Mali Bans French NGOs, Rejecting ‘Conditional Aid’

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Hundreds of people of African descent convened this past weekend at two events that aimed to be the people’s opposition to the Biden administration’s U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, which is taking place this week amid a military buildup to enforce the summit’s security in Washington, D.C.

The summit is described as a four-day event (Dec. 12-15) that is designed to foster economic opportunities and reinforce the United States’ alleged commitment to human rights and democracy. It is the first summit of its kind since 2014.

“I look forward to working with African governments, civil society, diaspora communities across the United States, and the private sector to continue strengthening our shared vision for the future of U.S.-Africa relations,” U.S. President Joe Biden is quoted as saying on the summit’s website.

However, the summit comes amid dim relations between the United States and many African countries, some of which have decried Western financial and arms support for the war in Ukraine. Western sanctions against Russia have caused price spikes in wheat, with 345 million people in the world expected to experience “acute food insecurity.” Several African countries have relied on Russia and Ukraine for large portions of their wheat imports. However, U.S. officials have been pilloried, too, for saying African countries that continue to trade with Russia would face consequences.

Speakers at both counter events said the Biden summit is really a U.S. attempt to maintain control over the African continent.

Netfa Freeman, an organizer with Pan-African Community Action and a member of the Black Alliance for Peace Coordinating Committee, spoke December 10, at the Global Pan-African Peoples Intervention on the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. The Global Pan-African Congress organized the event at Howard University’s School of Social Work in Washington, D.C. Freeman read aloud a December 9 statement the Black Alliance for Peace issued.

“The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) recognizes the ‘U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit,'” the organization states, “as nothing more than collusion between neo-colonial powers and U.S. attempts to advance and maintain dominance over the continent.”

The Biden administration invited leaders of 49 African countries. The exceptions were Burkina Faso, Eritrea, Guinea, Mali, the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic and Somaliland. An unnamed “senior administration official” was quoted in a transcript of a December 8 background press call as citing the African Union suspending most of these countries for why they were not invited. (A background press call is meant to provide off-the-record information to invited press, hence officials went nameless in the transcript. Toward Freedom was not invited.)

However, long-time colonizer and U.S. ally, France, recently announced the removal of military troops in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. This came after coups and instability in these countries. Mali also recently banned French NGOs. Guinea experienced a coup in 2021 that appeared to be welcomed by its population. Meanwhile, the United States does not recognize Western Sahara, or the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, as a sovereign state.

While the officials mentioned various civilian-led entities the United States has deployed to cultivate leadership on the continent, none of them spoke about the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). That is one of 11 combat and technical military structures the United States has deployed throughout the world to ensure control of shipping lanes and resources. AFRICOM’s press officer has denied commerce is its only interest, while acknowledging it is one of AFRICOM’s reasons for being. Meanwhile, its 2022 “posture statement” to the U.S. Congress states, “Africa sits astride six strategic chokepoints and sea lines of communication, enables a third of the world’s shipping, and holds vast mineral resources. When access through these strategic chokepoints is blocked, global markets suffer.”

Speakers at the weekend’s events remarked on U.S. intentions.

“The U.S. government and their scribes are misguiding the public on what the roles of the U.S. government, NATO, AFRICOM and neoliberal leaders are in maintaining the state of unrest and violence in countries so they can steal their resources,” said Jacqueline Luqman, a Toward Freedom board member, who spoke as co-host of Radio Sputnik’s “By Any Means Necessary” on a panel about the role of the media.

“The US gov. & their scribes are misguiding the public on what the roles of the US gov., NATO, AFRICOM & neoliberal leaders are in maintaining the state of unrest & violence in countries so they can steal their resources,” @luqmannation1 @Blacks4Peace #apf2022. pic.twitter.com/WQ5Xti8eMV

— CODEPINK (@codepink) December 11, 2022

That panel was one of three held during the first-ever African Peoples’ Forum. The December 11 event was organized at the Eritrean Civic and Cultural Center in northeast Washington, D.C. Moderators included Eritrean activist Yolian Ogbu and Hermela Aregawi, an independent journalist of Ethiopian descent who has reported on the Horn of Africa.

The five-hour event featured three panels of prominent speakers like Eritrean journalist and activist Elias Amare; and Paul Sankara, brother of assassinated Burkina Faso leader Thomas Sankara; among many others.

Aregawi announced to the audience of a couple of hundred mostly African-descended people that the event was so successful, the forum may take place quarterly to create more opportunities for African anti-imperialist activists to come together. The event was pulled together in just three weeks’ time, she said.

To continue with the momentum in opposition to the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, BAP has organized a week of actions, December 13-16, to raise awareness about the nature of the U.S. role in Africa.

“BAP calls for the dismantling of NATO, AFRICOM and all imperialist structures,” the organization’s statement reads. “Africa and the rest of the world cannot be free until all peoples are able to realize the right of sovereignty and the right to live free of domination.”

Julie Varughese is editor of Toward Freedom.

The European Union’s process to add new member states has stalled over the last decade. Quite aware that their nations will not join the EU anytime soon, if at all, leaders of three Balkan nations—Serbia, North Macedonia and Albania—have started their own economic integration process.

On July 29, in the North Macedonian capital of Skopje, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and prime ministers of North Macedonia and Albania, Zoran Zaev and Edi Rama, respectively, agreed to abolish border controls between the three countries starting January 1, 2023. The Balkan leaders also signed agreements facilitating trade and movement, cooperation in dealing with disasters, and freeing the labor market by removing work permit requirements and simplifying procedures. The initiative has been dubbed “Open Balkans.” Initially, it was named “Mini Schengen,” in an ode to the Schengen Area, the EU’s passport-free and duty-free zone made up of 26 European countries. During the Skopje summit, the initiative was re-branded “Open Balkans.”

Such moves were welcomed by the EU and the United States, two major powers operating in the Balkans. In fact, it is believed Richard Grenell, then-U.S. President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Balkans, initiated economic integration between Serbia, North Macedonia and Albania in October 2019.

It may have been a coincidence that a day after the Skopje summit, Grenell was spotted with Serbian Finance Minister Sinisa Mali in a local night club in the Serbian capital of Belgrade. Just a couple of days later, he went to Albania, where he met with Rama.

Although the former U.S. diplomat is not part of the new U.S. administration, he appears to wield influence in the Balkans. The role he plays on behalf of the United States is unclear. During a recent visit to Albania, he reportedly said the self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo—which is the subject of a long-running political and territorial dispute between the Serbian government and Kosovo leaders based in the city of Pristina—made a mistake by not joining the Open Balkans initiative. Besides Kosovo, Montenegro, as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, also remain skeptical about this project. The EU, on the other hand, supports the German-backed Common Regional Market, which includes Serbia, North Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Kosovo. In other words, it seems certain U.S. players, namely Grenell and the Atlantic Council, support the Open Balkans project, while Germany pushes for Balkan nations to more deeply integrate into the Common Regional Market.

 

The @AtlanticCouncil team was honored to meet with President Vučić, Prime Minister @ediramaal and Prime Minister @Zoran_Zaev , today in Skopje, for the launch of #OpenBalkan pic.twitter.com/Dh4TKQPBm8

— Benjamin Haddad (@benjaminhaddad) July 29, 2021

 

Integrating the Balkans

It is worth noting, however, that EU member Austria, which has significant economic influence in the region, supported the creation of Open Balkans, which some see as a Serbia-centric, Yugoslavia-style initiative, especially if Montenegro as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina—where ethnic Serbs comprise around 30 percent of the population—become part of Open Balkans. Many Serbs, on the other hand, fear Open Balkans could turn into a “Greater Albania” if Kosovo—where ethnic Albanians make up over 90 percent of the population—joins the initiative. In reality, this entity could unite all the Serbs and Albanians living in the Balkans.

“This initiative is changing everything in the region,” said Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic. “We will have to work a lot and I believe that we will succeed.”

The initiative might already be changing the region. For instance, Serbian and North Macedonian national postal services have reportedly agreed to initiate the establishment of a common postage stamp and a single price for parcel services, in order to provide citizens of Open Balkan countries with services at a single tariff. This move has been viewed as an initial step in practically implementing Open Balkans.

On the other hand, prime ministers of Montenegro and Albania, Zdravko Krivokapic and Edi Rama, have recently opened a joint border crossing between the two Balkan countries. Montenegro now has three common border crossings, two with Albania and one with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, on July 1 the region became a “roaming-free zone,” which means no roaming charges for people using their mobile phones while travelling between or in Serbia, Albania, North Macedonia, as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Kosovo. The European Union supported this initiative, which suggests that both Brussels and Washington aim to include the Balkan nations that are still out of the EU into a joint regional entity, be it Open Balkans or Common Regional Market.

 

Neocolonialism in the Balkans?

No part of either project, however, is Balkan-made. Rather, these efforts are intended to advance foreign powers’ wider geopolitical strategies. 

In the past—particularly in the 19th and in the first half of the 20th century—the people of the Balkans were clear the Balkans should belong to them. When they were freed from the centuries-old feudal system the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian monarchy had imposed, the newly formed nations took the first political steps in an effort to emancipate themselves and cease to be colonies in Europe. To this day, however, the Balkan nations remain heavily dependent on Western powers, and some claim the EU treats the region in a neocolonial manner. Neocolonialism involves an outside power ruling a country by indirect means.

The United States has applied a similar pattern with Balkan countries, regardless of which political party’s representative sits in the White House. Nowhere was that more obvious than in the White House in September 2020, when leaders of Serbia and Kosovo signed a “historic” economic agreement, although the document they signed looked more like a list of U.S. demands that was addressed to its Balkan client states. The major points in the document involved normalizing relations with Israel. 

But some speculated the Serbian president didn’t know what he had signed, based on video footage that went viral on social media. In that video, when Trump mentioned the Embassy of Serbia located in Tel Aviv would move to Jerusalem, Vucic began to turn the pages of the document, looked to his right and brought his hand to his head.

 

Footage that certainly makes it appear that Vucic did not realize he had agreed to moving the Serbian embassy to Jerusalem — or at least not by July, Trump states. Comedy of errors. pic.twitter.com/nhBjfja0lc

— Paul 🏴‍☠️ the other one… (@paulcshipley) September 6, 2020

Moreover, a photograph of Vucic sitting in the Oval Office also went viral because some said Vucic looked like a schoolboy who had been summoned by Trump, further cementing the popular notion that Serbia is under the U.S. thumb.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration’s relationship to the Balkans has been similar to the Trump administration’s. That is, until Biden indicates otherwise.

“We still don’t know what the Biden administration’s attitude is towards the Balkans,” said John Bolton, a national security advisor in the Trump administration. “Biden’s campaign has avoided answering many foreign and domestic questions, and I think the Biden administration is focusing on domestic issues at the moment, not foreign policy, so I don’t know when we will get an answer to that question.”

For now, self-determination for the region is unlikely with an initiative like Open Balkans. The region appears to remain stuck in the waiting room to join the EU, while foreign powers fight for influence and redistribution of Balkan nations’ wealth.

Nikola Mikovic is a Serbia-based contributor to CGTN, Global Comment, Byline Times, Informed Comment, and World Geostrategic Insights, among other publications. He is a geopolitical analyst for KJ Reports and Global Wonks.

What left many grumbling at the 26th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP26) held in November in Glasgow was rich countries like the United States and those in the European Union striking down the Glasgow Loss and Damage Facility, a body created to address how to compensate developing countries for climate change-related losses and damages. Wealthy countries have been found to be most responsible for causing the climate crisis and face litigation as well as ensuing liabilities and payouts. 

But the demand to recognize loss and damage remains alive. A good indication being many climate-vulnerable developing countries have referenced loss and damage in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, countries are required to submit NDCs to detail their national action to address global climate change, including steps to adapt to a changing climate and the form of financial assistance needed to undertake such action. 

Small-Income and Developing Countries Hard Hit

A report published in October, 2021 found one-third of the 250 NDCs that were analyzed explicitly mentioned loss and damage. Most were from small-island developing states and least developed countries in the Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean. The report was supported by the European Research Council’s Politics of Climate Change Loss and Damage (CCLAD) project. 

“NDCs are political documents and not just technical submissions [under the Paris Agreement],” said Elisa Calliari, a co-author of the report. 

Developed countries tend to focus on mitigation action, like the deployment of renewable energy. But that hasn’t been the case for the majority of the world’s states.

“Developing countries have pushed hard for the inclusion of adaptation in NDCs because, for them, this is more of a priority than mitigation,” Calliari pointed out. “So you can see the politics.”

For people living in an island nation like Sri Lanka, “key loss and damage impacts are felt in food systems and other vulnerable sectors, like the coastal and marine sector and water resources. These impacts have already resulted in migration interlinked with or induced by climate change among vulnerable communities,” said Vositha Wijenayake, executive director of the SLYCAN Trust, a non-profit think tank working in Asia, Africa and Europe. Its work focuses on climate change, biodiversity and ecosystems, sustainable development, and social justice. 

Sri Lanka is classified as a lower-middle income/developing country. Given that it is also an island, its exposure to climate-related risks is high. These two factors make it extremely vulnerable to climate impacts and the ability to withstand them.

So, Wijenayake added, it is important for countries most vulnerable to climate change that loss and damage is a “key component” in addressing climate change processes, both negotiations and climate action. And this is why Sri Lanka was among the first countries to have a separate section allocated to loss and damage commitments included in its first NDCs submitted in September 2016. Building on this, the updated NDC of Sri Lanka submitted last July includes a separate section on loss and damage.

Interestingly, the report says upper-income countries like Costa Rica, Chile and Uruguay also have cited loss and damage in their NDCs. 

And outside of NDCs, many developing countries have explicitly stated loss- and damage-related demands. For instance, consider India’s environment ministry laying out ahead of COP26, “There should be a compensation for expenses incurred, and it should be borne by developed nations.”

How to Fund Loss and Damage

A question that usually rears its head with respect to addressing loss and damage is how to “operationalize” it, or what processes and institutions could be set up at the global and national levels to address loss and damage. 

“[One way would be] to look at NDCs for a bottom-up approach to understand how countries themselves are looking at loss and damage,” Calliari said. 

Of the NDCs that explicitly mention loss and damage, around half specify loss- and damage-related responses and initiatives like data gathering, analysis and assessment, and institutional capacities to address loss and damage. For example, Sri Lanka’s NDC has a whole section on loss and damage. It mentions strengthening its weather and climate forecasting systems, plus improving data management to record loss and damage. Meanwhile, Honduras’ NDC puts forth a “gender-responsive agricultural insurance mechanism for loss and damage.”

Wijenayake also stressed “inclusive and participatory processes,” in which the voices of those vulnerable to climate change are taken into account in the national and international policy-making processes. As is “ground-level implementation,” she added. 

And so, country-specific NDCs could potentially be a good starting point to determine how to put mechanisms in place to address loss and damage on a global scale. 

Getting Polluting Countries to Pay

The other gap that exists today is how finance can be mobilized to fund efforts that compensate for climate change-related loss and damage. A recent study by the Stockholm Environment Institute offers potential solutions. 

The researchers propose finance should be provided based on the following:

• Solidarity,
• “polluter pays” principle that is based on “historical responsibility,” and 
• the established notion of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (or CBDR-RC, for short) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 

CBDR-RC means that while climate change is a shared concern, rich countries with a history of emitting carbon—like the United States and those in Europe—have a greater responsibility to take climate action than the poorer countries.  

The “polluter pays” principle has only been used to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for environmental destruction. It implies more strict liabilities than “historical responsibilities,” which outlines broad principles based on past emissions. 

The authors stress a combined approach that deploys the principles of solidarity, polluter pays and historical responsibility, as well as using the framework of CBDR-RC, to finance loss and damage. 

A strictly liability-based approach would be “politically infeasible and communities cannot wait for years to prove the liability,” said Zoha Shawoo, an associate scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute as well as one of the authors of the SEI report. 

The research team also looked at methods of recovery and rehabilitation that communities would need after financing efforts to cover losses and damages. Those efforts can include planning the relocation of communities, assisting with migration and providing affected people with alternative livelihoods. Here, too, NDCs could help with granular details like national-level entities and processes that could assist local communities with issues like displacement and loss of livelihood. 

Rishika Pardikar is a freelance journalist in Bangalore, India. She had reported for Toward Freedom from COP26 in Glasgow.