Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

A case of advanced liver pathology (hepatomegaly) due to schistosomiasis in a 5-year-old. Prof Takafira Mduluza

By External Source
Mar 14 2022 (IPS)

Neglected tropical diseases is an umbrella term used to describe a group of 20 infectious diseases. These diseases affect over 1.7 billion people. They can disable, debilitate and even kill. The world’s most vulnerable and poorest are most affected.

In the past, the diseases in this group have been overlooked internationally and poorly funded domestically: hence the “neglected” in the name. Some common neglected tropical diseases are Buruli Ulcer, Dengue Fever and Hansen’s disease (also known as leprosy).

There are already tools to prevent and treat these diseases. They include drugs, vector control, veterinary public health interventions and provision of safe water and toilets.

In the past 10 years there have been significant global efforts to control neglected tropical diseases. In 2012, pharmaceutical companies, donors, endemic countries and non government organisations came together to sign the London Declaration on Neglected Tropical Diseases. Together, they committed to control, eliminate or eradicate ten of these diseases by 2020 and improve the lives of over a billion people.

Support from the signatories ranged from donation of the essential medicines to financing the delivery and distribution of the drugs, research, and funding for sanitation and safe water. These concerted global efforts have yielded successes and are grounds for optimism.

To date, 600 million people no longer require treatment for neglected tropical diseases. Cases of some of these diseases, such as leprosy, sleeping sickness and Guinea worm disease, are at an all-time low. Forty-four countries have eliminated at least one neglected tropical disease as a public health concern. Most recently the Gambia and Saudi Arabia eliminated trachoma, a bacterial infection which causes blindness.

However, this progress is now at real risk of reversal as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Drug programmes have been interrupted, health budgets re-prioritised and aid cut.

As I have previously highlighted, interrupting control programmes could lead to rebound infections and disease. These could be worse than the original levels. This is now an imminent reality for neglected tropical diseases if control programmes do not resume quickly enough.

 

Interrupted disease control

One of the most important tools to use against neglected tropical diseases is national mass drug administration. This involves treating every member of a population, regardless of their infection status, because treatment is cheaper than diagnosis and the drugs are safe.

Typically the national treatment programmes are annual events conducted in schools or health centres. It takes time, effort and money to plan and implement these programmes. And it’s critical to maintain momentum. Every dollar spent on these programmes yields a significant return on investment. This is why neglected tropical disease control has been termed a “best buy” in development.

The pandemic has affected neglected tropical disease control in three ways.

First, mass drug administration was stopped or interrupted by the lockdown and social distancing policies. And disruptions in global trade and transportation affected supply chains. A recent World Health Organisation survey indicated that, as of early 2021, disruptions in neglected tropical disease control programmes occurred in 44% of countries.

Second, national governments in neglected tropical disease endemic countries have low health budgets. Changing priorities during and after COVID-19 has meant that the resources allocated to neglected tropical diseases may be shifted to other diseases and health services.

Third, a significant amount of funding for neglected tropical disease control programmes comes from international development partners and foreign governments.

Post-COVID-19 economic contraction in their economies and shifts in funding priorities are threatening the gains made in controlling neglected tropical diseases. For example, the UK recently withdrew over £150 million of funding to neglected tropical disease programmes as part of cuts to the country’s aid budget.

This wiped out a third of donor funding for tackling neglected tropical diseases, with an impact on treatments to 250 million people and as many as 180,000 surgeries to prevent disabilities.

 

Long term consequences

Continued neglect of these diseases has dire consequences. Those affected continue to suffer the devastating diseases, associated health inequities and cycles of poverty. The effects of these diseases are pervasive and wide-ranging.

As long as neglected tropical diseases are a huge burden on health systems in endemic countries, these countries will continue to haemorrhage resources, finances and lives to these diseases. This will further weaken their health systems, compromising their ability for timely surveillance, detection and containment of the next epidemic.

From the Global Health Security Agenda, we know that weakened health systems anywhere in the world compromise health security globally. Local health security is the foundation for global health security, as COVID-19 has amply demonstrated.

The opportunity to put global attention back on neglected tropical diseases will come later this year when the London Declaration is superseded by the Kigali Declaration. This high-level political declaration, led by Rwanda and Nigeria, aims to mobilise political will and secure commitments to achieve Sustainable Development Goals targets for these diseases.

It is important to remember that controlling neglected tropical diseases is in the best interest of all countries – those where the diseases are endemic and those where they are not.

Francisca Mutapi, Professor in Global Health Infection and Immunity. and co-Director of the Global Health Academy, University of Edinburgh

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Dandora landfill in Nairobi, Kenya, where much of the waste in the landfill is plastic. Credit: UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi

By Tal Harris
DAKAR, Senegal, Mar 14 2022 (IPS)

As Russia’s attack began rattling Kyiv with multiple missile and air raids about 5am on 24 February, it suffused the dawn with stains of darkness. It was accompanied with military menaces in countries like Finland and Sweden and raising a warning to anyone who may assist the Ukrainian people – ordinary citizens bereaved, over 2.5 million displaced and boldly defending themselves – from nuclear war.

It turned the global energy market and trade in goods such as wheat, maize and minerals into weapons of war, which bluntly violates the prohibition against use of force under article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary law.

Governments, companies, and ordinary citizens across the world are observing this catastrophe with a mix of anger, fear, and sadness.

There is also widespread dismay, since the invasion of Ukraine is really an exercise in human folly and futility, which will not move us one inch closer to dealing with the truly burning issues of our age.

This confrontation is spinning the global market of goods such as wheat, other grains and minerals into turbulence. This is happening with food prices already soaring, with supply chains disrupted following more than two years of dealing with COVID-19, as well as droughts raging worldwide, including across 49.6% of the U.S.

The climate and biodiversity breakdowns make future pandemics, wildfires, floods, pollution, and other deadly disasters more likely. We’re failing to provide answers to these crises to billions of people, including millions of Russians and Ukrainians. This senseless war risks obfuscating our common challenges and making things worse.

At the same time in Nairobi, some 8,000 kilometers away from the attacks in Kyiv, the broadest government and civil society coalition ever thought possible – including representatives from Russia and Ukraine – was preparing to do the exact opposite.

It was an effort to arrive at a decision by all the world’s environment ministers to save lives. It culminated on Wednesday, 2 March, at the end of the UN Environment Assembly, in the historic adoption of a resolution to End Plastic Pollution.

Not reduce plastic pollution, but to end it. It is an ambition so grand that it can only be achieved through scientific ingenuity, political determination, and – most importantly – multilateral cooperation.

Plastic pollution has become a primary concern that extends well beyond the circles of environmental activists. In almost seven decades, plastic production soared from 2 million tonnes to 348 million tonnes.

Exposure to plastics can harm human health, potentially affecting fertility, hormonal, metabolic and neurological activity, and open burning of plastics contributes to air pollution. Plastic waste is literally running in our blood, lab tests confirm.

Plastic pollution also makes climate change worse – by 2050 greenhouse gas emissions associated with plastic production, use and disposal will account for 15 per cent of allowed emissions, under the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C (34.7°F).

For resource-based economies, like much of Africa’s countries, plastic pollution puts a strain on land and marine ecosystems. More than 800 marine and coastal species are affected by it. Some 11 million tonnes of plastic waste flow annually into the oceans. Without comprehensive action, this is set to triple by 2040 and by 2050 there might be more plastic than fish in our oceans.

This plastic resolution puts us on track to an international and legally binding plastic treaty by the end of 2024. It’s important to note that, not unlike a declaration of war against industry, this puts the plastic industry on notice that their days of polluting our planet are numbered and signals to big consumer brands that their reliance on single use plastics must change.

Yet businesses can and must adapt. Just like when the use of mercury was restricted through international consensus, dental clinics (where the poisonous metal was in wide use) did not go out of business. This is an opportunity for businesses to shift, altogether with support of government initiatives to reuse and circular economy system.

In fact, a shift to circular economy, which can reduce the volume of plastics entering oceans by over 80 per cent and reduce virgin plastic production by 55 per cent, will also save governments US$70 billion and create 700,000 additional jobs, mainly in the global south.

While the headlines are overtaken by the military offensive in Ukraine, we urge news readers to scroll down, read more about the diplomatic breakthrough last week in Nairobi and be inspired – as we are. Against the backdrop of geopolitical turmoil, the resolution to End Plastic Pollution shows multilateral cooperation at its best.

Indeed, plastic waste has grown into an epidemic. With the resolution by the world’s ministers of environment we are officially on track for a cure.

A green and a peaceful future is within reach – so long as people demand their governments act. May this serve as a vital reminder that while conventional war offers no victory to any side, the campaign we wage jointly against a triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature loss and pollution offers benefits for both people and the planet.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

The writer is an international communications coordinator at Greenpeace Africa

Edible varieties of jellyfish have been consumed for generations in some parts of Asia. They are low in carbohydrates and high in protein content. Image by hagapp from Pixabay.

By IPS Correspondents
ROME, Mar 14 2022 (IPS)

Between the devastating effects of climate change and the fast advancing new technologies, it seems now evident that the future of food will change. Whether it’s new foods like jellyfish, edible insects and cell-based meat, or new technologies like blockchain, artificial intelligence and nanotechnology, the future promises exciting opportunities for feeding the world, says a new report.

“However, the time to start preparing for any potential safety concerns is now.”

A report out on 7 March 2022 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) looks at how major global drivers like economic growth, changing consumer behaviour and consumption patterns, a growing global population and the climate crisis will shape food safety in tomorrow’s world.

“We are in an era where technological and scientific innovations are revolutionising the agrifood sector, including the food safety arena. It is important for countries to keep pace with these advances, particularly in a critical area like food safety, and for FAO to provide proactive advice on the application of science and innovation,” said FAO Chief Scientist Ismahane Elouafi.

The Thinking about the future of food safety – A foresight report — maps out some of the most important emerging issues in food and agriculture with a focus on food safety implications, which are increasingly on the minds of consumers around the world.

It adopts a foresight approach based on the idea that the roots of how the future may play out are already present today in the form of early signs. Monitoring these signs through the systematic gathering of intelligence increases the likelihood that policy makers will be better prepared to tackle emerging opportunities and challenges.

 

Key drivers and trends

The report covers eight broad categories of drivers and trends: climate change, new food sources and production systems, the growing number of farms and vegetable gardens in our cities, changing consumer behaviour, the circular economy, microbiome science (which studies the bacteria, viruses and fungi inside our guts and around us), technological and scientific innovation, and food fraud.

 

Here are some of the report’s most interesting findings:

• Increased exposure to contaminants – The impact of changing weather patterns and temperatures has been receiving much attention, and FAO recently issued a report on the implications of climate change on food safety in 2020.

Recent evidence points to a severe impact of climate change on various biological and chemical contaminants in food by altering their virulence, occurrence and distribution.

Traditionally cooler zones are becoming warmer and more conducive to agriculture, opening up new habitats for agricultural pests and toxic fungal species. For instance, aflatoxins, which were traditionally considered a problem mainly in some parts of Africa, are now established in the Mediterranean.

• Jellyfish, algae, and insects – Edible varieties of jellyfish have been consumed for generations in some parts of Asia. They are low in carbohydrates and high in protein content but tend to spoil easily at ambient temperatures and can serve as vectors of pathogenic bacteria that can adversely affect human health.

Seaweed consumption is also spreading beyond Asia and is expected to continue growing, in part because of its nutritional value and sustainability (seaweeds do not need fertilisers to grow and help combat ocean acidification).

One potential source of concern is their ability to accumulate high levels of heavy metals like arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury. Interest in edible insects is also rising in response to growing awareness of the environmental impacts of food production.

While they can be a good source of protein, fibre, fatty acids, and micronutrients like iron, zinc, manganese and magnesium, they can harbour foodborne contaminants and can provoke allergic reactions in some people.

• Farming Insects: in another report, FAO says that while insect consumption by humans or entomophagy has been traditionally practiced in various countries over generations and represents a common dietary component of various animal species (birds, fish, mammals), farming of insects for human food and animal feed is relatively recent.

“Production of this ‘mini-livestock’ brings with it several potential benefits and challenges.”

• Plant-based alternatives – More and more people are becoming vegan or vegetarian, often citing concerns for animal welfare and livestock’s impact on the environment. This has led to the development of various plant-based alternatives to meat, with global sales for such products expected to surge.

As plant-based diets expand, more awareness about introducing food safety concerns, such as allergens from foods not commonly consumed before, is needed.

• Cell-based meat – Winston Churchill’s prophecy – that one day “we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium” – is becoming a reality, with dozens of companies globally known to be developing cell-based steaks, beef burgers or chicken nuggets.

“Examples of potential concerns include the use of animal-based serum in the culture media, which may introduce both microbiological and chemical contamination.”

• New technologies – A veritable technological revolution is transforming our agrifood systems, helping us produce more with less. Examples include smart packaging that extends the shelf-life of food products, blockchain technology that ensures food can be traced along supply chains, and 3D printers that produce sweets and even “meat-like” textures using plant-based ingredients.

As with all emerging technologies, there are opportunities and challenges, adds the new FAO report.

 

Food safety

Coinciding with the launch of the report, FAO and the World Health Organisation (WHO) announced that this year’s edition of World Food Safety Day, to be held on 7 June, will focus on the theme of “Safer food, better health.”

The World Day will focus, among other aspects, on the fact that food safety saves lives. It is not only a crucial component to food security, but it also plays a vital role in reducing foodborne disease.

“Every year, 600 million people fall sick as a result of around 200 different types of foodborne illness. The burden of such illness falls most heavily on the poor and on the young. In addition, foodborne illness is responsible for 420 000 preventable deaths every year.”

 

The UN’s empty corridors will soon be back to normal. Credit: United Nations

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 14 2022 (IPS)

After several on-again and off-again pandemic lockdowns, the United Nations is planning to return to normal beginning this week.

A circular from Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on March 11 says “based on the new guidelines, we are now able to institute associated changes in our workplace, returning to full operational capability while still prioritizing the health and safety of personnel, and balancing the operational needs of the Organization”.

Guided by the Senior Emergency Policy Team and the Occupational Safety and Health Committee in New York, Guterres has decided to make the following changes:

As of Monday, 14 March: mask use will be voluntary throughout the UN building and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), mostly denied entry since March 2020, will now be given access to the UN premises.

While diplomats were never barred from the UN during the lockdown– since they “own“ the building — all CSOs were banned from the premises. The UN also refused to renew their passes to enter the headquarters building.

The mounting protests last year came from several NGOs, most of whom have been partnering with the UN and providing humanitarian assistance in conflict-ridden countries, including Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Ethiopia.

“Civil society organizations are elated about the resumption of their access to the UN building,” said a former senior UN official who interacts regularly with CSOs.

The empty racks on the UN’s third floor, home to several news organizations. Credit: IPS

Until now, most meetings and briefings were described as “hybrid”, partly in-person, but mostly via video conferencing.

As of Monday 28 March, Intergovernmental meetings will also resume as “normal”, and by Monday, 4 April, UN headquarters will enter the “Next Normal” phase.

Decisions regarding the opening of the buildings to visitors, the general public, including for United Nations Guided Tours, to non-resident correspondents, and the holding of side events/receptions will be taken in April, said the circular addressed to over 3,000 UN staffers in New York.

The UN’s decision to go into “full operation” comes following criticisms from member states over the lack of UN staffers to service some of the meetings.

Ambassador Boubacar Diallo of Guinea, the outgoing chairman of the Group of 77 plus China, the largest single coalition of developing countries at the UN, warned late last year that the Group continues to be disappointed that due to security concerns, the Administrative and Budgetary Committee was being deprived of interpretation services (in the UN’s six official languages) during informal consultations.

“We look forward to the day that multilingualism is fully restored, and we can enjoy interpretation services as we are doing here today. We are committed to a thorough consideration of the agenda items allocated to the Committee, and in this regard, note with disappointment that several reports are still outstanding,” he added.

This endemic situation, he pointed out, significantly compromises the Committee’s work. With a resolution being adopted by consensus, including the 134 members of the G77, he said, “It is not possible to turn a blind eye to a General Assembly resolution and a deaf ear to the two-thirds majority of the General Membership.”

The UN has still barred scores of UN retirees living in the tri-state area—New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. One of them who retired after nearly 22 years working in the Secretariat, told IPS, UN security officers barred him from entering the building last month and said his retiree UN pass was invalid.

“I was treated as if I was a security risk—after all these years of service to the UN”, he complained.

Asked about the status of UN staffers in Geneva, which hosts one of the largest conglomerations of UN agencies, Ian Richards, former President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA) told IPS masks are still required for now in public spaces.

“Many meetings are back to normal. The car park is filling up. We are starting to see a more settled pattern now of colleagues alternating between office and home,” he added.

In Geneva, he said, retirees have been able to enter since last year. “No reason to keep them away,” said Richards, an economist at the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

In his circular, Guterres said “after a long two-year struggle against the COVID-19 pandemic, we have encouraging news to report. COVID-19 case numbers, hospitalizations and transmission rates have significantly improved in New York City and the Tri-State area”.

Cases amongst UNHQ personnel have also sharply declined and have been at very low levels for some time. As you know, State and City authorities in New York have now lifted or revised their pandemic mitigation measures, he said.

“From the beginning, our approach on health and safety measures, as well as our transition from Phase Zero to the “Next Normal” phase has been closely guided by advice and the guidance of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and that of the local health authorities in New York City and State,” said Guterres.

The CDC has introduced a new “community level” tool to help formulate prevention steps based on the latest data. Levels – which are determined by hospitalization and test positivity rates – are characterized as low, medium or high. New York is currently at the low community level, for which the CDC recommends the following:

On the question of masks, the circular says people may choose to mask at any time. People with symptoms, a positive test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19 should wear a mask.

On COVID-19 vaccine: “Stay up to date (meaning a person has received all recommended COVID-19 vaccines, including any booster dose(s) when eligible)”.

Meanwhile, the authorities in New York City have decided to end COVID-19 vaccination requirements at restaurants, gyms, fitness studios, entertainment and cultural venues.

But the City will continue to mandate masks in public transit, as well as in healthcare facilities, correctional facilities, homeless shelters, schools/day care for children aged 2 to 5, and Broadway theatres. Individual businesses can choose to mandate masks while indoor school mask mandates have been discontinued in the Tri-State area.

“Based on the new guidelines, we are now able to institute associated changes in our workplace, returning to full operational capability while still prioritizing the health and safety of personnel, and balancing the operational needs of the Organization,” the circular added.

Guterres thanked staffers for their resilience, dedication and extraordinary efforts over this long and difficult period.

“We have learned many lessons together – including how to work effectively in innovative ways. Let us build on those lessons as we carry out our essential mission to advance peace, sustainable development and human rights for all,” he added.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Africa can expect new spikes in COVID-19 every six months, a report by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. The continent with its low vaccination rates could continue to be vulnerable. Credit: USAID/South Africa

By Samira Sadeque
New York, Mar 11 2022 (IPS)

Countries on the African continent have a pattern of a six-month break before a new COVID-19 spike happens, researchers at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change have said in a newly released report.

Marvin Akuagwuagwu, a data analyst in the Africa COVID-19 Policy unit at the Institute, told IPS that it’s the countries with the lowest vaccination rate that are most at risk.

According to data from the African Union CDC, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, and Chad are among the countries with the lowest percentage of the vaccinated population – some as low as less than one percent.

These other countries on the continent can learn from Rwanda’s approach, which Akuagwuagwu said is a success story.

“Rwanda has significantly ramped up its vaccination and testing programmes which has reduced their case numbers and the overall impact of COVID-19,” he said.

“With their vaccination rate at almost 60 percent and a positive case rate of less than 10 percent, Rwanda is a good example for other African countries to emulate, particularly for countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that face similar challenges.”

However, vaccine rollout isn’t an issue of supply but a result of wealthier countries withholding supplies, contributing to a grave vaccine inequity. Africa has received six percent of the world’s vaccines, despite the continent hosting seventeen percent of the world’s population, according to the Brooking’s report.

And this only exacerbates the pattern that Akuagwuagwu and his co-author Adam Bradshaw discovered in their report.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Inter Press Service (IPS): You mentioned there is a pattern of a new wave hitting Africa roughly every six months. How does this affect the continent of Africa specifically?

Marvin Akuagwuagwu (MA): We identified a trend that about every six months, a Covid-19 wave impacts Africa. This was the case with Beta, Delta, and Omicron.

Omicron was like a flash flood – it did some serious damage but thankfully didn’t lead to mass deaths. However, we may not be so lucky next time – the next variant may be more severe, especially in countries with low levels of protection, such as in Africa.

This means we now have a six-month window of opportunity to vaccinate Africa against Covid-19 before the next variant appears – we need to make progress towards achieving the WHO target of vaccinating 70% of the population. TBI is working with a number of countries across Africa to support their vaccine rollout to help get there.

IPS: Why do you believe lockdowns are being approached more cautiously and are “not always the best course of action”?

MA: Lockdowns are effective, but they are not always the best course of action to tackle Covid-19 due to their negative economic and social impacts.

As the virus evolves and we learn more, countries in Africa are gradually moving away from blanket lockdowns. We now have a range of tools in the toolbox to tackle Covid-19 and lockdown is only one of many options.

When the pandemic first started, no one had ever been exposed to Covid-19 – now billions of people have been infected or vaccinated, so it’s a different ballgame, and we need to adapt with it.

IPS: With the six-month window between variants, are there spill-over effects? (For example, even though Omicron wasn’t as bad as Delta, were any Delta effects that spilled over to the phase where Omicron was present)?

MA: The low testing and vaccination in Africa during the Delta wave spilled over to the Omicron wave. African countries have just started ramping up their vaccination and testing programmes, which were significantly lower in the Delta wave.

Without a continued acceleration of vaccination programmes, Africa will remain behind other regions in vaccination rates. International actors, donors, and partners should listen and respond to African countries to adequately support their vaccination and community engagement programmes and enhance their data management systems and associated human resources required.

IPS: How does the current financial inflation affect the measures you’ve proposed?

MA: The current financial inflation impacts the measures we have proposed as they require adequate funding. However, strong political will and community engagement are catalysts to enhancing these measures and curbing health and social inequalities caused by the pandemic.

IPS: One of the recommendations suggests: “increase testing and genomic sequencing to reduce transmission.” How many countries have the economic capacity and manpower to ensure this? How realistic is this goal?

MA: We understand that this is a significant challenge for low- and middle-income countries, but the alternative is far worse – serious illness, lockdowns, and deaths which also affect the economy and society at large.

It goes back to global cooperation – the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change is working in Africa to build long-term resilience in data, vaccine, and testing infrastructure and provide greater institutional strength to withstand future Covid-19 waves. We support governments to build their capacity and deliver for their populations.

We are calling for global leadership to develop a global pandemic plan to support the Global South to vaccinate their populations and increase testing.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• A Step Toward Africa’s First Covid-19 Vaccine of Its Own
• In Africa, Vaccine Delayed is Development Denied, Warns UNDP Head
• Africa Should Bargain Hard for COVID Vaccine Equity: Lessons from Indonesia during Avian Flu

Flooding in Trinidad's capital of Port of Spain. Currently, around 40 percent of the global population lives under circumstances – like poverty, inequalities and weak governance frameworks – that make people more vulnerable. Differences are such that death rates due to extreme weather events are 15 times higher in vulnerable regions. Credit: Peter Richards/IPS

By Carolina Zambrano-Barragán
QUITO, Mar 11 2022 (IPS)

People often feel that climate change is difficult to grasp and relate to. I have heard that it’s “too technical, too intangible, or too complicated” for us to care about. As a Latin American mother of two, I confess that for me, relating to climate change is becoming ever more simple. All I do is try to imagine the world my kids will live in in 2050 if we don’t do anything now, and I immediately understand the urgent need for bold, transformative global climate action.

The IPCC WGII report on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation, released on February 28, gives us all a clearer picture of where we are now and what that future may look like. After reading the Summary for Policy Makers and different sections of the report, I tried to imagine what its findings would mean for my daughter Maya’s life. Maya is a six-year-old who lives in Quito, a city in the Andean mountains. She will be 35 in 2050, and she wants to be an explorer.

We need to put justice, equity and human rights at the core of global climate action. This can only be done by focusing climate action on the priorities and agency of those disproportionately impacted by climate change

The IPCC report, which has been described as “an atlas of human suffering” by UN Secretary-General Guterres, and a “reality check” by IPCC’s Debra Roberts, taught me the following.

 

Maya’s present:

• As an Ecuadorian girl, Maya is more vulnerable to climate change. Gender and other social inequities (including race, age, and geographic location) increase her vulnerability and determine her ability to adapt to current and future impacts.
• Like 3.3 to 3.6 billion other people in the world, Maya and our family live in a vulnerable country. Currently, around 40 percent of the global population lives under circumstances – like poverty, inequalities and weak governance frameworks – that make people more vulnerable. Differences are such that death rates due to extreme weather events are 15 times higher in vulnerable regions.
• Since Maya was born, she has witnessed bad droughts and fires in the Amazon forest, rapid glacier retreat in the Andes, and the loss of lives and infrastructure due to large landslides in Quito.

 

Maya’s future:

• Even with a 1.5ºC average temperature rise, which is what governments have agreed upon as “safe,” the population affected by floods in Ecuador will increase by 300 percent.
• If she stays in Quito, Maya may experience water shortages because of our city’s high dependence on high altitude ecosystems – páramos – and glaciers for drinking water and hydric balance.
• Maya may also be more exposed to dengue, malaria and other vector-borne diseases. Due to changes in temperature and precipitation, mosquitoes like Aedes aegypti will spread to places they couldn’t survive in before.
• Even if she does become an explorer, Maya may never see a living coral reef or study frogs in the Amazon rainforest. Rising water temperatures and more extreme weather events are putting coral reefs at high risk, and deforestation and forest fires are threatening to turn the Amazon into a savannah.

I confess that reading the IPCC WG2 Report has filled me with sadness, anxiety and anger. However, as my friend Natalie said recently, “This is reality shock, not game over.” While some losses and damages caused by climate change are already irreversible, there is still “a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a live-able and sustainable future for all” according to the IPCC’s closing statement. So faced with such urgency, all I can do as an individual and as part of Hivos is turn my feelings into actions.

 

So, what does climate action look like to us?

The IPCC report on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation reaffirms the basic premise of our Climate Justice work: we need to put justice, equity and human rights at the core of global climate action. This can only be done by focusing climate action on the priorities and agency of those disproportionately impacted by climate change. In our view, achieving climate resilient development calls for work in three main areas.

1. Building political power and influence:

The IPCC highlights the key role of inclusive governance in achieving more effective and enduring adaptation outcomes and enabling climate resilient development. As Hivos, e.g. in our All Eyes on the Amazon program, we work to bring diverse rightsholders and movements together so they can pressure governments and the private sector, engage in climate change decision-making processes, and hold duty bearers to account. This includes work in movement building and advocacy from local to international levels, with a special focus on women, youth, Indigenous peoples and the urban poor.

2. Redirecting financial flows towards climate resilient development:

Equitable access to climate finance, technology, and markets enables adaptation and climate resilient development.

Through programs like Voices for Just Climate Action, ENERGIA and Green Works, we support programmatic and policy engagement to ensure just climate action around: i) influencing the global climate finance architecture so that it adequately and fairly supports the people and communities most affected by climate change (prioritizing adaptation); ii) promoting investment and job creation in local climate and clean energy solutions driven by women, youth and marginalized groups in the Global South.

3. Inspiring and mobilizing civic action:

Public and political awareness of climate impacts, risks and their links to social justice are the foundation of adaptation and climate resilient development. In the midst of disinformation, knowledge gaps, and multiple crises, we work with diverse voices and movements to reshape climate narratives at local, national and international levels. We look to invest in strategic communications targeting popular culture and amplifying diverse rightsholders’ voices to drive transformative climate action.

 

Hope and simple actions driving change

Today, I asked Maya to tell me how she sees her world when she’s 35. “I imagine more blue rivers, a lot of rainbows, and I see myself surrounded by many animals. I also want to work at my school,” she said. Her words, her dreams, and her ability to connect with nature give me hope every day.

Besides my work at Hivos, I also try to drive change as a mom and a member of my community. I feel that doing some simple things can help. I talk to my family and friends about the climate crisis and its impacts, I teach my kids to listen to – and care about – the most marginalized and vulnerable groups, and I guide them on their way to becoming political actors that can demand change.

As a family, we also try to minimize our impact on the environment and explore and enjoy nature as much as possible. In this way we’re not letting the window close on Maya’s future explorations of a live-able and sustainable world.

Carolina Zambrano-Barragán is the Climate Justice Lead in Hivos’ Strategy and Impact department.

 

This opinion piece was originally published by Hivos

Excerpt:

The author is the Climate Justice Lead in Hivos’ Strategy and Impact department.

On 5 March 2022 in western Ukraine, children and families make their way to the border to cross into Poland. Credit: UNICEF/Viktor Moskaliuk

By Elias Yousif
WASHINGTON DC, Mar 11 2022 (IPS)

Conventional arms have been a central, and at times controversial, component of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship since 2014. Indeed, former President Trump’s impeachment proceedings originated with an alleged quid-pro-quo related suspension of military aid to Ukraine.

But as Russia’s military buildup on Ukraine’s eastern border expands and as fears of an invasion grow, 2022 headlines are again turning to Washington’s security cooperation with Kyiv.

Overview of U.S.-Ukrainian Military Assistance

U.S.-Ukrainian security cooperation is a relatively new defense relationship, beginning in earnest only after popular protests ousted Ukraine’s former President, Victor Yanukovych, and Russia forcefully annexed Crimea in 2014.

With persistent Russian efforts to reclaim its area of influence in Ukraine through military and non-military means, the United States has substantially expanded its security assistance to Kyiv, amounting to more than $2.7 billion since 2014.

U.S. military assistance has come, principally, from the Department of Defense’s Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative ($1.35 billion) and the Department of State’s Foreign Military Financing program ($721 million).

Those packages and several others, including from the International Military Education and Training program, made Ukraine among the most significant recipients of U.S. military aid, ranking 7th globally between FY2016-FY2020 and the largest such recipient in Europe, according to the Security Assistance Monitor.

Beyond the dollar amounts, the U.S. has provided foreign military training to at least 10,629 Ukrainian trainees between FY2015-FY2019.

But diplomatic sensitivities with Moscow moderated the early provision of U.S. military aid, and limited U.S. assistance to non-lethal equipment, including unarmed drones, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices, and armored Humvees.

That policy was reversed under President Trump, and in 2017 the U.S. began providing millions in lethal assistance, including Javelin anti-tank missiles – a sensitive defense technology that held symbolic significance for both Russia and Ukraine, as it had generally been reserved only for close U.S. allies and NATO members.

The transfer signaled a sharp departure from the previous policy and made a clear political statement. Even with the resumption of lethal assistance to Ukraine, stipulations for its provision were stringent and aimed at preventing a reprisal or escalation from Russia.

The Javelin missiles, for example, were required to be stored in Western Ukraine, away from the front lines of Ukraine’s fight with Moscow-backed separatists and its border with Russia.

Assistance in the Context of Russian Troop Concentrations

As Russia amassed troops and conducted large scale military exercises on Ukraine’s eastern border throughout 2021, the U.S. simultaneously expanded its military assistance. In November 2021, both Washington and Kyiv signed the U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership, which provided clear U.S. security commitments to Ukraine.

The agreement clearly articulated that the purpose of continued U.S. assistance was aimed at “Countering Russian Aggression.” In January 2022, with tensions along Ukraine’s eastern border at an all-time high, the U.S. began delivery of an additional $200 million in lethal and non-lethal aid directly from Department of Defense stockpiles. Ninety tons of that equipment had reached Ukraine’s border by the last week of January.

And the U.S. is not alone in sending military hardware to Ukraine. A handful of Baltic allies have been cleared to re-transfer U.S. origin weapons systems to Kyiv, including additional Javelin missiles as well as Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and related equipment. These weapons have increasingly aggravated Russia as the transfers underscore enhanced Ukraine-NATO security cooperation.

Britain, Turkey, the Czech Republic, and Germany have also all provided both lethal and non-lethal military assistance, including drones, anti-tank missiles, artillery, and training.

Even with transfers from other partners, the U.S. remains Ukraine’s largest military aid benefactor, approving $650 million in defense assistance to Kyiv in just the past year – a bilateral high. However, despite the large quantity of weapons flowing into Ukraine, the Kyiv insists it needs more.

Aims and Efficacy of U.S. Security Cooperation

Consecutive U.S. administrations have used security assistance as both a practical and political measure of support for Ukraine and, as the State Department puts it, its effort “to advance its Euro-Atlantic aspirations in support of a secure, prosperous, democratic, and free Ukraine.”

But while some analysts have praised defense reforms undertaken by Ukraine and its armed forces, particularly given the corroded state of Ukraine’s defense capabilities in the aftermath of its 2014 transition, U.S. security assistance has not ended the conflict in the country’s east or averted the current crisis with Russia.

Perhaps most importantly, some have argued that U.S. and European efforts to support a reorientation of Ukraine towards the West and integrate its defense architecture into NATO have contributed to this moment of crisis, and convinced Moscow it must act decisively to pre-empt the irreversible drift of its former stalwart ally.

Regardless, a Russian invasion would represent a qualitatively more significant defense threat than the static conflict with foreign backed separatists, and there are scant suggestions that a few short years of U.S. assistance would allow Kyiv to meaningfully thwart a concerted military push from Moscow.

Accordingly, all eyes remain on the diplomatic efforts underway between U.S. and Russian envoys with hopes that the worst can be averted.

Elias Yousif is a Research Analyst with the Stimson Center’s Conventional Defense Program. His research focuses on the global arms trade and arms control, issues related to remote warfare and use of force, and international security cooperation and child soldiers prevention. Prior to joining the Stimson Center, Elias was the Deputy Director of the Security Assistance Monitor at the Center for International Policy where he analyzed the impact of U.S. arms transfer and security assistance programs on international security, U.S. foreign policy, and global human rights practices.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Pilot solar pv installation at a resource center in the Kalinago Territory, Dominica. Credit: JAK/IPS

By Alison Kentish
DOMINICA, Mar 10 2022 (IPS)

A member-led global coalition of 202 countries and institutions, the NDC Partnership has turned the spotlight on climate action by supporting countries’ efforts to craft and implement Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline their commitments to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

As a cornerstone of the Paris Climate Agreement, countries are expected to present revised and progressively more ambitious NDCs to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change every five years. After years of planning, country governments are now shifting to NDC implementation. They are calling on the NDC Partnership’s technical expertise and financial support to catalyze climate action amidst the ongoing climate crisis and COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite the challenges posed by COVID-19, the NDC Partnership confidently demonstrates that many countries have made progress towards addressing climate change and advancing sustainable development.

Although the pandemic delayed some countries’ NDC submissions and climate action plans, there has been significant progress towards NDC implementation across three critical sectors: renewable energy, food security, and climate adaptation. Representatives for Partnership members, including the International Renewal Energy Agency (IRENA), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), discussed the challenges countries faced in NDC implementation across their respective sectors and reflected on the successes and lessons learned over the last few years.

“It was super difficult with COVID, but I have to say it is really remarkable,” said Elizabeth Press, IRENA’s director of planning and programme support. “The majority of countries were very involved [in NDC revision and implementation] and worked hard to compensate for shortfalls. The virtual way of operating was sub-optimal, but many countries made it work.” Over the last NDC revision cycle, IRENA has been working with over 70 countries to bring clean energy goals into their NDCs, a process which Press said has been more collaborative and streamlined this time around.

“Comparing the first round of NDC work that was done around Paris and now, there is a big difference,” she said. “The first round was largely done by environment ministries and consultants and was not an integrated government process. It’s different now and gives me hope that this [a country’s NDC] is not just a document that needs to be submitted to the United Nations, but that serious consideration and widespread consultation has taken place on how to formulate and execute these promises in a climate-safe manner.”

Looking forward, Press noted that countries had requested IRENA’s assistance to ensure a smooth transition to renewable energy through data collection, the development of road maps, project implementation, and other issues linked to energy transition, such as water and food security.

Critical for addressing climate change and a recurring theme globally, food security is a priority for NDC Partnership members that recognize ending hunger, and achieving the second Sustainable Development Goal requires NDCs to embrace agroecology and sustainable agriculture.

In fact, 95 percent of NDCs listed agriculture as a priority sector for climate action. “This is important because agriculture is both a source of greenhouse gas emissions and an important part of the solution to the climate crisis for mitigation, adaptation, and building resilience,” said Zitouni Ould-Dada, FAO’s deputy director for the office of climate change, biodiversity, and environment.

According to FAO, the world’s agri-food system contributes over 30 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. “When we say agriculture, we include fisheries, forestry, and land use,” Douda said.

FAO helps countries to raise ambition and integrate agriculture and food systems into their NDCs.

“We recently provided technical assistance to 21 countries to accelerate the implementation of their NDCs and enhance the ambition of their commitments, and we have been facilitating this support to countries since 2017.”

Douda said that FAO’s programs ensure that national commitments are translated into actionable policies on the ground.

In reflecting on FAO’s successes, he cites increased access to finance for farmers, higher engagement among civil society and women’s organizations in determining countries’ climate commitments, and an extended suite of incentives for farmers as evidence of successful climate action to date.

For other Partnership members, however, success can be found in the increase in local climate adaptation initiatives or projects that are designed to help communities mitigate and prepare for the effects of climate change.

“Scaling up adaptation is important for the many countries – especially countries in the Small Island Developing State and Least Developed Country groups – that have contributed the least to global greenhouse gas emissions but are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change,” said Anne Hammill, IISD’s senior director of the resilience program.

IISD noted that many countries are now including information on how to prepare for climate-driven threats and disasters as a part of their NDC reporting.

Through the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) Global Network, IISD helps countries identify and achieve adaptation priorities by working with citizen and civil society groups. Hammill points to partnerships with Costa Rica and Tonga governments as recent examples of this successful collaboration on climate actions.

“In Costa Rica, we worked with the government to launch the Next Season project that offered artists residencies for creative approaches to informing the public about climate policies,” Hammill says. “In Tonga, we supported the government to hold the first-ever media engagement workshop on their national climate plan, as well as preparing a report to track progress on their national climate plan and work to revise their Climate Change Policy.”

According to Hammill, more countries are moving from planning to action and “linking on-the-ground adaptation projects to a broader national mandate and vision set out in their NAPs and NDCs.” For IISD, the NDC Partnership has been instrumental in addressing a critical area of concern: coordination of support.

“There is a very diverse landscape of support to countries and relatively limited capacities to navigate, let alone absorb such support,” Hammill said. “This coordination challenge can be particularly acute in LDCs and SIDS and can get in the way of progress, let alone the efficient use of resources.”

Acknowledging that decisive action on climate is not easy, the NDC Partnership’s members say national climate teams continue to face challenges, including insufficient funding, inadequate staffing, and knowledge and resource gaps related to climate tools and planning.

However, with the Partnership’s resources, expertise, and funding, country members and institutions are finding ways to advance sustainable development and local climate action together, underscoring the value of collective action.

With the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s latest assessment report on the impacts of climate change on ecosystems, biodiversity, and communities at the global and regional level this week, the need for collective action is more evident than ever.

The report’s findings underscore the urgency of global adaptation efforts to drive climate action, efforts that the Partnership is committed to supporting. By acting together, NDC Partnership members are working to ensure countries are better prepared for the impacts of climate change, now and for future generations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Blue Ocean Solutions for Climate Resilience and Accelerated Development
• How Jamaica got Youth Climate Action Engagement Right
• NDC Partnership: Supporting a Global Network of Youth Climate Advocates

Excerpt:

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the over 200 member-strong partnership is bolstering efforts to help countries meet commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and empower renewable energy, food security, and climate adaptation initiatives.

Each year, between 2002 and 2016, an average of about 423 million hectares or 4.23 million square km of the Earth’s land surface – an area about the size of the entire European Union – burned. Credit: Mario Osava/IPS.

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Mar 10 2022 (IPS)

Climate change and land-use change are projected to make wildfires more frequent and intense, with a global increase of extreme fires of up to 14 percent by 2030, 30 percent by the end of 2050 and 50 percent by the end of the century, according to a new report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and GRID-Arendal, a non-profit environmental communications centre based in Norway.

“Even the Arctic, previously all but immune, faces rising wildfire risk,” experts on 23 February 2022 said ahead of the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi.

The report, Spreading like Wildfire: The Rising Threat of Extraordinary Landscape Fires, finds an “elevated risk” even for the Arctic and other regions previously unaffected by wildfires. The document was released before the resumed 5th session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2) convened in Nairobi, between 28 February and 2 March, 2022.

Dangerous wildfire weather projected to get worse

Another UNEP report, issued on 17 February 2022, warns that:

• Each year, between 2002 and 2016, an average of about 423 million hectares or 4.23 million square km of the Earth’s land surface – an area about the size of the entire European Union – burned, becoming more common in mixed forest and savannah ecosystems. An estimated 67% of the annual global area burned by all types of fires, including wildfires, was on the African continent.
• Dangerous wildfire weather conditions are projected to become more frequent and intense and to last longer, including in areas previously unaffected by fires.
• Extremely intense wildfires can trigger thunderstorms in smoke flumes that aggravate fires through erratic wind speeds and generate lightning that ignites other fires far beyond the fire front, a hazardous feedback loop.
• This is due to climate change, including hotter temperatures and drier conditions with more frequent droughts.
• Land-use change is another risk factor, including commercial logging and deforestation for farms, grazing land, and expanding cities.
• A further cause for the proliferation of wildfires is the aggressive suppression of natural fire, which is essential in some natural systems to limit the amounts of combustible material, and inappropriate fire management policies that exclude traditional fire management practices and indigenous knowledge.
• Long-term effects on human health extend beyond those fighting wildfires, evacuated, or suffering losses. Smoke and particulate matter from wildfires deliver significant consequences for health in downwind settlements, sometimes thousands of kilometres from the source, with impacts often exacerbated among those with pre-existing illness, women, children, the elderly and the poor.
• Changes in fire regimes are also expected to lead to massive biodiversity loss, endangering over 4,400 terrestrial and freshwater species.
• Wildfires generate black carbon and other pollutants that can pollute water sources, enhance the melting of glaciers, cause landslides and large-scale algal blooms in oceans, and turn carbon sinks such as rainforests into carbon sources.

The report calls for greater investment in reducing the risks of wildfires; development of prevention and response management approaches that include vulnerable, rural, traditional and indigenous communities; and further refinements in remote sensing capabilities, such as satellites, radar and lightning detection.

 

More facts

The fast spread of wildfires has significant impacts on health. According to the World Health Organization (WHO):

• An estimated 180 000 deaths every year are caused by burns – the vast majority occur in low- and middle-income countries.
• Non-fatal burn injuries are a leading cause of morbidity.
• Burns occur mainly in the home and workplace.
• Burns are preventable.

A burn is an injury to the skin or other organic tissue primarily caused by heat or due to radiation, radioactivity, electricity, friction or contact with chemicals, explains WHO.

Thermal (heat) burns occur when some or all of the cells in the skin or other tissues are destroyed by:

• hot liquids (scalds)
• hot solids (contact burns), or
• flames (flame burns).

 

The problem

Burns are a global public health problem, WHO reports. The majority of these occur in low- and middle-income countries and almost two thirds occur in the WHO African and South-East Asia regions.

Non-fatal burns are a leading cause of morbidity, including prolonged hospitalisation, disfigurement and disability, often with resulting stigma and rejection.

The world body adds that:

• Burns are among the leading causes of disability-adjusted life-years lost in low- and middle-income countries.
• In 2004, nearly 11 million people worldwide were burned severely enough to require medical attention.

 

Some country data

WHO provides some examples:

• In India, over 1 000 000 people are moderately or severely burnt every year.
• Nearly 173 000 Bangladeshi children are moderately or severely burnt every year.
• In Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt and Pakistan, 17% of children with burns have a temporary disability and 18% have a permanent disability.
• Burns are the second most common injury in rural Nepal, accounting for 5% of disabilities.
• In 2008, over 410 000 burn injuries occurred in the United States of America, with approximately 40 000 requiring hospitalisation.

 

A fire-ready formula

The UNEP-GRID Arendal report calls on governments to adopt a new ‘Fire Ready Formula’, with two-thirds of spending devoted to planning, prevention, preparedness, and recovery, with one third left for response.

“Currently, direct responses to wildfires typically receive over half of related expenditures, while planning receives less than one percent.”

“Current government responses to wildfires are often putting money in the wrong place. Those emergency service workers and firefighters on the frontlines who are risking their lives to fight forest wildfires need to be supported”, said Inger Andersen, UNEP Executive Director.

“We have to minimise the risk of extreme wildfires by being better prepared: invest more in fire risk reduction, work with local communities, and strengthen global commitment to fight climate change”.

Wildfires disproportionately affect the world’s poorest nations, UNEP-GRID Arendal experts warn.

 

Deepening social inequalities

With an impact that extends for days, weeks and even years after the flames subside, they impede progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals and deepen social inequalities:

• People’s health is directly affected by inhaling wildfire smoke, causing respiratory and cardiovascular impacts and increased health effects for the most vulnerable;
• The economic costs of rebuilding after areas are struck by wildfires can be beyond the means of low-income countries;
• Watersheds are degraded by wildfires’ pollutants; they also can lead to soil erosion causing more problems for waterways;
• Wastes left behind are often highly contaminated and require appropriate disposal.

“Wildfires and climate change are mutually exacerbating. Wildfires are made worse by climate change through increased drought, high air temperatures, low relative humidity, lightning, and strong winds resulting in hotter, drier, and longer fire seasons.”

 

Billions of animals wiped out

At the same time, adds the UNEP-GRID Arendal report, climate change is made worse by wildfires, mostly by ravaging sensitive and carbon-rich ecosystems like peatlands and rainforests. This turns landscapes into tinderboxes, making it harder to halt rising temperatures.

“Wildlife and its natural habitats are rarely spared from wildfires, pushing some animal and plant species closer to extinction. A recent example is the Australian 2020 bushfires, which are estimated to have wiped out billions of domesticated and wild animals.”

On this, the BBC in December 2021 reported that Brazil wildfires killed an estimated 17 million animals.

The UNEP-GRID Arendal report was commissioned in support of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. The Decade (2021-2030) is a rallying call for the protection and revival of ecosystems all around the world, for the benefit of people and nature.

A cargo of high energy biscuits for Ukrainian refugees is offloaded at an airport in Poland. Ukraine has long been the “breadbasket” of Europe, but the fighting could disrupt global wheat trade, with knock-on impacts on food prices and overall food security. “The bullets and bombs in Ukraine could take the global hunger crisis to levels beyond anything we’ve seen before,” WFP David Beasley said during a visit to one of its hubs on the Polish-Ukrainian border last week. Credit: WFP/Marco Frattini

By Lawrence Haddad
GENEVA, Mar 10 2022 (IPS)

The war in Ukraine is a catastrophe for that country and for the world. In any crisis it is the most vulnerable that will be most affected, and this time it is no different.

Women, children and the elderly in Ukraine are suffering terribly in the country, with many fleeing the conflict as refugees. Tragically, women, children and the elderly in many other parts of the world will experience the effects of the war too.

This is because this crisis comes on top of two others. Pre-war, the most vulnerable had already been pushed to the limit by COVID-19 and climate change. This led to unprecedented annual rises in hunger and malnutrition.

The current crisis will worsen things considerably, not only within Ukraine, obviously, but also outside it, because Ukraine is a key exporter of wheat, maize and sunflowers and because Russia is a key exporter of oil and gas.

The loss of food production and exports from Ukraine (and to some extent Russia) will push world food prices up as the lack of supply fails to meet demand. High energy prices due to the loss of production, trade and the sanctions imposed will do the same, making food production, distribution and preparation more costly.

Higher food and fuel prices will lower people’s income for other necessities such as clean water, sanitation and health care. Pre-war, food prices were already at the highest levels since 1975. Now, they will rise even further.

If we do not act, the number of people experiencing hunger will likely rise towards one billion and the number of people that are at risk of malnutrition will likely rise to half of the world’s population. We must now seriously contemplate the ugly prospect of famine in many places in the world. Decisive action is needed, but what?

First, obviously, end the war, so that the immediate suffering of the Ukrainian people can begin to be addressed. This will also allow Ukrainian farmers to get back to their fields in the next month or two for planting season and it will allow the rest of us to support them. It will also allow supply chains critical for food to begin to be rebuilt.

Second, keep food trade flowing. Exporting countries must resist the temptation to “beggar thy neighbour” by hoarding exports, that simply leads to a race to the bottom for all.

Third, diversify food production sites around the world: the war has shown the fragility of depending on a few breadbaskets: there need to be many. For example, Africa has immense agricultural potential, but the Malabo agricultural investment and policy targets its governments have set for themselves are not being met.

Fourth, the amount of overseas development finance directed at ending hunger needs to double: public and private. We have never known so much about where and what to invest in to get hunger numbers down from 768 million today to less than 200 million by 2030. We know what to do, now we need to fund it.

The G7 hosted by the German Government is an excellent opportunity to make such commitments.

Finally, we need more money for humanitarian hunger and malnutrition relief. The increased funding requests from the World Food Program and others must be met rapidly. But we also need more relief from existing money: humanitarian aid needs to do more to provide not just food, but nutritious and safe food containing the micronutrients that are so essential for human development.

Most importantly, we must protect the nutrition status of the very youngest and deny the Ukraine war a terrible intergenerational legacy.

The Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) is a Swiss-based foundation launched at the UN in 2002 to tackle the human suffering caused by malnutrition. Working with both public and private, GAIN aims to deliver nutritious foods to those people most at risk of malnutrition. www.gainhealth.org

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

The writer is Executive Director, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN)

A Mar. 3 plenary session of the constitutional convention of Chile, where in long working days its members are drafting a new constitution, which must be completed by Jul. 4 at the latest. On Feb. 17, they approved by a large majority the new definition of Chile as a regional, plurinational and pluricultural State. CREDIT: Orlando Milesi/IPS

By Orlando Milesi
SANTIAGO, Mar 9 2022 (IPS)

Chile could change the course of its history and become a diverse and multicolored country this year with a “plurinational and intercultural state” that recognizes and promotes the development of the native peoples that inhabited this territory before the Spanish conquest.

By 112 votes in favor and 32 against, the constitutional convention approved this proposal which now forms part of the draft constitution that Chilean voters will approve or reject in an August or September referendum."The current Chilean constitution and the previous ones make no mention of the words Indian, native…indigenous peoples, or original peoples. Nothing. They are erased from the constitution because they were made invisible socially, culturally, economically, politically and militarily." -- Domingo Namuncura

The constitutional convention is debating and drafting a new constitution which is the result of the work of 155 constituents – half men and half women, with 17 indigenous members – elected by popular vote in October 2020 who began the task on Jul. 4, 2021. They have until Jul. 4 to finish their work.

In the country’s last census, in 2017, 2.18 million Chileans self-identified as indigenous people.

In other words, 12.8 percent of the 17.07 million inhabitants of Chile at that time (today the population stands at 19.4 million) were recognized as belonging to one of the indigenous peoples distributed throughout this long narrow South American country: the Mapuche (the largest native group), followed by the Aymara, Rapa Nui, Diaguita, Atacameño, Quechua, Colla, Kawesqar and Yagan.

Domingo Namuncura, a Mapuche social worker and professor at the Catholic University of Valparaíso, told IPS that “we are facing a very important historic event. The declaration of a plurinational State has always been a dream of the indigenous peoples of Chile.”

The creation of the constitutional convention was the response to months of protests and social unrest in 2019, the repression of which tainted the second term of right-wing President Sebastián Piñera, a businessman who had already governed the country between 2010 and 2014, and who will be succeeded as of Mar. 11 by the leftist Gabriel Boric, winner of the December elections.

Chile has been governed since 1980 by the constitution imposed by the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990), who used legislation to put in place a neoliberal and authoritarian economic and political regime, which democratic governments have only been able to partially dismantle since 1990.

The result is a country with a dynamic economy based on exports of mining and agricultural products, but with one of the most unequal societies in the world, which was at the basis of the 2019 demonstrations, as was the failure to fulfill promises of change, such as a new constitution, the reform of the educational system or improvements in social rights.

Mapuche Indians living in the metropolitan region. Data from 2021 indicate that the Mapuche, Chile’s largest indigenous people, number 1.8 million, followed by the Aymara (156,000) and the Diaguita (88,000). CREDIT: Orlando Milesi/IPS

Arguments of the constituents

No previous Chilean constitution has mentioned indigenous people and their rights, by contrast with other Latin American constitutions that have emerged since 1980. And the only precedent of declaring a “plurinational state” is that of neighboring Bolivia, which did so in its 2009 constitution.

“The current Chilean constitution and the previous ones make no mention of the words Indian, native…indigenous peoples, or original peoples. Nothing. They are erased from the constitution because they were made invisible socially, culturally, economically, politically and militarily,” said Namuncura.

Adolfo Millabur, Chile’s first Mapuche mayor, elected in 1996 in the southern town of Tirúa, resigned from his post to become a member of the constitutional convention, to occupy one of the seats reserved for Mapuche representatives. He maintained that “if Chile is transformed and defines itself as a plurinational state, what changes is its democratic vocation.”

“By acknowledging the peoples that lived here prior to the creation of the Chilean State, a collective actor is given value. Different forms of relations should begin to be established, especially in the area of political definition and participation,” he told IPS.

Lawyer Tiare Aguilera, a member of the constitutional convention from the Rapa Nui people, believes that “the most important thing is to reach the referendum with a citizenry that is informed about plurinationality and its implications.”

In her view, “through plurinationality, our country will finally be able to advance towards reparations for the native peoples of Chile.

“There is a great deal of ignorance among the public. If we correctly inform and educate the public about their meanings and implications, we believe that the changes in the definition of the State will be understood,” she told IPS.

The facade of the old National Congress, where since July 2021 the members of the constitutional convention have been debating the new form of State that will govern Chile starting this year, if the draft constition is approved in a referendum. CREDIT: Orlando Milesi/IPS

Jaime Bassa, a member of the constitutional convention who was its vice-president until January, said “the normative proposals approved in commissions and in the plenary on plurinationality speak to us of a sense of reality, of accepting ourselves in legitimate diversity and coexistence, of recognizing our historical roots, of valuing ourselves based on our cultural identity.

“In comparative experiences, plurinationalism and multilingualism have brought about interesting cultural changes that have led to innovative and sustainable development alternatives,” he told IPS.

In his opinion, “the growth and development model we are moving towards within the framework of the constituent process that is underway should promote ethics and inter-territorial solidarity, care for the environment and sustainability, as foundations for political equality, and to ensure collaborative, resilient contexts of respect for rights that allow us to broaden and deepen our democracy.”

Bassa said the constitutional convention “is working on a proposal for a plurinational and decentralized legislative power in which there is equality, which would give rise to representation for the different territories, that would participate in the process of law-making, effectively representing the peoples and nations that coexist within the State.”

The regulation approved on Feb. 17 states that “Chile is a regional, plurinational and intercultural State made up of autonomous territorial entities, within a framework of equity and solidarity among all of them, preserving the unity and integrity of the State.”

According to Namuncura, who was the first Mapuche to serve as a Chilean ambassador, to Guatemala, “Chile has always been plurinational because it is constituted on the basis of different native populations that were already in this territory and that joined as native peoples or nations, by force or otherwise, in the construction of the national State.

“From the Aztec, Mayan, Inca and Mapuche cultures, before the arrival of the Spaniards, America was already a plurinational continent populated by more than 1,200 indigenous nationalities that were formed many centuries ago,” he pointed out.

The convention is also discussing other norms for indigenous peoples, such as their own courts of justice in coordination with the national justice system, a parliament with indigenous representation and a regime governing natural resources located in their territories.

Representatives of the Mapuche, Lonko and Machi peoples take part in the raising of the flag in the Plaza de Armas in Vilcún, 700 km south of Santiago, in one of the many events held in Chile every Jun. 24, declared a national holiday for We Tripantu (new sunrise), the Mapuche New Year. CREDIT: Mirna Concha/IPS

Business leaders unhappy

This process is of great concern to the business leaders grouped in the Confederation of Production and Commerce (CPC), whose board, headed by Juan Sutil, met several times with Mapuche representative Elisa Loncón, who was president of the convention until January, and her successor, María Elisa Quinteros.

The CPC was behind numerous Popular Standards Initiatives seeking to include its positions in the debate. It invited everyone to support these initiatives “that defend the values of freedom of thought and free enterprise,” among others, in order to achieve “a robust democracy” with public-private collaboration.

The CPC gathered 507,852 signatures and was able to submit 16 initiatives with its views on the constituent process. Three of them have already been rejected: “Free enterprise”, “Economic model, freedom of entrepreneurship and promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises”, and “Water for all”. One more is still being processed: “Towards sustainable mining for Chile”.

Business leaders have raised the tone of their opposition to the convention, which they accuse of distancing itself from the real Chile and from the work for a constitution for all.

“I am concerned that the constitution that is being drafted is not generating the proper balances and will not be a constitution that takes into account the sensibilities of all Chileans,” said Sutil.

Those sensitivities, he said, are especially from “a minority sector, which could be the center right, the right and even people from the center within the convention itself who are not being taken into consideration at all,” he told a local radio station.

“Chile is much more than what the constitutional convention reflects. The correlation of forces is very different in the real Chile than what is happening in the convention,” he argued.

According to Sutil, criticism of the convention is widespread and “this is bad not only because it jeopardizes the process, but also because it jeopardizes the future of the country from an institutional point of view, and from the point of view of its development and growth.”

Forestry companies own approximately 1.9 million hectares in an enormous area in the south, across three of the country’s regions. A significant part of these hectares are the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples.

Catalina Marileo and Luis Aillapán, a Mapuche couple, stand in front of their home in Puerto Saavedra in the central Chilean region of La Araucanía. They have been among the many members of native peoples tried under an anti-terrorism law inherited from the dictatorship for acts such as, in their case, opposing the military for building a road on their land. Now Chile could be declared a plurinational State. CREDIT: Marianela Jarroud/IPS

Precedents of a truth commission

The Historical Truth and New Deal with Indigenous Peoples Commission, created by then president Ricardo Lagos in 2001 and composed of 24 members with cross-cutting representation, found that 500,000 hectares were awarded to indigenous peoples between 1884 and 1929. This was verified after reviewing 413 titles issued in that time span.

The purpose of the Commission was to “correct the historical invisibility of native peoples, recognize their identity, repair the damage done to them and contribute to the preservation of their culture.”

In its final report, in 2003, the Commission proposed a hundred measures. In the area of land, it called for protecting lands belonging to indigenous peoples, demarcating and titling ancestral lands of native communities, and establishing a land reclamation mechanism.

Regarding natural resources, it proposed recognizing the indigenous peoples’ right of ownership, use, administration and benefit, the preferential right in State concessions, and the right of use, management and conservation.

So far, the greatest gesture by the State for the mistreatment of indigenous peoples was made by the current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, who as president of Chile (2006-2010 and 2014-2018) apologized in June 2017 to the Mapuche in a solemn official act for “the errors and horrors” committed against them.

Namuncura believes that a pending task is “to reach a political agreement with the large forestry companies so that a part of these lands, which today are their property, are returned to the indigenous peoples through a long-term political and financial commitment, with the possibility of considering the value of this restitution.”

The wording already approved for the first draft will now be analyzed by the Harmonization Commission, which will ensure “the concordance and coherence of the constitutional norms approved by the plenary.”

The version that emerges from that process will be voted by the plenary which, by two thirds, will define the text to be voted on by all Chileans in the referendum.

Refugees at a border point between Republic of Moldova and Ukraine on March 1, 2022. Among the 2 million refugees who have fled Ukraine were Roma refugees who say they were discriminated against as they tried to escape. Credit: UN Women

By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, Mar 9 2022 (IPS)

Roma refugees fleeing war-torn Ukraine are facing discrimination on both sides of the country’s borders at the end of often harrowing journeys across the country, rights groups have claimed.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24 has sparked what the UN has described as the fastest-growing refugee crisis in Europe since WWII, and as of March 9, an estimated 2 million people had left the country.

These include Roma who, like other refugees, abandoned their homes and communities as fighting broke out across the country.

But having reached borders of neighbouring states, they have found themselves subject to what some groups helping them have described as “brutal” discrimination.

“Groups working on the ground at borders in Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary have confirmed discrimination to us, and also media reports have backed this up. Roma are facing discrimination both by border guards, and then local people once they get out of Ukraine. It’s very sad and disappointing, but not surprising,” Zeljko Jovanovic, Director of the Roma Initiatives Office at the Open Society Foundation (OSF) told IPS.

Roma refugees faced ‘brutal’ discrimination at both sides of the border of Ukraine as they joined 2 million others to flee the bombing in war-torn Ukraine. These headlines reflect their ordeal. Graphic: IPS

Roma living in Europe are among the most discriminated and disadvantaged groups on the continent. In many countries, including Ukraine where it is thought there are as many as 400,000 Roma, significant numbers live in segregated settlements where living conditions are often poor and extreme poverty widespread.

Health in many such places is also bad with research[1] showing very high burdens of both infectious and non-communicable diseases and significantly shorter lifespans than the general population.

Incidents of discrimination of Roma have been reported at the borders of all countries that are taking in refugees, according to the OSF and the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC).

These have included being made to wait much longer in lines, sometimes tens of kilometres long, in freezing weather, than ethnic Ukrainian refugees, before they are processed.

“They are always the last people to be let out of the country,” said Jovanovic.

Media reports have quoted refugees describing discrimination and, in some cases, physical attacks.

One Roma woman who had made her way to Moldova said she and her family had spent four days waiting at the border with no food and water, and having found shelter were then chased out of it by Ukrainian guards.

Groups working with the refugees said Roma who crossed into their countries told them similar stories.

Viktor Teru of the Roma Education Fund in Slovakia said: “Roma refugees tell us that on the Ukrainian side there is ‘brutal’ discrimination.”

But once they finally make it over the border, their problems often do not end there.

Bela Racz, of the 1Hungary organisation, which is helping Roma refugees in Hungary, said he had witnessed discrimination during three days his organisation spent in the eastern Hungarian border town of Zahony at the beginning of March.

“Roma arrived in separate coaches – the Ukrainian border guards organized it this way – and when they did arrive, Roma mothers were checked by Hungarian police many times, but non-Roma mothers were not.

“Local mayors and Hungarians are not providing direct help, such as accommodation, and information, [for Roma] in their towns – that only comes if we ask for it and organise it. Roma did not get proper help, information, or support,” he told IPS.

There have been numerous media reports of similar discrimination at border crossings in other countries, including incidents of Roma being refused transport by volunteers, and being refused accommodation.

Jaroslav Miko, founder of the Cesi Pomahaji (Czechs Help) NGO, who has transported more than 100 Roma refugees from the Slovak-Ukrainian border to the Czech Republic, told IPS he had seen “discrimination of Roma among the volunteers who were picking people up at the border”. He said volunteers were picking up some refugees in vehicles and taking them to other places, but that Roma families were being turned away if they asked for help.

In another incident, the head of a firefighting station in Humenne, in eastern Slovakia, where many Roma refugees have been sent to a holding camp, told a reporter that the refugees had “abused the situation”. “They are not people who are directly threatened by the war. They are people from near the border, they have abused the opportunity for us to cook them hot food here and to receive humanitarian aid,” the firefighter allegedly said, adding that Ukrainian Roma should not be allowed across the border.

Slovakia’s Interior Minister Roman Mikulec and national fire brigade officials have refused to comment on the claims.

But despite these incidents of discrimination, Roma refugees are getting local help – from other Roma.

“Many Hungarian Roma living in nearby villages are providing accommodation for Roma. Due to the presence of groups like ours, and state representatives, the situation with discrimination is getting better,” said Racz.

“There is a good network of Roma activist groups coordinating work to help refugees and also there are Roma mayors in many towns near the borders in Romania and Slovakia who are prepared to take Roma refugees and arrange shelter for them,” added Jovanovic.

However, all those who spoke to IPS said the discrimination against Roma refugees was a reminder of the systemic prejudice the minority faces.

Meanwhile, Jovanovic said he hoped that the problems Roma refugees were facing now would not be forgotten, as they had been in the past.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Ukraine’s Ambassador to the UN Sergiy Kyslytsya. Credit: United Nations

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Mar 9 2022 (IPS)

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was certainly not a surprise and has unambiguously exposed the West’s weakness. The question is what lesson the United States and its allies should learn from it and what measures they must now undertake to prevent Putin or any future ruthless Russian autocrat from ever daring to invade another country.

Righting the Wrong

As we observe the horrifying unfolding events in Ukraine, the escalating death toll, and the destruction that is raining down on cities and innocent Ukrainians, we must be true to ourselves and admit that we—the US and our European allies made it possible for Putin to wage such an unprovoked and unjustified war.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, we have basically taken for granted the new world order, believing that the Soviet Union is a thing of the past and that Putin’s ambition to resurrect the Russian Empire is nothing more than posturing. We have dealt with his military campaigns in Georgia and his annexation of Crimea by imposing sanctions, which have hardly been crippling.

Meanwhile, we have steadily been exposing our vulnerabilities, which Putin has been carefully and diligently studying, preparing himself for what we are now witnessing with great alarm but great moral failing.

To understand the magnitude of Putin’s danger to the world order, it suffices to quote US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who stated that “Putin asserted that Russia today has a rightful claim to all territories – all territories – from the Russian Empire; the same Russian Empire from before the Soviet Union, from over 100 years ago, ” including Ukraine, Finland, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and parts of Poland and Turkey”.

The State Department later declared “These countries are sovereign. They are independent. They are not part of Russia. You [Putin] have no claim to them,” which suggests how dangerous and out of control Putin is. In response to this unparalleled state of affairs, the West under American leadership must regroup and commit to spare no effort to stop Putin in his tracks and be prepared to take whatever measures are necessary to that end.

There are five areas that we have sorely neglected and allowed to fester, which we must now tackle with utmost urgency if we want to prevent another catastrophe and restore stability and peace in the European theater.

US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Credit: United Nations

Provide military aid to non-NATO member states

Although the Biden administration knew for several months, based on solid intelligence, that Putin was planning to invade Ukraine and shared that information with our allies, they did not provide the Ukrainian army with defensive and offensive weapons ahead of time.

What is worse is that weeks before the invasion, Biden publicly stated that the US had no intention of interfering militarily on behalf of Ukraine, which sent exactly the wrong message to Putin—that he should not fear NATO intervention.

Moreover, NATO member states waited for the invasion to happen before they decided to rush such equipment, which would have otherwise sent a clear message to Putin that the West stands firmly behind Ukraine.

Contrary to NATO member states who enjoy collective security, many non-NATO democracies, including Finland, Sweden, Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Ukraine itself, do not have the same security protection and hence NATO could not interfere militarily to stop the invading Russian forces.

Moreover, these states do not have the ‘security guarantees’ that the US provides to countries such as Israel, South Korea, Japan, albeit the US has some form of defense pact with 69 countries, mostly through NATO and the Organization of American States (OAS).

The time is now for the US and its allies to provide significant military aid to these countries and not wait for the next Russian invasion. In addition, NATO should fast track the applications of the states that wish to join NATO. Strengthening their militaries and preparedness will force Putin or any other Russian despot to think twice before they dare to invade any of these countries.

Doubling NATO members’ military appropriations

As European NATO members bicker about their military expenditure, which is required to be two percent of each member’s GDP, they continue to rely heavily on the US to carry much of the financial burden for their security. Meanwhile, Putin was busy building one of the most formidable military machines in modern times, which he put on full display as he invaded Ukraine.

It is time wake up. NATO members must, at a minimum, double their military contribution from two to four percent to ensure that along with the US, NATO’s conventional military defenses and offensive capabilities are overwhelming to a degree that no Russian leader can ever presume to challenge with impunity.

Moreover, it is in NATO’s best geostrategic interests to include other European countries, especially, Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo, who have long wanted to join NATO.

Mending relations with China

As the US argued contentiously with China about its trade practices, Taiwan, and its human right abuses, Putin was investing much time and energy in developing close ties with China’s leader Chairman Xi, while expanding trade and military cooperation between their two countries.

Both leaders want to limit America’s sphere of influence in Europe and Asia, and although they declared, when they met during the Winter Olympics, that there are “no limits” to the growth of their bilateral relations, the US can and should create daylight between them.

The Biden administration must now carefully recalibrate its China policy. Notwithstanding their deep conflicting issues, it is time to mend relations with China. This is necessary not only because it serves America’s interest, but also will let the Chinese realize that there is a limit to Chinese-Russian bilateral relations and that the US remains an indispensable trading partner.

China’s trade interest with the US is critical to its economy, in addition to the fact that more than $1 trillion of China’s reserve funds are held in US Treasury securities, not Russian banks.

Moreover, both the US and China concur when it comes to respecting the sovereignty and independence of other countries (albeit the Chinese are much stricter in their philosophy of non-interference), and although China did not condemn publicly Russia’s invasion, it certainly expressed its displeasure with Moscow.

The Biden administration should initiate new and comprehensive discussions with the Chinese government about all their differences and follow Kissinger’s negotiating approach to China by delinking the disputes over their conflicting issues.

Regardless of how egregious China’s human rights violations are, the US should raise critical issues in private as long as it achieves the same objective. China resists any country that interferes in its domestic affairs and does not want to air its dirty laundry in public once they agree to engage in such discussions. However, if private pressure does not work, especially in ending China’s egregious violations, including genocide, public pressure can be resumed.

Push for reforming the UNSC

Although the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was established to maintain global peace and security, it has long since lost its relevance. The veto powers accorded to the five permanent members—the US, UK, China, France, and Russia—have been frequently used by one or the other to serve their interest, regardless of how inconsistent that might have been to the goal of maintaining peace and security.

During the UNSC emergency session as Russia was invading Ukraine, the Russian ambassador had the audacity to make a totally baseless and false statement declaring that Russia was merely sending peacekeeping troops to the eastern part of the country to prevent a “genocide” by the Ukrainian military against the people of Donetsk and Luhansk.

During the session, we heard extraordinarily powerful and moving speeches, especially by the Ambassador of Ireland, but that was just about the extent to which the UNSC could go, which sadly and tragically has become nothing more than a debating forum. In fact, there is no more glaring example of how irrelevant the UNSC has become, than that debate on February 24.

There is a dire need now to reform the UNSC to reflect the changing geostrategic and demographic reality and its impact on the global order. These reforms are critical to ensure that the UNSC lives up to its founding premise to maintain global peace and security.

They must include enforceable political and sanctioning mechanisms to prevent a brazen and unprovoked invasion by Russia or any other power on a sovereign nation in the future. How absurd can it get when Russia, which invaded the sovereign democratic nation of Ukraine and committed war crimes, can still exercise its veto power against any resolution that condemns it, and do so without any repercussions?

Although comprehensive reforms of the UN will be extraordinary difficult and may take years, the effort must nevertheless begin immediately and the focus should be on reforming the UNSC first to prevent a single country, and for that matter, one ruthless despot, from changing the world order.

Despite overwhelming opposition from both the Security Council member states and the General Assembly, Putin went ahead with his planned invasion of Ukraine, knowing full well that he can grossly violate the UN Charter and do so with impunity.

Strengthening American democracy

While we were becoming accustomed to Putin’s outrageous behavior, America’s democracy was put on the chopping block thanks to Trump and his blind Republican followers. Trump spared no effort to polarize the country to the core while serving as Putin’s agent in the White House to trample on American democratic institutions. Our democracy became vulnerable and is retreating, which is precisely what Putin was hoping for and was ready to exploit—and he did.

There is no better time than now for the Biden administration to strengthen our democratic institutions at home while making every effort to reach out to any Republican with an ounce of integrity to begin the healing process. Tragically, there are too many so-called Republicans who follow Trump and are ready to sacrifice America’s democracy on the altar of his twisted ego.

Trump followers, to be sure, are sycophantic, a poison for our Republic, and the kiss of death to our democratic institutions. Every single one of them must look at themself in the mirror and ask: What do I stand for? Do I stand for unity and for our 240-year-old democracy and for what is right and moral, or do I stand for autocracy led by a moron like Trump who considers a vicious and dishonest thug like Putin, who is committing war crimes in broad daylight, a “genius”?

America’s strength lies where it always has—in freedom, equality, human rights, and above all, in genuine patriotism and unity, as the nation must always come first before any political party or individual’s interests. Putin has challenged the West and we all came together.

We must now build on this momentum and send the most unambiguous message to Putin—you have made a horrific mistake by invading Ukraine and you will pay for it. And we will ensure that your war crimes against the Ukrainian people will be the beginning of the end of your era and your reign of terror.

I salute the courage of the Ukrainian people, I salute President Zelensky for his exemplary leadership, fortitude, and high moral standing, and I mourn for the Ukrainians who fought and died with valor and bravery for their country and for their freedom.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies for over 20 years.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury
SINGAPORE, Mar 8 2022 (IPS-Partners)

Change is a uniquely predictable phenomenon in nature. Also, by logical extension, in politics. Ions ago the observation of Heraclitus of Ephesus that the world is in constant flux, and one never steps into the same river twice is an incontrovertible axiom. Hence the idea that any existing global order, or a political system on the international matrix with a certain hierarchical power arrangement can sustain perennially, would be an erroneous one. When I was a student of Cold War and Global strategy in the mid-seventies the concept of ‘paradigm shift’ propounded by the American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn in his tome “The structure of Scientific Revolutions” enormously interested me. Simply put, Kuhn argued that the shift occurs when any dominant paradigm under which science operates (his main concern was physics though this also applies to the social sciences) confronts new phenomena that renders it incompatible. To me the thesis remains relevant. A case in point is the place of the United States of America in the global scheme of things. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s , the existing bipolarity in the world order of US-Soviet dominance ended. The US emerged as the only ‘hyperpower ‘an expression used by the French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine in 1999,’and held absolute unchallenged sway in a unipolar world.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

Many could argue today with ample justification that America’s unipolar moment was an opportunity lost. This was the time when the US could have shored up the global institutions it had helped so much to create in the post War world of late 1940s and the decades that followed. It could firmly establish universal global norms setting the guidelines for the conduct of politics and economics to further its own espoused and cherished liberal governance, unimpeded by any serious opposition. Instead, the chance to do all this was frittered away, the success in the Cold War resulted in a state of hubris, and the US set out to do what one of its founding fathers John Quincy Adams had counselled it against, that is going abroad in search of monsters to destroy”!

But why? Like in explanation of most phenomenon, no single cause can generally be attributed. However, one main reason certainly was the reaction in American thinking and ruling circles to the New Left and counterculture that gripped the society in the post-Vietnam era. It led to the rise of ‘neo-conservative’ (‘neo- con’)’ideas, first in the academia, and then spreading to the administration of George Bush in the persons of individuals like Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and Richard Perle who in turn heavily influenced very senior policymakers like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The intellectual guru of the ‘neo-cons’ was Professor Leo Strauss of Chicago University, an escapee from German Nazism, who was a votary of the Greek Philosopher Plato. Now Plato, however admired, fell short of following in liberal political circles, and whom Karl Popper, another distinguished academic, had unabashedly called an “enemy of open society”.

Be that as it may, the ‘neo-cons’ and their camp-followers led the US into a spate of interventionism in international affairs, often inexplicable, and indefensible, in moral, ethical or merely pragmatic terms. The list included Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. These led to untold sufferings all round, clearly leading, however, to great profits for what Dwight D, Eisenhower had earlier described as the American “military industrial complex”. Also, importantly, the actions were establishing precedence that other great powers of the future were likely to follow. At that point in time there were none just beyond the rim of the saucer, though China was rising, and Russia was showing signs of becoming more assertive. The last two powers acquired leaders that were authoritarian and nationalist, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping, to both of whom what was sauce for the goose (i.e., the US) was also now sauce for the gander (themselves). For the West to criticize them, therefore, could be akin to throwing stones while living in a glasshouse.

This brings us to Ukraine and its current pains. In Europe, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact security treaty was not accompanied by the folding of its western counterpart, NATO. Instead, the western allies began to use NATO as a tool of its military interventions elsewhere, while at the same time enlarging its membership by embracing the States of Eastern Europe with difficult ties with Russia, the main successor of the Soviet Union. Initially Russia had gone along when it was too weak to resist. But by the 2010s, Russia under Putin saw itself as sufficiently strong enough to stand up to the expansion. And it did, particularly when it came to Ukraine, with its complex and complicated politics of intramural rivalries and Russia’s extremely deep interest in that country for its own security.

John Mearsheimer, an extremely articulate American political scientist who belongs to the ‘realist’ school of thought, analyzes that the causes for the Ukraine crisis, broadly, are three-fold: First, NATO’s eastward extension; second, the European Union’s expansion, and third, Russian fears of “colour revolutions” cheer-led by the west to effect regime changes. He argues that while Ukraine should of peripheral interest to the West, Russia sees it of critical to its security and hence it was well known that it would go to any length to ensure the denial of inimical influence in Ukraine. Despite that knowledge the western allies had encouraged Ukraine to embrace the west’s security and economic institutions, thus leading that country up the garden path,

The resolve of Russia to stop western plans in their track had been steeled by the communique that was issued in 2008 at the end of the NATO Summit in Bucharest. It had declared that “Georgia and Ukraine” would be NATO countries, and hence entitled to its “Article 5 Protection clause (any war waged against any NATO member is war against all). The aspiration became a possibility when in 2014 the “Maidan Coup” in Kiev supplanted a pro-Russian government with a pro-western one. Thereafter, on grounds that Kiev was oppressing Russian populations and sympathizers in territories where they were preponderant, Russia annexed Crimea in Ukraine (which had a pro-Russian population and hosted a Russian base in its port, Sevastopol). Moscow also supported secessionists in the eastern Donbas region of Ukraine, eventually recognizing this February its two tiny ‘republics’, Donetz and Luhansk. As NATO responded by announcing enhanced forward presence” in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland, Putin invaded Ukraine. The Ukrainians have been putting up a brave but sadly impossible defence, with the west now unwilling to be goaded into a war with Russia directly. Ukraine’s disillusioned but plucky President, Volodymyr Zelensky, when offered evacuation by the US, reportedly retorted: “I want ammunition, not a ride!”

Prior to the invasion, during the Beijing winter Olympics, Putin and Xi signed a historic 5000 -word joint policy document that heralded the start of a “New Era of International Affairs”, cementing their “friendship without limits. It read like a demarche delivered by two great powers to a till now yet more powerful third, signaling the beginning of what earlier in this essay I had called a “paradigm shift”. For the first time, China was endorsing some key Russian demands. The two, China and Russia, opposed “the further expansion of NATO”. Russian concession to China for this support was significant. Russia joined China in expressing “serious concern “about trilateral security partnership between Australia, Britain, and the US. The signing of this document was decidedly one of the most important watershed points in contemporary global politics.

Important in terms of contemporary political theory, China and Russia rejected the western definition of democracy and proffered their own based on historic heritage and long-standing traditions, relying on “thousand years of experience of development, popular support and consideration of the needs and interests of citizens”. So, if China and Russia have their way, the “new era “would be shaped by values other than those the world had known to be universal, emanating from the west. This was most certainly nothing short of throwing down the gauntlet to America and the west.

One should stop short of concluding China and Russia have combined inextricably with no daylight between them. For instance, China has constantly, while giving support to Russia in the conflict vis-à-vis the US, has behaved with studied circumspection. It has urged restraint upon Russia and Ukraine and has also China had also called for talks to end the belligerency, which are now taking place, though without much success at writing. China and Russia feel that they have emerged as great powers in their own right, but as two separate poles, rather than together as one. In fact, the three existing civilizations, western, eastern, and central Eurasia are represented in the three protagonists, the US, China, and Russia. In the foreseeable future, none of the three would wield, or be allowed to wield, absolute power. US disinclination to directly confront Russia, as in denying President Zelensky’s fervent appeal for “no fly zone over Ukraine” could be symptomatic of a limitation in the future to behave in a freewheeling unilateral manner as in the unipolar times, particularly in regions the two rising powers, China and Russia, have deep interest. Russia’s ability to operate unfettered in Ukraine without America’ military confronting it, is also a sign of acceptance of the notion of ‘spheres of influence’.

So what may be likely emerging for the future is a global “tripolar” order comprising the US, China, and Russia. This, despite the existing US technological and innovative superiority, which may be eroded by the burgeoning geo-strategic influence of the other two. Their relations may be based on an interplay of the classical “balance of power” theory and behaviour-pattern in the contemporary political scene. Each will lead a group of nations, and switch sides in issues based on perceptions of self-interest, unencumbered by ideals or ideology. In a Kissingerian sense, the behavior-pattern of the three poles would be as follows: One, each pole would act in accordance with the principle of “raison d étre” shunning any notion of universal morality; and two, no pole would be dominant but would advance its capability by aligning itself with one or the other according to its calculations of power imperatives. At this time, Russia and China are together, but this situation could also change in the future, depending on the circumstances. The subordinate players in each pole could also choose sides, though with utmost care, given the fate that Ukraine unfortunately found itself in. For now, Europe has chosen to play a secondary role vis-à-vis the US, despite occasional outbursts of autonomous predilections. That too could change. For instance, in dealing with Iran. So active diplomacy between and within the circles of the three poles will continue.

What would be the role of lesser players in such milieu of a tripolar globe. Clearly, multilateralism and international institutions, some things I had myself placed great store by in the past, cannot offer the same amount of security. These will remain important but not as predominant sources of protection. Power will tend to emanate from the three poles, each of which will provide all possible support to those under its umbrella. Unfortunately, unrestrained ‘realpolitik’ will be the name of the game. Any global order that emerges would perhaps need to be underwritten by the three.

For weaker or smaller or powers the situation will not be ideal. What will be necessary for each of them is the building of a web of linkages with powerful global actors, including pole-leaders, and having them develop stakes in each. This would call for nimbler diplomacy because there are no set rules or protocol for such maneuverings. Neutrality is not necessarily the easy way out, as we are beginning to see in this conflict. As a Singaporean scholar, William Choong has said observing the current scenario, neutrality is a narrow plank, getting increasingly narrower. While this may look like a global chaos, eventually an order out of it will emerge, a new global “Social Contract”, driven by the primordial instincts of the humankind to survive. It is difficult to delineate it at this time, but it will surely reflect more realism than idealism.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President and Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Credit: UNICEF
 
The International Women’s Day is not a celebration – it is a reminder that we have yet to empower young girls in crisis to access their inherent right to a quality education.

By Yasmine Sherif
NEW YORK, Mar 8 2022 (IPS)

For decades now, world leaders have talked about ending hunger and poverty and building a new world order based on human rights and gender-equality.

Still, we have an estimated 64 million girls and adolescent girls suffering in brutal conflicts, forced displacement and climate-induced disasters who are held back by illiteracy and left without hope for their future. Amongst them, analysis indicates that as many as 20 million girls may never return to school as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is not enough to have goals and a vision unless we turn that vision into action. Every girl has an inalienable right to a minimum of 12 years of quality education. Girls and teenage girls in conflicts and forced displacement suffer multiple risks already, such as trafficking, gender-based violence and early-childhood marriage, and thus are those left furthest behind in turning our goals and visions into reality. Their education must now come first.

Investing in girls’ education is not just about delivering on our promise of inclusive and equitable education, or Sustainable Development Goal 4, it is the very foundation for reaching all other goals in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Without an education, these girls will never be able to lift themselves out of abject poverty and we can no longer aspire to achieving gender-equality.

We need a laser focus on girls’ education in emergencies and protracted crisis to achieve multiple Sustainable Development Goals. Their experiences of inhumanity, loss and destitution can be turned around into their potential to become empowered women able to contribute to their war-torn countries and communities. Without them – 50% of the population – no crisis-country can build back better. It is logistically impossible.

All the evidence indicates that investing in girls’ education provides one of the best returns-on-investment for overseas development assistance – and the enabling environment and strong women leaders and professionals we need to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, Paris Agreement targets and other international accords.

According to Plan International, every dollar spent on girls’ education has the potential to generate a general return of $2.80. This could boost GDP in developing countries by 10% over the next 10 years, resulting in less poverty, hunger and violence, and more resilience and greater capacity to respond to new fast-acting crises.

With just eight short years left to deliver on this global promise, we need to build on the progress made, including the Education Cannot Wait target of 60% girls and adolescent girls in crisis-affected countries.

It starts with financing. Education Cannot Wait, the United Nations global, billion-dollar fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises, has reached approximately 2.3 million girls since its inception five years ago. With $1 billion in additional resources, the Fund could reach an additional 9 million girls by 2026.

It takes partnerships and the United Nations New Way of Working whereby humanitarian and development actors work together towards collective learning outcomes, hence peacebuilding, or what we call the humanitarian-development-peace nexus.

As we are in a race against time and we need real learning outcomes, it also requires humanitarian speed and developmental depth. This is precisely what Education Cannot and its partners in host-governments and communities, the UN system and civil society as well as private sector are doing. We are doing it together, we do it with speed and we are on a quest for results.

Working closely with our in-country partners, we understand the realities these girls and young women face, and tailor our responses to meet their holistic needs. This entails a protective learning environment, gender-sensitive curriculum, mental health and psycho-social services, teacher training, social-emotional skills as well as academic skills, in countries like Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda or Lebanon.

To ensure continuity for crisis-affected girls and adolescent girls – of whom only 1 out of 4 is able to complete lower secondary education – we need to make sure that all girls make the transition to high school and beyond, and are able to participate in science, technology, engineering and math studies.

It means creating safe learning environments so girls can walk safely to school without fear of abduction or assault.

It means empowering female teachers and providing incentives to teach science, provide education of menstrual health and hygiene, and ensure dignity in the home and in the classroom.

It means understanding the direct link between climate action and forced displacement and building an education system that that is resilient to climate-change induced disasters. And it means partnering with local women and girls’ groups and organizations, and delivering across a wide range of partnerships that bring together government, UN agencies, donors, philanthropic foundations, civil society and local communities.

There is no simple solution to the interconnected global crises that have left so many girls behind. We do know however through the work of the UN’s Global Fund for Education in Emergencies and Protracted Crisis that by working together through joint planning and one joint programme towards collective outcomes, we can reach the girls and adolescent girls left furthest behind in conflict zones, refugee camps and war-affected communities. We also know that lack of financing is the biggest challenge in achieving our vision of providing a quality and continued education to 64 million girls. So, on International Women’s Day, let us remind ourselves that their right to an education, their human rights, are actually priceless.

The author is the Director of Education Cannot Wait, the United Nations global fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

The following opinion piece is part of series to mark International Women’s Day, March 8.

Teresa Lokichu (left) and Joyce Nairesia share their experiences of breaking gender barriers in Kenya. Gender activists say deep-rooted patriarchy has no place in a world which faces climate change, diseases, pandemics and food insecurity. Credit: Facebook and Twitter

By Joyce Chimbi
Nairobi, Kenya, Mar 8 2022 (IPS)

Teresa Lokichu recalls the day she attended a meeting convened by high-ranking government officials, community leaders and elders to discuss various pressing issues such as security in her pastoral community of West Pokot in Kenya’s Rift Valley region.

Despite being a well-known peace champion in the community, women’s leader, and crusader against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), she had no place, let alone voice, in what was meant to be a consultative meeting.

“I did what a woman in our pastoral community is required to do, stand up and quietly wait until the men in charge saw it fit to give me an opportunity to speak. Everyone in the room was seated, but I remained standing. I needed to speak on behalf of women and children who are most affected by insecurity and conflict,” Lokichu, director of Pokot Girl Child Network, tells IPS.

“The meeting went on as if nothing was amiss even as I remained standing. A female cabinet Minister was in attendance and interrupted the meeting to ask why I remained standing. She was very surprised to hear that this is the only way for a woman to ask for permission to speak in such a meeting.”

Lokichu was immediately granted an opportunity to address the gathering and would later become a nominated Member of the County Assembly, West Pokot, in Kenya’s devolved system of governance.

Her experience is not far from that of Joyce Nairesia, the first Samburu woman to join the Council of Elders and chair such a Council.

She tells IPS that male elders lift a traditional rungu (club) during Council meetings while addressing the Council as a show of power. Being a woman in a pastoralist community, she cannot do the same.

“To address the Council, I first stand up, lift a piece of grass, and wait to be permitted to speak. This is a show of respect and humility in their presence,” she says.

“People say, but how is this possible? I say it is better to influence change from within than from outside looking in.”

As the world marks yet another International Women’s Day on March 8 under the theme ‘Break the Bias’, communities across this East African nation are far from a gender-equal world.

A world free from bias, stereotypes, and discrimination and one where gender equity and inclusivity is freely and widely embraced.

Gender experts such as Grace Gakii, based in Nairobi, say that the world faces a myriad of challenges from climate change, diseases, pandemics, food insecurity and fragile peace. Calls for gender equality and equity in all facets of life are crucial to improving social and economic outcomes.

“We have to uproot deep-rooted patriarchy and misogyny as well as the systematic discrimination of women in political leadership and in business,” Gakii, a researcher in gender equality and equity, tells IPS.

UN data on women in politics shows that Rwanda has the highest percentage of women in parliament globally. South Africa, Senegal, Namibia and Mozambique also made it to the top 20 list.

“Rwanda is also one of 14 countries in the world to have 50 percent or more women in their cabinet. But what is becoming increasingly clear is that representation is not enough. Women need the influence to change how the society perceives men and women, and the roles they assign to them,” Gakii explains.

UN figures indicate that 50 percent of African female cabinet members hold social welfare portfolios. Gakii says these positions align with society’s perception of women as nurturers – not wielders of power who participate at high stake political and leadership decision-making levels.

Only 3 percent of African female cabinet members are in charge of critical and highly powerful dockets in finance, defence, infrastructure, and foreign affairs.

Lokichu says women’s voices are lacking in higher levels of decision making and governance, further perpetuating gender stereotypes, bias, and discrimination against women.

Even in business and the corporate world, where Africa’s firms have the highest percentage of female representation on company boards at 25 percent compared to the global average of 17 percent, according to McKinsey Global Institute, Gakii says it is not enough.

“Women are increasingly represented, but their influence is limited. There is no real impact and progress towards gender parity if participation and influence do not go hand in hand,” she says.

“The global average of women in executive committee is 21 percent. Africa is ahead at 22 percent, with South Africa having the highest percentage of gender parity. It is not enough that women are seen in positions of power. Power must be felt for there to be a paradigm shift in the collective societal conscience.”

In recognition of these facts, in February 2021, the African Union (AU) Ministers in charge of Gender and Women’s Affairs adopted the Common African Position (CAP) to advance women’s full and effective participation and decision making in public life.

The AU says that due to existing gender gaps in leadership roles across financial, investment and entrepreneurial markets, the African continent loses over 20 percent of its GDP every year.

Gakii says women must rise to power and influence in politics, business, religion, and institutions of higher learning for them to push gender boundaries in a consistent, systematic and impactful manner.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• International Women’s Day, 2022 Gender Equality Today for a Sustainable Tomorrow
• International Women’s Day, 2022 How Bangladesh Became a Test Case for Women’s Empowerment
• Can 70% of the World’s Poor Celebrate International Women’s Day?

Excerpt:

The following feature is part of series to mark International Women’s Day, March 8.

On Feb 26, Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have demanded Moscow immediately stop its attack on Ukraine and withdraw all troops, a move several Council members said was deplorable, but inevitable. While 11 of the Council’s 15 members voted in favour of the text, China India, and the United Arab Emirates abstained. Credit: United Nations

By Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury
NEW YORK, Mar 8 2022 (IPS)

The ongoing war in Ukraine has raised the question of expulsion or suspension of the Russian Federation from the United Nations. As is known, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, its UN seat was transferred to the Russian Federation.

With the collapse of the USSR in late 1991,the Commonwealth of Independent States signed a declaration agreeing that “Member states of the Commonwealth support Russia in taking over the USSR membership in the UN, including permanent membership in the Security Council.”

USSR Ambassador to UN transmitted to the UN Secretary-General a letter from President of the Russian Federation stating that:

“… the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In this connection, I request that the name ‘Russian Federation’ should be used in the United Nations in place of the name ‘the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’. The Russian Federation maintains full responsibility for all the rights and obligations of the USSR under the Charter of the United Nations, including the financial obligations. I request that you consider this letter as confirmation of the credentials to represent the Russian Federation in United Nations organs….”

The Secretary-General circulated the request among the UN membership. There being no objection, the Russian Federation took the USSR’s place, with President Boris Yeltsin personally taking the Russian Federation’s seat at the Security Council meeting on 31 January 1992.

Without presenting new credentials. USSR Ambassador to UN continued serving as the first Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury

UN’s working arrangements

Since its inception, the United Nations has resorted to all kinds of measures, practices, and procedures to circumvent the complexities of an intergovernmental decision-making and legal implications, heavily influenced by the position or opposition of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

As a result, acquiescence in its various manifestations has become all pervasive in the business of the United Nations. A clear manifestation of that is practiced these days through what is known as “silent procedure” whereby the reluctant acceptance of Member States of all kinds of anomalies achieve an agreement or consensus otherwise not possible.

The Russian veto on the Ukraine resolution in the Security Council prevented unanimous global resolve to address the situation there. The continuation of veto is an aberration of the multilateral system as practiced in the UN Security Council, thereby jeopardizing all the positive UN efforts to maintain international peace and security.

Change in multilateral system

The war in Ukraine has reaffirmed more clearly than ever that the “global ideological struggle” that had for so long dominated the international scene does not exist anymore. And the new realities must be translated into a different set of global institutions unless the existing one undertake major and all-pervasive reforms of their decision-making and operational practices and procedures.

The expulsion or suspension of one of the five veto-wielding permanent members would not necessarily result in effective maintenance of the global peace and security. There would still be four others with the ability to deny any time a consensus decision with which any one of them does not agree.

Veto, the chief culprit

The chief culprit in the failure of unified global action by the UN is the continuation of the irrational practice of veto. As a matter, I have said on record that, if only one reform action could be taken, it should be the abolition of veto. Believe me, the veto power influences not only the decisions of the Security Council but also all work of the UN, including importantly the choice of the Secretary-General.

I believe the abolition of veto requires a greater priority attention in the reforms process than the enlargement of the Security Council membership with additional permanent ones. Such permanency is simply undemocratic. I believe that the veto power is not “the cornerstone of the United Nations” but in reality, its tombstone.

Case of China

Unlike the question of the replacement of USSR membership by the Russian Federation in 1991, the case of the recognition of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) by the UN is straightforward.

It was decided by the apex body of the UN system, the General Assembly in its groundbreaking resolution 2758 titled “Restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations” which was adopted by two-thirds majority on 25 October 1971 in accordance with the UN Charter.

The resolution recognized the People’s Republic of China as “the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations” and expelled “forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” from the United Nations.

Following adoption of Resolution 2758, the Beijing government began representing China at the UN from 15 November 1971 and its delegates were seated at the UN Security Council meeting held on 23 November 1971, the first such meeting where representatives of the Beijing government represented China with its veto power as a permanent member of the Council.

UN’s clear position on Taiwan

Over the years, Taiwan’s efforts to revive the application for UN membership separately for itself has received no support of the UN membership in general.

Reflecting the long-standing UN policy is mirrored in the “Final Clauses of “Final Clauses of Multilateral Treaties, Handbook”, 2003 published by the UN, stating that:

“…regarding the Taiwan Province of China, the Secretary-General follows the General Assembly’s guidance incorporated in resolution 2758 (XXVI) of the General Assembly of 25 October 1971 on the restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations. The General Assembly decided to recognize the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations. Hence, instruments received from the Taiwan Province of China will not be accepted by the Secretary-General in his capacity as depositary.”

It is relevant to recall that in 2007, Secretary-General of the UN Ban Ki-moon rejected Taiwan’s membership bid to “join the UN under the name of Taiwan”, citing Resolution 2758 as acknowledging that Taiwan is part of China, although it is important to note, not the People’s Republic of China.

Why not amend the Charter

I have confronted on many occasions the question why Russia and PRC have not called for an amendment of the UN Charter to streamline their membership issue. For that, my opinion is that all Permanent Members are fully cognizant that that would open up a Pandora’s box, including the issue of abolition of veto and other reform issues which are not at all to their liking as part of the P-5 coterie.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, is Former Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN; President of the UN Security Council (2000 and 2001); Senior Special Adviser to UN General Assembly President (2011-2012) and Former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the UN.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By Anis Chowdhury and Jomo Kwame Sundaram
SYDNEY and KUALA LUMPUR, Mar 8 2022 (IPS)

All too many developing countries have been persuaded or required to prioritize inflation targeting (IT) in their monetary policy. By doing so, they have tied their own hands instead of adopting bolder economic policies for growth, jobs and sustainable development.

Anis Chowdhury

Why inflation targeting?
IT refers to monetary policy efforts to keep the inflation rate within a certain low range. Many countries – developed and developing – have adopted this policy priority following New Zealand’s 1989 lead, arbitrarily aiming to keep inflation under 2%.

Initially, developing economies adopted IT after crises to get financial support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), e.g., after the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis. From the mid-1970s, many had borrowed heavily to accelerate growth. After the US Fed raised interest rates sharply from 1980, many succumbed to debt crises.

The IMF insisted on severe short-term stabilization policies to keep inflation and debt low. The World Bank complemented it with medium-term structural adjustment policies demanding market liberalization and other reforms.

Price stabilization policies to keep inflation low have been an IMF priority since. But instead of accelerating growth, as promised, IT has actually slowed it. Yet, developing countries have jumped on the IT bandwagon – 25 had formally adopted IT by 2020, while most others strive to keep inflation very low.

How bad is inflation?
Most believe that inflation is the greatest threat to the economy and growth. Many presume inflation creates uncertainty, causing resource misallocation. All this is said to retard growth – meaning fewer jobs, less tax revenue and lasting poverty.

Higher prices hurt by reducing purchasing power, especially harming wage-earners. On the contrary, price stability – implying low and steady inflation – is believed to be more conducive to ensuring growth and prosperity.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Another core IT belief is that money only temporarily affects growth, but permanently affects prices. IT advocates believe central bankers should mainly strive for price stability – not employment or growth. They usually presume independent central banks are better at doing so.

Many central bankers and economists dogmatically believe – without evidence – that tightly reining in inflation actually spurs growth. Acknowledging developing countries are more prone to external and supply shocks, the IMF recommended targets of up to 5% – higher than developed countries’ 2%.

Most developing countries aspiring to become emerging market economies have formally adopted IT – e.g., South Africa’s 3–6% or India’s 2–6%. By setting successively lower short-term inflation targets, they believe financial markets are impressed.

But by doing so, they prevent themselves from realizing their full economic potential. Striving to emulate the developed countries’ 2% target constrains both growth and structural transformation. After all, it was quite arbitrarily set for no economic reason, except the NZ finance minister liking the ‘0 to 2 by ’92’ slogan!

Arbitrary targets
While there is little disagreement about likely problems associated with ‘hyper-’ or very high inflation, the threshold beyond which inflation becomes harmful is a moot issue on which there is no consensus.

Inflation targets are arbitrarily set, as acknowledged in an IMF paper. Hence, “any choice of a medium-term inflation target for these [developing] countries is bound to be arbitrary”. Harry Johnson had found early IMF empirical studies of the inflation-growth relationship to be inconclusive.

Later studies did not settle the matter. For example, Michael Bruno and William Easterly at the World Bank concluded that inflation under 40% did not tend to accelerate or worsen, and “countries can manage to live with moderate – around 15–30 percent – inflation for long periods”.

MIT’s Rudiger Dornbusch and Stanley Fischer, later IMF Deputy Managing Director, came to similar conclusions. They found moderate inflation of 15–30% did not harm growth, noting “such inflations can be reduced only at a substantial short-term cost to growth”.

A 2000 IMF paper suggested 11% inflation was optimal for developing countries; 7% inflation would have “an insignificant negative effect” on growth, while 18% inflation remained positive for growth. Yet, it recommended an IT target of 7–11% and “bringing inflation down to single digits and keeping it there”.

The IMF Independent Evaluation Office’s 2007 report on Sub-Saharan Africa found “mission chiefs are evenly divided on whether (or not) the Fund should tolerate higher [than 5%] inflation rates…IMF policy staff acknowledge that the empirical literature on the inflation-growth relationship is inconclusive”.

Hence, very low inflation targets are quite arbitrary without any sound theoretical and empirical bases. But the IMF and its chorus of economists have not hesitated to insist on keeping inflation very low by promoting IT for all, especially to susceptible developing country policymakers.

Constraining development
Very low inflation targets particularly constrain low-income countries (LICs). LIC governments face modest revenue bases and limited domestic savings. Hence, they should borrow more from central banks to finance their development spending.

But such borrowings are prohibited by law in many developing countries – especially those which have formally embraced IT – to prove their anti-inflationary commitment. Thus, a potentially major means for central banks to be more developmental is denied by statute.

By raising interest rates to keep inflation very low, central banks reduce not only consumer spending, but also business investments. Such policies also increase both public and private debt burdens, in turn constraining spending.

Thus, overall aggregate demand remains depressed, limiting growth unless compensated by greater export demand. But higher interest rates attract capital inflows, causing exchange rates to appreciate, undermining export competitiveness.

Means deny ends
IT policy is problematic for two major reasons. First, it demands debilitatingly low targets. Second, it denies central banks’ potential developmental role by insisting on price stability – read ‘containing inflation’ – as its principal goal.

IMF researchers have acknowledged, “identifying the growth effects of moving from, say, 20 percent inflation to 5 percent has been challenging”.

They concluded, “pushing inflation too low – say, below 5 percent – may entail a loss of output …, suggesting a need for caution in setting very low inflation targets in low-income countries… In particular, inflation targets should be set so as to help avoid risks of an unintended contractionary policy stance.”

Also, San Francisco US Federal Reserve Bank research has concluded, “developing economies that adopted an inflation target did not show any substantial gains in growth in the medium term compared with those that did not adopt a target”.

Thus, developing countries prioritizing IT have, often unwittingly, curtailed their own economic prospects. Falsely promoted as means to enhance growth, jobs and development, IT, in fact, constrains them – the ultimate con!

Rejecting the IT fetish does not mean doing nothing about inflation. Instead, developing countries need to better know the economic challenges they face and the efficacy of their policy tools. National economic priorities should be comprehensively addressed without subordinating all policy goals to the god of IT.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Inflation Targeting Voodoo
• Resist Inflation Phobia Coup
• Inflation Paranoia Threatens Recovery
• Inflation Bogey Blocking Recovery
• Central Banks Must Address Pandemic Challenges

Mary Robinson with Elizabeth Wathuti at COP26 in Glasgow. Credit: The Elders

By Mary Robinson
DUBLIN, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

Women are already leaders on the frontlines of the climate crisis. Sisters Nina and Helena Gualinga of the Kichwa Sarayaku community in Ecuador work tirelessly to protect Indigenous land. Archana Soreng from the indigenous Khadia tribe in Odisha, India is a talented climate researcher and advisor to the United Nations Secretary General. Ugandan activist Vanessa Nakate is encouraging a whole generation of young people to fight for their right to a safe future. There are thousands of other women and girls working tirelessly to protect our planet whose names I do not know but who deserve to be acknowledged this International Women’s Day too.

Many women and girls working in the fight against climate change have stepped into leadership not out of choice but out of necessity – the brunt of the climate emergency, which amplifies existent inequalities, is often felt hardest by women and girls.

Women’s vulnerability to climate change is social, economic, and cultural. Women in climate vulnerable nations tend to be highly dependent on local natural resources for their livelihoods, particularly in rural areas where they shoulder the responsibility for household supplies. However, women must not be seen as passive victims of climate change but as active and effective agents of change.

Women have long been the custodians of the environment in many traditional societies. It is women who are often the providers of food, the stewards of seed banks, and the decision-makers at household level. It is often women who are the early adopters of new techniques and who are frequently the first responders in disaster situations. Our world is also full of remarkable women leading the way as climate scientists, litigators, community organisers, business owners, policy-makers, inventors and more.

While it is important for us to celebrate the vital contributions of women and girls around the world in tackling the climate emergency, we must in turn recognise the gender inequality at the heart of this crisis. The gendered dimensions of climate change and its responses are still insufficiently addressed in either emerging climate finance architecture or in most countries’ strategies for climate mitigation and adaptation.

As exposed in last month’s IPCC report, the threat of climate change reaches across sectors, regions and populations. Tackling it will require all of humanity’s ideas, efforts, and innovations. Ensuring that diverse populations are represented in key decision-making processes is essential if we are to succeed in this colossal task.

We must start to see scaled-up funding for women’s capacity building as well as strengthened efforts to support women and girls to lead on addressing climate change at community, national, and international level.

According to Oxfam, the latest figures show that only 1.5 percent of overseas climate-related development funds named gender equality as their primary objective. Of this, only 0.2 percent was reaching organisations led by women or for women. Things are slowly improving, but there is still a long way to go.

The Elders – the group of independent global leaders working together for peace and human rights that I chair – are calling for more investment for climate vulnerable nations so that millions more women and girls can build resilience to climate and disaster risks. A crucial element of that must be increased financial support for adaptation as well as mitigation.

At COP26 international leaders signed a statement calling for the role of women to be advanced in addressing climate change. This statement remains open for signatures from nation states until the 66th meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women, to be held later this month: an event that will have a focus on women’s empowerment in the context of climate change, the environment and disaster risk reduction.

Pledges made on gender-just climate action, like the ones made at COP26 and earlier in 2021 at the Generation Equality Forum, are important; but we now need to see those promises transformed into action. Equitable and inclusive decision-making means not only ensuring that women and girls are always at decision-making tables but also that women and girls from particularly marginalised groups such as indigenous and rural communities are there too.

At COP26, there was a lack of female representation across the board when it came to climate discussions – it was too male, pale and stale. COP27 must not look like that.

This International Women’s Day should be the last one where we are left discussing a lack of representation in climate decision making. When women and girls are excluded from informing climate negotiations and implementation processes, it undermines efforts to protect our collective future.

A young climate activist I greatly admire, Elizabeth Wathuti from Kenya, recently said: “I believe in our human capacity to care deeply and act collectively.” Like Elizabeth, I believe in humanity enough to still have hope that we can do what is needed to address the climate crisis – but it will take all of us.

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

Mary Robinson is Chair of The Elders
 
The following opinion piece is part of series to mark International Women’s Day, March 8.

By Jan Lundius
STOCKHOLM, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

Georg Hegel once stated: ”What experience and history teach is this — that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it.” Nevertheless, self-taught historian Vladimir Putin has learned to interpret history in his own manner. During COVID he went down in Kremlin’s archives and after studying old maps and treaties he wrote a lengthy essay On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, while declaring that ”the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state is an aggression directed against Russia.”

In his essay, Putin stressed Ukraine’s cultural and economic dependency on Russia, among other opinions stating that “in 1991-2013, Ukraine’s budget savings amounted to more than USD 82 billion, while today, it holds on the mere USD 1.5 billion of Russian payments for gas transit to Europe.” However, he fails to mention that after 2013 Ukraine lost approximately 100 billion USD due to the Kremlin backed war in Donbas and the Russian annexation of Crimea. Putin avoids the fact that gas prices were politically motivated, rising and falling depending on Ukrainian politicians’ support of Russian interests. His other history lessons are quite detailed, though nevertheless equally biased, based as they are on an Utopian idea of Russky Mir, a Russian world uniting all Russian-speakers now scattered among different countries, which once belonged to the Russian tsardom.

For example, he claims that Crimea is a natural part of Russia, though he ignores to explain how this came about:

In 1441, Mongols established the Crimean Khanate and their descendants, the Tatars, governed Crimea until 1783, when the area was annexed by the Russian Empire. A move that was part of an effort to colonize the fertile lands north of the Black Sea, which the tsars named Novorossiya, New Russia – a term frequently used by Putin while referring to the southern and eastern parts of Ukraine.

The “russification” of Crimea triggered an exodus to the Ottoman Empire. Between 1784 and 1793, 300,000 Tatars emigrated, out of an original population of about one million, while Russian settlers moved in. The Crimean War (1853-1856) caused another mass-migration when approximately 300,000 Tatars left Crimea. During World War II, Stalin decided to “empty Crimea of Tatars”. Soviet military forces did from the 18th to the 20th of May 1944 force “191,044 Tatars” to border cattle trains to become “resettled” far away in the East.

Vladimir Putin is now justifying his fierce attack on Ukraine by referring to genocide: “The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime.” The term genocide (from Greek génos, family/clan/race and Latin cīdium, killing/murder) was in 1943 coined by Raphaël Lemkin, who in 1900 was born in Bezwodne, a village that in those days was part of the Russian Empire, nowadays it is found in western Belarus.

During World War I, Bezwodne became part of the battleground between German and Russian armies. The Lemkin house was burned down and after the Germans had seized their crops, horses and livestock the Lemkins sought shelter in the woods, where the youngest of Raphaël’s two brothers died from pneumonia and malnutrition.

In 1920, Raphaël enrolled at the Jan Kazimierz University in what at the time was Lwów. This ancient town had been ruled by Germans, Ruthenians, Russians, Tatars, Turks, Cossacks and even Swedes. Most of its existence, Lwów had been part of Polish territory, until it in the eighteenth century was annexed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After World War I, the town became Polish again, until the Soviet Union conquered it in 1939. Germans, calling it Lemberg, occupied the town between 1941 and 1944, after that the Soviets came back. In 1991 it became independent Ukraine’s second biggest town and is now called Lviv.

Each change of government was accompanied by protests and upheavals, generally followed by violence as emperors, kings, khans, hetmans and sultans imposed changes in language, religion, culture, and law, while inviting people from other areas to settle in the town.

Raphaël Lemkin, who for ten years studied and taught at the Kazimierz University, became increasingly engaged by the question why huge groups of people were harassed and ”put to death for no other reason than a language different from rulers who dictated laws and customs.” In his autobiography, Lemkin described his distress about the plight of Armenians, particularly after Taalat Pasha in 1915 had ordered an estimated 800,000 to 1.2 million Armenian women, children, and elderly to be sent on death marches into the Syrian Desert. In 1918, Taalat Pasha was in Brest-Litovsk as Turkish representative during peace negotiations between Germany and Russia. When Allied fleets in November 1918 entered the Bosphorus, Taalat Pasha chose to remain in Berlin, where he on 15 March 1921 was assassinated by a young Armenian, Soghomon Tehlirian.

Lemkin asked his professor in international law why Tehlirian was tried for murder, while no one had arrested a mass-murderer like Taalat Pasha. The professor answered: ”Consider the case of a farmer who owns a flock of chickens, he kills them, that’s his job; if you intervene, you are harassing him.” Lemkin responded: “But … Armenians are human beings, not chickens.” The professor declared: ”When you interfere in the internal affairs of a country [in this case – Turkey], you are violating that country’s sovereignty.” After this encounter, Lemkin continued to wonder why Tehlirian’s assassination of Taalat Pasha by most jurists was considered to be a lesser crime than a Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire ordering the death of more than a million individuals. Lemkin wrote: “How could the flag of sovereignty protect people trying to destroy an entire minority? Wasn’t it possible to create a norm in international law that worked for the prosecution of mass murder?” Tehlirian was by the Berlin court ”acquitted on grounds of insanity.”

From 1929, Lemkin worked for the District Court of Warsaw. When Poland in September 1939 was caught between invading German and Soviet armies he barely evaded German capture and execution, reaching Sweden through Lithuania. After a year as lecturer at the University of Uppsala, Lemkin escaped to the US. In 1944, he introduced the term genocide in his Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, an analysis of Nazi terror rule explaining why there are legal grounds for persecuting individuals who order and support genocide. During the Nuremberg trials Lemkin served as legal advisor to Chief Counselor Robert H. Jackson. In the 1950s, Lemkin cooperated with the Government of Egypt to establish means to outlaw genocide under domestic penal law. He also worked with Arab delegations at the UN to build a case to prosecute French officials for genocide in Algeria.

In 1953, Lemkin identified the Holodomor as a genocide. The word means “a plague of famine” and is used to designate the 1932-1933 Ukraine famine with an estimated 3,5 to 7 million victims. Ukraine’s ”black earth” is among the most fertile in the world and due to a constant lack of wheat in the rest of the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin’s totalitarian regime collectivized agricultural activities in Ukraine, at the same time as it tried to annihilate all opposition. However, while Soviet authorities were squeezing out ever increasing amounts of food, directing them to Russian cities and industrial centres, most Ukrainian collectives proved to be inefficient. In the 1930s, lack of grain became acute and agricultural products were violently confiscated from farmers, creating a state of terror and starvation. Mendacious propaganda was used to cover up expropriations, deportations and killings.

In 2006, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law declaring Holodomor to be a ”Soviet genocide against the Ukrainian people.”

Several researchers have denied that the Holodomor was primarily waged against Ukrainians. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whose father was Russian and mother Ukrainian, stated that the Holodomor, like other catastrophes occurring under Soviet rule, was a result of a generally inhuman Soviet ideology and not much different from the 1921 famine during which six million Soviet citizens died.

However, it cannot be denied that Ukraine, due to its fertile land and its crucial position between power hungry empires, constantly suffered incursions from regimes which terrorized and subdued its inhabitants. The word Ukraine appears to emanate from an old Slavic term for ”borderland”. In his 2010 book Blood Lands, Timothy Snyder described how 13 million people within a relatively short time span were killed within border regions stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea. They became victims of Soviet terror, of the Holodomor, of the Nazi staged Holocaust/Porajmos that exterminated at least 5.4 million Jews and Roma/Sinti. During the same time, 3.1 million Soviet prisoners died in Nazi camps and half a million Germans in the Soviet Gulag, where millions of Russians, Poles, Balts and Ukrainians also perished.

Of the estimated 8.6 million Soviet troop losses during World War II, 1.4 million were ethnic Ukrainians, while Ukrainian civilian casualties are estimated at 6 million, including1.5 million Jews killed by Nazi Einsatzgruppen. More than 700 Ukrainian cities and towns and 28,000 villages were destroyed. Five days ago, Moscow people brought flowers to the Kyiv memorial by The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. However, after an hour police had thrown them away and sealed off the area.

It is against this background Vladimir Putin presents his biased slice of history, ignoring millions of war casualties, genocide, state induced famine and enormous deportations. His dream of a “New Russia” appears to be nothing else than a version of an “Old Russia”, characterized by state violence, famine, war and mass deportations.

Once again Russian politics are dominated by a man imbued with a sense of Russian superiority, someone who apparently cannot perceive the difference between human victims and slaughtered chickens. The spectre of genocide might once again rise from its grave inflicting new ordeals on a long suffering Ukrainian population, not to mention the terrible possibility of a nuclear war.

Main sources: Applebaum, Anne (2018) Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine. London: Penguin Books. Lemkin, Raphael (2013) Totally Unofficial: The Autobiography of Raphael Lemkin. New Haven CT: Yale University Press. Snyder, Timothy (2012) Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. Putin, Vladimir (2021) On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. https://www.prlib.ru/en/article-vladimir-putin-historical-unity-russians-and-ukrainians

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');