 Hello, I'm Isabel von Brabant from Belgium, and welcome all to Eat Native for Breakfast, episode 11. Today, Nora and Francisca, who normally hosted your favorite breakfast morning show on Saturday, they have a well-deserved break. And so the Belgians came and took in. I'm Isabel from Belgium, but the main speaker today is my colleague activist from Intel, professionally active at the Belgium organization Viva Salute, and he's talking 14 minutes full with some really interesting info. Hi, Jasper, how are you? Tell a little more about yourself and why today we will have a conversation about militarism and climate. What is your connection with that team? Yeah, well, I think you already mentioned I'm an activist at Intel Globalized Solidarity Movement, which is basically a social movement here in Belgium for international solidarity with groups all over the country. We work on a variety of issues from racism and decolonization to questions of war and militarism, nuclear disarmament. And so this year as well, we wanted to focus more of our attention on the climate crisis, and especially on the links between militarism and the climate crisis. I mean, I guess we'll come back on those topics before. But for me, I mean, I got into activism after I visited Palestine in 2016, so a couple of years back already. And yeah, it's just really impossible to stay silent in the face of the injustices that you see there. And also being active on Palestine, you're introducing so many other topics like US imperialism, questions of colonization and militarism, of course. And once more today, I think with what is going on in Palestine yesterday and the day before, yeah, we see that the need for responding to and being active on questions, on these questions is really, really important. Thank you, Casper. I was born myself as an activist in the climate movement. And even later, my activism in the peace movement till today. I think it's a good thing that anti-NATO education programs like this show always tries to get these linkages also, not only in the analyzes, but also in our struggles to combine our struggles. For me, one of the most frightening of the wars, and this war in Ukraine in particular, is feeling safe. Feeling safe is a basic need of people. And as a mankind, I think it's a responsibility to guarantee us for all of us, not only for the ones who can pay for it, not only for the ones who are lucky to be born in the right country. And that's also for me why these two teams connect. And I was particularly very touched by, for instance, also in our own country, the floodings in Wallonia and how the people, they don't feel safe and they don't feel safe anymore. And I think it's really the necessity of the peace and the climate movements to change that. And that's why I'm really happy that I can host this show today with you. Before we go into depth, I'm going to a little bit give the promotion and also tell about why are we doing this here, these weekly Saturday morning shows. And I want to remind the people that we are doing these shows because we're in an international process towards a peace summit. A peace summit in Madrid. Why? Because there was a NATO summit coming up the end of June and we want to mobilize against it. You can find all this information about why are we doing it, read our declaration, go to our website. It will be in the chat. And you can also go to the art tab. There we have an amazing call to also produce comics and posters because we think it's important to do the alliance with the cultural sector too. And also very important, this is the 11th episode, but there was a lot of episodes last week. They're really interesting to watch. So I invite you to look at them now all, have a croissant and a coffee, spend your sunny holiday looking at these amazing episodes and share them with your friends. So let's talk about firstly about this huge climate crisis. Last week, the international panel on climate change published another report on climate change and global warming. What did it say? And are we on the right track? Yeah, indeed so last week the IPCC published another report. It was the final one in a series of three different reports. The first one on the science of climate change, the second one on the impacts of climate change and then the third one on the mitigation of climate change. So how are we going to deal with it? Now I don't want to discuss the report in full detail because it would bring us too far, but it's probably good to mention some of the highlights or the most important conclusions of the report so that we understand where we are exactly with our society, and not in the face of this huge potential disaster. So first of all, we actually see that yearly CO2 emissions or greenhouse gas emissions are still going up for every type of greenhouse gas and they remain higher than ever. Some progress has been made since 2014, so the last couple of years. This means that we are not set for the worst case scenario of a 4-5 degree increase in temperatures on the planet by the end of this century, but in general the changes are just going way too slow and we are probably set for a rise in temperature at the moment of around 3 Celsius degrees. And this is really dangerous of course because many of the consequences of climate change will become irreversible over time with melting ice caps for example, rising sea levels, acidic oceans and so on and so forth. And as emissions increase, the impacts of climate disruption will continue to get stronger and stronger and stronger. So with more extreme weather events like we already see, you mentioned the floodings in Bologna last summer, with crop failure, mass displacement, and the thing is that we're not talking about something far away in the future. The climate crisis is really happening now. We can all see it, we can all feel it, and for me one of the most shocking numbers in the reports is that droughts will displace 700 million people on the African continent by the end of this decade. So by 2030, half of the population on the African continent can be on the move because of unlivable conditions that's eight years away from now, that's super, super close. And it's really hard to imagine the consequences of what will happen if that really takes place. The thing is that Africa, the African continent is responsible for less than 4% of global emissions, of greenhouse emissions. So it's really crazy that the ones who are less responsible, least responsible, have the biggest, or suffer from the biggest impacts. Now the IPCC report, it also gave us a hint of what we should be doing now, the easy answer really is stop burning fossil fuels. So we should stop using coal, oil, and gas. But I read in a report of the International Renewable Energy Agency that in 2020, around 70% of all energy subsidies was going to fossil fuels in the world. Only 20% of subsidies from governments in energy were going to renewable energies. So governments are still spending, wasting money basically on things that are really driving the planet or making the planet unlivable. Governments are just not doing enough, yeah. You already shortly touched upon it. The climate crisis hits the most vulnerable groups in the world first and hardest. But what do you exactly mean by that? Yeah, I guess it's, if we look at the numbers, because this is really how we can visualize it, the global north is responsible for 92% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. But 98% of all climate deaths happen in the global south. So you can see the difference. And there is more numbers that I have here in my notes. These are numbers from Oxfam. The emissions of the richest 10% in the world are the same as all the rest of the people combined. So 10% of the population in the world emits as much greenhouse gases as the other 90%. And it gets even worse when you go up the income ladder. Like the richest 1% in the world, they are responsible for double the carbon emissions than the poorest 50%. So the richest persons in the world, emits twice as much as half of the world population combined. And then there is also a recent study from Jason Hickel, the economic anthropologist. In a study, they looked back for almost 50 years at natural resource extraction across the world. And the researchers, they found that the United States and high income countries in the European Union, were responsible for the biggest share of global excess resource use beyond the levels of environmental sustainability. High income countries, for example, were responsible for 74% of that excess youth, and despite that they only represent 60% of the population. And this resource exploitation was mainly led by the United States with 27% and then also the European Union and the UK with another 25%. And I'm going to say a quote here of Jason Hickel. He says that the results show that wealthy nations bear the overwhelming responsibility for global ecological breakdown and therefore they own an ecological debt to the rest of the world. So it's really clear that these nations that they need to take the lead in making radical reductions in their own resource use to avoid further climate catastrophe. It's up to the high income nations, basically. Totally agree with you. Also, having all these facts and numbers even more. Climate action is very, very urgent. I think we really need a deep transformation of our society. I think you agree with me too, but what are we seeing instead? What are we seeing today? Yeah, well, I think that in the last 10 years governments have indeed been developing a lot of policies and they have been introducing measures and legislation to lower our carbon emissions, but not on a massive scale that is needed to avert climate catastrophe and usually also with rather defective or wrong objectives. I would say on the one hand we have seen a lot of finger pointing, blaming of individual people for the lack of climate action. And I have a very good example. I think from Belgium last week, the government called on its citizens to use a microwave to cook instead of using gas cookers to drive much slower on the highway and also to put the temperatures in their houses lower when it's still cold. And these measures, they are being sold as some sort of solidarity to the people in Ukraine. But in the meantime, last week, the Flemish climate minister, Zuhal Demir, she decided to block more structural and more ambitious climate action in Belgium and the European Union. Also here in Belgium and especially in the Flemish part, nowhere in Europe does heavy industry receive more climate subsidies to make the green transition nowhere else in Europe. So in 2019, the Flemish taxpayers, they took on 48% of the costs made by big companies to move towards more sustainable forms of energy. So it's millions and millions of euros that Flemish taxpayers pay to companies like Arsler, Mital, BISF and also ExxonMobil. And these companies, they bear a huge responsibility in the climate crisis and they make lots of profits. So basically, taxpayers are sustaining the profits of these companies while making the green transition. And I think this is really symbolic for climate action in the whole European Union. It cannot move away from a market model, competitiveness, profits. They remain like the number one priority. I think that the shift to electric cars in the European Green New Deal is another perfect example of that, which will lead to a lot of geopolitical chaos anyway because the resources that we need to make the batteries for these cars, they are based in low-income countries and they're also finite. And so this is where the drive to militarism comes in, of course. Why are we seeing so much investments in weapons, arms and so on and so forth? Global military spending has been increasing for several years now. In 2020, military spending rose to a record of $2,000 billion a year. And you can imagine that a fraction of that money would be super helpful in combating the climate crisis or the pandemic or to fight poverty, for example. And still our political leaders, they just choose to invest it in fighter jets, in military drones and other weaponry. And it's probably useful to mention that the United States is the biggest military spender in the world and it spends $778 billion in 2020, which is as much as the other 10 countries combined that are the next 10 biggest spenders for military activities. So this is pretty crazy if you ask me. Also for nuclear weapons system, major powers are still pumping so much money into developing and investing in nuclear weapons. In 2020, the nine nuclear powers, they spent $72.6 billion on nuclear weapons, which was more than the year before. And in 2021, it went up even more there are still more than 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world and also in Belgium we have a couple of them, American nuclear bombs, they will be replaced with new bombs, which will be way more dangerous, modern and so forth. But so we have a lot of work on our plate, I would say. Indeed, indeed. And of course today we are all concerned and also very active in the peace movement and peace protest against the war in Ukraine. And what's about the effects of this war on the rising militarism politics? Yeah, the numbers that I just talked about, they were from before the war in Ukraine. But all of us have seen, of course, that the Russian invasion has led to massive budget increases in defense spending, and this will not lead to de-escalation or peace as some claim, but to more militarism and a very dangerous arms race with the potential of nuclear war in the end. Yesterday CIA boss William Burns he said during a speech that a nuclear threat that it should not be taken lightly, given Putin's potential desperation. The CIA boss also said that President Biden is concerned about avoiding a third world war with the potential use of nuclear weapons. But at the same time also this week we saw that the United States promised to send more weaponry, more weapons to Ukraine for 800 million euros. And for the first time also heavy artillery which really is the beginning of a new phase in the war, I would say. And that's it for the USA, but we see it in other countries as well. European armament and militarization have gained momentum. There are immense budget increases without any significant debate in Belgium for example. A total of more than 20 billion euros in military investment has been committed over five years, the same in Germany. Immediately after the invasion German government decided to invest another 100 billion euros in the military which is unseen actually in the years before. Same story for the Netherlands, France, Spain, Poland and so on. And also just this week Finland and Sweden they opened the door for NATO membership. Both countries have a neutral status at the moment which means that they are not part of any military alliance. But now Finland applied for membership and Sweden will probably follow in June. So we have to wonder will this really make Europe safer? Will it make Russia feel safer? And what are the consequences for militarism in Europe? We have already seen a hint of what might happen actually Finland's membership to NATO it will make the common border between Russia and Finland or NATO actually. It will make it way, way longer and it will also give NATO the opportunity to have ships on the coast of Russia basically at 120 kilometers from St. Petersburg which is the second biggest city in Russia. And so former president Medvedev he already responded saying that Russia will send ground troops to the border that they will open up or at least activate the nuclear weapons that are based in the Russian enclave Kaliningrad and they might reach Berlin, Warsaw and so on and so forth. So these are all very dangerous escalations and tensions that we just don't want to see. And on Russia's military budget I mean it's really, really small compared to NATO's budget so we really have to wonder why are we seeing so much investments in this military spending in defense and so on. It just seems like NATO is preparing for another superpower clash either with Russia or with China in the end because this is all part of the new Cold War that we are seeing and the tensions that we are rising. It's not just about Ukraine. It's about a much, much larger games and maybe one last point on militarism and defense spending. There are people profiting from all of this, you know and the rising military budgets, the massive military aid to Ukraine they are generating billions and billions and billions for the military industry. In January, just a month before the Russian invasion US arms companies, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin they stated that it was going to be an interesting investment opportunity if tensions would go up and so forth and they have, I mean the military industry they have like an army of lobbyists, 700 lobbyists I think in Washington which is even more than the number of members of parliament of Congress in the United States and you know what's even crazier is that at least 19 of those members of Congress they have shares in those companies in Raytheon and Lockheed Martin which is pretty shocking if you ask me because some of them they bought the shares after the Russian invasion. I mean it's just completely, yeah it's crazy if you think about it. It's so cynic. I laugh at it but it's not nothing to laugh about really. And I think you're right on saying also that everyone is looking at Ukraine now but we have also the militarization of the whole South China Sea no one's looking at it now but it's happening the whole world. It's not only in Europe, it's really frightening and I think you really explained well to us that the governments are wasting a lot of money in this senseless militarization but in what other ways war is also bad for climate and can you give us also some examples from the Cuban war in Ukraine? Yeah I mean war by itself is always always bad for the planet and its people. I mean there's no way that there can be some kind of goods positive or sustainable war for that matter. So military activities they use enormous amounts of fuel they emit loads of greenhouse gases the Pentagon for example is the biggest institutional greenhouse gas emitter in the world and they say that if the US military would be a country its use of fuel alone would put it on the 47th place in the list of countries which is shocking I think. And you can also think about the devastating environmental impact of the US military bases there is around 800 bases in the world from the United States with enormous consequences for the local communities for the environment and so on. I also have an example from Belgium last year our country bought another 34 expensive fighter jets F-35 fighter jets and the carbon emissions of a one hour flight they are the same as eight cars combined during the whole year and these new fighter jets they are also way more polluting than the fighter jets that we have now and the biggest problem of all is that despite the high pollution of these military activities countries don't have to count these emissions in their yearly reports that they present on the progress that they are making for climate action and you know why that is actually it's the United States that managed to keep it out of the agreement in Kyoto in 1997 the climate talks it's really a typical move I think from the army or the country with the biggest army in the world and the Ukraine war as you say I think it makes all of these things even more concrete first of all there is the direct ecological impact we have seen a lot of bombings of military infrastructure of airfields with storage facilities of fuel for example or ammunition and this has led to the contamination of water of soil, smoke plumes and they bring a lot of toxic gases and other stuff into densely populated areas sometimes but also with an enormous impact on nature and biodiversity Ukraine is also a very industrialized country with a lot of chemical processing plants a lot of mines, a lot of industry and actually it's really dangerous if these plants at times if they are temporarily shut down, if they are bombed or if workers just cannot secure the safety of these plants so that the consequences for the environment are just huge now a second point that I wanted to make is about the financial and the political implications of the war in Ukraine we have already talked about the enormous amounts of money that Western governments in China are pumping in the senseless arms race and money that before was claimed wasn't even available for social policies like public transportation for social housing or to lower energy prices for example and this money is very much needed to push climate action but instead it is being wasted on war we see and the same is true for international cooperation it's clear that we won't solve the climate crisis without strong international collaboration we really need agreements and the political will across countries across borders to transform our societies but what we are seeing instead is tensions that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has really changed the geopolitical space already in a couple of ways I think it has made NATO much stronger it has pushed the global north and the global south even further apart to some extent and we also see that India is not just towing the line anymore of the United States and all of these tensions I mean they don't lead us anywhere they just don't bring us anything I think and then a third point on the political implications of the Ukraine war is that I don't know if you noticed but at the end of February right after the Russian invasion the second to last IPCC report was published and it almost got no media attention at all so it really just ended up as a side note on the news so you wonder what does it mean for the most important publication on the climate crisis if it is being ignored by the media by the political establishment when there is a war ongoing we just see that they don't care they prefer to focus their attention on war and on militarism and they just don't pay attention at all I think it's very important you mention it it looks like a good slogan but it's true we really need a world of peace to combat climate change I think we really need to be the international cooperation between all of the countries of the world and now I'm also afraid that with this war in Ukraine we are getting further apart and I even read that the scientific cooperation between the Russians and other institutions of the world in the Arctic a very important region to know more about the process of global warning is now being cut because of the war so it has so many impacts it's frightening and it's very important for us to be aware of it and to combat it I think this war in particular in Ukraine is also a war for the control of natural resources and what does that have to do with the climate crisis? the question of energy and of gas in particular is really central to this whole war as everyone probably knows by now Europe is heavily dependent on gas from Russia around 35% I think of all imports in the EU come from Russia for Germany it goes up to even 40% and in the last couple of years Germany and Russia they had been building a new pipeline to facilitate gas deliveries to Germany to make it cheaper and to make it easier to bring gas to Germany and the pipeline was called Nord Stream 2 now the Americans had always been quite skeptical of this project of this new pipeline because it would bring the Germans and the Russians closer to each other and the Americans would lose some kind of control or influence over Europe so you can probably imagine what happened when Russia invaded Ukraine I mean the project was cancelled and it's probably not going to come back anytime soon and some analysts even say that this is one of the biggest explanations for why the United States never really put any effort into de-escalating the conflict in the last couple of months I mean Germany will have to go look for alternatives now to secure its energy imports and where do you think that they will go ask for help? I mean in the United States of course and there's also some talk of Qatar instead of spending or expanding renewable energy in Germany the Chancellor Olaf Scholz already signed some contracts to build new liquid natural gas terminals on the coast of Germany to really import the LMG the liquid natural gas from the United States and so the crazy thing about it is that this LMG gas or liquid natural gas is produced with fracking which is a very polluting process it consumes way more greenhouse gases and the gas from the United States is also way more expensive than the one from Russia so it's the working people the normal people, regular people as we are already seeing now that we'll face the consequences or bear the consequences of this war and I found a quote from a German activist at the Fridays for Future climate protest a couple of weeks ago and this person she criticized the German plans and she said the following if you have to travel to Qatar to get away from Putin's gas you have a systemic problem in either case we finance opponents of democracy and increase the risk of climate collapse I guess it sounds up very well the problems that we are facing here Thank you Jasper I want to tell you about yesterday evening in prime time television time in Belgium there was an amazing interview with for us well known but not for a lot of Belgians the intellectual Noam Chomsky I was a little bit blown away because he is also very calm and also always to the point but the journalist asked the question if I would meet him once Noam Chomsky in the coming months asked him the same and he asked are you still afraid that this escalation that this conflict could grow towards a nuclear confrontation and Chomsky answered very very seriously that we are really very close you also mentioned the warning of the CIA boss he says also that every specialist on the topic is talking about it and that we need to take it very seriously and I think it's one of the most frightened aspects for me personally in this war such strong sentiments coming up the threat of a nuclear war what does it mean and also it's also like the destruction of the mankind and the planet so we are talking about it's almost you can or you can paralyze or you can neglect it but I think it's very important for us as peace activists to raise awareness about it so can you tell me more about this threat of a nuclear war to be really honest I think the situation is getting really really terrifying as you say the CIA boss is warning for potential nuclear clashes also the Ukrainian president Zelensky and all experts on the topic they say that there is a potential that these weapons might be used I mean why don't we take these warnings more seriously we are really talking as you say about the existence of life on our planet here so just to give you an example of the potential consequences of nuclear war you know that the power of an explosion that it is expressed in TNT and if you have one kilogram of TNT you can actually blow up a car now the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they had a force of 15,000 tons of TNT the weapons, the nuclear bombs that we have stored in Belgium they have a force of 170,000 tons of TNT which are 10 times more stronger than the bombs that were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki now in a nuclear attack it's usually not the bomb itself or the impact of the bomb that causes the most deaths it's fire storms that develop as a consequence of the blast of the nuclear bomb and these fire storms they can spread out to 200 square kilometers around the impact of the bomb and it's actually these fires that cause the most deaths and they are the origin of a lot of dust and smoke that is being put into the stratosphere and it blocks the sun from reaching the earth so a nuclear war with fire storms in around 100 cities which would be the case if there is an all-out nuclear war it would block up to 70% of the solar energy reaching the earth so it would lead to a nuclear winter at temperatures would go down with multiple 10 degrees and it would end all harvests on earth and only a few people would probably manage to survive in places on earth now even if there is a small nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan the impact as well would still be the enormous the temperatures would go down with 2 to 5 degrees which would lead to crop failure and it would lead to the deaths of millions and millions even billions of people with hunger and the lack of food so I mean it's really really crucial that we prevent this from happening or it's just done and over with yeah yeah and I'm also when we hear something about it like in the newspapers and sometimes then they try to make us afraid and they say buy your bunker and so they are doing serious about it and then you only raise getting people afraid but you don't raise awareness and how we can combat it so I think it's really important what you explain to us today and hearing all of this of course the question that pops out is what can we do as peace movement as peace activists to change the situation it's like the typical ending question of a show hopefully we are soon to have a real show about finding solutions but I think we need to really discuss about what are our strategies or priorities and why the climate movement needs the peace movement and vice versa yeah it's probably the biggest question the most difficult question as well I guess but so to summarize it's absolutely crucial that we limit the rising temperatures on our planet to 1.5 degrees Celsius and to do so greenhouse gas emissions have to go down significantly by the end of this decade so by 2030 and it's clear that we will not succeed in doing so with more military investments with a new cold war and it's pretty clear that the vision of Washington, NATO that they don't go together with the global cooperation that we need to stop climate catastrophe we don't need wars we need peace we need an active peace policy which can bring countries together to talk about the common common challenges that we face as a humanity there will be no way that we address the climate crisis I think if we keep fighting wars and if we keep spending money on militarism so the climate movement really needs to come to terms with this in the first place with this fact and we should do our utmost best to build a large movement international movement that brings all of us together against war and militarism and also against the imperialism of NATO and the United States because this is the biggest factor of insecurity in the world at the moment and the biggest factor of inequality in the world at the moment now maybe just to list some priorities I guess I already talked about this point but the CO2 emissions of military activities they really should be a part of the yearly climate reports of governments at the moment it is voluntary and practically no country does it so it's pretty ironic if you think about it because western governments and NATO in specific they always present themselves as hey we are the leaders on security issues of the climate crisis but actually what they are doing is just pushing us further away from a solution and making life on this planet more unlivable and then they come up and they say hey we are the solution to your problem we need more arms to protect ourselves from people that will be displaced in a couple of years then a second priority is nuclear disarmament as I said there are still more than 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world we really need them to get or get them out of our planet as soon as possible people who insist on using the threat of nuclear of using nuclear arms I think they are just lunatics, they are crazy they are just playing with life on our planet and last year in 2021 in January the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons was entered into force after years of organizing by the peace movement and the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons and the treaty prohibits nations from developing and processing and using nuclear weapons and also prohibits nations or countries to store nuclear weapons on their territory now currently you can imagine that the countries who have nuclear weapons they don't support the treaty at the moment 86 countries in the world support the treaty there is another 60 parties to the treaty most of them are global south countries and I think that this treaty is actually a very concrete campaign or rallying point for the peace movement and the climate movement to make links and to organize together on this issue the belgian government for example it announced its intention to explore how do they say positive consequences of belgium joining the ban treaty but when it comes down to voting in the united nations belgium always votes against resolutions that welcome the treaty and so on and so forth so it's a lot of hypocrisy as well that we see and then a third and final point most people won't accept this point but I think it's really time to get rid of NATO I mean it completely lost its sense of purpose after the Cold War it just has become the military arm of western interests in the world and we have already seen it actually in Afghanistan, in Libya and so on and so forth and now also in Ukraine because NATO is not really solving the war they are just using Ukraine as some kind of battlefield for a conflict against Russia and later on against China so it's really important that we stop NATO and we get NATO out of belgium because we have the headquarters here in belgium this could also be an important important point campaign together with the climate movement so I think we have a lot of work too but there are a lot of opportunities right now as well that we should try to grab the need for a strong international movement, peace movement climate movement has never never been higher I think the links between war and militarism and climate crisis they have never been clearer than they have been now so it's really up to us to go out in the streets and to link up both movements and bring them together and organize that's what we should do thank you Jasper I also want to say that NATO why it's important to fight against this is because they see the nuclear as a cornerstone of their policy so if you want to get rid of nuclear we need to have a really a question about what's the sense about if they keep saying our is the cornerstone thank you very much thank you for your time and your comments you told the operation that the linkages between the climate movement and the movement it's not going to happen like this we take our phone and we need people we need to do things together so I think for everyone of us look at this show and also contact with other movement we need to make the more wider and bigger so I want to tell you a little more about next show ecology another important dimension of peace is feminism and we want to share with you in the chat an article written by the sister of Kapiri about the discussion we had on previous episode with Kirsten Karch from Woman Against NATO they have it in several languages I think our producer is going to put us in the chat and before we want to say goodbye I want to thank you Jasper but also our amazing producer from New Delhi and now Vaisak from People's Dispatch supporting this show weekly next week you will have Franti and Nora again talking with Yildiz Timur Tukan from the world march of women about the struggle against transnational corporations and the industry of wars and borders don't miss it and see you next week bye bye bye bye thank you Isabel