In the latest news and analysis…
Reuters reports US prosecutors have charged eight executives at German electronics giant Siemens with paying $100 million worth of bribes in Argentina.
“Between 1996 and 2007, the executives paid bribes intended for top Argentina officials, including two presidents and cabinet ministers, according to the criminal charges and a separate civil lawsuit brought by the top market regulator, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The charges were filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
The defendants face criminal charges of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) anti-fraud statute, as well as wire fraud and money laundering, crimes that carry a possible maximum prison term of 25 years.”
The Inter Press Service reports that a new coalition is voicing its opposition to the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) projects, which are meant to provide market incentives for protecting forests.
“The new Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD and for Life issued a statement stating that based on “in-depth investigations, a growing number of recent reports provide evidence that indigenous peoples are being subjected to violations of their rights as a result of the implementation of REDD+-type programs and policies.”
‘Indigenous peoples and local forest communities will not place our lives and lands in the hands of corporate polluters,’ said Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, based in the United States.”
The UN News Centre reports the organization’s top climate change official has expressed “regret” over Canada’s Kyoto pullout and suggested rich countries must do more to meet their emissions pledges.
“Whether or not Canada is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort,” [Christiana Figueres] said. “Industrialized countries, whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions.”
Lords of poverty
The Telegraph reports Somalia’s prime minister is accusing international aid agencies of being “lords of poverty” who are exaggerating the severity of his country’s food crisis to further their own ends.
“Seated in his air-conditioned office, Mr [Abdiweli Mohammed] Ali said the UN’s judgment that famine had struck his capital was wrong. ‘I have no idea how this international community makes the grading. You ask them and tell me how they did it. They don’t know what they’re talking about. But what I can say is enough relief came to Somalia and we provided enough relief to those affected by the famine.’
Mr Ali added: ‘I don’t believe there’s a famine in Mogadishu. Absolutely no. You know the aid agencies became an entrenched interest group and they say all kind of things that they want to say.’
Mr Ali cited a searing critique of aid workers, ‘Lords of Poverty’, written by Graham Hancock, a British author, in 1989. ‘I don’t want to be a conspiracy theorist, but I believe a lot of what has been said in the ‘Lords of Poverty’ book by Graham Hancock,’ added the prime minister.”
The American Security Project’s Joshua Foust takes issue with a new Foreign Policy piece that suggests Afghanistan is “a much better place” now than it was before the NATO invasion.
“Things in much of the country really are not good, and leaving the internet data archives (and even Kabul!) can show that to anyone brave enough to look for it. If the international community had spent $100 billion on development over ten years and accomplished nothing, that would be shocking. So it’s no surprise that some things have improved. What Kenny should be asking isn’t, did we get anything for our vast expenditure, but have the improvements been worth the cost? And could another policy have achieved the same or more at less cost?
Those are the kinds of questions aid and development boosters don’t like to answer. I wish they would.”
Nuclear testing ban
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa Cantellano call on the remaining eight key countries to follow Indonesia’s recent example and ratify the ban on nuclear testing.
“For the five decades following World War II, a nuclear test shook and irradiated the planet on average every nine days. This era was ended in 1996, when the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. But, for the CTBT to enter into force, all 44 states specified as holders of nuclear technology must ratify it. Until they do, the specter of nuclear testing will continue to haunt us.”
The University of Cambridge’s Tarak Barkawi argues the UK’s left and right both hold views of the EU that have little to do with reality.
“At its core, Europe has always been a capitalist project, and is at its most successful as a single market regulated by unelected officials. The EU’s social agenda pales in significance to its economic powers, and as a diplomatic and military actor it has never achieved real weight as a “force for good”. Much less noticed is the EU’s brutal anti-immigration policy. It has built a gulag of concentration camps across North Africa and prefers to let migrants drown in the Mediterranean rather than admit them to Europe.”
Different kind of economics
Oxfam’s Duncan Green lists a number of concerns he took away from his participation in “an initial discussion” with the World Bank regarding the World Development Report’s 2013 edition, which will focus on jobs.
“Third, great that jobs are presented as the ‘hinge’ of development. But from the presentation, it looks like that hinge will then be explored almost entirely in terms of improving the enabling environment for employers. That could easily end up producing a kinder, gentler tweak of the standard Washington Consensus: make it easier to hire and fire and otherwise ‘flexibilize’ the workforce; trade unions are a ‘distortion’ to the efficient workings of labour markets etc (see Kanbur’s point three). Why not, as Christina Weller from CAFOD suggested in the meeting, focus on the enabling environment for workers, starting by asking them what makes for decent, life-enhancing jobs?”