More

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      Appeal to the UN to Protect Hazaras in Afghanistan

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      Convergent Conversation – In fact VR is Possible, Bill!

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      Making Sense of the Indian Position on the Russia-Ukraine War

      by

      Fair Observer’s new feature FO° Insights makes sense of issues in the news. Last week, the former Agence France-Presse chief editor Florence Biedermann shared her views on the French presidential elections. The week before, former BBC Africa editor Martin Plaut explained the Tigray War in Ethiopia.

      This week, our founder, CEO and editor-in-chief explores why India is not lining up against Russia despite American pressure. He describes how historic ties, military equipment, geopolitical imperatives and a trust deficit between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Democrats lie behind India’s foreign policy decision.

      Watch or read Atul Singh make sense of it all.

      [embedded content]

      Atul Singh on India’s Position on the Russia-Ukraine War

      In this episode, we have our editor-in-chief explain the reasons behind India’s position in this conflict.

      Why won’t India denounce Russia? 

      Atul Singh: History, military equipment and the China factor explain India’s reticence on Russia. 

      History: Even before India became independent, it was inclined to socialism. Post-independence, India became a de facto Cold War ally. It was of course non-aligned but we know where India stood. 

      MIlitary Equipment: Most of India’s military equipment comes from Russia and Russian equipment is cheaper. It can be modified as India wishes unlike western equipment, which is more advanced and more reliable but also more expensive. 

      China Factor: India has a long  and disputed border with China. Given the fact that India relies on Russian kit, if Russia was to turn against India, then the country would face catastrophic defeat.

      How does India rely on Russia? 

      Atul Singh: India relies on Russia for defense, energy and geopolitical reasons.  

      On defense, given the fact that an estimated 70% of Indian military kit is Russian, India needs spare parts — critical particularly in times of war. When it comes to new kit, Russia allows India to modify it the way India wants and that is a big advantage. Also, Russia allows the transfer of technology, which the US, other countries in Europe, including France, are reluctant to allow. 

      For energy, the option of cheap or cut-price oil allows India greater leverage in its negotiations with its Middle Eastern energy suppliers. 

      And when it comes to geopolitical needs, Russia has backed India on Kashmir consistently over many decades and India is unsure about Western backing on Kashmir. 

      Why is India distrustful of the US? 

      Atul Singh: Well, part of it is a legacy of the Cold War. India was very much on the Soviet side, even if it was a soft Soviet ally.  

      Then in 1971, the US backed a military dictatorship in Pakistan whilst India was trying to liberate Bangladesh. Remember, Pakistan was running a genocidal regime in Bangladesh and using rape as a weapon of war. India has not forgotten that. 

      In the 1980s, the US funded a jihad in Afghanistan. Some of that money was used to fuel insurgency in India and, 1989 onwards, in Kashmir, many of these jihadis created mayhem. 

      Recently the withdrawal from Afghanistan has upset India. India spent an arm and a leg supporting the US-backed administration in Kabul and India feels betrayed.  

      There’s also that tiny little matter of political discord. India believes it is given no credit for sending 50,000 tons of wheat to Afghanistan, even though the US pulled out of the country. Recently, the US raised issues of human rights in India, which did not go down well.

      This is where the left-leaning Democrat government lacks the trust of the right-leaning BJP. There’s a huge trust deficit with the BJP government, which believes that the Democrats are plotting an orange revolution to unseat them just as they did in Ukraine. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      What is the China Factor? 

      Atul Singh: India and China share over 3,000 kilometers of border. And this border is not defined. There was a war in 1962 and there was a clash in 2020. 

      Should China launch a full-scale invasion and should Russia back China even if covertly, India would face catastrophic defeat. So, India wants Russia to play the role of an honest broker. 

      And good ties with Russia are an insurance against defeat vis à vis China. 

      What is India’s best case scenario? 

      Atul Singh: India’s best case scenario is a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine and the end of sanctions. Remember, India imports military kit both from Ukraine and Russia, so this war is causing havoc with its supplies. 

      Also remember India gets its investment from the US. India exports to the US, especially IT services and India sends students by the thousands to the US. India is deeply integrated into the US economic system.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      Should PR Agencies Not Represent Fossil Fuel Clients?

      by

      The most basic objectives of public relations (PR) agencies are rather straightforward. They make an impact on the public perception of their clients and increase profits for shareholders. PR agencies work for companies in many sectors and represent these companies on several issues. Some issues resonate well with international norms and expectations, others less so. When PR agencies are perceived to be working against a global good, they are often castigated by  pressure groups and concerned citizens.

      These days, environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria have become important for most businesses and PR agencies are no exception. If businesses use child labor, burn forests or bribe politicians, many suppliers, buyers, investors and other stakeholders stop engaging with them. This focus on ESG has profound implications for PR agencies. Many expect them  to stop taking on clients with poor ESG records. For instance, some demand that PR agencies should stop taking on fossil fuel companies such as Chevron or Shell as clients.

      Such an argument raises key questions. As businesses, should PR agencies shut off a key source of revenue? What if they go bust? Are PR job losses desirable? Many businesses cause environmental damage. Should PR agencies also not accept mining companies and automobile manufacturers as clients? Should the burden of responsibility of accepting or not accepting clients rest on individual PR agencies?

      Public Pressure on Public Relations

      The outcry against PR agencies acting for fossil fuel companies has a context. Many believe that these agencies have downplayed scientific data revealing the scale of climate change to help the cause of their clients. Recently, a global coalition of over 450 climate scientists signed a letter calling on PR agencies and advertising firms to end relations with fossil fuel companies. These scientists want them to get behind legislation for climate change mitigation.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      In 2021, a study highlighted hundreds of elaborate campaigns purportedly designed by PR agencies to hinder climate action. Their clients include Shell, Chevron and other fossil fuel entities. Around the same time, the Clean Creatives collective published an open letter calling on Edelman, the world’s largest PR agency,  to end the ‘greenwashing’ of fossil fuel clients. 

      Edelman’s response to the climate emergency emphasized working with partners to accelerate climate action, develop best practices, and hold clients as well as itself accountable for mitigating climate change. The agency also promised many other changes but stopped short of dropping its energy clients.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The Pickle Over Climate Change

      To casual observers, these actions by Edelman might be indicative of an industry that uncompromisingly prioritizes profit above ethical standards. Despite the unquestionably sales-driven nature of the business, such a conclusion is too simplistic and a bit unfair. Like other sectors, PR has professional bodies that set ethical standards for the industry. Ethical competence is a prerequisite for membership. Of these, the International Public Relations Association’s (IPRA) code of conduct is one of the most comprehensive. Among its many provisions, the code states that practitioners must not intentionally disseminate false or misleading information.

      Last November’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) inspired IPRA to form a chapter to heighten professional knowledge of climate-related issues. In doing so, the organization seeks to enable members “to play a valuable part in furthering communications aspects of climate change.” Neither IPRA nor this specific chapter urge PR professionals to cease business with fossil fuel clients, making it unlikely that Clean Creatives and climate change scientists will stop criticizing them.

      PR agencies are in a bind. When they work with fossil fuel producers, they have to abide by a code of conduct that might limit what they can do for their clients. The other option for PR agencies is to drop these clients altogether.

      Dropping fossil fuel companies might not be an entirely good idea though. If Shell sets its target of becoming a net-zero energy business by 2050, PR agencies could help. From developing communications strategies to running press offices, these agencies can help achieve this goal. They can also help in a crisis. Crisis communications helped citizens after  an oil spill off the coast of Peru.

      Ethics Matter and Might Be Good Business

      Any PR professional worth their salt knows that emphasizing the industry’s ethical charters and practices alone is unlikely to cut it with climate activists. For them, such is the severity of the climate emergency that PR agencies should just cease working with fossil fuel companies. Finding a way forward that will satisfy all sides, and suitably addresses climate change communication, remains challenging.

      For starters, some consultants may need to get better at managing some of their clients’ expectations. PR agencies might consider the value of emphasizing how they don’t support harmful aspects of oil and gas production. It goes without saying that PR agencies do promote oil and gas producers in Nigeria. However, they do not represent illegal oil refineries on the continent, which cause much pollution and drain state coffers. The risk of expulsion from trade associations and the fall of a leading firm like Bell Pottinger are very real for PR agencies. These businesses might upset their critics but they play by their own rules and do not cross thin lines in the sand.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Many PR agencies might also find inspiration from ESG business successes. In the 1990s, the UK’s Co-Operative Bank ran a powerful advertisement, promising not to invest their “customers’ money in countries with oppressive regimes.” This advertisement was part of a series that highlighted the bank’s commitment to ethical finance. The bank’s compelling ads had hard hitting and often harrowing content about landmines, fossil fuels and more. In 2021, the Co-Operative Bank was  named the best high street bank for ESG. Such sort of clients might represent the future of PR agencies.

      Fossil Fuels Are Legal and Essential, So Are Their PR Needs

      It is unlikely that PR agencies could run advertisements like the Co-Operative Bank for all their clients. Such campaigns would certainly not work for oil and gas producers. Giving them up as clients might not be the right business move. In fact, if PR agencies did  what the likes of Clean Creatives say and jettisoned these clients, climate change would still go on.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      The Russia-Ukraine conflict provides a timely reminder that fossil fuels still power the global economy. As essential players in the global economy, oil and gas producers need strategic communications support. They are not Colombian cartels operating in the shadow economy. If nothing else, these companies have to maintain crisis communications preparedness for public interest reasons. What happens if there is an oil spill? How does an oil company communicate about such a spill to the public? As long as we depend on oil for cars and on gas for power, PR agencies have a role to play for bona fide legal businesses.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More