ukrainian border and would need to have done so for a full-scale invasion of a NATO partner country.
Respect
The word “respect” used by Vice Admiral Schönbach is key to the discussion regarding the emergence of both Russia and China as world powers. The conflict is not merely about Ukraine, just as the conflict in the South China Sea is not merely about Taiwan. The real conflict is about whether the West will allow both Russia and China to define policies that extend beyond their borders.
Russia, for instance, was not seen as a threat or as aggressive when it was in a less powerful position in comparison to the West after the collapse of the USSR. During the tenure of Russian President Boris Yeltsin (1991-1999), the Russian government encouraged the looting of the country by oligarchs—many of whom now reside in the West—and defined its own foreign policy based on the objectives of the United States. In 1994, “Russia became the first country to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace,” and that same year, Russia began a three-year process of joining the Group of Seven, which in 1997 expanded into the Group of Eight. Putin became president of Russia in 2000, inheriting a vastly depleted country, and promised to build it up so that Russia could realize its full potential.
In the aftermath of the collapse of the Western credit markets in 2007-2008, Putin began to speak about the new buoyancy in Russia. In 2015, I met a Russian diplomat in Beirut, who explained to me that Russia worried that various Western-backed maneuvers threatened Russia’s access to its two warm-water ports—in Sevastopol, Crimea, and in Tartus, Syria; it was in reaction to these provocations, he said, that Russia acted in both Crimea (2014) and Syria (2015).
The United States made it clear during the administration of President Barack Obama that both Russia and China must stay within their borders and know their place in the world order. An aggressive policy of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe and of the creation of the Quad (Australia, India, Japan and the United States) drew Russia and China into a security alliance that has only strengthened over time. Both Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping recently agreed that NATO’s expansion eastward and Taiwan’s independence were not acceptable to them. China and Russia see the West’s actions in both Eastern Europe and Taiwan as provocations by the West against the ambitions of these Eurasian powers.
That same Russian diplomat to whom I spoke in Beirut in 2015 said something to me that remains pertinent: “When the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq, none of the Western press called it ‘aggression.’”
The award winner will be announced at 2 p.m. Bangkok time on March 15. The event can be attended in person and watched online by registering here.
