De ideologie van de PVV ~ Noten

NB Het is mogelijk dat sommige links niet meer werken. Daarom is de inhoud van de links, als het om teksten gaat, in aparte bestanden bewaard die opvraagbaar zijn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 http://weblogs.nrc.nl/expertdiscussies/kleinzoon-van-dreeswil-niet-dat-de-pvv-de-oud-premier-eert/.
2 www.pvv.nl.
3 Op het moment van de publicatie van dit boek, maart 2011, had PVV-leider Wilders zijn nieuwe boek Marked for Death: islam’s War Against the West and Me aangekondigd.
Zijn Engelstalige nieuwe boek gaat over de islam en zal wellicht geen vervolg zijn op de bredere beschouwingen van Bosma in diens De schijn-élite van de valse munters.
4 http://www.bruggenbouwers.com/2010/11/21/recensie-vande-schijn-elite-van-de-valse-munters.
5 http://www.nieuwwij.nl/index.php?pageID=13&themeID=564498&messageID=6482.
6 Voor bijbelteksten citeer ik uit de Willibrordvertaling van 1995, zoals ook Bosma doet, zie: http://www.biblija.net/biblija. cgi?l=nl. Bosma heeft evenwel in de tekst van Jesaja 5:20 ‘hun’ zoals in de Willibrordvertaling staat veranderd in ‘hen’.
7 De juiste transcriptie van takkiya is ta iya, maar voor het leesgemak handhaaf ik de gebruikte spelling.
8 http://www.smn.nl/agenda/147-smn/438-theatervoorstelling-verborgen-liefde.
9 Op: http://www.chezchiara.com/2010/11/remembranceday-muslim-soldiers-in.html staan foto’s van graven van geallieerde moslimsoldaten die in de Eerste en Tweede Wereldoorlog sneuvelden.
10 Publiciste Bat Ye’or zorgde voor een ruime introductie van deze term door haar publicatie Islam and Dhimmitude (zie bibliografie).
11 http://www.comedycentral.nl/.
12 http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/12/14/eerste-kamer-tegenverbod-op-ritueel-slachten/.
13 http://www.gk.nl/index.php?id=9&a=bericht&bericht=7955.
14 http://headlines.nos.nl/forum.php/list_messages/20042/2.
15 http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/3184/opinie/article/detail/2961862/2011/10/11/Massa-immigratie-kwam-vanrechts.dhtml.
16 http://www.pvv.nl/index.php/visie/verkiezingsprogramma.html.
17 In de internetversie van dit boek staat een hoofdstuk waarte lezen is op welke partij NSB-leider Mussert uit zou komen, als hij de stemwijzer zou invullen. Hij zou uitkomen op de PVV. Zie: http://www.nieuwwij.nl/index.php?pageID=13&themeID=564498&messageID=6482.
18 http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4500/Politiek/article/detail/1884013/2011/05/03/Waarom-PVV-politici-thuismoeten-blijven-op-4-mei.dhtml.
19 http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me06/me06_165.htm.
20 Vertaling (door Angela Pfaff): Er is geen land in Europa, dat niet in de een of andere hoek volkerenruïnes bezit, overblijfselen van vroegere bewoners, teruggedrongen en onderworpen door die natie, die later de draagster van de historische ontwikkeling werd. Deze resten van een, zoals Hegel zegt, door de loop van de geschiedenis onbarmhartig vertrapte natie, dit volkerenafval wordt iedere keer de fanatieke drager van de contra-revolutie en dat blijft zo, totdat zij helemaal uitgeroeid of gedenationaliseerd zijn.
Hun hele existentie is een protest op zich tegen een grote historische revolutie. Zo in Schotland de Gaelics, de steun van de Stuarts van 1640 tot 1745. Zo in Frankrijk de Bretonnen, de steun van de Bourbons van 1792 tot 1800. Zo in Spanje de Basken, met de steun van Don Carlos. Zo in Oostenrijk de panslavische Zuid-Slaven, die niets anders zijn dan het volkeren-afval van een zeer warrige duizend jaren durende ontwikkeling. Dat dit eveneens zeer warrige volkeren-afval zijn heil alleen in de omkering van de hele Europese beweging ziet, die voor hun niet van West naar Oost, maar van Oost naar West zou moeten gaan; en dat dus het bevrijdende wapen, de band voor de eenheid voor hen de Russische knoet is – dat is de natuurlijkste zaak van de wereld.
21 http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/2546986/algehele-vrijspraakwilders.html.
22 http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/3184/opinie/article/detail/2938440/2011/09/26/PVV-verlangt-terug-naar-de-tijddat-de-Kerk-nog-het-zwaard-hanteerde.dhtml.
23 http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/3184/opinie/article/detail/2938480/2011/09/30/Martin-Bosma-Waar-is-deuniversiteit-Tilburg-mee-bezig.dhtml.
24 http://www.horstaandemaas.nl/verkiezingen/
25 http://www.tynaarlo.nl/live/bestuurenorganisatie/artikel_content.pag?objectnumber=729773&referpagina=6790; op deze pagina staat een pdf, getiteld “Totaal uitslag provinciale staten, Gemeente Tynaarlo”.
26 http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2824/Politiek/article/detail/2459291/2011/06/28/PVV-er-mag-stem-tegenslachten-niet-zelf-toelichten.dhtml.
27 www.wodc.nl.
28 http://www.telquel-online.com/301/couverture_301.shtml
29 http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2664/Nieuws/archief/article/detail/655687/2005/04/18/Links-loopt-aan-leiband-moslimeer.dhtml.
30 http://www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.eu/new/home.php.
31 Voor de internetserie van “De ideologie van de PVV” maakte ik gebruik van de vorige versie van de Atlas of European Values (2005). In december 2011 kwam een nieuwe versie uit, waar ik voor deze publicatie uit geput heb.
32 ‘The net sample size (in the sense of completed interviews) is 1500 respondents per country, except Northern Cyprus and Northern Ireland (with 500 interviews each), Iceland (808), Cyprus (1000), Ireland (1013), Norway (1090), Finland (1134), Sweden (1187), Switzerland (1272) France (random sample: 1501, two additional quota samples: 1570), Germany (disproportional sample East: 1004, West: 1071). For country-specific information, see Country Reports on national datasets’ http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/evs/surveys/ survey-2008/dataanddocumentation/.
33 http://www.fsw.vu.nl/nl/Images/huwelijkenamsterdam%20Spdf_tcm30-60514.pdf. Ook in bibliotheken opvraagbaar.
34 http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/03/15/buruma-treedt-toetot-hoge-raad/.
35 http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4328/Opinie/article/detail/2842510/2011/08/09/Wilders-is-gewelddadig-alleenniet-fysiek.dhtml.
36 http://www.eo.nl/programma/knevelenvandenbrink/2010-2011/page/Corine_de_Ruiter/articles/article.esp?article=12614467.
37 http://www.eo.nl/programma/knevelenvandenbrink/2011-2012/page/Tofik_Dibi/articles/article.esp?article=12658060.
38 http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2824/Politiek/article/detail/1879201/2011/04/22/Geweigerde-lezing-Von-der-Dunk-rechts-populisme-is-terug.dhtml.
39 http://binnenland.nieuws.nl/642118#.
40 http://www.artikel7.nu/?p=67277.
41 http://www.advalvas.vu.nl/nieuws/1549-ik-werd-uitgemaaktvoor-vieze-kankerlijer.html.




Why The United Arab Emirates Is A Poor Choice For A Global Climate Summit

Landsat view of Socotra
Source: en.wikipedia.org

The UAE is destroying the ecosystem of a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and yet its oil company chief will preside over COP28.

It is no joke; the man who will preside over the upcoming climate summit, COP28 (which will take place in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), from November 30 to December 12), is the chief oil executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), the third largest oil company in the Arabian Peninsula: Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, who also is the United Arab Emirates Minister for Industry and Advanced Technology.

Organizations and lawmakers, including a group of 133 U.S. senators and European Union lawmakers concerned with environmental damage, climate change, and human rights advocates, have denounced the conflict of interest inherent in having the head of an oil company preside over the major international climate change summit that aims to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Meanwhile, in 2022, ADNOC announced plans for new drilling, which, if realized, would represent the second-largest expansion of oil and gas production globally.

The Socotra Archipelago
The Socotra archipelago in the Republic of Yemen consists of four islands (Socotra, Abd al-Kuri, Darsa, and Samha) and two rock islets. Lying 200 miles from the mainland coast of Yemen, it is situated strategically in the Arabian Sea, the northwestern part of the Indian Ocean, and east of the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea—the two bodies of water that link the Mediterranean Sea to South Asia and the Far East. Thus, it is along a crucial maritime route that makes trade between East and West economically viable. An estimated 20,000 shipping vessels pass around Socotra annually, carrying 9 percent of the world’s oil supply.

Socotra Island, the largest island, represents around 95 percent of the landmass of the Socotra archipelago. Thirty-seven percent of its 825 plants are native to the island. Socotra also hosts more than 190 bird species, and 90 percent of its reptile species are endemic to the archipelago. Ninety-five percent of its land snail species are only found on the archipelago. Its diverse marine life includes 253 reef-building corals and 730 coastal fish species. The human inhabitants of the archipelago, dwelling mainly on the Socotra and Abdul al-Kuri islands, lead a simple way of life, depending primarily on herding or fishing for their livelihoods.

All component areas of Socotra have been granted legal environmental protection by UNESCO. It is recognized as one of the world’s five most biodiverse islands with an Outstanding Universal Value due to its unique flora and fauna. In 2008, Socotra was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Illegal Occupation and Overexploitation
In 2015, two cyclones struck Socotra, causing severe human, environmental, and infrastructural damage, and signaling the archipelago’s vulnerability to climate change. The UAE sent humanitarian aid to Socotra, repaired schools, hospitals, housing, roads, and water systems, and set up health centers.

The World Heritage Committee (WHC) expressed concern about the damage caused by the cyclones and the repairs that needed to be undertaken and requested the Yemen Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to ensure the repairs abide by the World Heritage Operational Guidelines, the road network not be expanded, and the restoration of the damaged seaport be limited to its previous state.

At first, the inhabitants of Socotra appreciated the UAE’s assistance. Yet, gradually, they began to observe that the UAE, a key member in the Saudi-led coalition war on Yemen, was expanding its military presence in Socotra. UAE officials started to visit the island frequently. Military cargo planes arrived with tanks, armored vehicles, and troops, although Socotra was not involved in the war.

The UAE likewise expanded the island’s only airport at the capital city, Hadibo, built military bases and camps and installed several telecommunication towers and two signal intelligence systems (SIGINT). These activities violate Yemeni sovereignty under international law and the 1972 World Heritage Convention.

It also became evident that the UAE was entrenching its control in Socotra through its proxy, the Southern Transitional Council (STC). A secessionist group demanding independence of the southern governorates from the north, the STC is funded and supported militarily by the UAE. The head of the STC, Aidarous Al Zubaidi, resides in Abu Dhabi.

The UAE authorities sacked the governor of Socotra and the EPA chairman, replacing them with individuals loyal to the Emirates. They also replaced Yemeni soldiers guarding the airport and seaport with UAE soldiers, assigned a UAE representative to the island, and substituted UAE flags with those of the Republic of Yemen. In 2019, the U.S. government sent troops to install a Patriot missile system in Socotra at the request of the UAE.

The UAE’s ambition in the occupation of Socotra is to dominate the surrounding strategic maritime shipping routes, establish an intelligence hub, and develop a tourism industry on the island.

The UAE has dramatically ruptured the way of life for the islands’ inhabitants. For example, at Abd al-Kuri island, residents living on the island were forcefully deported in 2022 to establish a UAE military base—a violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime. In Socotra, which has a population of 60,000, the UAE has encouraged inhabitants to sell their homes, promising the owners residency and work permits in the UAE, along with a better quality of life.

A visitor who wishes to remain anonymous because of security concerns and who is familiar with Socotra explained that residents are dismayed by foreign occupiers disrupting their natural heritage and militarizing the island. The population of Hadibo has swollen due to an influx of Yemeni refugees fleeing the war and as a result of Indian and Pakistani laborers brought in by the UAE to work on their construction projects. Hadibo itself has been transformed by the construction of concrete and cement buildings without regard for traditional building practices and without the necessary infrastructure to support the growing population, such as adequate waste management.

Inhabitants often demonstrate against the UAE occupation. Many of them have been jailed in “unofficial detention facilities” operated by the UAE on the island. They have also lodged complaints with the Yemeni government, which is in de facto exile in Riyadh, concerning the UAE’s looting and destroying the island’s natural resources, notably uprooting rare plants and trees, capturing rare birds for export and sale in the UAE, and removing ancient stones from archaeological sites and settlements.

In response, Saudi forces arrived in Socotra in 2018 to curtail UAE aggression. Like the UAE, they disregarded the World Heritage Operational Guidelines, building their telecommunication tower and a military base and converting the EPA office into their headquarters. Tensions over Socotra remain between the Saudi-led coalition partners.

Accelerating Climate Change and Biodiversity Destruction
Environmental destruction entails two intertwined processes: climate change and the destruction of biodiversity, which mutually reinforce each other. Climate change is not the lead driver of biodiversity loss; it is human overexploitation and habitat destruction. Protecting biodiversity helps to safeguard against climate change. In the case of the United Arab Emirates, activists, parliamentarians, and the press have highlighted climate change while ignoring biodiversity loss.

As noted, the UAE is responsible for destroying the biodiversity of a UNESCO World Heritage Site: the Socotra archipelago.

The UAE claims that its activities constitute long-term development projects, mainly under the Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foundation; however, these actions infringe on the international legal status of Socotra as a World Heritage Site and its conservation zoning plan. Paragraph 98 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention states: “Legislative and regulatory measures at national and local levels should assure the protection of the property from social, economic, and other pressures or changes that might negatively impact the Outstanding Universal Value, including the integrity and/or authenticity of the property.”

Moreover, these activities, such as the increased burning of fossil fuels to supply electricity for lighting, appliances, and air conditioning in newly built military, residential, and commercial buildings, accelerate Socotra’s vulnerability to climate change.

Uprooting trees release carbon dioxide that they store. The increasing number of cars, trucks, ships, and planes resulting from the UAE’s push to exploit the island commercially is causing a surge in greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide.

Climate change in the archipelago is already manifested in cyclones, the rise of average temperatures, drought escalating water shortages, uprooting rare trees, and the reduction of crop production for humans and animals, all of which the UAE is exacerbating.

Similarly, the UAE’s activities risk the biodiversity of sea life along the coastline and the surrounding seas of the archipelago. Oval coral stones from the coastline and red granite from the wadis (valleys) are used to construct walls around plots of land purchased on the coast by investors from the Gulf states, according to a resident. Such activities ignore the conservation zoning plan, damage the landscape, and threaten soil erosion on the coastline and wadis during the rainy season.

In contempt of WHC specifications, the UAE has expanded the seaport at Hadibo to receive warships delivering arms to the island and commercial fishing ships to load large amounts of catch for sale internationally and marketed as fish from the UAE. At the same time, UAE authorities have prohibited local fishermen from fishing near the seaport, denying them a livelihood.

The occupiers have also imported plants, which often carry alien invasive species and use pesticides despite WHC’s warnings that such actions threaten Socotra’s biodiversity. According to the Socotra UN Zoning Plan, 2000, Article 10: “Importing seeds, seedlings, pesticides, or fertilizers into the Socotra islands is prohibited unless the responsible authorities have conducted the necessary analysis and examination and issued permits in coordination with the council.”

The UAE is also bulldozing land for tourism, marketing Socotra as an adventure vacation site for tourists on visas issued by the UAE while facilitating flights from Abu Dhabi.

It Is No Joke
The UAE is destroying one of the most biodiverse archipelagos globally and accelerating climate change. Yet, it is the country responsible for hosting the UN COP28, with its top oil executive presiding over the climate summit.

World leaders and the UN look the other way, enabling the UAE to pursue its international violations with impunity. Climate activists and environmental organizations are ignoring an urgent biodiversity catastrophe because they are so narrowly focused on fossil fuel emissions.

Similarly, mainstream media see no obligation to report the UAE’s destruction of a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Riddled with controversy, COP28 is at a crossroads; it can either restore its credibility by exposing major environmental violations, such as those of the UAE in the Socotra archipelago, and adopt a more holistic approach that includes protecting biodiversity, or continue on a downward spiral.

By Mouna Hashem and Martha Mundy

Author Bios:

Mouna Hashem, PhD, is an international development consultant with extensive experience evaluating development programs and policies at UN agencies (the United Nations Development Program, UNICEF, the International Labor Organization) and other organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the World Bank, among others. She is also a researcher on Yemen’s socioeconomic and political development. Her writings encompass a range of issues related to governance, poverty alleviation, and development. She is a contributor to the Observatory.

Martha Mundy is a professor emerita of anthropology at the London School of Economics. She began her research career in northern Yemen (1973-77), then taught in Jordan, Lebanon, France, the United States, and the United Kingdom. In 2011-12, she returned to Yemen to work with agronomists on agrarian transformation. Since the start of the war in 2015, she has examined the impact of policy and war on Yemen’s rural society and food systems, including authoring the report “The Strategies of the Coalition in the Yemen War” (World Peace Foundation, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, 2018). She is a contributor to the Observatory.

Source: Independent Media Institute

Credit Line: This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.




Talk Of “Border Crisis” Is Misleading. The Real Crisis Is US-Imposed Poverty

Avi Chomsky – Photo: en.wikipedia.org

U.S. policies created the poverty that drives people to migrate here, despite the lack of adequate social supports.

Immigration has been a touchstone of United States political debates for decades, and several cities claim to be at a “breaking point” as they struggle to absorb and support arrived migrants. But is there really a border crisis? And why are cities like New York unable to cope with the influx of migrants when their numbers are not unusual by historic standards? Have the Biden administration’s changes in asylum laws made a difference? Is there a “solution” to the migration “problem”? Avi Chomsky addresses these questions in an exclusive interview for Truthout.

Avi Chomsky is professor of history and coordinator of the Latin American studies program at Salem State University. She is the author of many books, including Is Science Enough? Forty Critical Questions About Climate Justice (2022); Central America’s Forgotten History: Revolution, Violence, and the Roots of Migration (2021); “They Take Our Jobs!”: And 20 Other Myths about Immigration (2007); and Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal (2014).

C.J. Polychroniou: The influx of migrants at the southern border has sparked renewed attention lately, and the immigration debate is raging once again. In fact, anti-immigrant rhetoric has escalated after Donald Trump said in a recent interview that undocumented people were “poisoning the blood of our country,” while a MAGA radio host even called for the shooting of charity workers helping migrants. First, is there an actual migration crisis at the U.S. southern border? Most people seem to think that the U.S. does have a border crisis, though there doesn’t seem to be a political consensus on how to deal with the rising flow of migrants. What’s your own take on this matter, and why is it that the number of international migrants keeps increasing over the years?

Avi Chomsky: I don’t actually agree that there is a “border crisis.” There are multiple crises, both inside the U.S. and outside, and sometimes they become most visible to the media and the U.S. public on the border — but the border is only one node of the crises.

The real crisis is what’s happening in countries like Haiti, Guatemala, Venezuela, and other places where long histories of colonial exploitation, inequality, and violence are exacerbated by neoliberal economic policies, militarization, new forms of extractivism and displacement, debt and climate change, and pushing people from their homes and into migration. Most people who leave their homes to undertake a dangerous journey in hopes of reaching the U.S. are not exactly voluntary migrants — they are forced out of their homes by desperation.

The U.S. has played an outsized role in all of these crises through its military, political and economic role in the countries people are fleeing. In terms of the crisis on the border itself, of course the U.S. is 100 percent responsible, both in terms of its immigration policies designed to turn Global South workers into legally excluded, exploitable labor, and in terms of its border policies designed to criminalize and punish migrants, using military means to force them into dangerous and often deadly paths to enter the country.

Certain cities, such as New York, Chicago, El Paso and San Diego, claim to be experiencing a migrant crisis. Let’s focus on New York, where more than 100,000 migrants have arrived over the last several months. This influx of migrants is not unusual by historical standards, so why is the city failing to cope with these numbers? Indeed, the operational effort is going so badly that Mayor Eric Adams said a couple of months ago that “this issue will destroy New York City.”

A number of different factors or crises are intersecting right now in places like New York or my own hometown of Boston. Every city you mention has its own housing crisis, which existed well before the recent migrant arrivals. Public policy, the real estate industry and the development industry, and banks and lending agencies have collaborated in a gentrification process that replaces affordable housing with luxury housing and offices. Study after study has shown how poor and even middle-income people simply cannot afford to buy or even to rent in these cities. The concept of supply and demand just doesn’t work when it comes to basic human needs. All people need housing, but it’s more profitable to meet the “demand” of people with a lot of money, so investment flows into luxury housing. So, the ongoing housing crisis is one part of the puzzle.

A second piece is shifts in migrants’ origins. Mexican and Central American migration has a long history in the U.S., and most migrants who succeed in crossing the border move directly to places where they have family and jobs waiting for them. Housing may be crowded and inadequate, but they have a place to go. This year, for the first time, migrants from Mexico and Central America comprise less than half of those crossing the border. Venezuelans are the largest group right now — and they are much less likely to have established communities and families to take them in.

A third issue is recent changes in policy. President Joe Biden’s recent reforms created new avenues for people to cross legally — which is good in that it reduces the risks of dangerous desert crossings — but by pushing people from informal to formal routes, it leaves governmental and nongovernmental agencies flailing to deal with people who otherwise would just have been fending for themselves. In setting up these new avenues the government failed to take into account what would happen to people after they were allowed in. So, there was no plan for shelter or for facilitating work permits for people who have been let into the country legally.

Finally, the federal government is evading its responsibility for the migrants it allows in and hoping that cash-strapped cities will fill in the gap. Republicans like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis who have shipped migrants to northern, Democratic-controlled cities, were responding to this very real problem that the Democratic administration created — that newly arrived migrants have needs, and individual cities don’t have the resources to fill all of these needs. The federal government is also wholly responsible for enabling these legal migrants to obtain work permits.

In the 21st century, successive U.S. administrations have increasingly restricted immigration, and the Trump administration treated immigrants harshly and inhumanely. Now, the Biden administration has made a dramatic shift in asylum policy in order to help solve the migrant crisis. How have the changes to asylum laws affected people who are migrating to the U.S.?

Biden has made some significant changes in terms of policy — but those changes must operate within current immigration law, which can only be changed by Congress. The policy changes are aimed at expanding legal pathways for people at the border to apply for asylum, while making it almost impossible for people who cross the border without permission to do so. Biden has also applied great pressure on Mexico, Guatemala, and other countries to halt immigrants before they get to the U.S. border and militarize their own borders, and to provide refuge for migrants that the U.S. doesn’t want.

In terms of increasing legal access, Biden has opened up special programs for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ukraine and some other “politically useful” countries, and set up an online system for asylum seekers to set up appointments for processing. The online system might sound good, bureaucratically… But most people who are fleeing dangerous situations don’t have time to wait patiently for an appointment to open up. The flip side of the new policy is that Biden has made it practically impossible for anyone crossing the border without permission to apply for asylum at all. This latter policy is a clear violation of international law.

So, despite his campaign promises to treat immigrants more humanely, Biden has also promoted a lot of anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies, including recently waiving federal environmental regulations to enable new segments of the border wall.

Migrant crises have influenced the rise of far right movements. In fact, migrant crises have not only boosted right-wing, anti-immigration political movements but have even led moderate governments to shift their policies toward immigration by becoming themselves more right wing. Are there real solutions to migration?

I think to talk about “solutions to migration” we need to redefine the problem. Migration is not the problem: The problem is the economic, social, political and environmental collapse confronting many poor countries. Migration, in fact, is the solution for many.

In Venezuela and Cuba, U.S. sanctions and subversion have played a big role in the economic crisis. Removing the sanctions would not solve all of those countries’ problems overnight, but it would help to create the political and economic space that they need to find real solutions to their problems.

Central Americans have been trying to solve their countries’ problems for generations. The problems are rooted in colonial economic and social structures that privilege a small elite, cater to foreign investors, and deny land, labor, environmental, economic and social rights to the poor majorities. When the Central American poor resisted these policies in the early 20th century, the U.S. termed them “savages” and “bandits” and stepped in repeatedly to restore investor-friendly order. After World War II, when the poor resisted these policies and sought to restore sovereignty over their countries’ resources, the U.S. called them “communists” and poured in military aid to crush them. With revolutionary movements crushed by the 1990s, the U.S. was able to turn them into neoliberal investors’ paradises. The only solution that remained for the dispossessed and displaced was migration — but the U.S. won’t even allow that solution!

One final question: What do you consider to be the biggest myths about migrants and immigration?

I titled my 2007 book “They Take Our Jobs!”: And 20 Other Myths about Immigration because I think that “they take our jobs” is one of the most common and pernicious myths about immigrants.

Really, the U.S. and other wealthy countries have long functioned on the basis of a kind of dual economy: a formal economy that is regulated and, at least for the past 100 years, has provided a relative degree of protection for workers, with things like minimum wage, health and safety, child labor, and other laws. Meanwhile, in an unregulated, underground economy, workers lack legal rights and protections.

Since the 1970s, the economy has shifted in many ways. The unionized industrial sector has shrunk. Many old and new informal sectors have grown, including everything from fast food to landscaping to gig and delivery sectors. And some industries — like meat processing — have moved away from unionized cities into remote rural areas. All of these industries sought out immigrant (frequently undocumented) workers who they could easily exploit. Undocumented workers, like guest workers — a whole other category of immigrants who are frequently exploited — are unlikely to leave a job or raise their voices because they fear being turned in and deported.

Immigrants take the jobs that nobody else wants — many of them are the workers who, as became clear during COVID-19, are “essential” to everyone’s well-being, but who are the worst treated, worst paid and most vulnerable. Furthermore, they are “essential” because, as the U.S. workforce ages and the birthrate declines, we simply wouldn’t have enough young workers to do the work and pay the taxes without immigrants.

Another big myth about immigrants is that they are a burden on society because they use social services but don’t pay taxes. In fact, most immigrants (depending on their legal status) are not eligible for most social welfare programs, and all immigrants pay taxes. Anyone who works in the formal economy and receives a paycheck will have payroll taxes deducted — income tax, social security, workers comp, etc. Undocumented immigrants who use false papers pay those taxes but will never be able to receive the benefits.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Source: https://truthout.org/articles/talk-of-border-crisis-is-misleading-the-real-crisis-is-us-imposed-poverty/

C.J. Polychroniou is a political scientist/political economist, author, and journalist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. Currently, his main research interests are in U.S. politics and the political economy of the United States, European economic integration, globalization, climate change and environmental economics, and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s politico-economic project. He is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout’s Public Intellectual Project. He has published scores of books and over 1,000 articles which have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into a multitude of different languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Turkish. His latest books are Optimism Over DespairNoam Chomsky On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change (2017); Climate Crisis and the Global Green New DealThe Political Economy of Saving the Planet (with Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin as primary authors, 2020); The PrecipiceNeoliberalism, the Pandemic, and the Urgent Need for Radical Change (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2021); and Economics and the LeftInterviews with Progressive Economists (2021).




Are Political Labels A Farce? The Case Of The (Non-) Radical Left

C.J. Polychroniou

Radical social change does not take place on its own, and surely not without viable solutions to the very problems confronting contemporary capitalist societies.

Political labels, more than any other time in the late modern history, which traditionally begins with the French Revolution of 1789, not only have lost their former relevance but have become a poor substitute for critical thinking. Think for instance of Trump and his ilk when they attack Democrats as “communists” and “radical left-wing socialists,” label Black Lives Matter as “Marxists,” and link the radical left in general with anarchism and looters, with people “who want to tear down our statues, erase our history, indoctrinate our children or trample our freedoms.

What’s in a name? Let’s talk about the Radical Left by explaining why it is in fact not radical and why it’s failing to become relevant in today’s capitalist environment. Let’s talk specifically about Europe’s Radical Left since we actually have radical left political parties across Europe. The United States doesn’t even have a left-wing party, and what passes for radical left-wing economic agenda in the U.S. (thanks to the contributions of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) has been mainstream party agenda in Europe for several decades. In fact, rarely does one come across a far-right party in Europe that favors a free market economy. And many of them, such as Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party, favor essentially “socialist” economic policies. Targeting a working-class vote, Le Pen’s far-right party promotes an anti-globalization economic agenda in which the “protection’ of workers takes priority over economic “freedoms.” Setting prices, taxing the rich, giving out subsidies to collapsing sectors of the economy, and retirement at sixty are part of the “social populism” agenda of the National Rally party, which explains why it has attracted traditional left-wing voters.

The political and ideological profile of today’s European radical left parties and organizations has been largely shaped by the experience of the collapse of communism.
Those parties that did not remain committed to communism after the dissolution of the communist bloc and the integration of the former communist countries into the Western capitalist system shifted to a variety of different left-reformist political outlooks, ranging from an exclusive emphasis on “green politics” (ecological parties of the Red-Green type found mostly in Scandinavian countries) to the adoption of postmodern radicalism and the politics of multiculturalism built around a resistance project that emphasizes primarily non-class forms of oppression. In Greece, the Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) combined a blend of ideological perspectives, ranging from anarcho-communism and environmentalism to Maoism, Eurocommunism, and even social democracy.
Today’s radical left parties in Europe represent what we might call “left reformism.” None of them qualify as being “anti-system,” and most of them are “anti-neoliberal” rather than “anti-capitalist.”

There are two key factors that explain the shift toward “left reformism.” First, the collapse of “actually existing socialism” itself and the overall lack of ideological appeal that Soviet-style communism had on the majority of western European citizenry; and, second, the fundamental changes that have taken place inside capitalist societies since the end of World War II, not the least of which have been the growth of the middle class and the sharp decline of the industrial proletariat—even though we seem to be returning to a stage where the poor working class appears to be growing rapidly while the middle class is shrinking.

But there is a third factor, less frequently mentioned in explanations for the shift on the part of Europe’s radical left-wing parties to “left reformism,” which is none other than the realization that revolutions represent rare phenomena while the few revolutions that succeeded have taken place in the periphery of the global capital system.

Marx may have been right when he wrote in The Communist Manifestothat “the proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains,” but the Western proletariat, even before World War II, seems to have felt that it had much to lose by risking a socialist/communist revolution. Fully aware of the fact that economic deprivation and political oppression can drive people into rebellion, the capitalist classes and their political representatives sought to prevent this scenario from happening by increasing the standard of living for working-class people and by providing some type of social security for them, as well as certain types of freedoms and individual rights. Bismarck’s social welfare reforms in the 1880s were undertaken with the explicit aim of improving the position of German workers in order to keep socialism/communism and radicalism at bay. In the United States in the 1930s, the New Deal was intended by its planners to keep capitalism alive and stave off social unrest and rebellion.

The expansion of the social state in Europe after World War II was also undertaken with similar objectives in mind, although the ideological and repressive state apparatuses played an equally crucial role in the legitimization and reproduction of the capitalist social order. The U.S. intervened to suppress popular progressive forces and defend the interests of U.S. corporations not only in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, but also in western Europe, including countries like Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Holland, and France. The CIA interfered even in British politics, and it is estimated that it spent hundreds of millions of dollars (more than $65 million in Italy alone between 1945 and 1968) on various subversive operations against parties of the left, trade unions, and political activists in postwar Western Europe alone.

But let’s return to the politics of “left reformism.” In today’s global capitalist environment, “left reformism” implies by necessity a certain degree of inevitable ideological and political ambiguity as well as plenty of confusion around economic policy. Social classes are not divided into two highly rigid groups—rich and poor, or capitalists and workers—nor do ideological proclivities or political affiliations stem naturally from one’s given social class. Support for France’s National Rally party is increasingly derived from various social classes, but with a common outlook: They stand for traditional conservative values, including deep-seated nationalism, defense of the French welfare state and of national industry, and an overtly anti-immigration policy mixed with a strong dose of anti-EU sentiments.

If the multilayered structure of social class and social stratification and the non-determined correspondence between ideology/politics and class present an inherent problem for the Radical Left, so does the ever-increasing global character of capitalism, including the entire project of the European Union.

In a truly globalized environment, and with global economic and financial elites literally dictating—either directly or indirectly via the enormous power they hold over economic resources—political processes and policies, the strategies to be pursued for the radical restructuring of the system’s operations and ultimately for the political and economic transformation from capitalism to socialism entail far greater difficulties and substantially more significant risks than ever before. Indeed, as the current eurozone regime demonstrates, even fairly “capitalist-friendly” policies that seek to provide a less extreme balance between capital and labor, such as those inspired by Keynesianism, have become extremely difficult to implement. The balance of power has shifted so overwhelmingly to capital that perhaps nothing short of massive popular rebellions might work in order to change the system. That, however, just isn’t in the cards in today’s Europe for all the reasons mentioned above.

The ambiguity on the part of the Radical Left’s project as to the task of “reforming” or “transforming” capitalism isn’t of course merely because of the greater challenges that global capitalism poses to this undertaking but also because of a rather serious gap in the political economy spectrum.

To put the matter bluntly, while Marxist and leftist theoreticians have made huge progress toward our understanding of capitalism as a socioeconomic system, contributions to the literature on the political economy of alternative economic systems (i.e., socialism or some other variant of people-centered economics) remains a rather underdeveloped area of study, with our understanding of the economics of socialism (growth, efficiency, distribution and even the relationship of socialism to the regulation of social relations by markets) being scant at best. Little wonder then why there are so few—and far in between—fully fledged alternative visions or why the Radical Left has failed to become politically relevant on the European political scene since the collapse of communism.

Notions like cooperation, equality, and participatory and radical democracy (ideas which, shockingly enough, are rarely raised or explored by the intellectuals or the parties of the Radical Left in Europe) are in urgent need of discussion and elaboration if the hope is to make inroads on the project of envisioning and working toward building a new social order with mass support.
Likewise, issues such as the fit between immigration and the domestic economy (an issue which, again, the Radical Left appears simply incapable or unwilling to address beyond vague humanistic proclamations, thereby allowing right-wing and far-right parties in Europe to gain popular support at its expense), the balance between environmental protection and growth, public employment schemes for tackling the massive problem of unemployment, and alternative forms of ownership and means of production need to be addressed and raised to the highest level of public awareness for the successful transformation of capitalism into a more humane and just social order.

Undoubtedly, this is a tall order. But radical social change does not take place on its own, and surely not without viable solutions to the very problems confronting contemporary capitalist societies. Indeed, in a way, what distinguishes the old communist left from the (non-)Radical Left of today is that “at least the Bolsheviks in Russia had a plan.”

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/political-labels-radical-left

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. His latest books are The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic and the Urgent Need for Social Change (A collection of interviews with Noam Chomsky; Haymarket Books, 2021), and Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists (Verso, 2021).




Does Modern Science Already Allow Us To Manage The Weather?

John P. Ruehl – Source: Independent Media Institute

11-23-2023 ~ Weather manipulation is increasingly common around the world, but the dangers of privatization and weaponization abound.

As winter settles over New Delhi, cold air sinks, trapping pollution in the city. Smoke from seasonal fires stemming from farming practices in India’s north further reduces the city’s air quality, which typically ranks the worst in the world. New Delhi’s government has sought prior solutions to easing pollution, including traffic restrictions and air-filtration towers. But in 2023, it has turned to the controversial practice of cloudseeding to try and increase rainfall and improve air quality for the first time.

While the effectiveness of cloudseeding remains a debate, that hasn’t deterred more than 50 countries from investing millions annually in weather modification initiatives. Mexico recently stepped up its cloudseeding efforts to combat drought, having begun its first program in 2020, while Indonesia has used cloudseeding to try and fill up dams and prevent flammable vegetation from drying in anticipation of this year’s fire season.

The roots of weather manipulation trace back to 1946, when U.S. scientists Vincent J. Schaefer and Irving Langmuir dispersed dry ice particles into a cloud, which caused ice crystals and visible snowfall. Since then, the U.S. government has deployed cloudseeding programs, primarily in Western states like Montana, Wyoming, and Nevada, to try to increase rain and snowfall.

This technology also caught the eye of the private sphere. Vail Ski Resort in Colorado has used Western Weather Consultants to deploy generators on mountaintops to induce snowfall since 1975, with dozens more operating in the region. Since 1997, the West Texas Weather Modification Association has worked to increase rainfall over southwestern Texas. The UK’s Oliver’s Travels meanwhile offers cloudseeding services to ensure clear weather for weddings in France.

The principal use of this technology has been to enhance precipitation, but other uses have been explored. From 1962 to 1983, a U.S. government initiative called Project Stormfury tried to weaken tropical cyclones with no real success, while attempts through other programs to limit the effects of storm-to-ground lightning also proved inadequate. However, Project Cold Wand saw more successful experimentation with fog dissipation techniques in the early 1970s, while U.S. airlines have also used fog dissipation technology for decades.

The Kremlin has also long experimented with this technology. Following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the Soviet Union used cloudseeding to increase rain in the region to wash radioactive particles from the air and prevent them from reaching Moscow. Today, Russia employs this technology to clear skies for its annual Victory Day Parade in Moscow, while hail suppression technology has also been used by Russia to protect crops and property.

Other governments have also dedicated significant resources to cloudseeding for decades. Since 1951, France’s Association to Suppress Atmospheric Plagues has grown to an extensive nationwide program, while Thailand’s Royal Rainmaking Project has been active since 1969. In recent years, cloudseeding has grown increasingly popular in the water-stricken Middle East and parts of Africa. Morocco, Ethiopia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all have national programs, while several more countries are considering it.

However, China has established itself as a leader in weather modification over the last two decades. China’s “weather army” employs almost 50,000 people, thousands of rocket launchers and cannons, and dozens of planes, largely through the China Meteorological Association Weather Modification Center. In 2006, cloudseeding was used to clean sand off Beijing after a severe sandstorm. Two years later, cloudseeding was used to reduce pollution and pave the way for sunny weather before the 2008 Summer Olympics, practices that were repeated for the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing.

China’s cloudseeding is not just limited to its capital city, with most Chinese cities employing their own programs. Additionally, the Yangtze River basin, currently in severe drought, saw 241 flights and 15,000 rocket launches between June and November 2022, alleged to have resulted in “8.56 billion metric tons of additional rainfall” according to Chinese government sources.

Most supporters estimate that successful cloudseeding can result in a 10 to 30 percent increase in precipitation, but doubts persist over these figures. It also remains difficult to document increases in rainfall and accurately decide where precipitation will fall. In light of these limitations (as well as the questionable economic viability of weather modification), Israel halted its 50-year cloudseeding program in 2021.

Since the inception of cloudseeding technology, however, there has been concern over its potential for weaponization. In 1957, the president’s advisory committee on weather control warned that weather manipulation could develop more destructive weapons than nuclear bombs.

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. government’s cloudseeding Project Popeye spent millions of dollars between 1967 and 1972 to extend Vietnam’s monsoon season in an attempt to flood the Ho Chi Minh Trail and disrupt the North Vietnamese Army’s supply lines. The Soviet Union is also suspected of using cloudseeding to increase rainfall in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan War to similarly turn areas into mud and disrupt the movements of the Mujahideen.

But public concern over the weaponization of weather prompted the signing of the National Weather Modification Policy Act of 1976, and the U.S., along with other countries, signed the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Technique (CONMED) in 1977 that requires signatories refrain from militarizing weather modification.

Nonetheless, concern remains over how current technology and practices could ignite conflicts. Iranian officials accused Israel and the UAE of “working to make Iranian clouds not rain” in 2018, while China’s expansive plans for its cloudseeding operations have also brought concern from India.

Alternate methods of weather manipulation are also underway. In 1996, a U.S. Air Force report titled “Weather as a force multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” discussed how the advancement of surveillance technologies could see clouds made of smart particles deployed to generate “intelligent fog.” There have also been projects designed to trigger lightning within clouds, which could complicate operations for the United States’ heralded F-35 plane, which cannot fly within 25 miles of a thunderstorm.

Outside militarization initiatives, new weather modification projects are also on the horizon. Proposals to add nutrients to the ocean to encourage phytoplankton growth and increase carbon absorption, or ocean fertilization, are increasingly discussed. Sea and cloud brightening projects to reflect sunlight and reduce global warming are also becoming mainstream ideas, despite ongoing uncertainty about their destructive potential or ineffective results.

As weather modification technology continues to develop, we should be wary of further privatization and militarization. Cloudseeding privatization, for instance, has become increasingly globalized. Based in Fargo, North Dakota, Weather Modification, Inc. provides cloudseeding services to India. Switzerland’s Meteo Systems has been active in the UAE for over a decade.

With dozens of countries and companies now offering cloudseeding services, policymakers should design and enforce new regulations for weather modification. While agreements and institutions like CONMED and the World Meteorological Organization Expert Team on Weather Modification play important roles, the stage is now crowded with various actors vying for a larger role in applying the technology.

Global coordination should be seen as a necessary undertaking to avoid the potentially catastrophic effects of manipulating the weather. Before governments and companies embark on large-scale efforts to alter the weather, additional regulation in anticipation of future technologies can serve as a protective measure to avoid environmental crises and mitigate the rise of conspiracy theories.

By John P. Ruehl

Author Bio: This article was produced by Globetrotter.

John P. Ruehl is an Australian-American journalist living in Washington, D.C., and a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute. He is a contributing editor to Strategic Policy and a contributor to several other foreign affairs publications. His book, Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas’, was published in December 2022.

Source: Globetrotter




Palm Oil In Common Household Products Is Destroying The World’s ‘Orangutan Capital’

Laurel Sutherlin – Photo: Rainforest Action Network

A nationally protected wildlife reserve in Indonesia is under attack by popular, big-name brands.

Picture a rhinoceros in the rainforest. Add a herd of elephants, families of orangutans swinging through the treetops, and tigers prowling the understory, and there is only one place in the world you could be.

Indonesia’s Leuser Ecosystem is one of Earth’s most ancient forest ecosystems, a laboratory of life’s potential where the alchemy of evolution has been allowed to experiment uninterrupted for millennia. And the results are astounding. Green upon green, vines hanging from towering old-growth trees, moss growing on ferns and bromeliads… you get the picture.

It is the kind of place one imagines primeval nature to be: wild, abundant, and impenetrable.

Tragically, undercover field investigations in 2019 by my organization, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), exposed major global brands—including Procter and Gamble, Unilever, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Mondelēz, and Nissin Foods—sourcing illegal palm oil grown within the nationally protected Rawa Singkil Wildlife Reserve. In September 2022, we published the Carbon Bomb Scandals report, showing that the same brands were still sourcing illegal palm oil from the reserve.

With more than a century of proud conservation history responsible for its continued existence, the province of Aceh where the Leuser resides is, against all odds, a sparkling ecological jewel standing in stark contrast to the devastated landscape surrounding it. Most of the rest of Sumatra—once known as Indonesia’s “Emerald of the Equator”—and sadly, much of the rest of lowland rainforests across Indonesia, too, have been exploited and denuded by wave after wave of scorched-earth policy, industry, colonial extraction, and modern-day corrupt corporate greed. What has already been lost is incalculable, but in this unique ecosystem, there remains a rare opportunity to stop the cycle of destruction and protect a globally valuable treasure before it’s too late.

The Leuser Ecosystem is considered the heart of Southeast Asia’s rainforest region, which, alongside the Amazon in South America and the Congo Basin in Africa, is one of only three tropical forest regions on Earth.

The beating heart of the Leuser is the lowland forests and peat swamps of the Singkil-Bengkung region. This area is part of western Sumatra’s last healthy peat swamp ecosystem. This lush jungle contains some of the world’s richest levels of biological diversity.

The lowland peat forests of the Leuser Ecosystem deserve the highest levels of protection for multiple critical reasons. Dubbed the “orangutan capital of the world,” this region has the highest population density of critically endangered Sumatran orangutans anywhere. This includes a unique, culturally distinct subpopulation of a few thousand individuals in the Singkil-Bengkung region. These subpopulations demonstrate social structures and tool-using behaviors distinct from all other orangutan populations. These forests are also home to some of the healthiest remaining breeding populations of highly imperiled Sumatran elephants, rhinos, and tigers.

The health of the Leuser Ecosystem’s Singkil-Bengkung landscape is internationally significant because its deep, carbon-rich peatlands are among Earth’s most valuable and effective natural carbon sinks. Conversely, when drained, cleared, and burned for conversion to palm oil plantations, this soil type is transformed into a carbon bomb that emits catastrophic pollution levels into the atmosphere.

Hundreds of thousands of people rely on the area’s rich natural resources as the basis of their livelihoods. Downstream villages are already suffering severe, sometimes deadly threats from devastating floods, landslides, and the loss of subsistence resources like fish and forest products as a direct result of the rapid rates of deforestation caused by palm oil. Communities also continue to suffer due to the loss of access to their customary lands, which palm oil companies took without their consent, and due to failures of the government to take decisive action to resolve conflicts and restore the rights of communities to their lands.

The Acehnese people have fought for over a century to protect the integrity of the Leuser Ecosystem’s extraordinary forests, and the region has become internationally famous for its intact expanses of verdant trees and its stunning wealth of imperiled wildlife species. In the decade between 2009 and 2019, more than 18,000 hectares of forests within the Singkil-Bengkung region were cleared, leaving roughly 250,000 hectares of rainforest. This area continues to decrease yearly due to deforestation and the drainage of peatlands.

In 2022, for example, the reserve lost 700 hectares of primary peat swamp forest (twice the area of New York’s Central Park), revealed a study by forest loss monitoring platform, TheTreeMap; in the first half of 2023 alone, there was a loss of 372 hectares, according to an analysis by Aceh-based environmental NGO Forest, Nature, and Environment Aceh (HAkA). New canals being built indicate plans for further deforestation and illegal palm oil planting.

In 2019, we conducted a series of undercover investigations due to the alarming destruction of peat forests within the lowland rainforests of the Leuser Ecosystem. The field research was conducted to determine if the forest clearance was being driven by major snack food brands, even though they had adopted policies years ago to end deforestation in their supply chains.

The investigations and the 2022 Carbon Bomb Scandals report were definitive. Palm oil is being grown illegally inside the nationally protected Rawa Singkil Wildlife Reserve, and it is being sold to mills that provide the palm oil used to manufacture snack foods sold across the world by Procter and Gamble, Unilever, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Mondelēz, and Nissin Foods.

These mills are located immediately next to areas of illegal encroachment within the Leuser Ecosystem, and they lack the necessary procedures to trace the location where the palm oil they sell is grown, an essential requirement for complying with the No Deforestation, No Peatlands, No Exploitation policies to which all of these brands have publicly committed.

Progress has been made by some companies that have taken steps toward implementing their No Deforestation policies. Brands like Unilever and Nestlé, for example, have begun the process of increasing supply chain transparency by publishing the mills they source from. A minority of corporations have achieved traceability to the plantation level (Unilever has outlined its strategies to identify plantations supplying its mills, for example), but most companies remain unable to offer certainty as to exactly where the palm oil they consume is grown.

RAN’s Keep Forests Standing 2023 Scorecard evaluated and ranked a group of 10 influential global brands, each with public ‘No Deforestation’ policy commitments, and the evidence clearly shows that paper promises are not enough to keep the forests from falling.

The Leuser Ecosystem at large, particularly the Singkil-Bengkung region, still offers a rare and fleeting opportunity to get it right and avoid the devastating mistakes made throughout so much of Indonesia in the past. It remains possible here to prevent the destruction of habitat that drives iconic wildlife species toward extinction, to avert human suffering from inevitable floods and landslides caused by deforestation, and to end the reckless burning of carbon-filled peatlands contributing to the climate crisis.

The international attention resulting from the release of our 2019 report has helped pressure brands to respond and take further action. However, the high stakes and urgent threats to the Singkil-Bengkung demand more bold and decisive action to ensure the area receives permanent protection.

By Laurel Sutherlin

Author Bio: Laurel Sutherlin is the senior communications strategist for Rainforest Action Network and a contributor to the Observatory. He is a lifelong environmental and human rights campaigner, naturalist, and outdoor educator with a passion for birds and wild places. Follow him on Twitter: @laurelsutherlin.

Source: Independent Media Institute

Credit Line: This article first appeared on Truthout and was produced in partnership with Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.