The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Articles

Should We Boycott No Other Land?

We must continue to support the BDS Campaign—but are they mistaken this time?


31/03/2025

On 5th March, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) issued a statement which many people found confusing. After acknowledging the extent to which Israel and her supporters have attacked the Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land, the statement said the following:

“PACBI has from the start reached the conclusion that this film indeed violates the BDS movement’s anti-normalization guidelines in several ways. The BDS movement has always fought against normalization as a powerful weapon employed by oppressors to whitewash their crimes, to colonize the minds of the oppressed, and to undermine global solidarity with the struggle to end oppression.”

PACBI argued that any joint Israeli-Palestinian initiative violates the anti-normalisation guidelines, unless it both “publicly recognize[s] the UN-affirmed inalienable rights of the Palestinian people (at the very least an end to the occupation, end to apartheid, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees)”, and constitutes “a form of co-resistance against the Israeli regime of occupation, settler-colonialism, and apartheid.”

PACBI said it “has no capacity to publish a statement on every instance of normalization.” This sentence comes over as slightly disingenuous when talking about a film which did not just win an Oscar, but had already won a major award at the Berlinale, courting much controversy in the process.

No Other Land’s directors issued a statement in response saying that the film is “not only proof of Israeli settler-colonial war crimes taking place in the present, but also a proposal for the future, a search for a path towards justice and equality and an end to Apartheid.”

Palestinian feminist and activist Samah Salaine, called the PACBI statement “hesitant, convoluted, and unclear.” She continued: “The minutia of the statement’s chain of reasoning—that some of the filmmakers didn’t use the word ‘genocide’…is neither convincing nor relevant.”

FAQ Sheet

As a response to the criticism, PACBI later issued a more nuanced FAQ sheet. The FAQ tries to answer 7 questions, summarised below.

1. Is PACBI calling for boycotting No Other Land, an Oscar-winning film about Palestinian resilience and popular resistance to Israel’s regime of occupation and ethnic cleansing at a time when we need such films to raise public awareness the most?

PACBI makes clear that they didn’t call for a “boycott” but argues that the millions who have live streamed the genocide in Gaza should not need to see another documentary to convince them of Israel’s settler colonialism. Furthermore, “raising awareness about Palestine, particularly in the Arab world and the Global South, should not be tainted with normalization.” However, a boycott in “mainstream circles” could be counterproductive.

2. How does PACBI deal with ethical vs political considerations? And did PACBI only consider the ethical perspective and guidelines when taking a position on No Other Land, ignoring the film’s benefits vs. harms in this critical moment?

A boycott, according to the organisation, should be based not on a film’s content but whether it violates BDS anti-normalization guidelines. PACBI only published their criticism after the Oscars, particularly after director Yuval Abraham’s speech, which “parrot[ed] Zionist talking points on Gaza.”

3. Is fighting normalization more important than winning over allies, specifically in the West, the main partner in Israel’s regime of settler-colonialism, occupation, apartheid and genocide?

In the “current Trumpian moment”, PACBI acknowledges the role of the Global North in enforcing apartheid and settler colonialism. But the movement is wider than just the West.

4. Given assaults on advocacy for Palestinian rights and many forms of progressive speech, led by Trump, doesn’t calling out the film’s normalization weaken BDS’s ability to build intersectional coalitions to fight fascism, colonialism and oppression?

PACBI appreciates this criticism, and notes BDS’s call for broad intersectional coalitions. At the same time they call for “constructive and honest engagement”. This FAQ is intended as part of this process.

5. Shouldn’t we appreciate the contribution of brave Jewish-Israelis to exposing Israel’s ruthless military occupation and ethnic cleansing, as manifested in Masafer Yatta, even if they do not recognize the comprehensive, UN-stipulated Palestinian rights?

The original 2005 BDS statement calls for unity with “anti-Zionist Israelis who recognize the comprehensive rights of the Palestinian people…who wish to co-resist with us to end Israel’s system of colonial oppression.” But much of Israel’s “Zionist left” still whitewashes Israeli settler-colonialism and ignores the 1948 Nakba.

6. Who develops the BDS guidelines, and shouldn’t they be updated and modified to reflect the evolving reality? Why should they be the reference for assessing the relative benefit of any act of solidarity with the Palestinian struggle?

The Palestinian National Council (PNC), who developed the guidelines, is “the absolute largest, most inclusive Palestinian coalition … Representatives of almost all political parties, grassroots networks and activist groups participated”.

7. Is PACBI through this statement changing its principle of targeting institutions as opposed to individuals?

No. BDS and PACBI target institutions, not individuals. They do not call for or condone boycotts of individuals because of their Israeli or Jewish origin or identity.” The BDS Anti-Normalization guidelines state: “when an Arab individual and an Israeli individual collaborate or participate in joint events or projects, they do so as ‘representatives’ of their states rather than as private individuals.” This results in an inherent power imbalance between Israelis and Arabs who work together.

Making sense of the FAQ

There is much to agree with in the PACBI statements, not least that the success of No Other Land owes much to co-director Yuval Abraham’s role as an “alibi Jew”. A purely Palestinian film would probably not have won the same acclaim or awards. At the same time, it is not the filmmakers who are responsible for this outrageous discrimination.

Very few of the FAQs directly address No Other Land and its makers. Assumptions are left hanging in the air. The most clear references to the film are in the suggestions that Abraham is either a Zionist or not anti-Zionist enough, and that his speech at the Oscars parroted Zionist talking points.

Yuval’s speech is flawed. He pays too much attention to the Israeli hostages and the “brutal crime” of October 7th. He calls for a “different path without ethnic supremacy, with national rights for both of our people,” a phrase which is perhaps deliberately ambiguous. 

I wouldn’t have used exactly the same wording. But it is not true that the speech ignores apartheid. It explicitly states, “we live in a régime where I am free under civilian law, and Basel is under military laws that destroy his life and he cannot control,” and calls out US foreign policy for enforcing these divisions.

In showing indignation at Yuval’s speech, PACBI risks looking like a mirror image of the risible former culture secretary, Claudia Roth. After being filmed applauding the filmmakers at the Berlinale, Roth claimed she was applauding the Israeli filmmaker Yuval but not the Palestinian Basel Adra. We do our side no favours if we applaud Basel but not Yuval. 

PACBI is a serious and venerable organisation, which we should treat as such. Nonetheless, I feel that this time they have made a mistake. 

The strategic response

The question, “does an artist contravene the BDS guidelines?” is closely tied to a second question: “would a call to boycott this artist strengthen or weaken the campaign for Palestinian liberation?” PACBI is very aware of the need to distinguish between tactical decisions and points of principle.

But it is unclear to me what PACBI is asking us to do. If they are not calling for a boycott, what are they calling for? The statements contain unnecessary ambiguity. A clearly argued pronouncement based on water tight evidence would not persuade everybody, but at least it would provide a basis for a discussion based on facts not insinuations. I don’t believe that the vague mish-mash provided by PACBI provides this.

No Other Land, and its critical success, have inspired many activists who already know about the oppression of Palestinians. It has had an impact in both the Global North and South. This is why Israel, and its supporters throughout the world, have done so much to try to suppress the film.

One of the great strengths of BDS has always been that, however much its detractors have argued otherwise, the campaign was always clear that boycotts are organised against institutions, not individuals. As PACBI’s own Guidelines for the International Cultural Boycott of Israel say: 

“Mere affiliation of Israeli cultural workers to an Israeli cultural institution is therefore not grounds for applying the boycott. If, however, an individual is representing the state of Israel or a complicit Israeli institution, or is commissioned/recruited to participate in Israel’s efforts to “rebrand” itself, then her/his activities are subject to the institutional boycott.”

According to the evidence provided, I don’t see No Other Land fulfilling these criteria. There is a vague mention of the film’s funding, some of which, Samah Salaime reports, “came from an organization that, in an earlier iteration many years ago, received funding from the Israeli government”. There may be more damning evidence elsewhere, but if so it has yet to be produced.

The other main argument for boycott is that Yuval Abraham “is a Zionist really.” This may well be true, as evidenced in his Oscars speech. But there is a world of difference between Abraham, who consistently criticises apartheid and occupation, and, say, Gal Gadot, another target of boycott, who is a genocide apologist who enthusiastically trained the Israeli military.

Should we boycott all films made by Zionists? In which case, we should not watch anything written by Aaron Sorkin (not necessarily a bad idea) or films starring Natalie Portman or Robert de Niro. If people think this is a good idea, let’s talk about it, but I don’t see this as the basis for a broad and effective movement.

The lynching of Basel Adra

I’ve been meaning to write this article for weeks, and had decided that its time had passed. Then, as Yuval tweeted: “A group of settlers just lynched Hamdan Ballal, co director of our film no other land. They beat him and he has injuries in his head and stomach, bleeding. Soldiers invaded the ambulance he called, and took him. No sign of him since.”

After he was released, Hamdan told the press: “They threw me to the ground, and the settler started hitting me on the head. Then a soldier also began beating me…It was a revenge for our move. I heard the voices of the soldiers…I heard [the word] ‘Oscar’.”

The media reaction to Hamdan’s lynching stands in clear contrast to the way in which they ignore many similar attacks by settlers. The story here was not that a(nother) Palestinian was nearly killed but that this had happened to the famous filmmakers.

You could argue—as some people have—that this media coverage is a result of “privilege” that Hamdan now receives after his Oscar win. This is partly true, just as Yuval receives more coverage because he is an Israeli Jew. But it should not mean that we should disassociate ourselves from the public outrage which followed the attack.

No Other Land has provided a focal point for mass indignation against open political and media bias against the treatment of Palestinians by Israel and our own governments. This indignation might not go far enough, and we should build on it, raising awkward questions about how even progressives sometimes normalise Israel’s atrocities. But such criticisms are more effective if we are part of this anger and activity.

The important point is that the Israeli government, its Western backers, and a compliant media are responsible for the atrocities. The makers of No Other Land have made mistakes, and should not be immune to all criticism. But you should still go to see the film, make sure your friends see it, and campaign against distributors preventing us from seeing it. No Other Land makes our movement stronger. We should welcome its existence.

Opinion: I’m done with ‘statements’ 

Boiler Room’s statement on BDS is self-serving and inauthentic


30/03/2025

Every morning, I wake up to a new statement about divesting. In almost all cases, the said divestment is a performative gesture which never materialises into any substantive action which the Palestinians ask of us. Music and dance have recently resurfaced as modes of self expression and liberation. Simultaneously, however, we have seen the mediums being contaminated by greed and violence, all while promptly repackaged as a site of healing and consumption. 

The most recent statement which I read was from our once beloved Boiler Room on Tuesday. It came in the midst of a widespread boycott sparked by their new acquisition by Superstruct Entertainment—owned by private equity firm KKR, which has direct ties to Israeli weapons manufacturing. In response, Boiler Room had a few things to ‘clarify’ about their corporation and whatever the f*ck their corporate social responsibility is. Instant flashbacks to when HÖR was on the boycott list and gave us a ‘statement’ to fast-track their redemption arc. 

Before I share my thoughts on statements, I want to amplify Ravers for Palestine, a collective which, since day zero, has held music spaces, DJs, collectives and labels worldwide accountable for their complicity in the ongoing genocide. 

I have a few points I would like to highlight from Boiler Room’s vapid statement, which tl;dr is smoke and mirrors. 

  1. Due to their initial acquisition in 2021, their employees at ‘any level’ do not have any administrative rights which can influence the ownership of their company. What that means is Boiler Room’s logo is basically a false identity marker which is being used by very bad companies who do very bad things; especially in Palestine. 
  2. In the statement they very clearly mention ‘we are unable to divest because we have no say in our ownership.’ But as people we still have the option, or dare I say the duty to keep boycotting. If the original founders and builders of Boiler Room have left the table, then so should we. 
  3. Boiler Room’s deceptive co-opting of ‘underground’ and ‘alternative’ music movements has furthered the extreme commodification of music at a time when musicians across the globe are mobilising to unseat corporations from having rights of any kind to their works and not being paid fairly for it. Not only are systems like these quite literally stealing from musicians, but they are also ‘divesting’ those funds into enabling a genocide. 

So, what does that statement mean? It is a very classic trick of corporate deception. And in a timely manner, I read that statement right after I had just finished watching Severance, a show about late-stage capitalism coalescing with our personhood. Throughout the show, we see a similar tactic to what the likes of Boiler Room and HÖR try to deploy: make statements and get the neo-libs cheering, do not even attempt at making any institutional changes, say things like ‘the board truly listens’ and then hope our already overwhelmed selves simply forget. Nothing changes with statements or acts of vain performance, which, sadly, some of us still see as ‘progress.’ In reality, these statements are not manifesting from a place of genuine concern or care, but they are simply reactionary measures aimed at keeping their shareholders values unaffected. 

Following BR’s letter, was a statement by Palestinian Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel dubiously commending Boiler Room for ‘distancing’ itself from KKR. “All festivals and companies owned by Superstruct Entertainment are clearly implicated in parent company KKR’s complicity in Israel’s genocide and underlying regime of settler-colonial apartheid, albeit through no fault of their own,” the organisation stated. “Regardless they therefore have an undeniable and profound ethical obligation to urgently take a clear stance against that complicity.” 

There is a very surprising cognitive dissonance with PACBI’s stance. Absolving BR on the grounds that they do not align themselves with KKR or Superstruct and recognise that by proxy are directly supporting the genocide, but have no choice, does not halt the flow of capital to either entities, no matter how much Palestinian merch they make. Similarly, by offering a hollow co-sign, in many ways, PACBI is, itself undermining the BDS movement’s core commitment to divesting from all investments to and with Israel, especially and above all, economic activity. 

When we realize what makes such platforms powerful is us; people, listeners, and makers, we can redirect our attention to more grassroots organizations and communities which prioritize people over profits. An example would be the UK based three wheel drive collective, a non-profit gathering of sorts, centering local talent, championing transparency and a DIY ethos around music and festivals. Broadcasting from Bethlehem, Radio Al-Hara is another such beacon of sonic dissemination which serves as an active network for revolutionary solidarity since 2020. 

I ask us all this question: How many statements till we see an end in complicity to a genocide which only gets worse every passing second? How many empty words before we realize at the heart of BDS is an anti-capitalism sentiment too? To paraphrase Arundhati Roy: Statements are a piece of political theatre which requires an audience to hold any ground. Let us not become an audience which is severed from our consciousness and humanity. 

Corporate greed is the seed that blossoms colonisation. So I ask us all, do we keep reading these statements and pat ourselves on our backs for nothing or actually simply boycott the system, stop being the cogs in their greed driven wheels and redirect our prized attention towards spaces and people who earnestly support musicians.

Is the Paris Climate Agreement dead on arrival, or just badly wounded?

The landmark agreement is turning ten this year, but continues to face obstacles


29/03/2025

It was a moment in time. A landmark agreement. What Grist dubbed as a “big fucking deal”—although, in a depressing parallel to the events of last year, was also in 2016 predicted to be buried under U.S. election and presidential-related coverage. 

By all accounts, the Paris Agreement was a historical event, and one that—no matter how overshadowed it may have been—offered a sense of hope and potential mitigation against the swell of climate change. The legally-binding international treaty on climate change was signed by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris, France, on 12th of December 2015, and officially came into force on the 4th of November 2016. The overarching goal sounded simple, though not easy: limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The countries who signed agreed to strengthen their commitments over time, severely reduce emissions, and provide assistance towards developing countries in adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change. 

Even at the time the document was drawn up, many experts believed that the agreement was not authoritarian enough. Despite that, it was lauded as a promising first step in the world transitioning to a cleaner, healthier, more equitable and safe space. Scientists spoke with cautious urgency. “My biggest concern really is that we are only on the first step of a ladder of increased ambition. It is going to become clear to the world over the next 3 -5 years how much more we need to do to stabilise the climate,” Shane Tomlinson told BBC News in 2016. Tomlinson’s words could not have been more prophetic. 

Making up the core of the Paris Climate Agreement are countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Unique to each nation, the NDCs encompass each country’s pledge to reduce emissions, their specific targets, and their strategies and manner of implementing said strategies to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. Countries who signed the legally binding agreement pledged to submit their NDCs in five-year intervals. 

COP30, slated for this November, will see a decade since the Paris Agreement was drafted. The 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference will see world leaders, philanthropists, scientists, and government officials convene in Brazil, with one question in particular hanging overhead: is the Paris Agreement still alive? 

Its goal was the rapid and effective slashing of emissions; the whole-hearted commitment of the most developed countries to helping the most vulnerable; renewing commitments year-by-year; and evidence showing that strides were made to mitigate human-made climate change. 

One could imagine that hopes held by climate experts and scientists are dashed, even if the original document provided them with little in the first place. Fresh into his second term as the President of the United States, Donald Trump officially withdrew the country from the accord—an act he first put in motion when he originally took up residence in the White House in 2017, but was reversed when Joe Biden took over—alongside an alarming cry that America would “drill, baby, drill!” (a slogan originally popularized by former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele). Instead of merely objecting to the terms of the agreement, Trump has made clear his eschewal of the concept of climate change in its entirety. He promises to boost fossil fuel production and roll back climate policies, many of which were fledgling initiatives left over from the Biden administration—even though oil producers themselves have expressed wariness at such a swift gear change, and top economists worldwide have also recommended taking advantage of the green transition for long-term positive growth. 

It’s not just Trump that dubs climate change a hoax. Climate denial and misinformation has seen an alarming spike, with certain experts believing it will only get worse. And while it can be easy to cast the bogeyman as a figure across the pond, right-wing rhetoric has been sweeping across Europe for years and may have served as an example for the Trump administration’s quick moves in dismantling climate initiatives and policies. Climate denial and misinformation goes hand-in-hand with right-wing politics, favoring instead the belief of economic opportunity and constant, never-ceasing production. Pockets of social media websites echoing oil-fueled propaganda are seemingly ballooning. 

Every corner of the globe has felt the impact of climate change acutely as well. 

2024 was confirmed as the hottest year on record, prompting the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to sound the red alert. According to their findings, one-third of the global ocean was gripped by a marine heatwave on an average day in 2023; glaciers suffered the largest loss of ice on record since 1950; the number of people who were food insecure doubled; and extreme weather events continued to trigger displacement, health issues, and death. 

The start of 2025 saw the astounding and heartbreaking savagery of the Los Angeles fires, which were widely considered to be a domino effect of climate change. The fires saw the devastation of land and housing, grievous injuries and billions worth of losses. La Niña, a recurring climate fluctuation, typically lowers the global temperature by a fraction of a celsius. This year, due to the acceleration of human-caused warming and the excess carbon pumped into the atmosphere, La Niña has not caused a drop. Scientists have warned that as climate change becomes more vigorous, La Niña’s impact will dwindle further. Thus, 2025 is dutifully following the trend set by 2024: its January and February have both continued to smash records many would prefer to have fallen short of. 

The surge of climate-related disasters has also led to the rise of attention from experts and leading organizations in the crucial relationship between health and climate. Dengue fever’s cascading effect globally since late 2024 has been linked with the higher temperatures speeding up the disease’s carriers replicating the virus internally. The World Health Organization (from which the Trump administration has also withdrawn) urged for the urgent integration of health in COP29’s climate negotiations. Mental health specialists have further raised the alarm on a peak in climate anxiety and brain fog; psychiatrists at COP29 underscored the relationship between extreme heat and suicidal behavior in young people. 

Fundamentally, all signs point to further disasters, destruction, and disease. More and more reports and publications have brought to the forefront the varied and inextricable damage caused by climate change with the same message of caution: a canary in a coalmine. 

This is where we stand: we are halfway through the Paris Agreement and research suggests that it will take twenty further years to reach the temperature goals that were set. The vast majority of countries missed the deadline to update their NDCs, and the withdrawal of the United States has served as an undeniable blow. As the foremost economical and military power, the U.S. currently has an unrivaled global influence, and news of Trump’s administration searing through climate finance is being pumped out at an astonishing rate. On Friday, Brazil’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Marina Silva, delivered an impassioned critique of the United States’ withdrawal from the Agreement, and expanded on how the Trump-prompted trade war will threaten environmental progress. “They may drain resources and they also may hamper the environment of confidence and trust among parties. We have a triple negative effect because the less action we see, the less money we see, resulting in less cooperation across countries,” Silva said. “Trump’s friend Vladimir Putin must be ecstatic: the US president is tearing the West apart before his happy eyes,” Martin Wolf wrote for the Financial Times on Trump’s imposed tariffs. 

The outpour of concern from scientists, politicians, government officials, researchers, and analysts seems to have fallen on deaf—or perhaps simply uninterested—ears in the Trump administration. It’s not only the Paris Agreement that has been thrown into disarray; the United States has also quit a flagship global financing program, the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), putting its efforts towards assisting emerging economies to become independent from coal reliance in a highly precarious position. A slew of climate data and environmental justice tools have been scrubbed from the internet, the order of which has been linked back directly to the United States Department of Agriculture. Now that it seems to be confirmed that the U.S. has effectively opted to slam the door on the notion of climate change, and contribute with renewed energy to stoking the flames worldwide, it’s become clear that the world has to rally. The country that was once the most prominent and dominating of allies must now be the ground for a pivot towards renewed commitments and collaboration. 

The situation is bleak and the danger ought not to be understated. Yet it is important also to pay attention to the world leaders, philanthropists, economists, and scientists urging for increased collaboration, ambitious public-private partnerships, and zealous efforts towards undoing global warming with speed and tenacity. 

Although only a dozen countries submitted their updated NDCs on time, the United Kingdom is one of the few who achieved it, with a bold new target for the upcoming five-year cycle. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the objective in Baku in November 2024, and called for other countries to join the U.K. in redoubling their work towards reducing emissions. “We urge all parties to come forward with ambitious targets of their own, as we all agreed at the last COP. We will work in partnership to support other countries to develop their own commitments and transition through our forthcoming Global Clean Power Alliance,” Starmer said. 

The United Nations has also taken a relatively laissez faire attitude towards countries requiring extended deadlines for NDCs, arguing that their preference would be for comprehensive, clearly and diligently considered, meticulous plans over hastily concocted efforts. With the backdrop of the shocks largely delivered from the U.S., the tardiness of the reports are immediately concerning, but there is a chance that this results in a more positive and focused outcome. 

Multilateral development banks such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank continue to throw their support behind green initiatives, often with the aid of partnerships from philanthropic organizations such as The Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Bloomberg Philanthropies. Aid cuts are reverbating worldwide, but already these organizations aiming towards global recovery and the energy transition have begun to reposition themselves in order to bolster a new funding ecosystem. While critics have rightfully examined these institutions’ negative impacts, and some research suggests that these development banks have worsened the economic condition of climate-stricken countries, the uptick in action being taken and money being mobilized will hopefully create further engagement with the fight against climate change and more space for the most vulnerable and underserved communities to benefit. 

China has announced its intention to heavily invest in green energy projects in order to combat climate change; renewable energy has leaped to an all-time high, boosted by the country’s solar boom. European leaders have since urged for other countries to follow China’s example, pointing to the economic benefits and potential for job growth. Some economists and climate experts have reckoned that China has taken the helm of the ship in the global energy transition, following the U.S. exit. Despite its tremendous and rapid successes in the green energy supply chain, China continues to produce more than 30% of the world’s carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, which also complicates hailing its progress without a dose of scepticism. Regardless, we can take from the initiatives and schemes going towards the shared goal of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and judge them with nuance and a measured degree of hope. The development of renewable energy systems and the ambitious goals set by China are aspects that can be incorporated by other countries, and can serve as a blueprint to be analyzed, unravelled and redone to result in a just, equitable manner to serve us globally. 

President of the COP30 summit, André Corrêa do Lago, has also said that while the U.S. government may be absent from the wider climate fight, the country will still be central to the talks through its businesses and organizations. “The US is a key country in this exercise. There is the US government, which will limit its participation [but] the US is a country with such amazing technology, amazing innovation – this is the US that can contribute. The US is a central country for these discussions and solutions,” do Lago told the Guardian. 

A month ago, CNN reported that the Paris Climate Agreement was dead. This, based on two studies posted by Nature Climate Change, and backed up by the ceaseless climate disasters, apathy, and lack of commitment, could very well be true. The glimmer of hope we could hold right now is also poised to be tarnished by the fact that ten years ago, despite its criticisms, the Paris Climate Agreement probably afforded people the exact same thing. Some of the damage is done, and cannot be rolled back. Different parts of the world have different narratives on tackling climate change, while institutions and development banks, with their own complex histories, bolster projects and initiatives that aim big but may not bloom to fruition. And it may feel that we are careening towards calamity without the chance to alter our course. The thing that will prevent us from an eternal loop of failure will be for those attending COP30 to commit with absolute ferocity, close the gap left by the United States with dedicated collaboration and encourage discussions that remain open, nuanced and inclusive. 

Why Berlin’s public transport strike is good for you

It might seem counterintuitive when you’re standing in front of a shuttered subway station tomorrow, but BVG workers are striking for your benefit.


26/03/2025

BVG workers are going on another 48-hour strike on Wednesday and Thursday. When U-Bahns, trams, and busses stop, life in Berlin becomes unbearable. As the podcast Megan’s Megacan put it, Berliners are famous for rudeness — we are not the people you want around during a transport crisis. Even if you somehow didn’t notice the strike, you would still feel it in your throat; increased car traffic makes air pollution spike.

The 16,000 employees of the BVG are responsible for over a billion trips every year,  or around 3 million per day. On social media, frustrated commuters ask why the union can’t reach an agreement with company.

ver.di, the service sector union, is demanding raises of at least 750 euros per month. According to Tagesspiegel, bus drivers in Berlin earn less than almost anywhere else in Germany. You don’t need to be a public transport expert to figure out that Berlin is not the easiest place to drive a bus.

Low wages lead to chronic personnel shortages. Every time a train gets cancelled, that means the BVG either lacked a driver or lacked a carriage (or both). Ultimately, train shortages also come down to understaffing, as there aren’t enough people to maintain the rolling stock. This is the result of decades of underinvestment. Every day, workers struggle to keep 40-year-old subways running far beyond their intended lifespan.

In this crisis situation, what is management offering? A “raise” that is below the inflation rate, so in effect a wage cut. This will lead more BVG workers to seek better employment, making things worse for everyone in the city.

As always, politicians claim there is no money. The Berlin government’s austerity plans include massive cuts in public transport. Yet somehow, each member of the BVG’s management board gets half a million euros per year, plus a company car with a chauffeur. I’ve never understood the logic here. Why should a public transport company be run by people who never use public transport? A board made up of workers and riders would be much more effective.

The problem is much bigger, though. Last week, the German government passed a constitutional amendment to allow unlimited military spending — they are now planning to borrow a trillion euros in the next decade to buy weapons. So the neoliberal mantra was a lie, there was always money available, they just didn’t want to spend it on schools or hospitals.

The BVG’s endless crisis started in the early 2000s. The “red-red” Berlin Senate at the time, made up of SPD and PDS (the forerunner of Die Linke), pushed through drastic wage cuts and layoffs. The BVG has never recovered.

This gives the strike a highly political character, whether union leaders want it or not. It is part of a huge class struggle underway in Germany revolving around the question of whether workers will accept cuts in their standard of living in order to finance the biggest rearmament program since the Nazi era. Or, perhaps, if that money will go to fighting the climate crisis by expanding public transport. A victory by BVG workers would be a sign of the working class rejecting militarism.

Even if it’s inconvenient, all of us need to get on our bikes and show solidarity with BVG strikers. The most famous BVG strike was back in 1932. Then as now, the conditions at this huge company affect workers throughout the city.

Red Flag is a weekly column on Berlin politics that appears every Friday. Nathaniel Flakin missed last week due to a struggle with depression, and is hoping to catch up.

Filipinos and International Allies Celebrate Duterte’s ICC Arrest

Call to Intensify Fight for Justice and Accountability


On Sunday, March 23, over 100 Filipinos and solidarity allies gathered at the Brandenburger Tor Berlin to mark the arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte by the International Criminal Court. The protest also highlighted the call for his accountability to the charge of crimes against humanity that he is now facing. The  demands to prosecute his collaborators in the so-called “War on Drugs” and for an end to the continued political repression under current president Ferdinand “Bongbong” Romualdez Marcos Jr. were amplified. BAYAN Europe, ALPAS Pilipinas, Gabriela Germany, Migrante Germany, and ICHRP-Germany (International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines) led the demonstration.

Among the solidarity organizations who attended were Cênî (Kurdish Women’s Office for Peace), Korea Verband, Extinction Rebellion Berlin and Congo Basin Alliance, FKO (Föderation Klassenkämpferischer Organisationen), Ararat Kollectiv, and RESBAK (Respond and Break the Silence Against the Killings). Other organizations in Germany, including Abolish Frontex, also attended to express their support for the call to convict Duterte.

ALPAS Pilipinas and Gabriela Germany acknowledged Duterte’s arrest as a victory for the Filipino people and honored the years of tireless campaigning by human rights activists and victims’ families. Gabriela Chairperson Catherine Abon added that Duterte’s crimes against humanity go beyond his “drug war” as he is also responsible for extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, the massacre of activists, red-tagging, state terrorism, and other abuses, which continue under President Bongbong Marcos Jr.

Kurdish women’s group, Cênî, noted, “the extrajudicial killings, the repression of dissent, the brutal attacks on the most vulnerable in society – this is not just a Filipino issue. It is a global pattern of authoritarian violence.” Korea Verband added, “The ICC and international community must confront and condemn Duterte and his collaborators”, and reaffirmed their “solidarity with the victims, the activists and the Filipino democracy movement worldwide.”

ICHRP Germany denounced the “continuation of Duterte’s bloody drug war under Marcos Junior.” Under Marcos there were 342 drug-related casualties between July 2022 and June 2023. ICHRP Germany also named the potential role of the German government in the human rights crisis in the Philippines. “The planned defense agreement between Germany and the Philippines threatens to deepen the military entanglement of Germany in a region already fraught with geopolitical tensions.”

In her closing speech, BAYAN Europe Chairperson Dr. Phoebe Sanchez emphasized that impunity in the Philippines is U.S.-funded and has existed long before Duterte’s presidency, continuing under President Marcos Jr. “This campaign was originally funded by the U.S., which Duterte implemented through programs like Oplan Kapanatagan, MO 32, EO 70, Oplan Sauron 1 and 2 etc, enabling systematic and targeted killings,” she added.

The program culminated with a minute of silence in remembrance of those who have fallen victim under the Duterte regime. The groups vowed to continue and strengthen the fight for justice and accountability, emphasizing the need to form a broad, Europe-wide coalition of Filipinos and allies to support this cause.

Contact info: