Sunday, November 19, 2023

What Do US Sanctions on Russia's Arctic LNG 2 Project Mean for the World Energy Order?

The US is poised to take the lead and dictate the terms of energy trade in the coming decades. The sanctions on the Arctic LNG 2 are believed to be a precursor of this changing scenario.


Novatek’s LNG construction centre near Murmansk.


K.M. Seet
THE WIRE, INDIA
Nov, 19,2023

LOND READ

The new bouts of sanctions the United States recently imposed on Russia apparently signal a strategic shift in the world energy order. The latest sanctions on Russia’s Arctic liquefied national gas (LNG) 2 project – imposed as a penalty for its war on Ukraine – have different ramifications. Insofar as a new geopolitical dynamic takes shape in the already volatile Arctic region, Washington appears determined to prevent Russia from gaining prominence in the global energy market.


Does the emerging strategic landscape – with the continuing war in Ukraine and the new spell of war in the Middle East – augur well for the international correlation of power dynamic, with all its attendant implications for the global energy supply chains? Though it is too early to suggest a quick revival/reversal in the coming months, the global market is expected to grapple with disruptions and shortfalls in the energy sector, in one way or the other. Perceptibly, the United States is poised to take the lead and dictate the terms of energy trade in the coming decades. The sanctions on the Arctic LNG 2 are believed to be a precursor of this changing scenario.

Obviously, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reshaped global energy supply chains, propelling the US to the forefront of the world’s energy-exporting nations. As Europe faced challenges in its natural gas imports from Russia, US exporters redirected shipments of LNG from Asia to Europe. With Russian oil under sanctions and the European Union rejecting Moscow’s seaborne cargoes, there has been a substantial increase in US crude and refined product exports to Europe.

This shift marked a significant transformation, with the US evolving from a supplier of “military arsenal” to a major energy arsenal, as noted by John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital. Already, indications in this direction have come from US officials.

In a special briefing on October 13, 2023, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, assistant secretary of state for energy resources, said that the US was “committed to working in lockstep both to impose a price on Russia for its brutal invasion, but also to ensure that we deny Putin the resources that he is using in order to prosecute this terrible war against the people of Ukraine”. And in the case of its G7 partners in particular, the US is “also committed to working jointly to deny Russia future energy revenues and to target in particular investments and projects which are aimed at growing Russia’s future energy revenue”. Pyatt said: “That is the reason, for instance, why you saw our last sanctions package including measures specifically targeting the Arctic LNG 2 project in Russia. Our aim there, again, is to deny Russia future energy revenue.”

On October 24, Pyatt said: “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine overturned the international energy order.” With “Russia’s weaponisation of its oil and gas resources, … [it] is never going to be viewed again as a reliable energy supplier.” Pyatt pointed out “the remarkable success with which Europe has de-risked its dependency on Russian gas”. He said “American producers have played an indispensable role in helping to fulfil European energy security …”

Pyatt further said: “Russia which until 2022 was the world’s largest oil and gas exporter, has now put itself more or less permanently into the penalty box. And I think however and whenever the tragedy in Ukraine comes to an end, the market is never again going to look at Russia as a reliable investment location or look at Russia as a reliable supplier. So that means…there is going to be continued demand for energy that the United States produces.”

In his interaction with James O’Brien and Pyatt on November 8, US Senator Chris Murphy spoke at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S. national security interests in Ukraine. He said: “But the IEA projects Russia’s share of globally traded oil is going to fall by 50% by 2030, and their net income from gas sales is going to fall from $75 billion to $30 billion. You’re spending already 6% of your GDP, and you have a potentially catastrophic fall coming in oil and gas revenue. That is one of the things, maybe the primary factor that may push Russia to the table to try to drive a conclusion to this conflict.”

Pyatt, however, pointed out that there is a “structural decline in oil and gas revenue that Russia is confronting”. He said: “We are working as hard as we can to accelerate that trend. We do that through two mechanisms; One is by accelerating our energy transition, both here in the United States but also globally, as the Biden administration has done through the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. …But the other aspect of this is what we are doing systematically to reduce Russia’s future energy revenue. Just last week, for instance, we levelled new sanctions against a project in the Arctic, Arctic LNG 2, which is Novatech’s flagship LNG project, which Novatech set in motion with the aspiration of developing Russia as the largest LNG exporter in the world. Our objective is to kill that project. And we’re doing that through our sanctions working with our partners in the G7 and beyond.”

Arctic LNG 2 project

The Arctic LNG 2 project, managed by Russia’s Novatek, focuses on natural gas extraction and liquefied natural gas (LNG) production. On November 2, the US included the Arctic LNG 2 project into its sanctions list, targeting Russia’s energy sector production and export capabilities. The project is run by LLC Arctic LNG 2, a joint venture with PJSC NOVATEK (60%), TotalEnergies consortium (10%), Chinese corporations CNPC (10%) and CNOOC (10%), and JAPAN ARCTIC LNG (a consortium of Japanese companies MITSUI and JOGMEC) (10%). These sanctions are part of a broader punitive measures by the US against Russia, emerging from the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Novatek has been actively advancing the Arctic LNG-2 project, a significant initiative aimed at substantially increasing LNG production. The project is envisaged to elevate Russia’s global market share in LNG to 20%, and particularly it stands as a one-of-a-kind undertaking on a global scale.

Russian President Vladimir Putin launched the first completed production line for LNG on a gravity-based platform within the Arctic LNG-2 project, situated in Murmansk. This colossal platform, weighing over 600,000 tonnes, is set to be pushed along the Northern Sea Route to the Utrenneye field on the Gydan Peninsula in the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area.

Upon the full realisation of the project, Arctic LNG-2 will feature three liquefaction trains capable of producing a total of 19.8 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of LNG, along with up to 1.6 MTPA of stable gas condensate (SGC). The scale and uniqueness of this endeavour underscore its significance in Russia’s strategy to enhance its presence in the global LNG market.

Russia has dismissed the impact of Western sanctions, asserting that they are employed by the United States to eliminate Moscow as a competitor in the global energy supplies arena. These sanctions do not directly apply to the project or its shareholders. However, concerns were raised about potential complications in how Mitsui and JOGMEC provide support for the project, possibly leading to delays in production, according to Russian sources.

The Arctic LNG-2 project is distinguished by several key features. It represents the world’s inaugural initiative for the serial production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) lines based on gravity-based structures (GBS). The utilisation of this construction technology, coupled with the substantial localization of equipment and material production in Russia, ensures cost-effectiveness, boosting the competitiveness of Russian LNG globally.

According to Russia, Arctic LNG-2 also adheres to high environmental standards, as the GBS construction eliminates the need for a liquefaction plant at the production site. Instead, LNG lines are linked from the Murmansk region to the Yamal field along the Northern Sea Route (NSR), thereby reducing environmental impact. Furthermore, the project enhances energy efficiency, resulting in a more than 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of LNG compared to the industry average. This positions Russia favourably amid the global transition to a low-carbon economy.

The successful commissioning of Arctic LNG-2 is anticipated to significantly increase Russia’s overall LNG production, accounting for over half of the load of the NSR by 2030, as projected by the Russian government. Moreover, the project contributes to the development of the Russian Arctic economy, involving numerous domestic enterprises and creating over 80,000 jobs across the country. Arctic LNG-2 represents Russia’s third LNG project, following the Sakhalin-2 project launched in February 2009 and the Yamal LNG project initiated in December 2017. Upon completion, Arctic LNG-2 is expected to contribute approximately 19.8 million tonnes per year, equivalent to 27 billion cubic meters of gas annually, according to Konstantin Simonov, the director-general of the National Energy Security Fund. Russia is not only a major producer of LNG but also a significant supplier of pipeline gas, solidifying its position as one of the largest energy producers globally. Despite facing Western energy embargoes in response to the commencement of the war in Ukraine, Russia continues to supply more gas to world markets, both in pipeline and liquefied forms, according to Simonov.

The major consumers of LNG are primarily Asian countries, including China, Japan, South Korea and India. Spain and France are also significant European importers of Russian LNG, particularly from the Russian Arctic. The increased capacities of the Arctic LNG-2 project are expected to amplify the volume of LNG deliveries to these countries, utilising the Northern Sea Route (NSR) as a strategic transit route. This expansion aims to enhance Russia’s position in the global gas market, enabling it to manage the challenges of reconfiguring gas exports in the current geopolitical and economic conditions.

Western sanctions have presented new challenges for Novatek, the operator of the Arctic LNG 2 project, as outlined by Simonov. The primary segment of the first line of Arctic LNG 2 was produced before the imposition of sanctions on Russia’s LNG industry. Novatek had utilised technologies from the German company Linde, with other foreign suppliers, including the American company Baker Hughes, also contributing to the project. However, post-sanctions, Baker Hughes refused to supply the full number of turbines required for the project. Critics said that rather than hindering Russia’s industrial development, Western sanctions would serve as a catalyst for boosting domestic producers and technologies

The US is actively collaborating with partner countries to address sanctions on the Russian LNG project in the Arctic. The Office of Foreign Assets Control, a division of the Treasury Department, issued a general license that permits the wind-down of transactions related to Arctic LNG-2. This authorisation is effective through January 31, 2024. The spokesperson from the State Department emphasised ongoing coordination with partner nations as the January deadline approaches.

Novatek holds a 60% stake in the Arctic LNG-2 project and aims to commence production by the end of the year. This project is pivotal for Russia’s ambitions to secure 20% of the global LNG market by 2035, up from the current 8%. The new sanctions on the Arctic LNG-2 project are specifically targeted at degrading Russia’s future energy production and export capabilities, while ensuring the continued flow of energy to global markets, according to a spokesperson from the US State Department.

The spokesperson emphasised that the US does not have a strategic interest in reducing the global supply of energy, as this would lead to increased energy prices worldwide, benefiting Moscow. Despite the sanctions, the US maintained its position as the world’s largest LNG exporter in the first six months of the current year, as reported by the Energy Information Administration. The State Department spokesperson underscored the importance of close coordination with partners on sanctions issues and affirmed the continuation of such collaboration.

Changing energy landscape

The world is currently grappling with different dimensions of the energy crisis, characterised by unprecedented challenges. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine no doubt transformed the economic recovery from the pandemic into a full-fledged energy disorder. As the largest global exporter of fossil fuels, Russia’s restrictions on natural gas supply to Europe, coupled with European sanctions on Russian oil and coal imports, are disrupting a crucial route of global energy trade. While all fuels are impacted, gas markets are at the forefront, with Russia attempting to exert influence by subjecting countries to higher energy costs and supply deficits. Spot prices for natural gas skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. The soaring prices of gas and coal contributed significantly to a 90% increase in electricity costs worldwide. To compensate for the shortfall in Russian gas supply, Europe sought to import additional quantities of LNG.

Key players in Russia’s gas production include Gazprom and Novatek, while several oil companies, including Rosneft, also contribute to gas production. Gazprom, a state-owned entity, remains the largest gas producer, although its share has decreased over the past decade due to expansions by Novatek and Rosneft. Nevertheless, Gazprom still contributed to 68% of Russian gas production in 2021. Geographically, gas production has shifted from West Siberia to areas like Yamal, Eastern Siberia, the Far East and offshore Arctic regions.

Russia’s extensive gas export pipeline network includes transit routes through Belarus and Ukraine, as well as direct pipelines into Europe (such as Nord Stream, Blue Stream and TurkStream). The completion of the Nord Stream II pipeline in 2021 faced challenges as the German government withheld certification following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russian natural gas accounted for a significant portion of European Union gas demand, representing 45% of imports and nearly 40% of demand in 2021, with Germany, Turkey and Italy as the primary importers.

Russia’s strategic initiatives include the Power of Siberia pipeline, a major eastward gas export pipeline connecting far east fields directly to China. With a capacity of 38 bcm, it aims to gradually increase exports to 38 bcm in the coming years. Russia is also contemplating the development of the Power of Siberia-2 pipeline, which could supply China from West Siberian gas fields.

Diversification efforts extend to LNG development, with Russia targeting 110-190 bcm/year LNG exports by 2025. In 2021, Russia ranked as the world’s fourth-largest LNG exporter, shipping 40 bcm and constituting around 8% of global LNG supply. Also, Russia’s focus on the Arctic aims to boost oil and gas production, leveraging over 80% of natural gas production and an estimated 20% of crude production. While climate change poses challenges, it also opens opportunities for expanded access to Arctic trade routes, enhancing flexibility in seaborne fossil fuel deliveries, especially to Asia.

According to estimates from both the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), global energy demand is expected to increase by 40-60% by 2040 compared to 2010 levels. In this future energy landscape, oil is anticipated to maintain a leading role, constituting 25-27% of the total supply, while gas will make up 24–26% (compared to today’s figures of 35% and 26%, respectively). Notably, a significant portion of oil and gas production in 2040 is projected to occur in deposits that have yet to be explored.

Given these forecasts and considering the potential of undiscovered oil and gas reserves in the Arctic Shelf, estimated at 90 billion barrels of oil and 47 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, the offshore resources in the Arctic could play a crucial role in sustaining current production levels and fostering future growth in the medium and long term. This underscores the strategic importance of the Arctic region in meeting global energy demands and shaping the future of the oil and gas industry. However, with the new sanctions in place, and as Washington’s ambitious energy drive gets underway, it remains to be seen if Russia will be able to appropriate the oil and natural gas reserves in the Arctic.

K.M Seethi, an ICSSR Senior Fellow, is Academic Advisor to the International Centre for Polar Studies (ICPS) and Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension (IUCSSRE), Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala.

Fascists Are Racist. Yet, They Are Just as Much Sexist as Racist

 

From the East, Middle East, Eastern Europe and more, regimes want to conquer more than just people of color.


 

Most people want equality and prefer peace over aggression

Recently, former president Trump rallied support for his 2024 election by decrying “the radical left communists, Marxists, and fascists.” But, this suggests everyone who wants inclusion and social change is somehow radical, or fascist.

Most people are not.

As often noted by Medium writers Elle Beau and Katie Jgln, the patriarchy is not about men mistreating women, but about who has power and authority. Any lopsided control that portrays domination and aggression as a primary tool for social order is suspect.

It’s also very important who calls out it when it leads to inequality and even genocide.

At the recent Republican debate, several candidates — notably, as the only woman, Nikki Haley — asserted how strong and tough they were, insinuating that non-dominating politicians can’t handle the global ‘playground’ without bullying. However as a former international diplomat, Haley knows better.

At the debate, Haley even managed to even bring the subject of her high heels to the fight — as metaphorical weapons — as well as calling Ramaswamy “scum.” This may be seen as progress for women who are free to speak their mind, but it’s more nuanced than that.

Appearing tough means candidates are hawkish for war, intolerant of outsiders or foreigners having influence, and adamant that the marginalized, be they fellow women, or people of color, immigrants, or even non-combatant citizens are fair game in social, or literal, war.

This zombie idea of Social Darwinism still grabs for the throats of people around the world, and it often suggests that women, by nature, have more graspable necks.

We are so indoctrinated to think that you must be a dominating fighter to be a leader that we usually do not question such suggestions. Instead, we can blindly follow this guidebook on the road to fascism.

We fight racism more ardently than we fight sexism

In Hitler’s Germany, it was all about ‘race’. The ones who wanted white supremacists to rule as a ‘master race’ were against any ‘others’ who were Jewish, Slav, Black, Roma, or somehow not Aryan.

The master race soon won the hearts of just enough people that everyone else felt forced to comply, or possibly die.

Except that, here is the thing. It was not all about race. It was just as much about sex and gender. The Nazis did not tolerate LGBTQ+ people and they had very definite roles limiting the freedom of women.

Authoritarian regimes can, and do lead to fascism. Across the board, authoritarians fear one thing above all: the empowerment of women. Women represent the subjugated and inferior. All other “inferiors” in the acceptance of such an order also fall into place once this rule is firmly established.

In Nazi Germany, the role of women, even if it had been all about race, was to proliferate more of the master race, Aryan boys and girls. master gentlemen prefer blondes and blue eyes, if possible, but baby-makers could come in every color, size, and shape of uterus.

It’s almost a century later, why fear such fascists now? It’s important to see sexism and racism together for what they are. Today, all over the world there are those who want to limit people according to their color and their genitals.

Liberty is a woman

Please take note when speeches, or ads, or media of any kind advocate that there’s a natural order suggesting we all want to be strong and tough, but only in a ‘manly’ way that dismisses endurance, resilience, expression, and femininity.

We really truly need the strength of all sexes, genders, and colors.

We can examine the preferred role of women and LGBTQ+ people among Trumpeteers. In either case, male supremacy demands domination and/or dismissal. Even a moral code is asserted that insists gender and sexuality must be socially monitored for compliance.

Think of the ideal version hour-glass woman who has no place in the world except as a kind of trophy. Sometimes a broken trophy, but always a feminized, objectified one. The being and voice of these women only have value (temporarily) if they stick to rigid roles. Motherhood offers them another role, to create future workers to uphold the system.

Women in such a system have no bodily autonomy except as granted by men who make the rules. If you think Western women are free, just examine who decides who should have babies, and when. It tells us much.

Today, women have votes and property ownership because suffragists valiantly demanded them for more than half a century. What would our world look like without women, their science, sacrifice, steadfastness, spine, and spunk?

Why mainstream economics misjudged inflation

JAMES K GALBRAITH
, NOV 19, 2023

In his November 7, 2023, New York Times newsletter, economist Paul Krugman raises a pertinent, albeit belated, question: Why did so many economists misjudge the inflation outlook? Despite the near-consensus among mainstream economists that inflation would persist and even accelerate, justifying substantial interest-rate hikes by the US Federal Reserve, the quasi-inflation of 2021-22 turned out to be transitory.

Krugman tactfully questions the illogic of certain inflation pessimists who, long after the absorption of the 2021 fiscal stimulus packages, provided new, unrelated justifications for their belief that inflation would stubbornly remain high. With little mainstream dissent, their doomsaying dominated the discourse into 2023.

Though Krugman refrains from naming Lawrence H. Summers, who justified inflation pessimism with concerns about supposedly excessive savings, the Fed's debt purchases, and forecasts of essentially zero interest rates, Krugman dismisses these worries as nonsense. As Krugman rightly points out, savings cannot cause inflation, and a technical forecast holds no causal power.

Adopting the persona of a naïf, Krugman suggests that economists might have been searching for reasons to be pessimistic, citing two possibilities: fear that well-supported American workers might be harder to manage and the belief that high interest rates support the dollar internationally.


Inflation,And,Tax,Concept,Rising,Graph,Of,Inflation,Rats,African

Krugman acknowledges that various Fed officials have openly stated their commitment to maintaining a strong dollar, with an obsession with wages permeating Fed Chair Jerome Powell's speeches. Krugman hints at a third possibility – that some mainstream economists might advocate for high interest rates to curry favor with bankers, who benefit from larger profit margins when rates are high.

As Krugman concludes, a thorough examination of how so many economists erred in their predictions, coupled with introspection about their motivations, is warranted. However, he expresses doubt about the likelihood of such an introspective exercise within the economics profession.

Krugman notes that the economists he mentions, including himself, are very much part of the economics profession's mainstream. However, he subtly suggests a larger issue: the repeated failures of mainstream economists in predicting significant economic events, such as the 2007-09 financial crisis and the ill-advised turn to austerity in 2010.

The core of the problem, as Krugman highlights, may lie in the fact that many leading mainstream economists were trained in the 1970s, and their worldview, both in terms of facts and theory, remains fixed in that era. The influences of general equilibrium theory, inflation-unemployment trade-offs, and monetarism continue to shape their perspectives.

Notably, Krugman’s reflection on disinflation makes no mention of economists who accurately predicted the disinflation, such as Isabella M. Weber of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and L. Randall Wray and Yeva Nersisyan of the Levy Institute. Despite their correct predictions, economists with alternative ideas often go unnamed and unrecognized, possibly due to resistance from the old guard seeking to preserve their academic, political, and media monopolies since the 1970s.

In offering a polite critique of his colleagues, Krugman diplomatically raises questions about the direction of mainstream economics. James K. Galbraith, Professor of Government and Chair in Government/Business Relations at the University of Texas at Austin, concludes by suggesting that mainstream economists should re-examine their core beliefs or perhaps consider the need for a new mainstream altogether.

James K. Galbraith, Professor of Government and Chair in Government/Business Relations at the University of Texas at Austin, is a former staff economist for the House Banking Committee and a former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. From 1993-97, he served as chief technical adviser for macroeconomic reform to China’s State Planning Commission. He is the author of Inequality: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2016) and Welcome to the Poisoned Chalice: The Destruction of Greece and the Future of Europe (Yale University Press, 2016).


Project Syndicate 2023



THE OUTLAW OCEAN PROJECT (PART FOUR)

From bait to plate – tracking the Chinese fishing ships linked to rights and labour abuses at sea


(Image: iStock | Rawpixel)

By Ian Urbina
Follow
19 Nov 2023 
In recent decades, working aggressively to expand its might, China has transformed itself into the world’s seafood superpower. This pre-eminence has come at a grave human and environmental cost. Part Four: Preventing abuses by tracing seafood from bait to plate proves difficult.

No sooner had US President Joe Biden issued an executive order in March 2022 prohibiting the import of Russian seafood, an effort aimed at depriving billions of dollars that might go towards Putin’s war in Ukraine, than members of Congress said the ban was unenforceable. US importers often do not know where their fish is actually caught, and trade data indicate that nearly a third of wild-caught seafood imported and labelled as being from China is actually pulled from Russian waters.

The embarrassing setback highlighted the opaque nature of the world’s seafood supply chains and has since spurred calls from American legislators, ocean conservationists, consumer advocates and human rights organisations to require US importers to track their seafood from bait to plate to ensure it is not tied to labour and environmental crimes or violations of sanctions on “pariah” states like North Korea and Iran.


Since the Russian seafood import ban took effect in June 2022, at least 31 Chinese squid ships have fished in Russian waters, including several owned by companies shipping seafood to the US and the European Union, according to satellite data and export records.

China catches, processes and exports the vast majority of the planet’s seafood. It has a distant-water fleet that is more than double the size of its next competitor. More than 70% of the seafood landed by this fleet, measured by weight, is squid.

Ranked as the world’s worst purveyor of illegal and unregulated fishing and highly prone to using forced labour, this fleet has been tied to myriad crimes, including cases of raiding Argentinian waters, routinely turning off their transponders in violation of Chinese law, illegally fishing in North Korean waters in violation of UN sanctions, and engaging in violence, wage theft, severe neglect and human trafficking of foreign and Chinese crew.



A Chinese captain opened his fishing logbook, which is supposed to show where, when and what was caught. The first two pages had writing on them, but the rest were blank.

With ships so far from shore, constantly in transit, typically operating on the high seas, where national governments have limited jurisdiction, seafood supply chains are distinctly tough to track. In the many handoffs of catch between fishing boats, carrier ships, processing plants and exporters there are gaping holes in traceability, according to Sally Yozell, the director of the environmental security programme at the Stimson Center, a research organisation in Washington, D.C. “Most seafood is caught by Chinese ships or processed in China,” she said, “which makes the chain of custody even more opaque.”

Some US seafood companies that import from China say they know their seafood is untainted by crimes because they are provided with “catch certificates” by Chinese processors that indicate the provenance of the catch, detailed down to the level of which ship caught it, and where. These documents are far from foolproof, because they are self-reported, often unverifiable, and filled out at the processing plant, not on the ships themselves where the crimes occur, said Sara Lewis from FishWise, a nonprofit organisation that does seafood sustainability consulting. The catch certificates also say nothing about labour conditions.
Tracking Chinese ships

To document the nature of these traceability gaps as catch moves from bait to plate, a team of reporters followed and, in some instances, boarded for inspection, Chinese fishing ships at sea in several locations, including in the waters close to North Korea, Gambia, the Falkland Islands and the Galapagos Islands.

The team followed the ships by satellite back to ports, and then to pin down who was cleaning, processing and freezing the catch for eventual export, it tracked Chinese fishing ships as they moved their catch to refrigeration ships and carried it to ports in China, where the trucks were filmed and followed to the processing plants. The reporters used export records to track the seafood to grocery stores, restaurants and food service companies in the EU and US.



This investigation revealed examples of gaps in tracking at each handoff. Roughly 350 miles west of the Galapagos Islands, on a Chinese squid fishing ship, a deckhand opened the freezers several floors below deck to reveal stacks of frozen catch in white bags. He explained that they leave the fishing ship names off bags because that allows them to transfer cargo more easily to other fishing ships owned by the same company. This gives fishing companies greater versatility but also makes it impossible for downstream buyers to know what ship actually caught their fish.

On the bridge of another ship, a Chinese captain opened his fishing logbook, which is supposed to show where, when and what was caught. The first two pages had writing on them, but the rest were blank. “No one keeps those,” a captain said about the logs, noting that company officials on land reverse engineer the information later. In processing plants, the squid on the conveyor belts was often separated not based on the ship that caught it but instead based on weight, quality, size and type based on the market willing to pay a premium for each attribute.

***

Seafood is the planet’s last major source of wild protein and it is also the largest internationally traded food commodity. Experts cite a variety of reasons that they worry about China’s domination over this market. Political analysts like Whitley Saumweber and Ty Loft at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. say China’s near monopoly over distant-water fishing “imperils the food security of millions of people”, especially in developing countries that rely most on fish for their source of protein.

American legislators say China’s dependence on illegal practices puts domestic fishermen at a competitive disadvantage. “We cannot continue to allow countries such as China and Russia to undercut our honest fishers by abusing our oceans and fellow human beings,” said a June 2022 letter to Biden signed by Republican Jared Huffman from California, and Republican Garret Graves from Louisiana. “Addressing illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing (IUU) is an important step in ensuring that, not only are our citizens eating safe and healthy food, but that their economic interests are protected.”


There are laws meant to block products associated with trafficked, prison, Uighur, North Korean or child forced labour. These laws are particularly ineffective with seafood.

Fishing is the world’s deadliest profession and abusive conditions on these ships are well documented. Human rights advocates such as the Environmental Justice Foundation and Human Rights Watch have warned that the seafood buyers have no way of knowing whether they are tacitly complicit in these crimes. Consumer advocates cite the health risks resulting from the 15% to 30% of the seafood that winds up on American plates that is not what is listed on the label.

Because of the lack of tracking, much of the seafood that Americans eat is also of uncertain origin. That creates potential health risks, but it also means – as human rights advocates such as the Environmental Justice Foundation and Human Rights Watch have pointed out – that it’s hard to know when fish have been caught by vessels that rely on illegal fishing techniques and labour practices.

Ocean conservationists like Oceana and Greenpeace point to the duty of seafood companies to stop illegal fishing, especially as the seas are running out of fish with more than a third of the world’s stocks overfished, a number that has tripled since 1974, according to the UN agency that oversees fisheries.

A variety of supply-chain laws exist to prevent the US import of prohibited goods. Aside from the sanctions on states such as North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and Russia, there are also laws meant to block products associated with trafficked, prison, Uighur, North Korean or child forced labour. These laws are particularly ineffective with seafood, however, because there is limited information about what happens on fishing ships.

Kenneth Kennedy, a former forced-labour programme manager under the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said US legislators and federal agencies often lack the political will to apply most of the anti-slavery or other product-tracking laws because such investigations move painfully slowly and complicate international trade deals.

Federal efforts to monitor seafood have generally ignored the Chinese fleet, even though these ships have the greatest ties to labour and environmental crimes. More than 17% of seafood imports from China were caught illegally, according to US trade data. According to a 2021 study by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, a nonprofit that studies the impacts of organised crime, China ranks first and Russia second, among 152 nations engaged in illegal fishing. In 2020, the US Department of Labor said Chinese squidders are especially apt to use migrant and captive labour.

In 2016, the US government created the Seafood Import Monitoring Program, which requires that importers keep detailed records of their catch from point of harvest until entry into the US. Squid, however, was not included among the programme’s 13 monitored seafood species, which were chosen primarily because of worries about illegal fishing and fraudulent labelling, not human rights and labour abuses. In 2021, NOAA, the agency that oversees the monitoring programme, announced plans to expand the number of included species based on new criteria, including whether the fleet catching the fish is associated with human trafficking.

American customs officials today track only two or three types of squid, according to David Pearl, a foreign affairs specialist at NOAA – a problem, given that there are in fact 30 to 40 commercial species. Even when import records are kept, companies are allowed to conceal their import and export data from the public by simply asking federal regulators for an exemption, which many companies do.

In press releases, on their websites and in Security and Exchange Commission filings, some seafood retailers claim to enforce standards that ensure that their supply chains are clean of illegality or abuse. But John Hocevar, the oceans campaign manager at Greenpeace USA, said that so-called corporate responsibility programmes tend to be ineffective, because they are largely self-policing, lack third-party oversight or verification, focus on environmental not human rights concerns, and typically reach only as far as the processing plants, not the ships where crimes are most likely to occur.

According to Yozell, from the Stimson Center, even knowing what country caught the fish is tough. US federal law requires retailers to inform customers of the origin of most types of food but exempts seafood that is processed in another country and re-exported. If fish is caught on Russian boats but processed in China, it gets labelled as being a product of China.

***

Even companies that claim environmental and labour stewardship have been found to be tied to Chinese ships with crimes and risk indicators. Ruggiero Seafood, which says on its website that it does not sell illegally caught seafood, has been tied to a squid ship that was found violating UN sanctions by fishing in North Korean waters in 2019. Kroger, one of the largest supermarket chains in the US, which says on its website that it “never knowingly” buys illegally caught seafood, has been linked to a Chinese ship that fished illegally in Indonesia in 2020. Lidl, the largest supermarket in Europe, cites its commitment to responsible sourcing under the slogan “A Better Tomorrow”. But Eridanous, Lidl’s own brand of squid, is processed at a plant linked to at least three fishing companies whose vessels have a history of fishing offences, including lengthy transmission gaps in key squid fisheries in the North and South Pacific, illegal fishing in Peru’s exclusive zone, and shark finning.



Ruggiero and Kroger did not reply to requests for comment. Lidl said it is opposed to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and that it raised the findings of this investigation with its supplier, Zhoushan Xifeng, which provided a statement saying it is not involved in fishing offences.

Many larger seafood companies have joined an industry programme called the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) that offers assurance on traceability and sustainability. Jackie Marks, an MSC spokesperson, said the programme is primarily to prevent environmental crimes and tracking where fish came from, not what labour concerns might exist on ships.

Read The Outlaw Ocean Project Part One

The programme does not assess labour conditions or do inspections on fishing ships to check for crimes like wage theft, beatings, debt bondage, or human trafficking. Instead, MSC focuses primarily on determining whether processing plants are hygienic, labelling is accurate, and all ships and plants in supply chains are identifiable. To be certified under MSC, fishing and seafood companies have to submit paperwork indicating they have not been prosecuted for forced labour or related crimes in the past two years, and fishing companies must report what steps they take to prevent such crimes.

The US government has taken action in isolated cases. In December 2022, for example, the Treasury Department issued sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act against the directors of two large Chinese fishing companies, Dalian Ocean Fishing and Pingtan Marine Enterprise, based on allegations of forced labour and illegal fishing by some of their more than 150 ships.

The US Customs and Border Protection agency has the duty to stop imports tied to forced labour entering the country, and in the past five years the agency has boosted its efforts. It has issued such orders on long-line tuna fishing vessels flagged in Taiwan, but it has never taken action against Chinese squid ships, despite the evidence that they are among the worst actors. DM

Read The Outlaw Ocean Project Part One, Part Two and Part Three

This story was produced by The Outlaw Ocean Project, a nonprofit journalism organisation in Washington, D.C. Reporting and writing was contributed by Ian Urbina, Joe Galvin, Maya Martin, Susan Ryan, Daniel Murphy and Austin Brush. This reporting was partially supported by the Pulitzer Center.

No serious effort to reset US-China relations at San Francisco summit

Both Washington and Beijing gave a positive account of the summit and were eager to display successful diplomacy.

NEWSROOM
NOVEMBER 19, 2023



Image source: X @POTUS

The signal from the summit meeting between presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping in San Francisco is that a rocky year in the US-China relationship had a makeover in atmospherics. Serious differences remain and there is the also the challenge of navigating the two high-stakes presidential elections in 2024 — in Taiwan in January and in the US in November, notes M.K. Bhadrakumar, Indian Ambassador and prominent international observer

Both Washington and Beijing gave a positive account of the summit and were eager to display successful diplomacy. For Biden, there is great urgency to claim foreign policy success when the proxy war in Ukraine has been practically lost and another war just commenced in the Middle East. War, after all, is failure of diplomacy. 

Although it was too much to expect a breakthrough in the relationship, the four-hour long talks produced some results — the two sides agreed to work together to control flows of narcotic drugs, resume military-to-military communications, cooperate on risks posed by artificial intelligence, and expand exchanges in education, business, and culture and increase the number of flights between their countries. Something is better than nothing. There was no joint statement issued after the summit.

At San Francisco summit, neither side gave away anything at all. Xi asserted that no matter what US does, reunification of Taiwan is “inevitable.” Xi proposed “peaceful co-existence”, the chosen way of life between the Soviet Union and America, but Biden insisted that “the United States and China are in competition” and that the US “will always stand up for its interests, its values, and its allies and partners.”

If Beijing hoped for a return to the “Bali spirit,” Washington won’t even acknowledge any such thing. The US apparently has no recollection of Biden giving any such “five noes” assurances. The White House readout of the San Francisco meeting does not mention these assurances, either. Clearly, there are substantial gaps in strategic perception and mutual understanding. And there is reason to doubt whether any real negotiations took place at all during the 4 hours of conversation.

A close study of the two readouts — and the media reports later — gives the impression that primarily, Biden was grandstanding before his domestic political audience while Xi spoke with an eye on the global audience.

However, although the summit didn’t appear to have made serious effort to reset the relationship by addressing each other’s vital interests and core concerns, it is a good thing that communication links have been reopened, which will be useful for managing the relationship and building “guardrails” around it and a “floor” under it.

Meanwhile, there is a sliver of hope that on the single most explosive issue potentially — Taiwan — fortuitous circumstances may calm the choppy waters. No doubt, the Taiwan election will be of pivotal importance for the US-China relationship, for, if the two main opposition parties, the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who have finally decided to join hands, field a joint candidate in the January 13 election, it will be a formidable ticket assured of an easy victory.

That, of course, will impact the delicate dynamics of the Taiwan question, given the clear willingness of the KMT and TPP to jointly improve cross-strait dialogues after the election that offers the prospect of something of a welcome respite for the Washington-Beijing-Taipei triangle.

The big question remains: Did Biden succeed in affirming that notwithstanding the defeat in Ukraine war and the forever war just beginning in the Middle East, the US is in “a position of strength” in the relationship with China? Framed differently, is China paying heed to US entreaties to roll back its relations with Russia and Iran? The indications are to the contrary, M.K. Bhadrakumar stresses.

COMMENTARY

Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia: Shared hatred?


Though it’s common in many Western countries to blame anti-Semitic and Islamophobic violence on tensions in Palestine, these animosities are instead deeply embedded in local histories.



L'Orient Today / By Soulayma MARDAM BEY, 19 November 2023


Pro-Palestinian rally in Brest (Finistère), France. Oct. 28. 
(Credit: Fred Tanneau/ AFP)


In Illinois, US, a landlord brutally stabbed two tenants more than a dozen times, resulting in the death of a six-year-old child. His mother survived the attack.

"You Muslims must die," the assailant shouted.

In Pennsylvania, an individual infiltrated a pro-Palestinian demonstration, hurling racist insults while pointing a gun at the gathering from his car.

In California, people vandalized synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses.

Meanwhile, in France, a synagogue was defaced with a spray-painted message: "Victory for our brothers in Gaza. Pride." In another town in France, a message was left on an official’s gate: "Out, you bastard Jew." The wall of a French-Turkish cultural association in a different city was marred with the hateful message, "Death to Islam," juxtaposed with a Star of David.

These incidents represent just a fraction of the thousands of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic acts worldwide since Oct. 7 when Hamas carried out a deadly assault on Israel, which resulted in 1,200 dead, according to Israeli authorities.

In response, Israel unleashed a violent military campaign against the besieged Gaza Strip, which has been under an Israeli airtight blockade since 2007. The unrelenting Israeli bombings targeted hospitals, schools and refugee camps alike, compounded by dehumanizing political rhetoric and calls for forced displacement.

On Nov. 2, UN experts declared that the Palestinian people were "at grave risk of genocide."

The war may be confined to the local battleground, but its reverberations are felt globally. Today, as in the past, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict elicits unparalleled emotions and activism, especially in the West.

While not inherently a religious war, the fact that it is unfolding in the holy land of the three monotheistic religions prompts all kinds of civilizational fantasies, ranging from the most apolitical to the most ideological.

There are for instance those who perceive Israel as the front line in a global struggle against Islam. Meanwhile, others view Palestinian resistance to occupation as part of a broader battle against a world system, one with Jews allegedly pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Now, more than ever, the prevailing atmosphere is fertile ground for confusion with labels such as Jew, Israeli, Zionist, conspirator on one side, and Arab, Muslim, Islamist, terrorist on the other.

One consequence of this madness is the ongoing juxtaposition of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, as if one must pick one form of racism to condemn over the other, which results in two conflicting perceptions.

The first attributes the rise in anti-Semitism to "Muslims," while the second implicates "Jews" in the dissemination of Islamophobia.

For some, traditional European anti-Semitism seems to have waned, making way for a form of anti-Jewish hatred rooted in Islamic and/or Arab origins, often endorsed by some on the left under the guise of anti-Zionism. Conversely, another perspective posits that the traditional anti-Semitism has also diminished, only to be supplanted by the rise of Islamophobia.

In both scenarios, the terms "anti-Semitism" and "Islamophobia" are frequently manipulated for political and ideological purposes.

With ‘Jews’ or against ‘Arabs?’

Anti-Semitism has a long history spanning over 2,000 years, reaching its devastating peak with the Holocaust — the extermination of nearly six million European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during WWII.

Various factors contribute to the persistence of anti-Semitism, with one of the most enduring being the fact that Jews have been long viewed as being a nuisance to the communities in which they live.

Throughout history, Jews have been accused of being a deicidal people, of practicing ritual murder, poisoning wells, causing the plague, plotting against the Tsar to annihilate Christianity, being capitalists or communists, both stateless and cosmopolitan, and serving foreign interests, among other allegations.

In the Muslim world, the conspiratorial dimension of anti-Semitism was virtually nonexistent until the mid-19th century and the emergence of European influence, and later the rise of Zionism.

For centuries, Jews lived under the dhimma regime, a system that grants certain rights and protection to non-Muslims living in Islamic state. This gave them an inferior legal status in exchange for state protection. Christians were also subjected to this condition.

Attitudes toward Jews varied over time, with periods of open hostility or relative openness. But in general, their experience in the Muslim world is incomparable to the systematic persecution they witnessed in Europe.

However, after the Nakba, European anti-Semitism was introduced to the region in the form of conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial, blending with Islamic anti-Judaism.

While it is common to depict Muslims as inherently hostile to Jews, the reality is far more nuanced. Several factors, however, contribute to the clever maintenance of this confusion today.

Israel, as a self-proclaimed Jewish state, has itself endorsed the association between Zionist ideology, the policies of ethnic cleansing pursued by its successive governments, and cultural or religious affiliation with Judaism.

What’s more, in many Western countries, including France, there is a current trend to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, which not only serves to deny the Nakba but also aims to stifle any criticism of Israel. This inclination is not confined to a portion of the media discourse but is cultivated at the highest levels by governments and within mainstream political currents.

Similarly, in recent years, there have been instances of extremely violent anti-Jewish acts carried out in the name of Islam, often exploiting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a pretext. A poignant example is the 2012 attack on the Ozar Hatorah Jewish school in Toulouse, where a jihadist murdered a father, his two sons, and a little girl, claiming vengeance for Palestinian children killed by the Israeli occupation.

Meanwhile, in the broader international context shaped by the fight against terrorism, Israel and its supporters globally have vigorously worked to draw a parallel between the transnational jihadist threat and the Palestinian struggle against occupation. This concerted effort aims to delegitimize the latter within the framework of the broader counterterrorism narrative.

Consequently, the current presentation of the fight against anti-Semitism is perceived by many as a call to unite against Arabs and/or Muslims rather than a genuine effort to protect local Jewish communities. It is seen, at times, as an insistence to rally support for Israel within a context of escalating Islamophobia and racism.

In this context, Islamophobia is not understood as the criticism or rejection of Islam, but as hostility toward Muslims regarded as a homogeneous group, whose real or presumed members are reduced to their Islamic identity — sometimes to a mere attribute — from which they are relegated to an irreducible otherness, justifying discrimination against them.

Like anti-Semitism, Islamophobia can be directed at individuals who are not Muslims but are perceived as such. Its origins, however, are more recent compared to those of anti-Semitism.

The discourses fueling Islamophobia are primarily rooted in a colonial continuum that has been reignited by representations of "the other" emerging from the "war on terror" following the events of 9/11.

Soros deemed ‘evil’

Today, while anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are fueled by different rationales, these two forms of discrimination are interconnected and complementary.

For instance, "Jews" are often criticized for allegedly having what others want but lack, and "Muslims" get criticized for not supposedly having what people think they should have.

In the same vein, former US President Donald Trump's tenure has been particularly conducive to these forms of racism, which some mistakenly perceive as paradoxical.

For example, supporters of Trump, who introduced the "travel ban on Muslims," gathered in Charlottesville in 2017, chanting "Jews will not replace us."

In France, despite the current mood to rehabilitate the extreme right, which some believe has purged itself of anti-Semitic residues, the reality is that, over the past decade, the causes it has championed have been fueled in part by anti-Semitic tropes.

These narratives revive the grand Jewish conspiracy, portraying Jews as powerful, manipulative figures seeking to orchestrate the destruction of traditional societies through migratory invasion, the dismantling of the family unit, "gender ideology," compulsory vaccination, and so on.

An illustrative example of the intertwining of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic discourse is the attention given to the American billionaire of Hungarian origin and Jewish faith, George Soros. He has become a focal point for nationalists worldwide, who accuse him, among other things, of financing the "great replacement" through his Open Society Foundations.

The persistent dichotomy between these two forms of racism is not just futile but also perilous.

This is exacerbated by the fact that, contrary to surface impressions, both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia transcend specific political affiliations, permeating a diverse array of rhetoric at various levels and intensities.

While the extreme right remains unparalleled in its expression of these prejudices, the confluence of both forms of racism is observable across different spectrums.

In the case of France, for instance, President Emmanuel Macron faced criticism for paying tribute to Marshal Pétain and thrusting the anti-Semitic theorist Charles Maurras back into the spotlight.

Marcon’s Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin also came under fire for anti-Semetic remarks in his book, Le séparatisme islamiste – Manifeste pour laïcité, in which he praises Napoleon’s approach toward Jews, asserting that “some of whom practiced usury and caused unrest and complaints.”

In an effort to draw parallels with his own strategy on “Islamist separatism,” Darmanin later references a letter from the emperor, in which he expressed his desire "to reconcile the beliefs of the Jews with the duties of the French and to make them useful citizens, being resolved to remedy the evil in which many of them indulge to the detriment of our subjects."

As for Western leftists, a notably harmful narrative has gained traction within significant circles. This is exemplified by their interpretations of the Syrian revolution: since 2011, a pervasive discourse has emerged according to which claim that the Mossad was behind the outbreak of the Syrian popular uprising. According to this narrative as well, the Assad regime's crackdown on its opponents is justified as being a battle against imperialism and jihadism.

This representation is laden with insinuations, suggesting an underlying bias that deems it inconceivable for Arabs, particularly Muslims, to aspire to freedom and social justice. According to this perspective, if they do harbor such aspirations, they are either perceived as being influenced by "Jews," or potential jihadists, or a combination of both.

In these circumstances, the victims of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia should ideally unite, especially in Western contexts characterized by the ascent of the extreme right and retreats into cultural identities.

This entails a concerted effort to combat all forms of racism, irrespective of the political or religious beliefs of the victims, even when such prejudice arises within their own "community of belonging."

However, a significant challenge arises: It is nearly impossible to divorce the fight against racism from the complexities of the Palestinian question, as some may wish.

Even if these hatreds are locally brewed and cultivated, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict primarily serving as an amplifier, any anti-racist effort cannot afford to overlook history.

This underscores a major difference between moral anti-racism and political anti-racism.

Moral anti-racism views racism as an individual problem tied to fear of the other and ignorance.

Meanwhile, political anti-racism emphasizes the historical conditions that facilitated its rise and shaped its dimensions. It contends that the repercussions of racism persist in contemporary societies, and that they are inherently structural in nature.

Considering the historical links to the Nakba in the context of European imperialism, its evident colonial dimension, and the influence of European anti-Semitism in the ascent of Zionism, it becomes challenging to envision how the ongoing Palestinian tragedy could disappear through a discourse that romanticizes the friendships between Jews and Muslims (the former being considered as the descendants of Isaac and the latter those of his half brother Ishmael) set to the melodies of Arab-Andalusian music.

For the moment, there seems to be no way out of the quagmire.

This article was originally published in French in L'Orient-Le Jour
Translation by Sahar Ghoussoub.

Despite its chequered history, transitional justice is achievable in Gaza

One particular segment of Palestinian society might just hold the key


JANINE
DI GIOVANNI


People mourn outside a hospital in Khan Younis following Israeli strikes in Gaza Strip earlier this week. Reuters


With more than 10,000 people dead in Gaza – nearly half of them children – and many Israeli hostages still missing, it is hard to envisage an endgame to the current conflict. What will the landscape of the embattled Gaza Strip look like when the war ends, not just from a political or governance point of view, but from a societal?

How wars end is crucial because it determines how sustainable the future peace will be. Transitional justice is meant to connect the present to a traumatic past. Consider it psychotherapy for countries, allowing societies to rebuild and heal by addressing their past trauma.

It seems counterproductive to think about how transitional justice will look when the Israeli military is still carpet-bombing Gaza, and millions are seeking refuge. However, it is imperative to at least try because this is how people will come together in the future to address the legacies of large-scale human rights violations.

Transitional justice takes several forms: youth initiatives; peace processes; truth and memory; gender justice; institutional reform and criminal justice. However, at the core of transitional justice is prevention. This is a priority for any peace, development or governance.

We can look at past examples of conflicts and what happened when the fighting ended. Argentina, for instance, went through the horrific Dirty War from 1973 to 1984 during which 30,000 people disappeared.

Thousands of citizens – including mothers who wore white headscarves in memory of their lost children – would fill the streets of Buenos Aires to remind people of exactly what had happened. But it was also a reminder of what must never occur again.

An important healing process after this terrible period was the country’s “Never Again” report for the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons. It was a crucial piece of Argentina’s Truth Commissions, and a window on dealing with the past.

The aim of transitional justice is to break the cycle of impunity and violence. Studies done by the International Centre for Transitional Justice in the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Morocco and other countries showed how transitional justice can prevent future conflict. But to do this, there must also be policy reform to ensure that it never happens again.


The aim of transitional justice is to break the cycle of impunity and violence

Germany has also done extensive work on healing and coming to terms with the past. The German word often associated with looking backwards to find answers is “vergangenheitsbewaltigung”, which translates to “struggling to come to terms with the past”. Extensive work has been done in modern Germany to try to understand the Nazi period. How did it happen? Is there collective culpability? By analysing the Holocaust, the belief that by learning from the bleak past, one will not repeat such terrible mistakes.


Perhaps it helps us to look at examples of where justice has not worked. This is a way of illustrating what must be done in current wars, such as in Ukraine and Palestine-Israel.

In Bosnia, the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia estimated that between 20,000 to 50,000 women were believed to have been raped during the 1992-1995 war. More than 80 per cent of them were held for long periods of imprisonment.

Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the UN special rapporteur on human rights at the time, whose research cited a figure of 12,000 victims of sexual violence, concluded that “rape has been used as an instrument of ethnic cleansing”. Yet very few of the rapists were ever presented for trial at The Hague.

I once interviewed a woman whose life had been utterly broken by what happened to her in those camps. And yet she went back to live in her village and had to face her rapists every single day in the streets. Chillingly, she told me that it was she who dropped her eyes in shame, not them.

Another example of a pain that was never healed is Iraq. According to Nadim Houry, in a report on transitional justice for the Brookings Institution think tank, said “Iraq’s failed approach to transitional justice post-2003 illustrates the dangers of tackling the past without addressing the present”.

“Policies that were adopted to address violations committed during Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship did not heal, but rather fuelled new cycles of violence,” he added.

MORE FROM JANINE DI GIOVANNI

Sometimes justice can take decades. In El Salvador, which endured a horrific conflict in the 1980s, survivors and families have spent years fighting for recognition. In 2016, El Salvador’s Supreme Court struck down an amnesty law that made it impossible to prosecute those involved in massacres as well as other gross human rights abuses. This meant it was finally possible to investigate crimes that took place decades before, but which were still raw in the survivors’ memories.

The Attorney General’s office, working together with civil society, helped human rights defenders fight for reparations and justice. Miriam Abrego, a victim who was shot twice, is one of these advocates. “The government and others keep telling us to shut up. But me, I won’t shut up. We victims are tired. We want to be recognised as victims. We want to be heard,” she told a UN report.

Looking at Gaza being bombed and millions being made homeless makes me wonder whether any kind of justice will ever emerge. The crimes of both Hamas and the Israeli military will have to be carefully investigated. Yet so many Palestinians have become used to not seeing justice, having endured the misery of the Nakba since 1948.

Perhaps one of the most effective transitional justice tools is engagement with the youth. My last trip to Gaza, in 2021, was spent with young people such as the impressive coding institute, Gaza Sky Geeks. Most probably it is rubble now, but back then it was a clear example of empowerment.

Some of the young people I spoke with there were trying to meet their Israeli counterparts to begin back-channel engagement, to feed into eventual peace processes. This is known as Track 2 and Track 3 diplomacy. Will they be able to rebuild these processes and restore trust after October 7 and the destruction of Gaza?

The sorrow of war is that the same mistakes are endlessly repeated. But cycles of violence can and must be broken. The philosopher George Santayana’s best-known quote is perhaps the clearest illustration of transitional justice in action: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

 November 18, 2023


Janine di Giovanni
 is the executive director of The Reckoning Project and a visiting fellow at Yale Law School Schell Centre for Human Rights


A lecture on the American Concept of 

Terrorism and the Palestinian Issue: 

a Legal Perspective

QATAR Published: 19 Nov 2023 -
The Peninsula

On Wednesday, November 15, 2023, the programs of Political Sciences, Critical Security Studies, and Conflict Management and Humanitarian Action in cooperation with the Human Rights Program, organized a lecture entitled: “The American Concept of Terrorism and the Issue of Palestine: A Legal Perspective,” presented by Dr. Wadih Edward Said, Professor of Law at the University of Colorado, USA, and was moderated by Dr. Moataz Al-Fajiri, Assistant Professor and Head of the Human Rights Program at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies (DI).

Dr. Saeed spoke in general about the American concept of terrorism and its dimensions that are related to the Palestine issue.

He also spoke about the stereotypes on which these concepts were built, pointing out that the Palestinian issue, according to American law, does not exist as an issue of human justice and national liberation, but rather as a source of “international terrorism.”

Through this reality, the principles of solidarity and freedom of expression are not protected, and this is a situation that contradicts the fundamental foundations and principles of the Constitution.

The law professor at the University of Colorado also touched on the prevailing intellectual climate in Western countries and its relationship to addressing the physical violations committed by the occupation forces against the Palestinian people, pointing out that there is pressure and self-censorship in various institutions, including academic institutions, on many intellectuals and academics in the issue of showing their solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Dr. Saeed highlighted the repercussions of combating terrorism on procedural and criminal justice guarantees and constitutional rights in the United States of America and its international implications, pointing out the problem of classifying “organizations” as terrorist organizations, and how this classification expands in a way that leads to confusion between the concept of terrorism on the one hand and the right to resistance on the other hand.

He also stressed the expansion of the application of these concepts and classifications to include people who have no connection to violent or “terrorist” acts, which directly affects the exercise of basic human rights, especially freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly.