 Salaam's COP 27 is underway in Egypt. We have early updates plus we look at whether loss and damages will become just a catchphrase or whether it might lead to an actual climate fund. What are the prospects for lasting peace in Ethiopia and why is a UK minister of trade visiting Taiwan? Prashantan Anish of People's Dispatch will join us on the show today to talk about some of these questions. First up, the United Nations COP 27 climate summit began as many of us know on Sunday, 6th of November, with attending countries agreeing to discuss a deal for richer developed nations to provide financial support as well as reparations to economically more vulnerable countries who are suffering most immediately from loss and damage due to human-induced climate change. The 27th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UNFCCC, is scheduled to last for two weeks and also as many of us already know, is being held in Shamal Sheikh in Egypt. The summit began late because of intense negotiations regarding the agenda itself. But now the things are officially underway. Prashant, like I said earlier, is in studio to discuss with me what is up at this chronicle of climate chaos. Prashant, good to have you back in studio. Latest updates or early updates from COP 27? Right, Salaam. So, I mean, this is just the first few days of the COP meeting, the Conference of Parties as it's called, and we have a huge number of people, tens of thousands of people from almost every country in the world gathering, and lots of world leaders, about 120 or so. Now the first few days are going to be a largely about leaders speaking, delivering remarks about how it's an urgent issue. We are going to have all the regular statements that we expect, some political ground standing, people also playing to their galleries at home. We know, for instance, that Boris Johnson was also there, made some snaggy comments trying to make a political point. But the first few days are probably on the one hand, you're going to see this public phase of the event, so to speak. On the other hand, backroom negotiations also taking place. So, it's a bit too early to talk about conclusions as of now. But what some of the initial, this is also a good time to actually take stock of what basically the extent of the problem is, and this extent of the problem is quite bad. Because I think the most recent reports that have come out show that the proposal or the hope of reducing the temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which has been the hope for the longest time, that is going to be very difficult to meet. So, according to the current pledges made by countries to cut carbon emissions to sort of, you know, say ameliorate the impact of climate change, according to the current pledges we are looking at a 2.5 degree increase by the end of the century. Now, this is going to have disastrous impacts by the end of the century, of course. We'll talk about what's happening now separately. But a 2.5 degree Celsius is going to be disastrous, it's going to, you know, cause mass levels of extinction, huge rise in water, in sea levels for instance, droughts, fires. The very geography of the planet in some sense is the very nature of human civilization, which has remained more or less constant for hundreds of years in various ways, is likely to be under threat if such an increase takes place. And the fact is that unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be too much action that is taking place on the ground countries, making pledges of course, but that's really not enough. Now, that's one part of it. The other part of it of course is that right now, there is an ongoing disaster taking place and sometimes while talking about climate change, we really kind of forget about that because you tend to sort of picture it as a future danger. But the fact is that right now across the world, we've been seeing the impact of this. We saw the disastrous floods in Pakistan, which claimed the lives of over 1,700 people. We've seen droughts, we've seen fires, we've seen flash floods, extreme weather events of all sorts taking place, unseasonal rain, storms which are wrecking havoc, which are destroying lives across the planet. And all these are linked to climate change. And the fact is that, so it's wrong on the one hand to call it, you know, a kind of future disaster, so to speak. And that's one part of it. On the other hand, of course, many of these events are also contributing to what is already a grave crisis for a large part of the world's population. If you look at an issue like hunger, if you look at an issue like education, malnutrition, poverty, all these are being accentuated by climate change, of course. But all these are also, but combating and dealing with all these are also essential to actually deal with climate change because, you know, what is the point of a green, new deal or, you know, some kind of action on renewable energies, which makes small sections of the people rich through that process, while a bulk of the world remains poor and unable to, you know, hold on to any shred of humanity, so to speak. So I think these are all questions which are not really being addressed. And a lot of this is because the fact that technological solutions are important, pledges are important, but this is also a question of capitalism itself. And that is a debate which does not come into COP 27 at all. Because unless the way society is structured, which is right now, capitalism is changed, we are not going to, we are not seeing a solution to many of the core questions posed by the climate crisis. And of course, one important point to note is that this is also being used by Egypt to whitewash its image. Whereas, Al Abdul Fateh, tens of thousands of other political prisoners are suffering horrible, you know, conditions in prisons, Al is on a hunger strike, he's apparently stopped consuming water. So very important to keep a watch on that as well. Right. You brought up multiple issues there, Prashant, which also opens up so much space for conversation. But because we're limited on time, the aspect I think we can stick to today is, as an immediate counter to some of those immediate impacts, the global South and particularly like countries in Asia that have seen the most impact of these recent disasters, are talking about loss and damages. Now, it's a good starting point. How do you see this kind of impacting the overall negotiations? Right. So loss and damage, it's going to be one of those terms is going to become popular all across the world right now. So loss and damage is something that's been around for some time. It's basically the question of the demand is for financing, for money, basically, to sort of, you know, adapt to help countries adapt to the world is already existing right now. It's not about future changes. It is basically to help to compensate countries for the suffering they're already going through. So it's not surprising that Pakistan introduced the resolution on the behalf of the G77 plus China, it's called a group of countries. And now this is something that has been resisted by the West for the longest time. In fact, last year, it also came up at that point, the West made some noises, but refused to commit for a fund per se. They said, you know, we'll discuss it, etc. Now it's come back on the agenda. We can be sure that the West is again going to sort of try to delay it as much as possible because the moment you agree to it, you have to commit to money. Now an important thing to note in this context is that there was already a commitment that 100 billion dollars a year would be, you know, assigned or will be given for a climate fund. And that hasn't happened. In fact, what the amount that has been pledged a lot of it, the pledges have been inflated or the actually countries are not paying so much according to Oxfam. And equally importantly, the fact is that a huge amount of this money is in the form of loans. So basically, countries are going into debt and are being further trapped into that debt cycle while trying to adjust to climate change. And we need to remember leaders are already pointing this out that a lot of the emissions that we talk carbon emissions that we're talking about are due to colonialism, they're due to exploitation, they're due to the kind of industrial empires that the Western countries were able to build up by extracting resources from the global south. So in that way, it is a core question of justice over generations that we're talking about here. But the fact remains that there's been no the solution you offered by the Western countries and the rich is to further throw poorer countries into debt. And which is why one of the demands has also been for some kind of reform of the international financing system. Like what is the point if in order to support your in order to help your people who are suffering from climate disasters, you put more debt on them. That's horribly unfair. And I think this is a key question that's going to come up again and again. Now, whether by the end of COP 27, we are going to see an agreement on a loss and damage fund is a big question. If so, what form will it take equally big question? Because, you know, there could be an in principle agreement for a fund, but the clauses, the details, the values of the details could be so much that it won't ultimately work out to anything at all. So that's a big question to consider. It's I would say it's a good thing that it's by it's on the agenda. Something at least that's been asked for since the nineties. Exactly. And I think the globally across the world, there is a recognition of both the need for this as well as its connection to colonialism, imperialism, exploitation. But the I mean, it's a big question as to whether the richer countries which have been responsible for the bulk of the emissions. For instance, the United States is a huge chunk in this, whether these countries are going to actually sit down and say that, you know, what the it's our common heritage, it's our common responsibility over the centuries that we're talking about. And let's now try to solve this, whether that will happen is a different question altogether. Yeah, it comes back to like you were saying the structure in which all of this is happening. Absolutely. Alright. We'll ask you to stick around because we want also your insights on the next story back in a minute. A permanent cessation of hostilities has been agreed on between the Ethiopian government and the Tigrayan people's liberation front, potentially bringing to an end two years of war and horrendous atrocities, as things stand, the TPLF will disarm within 30 days and recognize the legitimacy of the government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. But those who have been following the war have consistently noted that backed by the United States, the TPLF has created massive damage to the state and the people, including stealing aid, violating ceasefires and exploiting all kinds of ethnic conflicts to further its objectives. So what does the settlement mean? What are what is the structure that it has? And perhaps most importantly, will the United States accept the prospect of peace? Prashant is still with us. He's been following the story closely and has all the details. Prashant, from what we know so far, what is the peace deal about? How is it structured? Right. So we have a very good detailed story from our colleague, Pawan, which is on the side. So this war has been going on for about just about two years and right now it was and the peace deal was signed the day before the second anniversary of the war. So basically what we, this context business, the TPLF, the Degree People's Liberation Front, which was in power for Ethiopia for 27 years from the 90s onwards, they were restricted back to their state, which is Tigray. In 2020, they started the civil war, which has gone on for two years. Huge human rights, huge disaster in terms of rights, in terms of humanitarian crisis. Finally, a peace deal signed under the leadership of the African Union, between the Ethiopian government of Abiy Ahmed and the Degree People's Liberation Front. Now, the key aspect, one important thing also of course, notice that the TPLF by many, many people consider it to be a proxy of the United States in the region. The US had back the TPLF strongly when it was in control of Ethiopia and reportedly continues to do so even now. So a couple of key things, of course, one is the fact that for all ends and purposes, this marks in various ways a surrender of the TPLF militarily because what the peace deal calls for is a disarmament of heavy weapons in a very short period of time and a complete disarmament within 30 days of the deal being signed, which is the first week of December or so, of course, could be extended. Negotiations are going on between the government and the TPLF. It talks about the fact that there is a recognition that the only armed force in Ethiopia should be the Ethiopian military. On the other hand, it talks about the possibility of integrating the TPLF into the federal and democratic structures of the country. It talks about the Ethiopian defense forces entering Tigray and assuming whatever operational control of the region and federal government control of the region. All of this is good on paper, of course. Now, big question, of course, how much of this will be implemented because we do know that the TPLF has a bit of history of agreeing to ceasefires every time it has faced military setbacks. And then at the right moment, withdrawing from them and launching a fresh assault. And we also know that, so that's a big question. So whether the ceasefire will hold is really something that a lot of people are hoping for it. But a lot of people are also rightly worried about it considering the TPLF's previous experiences and its previous behavior so far. Of course, also backed by the United States, which allows perhaps this rebuilding and successive offenses to then take place. So what does the future look like, given all of these factors? So I think two or three questions are very important. Dear one, the first of all is the question of whether, like we said, the TPLF will lead our arms properly, whether the TPLF will permit other democratic forces to work inside Tigray itself, which will only then will the true democratic process be meaningful. What does it mean? There's a lot of internal debate about certain other regions which are a part of the Amhara state, whether that the Tigrayans will try to keep control of those states, although they do belong to the state of Amhara itself. So there are questions of tensions around communities that are still not entirely settled. There is some amount of concern over this, some people have expressed concern over the fact that whether this agreement lets off the TPLF too easily without any real questions of justice, without any real questions of the TPLF leaders being forced to answer for whatever they've been responsible for. But it also does look, there is a general, nonetheless there is a general sense of, I wouldn't say enthusiasm but some amount of hope in the sense that because I think there's also the question of the TPLF also having to answer to its own internal constancy and the question of why this war even took place is a question that is going to be raised against the TPLF leaders. So that process is also likely to happen. So I think a lot depends in the coming weeks and months of how much of these processes which are defined by the peace agreement actually take place and in good spirit, that's very important as well. So if the disarmament takes place properly and there is then there is a possibility of successful integration of the state more closely into the federal processes. So Ethiopian government on the one hand will have to be watchful of any possibilities of rearmament or remobilization by the TPLF. On the other hand it will also have to make sure that it is also in that sense, it is open in the sense it is able to sort of give the people of Tigray the opportunity to sort of reintegrate as much as possible while say while moving out the rogue elements who wish to continue the conflict as well. So it's a bit of a difficult game for the Ethiopian government as well. So remains to be seen what's going to happen. Perhaps Colombia for example can offer a model there. And I guess it's also important from a regional perspective. Absolutely. The Horn of Africa bringing peace there, bringing regional cooperation there very important right now. Something the U.S. does not necessarily want because it would rather prefer some amount of conflict over there. Alright thanks very much Prasanth for all of that. UK Minister of State for Trade and Member of Parliament Greg Hines is scheduled to visit Taiwan. The visit follows a series of trips of course by US officials including but not limited to Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House of Representatives. These visits are seen by Beijing and also neutral commentators as diplomatic escalations that come together with the US's policy of encirclement that appears the best solution Washington could come up with to hang on to its waning global hegemony. And of course push the world into forever escalating arms races. Anish joined us via video conference to talk more about all of these subjects. Anish welcome back to the show. The visit in itself not the surprising part of the news point here as much as the level at which it's taking place. From what we've heard from the British government so far what is the sort of objective or purpose of this trip? The stated objective is that it is a trade talk between two countries or at least between two governments. Whether or not Britain considers Taiwan to be a separate country is a different thing altogether obviously it doesn't and its official capacity but it has established like many other western nations very close ties with Taiwan especially trade and commerce. Britain and Taiwan has something like 8 billion pounds of trade happening annually so definitely there is something that they would do this has been this is sort of like the fifth 25th I think yeah the 25th annual meeting and it is also the first in-person meeting since the pandemic started so but at the same time as you pointed out the level at which it is happening right now there is a cabinet minister visiting the visiting Taiwan at a time especially at a time when tensions are high in the region not just with China but also between the two Koreas it shows that there is something definitely problematic about this visit and China wants that sort of and coming just like barely a month after month or two after Nancy Pelosi the US House Speaker made an official visit to Taiwan it is definitely upping the ante in terms of how US allies are trying to deal with the region itself. On top of that there is another factor that matters in this case which is how the wording happened because obviously Taiwan is trying to keep it very low key or in the sense that it has not diapers a lot of details about how the visit will happen the two-day visit will happen what are the terms and conditions of the talks the agenda of talks but the British minister Greg Hans was already talked about these two governments being champions of democracy and free trade so definitely there is also this ideological slant behind this visit and it is also even if they do not explicitly make any statements like Pelosi did with her visit even if there was no statement by Hans in Taiwan it can definitely hamper a lot of any kind of attempt to lower the tensions for the region especially. So Anish we have talked several times on this show about how the US has been approaching and you mentioned Nancy Pelosi's visit as well how the US has been approaching militarily this creating this policy of encirclement with regards to China and how these diplomatic sort of offensive measures fit into that wider strategy with regards to China so from a neutral perspective or from a rest of the world perspective how problematic is it this constant creation of flashpoints in a region that already has so many political conflicts. Well it is going to have long term effects obviously because as the election we also need to know that much like when we talk about US midterms there's a midterm that will be happening in Taiwan as well local governments will be elected and that is also where a lot of ideological standpoints will be up for debate public speaking and you have the what are often called in the western media probes paging and the anti-bullying camps going head to head on a lot of matters. Taiwan being the champion of democracy there's a problematic statement to make so you're talking trying to say that it has a separate political identity as separate from China while you maintain an official policy that China as a poll includes Taiwan so that is obviously a problematic statement to make it also kind of puts a whole lot of other things into a volatile position especially when you talk about not because the one China policy at the heart of it is recognizing the sovereignty of China in dealing with its own conflicts so whatever conflict may happen between Taiwan and China it is something that has to be dealt with by Taiwan and China and nobody else ideally speaking but that is what that's not happening at the moment you already have nations making statements after statements making moves military moves even to supposedly prevent the Chinese invasion of Taiwan as they say and you already have Japan trying to talk about re-arming itself by 2027 you already have US shifting nuclear capable bombers to Australia and South Korea you have a whole host of other issues you have military drills happening joint military drills happening not just earlier all of these were concentrated just against North Korea but now it is something that is happening against China as well on a very on the largest scale so all of these factors definitely are going to impact relations entirely but also it is going to put tensions that are now all time high when it comes to China and not just China but China and western high powers. Right thanks very much for that update Anish that's a wrap for this episode of daily debrief we'll of course be back tomorrow same time same place until then for more details on all of these stories we invite you as always to head to our website peoplesdispatch.org and don't forget to give us a follow on the social media platform of your choice we'll be back same time same place like I said but tomorrow until then thank you for watching stay safe goodbye