By External Source
Jun 28 2024 (IPS-Partners)

 
In Zambia, over 6.5 million people need humanitarian assistance because of the drought. 3.5 million of them are children.

The impacts of El Niño and climate change have been devastating for children.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Mary Church
BONN, Germany, Jun 28 2024 – Despite the evident and increasing urgency of the climate crisis, the June intersessional meeting of the UNFCCC closed with little to show for two full weeks of negotiation.

With COP29 being cited as ‘the Finance COP’, much of the focus across various agenda items was on ever contested questions of who owes what to whom. Crucially, the meeting was supposed to advance negotiations on a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance for the post 2025 period, due to be agreed in Baku.

However, despite ‘quantified’ being in the very name of the goal, developed countries refused to be drawn on the critical matter of how much is owed and needed.

The 2020 goal of $100bn per year (stretched to 2025) remains unfilled, with the vast majority of what the Global North claims to have contributed in the form of loans, or money redirected from other overseas budgets.

Likewise, despite the long fought battle which secured a new loss and damage finance mechanism at COP27, that pot too remains as good as empty, with current pledges equating to less than 0.2% of the climate change related losses faced by Global South countries each year.

Climate finance is key. Intimately related to the core UNFCCC principles of equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR), it is central to unlocking the stalemate that has plagued negotiations since they began.

But instead of concrete finance commitments and delivery, carbon markets are increasingly being spun as climate finance, with some increasingly desperate nations on the frontlines of the climate crisis grasping wishfully at the idea that a 5% share of proceeds from markets under the Paris Agreement will plug the longstanding gap on adaptation funding, and others preparing to sell off their rich ecosystems as some form or other of carbon credits.

As the practical limitations, to say nothing of the social and environmental harms, of novel land based Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) schemes are increasingly exposed at a scale to impact the climate, Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), one of the most widely touted CDR technologies, would require twice the entire global land area currently under cultivation, oceans are being sized up as the next frontier for such exploitation.

Oceans cover over 70% of the Earth’s surface, and are already our greatest ally in the fight against climate change. Alarmingly, however, highly speculative and risky theories about engineering them at will to sequester and store ever more carbon are increasingly being incorporated into the climate policy landscape.

We see this in the opaque language that invites parties to scale up ‘ocean-based mitigation action’ that found its way into the Global Stocktake decision text last year in Dubai, and more clearly in the explicit inclusion of dangerous ocean CDR methods in the ongoing wrangling over Article 6 guidelines, which in various iterations identify ocean fertilisation, ocean alkalinity enhancement and algae cultivation / biomass sinking for potential inclusion.

And concerningly, we also saw it in this year’s Ocean and Climate Change Dialogue held in Bonn. Pitched as a “[recognition of] the need to strengthen the understanding of, and action on, ocean and climate change”, the Dialogue, now in its 4th year, saw a push for research and development of marine CDR under its theme on ‘Technology Needs for Ocean Climate Action, including Finance Links’.

The problem for those who would financialise and plunder the oceans under the guise of climate mitigation is that there are of course other UN Conventions of equal importance to the UNFCCC that have for good reason imposed restrictive regulations on these activities.

The Convention on Biological Diversity has had a de facto moratorium in place on all geoengineering since 2010, while the London Convention / London Protocol, which regulates pollution at sea, has made clear its intention to add potentially a further four categories of marine geoengineering to its 2008 prohibition on ocean fertilisation.

Crucially, a commercial factor is a key element under both regimes in restricting outdoor experiments – which of course is inherent in any ocean-based CDR envisaged under carbon markets, voluntary or otherwise.

The fact is, however, that none of the marine geoengineering approaches increasingly referred to as CDR do anything to tackle the root causes of climate change, and none have been able to demonstrate that they can effectively capture or store carbon with any permanence.

They are an extremely dangerous distraction from the real action we know is needed to rapidly bring down greenhouse gasses, starting with an urgent and just phase out of fossil fuels. Furthermore they are likely to cause great harm to the delicate equilibrium of the oceans – already severely stressed by over-exploitation, pollution and global heating – with potentially grave consequences for ocean biodiversity, food chains, fisheries, and even the oceans’ natural capacity to sequester carbon.

At least 40 open-water marine geoengineering experiments are currently underway or in planning, across a variety of theories and technologies, many of which have a clear commercial element and are likely in violation of international agreements. Some of these are already running into very practical challenges, such as the postponement of Planetary Technologies’ planned ocean alkalinity enhancement trial in Cornwall, where community resistance led to an independent assessment which exposed serious flaws in the plan, while biomass cultivation and sinking start-up Running Tide announced the closure of its fairly advanced operations only this last week, citing lack of demand for carbon credits from the voluntary market.

Ultimately however, as a broad spectrum of civil society organisations made clear in several interventions at the Ocean and Climate Dialogue, and in a statement endorsed by over 100 organisations as of last month, Paris Agreement carbon markets, which are so very clearly legitimising these highly speculative and risky approaches, cannot ignore international agreements restricting them and must uphold the precautionary principle.

As we head to COP29 in Baku and as IPCC kicks off its work on the 7th Assessment Cycle later this year, the voices of civil society across the globe, Indigenous Peoples, coastal communities and fisherfolk must be heard as they reiterate the risk of undermining the vital role oceans play in sustaining life on earth. It is unquestionably clear that our oceans cannot be for sale.

Mary Church is Geoengineering Campaign Manager, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and member of Hands-Off Mother Earth! (HOME) Alliance.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Andrew Lichterman, Alyn Ware and Yosuke Watanabe
OAKLAND, California / PRAGUE, Czech Republic / YOKOHAMA, Japan, Jun 28 2024 – Our three organizations– Western States Legal Foundation, Peace Depot, and Basel Peace Office– all dedicated to the elimination of nuclear weapons, have consistently expressed our concern about the risk of nuclear war escalating during armed conflicts and times of high tension, when nuclear-armed states often make veiled or even explicit threats to use nuclear weapons and prepare for such use.

This has happened, for example, with the governments of India and Pakistan trading nuclear threats during their 2001 stand-off, the U.S. government making veiled nuclear threats against Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and the U.S. and North Korean leaders threatening to strike each other with nuclear weapons in 2017.

We speak out now against the series of coercive nuclear threats that have been made by the Russian government since 2022 in conjunction with its invasion of Ukraine and occupation of Ukrainian territory.

From the start of the full-scale invasion and war in 2022, the government of the Russian Federation has made a series of threats to use nuclear weapons against countries that provide Ukraine with weapons and other military assistance.

Russian officials also have claimed the right to use nuclear weapons to defend territories they have occupied and illegally annexed in the course of the war. These threats have been accompanied by such posturing as the announced deployment of Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus and the highlighting of exercises of Russian nuclear forces in a military district on Ukraine’s borders.

These threats make clear once more a key role of the nuclear weapons possessed by the world’s most powerful states: to make it easier for their governments to pursue aggressive wars and to coerce countries to accept this aggression by exponentially increasing the danger to all who might oppose them.

In 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal, but did not reach a conclusion, one way or the other, regarding an extreme circumstance of self-defense when the very survival of a state is at stake.

This approach was controversial at the time in the international legal community, with considerable opinion that the threat or use of nuclear arms is illegal in all circumstances. That view has only strengthened in the nearly three decades since then.

Among other developments, the UN Human Rights Committee found in 2018 that threat or use of nuclear weapons is contrary to the human right to life; the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons declared in its preamble that use of nuclear weapons is contrary to international humanitarian law (IHL) governing the conduct of warfare; and a 2011 International Red Cross and Red Cross Movement resolution stated that it is “difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with” IHL.

Regardless of one’s view of the current state of the law, the population of the Russian Federation faces no threat to its “very survival”. Their government could end its war on Ukraine tomorrow and the Russian Federation would remain a large and powerful state with an immense resource and industrial base, its internationally recognized borders intact.

There is no rationale for the brandishing of nuclear weapons by the government of the Russian Federation other than to leverage their terrible destructive power to advance its war of aggression and conquest in Ukraine.

In January 2022, less than two months before the government of the Russian Federation launched its invasion, that government, together with those of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and China issued a statement affirming that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Then in November 2022, at the G20 Summit in Bali, and again at the September 2023 G20 Summit in Delhi, the leaders and/or foreign ministers of China, France, India, Russia, UK, and USA declared that the “use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.” Yet, the nuclear threats continue.

Amidst a war already involving extensive air bombardment and missile warfare, together with the use of new kinds of electronic warfare that intensifies the fog of war, a nuclear crisis would pose extraordinary dangers. No one should have any illusions that such a crisis could be easily controlled.

The government of the Russian Federation should cease its threats of nuclear use, and issue assurances that it will not use nuclear weapons in the conflict with Ukraine. The United States, France, the United Kingdom, and NATO should issue such assurances as well.

Andrew Lichterman is Senior Research Analyst, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, USA; Alyn Ware is Global Coordinator, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, Director, Basel Peace Office, Prague, Czech Republic; Yosuke Watanabe is Research Fellow, Peace Depot, Japan Coordinator, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, Yokohama, Japan.

The Western States Legal Foundation, based in Oakland, California, seeks to abolish nuclear weapons as an essential step in making possible a more secure, just, and environmentally sustainable world; Peace Depot is a non-profit, independent think tank based in Yokohama, Japan. It supports civil society’s peace movements, particularly in the area of nuclear disarmament and military base issues; Basel Peace Office is a coalition of four Swiss organizations and three international organizations advancing effective policies and proposals to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Smelling the toxic smoke coming from burned powder kegs and helplessly watching fields turn into smoke and ash is traumatic. Rushing to the government’s safe houses and leaving your homes, belongings and cattle behind whenever the armies of India and Pakistan trade fire is inexplicable. Then came climate-change-induced weather unpredictability.  But the inhabitants of this […]

By Kris Janssens
PHNOM PENH, Jun 28 2024 – Modernity is arriving rapidly in Cambodia, observes journalist Kris Janssens (48), who has lived and worked in the country since 2016. The predominantly young population is eager to move forward, embracing technology over traditional agriculture or fishing. Can Cambodians unite their country’s authentic soul with their aspirations for progress?

Enormous changes throughout the years

I arrived in Cambodia in the winter of 2015, on January 7 to be precise. At the time, I was unaware of the significance of this date in Cambodian history, marking the official end of the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979. To be honest, I knew very little about Cambodia.

Today, half of the Cambodians are under 25 years old. This is the first generation of twenty-year-olds to grow up without war or violence. These youngsters want to move forward with their lives. And that usually means moving away from the countryside

I planned to stay here briefly before returning to India, where I had just finished a series of radio reports. The unique Cambodian spirit changed my decision and my life course. This country immediately felt so familiar to me that I decided to move here permanently, about eighteen months later, in the fall of 2016. I’m still very happy that I can live in this magical kingdom.

But throughout the years, Cambodia has changed enormously. In the capital city of Phnom Penh, small shops and cozy coffee bars make way for tall bank buildings. And the picturesque airport will soon be replaced by a huge terminal, further away from the city center, and out of proportion compared to the human-scaled city that I love so much.

I have the feeling that the country is losing a part of its soul, and I want to try to capture and document this authentic spirit before it is too late.

Very young population

The fact that Cambodia is at a tipping point is primarily due to demography and history. More than one and a half million Cambodians died during the brutal Khmer Rouge era in the 1970s. The Pol Pot era was followed by a power vacuum and it took until the 1990s before peace and stability could return.

Today, half of the Cambodians are under 25 years old. This is the first generation of twenty-year-olds to grow up without war or violence. These youngsters want to move forward with their lives. And that usually means moving away from the countryside. The population of Phnom Penh has increased from 1.7 to 2.4 million people in the past ten years.

According to demographic forecasts, Phnom Penh will have more than 3 million inhabitants by 2035. More and more young Cambodians want to study in the city and switch from agriculture or fishing to technology or tourism.

Harsh economic reality

This shift is clearly visible in Kampong Khleang, a stilt village on the shore of the great Tonle Sap Lake, close to Siem Reap and the famous temples of Angkor Wat. Early in the morning, a rickety canoe takes me out to the open water, heading towards the rising sun. But what appears idyllic to me represents a harsh economic reality for the fishermen here. The catch is meager, and life is difficult.

“My son is going to work in the city, away from the water,” says Borei. It is the end of a tradition because his ancestors have lived as fishermen for generations. “But living along the water has become difficult, there are too many fishermen.” His shy ten-year-old son gazes ahead quietly. I ask him where he would like to work. After some hesitation, he responds “with the police”.

“That is a typical answer,” says Chhay Doeb. He is the Executive director of Cambodia Rural Students Trust, an NGO that provides scholarships to students from impoverished rural families.

“When young people arrive in the city, they want to become police officers, soldiers, doctors or teachers,” he says. “But they gradually discover that they can also work in the real estate sector or as a lawyer, for example.”

Noticeable distrust among parents

Doeb believes that the Cambodian economy will evolve and diversify even further. “But the economic level of neighboring countries like Thailand or Vietnam is not yet within reach,” he says.

At its founding in 2011, the organization had to go to villages and convince students of the NGO’s good intentions. Today, there are almost a thousand applications for twenty new places every year. The money for the scholarships comes from Australia.

Doeb still notices distrust among parents, wondering what their offspring is doing in the city.

I also experience this suspicion in Kratie, a small town on the bank of the Mekong River in the rural interior of Cambodia. The typical rural villagers look like characters sculpted from clay, with heads weathered by the sun and bodies wrinkled from hard work.

I meet Proum Veasna, who is about to take his cows back to the stable at dusk. During our conversation, his close neighbor passes by on his moped. He teasingly squeezes Veasna’s bare stomach. “We are friends, we all know each other here,” he says. His son works as a construction worker in Phnom Penh, but he has never been there himself. “It’s polluted, I would immediately get sick.”

Veasna has always worked as a farmer. “I had no choice because I have no education.” He wants a different future for his four children. “My daughter is learning English and Chinese.” The girl cycles by as we talk about her. “She can grow up to be whatever she wants, she is so smart,” says the proud dad.

Boosting economy

Upstream the Mekong River, in the neighboring province of Stung Treng, I meet Teap Chueng and Kom Leang, a retired couple living in a lonely house in a vast wooded landscape. “Covid never happened here”, they tell me with a big smile, “because we are never in touch with city dwellers”.

They do not need to go to the nearby town, as they are completely self-sufficient. “We have four hectares of land”, says Teap Chueng, while his wife proudly shows home-grown winter melon, a mild-tasting fruit related to the cucumber.

The region is also known for cashew nuts. “As we speak, new factories are being built, so the farmers will be able to scale up the production”. Although they realize that industrialization will change the landscape of their beloved home, the couple can’t wait for this development to happen. “It will boost our economy, which will benefit our children and grandchildren”.

A country with a lot of energy

Seayeen Aum is a typical example of someone who managed to work his way up. As a child, he learned how to survive in nature. “We didn’t always have enough money”, he says. “But if you know and understand the forest, you will always find something to eat.”

Today he promotes ecotourism in the remote province of Ratanakiri, in Cambodia’s northeast. And with success. During our trek through the jungle, he constantly receives calls and orders on one of his two mobile phones. “We are a country with a lot of energy,” he says, laughing.

This entrepreneur succeeded in marketing this region, with traditional ethnic minority groups, in a respectful manner to a Western audience. Authenticity and progress do go hand in hand here for the time being.

This is a country with a lot of challenges, providing all these graduating students with satisfying employment, to say the least. The drive for stability is important to Cambodians, but I also see ambitious people like Seayeen, who have a plan and are progressively working towards the result. In another five to eight years from now, this country will look completely different.

By Robert Kibet
NAIROBI, Jun 27 2024 – In a historic first, Kenya’s youth have mobilized in large-scale protests to demand that the political establishment listen to them. The Finance Bill 2024, which proposed new taxes across several sectors, was the catalyst for the protests, igniting outrage among a youth demographic that feels betrayed by decades of political promises. These protests, driven by economic and social grievances, escalated dramatically, culminating in clashes with police that led to numerous deaths and widespread unrest.

The streets of Kenya’s major towns and cities became battlegrounds, showcasing a remarkable display of youth agitation. Hundreds of demonstrators faced illegal arrests and detentions, with many others sustaining injuries in the chaos. 

Amidst these tumultuous scenes that gripped Kenya, young female protesters emerged as a force to be reckoned with, standing shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts in defiance of punitive tax measures. Their presence in the chaotic protests was not just significant; it was transformative, as they marched fearlessly into the fray, determined to have their voices heard.

Wanjiku Stephens, donning a luminous green raincoat, became an emblem of bravery as she marched towards a police water cannon. Her act of standing in solidarity with a fellow protester shocked many.

“I was somewhere behind when I saw a young guy hit by the water cannon. A young and energetic guy who not only believed in himself but in the people. That is when I said I have to speak up as a woman,” she recounted, her voice tinged with a mix of fear and resolve. Wanjiku couldn’t pinpoint where her courage came from, only that she found herself on the frontlines, unwavering.

Shakira Wafula boldly confronted the anti-riot police, mirroring Wanjiku’s spirit.

“I am here for Kenya, for my people. I am here for your rights. Push me,” she declared defiantly, clad in black, raising her fist up and holding a Kenyan flag.

Shakira’s frustration was palpable as she described her encounter. “The police tried to control how I was moving. This raised my pressure,” she explained.

Wanjiku also highlighted the specific grievances of women regarding the Finance Bill. “If you look closely at the Finance Bill, a lot of things are affecting us as women. From sanitary towels to anything involving the household, which is the woman’s responsibility,” she pointed out.

“In other countries, sanitary products are free, so why not in Kenya? Why are we being charged for having periods, something we didn’t choose?” she asks.

An anti-riot police officer escorts an arrested female protester outside the Kenya Supreme Court in Nairobi during the demonstrations. Credit: Robert Kibet/IPS

The current government claimed that the previous administration had borrowed heavily from foreign governments, so the Finance Bill sought to increase and introduce new taxes to pay off this debt while simultaneously making Kenya less reliant on foreign debt. This was to bridge the debt gap and also raise revenue to finance the government’s move to subsidize agriculture inputs. The taxes on basic necessities, such as bread and sanitary towels, infuriated the youth and Kenyans.

Unlike previous demonstrations marked by stones and crude weapons, these Gen Z protesters opted for peaceful chants, documenting their protests on their phones and even live-streaming to reach a wider audience. Their approach was a testament to a new wave of activism, one that harnessed technology and peaceful resistance to amplify their message.

As these relentless women took their stand, they not only fought against economic injustice but also redefined the role of women in Kenya’s fight for a fair and just society. Their courage and determination became a powerful symbol of the youth uprising, inspiring countless others to join the cause.

The proposed Finance Bill is seen by many as a burden on ordinary Kenyans, deepening their financial struggles, while expanding government spending. The youth, already facing high unemployment despite being educated, view this bill as a direct assault on their economic prospects. Their frustration is palpable, and their actions speak volumes about their desperation and determination.

In a bid to suppress the protests, law enforcement officers resorted to firing live ammunition, wielding batons, deploying water cannons, and using tear gas grenades. This heavy-handed approach resulted in a significant number of deaths and injuries, though the precise count remains uncertain.

According to the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979) and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), only the minimum force necessary should be used for legitimate law enforcement purposes during an assembly. These international standards highlight the excessive nature of the force used against the Kenyan protesters, raising serious human rights concerns.

The anger and determination of the youth reached a peak as they occupied the parliament precincts, one of the most protected zones in the country. They managed to breach security and gain entry into the bicameral house, leading to chaotic and unprecedented scenes.

At least four protesters were shot dead as police struggled to disperse the rioters. The situation escalated further as protesters vandalized windows and set fire to the new wing of the parliament building, causing significant damage and forcing MPs and parliamentary staff to scramble for safety.

The use of live ammunition to quell the riots, along with reports of arbitrary arrests and the intimidation of activists, has drawn sharp criticism from lawyers and human rights groups. They argue that such measures are not only excessive but also violate the fundamental rights of the protesters.

As the dust begins to settle, the broader implications of these protests for Kenyan society and politics become clearer. The targeting of businesses perceived to be aligned with politicians supporting the Finance Bill underscores the deep-seated frustration and mistrust among the youth. The potential for future unrest looms large as the young generation continues to demand justice and economic fairness.

In a surprising turn of events, Ruto succumbed to mounting pressure from Gen Z, millennials, and the public, leading him to make an unprecedented decision. The president announced the withdrawal of the contentious 2024 Finance Bill, a move that the protesters, who flocked to the streets in record numbers, had fiercely demanded.

A police vehicle set on fire by angry protesters as they sought entry into the national parliament in Nairobi. Credit: Robert Kibet/IPS

“Listening keenly to the people of Kenya who have said loudly that they want nothing to do with this Finance Bill for 2024, I concede. Therefore, I will not sign the 2024 Finance Bill, and it shall subsequently be withdrawn. I have agreed with these members that this becomes our collective position,” Ruto declared in a nationally televised address on Wednesday.

The UN Secretary-General expressed his concerns over the violence in Kenya connected to protests and street demonstrations.

However, this decision sparked a debate on its legality. Rarieda Legislator Paul Otiende Amolo, who played a key role in crafting the 2010 constitution, pointed out that the president cannot unilaterally withdraw a bill since he is not a member of parliament.

“To constitutionally nuance this, the legal way is for the president to register reservations on all aspects of the bill, including the title, then send the bill back to parliament within seven days. Parliament then votes to adopt each reservation, effectively nullifying the bill,” explained lawyer Waiko Wanyoike.

In a statement, António Guterres expressed his sadness over the reports of deaths and injuries, including those of journalists and medical personnel.

He also said he was concerned about reported cases of targeted arbitrary detentions. Guterres said he underscored the need to uphold the right to demonstrate peacefully and urged the Kenyan authorities to exercise restraint.  He conveyed condolences to the bereaved families and wished those injured a speedy recovery.

Human rights advocates quickly weighed in on the matter. Wangeci Grace Kahuria is the Executive Director of Independent Medical Legal Unit (IMLU) and convener of the Police Reforms Working Group.

“It’s not the protesters who are treasonous but the president’s acts. According to Article 241/2/c of the constitution, which requires the National Assembly’s approval but never did, the Kenya Defense Forces (KDF) deployment was illegal and made the killings worse,” according to Kahuria.

Joshua Changwony, Executive Director of Constitution and Reform Education Consortium (CRECO), noted the widespread nature of the protests, emphasizing that 67 towns across the country participated, making it a national movement rather than a localized Nairobi issue.

Speaking to IPS on the phone, legal expert Willis Otieno commented on the political implications, stating, “Parliament, as it were, already stands impeached in the eyes of the people of Kenya. This is a response to the people exercising their Article 1 right to the constitution by demanding a rejection rather than withdrawal.”

He argued that the people had effectively ‘impeached’ parliament, rendering it powerless in this context. The Finance Bill is revenue-raising legislation, which means the amendments made last year will remain in effect. This forces the government to return to the drawing board and reduce the budget.”

For Otieno, the two press conferences done by the president and his deputy in different locations confirm that “we do not have a functioning government.”

“The legislators refused to listen to the people who gave them their views. The same legislators clapped when the president withdrew the bill, yet they are the ones who passed it,” remarked Otieno.

Deputy President Gachagua blamed the National Intelligence Service (NIS), yet the people did not elect the security spy agency.

“They should not play blame games and must take ultimate responsibility. The president and his deputy owe Kenyans one duty: to vacate their offices and resign because, by their admission, they are shirking responsibilities to others whom the people of Kenya did not elect,” reiterates Otieno.

As Kenya navigates this critical juncture, the voice of its youth continues to echo through the corridors of power, signaling a profound shift in the nation’s political landscape. The collective action of a generation has not only forced a significant policy reversal but has also sparked a broader conversation about accountability, governance, and the power of the people.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Humberto Márquez
CARACAS, Jun 27 2024 – A global agreement could levy a small tax on the world’s 3,000 richest people, with fortunes in excess of US$ 1 billion, and use the money to fight world hunger, a study by the Brazilian government and the European Union’s Tax Observatory has shown.

The richest “are paying less than other socio-economic groups. This is a simple proposal, to make them pay at least two per cent per year of their wealth or income, and thus raise between US$ 200 billion and 250 billion each year,” said Gabriel Zucman, the French economist who led and presented the study.

If the tax were extended to owners of fortunes of more than US$ 100 million, an additional US$ 100 billion to 150 billion could be raised, said Zucman, director of the Tax Observatory and professor of economics at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris and the University of California at Berkeley, in the United States.

The proposal and the study are driven by Brazil’s president, the moderate leftist Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, the current president of the Group of 20 (G20), who will present it for debate at the summit of this club of the world’s main industrial and emerging economies, late this year in Rio de Janeiro.

For Lula, “it is time for the super-rich to pay their fair share of taxes”, and to direct those resources towards combating hunger and poverty in developing countries, he said this month at meetings of the Group of 7 – Western powers – and the International Labour Organisation.

Lula commissioned Zucman’s team to prepare the technical study, “A blueprint for a coordinated minimum effective taxation standard for ultra-high net worth individuals”, which the economist presented online on 25 June, followed by a chat with a small group of journalists, including IPS.”It is a choice between opacity and transparency. Tax evasion is not a law of nature”: Gabriel Zucman.

“It is essential to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes”, said Brazil’s finance minister, Fernando Haddad, following Zucman’s presentation. “The Brazilian presidency of the G20 has put international tax cooperation at the top of the agenda of the group’s financial track”, he added.

Susana Ruiz, head of tax policy at Oxfam International, the global anti-poverty coalition, said: “We welcome the Zucman report, which offers a critical contribution toward fixing a system that allows the ultra-rich to avoid taxes and not only accumulate and protect astronomical amounts of wealth and income ―but also hide it from governments.”

“Taxing the ultra-rich properly could raise billions of dollars for governments to combat inequality and tackle the climate crisis,” said Ruiz.

When he hosted the president of Benin, Patrice Talon, in May, Lula argued that “if the world’s 3,000 billionaires paid a 2 per cent tax on the earnings of their wealth, we could generate resources to feed the 340 million people in Africa who are facing extreme food insecurity.”

However, the report – and Zucman’s presentation – have not addressed the destination of the resources to be raised: “I can’t say how the money will be used. The distribution has to be decided by the people with their deliberations and democratic vote,” he said.

Economist Gabriel Zucman, of the European Union’s Tax Observatory, during the presentation of the study, that claims a two per cent tax on the world’s largest fortunes would raise US$ 250 billion per year, which was seen in many capitals online. Credit: Humberto Márquez/IPS

The very rich pay very little

Zucman argued that “billionaires and the companies they own have been the main beneficiaries of globalisation. This raises the question of whether contemporary tax systems manage to distribute these earnings adequately or, on the contrary, contribute to concentrating them in a few hands.”

In almost four decades – from 1987 to 2024 – the wealth of the very rich, 0.0001 per cent of the population, grew at an average 7.1 per cent per year and captured 14 per cent of the global gross domestic product, while the average wealth per adult increased by no more than 3.2 per cent.

On average, billionaires pay an effective tax rate of just 0.3 per cent of their wealth, less than other socio-economic groups.

This is largely because they own conglomerates of companies or publicly traded shares, and through these mechanisms they report, for example, lower annual taxable income than their actual wealth.

Zucman said his proposal “is very simple: that they pay 2 per cent of their wealth or income (a combination of income and wealth taxes) and thus equalise with other socio-economic groups.”

Publications such as Forbes constantly feature the world’s wealthiest individuals, all of them men, including tech start-up tycoons. A new era of transparency about their tax contributions must be ushered in, say the promoters of a new combined income and wealth tax: Credit: Valora Analitik

How to do it?

The key, Zucman explains, is to define a minimum market value that is difficult for billionaires to manipulate, “and that can now be done with the thousands of tax analysts around the world, as banking secrecy is lifted and with greater coordination between countries.”

An example of this coordination is the well-known Pillar 2 of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), which in 2021 proposed taxing at least 15 per cent of the income of transnational firms in industrialised nations, “something that did not seem possible 10 years ago”, he adds.

The basis of the new tax would be to estimate the presumed profit along with the wealth in stock and company shares. “There are also the planes, yachts, Picassos, but that is a very small part of global wealth,” according to the expert.

He admitted that billionaires might move to countries that do not levy them with the new taxes, but the state where they have their property and original sources of income can continue to tax their wealth even while abroad.

“I think this taxation mobility tends to be exaggerated in public debates,” said Zucman.

Ideally, he said, “the standard should progress as more countries join”, and a new form of cooperation between countries should be established, respecting each other’s sovereignty. “There is no need for a new international treaty,” he said.

A recent survey among G20 countries by the French firm Ipsos showed that 67 per cent of adults think there is too much economic inequality, and 70 per cent believe the rich should pay higher taxes, according to the Tax Observatory.

Support for a wealth tax on the rich is highest in Indonesia (86 per cent), Turkey (78 per cent), the UK (77 per cent) and India (74 per cent). It is lowest in Saudi Arabia and Argentina (54 per cent), but still exceeds half of respondents.

In the US, France and Germany, around two thirds of respondents support a wealth tax on the rich.

“It would be naïve to assume that all taxpayers will be in favour. But it is also a choice between opacity and transparency. Tax evasion is not a law of nature,” summarised Zucman.

Finally, he stressed that the aim of the report, which began in February, “is to launch a global policy conversation, not to end it”.

The first major global debate among the world’s leading economies will take place when G20 finance ministers meet in Rio de Janeiro on 25-26 July. But it is already clear that the road, at best, will be a long one.