The Electronic Intifada 22 December, 2007
I am feeling optimistic about Palestine.
I know it sounds crazy. How can I use "optimistic" and "Palestine" in the same sentence when conditions on the ground only seem to get worse? Israeli settlements continue to expand on a daily basis, the checkpoints and segregated road system are becoming more and more institutionalized, more than 10,000 Palestinian political prisoners are being held in Israeli jails, Gaza is under heavy attack and the borders are entirely controlled by Israel, preventing people from getting their most basic human needs met.
We can never forget these things and the daily suffering of the people, and yet I dare to say that I am optimistic. Why? Ehud Olmert. Let me clarify. Better yet, let's let him clarify:
"The day will come when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights. As soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."
That's right, the Prime Minister of Israel is currently trying to negotiate a "two-state solution" specifically because he realizes that if he doesn't, Palestinians might begin to demand, en masse, equal rights to Israelis. Furthermore, he worries, the world might begin to see Israel as an apartheid state. In actuality, most of the world already sees Israel this way, but Olmert is worried that even Israel's most ardent supporters will begin to catch up with the rest of the world.
"The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us," he told Haaretz, "because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."
Perhaps Olmert is giving American Jews too much credit here, but he does expose a basic contradiction in the minds of most American people, Jewish and not: most of us -- at least in theory -- support equal rights for all residents of a country. Most of us do not support rights given on the basis of ethnicity and religion, especially when the ethnicity/religion being prioritized is one that excludes the vast majority of the country's indigenous population. We cannot, of course, forget the history of ethnic cleansing of indigenous people on the American continent. But we must not use the existence of past atrocities to justify present ones.
I am optimistic not because I think the process of ethnic cleansing and apartheid in Israel/Palestine is going to end tomorrow, but because I can feel the ideology behind these policies beginning to collapse. For years the true meaning of political Zionism has been as ignored as its effects on Palestinian daily life. And suddenly it is beginning to break open. Olmert's comments last week are reminiscent of those of early Zionist leaders who talked openly of transfer and ethnic cleansing in order to create an artificial Jewish majority in historic Palestine.
We must expel the Arabs and take their places and if we have to use force to guarantee our own right to settle in those places -- then we have force at our disposal. - David Ben-Gurion, Israel's "founding father" and first prime minister, 1937
So this idea of a "two-state solution" a la Olmert -- which I would argue provides neither a "state" nor a "solution" for the Palestinian people -- is the new transfer. It is no longer popular in the world to openly discuss expulsion (though there are political parties in Israel that advocate this), but Olmert hopes that by creating a Palestinian "state" on a tiny portion of historic Palestine, he can accomplish the same goal: maintaining an ethno-religious state exclusively for the Jewish people in most of historic Palestine. His plan, as all other plans Israeli leaders have tried to "negotiate," ignores the basic rights of the two-thirds of the Palestinian population who are refugees. They, like all other refugees in the world, have the internationally recognized right to return to their lands and receive compensation for loss and damages. This should not be up for negotiation.
So why am I optimistic? Why do I think Olmert will fail, if not in the short term, at least in the long term? There are many signs.
The first and most important is that Palestinian people are holding on. Sometimes by a thread, but holding on nonetheless. Despite the hope of many in Israel, Palestinians will not disappear. They engage in daily acts of nonviolent resistance, from demonstrations against the wall and land confiscation, to simply remaining in their homes against all odds. Young people are joining organizations designed to preserve their culture and identity. Older Palestinians have said to me, "We lived through the Ottoman Empire, we lived through the British Mandate, we lived through Jordanian rule, and we will live through Israeli occupation." This too shall pass.
In Israel, it seems that within the traditional "Zionist left," Jewish Israelis are beginning to have open conversations about the exclusivity of Zionism as a political ideology, and are questioning it more and more.
In the US, I have been traveling around speaking to groups about Palestine, and they get it. Even those whose prior information has come only from US mainstream media, when they hear what is actually happening, they get it. When we explain the difference between being Jewish (a religion or ethnicity), Israeli (a citizenship), and Zionist (an ideology), people understand.
"Does Israel have a right to exist?" people ask. What does that mean? Do countries really have rights, or do people have rights? The Jewish people have a right to exist, the Israeli people have a right to exist, but what does "Israel" mean? Israel defines itself as the state of the Jewish people. It is not a state of its citizens. It is a state of many people who are not its citizens, like myself, and is not the state of many people who are its citizens, like the 20 percent of its population that is Palestinian. So if we ask a Palestinian person, "Do you recognize the right for there to be a country on your historic homeland that explicitly excludes you?" what kind of response should we expect?
So when Olmert warns that we will "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights" and that "the state of Israel [will be] finished," I get a little flutter of excitement. I think of the 171 Palestinian organizations who have called on the international community to begin campaigns of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel until Israel complies with international law. This is already a South African-style struggle, and we outside of Palestine need to do our part. Especially those of us who live in the US, the country that gives Israel more than $10 million every single day, must take responsibility for the atrocities committed in our name and with our money.
Ultimately, this is our role as Americans. It is to begin campaigns in our churches, synagogues, mosques, universities, cities, unions, etc. It is not to broker false negotiations between occupier and occupied, and it is not to muse over solutions the way I have above. But one can dream. And as a Jewish-American, I know that while it might be scary to some, while it will require a lot of imagination, the end of Israel as a Jewish state could mean the beginning of democracy, human rights, and some semblance of justice in a land that has almost forgotten what that means.
Hannah Mermelstein is co-founder and co-director of Birthright Unplugged, which takes mostly Jewish North American people into the West Bank to meet with Palestinian people and to equip them to return to their own communities and work for justice; and takes Palestinian children from refugee camps to Jerusalem, the sea, and the villages their grandparents fled in 1948, and supports them to document their experiences and create photography exhibits to share with their communities and with the world. Anna Baltzer helped contribute to this article.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Is peace just an absence of war?
Cindy Sheehan
CommonDreams, December 8, 2007
That question begs another question: What is war?
Is war a “hot” conflict with bombs raining down on civilians? Is it covert action with undercover agents fomenting unrest and electoral rebellion? Is it crippling sanctions that target unarmed and un-protected civilians who become desperate for medicine when their child is dying of dysentery or hungry for food to fend off starvation?
Is war maintaining a large standing army and an over-bloated Ministry of War even in peacetime? Is war destroying our precarious environment for the sake of a comparative few to the detriment of the many? Is war recklessly using natural resources when there is a limited supply and many people are killed or enslaved so others can have diamond engagement rings or cheap crap at Wal-Mart?
I believe there is always an undeclared war on poor people all over the world and the establishment’s goal is to use any means violent, covert, or criminal to make the poor, poorer; the rich, richer; and to eliminate an educated, healthy, and vibrant middle class that is a threat to the fascist-elite way of life but essential for true freedom and democracy.
So then what is a meaningful definition of peace? Peace is an existential state where individuals are not only free from bombs raining down on their heads and an absence of planes flying into buildings, but where every person enjoys the basic human rights of security, prosperity, a good and free education, plentiful food, accessible healthcare, clean water and a clean planet free from catastrophic global climate change and overwhelming pollution.
John Lennon, who was so wrongly taken away from us 27 years ago today, is an icon for peace who strived and struggled for a true peace with his talent and with his resources. His songs, and refrains particularly: Power to the People, Imagine, and War is Over, and Give Peace a Chance are anthems for our modern peace movement. Imagine (on which I have written before) is a manifesto to a Utopian world where true peace is the paradigm and constant war as a foreign policy tool is abolished.
It is a tragedy in our world that we oftentimes marginalize or kill our peacemakers. I often dream of where our world would be today if people like Gandhi, John Lennon, MLK, Jr., or Bobby Kennedy (a later in life convert to peace) would not have been assassinated, or what would happen if we, their survivors, had made more meaning out of their violent, meaningless and senseless deaths. Would we be closer to state of utopia (or Nutopia) that John Lennon dreamed of?
John’s widow, Yoko Ono Lennon, has been very tireless in striving for world peace and in continuing her husband’s legacy. I know that my work for peace began when I wanted to make meaning out of my son’s senseless and violent death at the hands of the war pigs.
We cannot let their deaths be in vain!
It was in the season of peace that John Lennon was killed, when instead of a frenzy of shopping and an orgy of eating, we should all be reflecting on elevating the situation of our less fortunate brothers and sisters to bring peace to our part of the world that will have a ripple effect that spreads worldwide.
At the request of Yoko, let’s make today a day of reflecting on true peace. Take a few moments at 11:15 EST and remember John and what he gave the world and what his legacy should be.
Imagine peace, then go out and make peace.
Please visit Imagine Peace sometime today for inspiring videos and down loadable artwork.
CommonDreams, December 8, 2007
That question begs another question: What is war?
Is war a “hot” conflict with bombs raining down on civilians? Is it covert action with undercover agents fomenting unrest and electoral rebellion? Is it crippling sanctions that target unarmed and un-protected civilians who become desperate for medicine when their child is dying of dysentery or hungry for food to fend off starvation?
Is war maintaining a large standing army and an over-bloated Ministry of War even in peacetime? Is war destroying our precarious environment for the sake of a comparative few to the detriment of the many? Is war recklessly using natural resources when there is a limited supply and many people are killed or enslaved so others can have diamond engagement rings or cheap crap at Wal-Mart?
I believe there is always an undeclared war on poor people all over the world and the establishment’s goal is to use any means violent, covert, or criminal to make the poor, poorer; the rich, richer; and to eliminate an educated, healthy, and vibrant middle class that is a threat to the fascist-elite way of life but essential for true freedom and democracy.
So then what is a meaningful definition of peace? Peace is an existential state where individuals are not only free from bombs raining down on their heads and an absence of planes flying into buildings, but where every person enjoys the basic human rights of security, prosperity, a good and free education, plentiful food, accessible healthcare, clean water and a clean planet free from catastrophic global climate change and overwhelming pollution.
John Lennon, who was so wrongly taken away from us 27 years ago today, is an icon for peace who strived and struggled for a true peace with his talent and with his resources. His songs, and refrains particularly: Power to the People, Imagine, and War is Over, and Give Peace a Chance are anthems for our modern peace movement. Imagine (on which I have written before) is a manifesto to a Utopian world where true peace is the paradigm and constant war as a foreign policy tool is abolished.
It is a tragedy in our world that we oftentimes marginalize or kill our peacemakers. I often dream of where our world would be today if people like Gandhi, John Lennon, MLK, Jr., or Bobby Kennedy (a later in life convert to peace) would not have been assassinated, or what would happen if we, their survivors, had made more meaning out of their violent, meaningless and senseless deaths. Would we be closer to state of utopia (or Nutopia) that John Lennon dreamed of?
John’s widow, Yoko Ono Lennon, has been very tireless in striving for world peace and in continuing her husband’s legacy. I know that my work for peace began when I wanted to make meaning out of my son’s senseless and violent death at the hands of the war pigs.
We cannot let their deaths be in vain!
It was in the season of peace that John Lennon was killed, when instead of a frenzy of shopping and an orgy of eating, we should all be reflecting on elevating the situation of our less fortunate brothers and sisters to bring peace to our part of the world that will have a ripple effect that spreads worldwide.
At the request of Yoko, let’s make today a day of reflecting on true peace. Take a few moments at 11:15 EST and remember John and what he gave the world and what his legacy should be.
Imagine peace, then go out and make peace.
Please visit Imagine Peace sometime today for inspiring videos and down loadable artwork.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The Advent journey to peace (Part One)
Posted on Nov 28, 2007 09:57am CST.
On the Road to Peace by John Dear S.J. Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Vol. 2, No. 14
Sunday is the beginning of Advent, my favorite liturgical season, a time of prayer, preparation, hope and peace. I suggest we look to Mary, Jesus' teacher of peace and nonviolence, for clues over the next few weeks about how to welcome anew the God of peace. The Gospel of Luke portrays the Advent journey to peace in the three movements: first with the Annunciation as a scene of contemplative nonviolence, which leads to the Visitation as a scene of active nonviolence, and finally the Magificant, is the epitome of prophetic nonviolence, the groundwork for Jesus' great sermon.
According to the Gospel of Luke (1:26-38), the Advent of the nonviolent Jesus begins in this first movement with prayer, solitude, silence, attentive listening, and steadfast waiting for God's word of peace. Mary is a contemplative, a person of quiet prayer and solitude. She sits listening attentively to God, and dwells in the peace of God. In that silence and stillness, she is ready for God to speak.
That's the beginning of the journey to peace. Every day, we too can take time to sit in silence and solitude, in contemplative prayer, and listen for God. When we do, oddly enough, we notice once again the violence within us, whatever keeps us unpeaceful. The prayer of peace begins by noticing that inner violence and giving it all -- all our anger, resentments, hurts, wounds, bitterness, and hatreds -- to God, so that God will disarm our hearts and give us the gift of peace. As we practice this contemplative nonviolence and let go of our violence, we become more and more peaceful like Mary. We make peace with ourselves so that we are at peace within ourselves and with all creation, and ready for the coming of the God of peace.
In the story of the Annunciation, the angel tells Mary that she is to welcome a savior whose reign of peace will never end. Mary realizes the political implications of this announcement. God is taking sides, not with the rich and the powerful, the imperial warmakers or religious authorities, but with an unwed refugee woman. Mary does not rejoice at this news. She is terrified and confused. She does not understand this, but she knows it could be dangerous and costly. Here is another clue for Advent. When God enters our lives, we become afraid and disturbed. The God of peace comes to end the culture of war, to disarm the warmakers, and dismantle the empire. This work of God will be dangerous and costly for those who serve God. It may be helpful to sit with our fears and our confusion, before we take a new step forward on the Advent journey of creative nonviolence.
Afraid and confused, nonetheless, Mary says yes to the God of peace. How does she do it? How can we?
The answer lies in her response. "Behold," says Mary, "I am the servant of the God of peace. May it be done to me according to your word." Mary says yes to God because she knows who she is. She announces to the angel that she, Mary, is the servant of the God of peace. It doesn't matter what she thinks, how afraid she is, or how confusing the journey appears. She will do whatever the God of peace wants because she is the servant of the God of peace. She roots her identity completely in the God of peace. Because she is firmly rooted in God, she accepts whatever God wants of her. That's that.
This self-understanding is at the heart of the spirituality of peace and nonviolence. No matter what the culture tells us about ourselves, no matter how it labels us as Americans, consumers, or soldiers, we see ourselves first and foremost as servants of the God of peace; more, as God's very sons and daughters. Only then can we transcend our fears and confusion and questions. Only then will we be able to welcome God's reign of peace on earth.
Claiming this core identity begins with sitting in peace, becoming comfortable with the climate of peace, befriending the God of peace, and discovering our true selves as children of peace. Once we claim our core identities as servants of peace, as children of peace, we too will say yes to the God of peace. We will accept anything God wants; we will take any risk for peace. We know that we are sons and daughters of the God of peace, that our security and future lie with our beloved God, and so we will do whatever God asks.
This Advent, we might ask ourselves: Can we say yes to the God of peace with the same faith, hope and trust as Mary? Do we really want the God of peace to come to us? Dare we pursue and herald the coming of a new culture of peace? Have we grown content with the culture of violence? Comfortable with the big business of corporate greed and imperial war? Dare we allow the nonviolent Jesus to disrupt our settled ways and set us on a new disruptive path, as Mary did?
Can we surrender ourselves once again to the God of peace, with the selfless courage and daring faith and bold hope of Mary of Nazareth? I believe we can. We can say yes to the God of peace, and let the chips fall where they may, trusting that, in the long run, the fruit, the outcome, the finale, will be glorious, that like Mary, we too will blessed, we too will be peacemakers, we too will be heralds of a new world without war, poverty, racism, sexism, violence or nuclear weapons.
The Annunciation invites us to become contemplatives of nonviolence, mystics of nonviolence, like Mary. The whole point of prayer, contemplation and mysticism, is not so that we can hurt others, or bomb others, or dominate the world, but so that we can commune with the living God of peace and live in peace with everyone on earth, our very sisters and brothers.
This Advent, we pray, "God, I surrender myself to you once again. Take my life. Use me for your work of disarmament, justice, and the healing of creation. Open my life to your holy disturbances, my career to your holy upheaval, my plans to your disruptive love. You, God of peace, are all the matters. Peace on earth is my greatest hope, my most important work-the meaning of my sojourn. Take me, God of peace. Do with me as you will. Make me too an instrument of your peace. Let me be part of your reign of peace, of your nonviolent coming into the world."
Once we say yes to the God of peace in our contemplative nonviolence, we too will rush off like Mary, on the second stage of Advent, to serve those in need, to love our neighbors, and to practice active nonviolence.
On the Road to Peace by John Dear S.J. Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Vol. 2, No. 14
Sunday is the beginning of Advent, my favorite liturgical season, a time of prayer, preparation, hope and peace. I suggest we look to Mary, Jesus' teacher of peace and nonviolence, for clues over the next few weeks about how to welcome anew the God of peace. The Gospel of Luke portrays the Advent journey to peace in the three movements: first with the Annunciation as a scene of contemplative nonviolence, which leads to the Visitation as a scene of active nonviolence, and finally the Magificant, is the epitome of prophetic nonviolence, the groundwork for Jesus' great sermon.
According to the Gospel of Luke (1:26-38), the Advent of the nonviolent Jesus begins in this first movement with prayer, solitude, silence, attentive listening, and steadfast waiting for God's word of peace. Mary is a contemplative, a person of quiet prayer and solitude. She sits listening attentively to God, and dwells in the peace of God. In that silence and stillness, she is ready for God to speak.
That's the beginning of the journey to peace. Every day, we too can take time to sit in silence and solitude, in contemplative prayer, and listen for God. When we do, oddly enough, we notice once again the violence within us, whatever keeps us unpeaceful. The prayer of peace begins by noticing that inner violence and giving it all -- all our anger, resentments, hurts, wounds, bitterness, and hatreds -- to God, so that God will disarm our hearts and give us the gift of peace. As we practice this contemplative nonviolence and let go of our violence, we become more and more peaceful like Mary. We make peace with ourselves so that we are at peace within ourselves and with all creation, and ready for the coming of the God of peace.
In the story of the Annunciation, the angel tells Mary that she is to welcome a savior whose reign of peace will never end. Mary realizes the political implications of this announcement. God is taking sides, not with the rich and the powerful, the imperial warmakers or religious authorities, but with an unwed refugee woman. Mary does not rejoice at this news. She is terrified and confused. She does not understand this, but she knows it could be dangerous and costly. Here is another clue for Advent. When God enters our lives, we become afraid and disturbed. The God of peace comes to end the culture of war, to disarm the warmakers, and dismantle the empire. This work of God will be dangerous and costly for those who serve God. It may be helpful to sit with our fears and our confusion, before we take a new step forward on the Advent journey of creative nonviolence.
Afraid and confused, nonetheless, Mary says yes to the God of peace. How does she do it? How can we?
The answer lies in her response. "Behold," says Mary, "I am the servant of the God of peace. May it be done to me according to your word." Mary says yes to God because she knows who she is. She announces to the angel that she, Mary, is the servant of the God of peace. It doesn't matter what she thinks, how afraid she is, or how confusing the journey appears. She will do whatever the God of peace wants because she is the servant of the God of peace. She roots her identity completely in the God of peace. Because she is firmly rooted in God, she accepts whatever God wants of her. That's that.
This self-understanding is at the heart of the spirituality of peace and nonviolence. No matter what the culture tells us about ourselves, no matter how it labels us as Americans, consumers, or soldiers, we see ourselves first and foremost as servants of the God of peace; more, as God's very sons and daughters. Only then can we transcend our fears and confusion and questions. Only then will we be able to welcome God's reign of peace on earth.
Claiming this core identity begins with sitting in peace, becoming comfortable with the climate of peace, befriending the God of peace, and discovering our true selves as children of peace. Once we claim our core identities as servants of peace, as children of peace, we too will say yes to the God of peace. We will accept anything God wants; we will take any risk for peace. We know that we are sons and daughters of the God of peace, that our security and future lie with our beloved God, and so we will do whatever God asks.
This Advent, we might ask ourselves: Can we say yes to the God of peace with the same faith, hope and trust as Mary? Do we really want the God of peace to come to us? Dare we pursue and herald the coming of a new culture of peace? Have we grown content with the culture of violence? Comfortable with the big business of corporate greed and imperial war? Dare we allow the nonviolent Jesus to disrupt our settled ways and set us on a new disruptive path, as Mary did?
Can we surrender ourselves once again to the God of peace, with the selfless courage and daring faith and bold hope of Mary of Nazareth? I believe we can. We can say yes to the God of peace, and let the chips fall where they may, trusting that, in the long run, the fruit, the outcome, the finale, will be glorious, that like Mary, we too will blessed, we too will be peacemakers, we too will be heralds of a new world without war, poverty, racism, sexism, violence or nuclear weapons.
The Annunciation invites us to become contemplatives of nonviolence, mystics of nonviolence, like Mary. The whole point of prayer, contemplation and mysticism, is not so that we can hurt others, or bomb others, or dominate the world, but so that we can commune with the living God of peace and live in peace with everyone on earth, our very sisters and brothers.
This Advent, we pray, "God, I surrender myself to you once again. Take my life. Use me for your work of disarmament, justice, and the healing of creation. Open my life to your holy disturbances, my career to your holy upheaval, my plans to your disruptive love. You, God of peace, are all the matters. Peace on earth is my greatest hope, my most important work-the meaning of my sojourn. Take me, God of peace. Do with me as you will. Make me too an instrument of your peace. Let me be part of your reign of peace, of your nonviolent coming into the world."
Once we say yes to the God of peace in our contemplative nonviolence, we too will rush off like Mary, on the second stage of Advent, to serve those in need, to love our neighbors, and to practice active nonviolence.
Climate change: How Poorest Suffer Most
Paul Vallely
The Independent 28 November, 2007
Global warming is not a future apocalypse, but a present reality for many of the world's poorest people, according to the most hard-hitting United Nations report yet on climate change, published yesterday.
A catalogue of the "climate shocks" that have already hit the world is set out in the Human Development Report 2007/08. Fewer than two per cent of these have affected rich countries. Europe had its most intense heatwave for 50 years and Japan its greatest number of tropical cyclones in a single year. But far more intense drought, floods and storms than usual have plagued the developing world.
Monsoons displaced 14 million people in India, seven million in Bangladesh and three million in China which has seen the heaviest rainfall – and second highest death toll – since records began. Cyclones blasted Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. Hurricanes devastated the Caribbean and Central America, killing more than 1,600 Mayan people in Guatemala. Droughts have afflicted Africa, driving 14 million people from their homes.
In the rich world, insurers report a fivefold increase in climate-related insurance claims. In the poor world the cost is counted in terms of hidden human suffering, for most disasters are under-reported.
Based on new climate modelling, the UN report has a number of strong messages. It is highly critical of US, EU and British policies on global warming – it says the measures in Gordon Brown's Climate Change Bill are "not consistent with the objective of avoiding dangerous climate change".
However, its top-line message is that the fixation of campaigners like Al Gore with a long-term "we're all doomed" vision of global warming has diverted attention from more immediate threats.
Already, its new research shows, children born in Ethiopia in years of drought are 41 per cent more likely to be stunted from malnutrition than those born in a time of rains. That has already created two million more malnourished children – and this is not an affliction that is shaken off when the rains return. It creates cycles of life-long disadvantage.
The report shows how climate shocks force the poor to adopt emergency coping strategies – reduced nutrition, withdrawal of children from school, cuts in health spending – which damage the long-term health of entire societies.
After 150 years in which human well-being has steadily improved, the world is now facing the prospect that progress on indicators such as poverty, nutrition, literacy and infant mortality will be arrested. "It may even be reversed," said the report's lead author, Kevin Watkins, who was formerly head of research at Oxfam.
The report says George Bush's home-state of Texas (population 23 million) has a bigger carbon footprint than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa (population 720 million).
The report also criticises Britain's policy on climate change. The UK is the world leader on rhetoric, it says, yet "if the rest of the developed world followed the pathway envisaged in the UK's Climate Change Bill, dangerous climate change would be inevitable".
The report says two things need to be done. Rich nations need to massively cut emissions (by at least 80 per cent) and developing and emerging nations need to make modest cuts (of around 20 per cent). Also, large amounts of money are needed to adapt to the consequences of climate change. Hardly anything is being spent in the poor world, where people were least responsible for global warming but suffer most. The amounts donated to the UN's climate change mitigation fund have been equivalent to only one week's worth of spending under the UK's flood defence programme.
© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
The Independent 28 November, 2007
Global warming is not a future apocalypse, but a present reality for many of the world's poorest people, according to the most hard-hitting United Nations report yet on climate change, published yesterday.
A catalogue of the "climate shocks" that have already hit the world is set out in the Human Development Report 2007/08. Fewer than two per cent of these have affected rich countries. Europe had its most intense heatwave for 50 years and Japan its greatest number of tropical cyclones in a single year. But far more intense drought, floods and storms than usual have plagued the developing world.
Monsoons displaced 14 million people in India, seven million in Bangladesh and three million in China which has seen the heaviest rainfall – and second highest death toll – since records began. Cyclones blasted Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. Hurricanes devastated the Caribbean and Central America, killing more than 1,600 Mayan people in Guatemala. Droughts have afflicted Africa, driving 14 million people from their homes.
In the rich world, insurers report a fivefold increase in climate-related insurance claims. In the poor world the cost is counted in terms of hidden human suffering, for most disasters are under-reported.
Based on new climate modelling, the UN report has a number of strong messages. It is highly critical of US, EU and British policies on global warming – it says the measures in Gordon Brown's Climate Change Bill are "not consistent with the objective of avoiding dangerous climate change".
However, its top-line message is that the fixation of campaigners like Al Gore with a long-term "we're all doomed" vision of global warming has diverted attention from more immediate threats.
Already, its new research shows, children born in Ethiopia in years of drought are 41 per cent more likely to be stunted from malnutrition than those born in a time of rains. That has already created two million more malnourished children – and this is not an affliction that is shaken off when the rains return. It creates cycles of life-long disadvantage.
The report shows how climate shocks force the poor to adopt emergency coping strategies – reduced nutrition, withdrawal of children from school, cuts in health spending – which damage the long-term health of entire societies.
After 150 years in which human well-being has steadily improved, the world is now facing the prospect that progress on indicators such as poverty, nutrition, literacy and infant mortality will be arrested. "It may even be reversed," said the report's lead author, Kevin Watkins, who was formerly head of research at Oxfam.
The report says George Bush's home-state of Texas (population 23 million) has a bigger carbon footprint than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa (population 720 million).
The report also criticises Britain's policy on climate change. The UK is the world leader on rhetoric, it says, yet "if the rest of the developed world followed the pathway envisaged in the UK's Climate Change Bill, dangerous climate change would be inevitable".
The report says two things need to be done. Rich nations need to massively cut emissions (by at least 80 per cent) and developing and emerging nations need to make modest cuts (of around 20 per cent). Also, large amounts of money are needed to adapt to the consequences of climate change. Hardly anything is being spent in the poor world, where people were least responsible for global warming but suffer most. The amounts donated to the UN's climate change mitigation fund have been equivalent to only one week's worth of spending under the UK's flood defence programme.
© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
