Africa

A young woman's donation of $0.50 of mobile phone credit helps raise $1m for a medical charity.

By Andrew Firmin
May 3 2022 (IPS-Partners)

Economic crisis has provoked a great wave of protests in Sri Lanka. People are demanding the resignation of the president, blamed for high-handed and unaccountable decision making, exemplified by his introduction of an agricultural fertiliser ban in 2021 that has resulted in a food crisis. People don’t just want the president’s removal: they want a change in the political balance of power so that future presidents are subjected to proper checks and balances. Hope comes from the wide-reaching and diverse protest movement that has put aside past differences to demand change.

Recent weeks in Sri Lanka have seen anger and protests alongside struggles to secure the basics of life – but also hope that change is coming. An economic meltdown has brought normal life to a halt. People are living with lengthy power cuts, almost no access to fuel and soaring prices that have made essential foods unaffordable, forcing many to cut down on their daily meals.

There’s no doubt that Sri Lanka’s economy has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, which largely put a halt to tourism and slashed remittances from Sri Lankans abroad, and most recently by Russia’s war on Ukraine, which has pushed up global fuel prices. But people are also pointing the finger at strong-arm president Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his centralised and unaccountable brand of decision making.

A disastrous decision on farming

High global prices are affecting every economy, but Sri Lanka is doing notably worse than most, indicating that problems have been building up for some time. Sri Lanka has the region’s highest inflation, the value of its currency has collapsed and it has almost completely depleted its foreign currency reserves. This is all making it even harder and more costly to import the food and fuel it needs. The country has defaulted on billions of dollars of foreign debt repayments and is now in what could be lengthy negotiations with the International Monetary Fund. It’s a long way from the ‘Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour’ Rajapaksa promised in his 2019 election manifesto.

On coming to power, Rajapaksa cut taxes, including corporate tax, and reversed the policy of the outgoing government that would have made the central bank independent and stop the government printing more money as a short-term economic fix. The government, including the administration headed by Rajapaksa’s brother Mahinda from 2005 to 2015, was accused of running up debt on grandiose infrastructure projects.

Meanwhile Sri Lanka’s home-grown food supplies have been depleted as a direct result of a presidential decision. In April 2021, President Rajapaksa introduced a ban on chemical fertilisers and pesticides. The move, which came into effect straight away rather than being phased in over time, gave farmers no time to change the practices they had used for decades. The result was a swift decline in yields of rice, the key crop that feeds the nation, and export crops that earn essential foreign currency, notably tea.

Following protests in response to falling harvests, the government reversed its policy for some key crops and agreed to pay compensation, but it was already too late: Sri Lanka’s economic woes have been compounded by the need to import rice, on which it was long self-sufficient. Earlier this month, Mahinda Yapa Abeywardana, speaker of parliament, voiced his fear that many face the threat of starvation. A medical workers’ union has similarly warned of a national health emergency as the country struggles to import essential medicines.

For many farmers, who make up 27 per cent of Sri Lanka’s workforce, the fertiliser ban and its fallout epitomised an unaccountable president able to make unchecked decisions. Farmers, many of whom had previously backed the ruling party, felt taken for granted; some wondered if the scheme was a ploy to force small farmers off their land to enable large-scale commercialisation of farms.

An out-of-control ruling family

At the heart of the crisis is one powerful political family. When former army leader Gotabaya Rajapaksa became president in 2019, he was just the tip of the iceberg. He appointed his brother Mahinda, former president and one of five members of the family to win seats in the 2020 parliamentary election, as prime minister. He also placed two other Rajapaksa brothers and a nephew in the cabinet, making governing a private family business.

Presidential power was extended by constitutional changes in October 2020: the president gained additional powers to dissolve parliament, appoint and dismiss ministers and choose judges and the heads of key commissions, including the election commission. Unaccountable presidential taskforces were created, removing key issues from parliamentary scrutiny, and a slew of current and former army officers were given government roles previously held by civilians.

Unsurprisingly this consolidation of Rajapaksa family power was accompanied by a crackdown on civic space, with protest bans, the detention of activists and the harassment and criminalisation of government critics and independent media.

It was no shock that the government’s response to protests was to fall back on its machinery of repression. When protesters camped outside the president’s residence on 31 March to demand his resignation, teargas and water cannon were used and at least 50 protesters and several journalists were injured. Dozens of protesters were arrested, with some ill-treated in detention.

The following day the government introduced a state of emergency, imposing a curfew and giving itself the power to arrest and detain people without warrants. The military was deployed onto the streets. Internet and social media access were restricted.

Despite the curfew, there were thousands who came to the streets to protest peacefully. This was a large-scale civil disobedience from citizens, unprecedented in Sri Lanka.


BHAVANI FONSEKA

However, the pressure did not let up as people kept protesting despite the curfew. In response the government had to give some ground. On 2 April the cabinet resigned and President Rajapaksa offered to form a unity government, an invitation opposition parties rejected, since both the president and his brother showed no indication of stepping down. The next day 41 members of parliament quit the ruling coalition, leaving the Rajapaksas heading a minority government and potentially facing a future vote of confidence. The state of emergency, clearly untenable, was quickly withdrawn.

The protest movement continues, demanding that both President and Prime Minister Rajapaksa quit. More than that, protesters are insisting they don’t want another all-powerful president: they want a form of government where presidential power is subject to checks and balances and policies like the disastrous agricultural reforms can’t simply be pushed through. Protesters have also started to call for accountability over recent human rights violations, including those committed during Sri Lanka’s bloody civil war.

Voices from the frontline

Bhavani Fonseka is from the Centre for Policy Alternatives, an organisation that advocates for non-violent conflict resolution and democratic governance to facilitate post-war recovery in Sri Lanka:

The protests are spontaneous and come as a direct result of the current economic crisis, which is imposing a heavy burden on the people. They have been suffering from severe hardships due to a lack of essential items, including medicines, long power cuts and skyrocketing prices. In response, people have taken to the streets in peaceful protests across the country for more than a month.

It is important to state that the widespread protests are not linked to any political party. The opposition held their own protests weeks ago and continue to protest currently. But the ongoing protests are largely driven by angry citizens who oppose the involvement of politicians and members of parliament in their peaceful protests. There is frustration with existing political parties, including the opposition; people denounce them for not doing enough as representatives of the people.

In line with that, the thousands of people who have continued to protest in recent weeks demand a radical change. They call for the president and government to step down, a peaceful transition of power, and for structural reforms including the abolishing of the executive presidency. There is also a loud call to address immediate needs such as shortages of essential items, livelihoods and rising cost of living, among the many other calls from the protesters.

Sri Lanka has not seen this scale of protests in recent years – none that I can remember. Even the older generations are saying they have not seen a similar movement. As most of these protests are peaceful, they are making a difference by raising the profile of our domestic issues across the region and internationally. As a result, there is a recognition that the situation is quite bad in Sir Lanka.

Despite the curfew on the first weekend of April, there were thousands who came to the streets that Sunday to protest peacefully. This was a large-scale civil disobedience from citizens, unprecedented in Sri Lanka because it is the first time we have seen such large numbers of people coming to peacefully protest during a curfew.

Overall, the mobilisation of lawyers and of civil society to offer solidarity and support are quite high. Over 500 lawyers turned up to support those who were arrested on 31 March, and many other instances have seen lawyers appearing to protect the rights of citizens.

I believe that it is amazing how people are stepping out, creating ways of protesting despite the challenges and hardships.

 
Ruki Fernando is a human rights activist, writer and consultant to the Centre for Society and Religion:

This protest movement is the biggest and most diverse I have ever experienced in Sri Lanka. The protests are largely driven by angry, frustrated, disappointed citizens. Mainly the protests have been triggered by the ramification of the economic crisis that reached its peak with shortages of fuel, electricity, gas and medicines among many essential items that either disappeared from the market or had their prices hiked.

Protesters are also now demanding the truth about people who disappeared during Sri Lanka’s civil war and even before. Their demands have expanded beyond the severe financial crisis to call for those in power to be held accountable for war crimes, crimes against humanity, disappearances and killings, disappearances and assaults on journalists.

The protesters are demanding long-term legal and institutional changes to the current governance system that must start with the resignation of the President Rajapaksa and the Rajapaksa family. Others call for the abolition of the 20th amendment to the constitution, which expanded the president’s executive powers.

Protest slogans calling on the president to ‘Go Home’ are now evolving into ‘Go to Jail’ and ‘Return Stolen Money’.

Repressive measures did not last in the face of the ongoing protests. The authorities had to release arrested protesters and revoke the declaration of emergency, the curfew was not extended and the social media shutdown was withdrawn.

I believe that when President Rajapaksa revoked the declaration of a state of emergency on 5 April, it was because he realised he was not able to sustain the necessary parliamentary majority that was needed for its continuation.

Most importantly, these protests, which are largely being led by young and students, represent a political awakening of various groups of our nation. Many women, older people, LGBTQI+ people, lawyers, religious clergy, artists and well-known people such as former cricketers have been part of the protests. They have enriched the spirit of defiance, resistance, courage and creativity unleashed by youth, on an unprecedented scale.

Aside from that, there is fear and uncertainty about what the future may hold for our country. There are many concerns about a potential military–police crackdown, especially after the shooting at protesters in Rambukkana that led to at least one death and several others injured.

There are also worries about sustaining the protests and a lack of clear political alternatives. But it has been an inspiring, heartening moment to see so many people, especially young people, standing up, creatively and courageously.

These are edited extracts of our conversations with Bhavani and Ruki. Read the full interviews here.

 
Diverse movement points the way forward

Pressure continues to mount. Some senior ruling-party politicians have said they back the protesters and called on the prime minister to quit. Influential Buddhist leaders have done likewise. It seems increasingly clear that if the president and prime minister had national unity and the best interests of the country at heart, they would stop clinging onto power.

Concern comes over the president’s close military links, which could help keep the Rajapaksas in power. Sri Lanka could be at a significant fork in the road: it could potentially become more democratic and pluralist, but alternatively it could transition into de facto military rule. Worryingly, the protests experienced their first fatality on 19 April when police opened fire on protesters blocking railway lines and roads in the town of Rambukkana, killing bystander Chaminda Lakshan and injuring several others. Violence towards protesters may increase if the Rajapaksas try to stay in power.

But hope comes in the unity across diversity of the protest movement. The political power of the Rajapaksas has rested on a stridently religious-nationalist appeal to a key segment of the country’s majority Sinhala Buddhist population, based on the exclusion of Tamil people and other minorities. But protesters are coming from all groups and mobilising outside party structures. Young people are denying their reputation for apathy by protesting in numbers. LGBTQI+ people, previously made invisible, are being embraced as part of the protest community.

People are no longer either intimidated or impressed by President Rajapaksa’s strongman posturing, and they no longer want such a leader. The protest movement is showing instead what Sri Lanka could look like, and making clear that the best way for the country to respond to its economic crisis is to listen to the voices of its people.

OUR CALLS FOR ACTION

– President and Prime Minister Rajapaksa should step aside in favour of a government of national unity to develop a consensus-based response to the economic crisis.
– The government should amend the constitution to restore checks and balances on presidential power.
– Sri Lanka’s protest movement must stay unified, respect the diversity of its members and resist factionalism.

The author is CIVICUS’s Editor in Chief

This story was originally published by CIVICUS Lens.

Excerpt:

Protest movement demands an end to unaccountable presidential power

Witnesses tell Human Rights Watch about summary executions, torture and the beating of civilians.

Former Wimbledon finalist Kevin Anderson announces his retirement from professional tennis at the age of 35.

The United Nations General Assembly declared 3 May is World Press Freedom Day, but what does that mean?

Pacific Community health experts conduct laboratory training for COVID-19 testing with their healthcare colleagues in Nuku'alofa, Tonga. Credit: Pacific Community (SPC)

By Catherine Wilson
CANBERRA, Australia , May 3 2022 (IPS)

Before the pandemic emerged in 2020, health services in many Pacific Island countries were under-resourced, under-funded and under-staffed. Now following recent outbreaks of COVID-19, advancing the capacity and development of health and medical services in vulnerable nations, such as Tonga and Kiribati, is increasingly urgent.

In the central Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati, virus cases have skyrocketed from zero to more than 3,000 since the beginning of the year. Meanwhile, the Polynesian kingdom of Tonga was hit early this year by a devastating submarine volcanic eruption and then a spike in COVID-19 cases.

“Ashfall and a tsunami from the volcanic eruption affected an estimated 84 percent of the population covering the whole of Tonga,” Tongan Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni’s office announced in late January.

In Kiribati, Margaret Leong, SPC’s Infection Prevention and Control Adviser, conducted training in the use of PPE with local healthcare staff. Credit: Pacific Community (SPC)

The deployment of health and medical experts to Tonga and Kiribati in February by the regional development organization, Pacific Community, have proven to be crucial support missions.

“Tonga is in a unique and unprecedented scenario. It is contending with a triple event: the volcanic eruption, the tsunami and COVID-19 outbreak. They are all related to one another. We are in Tonga in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, helping to ensure the quality of COVID-19 testing is maintained, aspiring to zero contamination, to support infection prevention and control,” Dr Sunia Soakai, Deputy Director of the Pacific Community’s Public Health Division told IPS from Tonga.

Tonga, an archipelago nation of 104,494 people in the southern Pacific Ocean, managed, for a long time, to stave off the pandemic, recording its first COVID-19 case only in October last year. Then on the 15 January, the Hunga Tonga Hunga Ha’apai underwater volcano, located 65 kilometres northeast of the country’s main island of Tongatapu, erupted violently, propelling massive amounts of volcanic ash into the atmosphere and triggering far-reaching tsunami waves. Many islanders were affected, either by health problems, such as breathing and cardiovascular difficulties, the loss of food sources or forced displacement.

But, as the world reached out to help, disaster recovery efforts were complicated by a spike in the pandemic. As of 20 April, Tonga recorded 9,220 cases of COVID-19 and 11 related deaths.

While Tongans receive free public healthcare, the island nation has limited health infrastructure and human resources. “We are providing support to three hospitals located on Tonga’s outer islands to boost their capacities for COVID-19 testing. That involves assisting them to collect samples and, if needed, transporting them to locations where equipment for testing is available…We’ve also been asked to conduct a thorough review of the country’s health protocols and procedures, such as handling of the deceased, quarantine requirements and procedures related to health care workers returning to work after positive diagnosis of COVID-19,” Dr Soakai described. “And we are working to ensure that other health services continue to be available to non-COVID patients.”

Local nurses dedicated to working in COVID-19 patient hospital wards in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati. Credit: Pacific Community (SPC)

SPC is a member of the World Health Organisation (WHO)-led multi-agency Joint Incident Management Team and provides a wide spectrum of support services, including building the capacities of health systems, improving training and qualifications of healthcare workers across the region and commissioning new medical research.

“The team that was recently deployed to Tonga was very timely. They came when there was a lot of demand in our laboratory to do tests. This was before Rapid Antigen Tests were widely used for testing. We were sending up to 500 swabs per day and this was a challenge to our laboratory,” Dr Ana Akau’ola, Medical Superintendent of the main Vaiola Hospital in Tonga’s capital, Nuku’alofa, told IPS.

Earlier in the year, Elisiva Na’ati, a dietitian from the Pacific Community arrived in the country to aid recovery efforts following the volcanic disaster. “She came when there was a need to develop nutritional proposals for the islanders who had been displaced after the tsunami,” Dr Akau’ola added.

Across the vast Pacific Ocean, containing 22 island nations and territories with a total population of about 11.9 million, the role of the Pacific Community during the pandemic is, for many islanders, the difference between life and death. Many national governments work with constrained budgets and, therefore, funding and resources for health, with specialist and full hospital services often only available in main urban centres.

Only 12 of 21 Pacific Island countries have met the global goal of 4.5 healthcare workers per 1,000 people and national health expenditure per capita in 10 Pacific nations is US$500 or less, compared to the world average of US$1,000, WHO reports. It is not just islanders suffering from the virus, but also those afflicted with other serious illnesses, such as Tuberculosis, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, who are experiencing over-burdened health clinics and hospitals.

Since the pandemic emerged, the Pacific Community has provided countries with laboratories, medical technology and skills for the testing of COVID-19, assisted vaccination initiatives, upskilled the capabilities of nurses for greater responsibility and strengthened national capabilities to monitor emerging public health threats.

In the atolls of Kiribati, home to about 119,940 people, SPC’s medical and health professionals worked alongside local health staff, patients and international partners, such as UNICEF, WHO and Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which provided funding.

The country managed to keep COVID-19 from crossing its borders until January when its first case was identified in an incoming traveller. By April 20, 2022, Kiribati had diagnosed 3,076 virus cases in the country with 13 fatalities.

“We went into the country at the peak. We came to assist with preparing the wards, to support the training of PPE use. We set up isolation centres for patients in the community because the hospital beds were all full. We also worked with airport and border control staff, helping them to use practical and effective PPE, such as disposable gowns,” Margaret Leong, the Pacific Community’s Infection Prevention and Control Adviser, who was deployed to Kiribati in February, told IPS.

“Some of the issues and challenges they had were healthcare worker fatigue and psychological stress. Staff were getting sick, so there were insufficient numbers of healthcare workers at the peak. This put stress on the remaining healthcare workers,” Leong continued.

Laboratory training conducted by the Pacific Community-led health and medical mission in February and March boosted the capacity of Kiribati health services to cope with the pressures of a surge in COVID-19 cases. Credit: Pacific Community (SPC)

At the same time, Dr Lamour Hansell led the SPC’s Clinical Care Services part of the mission, helping to manage COVID patients in intensive care. “We started up a new hospital for COVID patients, supplying new infrastructure. An old hotel was found [in Nuku’alofa] and turned into a critical care facility. The Intensive Care Unit was located in the main hotel lobby and it was one of the best I have worked in,” Dr Hansell told IPS.

The work was relentless, round the clock and demanding, but Dr Hansell had only praise for his local colleagues, who, he said, were flexible and adaptable in the face of enormous professional and personal pressures. He witnessed many moments of courage and strength in his co-workers, remembering “one of the clinicians who had to treat and manage her own grandmother who had COVID-19. It was a very humbling thing to see, very humbling and inspiring,” he emphasised.

The number of new virus cases has slowed in both countries since the beginning of April, but internal lockdown restrictions remain in place. While the Pacific Community’s in-country missions responded to the peak of the crisis, the organization is accessible throughout the year to provide virtual, logistical support and mentoring to Pacific Island nations whenever it’s needed.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Pacific Islanders: Failure to Commit to 1.5 Degrees at COP27 will Imperil the World’s Oceans
• Atoll Nation of Tuvalu Adopts ‘Cubes’ to Step Up Nutritious Food Production
• Pacific Community Warns of Threat to Education Retention in the Wake of COVID-19

Credit: United Nations

By Riya Shah and Arjun Kumar
NEW DELHI, May 3 2022 (IPS)

When the Covid- 19 pandemic first broke out in Wuhan in 2020, no one imagined that it would wreak havoc on such a large scale. With over 6.2 million lives lost, countless infected and new variants emerging, the pandemic is still raging all around the world.

Governments all over the world have moved away from the lockdown method to one living with Covid. However, even after two years of the Wuhan outbreak, China has continued with its stringent Zero Covid policy.

Initially, the strategy was successful in reducing transmission to near zero but as highly transmissible variants like Omicron are surfacing, this policy seems to be faltering beneath its own weight. The resurgence of cases in 2022 and the month-long Shanghai lockdown has again put to test the effectiveness of the ‘zero tolerance’ Covid policy.

The nightmare returns

In early April, as the highly transmissible Omicron virus rummaged around China, it forced the 25 million-strong-city of Shanghai into complete lockdown. China’s most populous city and economic hub turned into a ghost town almost overnight.

With a massive resurgence in the number of active cases, a four-day lockdown was implemented on March 28, but due to increasing cases and its Zero Covid policy, the lockdown has continued indefinitely.

Shanghai reported over 29,300 cases on April 1, this spurred mandatory mass screening, community control, rapid contact tracing and other prevention measures to tackle the outbreak and prevent it from spilling over to other provinces.

With around half of the above 80-year age group unvaccinated, and less than one-fifth being given booster doses, the Chinese government has adopted strict measures to curb the spread of Omicron, which has triggered the worst outbreak since 2020.

During a State Council meeting, the co-ordinator of China’s Covid-19 response, Sun Chunluan declared that China will continue with the zero- Covid policy ‘without hesitation’. Many party officials from Changchun, Jilin and Shandong have also been sacked due to ‘ineffective performance’ in controlling the outbreak in Shanghai.

With cases surging, the local government in Beijing is also bracing for another Shanghai-style lockdown. The resurgence of cases can be attributed to the highly contagious nature of the Omicron variant, shortage of mRNA vaccines and the lack of hybrid immunity due to non-exposure to earlier strains.

Moreover, there has been a massive public outroar against the inhumane implementation of the policy in Shanghai. When people protested on their balconies against the lack of essential supplies, government drones blared, “Please comply with COVID restrictions. Control your soul’s desire for freedom. Do not open the window or sing.”

Apart from taking a toll on the life of regular Chinese citizens, the mass lockdowns have also had serious economic impacts. As provinces accounting for up to 25% of China’s national GDP are under complete or partial lockdown, the faultlines of China’s one-size-fits-all Covid policy are becoming apparent.

With businesses shut down and people confined to their homes, unemployment rose to an all-time high since May 2020, at 5.8% and retail sales fell 3.5%, the first decline since July 2020.

Way Forward

Two years ago, China was lauded by the WHO for the most ‘ambitious, agile and aggressive’ disease containment strategy. While many countries were waiting for vaccines and developing herd immunity, 1.4 billion-strong China proved that elimination was possible solely through strict isolation measures and quarantine.

Moreover, drawing lessons from the previous SARS outbreak, China’s robust public health response proved effective in saving millions of lives.

Initially, there was a unanimous global outcry to blame China for leashing out the Wuhan virus. While China brought down transmission rates to almost zero by May 2020 and began hosting water park parties by August 2020, the situation elsewhere was quite bleak.

Today after almost two years as other countries are returning to normalcy, we see China returning back to lockdowns. Ironically, the chain of events seems to come to a full circle as China braces to curb its worst-ever Covid- outbreak since 2020.

Though adherence to the zero Covid policy comes with its own human and economic costs, the present leadership will likely continue with its tried and tested policy till the spread is contained. A hasty reversal of the policy would not only put into question the merit of the Chinese leadership but would also negatively impact public health and safety.

There is an urgent need to address the shortcomings of the zero Covid policy and craft a balanced exit strategy to pivot away from zero-tolerance and move towards cohabitating with the virus.

Riya Shah is a researcher with IMPRI Impact and Policy Research Institute, New Delhi and a Bachelor’s candidate in Chinese Language at Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Dr Arjun Kumar is Director, IMPRI and China India Visiting Scholar (CIVS) Fellow 2020-21 at Ashoka University and Asian Century Foundation.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, May 3 2022 (IPS)

Capital flight from the global South is immense, with widespread adverse effects. A new book proposes measures to curb, even reverse capital flight from Africa. It also offers pragmatic lessons for many developing countries.

Out of Africa
On the trail of capital flight from Africa extends pioneering work begun much earlier. The editors – Leonce Ndikumana and James Boyce – estimate Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has lost more than US$2 trillion to capital flight in the last half century!

Leonce Ndikumana

SSA currently loses US$65 billion annually – more than yearly official development assistance (ODA) inflows. The book’s studies carefully investigate natural resource exploitation – of South African minerals, Ivorian cocoa, and Angolan oil and diamonds.

Such forensic country analyses are crucial to more effectively check capital flight. Outflows since the 1980s from the three countries have been massive: US$103 billion from Angola, US$55 billion from Cote d’Ivoire, and US$329 billion from South Africa in 2018 dollars.

Capital flight has been much more than cumulative external debt. Annual outflows were between 3.3% and 5.3% of national income. Nigeria, South Africa and Angola account for the most capital outflows from SSA, with Cote d’Ivoire seventh.

Resource booms
As governments get more revenue from natural resources, the fiscal ‘social contract’ is eroded. When people pay taxes, they expect state spending to benefit the public. But with more revenue from resources – via state monopolies, royalties and taxes – governments become less accountable to their own citizens.

Gaining and maintaining access to foreign credit has similar effects. Developing country governments then focus on ingratiating themselves with friendly foreign donor governments to get ODA, and on enhancing their credit ratings.

Hence, such regimes have less political need to provide ‘public goods’, including services, let alone accelerate social progress. Thus, erosion of the fiscal ‘social contract’ undermines not only public wellbeing, but also state legitimacy.

James K. Boyce

To secure power, ruling cliques often rely on ‘clientelism’ – patronage or patron-client relations – typically on regional, ethnic, tribal, religious or sectarian lines. Their regimes inevitably provoke dissent – including oppositional ethno-populism and civil unrest, even armed insurgencies.

Unsurprisingly, such regimes believe their choices are limited. Another option is repression – which typically rises as the status quo is threatened. The resulting sense of insecurity spreads from the public to the elite, worsening capital flight.

Exploiting valuable natural resources not only generates export earnings, but also attracts foreign investments. One result is ‘Dutch disease’ as the national currency rises in value – reducing other exports and jobs, inevitably hurting development prospects.

Thus, vast private fortunes have been made and illicitly transferred abroad. Ruling elites and their allies rarely only rely on either state or market to become richer. The book shows how both state and market strengthen private and personal power and influence.

Plundering Africa
The book’s case studies show how resource extraction has been central to capital flight. In all three countries, the efficacy of fiscal policy tools – especially to foster investments for development – has been undermined.

Outflows have increased with economic liberalization, as unrecorded financial outflows – via the current account – grow with freer trade. Thus, trade-related financial transactions enable corruption and capital flight.

In Côte d’Ivoire – the world’s top cocoa producer – rents initially came from supply chains connecting farmers to consumers. Corrupt partnerships – connecting domestic elites to foreign businesses – have been crucial to such arrangements.

Thus, natural resource primary commodity exports have enabled illicit capital flows. Ivorian cocoa exports have been consistently under-reported – with trade statistics of major importers showing massive under-invoicing by exporters.

Post-colonial political settlements have given a few privileged access to resource rents. With capital flight thus enabled, successive Ivorian regimes have been less obliged to spend more on development or public wellbeing.

Due to the cocoa boom, the post-colonial ‘Ivorian miracle’ ended when prices fell. The bust triggered a political crisis, culminating in civil war. But the crunch also meant the country could no longer service its foreign debt.

In Angola too, natural resources worsened its protracted civil wars. After these ruinous conflicts, oil rents enriched the triumphant nepotistic regime. This enabled the control to gain control of more, even as most Angolans continued to live in destitution.

Angola’s massive oil exports mainly benefited the small elite of cronies around the president. They failed to develop the economy or improve most lives. All this has been enabled by ‘helpful’ professionals who have enriched themselves doing so.

While benefiting its elite and foreign transnationals, Angola’s ‘oil curse’ has blocked balanced and sustainable development of its economy. Despite rapidly depleting its oil reserves, Angola and most Angolans have benefited little.

South Africa – SSA’s second largest economy after Nigeria – seems less reliant on natural resources. Post-apartheid economic liberalization has enabled capital flight as private corporate interests – especially the influential minerals-energy complex – quickly took advantage of the new dispensation.

By under-invoicing their exports, mineral interests have been engaged in massive capital flight and tax evasion. Meanwhile, business cronies have enriched themselves in new ways, e.g., in the state’s electric power sector. Such abuses were exposed by the Gupta family scandal, leading to then President Jacob Zuma’s downfall.

Stemming capital flight
‘State capture’ by politically influential nationals have undermined government regulatory capacities with help from transnational enablers. Ostensible ‘good governance’ reforms have enabled capital flight and tax evasion – by undermining ‘developmental governance’, including prudential regulation.

Institutional environments, mechanisms and enablers facilitate capital flight, tax evasion and wealth accumulation offshore. With often complex, varied and changing facilitation, capital flight has shifted massive wealth abroad for elites.

Transnational financial networks have eased capital outflows – at the expense of productive investments, good jobs and social wellbeing. Capital flight has worsened financing, including budgetary gaps – aggravating related social deprivations.

Wealth creation enhances the economic pie, but distribution depends on who appropriates it. Improved understanding of such varied and ever-changing relations of appropriation is crucial to effectively curb this haemorrhage.

Greater awareness should inspire and inform better measures to check capital flight from the global South. Instead of the Washington Consensus ‘good governance’ mantra, a developmental governance agenda is needed.

Hence, curbing capital flight is crucial for financing sustainable development. Checking capital flight and related abuses – such as trade mis-invoicing, money laundering, tax evasion and public asset acquisition by elites – requires well-coordinated efforts at both national and international levels.

All researchers, policymakers and regulators will gain from the book’s forensic analyses of financial, fiscal and other such abuses. International financial institutions now have little excuse for continuing to enable the capital flight and tax evasion still bleeding the global South.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Thandika Mkandawire, Pan-Africanist Par Excellence
• Coping With World Bank-Led Financialization
• Coping with Foreign Direct Investment
• No Aid, No Tax, No Development
• Sub-Saharan Africa, Addis and Paris

Governments that make forest restoration promises they don't keep are accused of greenwashing.

Jacky Hunt-Broersma, who lost her leg to cancer, set an unofficial record for consecutive marathons.

By Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury
SINGAPORE, May 2 2022 (IPS-Partners)

 

 

“O, Captain! My Captain! Our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won,
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring….”
Walt Whitman

These days there is nary a dull moment in Pakistani politics. It is a cauldron where the mix from the globe, the region and the country boil in a deadly blend. Any unwanted spillage could do much harm at both home and abroad. For one thing it is a very large country with a population of over 220 million, the world’s fifth largest. For another it is one that hosts over a hundred nuclear war heads with potentials for horrendous destruction. Also, apart from these, importantly, it is a Muslim -majority polity and a practising democracy where stability or the lack of it would have ramifications for many societies of comparable milieu in the region, and beyond.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

Some weeks ago, its Prime Minister, the cricketing-star turned politician Imran Khan, captured media headlines around the world. His adoring supporters, millions of them, called him their “Kaptan“ or Captain, as if the nation was a cricket team that Khan skippered. If glory gives herself to only those who dream of her, Khan possessed her and rose to the pinnacle of power in his own adoring nation. But then, lady luck seemed to let go of him. His enemies combined and successfully brought him down, and his party the Pakistan Tehreek-e Insaaf (PTI) down from government in a startlingly nerve-wrenching and nail-biting series of parliamentary manoeuvres in a ‘no-trust’ motion by only two votes, thus engulfing Khan in his toughest political crisis.

The opposition comprised three major parties the largely Sindh- based Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) led by former President Asif Zardari and his son Bilawal Bhutto, the largely Punjab-based Pakistan Muslim League (N) led by Shahbaz Sharif, younger brother of ex-Premier Nawaz Sharif, the party supremo residing in London and technically a fugitive from law, and the largely Khyber Pakhtunkhwa based Jamiat-e Ulema led by Mowlana Fazlur Rahman, a worldly cleric. Ideologically and personally, they were strange bedfellows, evidently brought together only for the purpose of toppling Khan! Immediately afterwards for a while it seemed they would fragment again, bickering over the pickings of gains, mainly distribution of ministerial positions. But wiser counsels prevailed, and they succeeded in papering over their differences, at least for now!

Khan initially demurred on resignation, and instead proposed dissolution of Parliament by the President and elections in three months’ time. But his decisions were reversed by the Supreme Court and he was narrowly voted out of office in Parliament, nudged it now seems, by what in Pakistan is called the ‘establishment , another name for the military. The army is currently led by General Qamar Bajwa, who sought to distance itself from Khan’s anti-American rhetoric obviously due to the Army’s strategic dependence on America. Khan, culturally more westernized than most Pakistanis, was trenchantly critical of the perceived ‘interference’ pf the US in Pakistan’s domestic affairs. He attributed his removal to a “foreign” “conspiracy supposedly hatched abroad and revealed in a cypher despatch from Pakistani Ambassador to Washington.

Obviously not one to mince his words Khan called the new cabinet a “bunch of thieves”, claiming vindication in the fact that nearly two-thirds were out on bail from charges of corruption, a malady wrecking the society like malignant cancer! He accused them of “Chhanga Manga politics” (in 1990 Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim league forcibly confined their legislators in a forest rest house at a place called “Chhanga Manga” near Lahore, in other words “roped in their horses and stabled them” till they could be let out for a parliamentary voting. Khan addressed massive rallies, or ‘Jalsas’ as they are called in Pakistan, in Peshawar in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, in Karachi in Sindh and in Lahore in Punjab. In each of these rallies, hundreds of thousands gathered to chant his name, wave his banners, and cheer him on! In each he projected his PTI Party as an all-Pakistan organization without the provincial bias that mark the others. In each he asked if the new government was acceptable and in each the crowd roared back a resounding negative response! He frequently cited the historic example of Mir Jafar the army general who betrayed the last Muslim Nawab of Bengal Sirajuddoula to the English ion 1776 as the supreme act of treachery, which some could have related to his perception of the “establishment’s” perfidy! In all his rallies, he lustily asked of the crowds: “‘Imported hakumat’ manzoor hai”? (Is the imported government acceptable? Deafeningly, the crowds roared back: “Naa manzoor! Naa manzoor!” (Not acceptable! Not acceptable!)

The army was now caught between a rock and a hard place. While at a stated level the army claims to be apolitical, it has always been the most significant political component of the community. A very well -regarded strategic scholar and former Chief of army Staff General Jehangir Karamat has argued, with that the army in Pakistan is a mirror image of the society. There is logic in that claim in that, unlike the leadership of political parties, the army sociologically comprises non-feudal professionals. It includes some of the best engineers and doctors, disciplined, dedicated and representative of the urges of rural Pakistan. The strong military tradition, particularly in Punjab and the old North- West Frontiers, date back to the British Raj, and is more pronounced than anywhere in the South Asian subcontinent. Unsurprisingly, realpolitik analysts acknowledge its role in the nation’s body politic.

However, as a political entity, the army has evolved. It no longer, both by choice and capacity, seeks to control the government machinery directly, as it did under such military leaders like Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia ul Huq and Pervez Musharraf. Instead, they work to exert influence covertly from behind the scenes under the cognomen of the ‘establishment’, or sometimes also overtly through such players as the Director General of Inter-Services Intelligence (DGFI), an office created by the British generals immediately after Partition, liaising directly with the Prime Minister, certainly more active and powerful now than then. The army’s challenge is that it needs to function as a political influencer without its participation in such political processes as elections. Because its power is sourced in public support and it cannot afford to be unpopular, it needs to pick and choose its allies in civilian politics with utmost circumspection. If for nothing else, it is for the fact that tacit public acquiescence is politically necessary to secure its large budgetary requirements.

Indeed, it was the Army which was said to help ease in Khan in 2018. But Khan, given his personality and a mind of his own, chose to strike-out on his own, which miffed the generals who may have eventually, with a nudge and a wink at least, helped to bring about his fall. But truth be told, the army quickly deduced unnatural partners in their new political masters, given, among other things, the latter’s perceived laxity about financial ethics. A change of heart was therefore not much beyond the rim of the saucer. But it did not depend on the army alone. For instance, the army would prefer Khan to rein- in his anti-western rhetoric. That may be contrary to Khan’s personal predilections, more so now because that anti-western stance in Pakistan has an electoral dividend, though at a political and economic cost. Even the mercurial Khan would probably judge that balancing would be key.

When after his triumphant ‘jalsas’, Khan, like Achilles in the Iliad, still smarting from his losses, retired to his tent, or rather his home at Bani Gala near Pindi for a brief hiatus before his next move, Bajwa had a huddle with his senior but retired peers in Lahore. Perhaps as an upshot the general declared that he would neither seek nor accept an extension of service when his retirement is due come November. Thereafter the army, albeit in a small way, sought to influence some key new appointments which were against the grain of its perceived interests or at any event, tastes. Also, with the contents of the dreaded “Exit Control List”, a key political tool in Pakistan; but, in both cases, not necessarily with absolute success vis-a-vis the current government, which would have exacerbated their peeve. Still, it’s too early to say if Khan and the army can hug and make up before the next general election.

And it is indeed on the next election that Khan is laser focused. He wants it now. He has directed all senior PTI leaders to spread out throughout the country to muster political support. As his next move, he has declared that unless a date for the election is announced in four weeks’ time, he will organize a ‘Tsunami’ march to the capital Islamabad with such a massive crowd drawn from all over the country as never seen before. He has urged all Pakistanis, irrespective of political affiliations, to join. He further threatened that the gathering will offer a ‘dharna’ (‘sit-in’) to continue till such time the election schedule is announced, with a change in the Election Commission leadership. The current government is obviously taking it seriously as authorities have been seen collecting for possible use shipping ‘containers’, a favoured item in Pakistan for its alternative use in creating roadblocks, this time for in-coming demonstrators.

One evidence of a change of wind in national politics, since Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif assumed office, could be the recent ruling of the Courts, a fair bellwether in this regard, to widen the catchment area for investigation into the ‘foreign funds case’ to include other parties besides the PTI. Also, the Lahore High Court has just turned down a prayer from Maryam Sharif, one of the most powerful leaders of the ruling Coalition parties, for the return of her passport legally impounded to enable her to accompany the Prime Minister on a trip to Saudi Arabia. So, what implications will any change in the position of the ‘wider establishment ‘ (the military plus the Courts) have for the future of Pakistan’s turbulent politics?

The answer, as with many critical queries that come to our minds may also just be, as the Bob Dylan song famously states, “‘blowin’ in the wind!”

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

By Paul Teng and Genevieve Donnellon-May
SINGAPORE, May 2 2022 (IPS)

Amidst a backdrop of rising food insecurity worldwide and a global food supply chain crisis, many countries are attempting to increase the level of food self-production. One improved input for farming which is receiving renewed attention is improved seed. The two most populous countries in the world, China and India, have recently made ground-breaking moves to improve their competitive position by developing new seeds which will improve their food production and increase resilience to climate change. So far, in 2022, new regulations on using biotechnology (genetic modification and gene editing) have been put in place by both countries to ultimately allow smallholder farmers to benefit from these new seeds.

Paul Teng

The COVID pandemic and, more recently, the Ukraine-Russia war have significantly disrupted food production and supply chains for food and farm inputs. Fears are growing about reduced crop planting by farmers in developing countries and reduced yields due to the lesser use of high-priced fertilizers. Apart from fertilizers, supply chain disruptions affect all inputs needed for farming, including seeds. The seed is the first link in the food chain. The availability and access to seeds are essential to farmers, particularly in developing countries or areas affected by droughts and other disasters, giving rise to the concept of “seed security, which the UN FAO defines as the “ready access by rural households, particularly farmers and farming communities, to adequate quantities of quality seed and planting materials of crop varieties, adapted to their agro-ecological conditions and socioeconomic needs, at planting time, under normal and abnormal weather conditions.” In many developing countries, quality seed is commonly produced by companies operating under public scrutiny.

The importance of having reliable supplies of improved seeds for farmers has been particularly highlighted in the world’s most populous country, China, where seeds are high on the policy agenda.

In early April 2022, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for working toward food self-sufficiency and developing the country’s seed industry during a visit to a seed laboratory in Hainan Province, southern China. He noted that China’s food security could only be safeguarded when seed resources are firmly held in its own hands. President Xi’s comments come at a time when many countries aim to increase their self-production of food in anticipation of disruptions in supply chains such as those caused by the Ukraine-Russia crisis and the COVID pandemic.

Genevieve Donnellon-May

President Xi’s comments fit in the broader context of seed and food, issues that will only continue to grow in importance. They come at a time when there is rising food insecurity worldwide and a looming global food crisis brought on by the Ukraine-Russia War, a worsening geopolitical environment and growing vulnerability of the global food supply chains due to accelerated climate change impacts and Covid-19-related disruptions.

All the above background factors have led China and India to make important moves to tap a proven tool for developing new crop varieties, namely biotechnology.

In April 2022, China’s agriculture ministry announced plans for the first time after many years of deliberations to approve two new genetically modified corn varieties developed by the Syngenta Group. Earlier, In January 2022, China published new guidelines for the approval of gene-edited plants, paving the way for faster improvements to important food security crops. And this came amid a raft of measures to overhaul China’s seed industry, seen as a weak link in efforts to ensure it can feed the world’s biggest population. China’s Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Tang Renjian, had likened seeds to the “computer chips” of agriculture.

In an unrelated parallel development, India approved a key change in rules at the end of March 2022 to allow genome-edited plants or organisms without any “foreign” genes to be subjected to a different regulatory process than the one applied to genetically engineered products. As in China, this is anticipated to lead to faster development of new crop varieties that can meet the challenges of climate change and higher yields.

However, not all interested parties support the use of biotechnology to develop new seeds or patenting new crop varieties. Although the evidence is strong that multinational and domestic seed companies have played a major role in lifting crop production through their improved seeds, this has also led to concerns about the control that the private sector may have over this important input for food production. And related to this issue of control of seeds is the patenting of new seeds.

There has been a rise in ‘seed activism‘ and interest in seed sovereignty as part of the pushback against the modern agricultural system that is supported by patented seeds such as hybrids. This pushback has been helmed by groups which exploit the fear (often speculative) that by having control over seeds, a handful of multinational companies, rather than farmers or countries, have control over the global food supply. This omits the reality that farmers have the right to choose whatever seeds to plant and even keep their own seeds if desired. These groups have also failed to recognize that investments to innovate and produce new seeds would not have been possible without adequate protection of seeds as intellectual property. Countries like China and India realise the importance of promoting innovations in the seed industry.

China, in particular, has announced that it aims to revitalize the seed sector, encourage germplasm collection, and strengthen intellectual property protection in the sector. In China, views on the importance of seeds in food security are reflected in various domestic policies such as in 2022’s “No 1 Central Policy Document”, the country’s agricultural blueprint. A top policy priority is the development of the seed industry in China.

The issues of seed sovereignty based on farmer-saved seed, when balanced against the track record of improved seeds from companies which give high yields, are complex. But in the final analysis, farmers will choose the seeds that give them the most assured yields under risky conditions, even if they have to pay for such seeds. This has been the case with almost all the developed and developing countries with food surpluses for export, such as the U.S.A., Canada, Brazil and Argentina. And consumers, as well as food importers are those who benefit by there being more food at affordable prices.

The first “Green Revolution” in Asia which took off in the 1970s was based on improved seeds of wheat and rice, bred using technologies which were novel at that time. However, towards the latter part of the last millennium, the need for more novel technologies to improve crops became obvious as yield gains were stagnating in many crops. The challenges facing all smallholder farmers arising from changes in climate, pests and natural resource depletion are becoming more intense and frequent. And unless new seeds are developed and made available to farmers in shorter timeframes, it is the consuming public that will suffer the consequences of reduced, unreliable food supply and higher prices.

The conundrum is how to balance local ownership of seed sources which are commonly unimproved and low-yielding with improved high-yielding seeds developed by seed companies (either domestic or multinational) using modern science. Ultimately, smallholder farmers worldwide deserve new “seeds of hope”.

Paul Teng is Adjunct Senior Fellow, Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies at Nanyang Technological University Singapore. He has worked in the Asia Pacific region on agri-food issues for over thirty years, with international organizations, academia and the private sector.

Genevieve Donnellon-May is a master’s student in Water Science, Policy and Management at the University of Oxford. Genevieve’s research interests include China, Africa, transboundary governance, and the food-energy-water nexus.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Fifa issues fines and bans but does not order any replays after several African World Cup play-off matches ended in controversy.

Castle, Comfort Dominica. Dominica is the latest Caribbean country to sign on to the UN Multi-Country Sustainable Development Framework, to accelerate progress with sustainable development goals and recover from COVID-19 Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

By Alison Kentish
DOMINICA, May 2 2022 (IPS)

When Dominica signed on to the United Nations Multicountry Sustainable Development Framework for the English and Dutch Speaking Caribbean (MSDCF) in March, the country joined others like Saint Lucia, St. Vincent, and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Aruba as part of a 5-year framework to plan and implement UN development initiatives.

Support for the 2022 to 2026 agreement has continued to grow since December 2021, when Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, and Guyana signed the cooperation framework, which hopes to help nations achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

For countries in the Caribbean, one of the most vulnerable regions globally, the framework is a critical instrument, based on building climate and economic resilience, the promotion of equality, and enhancing peace, safety, and the rule of law.

It is also crucial for a country like Dominica which in 2017 lost US$1.4 billion, or 226% of its GDP to Hurricane Maria. The small island state has been on a mission to build resilience across sectors through initiatives like its Climate Resilience and Recovery Plan, while grappling with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy.

The country’s representatives have used platforms like the United Nations General Assembly to urge development partners to consider the unique vulnerabilities of small island states in their support packages.

The country’s Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit says the UN framework will help Caribbean governments to implement programs that strengthen health, education, and social services while contributing to economic growth.

“We are operating in a tumultuous period defined by huge environmental and climate-related challenges, conflict, and economic uncertainty. The agreement proposes to help our small territories confront the trials of our time and achieve economic resilience and prosperity. It is cause for optimism as we devise ways to tackle our common problems together,” he said.

The agreement builds on a 2017-2022 framework which was signed by 18 Caribbean countries. Initiatives under that framework focused on areas such as building Caribbean resilience and the implementation of low-emission, climate-resilient technology in agriculture.

UN officials say that the new agreement, referred to as ‘the second-generation framework,’ considers lessons learned. Developed during the pandemic, it also acknowledges that COVID-19 has compounded structural vulnerabilities for Caribbean countries, which must now ‘build back better.’

“This new agreement opens a new era of cooperation to drive collaboration and mutual commitment for the people of Dominica,” UN Resident Coordinator for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean Didier Trebucq said at the Dominica signing.

For months, leaders across the Caribbean have been speaking of being at risk of not meeting the Sustainable Development Goals, as they redirect scarce resources to cope with the protracted pandemic.

According to preliminary data from the UN, Goals 1 to 6, known as the ‘people-centered goals,’ have been severely impacted by COVID-19.

The Prime Minister of Barbados, the first leader in the Barbados and OECS grouping to sign the MSDCF, said the pandemic slowed progress towards meeting SDG targets.

“We’re going to have problems in the battle with poverty, we’re going to have problems in making sure that people don’t go hungry, we’re going to have problems in making sure that people have access to good health and well-being, as we know, is already happening in the pandemic. We’re going to have problems in delivering quality education and who have been the greatest victims of this pandemic if not our children across the world, many of who have been denied access to education because they don’t have access to things like electricity and online tools in order to be able to receive it,” Prime Minister Mia Mottley said, referencing Goals 1 to 4.

She said Goal 5 and 6 – Gender Equality and Clean Water and Sanitation are also at risk, noting that women have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, while countries like Barbados continue to be concerned with access to groundwater in the face of the climate crisis.

The MSDCF was developed by the six UN Country Teams, after rounds of consultation with government agencies, the private sector, development partners, and civil society organizations.

It will function at two levels; regionally by adopting joint approaches to common challenges and nationally to tackle country and territory-specific issues and vulnerabilities while helping governments to prepare for future external shocks.

According to the MSDCF, the vision is for the region to become more resilient, “possess greater capacity to achieve all the SDGs, and become a place where people choose to live and can reach their full potential.”

It promises to provide more effective support to signatory countries, through streamlined use of UN resources and in keeping with the goals of the recently approved UN Development system reform.

It hopes to accelerate progress towards achieving the SDGs and facilitate faster recovery from the socio-economic and health impact of COVID-19, with one regional voice on a shared development path.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Landmark UN Report Issues Stark call for Sustainable Land Management to Save Human Health
• Enhancing Climate Ambition Amidst Global Challenges
• Poor Water Distribution Infrastructure Gives Jamaica a ‘Water Scarce’ Label

Excerpt:

Caribbean countries are signing on to the 2022-2026 agreement, hoping for increased development support to improve health, education and social services, while tackling climate-related challenges.

President Ramaphosa was forced to leave a May Day event after angry workers stormed the stage.

A Tomahawk cruise missile launches from the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Shoup (DDG 86) during a live-fire exercise, during Valiant Shield 2018 in the Philippine Sea September 18, 2018. Credit: U.S. Navy

By Daryl G. Kimball
WASHINGTON DC, May 2 2022 (IPS)

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s brutal war on Ukraine, along with his implied threats of nuclear weapons use against any who would interfere, has raised the specter of nuclear conflict.

Last month, CIA Director William Burns said that although there is no sign that Russia is preparing to do so, “none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons.”

As the war drags on, it is vital that Russian, NATO, and U.S. leaders maintain lines of communication to prevent direct conflict and avoid rhetoric and actions that increase the risk of nuclear escalation.

Provocations could include deploying tactical nuclear weapons or developing new types of nuclear weapons designed for fighting and “winning” a regional nuclear war.

For these and other reasons, U.S. President Joe Biden was smart to announce in March that he will cancel a proposal by the Trump administration for a new nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM), a weapon last deployed in 1991.

Before President Donald Trump, two Democratic and two Republican administrations had agreed that nuclear-armed cruise missiles on Navy ships were redundant and destabilizing and detract from higher-priority conventional missions.

Moreover, re-nuclearizing the fleet would create serious operational burdens. In 2019, Biden called this weapon a “bad idea” and said there is no need for new nuclear weapons. He was right then and is right to cancel the system now.

Nevertheless, some in Congress are pushing to restore funding for a nuclear SLCM to fill what they say is a “deterrence gap” against Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons arsenal and to provide a future president with “more credible” nuclear options in a future war with Russia in Europe or with China over Taiwan. A fight over the project, which would cost at least $9 billion through the end of the decade, is all but certain.

The arguments for reviving the nuclear SLCM program are as flimsy as they are dangerous. Serious policymakers all agree that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. But deploying nuclear-armed cruise missiles at sea would undoubtedly increase the possibility of nuclear war through miscalculation.

By deploying both conventional and nuclear-armed cruise missiles at sea, any launch of a conventional cruise missile inherently would send a nuclear signal and increase the potential for unintended nuclear use in a conflict with a nuclear-armed adversary because the adversary would have no way of knowing if the missile was nuclear or conventional.

Furthermore, even if Russia’s stockpile of 1,000 to 2,000 short-range nuclear warheads is larger in number than the U.S. stockpile of 320, there is no meaningful gap in capabilities. Superficial numerical comparisons ignore the fact that both sides already possess excess tactical nuclear destructive capacity, including multiple options for air and missile delivery of lower-yield nuclear warheads.

Both also store their tactical warheads separately from the delivery systems, meaning preparations for potential use would be detectable in advance.

If one president authorized the use of these weapons under “extreme” circumstances in a conventional war, as the policies of both countries allow, neither side would need or want to use more than a handful of these highly destructive weapons.

Although tactical nuclear bombs may produce relatively smaller explosive yields, from less than 1 kiloton TNT equivalent to 20 kilotons or more, their blast, heat, and radiation effects would be unlike anything seen in warfare since the 21-kiloton-yield atomic bomb that destroyed Nagasaki.

Proponents of the nuclear SLCM claim that if Putin used a tactical nuclear weapon to try to gain a military advantage or simply to intimidate, the U.S. president must have additional options to strike back with tactical nuclear weapons. They further argue that he should strike back even if that results in nuclear devastation within NATO and Russian territory.

Theories that nuclear war can be “limited” are extremely dangerous and ignore the unimaginable human suffering nuclear detonations would produce. In practice, once nuclear weapons are used by nuclear-armed adversaries, there is no guarantee the conflict would not quickly escalate to a catastrophic exchange involving the thousands of long-range strategic nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals.

As Gen. John Hyten, head of U.S. Strategic Command, said in 2018 after the annual Global Thunder wargame, “It ends bad. And the bad, meaning, it ends with global nuclear war.” As the supercomputer in the 1983 movie War Games ultimately calculated, “The only winning move is not to play.”

Adding a new type of tactical nuclear weapon to the U.S. arsenal will not enhance deterrence so much as it would increase the risk of nuclear war, mimic irresponsible Russian nuclear signaling, and prompt Russia and China to build their own sea- or land-based nuclear cruise missile systems. Biden made the right decision to cancel Trump’s proposed nuclear SLCM, and now Congress needs to back the president up.

The Arms Control Association (ACA), founded in 1971, is a national nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies. Through public education and media programs and its flagship journal, Arms Control Today, the ACA provides policymakers, the press, and the interested public with authoritative information, analysis, and commentary on arms control proposals, negotiations and agreements, and related national security issues.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

The writer is Executive Director, Arms Control Association, Washington DC.

Angolan Joice Zau gained notoriety by criticising her government and she is not staying quiet.

Nathan, who was born with cerebral palsy, is able to do family activities with the help of dad Meekeh's inventions.

By External Source
May 1 2022 (IPS-Partners)

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) issues an annual report evaluating press freedom globally.

This year’s index focused on 180 countries across the world.

It found that journalism is totally blocked or seriously impeded in 73 countries.

Press freedom is constrained in 59 others.

This represents 73% of the countries evaluated.

The World Press Freedom Index has declined by 12% since first issued in 2013.

RSF has reported “a dramatic deterioration in people’s access to information and an increase in obstacles to news coverage”.

Furthermore, Edelman’s 2021 Trust barometer reveals a disturbing level of public mistrust of journalists.

59% of respondents in 28 countries believe journalists deliberately try to mislead the public by reporting information they know to be false.

Autocrats, Criminal Cartels and Extremists have now harnessed this sense of fear for their own gains.

Some 200 Russian journalists and dozens of foreign reporters left Russia after it passed a media law criminalising “deliberately false” information.

According to Amnesty International, the “Russian authorities’ crackdown on independent media is escalating at breakneck speed”.

China, the “world’s biggest jailer of press freedom defenders,” now ranks 177 out of 180 countries on RSF’s Press Freedom Index.

Free media in Hong Kong has been almost completely dismantled, according to Hong Kong Watch, a UK-based advocacy group.

Russia and China are deploying “lawfare” against independent journalists and big companies in developed countries.

The absence of the state, however, is now killing journalists in Mexico, among others.

In Bangladesh narco-traffickers are suspected of killing Bangladeshi journalist Mohiuddin Sarker Nayeem.

The Committee to Protect Journalists publishes an annual Global Impunity Index.

According to their findings, no one has been held to account in 81% of journalist murders worldwide over the past 10 years.

This year’s World Press Freedom Day centers on Journalism Under Digital Siege.

“Journalism is the best vaccine against disinformation.” – RSF Secretary-General Christophe Deloire

 

The military junta, which took power in a coup last year, gives a timeline for civilian rule.