A serious battle is waged in Serbia between the promoters of the Jadar region lithium mining project (the Rio Tinto company and the Serbian government) and its opponents – locals, activists, political opposition, even the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. EU and German officials belong to the promoters, ever more openly stating that “EU needs critical mineral resources” from Serbia.
But what does the German public know and think about this issue? We talked about this with Hauke Benner, an, as he states, ex-journalist and a long-time activist, now a member of a small climate action group in Berlin.
Would you agree that what we’re witnessing, and what we in Serbia are being exposed to, is extractivism with a pronounced neocolonial character?
Yes, of course, lithium mining would destroy the natural environment in the fertile Jadar valley. Rio Tinto would leave behind thousands and thousands of tonnes of toxic waste, consume enormous amount of water – and, last but not least, destroy the livelihoods of local farmers. They would have no chance to continue their work, they would have to go.
To exploit the resources, to destroy the nature and destroy the possibility of the local population to have a good life in their own country fits the description of modern neocolonialism. The main difference to the “classic” form of colonialism is that no army is deployed to force the people to leave their land – instead, it is the money and the “promise of progress and development” by the big capitalists like Rio Tinto and the associated political class.
Is the German public aware (or, better said – are there parts of the public in Germany who are aware) that Germany and the EU are making “sacrifice zones” out of parts of the EU neighbouring countries for the sake of Germany’s automotive (and construction) industries? How do those who know what’s going on react?
This is well known in parts of the critical scientific community, among climate researchers, and is being exposed as a scandal by the climate movement. Even the main news programme of the German television, the Tagesschau, reported in detail on the major demonstration against lithium mining that took place in Beograd last August. In parliament, in the German Bundestag, however, the extraction of strategic raw materials is not raised as an issue. This is all the more reason for the climate justice movement to focus on the broader consequences of turning away from the fossil fuel economy.
That’s why on October 15th here in Berlin we will organise a public protest meetings with some Serbian comrades and a couple of NGOs against a congress of the BDI – Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, the lobby-organisation of the German industry.
The managers want to talk about the “transformation” to a green capitalism, and our task is to have in mind the sacrifice zones in our neighbourhood.
You denounced the Green party in Germany for abandoning climate and environmentalist goals. Who represents them now (in Germany)?
Yes, the Green party completely abandoned its climate targets. In march 2023, there was a top-level meeting in the German coalition government and the FDP prevailed on all key points. There is no longer any talk of significantly reducing car traffic or the high energy consumption in general, both in industry and in the private sector, for example in heating buildings.
The Greens sacrificed climate protection on the altar of retaining power, in order not to break up the “traffic light” coalition. It is a complete kowtowing by the Greens to the climate deniers of the FDP. Today the Greens and the Green minister of energy, Mister Habeck, promote a green capitalism, but Habeck’s main task is to improve the conditions for German industry in international competition. This includes the accelerated reorganisation and electrification of production, which is why lithium plays such an important role.
Germany seems to be trying to salvage its automotive industry (by building motorways and pressuring poor countries into providing lithium etc) at the cost of rising CO2 emissions and ecosystem damage. What would be a better, eco-friendly solution?
The only solution is to overcome capitalism. The first step in the developed countries is to turn away from the growth imperative, which is mandatory in every capitalist economy. The second step would be a drastic reduction in energy consumption. Because even with 100% renewable energy, the current model of prosperity is no longer possible, simply because there isn’t enough resources for this on a global level.
Of course, these are completely unrealistic goals at the moment. But we should continue to fight for them. A good life beyond the capitalist model of prosperity is possible.
