LONDON — In February Britain’s cash-strapped Labour government cut international development spending — and barely anyone made a noise. The center-left party announced it would slice the country’s spending on aid down to only 0.3 percent of gross domestic income — from 0.5 percent — in order to fund a hike in defense spending. MPs, aid experts and officials have told POLITICO that the scale of the cuts is on a par with — or even exceeding — those of both the previous center-right Conservative government or the United States under Donald Trump. This leaves Britain’s development arm, once globally envied as a vehicle for poverty alleviation, a shadow of its former self. The move — prompted by U.S. demands to up its NATO spending, and mirroring the Trump administration’s move to gut its own USAID development budget — shocked Labour’s progressive MPs, supporters and backers in the aid sector. But unlike attempted cuts to British welfare spending, the real-world backlash was muted, with the resignation of Britain’s development minister prompting little further dissent or change in policy. There was no mutiny in parliament, and only limited domestic and international condemnation outside of an aid sector torn between making their voices heard — and keeping in Whitehall’s good books over slices of the shrinking pie. Some fear a return grab over the aid budget could still be on the cards — but that the government will find that there is little left to cut. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy and advocacy at Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, warned that, instead of “reversing the cuts by the previous Conservative government, Labour has compounded them, and lives will be lost as a result.” “These cuts will further tarnish the U.K.’s reputation as it continues to be known as an unreliable global partner, breaking Labour’s manifesto commitment,” he warned. “The Conservatives started the fire, but instead of putting it out, this Labour government threw petrol on it.” ‘IT WAS THE PERFECT TIME TO DO IT’ When Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the cut to international aid — a bid to save over £6 billion by 2027 — Labour MPs, including those who worked in the sector before being elected, were notably silent. The move followed a 2021 Conservative cut to aid spending — from 0.7 percent in the Tory brand-rebuilding David Cameron years down to 0.5 percent. At the time, Labour MPs had met that Tory cut with howls of outrage. This time it was different. Some were genuinely shocked, while others feared retribution from a Downing Street that had flexed its muscles at MPs who rebelled on what they saw as points of conscience. “No one was expecting it, so there was no opportunity to campaign around it,” said one Labour MP. “Literally none of us had any idea it was coming.” Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank. | Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images The same MP noted that there are around 50 Labour MPs from the new 2024 intake who had some form of development background before coming into parliament. Yet they were put “completely under the cosh” by Downing Street and government whips. “It was the perfect time to do it,” the MP said. A number of MPs who might have been vocal have since been made parliamentary private secretaries — the most junior government role. “They have basically gagged the people who would be most likely to be outspoken on it,” the MP above said. The department’s ministerial team is now more likely to be loyal to the Starmer project. “I just felt hurt, and wounded. We were stunned. None of us saw it coming,” said one MP from the 2024 cohort, adding: “They priced in that backlash wouldn’t come.” But they added: “If we were culpable so were NGOs, too inward-looking and focused on peripheral issues.” The lack of outcry from MPs would, however, seem to put them largely in step with the wider British public. Polling and focus groups from think tank More in Common suggest that despite the majority of voters thinking spending on international aid is the right thing to do in a variety of circumstances, only around 20 percent of the public think the budget was cut too much.  The second new-intake Labour MP quoted above said the policy was therefore an “easy thing to sell on the doorstep,” and “in my area, there’s not going to be shouting from the rooftops to spend more money on aid.” DIMINISHED AND DEMORALIZED The cuts to aid come at a time when Britain’s Foreign Office is undergoing a radical overhaul. While the department describes its plans as “more agile,” staff, programs and entire areas of focus are all ripe for cuts to save money. The department is looking to make redundancies for around 25 percent of staff based in the U.K. MPs have voiced concern that development staff will be among the first to make the jump due to the government’s shift away from aid. The department insists that no final decisions have been taken over the size and shape of the organization. Major cuts are expected across work on education, conflict, and WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene.) The government’s Integrated Security Fund — which funds key counter-terror programs abroad — is also looking to scale back work abroad which does not have a clear link to Britain’s national security. The British Council — a key soft-power organization viewed as helping combat Chinese and Russian reach across the world — told MPs it is in “real financial peril” and would be cutting its presence in 35 of the 97 countries it operates. The BBC’s World Service is seeing similar cuts to its global reach. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), the watchdog for aid spending, is also not safe from the ax as the government continues its bonfire of regulators. The FCDO did not refute the expected pathway of cuts. Published breakdowns of spending allocations for the next three years are due to be published in the coming months, an official said. A review of Britain’s development and diplomacy policies conducted by economist Minouche Shafik — who has since been moved into Downing Street — sits discarded in the department. The government refuses to publish its findings. Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. | Pool Photo by Adrian Dennis via Getty Images The second 2024 intake MP quoted earlier in the piece said that following the U.S. decisions on aid and foreign policy “there was an expectation that the U.K., as a responsible international partner, as a leader on a lot of this stuff, would fill the gap to some extent, and then take more of a leadership role on it, and we’ve done the opposite.” NOTHING LEFT TO CUT Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. While few MPs or those in the aid sector feel Britain will ever return to the lofty heights of its 0.7 percent commitment, they predict there will be harder resistance if the government comes back for more. “I don’t think they’re going to try and do it again, as there’s no money left,” the second 2024 intake MP said. But they pointed out that a large portion of the remaining aid budget is spent on in-country costs such as accommodation for asylum seekers. Savings identified from the asylum budget would be sent back to the Treasury, rather than put back into the aid budget, they noted. Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank or the United Nations and would, they warned, involve “getting rid of international agreements and chopping up longstanding influence at big international institutions that we are one of the leading people in.” The United Nations is already facing its own funding crisis as it struggles to adjust to the global downturn in aid spending. British diplomat Tom Fletcher — who leads the UN’s humanitarian response — said earlier this year that the organization has been “forced into a triage of human survival,” adding: “The math is cruel, and the consequences are heartbreaking.” The government still has a commitment to returning to 0.7 percent of GNI “as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow.” The tests for this ramp back up were set out four years ago. Britain must not be borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt must be falling. The last two budgets have forecast that the government will not meet these tests in this parliament. FARAGE CIRCLES In the meantime, Labour’s opponents feel emboldened to go further. Both the Conservatives and Reform UK have said that they would further cut the aid budget. The Tories have vowed to slice it down to 0.1 percent of GNI, while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is eyeing fresh cuts of at least by £7-8 billion a year. A third 2024 Labour MP said that there was a degree of pressure among some colleagues to match the Conservatives’ 0.1 percent pledge. Though no country has gone as far as Uganda’s Idi Amin in setting up a “save Britain fund” for its “former colonial masters,” Britain’s departure on international aid gives space for other countries wanting to step up to further their own foreign policy aims. The space vacated by Britain and America has prompted warnings that China will step in, while countries newer to international development such as Gulf states could try and fill the void. Many of these nations are unlikely to ever fund the same projects as the U.K. and the U.S., forcing NGOs to look to alternate donors such as philanthropists to fund their work. “There’ll be a big, big gap, and it won’t be completely filled,” the second new intake MP said. An FCDO spokesperson said the department was undergoing “an unprecedented transformation,” and added: “We remain resolutely committed to international development and have been clear we must modernize our approach to development to reflect the changing global context. We will bring U.K. expertise and investment to where it is needed most, including global health solutions and humanitarian support.”

BRUSSELS — Last year’s gathering of Europe’s far right in Brussels took place behind metal shutters after protesters, police and city politicians tried to stop it from going ahead. This year, the doors are wide open — albeit flanked by security guards — and it’s the EU’s mainstream leadership that is under siege. Just a day after the EU was rocked by the arrest of two senior figures in a corruption probe, many at the Battle for the Soul of Europe conference — hosted by MCC Brussels, a think tank with close links to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and bringing together top officials from Budapest with right-wing politicians, activists and commentators from across the continent — said the time was right to channel public anger at the establishment. The latest corruption scandal is “another sign of double standards,” Balázs Orbán, political director to the Hungarian prime minister and the keynote speaker at the conference, said in an interview with POLITICO. “A corruption-based technocratic elite is mismanaging procedures. This element is very strong and it’s quite visible for the European voters but if you talk to Americans … this is what they see from Europe.” Prime Minister Orbán has repeatedly blasted the “EU elites” as out of touch and has sought to blame them for freezing funding for his own country over backsliding on democracy and the rule of law. There was a bullish mood at the event, held a stone’s throw from the EU Quarter of Brussels. Polish politician Ryszard Legutko, co-chairman of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists group, took aim at Commission President Ursula von der Leyen herself. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Polish politician Ryszard Legutko, co-chairman of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists group, took aim at Commission President Ursula von der Leyen herself. “The fish stinks from its head,” he blasted. John O’Brien, one of the organizers of the two-day conference, which kicked off on Wednesday, said “a couple of years ago people were scared to say some of these things about immigration, to raise concerns about environmental extremism, to talk about the mismanagement of economies … now, people are really finding their voices.” “It’s been demonstrated the last few years, time and time again, that Europe is dirty and needs to be cleaned up,” said O’Brien, as waiters in bowties served coffee to attendees. The latest embarrassment for the EU — the detention on Tuesday of former Commission Vice President Federica Mogherini and ex-top diplomatic official Stefano Sannino as part of a fraud probe — has given the right plenty of ammunition. At a panel on Thursday, French National Rally MEP Thierry Mariani and British political commentator Matthew Goodwin are set to take aim at the “deep-state web of civil service, NGOs and captured institutions.” Alice Cordier, a French activist and president of the Nemesis Collective, a self-described feminist campaign group that has been branded a far-right Islamophobic outfit by critics, said “corruption is a big issue.” The scandals, she said, compound public anger that has so far been focused largely on the consequences of migration. Balasz Orbán, however, was skeptical that the scandal would be a game-changer for national elections, including his own boss’s tough re-election fight next year. “Honestly,” he said, the internal corruption allegation is “not a big surprise for me, so it doesn’t add too much.” But according to Daniel Freund, an MEP from the German Greens, the far right is not “in any position” to credibly champion the anti-corruption cause. “They are the problem, not the solution,” Freund said, adding that the far-right Patriots group [in the European Parliament, to which Orbán’s Fidesz party belongs] has voted against “almost every measure that would strengthen the fight against corruption.” For now, the EU’s political leadership has been muted on the fraud investigation and is firmly on the defensive, its hands tied by ongoing legal proceedings. That has some worried: “The credibility of our institutions is at stake,” said Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left group in the European Parliament. Others from von der Leyen’s own governing coalition want to see her take an unequivocally tough stance before her opponents capitalize on the idea that the Brussels bureaucracy is awash with the abuse of public money. “It needs to be dealt with at a European level,” said Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle, a Dutch MEP from the centrist Renew faction. “Whether it is … Qatargate, or these new fraud suspicions. Zero tolerance and more tools to tackle this.” Max Griera and Dionisios Sturis contributed reporting.

Eva Kaili, a former European Parliament vice president who was embroiled in the Qatargate corruption scandal, has weighed in on the fraud probe involving ex-EU top diplomat Federica Mogherini. Kaili said that Belgium is “not a safe place” for political figures, especially Italians. Speaking to La Stampa from Abu Dhabi, Kaili said she was “shocked” but hardly surprised at an investigation into whether a public tender awarded by the European External Action Service to a higher education institution to host the EU Diplomatic Academy was rigged in favor of the College of Europe. Mogherini, now rector of the college, and former foreign service chief Stefano Sannino were held for questioning as part of the probe and released from custody on Wednesday morning. Kaili, who is Greek, cast the probe as part of an “operation targeting Italy” that destroys political careers long before the facts are established, and puts the rule of law at risk. Kaili said she saw the fraud probe as a sequel to Qatargate. She drew explicit parallels between her experience and Mogherini’s brief detention, insisting Qatargate was misconstrued from the outset. What prosecutors portrayed as illicit foreign influence, Kaili maintained, was routine parliamentary diplomacy backed by private NGO funding. Nearly three years later, she noted, no formal charges have been filed against her and much of the evidence remains “largely circumstantial.” Kaili served as an MEP from 2014 and as Parliament vice president from January 2022 until December 2022, when she was arrested on preliminary charges of corruption, money laundering and participation in a criminal organization as part of the Qatargate investigation into influence operations by foreign nations in Brussels.

Elisabeth Braw is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the author of the award-winning “Goodbye Globalization” and a regular columnist for POLITICO. Russia’s shadow fleet just won’t go away. Countries in the Baltic Sea region have tried virtually every legal means of stopping this gnawing headache for every country whose waters have been traversed by these mostly dilapidated vessels — and yes, sinking them would be illegal. Now, these rust buckets are starting to cause an additional headache. Because they’re usually past retirement age, these vessels don’t last long before they need to be scrapped. This has opened a whole shadow trade that’s bound to cause serious harm to both humans and the environment. Earlier this month, the globally infamous Eagle S ship met its end in the Turkish port of Aliağa. The bow of the 229-meter oil tanker was on shore, its stern afloat, with cranes disassembling and moving its parts into a sealed area. The negative environmental impact of this landing method “is no doubt higher than recycling in a fully contained area,” noted the NGO Shipbreaking Platform on its website. But in the grand scheme of things, the Eagle S’s end was a relatively clean one. The 19-year-old Cook Islands-flagged oil tanker is a shadow vessel that had been transporting sanctioned Russian oil since early 2023. It then savaged an astonishing five undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland on Christmas Day last year, before being detained by the Finnish authorities. People are willing to own shadow vessels because they can make a lot of money transporting sanctioned cargo. However, as the tiny, elusive outfits that own them would struggle to buy shiny new vessels even if they wanted to, these ships are often on their last legs — different surveys estimate that shadow vessels have an average age of 20 years or more. Over the last few years, Russia’s embrace of the shadow fleet for its oil export has caused the fleet to grow dramatically, as tanker owners concluded they can make good money by selling their aging ships into the fleet. (They’d make less selling the vessels to shipbreakers.) Today, the shadow fleet encompasses the vast majority of retirement-age oil tankers. But after a few years, these tankers and ships are simply too old to sail, especially since shadow vessels undergo only the most cursory maintenance. To get around safely rules, less-than-scrupulous owners often sell their nearly dead ships to “final journey” firms, which have the sole purpose of disposing of them. | Ole Berg-Rusten/EPA For aged ships, the world of official shipping has what one might call a funeral process: a scrapping market. In 2024, 409 ships were scrapped through this official market, though calling it “official” makes it sound clean and safe, which, for the most part, it isn’t. A few of the ships scrapped last year were disassembled in countries like Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, which follow strict rules regarding human and environmental safety. A handful of others were scrapped in Turkey, which has an OK record. But two-thirds were scrapped in Southeast Asia, where the shipbreaking industry is notoriously unsafe. To get around safely rules, less-than-scrupulous owners often sell their nearly dead ships to “final journey” firms, which have the sole purpose of disposing of them. These companies and their middlemen then make money by selling the ships’ considerable amount of steel to metal companies. But in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh — the latter is the world’s most popular shipbreaking country — vessels are disassembled on beaches rather than sealed facilities, and by workers using little more than their hands. Of course, this makes the process cheap, but it also makes it dangerous. According to the NGO Shipbreaking Platform, last year, 15 South Asian shipbreaking workers lost their lives on the job and 45 were injured. Just one accident involving an oil tanker claimed the lives of six workers and injured another six. This brings us to the shadow fleet and its old vessels, as they, too, need to be scrapped. But many of them are under Western sanctions, which presents a challenge to their owners since international financial transactions are typically conducted in U.S. dollars. Initially, I had suspected that coastal nations would start finding all manner of shadow vessels abandoned in their waters and would be left having to arrange the scrapping. But as owners want to make money from the ships’ metal, this frightening scenario hasn’t come to pass. Instead, a shadow shipbreaking market is emerging. Open-source intelligence research shows that shadow vessel owners are now selling their sanctioned vessels to final-journey firms or middlemen in a process that mirror the official one. Given that these are mostly sanctioned vessels, the buyers naturally get a discount, which the sellers are more than willing to provide. After all, selling a larger shadow tanker for scrap value and making something to the tune of $10 to $15 million is more profitable than abandoning it. And how are the payments made? We don’t know for sure, but they’re likely in crypto or a non-U.S. dollar currency. These shady processes make the situation even more perilous for the workers doing the scrapping, not to mention for the environment. “Thanks to a string of new rules and regulations over the past five decades, shipping has become much safer, and that has reduced the number of accidents significantly in recent decades,” explained Mats Saether, a lawyer at the Nordisk legal services association in Oslo. “It’s regrettable that the shadow fleet is reversing this trend.” It certainly is. Indeed, the scrapping of shadow vessels is a practice that demands serious scrutiny. Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch and other NGOs could do a good deed for the environment and unfortunate shipbreaking workers by conducting investigations. And surely the Bangladeshi government wouldn’t want to see Bangladeshi lives lost because Russia needs oil for war? Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch and other NGOs could do a good deed for the environment and unfortunate shipbreaking workers by conducting investigations. | Ole Berg-Rusten/EPA There’s an opportunity here for Western governments to help too. They could offer shadow vessel owners legal leniency and a way to sell their ships back into the official fleet — if the owners provide the authorities with details about the fleet’s inner workings and vow to leave the business. Does that sound unlikely to succeed? Possibly. But that’s what people said about Italy’s pentiti system, and they were proven wrong. Besides, the shadow fleet is such a tumor on the shipping industry and the world’s waterways that almost any measure is worth a try.

TOURNAI, Belgium — Back in 2016, a freak storm destroyed the entire strawberry crop on Hugues Falys’ farm in the province of Hainaut in west Belgium. It was one of a long string of unusual natural calamities that have ravaged his farm, and which he says are becoming more frequent because of climate change. Falys now wants those responsible for the climate crisis to pay him for the damage done — and he’s chosen as his target one of the world’s biggest oil companies: TotalEnergies. In a packed courtroom in the local town of Tournai, backed by a group of NGOs and a team of lawyers, Falys last week made his case to the judges that the French fossil fuel giant should be held responsible for the climate disasters that have decimated his yields. It’s likely to be a tricky case to make. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court, told POLITICO in a statement that making a single producer responsible for the collective impact of centuries of fossil fuel use “makes no sense.” But the stakes are undeniably high: If Falys is successful, it could create a massive legal precedent and open a floodgate for similar litigation against other fossil fuel companies across Europe and beyond. “It’s a historic day,” Falys told a crowd outside the courtroom. “The courts could force multinationals to change their practices.” A TOUGH ROW TO HOE While burning fossil fuels is almost universally accepted as the chief cause of global warming, the impact is cumulative and global, the responsibility of innumerable groups over more than two centuries. Pinning the blame on one company — even one as huge as TotalEnergies, which emits as much CO2 every year as the whole of the U.K. combined — is difficult, and most legal attempts to do so have failed. Citing these arguments, TotalEnergies denies it’s responsible for worsening the droughts and storms that Falys has experienced on his farm in recent years. The case is part of a broader movement of strategic litigation that aims to test the courts and their ability to enforce changes on the oil and gas industry. More than 2,900 climate litigation cases have been filed globally to date. “It’s the first time that a court, at least in Belgium, can recognize the legal responsibility, the accountability of one of those carbon polluters in the climate damages that citizens, and also farmers like Hugues, are suffering and have already suffered in the previous decade,” Joeri Thijs, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Belgium, told POLITICO in front of the courtroom. MAKING HISTORY Previous attempts to pin the effects of climate change on a single emitter have mostly failed, like when a Peruvian farmer sued German energy company RWE arguing its emissions contributed to melting glaciers putting his village at risk of flooding. But Thijs said that “the legal context internationally has changed over the past year” and pointed to the recent “game-changer” legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, which establishes the obligations of countries in the fight against climate change. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court. | Gregoire Campione/Getty Images “There have been several … opinions that clearly give this accountability to companies and to governments; and so we really hope that the judge will also take this into account in his judgment,” he said. Because “there are various actors who maintain this status quo of a fossil-based economy … it is important that there are different lawsuits in different parts of the world, for different victims, against different companies,” said Matthias Petel, a member of the environment committee of the Human Rights League, an NGO that is also one of the plaintiffs in the case. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. But it’s also trying to go “one step further” by not only looking backward at the historical contribution of private actors to climate change to seek financial compensation, he explained, but also looking forward to force these companies to change their investment policies and align them with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. “We are not just asking them to compensate the victim, we are asking them to transform their entire investment model in the years to come,” Petel said. DIRECT IMPACTS In recent years, Falys, who has been a cattle farmer for more than 35 years, has had to put up with more frequent extreme weather events. The 2016 storm that decimated his strawberry crop also destroyed most of his potatoes. In 2018, 2020 and 2022, heat waves and droughts affected his yields and his cows, preventing him from harvesting enough fodder for his animals and forcing him to buy feed from elsewhere. These events also started affecting his mental health on top of his finances, he told POLITICO. “I have experienced climate change first-hand,” he said. “It impacted my farm, but also my everyday life and even my morale.” Falys says he’s tried to adapt to the changing climate. He transitioned to organic farming, stopped using chemical pesticides and fertilizers on his farm, and even had to reduce the size of his herd to keep it sustainable. Yet he feels that his efforts are being “undermined by the fact that carbon majors like TotalEnergies continue to explore for new [fossil fuel] fields, further increasing their harmful impact on the climate.” FIVE FAULTS Falys’ lawyers spent more than six hours last Wednesday quoting scientific reports and climate studies aimed at showing the judges the direct link between TotalEnergies’ fossil fuel production, the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their use, and their contribution to climate change and the extreme weather events that hit Falys’ farm. They want TotalEnergies to pay reparations for the damages Falys suffered. But they’re also asking the court to order the company to stop investing in new fossil fuel projects, to drastically reduce its emissions, and to adopt a transition plan that is in line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. | Klaudia Radecka/Getty Images TotalEnergies’ culpability derives from five main faults, the lawyers argued. They claimed the French oil giant continued to exploit fossil fuels despite knowing the impact of their related emissions on climate change; it fabricated doubt about scientific findings establishing this connection; it lobbied against stricter measures to tackle global warming; it adopted a transition strategy that is not aligned with the goals of the Paris agreement; and it engaged in greenwashing, misleading its customers when promoting its activities in Belgium. “Every ton [of CO2 emissions] counts, every fraction of warming matters” to stop climate change, the lawyers hammered all day on Wednesday. “Imposing these orders would have direct impacts on alleviating Mr. Falys’ climate anxiety,” lawyer Marie Doutrepont told the court, urging the judges “to be brave,” follow through on their responsibilities to protect human rights, and ensure that if polluters don’t want to change their practices voluntarily, “one must force them to.” TOTAL’S RESPONSE But the French oil major retorted that Falys’ action “is not legitimate” and has “no legal basis.” In a statement shared with POLITICO, TotalEnergies said that trying to “make a single, long-standing oil and gas producer (which accounts for just under 2 percent of the oil and gas sector and is not active in coal) bear a responsibility that would be associated with the way in which the European and global energy system has been built over more than a century … makes no sense.” Because climate change is a global issue and multiple actors contribute to it, TotalEnergies cannot hold individual responsibility for it, the fossil fuel giant argues. It also said that the company is reducing its emissions and investing in renewable energy, and that targeted, sector-specific regulations would be a more appropriate way to advance the energy transition rather than legal action. The French company challenges the assertion that it committed any faults, saying its activities “are perfectly lawful” and that the firm “strictly complies with the applicable national and European regulations in this area.” TotalEnergies’ legal counsel will have six hours to present their arguments during a second round of hearings on Nov. 26 in Tournai. The court is expected to rule in the first half of next year.

By ALEX PERRY in Paris Illustrations by Julius Maxim for POLITICO This article is also available in French When Patrick Pouyanné decided to spend billions on a giant natural gas field in a faraway warzone, he made the call alone, over a single dinner, with the head of a rival energy company. Pouyanné, the chairman and CEO of what was then called Total, was dining with Vicki Hollub, CEO of Houston-based Occidental Petroleum. It was late April 2019, and Hollub was in a David and Goliath battle with the American energy behemoth Chevron to buy Anadarko, like Occidental a mid-sized Texan oil and gas explorer. The American investor Warren Buffett was set to back Hollub with $10 billion, but it wasn’t enough. So Hollub flew to Paris to meet Pouyanné. Hollub’s proposal: Pouyanné would pitch in $8.8 billion in exchange for Anadarko’s four African gas fields, including a vast deep-sea reserve off northern Mozambique, an area in the grip of an Islamist insurgency. The Frenchman, who had previously approached Anadarko about the same assets, said yes in a matter of minutes. Advertisement “What are the strengths of Total?” Pouyanné explained to an Atlantic Council event in Washington a few weeks later. “LNG,” he went on, and the “Middle East and Africa,” regions where the company has operated since its origin in the colonial era. “So it’s just fitting exactly and perfectly.” Total, “a large corporation,” could be “so agile,” he said, because of the efficacy of his decision-making, and the clarity of his vision to shift from oil to lower-emission gas, extracted from lightly regulated foreign lands. In the end, “it [was] just a matter of sending an email to my colleague [Hollub],” he added. “This is the way to make good deals.” Six years later, it’s fair to ask if Pouyanné was a little hasty. On Nov. 17, a European human rights NGO filed a criminal complaint with the national counterterrorism prosecutor’s office in Paris accusing TotalEnergies of complicity in war crimes, torture and enforced disappearances, all in northern Mozambique. The allegations turn on a massacre, first reported by POLITICO last year, in which Mozambican soldiers crammed about 200 men into shipping containers at the gatehouse of a massive gas liquefaction plant TotalEnergies is building in the country, then killed most of them over the next three months. The complaint, submitted by the nonprofit European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), alleges that TotalEnergies became an accomplice in the “so-called ‘container massacre’” because it “directly financed and materially supported” the Mozambican soldiers who carried out the executions, which took place between June and September 2021. “TotalEnergies knew that the Mozambican armed forces had been accused of systematic human rights violations, yet continued to support them with the only objective to secure its facility,” said Clara Gonzales, co-director of the business and human rights program at ECCHR, a Berlin-based group specializing in international law that has spent the past year corroborating the atrocity. In response to the complaint, a company spokesperson in Paris said in a written statement: “TotalEnergies takes these allegations very seriously” and would “comply with the lawful investigation prerogatives of the French authorities.” Last year, in response to questions by POLITICO, the company — through its subsidiary Mozambique LNG — said it had no knowledge of the container killings, adding that its “extensive research” had “not identified any information nor evidence that would corroborate the allegations of severe abuses and torture.” This week, the spokesperson repeated that position. Advertisement Asked in May in the French National Assembly about the killings, Pouyanné dismissed “these false allegations” and demanded the company’s accusers “put their evidence on the table.” Questioned about the complaint on French television this week, he again rejected the allegations and described them as a “smear campaign” motivated by the fact that TotalEnergies produces fossil fuels. The war crimes complaint is based on POLITICO’s reporting and other open-source evidence. In the last year, the container killings have been confirmed by the French newspaper Le Monde and the British journalism nonprofit Source Material. The British Mozambique expert Professor Joseph Hanlon also said the atrocity was “well known locally,” and an investigation carried out by UK Export Finance (UKEF) — the British state lender, which is currently weighing delivery of a $1.15 billion loan to Total’s project — has heard evidence from its survivors.  The massacre was an apparent reprisal for a devastating attack three months earlier by ISIS-affiliated rebels on the nearby town of Palma, just south of the border with Tanzania, which killed 1,354 civilians, including 55 of Total’s workforce, according to a house-to-house survey carried out by POLITICO. Of those ISIS murdered, it beheaded 330. TotalEnergies has previously noted that Mozambique has yet to issue an official toll for the Palma massacre. In March, a French magistrate began investigating TotalEnergies for involuntary manslaughter over allegations that it abandoned its contractors to the onslaught.  After the jihadis left the area in late June, Mozambican commandos based at Total’s gas concession rounded up 500 villagers and accused them of backing the rebels. They separated men from women and children, raped several of the women, then forced the 180-250 men into two metal windowless shipping containers that formed a rudimentary fortified entrance to Total’s plant. There, the soldiers kept their prisoners in 30-degree-Celsius heat for three months. According to eleven survivors and two witnesses, some men suffocated. Fed handfuls of rice and bottle caps of water, others starved or died of thirst. The soldiers beat and tortured many of the rest. Finally, they began taking them away in groups and executing them. Only 26 men survived, saved when a Rwandan intervention force, deployed to fight ISIS, discovered the operation. A second house-to-house survey conducted by POLITICO later identified by name 97 of those killed or disappeared. Along with the new ECCHR complaint and the British inquiry, the killings are the subject of three other separate investigations: by the Mozambican Attorney General, the Mozambican National Human Rights Commission, and the Dutch government, which is probing $1.2 billion in Dutch state financing for TotalEnergies’ project. This week’s complaint was lodged with the offices of the French National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor, whose remit includes war crimes. The prosecutor will decide whether to open a formal inquiry and appoint an investigating magistrate.  Should the case move ahead, TotalEnergies will face the prospect of a war crimes trial.  Such an eventuality would represent a spectacular fall from grace for a business that once held a central place in French national identity and a CEO whose hard-nosed resolve made him an icon of global business. Should a French court eventually find the company or its executives liable in the container killings, the penalties could include fines and, possibly, jail terms for anybody indicted. How did TotalEnergies get here? How did Patrick Pouyanné? ‘POUYANNÉ PETROLEUM’ Born in Normandy in 1963, the son of a provincial customs official and a post office worker, Pouyanné elevated himself to the French elite by winning selection to the École Polytechnique, the country’s foremost engineering university, and then the École des Mines, where France’s future captains of industry are made. Following a few years in politics as a minister’s aide, he joined the French state petroleum company Elf as an exploration manager in Angola in 1996. After moving to Qatar in 1999 as Elf merged with Total, Pouyanné ascended to the top job at Total in 2014 after his predecessor, Christophe de Margerie, was killed in a plane crash in Moscow. Pouyanné led by reason, and force of will. “To be number one in a group like Total … is to find yourself alone,” he said in 2020. “When I say ‘I don’t agree,’ sometimes the walls shake. I realize this.” A decade at the top has seen Pouyanné, 62, transform a company of 100,000 employees in 130 countries into a one-man show — “Pouyanné Petroleum,” as the industry quip goes. His frequent public appearances, and his unapologetically firm hand, have made him a celebrated figure in international business. “Patrick Pouyanné has done an extraordinary job leading TotalEnergies in a complex environment, delivering outstanding financial results and engaging the company in the energy transition quicker and stronger than its peers,” Jacques Aschenbroich, the company’s lead independent director, said in 2023. Advertisement Marc-Antoine Eyl-Mazzega, director of energy and climate at the French Institute of International Relations, agreed. “His involvement is his strength,” he said. “He’s able to take a decision quickly, in a much more agile and rapid way.” Still, Eyl-Mazzega said, “I’m not sure everyone is happy to work with him. You have to keep up the pace. There are often departures. He’s quite direct and frank.”  Among employees, Pouyanné’s lumbering frame and overbearing manner has earned him a nickname: The Bulldozer. The moniker isn’t always affectionate. A former Total executive who dealt regularly with him recalled him as unpleasantly aggressive, “banging fists on the table.” The effect, the executive said, has been to disempower the staff: “The structure of Total is trying to guess what Pouyanné wants to do. You can’t make any decisions unless it goes to the CEO.” In a statement to POLITICO, TotalEnergies called such depictions “misplaced and baseless.” ‘DON’T ASK US TO TAKE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND’ What’s not in dispute is how Pouyanné has used his authority to shape Total’s answer to the big 21st-century oil and gas puzzle: how to square demand for fossil fuels with simultaneous demands from politicians and climate campaigners to eliminate them. His response has been diversification, moving the company away from high-emission fuels towards becoming a broad-based, ethical energy supplier, centered on low-carbon gas, solar and wind, and pledging to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The change was symbolized by Pouyanné’s renaming of the company TotalEnergies in 2021. A second, more unsung element of Pouyanné’s strategy has been moving much of his remaining fossil fuel operation beyond Western regulation.  Speaking to an audience at Chatham House in London in 2017, he said the catalyst for his move to favor reserves in poorer, less tightly policed parts of the planet was the penalties imposed on the British energy giant BP in the United States following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout, in which 11 men died and an oil slick devastated the Gulf of Mexico coast. Pouyanné declared that the fines — between $62 billion and $142 billion, depending on the calculation used — represented an excessive “legal risk” to oil and gas development in the West. While other, more troubled territories came with their share of dangers, Pouyanné put the cost of failure of any project outside the West at a more manageable $2 to $3 billion, according to his Chatham House remarks. As a way of assessing risk, it was efficient. “Other players would spend a lot of money on consultancies and write 70 reports to conclude that a project is risky,” Eyl-Mazzega said. “Pouyanné, on the other hand, is prepared to take risks.” Asked by the French Senate in 2024 how he chose where to invest, however, Pouyanné admitted that his math was strictly about the bottom line. “Don’t ask us to take the moral high ground,” he said. ‘A COLLAPSE WILL NOT PUT TOTAL IN DANGER’ The first oil and gas prospectors arrived in northern Mozambique in 2006 as part of a Western effort to broaden supply beyond the Middle East. When Anadarko found gas 25 miles out to sea in 2010, the talk was of Mozambique as the new Qatar. At 2.6 million acres, or about a third of the size of Belgium, Rovuma Basin Area 1 was a monster, thought to hold 75 trillion cubic feet of gas, or 1 percent of all global reserves. An adjacent field, Area 4, quickly snapped up by ExxonMobil, was thought to hold even more. To cope with the volume of production, Anadarko’s Area 1 consortium drew up a plan for a $20 billion onshore liquefaction plant. Together with ExxonMobil’s field, the cost of developing Mozambique’s gas was estimated at $50 billion, which would make it the biggest private investment ever made in Africa. But in 2017, an ISIS insurgency emerged to threaten those ambitions.  By the time Pouyanné was preparing to buy Anadarko’s 26.5 percent share in Area 1 two years later, what had begun as a ragtag revolt against government corruption in the northern province of Cabo Delgado had become a full-scale Islamist rebellion.  Insurgents were taking ever more territory, displacing hundreds of thousands of people and regularly staging mass beheadings. Even under construction, the gas plant was a regular target. It was run by Europeans and Americans, intending to make money for companies thousands of miles away while displacing 2,733 villagers to build their concession and banning fishermen from waters around their drill sites. After several attacks on plant traffic to and from the facility, in February 2019, the militants killed two project workers in a village attack and dismembered a contract driver in the road.  A further risk had its origins in a ban on foreigners carrying guns. That made the plant reliant for security on the Mozambican army and police, both of which had a well-documented record of criminality and repression. Initially, Pouyanné seemed unconcerned. The gas field was outside international law, as Mozambique had not ratified the Rome Statute setting up the International Criminal Court. And Pouyanné appeared to see the pursuit of high-risk, high-reward projects almost as an obligation for a deep-pocketed corporation, telling the Atlantic Council in May 2019, soon after he agreed the Mozambique deal, that Total was so big, it didn’t need to care — at least, not in the way of other, lesser companies or countries. “We love risk, so we have decided to embark on the Mozambique story,” he said. “Even if there is a collapse, [it] will [not] put Total in danger.” Advertisement In September 2019, when Total’s purchase was formally completed, the company declared in a press release: “The Mozambique LNG project is largely derisked.” In one of several statements to POLITICO, TotalEnergies explained the term echoed the boss’s focus on “the project’s commercial and financial fundamentals. To infer this was a dismissal of security concerns amounts to a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the sector operates.” Still, for workers at the project, it was an arresting statement, given that a Mozambique LNG worker had recently been chopped to pieces. Around the same time, the project managers at Anadarko, many of whom were now working for Total, tried to warn their new CEO of the danger posed by the insurgency. It was when they met Pouyanné, however, that “things then all started to unwind,” said one. Pouyanné regaled the team who had worked on the Mozambique project for years with a speech “on how brilliant Total was, and how brilliantly Total was going to run this project,” a second executive added. Pouyanné added he had “a French hero” running the company’s security: Denis Favier who, as a police commander, led a team of police commandos as they stormed a hijacked plane on the tarmac at Marseille in 1994, and in 2015, as France’s most senior policeman, commanded the operation to hunt and kill the Islamist brothers who shot dead 12 staff at the Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris. “This is easy for him,” Pouyanné said. Asked about the transition from Anadarko to Total, the company maintained it was responsive to all concerns expressed by former Anadarko workers. “We are not aware of any such dismissal of security concerns by TotalEnergies or its senior management,” the company said. “It is incorrect to state that advice from the ground was not listened to.” Still, after meeting Pouyanné, the old Anadarko team called their Mozambique staff together to brief them on their new boss. “Well, holy shit,” one manager began, according to a person present. “We’ve got a problem.” ‘VERY VULNERABLE’ A third former Anadarko staffer who stayed on to work for Total said that on taking over, the company also put on hold a decision to move most contractors and staff from hotels and compounds in Palma to inside its fortified camp — a costly move that Anadarko was planning in response to deteriorating security. “This was a danger I had worked so hard to eliminate,” the staffer said. “Palma was very vulnerable. Almost nobody was supposed to be [there]. But Total wouldn’t listen to me.” Other measures, such as grouping traffic to and from the plant in convoys and flanking them with drones, also ended. One project contractor who regularly made the run through rebel territory described the difference between Anadarko and Total as “night and day.” Then in June 2020, the rebels captured Mocimboa da Praia, the regional hub, and killed at least eight subcontractors. In late December that year, they staged another advance that brought them to Total’s gates. At that, Pouyanné reversed course and assumed personal oversight of the security operation, the first Anadarko manager said. Despite no expertise in security, “[he] had to get into every little last possible detail.” The second executive concurred. “It went from, ‘I don’t care, we’ve got the best security people in the business to run this’ to ‘Oh my God, this is a disaster, let me micromanage it and control it,’” he said. The company was “not aware of any … criticism that Mr. Pouyanné lacks the necessary expertise,” TotalEnergies said, adding the CEO had “first-hand experience of emergency evacuation … [from] when Total had to evacuate its staff from Yemen in 2015.” The insurgents’ advance prompted Pouyanné to order the evacuation of all TotalEnergies staff. By contrast, many contractors and subcontractors, some of them behind schedule because of Covid, were told to keep working, according to email exchanges among contractors seen by POLITICO. “Mozambique LNG did not differentiate between its own employees, its contractors or subcontractors when giving these instructions,” the company said, but added that it was not responsible for the decisions of its contractors. Advertisement Then, in February 2021, Pouyanné flew to Maputo, the Mozambican capital, to negotiate a new security deal with then Mozambican President Filipe Nyusi. Afterward, the two men announced the creation of the Joint Task Force, a 1,000-man unit of soldiers and armed police to be stationed inside the compound.  The deal envisaged that the new force would protect a 25-kilometer radius around the gas plant, including Palma and several villages. In practice, by concentrating so many soldiers and police inside the wire, it left Palma comparatively exposed. “It is incorrect to allege that Palma was left poorly defended,” the company said. “However, it is a fact that these security forces were overwhelmed by the magnitude and violence of the terrorist attacks in March 2021.” TotalEnergies added it is not correct to say that “Mr. Pouyanné personally managed the security deal setting up the Joint Task Force.” ‘TRAIN WRECK’ By this time, the company’s own human rights advisers were warning that by helping to create the Joint Task Force — to which the company agreed to pay what it described as “hardship payments” via a third party, as well as to equip it and accommodate it on its compound — Pouyanné was effectively making TotalEnergies a party to the conflict, and implicating it in any human rights abuses the soldiers carried out. Just as worrying was TotalEnergies’ insistence — according to a plant security manager, and confirmed by minutes of a Total presentation on security released under a Dutch freedom of information request — that all major security decisions be handled by a 20-man security team 5,000 miles away in Paris. That centralization seemed to help explain how, when the Islamists finally descended on Palma on March 24, 2021, Total was among the last to know. One Western security contractor told POLITICO he had pulled his people out 10 days before the assault, based on intelligence he had on guns and young men being pre-positioned in town. In the days immediately preceding the attack, villagers around Palma warned friends and relatives in town that they had seen the Islamists advancing. WhatsApp messages seen by POLITICO indicate contractors reported the same advance to plant security on March 22 and March 23. Advertisement Nonetheless, at 9 a.m. on March 24, TotalEnergies in Paris announced that it was safe for its staff to return. Hours later, the Islamists attacked. “Neither Mozambique LNG nor TotalEnergies received any specific ‘advance warnings’ of an impending attack prior to March 24,” the company said. Faced with a three-pronged advance by several hundred militants, the plant security manager said TotalEnergies’ hierarchical management pyramid was unable to cope. Ground staff could not respond to evolving events, paralyzed by the need to seek approval for decisions from Paris. Total’s country office in Maputo was also in limbo, according to the security manager, neither able to follow what was happening in real-time, nor authorized to respond.  ‘WHO CAN HELP US?!’ Two decisions, taken as the attack unfolded, compounded the havoc wreaked by the Islamists. The first was Total’s refusal to supply aviation fuel to the Dyck Advisory Group (DAG), a small, South African private military contractor working with the Mozambican police. With the police and army overrun, DAG’s small helicopters represented the only functional military force in Palma and the only unit undertaking humanitarian rescues. But DAG’s choppers were limited by low supplies of jet fuel, forcing them to fly an hour away to refuel, and to ground their fleet intermittently. Total, as one of the world’s biggest makers of aviation fuel, with ample stocks at the gas plant, was in a position to help. But when DAG asked Total in Paris for assistance, it refused. “Word came down from the mountain,” DAG executive Max Dyck said, “and that was the way it was going to be.” Total has conceded that it refused fuel to DAG — out of concern for the rescuers’ human rights record, the company said — but made fuel available to the Mozambican security services. DAG later hired an independent lawyer to investigate its record, who exonerated the company. Advertisement A second problematic order was an edict, handed down by Pouyanné’s executives in Paris in the months before the massacre, according to the plant security manager, that should the rebels attack, gate security guards at the gas plant were to let no one in. It was an instruction that could only have been drawn up by someone ignorant of the area’s geography, the man said.  If the Islamists blocked the three roads in and out of Palma, as conventional tactics would prescribe, the only remaining ways out for the population of 60,000 would be by sea or air — both routes that went through TotalEnergies’s facility, with its port and airport. By barring the civilians’ way, the company would be exposing them. So it proved. TotalEnergies soon had 25,000 fleeing civilians at its gates, according to an internal company report obtained under a freedom of information request by an Italian NGO, Recommon. Among the crowd were hundreds of project subcontractors and workers. Witnesses described to POLITICO how families begged TotalEnergies’ guards to let them in. Mothers were passing their babies forward to be laid in front of the gates. But TotalEnergies in Paris refused to allow its guards on the ground to open up. On March 28, the fifth day of the attack, Paris authorized a ferry to evacuate 1,250 staff and workers from the gas plant, and make a single return trip to pick up 1,250 civilians, who had sneaked inside the perimeter. That still left tens of thousands stranded at its gates. On March 29, a TotalEnergies community relations manager in Paris made a panicked call to Caroline Brodeur, a contact at Oxfam America. “He’s like, ‘There’s this huge security situation in Mozambique!’” Brodeur said. “An escalation of violence! We will need to evacuate people! Who can help us? Which NGO can support us with logistics?’” Thirty minutes later, the man called back. “Wait,” he told Brodeur. “Don’t do anything.” TotalEnergies’ senior managers had overruled him, the man said. No outsiders were to be involved. “I think he was trying to do the right thing,” Brodeur said in an interview with POLITICO. “But after that, Total went silent.” Over the next two months, the jihadis killed hundreds of civilians in and around Palma and the gas plant before the Rwandan intervention force pushed them out. The second former Anadarko and Total executive said the rebels might have attacked Palma, whoever was in charge at the gas project. But Total’s distant, centralized management made a “train wreck … inevitable.” Advertisement TotalEnergies said its response to the attack “mitigated as much as was reasonably possible the consequences.” Confirming the phone call to Oxfam, it added: “There was no effort by whoever within TotalEnergies to shut any possibility for external assistance down.” The company was especially adamant that Pouyanné was not at fault.  “The allegation that Mr. Pouyanné’s management of TotalEnergies exacerbated the devastation caused by the attacks in Mozambique is entirely unsubstantiated,” it said. “Mr. Pouyanné takes the safety and security of the staff extremely seriously.” In his television appearance this week, Pouyanné defended the company’s performance. “We completely evacuated the site,” he said. “We were not present at that time.” He said he considered that TotalEnergies, whose security teams had helped “more than 2,000 civilians evacuate the area,” “had carried out heroic actions.” ‘AN ALMOST PERFECT DINNER PARTY’  TotalEnergies’ troubles in Mozambique have come amid a wider slump in the country’s fortunes and reputation. Years of climate protests outside the company’s annual general meetings in central Paris peaked in 2023 when police dispersed activists with batons and tear gas. For the last two years, TotalEnergies has retreated behind a line of security checks and riot police at its offices in Défense, in the western part of Paris. Though the company intended 2024, its centenary year, as a celebration, the company succeeded mostly in looking past its prime. When Pouyanné took over in 2014, Total was France’s biggest company, and 37th in the world. Today, it is France’s seventh largest and not even in the global top 100.  Several French media houses chose the occasion of TotalEnergies’ 100th birthday to declare open season on the company, portraying it as a serial offender on pollution, corruption, worker safety, and climate change. Pouyanné has also presided over a rift with the French establishment. Last year, when he suggested listing in New York to boost the stock, French President Emmanuel Macron berated him in public. Advertisement The division grew wider a few weeks later when the French Senate concluded a six-month inquiry into the company with a recommendation that the formerly state-owned enterprise be partly taken back into public ownership.  The company has faced five separate lawsuits, civil and criminal, claiming it is breaking French law on climate protection and corporate conduct.  In a sixth case, brought by environmentalists in Paris last month, a judge ordered TotalEnergies to remove advertising from its website claiming it was part of the solution to climate change. Given the company’s ongoing investments in fossil fuels, that was misleading, the judge said, decreeing that TotalEnergies take down its messaging and upload the court’s ruling instead. The Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has also led protests against TotalEnergies’ East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline. That project, intended to pump oil 1,000 miles from Uganda across Tanzania to the Indian Ocean, is similarly embroiled in accusations of human rights abuses, drawing criticism from the European Parliament plus 28 banks and 29 insurance companies who have refused to finance it. Pouyanné has also taken hits to his personal brand. A low point came in 2022 when he chose the moment his countrymen were recovering from Covid and struggling with soaring fuel prices to defend his salary of €5,944,129 a year. He was “tired” of the accusation that he had received a 52 percent rise, he wrote on Twitter. His pay, he added, had merely been restored to pre-pandemic levels.  Overnight, the CEO became the unacceptable face of French capitalism. “Pouyanné lives in another galaxy, far, far away,” said one TV host. Under a picture of the CEO, an MP from the leftist France Unbowed movement wrote: “A name, a face. The obstacle in the way of a nation.” So heated and widely held is the contempt that in 2023 the company produced a guide for its French employees on how to handle it. Titled “An Almost Perfect Dinner Party,” the booklet lays out arguments and data that staff might use to defend themselves at social occasions. “Have you ever been questioned, during a dinner with family or friends, about a controversy concerning the Company?” it asked. “Did you have the factual elements to answer your guests?” ‘FALSE ALLEGATIONS’ The war crimes case lodged this week against TotalEnergies was filed in France, despite the alleged crimes occurring in Mozambique, because, it argues, TotalEnergies’ nationality establishes jurisdiction.  The case represents a dramatic example of the extension of international justice — the prosecution in one country of crimes committed in another. A movement forged in Nuremberg and Tokyo in the wake of World War II, the principles of international justice have been used more recently by national and international courts to bring warlords and dictators to trial — and by national courts to prosecute citizens or companies implicated in abuses abroad where local justice systems are weak. U.S. courts have ordered ExxonMobil and banana giant Chiquita to stand trial for complicity in atrocities committed in the late 1990s and early 2000s by soldiers or militias paid to protect their premises in Indonesia and Colombia, respectively. Exxon settled a week before the case opened in 2023. A Florida court ordered Chiquita to pay $38 million to the families of eight murdered Colombian men in June 2024; Chiquita’s appeal was denied that October.  In Sweden, two executives from Lundin Oil are currently on trial for complicity in war crimes after Sudanese troops and government militias killed an estimated 12,000 people between 1999 and 2003 as they cleared the area around a company drill site. The executives deny the accusations against them. Advertisement ECCHR has initiated several international justice cases. Most notably, in 2016, it and another legal non-profit, Sherpa, filed a criminal complaint in Paris against the French cement maker Lafarge, accusing its Syrian plant of paying millions of dollars in protection money to ISIS. Earlier this month, Lafarge and eight executives went on trial in Paris, accused of funding terrorism and breaking international sanctions — charges they deny. The war crimes complaint against TotalEnergies cites internal documents, obtained under freedom of information requests in Italy and the Netherlands, that show staff at the site knew the soldiers routinely committed human rights abuses against civilians while working for the company.  There were “regular community allegations of JTF [Joint Task Force] human rights violations,” read one, including “physical violence, and arrests/disappearances.” The report also referred to “troops who were allegedly involved in a [human rights] case in August [2021].” These were deemed so serious that TotalEnergies suspended pay to all 1,000 Joint Task Force soldiers and the army expelled 200 from the region, according to the internal document. The ECCHR complaint accuses TotalEnergies and “X”, a designation leaving open the possibility for the names of unspecified company executives to be added. Among those named in the document’s 56 pages are Pouyanné and five other TotalEnergies executives and employees. Favier, the company’s security chief, is not among them. TotalEnergies declined to make any of its executives or security managers available for interviews. In April 2024, when Pouyanné was questioned about his company’s Mozambique operation by the French Senate, he stated that while the government was responsible for the security of Cabo Delgado, “I can ensure the security of whichever industrial premises on which I might operate.” Asked about the container executions before the National Assembly this May, Pouyanné reaffirmed his faith in the Mozambican state, saying: “I think we help these countries progress if we trust their institutions and don’t spend our time lecturing them.” Apparently forgetting how he helped negotiate a security deal to place Mozambican soldiers on Total’s premises, however, he then qualified this statement, saying: “I can confirm that TotalEnergies has nothing to do with the Mozambican army.” A company spokesperson clarified this week: “TotalEnergies is not involved in the operations, command or conduct of the Mozambican armed forces.” In addition to the war crimes complaint, TotalEnergies’ Mozambique operation is already the subject of a criminal investigation opened in March by French state prosecutors. The allegation against the company is that it committed involuntary manslaughter by failing to protect or rescue workers left in Palma when ISIS carried out its massacre. Though POLITICO’s previous reporting found that 55 project workers were killed, TotalEnergies — through its subsidiary, Mozambique LNG — initially claimed it lost no one. “All the employees of Mozambique LNG, its contractors and subcontractors were safely evacuated from the Mozambique LNG Project site,” Maxime Rabilloud, Mozambique LNG’s managing director, told POLITICO last year. Advertisement That assertion notwithstanding, the death of at least one British subcontractor, Philip Mawer, is the subject of a formal inquest in the U.K.  In December 2024, the company’s Paris press office adjusted its position on the Palma attack. “TotalEnergies has never denied the tragedy that occurred in Palma and has always acknowledged the tragic loss of civilian lives,” it told POLITICO. For the first time, it also admitted “a small number” of project workers had been stationed outside its secure compound during the attack and exposed to the bloodbath.  A resolution to the French manslaughter investigation will take years. A decision on whether to open a formal investigation into the new claims against TotalEnergies for complicity in war crimes, let alone to bring the case to trial, is not expected until 2026, at the earliest. Should anyone eventually be tried for involuntary manslaughter, a conviction would carry a penalty of three years in prison and a €45,000 fine in France, escalating to five years and €75,000 for “a manifestly deliberate violation of a particular obligation of prudence or safety.” For complicity in war crimes, the sentence is five years to life. ‘CAN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR?’ The war crimes accusation adds new uncertainty to the 20-year effort to develop Mozambique’s gas fields. In the aftermath of the 2021 Palma massacre, TotalEnergies declared a state of “force majeure,” a legal measure suspending all contracted work due to exceptional events. The following four and a half years of shutdown have cost TotalEnergies $4.5 billion, in addition to the $3.9 billion that Pouyanné originally paid Anadarko for the Mozambique operation. Billions more in costs can be expected before the plant finally pumps gas, which Total now predicts will happen in 2029. The manslaughter case and the war crimes complaint have the potential to cause further holdups by triggering due diligence obligations from TotalEnergies’ lenders, preventing them from delivering loans of $14.9 billion — without which Pouyanné has said his star project will collapse. Total also faces a Friends of the Earth legal challenge to a $4.7 billion U.S. government loan to the project. A TotalEnergies spokesperson said this week that the project was able to “meet due diligence requirements by lenders.” Advertisement All this comes as the situation on the ground remains unstable. After a successful Rwandan counter-attack from 2021 to 2023, the insurgency has returned, with the Islamists staging raids across Cabo Delgado, including Palma and the regional hub of Mocimboa da Praia. The International Organization for Migration says 112,185 people fled the violence between September 22 and October 13. Among those killed in the last few months were two gas project workers — a caterer, murdered in Palma, and a security guard, beheaded in a village south of town. TotalEnergies has consistently said that neither recent legal developments nor the upsurge in ISIS attacks will affect its plans to formally reopen its Mozambique operation by the end of the year. “This new complaint has no connection with the advancement of the Mozambique LNG project,” a spokesperson said this week. Pouyanné himself has spent much of this year insisting the project is “back on track” and its financing in place. In October, in a move to restart the project, the company lifted the force majeure.  Still, in a letter seen by POLITICO, Pouyanné also wrote to Mozambican President Daniel Chapo asking for 10 more years on its drilling license and $4.5 billion from the country to cover its cost overruns.  Mozambique, whose 2024 GDP was $22.42 billion — around a tenth of TotalEnergies’ revenues for the year of $195.61 billion — has yet to respond. A final issue for TotalEnergies’ CEO is whether a formal accusation of war crimes will fuel opposition to his leadership among shareholders. At 2024’s annual general meeting, a fifth of stockholders rejected the company’s climate transition strategy as too slow, and a quarter declined to support Pouyanné for a fourth three-year term. In 2025, several institutional investors expressed their opposition to Pouyanné by voting against his remuneration. In the statement, the TotalEnergies spokesperson pointed to the 2023 comments by Aschenbroich, the independent board member: “The Board unanimously looks forward to his continued leadership and his strategic vision to continue TotalEnergies’ transition.” Yet, there seems little prospect that his popularity will improve, inside or outside the company. “Patrick Pouyanné is everyone’s best enemy,” says Olivier Gantois, president of the French oil and gas lobby group UFIP-EM, “the scapegoat we love to beat up on.” Recently, the 62-year-old Pouyanné has begun to sound uncharacteristically plaintive. At TotalEnergies’ 2022 shareholder meeting, he grumbled that the dissidents might not like CO2 emissions, “but they sure like dividends.” At last year’s, he complained that TotalEnergies was in an impossible position. “We are trying to find a balance between today’s life and tomorrow’s,” he said. “It’s not because TotalEnergies stops producing hydrocarbons that demand for them will disappear.” Advertisement TotalEnergies’ articles of association require Pouyanné to retire before he reaches 67, in 2030, around the time that TotalEnergies currently forecasts gas production to begin in Mozambique. Henri Thulliez, the lawyer who filed both criminal complaints against TotalEnergies in Paris, predicts Pouyanné’s successors will be less attached to the project — for the simple reason that Mozambique turned out to be bad business. “You invest billions in the project, and the project has been completely suspended for four years now,” Thulliez says. “All your funders are hesitating. You’re facing two potential litigations in France, maybe at some point elsewhere, too. You have to ask: what’s the point of all of this?” As for Pouyanné, two questions will haunt his final years at TotalEnergies, he suggests. First, “Can shareholders afford to keep you in your job?” Second, “Can you actually look at yourself in the mirror?” Aude Le Gentil and Alexandre Léchenet contributed to this report.

BRASÍLIA — Brazilian lawmakers are pushing a historic rollback of environmental rules that would strip protections from the Amazon — less than a week after the country wraps up hosting the U.N. climate talks. Since last week, Brazil has welcomed representatives from almost 200 countries to this year’s U.N. climate talks in the Amazonian city of Belém. The country has used the conference to showcase President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s success in slashing deforestation rates in the world’s most important rainforest. But 1,600 kilometers farther south in the capital Brasília, Lula’s opponents have a different agenda — and they are planning to use the moment after the summit ends to push through a series of changes to the law that Brazil’s Environment Minister Marina Silva told POLITICO would amount to a “severe weakening of Brazil’s environmental rules.” The move exposes the balance of power in Brazil, where the leftist president is faced with a Congress dominated by politicians aligned with industrial interest groups, particularly the agriculture sector. Lula’s opponents are seeking to use their majority in the Congress to ram through changes that would hand companies the power to conduct their own environmental checks to gain the licenses needed to operate potentially destructive new projects designated “medium impact.” This could include dams, mines, industrial plants and oil and gas production. The licensing of large infrastructure projects could be authorized by a different process, called “special environmental licensing.” Projects deemed as strategic would be fast tracked, bypassing environmental checks. Also, the farming sector would largely be exempted from environmental planning oversight. Another proposal would strip Indigenous oversight of projects that affect their traditional lands. This change would affect Brazil’s Amazon region, around a quarter of which is managed by Indigenous people. Silva said that passing these into law “would be a setback that dismantles policies consolidated over decades … creating loopholes that would allow high-impact projects to bypass essential technical analyses, putting at risk entire river basins, biomes and the communities that depend on these territories for their livelihoods.” LULA’S VETO Both houses have already passed the law once, with large majorities. But in August, Lula struck down 63 of the most environmentally damaging aspects of the bill, which include the aforementioned provisions, while signing the rest into law. The Congress can overturn some or all of Lula’s vetoes with a majority in both houses and he would not be able to veto again. On Wednesday, senators indicated they wanted to hold a vote in both houses of Congress on Nov. 27 on the vetoes — only six days after diplomats are scheduled to leave Belém. The Congress is likely to repeat its previous vote and overturn the president’s vetoes, said Suely Araújo, the former president of Brazil’s government forest protection agency, now a public policy coordinator at the Climate Observatory NGO. “I really don’t think that Lula has power enough to stop this,” she said, adding:“I’m sure that we will have problems of deforestation increasing” if the vetoes are struck down. This view was echoed in a report by two of Brazil’s leading experts in environmental management who said it would “generate significant environmental degradation.” Araújo said environmental groups were planning to take the issue to the Supreme Court. Mauricio Guetta, legal policy director at the campaign group Avaaz, said it would be “the worst environmental setback in our history.” POLITICO contacted two lawmakers who support agribusiness, plus the Instituto Pensar Agropecuária, a non-profit group that represents the sector. None responded to requests to comment for this article. Mato Grosso do Sul Governor Eduardo Riedel, from one of Brazil’s center-right opposition parties, reportedly told an event at the COP30 climate conference that the General Environmental Permitting Law, as it is known, reformed the planning system in a way that was vital for delivering projects at speed. “Society increasingly demands increasingly agile responses due to the magnitude of development and growth so it is also not an obstacle to development,” said Riedel. AMAZON ON THE BRINK The stakes are global. Large scale deforestation and climate change are pushing the Amazon toward a tipping point that scientists warn could see the forest’s rain cycle collapse. This would lead to increased fires and, eventually, replacement of the trees that store huge quantities of carbon, with grasslands. This would, in turn, accelerate global warming with consequences everywhere. Coming just days after Brazil’s Amazon climate conference, passing the reforms wholesale would show Brazil had “regressed,” said Nilto Tatto, a member of Congress from Lula’s Workers Party. “It’s very bad for Brazil’s image. It’s very bad because of everything that the COP here in Belém represents.” Silva said the potential rollback “undermines the international commitments Brazil has assumed, including those related to the Paris Agreement.” Tatto added that it could have implications for trade with the European Union, which has sought to regulate its supply chains to discourage environmental harms. The government could try to delay the vote, which has already been pushed back once, partly to avoid colliding with the U.N. talks. Lula arrived at COP30 with a strong record on stamping out deforestation that soared under his rightwing predecessor Jair Bolsonaro. But the current administration has needed to balance Lula’s promises of environmental protection in Belém and the political and economic reality of Brazil. Next year, Lula will stand for a fourth term as president against an as yet unknown candidate, who will likely be drawn from the hard right and would almost certainly walk away from efforts to protect the environment. Just ahead of COP30, Lula’s government approved new oil exploration near the mouth of the Amazon River, while Lula has backed a 900-kilometer highway redevelopment that environmental and Indigenous groups say would provide access for extractive industries and threaten huge new areas of forest. “They are very weak,” Araújo said of the government. Aitor Hernández-Morales contributed reporting from Brussels.

SÃO PAULO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom isn’t even at the United Nations climate talks yet — but he’s already getting bombarded with meeting requests. Newsom kicked off his trip to Brazil 1,800 miles south of the Amazonian city of Belém that’s hosting this year’s international gathering, talking to Brazilian and American financiers at an investors’ summit in São Paulo. His first question from the Brazilian press on Monday, fresh off last week’s redistricting victory: whether he would run for president (“Nothing else matters but 2026 and taking back the House of Representatives,” he said). Newsom couldn’t walk halfway down a hallway without fielding a meeting request from CEOs and NGOs — or a selfie request. One Brazilian picture-taker had him repeat the Portuguese word for “Let’s go”: “Vamos.” His remarks to investors at the Milken Global Investors’ Symposium sounded more like a campaign rally than a business speech. “We have seen this complete reversal of so much of the progress that the Biden administration made,” he said. “What Trump is doing is unprecedented in American history … This should not be through the lens or prism of red, in American vernacular, versus blue.” Then he held an hour-long roundtable meeting with representatives from major investment funds, philanthropies, development banks and energy leaders, who he said pushed him to bolster economic ties in existing voluntary agreements with Brazilian governments. Newsom told POLITICO he and his team were getting a “disproportionate number of calls” to meet on the sidelines of the talks, where the U.S. government’s delegation numbers zero (“not even a note taker,” Newsom said.) “We’re at peak influence because of the flatness of the surrounding terrain with the Trump administration and all the anxiety,” Newsom said in an interview in São Paulo. Newsom is playing a well-rehearsed role for California, which has staked out a leading role in international climate diplomacy for decades under both Democratic and Republican governors, including during Trump’s first term. The Trump administration’s dismantling of climate policies to favor oil and gas interests only give California more space to fill, said former Gov. Jerry Brown, who got a hero’s welcome himself at the United Nations climate talks in 2017, the first year of Trump 1.0. “Trump, he’s saying one thing,” Brown said in an interview. “Newsom is saying something else, very important.” The impact, he said, will be determined in Belém. “That’s why it’s exciting. There’s not an answer yet.” That gives Newsom an opening — and a risk. Where Brown led a coalition of states eager to demonstrate continued commitment on climate in Trump’s first term, Newsom will arrive in Belém, near the mouth of the Amazon River, at a time when U.S. politics are tilting rightward and even Democrats are pulling back on embracing climate policies. And there’s little Newsom’s team, which includes ex-State Department climate negotiators, can actually do in the closed-door talks reserved for countries. But the governor’s goal is to influence from just outside the door. “We’re in every room, because California has been the inspiration for a lot of these jurisdictions,” he told POLITICO. Newsom’s heading next to Belém, where he’s scheduled to meet with other subnational leaders and renew environmental pacts with other countries and states — starting on Tuesday with the environment ministers from Germany and the German state of Baden-Württemburg, which Brown first partnered with to promote the soft power of subnational governments during Trump’s first term. Newsom said he would also meet with representatives from Chile. He’s also expected to give plenary remarks at the UN. After that, he’ll head deeper into the Amazon rainforest to meet with Indigenous communities on conservation — one of the goals of the Brazilian organizers of the climate talks. Newsom said he saw the visit to the Amazon as a spiritual opportunity. “It connects us to our creator,” he said. “It connects us to thousands and thousands of generations.”

ROME — The conservative think tank behind Donald Trump’s Project 2025 roadmap is looking for new friends across the Atlantic.  The Heritage Foundation, the intellectual engine behind the 922-page blueprint that has become the key policy manual for Trump’s second term, is partnering with a constellation of European nationalist far-right movements to export its playbook for countering progressive policies.  That included a conference in late October at the frescoed former home of late premier Silvio Berlusconi in Rome focused on Europe’s demographic crisis and the idea that falling birthrates pose a threat to Western civilization. Speakers included Roger Severino, Heritage’s vice president of domestic policy and the architect of the group’s campaign to roll back abortion access in the U.S., as well as Italy’s pro-life family minister Eugenia Roccella, the deputy speaker of the Senate, and members of Italian right-wing think tanks.  Severino and the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, have also been speaking guests at summits and assemblies of far-right groups such as Patriots for Europe, which includes Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National and Italy’s League, under a Make Europe Great Again banner.  Meanwhile Heritage representatives have held private meetings in Washington and Brussels with lawmakers from far-right parties in Hungary, Czechia, Spain, France and Germany. Just in the past 12 months, the group held seven meetings with members of the European Parliament, compared to just one in the five years prior, according to Parliament records. And they’ve had additional meetings with MEPs that weren’t formally reported, including with three members from Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party. Severino told POLITICO that meetings with the European right serve to exchange ideas. But the meetings signal more than pleasantries. For European politicians, they’re a way to get access to people in Trump’s orbit. For Heritage, they’re a way to extend influence beyond Washington and achieve its ideological goals, which under Roberts have grown increasingly aligned with Trump’s MAGA approach.  Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at Heritage, said he meets with conservative parties to share experience in dealing with common challenges — “comparing notes, that kind of thing.” He said his interlocutors are “very interested” in policies on abortion, gender theory, defense and China, adding that parts of Project 2025 such as a section he wrote on defunding public broadcasters, are “very transferable” to Europe.  The foundation has been active in Europe for years, he points out, but demand has increased since Trump’s return to office. European right-wing leaders, Gonzalez said, “see Trump and what he is doing and say, ‘I want to get me some of that.’”  BETTER THE SECOND TIME It’s not the first time MAGA has attempted to galvanize the European right. Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon unsuccessfully tried to unite populist nationalist parties under the Movement think tank in 2019, hamstrung by a lack of buy-in from the parties themselves.  Some observers are doubtful this renewed push will go differently. “I’m skeptical that it will amount to much,” said EJ Fagan, an associate politics professor at the University of Illinois and author of The Thinkers, a book on partisan think tanks. “The European right have their own resources that produce policies, so there’s not a lot Heritage can provide to European parties.”  That is especially an issue, Fagan noted, when it comes to finessing legislation, since Heritage doesn’t have a deep bench of “people who have a fine understanding of laws and treaties” in Europe.  But the Heritage Foundation’s European mission comes as far-right groups gain ground across Europe by tapping public frustration over issues such as immigration, climate policy and sovereignty and pushing policies that are similar to those laid out in the group’s Project 2025 agenda.  Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, have also been speaking guests at summits and assemblies of far-right groups such as Patriots for Europe. | Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA In Italy, two MPs have proposed legislation granting fetal personhood, which would make abortion impossible. The regional government in Lazio is preparing to approve a law that would guarantee protection of the fetus “from conception,” echoing a similar push in the US. And Rocella, Meloni’s family minister who appeared last month with Heritage’s Severino, is attempting to block a regional law banning conscientious objectors from roles in clinics providing abortions.  It’s not just reproductive rights. Meloni’s government has pulled out of a memorandum of understanding on the Belt and Road Initiative, the Chinese government’s ambitious program that aims to finance over $1 trillion in infrastructure investments. It effectively blocked Chinese telecoms giant Huawei from being a part in telecommunications development.  Lucio Malan, an MP in Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party and a panelist at two conferences organized with the Heritage Foundation, attempted to reverse a ban on homophobic and sexist advertisements — though he told POLITICO he took part in the events on the invitation of the center-right FareFuturo think tank, which co-organized the events with Heritage.   Heritage and its allies in the Trump administration have everything to gain from stronger nationalist parties in Europe, which are also pushing for delays in climate and agriculture regulations and sided with the US and Big Tech on digital regulation. Earlier this year, Heritage hosted the presentation of proposals by two far-right European think tanks, Hungary’s Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) and Poland’s Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture, to overhaul and hollow out the EU, undermining the commission and the European Court of Justice. And Heritage’s activity in Europe comes as the organization faces a swirl of controversy back home after Roberts sided with right-wing political commentator Tucker Carlson over criticism for interviewing a white nationalist. The incident triggered an open revolt against Roberts, who subsequently apologized. The unexpectedly swift and wide-ranging implementation of Project 2025 in the U.S. has boosted Heritage’s credentials in Europe, said Kenneth Haar of Corporate Europe Observatory, a non-profit that monitors lobbying in the EU. “Trump’s wholesale adoption of their agenda has given them unparalleled status,” he said. Now, Haar added, Heritage “is not just a think tank from the U.S., it is a representative of the MAGA coalition. It is not an exaggeration to say they are carrying out foreign policy on behalf of the president.” But the Heritage Foundation’s European mission comes as far-right groups gain ground across Europe by tapping public frustration over issues such as immigration, climate policy and sovereignty and pushing policies that are similar to those laid out in the group’s Project 2025 agenda. | Shawn Thew/EPA For Heritage, there’s good reason to focus on Europe in particular: It has become a focal point for the group’s donors and activists in the U.S., who fret about perceived Islamicization and leftist politics on the continent.  “We have an existential interest in having Europe be sovereign and free and strong,” Gonzalez told POLITICO. A RALLYING POINT Historically, Europe’s right has struggled to cooperate, with different factions representing conflicting national interests. But the machinery underpinning Trump’s reelection, and his ability to move national policy in European capitals, has shifted those dynamics, making Heritage “a factor in uniting the European right,” Haar said.  “MAGA has become a rallying point, the European right is meeting more frequently,” he added. Trump’s support for their policies also gives them more “clout” in Europe, he said, as Europe’s leaders seek favor from Trump and his allies across a range of issues, including tariffs.  Transparency activists said that they’re seeing a notable uptick in activity that suggests Heritage is gaining traction beyond symposiums and events.  Raphaël Kergueno, Senior Policy Officer at Transparency International, a NGO advocating against undue political influence, said the group’s activities — including those undeclared meetings with MEPs, which may put those members in breach of the European Parliament’s code of conduct — underscores the weakness of European rules on lobbying and advocacy.  Kenneth Haar added, Heritage “is not just a think tank from the U.S., it is a representative of the MAGA coalition. It is not an exaggeration to say they are carrying out foreign policy on behalf of the president.” | Shawn Thew/EPA “The Heritage Foundation has pushed blatantly anti-democratic projects, and is now free to court MEPs without disclosing its goals or funding,” he said. “If the EU does not clean up its act, it will allow hostile actors to import authoritarianism through the backdoor.” But Nicola Procaccini, an MEP in Meloni’s party who has held several meetings with Heritage, dismissed the idea that Heritage presents a danger to the rule of law or to European politics. He said he has not read Project 2025, and pointed to the group’s long history as an economic policy powerhouse — though that has changed in the Trump era, as the group’s new head Roberts has pivoted closer to Trump.  Nevertheless, he said, “You can share or not share their views … but Heritage is certainly an authoritative voice.”  

Despite respect for Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s wartime leadership, pressure is building on the president over what his critics call democratic backsliding in Ukraine. Kyiv’s wartime international partners need to clearly call out creeping authoritarianism, according to Ukraine’s former leader and Zelenskyy archrival Petro Poroshenko, as the EU on Tuesday noted issues with the country’s commitment to rooting out corruption. “Our democracy has been a source of strength and resilience; undermining it would weaken Ukraine far more than any external criticism ever could,” Poroshenko, who led Ukraine from 2014 to 2019, told POLITICO in an interview. “As we fight Russian autocracy, we cannot afford to drift toward autocratic practices at home,” Poroshenko added, in a stark warning. “Ukraine does not have the luxury of losing its independence, but neither does it have the luxury of losing its democracy.” His appeal to international partners came just hours before the release of a report Tuesday by the European Commission that offered a fairly positive review of Ukraine’s readiness to advance EU accession talks — but also expressed some reservations about democratic backsliding. Poroshenko heads the largest opposition party in the Ukrainian parliament, and he and Zelenskyy share a deep animosity for each other. They clashed and traded barbs in heated debates during the 2019 election, which Zelenskyy won in a landslide. Aides of the two men concede in private that both harbor almost visceral dislike for each other. The former president was speaking just days after the arraignment of a respected former energy executive who’s been critical of Zelenskyy’s handling of Ukraine’s energy sector.  The indictment last week of Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, ex-chief of the main state-owned power company, has ignited a firestorm of criticism. Civil society leaders and opposition lawmakers argue his prosecution is an example of aggressive lawfare used by the leadership to try to intimidate Zelenskyy’s political opponents, independent journalists and anti-corruption campaigners. Zelenskyy’s office has declined repeated requests to comment from POLITICO on the case and rule-of-law issues. Kudrytskyi, who has labeled the charges against him “nonsense,” told POLITICO this week that he has no doubt he’s being targeted by the State Bureau of Investigation with Zelenskyy’s approval. ‘POWER-ENFORCEMENT’ Poroshenko himself is also ensnared in the courts. He’s blocked from accessing his bank accounts and prohibited from traveling abroad and attending parliamentary sessions because of sanctions the Zelenskyy administration imposed on him following an indictment on treason and corruption charges. The sanctions could potentially prevent him from running in an election. Poroshenko has vehemently denied the charges, saying they are trumped up. Despite respect for Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s wartime leadership, pressure is building on the president over democratic backsliding in Ukraine. | Tetiana Dzhafarova/Getty Images “Ukraine’s partners still can, without reducing their support for the country at war, send authorities a clear and compelling signal that increasing use of sanctions and targeted criminal prosecutions to suppress independent journalists, anti-corruption agencies and political opposition will not be tolerated,” he said.   Poroshenko said that “general lukewarm statements about the importance of fundamental values and the inviolability of human rights” from the EU and other allies will no longer suffice. That approach has been tried before but to no avail, he added. “They will just be met with the old claim that all cases of persecution are the actions of independent law enforcement agencies, beyond the president’s control and responsibility,” he said. “The increasing use of sanctions and targeted criminal prosecutions by President Zelenskyy’s administration requires a strong and visible response from our allies,” he added. But the former president said wartime aid for Ukraine shouldn’t be used as leverage because “any action that weakens our ability to resist Russian aggression will not improve the situation.” Poroshenko also accused Zelenskyy of weaponizing Ukraine’s law-enforcement bodies and transforming them into “power-enforcement” agencies instead. He cited, as an example, the State Bureau of Investigation which “functions as an instrument for carrying out political orders against opponents,” he said. TIME TO STEP UP Tuesday’s report, unveiled in Brussels by the Commission, is unlikely to satisfy either Poroshenko or Ukraine’s civil rights campaigners. They say Brussels has adopted too timid an approach when it comes to what they warn is democratic backsliding.  The report offered a generally positive overview of Ukraine’s readiness to advance in EU accession talks, and praised the country’s “remarkable commitment” to its membership bid. While the Commission highlighted some risks of Ukrainian democratic backsliding, it made no mention of the complaints in Ukraine about prosecutions of Zelenskyy’s political opponents. It also said the enforcement of fundamental rights has been satisfactory and “the government has maintained its overall respect for fundamental rights and shown its commitment to their protection.” The report did, however, call for an urgent reversal of negative trends in the fight against corruption and for an acceleration in rule-of-law reforms. “Recent negative trends, including a growing pressure on the specialized anti-corruption agencies and civil society, must be decisively reversed,” the Commission said, a reference to the attempt in July by the Ukrainian government to strip a pair of anti-corruption agencies of their independence. Petro Poroshenko said he feared democratic backsliding is providing ammunition for those in Europe and the U.S. who want to withdraw support from Ukraine as it resists Russian revanchism. | Danylo Antoniuk/Getty Images A civil society outcry and anti-government street protests, the first to be mounted since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in 2022, forced the government to back down and restore the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. Zelenskyy’s political rivals argue that targeted prosecutions, and the hampering of the anti-corruption agencies from probing presidential insiders, have increased in tempo and intensity in recent months as talk mounts of a possible election next year.  Poroshenko said he feared democratic backsliding is providing ammunition for those in Europe and the U.S. who want to withdraw support from Ukraine as it resists Russian revanchism.   “When critics are targeted and anti-corruption activists are attacked, it gives arguments to those abroad, especially to Russian propaganda, to challenge support for Ukraine. It also demoralizes Ukrainians themselves,” Poroshenko warned.