Sunday, September 26, 2021

 

How Chinese investments in Africa are harming the continent


Lei Fang Updated: 24-09-2021 
How Chinese investments in Africa are harming the continent
Image Credit: Pixabay

Per Beijing's Ministry of Commerce latest report, China is Africa's biggest bilateral trading partner again this year, reaching a record year-on-year increase of 40.5%. After a pandemic-induced dip in 2020, trade between Beijing and the continent was valued at almost $140 billion during the first seven months of 2021. However, the elephant in the room at the announcement of these impressive-sounding figures was China's parallel status as Africa's largest bilateral lending partner.

Desperate for foreign investment to shore up their economies as well as their grip on power, increasing numbers of African leaders are turning to the ready money on offer as part of China's global expansion policy, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). While these loan agreements are guarded by strict non-disclosure agreements, Chinese credit comes at a steep price for the people in these countries.

Two of the most worrying case studies of Chinese debtors are unfolding in Djibouti and Ethiopia, offering cautionary tales of the effects of Chinese encroachment. China's partnership with the deeply problematic leaders of these countries had far-reaching consequences for the respective countries' populations and might eventually lead to a backlash against China on the continent.

Djibouti's dangerous pact with China

Djibouti is a small country of under 1 million but is of outsized geopolitical importance due to its strategic position on the Horn of Africa. For the last 20 years, the country has been under the iron grip of President Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, no less thanks to Chinese backing, which has been instrumental in securing his place in power amid rising discontent with his rule. And while Beijing was slow to enter the geopolitical power game on the Horn, its influence in Djibouti has allowed it to catch up in record time by opening its first and only overseas naval base in close proximity to those of the US and France.

Other aspects of Chinese influence in the country have since become exceedingly visible. For example, Beijing's Export-Import Bank of China (Exim) financed 70% of the electric railway line between Addis Ababa and Djibouti, to the tune of $3.4 billion. A year later, the same bank funded the Ethiopia-Djibouti water pipeline for $327 million. The country now ranks first in the world for its 100% debt burden to China as a percentage of its GDP.

Another example is the construction of the Doraleh Container Terminal, Djibouti's showpiece infrastructure project. A joint venture between Djibouti and Dubai-based port operator DP World, the project has become notorious for the treatment of DP World as an important international business partner. In 2012, Djibouti's regulators cancelled DP World's 30-year-concession to operate the terminal, before handing it to a Chinese state-owned company and competitor, China Merchants Group, in 2018. Despite multiple rulings in DP World's favour since then, Djibouti has yet to compensate or restitute the holding.

Importantly, the dock is now managed by an entirely Chinese workforce, doing precious little for the country's chronic unemployment. This is raising wider questions of China as a trustworthy business partner for African countries as well, given that China portrays itself as a "brotherly state" to African leaders and a source of money, employment and ultimately economic advancement. However, Djibouti is a prime example of how one-sided these promises really are: Djibouti's poverty rates sit at 79%, with 42% of the population living in extreme poverty. The United Nations' Human Development Index (HDI), ranked the country 166 out of 189 in 2019.

The proof that circumstances are not improving with Chinese funding can be seen in the fact that three Djiboutian football players who were in transit through Paris earlier this month refused to board their connecting flight home and have requested asylum from the French state. As Sino-African relations expert Thierry Pairault explains, "Chinese money has had very limited impact for Djiboutians".

Beijing's hand in Ethiopia's genocide

This state of affairs is by no means limited to Djibouti, because a Chinese partnership is causing even greater distress in Ethiopia, at the other end of the Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway. In Ethiopia, too, China is the biggest trade partner and financial investor. However, while the Chinese-funded train track is proving unprofitable, the primary repercussions of China's ubiquitous presence in Ethiopia are outright deadly.

Since November 2020, Ethiopia's Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has carried out large-scale military operations against the opposition group, the People's Liberation Front, based in the country's Tigray region. As ethnically-motivated killings and sexual violence mount, the fighting is also displacing more than two million from their homes and leaving millions more without access to food, water or healthcare. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has criticised the "de facto humanitarian blockade" by the armed groups.

As the rest of the world turned against Ahmed for the ongoing genocide occurring under his watch, China confirmed their commitment to his administration in August. The disregard for the atrocities committed is weakly explained away by Beijing's policy of "non-interference". Not only is this stance highly hypocritical for its obvious flexibility when it suits China's interests, but this tight knit relationship is in fact directly impacting the lives of the people. Far from non-interference, the UN's Chinese delegation delayed a discussion of the unfolding events until nine months into the crisis, and continually obstructed a meaningful UN Security Council intervention very difficult. This impasse at international level has, in turn, led to hesitancy among the members of the African Union. While China's business interests in the country remain intact, war crimes against Ethiopians continue unabated.

An unstable future for Chinese investment

By knowingly indebting some of the world's poorest nations and supporting their oppressive leaders, China can no longer claim to "leave their sovereignty unscathed". But beyond the harm caused to the people in these countries, such self-interested projects which bolster the controversial leaders of these vulnerable countries are damaging the reputation of the Belt and Road Initiative, as well as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) itself. Perhaps the reckoning for China is already in the making.

(Devdiscourse's journalists were not involved in the production of this article. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of Devdiscourse and Devdiscourse does not claim any responsibility for the same.)

 

Made for mission life of 6 months, India's Mars probe completes 7 years in orbit


PTI Bengaluru | Updated: 26-09-2021 
Made for mission life of 6 months, India's Mars probe completes 7 years in orbit
Representative Image Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
  • Country:
  •  
  • India

India's Mars Orbiter spacecraft has completed seven years in its orbit, well beyond its designed mission life of six months. ''Indeed, a satisfying feeling,'' K Radhakrishnan who as the then Chairman of Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) led the Mars Orbiter Mission (Mangalyaan) team told PTI on the milestone.

MOM is the maiden interplanetary mission of ISRO. Launched on November 5, 2013, the probe was successfully inserted into Martian orbit on September 24, 2014, in its first attempt. MOM is primarily a technology demonstration venture and all the mission objectives were successfully met, according to officials of Bengaluru-headquartered India's national space agency.

The main lessons learned were in the field of design and realization of systems and subsystems, launch for the interplanetary mission, insertion into other planet's orbit, operation of the spacecraft, and scientific instruments around Mars orbit, they said.

The lessons learned have raised the confidence of ISRO scientists for taking up future interplanetary missions.

ISRO has been continuously monitoring the spacecraft and its five scientific instruments, and officials said scientific analysis of the data being received from the MOM spacecraft is in progress.

On the health of the spacecraft, M Annadurai, who was the Programme Director of MOM, said the spacecraft's ''moving elements are facing some issues and some of the redundancies we have to switch over.'' ''The spacecraft's health is reasonably good considering that we are in the seventh year,'' Annadurai told PTI.

He expects the spacecraft to have a mission life of probably another year.

On the reasons for the long mission life, Annadurai said ISRO had done corrections after learning lessons from the Chandrayaan-1 venture, in terms of reconfiguring the spacecraft and optimization of fuel management, among others.

Noting that Earth remote-sensing satellites typically have a mission life of seven to nine years, he said it was a very satisfying moment that India could establish that around Mars also, a spacecraft can be in operation for such a long period.

On some criticism in some quarters that scientific output of the MOM was ''low'', Annadurai said it was more of a technology demonstration mission. He pointed out that the spacecraft was launched by PSLV as GSLV was not in operational condition then. ISRO could apportion only about 15 kg for scientific instruments, and the time available for scientists to develop them was only 18-19 months.

''I don't think we could have done better than what we have done,'' Annadurai said.

ISRO officials said the spacecraft has already covered three Martian years (one Martian year is about two earth years).

''We have seen how changes happen on Mars from one season to another, one Martian year to another Martian year,'' they said.

Annadurai said: ''We have good inputs on seasonal effects on Mars atmosphere...surface. The mission has provided meaningful data also''.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

 Nfld. & Labrador·First Person

Can a trans man find happiness in Labrador? I'm about to find out

Even as young as 8 years old, I knew something was different about me, writes Mason Woodward

Mason Woodward enjoying the sights back home in Labrador in 2021. He was born and raised in central Labrador, a place known for harsh winters and even harsher mosquitoes — but not for its LGBT community. (Submitted by Mason Woodward)

This is a First Person column by Mason Woodward, who returned to his home in Happy Valley-Goose Bay after his transition. For more information about CBC's First Person stories, please see the FAQ.


I was born and raised in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, N.L., a place known for harsh winters and even harsher mosquitoes. But what it isn't known for is its sexual and gender diversity.

I am a trans man, which means I was assigned female at birth, though the arbitrary gender marker didn't reflect my true gender. Ever since I was young — even as young as eight years old — I knew something was different about me.

All children love to play and make believe, imagining themselves in all sorts of different roles and situations. 

But what I noticed, even that young, was that playing traditional "female" roles just didn't cut it for me. No matter what, I played "male" roles and felt much more comfortable doing so.

As I began questioning exactly why this was while going through puberty, I was left with many more questions and no answers. This was in the 1990s when the internet was still in its early stages. It wasn't as user friendly and didn't have the seemingly limitless access to resources like it does today. No one really talked about 2SLGBTQIA+ issues — an acronym that includes people who are two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual, and more — and it certainly wasn't talked about in my schools in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. 

I had no idea where to go to figure out what I was feeling. I didn't even have the language to figure out where to start.

As the internet evolved in my early teens, I discovered forums, chat rooms and online video games. It was there, while reveling in complete anonymity, that I was able to finally start exploring my gender to try and make sense of the world and myself. 

I was happily able to identify as male and have other people accept it without question. It felt so right. 

Mason, pre-transition, and his younger brother Isaac Woodward. (Submitted by Mason Woodward)

Of course, the fear of being "outed" always loomed over me, making it harder still to be my truest self.

When I was in my senior year of high school, all these feelings of confusion about my gender were too much, so I approached my mother.

"Mom, I think I should've been born a boy," I told her that fateful day. She was confused but supportive, though neither of us had the language or knowledge to truly tackle what was going on: gender dysphoria. 

The conversation eventually turned towards my sexuality, although gender and sexuality are two distinct things. With nothing really being resolved, I continued on quietly living my double life, eventually leaving Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

In my mid- to late-20s, I started to finally get the terminology for everything I was feeling. Before then, I barely even knew what "trans" or "transgender" actually meant. 

It was then that things started to click. I was massively relieved to hear that there were other people out there like me, though the idea of actually transitioning still seemed out of reach … until I saw a friend of mine had started. 

I realized I could transition as well; that I no longer had to hide myself behind a computer screen.

Mason came out to his brother Isaac, close to Isaac's wedding in 2017. (Submitted by Mason Woodward)

By the time I started medically transitioning (starting with hormone replacement therapy), I was 30 and living in the U.K. It was thrilling yet terrifying, since I wasn't out to my family back home. When I came back to Canada, landing in Montreal, I still didn't know how I'd deal with it all. But the hormone replacement therapy was doing its job, and I wouldn't be able to hide the physical changes forever.

At this point, in 2017, a series of family emergencies meant I had to be around my loved ones more. I finally came out to my brother close to his wedding — the same guy who never seemed to question why I only ever played as a guy when we were kids. 

When I did, he wrapped me up in his arms for a big hug and lovingly said, "I wish you had told me sooner, I would've gotten you a suit" for the wedding. 

I can't even begin to tell you what an emotional impact that one moment had on me, and still has on me, to this day.

Months later, I finally came out to my parents. However, they needed more time to come to terms with the revelation and figure things out on their own. Now, they're my strongest allies and my relationship with them is even stronger than ever.

Mason and his family took part in the Pride March in Happy Valley-Goose Bay in 2021. (Submitted by Mason Woodward)

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, I was living in Montreal. I eventually started to look at returning to my hometown. But I was scared.

I had a wonderful physician in Montreal who specialized in trans health care, and things were going well with my transition. I also had a lot of 2SLGBTQIA+ friends and the community in Montreal was so vibrant. 

Thinking about Happy Valley-Goose Bay, I had the sinking feeling that I'd somehow have to go back into the closet. I hadn't heard good things about the health care when it came to being trans and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community was practically invisible to me. 

But my loneliness from the pandemic and the realization that life is too short made me finally come home.

The transition into Labrador from Quebec was — and still is — a bit bumpy, between managing my hormone replacement therapy and finding a local physician that can confidently handle my ongoing care. Although things are looking better than I initially feared, I am still losing sleep wondering if I can truly be taken care of here in Labrador.

On top of all that stress, I'm slowly still trying to figure out where I fit within the 2SLGBTQIA+ community at home. Fortunately, there's more awareness in the community than when I was growing up, and more people who are out and proud, though it's still pretty lonely. I celebrated my first Pride week at home this year, which was amazing. 

I've still only been back in my hometown for several months, and there are still a lot of things up in the air. 

I hope to be able to live a fulfilling life here in the Big Land as my authentic self — but only time will tell.

Read more articles from CBC Newfoundland and Labrador

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mason Woodward

Contributor

Mason Woodward lives in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador. He is a writer by trade and is passionate about travelling, ghost hunting and betta fish.

Drive to end energy poverty gets jump start at United Nations

World leaders are gathering to revitalise commitments to end energy poverty for all.

World leaders gathered for the United Nations General Assembly are expected on Friday to recommit to pledges to end energy poverty [File: Spencer Platt/Reuters]

By Radmilla Suleymanova
24 Sep 2021

New York City, the United States – The COVID-19 pandemic has set back decades of progress on poverty and development – including the drive to eliminate energy poverty for good by the end of the decade.

On Friday, world leaders gathered for the United Nations General Assembly are expected to recommit to pledges to end energy poverty – and take those efforts a step further by hashing out a road map to get it done.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is a clear warning,” Achim Steiner, administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), told Al Jazeera. “Recovery from this crisis cannot be driven by a zero-sum game of economy versus environment or health versus economy.”

Some 138 energy compacts have already been signed by various UN member states in the lead-up to Friday’s UN High-level Dialogue on Energy (HLDE), where activists and academics will rub shoulders with world and business leaders.

The gathering will see nations commit to accelerating previous pledges to advance clean energy for all by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Member states will be recharging efforts to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the targets set out by the global 2015 Paris Agreement on climate-change mitigation.

Back in 2015, 193 UN member states voluntarily pledged to fulfil 17 development goals known as the SDGs by 2030. The ambitious agenda promises to “leave no one behind” by ending hunger and poverty, and ensuring quality education, clean water and sanitation for all.

“What makes this HLDE so critical is the fact that it is taking place at the very moment we need it most. We are not on track to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement while we are not on a trajectory to achieve SDG7 [the goal on energy] by 2030,” Steiner warned.
Progress, but not enough

Sustainable Development Goal 7, or SDG7, aims to guarantee that everyone on the planet has access to clean, reliable and affordable clean energy by 2030.

And while energy access has grown in recent years, it is not growing for everyone.

Some 760 million people worldwide still have no electricity and 2.6 billion people – or one in three people globally – have no access to clean cooking fuels, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The coronavirus pandemic has seen the status quo deteriorate even further by reversing decades of development gains and pushing an additional 97 million more people worldwide back into poverty. Some 118 million more people faced hunger last year compared to 2019, according to the UN.


In his address to the General Assembly on Tuesday, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres underscored the urgency for action ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) later this year, warning that the world is “seemingly light years away from reaching our targets”.

If the trajectory continues the way it’s going now, there will still be 650 million people with no electricity by 2030, the UN warns.

“​​A minimum level of energy access – a simple light for example – is just not enough,” Damilola Ogunbiyi, the UN secretary-general’s special representative for Sustainable Energy for All, told Al Jazeera. “People need enough electricity to live healthy and fulfilled lives.”

‘Does that turn into clean energy financing abroad?’


Three-quarters of all greenhouse gas emissions stem from energy production. It is the leading cause of the climate crisis, which hits the world’s poorest and most vulnerable the hardest, according to the UN.

While the challenges to bringing clean, affordable energy to all are formidable, there has been some positive momentum recently, the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center’s Deputy Director Reed Blakemore told Al Jazeera.

For example, during his UN address on Wednesday, President Xi Jinping of China said that Beijing would no longer fund the construction of new coal-fired power projects overseas.

China had previously poured money into coal projects in developing countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh.

The question, said Blakemore, is, “Does that turn into clean energy financing abroad?”

Chinese President Xi Jinping speaks remotely during the 76th session of the General Assembly at UN Headquarters in New York City 
[File: Mary Altaffer/Reuters]

Back in 2009, developed nations promised to mobilise $100bn per year by 2020 for developing countries to help achieve clean and renewable energy goals. And while that amount climbed from $52.4bn in 2013 to $78.3bn in 2018, according to a recent report (PDF) from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, a group of major economies), there is still a significant shortfall.

Total climate finance mobilised by rich nations for developing economies in 2019 was just under $80bn, which means developed countries will need to fill a $20bn gap, the report said.

While the previous US administration of President Donald Trump dealt global climate goals a setback by pulling out of the Paris climate accord and slashing funding for the UN and its agencies, current US President Joe Biden this week underscored Washington’s renewed commitment to tackling climate change in his first UN address since taking office.

“The Biden administration is clearly making an effort to lay down a marker to the US’s recommitment to global climate goals,” Blakemore said.

The US Senate last month approved a $1 trillion infrastructure bill – the largest in decades – to build better roads, bridges, public transport and broadband internet during the next five years.

But the clock is ticking, UN’s chief Guterres warned this week.

“Promises, after all, are worthless if people do not see results in their daily lives,” he said. “We must get serious. And we must act fast.”
Africa and Asia: Still left in the dark

Three-quarters of people globally who lack access to electricity – some 580 million people – live in sub-Saharan Africa. And that number is believed to have increased during the pandemic, as governments divert financial resources to the public health response, according to the IEA.

A woman uses paraffin light while cooking during an electricity load-shedding blackout in Soweto, South Africa 
[File: Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters]

That deficit can be lethal.


Only a quarter of primary healthcare facilities in Africa have electricity, says the UN.

And some 2.6 billion people globally lack access to clean cooking oil, relying instead on solid biomass, kerosene or coal, according to the IEA.

“Not having enough electricity or clean cooking options can mean the difference between life and death. Leaving billions of people in energy poverty is simply unacceptable,” UN Special Representative Ogunbiyi told Al Jazeera.

Household air pollution, mostly from cooking smoke, is linked to around 2.5 million premature deaths annually, with women and children disproportionately affected.

And while the number of people without clean cooking oil has been declining gradually over the past decade – particularly in India and China – the pandemic threatens to reverse this modest progress.

And clean energy is also key to lifting people out of poverty, says Blakemore.

“We cannot forget that we need to set up these countries to power their entire economies with clean energy,” he said. “If we think of it in a purely limited sense, then we will not set these parts of the world up with sweeping economic growth that is powered by clean, sustainable energy.”

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA
UK
Universities should say sorry to students if staff strike, says union boss

UCU’s Jo Grady says disruption from any industrial action down to the ‘decisions of management’

Students, whose education has already been hit by the pandemic, face further disruptions if university staff vote to go on strike. 
Photograph: Imagedoc/Alamy

Sally Weale Education correspondent
Sun 26 Sep 2021 

University bosses should apologise for any further disruption to students returning to campuses rather than staff who are due to vote on strike action, a union leader has said.

Jo Grady, the general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU), called on students to support lecturers and other university staff who could take industrial action before Christmas and further disrupt learning as campuses try to recover from the effects of the Covid pandemic.

Formal notice of dispute letters were sent to university employers last Wednesday, with strike ballots due to open in 152 universities on 18 October, in the latest chapter of a bitter and long-running dispute over pensions, pay and working conditions, including workforce casualisation.

After all their efforts during the pandemic, Grady said members were angry, morale was at its lowest point ever and she was confident there was huge support for industrial action. In an interview with the Guardian, she said the fight was “too big to lose” and there was “no other option” but to ballot for strike action.

Asked if the union would make an apology to students in the case of further disruption to their studies, Grady said: “I don’t think staff should be apologising for the decisions of management. We are taking action because of the decisions of management.”

Staff were at “breaking point” and if apologies were to be made then it should be vice-chancellors who are saying sorry, she said.

The National Union of Students (NUS) has already come out in support. Its president, Larissa Kennedy, said: “Staff working conditions are student learning conditions and we stand shoulder to shoulder with our educators in fighting for a more just education system.”

Staff who took strike action over similar issues in 2019-20 had widespread support from students. But after the disruption caused by the pandemic, with studies moved online and students stranded for months in their bedrooms, there are fears support might be eroded if lectures are cancelled once again, with fresh demands for tuition fee rebates.

“I think staff will have conversations and I will put out messages with the NUS to students because I think it’s really important they understand,” said Grady. “But I think to apologise for something you too are a victim of would be to send a really mixed message about who should be apologising to students and who should be putting this right.”

The latest ballot over pensions, which affects lecturers, technicians, researchers and administrators at institutions where staff are members of the University Superannuation Scheme (USS), was triggered after employers voted last month for pension cuts to deal with an estimated £14bn-18bn funding shortfall in the scheme.

The UCU claims it would mean cuts of 35% for a typical member – the employers say 7-15% – and argues the valuation on which it is based is flawed. Seven of the 152 UK universities taking part in the strike ballot will vote just on USS, 83 on pay and working conditions, and another 62 on both issues.

A spokesperson for USS employers said: “Instead of punishing students through yet more strike action, the union should formally propose a solution at the joint negotiating committee, the official forum for making changes to the scheme, and we will consult employers on it.”
Lavrov Confirms Contact With Paramilitary Organisation in Mali

26/09/2021 - By Thomas O. Falk IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

More than ten days ago, reports of a possible deployment of Russian mercenaries in Mali surfaced for the first time. Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov has now confirmed contact with a paramilitary group. Whether this is the Wagner Group remains unclear.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has confirmed that the authorities in Mali, West Africa, have contacted a private Russian military company. “We have turned to a private military company from Russia,” Lavrov said at a press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. “As I understand it, in connection with the fact that France seeks to significantly reduce its military contingent that was there and (…) should fight terrorists.”

Lavrov emphasised that he saw no responsibility for the Russian government in this matter: “We have nothing to do with this. These are commercial contracts between a recognised, legitimate government and those who provide foreign military aid.”

Lavrov did not directly mention the name Wagner. In France and other western countries, reports of the possible use of Wagner in Mali had recently caused great concern. In Germany, voices increased to review the deployment of the Federal Armed Forces in the African crisis state in such a case.

Mali’s government announced around a week ago that the alleged plans to hire Wagner were merely rumours. According to information from the capital Bamako, the leadership, which came to power through a coup, is primarily concerned with its own personal protection. Around 900 men and women from Germany are involved in the UN Minusma mission to stabilise Mali. About 300 German soldiers are also in the country for the EUTM training mission, running since 2013.

SEE 




With Merkel Out, Germany’s CDU Suffer Their Worst Result in Federal Election since World War II

26/09/2021 - By Ivan Dikov

With outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel completing her fourth and last term at the helm of Germany, her center-right bloc CDU/CSU suffered its worst result even in a federal election against the backdrop of gains for the center-left and the Greens.

Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) led in Sunday’s election by its chancellor candidate Armin Laschet, together with its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU) received only 24.2% of the votes.

This is the CDU/CSU alliance’s worst electoral score since Germany’s first elections after World War II were held in 1949.

It is a drop of 8.9 percentage points compared with the previous federal election in 2017, and it also the first time the CDU/CSU has received fewer than 30% of the votes.

The decision of Angela Merkel, who has served four consecutive four-year terms as German chancellor, to step down also made the 2021 federal election notable by turning it into the first federal vote in the country’s postwar history in which the incumbent chancellor hasn’t sought reelection.

While the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) has come on top, its result of 25.7%, an increase of 5.2 percentage points from the past election in 2017, isn’t much greater than the CDU’s, and leaving wide open the question as to who led the coalition to form Germany’s next government.

The environmentalist Greens party came in third in Germany’s federal election on Sunday, with its best electoral score ever at 14.6%, up 5.7 percentage points from 2017.

The liberal centrist Free Democratic Party remained fourth with 11.5% of the votes, up 0.7 percentage points from four years ago.

The fifth spot is for the far-right Alternative for Germany party (AfD) which received 10.4%, down 2.3 points from 2017.

The far-leftist “Left” party is sixth with only 4.8% of the votes, down 4.3% from the previous federal elections.

Sunday’s federal vote in Germany saw a rather high turnout of 76.6%.

The results have opened the way for various coalition possibilities although both of the two biggest formations, the CDU/CSU and the SPD, which have been ruling Germany in a “grand right-left coalition” since 2017, might opt to try to form a three-way coalition, most likely including the Greens.

If that proves to be the case, it will be the first time since Germany will have three parties in power at the federal level since the 1960s.

Both the Social Democrats and the Greens have gained more than five percentage points compared with the previous federal election in 2017, which is giving them a morale boost against the backdrop of the CDU/CSU alliance’s grim result.

SPD’s win, however, is hardly too categorical, while the Greens had higher hopes based on projections earlier in the electoral campaign.


(Chart: The projection of the 2021 German federal election results from Infratest dimap/ARD)
Germany election: worst ever result momentarily silences CDU

Philip Oltermann in Berlin 

As the first exit poll flashed up on the screens inside the Konrad Adenauer Haus, the Berlin headquarters of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the party faithful who had gathered in the central courtyard fell silent.


Supporters react to estimates broadcast on television during the Greens (Die Gruenen) electoral party, in Berlin on September 26, 2021 after the German general elections. © David Gannon, AF

The black bar representing their conservative party showed up first: 25%, the worst result the dominant political force of modern German politics – the party of Angela Merkel, Helmut Kohl and Adenauer – has achieved in its history. Until today, the CDU’s low point was the 31% it had gained at the first democratic vote in the postwar era, in 1949.

“Vote what makes Germany strong”, urged a large banner outside the building, showing the head of CDU chancellor candidate Armin Laschet in a line next to its era-defining chancellors. But tonight the CDU looked weak, and Laschet will face an uphill struggle to inherit the chancellory on the back of such a painful result.

Related: Germany goes to the polls to decide Angela Merkel’s successor

The CDU not only has history, however, it also has an uncanny inability to give up a fight. When the television screen showed the bar for the Social Democratic Party (SPD), revealing the two traditional broad-church parties to be neck-and-neck, there were yelps of relief.

By the time it was clear that a leftwing coalition between the SPD, the Greens and Die Linke would on first exit polls not have enough support for a governing majority, young Christian Democrats were cheering and clapping with their hands in the air.

When Laschet took to the stage at his party HQ at shortly before 7pm CET, his speech was almost upbeat: “We knew this would be an open and tight election”, he said. “We can’t be happy with the result, but this will be a long evening”.

Like Olaf Scholz, the SPD candidate, he laid down a claim to lead the next government. Every vote for his party was a vote against a leftwing government, he said “which is why we will do everything to form a government under the leadership of the [Christian Democratic] Union”.

During the Merkel era, Germany’s conservatives had long looked immune to the erosion in support suffered by other traditional parties of the centre-right across Europe. In 2013, the chancellor shored up 41.5% of the national vote behind her party, an emphatic win reminiscent of the time in the middle of the 20th century, when Germany was a de-facto two party state.

Related: The Observer view on the fight to succeed Angela Merkel | Observer editorial

Now that the CDU has caught up with the rest of Europe, it is unclear what the ramifications will be. Rightwingers in the party will blame Merkel for having gutted her conservative outfit of its old ideological core, leaving her successor to pick up the mess. Centrist will say the ideological core has had little to offer to a modern German electorate, and that it is only thanks to Merkel’s skill that the party managed to remain popular for so long.

Many will point a finger at Laschet, whose ran a campaign that lacked focus, energy and a coherent message. The lackadaisical air that has followed him throughout the campaign trail was evident even on the day of the vote: as Laschet posed in front of photographers at the polling station, it was obvious he had accidentally folded his ballot the wrong way around, so that his own vote was clear for everyone to see.

After the result, many commentators will say that the CDU would have won a clear victory if it had picked as its candidate Markus Söder, the highly energetic and waspish state premier of Bavaria.

Sunday’s result in Germany’s south throws a question mark over such received wisdom: the Christian Social Union (CSU), the CDU’s Bavarian sister party, on Sunday night looked on course to get 33% of the vote in the conservative stronghold, the second-worst result in its history.

As the Christian Democratic Union’s digested the result on Sunday night, eyes also turned to the result in the electoral district number 196.

The constituency, in an unspectacular part of the eastern state of Thuringia, was seen by some as one battleground that could point to the party’s future: the CDU was represented here by Hans-Georg Maaßen, the former head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency who was forced to resign in 2018 after being accused of ignoring evidence of anti-immigrant riots in the east.

Maaßen sees his job to win back CDU voters who have drifted off to Alternative for Germany (AfD), mainly by co-opting their agenda. On social media channels, he has railed against Merkel’s immigration policy, “economic globalists”, and a perceived takeover of national media by leftwing activists.

The AfD sees it differently: it has hopes that Maaßen could be the door-opener to future coalitions between the large conservative bloc and the far-right upstarts. One local AfD branch, in the city of Suhl, endorsed Maaßen over its own candidate, urging its supporters to vote for “a candidate with backbone and political experience”.

On Sunday night it looked like the Maaßen experiment had failed spectacularly: not only was the SPD on course to win the seat in district number 196, the CDU rightwinger was also trailing behind the AfD in third place.

The worst-case scenario for the Christian Democrats was always that its party would descend into infighting as soon as the clock struck 6 o’clock on Sunday, and be unfit to conduct coherent coalition talks in the coming weeks.

With the eventual result as close as it is, and no emboldened rival in sight, Laschet is likely to survive. His party will do its utmost to block out the historic nature of its defeat, and fight to keep alive its dream of leading the next chancellor regardless.

The center-left Social Democrats are ahead of the conservative CDU/CSU bloc by almost 2%, according to initial projected results. In such a tight race, the possibilities for a coalition are still unclear

The first projected results are in for Germany's 2021 federal election, with the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) on 25.8%, narrowly ahead of the center-right Christian Democrats and their Bavarian sister party (CDU/CSU) on 24.1%.

Both the conservative bloc and the SPD have said they want to lead the next government, and mathematically, either party could if they secure the necessary allies.

The environmentalist Greens are on course to record their best ever result, headed for around 14% of the vote. The pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) had 11.5%, while the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) had 10.5%. The socialist Left party was hovering around the 5% mark.

The projections suggest the center-left parties were the biggest winners of the election. Both the SPD and the Greens are on course to gain more than 5% compared to their result in the last federal election in 2017.

The conservative bloc suffered heavy losses as the Angela Merkel era comes to an end. They were down by over 8% on the previous election and are heading towards their worst result since World War II.

What this means

In such a tight race, coalition possibilities remain unclear.

According to these projections, one option is a continuation of the "grand coalition" of the conservative CDU/CSU bloc and the SPD that has governed Germany since 2013.

However, with the two biggest parties both vowing to build the next government, Germany could be headed for a three-way coalition for the first time since the 1960s at the federal level.

Options include a coalition between the CDU/CSU, the Greens and the FDP.

Alternatively, the SPD could also seek to partner up with the Greens and the FDP.

All parties have ruled out entering into a coalition with the AfD.

The election of Germany's new chancellor by the Bundestag won't take place until a governing coalition has been formed. This could take months. But SPD chancellor candidate Olaf Scholz said he hoped coalition talks would be wrapped up by Christmas.

"To name an exact date would be absurd, but it must be the case that I, that we, do everything to ensure that we are ready before Christmas — a little earlier would also be good," Scholz said during a round-table discussion with other party candidates on Sunday night.

CDU chancellor candidate Armin Laschet also called for a government to "definitely" be formed before Christmas. In the meantime, Angela Merkel will remain in office in a caretaker role.

What the parties are saying

Scholz celebrated the projected election results at the SPD's party headquarters in Berlin, telling a crowd of cheering supporters that voters had made it clear they want him to be the "next chancellor."

"We have what it takes to govern a country," he said. "Let's wait for the final results, but then we will get down to work."

Laschet said the conservative bloc would do "everything we can" to form a new government, despite the election setback.

"We cannot be satisfied with the results of the election," Laschet told his supporters.

"We will do everything we can to build a conservative-led government because Germans now need a future coalition that modernizes our country," he said. "It will probably be the first time that we will have a government with three partners."

Greens chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock admitted that her party hadn't performed as well as expected, despite winning more votes than in the last federal election.

"We wanted more. We didn't achieve that, partly because of our own mistakes at the beginning of the campaign —mistakes on my part," Baerbock told supporters.

The Greens enjoyed a surge in support earlier in the year, even taking the lead in polls, but their popularity took a hit after a series of missteps, including a plagiarism scandal. Although the Greens don't have a shot at the chancellorship, they could play a role in the next governing coalition.
How does the election work?

The German electoral system produces coalition governments. It seeks to unite the principles of majority rule and proportional representation. Each voter casts two ballots. The first is for what is called a "direct" candidate from their constituency and the second is for a political party.

Any party that gets more than 5% of the votes is guaranteed a place in the lower house of parliament, the Bundestag. This ensures that both big and small parties are represented, but has led to the legislature becoming the second-biggest in the world with a possible 900 seats this time around.

The reason is Germany's complicated electoral law, and the mandates for the "overhang" seats (Überhangmandate) and compensation "leveling" seats (Ausgleichsmandate) that assure the composition of the Bundestag will be proportionate to the actual votes for the parties.

How long will it take to form a coalition?

The process of forming could take weeks, or even months.

Coalition negotiations in 2017 were the longest in German history, leaving the country without a government for almost six months. This is because the FDP walked out of talks between the CDU and the Green party after a month of negotiations. For the last eight years, the two biggest parties, the CDU and the SPD, have governed together with Angela Merkel as chancellor.

It remains to be seen if the process will go quicker this time — especially if the political priorities of the partners are more closely aligned.

How is the chancellor chosen?

The parties put forward their candidate ahead of the election campaign. Once a new government is in place, the German president nominates a chancellor to be elected by the Bundestag. This is typically the main candidate from the senior coalition partner in the newly-formed government.

To be elected, the chancellor candidate needs an absolute majority from lawmakers. So far, all chancellors, including Merkel, have been elected in the first round.
Can an election be contested?

In Germany, any eligible voter can contest elections. They must send a written formal objection to the election review commission with the Bundestag in Berlin within two months of election day.

This commission processes all submissions. A decision is made on each individual challenge, and each objector receives feedback from the Bundestag. The entire procedure can take up to one year.

To invalidate the results of a Bundestag election, an objection must meet two requirements. Firstly, there must be an electoral error that violates the Federal Election Act, the Federal Election Code, or the Constitution. Secondly, the reported electoral error would have to have an impact on the distribution of seats in the Bundestag.

Objectors can also contest the findings of the election review commission and go all the way to the Federal Constitutional Court.

A German national vote has never been declared invalid.

The climate crisis has made the idea of a better future impossible to imagine

Despite all the analogies for this possibly terminal emergency, it is unlike anything that has come before


Illustration: Nathalie Lees
Sat 25 Sep 2021
Ian Jack

Writing in 2003, the American environmentalist Bill McKibben observed that although “some small percentage” of scientists, diplomats and activists had known for 15 years that the Earth was facing a disastrous change, their knowledge had almost completely failed to alarm anyone else.

It certainly alarmed McKibben: in June 1988, the scientist James Hansen testified to the US Congress that the world was warming rapidly and human behaviour was the primary cause – the first loud and unequivocal warning of the climate crisis to come – and before the next year was out, McKibben had published The End of Nature, the first book about climate change for a lay audience. But few others seemed particularly worried. “People think about ‘global warming’ in the way they think about ‘violence on television’ or ‘growing trade deficits’, as a marginal concern to them, if a concern at all,” he wrote in 2003. “Hardly anyone has fear in their guts.”


McKibben’s words appeared in the literary magazine Granta, which I then edited, in a piece I’d commissioned for an issue on global warming: This Overheating World. It seemed a timely and important theme, but sometimes editors can get too far ahead of the game. Many thousands of people across the world felt more and knew more about the climate crisis than I did, but few of them, unfortunately, appeared to be literary novelists or writers of narrative non-fiction. The issue included some fine pieces but was not a total success. In fact, Margaret Atwood did publish a novel that year, Oryx and Crake, set in a world ruined by climate breakdown (among other causes), but the most prominent examples of its fictional treatment, the small genre sometimes known as “cli-fi”, had still to come. Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, published in 2006, may never be surpassed, not even by the Book of Revelation, as the future’s most terrifying herald.

Literature had good reasons to resist. I’m never sure what the German philosopher-sociologist Theodor Adorno was driving at with his statement that “to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric”; only that he might be suggesting that in the prospect or memory of such a calamity, poetry was useless and the pretension of its relevance simple-minded. And so it might be with novels and the climate crisis. Earlier writers such as Jules Verne and HG Wells entertained their readers with versions of the future that were sometimes frightening, but only in a hide-beneath-the-bedsheets way, and against the common grain of western optimism that the future would be better than the past (a feeling that survived the Eurocentric horror of the last century’s first 50 years, and, in my generation’s case, the Cuban missile crisis and the threat of nuclear war).



Who believes it now? The idea of a better future has been replaced by one of a future not as bad as it could be, providing urgent steps are taken; but for more than 20 years (more than 30 years, if the counting starts with Hansen’s address to Congress) the science behind our understanding of climate breakdown was widely dismissed either as an international conspiracy or an inconvenient speculation, or relegated to a problem on a par with McKibben’s “growing trade deficits”. National electorates and their political leaders; media magnates; company stockholders and executives, especially those in the carbon fuel business: few of them wanted to know. As recently as 2015, Boris Johnson could describe worldwide concern over the climate as “global leaders driven by a primitive fear that the present ambient warm weather is somehow caused by humanity”. In 2012 Anne-Marie Trevelyan, now his international trade secretary, wrote in support of a campaign against windfarms: “We aren’t getting hotter, global warming isn’t actually happening.” As the gospel of St Luke tells us, there will be more joy in heaven over a single sinner who repents than over the 99 righteous people who don’t need to bother, but here on Earth it might be appropriate to have statements such as Trevelyan’s (she made several) incised on durable measuring sticks that can be inserted along the high tidemark of her Northumberland constituency, whose coastline is so long and low.

It would be wrong, however, to confine the blame for our delayed engagement to straightforward denialism. Recognising climate breakdown as a possibly terminal crisis for civilisation led to the difficulty of managing it inside our heads. As David Runciman, professor of politics at Cambridge University, wrote six years ago: “It’s hard​ to come up with a good analogy for climate change but that doesn’t stop people from trying. We seem to want some way of framing the problem that makes a decent outcome look less unlikely than it often appears.” He listed the most common analogies: climate was a “moonshot problem”, a “war mobilisation problem”, a “disease eradication problem”. Beyond giving a notion of the effort required, none worked; war, for instance, needed a clear enemy in view – and in the climate crisis, Runciman wrote, “the enemy is us”. Analogies offered a false comfort: “Just because we did all those things doesn’t mean we can do this one.”


Boris Johnson’s climate speech annotated: what he said and what he meant


Climate breakdown is like nothing that has gone before. Like an intermittent fountain, its ghastly prospect shoots high in the air one minute and then vanishes as though it had never been. On 9 August this year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report that spread alarm and despondency everywhere. “A code red for humanity,” warned the UN secretary general. “The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse gas emissions … are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk.” By 11 August, A-level results, Brexit lorry queues and Prince Andrew had squeezed the message from every front page.

An ordinary kind of life goes on. Research shows that in 2020 the word “cake” was mentioned 10 times more often on UK television shows than the phrase “climate change’”, and that “banana bread” was heard more frequently than “wind power” and “solar power” combined. Research shows that four in 10 young people around the world are hesitant to have children, while three-quarters of them find the future frightening and more than half believe humanity is doomed. Research (by the climate scientists James Dyke, Robert Watson and Wolfgang Knorr) shows that if humanity had acted on Hansen’s testimony immediately to stop the accelerating use of fossil fuels and begun a decarbonisation process of around 2% a year, then we would now have a two-in-three chance of limiting warming to 1.5C. If that calculation is correct, the odds these days must be quite a lot longer.

Is there fear in our guts? Boris Johnson spoke to the UN assembly on Wednesday like a boy who wanted the applause of the Oxford Union. He had a clever reference (Sophocles), a popular reference (The Muppet Show), and a reference to a particular kind of English life (“unlocking the drinks cabinet”) that vanished with the Austin Allegro. It seems unlikely that the world can be saved by such a speech, but there is no point complaining. For this dangerous moment, he is what we have.



Ian Jack is a Guardian columnist





Australian PM may not join climate summit: report

Issued on: 27/09/2021 - 
Australia, the world's biggest coal exporter and still reliant on the fossil fuel for most of its electricity, has not made a firm commitment on its greenhouse gas reductions
 GREG WOOD AFP/File

IT'S MINERS ARE MOVING INTO ALBERTA, SASK. AND ONTARIO'S RING OF FIRE

Sydney (AFP)

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, under pressure to adopt a 2050 net-zero carbon emissions target, said in an interview published Monday that he may not join this year's landmark UN climate summit in Glasgow.

The world's biggest coal exporter and still reliant on the fossil fuel for most of its electricity, Australia has not made a firm commitment on its own greenhouse gas reductions. Morrison has vowed to mine and export fossil fuels as long as there are buyers.

Asked about attending the global climate crisis conference in November, Morrison told the West Australian newspaper: "We have not made any final decisions."

"I mean it is another trip overseas and I have been on several this year and spent a lot of time in quarantine," he was quoted as saying.

"I have to focus on things here and with Covid. Australia will be opening up around that time. There will be a lot of issues to manage and I have to manage those competing demands."

The 12-day meeting in Scotland, the biggest climate conference since landmark talks in Paris in 2015, is seen as a crucial step in setting worldwide emissions targets to slow global warming.

Morrison's government has suggested it will achieve net-zero carbon emissions "as soon as possible", and preferably by 2050, but has not made any commitments to do so.

The Australian prime minister told the paper he was trying to bring the government and the country together on future commitments so as to provide certainty for the next 20-30 years.

He has been in tough negotiations over setting a net-zero target within the conservative coalition government, an alliance of his own Liberal Party and the Nationals, who have much of their support base in rural and mining communities.

Climate scientists warn extreme weather and fierce fires will become increasingly common due to manmade global warming.

Environmentalists argue inaction on climate change could cost Australia's economy billions of dollars as the country suffers more intense bushfires, storms and floods.

Asked if he would commit to a specific climate target in a separate interview with The Australian newspaper, the prime minister replied: "I can assure you we will have a plan."

Morrison told the paper that Australia's position as the primary energy exporter in the Asia-Pacific region would change and it was important to make a transition towards a low-emission economy.

The prime minister added, however, that the change had to be managed so "things keep running, things stay open, things keep getting dug out of the ground for some considerable time, you have to keep making stuff, you have to keep eating things and the world needs food".