Small Brother prevails in media clamp-down

One big item has dominated the airwaves here in Ecuador since my recent arrival in the country: the Supreme Court ruling in the Correa v El Universo case. The judges upheld the earlier verdicts that condemn Emilio Palacio, former op-ed writer of the Guayaquil newspaper El Universo, as well as the three co-directors of the same newspaper, Carlos, César and Nicolas Pérez, to a $40m fine and a three year sentence in prison, on the charge of defamation of a public authority.

Ecuadorian president Correa calls press scrutiny of his actions to a halt (source)

The reason for this hefty sentence is an op-ed written by Emilio Palacio on February 6, 2011, in which he questions the reasons behind president Rafael Correa's proposal to pardon the alleged perpetrators of the September 30, 2010 coup and attack at civilians in a hospital in Quito. The op-ed frames the president's actions in quite strong wordings (Correa is being referred to as 'Dictator'), hinting at an absence of evidence against the coup-stagers as the real motivation behind the presidential pardon. After highlighting several inconsistencies in the coup story, allegedly framed by the president himself to save face for a series of misjudged actions following the police protests of that very 30th of September, Palacio ends his piece with the advice that, given the different legal status of the pardon (compared with a general amnesty), "the president might himself face lawsuits once he steps down, for having ordered the indiscriminate shooting, without previous warning, of a hospital full with innocent civilians."

The ruling has stirred a lot of upheaval in the national and international (mainly Spanish) press, as it basically sets a dangerous precedent to restrict press freedom, whenever critical of the president's (or another public authority, for that matter) actions. Not only is the ruling's realm quite profound, several questionable procedural irregularities have occurred along the road. To name but a few: the first, 150-page ruling in this case was issued by a judge - who had just started that very day - in less than 24 hours; several judges who sat on the appeal process had been replaced while the appeal was ongoing; and the accuser's legal team has been reported to have exerted heavy pressure on the judges sitting in on this case (even up to the point that the ruling had been written in large part by Correa's lawyers).

There are some more striking elements in this case. Shouldn't the basis of the ruling be evidence presented by Correa's lawyers to prove that Palacio has willingly and knowingly written lies (ie. defamated) about the president? And why suing and condemning the directors of the newspaper, while they have offered to rectify any factual errors upon the president's providing evidence thereof (which Correa kindly declined to do)? No evidence has been reported to have been presented to justify the ridiculously high fines to compensate for the 'moral damage' Correa has suffered as a result of that op-ed (isn't a right to response more in order to rectify such mistakes written in newspapers?). Remarkably, the magnitude of the fines and jail sentence has been justified by Correa's public office, whereas the president has claimed all along this trial to have taken this case to court as a layman, to show that even laymen should not tolerate that newspapers write lies about them.

The sentencing in this case seems to have forgone any measure of proportionality, leaving little margin of interpretation other than setting an example to rein in press scrutiny of high public offices. Worryingly, this has not been the only sign of restricting press freedom in Ecuador. Upon the president's introduction, the National Assembly has passed a law limiting press freedom during elections, and another law is under discussion to set up a media regulatory board to vet the content of Ecuadorian media. Also, two other journalists (Juan Carlos Calderón and Christian Zurita) have been fined $2m for their 'defamatory' book The Big Brother (El Gran Hermano), in which they disclose evidence of cronyism in granting big state contracts to the president's older brother Fabricio Correa. Commenting on his small brother's legal escapades, big brother Correa stated that "one doesn't even observe such acts of barbarity in African dictatorships." The last word has not yet been spilled, so much is certain.

China's roaring tiger to swallow Africa

We all know it: China is digging deep into Africa, eager to satisfy its vast resource hunger and leaving shoddily built hospitals and roads instead. Lavish sums of aid money won't make up for this, they're barely a fig leaf to cover up China's erection on the international scene. A lavish donor country, you say? Lo and behold, high end estimates even rank China as the biggest donor only after the US! These estimates, then, would mean that China reaches the 'magic' .7% of GNI spending target, which barely five Western countries succeed to meet!

What to make out of these figures? Having just read The Dragon's Gift, a smashing book by Deborah Brautigam about the true nature of China's engagement in Africa, I am eager to share some of the eye-opening findings. For starters, these high estimates are most likely to overstate China's official aid flows as defined by the OECD's Development Assistance Committee. These exclude a lot of financially attractive investment loans (but still at market prices and therefore not grants) and export credits. The confusion originates in the absence of official aid data released by the Chinese government and the fact that China's Aid Department houses in its Ministry of Commerce. However, few people bother disaggregating data from that Ministry, picking the low-hanging fruit instead and creating a murky - and, I must add, inaccurate - image. As Brautigam writes:

In 2004, The Economist reported an erroneous figure of $1.8 billion for China's "development aid" for Africa in 2002. This was repeated in a Boston Globe article, which became the source for an article in Current History that said the 2002 figure of $1.8 billion was the "last" time "official statistics" on Chinese aid to Africa were released. The Current History article was subsequently cited by researchers at the World Bank, who repeated soberly that "The last officially reported flows are for 2002. For that year, China's government reported that it provided $1.8 billion in economic support to all of Africa." An International Monetary Fund study cited the World Bank report as its source for the same figure. Apparently, no one checked to see if there had actually been any official statistics reported by China in 2002 or at any point before or since for its annual aid to Africa (there were not).

China applies tactics in its Africa engagement that is has learnt from back in the days when Japan was jump-starting China's economic development. Big investments in infrastructure and manufacturing were secured by China's resources, and it was allowed to repay loans in kind (manufactured clothes, minerals, oil, etc.). This resulted in a win-win situation for both countries, stimulating China to do the same. Not only is it investing in those areas, it strongly focuses on training its counterparts and offering scholarships to thousands of young students in a time when most traditional donors are foregoing this kind of assistance. The whole idea is to sharpen local skills and upgrade existing practices in the face of Chinese competition, to increase mutual trade flows. (Like everybody, China is in it for the money.)

Brautigam has done an amazing job in revealing the more precise nature of China's engagement with Africa, and there are so many more facts and stories that nuance the West vs. China aid debate ('you cannot reduce poverty and live in a five-star hotel at the same time' vs. 'you cannot finance a presidential palace for a dictator and call it foreign aid'). The biggest lesson I draw from her book, is that we have to go look for the facts, not only China's, but also our own. As long as we cannot prove that our way of delivering aid or casting embargoes is truly resulting in social justice, stability and prosperity for the people our governments mean to help, and that it is the only possible way to do so, we shouldn't condemn actors that try it differently. (Because our banks, too, give loans to corrupt countries, just as our governments deliver weapons to torture-prone regimes.) Rather, we should learn from them and combine the best of both worlds, if we truly mean to contribute to a better present and future. In the meantime, I can only recommend reading The Dragon's Gift yourself!

Small thoughts that made me a happier person

A few weeks ago, I attended a Red Cross information session in a buddhist temple near Antwerp. It was the first time I'd been there, so I was paying close attention to our host's tour of the site. We ended in the praying/meditation hall for a last few words on what buddhism now actually entails and how people practise it. As I've had an interest in this life philosophy for quite a while, but never really gotten into the matter, I was curious to learn about the basics. One of the 'attitudes' to put into practice in your daily life, has struck me in particular, so here's me sharing this valuable insight with you!

One should not hold any grudge against anyone else for matters they are not responsible for. Or, put differently, before blaming a stranger for something, think again about why it is that you're cross with that person. You'll find that in most cases, there's no reason to feel angry with that person.

Pick your favourite one

At least, that's what I've experienced ever since. Long-legged as I am, I often felt bothered by streets or paths filled with slower walking people. But, then I realised, they're not blocking my way on purpose, they can't see me rushing from behind, so I can't blame them for not being able to see me. The same goes for getting mad at train personnel for a train that arrives late - they can't help it that there's a red sign in front of the train, they're just there to make sure you arrive safely at your destination. That's what you did, so be happy! And let's be honest, it certainly happens once in a while that I'm that slow walking person in your path, and I know, as a matter of fact, that it wasn't my intention to block your path!

If I then try to analyse why it is that I feel angry or upset, then I usually discover it's because I just couldn't bother leaving a bit earlier to make sure that I have sufficient time to make it to my destination; or that I am still dealing with some work issues completely unrelated to the person I was feeling upset about. Realising all this, has helped me tremendously in feeling happier in my everyday life. I feel a lot calmer and I have a more positive attitude towards the outside world. People feel this kind of energy. In fact, if more people would think this way, it'd be a lot nicer out there!

To complete this post to happiness, I leave you with another buddhist attitude I just recently discovered, but which I know will help me tons in being happier with life as it comes my way. If you can in any way contribute to the solution of a problem you're facing, then do so in every possible way you can; if not, then don't worry about it, because it is out of your control!

Set your water on fire

One thing is very clear to me: our 'developed' societies are not sustainable. The sheer demand of natural resources to keep our patterns of production and consumption going far outpaces our planet's capacity. Every year we set a new record in consuming the earth's resources "available" for that year's consumption (last year we did so already on August 19th). Understandably, then, the energy business is frantically looking for new sources or techniques to keep the machine running. We may have found a winner: shale gas. At least, that's what The Economist tells us when introducing its special report on natural gas:

If the boom persists gas may take coal’s place as the world’s second-favourite fuel in just a few decades, and millions will breathe easier as a result. This is because, even were it not cheap and plentiful, gas would be attractive simply on the grounds of cleanliness. It is true that there are questions about the harm that may be done by the “fracking” process that liberates shale gas; there is an urgent need for systematic before-and-after environmental audits. But once the gas is out of the ground, it is a great deal cleaner than coal. It does not distribute neurotoxic mercury around the planet; it does not clog city air and the lungs of those who breathe it with soot and sulphur. Gas is a boon to public health.

But, how clean is shale gas really? The Dutch programme Tegenlicht recently aired a superb documentary by Josh Fox on the very topic of shale gas and hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking): Gasland. Starting with a letter he received to lease his land to a shale gas company for the sum of 100,000 USD, Josh sets out on a journey to learn why his land is worth so much. Turns out, this 'boon to public health' is more of a bomb to the health of the people living nearby extraction sites. Honestly, if you can set your tap water on fire with a lighter, or if your animals start to loose their fur for no obvious reason, something's rotten in your back yard…



Also, the claim that shale gas is that much cleaner than coal, and that we will breathe easier, is not entirely true. During the fracking process, a lot of methane - a greenhouse gas 23 times more harmful than CO2 - is released into the air. The environmental impact of shale gas is at least 20% greater than that of coal when compared on a 20-year horizon, scientists of Cornell University have argued.

The last word about shale gas hasn't been said yet, that is clear. Yet, there is a smell about the whole fracking business - especially when insiders start comparing it to the infamous Enron corporate politics (see p.5 of documents leaked to the NYT). Interestingly, this boom in shale gas has attracted foreign investment. India's biggest firm, Reliance Industries, for example, is reported to have stakes in several projects in the US. So now it's the Indians who are messing up American's back yards, for a change...