Sunday, October 13, 2024

Robbing Africa’s Riches to Save the Climate (and Power AI)



 October 11, 2024
Facebook

Image by omid roshan.

Considered Angola’s crown jewel by many, Lobito is a colorful port city on the country’s scenic Atlantic coast where a nearly five-kilometer strip of land creates a natural harbor. Its white sand beaches, vibrant blue waters, and mild tropical climate have made Lobito a tourist destination in recent years. Yet under its shiny new facade is a history fraught with colonial violence and exploitation.

The Portuguese were the first Europeans to lay claim to Angola in the late sixteenth century. For nearly four centuries, they didn’t relent until a bloody, 27-year civil war with anticolonial guerillas (aided by the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces) and bolstered by a leftist coup in distant Lisbon, Portugal’s capital, overthrew that colonial regime in 1974.

Lobito’s port was the economic heart of Portugal’s reign in Angola, along with the meandering 1,866-kilometer Benguela Railway, which first became operational in the early 1900s. For much of the twentieth century, Lobito was the hub for exporting to Europe agricultural goods and metals mined in Africa’s Copperbelt. Today, the Copperbelt remains a resource-rich region encompassing much of the Democratic Republic of Congo and northern Zambia.

Perhaps it won’t shock you to learn that, half a century after Portugal’s colonial control of Angola ended, neocolonialism is now sinking its hooks into Lobito. Its port and the Benguela Railway, which travels along what’s known as the Lobito Corridor, have become a key nucleus of China’s and the Western world’s efforts to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources in our hot new world. If capitalist interests continue to drive this crucial transition, which is all too likely, while global energy consumption isn’t scaled back radically, the amount of critical minerals needed to power the global future remains unfathomable. The World Economic Forum estimates that three billion tons of metals will be required. The International Energy Forum estimates that to meet the global goals of radically reducing carbon emissions, we’ll also need between 35 and 194 massive copper mines by 2050.

Unsurprisingly, most of the minerals from copper to cobalt needed for that transition’s machinery (including electric batterieswind turbines, and solar panels) are located in Latin America and Africa. Worse yet, more than half (54%) of the critical minerals needed are on or near Indigenous lands, which means the most vulnerable populations in the world are at the most significant risk of being impacted in a deeply negative fashion by future mining and related operations.

When you want to understand what the future holds for a country in the “developing” world, as economists still like to call such regions, look no further than the International Monetary Fund (IMF). “With growing demand, proceeds from critical minerals are poised to rise significantly over the next two decades,” reports the IMF. “Global revenues from the extraction of just four key minerals — copper, nickel, cobalt, and lithium — are estimated to total $16 trillion over the next 25 years. Sub-Saharan Africa stands to reap over 10 percent of these accumulated revenues, which could correspond to an increase in the region’s GDP by 12 percent or more by 2050.”

Sub-Saharan Africa alone is believed to contain 30% of the world’s total critical mineral reserves. It’s estimated that the Congo is responsible for 70% of global cobalt output and approximately 50% of the globe’s reserves. In fact, the demand for cobalt, a key ingredient in most lithium-ion batteries, is rapidly increasing because of its use in everything from cell phones to electric vehicles. As for copper, Africa has two of the world’s top producers, with Zambia accounting for 70% of the continent’s output. “This transition,” adds the IMF, “if managed properly, has the potential to transform the region.” And, of course, it won’t be pretty.

While such critical minerals might be mined in rural areas of the Congo and Zambia, they must reach the international marketplace to become profitable, which makes Angola and the Lobito Corridor key to Africa’s booming mining industry.

In 2024, China committed $4.5 billion to African lithium mines alone and another $7 billion to investments in copper and cobalt mining infrastructure. In the Congo, for example, China controls 70% of the mining sector.

Having lagged behind that country’s investments in Africa for years, the U.S. is now looking to make up ground.

Zambia’s Copper Colonialism

In September 2023, on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in India, Secretary of State Antony Blinken quietly signed an agreement with Angola, Zambia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the European Union to launch the Lobito Corridor project. There wasn’t much fanfare or news coverage, but the United States had made a significant move. Almost 50 years after Portugal was forced out of Angola, the West was back, offering a $4 billion commitment and assessing the need to update the infrastructure first built by European colonizers. With a growing need for critical minerals, Western countries are now setting their sights on Africa and its green energy treasures.

“We meet at a historic moment,” President Joe Biden said as he welcomed Angolan President João Lourenço to Washington last year. Biden then called the Lobito project the “biggest U.S. rail investment in Africa ever” and affirmed the West’s interest in what the region might have to offer in the future. “America,” he added, “is all in on Africa… We’re all in with you and Angola.”

Both Africa and the U.S., Biden was careful to imply, would reap the benefits of such a coalition. Of course, that’s precisely the kind of rhetoric we can expect when Western (or Chinese) interests are intent on acquiring the resources of the Global South. If this were about oil or coal, questions and concerns would undoubtedly be raised regarding America’s regional intentions. Yet, with the fight against climate change providing cover, few are considering the geopolitical ramifications of such a position — and even fewer acknowledging the impacts of massively increased mining on the continent.

In his book Cobalt Red, Siddharth Kara exposes the bloody conditions cobalt miners in the Congo endure, many of them children laboring against their will for days on end, with little sleep and under excruciatingly abusive conditions. The dreadful story is much the same in Zambia, where copper exports account for more than 70% of the country’s total export revenue. A devastating 126-page report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) from 2011 exposed the wretchedness inside Zambia’s Chinese-owned mines: 18-hour work days, unsafe working environments, rampant anti-union activities, and fatal workplace accidents. There is little reason to believe it’s much different in the more recent Western-owned operations.

“Friends tell you that there’s a danger as they’re coming out of shift,” a miner who was injured while working for a Chinese company told HRW. “You’ll be fired if you refuse, they threaten this all the time… The main accidents are from rock falls, but you also have electrical shocks, people hit by mining trucks underground, people falling from platforms that aren’t stable… In my accident, I was in a loading box. The mine captain… didn’t put a platform. So when we were working, a rock fell down and hit my arm. It broke to the extent that the bone was coming out of the arm.”

An explosion at one mine killed 51 workers in 2005 and things have only devolved since then. Ten workers died in 2018 at an illegal copper extraction site. In 2019, three mineworkers were burned to death in an underground shaft fire and a landslide at an open-pit copper mine in Zambia killed more than 30 miners in 2023. Despite such horrors, there’s a rush to extract ever more copper in Zambia. As of 2022, five gigantic open-pit copper mines were operating in the country, and eight more underground mines were in production, many of which are to be further expanded in the years ahead. With new U.S.-backed mines in the works, Washington believes the Lobito Corridor may prove to be the missing link needed to ensure Zambian copper will end up in green energy goods consumed in the West.

AI Mining for AI Energy

The office of KoBold Metals in quaint downtown Berkeley, California, is about as far away from Zambia’s dirty mines as you can get. Yet, at KoBold’s nondescript headquarters, which sits above a row of trendy bars and restaurants, a team of tech entrepreneurs diligently work to locate the next big mine operation in Zambia using proprietary Artificial Intelligence (AI). Backed by billionaires Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, KoBold bills itself as a green Silicon Valley machine, committed to the world’s green energy transition (while turning a nice profit).

It is in KoBold’s interest, of course, to secure the energy deposits of the future because it will take an immense amount of energy to support their artificially intelligent world. A recent report by the International Energy Agency estimates that, in the near future, electricity usage by AI data centers will increase significantly. As of 2022, such data centers were already utilizing 460 terawatt hours (TWh) but are on pace to increase to 1,050 TWh by the middle of the decade. To put that in perspective, Europe’s total energy consumption in 2023 was around 2,700 TWh.

“Anyone who’s in the renewable space in the western world… is looking for copper and cobalt, which are fundamental to making electric vehicles,” Mfikeyi Makayi, chief executive of KoBold in Zambia, explained to the Financial Times in 2024. “That is going to come from this part of the world and the shortest route to take them out is Lobito.”

Makayi wasn’t beating around the bush. The critical minerals in KoBold mines won’t end up in the possession of Zambia or any other African country. They are bound for Western consumers alone. KoBold’s CEO Kurt House is also honest about his intentions: “I don’t need to be reminded again that I’m a capitalist,” he’s been known to quip.

In July 2024, House rang his company’s investors with great news: KoBold had just hit the jackpot in Zambia. Its novel AI tech had located the largest copper find in more than a decade. Once running, it could produce upwards of 300,000 tons of copper annually — or, in the language investors understand, the cash will soon flow. As of late summer 2024, one ton of copper on the international market cost more than $9,600. Of course, KoBold has gone all in, spending $2.3 billion to get the Zambian mine operable by 2030. Surely, KoBold’s investors were excited by the prospect, but not everyone was as thrilled as them.

“The value of copper that has left Zambia is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Hold that figure in your mind, and then look around yourself in Zambia,” says Zambian economist Grieve Chelwa. “The link between resource and benefit is severed.”

Not only has Zambia relinquished the benefits of such mineral exploitation, but — consider it a guarantee — its people will be left to suffer the local mess that will result.

The Poisoned River

Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) is today the largest ore producer in Zambia, ripping out a combined two million tons of copper a year. It’s one of the nation’s largest employers, with a brutally long record of worker and environmental abuses. KCM runs Zambia’s largest open-pit mine, which stretches for seven miles. In 2019, the British-based Vedanta Resources acquired an 80% stake in KCM by covering $250 million of that company’s debt. Vedanta has deep pockets and is run by Indian billionaire Anil Agarwal, affectionately known in the mining world as “the Metal King.”

One thing should be taken for granted: You don’t become the Metal King without leaving entrails of toxic waste on your coattails. In India, Agarwal’s alumina mines have polluted the lands of the Indigenous Kondh tribes in Orissa Province. In Zambia, his copper mines have wrecked farmlands and waterways that once supplied fish and drinking water to thousands of villagers.

The Kafue River runs for more than 1,500 kilometers, making it Zambia’s longest river and now probably its most polluted as well. Going north to south, its waters flow through the Copperbelt, carrying with them cadmium, lead, and mercury from KCM’s mine. In 2019, thousands of Zambian villagers sued Vedanta, claiming its subsidiary KCM had poisoned the Kafue River and caused insurmountable damage to their lands.

The British Supreme Court then found Vedanta liable, and the company was forced to pay an undisclosed settlement, likely in the millions of dollars. Such a landmark victory for those Zambian villagers couldn’t have happened without the work of Chilekwa Mumba, who organized communities and convinced an international law firm to take up the case. Mumba grew up in the Chingola region of Zambia, where his father worked in the mines.

“[T]here was some environmental degradation going on as a result of the mining activities. As we found, there were times when the acid levels of water was so high,” explained Mumba, the 2023 African recipient of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize. “So there were very specific complaints about stomach issues from children. Children just really wander around the villages and if they are thirsty, they don’t think about what’s happening, they’ll just get a cup and take their drink of water from the river. That’s how they live. So they’ll usually get diseases. It’s hard to quantify, but clearly the impact was there.”

Sadly enough, though, despite that important legal victory, little has changed in Zambia, where environmental regulations remain weak and nearly impossible to enforce, which leaves mining companies like KCM to regulate themselves. A 2024 Zambian legislative bill seeks to create a regulatory body to oversee mining operations, but the industry has pushed back, making it unclear if it will ever be signed into law. Even if the law does pass, it may have little real-world impact on mining practices there.

The warming climate, at least to the billionaire mine owners and their Western accomplices, will remain an afterthought, as well as a justification to exploit more of Africa’s critical minerals. Consider it a new type of colonialism, this time with a green capitalist veneer. There are just too many AI programs to run, too many tech gadgets to manufacture, and too much money to be made.

This piece first appeared on TomDispatch.

JOSHUA FRANK is the managing editor of CounterPunch and co-host of CounterPunch Radio. He is the author of the new book, Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America, published by Haymarket Books. He can be reached at joshua@counterpunch.org. You can troll him on Twitter @joshua__frank.

 

The Mighty Amazon River Ebbing

Fossil fuel CO2 emissions are taking the world’s time-honored ecosystems, like the world-famous Amazon River, down onto their knees. The problem is greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 trap heat and excessive levels, like we’ve been experiencing, create extreme heat; it’s a direct connection that’s destroying the world’s legendary ecosystems. Over time, the biosphere rejects human meddling by undercutting these wondrous natural systems that support human life. The conclusion is too dreadful to discuss.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is so alarmed that it’s calling for “Urgent Action.”

According to Celeste Saulo, secretary general of the WMO: “Water is the canary in the coalmine of climate change. We receive distress signals in the form of increasingly extreme rainfall, floods and droughts which wreak a heavy toll on lives, ecosystems, and economies. Melting ice and glaciers threaten long-term water security for many millions of people. And yet we are not taking the necessary urgent action.” ( “Climate Warning as World’s Rivers Dry Up at Fastest Rate for 30 Years,” Guardian, October 7, 2024)

If there’s any doubt about the reality of climate change as a threat, the mighty Amazon River is a real time testament flashing warning signals of deep trouble. Large regions of the 4,000-mile waterway are disappearing right before our eyes because of global warming’s most lethal weapon, drought!

Devastating drought is clobbering portions of the world’s most famous river, a vital commercial superhighway that delivers goods throughout the South American continent: “The Amazon is both the world’s largest river by volume and the longest river system, emerging in the Peruvian Andes and crossing five countries before emptying into the Atlantic Ocean. It is home to a rich variety of aquatic life, like piranhas and pink river dolphins. In some areas, the river is still very deep — up to 400 feet — and can accommodate ocean liners.” (“A Changing Climate is Scorching the World’s Biggest River,” New York Times, October 8, 2024)

Like elsewhere throughout the world, average temperatures in South America are rising beyond safe limits and abnormal severe droughts ensue. Regions of the Amazon have seen temperature rises of 2°C since the 1980s or the maximum before triggering several enormous problems, such as warned by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Well, we now know that the IPCC was correct to warn of serious problems as oil producers spew out enormous quantities of CO2 blanketing the atmosphere. The Amazon River is living, and dying, proof of the CO2-global warming-drought connection.

According to Bernardo Flores, Federal University of Santa Catarina/Brazil, all signs point to more impossible-to-deal-with temperatures coming down the pike. Already, back-to-back years of severe drought have scorched the Amazon. According to Dr Ane Alencar, director of science at IPAM Amazônia, “The river’s had no chance to recover,” Ibid.

Climate scientists are dumbfounded by the onset of rivers of the world drying up at the fastest pace in modern history. Ominously, major rivers are hitting new lows at the same time as major reservoirs drop dangerously low. Last year more than 50% of global river catchment areas hit abnormally low levels with “most being in deficit.” It’s deadly serious global warming at work that was seen to a lesser extent in 2021 and 2022. The Amazon, Mississippi, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Danube, Loire, Mekong, and several others have been hit with abnormally low conditions over the past three years.

Deceivingly, there’s a rhythm to the onset of drought and floods not necessarily hitting consecutively year after year but every-other-year or every-third-year, like once-in-100-year floods compressed in time. Massive disasters are no longer once every 100-years. They recur every few years. For example, according to NASA, since 2000, severe drought hit Brazil every 5 years like clockwork but now it’s back-to-back. Nobody knows what to expect next. It’s literally “hold one’s breath” as to the survivability of the world’s biggest most famous river, easily spotted from outer space.

Like the Sword of Damocles, a scourge of drought threatens the world like never before. For example, two years ago in Europe: “In places, the Loire can now be crossed on foot; France’s longest river has never flowed so slowly. The Rhine is fast becoming impassable to barge traffic. In Italy, the Po is 2 metres lower than normal, crippling crops. Serbia is dredging the Danube. Across Europe, drought is reducing once-mighty rivers to trickles, with potentially dramatic consequences for industry, freight, energy and food production.” (“Europe’s Rivers Run Dry as Scientists Warn Drought Could be Worst in 500 Years,” Guardian, Aug. 13, 2022).

China in the same year: “The impact of the drying Yangtze has been enormous. In Sichuan, a province of 84 million people, hydropower makes up about 80% of electricity capacity. Much of that comes from the Yangtze River, and as its flow slows down, power generation has dwindled, leaving authorities there to order all its factories shut for six days. The province is seeing around half the rain it usually does and some reservoirs have dried up entirely, according to state news agency Xinhua.” (CNN)

The Hydrological Cycle

 According to WMO, rising temperatures have dramatically altered the hydrological cycle of the world, it has accelerated and become unpredictably erratic. Society is facing growing issues of either too much or too little water. On the one hand, warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, with atmospheric rivers cascading bucket-loads of water, creating flash floods. Conversely more heat brings on evaporation and drying of soils leading to severe drought. It’s all heat related. The planet has more heat than the hydrological system can handle. Meanwhile, the world’s water towers, e.g., European Alps, are melting away, threatening commercial rivers and adequate potable water supplies.

Yet, in the face of abrupt damaging climate change, fossil fuel companies have publicly declared their intentions to crank up oil and gas production like never before, quadrupling production from newly approved projects by 2030 (Global Energy Monitor), the outlook for world natural resources like the Amazon River and the Amazon rainforest is beyond shaky. It’s dreadful. And everybody has good reason to be nervous about too much CO2 and other greenhouse gases altering the most significant sources of ongoing life on the planet. There are way too many things going wrong, like over-heated sea waters generating big and bigger hurricanes, to ignore the necessity of getting off fossil fuels as soon as possible.

The WMO is calling for Urgent Action by the nations of the world. Everybody knows what needs to be done.FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Robert Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University) is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and appeared in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He can be contacted at: rlhunziker@gmail.comRead other articles by Robert.

 AU CONTRAIRE

North Korea Does Not Pose a Threat to the United States

In an election year, both US parties are competing to outdo one another with hawkish rhetoric on the Korean Peninsula, leaning heavily into the strategy of confrontation with China through the US-South Korea-Japan tripartite alliance; a flawed vision that threatens to “erupt into a regional war, a full-scale war, or even a nuclear war.”

In her closing speech during the 2024 Democratic National Convention, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris presented the most openly militaristic take on Washington’s Korea policy “since the GOP convention that nominated [Senator Barry] Goldwater in 1964.” Harris’ hawkish view all but discards diplomacy to focus on herding South Korea and Japan together to form a US-led military triad to confront Chinese interests in East Asia. The candidate’s stance, echoed by the majority of the democratic party, raises what has been called a “truly baffling” prospect of a “Democratic president more aggressive towards [North Korea] than her Republican counterpart.”

This comes at a time when the virtually nonstop US-led war drills in South Korea have achieved a level of scope and intensity that far exceeds even that of the Cold War.  Taking place in the heavily militarized Korean Peninsula and ostensibly directed at the ubiquitous “North Korean threat,” these exercises are in fact a preparation for a future US-led war against China as part of Washington’s bold new Indo-Pacific strategy.

These momentous developments cap two years of virtually unabated military maneuvers at North Korea’s doorstep, beginning in 2023 with:

  • 250+ days of US and South Korean joint war drills
  • 21 instances in which US strategic assets, including nuclear-capable weapon platforms, were deployed to South Korea
  • 10+ UN Command joint military maneuvers

From January 1 to August 10, 2024 there have been:

  • 180 days of US and South Korean joint war drills
  •  17 instances in which US strategic assets, including nuclear-capable weapon platforms, were deployed to South Korea

With the advent of the Biden administration, the prospect of a negotiated peace with North Korea all but vanished with the ultimate collapse of the modest confidence-building agreement in 2018 between Seoul and Pyongyang and South Korea, and Washington’s North Korea policy shifted to empowering South Korea’s autocratic Yoon administration to spearhead the “end of the North Korean regime” while the US steadily incorporates Korean military potential into its anti–China front.

The “North Korean threat” has long served as the justification for the increasingly formidable US forward military position in Asia, but how much of a threat does North Korea actually pose to the US?

North Korea spends only $4 billion annually on defense while the US annual defense budget is close to $900 billion. For North Korea to engage in the offensive use of its military against the US would be little short of suicide.

In addition to this basic fact, the commander of US Forces Korea himself, Gen. Paul LaCamera, has openly stated that North Korea’s military posture and policy is to establish deterrence and defend its sovereignty, and has characterized Kim Jong-un’s top priorities as “regime survivability” and “preparing to defend his nation.”

Kim himself has repeatedly stated that North Korea: “will never unilaterally unleash a war.”  Kim’s most urgent priority has been economic development under the “Regional Development 20×10 Policy,” an ambitious 10-year-plan to provide badly-needed improvements to civilian infrastructure and services for ordinary North Koreans.

In spite of the relentlessly “manufactured image of a war-mad Kim Jong-un,” recent opinion polls show that only 2% of Americans named North Korea as a threat to the US, apparently evincing the common-sense realization that a weak country’s deterrent posture is not regarded as a real threat to the United States.

Coexistence is an overlooked option

Current US policy in the Korean peninsula is an extension of its Indo-Pacific doctrine, and relies on coupling economic warfare with military and political pressure against Pyongyang to maintain the level of tension required for the continued deployment of US forward assets against China.

As Washington veers ever further into its collision course with China, it has recast South Korea as a “linchpin of the US-China strategy in Northeast Asia”; deepening the integration of US assets with South Korean conventional forces and inducting local troops to serve under US command as cannon fodder for a brewing regional war far beyond the confines of the Korean Peninsula.

The US considers tensions in the Korean Peninsula necessary to justify its forward position in East Asia, which is underpinned by the garrisons it maintains in South Korea and Japan and solidified by its de facto control over the nominally independent military forces of these states. The US has been attempting to prod Beijing into a conflict over Taiwan in the same manner as it has provoked Russia into war over the Ukraine.

One consequence of this strategy is that Washington’s hostility towards North Korea is becoming ever more entrenched in US foreign policy, with the US provoking South Korea, a US client state that lacks strategic independence, to escalate tensions with Pyongyang as a prelude to instigating a regional conflict with China. Under the pretext of deterring North Korea, the US is forcing South Korea into a brewing confrontation with China, in which the primary role of the South Korean military would be to tie down vital Chinese forces in a bloody inter-Korean conflict, giving the US a freer hand in the broader theater of operations.

To help cement its hold over South Korea at this crucial juncture in Washington’s grand Indo-Pacific strategy, the Biden administration has propped up the authoritarian and deeply unpopular President Yoon Seok-yeol, whose signature foreign policy platform is a steadfast commitment to allowing his nation to be dragooned into the brewing US war with China. According to the latest opinion survey, more than 66% of South Koreans think that Yoon’s subordination to the US Indo-Pacific strategy makes Korea less safe.

But what if relations with the North were treated as an inter-Korean or even a purely regional issue, and were decoupled from Washington’s broader anti-China strategy? The prospect of coexistence with the North possesses immense potential for stability and prosperity in the region.

A North Korea free of US-led sanctions and unburdened by an overriding drive to shore up national  defense could arguably be a regional economic powerhouse. Given that North Korea has been vigorously pushing for ambitious economic development since its last nuclear weapons test in 2017, analysts foresee the North achieving meaningful economic development under the right conditions.

If geopolitical conditions evolve to the point where some initial meaningful economic engagement becomes possible for the US and South Korea, Kim’s domestic agenda offers important benchmarks for collaboration and support that should be a starting point for helping him achieve success on improvements in the lives of the North Korean people.

An economically integrated Korean peninsula in a multipolar Northeast Asia has the potential to be the “world’s next epicenter of change,” placing the combined economy of the Korean peninsula second only to China, the US, and India, with the North accounting for approximately one-fourth of this total economic potential.

Arguably, a fundamental geopolitical shift with respect to North Korean economic integration is already underway: namely, the gradual erosion of US economic isolation as the North strengthens its ties with the two of the world’s largest economies: Russia and China. These developments occur at a critical historical juncture shaped by an increasing trend toward multipolarity coupled with the shifting geopolitical balance of power in Northeast Asia.

America’s long-term strategic interest lies in unlocking the potential domestic benefits to the US of opening up the North Korean economy rather than attempting to maintain its hegemony through the relentless pursuit of regional destabilization in preparation for a future Sino-American conflict.

Washington should instead work to reduce regional tensions by halting the increasingly provocative nuclear-conventional war games in the Korean Peninsula and putting US-North Korea normalization at the center of US foreign policyFacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Simone Chun is a researcher and activist focusing on inter-Korean relations and U.S. foreign policy in the Korean Peninsula. She is on the Korea Policy Institute Board of Directors, and serves on the advisory board for CODEPINK. She can be found on Twitter at @simonechunRead other articles by Simone.

 

Independent Politicians Become Victims of the War on Dissent

Despite the modern trend of the society liberalization, 2024 was marked by a number of assassination attempts on world leaders and cases of exerting pressure on prominent politicians. On the 15th of May, Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico was seriously wounded in an assassination attempt, and just a couple of months later the similar scenario repeated in the USA, where a young gunman shot at former President Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. Following these events, people began to compare both of these crimes and found out that the shooting victims were independent politicians who actively opposed the continuation of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and had an alternative vision of the world order. Therefore, it’s suggested that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and the Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic could become the next victims of the “hunt on dissent”.

Viktor Orban, who had already been criticized by the EU leadership and leaders of several countries, just further worsened situation by visiting Beijing and Moscow in July this year. For some reason, it was not taken into account that the visits were part of Orban’s “peace mission” for Ukraine, and that within the framework of the mission he visited not only China and Russia, but also the USA and Ukraine. The European Union, promoting freedom and independence as its main values and standing against war and violence, strongly condemned the action of the Hungarian minister. European countries can’t admit that Orban is one of the few politicians who at least tries to help resolve the Ukrainian conflict peacefully, while others, on the contrary, can only write about it on social networks. Moreover, in response to Orban’s controversial visits the European Commission decided to boycott Hungary’s presidency of the EU Council. Why is the desire to resolve a conflict considered a negative action? And why is the leader of a sovereign state dictated which countries he can or cannot visit, and punished for “disobeying the instruction”?

As for Serbia, it faces constant pressure over non-recognition of Kosovo’s independence, maintenance of military neutrality and its attitude towards Russia’s war on Ukraine. It’s quite expected that external actors, in particular the EU, negatively assessing Belgrade’s desire to pursue an independent policy, may try to undermine the stability in Serbia and discredit the “unfavorable” President. Accusations of the possible involvement of high-ranking Serbian officials, including Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vulin, one of the closest associates of the Serbian President, in the armed attack in Banjska, are just another attempt to subvert the authority of Aleksandar Vucic with the further aim to replace him with a loyal candidate. The question arises: why does a liberal and free Europe, which condemns aggression and totalitarianism, turn into a harsh censor, punishing those acting against its interests?

At all times, those who were not afraid to go against the flow, face public misunderstanding and criticism. However, in the 21st century, when freedom and independence are recognized as the highest values, news about the “cancellation” or even elimination of people seems particularly shocking. Instead of working together to peacefully solve global issues and problems, politicians just heighten tensions in the geopolitical arena.FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Martin Averick is a Nashville-based researcher. He is currently pursuing a degree in International Relations from the Vanderbilt University. His work work has been published by AntiWar.comRead other articles by Martin.

 

The Retreat of Free Trade

Welcome to Tariff Land

Free markets?  Free trade?  The modern economic world has little time for these erroneous, misdirected terms.  More evident are the feelings of resentment, prejudice and indignant parochialism more accurately called My Country First, and Everyone Else Last.  Back your industries; hobble the competitors.  And everyone is doing it, except certain ideologues who, childishly, cling to the view that there ever was such a thing as a true laissez-faire world.

Free trade remains, in general, a fantasy, dangerous for the naïve who feel that by embracing it, they are somehow enlarging their appeal and standing.  Often, countries extolling its value are only those desiring exclusive or privileged access to a market.  From 2016 onwards, the free traders have been pummeled.  With Donald Trump in the White House, America First meant imposing, among other things, tariffs of 25% on US$50 billion on Chinese goods under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. More rises followed.

Under the Biden administration, Trump’s tariff legacy remained in place, though some suspensions were made.  (These were subsequently reimposed.)  This enabled President Joe Biden to sharpen the focus on specific categories: electric vehicles (EVs), semiconductors, lithium ion batteries.  Tariffs on Chinese semiconductors spiked to 50%, while Chinese EVs received a bruising 100% increase.

In April last year, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan delivered an address to the Brookings Institution tearing the free-market consensus to shreds with what he called the “new Washington consensus”.  China was the convenient excuse for doing so, a country that had subsidised “at a massive scale both traditional industrial sectors, like steel, as well as key industries in the future, like clean energy, digital infrastructure, and advanced biotechnologies.”  US competitiveness had, as a result, been eroded.

The response from foreign affairs pulpit huggers such as Walter Russell Mead was excoriating. Sullivan’s position represented a wish to “return to the system of relatively closed and highly regulated national economies that characterised the immediate post-Second World War era.”

Even those on the consultancy front are proclaiming the end of free trade. The Boston Consulting Group, for instance, declared in May that global free trade, an era “spanning the late 20th and early 21st centuries, has ended, and a new geopolitical landscape has emerged: a multipolar world characterized by distinct economic and political blocs.”

Little wonder, then, that the stomp on a forced, generally fictional notion has also appealed to European Union officials who have now made their entry into the thorny undergrowth of Tariff Land.  On October 4, the European Union voted to place tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles after a yearlong investigation into the role played by Chinese subsidies and export dumping practices.  The vote was split: ten EU states agreed to the measure, while five voted against it, with twelve abstentions.

The European Commission had already imposed provisional duties in July.  The move prompted China to file a request with the World Trade Organisation in August requesting consultations with the EU over alleged protectionist measures arising out of the provisional countervailing duties on EVs.

This has left the European Union in an interesting situation.  For one, they are not exactly unflinching on the exercise.  The Commission has more than hinted that a negotiated settlement is tenable. Were Chinese EV companies to propose an acceptable minimal minimum price for their vehicles, the tariffs would be lifted.

The reasoning on that score is clear enough: the EU has, ideologically and foolishly, imperilled itself to a free trade agenda that has enabled Beijing to make considerable inroads into the European market regarding EV technology.  While the United States huffs and struts in imposing 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs, such a policy can be pursued with assurance.  The US market was only ever going to suffer negligible losses, there being negligible Chinese EV imports to begin with.  For the European Union, up to 25% of all EVs sold this year will have a Chinese origin.

It is little wonder that there is no true European consensus on how to euthanize the free trade patient.  Germany, as one of the countries voting against the imposition of tariffs (a third of new German cars are sold annually in China), failed to exert sufficient influence on the final vote, hardly surprising given disagreements within its own political ranks. “Germany and European industry can no longer convince the Commission to be reasonable,” lamented Hungary’s Viktor Orbán.  “But then again, who can?”

How different it was from 2013, when the country, under the stewardship of Angela Merkel, convinced then European Commission president José Manuel Barroso that China should be exempt from tariffs in favour of a minimum price threshold.

If nothing else, the values of Tariff Land are revealing.  The decarbonising program seen as essential to stay a rise in global temperatures has balkanised.  Disputing trade officials, not technological innovators or scientists, dominate the discussions.  The US government is even chewing over banning the use of Chinese technology in autonomous and connected cars, showing how far this will go.

Joseph Webster, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, expresses the sentiment.  “The EU – as well as other US allies, especially Australia – do not appear to be grappling with the real and uncomfortable tensions between decarbonization objectives on the one hand, and the security risks Chinese-linked connected vehicles pose on the other.”  Yet again, the free trade globalists have been shown up, leaving way for the chest beating patriots to take centre stage over the corpse of an idea.FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.


 

NEW: Portal for Tracking Genocidal Incitement Against Palestinians

For the last year, since October 7, Law For Palestine has been documenting genocidal incitement against Palestinians by Israeli government officials, military personnel, and public figures. We partnered with them to launch a new portal to house this crucial data, which they regularly update as a resource for legal action, advocacy, and ensuring justice for the Palestinian people. To date, the database has compiled over 400 instances of genocidal rhetoric. Users can filter by theme and sector, search by person or keyword, and view and download the datasheet.

This database is a crucial resource for the international community, legal experts, human rights organizations, and policymakers. It provides an extensive, well-organized repository of evidence documenting how incitement to genocide has directly fueled Israel’s military and political strategies, including civilian harm, forced displacement, collective punishment, dehumanization, destruction of infrastructure, starvation, and torture.

Explore other genocidal intent themes here or read the full press release from Law for Palestine. Special thanks to Nate Wright for his collaboration on this project.

Each of these themes represent clear violations of international law, including the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. By cataloging and categorizing these crimes, this database supports global efforts to hold Israeli officials accountable and builds a strong foundation for legal action in international courts, thus ensuring that these brutal crimes do not go unpunished.
TwitterRedditEmail

Dissident Voice Communications (DVC) is a non-profit meta-company in the public interest (well, depends on which public), we aim to challenge the hegemony of Big Media by communicating... all sorts of stuff. Read other articles by Dissident Voice Communications.