Sunday, March 12, 2023

Why Is the US So Unhappy That China Offered a Peace Proposal?

On February 24, China published its "Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis." The US reacted very negatively very quickly. They reacted more negatively even than Ukraine.

What is it about the Chinese proposal that so unnerves the US? It is not even a fully developed settlement proposal ripe for negotiation. There was no hurry to take it off the table. It is merely a declaration of China’s position and a pledge that China is willing to assume "a constructive role in this regard."

In a first response so comical it could only be intended for public consumption, the US discredited China as a broker because they are not neutral in the war in Ukraine and then scolded them for considering sending weapons to Russia.

Though neutrality may be a desirable stance for a peace broker, the US, who has many times in recent history demanded the role of broker without the requisite neutrality, has reserved the right to encourage or discourage peace talks in the war in Ukraine while being blatantly un-neutral in the war in Ukraine: far less neutral than China.

And as for considering sending weapons, the US has crossed the line of consideration by over $45 billion. That’s a lot more than "considering."

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that the US has “information that gives us concern that [China is] considering providing lethal support to Russia in the war against Ukraine.” He said that China is “strongly considering providing lethal assistance to Russia.” CIA Director William Burns repeated that claim, reporting that "We’re confident that the Chinese leadership is considering the provision of lethal equipment." The claim is reportedly based on information "gleaned from Russian government officials."

However, at a March 2 White House press briefing, when National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby was asked how serious the Biden administration thinks China is about sending Russia weapons, he responded, "We actually don’t know." When asked at a previous press conference why the US had not shared any of the intelligence, Kirby answered that "I just don’t have any intelligence to speak to today."

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen repeated the lack of knowledge. On March 5, she told reporters that the US had not provided Europe with the evidence: "So far, we have no evidence of this. . . ."

Even President Biden said, in a February 24 interview that "I don’t anticipate – we haven’t seen it yet, but I don’t anticipate a major initiative on the part of China providing weaponry to Russia."

When the US finished attacking China, they at last turned to attacking China’s proposal.

The first point of the position paper is "Respecting the sovereignty of all countries." The paper insists that "[t]he sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld."

The US can have no complaint with that point: it seems to lean to the Ukrainian and American position. Sticking to the US position that the war is unprovoked, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan scoffed that "My first reaction to it is that it could stop at point one, which is to respect the sovereignty of all nations." Reading from the same script, Blinken quipped that "If they were serious about the first one, sovereignty, then this war could end tomorrow."

But the criticism of the first point can be received as no less comical by most of the world than the criticism that China is not neutral and has considered sending weapons to Russia. Most of the world, including much of Europe, can remember the US disrespecting their sovereignty or their territorial integrity. According to Lindsey O’Rourke, Associate Professor of Political Science at Boston College and the author of Covert Regime Chang: America’s Secret Cold War, the US conducted 72 regime changes during the Cold War. The staggering pace did not let up when the Cold War ended.

Much of Latin America, Africa and the Middle East must find it hard not to marvel at the US setting itself up as the antidote to Russian interventionism. Most of what Russia calls the global majority resonates with a recent report by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs that harshly catalogues US violations of state sovereignty. Called "US Hegemony and Its Perils," the report cites a Tufts University report that found that since its birth in 1716, the US undertook nearly 400 military interventions globally. It criticizes the US for political and military interference in Latin America, including regime change. It criticizes its "double standards on international rules." It reminds the world of Vietnam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. It reminds the world of the $700 billion US military budget and of the approximately 800 oversees military bases with troops deployed in 159 countries.

The first point of the Chinese position paper is welcome to the US and sides with its position. The US can have no complaint with that point. But, according to the global majority, it also has no right to make that point or to set itself up as the international defendant of that point.

But if it is not the first point that unnerves the US, then what is it?

It can’t be point three, "Ceasing Hostilities;" though the US may cringe a bit at the insistence to "avoid fanning the flames."

It can’t be point four on "Resuming peace talks;" though the US may cringe at the memory that it has, on at least two occasions, according to Turkish officials and former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, prevented promising peace talks.

It can’t be point five or six’ desire to resolve the humanitarian crisis or protect civilians and prisoners of war. Nor can it be points seven and eight and their protection for nuclear plants and from nuclear weapons. Points nine and eleven on "Facilitating grain exports" and "Keeping industrial and supply chains stable" cannot offend. Nor can the final point on "Promoting post-conflict reconstruction."

That leaves points two and ten. Aside from the very fact that China is putting itself forward in a unipolar US world, if there is anything in the Chinese position paper that upsets and unnerves the US, it has to be points two and ten.

Point two calls for "Abandoning the Cold War mentality." It objects to "military blocs" and demands that "[t]he security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others." The former point is aimed at NATO, and the later is a point long made by Russia.

The US has defended holding NATO’s door open to Ukraine by appealing to the international principle of the free and sovereign right of states to choose their own security alignments. But Russia has long countered with the indivisibility of security: the international principle that the security of one state should not be bought at the expense of the security of another. This core conflict has been identified and explained by Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent, in his essay “The March of Folly resumed: Russia, Ukraine and the West” and, with Andrej Krickovic, in “War in Ukraine: The Clash of Norms and Ontologies.”

While the Chinese position paper prohibits any country, including Russia, from violating the sovereignty of another country – which the US likes – point two rejects that the war was unprovoked and criticizes US expansion and potential NATO expansion into Ukraine without having "taken seriously and addressed properly" the "legitimate security interests and concerns of all countries." And that is what the US does not like. The position paper echoes Russia’s long time call for a "sustainable European security architecture" that treats Russia as an equal partner with equal security concerns. The Chinese position paper legitimizes Russia’s demand that "[a]ll parties should oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent."

Russia has frequently reminded the US of this obligation. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said on January 27, 2022, that all the relevant international agreements commit nations “to indivisible security and their pledge to honor it without fail.” He pointed out the legal implication that the sovereign right of nations to choose their own alliances is balanced by the “obligation not to strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states.” On December 7, 2021, Putin told Biden that “Every country is entitled to choose the most acceptable way to ensure its security, but this should be done so as not to encroach on the interests of other parties and not undermine the security of other countries. . . . We believe that ensuring security must be global and cover everyone equally.” Three weeks later, he stressed to Biden that “the security of any nation cannot be ensured unless the principle of indivisible security is strictly observed.”

Point two means giving up the right to keep the door open to Ukraine’s admission to NATO, a core principle for the US in the war.

If point two is the most important reason for the swift, negative US reaction to the Chinese position paper, point ten gave more cause.

Point ten says that "China opposes unilateral sanctions unauthorized by the UN Security Council." It not so subtly refers to "[r]elevant countries" and says they "should stop abusing unilateral sanctions" that "cannot solve the issue" and "only create new problems." The paper says that "[s]topping unilateral sanctions" is necessary "in de-escalating the Ukraine crisis."

As with point two and the hypocritical US position on point one, the global majority resonates with the Chinese position. Many know what it feels like to be sanctioned, or threatened with sanctions, by the US, most notably Cuba. In September, 2021, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi called sanctions "the US’s new way of war with the nations of the world.”

In "US Hegemony and Its Perils," China says that between 2000 and 2021, "U.S. sanctions against foreign entities increased by 933 percent." It says that "the United States had or has imposed economic sanctions on nearly 40 countries across the world, including Cuba, China, Russia, the DPRK, Iran and Venezuela, affecting nearly half of the world’s population.

In addition to feeling uneasy with not fanning the flames and resuming peace talks, the real reason the US is so unhappy with China’s emergence as a potential broker – aside from the audacity of China’s emerging as a potential broker in a US led unipolar world – is the criticism of NATO expansion and the insistence on taking seriously Russia’s legitimate security concerns, and the rejection of the oft wielded US weapon of unilateral sanctions.

It is interesting, though, that Europe may have less difficulty with all of these points in the Chinese position paper. Europe, too, has suffered US violations of sovereignty and US coups. Europe is also less opposed to China and Russia’s claim of the indivisibility of security. Both French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have recently defied the US in suggesting that negotiations with Russia include addressing Russia’s security concerns. Macron spoke of giving "guarantees to Russia the day it returns to the negotiating table" and went so far as to call for addressing Russia’s "fear that NATO comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia.” Scholz said there was a “willingness” to engage with Putin on issues of arms control and missile deployment." Then he said that “all questions of common security could be solved and discussed." Europe, and, perhaps, especially Germany has also been more wary of comprehensive sanctions.

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on US foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets.

Who Did Blow Up the Nord Stream Pipeline?

In September 2022, the Nord Stream gas pipelines exploded in one of the most spectacular political and environmental acts of terrorism in history.

In the days immediately following the attack, which cut Germany and Europe off from its gas supply and released enormous amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere, the West immediately pronounced judgement against Russia. "No one on the European side of the ocean is thinking this is anything other than Russian sabotage," said a senior European environmental official. US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm immediately said that it "seems" Russia is to blame.

But investigations by Sweden, Denmark and Germany, countries close to the explosion site, were slow to report and unable to arrive at conclusions. Then, on December 21, 2022, The Washington Post reported that, after months of investigation, there is nothing to suggest that Russia was responsible. The Post article interviewed "23 diplomatic and intelligence officials in nine countries" who said that "[t]here is no evidence at this point that Russia was behind the sabotage." It reports that "even those with inside knowledge of the forensic details don’t conclusively tie Russia to the attack." The Wall Street Journal reports that there is a "growing sense among investigators in the U.S. and Europe that neither Russian-government nor pro-Russian operatives were behind the sabotage."

But if Russia didn’t do it, then one of us did.

On February 8, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published a detailed account of the "act of war" that concluded that it was carried out by the US.

A month later, The New York Times has now published a story that assigns responsibility to "a pro-Ukrainian group." The story is so thin and vague in its detail, its sourcing and its reporting that it seems surprising that it met the paper’s criteria for publication. The only thing the article seems to have done well is to divert the blame that Hersh concluded away from the US.

The Times did not refute Hersh’s reporting. In mentioning his article for the first time, The Times said only that "In making his case, Mr. Hersh cited the president’s pre-invasion threat to "bring an end" to Nord Stream 2, and similar statements by other senior US officials." But to represent Hersh’s reporting as relying only on public statements by US officials is to diminish the extensive detail provided to Hersh by "a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning."

Hersh has been accused of relying only on that one source. That too is unfair, not only because of Hersh’s long and reliable record of breaking important stories, but because it is misleading. Hersh’s source is the one who told him the story, but others corroborated it. Hersh has been very clear in making this point. To highlight it, Hersh prefaced the clarification in an interview by saying, "I’m telling you something important." He then explained that "The people who own companies that build pipelines know the story. I didn’t get the story from them but I learned quickly they know."

Unlike Hersh’s reporting, there is more in the Times report that is not known than that is known. "US officials," the report says, "said there was much they did not know about the perpetrators and their affiliations." The intelligence "does not specify the members of the group, or who directed or paid for the operation."

But somehow, without knowing much about the perpetrators, their affiliations or who directed or paid for the operation, the one thing the US officials are confident about, as The Times makes clear at the very top of the article, is that there is "no evidence President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top lieutenants were involved in the operation, or that the perpetrators were acting at the direction of any Ukrainian government officials."

But no evidence is not evidence. And further down in the article, the report says that the US officials say "that there are no firm conclusions about it, leaving open the possibility that the operation might have been conducted off the books by a proxy force with connections to the Ukrainian government or its security services." They say, too, that "it is possible that the perpetrators received specialized government training in the past."

US officials told The Times that "there were still enormous gaps in what US spy agencies and their European partners knew about what transpired." It is not even clear how much credibility they give the account of the sabotage: US officials "who have been briefed on the intelligence" told The Times anonymously that they "are divided about how much weight to put on the new information."

Since The New York Times broke the story, a second report has come out. The leak, it turns out, is less of a leak than a press conference.

The same day as The Times report came out, Die Zeit reported that joint research by several German outlets found that "traces lead in the direction of Ukraine." According to the German report, evidence that once unequivocally pointed to a massive operation that had to be carried out by a state actor, now pointed to a small six person operation on a yacht that was "rented from a company based in Poland" but "apparently owned by two Ukrainians."

Like The New York Times report, the German report is characterized by more uncertainty than certainty. "The nationality of the perpetrators is apparently unclear," and the investigation has "not yet found any evidence as to who ordered the destruction." Although "traces lead to Ukraine, the investigators have not yet been able to find out who commissioned the suspected group of perpetrators."

The next day, The Times of London suddenly reported that NATO had intelligence within a week of the explosion that the attack had been carried out "by a private venture originating in Ukraine." Like the US and German reports, the British report says that the "private sponsor" was "a Ukrainian not affiliated with President Zelensky’s government."

Though the media outlets have arrived at this conclusion, German intelligence has not. Die Zeit reports that a German government spokesman told the UN Security Council that investigations by Germany, Sweden and Denmark "are ongoing and that there are still no results."

In its coverage of the story, The Washington Post says that "[t]he reports are far from conclusive." The Wall Street Journal says the US report "isn’t definitive." And not everyone is convinced. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius raised the questions of the possibility of a false flag operation and of differentiating "whether it was a Ukrainian group that acted on the orders of Ukraine or … without the government’s knowledge." "As such," he said, I’m refraining from drawing premature conclusions."

Russia judged the report as "hardly believable." Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the operation "was too difficult and was only within the scope of abilities of a well-trained, state-run intelligence service." Former Russian President and current deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev evaluated the reports as "blatant low-rating B-movie stuff." Medvedev said they were meant to trick Europeans, and Peskov said they were meant to overshadow Hersh’s reporting.

Whether the sabotage was carried out by the US, as Hersh concludes, or Ukraine, as the German and British stories conclude, will be crucial to figure out. But what is crucial for Germany and Europe right now is that they are faced with a choice between two dangerous and consequential realities.

Either their US NATO ally betrayed and sacrificed them by blowing up the gas pipeline and cutting them off from their gas supply to prevent them from funding Russia’s invasion and from falling short of fully committing to the US led sanctions regime, or Ukraine, the country that they are financing and arming at great national cost, did. The former could have significant foreign policy consequences in the future; the latter could have significant consequences for arming Ukraine in the present.

If the "new intelligence" is true, that it insists that sabotage was carried out independently of the government in Kiev may make little difference to Germany, and not only because the intelligence doesn’t know who the perpetrators are or who they are affiliated with. It may also make little difference because Ukraine’s denials may mean little.

If Kiev were involved, US intelligence may not know it, since The New York Times reports that "US officials and intelligence agencies acknowledge that they have limited visibility into Ukrainian decision-making."

But US intelligence has been suspicious of Ukraine’s denials of involvement in other recent acts of sabotage. When a car bomb blew up near Moscow in August 2022, killing Daria Dugina, Ukraine denied any involvement. But The New York Times reported in October that "United States intelligence agencies believe parts of the Ukrainian government authorized the car bomb attack near Moscow in August that killed Daria Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian nationalist. . . ." That assessment was shared with the US government who "admonished Ukrainian officials over the assassination."

And on March 2, two villages in the Bryansk region of Russia on the border of Ukraine suffered an attack that killed at least two people. Responsibility was claimed by a far right nationalist group called the Russian Volunteer Corps. Ukraine has denied directly supporting the group and, according to The Times, "has strongly denied knowledge of either attack." But the Corps’ founder, who goes both by the name of Denis Nikitin and Denis Kapustin, insists that the "cross-border raid he’d conducted from Ukraine into Russia had the endorsement of Kyiv." He told The Financial Times that Ukrainian authorities signed off on the attack. "Yes, of course, this action was agreed," he said, "otherwise it couldn’t have happened." He went on to say that "If I did not co-ordinate it with anyone [in Ukraine’s military] . . . I think we would simply be destroyed."

Germany and Europe are confronted with two possible conclusions on who blew up the Nord Stream gas pipelines. Both conclusions are disturbing and dangerous. Either would affect their foreign policy and partnerships, and both could have profound consequences.

Slowly But Steadily, the Executive Branch is Bringing Back Widespread Drone Warfare

Not at any other time in the 21st century has the average American kept up less with the Global War on Terror, and now three presidents later, the questions of legality, productivity, and collateral damage remain as unanswered as they’ve ever been.

Over the last 15 months, the number of US drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia has increased greatly compared to the first half of the Biden Administration. On March 1st, AFP reported that local government sources in the Yemeni province of Marib said a US drone strike had killed the al-Qaeda leader Hamad bin Hamoud al-Tamimi, a “judge” of a sort-of “leadership council.”

This came about a month after similar sources reported 3 supposed al-Qaeda fighters killed in a US drone strike in the same province.

Regarding the latter, the 3 men were killed in a car. Evidence at the scene let two experts tracking the US drone warfare program believe it was an R9X Hellfire missile – an expensive and sophisticated bomb typically reserved for “high-value targets.”

“The R9X is for high-value target killing and we don’t have any [sic] ’Who is this guy, why does he merit this now?’” said David Sterman, a senior policy analyst at the Washington-based think tank New America, which for years has tracked US drone strikes in Yemen. “If it is a US strike, it raises substantial questions about what is the state of the US drone war in Yemen.”

Drones haven’t been in the news as much as they were when former-President Donald Trump substantially downgraded the required authority to launch one from the theater commander, who needed the White House’s permission under the Obama Administration, to officers on the ground.

Only recently did Joe Biden’s administration even establish a policy for their use, long after he had used them to supposedly kill al-Qaeda founder Ayman al-Zawahiri last August, and 10 innocent children and men in Kabul the August before that.

Luke Hartig, the former Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council, and former Dept. Director for Counterterrorism under the Sect. of Defense, is one of the only minds in America still actively criticizing drone policy from inside the establishment.

Writing at Just Security, he took a look at Biden’s policy and wrote:

“…the new policy leaves much necessary business undone. How the administration interprets key legal and policy concepts around direct action compared to international allies remains hotly disputed. The faithful execution of the policy by the military – particularly how it seeks to prevent civilian casualties and how it investigates civilian casualty incidents – requires much more work. The transparency agenda is stalled, and much of the “war on terror” remains shrouded in secrecy.”

For the American people, questions of whether al-Qaeda poses a real threat from the faraway reaches of Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world, what there is to be gained from hunting these people down, whether civilians are being killed during these strikes, and whether a drone is the best tool to fight al-Qaeda, not only go unanswered, but entirely unasked.

*A CIA drone base in Niger that officially doesn’t exist.*

Somalia

This gulf between the public and the administration assassinating in their name could never be broader than in Somalia. Of the 7 major theaters for the so-called terror wars, Somalia was always the least understood and reported on.

Somalia briefly wiggled its way into the headlines in May when Biden announced he was deploying 500 military personnel there mostly to train and advise the Somali armed forces to fight al-Shabaab. Before that, the only mention Somalia got had been when former-President Trump decided to pull all American forces out.

On October 3rd, al Jazeera reported that Abdullahi Nadir, one of the co-founders of the armed group, was assassinated by a drone strike. Who Nadir really was, what his power amounted to, and whether his death would at all change al-Shabaab’s ability to operate is anyone’s guess. US Africa Command didn’t mention him by name.

Reporting from Time magazine during the last concerted effort to bomb al-Shabaab quoted Amnesty International that more bombs were dropped in 2020 than in the whole of the Obama Administration, but despite the exertion, the insurgents remained “adaptive and resilient.”

On December 18th, 2022, the US military announced two new airstrikes as part of “collective self-defense” that killed 8 militants. VOA states the Turkish Ministry of Defense neither confirmed nor denied participation with its drones.

The New York Times reported in October around the time Nadir was assassinated that of the 11 drone strikes in Somalia that year, 10 had fallen under “collective self-defense,” a justification that, under Biden’s new policy, bypasses the need for executive branch approval of drone strikes.

The Times also quoted Somali government sources who said the new presidential administration had specifically asked Biden “to more broadly define what can count as a collective self-defense strike,” and to “deem certain parts of Somalia as a war zone, where it is permissible to target members of an enemy force based only on their status, even if they pose no imminent threat.”

On January 22nd, 2023, US air strikes killed 30 militants. “Specific details about the units involved and assets used will not be released in order to ensure operations security,” AFRICOM stated, as they typically do when announcing air strikes.

Garowe News Online reported on a February 23rd attack, noting that all three attacks on al-Shabaab in 2023 have been with drones.

AFRICOM has said that they remain certain no civilians were hurt in any of these strikes, but official Pentagon policy is to neither investigate reports of civilian harm nor to report them if there are any.

From top left to bottom right, the victims of the latest drone strike in Kabul. Farzah Ahmadi, age 9, Faisal Ahmadi, age 10, Zemari Ahmadi, age 40, Zamir Ahmadi, age 20, Naseer Ahmadi, age 30, Binyamen Ahmadi, age 3, Armin Ahmadi, age 4, Sumaya Ahmadi, age 2, Malika Ahmadi, age 2, and Ahmad Naser, a former-U.S. Army contractor, age 30. PC: Leftflank Veterans.

Murdered civilians

In the ten-year history of America’s global drone warfare program, it’s worth taking a moment to list the rampant disregard for civilian life in the pursuit of bombing insurgents.

First, there are the 2016 Drone Papers, revealed by the whistleblower and former signals intelligence analyst Daniel Hale, who was recently sentenced to 48 months in prison.

From 2011 to 2013, 9 out of every 10 people killed in drone strikes in Afghanistan were unknown people who were not designated targets. They were instead labeled “enemy killed an action,” and the Pentagon’s policy that only the military could prove them otherwise meant that what were obviously hundreds of innocent family members and bystanders were not accounted for.

Hartig, writing in the aftermath of the August 29th strike in Kabul mentioned before, said that in his days as counter-terrorism director, he analyzed “about two thousand [civilian casualty] incidents since 2007, and there were many more in the years prior.”

“Conservatively, that alone translates into, on average, every week since 9/11 at least one such tragedy,” he said.

Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on a cache of classified documents by Azmat Khan tallied more than 1,300 murdered civilians in Iraq and Syria during the campaign to target ISIS, none of which resulted in any charges of wrongdoing, imprisonments, or even demotions.

Instead, Khan shows how the seemingly thorough and concrete intelligence gathering and accounting methods for who and when to bomb and what should happen if a civilian dies, established specifically to prevent civilian harm, mutated into the very methods that led to so much unaccounted-for innocent blood, as details were buried in bureaucratic language where children were described as a “person of small stature,” and strike reports were buried in operation paperwork.

Yet more reporting from the Times on a top-secret “strike cell” operating under the Trump Administration called Talon Anvil curdles the stomach to read, as they detail the wolfish policies of the 20-man covert intelligence and drone strike team that killed hundreds of civilians, appalling CIA and military colleagues who would sometimes not carry out strikes on Talon Anvil intelligence because of their reputation for rampant disregard for civilian harm.

What all this means is that even after perhaps more than 10,000 civilians across the Middle East and Africa being killed as a direct result of a trigger pulled by a drone operator in the name of protecting the American people, the exact same policy that started all the bloodshed has been more or less re-instituted, with little or no transparency.

Andrew Corbley is founder and editor of World at Large, an independent news outlet. He is a loyal listener of Antiwar radio and of the Scott Horton Show. Reprinted with permission from World at Large.

Wilson Center's Mexico Institute Receives Walmart Foundation Grant for Work to Strengthen Protections for Migrant Workers in North American Agriculture

March 6, 2023

PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Ryan McKenna
Phone: (202) 691-4217
ryan.mckenna@wilsoncenter.org

WASHINGTON–March 6, 2023. The Wilson Center is honored to receive a two-year, $1.7 million grant from the Walmart Foundation to commence work on a multi-stakeholder research and awareness project titled, "Agriculture in North America–From Knowledge to Action."

Building on six years of prior work which assessed agricultural labor conditions in Mexico and the United States, this new investment will allow the Wilson Center and its partners in the United States and Mexico to develop a series of evidence-based policy recommendations to improve labor recruitment and employment conditions for farm workers in North American agriculture.

In Mexico, this work will focus on implementation and enforcement of Mexico's new labor laws intended to eliminate abusive labor practices and to provide access to the social services—housing, healthcare, education—to which workers enrolled in Mexico’s Social Security Institute (IMSS) sector are entitled. In the United States, the project will focus on immigration reform to strengthen protections for temporary migrants seeking work in US agriculture.

The work will begin by creating a multi-stakeholder task force that will conduct outreach to farm workers, growers, large purchasers, migrant rights organizations, labor contractors, and public sector representatives in both countries to ensure that recommendations are workable.

“Through its research and its globally-recognized convening power, the Wilson Center is ideally suited to advance the critical policy discussions facing our region,” said Gavin Bailey, Senior Manager at the Walmart Foundation.

“Agriculture is one of the great success stories of North American economic integration," said Wilson Center President and CEO Ambassador Mark Green, "and ensuring that workers are treated fairly and equitably and given opportunities to do honest work where it is needed, is key to ensuring continued access to fruits and vegetables across the region. We are honored by the faith and trust the Walmart Foundation has placed in us to carry out this important work, in keeping with the Wilson Center's tradition and purpose, to promote independent research, open dialogue, and actionable ideas.”

TAGGED

PRESS RELEASE

RELATED PROGRAM

MEXICO INSTITUTE

The Mexico Institute seeks to improve understanding, communication, and cooperation between Mexico and the United States by promoting original research, encouraging public discussion, and proposing policy options for enhancing the bilateral relationship. A binational Advisory Board, chaired by Luis Téllez and Earl Anthony Wayne, oversees the work of the Mexico Institute. Read more

Overcoming mindsets: Uniqlo, Amazon in S’pore boost hiring of persons with disabilities

Apparel retailer Uniqlo currently employs 42 people with disabilities across its 28 stores in Singapore.

PHOTO: UNIQLO SINGAPORE

Syarafana Shafeeq
UPDATED
MAR 7, 2023

SINGAPORE – With the news that an Enabling Business Hub will be opened later this year to encourage inclusive hiring practices and job placements for persons with disabilities (PWDs), employers here have even more reason to step up inclusive hiring.

The hub will be launched in Jurong West in the second half of 2023, to bring jobs closer to where PWDs live.

But some companies have already made the first move to hire PWDs, before the latest measures were announced during the debate on the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s budget last Friday.

For example, logistics giant Amazon has partnered with SG Enable, a disability services and support organisation in Singapore, to hire around 20 PWDs across its operations facilities.

An Amazon spokesman said the company’s staff have given positive feedback, citing how inclusive hiring helps them develop stronger empathy and creates a more cohesive workforce.

In February, the company pledged to triple its hiring of employees with disabilities for operations facilities in the next three years.

It made the commitment after signing a memorandum of understanding with SG Enable.

Apparel retailer Uniqlo currently employs 42 people with disabilities across its 28 stores in Singapore.

Uniqlo Singapore human resource director Juliana Tan said the company works very closely with job coaches from Minds Hi-Job! to understand each employee’s profile and way of communication.

Minds Hi-Job!, a programme under the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (Minds), is a job placement and support programme to help those with special needs seek employment opportunities.

Ms Tan said Uniqlo’s employees work under a buddy system. This means that employees with disabilities work alongside fellow non-PWD employees, and receive support as they adapt to the new environment.

They start off by working in the storeroom – a role that does not require them to interact with customers – in order to ease themselves into their roles, she added.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC
More interest in hiring people with disabilities in sectors facing manpower crunch

More coordinated and inclusive support – but will S’pore employers and society bite?

Assigned tasks are broken down into simpler steps for them to learn better.

PWD employees are assessed based on their performance and comfort level, and assigned new tasks accordingly, said Ms Tan.

Some of the tasks, similar to that done by employees without disabilities, include product unpacking and replenishment, and ensuring that the stores are kept clean and tidy. Those who are comfortable with these roles can also be trained for fitting room duties, where they take stocks to the sales floor.

Ms Tan said: “As with all employees, we focus on each person’s strengths and interests during training, and assign tasks in stores to maximise these capabilities.”

She added that while employees with disabilities may need a bit more time to get used to their scope of work, the company has observed that they are very meticulous in their work once they are familiar with the assigned tasks.

“Their passion towards the work they do also motivates people around them, which is beneficial for the team.”

At the same time, the team also makes sure to pay special attention to employees with disabilities’ emotional needs, to ensure that their experience is a fulfilling and meaningful one, she said.

“For example, as a company, we encourage all team members to be patient in communicating with each other. Staff are also encouraged to write ‘thank you’ cards to each other, which serve to motivate and bond the team.”

Assigned tasks are also broken down into simpler steps for them to learn better.

PHOTO: UNIQLO SINGAPORE

Ms Tan said the company has a worldwide goal to hire the equivalent of at least one PWD per store.

This achieves two things: It enables PWDs to interact with other team members and achieve an independent life, while encouraging greater awareness, patience and inclusivity towards the PWD community.

Earlier in 2017, Uniqlo set up a training classroom at APSN Delta Senior School in Choa Chu Kang, used mostly by students who are in their final year of a retail operations programme.

The classroom provides a platform for students with special needs to build their knowledge and skills in fashion retailing, and prepares them for a smoother integration into the workforce.

Mr Paul Heng, managing director of NeXT Career Consulting Group, said more can be done to encourage inclusive hiring of PWDs.

He said employers may not be so motivated to hire them out of fear that they do not have the necessary skill sets for the job. They may also be worried about having to incur additional expenses, for example, reconfiguring the workplace to accommodate employees who are not mobile.

“It’s a mindset issue... PwDs have been viewed differently, both at the workplace as well as society in general,” said Mr Heng.

“Employers can, and must, do their part. I understand companies are in the business of making money, but if we really are serious about becoming an inclusive and developed country, we must behave like one, as one people.”

Malaysia’s political stability, electrical ecosystem credited for convincing Amazon, Tesla to invest

AWS and Tesla recently announced plans to invest in Malaysia.

PHOTOS: REUTERS, AFP

MAR 7, 2023

KUALA LUMPUR – Amazon Web Services (AWS) took a wait-and-see approach that spanned a number of years before deciding to invest RM25.5 billion (S$7.7 billion) in Malaysia, said Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim on Tuesday.

“Negotiations started in December 2019 and were ongoing... In the end, they contacted us to state that it was because of political stability and clear direction in policies that Amazon chose Malaysia to set up their base,” Datuk Seri Anwar said in response to a parliamentary question in the Dewan Rakyat.

He added that transparency in negotiations between AWS and the government was also a factor in the company’s decision to invest here.

“There were to be no negotiations with agents or private companies selected by us. We said that they (AWS) have the freedom and transparency to make their own choice subject to stipulated conditions,” he said.

Mr Anwar also noted that incentives provided to foreign investors are sufficient and AWS was more concerned if Malaysia was business-friendly.

“What they stressed on was the ease of doing business on matters such as whether approvals could be made swiftly. That is why we have set up a main task force committee to oversee the project as we cannot carry on operating like the old ways,” he said.

AWS announced last Thursday that it would be launching a new infrastructure region in Malaysia as part of a public-private sector partnership with the Malaysian government.

The announcement also came with AWS confirming it intends to invest at least RM25.5 billion in the country by 2037 with the intention of developing Malaysia as a “cloud region” for data storage and other cloud-based services.

AWS’ established cloud regions in Asia currently include Singapore, Jakarta, Seoul, Tokyo, Osaka, and Hong Kong. The company is also developing a new region in Thailand.

Another corporate giant, Tesla, also recently announced plans to invest in Malaysia.

International Trade and Industry Minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz had previously said Tesla’s decision was based on Malaysia’s strong electrical and electronics ecosystem to support the manufacture of electric vehicles (EVs).

Tesla plans to set up an operating office, its famed experience centres, as well as aftersales support facilities in the country.

Mr Anwar said businesses from Singapore and the Philippines have indicated their interest in using the AWS cloud facilities in Malaysia once they have been set up.

Without providing specific figures, he said the investments by AWS and Tesla would create several thousand jobs, including positive spillover effects for the surrounding small and medium-sized enterprises.

THE STAR/ASIA NEWS NETWORK

N.J.’s biggest special interests have spent $285 million to sway politicians this century. Here’s the list.

2023/03/12

The New Jersey Statehouse dome in Trenton

The current median cost of a home in Trenton is $175,000, according to Realtor.com. For that price, the top 25 lobbying spenders and special interest groups could have bought up more than 1,628 houses in New Jersey’s capital city with all the money they’ve shelled out to influence state lawmakers since the turn of the 21st century.

The top spenders invested $284.7 million to lobby lawmakers and the governor’s office from 2000 through last year, according to a new report from the state Election Law Enforcement Commission.

It includes the New Jersey Education Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union — a longtime powerhouse that dwarfs them all. There are companies with household Jersey names such as Verizon and PSE&G. And there’s the AARP, the huge lobby whose members are 50 years old and up.

“These 25 groups were responsible for one-fifth of all lobbying expenditures during that 23-year period,” Jeff Brindle, ELEC’s executive director, said in a statement. “Most of these are large organizations with big financial stakes in New Jersey. Policies they support or oppose can have a significant impact on these organizations and the lives of New Jersey citizens.”

The group that dug deepest into its pockets by far was the NJEA, which represents nearly 200,000 teachers. It spent more than $52.5 million during that period.

According to the report, that includes $11,259,886 spent in 2011 and $6,869,256 in 2010. That was around the time then0Gov. Chris Christie and then-state Senate President Stephen Sweeney teamed up to overhaul the state’s pension and health benefits plan, which Christie ultimately signed into law in 2011.

The NJEA spent $10,348,911 in 2015, the same year it launched a major TV ad campaign that called into question the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, testing. It funded another ad campaign that year that urged lawmakers to fully fund the state’s pension system.

It also spent $6,240,028 in 2019, the same year it gave money to New Direction NJ, a pro-Murphy group that amassed millions of dollars and was used to promote Gov. Phil Murphy’s legislative agenda. The NJEA spent $6,255,530 in 2020 — the first year of the coronavirus pandemic.

The next largest spending was from AARP, which invested $16.6 million into its causes over the years.

Among other things, it’s lobbied for the past decade to pass the Caregiver’s Assistance Act, which would provide a $675 tax credit for families who take on caregiving expenses. The group has ratcheted up the campaign in recent years.

Verizon spent $16.4 million since 2000, including a $4,717,250 outlay in 2006. At the time, there was an epic battle in Trenton over cable television legislation. Verizon was ultimately successful in its effort to get new legislation that would make it easier for the company to get into the cable business.

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, New Jersey’s largest health insurer, invested $16.3 million in its causes. It spent $2,524,921 in 2017, the year Christie proposed reforms to the company’s board and wanted to take $300 million of Horizon’s reserves to help pay for a program to prevent the abuse of opioids.

The battle on the issue between Christie and lawmakers got so contentious it led to New Jersey’s first state government shutdown in more than a decade. The shutdown gained international attention after NJ Advance Media published photos of Christie lounging on a beach that was closed to the public because it’s part of a state park. Christie was there with his family because governors has access to a beach house located in Island Beach State Park.

Public Service Enterprise Group, commonly known as PSE&G, spent $15.9 million since 2000. In 2019, New Jersey utility customers committed to paying $300 million each year for the next three years to keep the state’s three remaining nuclear reactors open. It was a controversial measure that was hotly debated in Trenton.

ELEC’s report was released alongside data that showed New Jersey lobbyists shelled out $95 million last year.

It was a little less than what lobbyists spent in 2021 and short of the $106.8 million they shelled tout in 2020. ELEC says it’s a sign lobbying is returning to normal after spending went up after the coronavirus pandemic, which spurred emergency legislation that dealt with hospitals and businesses.

Top 25 Special Interest Groups Spent $285 Million on Lobbying Since 2000.

NJ Advance Media staff writers Brent Johnson and Susan K. Livio contributed to this report.

Matt Arco may be reached at marco@njadvancemedia.com.

Leaping lizards: Peru finds a new one

A new species of lizard of the genus Proctoporus was discovered in a high mountain area of the Andes in the Otishi National Park, Peru, officials said

Edgar LEHR / AFP

Agence France-Presse
March 11, 2023

A new species of lizard, of the genus Proctoporus, was found in a high Andean area of a national park in Peru, authorities said Friday.

This small species was located in the Otishi National Park, in the jungle area shared by the departments of Cusco and Junin, the Peruvian authority for protected areas announced.

This is a new specimen of the genus Proctoporus that includes species that inhabit yungas forests and high mountain grasslands on the Amazon slope of the Andes," said the National Service of Natural Areas Protected by the State (Sernanp), without specifying the date of discovery in an area located between 3,241 and 3,269 meters above sea level.

Among its characteristics, "its smooth scales on the head, which lack grooves or roughness, and the eyelids with an undivided translucent disc" stand out, the agency reported.

Males have a dark gray to black neck, breast, and belly, while females have a pale gray neck, breast, and belly with a diffused dark gray.

Peruvian authorities say that there are 20 species of Proctoporus, of which 18 are found in Peru. The discovery was made by a team of five researchers.

How Washington state raised $300 million for climate action from polluters

Smoke rises from a chimney at a coal chemical factory. (AFP)

Kate Yoder
March 11, 2023

This article originally appeared in Grist.

A new effort to tackle climate change in Washington state just got a boost of cash.

On Tuesday, the state announced the results of its first “cap-and-invest” auction. It raised an estimated $300 million from polluting companies to fund projects such as building clean energy, reducing emissions from buildings and transportation, and adapting to the effects of rising global temperatures.

Washington has set a goal to cut its carbon emissions 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In that effort, the state is putting a statewide limit on carbon emissions that gradually lowers over time. Under the cap-and-invest system, businesses buy “allowances” for the greenhouse gases they emit. But these permits will become more expensive over time — both an incentive to cut emissions and a method of raising money to address climate change.

In Washington’s first auction, held last week, the permits sold out, averaging about $49 per ton of carbon dioxide. The price was nearly double that of the most recent cap-and-trade auction held by California and Quebec, where the average was $28 per ton.

“The auction price is potentially higher because Washington’s program requires stronger climate pollution cuts than anywhere else in the country,” said Kelly Hall, the Washington director for the regional nonprofit Climate Solutions. “There is strong competition for these allowances.”

Washington’s auctions, which will take place four times a year, are projected to raise nearly $1 billion annually. At least 35 percent of the revenue is slated to go toward projects that benefit communities historically and disproportionately impacted by pollution. By the end of April, once the budgeting process is ironed out, the state will begin the process of setting up these various climate initiatives, said David Mendoza, the director of public engagement and policy at The Nature Conservancy in Washington.

The state’s cap-and-invest system, which began in January, follows in the footsteps of several state and regional cap-and-trade systems — with a few key changes. It relies less on carbon offsets and is also designed to address some equity concerns around cap-and-trade. In California, for example, studies have shown that pollution in Black and Latino communities actually increased in the years since that state’s cap-and-trade program began.

Washington’s system takes the novel approach of pairing cap-and-trade with a regulatory air quality program intended to crack down on large and small sources of pollution in the hardest-hit areas. While the state is still figuring out the details, last week, its Department of Ecology announced that it had identified 16 communities where it plans to concentrate efforts to improve air quality. South Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane made the list, as did some rural areas.

Cap-and-trade programs are now up and running in more than a dozen U.S. states, including Oregon and a regional program in the Northeast. Still, the approach remains controversial. Washington’s program has gathered criticism for giving some large emitters, such as petroleum refineries and paper mills, a free pass. While these polluters can buy allowances at little or no cost for the next dozen years, they are still covered under the program’s declining cap on emissions.

The state is currently looking into linking up its cap-and-trade program with California and Quebec, which have already joined markets. In Washington, there’s a requirement that they can only link the markets if the state determines that it won’t result in a “negative impact on overburdened communities in either jurisdiction,” Mendoza said.

After researching the potential benefits — and consequences — of linking the programs, the state is expected to issue a recommendation on whether to join California’s market by the end of summer.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

SUNDAY FUNNIES

Kenyan Pastor Who Claims To Be Messiah Seeks Police Protection After Threats Of Crucifixion

Yesu Wa Tongaren, a man claiming to be Jesus and his wife in Bungoma county. Photo: UGC

A Kenyan pastor, Yesu Wa Tongaren, who claims to be the Christian Messiah, has reportedly sought police protection after members of his community said he should be crucified over the Easter holiday.

It was claimed that Yesu Wa Tongaren, whose real name is Eliud Wekesa, performed a miracle of turning water into tea.

According to a Kenyan publication, TUKO.co.ke, Wekesa also has a group of 12 disciples. His wife was quoted as saying:

Recently he made the water turn to tea. People drank it and were very happy and more remained and some carried it home.

One Facebook user said that since Yesu Wa Tongaren claims to be the Messiah, he should also be crucified on the cross. Said the writer:

Huyu yesu wa Bungoma lazima tumsulubishe. Haezi jiita Yesu na hajateswa can’t happen Ama mnaonaje (This Bungoma man should be crucified. He cannot call himself Jesus without suffering. What do you guys think?

Members of his community in Bungoma argue that if he is really the Messiah, he should be crucified and he would also resurrect on the third day and ascend to heaven.

Posting on Twitter, a Kenyan social media personality Omwamba said Wekesa has since reported the threats to the police station. He wrote:

Self-proclaimed jesus christ of Bungoma (yesu wa Tongaren) now claims that his life is in danger.

This is after a section of residents of Bungoma were overheard saying he must be crucified during Easter the same way Jesus was crucified.

The residents have assured him that if he is truly the messiah, he will resurrect on the third day and go to heaven after the crucifixion so he should not worry at all.

He has since reported the matter to the police station.

Wekesa recently told TUKO.co.ke that God’s army was protecting him from any harm and those who plan to crucify him will only do so in their dreams.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment