

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Valentina Stackl (USA)
+1 (202) 466 5188 x100
valentina@earthrights.org
Yesterday, the Austrian Ministry of Economic Affairs published an assessment report on the follow-up process of the OECD complaint against Andritz Hydro. EarthRights International (ERI) and its allies call jointly on Austrian turbine manufacturer Andritz Hydro to fully implement its environmental and human rights obligations in the Mekong region.
The Austrian company is the holder of a $300 million contract to supply turbines to power the Xayaburi Dam in Laos. Andritz Hydro plays a critical role in the project as a supplier of key technology, without which the gigantic power plant, the first in the mainstream of the lower Mekong, could not be operated.
In April 2014, ERI, Finance & Trade Watch (FT Watch), Thai communities along the Mekong River and an international coalition of civil society groups from Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam brought a complaint against Andritz Hydro, under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The complaint alleged that the Xayaburi dam risks driving many already-impoverished families into poverty and malnutrition. There was also evidence of severe problems concerning the resettlement of local villages in Laos due to the dam construction. This complaint initiated a mediation process, facilitated by the OECD National Contact Point (NCP) for Austria, in which communities at the resettlement area and along the Mekong (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam) represented by ERI and FT Watch in the mediation meetings, voiced their concerns.
Last year, ERI, FT Watch, and its allies ended three years of mediated talks with the Austrian manufacturer of the dam's turbines. Andritz Hydro promised to continue dialogue around alleged negative impacts in the dam's resettlement site and to develop human rights due diligence policies.
"ERI still considers the Xayaburi Dam to be a very destructive hydropower project. By damming the mainstream of the Mekong, Xayaburi poses enormous threats to the region's ecology. Also, the Xayaburi project takes place in a country where the situation of human rights is often challenged. While we considered the mediation hosted by the Austrian NCP as useful, it would have also been even more helpful to establish - with the help of the Austrian NCP - an independent human rights experts committee to look into the situation of resettled communities in the area of the project site. It would have made it easier for affected communities to directly voice their concerns if the Austrian NCP had been willing to also organize mediation." - Wora Suk, Mekong Campaign Coordinator, EarthRights International
"We rate the ongoing exchange with Andritz Hydro as positive, but we still do not know the end result. It is of the utmost importance that the Andritz Hydro's new Code of Conduct makes clear references to specific environmental and human rights directives. Andritz has promised to respect human and environmental rights, as required by OECD guidelines, and to develop human rights policies over a year ago. FT Watch will continue to push the company to fulfill this promise outside of the OECD process." - Thomas Wenidoppler, Finance & Trade Watch
The Xayaburi dam is a hydropower project under construction on the Mekong River in northwest Laos, just across the border from Nan Province, Thailand. Construction began in 2012 and is scheduled to finish in 2019 but the project has been marred by allegations of human rights abuses and concerns over severe environmental and social consequences. The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have refused to back the project because of these risks but Thai banks later moved in to fund the project. The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) has agreed to purchase 95 percent of the power produced by the 1,285-megawatt dam. ERI has worked with communities who are already seeing the effects of Xayaburi to amplify their voices and support their organizing efforts.
In our original submission, ERI and the co-complainants voiced grave concerns based on a variety of scientific research and expert reviews that the project will lead to increased malnutrition due to impacts on fisheries and to increased income inequality due to impacts on livelihoods and repeated resettlement of communities. These findings asserted that the dam will likely block nutrient-rich sediment, negatively impact agriculture and may lead to the extinction of 41 fish species. The complainants also alleged that the project will likely threaten the livelihoods of 200,000 people and the food security of millions of people. Despite the independent expert scientific data, throughout the mediation process, Andritz consistently denied any negative impacts, especially in relation to the impacts on fisheries along on the Mekong River, one of the largest inland fisheries in the world.
According to the project's Social Impact Assessment (SIA) in 2010, the dam will directly affect 4,000 households but independent studies have estimated that it will directly affect as many as 200,000 people as a result of agriculture and fishery impacts.
EarthRights International (ERI) is a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization that combines the power of law and the power of people in defense of human rights and the environment, which we define as "earth rights." We specialize in fact-finding, legal actions against perpetrators of earth rights abuses, training grassroots and community leaders, and advocacy campaigns. Through these strategies, EarthRights International seeks to end earth rights abuses, to provide real solutions for real people, and to promote and protect human rights and the environment in the communities where we work.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."