Schweiz und Handelsabkommen mit Indonesien: ein Nein am 7. März 2021 ist primär eine Frage der Verantwortung

Die Diskussion ums Handelsabkommen mit Indonesien ist in vollem Gange. Während sich Befürworterinnen und Gegnerinnen auf die Palmölproblematik versteifen, argumentieren Bundesrat und Handelslobby pauschal mit dem Wohlstandsparadigma globalen Handels. Beides greift leider zu kurz.

Handelsabkommen. Ja, aber.

Globaler Handel ist nicht pauschal gut oder schlecht. Er ist sowohl als auch. Um sich mögliche negativen Auswirkungen globalen Handels in Erinnerung zu rufen, reichen Bilder von Tropenwaldabholzung, Meeresüberfischung, oder Covid-19. Im Gegenzug erwähnen Handelsenthusiasten gerne Länder wie Südkorea, welches dank internationalem Handel von einem Entwicklungsland in den 1970er in kurzer Zeit zu einer hoch-technologisierten Wirtschaft in Asien aufstieg.

Damit Handel tatsächlich zu nachhaltiger Entwicklung beiträgt, müssen die negativen Nebenwirkungen minimiert und positive Effekte gestärkt werden. Dafür braucht es Schranken, wie Wirtschaftswissenschaftler und Nobelpreisträger Prof. Joseph E. Stiglitz wiederholt in Büchern und Aufsätzen betont hat[1]. Leider existieren solche Schranken nach Jahrzehnten von Deregulierung unter GATT und WTO heute kaum, was vor allem internationalen Konzernen zu Gute kommt – auf Kosten von Umwelt und Gesellschaft als Ganzes.

Das EFTA Handelsabkommen mit Indonesien hat, wie Befürworter unterstreichen, Pioniercharakter. Erstmals ist die Schweiz nämlich bemüht, Bedingungen für eine nachhaltige Umsetzung in ein Handelsabkommen festzuschreiben, wie die Juristin und Handelsexpertin Dr. Elisabeth Bürgi Bonanomi festhält[2]. Diese Nachhaltigkeitsbedingungen entsprechen genau den von Stiglitz vorgeschriebenen Schranken.

Nutzlos durchlässige Schranken

Der Fokus der Debatte sollte deshalb auf diese Schranken gerichtet sein, denn diese sind das Novum. Wer durch den Text des Handelsabkommens liest, wird zuerst einmal feststellen, dass die Schranken im Vergleich zu den beinahe siebzig Seiten Abkommenstext eher dünn ausfallen. Zwar ist ein eigenes Kapitel nachhaltiger Entwicklung gewidmet, der Grossteil besteht aber aus Worthülsen. Da wird zuerst einmal auf die UNO-Konferenz über die menschliche Umwelt 1972 in Stockholm, auf die Rio Konferenz von 1992, und daraus resultierende Instrumente wie die Agenda 21 eingegangen. Kritische Leserinnen dürfen berechtigt schon hier fragen ‚sind diese Quellen nicht genau der Beweis, dass Papier halt eben geduldig ist?‘ Was genau ist aus all den Zielen und Absichten von damals geworden?

So richtig konkret wird es leider erst in den Artikeln 8.8 und 8.9, in welchen zuerst nachhaltiges Waldmanagement und danach nachhaltiger Fischfang und Aquakultur sowie der mit beiden verbundene Handel diskutiert wird. Dem umstrittenen Palmöl wird unter ‚8.10 Nachhaltige Bewirtschaftung des Pflanzenölsektors und damit verbundener Handel ‘ ein eigener Artikel gewidmet. Wer sich mit Ökosystemen auskennt, wird sich wie ich wohl wundern wieso Palmöl nicht Teil des Waldartikels ist, wenn in der Debatte doch hauptsächlich die Abholzung von Urwald im Vordergrund steht? Dazu aber später. Rein quantitativ können wir festhalten, dass die Schranken des Handelsabkommens mit knapp mehr als zwei von siebenundsechzig Seiten eher mager ausfallen[3]. Wer sich auch der qualitativen Seite der Nachhaltigkeitsbedingungen annimmt, wird bald einmal enttäuscht feststellen, dass nicht wirklich viel Inhalt übrigbleibt. Alle drei Artikel bestehen nämlich wiederum hauptsächlich aus Wiederholungen und Berufung auf bereits bestehende internationale Abkommen und Erklärungen. Die einzige Innovation — wen man das überhaupt so nennen darf — ist die Konkretisierung von Nachhaltigkeitszielen mittels der ‚Entwicklung und Nutzung von Zertifizierungsprogrammen‘ im Falle von Waldprodukten. Beim Palmöl und Fisch sind die Schranken noch durchlässiger.

Auch wenn Fisch im Abstimmungskampf bis jetzt keine Aufmerksamkeit erhielt, lohnt sich eine genauere Betrachtung, schliesslich steigt der Fischkonsum in der Schweiz jährlich, während wir zu 97% von Importen abhängig sind[4]. Im Abkommenstext wird erst einmal die Wichtigkeit des Handels für die nachhaltige Bewirtschaftung lebender Meeresressourcen und mariner Ökosysteme hervorgehoben, obwohl genau der internationale Handel für die weltweite Überfischung von Fischbeständen verantwortlich gemacht wird[5]. Korrigieren will das Abkommen solche Entgleisungen durch die ‚Förderung der Freiwilligen Leitlinien der FAO zur Fangdokumentationsregelung‘, deren Einhaltung wie der Name ja schon sagt ‚freiwillig‘ ist und die entsprechend selten oder gar nie respektiert werden. Das zweite Instrument IUU hat die gleiche Absicht. Es wurde von der EU ins Leben gerufen, um das Dokumentieren von Fischfängen für deren Import in die EU verbindlich zu machen, und so illegalen und nicht dokumentierten Fischfang zu verhindern. IUU wird im Abkommenstext im gleichen Atemzug wie Menschenhandel und erwähnt, obwohl IUU keine sozialen Verbindlichkeiten verlangt und folglich nicht die geringsten Verbesserungen von Arbeitsbedingungen im Fischsektor bewirkt[6]. Was der Text nicht erwähnt, sind die Nebenwirkungen von IUU. Zum einen wird bloss die Unterbindung von illegalem Handel angestrebt, was nicht mit Nachhaltigkeit gleichzusetzen ist[7]. Zusätzlich provoziert IUU auch einen Boomerang Effekt. Während Beamte in Staaten mit hoher Korruption von der EU ein zusätzliches Instrument erhielten, um von Fischern und Fischexporteuren Geld gegen Ausfuhrdokumente zu erpressen, gelangen jährlich nach wie vor zigtausend Tonnen illegal gefangener Fisch in die EU und die Schweiz[8]. Dies unter anderem weil China, Taiwan und andere Staaten gigantische Meeresflotten unterhalten, die rund um den Globus illegal fischen. Die Ware wird dann billig in China verarbeitet, erhält von dortigen Beamten die notwendigen Handelsdokumente, und gelangt ohne Hindernisse oder Zollabgaben in die Schweiz. Auch Indonesien ist von regelmässigen Seerechtsverletzungen durch Drittstaaten und illegale Fischerei geplagt. Ein besserer Schutz seiner Fischgründe wurde zwar unlängst angestrebt[9], ist aufgrund einer komplexen geographischen Lage mit über vierzehntausend Inseln jedoch extrem schwierig umzusetzen.

Wer definiert Nachhaltigkeit?

Weil wie Indonesien zahlreiche Entwicklungsländer damit überfordert sind, Fischfang nachhaltiger zu gestalten, haben sich westliche Umweltorganisationen wie der WWF Ende der 1990er Jahren zusammengeschlossen, um private Standards für nachhaltigen Fischfang zu definieren. Die Theory of Change von privaten Umweltstandards liegt darin, durch entsprechende Vorschriften Lücken zu schliessen, welche durch fehlende Staatseingriffe entstanden sind. Via Zertifizierung übernehmen private Anbieter also die Arbeit von ‚ohnmächtigen‘ Staaten wie Indonesien. Eine unabhängige Überprüfung durch Drittstellen verifiziert, dass alles richtig gemacht wird, und ein Ökolabel auf dem Endprodukt besiegelt die betroffenen Handelsketten als nachhaltig.

Leider ist der Umgang mit Ökolabels in der Praxis nicht immer gelungen. Die Liste der Defizite ist lang. Labels für Fischprodukte wie MSC und ASC werden angeschuldigt, geringe oder ungenügende soziale Anforderungen auszuweisen, was dazu führen kann, dass Menschen in Entwicklungsländer trotz Zertifizierung weiter ausgebeutet werden. So hat die NRO Human Rights at Sea kürzlich in Fidschi auf einem MSC-zertifizierten Schiff zwei Indonesische Fischer aufgegriffen, die von den chinesischen Besitzerinnen systematisch ausgebeutet wurden und über Monate im Hafen von Suva festsassen, um an eine neue Besitzerin verkauft zu werden[10]. Die Massnahmen, welcher der MSC aufgrund Kritik von aussen gegen Sklaverei auf Fangschiffen im Standard integriert hat, sind so lachhaft, dass sie gut in einen Comic passen würden, ginge es dabei nicht um das Schicksal von Menschenleben. Dem MSC Label wird grundsätzlich zunehmend ‚Green-washing‘ vorgeworfen[11], und Widerstand gegen fragwürdige Zertifizierungen gibt es selbst aus Reihen des MSC Mitbegründers WWF[12]. Auch andere Fisch-Labels werden kritisiert. Mehrere Studien zeigen, dass die Einbindung von Kleinbauern wegen anfallenden Transaktionskosten ein Riesenproblem bei Zertifizierungen ist, sogar bei Bio Standards. Als Folge werden Kleinbauern bei Ökolabels oft diskriminiert oder ausgeschlossen[13].

Die vielleicht schwerwiegendste Anschuldigung liegt jedoch in den sozioökonomischen Auswirkungen von Ökolabels als Institution. Standards werden praktisch ausschliesslich von Akteuren im globalen Norden formuliert, um dann in den Produktionsländern oktroyiert zu werden, ohne die Bedürfnisse, Sichtweisen, und Kapazitäten von Menschen im globalen Süden zu integrieren. Produzenten werden selten über Ziele und Hintergründe von Zertifizierungen und darin enthaltene Bestimmungen informiert, und müssen sich Anweisungen fügen, welche für sie oft keinen Sinn macht. Zum Teil sind Standards auch so zufällig formuliert, dass eine Umsetzung weder aus ökonomischen noch umwelttechnischen Überlegungen Sinn macht[14]. Solche Diskrepanz führt nicht selten dazu, dass Produzenten die Versprechen der Standards auch bei erfolgreicher Zertifizierung nicht erfüllen[15]. Verifiziert wird die Umsetzung im Fall von Fischprodukten von einem sehr kleinen Kreis von Akteuren. Für den MSC sind es eine Hand voll Firmen aus dem englischsprachigen Raum, während beim ASC viele AuditorInnen aus Westeuropa kommen. Formulierung, Implementierung, und Kontrolle von Fisch-Labels werden also von einer kleinen Gruppe von Akteuren mit denselben Wertvorstellungen und Absichten bewerkstelligt. Das bringt Flexibilität. So kann zum Beispiel Bio-Pangasius, der unter einem deutschen Bio-Label zertifiziert wurde, in der Schweiz als biologisch verkauft werden, obwohl das gleiche in Deutschland und dem Rest der EU nicht gilt, weil der Produzent die EU Bio-Anforderungen nicht erfüllt. Der Zynismus der Geschichte wird durch die Tatsache, dass die Schweizer Bio-Anforderungen von diversen Kreisen als die ‚strengsten weltweit‘ gelobt werden, nicht geringer.

Ökonomische Interessen als Antreiber

Wer Labels aus der richtigen Perspektive betrachtet, sieht bald einmal das wahre Ausmass dieses Zertifizierungs-Filzes. ASC und MSC prahlen in öffentlichen Auftritten immer wieder mit Marktanteilen und Umsatzsteigerung, ohne dabei auf den grundlegenden Interessenskonflikt zwischen schnellem Wachstum und einer stringenten Nachhaltigkeitsumsetzung einzugehen. Zertifizierungsstellen wiederum bieten hauptsächlich Europäerinnen und Nordamerikanerinnen gute Einkommensmöglichkeiten. Ökolabels generieren deshalb vor allem Einkommen und Profite im Globalen Norden, während Umweltverbesserungen im ausgebeuteten Süden längst in den Hintergrund verschwanden. Eine besonders kritische Rolle tragen in diesem Wetteifern für zertifizierte Produkte die Supermärkte, allen voran Migros, Coop, Lidl und Aldi, welche auf Druck des WWF Nachhaltigkeitsziele mittels Label-Anteil im Gesamtumsatz definieren[16]. Statt dem Verlangen von Konsumentinnen nach mehr Nachhaltigkeit in ihren Sortimenten nachzukommen, delegieren sie also ihre Verantwortung einfach weiter an die LieferantInnen. Zertifizierungen sind dafür ein einfaches Tool, denn die Retailer können bei möglichen Ungereimtheiten nicht belangt werden, während die Lieferantinnen ihre Verantwortung einfach an die Produzentinnen weiterdelegieren. In der Praxis werden Ökolabels dadurch zu Instrumenten, die bloss dazu dienen, unseren Konsumhunger mit einem ‚grünen Tupfer‘ moralisch aufzuwerten – meist auf Kosten der Schwächsten in der Handelskette.

Zertifizierungen von Fischprodukten haben vor allem deshalb versagt, weil sie universell eingesetzt werden, ohne auf die lokalen Gegebenheiten Rücksicht zu nehmen. Das hat besonders in Ländern mit hoher Korruption wie Indonesien schwerwiegende Folgen[17]. Prof. Mushtaq Khan, ein respektierter Entwicklungsökonome der Universität London, hat sich dem Phänomen Korruption ausgiebig gewidmet. In seinen Forschungsarbeiten zum Erfolg der ‚Asian Tigers‘ in den 1990er[18] fand er heraus, dass der wirtschaftliche Erfolg von Entwicklungsländern ausschliesslich davon abhängt, durch welche Mechanismen Renditen erwirtschaftet werden. Khan ging der Frage nach, wieso Länder ähnlich geringer Entwicklung und vergleichbar verbreiteter Korruption ganz unterschiedliche Entwicklungsprozesse vollzogen. Dabei zeigte sich, dass Entwicklung hauptsächlich von der Art und Weise abhängig ist, welche Art von Bereicherung etablierte Schranke überhaupt ermöglichen. So wirken sich zum Beispiel Wissens- und Technologietransfers besonders auf eine faire gesellschaftliche Entwicklung aus, während Schmiergelder oder schnelle Gewinne aufgrund von Status zu einseitiger Bereicherung ohne gesellschaftlichen Gewinn führen. Staaten wie Südkorea profitierten in hohem Masse von solchen Entwicklungstransfers, indem gute Leistungen mit Lohnerhöhungen quittiert wurden, was Mitarbeitende zu besseren Leistungen anspornte. Hoher Konkurrenzdruck in Thailand erlaubte eine schnelle Technologisierung trotz hoher Korruption. Im Gegensatz hat ethnische Diskriminierung in Malaysia genau zum Gegenteil geführt, wie auch schnelles Geld für Eliten in diversen Ländern Afrikas oft als Grund für eine fehlende Gesamtentwicklung angegeben wird.

Verantwortung übernehmen, nicht abschieben

Als Lehre aus Khans Beobachtungen lässt sich ableiten, dass eine nachhaltige Entwicklung in Partnerländern wie Indonesien nur dann gelingen kann, wenn wir unseren Vertragspartnerinnen durch intelligente Mechanismen helfen, dafür notwendige Kapazitäten und Strukturen aufzubauen. Zertifizierungen erreichen genau das Gegenteil, da sie in der Praxis selten bis nie auf Wissens- oder Technologietransfer abzielen. Im Gegenteil wird ein Wissensvorteil seitens Berater und Zertifizierer dazu genutzt, sich auf Dauer unentbehrlich zu machen. Die Renditen werden in Zertifizierungsprozessen primär von Aussenstehenden erzielt, die wenig an Kapazitätssteigerungen durch Wissensvermittlung interessiert sind. Dem MSC Standard als Beispiel wird von kritischen Expertinnen nachgesagt, dass er unnötig kompliziert in der Umsetzung ist, was es Akteurinnen im Globalen Süden verunmöglicht, auf eigene Initiative eine Zertifizierung zu erreichen. So bleiben Produzentinnen im Globalen Süden stets von der Gunst der Beraterinnen und Zertifizierer abhängig, ohne dass durch Zertifizierungsprozesse Fortschritte für die Umwelt erzielt werden. Oft werden Produzentinnen auch bloss als Objekte von Zertifizierungsprozessen instrumentalisiert[19].  Eine kürzlich erschienene Studie[20] hat zum Beispiel aufgezeigt, dass der MSC mehrheitlich mit Kleinfischern wirbt, obwohl nicht mal 7% des MSC Fischs von Kleinfischereien stammt.

Andererseits haben Produzentinnen unter bestehenden Voraussetzungen wegen fehlender Belohnung wenig Anreiz, wirkliche Verbesserungen zu erzielen. Ökologische Aufwertungen würden sie ökonomisch oft sogar bestrafen. Das kann am Beispiel Palmöl sehr gute illustriert werden. Weil der RSPO Standard das Thema Abholzung elegant umgangen hat[21] und hohe Ökosystemleistungen nicht belohnt werden, ist Zertifizierung von Monokulturen auf billigem Boden am rentabelsten. Das führt mitunter dazu, dass auf Moorböden ausgewichen wird, weil diese schwierig zu bewirtschaften und deshalb billig zu kaufen sind.[22] Palmöl in integrierten Farmsystemen zu bewirtschaften könnte zwar nachhaltig sein, zahlt sich jedoch für Produzentinnen nicht aus. Aus ökonomischer Perspektive ist es auch einfacher, die Erfüllung von Nachhaltigkeitszielen zu ‚erschleichen‘, statt in ihre Umsetzung zu investieren[23]. Am ökonomisch effizientesten ist, Urwald doppelt zu verkaufen: einmal als Tropenholz und danach als nachhaltig zertifizierte Palmölplantage.   

Stimmen von Nachhaltigkeitsexpertinnen, welche eine Korrektur dieser Missstände durch mehr Mitsprache durch Regierungen fordern, werden lauter. Die Abstimmungs­resultate der Konzernverantwortungsinitiative bestätigen, dass auch Schweizerinnen mehr Verantwortung vom Staat erwarten. Die Möglichkeit, Nachhaltigkeitsziele in Handelsabkommen festzuschreiben, ist dabei eines von diversen dem Staat zur Verfügung stehenden Instrumenten. Wenn diese Instrumente sich jedoch auf Zertifizierungen von Privaten abstützen, die in der Praxis bereits versagt haben, nimmt die Regierung ihre zugeschriebene Rolle nicht wahr. Im Gegenteil. Ähnlich der Supermärkte, schiebt der Staat seine Verantwortung ab. Dafür werden falsche Zertifikate privater Akteurinnen durch staatliche Anerkennung zusätzlich belohnt. In anderen Worten, das Handelsabkommen legitimiert eine fehlerhafte Praxis. Der unterzeichnende Bundesrat wird dadurch vom tolerierenden Beobachter zum aktiven Mittäter. Er tut also genau das Gegenteil davon, was Schweizer Stimmbürgerinnen von ihm verlangen.

---

[1] Z.B. in People, Power and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent (2019)

[2] https://www.infosperber.ch/umwelt/vielfalt-tiere-pflanzen/streit-um-palmoel-vertrag-mit-indonesien-betritt-neuland/

[3] Im Englischen Originaltext.

[4] Bundesamt für Statistik

[5] https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10244

[6] https://ejfoundation.org/news-media/new-rules-fall-short-of-protecting-migrant-workers-in-koreas-fishing-fleet

[7] Autofahren im SUV ist ebenfalls legal, obwohl es wenig zu Nachhaltigkeit beiträgt.

[8] https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/opinion/shocking-cases-of-illegal-fishing-in-eu-highlight-the-need-for-stronger-fisheries-control/

[9] https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/04/09/illegal-fishing-still-rife-in-north-natuna-sea-ministry.html

[10] https://www.humanrightsatsea.org/2021/01/16/ongoing-investigation-of-indonesian-fishers-abandoned-and-exploited-in-fiji/

[11] https://www.srf.ch/sendungen/dok/das-geschaeft-mit-dem-fischsiegel-msc

[12] https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?323631/WWF-objects-to-MSC-certification-proposal-for-Indian-Ocean-tuna-fishery

[13] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X14001742

[14] https://springerplus.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s40064-016-2070-3.pdf

[15] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X09001922

[16] https://www.wwf.ch/de/wwf-partner-fuer-die-umwelt-ambitioniert-und-nachhaltig-2019

[17]https://www.cde.unibe.ch/research/cde_series/the_tricks_of_the_plantation_industry_bring_to_mind_the_wild_west/index_eng.html

[18] https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/9840/

[19] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-016-9781-z

[20] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231073

[21] Land, das vor 2005 abgeholzt wurde, darf nach Belieben bewirtschaftet werden, egal ob es vorher aus Primärwald bestand.

[22] https://forestsnews.cifor.org/59794/palm-oil-smallholders-intensify-deforestation-in-indonesian-borneo?fnl=

[23]https://www.cde.unibe.ch/research/cde_series/the_tricks_of_the_plantation_industry_bring_to_mind_the_wild_west/index_eng.html

Who can afford politics anyway?

For weeks, newspapers have been full of Covid-19 analyses, talking about threats, risks, and measures to protect us from the virus. Few have talked about the long-needed opportunity to reflect on our political systems – here is one of them.

It does not matter whether we care about politics or not, even those that believe it to be the essence of or society should at least once consider its costs. Covid-19, the different approaches that governments around the globe took to contain its spread, and the relative ‘successes’ of these measures, deserve a closer look. More so, if we look at what is still to come, for example the economic consequences of hwo the ‘sanitary crisis’ was (mis-)managed. In that sense, Covid-19 reveals an opportunity that few people really wish for – not those at the bottom end of society, because they would definitely loose fate, nor those at the top, since it would reveal their true motivations.

Talking about the ridiculously strict measures we citizens in Spain have been suffered under for more than two months already, a friend of mine said: “what do you expect from a government composed among others of a health minister that studied philosophy and a minister of economy with a degree in history of arts?”. What sounds like a good joke, describes the reality in an overwhelming majority of nations worldwide including Spain: our governments are made of people that to a very large extend have no clue what they are talking about! Whereas in the private sector people are hired according to their competences, in politics what matters are party loyalty and capacity of adaptiveness to a rotten system.

In Spain, politics have been centred around questions of power, discrimination, and abuse for as long as historians can tell. Consequently, corruption and unjustified spending have been popular with left-wind and right-wing governments. It should thus not surprise that in handling the Covid-19 crisis, the key factor are not the citizens or measures to best protect them, but how to use a high mortality rate to make economic profit! Already struggling with high debts, Spain chose a different path from that of northern European countries: better lie flat and enjoy the promise of ‘free money for all’ than trying to cope with the situation. ‘Partying’ can never be more joyful than when someone else is paying. That is what President Sánchez must have thought as well when he addressed his EU colleagues, only getting more vocal than usual when some of them did not immediately show the expected excitement. However, the calculation may not pay off for everyone, if things go as they have historically gone.

Thinking a bit more along ‘responsibilities’ we may ask ourselves who should pay for the costs of Spanish politics? Some Chinese traders in Wuhan’s animal market that may have sparked Covid-19? Or is it the Germans who have nothing to do with how badly the Spanish government managed this (and others) crisis? Maybe it is a good time to think about political consequences and how to choose a competent government in the future. When you need some fixing in your bathroom, do you call the hair shop or the best plumber you know? I argue that the fact that Sánchez was the only one to represent PSOE in the past elections even though nobody wanted him does not justify asking Europe for economic support when dealing with the consequences – not even now that Covid-19 (fortunately) comes in as a welcome excuse.

Rather than finding a cheap way out, Spanish (and other citizens as well) should think about how they want their future to look like. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote how I was stopped trying to ride my bicycle on Easter day. I tried the same today, but following advice of friends from different countries, I switched to my MTB and intended to go to the hills. Only that I was stopped by the police 500m from home and send home after a ridiculous discussion about which way I had to choose when ‘intending to buy milk in the village’. While I had to turn around frustrated and angry, thousands of Spanish car drivers are enjoying a Sunday on the road whereas President Sanchez’ promise of an ecological transition remains deep down in his drawer. Is that the future we want? A sustainable development agenda in which governments invite ‘popular climate activists’ to an international climate forum due to its media attention while discriminating against cyclists when nobody watches?

Whatever we may or may not know about Covid-19, it tells us this much about political economy: if your government handled the crisis trying to strike a balance between mobility restrictions and economic development and using measures that are tailored according to scientific knowledge (e.g. Germany or Switzerland), then you are on the right way. If in contrast, your government has only counted the death, aligned their actions with political gains, applied random rules that ignore science, and constantly talked about economic compensation as has been the case in Spain, then you might want to consider how much longer you can afford to support your government. Latest when the tax department calls, you will remember that promises are just what they have historically been: complimentary talk.

Covid-19 y la libertad en España. Un ensayo.

El domingo, día 12 de abril 2020 y Pascua de Resurrección, fui denunciado por circular en bicicleta por una carretera pública de un pueblo cerca de mi casa. Mientras que los agentes de la policía local eran de la opinión que eso está prohibido por ley, yo no estoy de acuerdo. Es más, me pregunto a qué punto podemos fiarnos de las instituciones españolas como la prensa que sirven de fuentes de información, pero quienes, como veremos más adelante, también se pueden considerar como medios de control que sirven a la élite y su ‘arquitectura de la opresión’[1].

Es cierto que el Covid-19 nos preocupa, entretiene o ‘amenaza’ (como algunos prefieren decir) a todos. Lo que hasta ahora es menos cierto, es cómo podríamos protegernos mejor de lo que aún está por venir. Aunque a nivel global hemos adquirido una increíble cantidad de información sobre el virus en muy poco tiempo, ningún gobierno destaca por representar un ejemplo de cómo gestionar mejor una ‘mini-crisis’ como era el Covid-19 al principio. El Covid-19 es un problema manufacturado, no por sí mismo. Una pandemia como la que tenemos ahora se podría haber previsto hace años[2] y la tragedia resultante, probablemente podría haberse evitado con las medidas adecuadas. Sobre todo, después del surgimiento del MERS y SARS. No, el Covid-19 no es la amenaza imprevisible que nos dicen, sino una herramienta para fines que van mucho más allá del control temporal de una situación caótica.

‘El miedo’ ha sido empleado por la élite para controlar las masas durante siglos y parece que de nuevo, la élite se sirve del miedo para controlarnos. Lamentablemente, lo hacen con gran éxito. En España, uno de los países donde se han tomado las medidas más restrictivas, millones de personas llevamos encerrados en casa por más de cuatro semanas – con consecuencias económicas, físicas y psicológicas muy negativas que no se pueden negar. ¿Está justificado todo esto? Mientras que una mayoría parece aprobar las medidas, hay por lo menos unos 650,000[3] ciudadanos españoles que no están de acuerdo con la represión. Puede que haya más, pero son conscientes de la historia más reciente y saben que la ‘desobediencia civil’ puede ser costosa en un país en el cual el pueblo ha sido reprimido durante toda su historia y donde hay personas condenadas a 13 años de cárcel únicamente por expresar su opinión política. Desde esta perspectiva, arriesgar 18 meses de cárcel por respirar cinco minutos a fondo parece un riesgo desproporcionado. ¿Pero lo es, de verdad?

No todos contestarían afirmativamente. En una entrevista reciente, Edward Snowden, uno de los defensores de libertad y pensadores más críticos de nuestros tiempos, nos explica cómo el Covid-19 no es nada más que una oportunidad que se le ha presentado a una élite que sigue construyendo su ‘arquitectura de la opresión’. El Covid-19 es un brote de algo que podría costarnos más caro que seis semanas encerrados en un apartamento. No me atraen las teorías conspirativas, pero las reacciones al Covid-19 me dejaron en ‘estado de alarma’ mucho antes de que éste se declarara aquí en España. ¿Es coincidencia que el Covid-19 surgiera justo cuando los conflictos sociales en China, Rusia, América Latina y otros lugares estaban llegando a un nivel que desafiaba a los ‘regímenes en control’?  ¿Cuando el ‘efecto Greta’ por fin puso la crisis climática en el centro de la política, o al menos, de las comunicaciones de los mass media? ¿Dónde se han ido estas voces en los últimos dos meses? ¿Y por qué no estábamos mejor preparados considerando que el riesgo de una pandemia ya se había identificado hace años³? Con lo del confinamiento no puedo evitar pensar en la represión contra la ciudadanía catalana en la era de Rajoy.

¿No les parece raro que un país supuestamente democrático denuncie a ciudadanos por ir en bicicleta por una zona rural en un día festivo en el siglo 21? ¿No les resulta desproporcionada esta medida, comparado con las (nulas) medidas tomadas por la élite a la denuncia de la Comisión Europea contra España por incumplir la normativa de calidad del aire? Igual estas élites no tienen esta visión de una Europa solidaria y unida como la que presentó el presidente P. Sánchez en diferentes periódicos europeos. No se reconocen en la idea de una Europa con ideales conjuntos y fines solidarios. Hay una Europa y otra Europa. Por un lado, la Europa de ideales y valores compartidos que necesita el diálogo. Por otro lado, la Europa de normas impositivas de una plutocracia que se refiere a la ‘unidad’ en cuando puede beneficiarse del colectivo, pero la cual niega el ‘conjunto’ cuando se trata de asegurar el bienestar de todos. La primera tiene en su centro el diálogo con la ciudadanía y un discurso crítico, mientras que la segunda está motivada por la avidez de los pocos y una interpretación muy estrecha de las opciones disponibles.

Eso sí, alcanzar la Europa de ideales compartidos exige un poco más que llamar al gran hermano cuando conviene. Ante todo, requiere que cumplamos con las necesidades más básicas, como la protección de los refugiados y otras personas vulnerables, o el respeto mutuo. En el preámbulo a la Constitución Española, se prevé ”proteger a todos los españoles y pueblos de España en el ejercicio de los derechos humanos, sus culturas y tradiciones, lenguas e instituciones”, un fin que está más detallado en Artículo 16, 1 donde “se garantiza la libertad ideológica, religiosa y de culto de los individuos y las comunidades sin más limitación, en sus manifestaciones, que la necesaria para el mantenimiento del orden público protegido por la ley.” ¿Si uno circula en bici o anda por la calle, sin acercarse a nadie y evitando así un riesgo de contagio por el Covid-19 u otra enfermedad, acaso no está cumpliendo con estos ideales que la Constitución Española protege?

Imaginando que una restricción de movilidad total provocara más problemas que resuelve, ¿era lo suficiente visionario por parte del nuevo gobierno adornar la represión con excepciones como las definidas por el Artículo 7 del RD 463/2020[4]? El Artículo 7 estipula que “durante la vigencia del estado de alarma las personas únicamente podrán circular por las vías o espacios de uso público para la realización de”, entre otras actividades[5] “g) por causa de fuerza mayor o situación de necesidad o h) cualquier otra actividad de análoga naturaleza.” No creo que el presidente, quien quería ser el presidente “para todos los/las españoles/as”, pensase en el bienestar de todos en cuando se añadieron los párrafos g) y h) del artículo 7. Lo que tenía en mente eran sus amigos, y los amigos de los amigos. Igual a otros países autocráticos, España impone la represión a los demás y deja excepciones para los pocos. Y para ellos, siempre hay certificados que justifiquen una excepción[6]. ¿Lograremos a construir una “España moderna e innovadora” como la que prometió P. Sánchez durante la campaña electoral del año pasado con excepciones y discriminación?

No sé a qué punto era sincero con esta innovación. Cierto es que a los líderes de Vox y del PP les importan lo mismo las dificultades respiratorios de las víctimas de Covid-19 o de los ciclistas como les importan a los periódicos las vidas de los que ayunan para poder cumplir con el confinamiento. Lo único que ellos quieren, es llamar la atención. Si estuviesen sinceros, nos confrontarían con los destinos de todas las personas afectadas por medidas de prevención irracionales en lugar de hablar de Rajoy en ropa deportivo. De hecho, pienso que la pregunta central respecto al Covid-19 no es ¿Qué podemos hacer durante el confinamiento? como sugieren algunos periodistas sino ¿Por qué todas las instituciones españolas nos manipulan, atemorizan e intimidan? ¿Por qué no nos indican como protegernos ante la precariedad, ansiedad, problemas físicos y otras consecuencias negativas si la única justificación para el confinamiento deberían ser los riesgos sanitarios de una movilidad menos restrictiva? Igual es que las instituciones españolas, que han servido de medio de control para explotar al pueblo durante siglos, no han cambiado con el cambio de gobierno. Para la élite, lo de ‘Europa’ y ‘Covid-19’ son nada más que alibis, como las mascotas, que se llevan a la calle para que no les desenmascaremos por sus motivos verdaderos.

Volviendo al principio de mi artículo y reflejando sobre el tema de la Pascua, me pregunto ¿Qué haría un Mesías si estuviese entre nosotros? ¿Se quedará en casa por miedo de la represión? No creo. ¡Olvidemos las excepciones y los privilegios! En una España pluricultural, todos tenemos ‘un certificado’ que nos permite salir a la calle. Se llama la razón y es el único medio que garantiza la libertad de todos ante la desinformación y autoridades confundidas.

[1] Término adaptado de E. Snowden

[2] Piensen en la multitud de películas sobre el tema que ya surgieron en los años 90 o el estudio que avisó al gobierno alemán del riesgo de una pandemia en 2012, pero que fue ignorado.

[3] Número de denuncias por infracciones del Real Decreto 463/2020, hasta el día 13 de abril de 2020.

[4] Que se declaró por gestionar COVID-19

[5] que deberán realizarse individualmente

[6] De hecho, no me sorprendió que la primera pregunta de los agentes que me pararon fuera: “Usted tiene un certificado que le permite circular en bici?”

The end of civilization?

Covid-19 is ending what 9/11 initiated: the end of privacy, freedom and common sense. It may have triggered the abolishment of a ‘civil society’ as we knew it (or thought we did).

It’s been a long time since I had the motivation to write here. Well, to be more precise, I find it ever harder to not being cynical looking at the reality. So, better leave it….but now we are sitting here, locked up in our homes (those who have one), and waiting for our mostly incompetent governments to decide who can breathe when and in what circumstances. That hasn’t always been so. There was a time (and some places), when citizens’ opinions counted, when civil society was considered an important part of the political system, and when governments made an effort to seek the best outcome considering the issues at stake.

With 9/11 this has changed forever as Edgar Snowden convincingly demonstrates in his recent book. Nowadays, governments and bureaucrats don’t see themselves as representing ‘the people’. Only focused on power and how to gain power, the only things ‘those in charge’ really care about is their electorate (that is, if they even need to consider that). While it is widely believed that the majority of votes still represents the majority of opinions, all of us that look a bit deeper into the details, know that it’s not exactly the majority of citizens that decide on political outcomes. For that end, it has become common practice to systematically exclude unwanted voters[1], manipulate others, or to cheat, falsify and lie. Whereas some time ago, a president insulting its people, other members of government, or a representative of a foreign country would have been perceived as rude, D. Trump has demonstrated that today one can win global support being an asshole [2]. Trump may be an asshole as a person but he is also the one holding up the mirror for us to see what we have become.

Rather than stopping his aggressive, mean, and totally disgusting acting, national leaders from other countries only feel attracted to his practice. History repeats itself: it’s not the agressors that are to blame for any human tragedy but the silent bystanders. Today we live in a world order that impresses only for its total lack of competence on all fronts. This couldn’t be better reflected in how Covid-19 has so far been addressed. While every country takes a total isolated approach in how to handle the apparent threat, action mostly precedes rational thinking. In Spain, the newly elected ‘socialist’ president has used the momentum to do what Spanish governments have always done best: take unilateral decisions and repress the people without considering the consequences. The government doesn’t even care to properly inform what we citizens may or may not do [3]. All they tell you is this: if you leave your house, you risk being punished from a fine of EUR 100.- to 18 months of incarceration.

So, instead of keeping calm in a manageable situation (compare it to the situation with which millions of refugees, victims of abuse, and families in precarious conditions have to live on a daily basis), the usual bystanders have become agressors themselves by using the momentum to create ‘states of emergency’ all over the planet. The consequence is that millions of people live in fear for loosing their lives, incomes or jobs. Others, such as the thousands of immigrants that live on lowest incomes and in mostly inhuman conditions to produce the cheap veggies and fruits we are all used to consume or all the elderly women selling food in the streets in Southeast Asia to survive on a few dollars day by day, may even struggle to think about the ‘time after Covid-19’. Yet, for our elites, these people don’t count because they surely aren’t even aware of their existence.

The way most governments have adressed Covid-19 is nothing more but hypocrisy. Have you ever wondered where the Greta effect has gone in those last week? Ever questioned why the dramatic restrictions on mobility have never been used before to cope with a climate crisis that has and will cost not only thousands but billions of lives? In my view it is self-explaining that government representatives who only care about reminding us of our duty to pay our taxes and other contributions to the system, do not really care about citizens or the funcioning of society. All they care about is the ‘final solution’: finding the right means to suffocate the ones that are not really appreciated. For them, Covid-19 is nothing more than a welcome opportunity to execute a long planned agenda.

In light of this reality, all the frightened citizens weighing how much longer they should stay at home should ask themselves the following: what is more scary, the threat of dying on a viral infection or the certainty of increasingly being exposed to the perversion of a totally fucked world elite? If you imagine what still lies ahead of us survivors in the years to come in a world that is more and more nationalist, exclusive and totalitarian and in which governments prevent us from being humans, death might not be the factor to determine whether we still live or not.

[1] See e.g. Joseph Stiglitz: ‘People, Power and Profits’.

[2] How else do you explain his millions of followers?

[3] Try once a web search for ‘gobierno Covid-19’ or ‘confinamiento’ and see.

 

Can we achieve sustainable development with outdated concepts and reused rhetoric?

The heatwave in Northern Europe and elsewhere provokes many emotions. Althoug even the most conservative among us realize that something needs to change, proposed solutions largely point in the wrong direction.

While even heat-lovers like myself start to feel uncomfortable given the continued high temperatures we are facing north of the Alps, hard hit are not those that shout first or the loudest. In Germany and Switzerland, farmers have been quick to ask for subsidies given expected harvest losses. As the majority of today’s citizens understand more about smartphones than agricultural policies and given that politicians get ever more populist, farmer lobbyists make easy prey with their pretended sorrow. Ignoring that they already receive high subsidies which are sold under the framework ‘payment for ecosystem services’, they are granted special rights to pump freshwater out of already stressed water bodies and/or using areas for production that are actually meant as habitat for nature. Once again, the one paying the bill for unsustainable behaviour are not those causing or contributing to it, but wildlife and nature.

Regardless of whether new subsidies are granted to farmers or not, even the most ignorant among us feel that something must change – the big question is how? It is true that those living from agricultural production may suffer more under the current drought, but should consequences be carried by and adaption left to them only? Of course not. We all have a stake in this game; a fact that might explain why sustainable development has become such a buzzword. Sustainable development is everywhere. From academia to NGOs, governments to the private sector, everyone has sustainable solutions, be it “CO2 neutral buses” running though Bern, “sustainable produced” toiled paper at Rewe, “sustainable investment” in major banks….everyone seems concerned to save the planet with “sustainable” products.

Understanding why climate shocks are increasing despite of all the ‘good solutions’ requires some more than blind ignorance. Many solutions sold as ‘sustainable’ are pure rhetoric. The city of Bern makes a good example. The local government which prides itself for its “left-wingish” tradition is distributing pool and soccer tables in neighbourhoods pretending that sustainable cities are built on governance that compensate losers for an overly car friendly traffic policy. Counting bicycles or building new tramways for thousands of students that are too lazy to walk the 300m from the train station to the University are equal cheap and foolish rhetoric as are access restrictions in neighbourhoods that have become affordable to only a few elites. True, closing roads as a protest against motorized vehicles sounds fun, but does it really contribute to sustainable development if the local residents that deny access to other road users can resist from owning big SUVs that serves the family to pollute nature at the weekend? Is it not another example of how the world is increasingly divided into those that have and those that don’t? What makes me really hot are not the elevated temperatures but the fact that farmers shout for monetary compensation and the Swiss government talk about new irrigation infrastructure, while northern researchers and NGOs (including Swiss) have earned lots of money ‘promoting climate adaptation measures‘ such as ‘climate smart agriculture’ a in the global South. Is what we promote elsewhere too sophisticated to use in our own countries?

Luckily, the extended heatwave we are currently facing provides the opportunity to reflect a bit longer and to question concepts that have been used again and again but seem to fail repeatedly. Do we really change society for the better by closing 40km of roads for a bicycle event that draws attention only because of all the infrastructure and extra action that has been built up explicitly? No, we do not, as counting bicycles does not increase bicycle traffic. Big challenges call for truly innovative solutions, such as Sundays without motorized vehicles across the country, traffic rules that favour pedestrians and bicycles, climate and eco smart farming practices in the global North, and finally, retailers that open their shelfs for veggies and fruit that do not look perfect[1].

[1] According to current ‘retail policies’ and an arrogance that denies a connection between sustainable consumption and environmental protection.

Why Brussels’ position on Cataluña does the EU more harm than good

Brussels’ leaders have decided to condemn the Catalans’ fight for independence by backing a corrupt regime in Madrid. This weak, yet undifferentiated attitude may harm the EU in the long run.

What does the average EU citizen know about Spain? Not much, I would argue. Apart from tapas that are now eaten in hip bars around Europe and the infamous beaches in Mallorca or Benidorm, many do neither know Spain’s recent history, nor the different language and cultural borders within the country. One does not need to be aware that Cava and Freixenet are from Cataluña to enjoy a good and economic alternative to Champagne. What the average EU visitors enjoy about Spain are sunshine, sandy beaches, a warm and friendly atmosphere, and decent food. What they don’t know is that all their Catalan counterparts strive for is exactly the same, only that this right has increasingly been taken from them over recent years.

In the EU we assume that all can enjoy their democratic rights. Not so in Spain, where a corrupt government in Madrid continues to reign despite of having repeatedly been out-voted by the majority of citizens. Party money laundering in Switzerland, real estate crimes, fueling environmental disasters that enrich businesses, everything seems possible under a right-wing regime in Madrid. However, possible doesn’t mean it is tolerated. Over and over have Spanish citizens tried to stand up for their rights, some a bit more, some a bit less. If the Catalans, who for whatever reasons seem to understand and care a bit more than many compatriots in other regions, eventually got so tired of a right-wing government in Madrid that repeatedly ignored Spain’s constitution, laws and regulations, should it really surprise us? Isn’t this latent corruption and carelessness exactly what many of us annoys when we enjoy our holidays in Europe’s far South? Why then should Catalans put up with it while being hold back from further development and hence closer ties to Europe?

If other EU leaders such as Merkel and May defend Rajoy’s dictatorship, then it’s not because of their sympathy for a united Spain. Instead, they see a chance to safe their own cases. Merkel finds herself in a position where she might need to quit her ambitions for eternal power after the outcome of Germany’s election in September and thus give up her long-term competition with her peer Recep T. Erdogan. May has experienced her share of independence aspirations in the recent past and certainly fears further tumults in her own geographic North. Of course they don’t like what is happening in Cataluña, as it further weakens their positions. Rajoy has long done what would suits them too: ignoring the masses and pleasing the few that hold power. Following suit, Merkel and May will be able to unilaterally translate their own agendas into practice as well.

However, their reaction might be of short life. Rather than opposing the movements in Spain, they should understand them as warning signs for what is increasingly building up elsewhere in Europe: we citizens are fed up with governments that don’t care for their people. Brussels has never been further away from its citizens than it is today, regardless of the thousands of kilometers of highways and high-speed trains, and the internet accesses that have been built in the EU. While citizens worry about their neighborhoods and identities steadily disappearing, bureaucrats react with ever more bureaucracy. It can’t work. Connecting with people means understanding their needs and desires. What us Europeans united in the first place is a common understanding of values such as freedom, independence and justice. Where this values are no longer protected, there is nothing to hold us together.

The beauty of the EU is that it could guarantee exactly these values and rights where corrupt governments abuse their power. Instead the EU’s leaders have now decided to do the opposite and further oppress democracy. In the long run this can only end where it all started in 1789: in chaos and with a few heads falling at the guillotine. Maybe it’s the only alternative we people have. In that sense, rather than condemning the Catalans as rebels, we should acknowledge that they are one step ahead of all of us.

Why resurrecting fake news about Pangasius are a loss for humanity

The Vietnamese Pangasius sector has seen rough times since wrong claims back in 2011 destroyed the reputation of Panga farming in the Mekong Delta. While experts and scientists have worked hard to establish facts and to improve production practices, wrongdoers and laymen continue to destroy what was once legitimately lauded as a ‘success story’ of aquaculture development.

Back in early 2014 I wrote a post about the Pangasius industries in Vietnam and how wrong claims have had a heavy toll on a sector that provides employment and livelihoods for thousands of people in the Mekong Delta. Despite an improvement process that involved far-ranging consultation with hundreds of experts and stakeholders all over the world, Pangasius production is once more affected by wrong allegations: a TV report followed by various news articles have led to rapid declines of Pangasius imports to Spain. Whereas French supermarket giant Carrefour was quick to remove Pangasius from its shelves in other European countries as well, consumers do better listening to science than following the decisions of sharks and laymen.

Firstly, one needs to understand the parties involved in the TV report that led to renewed distrust in Europe. ‘En el punto de mira[1]’ aired by Spanish Cadena 4, is a program that most of all seeks to increase its viewer numbers. It does so by creating scandals that personally affect the majority of a largely ignorant society. It might be a coincidence that Ricardo Pardo, reporter of the Panga story, comes from Vigo which is also home to Spain’s infamous fishing fleet. A billion dollar business that has lived from exploiting worldwide fishery resources over decades thanks to heavy support from EU tax payers, Vigo’s fishery industry has vested interests in protecting its market shares and deceiving consumers over its unsustainable business ethics or the fact that it has done very little to improve its performance over the years while others did. Back in 2011, when first allocations targeted at weakening the Pangasius sector, the anti-campaign was driven by European salmon and trout farmers. Similar to their Spanish colleagues, they did not primarily look at improving the production conditions in Vietnam, but at saving their own skin and market shares, which under the increasing pressure exerted by NGOs and backed by scientific evidence became threatened. An industry that consumes more fish in the form of feed than it produces can’t be regarded as sustainable and only increases the problem of global overfishing. Therefore it needs other means to fight competitors with a scientific advantage.

Secondly, one needs to understand the culture of the country where the accusations come from. In Spain, a country disease-ridden by systematic corruption and one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe, particularly among younger people, sensations and fake news make a good substrate for public outcry. This is all the more the case if people can attack citizens from countries that according to their viewpoint should be worse off than themselves but are obviously not. Envious, lazy and powerless in light of a quasi-totalitarian government, Spain’s younger generation uses youtubing, facebooking, blogging and tweeting to steam off part of the rage that derives from a lack of access and lost opportunities. In that world, likes count more than facts and badly investigated news travel quicker than brains can think. Spanish love seafood, yet the majority knows very little about sustainability and eco-footprints of fish products. The reason is the absence of a discourse as it has been held in other countries for more than a decade. In addition, where people don’t even know the difference between Switzerland and Sweden, Asia is an unknown monster famous for the production of cheap Chinese products which are sold in ‘todo a cien’ shops now predominantly run by Chinese immigrants. Needless to say that part of that hate against Chinese also affects Vietnamese, Thai, and all the other ‘chinorris’ who take over business in Spain.

Finally, one should not trust a source of information unless it is known to be sound. When Celia Ojeda, responsible for Oceans and Fishery at Greenpeace Spain, claims that Pangasius farming “destroys mangrove” and that the Panga industry was “affected by slavery” then she uses her position at Greenpeace to impress citizens that are geographically and culturally even less educated than she is, ignoring that as a freshwater species Pangasius is not farmed in mangrove areas and that the ‘human right abuses‘ she might have heard of came from Vietnam’s neighbor Thailand. Likewise, if retail giant Carrefour is dropping Pangasius from its product range, then this says more about its sourcing policy than production methods in Vietnam. The fact that Carrefour follows claims that are almost diametrically opposed to the reality—Pangasius is one of the more eco-friendly farmed fishes, the Mekong River is by far not the most polluted river, and Pangasius that enters Europe undergoes some of the most stringent controls on the planet—suggests that Carrefour knows nothing about the sector. Part of the failure of the Pangasius sector is exactly the arrogance of retailers like Carrefour who are only interested in exploiting their ‘partners’ as a source of cheap goods rather than taking ownership in their value chains. While leading companies work together with producers to improve Pangasius production, Carrefour & Co. delegate sourcing responsibility to traders that provide the cheapest products on the market. Needless to say that such businesses lack any kind of tracebility. Turning their backs on Pangasius reflects a lack of information and consequently lack of trust in themselves, not in Pangasius producers which they probably only know from saying.

Education and science, the only way to advance humanity, can help us to shed light on a complicated Pangasius story and provide answers to complex questions. In contrast, in a wold in which poor journalism is preferred over science, humanity is doomed to fail – just as some among us who bark up the wrong tree.

[1] Spanish for ‚In the spotlight‘

Europe and the financial mafia – a love affair

About a year ago I wrote about how US measures on curbing tax evasion had unnecessary repercussions on innocent citizens worldwide. Meanwhile I got used to be ripped off by dubious financial institutions that started controlling all sorts of money transactions in Europe.

No doubt, the majority of European citizens must support measures that stop the unethical practices of the rich to evade taxes by moving their assets to some dubious offshore financial institutions while fattening their bellies thanks to our state support. Recent observations however make me believe that European states are doing the opposite: financial transactions are increasingly becoming a source for unjustified rents by a number of strange organizations. One example is a flight ticket that I bought online from Iberia, the Spanish national Airline. Not long ago, one bought an Iberia ticket from ‘the company’ through either cash, debit card or credit card payment. Nowadays, Iberia is split into three different companies and one must first decide whether to fly Iberia, Iberiaexpress or Vueling. It’s all the same flight, only the revenues go into different pots. Once the ticket is booked and one proceeds to the online payment, a (to me unknown) third party provider pops up: SOFORT GmbH. Asked to enter my private bank user name and password to SOFORTs website I was a bit reluctant but did so eventually as I needed the ticket urgently and believed that Iberia knew what it was doing. Indeed, all went well and I was sent my e-ticket soon after.

Two days later I received an email from SOFORT GmbH telling me that the transaction for my ticket had failed and that I needed to follow-up on the payment if I did not want to risk losing my seat. Alerted I logged into my online bank account[2] and saw that the transaction was on hold. I could click on it but not do anything more. Eventually, I decided to follow the instructions of SOFORT and make a manual bank transfer. Done, I contacted SOFORT and they confirmed that all was good now. Another two days later I figured that I was deducted the full amount twice, both on the same day. Again, I contacted SOFORT, but immediately got a reply that they could not help me. Rather, I should contact the merchant/provider/PSP where I had placed the order. Fxxx! So what the heck is a PSP? After some more emails back and forth I figured that the PSP might be Loviiit. However, Loviiit, ‘DOCOMO Digital’s e-commerce and m-commerce payments enabler’, which ‘provides international and multi-currency payment processing services, including e-money and mobile payment wallets for sellers and buyers, fraud and risk prevention as well as consumer financing solutions’ is a company that does not even publish an email address or any other contact information on their website. All you can do is submit an inquiry, wait and hope.

While I’m still waiting to get my Euro 400 back, I’m thinking about my purchase and the parties involved. SOFORT as I learn from their website is ‘Germany’s leading direct payment system’. And my transfer went to Loviit with seat in Lichtenstein. Why do I need a German payment system to transfer my money to a Lichtenstein company that facilitates the purchase of my online ticket from a Spanish airline? Is that what the European Union stands for: united we steal (better and more efficient)? Once a proud European I start to disrespect this place where all sorts of mafia groups have gained so much power and status that we take them for granted. Are SOFORT and Loviiit even a partner company of the current Spanish government that has taught us how to transfer millions of tax money into the pockets of its party leaders without even fearing an election loss?

I wouldn’t be so angry if that was the first time such a thing happened to me but the reality is that I was involved in all sort of bank fraud over the past few months. There was this ATM withdrawal from Euronet over the amount of 600 EUR from a EUR-account in Switzerland that they charged me in CHF regardless of me denying to have the amount converted into CHF. It costs me 60 EUR in exchange loss due to the really bad exchange rate they applied. 10% of commission for an ATM withdrawal in Europe – who would call that ethic? I also got charged EUR 21 for an inward transaction to the above mentioned online account of BBVA regardless of European law providing that SEPA payments should be free of charge between member states[1]. Europe has become a virtual nightmare with companies stealing wherever they can and nobody being around to answer our inquiries. Meanwhile as a self-employed entrepreneur working in different European countries I spend more time doing paper work and filing tax declarations for a variety of member states than I can dedicate to my actual work from which I gain my income. In the majority of cases I have to deal with highly incompetent state officials that do nothing but count the minutes until their work time ends. Or maybe, they watch the values of their Panama accounts increasing.

To sum up, it appears that Europe has degenerated into a financial Mafia land. All our bureaucrats have achieved in recent years is the private sector copying their practices and stealing time and money from citizens without providing any services in return. Truly a lovely (banking) Union.

 

[1] When such transaction are free of charge for domestic transactions, what they are in the case of my account.

[2] An online bank account by BBVA without support whatsoever that does all but cause me headaches.

Donald Trump is not a joke!

Although he might appear as an antidote to my values and political views, I believe that Donald Trump is not the worst president that we have to deal with. In fact, he might be something like a new hope.

According to many newspapers, Donald Trump’s victory is a surprise, a shock – even a dark day. Is that true? While some observed that a possible win was troubling worldwide stock exchanges in the hours leading to his election, the opposite was true shortly after. And all those celebrities who threatened to leave the US when Trump would become president are now more silent than their empty promises. Rather than being shocked, media should ask themselves what they have failed to foresee.

First and foremost, the people have voted – emphasis on people and voted. Whereas in Europe, we love to talk principles, the US is still a place made of people. People voted, not their principles. And yes, they voted, they didn’t simply talk. In Europe, we talk. We protest. We suffer. Yet, we repeat the same mistakes over and over again, without eventually understanding that something needs to change if we want to improve a worsening situation. All those US citizens that gave their vote to Donald Trump did not vote for the principles or values of Trump. They are not more racists than we Europeans are. They are not more ignorant than the average Spanish is. Maybe they are not that different from us at all. Only, they decided to say ‘No’. No, finish, over. US citizens have not voted for Trump, they have voted against Hillary. They have voted against status quo. The US people are tired of the system. They had enough of all the big-mouth elites controlling their country.

In contrast to all the celebrities and multi-millionaires controlling media, average US citizens have to swallow all the big-mouth shit that the system and its supporters produce. Do you think that Samuel L. Jackson will now move to South Africa or that Cher will fly to Jupiter? Do you think that Hillary Clinton will still share her income with poor males as she promised during the campaign? For them, a vote is just a vote, like all the empty words they create out of badly-put-together letters. That’s why they love to talk big shit. In Europe, we keep talking about principles and values such as sustainable development and equity without realising that all we stand for are just empty shells. We create dogmas such as gender equity, fight for higher salaries for women but watch away when women among us are beaten to death. We manage eucalyptus mono-culture forests in very fragile Mediterranean ecosystems with the principle to create renewable energy while deforesting Asia thanks to international development programs supported by our tax-evading financial magnates. We talk shit and swallow it on a daily basis, yet we try not to suffocate rather than stop talking.

It’s true enough that Trump may likely disappoint a big majority of his voters in the near future. Yet, they gave him the benefit of the doubt. This latter point might be what has made America different from Europe ever since: Americans are more risky than we Europeans are. ‘Who risks, wins’ as the saying goes. Trump is a risk, but at least he is a hope. Even as a nihilist I believe that hope is still better than lingering in vain and holding on to empty principles while observing how a rotten system drags us all deeper and deeper into abyss. Hope is part of what makes us human and that’s why humans have made Trump their president.

 

Game of Thrones in Europe

Apart from beautiful filming, Game of Thrones has also educational character. Its political content can help immature citizens understand why we need more integration, not isolation as postulated by Brexit.

Looking at recent developments, one might expect that Europe is falling apart. Shaken by terror, economic struggles, political instability and separatism, the institution EU has been questioned on the grounds that it was too bureaucratic. As repeatedly in history, populists seek cheap answers to complex problems by blaming larger cooperation for individual loss without seeing that governing shared resources asks most of all answers to distributional questions. It is this failure that has brought us to where we stand, and, tackling it is thus the key to finding a way out of the worldwide social impasse in which we are trapped. Seeking an answer in isolation is repeating history and thus a step back in time.

Backwards thinking might be attractive, but it is not a cure. Although plundering resources and enslaving entire populations in Latin America, Asia and Africa has given us Europeans power, it is not a medication with long-term effects, particularly not now that global resources are getting scarce. As many other world citizens demand their share in global benefits, many among us feel that it might be safer to restrict their access to our accumulated wealth by their exclusion. The UK, a world-leader in exploiting resources and oppressing peoples, has recently decided that while it was OK to take from European partners, sharing with them was not really what they want. Apart from the political value, what made me really sick about the whole Brexit debate were all these stupid voices desiring to have back achievements such as the ‘Great Empire’ or the freedom to ‘spoil oneself in luxury’. While slavery is sadly enough still practised in Europe, even the dumbest among us should realize that stronger light bulbs will not make even the littlest brain of whatever actress brighter.

Above all the entire Brexit debate has shown that Europe is governed by immature citizens. While we believe in democracy as the core to justice, we Europeans fail to understand that complex problems need solutions that might be unconventional and difficult to understand for non-experts. However, while we don’t bring our children to the bakery when their teeth ache, we all want to have a say in politics as we believe to have expert-knowledge in everything. Endless referendum and cyclic movements are the result. Democracy as understood by us Europeans is most of all inefficient, since it keeps us focussed on the process rather than providing solutions to our real problems. The re-merging power of populist parties in Europe can consequently be seen as a failure of citizens to understand the causes of our current problems and avoiding to provide solutions to them. Instead of overcoming well-established customs and habits, we claim democracy and more power to the peoples as the solution to economic problems.

In times of economic difficulties, we find the panacea of better performance by asking for local control and exclusion of everything ‘not from here’.  This racism in its purest form prevents us from seeing the distributional deficiencies within (the system). In Spain, a country that has become a democracy as late as the early 1980s and which has ever since been manipulated by elites and their corrupt practises, young citizens fail to see that it is the rotten system that needs to change not the countries’ relation to Europe. While the EU is probably the best tool to overthrow the establishment they have, many citizens that have been politically passive for most of their life all of a sudden stand up against the EU in order to express their frustration over lack of perspectives. Of course, it is easier to receive many ‘likes’ by re-tweeting or posting anti-German paroles than questioning some domestic deficiencies. Change means also confronting oneself with risk and requires skills and capacities that one first needs to develop. Throwing ones wife from the balcony and blaming emancipation for lack of bread is easier than becoming a noble man and an educated citizen that abides from stupid customs such as torturing animals for public amusement. Improvement within a critically sick system often requires significant change and mandates that one needs to leave their comfort zone, not something cowards really seek.

Maybe the most disturbing element of European politics is the failure to account for distributional factors. As an expat returning to Europe I am year by year more shocked by the arrogance that our pensioners expose. While their rude, selfish and ignorant behaviour resembles that of hordes of uncontrolled punks, the comparison might not be too far-fetched as these proud ‘68er revolutionists’ have mostly thought about self-fulfillment all their life long. Rhetorically rebelling against established institutions in the late 1960s they have turned their back on important environmental and social issues that became apparent in the early 1970s[1] and instead, successively in-filtered politics and bureaucracy to take over key positions that allowed them to exploit wherever they could. Negating pressing issues such as climate change and social injustice for decades, they grabbed what was within reach and waited until their retirement to ask for policies that protect the wealth of the wealthy while the poor in the developing world and future generations should pay the bill for all the environmental damage that their life-long resource exploitation has caused. It is these 68er punks that manipulate the entire political agenda across Europe in their own favour and at the expense of better outcomes. This is all the more disturbing as they don’t have to account for the long-term effects of their current votes.

Achieving sustainable development, the main target of the global development agenda, means working on inter-generational as much as intra-generational justice.  It means speaking out against politics that further skew distribution in favour of those who already have. It also means putting our fingers at our parents and might cost a bit more courage than closing the door in light of some stranger in need. How much easier is it to ignore the thousands of drowning refugees in the Mediterranean Sea while enjoying the comfort of our parent’s home – funded on stolen resources and built by the sweat of migrants? True, Game of Thrones showed us that justice is a fragile concept. While we Europeans believe in democracy as a means to justice, in reality justice not only needs to address questions around access to vote, but also distributional issues. From an equity perspective there is no doubt that Europe will never see justice as long as actresses demand privileges that have made queens untouchable. From a resource perspective, it is evident that we need more cooperation in face of increased scarcity. Put two and two together, we need more integration, not less. The EU was a good start to cooperation, now we only need to upscale it.

While the UK has taken the path of isolation, in reality the answer to its problems lies in more integration. Rather than distancing itself from Europe, it should reach out to the world and embrace nations such as China, which it forced to centuries of political isolation from Europe by starting an economic motivated war in the 19^th century. Indeed, the EU and its apparent bureaucracy are not UK’s true problems, nor those of any other country. What we European need is seeing the full picture rather than following mainstream politics. Maybe the best way forward would be less democracy, not only less bureaucracy.

[1] Notably during the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment