asiapacificresearch--2020-12-10--Australia: Exporting Weapons Is a Clear and Present Danger

More detailed figures on current arms sales to foreign countries are difficult to come by .
The Australian government has increased the secrecy , to dangerous levels , enjoyed by private corporations funded by huge sums of public money .
There is also an increasing lack of transparency around where the killing machines , technology and expertise officially — and unofficially — end up .
A ABC 7.30 Report revealed one contract , announced by ASX-listed manufacturer Electro Optic Systems ( EOS ) , is worth $ 410 million for a single undisclosed customer .
The EOS system would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by $ 33 million worth of Australian government bonds .
A source told the ABC the undisclosed customer was the United Arab Emirates ( UAE ) , part of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen .
That coalition is accused of war crimes in Yemen by a United Nations committee of experts , crimes that appear to be an open secret .
The US and Britain have sold arms and provided technical and logistical assistance to Saudi Arabia and the UAE .
Many ex-Australian Defence Force and ex-Australian Federal Police are in the UAE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ training roles .
The illegal re-transfer and/or on-selling of a variety of firepower in Yemen continues .
This is a part of one of the world ’ s worst humanitarian disasters .
Last year , the Houthis successfully bombed a Saudi oil field and have amassed an increasingly sophisticated armoury , smuggled in from wherever they can get it .
Blaming Iran is the popular line , but they are far from the only source of enemy arms and everybody knows it .
Australia used to send an annual arms report to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monitors arms transfers globally , but ceased reporting to it in 2004 .
The last related Department of Defence report was in 2001 and the secrecy may be compromising our own national security .
Freedom of Information requests are heavily redacted or refused , citing “ commercial-in-confidence ” .
Attempts to hold the government to account are strongly resisted .
If , as it claims , the government is meeting all its international obligations , then why all the secrecy around the proof ?
What we do know is that components manufactured in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drones in Armenian territory .
We also know weapons belonging to international coalition partners — including the Saudis , to whom Australia keeps selling arms — keep showing up in rebel hands in Yemen .
It is a standing criteria under all international law , including the Geneva Convention and the Arms Trade Treaty , that exporting countries must not knowingly sell arms to entities proven to be , or suspected of , committing or aiding war crimes .
Despite years of international outcry , the 2006 Arms Trade Treaty and repeated UN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the post-delivery monitoring by exporting countries , including Australia .
Like the banks , the departments issuing export permissions are allowed to rely solely on their own risk assessments .
It is those assessments on which the post-delivery phase of the obligation-critical End User Agreements are based .
Once that ink is dry , the accountability trail goes stone cold .
The Deutsche Welle documentary The End User — Yemen and the Global Arms Trade demonstrates how often weapons are redirected after they reach the intended recipient .
Australia ’ s defence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rigorous assessment concerning any risk that the weapons may be used in human rights abuses .
Yet , as The Guardian revealed , Australia is one of several countries still selling weapons to members of the Saudi coalition , who are widely suspected of war crimes .
A former Australian Secretary of Defence believes Australia may be skirting its responsibilities and he is not the only one .
Policing arms shipments is a difficult and complex task .
Since the Saudi coalition launched its war in 2015 , Yemen has become a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bombings , assassinations and shootings .
Apart from the Saudis , the UAE , Yemeni government troops , Shia , Sunni , Houthi rebels allegedly backed by Iran and al-Qaeda are all involved .
Compliance is difficult enough in a bank — getting full board and executive sign off , verifying decisions , paperwork for the regulators — but in a war zone ?
Even the UN admits there is massive signature and process fraud , and systems need to be stringent to cope .
Still , while expectations have to be realistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its allies do not have people on the ground to provide accurate intelligence .
Given defence spending is tracking to be 2 % of GDP for 2020-21 , it ’ s not like they don ’ t have the resources .
The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research monitors end-user control systems and their efficacy , in consultation with the UN Security Council and member countries .
Arms exports are subject to an export permit that is risk assessed and issued to the manufacturer by the defence department , and an End @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or transfer weapons to any third party without the seller ’ s knowledge or consent or , in the case of embargoed countries , not at all .
End User Agreements list receipt and handling certifications and authentications , the legal handling obligations of all parties and agreed post-delivery cooperation .
This includes a unilateral commitment to investigate reports of any alleged diversion or unauthorised retransfer .
So here ’ s the thing : those investigations can be done by either the exporting or importing country itself , or by both in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contractor agreed by both countries , who may well be a private defence contractor to either or both countries .
The current system allows all three parties with vested financial interests to not only do their own risk assessments , but pick their own auditors as well .
What could possibly go wrong ?
It may be this component of End User Agreements more than any other that needs to change to a genuinely independent international body able to investigate completely outside of the commercial circle of interests .
In light of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Afghanistan and repeated reports that the country ’ s arms customers are committing atrocities , perhaps Australia itself has become a clear and present danger , just another country that can ’ t be trusted to meet its obligations in a war zone .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Suzanne James is a freelance writer with a background in compliance , risk management , policy frameworks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PM Malcolm Turnbull with US Vice President Mike Pence in 2017 .
Photo : Wikimedia Commons

More detailed figures on current arms sales to foreign countries are difficult to come by. The Australian government has increased the secrecy, to dangerous levels, enjoyed by private corporations funded by huge sums of public money.
There is also an increasing lack of transparency around where the killing machines, technology and expertise officially — and unofficially — end up.
A ABC 7.30 Report revealed one contract, announced by ASX-listed manufacturer Electro Optic Systems (EOS), is worth $410 million for a single undisclosed customer. The EOS system would be manufactured in the United States, supported by $33 million worth of Australian government bonds. A source told the ABC the undisclosed customer was the United Arab Emirates (UAE), part of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
That coalition is accused of war crimes in Yemen by a United Nations committee of experts, crimes that appear to be an open secret.
The US and Britain have sold arms and provided technical and logistical assistance to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Many ex-Australian Defence Force and ex-Australian Federal Police are in the UAE working as contractors in various support and training roles. The illegal re-transfer and/or on-selling of a variety of firepower in Yemen continues. This is a part of one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters.
Last year, the Houthis successfully bombed a Saudi oil field and have amassed an increasingly sophisticated armoury, smuggled in from wherever they can get it. Blaming Iran is the popular line, but they are far from the only source of enemy arms and everybody knows it.
Australia used to send an annual arms report to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which monitors arms transfers globally, but ceased reporting to it in 2004.
The last related Department of Defence report was in 2001 and the secrecy may be compromising our own national security.
Freedom of Information requests are heavily redacted or refused, citing “commercial-in-confidence”. Attempts to hold the government to account are strongly resisted.
If, as it claims, the government is meeting all its international obligations, then why all the secrecy around the proof?
What we do know is that components manufactured in Australia have recently been found in Azad drones in Armenian territory. We also know weapons belonging to international coalition partners — including the Saudis, to whom Australia keeps selling arms — keep showing up in rebel hands in Yemen.
It is a standing criteria under all international law, including the Geneva Convention and the Arms Trade Treaty, that exporting countries must not knowingly sell arms to entities proven to be, or suspected of, committing or aiding war crimes.
Despite years of international outcry, the 2006 Arms Trade Treaty and repeated UN cooperative interventions, there remain major gaps in the post-delivery monitoring by exporting countries, including Australia.
Like the banks, the departments issuing export permissions are allowed to rely solely on their own risk assessments. It is those assessments on which the post-delivery phase of the obligation-critical End User Agreements are based.
Once that ink is dry, the accountability trail goes stone cold.
End game
The Deutsche Welle documentary The End User — Yemen and the Global Arms Trade demonstrates how often weapons are redirected after they reach the intended recipient.
Australia’s defence department claims every export permit is subject to rigorous assessment concerning any risk that the weapons may be used in human rights abuses. Yet, as The Guardian revealed, Australia is one of several countries still selling weapons to members of the Saudi coalition, who are widely suspected of war crimes.
A former Australian Secretary of Defence believes Australia may be skirting its responsibilities and he is not the only one.
Policing arms shipments is a difficult and complex task. Since the Saudi coalition launched its war in 2015, Yemen has become a site of multiple civil wars, terrorist bombings, assassinations and shootings. Apart from the Saudis, the UAE, Yemeni government troops, Shia, Sunni, Houthi rebels allegedly backed by Iran and al-Qaeda are all involved.
Compliance is difficult enough in a bank — getting full board and executive sign off, verifying decisions, paperwork for the regulators — but in a war zone? Even the UN admits there is massive signature and process fraud, and systems need to be stringent to cope.
Still, while expectations have to be realistic, it’s not like Australia and its allies do not have people on the ground to provide accurate intelligence. Given defence spending is tracking to be 2% of GDP for 2020-21, it’s not like they don’t have the resources.
Monitoring framework
The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research monitors end-user control systems and their efficacy, in consultation with the UN Security Council and member countries.
Arms exports are subject to an export permit that is risk assessed and issued to the manufacturer by the defence department, and an End User Agreement certifying that no-one will on-sell or transfer weapons to any third party without the seller’s knowledge or consent or, in the case of embargoed countries, not at all.
End User Agreements list receipt and handling certifications and authentications, the legal handling obligations of all parties and agreed post-delivery cooperation. This includes a unilateral commitment to investigate reports of any alleged diversion or unauthorised retransfer.
So here’s the thing: those investigations can be done by either the exporting or importing country itself, or by both in a joint investigation, or by an independent contractor agreed by both countries, who may well be a private defence contractor to either or both countries. The current system allows all three parties with vested financial interests to not only do their own risk assessments, but pick their own auditors as well.
What could possibly go wrong?
It may be this component of End User Agreements more than any other that needs to change to a genuinely independent international body able to investigate completely outside of the commercial circle of interests.
In light of the Brereton report into Australian war crimes in Afghanistan and repeated reports that the country’s arms customers are committing atrocities, perhaps Australia itself has become a clear and present danger, just another country that can’t be trusted to meet its obligations in a war zone.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Suzanne James is a freelance writer with a background in compliance, risk management, policy frameworks and implementation.
Featured image: Former PM Malcolm Turnbull with US Vice President Mike Pence in 2017. Photo: Wikimedia Commons


asiapacificresearch--2020-12-10--Why Modi’s “Green Response” to China’s “Belt and Road” Is Doomed to Fail

This article was originally published on June 7 .
India was once known as the Crown jewel of the British Empire before gaining independence in 1946 .
Sadly , like most of the post WWII history , that leap to independence was tainted by a fair dose of propaganda .
Of course many great patriots arose to powerful positions in India during the past seven decades bearing such names as Homi Babha ( the father of Indian nuclear science ) , Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandi ( assassinated in 1984 and 1991 respectively ) … but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to British intelligence agendas than their own nations ’ well being .
Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014 , the populist leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party has vacillated between those two extremes , occasionally breaking from Anglo-American pressure to treat China , Pakistan or the New Silk Road as enemies , but more often than not bending to the geopolitical demands of the empire .
A recent case of the latter slavish behaviour can be seen with Modi ’ s renewed call to counter the spread of China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BRI ) with a strange doppelganger known as the One Sun , One World , One Grid Plan ( OSOWOG ) .
This three-phased global plan was first announced in 2018 and promises to transition the world into a single international green energy grid by 2050 in order to meet the COP-21 demands for mass carbon dioxide reduction .
Part of the plan also involves creating a ‘ World Solar Bank ’ to offset the China-dominated Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank and New Development Bank .
The OSOWOG Plan targets a vast region encapsulating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sun light : 1 ) the Far East of Asia and Middle East and 2 ) North Africa .
In essence , the plan calls for spreading green energy infrastructure across these sun-soaked regions and a generating a new integrated green grid as a way to counterbalance China ’ s BRI .
The first phase calls for enmeshing the Middle East , South Asia and South East Asia into green grids followed soon thereafter by North Africa and then finally , the world .
Indian secretary at the Ministry of Culture , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the key to future renewable-based energy systems globally .
Creation of regional and international interconnected green grids can enable sharing of renewable energy across international borders.
” Currently receiving start up capital from the World Bank , the OSOWOG Plan is managed by another entity created during the COP-19 Conference in 2015 and headquartered in New Delhi entitled the International Solar Alliance ( an umbrella organization of 66 nations ) .
According to the project ’ s Request for Proposal of bids , “ the vision behind the OSOWOG mantra is ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a constant at some geographical location , globally , at any given point of time ” .
This may look nice on the surface , but when one looks at the partners of OSOWOG and the anti-BRI geopolitical dynamics underlying its deployment , it appears that the British Empire ’ s still-active controlling hand has more to do with the mantra than the presence of the sun ’ s rays on the earth .
In June 2019 , Modi ’ s International Solar Alliance ( ISA ) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ former British Empire ” which is still headed by Queen Elizabeth herself and of which India is still a member .
According to their press release , these nations “ agreed to work in partnership to promote the development and scaling-up of solar power within member countries common to both organisations.
” The head of the ISA stated : “ Together , ISA and Commonwealth will be able to look at country-wide strategies to promote the Paris Agreement on climate change , and Sustainable Development Goals 7 and 13 on clean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact is that under the ever-growing Belt and Road Initiative , nations which have suffered under decades of neocolonialism and abject poverty have now recognized a tangible hope for sustained growth and freedom from want .
China ’ s win-win paradigm is premised not on debt slavery as some of the BRI ’ s detractors maintain , but rather on long term , large scale infrastructure development which simply benefits all participants .
What makes this project so successful is that unlike 50 years of globalization promises that have only created a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually gets things done , as 800 million who have been lifted out of poverty in 25 years can attest to .
Frustrating the armies of western mathematical economists sitting in their ivory towers , the BRI is not formulaic and uses practices that have some characteristics of “ market-driven/capitalism ” as well as others that are “ socialist/protectionist ” .
To put it simply , the BRI defies formalism because reality is not formal .
If you care about helping nations become self-sufficient while uplifting the material/cognitive/cultural conditions of the people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goals may take on many forms , but the substance is the same .
I would characterize that substance in the simplest terms the following 3-fold way : This is the essence of the Belt and Road Initiative .
By building the largest dams , high speed rail grids , electricity programs , ports and bridges in history , concrete , steel , aluminum , iron , tin and rare earths have been used and deployed in amounts far exceeding anything the USA has done in the past 60 .
These feats require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not all energy is created equal .
If we are simply measuring energy as calories , then from a purely mathematical standpoint one can say one calorie of nuclear power , one calorie of coal power and one calorie from a solar farm are equivalent .
However , if we assess the quality of the organization of energy , then those three are no longer equal with one gram of nuclear fuel performing the equivalent amount of work as 3 million grams of coal ( which itself is exponentially more efficient and cheap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not be denied that China has become a world leader in “ green ” energy projects , and Xi Jinping speaks of “ green power ” a lot , the thrust of China ’ s international projects are not successful due to such forms of energy but rather vast investments into nuclear power , coal , hydro power and natural gas- all of which are considered verboten by the green technocrats in the west preaching a global decarbonization pipe dream for climate offending nations in the developing sector .
For those on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belief that windmills and solar panels can replace “ dirty ” fossil fuels and nuclear power , it is useful to review Michael Moore ’ s recent documentary Planet of the Humans which has thrown many an eco-activist in an existential funk since its April 2020 release .
[ Warning : Moore ’ s film excellently demonstrates the fraud of green energy , but still falls into the cynical Malthusian belief that ultimately humanity ’ s only chance for survival is to bite the bullet and wilfully depopulate ourselves ] .
In spite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s film does effectively capture the fact that while wind and solar look good on paper ( or in the mathematical fantasy lands of technocrats ) , the reality is that such energy sources are the very opposite of “ sustainable ” … as windmills and solar panels can not be even be created using windmill and solar energy !
Here is where the fraud of Modi ’ s “ Sun Never Sets ” Initiative comes in .
By attempting to create a green belt cutting across Mackinder ’ s World Island , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Africa , the OSOWOG plan promises to do essentially what the British Empire of yesteryear did to the world for centuries : Ensure no industrial growth , infrastructure or national sovereignty while keeping all nations foolish enough to jump on board in perpetual debt slavery with no means of production necessary to extinguish ever growing debts .
This lesson was learned by the earlier Club of Rome promoters of Desertec which promised to convert the Sahara into a solar super hub to power all of Europe forever and which Siemans CEO Peter Loscher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 21st century ” in 2009 , but which turned out to be a failed boondoggle by 2013 as nations decided their future was best guaranteed by joining the New Silk Road instead .
With COVID-19 being used by the most powerful financial forces on the earth as an excuse to ram through a Green New Deal under the UN ’ s Global Compact ( which has the support of the largest western corporations and banks in the world ) , it is obvious that OSOWOG is really just another lame attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-development strategy for the 21st century .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Matthew J.L .
Ehret is a journalist , lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review .

This article was originally published on June 7.
India was once known as the Crown jewel of the British Empire before gaining independence in 1946. Sadly, like most of the post WWII history, that leap to independence was tainted by a fair dose of propaganda.
Of course many great patriots arose to powerful positions in India during the past seven decades bearing such names as Homi Babha (the father of Indian nuclear science), Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandi (assassinated in 1984 and 1991 respectively)… but so too have British stooges more loyal to British intelligence agendas than their own nations’ well being.
Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, the populist leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party has vacillated between those two extremes, occasionally breaking from Anglo-American pressure to treat China, Pakistan or the New Silk Road as enemies, but more often than not bending to the geopolitical demands of the empire.
Modi’s Green Response to the BRI
A recent case of the latter slavish behaviour can be seen with Modi’s renewed call to counter the spread of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with a strange doppelganger known as the One Sun, One World, One Grid Plan (OSOWOG). This three-phased global plan was first announced in 2018 and promises to transition the world into a single international green energy grid by 2050 in order to meet the COP-21 demands for mass carbon dioxide reduction. Part of the plan also involves creating a ‘World Solar Bank’ to offset the China-dominated Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank and New Development Bank.
The OSOWOG Plan targets a vast region encapsulating two broad zones which basically receive lots of sun light: 1) the Far East of Asia and Middle East and 2) North Africa. In essence, the plan calls for spreading green energy infrastructure across these sun-soaked regions and a generating a new integrated green grid as a way to counterbalance China’s BRI. The first phase calls for enmeshing the Middle East, South Asia and South East Asia into green grids followed soon thereafter by North Africa and then finally, the world. Indian secretary at the Ministry of Culture, Anand Kumar stated: “this would be the key to future renewable-based energy systems globally. Creation of regional and international interconnected green grids can enable sharing of renewable energy across international borders.”
Currently receiving start up capital from the World Bank, the OSOWOG Plan is managed by another entity created during the COP-19 Conference in 2015 and headquartered in New Delhi entitled the International Solar Alliance (an umbrella organization of 66 nations).
According to the project’s Request for Proposal of bids, “the vision behind the OSOWOG mantra is ‘The Sun Never Sets’ and is a constant at some geographical location, globally, at any given point of time”.
This may look nice on the surface, but when one looks at the partners of OSOWOG and the anti-BRI geopolitical dynamics underlying its deployment, it appears that the British Empire’s still-active controlling hand has more to do with the mantra than the presence of the sun’s rays on the earth.
In June 2019, Modi’s International Solar Alliance (ISA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the British Commonwealth of 52 nations of the “former British Empire” which is still headed by Queen Elizabeth herself and of which India is still a member. According to their press release, these nations “agreed to work in partnership to promote the development and scaling-up of solar power within member countries common to both organisations.” The head of the ISA stated: “Together, ISA and Commonwealth will be able to look at country-wide strategies to promote the Paris Agreement on climate change, and Sustainable Development Goals 7 and 13 on clean, affordable energy and climate action.”
Why China’s BRI Works
The fact is that under the ever-growing Belt and Road Initiative, nations which have suffered under decades of neocolonialism and abject poverty have now recognized a tangible hope for sustained growth and freedom from want.
China’s win-win paradigm is premised not on debt slavery as some of the BRI’s detractors maintain, but rather on long term, large scale infrastructure development which simply benefits all participants.
What makes this project so successful is that unlike 50 years of globalization promises that have only created a world of neocolonial debt slavery, China actually gets things done, as 800 million who have been lifted out of poverty in 25 years can attest to. Frustrating the armies of western mathematical economists sitting in their ivory towers, the BRI is not formulaic and uses practices that have some characteristics of “market-driven/capitalism” as well as others that are “socialist/protectionist”.
To put it simply, the BRI defies formalism because reality is not formal. If you care about helping nations become self-sufficient while uplifting the material/cognitive/cultural conditions of the people, then the path to attain those principled goals may take on many forms, but the substance is the same. I would characterize that substance in the simplest terms the following 3-fold way:
1) Have a plan for every nation state and city you wish to cooperate with. 2) Make sure these plans are in harmony with a larger unifying plan that organizes the local and regional parts from the top down. 3) Make sure that the fruits of building these plans are of a type that benefits all players- private, public, rich, poor, agricultural and industrial.
This is the essence of the Belt and Road Initiative.
By building the largest dams, high speed rail grids, electricity programs, ports and bridges in history, concrete, steel, aluminum, iron, tin and rare earths have been used and deployed in amounts far exceeding anything the USA has done in the past 60. These feats require energy. Lots of energy.
But not all energy is created equal.
The Imperial Fraud of ‘Green’ Energy
If we are simply measuring energy as calories, then from a purely mathematical standpoint one can say one calorie of nuclear power, one calorie of coal power and one calorie from a solar farm are equivalent. However, if we assess the quality of the organization of energy, then those three are no longer equal with one gram of nuclear fuel performing the equivalent amount of work as 3 million grams of coal (which itself is exponentially more efficient and cheap than solar power).
While it cannot be denied that China has become a world leader in “green” energy projects, and Xi Jinping speaks of “green power” a lot, the thrust of China’s international projects are not successful due to such forms of energy but rather vast investments into nuclear power, coal, hydro power and natural gas- all of which are considered verboten by the green technocrats in the west preaching a global decarbonization pipe dream for climate offending nations in the developing sector.
For those on the left still hanging onto the misinformed belief that windmills and solar panels can replace “dirty” fossil fuels and nuclear power, it is useful to review Michael Moore’s recent documentary Planet of the Humans which has thrown many an eco-activist in an existential funk since its April 2020 release. [Warning: Moore’s film excellently demonstrates the fraud of green energy, but still falls into the cynical Malthusian belief that ultimately humanity’s only chance for survival is to bite the bullet and wilfully depopulate ourselves].
In spite of its misanthropic narrative, Moore’s film does effectively capture the fact that while wind and solar look good on paper (or in the mathematical fantasy lands of technocrats), the reality is that such energy sources are the very opposite of “sustainable”… as windmills and solar panels cannot be even be created using windmill and solar energy!
Here is where the fraud of Modi’s “Sun Never Sets” Initiative comes in.
By attempting to create a green belt cutting across Mackinder’s World Island, from Asia through the Middle East to Africa, the OSOWOG plan promises to do essentially what the British Empire of yesteryear did to the world for centuries: Ensure no industrial growth, infrastructure or national sovereignty while keeping all nations foolish enough to jump on board in perpetual debt slavery with no means of production necessary to extinguish ever growing debts. This lesson was learned by the earlier Club of Rome promoters of Desertec which promised to convert the Sahara into a solar super hub to power all of Europe forever and which Siemans CEO Peter Loscher stated would be “the Apollo project of the 21st century” in 2009, but which turned out to be a failed boondoggle by 2013 as nations decided their future was best guaranteed by joining the New Silk Road instead.
With COVID-19 being used by the most powerful financial forces on the earth as an excuse to ram through a Green New Deal under the UN’s Global Compact (which has the support of the largest western corporations and banks in the world), it is obvious that OSOWOG is really just another lame attempt to revive the British Empire as an anti-development strategy for the 21st century.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review.
Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons


asiapacificresearch--2020-12-10--Palm Oil Giant Wilmar Unfazed as Watchdogs Cry Foul over Papua Deforestation

An area of natural forest the size of 1,500 football fields has been cleared since January in an oil palm concession in Indonesia ’ s easternmost region of Papua by a company that ultimately supplies major traders and global brands .
The deforestation was first detected in March 2020 by U.S.-based campaign organization Mighty Earth , which found 221 hectares ( 546 acres ) of forest cleared in the concession of PT Medcopapua Hijau Selaras ( MPHS ) , a subsidiary of the Jakarta-based Capitol Group .
It dated the clearing to between Jan. 11 and Feb. 24 this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its “ Rapid Response ” reports , but more clearing occurred in the following months .
Using satellite data from Planet Labs and other sources , alongside concession maps , Mighty Earth found further deforestation of 286 hectares ( 706 acres ) from Feb. 24 to June 18 .
Monitoring by other NGOs and platforms also picked up on the deforestation .
The Earthqualizer Foundation , an environmental consultancy , reported detecting 732 hectares ( 1,808 acres ) of forest clearance inside the MPHS concessions from January to August .
Papua Atlas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of plantations and roads in the Papua region , identified 680 hectares ( 1,680 acres ) of forest cleared in that same period , with 675 hectares ( 1,667 acres ) constituting primary forest .
Although there ’ s some variance between the reported figures , they still point to MPHS being responsible for the largest area of forest cleared in Papua this year — the same conclusion reached by Pusaka , an Indonesian nonprofit that advocates for Indigenous peoples ’ rights , which carried out its own monitoring in the region .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hectares ( 3,676 acres ) of forests from January to May this year , with the biggest single instance of deforestation — 372 hectares ( 919 acres ) — occurring inside the MPHS concession .
Upon detecting the deforestation , Mighty Earth reported the matter to MPHS ’ s clients , including Wilmar International , the world ’ s biggest palm oil trader .
Wilmar , whose customers include Unilever , Kellogg ’ s and Nestlé , among other major global brands , subsequently launched an investigation , asking MPHS to submit its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those parts of its concession that contain high conservation value ( HCV ) and high carbon stock ( HCS ) forest .
That mapping was carried out in 2019 to determine areas within the concession that should be exempt from clearing under the terms of most palm oil buyers ’ “ sustainability ” commitments .
Still , Wilmar was able to detect what it called 26 “ small sporadic patches ” of land clearing , totaling up to 30 hectares ( 74 acres ) that may have occurred inside MPHS ’ s HCV/HCS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deforestation , Wilmar ordered MPHS to carry out a ground investigation , which concluded that the clearing was done by nearby communities to develop smallholder oil palm plots .
Wilmar also said that the areas outside the 26 patches that were identified as deforestation by Mighty Earth occurred within parts of the concession that were permitted for development , called “ go areas , ” as defined by the HCV/HCS assessment .
Mighty Earth campaign director Phil Aikman said these deforested areas were cleared by MPHS and were shown to be areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gaveau , a researcher who develops and runs the Papua Atlas , said the go-areas “ should ’ ve been declared HCV/HCS zones [ no-go areas ] because they were primary forests.
” “ We are absolutely certain that in this particular case , the estimated 680 ha cleared in MPHS was forest with High Carbon Stock ( HCS ) and High Conservation Value ( HCV ) , ” he told Mongabay .
MapHubs , which works with Mighty Earth on deforestation monitoring , also drew the same conclusion , saying high-resolution satellite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forests .
“ I don ’ t think this is a ‘ small sporadic patches of land clearing ’ Wilmar are referring to , ” MapHubs CEO Leo Bottrill told Mongabay .
“ The 286 hectares [ of deforestation ] is clearly industrial deforestation.
” Bottrill said the deforestation alert by Mighty Earth in March should have been enough reason for Wilmar to push MPHS to impose a moratorium on forest clearing inside its concession .
Instead , he said , Wilmar decided to wait for MPHS to conduct its field investigation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but was delayed to June due to movement restrictions imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic .
This effectively gave MPHS cover to continue clearing forests months after Wilmar was made aware of it , Bottrill said .
It wasn ’ t until the field investigation was completed in September that MPHS agreed to observe a strict moratorium on further land clearing .
“ It should be noted that after Wilmar and other companies buying from PT MPHS were notified in March , PT MPHS went on to clear over 700 football fields @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone to the field with a GPS unit and camera to tell their customers if this was forest or not , ” Bottrill said .
“ You can ’ t ground truth forest if it ’ s already been cut down.
” Wilmar said a field verification was necessary before the company could make any decision because satellite imagery alone was not enough in the identification of deforestation .
“ It must be supported by the correct and updated variables , including boundaries , ownership and more , paired with necessary ground truthing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement to Mongabay .
Pusaka director Franky Samperante said his organization had carried out ground truthing to confirm the deforestation inside the MPHS concession , and didn ’ t only rely on satellite imagery .
He said that ’ s how Pusaka came to the conclusion that MPHS had deforested natural forests .
“ We did ground checking and took photos using a drone , ” Franky told Mongabay , adding that communities living near the concession also told Pusaka that MPHS had started cutting down the forest in January .
Aikman said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was not peer-reviewed , to correctly identify the deforested areas as natural forests left Wilmar without an avenue to file a grievance over the clearing .
“ Wilmar was original basing this decision because it assumed that the clearing highlighted in Rapid Response reports was outside the HCS areas identified in the non-peer reviewed HCS study , ” Aikman said .
“ There are too many cases where traders accept the findings of HCS report at face value , without requiring them to go through a peer review report .
I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shrub and not forest.
” Aikman said any land clearing activities should be halted until the HCV/HCS assessment has been peer-reviewed , because there have been instances in the past where HCS assessors did not follow the HCS toolkit and therefore failed to classify areas of high carbon stock for protection .
Gaveau agreed , saying no forest clearing should have been allowed before a peer review to check whether the HCV/HSC maps were correct .
“ This makes no sense to me , ” he said .
“ Independent evaluators should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearing the areas.
” Wilmar said in its response that the assessment had been conducted by MPHS before Wilmar had begun requiring its suppliers to have their HCV/HCS assessments peer-reviewed under an update to its “ No Deforestation , No Peat , No Exploitation ” ( NDPE ) policy in September 2019 .
It also said that , to date , Wilmar is the only palm oil trader to require an independent review of its suppliers ’ HCV/HCS assessments .
Aikman said this is a shift “ in the right direction , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do in terms of transparency in the MPHS case , including publishing the HCV/HCS assessment , relevant maps , and the name of the company that carried out the assessment .
“ As the draft HCS report is not public , we can ’ t verify what Wilmar is claiming is accurate , ” Aikman said .
Gaveau noted that the Indonesian government doesn ’ t allow plantation companies to share maps of their concessions , but it also doesn ’ t explicitly prohibit them from sharing HCV/HCS maps .
“ So they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t want to , ” he said .
“ So , nobody can verify their claims .
This is really dodgy.
” Wilmar said it can ’ t publish the maps and related documents from its suppliers without the latters ’ explicit consent , citing strict non-disclosure agreements ( NDAs ) .
“ Our objective is to encourage our suppliers to embrace transparency while providing us with the resources to investigate grievances related to compliance to our NDPE policy , ” Wilmar said .
A sign indicating a high conservation value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medcopapua Hijau Selaras ( MPHS ) concession in West Papua , Indonesia .
Image courtesy of Pusaka .
Cases like these should prod major traders and buyers of palm oil into behaving more like watchdogs , Bottrill said , adding it should be part of their job to produce routine reports with corresponding maps and make them publicly available .
“ Other information cited by Wilmar such as concession boundaries should also be made public , ” he said .
Bottrill also warned against companies ’ overreliance on HCV/HCS studies to make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ an overly convoluted and complex process ” that can take months to complete while the forest is cut down in the meantime .
That ’ s where independent monitoring platforms and services can come in , helping companies make quick decisions , such as ordering suppliers to halt deforestation once land clearing is detected .
“ Our clients can ’ t wait months for HCV/HCS reports to be released if the land development is already underway , ” Bottrill said .
“ They want to see a map and then make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ algorithms and satellite imagery are not 100 % perfect , to say that natural forest can only be verified by a certified assessor “ is a very high bar.
” “ This means only organizations with the budget to hire qualified assessors and then granted permission to access private plantations can ascertain whether an area is natural forest or not , ” he said .
Adriani Zakaria , executive director of the Earthqualizer Foundation , agreed .
“ Not everyone has enough money to hire HCV/HCS assessors , ” he told Mongabay .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on whether a part of their concession is a “ go area ” or a “ no-go area , ” and instead see all forests as something that should be protected and not cut down .
“ We saw many cases where areas with HCV/HCS were also deforested , ” Adriani said .
“ So we view forests as forests .
When there ’ s a commitment of zero deforestation , then there should be no deforestation .
It ’ s as simple as that .
If you ’ re still doing HCS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t call it zero deforestation .
Because zero deforestation only applies to areas that have already had their HSC assessed.
” Bottrill said the case of MPHS is ultimately “ a good example of the growing democratization of deforestation monitoring.
” “ Watchdogs , downstream palm oil buyers , and investors can scrutinize deforestation cases irrespective of what companies choose to share or not share about their practices , ” he said .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internet forums .
etc .
Featured image : Logs of woods stacked on the side of a road in PT Medcopapua Hijau Selaras ( MPHS ) concession in West Papua , Indonesia .
Image courtesy of Pusaka .

An area of natural forest the size of 1,500 football fields has been cleared since January in an oil palm concession in Indonesia’s easternmost region of Papua by a company that ultimately supplies major traders and global brands.
The deforestation was first detected in March 2020 by U.S.-based campaign organization Mighty Earth, which found 221 hectares (546 acres) of forest cleared in the concession of PT Medcopapua Hijau Selaras (MPHS), a subsidiary of the Jakarta-based Capitol Group. It dated the clearing to between Jan. 11 and Feb. 24 this year.
Mighty Earth flagged the deforestation in its “Rapid Response” reports, but more clearing occurred in the following months.
Using satellite data from Planet Labs and other sources, alongside concession maps, Mighty Earth found further deforestation of 286 hectares (706 acres) from Feb. 24 to June 18. Monitoring by other NGOs and platforms also picked up on the deforestation.
The Earthqualizer Foundation, an environmental consultancy, reported detecting 732 hectares (1,808 acres) of forest clearance inside the MPHS concessions from January to August.
Papua Atlas, a real-time interactive map showing the spread of plantations and roads in the Papua region, identified 680 hectares (1,680 acres) of forest cleared in that same period, with 675 hectares (1,667 acres) constituting primary forest.
Although there’s some variance between the reported figures, they still point to MPHS being responsible for the largest area of forest cleared in Papua this year — the same conclusion reached by Pusaka, an Indonesian nonprofit that advocates for Indigenous peoples’ rights, which carried out its own monitoring in the region.
According to Pusaka, Papua lost 1,488 hectares (3,676 acres) of forests from January to May this year, with the biggest single instance of deforestation — 372 hectares (919 acres) — occurring inside the MPHS concession.
Upon detecting the deforestation, Mighty Earth reported the matter to MPHS’s clients, including Wilmar International, the world’s biggest palm oil trader. Wilmar, whose customers include Unilever, Kellogg’s and Nestlé, among other major global brands, subsequently launched an investigation, asking MPHS to submit its boundary maps as well as maps of those parts of its concession that contain high conservation value (HCV) and high carbon stock (HCS) forest. That mapping was carried out in 2019 to determine areas within the concession that should be exempt from clearing under the terms of most palm oil buyers’ “sustainability” commitments.
Still, Wilmar was able to detect what it called 26 “small sporadic patches” of land clearing, totaling up to 30 hectares (74 acres) that may have occurred inside MPHS’s HCV/HCS areas. To determine the cause of the deforestation, Wilmar ordered MPHS to carry out a ground investigation, which concluded that the clearing was done by nearby communities to develop smallholder oil palm plots.
Wilmar also said that the areas outside the 26 patches that were identified as deforestation by Mighty Earth occurred within parts of the concession that were permitted for development, called “go areas,” as defined by the HCV/HCS assessment.
Mighty Earth campaign director Phil Aikman said these deforested areas were cleared by MPHS and were shown to be areas of high forest canopy cover.
David Gaveau, a researcher who develops and runs the Papua Atlas, said the go-areas “should’ve been declared HCV/HCS zones [no-go areas] because they were primary forests.”
“We are absolutely certain that in this particular case, the estimated 680 ha cleared in MPHS was forest with High Carbon Stock (HCS) and High Conservation Value (HCV),” he told Mongabay.
MapHubs, which works with Mighty Earth on deforestation monitoring, also drew the same conclusion, saying high-resolution satellite images clearly showed the razing of natural forests.
“I don’t think this is a ‘small sporadic patches of land clearing’ Wilmar are referring to,” MapHubs CEO Leo Bottrill told Mongabay. “The 286 hectares [of deforestation] is clearly industrial deforestation.”
Deforestation detected inside PT Medcopapua Hijau Selaras (MPHS) concession in West Papua, Indonesia. Image courtesy of MapHubs.
Due dilligence
Bottrill said the deforestation alert by Mighty Earth in March should have been enough reason for Wilmar to push MPHS to impose a moratorium on forest clearing inside its concession. Instead, he said, Wilmar decided to wait for MPHS to conduct its field investigation, which was supposed to begin in March but was delayed to June due to movement restrictions imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This effectively gave MPHS cover to continue clearing forests months after Wilmar was made aware of it, Bottrill said. It wasn’t until the field investigation was completed in September that MPHS agreed to observe a strict moratorium on further land clearing.
“It should be noted that after Wilmar and other companies buying from PT MPHS were notified in March, PT MPHS went on to clear over 700 football fields of forest but were unable to send someone to the field with a GPS unit and camera to tell their customers if this was forest or not,” Bottrill said. “You can’t ground truth forest if it’s already been cut down.”
Wilmar said a field verification was necessary before the company could make any decision because satellite imagery alone was not enough in the identification of deforestation.
“It must be supported by the correct and updated variables, including boundaries, ownership and more, paired with necessary ground truthing,” the company said in a statement to Mongabay.
Pusaka director Franky Samperante said his organization had carried out ground truthing to confirm the deforestation inside the MPHS concession, and didn’t only rely on satellite imagery. He said that’s how Pusaka came to the conclusion that MPHS had deforested natural forests.
“We did ground checking and took photos using a drone,” Franky told Mongabay, adding that communities living near the concession also told Pusaka that MPHS had started cutting down the forest in January.
Fact: PT Medco Papua Hijau Selaras keeps converting natural forest to #PalmOil in August 2020, Manokwari #WestPapua. 680 ha cleared since January. pic.twitter.com/jdJ0F8INEM — David Gaveau (@GaveauD) September 10, 2020
‘Go areas’ and ‘no-go areas’
Aikman said the failure of the HCV/HCS study, which was not peer-reviewed, to correctly identify the deforested areas as natural forests left Wilmar without an avenue to file a grievance over the clearing.
“Wilmar was original basing this decision because it assumed that the clearing highlighted in Rapid Response reports was outside the HCS areas identified in the non-peer reviewed HCS study,” Aikman said. “There are too many cases where traders accept the findings of HCS report at face value, without requiring them to go through a peer review report. I have seen several assessments that identify areas as shrub and not forest.”
Aikman said any land clearing activities should be halted until the HCV/HCS assessment has been peer-reviewed, because there have been instances in the past where HCS assessors did not follow the HCS toolkit and therefore failed to classify areas of high carbon stock for protection.
Gaveau agreed, saying no forest clearing should have been allowed before a peer review to check whether the HCV/HSC maps were correct.
“This makes no sense to me,” he said. “Independent evaluators should be allowed to review those HCV/HCS maps before clearing the areas.”
Wilmar said in its response that the assessment had been conducted by MPHS before Wilmar had begun requiring its suppliers to have their HCV/HCS assessments peer-reviewed under an update to its “No Deforestation, No Peat, No Exploitation” (NDPE) policy in September 2019. It also said that, to date, Wilmar is the only palm oil trader to require an independent review of its suppliers’ HCV/HCS assessments.
Aikman said this is a shift “in the right direction,” but added Wilmar still has much to do in terms of transparency in the MPHS case, including publishing the HCV/HCS assessment, relevant maps, and the name of the company that carried out the assessment.
“As the draft HCS report is not public, we can’t verify what Wilmar is claiming is accurate,” Aikman said.
Gaveau noted that the Indonesian government doesn’t allow plantation companies to share maps of their concessions, but it also doesn’t explicitly prohibit them from sharing HCV/HCS maps.
“So they could share those HCS/HCV maps but they don’t want to,” he said. “So, nobody can verify their claims. This is really dodgy.”
Wilmar said it can’t publish the maps and related documents from its suppliers without the latters’ explicit consent, citing strict non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).
“Our objective is to encourage our suppliers to embrace transparency while providing us with the resources to investigate grievances related to compliance to our NDPE policy,” Wilmar said.
A sign indicating a high conservation value (HCV) forest area inside PT Medcopapua Hijau Selaras (MPHS) concession in West Papua, Indonesia. Image courtesy of Pusaka.
No time to wait
Cases like these should prod major traders and buyers of palm oil into behaving more like watchdogs, Bottrill said, adding it should be part of their job to produce routine reports with corresponding maps and make them publicly available.
“Other information cited by Wilmar such as concession boundaries should also be made public,” he said.
Bottrill also warned against companies’ overreliance on HCV/HCS studies to make a decision, given that the assessments are “an overly convoluted and complex process” that can take months to complete while the forest is cut down in the meantime. That’s where independent monitoring platforms and services can come in, helping companies make quick decisions, such as ordering suppliers to halt deforestation once land clearing is detected.
“Our clients can’t wait months for HCV/HCS reports to be released if the land development is already underway,” Bottrill said. “They want to see a map and then make a decision.”
He added that while detection algorithms and satellite imagery are not 100% perfect, to say that natural forest can only be verified by a certified assessor “is a very high bar.”
“This means only organizations with the budget to hire qualified assessors and then granted permission to access private plantations can ascertain whether an area is natural forest or not,” he said.
Adriani Zakaria, executive director of the Earthqualizer Foundation, agreed. “Not everyone has enough money to hire HCV/HCS assessors,” he told Mongabay.
He said companies shouldn’t fixate on whether a part of their concession is a “go area” or a “no-go area,” and instead see all forests as something that should be protected and not cut down.
“We saw many cases where areas with HCV/HCS were also deforested,” Adriani said. “So we view forests as forests. When there’s a commitment of zero deforestation, then there should be no deforestation. It’s as simple as that. If you’re still doing HCS [assessments], then don’t call it zero deforestation. Because zero deforestation only applies to areas that have already had their HSC assessed.”
Bottrill said the case of MPHS is ultimately “a good example of the growing democratization of deforestation monitoring.”
“Watchdogs, downstream palm oil buyers, and investors can scrutinize deforestation cases irrespective of what companies choose to share or not share about their practices,” he said.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Logs of woods stacked on the side of a road in PT Medcopapua Hijau Selaras (MPHS) concession in West Papua, Indonesia. Image courtesy of Pusaka.


asiapacificresearch--2020-12-10--World Economic Forum 2021 Moved to Singapore Due to COVID-19

The next World Economic Forum ( WEF ) Special Annual Meeting is being moved to Singapore , given the COVID-19 situation in Europe .
The global summit , which brings top leaders in politics , business and academia together , will be held between 13 and 16 May , next year .
This is only the second time in history that the annual meeting is being moved from the Davos ski resort in Switzerland , after the 2002 forum was held in New York as a show of support to the US after the 9/11 terrorist attacks .
The 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the meeting will take place in Asia .
Revealing that the change was made to safeguard health and safety , WEF said on Monday ( 7 Dec ) : “ In light of the current situation with regards to Covid-19 cases , it was decided that Singapore was best placed to hold the meeting.
” WEF founder Klaus Schwab added that the meeting would be crucial to address global recovery from the coronavirus pandemic which has taken a huge health and economic toll worldwide .
He said , “ Public-private co-operation is needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address the fault lines that emerged in 2020.
” Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .

The next World Economic Forum (WEF) Special Annual Meeting is being moved to Singapore, given the COVID-19 situation in Europe. The global summit, which brings top leaders in politics, business and academia together, will be held between 13 and 16 May, next year.
This is only the second time in history that the annual meeting is being moved from the Davos ski resort in Switzerland, after the 2002 forum was held in New York as a show of support to the US after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The 2021 forum will also mark the first time the meeting will take place in Asia.
Revealing that the change was made to safeguard health and safety, WEF said on Monday (7 Dec): “In light of the current situation with regards to Covid-19 cases, it was decided that Singapore was best placed to hold the meeting.”
WEF founder Klaus Schwab added that the meeting would be crucial to address global recovery from the coronavirus pandemic which has taken a huge health and economic toll worldwide. He said, “Public-private co-operation is needed more than ever to rebuild trust and address the fault lines that emerged in 2020.”
Read full article here.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


asiapacificresearch--2020-12-10--Indonesia: Of Corruption and the Feasibility of Death Penalty as a Deterrent

The Corruption Eradication Commission ( KPK ) recently arrested two of President Joko Widodo ( Jokowi ) ’ s Cabinet ministers .
Maritime and Fisheries Minister Edhy Prabowo and Social Affairs Minister Juliari Batubara were charged with bribery .
The former was accused of being involved in graft tied to the lobster larvae export , while the latter had allegedly received bribes related to social aid distribution .
Both are still holding their ministerial roles .
Previously , two of Jokowi ’ s former ministers — then-Social Affairs Minister Idrus Marham and Youth and Sports Minister Imam Nahrowi — were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The arrest of Edhy and Juliari made headlines amid criticism and high expectations for the KPK , as many Indonesians have cast doubts that the new KPK law will curtail the anti-graft agency ’ s power .
Why did the arrest of both ministers gain nationwide attention ?
Tama Satya Langkun , an anti-corruption activist at the Indonesian Corruption Watch ( ICW ) , told TOC that the aforementioned raids made headlines due to several factors : The decline in the numbers of cases the KPK is handling , the scale of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the subsequent impact of the graft cases themselves .
Several days ago , KPK spokesperson Ali Fikri told TOC that people can not judge the KPK performance based only on raids , as the institution continues to carry out prevention and monitoring tasks .
Tama highlighted that the change in the status of KPK employees can affect how they handle corruption cases involving government ministries due to seniority culture .
However , many Indonesians appear to appreciate what the KPK has done , despite doubts that the new law can weaken the anti-graft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implicating Edhy and Juliari are ‘ big fish ’ ones , as they involve high-ranked officials , the massive possible loss incurred by the state government , and the impact on people ’ s lives , in addition to COVID-19-related problems that have severely hit many business sectors .
Netizens expressed their anger on social media platforms over the alleged social aid graft cases during the pandemic , particularly given that the pandemic has forced companies and business sectors to furlough or dismiss their workers .
Juliari allegedly took Rp 8.2 billion in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid distribution .
For the second wave , the politician reportedly received around Rp 8.8 billion , Kompas reported .
Death sentence not the solution ; consistency is key People have subsequently called for harsher punishments for corruptors , including the implementation of the death sentence as stipulated in Chapter 2 Article 2 in Law No.20/2001 .
Those found guilty of corruption may be subject to harsher punishments if their actions are found to affect the availability of funds for disaster and economic crisis mitigation .
However , Tama disagrees with advocating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption , as there is “ no evidence ” that implementing such a sentence could deter people from being involved in corruption .
Tama cited the implementation of money laundering laws , which can not be separated from corruption cases .
The recovery of state assets amassed in corruption crime is as important as the arrest of those charged with that crime .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
@ @

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) recently arrested two of President Joko Widodo (Jokowi)’s Cabinet ministers.
Maritime and Fisheries Minister Edhy Prabowo and Social Affairs Minister Juliari Batubara were charged with bribery.
The former was accused of being involved in graft tied to the lobster larvae export, while the latter had allegedly received bribes related to social aid distribution.
Both are still holding their ministerial roles.
Previously, two of Jokowi’s former ministers — then-Social Affairs Minister Idrus Marham and Youth and Sports Minister Imam Nahrowi — were also implicated in alleged graft cases.
The arrest of Edhy and Juliari made headlines amid criticism and high expectations for the KPK, as many Indonesians have cast doubts that the new KPK law will curtail the anti-graft agency’s power.
Why did the arrest of both ministers gain nationwide attention?
Tama Satya Langkun, an anti-corruption activist at the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW), told TOC that the aforementioned raids made headlines due to several factors: The decline in the numbers of cases the KPK is handling, the scale of the bribery cases, and the actors and the subsequent impact of the graft cases themselves.
“The numbers of cases the KPK is handling have dropped since three years ago. So far, only seven raids (OTT) have been conducted this year,” Tama stated.
Several days ago, KPK spokesperson Ali Fikri told TOC that people cannot judge the KPK performance based only on raids, as the institution continues to carry out prevention and monitoring tasks.
Tama highlighted that the change in the status of KPK employees can affect how they handle corruption cases involving government ministries due to seniority culture.
However, many Indonesians appear to appreciate what the KPK has done, despite doubts that the new law can weaken the anti-graft body.
Big fish cases
Tama described that the cases implicating Edhy and Juliari are ‘big fish’ ones, as they involve high-ranked officials, the massive possible loss incurred by the state government, and the impact on people’s lives, in addition to COVID-19-related problems that have severely hit many business sectors.
“Take the lobster seed export, for example. The policy affects fishermen who farm lobsters. They cannot get good quality larvae if they are exported,” Tama explained.
Netizens expressed their anger on social media platforms over the alleged social aid graft cases during the pandemic, particularly given that the pandemic has forced companies and business sectors to furlough or dismiss their workers.
Juliari allegedly took Rp 8.2 billion in bribes for the first wave of social aid distribution. For the second wave, the politician reportedly received around Rp 8.8 billion, Kompas reported.
Death sentence not the solution; consistency is key
People have subsequently called for harsher punishments for corruptors, including the implementation of the death sentence as stipulated in Chapter 2 Article 2 in Law No.20/2001.
Those found guilty of corruption may be subject to harsher punishments if their actions are found to affect the availability of funds for disaster and economic crisis mitigation.
However, Tama disagrees with advocating the death penalty against those found guilty of corruption, as there is “no evidence” that implementing such a sentence could deter people from being involved in corruption.
“China imposes the death sentence on corrupt officials, but its corruption index dropped to 87 in 2019. “Developed nations such as Denmark and other Scandinavian countries do not mete out the death penalty, but they are not corrupt,” Tama said, adding that the most important move in combating corruption is consistency in upholding the law.
Tama cited the implementation of money laundering laws, which cannot be separated from corruption cases. The recovery of state assets amassed in corruption crime is as important as the arrest of those charged with that crime.
“Money laundering is about how to follow the money (trail). We cannot simply feel happy after the KPK or police arrests (certain) people. What about the assets?” Tama stated, wrapping up the interview by saying that stronger law-enforcing institutions, consistency in upholding regulations, and public participation can help to minimise corruption.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


asiapacificresearch--2020-12-10--The Belt and Road Initiative in Malaysia: New Challenges for South East Asia

The Belt and Road Initiative ( BRI ) is one of the largest in scale infrastructure projects in our history , which was proposed by the PRC as far back as 2013 .
Its main aim is to link via roads , railways , deep water ports , wharfs and industrial zones all 5 continents and approximately 130 of the world ’ s nations , which , on becoming a part of the BRI could promote trade and other activities and thus reap substantial economic benefits .
The BRI had such a successful start that by 2020 , projects worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been completed .
Still , the ambitious nature and global scale of China ’ s economic expansion caused reservations among some participating countries with low and medium GDPs .
On the one hand , these nations viewed the initiative as the only source of funds for financing their own infrastructure projects , and on the other hand , they worried about their growing debts to Beijing .
In this context , the reaction to BRI in countries of South East Asia whose economic ties to China are strengthening with each passing day is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone that some of the biggest projects of China ’ s global initiative are being implemented in South East Asian countries .
In fact , it would suffice to mention the cross-border railway between China and Laos ( US $ 6 billion ) , high speed rail in Indonesia ( US $ 6 billion ) , the Kyaukpyu deep water port in Myanmar ( US $ 7.3 billion ) and many others .
One of the leading South East Asian economies , i.e .
Malaysia , is no exception to the rule .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and political circles are increasingly more and more focused on China ’ s infrastructure initiative .
This is not surprising as Malaysia is among China ’ s most important trade partners in South East Asia with the bilateral trade volume of US $ 124 billion in 2019 .
At the same time , Malaysia ( along with Indonesia ) is among top ten countries ( the former being in 3rd place ) in terms of BRI-related project size and costs ( US $ 160.76 billion ) .
Closer economic ties between Malaysia and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more within the BRI framework .
In addition , the most active period of collaboration between the two nations occurred under the Premiership of Najib Razak ( 2009-2018 ) , when the Malaysian side signed a number of agreements with China on a number of new infrastructure projects .
Still , after the Malaysian general election , which took place in 2018 , when Mahathir Bin Mohamad ( who was in power from 1981 to 2003 ) won , the country ’ s policies towards the Chinese initiative changed noticeably under his leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised issues about terms and conditions of agreements with the PRC that were signed earlier .
In fact , later on , several large infrastructure projects were re-examined as part of BRI implementation .
The Prime Minister focused his attention on visibly high costs of Chinese infrastructure projects , which is why Malaysia had to shoulder an additional burden while its external debt was already quite high ( US $ 252 in 2018 ) .
The focus of Mahathir Bin Mohamed ’ s criticism became the East Coast Rail Link project , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US $ 10-13 billion ( according to different estimates ) because of changes in the exchange rate .
The project started back up after the government of Malaysia reviewed the terms and conditions of the agreement and re-signed the deal with China on more beneficial terms .
At the same time , one of the larger-scale projects , tied to BRI , “ Melaka Gateway ” , in the Malaysian state of Malacca ( estimated to cost $ 10.5 billion ) was cancelled .
It entailed building a deep water port , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housing , hotels and other facilities on three artificially-made islands in the Strait of Malacca in order to attract almost a million tourists a year .
The project was to span 246,45 square kilometers , while the planned deep water port was meant to compete with the neighboring one in Singapore .
The project Melaka Gateway was first announced by the then Prime Minister Najib Razak in 2014 .
However , very recently , the government in the state of Malacca terminated the contract with the local Malaysian company KAJ Development Sdn Bhd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together with a large Chinese government company PowerChina International and two port developers because the work on re-cultivating the vegetation on three artificial islands was never completed .
One of the main reasons for the delay in construction was the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 .
In addition , there is an ongoing discussion about excess port facilities in the country .
In the opinion of experts , it is a good idea to use the three existing Malaysian ports and not to spread out to new facilities .
Despite certain obstacles , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is helping Beijing increase its regional and global influence , especially in those nations of South East Asia that are on board with this infrastructure initiative despite concerns about accruing too much debt hoping in the future to improve their economies thanks to it .
In addition , the United States , which at present can not provide so much funding to the nations of South East Asia is losing in influence to China in the region with each passing year .
As for Malaysia and South East Asian countries in general , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the PRC within the BRI framework is viewed by experts in a positive light but still there are concerns about the growing debt these countries owe to China .
Nevertheless , at present , there is no choice as such because of a significant reduction in size of economies all over the world , hence these countries are unlikely to refuse funds that are so necessary and that only China can provide .
The PRC , in turn , has substantially increased its leadership positions in South East Asia by the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Petr Konovalov is a political observer , exclusively for the online magazine “ New Eastern Outlook ” .

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is one of the largest in scale infrastructure projects in our history, which was proposed by the PRC as far back as 2013. Its main aim is to link via roads, railways, deep water ports, wharfs and industrial zones all 5 continents and approximately 130 of the world’s nations, which, on becoming a part of the BRI could promote trade and other activities and thus reap substantial economic benefits. The BRI had such a successful start that by 2020, projects worth almost US$4 trillion had already been completed.
Still, the ambitious nature and global scale of China’s economic expansion caused reservations among some participating countries with low and medium GDPs. On the one hand, these nations viewed the initiative as the only source of funds for financing their own infrastructure projects, and on the other hand, they worried about their growing debts to Beijing.
In this context, the reaction to BRI in countries of South East Asia whose economic ties to China are strengthening with each passing day is noteworthy. It is no secret to anyone that some of the biggest projects of China’s global initiative are being implemented in South East Asian countries. In fact, it would suffice to mention the cross-border railway between China and Laos (US$ 6 billion), high speed rail in Indonesia (US$6 billion), the Kyaukpyu deep water port in Myanmar (US$ 7.3 billion) and many others.
One of the leading South East Asian economies, i.e. Malaysia, is no exception to the rule. National and local media outlets, experts and political circles are increasingly more and more focused on China’s infrastructure initiative. This is not surprising as Malaysia is among China’s most important trade partners in South East Asia with the bilateral trade volume of US$124 billion in 2019. At the same time, Malaysia (along with Indonesia) is among top ten countries (the former being in 3rd place) in terms of BRI-related project size and costs (US$160.76 billion).
Closer economic ties between Malaysia and China prompted the two countries to cooperate more within the BRI framework. In addition, the most active period of collaboration between the two nations occurred under the Premiership of Najib Razak (2009-2018), when the Malaysian side signed a number of agreements with China on a number of new infrastructure projects.
Still, after the Malaysian general election, which took place in 2018, when Mahathir Bin Mohamad (who was in power from 1981 to 2003) won, the country’s policies towards the Chinese initiative changed noticeably under his leadership. For instance, Mahathir Bin Mohamad raised issues about terms and conditions of agreements with the PRC that were signed earlier. In fact, later on, several large infrastructure projects were re-examined as part of BRI implementation. The Prime Minister focused his attention on visibly high costs of Chinese infrastructure projects, which is why Malaysia had to shoulder an additional burden while its external debt was already quite high (US$252 in 2018).
The focus of Mahathir Bin Mohamed’s criticism became the East Coast Rail Link project, whose cost increased from $US7 billion to US$10-13 billion (according to different estimates) because of changes in the exchange rate. The project started back up after the government of Malaysia reviewed the terms and conditions of the agreement and re-signed the deal with China on more beneficial terms.
At the same time, one of the larger-scale projects, tied to BRI, “Melaka Gateway”, in the Malaysian state of Malacca (estimated to cost $10.5 billion) was cancelled. It entailed building a deep water port, a cruise terminal, a wharf, elite housing, hotels and other facilities on three artificially-made islands in the Strait of Malacca in order to attract almost a million tourists a year. The project was to span 246,45 square kilometers, while the planned deep water port was meant to compete with the neighboring one in Singapore.
The project Melaka Gateway was first announced by the then Prime Minister Najib Razak in 2014. However, very recently, the government in the state of Malacca terminated the contract with the local Malaysian company KAJ Development Sdn Bhd, which was working on the project together with a large Chinese government company PowerChina International and two port developers because the work on re-cultivating the vegetation on three artificial islands was never completed. One of the main reasons for the delay in construction was the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. In addition, there is an ongoing discussion about excess port facilities in the country. In the opinion of experts, it is a good idea to use the three existing Malaysian ports and not to spread out to new facilities.
Despite certain obstacles, the implementation of China’s BRI project is helping Beijing increase its regional and global influence, especially in those nations of South East Asia that are on board with this infrastructure initiative despite concerns about accruing too much debt hoping in the future to improve their economies thanks to it. In addition, the United States, which at present cannot provide so much funding to the nations of South East Asia is losing in influence to China in the region with each passing year.
As for Malaysia and South East Asian countries in general, it is worth noting that their collaboration with the PRC within the BRI framework is viewed by experts in a positive light but still there are concerns about the growing debt these countries owe to China. Nevertheless, at present, there is no choice as such because of a significant reduction in size of economies all over the world, hence these countries are unlikely to refuse funds that are so necessary and that only China can provide. The PRC, in turn, has substantially increased its leadership positions in South East Asia by the end of 2020.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Petr Konovalov is a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Featured image is from NEO


asiapacificresearch--2020-12-11--Irresponsible Happenings: Australia’s Juukan Gorge, Rio Tinto and the Never Again Report

“ Never Again.
” These words are used with boring , stage managed frequency by political and company figures who should know better .
They title the interim report from the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia investigating the destruction of rock shelters at Juukan Gorge in Western Australia by Rio Tinto .
This act of spectacular cultural vandalism destroyed sites 46,000 years old .
The company initially thought it was worth the bill : AU $ 135 million worth of iron ore .
The efforts of Rio Tinto were given that more punch as they took place on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They were approved through existing mining laws long shaped by wily developers and land users .
The company had previously boasted of its rapport with the local indigenous peoples , including the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura ( PKKP ) .
But a bleak picture emerged .
PKKP concerns , according to the company ’ s statement , “ did not arise through the engagements that have taken place over many years under the agreement that governs our operations in the country.
” ( Rio was trimming the truth on that one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision making structure were detected .
There was insufficient oversight .
The London-based head of corporate relations , Simone Niven , had little idea what the Juukan Gorge caves were before the blasting took place .
In October , committee members were told that Rio Tinto had been all too keen to muzzle traditional owners in their efforts to save the rock shelters .
Amply lawyered , the company shot off letters warning that agitators could not speak publicly about their cause .
The PKKP were also told that an application for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government could only take place with Rio Tinto ’ s permission , and giving 30 days ’ notice .
As Carol Meredith , chief executive of the PKKP Aboriginal Corporation recalls , “ What we were reminded of by Rio ’ s lawyers was that we were not able to engage seeking out an emergency declaration that perhaps would have stopped proceedings , because of our claim-wide participation agreement.
” Rio Tinto does not come out shining .
It was found to be strategic and calculating in approaching its mining , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection , ” and adopting a self-interested approach in relying on “ outdated laws and unfair agreements ” .
“ The evidence before the committee demonstrates severe deficiencies in the company ’ s heritage management practices , internal communication protocols and relationship practices with the PKKP.
” The company ’ s own board review had done little to address them .
The commercial incentive remained all-conquering .
The report takes issue with the cobwebbed Aboriginal Heritage Act , a West Australian law from 1972 .
The statute is meant to protect and preserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shabbily .
While section 17 of the current Act makes the destruction , damage or altering to an Aboriginal site a criminal offence , Section 18 provides a route of dispensation for the aspiring cultural vandal .
Breaches of the Act ( in other words , damage to the site ) will be excused provided the applicant seeks consent from the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee ( ACMC ) .
The ACMC , in turn , assesses the importance and cultural significance of the site , conveying the notice to the Minister with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In making a decision , the Minister has full discretion .
A draft bill , acknowledged by the committee , would remove Section 18 of the Act .
The report also recommends that new legislation involve traditional owners in the decision .
A commitment to stay all actions under Section 18 permissions obtained by Rio Tinto is sought till “ they are properly reviewed to ensure that free , prior and informed consent has been obtained from Traditional Owners and is current ” .
The new legislation should also prohibit agreements “ which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their rights to seek protections under State and Commonwealth laws.
” Gag clauses or restrictions in agreements as deployed by Rio Tinto to stifle protest are also recommended for removal .
Committee members also list a few other recommendations for the mining giant .
These include negotiating a restitution package for the destruction of the rock shelters with the PKKP and full reconstruction and remediation of the site “ at its own expense , with guidance and oversight from the PKKP , acknowledging Rio Tinto ’ s undertaken in this regard and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies currently operating in Western Australia , whether or not on Native Title land are also told to undertake independent reviews of existing agreements between them and the Traditional Owners , while also committing “ to ongoing regular review to ensure consistency with best practice standards.
” The predations of Rio Tinto opened up cataracts of condemnation .
Finding individual villainy would be tempting but inaccurate .
The company operates in an industry deaf , and increasingly deafened , to social policy .
A co-authored piece in The Conversation by academics specialising in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is rife in this field ) claims that “ community relations departments [ in the industry ] have seen sizeable reductions.
” As with other entities driven by free market avarice , mining companies are also cool to the idea of greater protections for Aboriginal heritage sites , policed by federal regulations .
BHP , Rio Tinto , Roy Hill , Woodside and Fortescue Metals have told the inquiry that agreements with traditional owners have generally worked .
Juukan Gorge was merely an aberration .
Such giants remain taken with the fantasy that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bargaining power and adequate resources .
These agreements , according to Jamie Lowe of the National Native Title Council , “ enable the pretence that when destruction is authorised , it is what traditional owners would have agreed had legislation given them the right to say no.
” The Australian parliamentarians are inadvertently right .
This will never happen again , because the rock shelters have ceased to exist .
History and cultural traces , eradicated .
A spot in time , never to be repeated .
Harm caused by the mining industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new forms , with consent manufactured .
Till the laws are changed and demand for natural resources slides , companies such as Rio Tinto will continue milking and reaping , whatever pull social responsibility has .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
He is a frequent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Email : [ email protected ]

“Never Again.” These words are used with boring, stage managed frequency by political and company figures who should know better. They title the interim report from the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia investigating the destruction of rock shelters at Juukan Gorge in Western Australia by Rio Tinto. This act of spectacular cultural vandalism destroyed sites 46,000 years old. The company initially thought it was worth the bill: AU$135 million worth of iron ore.
The efforts of Rio Tinto were given that more punch as they took place on the eve of Reconciliation Week on May 24. They were approved through existing mining laws long shaped by wily developers and land users. The company had previously boasted of its rapport with the local indigenous peoples, including the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP). But a bleak picture emerged. PKKP concerns, according to the company’s statement, “did not arise through the engagements that have taken place over many years under the agreement that governs our operations in the country.” (Rio was trimming the truth on that one.) Flaws in the company’s decision making structure were detected. There was insufficient oversight. The London-based head of corporate relations, Simone Niven, had little idea what the Juukan Gorge caves were before the blasting took place.
In October, committee members were told that Rio Tinto had been all too keen to muzzle traditional owners in their efforts to save the rock shelters. Amply lawyered, the company shot off letters warning that agitators could not speak publicly about their cause. The PKKP were also told that an application for an emergency halt to the works to the federal government could only take place with Rio Tinto’s permission, and giving 30 days’ notice. As Carol Meredith, chief executive of the PKKP Aboriginal Corporation recalls, “What we were reminded of by Rio’s lawyers was that we were not able to engage seeking out an emergency declaration that perhaps would have stopped proceedings, because of our claim-wide participation agreement.”
Rio Tinto does not come out shining. It was found to be strategic and calculating in approaching its mining, taking a “legalistic approach to heritage protection,” and adopting a self-interested approach in relying on “outdated laws and unfair agreements”. “The evidence before the committee demonstrates severe deficiencies in the company’s heritage management practices, internal communication protocols and relationship practices with the PKKP.” The company’s own board review had done little to address them. The commercial incentive remained all-conquering.
The report takes issue with the cobwebbed Aboriginal Heritage Act, a West Australian law from 1972. The statute is meant to protect and preserve Aboriginal sites, a purpose it serves shabbily. While section 17 of the current Act makes the destruction, damage or altering to an Aboriginal site a criminal offence, Section 18 provides a route of dispensation for the aspiring cultural vandal. Breaches of the Act (in other words, damage to the site) will be excused provided the applicant seeks consent from the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee (ACMC). The ACMC, in turn, assesses the importance and cultural significance of the site, conveying the notice to the Minister with a written recommendation on how to proceed. In making a decision, the Minister has full discretion.
A draft bill, acknowledged by the committee, would remove Section 18 of the Act. The report also recommends that new legislation involve traditional owners in the decision. A commitment to stay all actions under Section 18 permissions obtained by Rio Tinto is sought till “they are properly reviewed to ensure that free, prior and informed consent has been obtained from Traditional Owners and is current”. The new legislation should also prohibit agreements “which seek to restrict Traditional Owners from exercising their rights to seek protections under State and Commonwealth laws.”
Gag clauses or restrictions in agreements as deployed by Rio Tinto to stifle protest are also recommended for removal. Committee members also list a few other recommendations for the mining giant. These include negotiating a restitution package for the destruction of the rock shelters with the PKKP and full reconstruction and remediation of the site “at its own expense, with guidance and oversight from the PKKP, acknowledging Rio Tinto’s undertaken in this regard and the steps taken to date.”
All mining companies currently operating in Western Australia, whether or not on Native Title land are also told to undertake independent reviews of existing agreements between them and the Traditional Owners, while also committing “to ongoing regular review to ensure consistency with best practice standards.”
The predations of Rio Tinto opened up cataracts of condemnation. Finding individual villainy would be tempting but inaccurate. The company operates in an industry deaf, and increasingly deafened, to social policy. A co-authored piece in The Conversation by academics specialising in social responsibility and mining (oxymoronic flair is rife in this field) claims that “community relations departments [in the industry] have seen sizeable reductions.”
As with other entities driven by free market avarice, mining companies are also cool to the idea of greater protections for Aboriginal heritage sites, policed by federal regulations. BHP, Rio Tinto, Roy Hill, Woodside and Fortescue Metals have told the inquiry that agreements with traditional owners have generally worked. Juukan Gorge was merely an aberration. Such giants remain taken with the fantasy that their arrangements arise from positions of equal bargaining power and adequate resources. These agreements, according to Jamie Lowe of the National Native Title Council, “enable the pretence that when destruction is authorised, it is what traditional owners would have agreed had legislation given them the right to say no.”
The Australian parliamentarians are inadvertently right. This will never happen again, because the rock shelters have ceased to exist. History and cultural traces, eradicated. A spot in time, never to be repeated. Harm caused by the mining industry to cultural heritage will simply continue in new forms, with consent manufactured. Till the laws are changed and demand for natural resources slides, companies such as Rio Tinto will continue milking and reaping, whatever pull social responsibility has.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
Featured image is from Change.org