ReportWire

Tag: Jan Lundius

  • Origins of the Gaza Catastrophe – Part 1

    Origins of the Gaza Catastrophe – Part 1

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jan Lundius (stockholm, sweden)
    • Inter Press Service

    The State of Israel has often used hasbara, now generally described as public diplomacy, meaning that policies and actions have not been denied, but at the same time has any criticism of such facts been presented as biased and/or tinged by “antisemitism”.

    To avoid being labelled as antisemitic the following article is mainly based on two books by Ilan Pappé – The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories and The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.

    Pappé is considered to be a member of the New historians, a loosely defined group of Israeli historians who challenge the official version of Israel’s role in the 1948 expulsion of Palestinians. An event which among Palestinians is called Nakba, the Catastrophe.

    In 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs, about half of the former British controlled Mandatory Palestine’s predominantly Arab population, fled from their homes.

    At first they were attacked by Zionist paramilitaries and after the establishment of the State of Israel by its regular army, acting on direct orders from the newly founded nation’s leaders.

    Dozens of massacres targeted the Arab population and between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were destroyed. Village wells were poisoned and properties looted to prevent Palestinian refugees from returning.

    The New historians debunked several myths. For example, that the British Government tried to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state – it was actually against the founding of a Palestine state.

    The official version states that Palestinians fled their homes on their own free will, instigated to do so by surrounding Arab states. However, the majority of them were actually expelled, and/or fled out of a well-founded fear of the Israeli army.

    Furthermore, general opinion has been that the surrounding Arab nations at the time were united and more powerful than the newly established State of Israel – as a matter of fact, Israel had the advantage both in manpower and arms, while the Arab nations were divided by internal strife and did not have a coordinated plan to destroy Israel.

    The recurrent praise that the Israelis made the desert bloom and took over a land without a people for a people without a land, are according to Pappé unfounded clichés. Before the ethnic cleansing the vast majority of agricultural land was being cultivated by Palestinians. It is estimated that on the eve of the 1948 war, around 739,750 acres of agriculturally apt land were being cultivated by Palestinians, actually greater than the physical area which was under cultivation in Israel almost thirty years later.

    The appropriation of Palestinian land occurred in conjunction with a Land Acquisitions Law allowing for a mass transfer of the entire Palestinian economy to the Israeli state. Practically overnight, the State gained control of a vast amount of fertile land, 73,000 houses, and 7,800 workshops. This dropped the average cost of settling a Jewish family in Palestine from 8,000 USD to 1,500 USD.

    Furthermore, the whole issue whether Palestine belongs to “Jews” or “Arabs” is somewhat spurious. It is a myth that any region constitutes a closed environment. Trade, immigration, invasion and intermarriage are part of any nation’s history.

    Across the millennia, additions and losses have befallen people living in Palestina (it was the Romans who in 131 CE changed the denomination “Judea” into “Syria Palaestina”). Conquerors, like those of the Muslim faith, seldom replaced an entire native population, they only added to it.

    Many of the Palestinians of today are the Jews of yesteryears. Palestinian Arabs did not suddenly appear from the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century to settle in Palestine, most of those “Arabs” living there now are descendants of indigenous peoples who lived there before. People who, like most others, over time have changed their beliefs and traditions. For example, Sardinians eventually became Italians, but no one would suggest that Sardinians were kicked out and replaced by a foreign Italian people.

    We ought to separate political nationalist identities from the actual reality of a human being. Nationalism is a relatively modern concept, especially in the Middle East.

    Likewise, the Jewish diaspora was not the result of a sudden expulsion of Jews from their Holy land. It was, just as current migration, a result of various factors, including refugees from war and repression, forced labour, deportation, overpopulation, indebtedness, military recruitment, and not the least opportunities in business, commerce, and agriculture.

    Before the Romans in 70 CE destroyed Jerusalem and its temple and in 131 forbade Jews to settle there, large and prosperous Jewish communities existed in provinces like Egypt, Crete, Cyrenaica, Syria, Asia, Mesopotamia, and in Rome itself.

    However, the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem motivated many Jews to formulate a new self-definition and adjust their existence to the prospect of an indefinite period of displacement, that eventually would culminate in a return to a mostly imaginary realm of Israel. In 1948, this religious dream became a reality through the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel.

    A development that by most the U.S. and European politicians was considered to strengthen a “Western” strategic, economic, and political presence in the Middle East, at the same time as the establishment of Israel could ease the burden of a bad conscience for not having done enough to hinder the extermination of Jews, combined with easing the pressure to resettle and compensate the victims.

    Nowadays, the Sate of Israel does not only control the land granted to it by the British, but also territories inhabited by also areas like the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Gaza strip. In Gaza, Israel maintains control of its airspace, its territorial waters, no-go zones within the strip, and the population registry. Pappé has stated that

    “the tale of Palestine from the beginning until today is a simple story of colonialism and dispossession, yet the world treats it as a multifaceted and complex story – hard to understand and even harder to solve. Indeed, the story of Palestine has been told before: European settlers coming to a foreign land, settling there, and either committing genocide against or expelling the indigenous people. The Zionists have not invented anything new in this respect. But Israel succeeded nonetheless, with the help of its allies everywhere, in building a multilayered explanation that is so complex that only Israel can understand it. Any interference from the outside world is immediately castigated as naïve at best or anti-Semitic at worst.”

    On October 11th 2023, Hamas-led fighters breached the Gaza-Israel barrier, attacking military bases and massacring civilians in 21 communities, killing 1,139 people, including 695 Israeli civilians, among them 38 children, 71 foreign nationals, and 373 members of the Israeli security forces, while taking about 250 Israelis as hostages. Incidents of great brutality and rape were witnessed and reported.

    Israeli repercussion was swift and merciless. Israel has ravaged the Gaza Strip. Apartment buildings, mosques, schools, hospitals, and universities have been reduced to rubble.

    During their hunt for Hamas fighters Israel has deliberately targeted and destroyed civilian structures where civilians have sought refuge. On May 21st 2024, Israeli government offered its first estimate of the operation’s death toll, claiming its troops had killed 14,000 terrorists and 16,000 civilians. A week earlier the U.N. reported that approximately 35,000 individuals had died during the conflict, including 7,797 minors, 4,959 women and 1,924 elderly, the latter three groups with confirmed identities. Among the victims were 103 journalists and 196 humanitarian workers.

    At almost the same time, Save the Children reported that more than 13,000 children had been killed, while WHO stated that at least 1,000 children have had one or both legs amputated. On the 11th of August the death toll was estimated to be approximately 39,000 people.

    The killing is continuing unabated, worsened by starvation. WFP recently reported that 1.1 million Gaza inhabitants are facing catastrophic hunger.

    In northern Gaza, one in three children under two years of age suffer from acute malnutrition. According to estimates by UNICEF, people’s daily nutritional intake is down to 245 calories, i.e. less than a can of beans. This is mostly attributable to an Israeli blockade that according to UNICEF since March 1 has stopped 30 percent of aid missions, letting in a daily average of only 159 of the required 500 aid trucks.

    Even before October 11th people of Gaza had an intolerable existence, lacking sufficient access to electricity, potable water, food, and medical equipment. Unemployment rate was more than forty per cent, while children grew up in a world of intermittent war and persistent trauma, of barbed wire and surveillance. Israeli attacks continue while remains of Hamas’ military branch has become a drastically diminished insurgent force, which fighters pop up from the rubble to shoot at Israeli soldiers.

    An entire population has been severely punished for the presence of a fanatical, political party, which according to polls conducted in September 2023 by the majority of Gazans was considered to be repressive and corrupt, but which they were frightened to criticize. Hamas’s support was estimated to be between 27 and 31 percent, though since many Gazans are unable to perceive a viable solution to Israel’s iron grip on their confined strip of land, they consider armed resistance to be the only way out.

    In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu’s two decades long regime has tried to sabotage a two-state-solution by weakening the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, allowing for vast amounts of mainly Qatari money to reach Hamas, in exchange for maintaining a ceasefire and sowing division within Al-Fatah, the party governing the West Bank.

    Part of this policy has also been the increased support to 144 Israeli settlements within the West Bank, including 12 in East Jerusalem, and a discreet sustenance to over 100 “Israeli outposts”, i.e. settlements not authorized by the Israeli government. Over 450,000 Israeli settlers reside in the West Bank, with an additional 220,000 in East Jerusalem. Living in a settlement is made attractive through lower costs of housing compared to living in Israel proper. Government spending per citizen in settlements is double, in some cases triple, than what is spent per Israeli citizen in Israel proper.

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Israeli settlements on occupied territory is, according to international laws, illegal and established that Israel has “an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers from the occupied territories”. The Court is talking to deaf ears.

    A current expansion of settlements has involved the confiscation of Palestinian land and resources, leading to displacement of Palestinian communities while creating a source of tension and conflict. The UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that from 1 January to 19 September 2023, Israeli settlers killed 189 Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and wounded 8,192. The violence increased after October 3rd, after that date 460 Palestinians have so far been murdered by settlers. On average, there are every day three cases of settlers attacking Palestinians in the West Bank, resulting in the killing and injuring of Palestinians, harming their property, and preventing them from reaching their land, workplace, family, and friends.

    International ramifications are continuously unfolding – armed exchanges between Israel and Iran, between Israel and Hezbollah, Iran supported Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea, followed by Israeli counterattacks on Yemen, waves of pro-Palestine demonstrations across Europe, the U.S., and Arab capitals, combined with increased antisemitism. All this could for Israel mean its worst defeat ever, while at the same time it may for Palestinians prove to be more deadly and devastating than the Nakba.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • No Turning a Blind Eye to Protection Dominican Republic’s Natural Resources, Says Environment Minister

    No Turning a Blind Eye to Protection Dominican Republic’s Natural Resources, Says Environment Minister

    [ad_1]

    The island state of the Dominican Republic is extremely vulnerable to hurricanes, tropical storms, and floods. Furthermore, it is currently experiencing threats from climate change and pollution. This picture of Wallhouse, Dominica, was taken a few days after Category 5 Hurricane Maria struck the island. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS
    • by Jan Lundius (stockholm)
    • Inter Press Service

    The island state of the Dominican Republic is extremely vulnerable to meteorological phenomena such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and floods. Furthermore, it is currently experiencing threatening effects from climate change and pollution. Increasing temperatures are causing drought, which reduces crop yields and negatively affects water supplies. However, in spite of this, the nation’s economy has, during the last ten years, experienced some of the fastest growth in Latin America and the Caribbean. The period saw a 24 percent upsurge in hotels, bars, and restaurants, while construction and the industrial sector were thriving. The middle class is increasing and poverty is declining. The country has transitioned from being an agricultural society to one dominated by vast metropolitan areas during the last 15 years; its urban population has doubled. Nevertheless, sectors such as agriculture, industry, construction, and tourism are highly dependent on increasingly scarce natural resources, such as water, timber, and land, while unsustainable practices continue to cause environmental degradation.

    To prevent pollution and further depletion of natural resources, the Ministry of Environment regulates all activities that present a potential risk to the environment, implementing policies that allow the Ministry to enforce an environmental management and adaptation plan to avoid further damage. One example of environment protecting laws is that, according to the Dominican Constitution, water is part of the nation’s heritage. Rivers, lakes, lagoons, beaches, and coasts are considered to be public property. A 60-meter coastal strip running parallel to the sea is also considered part of the nation’s public property, accessible to the public and cannot be exploited.

    At the beginning of IPS’ discussion with the Dominican Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Miguel Ceara, we asked him if environmental issues are a priority for the current government.

    Miguel Ceara: To a very high degree. The Ministry is rather new. It was created in 2000 as the result of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. We are currently trying to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which was adopted by all UN Member States in 2015. The goals of this agenda are all interconnected and safeguarding the environment is a transversal theme that concerns all levels of society, demanding coordination and collaboration of all ministries, particularly with the cabinets in charge of issues like education, water, construction, security, etc.

    Many challenges lay ahead of us. Most important is to foment a new, general culture that promotes environmental health management as well as economic growth to enable us to finance the transformation needed if our society will be able to confront such a formidable threat as the one posed by climate change.

    IPS: Before you accepted your current position, you served as Minister for Economy, Planification, and Development and have now been Minister of Environment for just two years. When you entered this office, what did you perceive as your main challenge?

    Miguel Ceara: Lack of respect for environmental laws and a high level of permisologia, i.e. an inclination to turn a blind eye to violations of rules and regulations, paired with a readiness to grant permits where they should not have been permitted. Furthermore, the wages have been far too low for technicians and other people involved in the protection of natural resources.

    IPS: Reforestation has long been a priority for Dominican governments, though it has often been stated that it has seldom been a particularly successful endeavor.

    Ceara: Quite right, but reforestation has now become urgent; in two years’ time, more than 200 000 km2 will be planted with 20 million seedlings.

    IPS: Are there any protected areas in the Dominican Republic?

    Ceara: Approximately one-fourth of the national territory is protected, as is an additional 11 percent of the marine waters.

    IPS: What does this protection imply?

    Ceara: The exploitation of protected areas is forbidden. Unharmful and protective practices are allowed to help the vegetation evolve in a healthy, sustainable manner, safeguarding flora and fauna. However, it is expensive and quite difficult to preserve and protect these areas. Only within Los Haitises National Park are more than 400 soldiers deployed to protect it and apart from foresters and game wardens, we are in great need of expertise in nature preservation. We need geologists, geographers, agronomists, hydrologists, forest scientists, and biologists. The country already has a sufficient supply of marketers, economists, architects, and engineers. The government is currently supporting a Masters’ programme for 60 environmental technicians and more are needed.

    IPS: You mentioned a culture of permisologia, how do you deal with that problem?

    Ceara: We are currently digitalizing all permits and are at the same time checking and revising them. Transgressors are brought to court. We are trying to implement harsh laws to stop abuse, for example, by increasing vigilance to protect forests and vegetation around water sources. Extracting sand for cement production from riverbeds is strictly forbidden, sand can now only be harvested in mines; and harmful agricultural methods are also being limited and even forbidden.

    IPS: Can you mention some environmental threats that are unique to the Dominican Republic?

    Ceara: There are several. For example, sudden, huge downpours that have hit the island in recent times, possibly a result of climate change. On November 4, 2022, a precipitation of 266 mm was measured in the capital, the highest level ever recorded. Nevertheless, on November 19, 2023, the Dominican Republic received 431 mm of rain. Extreme precipitation caused floods, tearing down bridges and dams, while inundating fields and neighbourhoods. In the capital, the collapse of an overpass claimed nine lives.

    Another concern, caused by climate change, is algal blooms. Increasing temperatures are changing sea currents, which, in combination with fertilizing components reaching the sea, are stimulating Sargassum, a brown macro-algae, to experience a catastrophic bloom, creating dense layers on the sea surface. Occasionally, such huge carpets of algae move onto the Dominican coastline, destroying beaches and disrupting ecosystems, while creating a decomposing and stinking mess containing concentrations of heavy metals and arsenic. Currently, a moving eight thousand km2 expanse of 30 million metric tons of Sargassum is approaching Caribbean waters.

    The Dominican Republic is a low emitter of greenhouse gases, accounting for approximately 0.08 of global emissions. The land use sector currently absorbs more CO2 than it emits. However, energy demand is steadily on the rise and emissions have, during a five-year period, increased by 20 percent. As soon as it came into power, this government committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 27 percent by 2030, compared to 2010 levels. 

    IPS: Are Dominicans in general aware of the lethal threats of environmental degradation and climate change?

    Ceara: Unfortunately, not! There are always uncertainties and unforeseen events that make planning difficult. Emergencies and rising investment costs are affected by forces we have no control over. Resources are limited. Consumption is increasing, and so are waste and pollution. Cars are becoming more common, as are air conditioners and other energy-consuming appliances. Plastic is suffocating water sources. Planning is constantly being made to meet needs and demands, as well as find alternative, sustainable energy sources, and not the least to support increased awareness about environmental threats to health and society. However, much more has to be done.

    To adapt an entire nation to the painful transition from fossil fuel dependency to a society based on renewable energy is a costly and painful endeavor, but it has to be done and can conceivably be achieved. For example, this nation’s economy was once highly dependent on the production of sugar, coffee, cacao, and tobacco. Foreign competition eventually destroyed these sources of income, but the nation proved to be capable of overcoming a painful transition and through the expansion of other sectors, the economy could be recuperated.

    I believe that people can be convinced to change their habits and concerns. Take as an example how smoking has diminished by efforts to make people aware of its dangers. A similar result can be reached if people become aware of the dangers involved with mindless pollution, inadequate waste treatment, and wasteful energy consumption. To take care of our natural environment, it has to be a collective endeavor. This is not primarily a law enforcement issue, we cannot have a policeman checking every Dominican citizen. Education and awareness campaigns have to be carried out to enable every citizen, every municipality, and every neighbourhood to participate in the care and protection of our natural environment.

    IPS: However, mitigation of the harmful effects of climate change and general pollution is not only a local, but also a global concern.

    Miguel Ceara: Of course, this is a serious concern for us. To be quite frank, the worst culprits are developed nations and they don’t care enough about the harm done to developing countries. Climate change is a global issue, with a vast array of components. It has to be addressed on a multilateral basis and in a synchronized manner. So far, this has not been done, at least not to the extent it should be done. Developing nations are always in the back seat while negotiating with nations that are better off.

    Take as an example the issue of COVID mitigation. The Dominican Republic had early on made an agreement with a pharmaceutical company for timely vaccine delivery, but when the vaccines were going to be delivered, they became unavailable after being sold to bigger, wealthier nations. We had to wait and when the vaccine finally appeared, we had to pay a price four times higher than we had originally agreed upon. We cannot sit and wait for wealthier nations to assist us in addressing urgent environmental issues, we have to begin by acting alone.

    Furthermore, we are sharing our eco system with Haiti, a nation that now has become a failed state, with criminal gangs running amok, turning into private armies, fomenting fear, chaos, and increasing poverty. The Dominican Republic cannot, on its own, mitigate a crisis that threatens not only peace and cooperation, but also the ecosystem of the entire island. We expect the international community to step in and help Haiti, first for the good of the Haitian people, who deserve to live with dignity and without fear, but also to safeguard the ecosystem of the entire island. Without a stable government and institutional counterparts, it is impossible for us to reach out to Haiti to coordinate environmental policies.

    IPS: At last, a personal question: the President urged you to become minister of environment after your predecessor had been murdered in this very office. I know you hesitated while being aware of the danger involved in accepting a post like this one, as well as the fact that you are an economist and not an environmental expert. Why do you think the President chose you and if the ruling party wins the upcoming elections, do you intend to stay in your post?

    Ceara: I am aware that my predecessor was killed for applying the strict laws related to granting, or denying, permits related to environmental issues and the protection of our ecosystem. I assume the President gave me the offer since he considered me to be a man of personal integrity and experienced in planning and coordination. After being confronted with the challenges connected with environmental management and safeguarding our eco system, I am fully committed to continuing, in any capacity, to environmental protection and efforts to counteract the harmful effects of climate change.

    This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • A Climate Scientist’s View of COP 28

    A Climate Scientist’s View of COP 28

    [ad_1]

    Research team in the Arctic. Professor Tjernström is standing on the left.
    • Opinion by Jan Lundius (stockholm, sweden)
    • Inter Press Service

    More than 70,000 delegates are attending the COP28 in Dubai. Main delegates are the 47 representatives of the member states (called Parties), which constitute the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Business leaders, young people, climate scientists, Indigenous Peoples, journalists, and various other experts and stakeholders are also among the participants. Officially, COP 28 stands for the 28th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC.

    UNFCCC was established in 1992 to combat “dangerous human interference with the climate system”, in part by limiting the greenhouse gas emissions that compromise Earth’s entire ecosystem, a prerequisite for human existence. Among other items on its agenda COP 28 will address progress made in accordance with the Paris Agreement of 2015, when 195 Parties of the UNFCCC agreed to keep the rise of global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F), compared to pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F).

    To gain a scientific perspective of the meaning and influence of COP28, IPS asked Professor Tjernström about his views on climate change and what he assumes might be done to amend it. Michael Tjernström is since 2001 professor of Meteorology at Stockholm University. He has spent several periods at institutions such as CIRES, The Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) and The Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) and National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), all in Boulder, Colorado, USA. Professor Tjernström’s main research interests concern climate change in the Arctic. He has participated in several scientific expeditions to Arctic areas and is since 2011 a member of the International Arctic Science Committee.

    IPS: Professor Tjernström, can the outcomes of COP28 drastically affect current climate changes?

    Michael Tjernström: The COPs are a necessary and essential factor when it comes to addressing climate change. A COP summit might be likened to a regular check-up visit to the dentist. It can be painful, but is necessary for good dental hygiene. The dentist might find that your teeth are in a very bad state and to save them, urgent measures have to be taken – caries has to be amended, maybe a bad tooth has to be extracted, dental bridges inserted, etc . The point is that the dentist is an expert and you have to trust him. However, the decision to save your teeth is all yours. In a similar fashion the COPs intend to amend already present damages to the climate, determine their causes and try to prevent a negative development. But it is up to the members to act.

    IPS: How do you perceive the UN’s role in this endeavour?

    Michael Tjernström: There is absolutely no other global organization other than the UN which would be able to organize and be in charge of such a process. No other national, international, political or private, organisation would be able to establish a global consensus and general awareness, as well as maintaining the perseverance, stamina, objectivity and legal strength to do so. An endurance against all odds, but nevertheless made possible through the UN’s established rules, combined with its global and local outreach. Of course, there are cracks and concerns, but the administrative structure and operations of the UN are firmly based on the commitment of its member states.

    People, who in general are prone to criticize the UN system are often only perceiving the actions of the Security Council and how its commitment is crippled by the veto power of its five permanent members. However, this does not apply to the UNFCCC and its scientific support organisation, ICCP. As a scientist and propagator for awareness about climate change, I perceive the lack of understanding the great importance of the UN as a marketing problem. People are not aware of what this global organisation stands for, and even less so – its support of the global scientific community.

    IPS: Will you attend the COP summit in Dubai?

    Michael Tjernström: No, most scientists have through their research already made their fair contribution to efforts to combat climate change. The current state of research, results and warnings are comprehensively explained and diffused through the ICCP reports and scientists have thus no need to attend the COPs. Whether or not politicians listen to science or not is not determined by my presence at a COP.

    COP summits are more politically than scientifically motivated. However, they are based on the factual basis provided by ICCP reports. The COPs mainly attract other stakeholders than scientists, such as government representatives, spokespersons for environmentalist pressure groups and lobbyists representing the interests of fossil fuel-based industries, as well as oil and coal producing companies. Many such lobbyists try to find a place among decision makers, while environmentalists might be looking for political scapegoats.

    People and organisations are trying to highlight their own, often specific interests, some of them being based on doubtful assumptions and moral priorities. Environmentalists have often demanded that certain interest groups be excluded from COP summits, like those lobbying for the use of fossil fuels, interests of oil producers, as well as industrialists who, for the sake of their own profit, try to minimize the threat from global warming.

    Nevertheless, it is important that influential stakeholders are present . The global outreach demands this. Everyone has to be allowed to have their voice and concerns heard, as well as being provided with an opportunity to be informed about scientific achievements, new environmentally friendly technologies, and the threats of global warming.

    Industrialization based on non-polluting and zero emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as new eco-friendly technology, are essential for change and improvement. Environmentalism’s contributions are also important. Like most revolutionary movements radical environmentalists highlight political and capitalist motivational reasons and misconduct, while they demand change and sacrifice. Historically did socialists and suffragettes contribute to emancipation and justice. However, some revolutionaries have turned into fanatics, and some have concentrated on relatively minor but easily targeted issues while ignoring an overall picture. For example, opponents to air travel are maybe not fully aware of the fact that it actually contributes to only three percent of global greenhouse emissions, while private cars and other fossil-fuel based transportation means account for much more of carbon dioxide emissions . It might be stated that it would be more beneficial for the environment to limit the use of your car, than avoid travelling by air. Veganism may be considered as beneficial when it comes to emission of greenhouse gases, though methane emissions from ruminating animals constitutes less than five percent of greenhouse gas emissions. If we could stop throwing away a third of all the food we produce, this would be much more efficient and would also have other benefits. However, every effort to limit greenhouse emissions is worthy of attention, though decisive and comprehensive political actions are particularly crucial for achieving zero greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible. It is not enough to limit them; they must be eliminated.

    IPS: But can COPs really have the impact you could wish for?

    Michael Tjernström: In several respects, development is moving in the wrong direction, especially when it comes to acquiring knowledge. Many confide in badly informed, or even deceitful, social media and populist politicians. In certain circles a negative attitude to research and science is thriving. Science might by such groups be perceived as an essentially separate activity, practiced by an intellectual elite devoting itself to mutual admiration.

    The COPs make participants aware of the fatal threat of global warming. But more than that, it also makes the general public aware and therefore participants can be held accountable for their actions, or lack thereof, and are through legally binding agreements forced to take social and economic measures to amend the ongoing destruction of natural resources, and the atmosphere.

    IPS: What exactly is ICCP and what is its connection with the COPs

    Michael Tjernström: Generally speaking, people are not knowledgeable, most don’t know what ICCP is. The task of ICCP, i.e. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is to advance scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities and it does so by examining all relevant scientific literature on the subject. This comprehensive review and dissemination of scientific insights and research results include natural, economic and social impacts and risks. ICCP also covers possible responsive options. IPCC does not conduct its own original research, its mandate is to survey the research situation, while aiming at being objective and comprehensive, and only openly published results that have already been reviewed by experts can be used. Thousands of scientists and other experts then volunteer to review the findings and publications of ICCP, before its key findings are compiled into a Synthesis Report intended for policymakers and the general public. Experts have described the work of ICCP as the biggest peer review of the global scientific community. COP28 will discuss the 6th ICCP Synthesis Report, issued in March 2023.

    Most climate-related risks assessed in the Fifth Synthesis Report, issued in 2014, are in the Sixth Report deemed to be higher than earlier predicted and projected long-term impacts are worse than they were assumed to be in 2014. The Sixth Synthesis Report highlights that climatic and non-climatic risks will increasingly interact, creating compound and cascading risks, which will be extremely difficult to manage. The confidence of the conclusions has also been gradually increasing across the reports.

    The development of climatological research is quite fast, the lag in actual efforts to halt global warming is mainly to be found in decisive decision-making. The original ICCP reports contain tens of thousands of pages that few decision-makers can assimilate. The summary for policy makers is reviewed and edited by several stakeholders. Efforts may thus be made to mitigate alarming findings and adapt them to political concerns. However, changes and adaptions are carefully wetted in order to secure that none of them contradict actual and fact-based research results, predictions and warnings.

    IPS: Do you perceive yourself as a pessimist, or as an optimist?

    Michael Tjernström: I am both hopeful and worried. As a researcher I cannot allow myself to fall victim to paralyzing dystopias. As a scientist I contribute to the measurement of climatological processes, while taking the pulse of the current situation, but also looking for trends and measures to mitigate, and perhaps even hinder, a worrisome development. Accordingly, a scientist has to be a kind of optimist even in the face of despair. Furthermore, I consider that my role as a researcher has to involve the popularization and dissemination of research results. A role I appreciate and feel comfortable with.

    It is reasonable that we in the West, who so far have contributed by far the most to the ongoing climatological damage, also take our responsibility when it comes to mitigation and adaptation. We have the technological, historical and scientific prerequisites to make amends for all the damage we have caused and should therefore also go into the breach for the realisation of necessary improvements, while contributing to the economic means to do so.

    But the picture is complicated. China is making great progress in climate research, but is at the same time contributing to the world’s largest emissions of greenhouse gases in total, and is number two in the world in per capita emissions, yet is still claiming they should still be treated as a developing country and indeed has a large poor population in the face of a rapidly growing middle class. Africa is lagging behind in its industrial development and consequently have limited emissions, but must nevertheless already now end its dependence on fossil fuels.

    We in the West live well and safely and could without any major problems dismiss a lot of the gratuitous comfort we currently are enjoying. The drama is undeniable, even when the Paris Agreement was signed it was by some researchers pointed out that the 1.5 target was unattainable in reality. There is much talk about tipping points, when much of the existing ecological balance suddenly collapses, and that this might happen at a two degree rise in global temperature. But contributing factors are manifold and I don’t believe it will be happening in the near future. There is no really compelling evidence for most of these suggested tipping points. The most important thing is to immediately stop the burning of fossil fuels. In spite of all, I assume that much can and will be done to stop the worrisome development.

    IPS interchange with Professor Tjernström was quite extensive and informative. In a following article we will return to Professor Tjernström describing his own research and thoughts about current, and future climatological changes.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • What Happens in the Arctic Does Not Stay in the Arctic

    What Happens in the Arctic Does Not Stay in the Arctic

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jan Lundius (stockholm, sweden)
    • Inter Press Service

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Private and Public Spheres: Sweden and Mugabe

    Private and Public Spheres: Sweden and Mugabe

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jan Lundius (stockholm, sweden)
    • Inter Press Service

    Nazi Germany was equalled with Hitler, the Soviet Union with Stalin, Communist China with Mao, and now Russia with Putin. Another example of the identification of an entire nation with a totalitarian ruler was Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe. A president who apart from participating in the invasion of a neighbouring country led his nation into a bloody civil war.

    When I in the year 2000 was working for the Swedish International Development Cooperation (Sida) it was questioned why the Swedish Government every year granted SEK 140 million (USD 15 million) in development aid to Zimbabwe, a country governed by a scorned Robert Mugabe. At that time, Zimbabwe’s GNI had in one year shrunk by 13 percent, among other things due to unbudgeted expenses for the country’s participation in a war in the DR Congo (from 1998 to 2003 Zimbabwe’s participation in this war cost USD 1 million a day). A badly managed land reform had drastically reduced agricultural production. Even before the crisis 75 percent of the population was unable to meet necessary needs of food, clothing, schooling, health care and housing. Unemployment was over 60 percent, while 25 percent of the adult population was infected with HIV/AIDS.

    Misery was blamed on Mugabe’s misrule, but Swedish support to Zimbabwe continued during his reign. Since Swedish aid was initiated in the early1980s Zimbabwe had by the year 2000 received SEK 5 billion (approximately USD 460 million). Economic support currently amounts to USD 28 million per year.

    Swedish relations with Robert Mugabe indicate difficulties opinion leaders face while analysing the power game of other nations. For fear of being seen as harbouring neo-colonial attitudes “experts” often withheld critical judgment and were apt to name various leaders as ”hopes for Africa”. Unfortunately personal benefits from supremacy may prove to be a fatal temptation , several heroes of yesterday have after their seizure of power turn into despots.

    In the case of Zimbabwe (which at the time was “Rhodesia” governed by a white minority party, the Rhodesian Front) it was reasonable to oppose a regime that kept the majority of a nation’s population out of power because of the colour of their skin. Swedish debate has often been characterized by two different worldviews, either that the world consists of democracies and dictatorships, with the former being on the good side, or that an enduring conflict subsists between the “West” and the “Rest”, where “West” is seen as the villain. According to the latter understanding , it did not matter if Zanu (PF), the party of Robert Mugabe, actually pursued one-party rule, any opposition towards the “ancient colonial world order” was OK.

    It was thus more justifiable to support an armed struggle than the democratic consensus policy proclaimed by another Zimbabwean liberation group, Zapu, headed by Joshua Nkomo. The influential Pierre Schori, international secretary of the Swedish Social Democratic Party and close assistant to Prime Minister Olof Palme, supported the “eloquent and radical” Mugabe:

      I think that it had to do with personal contacts. In the case of Zimbabwe, we did not choose between Zapu and Zanu, but I think that when Joshua Nkomo came to Sweden it was often through the churches, while Robert Mugabe was more of a pure freedom fighter.

    Mugabe spoke fluent English, with an “exquisite” Oxford accent. He liked “open conversations and intellectual debates”, and in spite of an aversion to English colonialism he was an admirer of “Anglophone culture” and a fan of cricket, attesting that it “civilizes people and creates good gentlemen.”

    Mugabe had been arrested in 1963 and was after 1966 transferred to a cell he shared with Zanu’s leader Ndabaningi Sithole. Mugabe remained in custody for a further eight years, devoting his time to studies. He gained a masters in economics, a bachelor of administration, and two law degrees from the University of London. Amnesty International’s Swedish Group 34 had as its lot to support the imprisoned freedom fighter. One member of the group later stated;

    – He took advantage of the opportunity to study in prison and asked us to get literature. So we members shared the expenses and sent books to him. At that time, Mugabe was considered as a good guy. He was very fond of children and always remembered all our children’s names and greeted them in his letters. In addition to the books, Mugabe also asked for help with items such as a pair of pyjamas and tubes of toothpaste. Before his release, I and Eva Moberg , who had started the group, went and bought a suitcase, which we sent to him with his wife Sally.

    In 1958, Mugabe had moved to Ghana to gain a teacher’s certificate at the Achimota College where he met his first wife, Sally Hafton. During Mugabe’s imprisonment Sally first moved to London, where she taught at the Africa Centre. She also lived for several years in Sweden, mostly in the village of Heby, north of the university town of Uppsala. She kept close contact with the members of Amnesty Group 34. Mugabe appreciated that Sally was staying in Sweden, which he considered to be a “safe country”. Sally worked as a nanny, learned Swedish and campaigned for Zimbabwe’s freedom struggle, both in Sweden and England. In Sweden, she became a frequently seen and well-liked person.

    Mugabe was released in 1974 and resolved to leave Rhodesia for Moçambique. However, Samora Machel, who in 1975 became Moçambique’s president, was suspicious of Mugabe, whom he considered to be immature and belligerent. Furthermore, Machel suspected that Mugabe’s quick rise to power was due to machinations to get rid of Sithole as head of Zanu, a “prison coup” that might have been supported by Rhodesia’s white leader, Ian Smith. Machel put Mugabe under house arrest in Quelimane, far from the Zimbabwean guerrilla camps. It was rumoured that Machel was jealous of Mugabe’s intellectual achievements, preferring more down-to-earth men, especially the Zimbabwean guerrilla commander Josiah Tongogara. Contrary to Machel, Mugabe had never been an active fighter. When Machel in 1980 attended Mugabe’s inauguration as Zimbabwe’s president, he was well aware of Mugabe’s intention to form a one-party government, giving his Shona supporters absolute power. Machel addressed Mugabe:

      To ensure national unity, there must be no Shonas in Zimbabwe, there must be no Ndebeles in Zimbabwe, there must be Zimbabweans. Some people are proud of their tribalism. But we call tribalists reactionary agents of the enemy. Zimbabwe is the jewel of Africa. Don’t tarnish it!

    Some of Mugabe’s Swedish acquaintances were suspicious of him:

      He considered himself to be a superior teacher, a professor. He had six different degrees, he was a learned and well-read man. Therefore, he believed that he was right in everything, and if he was opposed, he went mad.

    Politicians and journalists declared that Mugabe could be charming and nice, but it was also alleged that he was a loner; admittedly a hard-working man, a voracious reader and not much given to laughter, but above all – a single-minded and extremely complex person, not easily captured by conventional categories. Some even claimed they considered him to be devoid of ordinary warmth and humanity; emotionally immature, homophobic and xenophobic. The last time a Swedish friend met with him, Mugabe told him:

      When we are elected presidents, we suddenly get enormous power in accordance with the constitution that we took over from the colonial power. We can fill positions for relatives, friends and party sympathizers. We live well and have a different life than the vast majority of our citizens. But when we leave the presidential palace, we have nothing, there are no presidential pensions.

    Mugabe coveted absolute power and when he obtained it, he hold on to it. Zanu came to act as yesterday’s colonial rulers. Even if power relations had changed, perceptions of power were the same. The Swedish Government did not lack documentation warning about Mugabe’s ambitions, nevertheless its conclusion was that he was Zimbabwe’s strongest leader and moreover “pro-Sweden”, accordingly Swedish aid could not be terminated, and even had to be increased.

    Already in 1977, Mugabe declared that “any man who maliciously plants contradictions within our ranks will be struck by the Zanu axe” and he was even more ruthless towards his former brothers in arms – Zapu, and its leader Joshua Nkomo.

    Zanu’s power base was among the Shona people, while Zapu found its strongest support among the Ndebeles in Matabeleland. Furthermore, the Cold War was reflected in the two parties’ relations to the outside world. Zapu received Soviet support, while Zanu relied on China, which wanted to undermine Soviet influence in Africa.

    In early 1983, the North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade, a unit subordinated to the presidency, began a crackdown on dissidents in Matabeleland. Over the following two years, thousands of Ndebele and Kalanga were accused of being “Zapu-traitors”, detained, marched to “re-education camps”, tortured, raped and/or summarily executed. Although there are different estimates, the consensus of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) is that more than 20,000 people were killed.

    Swedish aid workers were knowledgeable about these atrocities. Nevertheless, Swedish aid continued to be delivered to Zanu-controlled Zimbabwe. The former head of Sida’s aid office in Harare played down the events, declaring that “the civilian population in Matabeleland has been stuck between warring factions.” He advised against using aid as a means of pressure to get Mugabe to stop the mass killing.

    After the 93 years old Mugabe finally was removed from power, Zimbabwe continued to spiral down the abyss, while Swedish support is uninterrupted. The country is now ruled by Emmerson Mnangagwa, who once was a close ally to Mugabe. A brutal man who in 1983 described Government opponents as “cockroaches and bugs requiring DDT to be removed.” In 1998, Mnangagwa was put in charge of Zimbabwe’s intervention in the DR Congo wars and accused of “swapping Zimbabwean soldiers’ lives for mining contracts.” Mnangagwa does not further human rights, instead his government has deepened Zimbabwe’s economic struggles, enabled endemic corruption, fuelled instability, and targeted human rights activists and journalists. It is estimated that Zimbabwe may lose up to half the value of its annual GDP of USD 21.4 billion due to corrupt economic activities. Money laundering is among the murky deals said to be carried out under Mnangagwa’s aegis. Under diplomatic cover, criminals send unaccounted cash in exchange of equivalent amounts in Zimbabwean gold, and then sell it for seemingly legitimate money.

    Swedish support to Mugabe and his successor might be considered as an effort to alleviate the plight of Zimbabwe’s citizens, but it might also be interpreted as being based on simplifications of a complicated reality and furthermore relying on one man’s power. When Mugabe’s abuse of sovereignty led to massacres, they were minimalized by those of those who had bet on him and the misrule of his successor is hardly noticed.

    The world is now wondering whether the majority of Russia’s population will continue to support its strong man. If Putin’s nation will be weaken or strengthened by such encouragement. The stakes are high and predictions are generally gloomy.

    Main sources: Yap, Katri P. (2001). Uprooting the weeds: Power, ethnicity and violence in the Matabeleland conflict. Ph.D Thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam and various Swedish newspaper articles.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • The United Kingdoms, USAs and Russias Great Game: A History Lesson about War and Greed

    The United Kingdoms, USAs and Russias Great Game: A History Lesson about War and Greed

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jan Lundius (stockholm)
    • Inter Press Service

    The Great Game was a political and diplomatic confrontation between British – and Russian Empires, which continued for most of the 19th and parts of the 20th centuries. Britain’s role was eventually taken over by the US. The Great Game mainly affected Mesopotamia (Iraq), Persia (Iran), and Afghanistan, though it had, and still has, repercussions on a wide range of neighboring territories.

    Britain originally feared that the Russian Empire’s ultimate goal was to dominate Central Asia and reach the Indian Ocean through Persia, thus threatening Britain’s Asian trade links and its domination of India.

    Britain posed as the World’s first free society, declaring its adherence to Christian values, respect for private property, and democratic institutions. Claims bolstered by an advanced industry, fueled by steam power and iron, as well as an ever increasing use of oil. English leaders assumed their nation had a God-given task to spread “civilization” and that such a worthy cause permitted them to exploit the earth’s natural resources, as well as the world’s labor force. Similarly to the Brits, the Russians, the Yankees, and the French considered themselves to be “civilizing forces”.

    The quest for dominion was carried out in a traditional manner – pitching internal fractions against each other and let them do most of the fighting. Nevertheless, this strategy eventually led to direct clashes between “world powers”. Britain strived to convince the Russian army that it did not have a chance against the British war machine. The UK, France and Italy felt threatened by a growing influence of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires. Accordingly, these nations supported an increasingly weakened Ottoman Empire, intending it to remain a buffer zone blocking Russia’s expanding war fleet from the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean.

    As part of this policy, Britain and France provided arms and money to anti-Russian insurgents in Chechnya, thus contributing to an enduring tradition of Chechen terrorism against Russia. After a minor scuffle between the Russian – and Ottoman Empires, Russia occupied the Principate of Wallachia (Romania), prompting France and Great Britain to attack Crimea with a huge military force.

    The Crimean War (1853-56) proved that the Tsar’s army was no match for the allied forces. Russia was humiliated and its expansion towards the European mainland and meddling in Persia and Afghanistan were halted. Instead people living on the steppes of Central Asia and Siberia continued to be subdued and forced to join the Russian Tsardom.

      The Crimean disaster had exposed the shortcomings of every institution in Russia – not just the corruption and incompetence of the military command, the technological backwardness of the army and navy, or the inadequate roads and lack of railways that accounted for the chronic problems of supply, but the poor condition and illiteracy of the serfs who made up the armed forces, the inability of the serf economy to sustain a state of war against industrial powers, and the failures of autocracy itself.

    The meddling of imperialists in other nations’ affairs was gradually worsened by efforts to secure fossil fuels for their own benefit. Refined petrol was originally used to fuel kerosene lamps and became increasingly important when street lighting was introduced. After 1857, oil wells drilled in Wallachia became very profitable, inspiring a search for new oilfields in the east. In 1873, the Swede Robert Nobel established an oil refinery in Azerbaijan, adding Russia’s first pipeline system, pumping stations, storage depots, and railway tank cars. At the same time, Calouste Gulbenkian assisted the Ottoman government to establish the oil industry in Mesopotamia. Gulbenkian eventually became the world’s wealthiest man.

    Profit from these endeavors increased through assembly-line mass production of motor vehicles, introduced by Henry Ford in 1914. However, the main reason for gaining control of oil was belligerent. The English First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, realized that if the British navy was fuelled by oil, instead of coal, it would be irresistible: “We must become the owners or at any rate the controllers at the source of at least a proportion of the supply of natural oil which we require.” In 1914, Churchill feared that this could be too late – the Germans were already on their way to conquer the Middle Eastern oil fields. Together with the Ottomans they were finishing the Berlin-Baghdad railway line, which would it make possible for the German army to transport troops to the Persian Gulf and onwards to Persian oilfields.

    Germany and its allied Ottoman Empire lost World War I and the Berlin-Baghdad railway never reached the Persian Gulf. In accordance with the so-called Sykes-Picot Agreement Arab territories of the former Ottoman Empire were divided into French and British “spheres of influence”. In 1929, the newly formed Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), a joint endeavor of British, French and American oil interests, brokered by Gulbenkian, received a 75-year concession to exploit crude oil reserves in Iraq and Persia, and eventually in what would become the United Emirates.

    Access to oil continued to be a major factor in World War II. The German invasion of USSR included the goal to capture the Baku oilfields, which had been nationalized during the Bolshevik Revolution. However, the German Army was defeated before it reached the oil fields.

    The Germans had pursued a relatively benign policy towards the USSR’s Muslim population of Caucasus and neighboring areas. This was after the war taken as an excuse for Stalin’s treatment of “treacherous ethnic elements”. Forced internal migration had begun already before the war and eventually affected at least 6 million people. Among them 1.8 million kulaks, mainly from Ukraine, who were deported from 1930 to 1931, one million peasants and ethnic minorities were driven from Caucasus between 1932 to 1939, and from 1940 to 1952, a further 3.5 million ethnic minorities were resettled.

    Nearly 8,000 Crimean Tatars died during these deportations, while tens of thousands perished subsequently due to the harsh exile conditions. The Crimean Tatar deportations resulted in the abandonment of 80,000 households and 360,000 acres of land. From 1967 to 1978, some 15,000 Tatars succeeded in returning legally to Crimea, less than 2 percent of the pre-war Tatar population. This remission was followed by a ban on further Tatar settlements.

    In 1944, almost all Chechens were deported to the Kazakh and Kirgiz Soviet republics. Accordingly, the Russian presence in Caucasus and Ukraine increased and so was Russian control of these areas’ natural resources, including wheat, coal, oil and gas.

    After World War I, Britain had first tried to halt the Bolshevik penetration of Iran and did in 1921 support a coup d’état placing the UK-friendly general Reza Shah as leader of the nation. When Britain and USSR eventually became allies against Nazi Germany they did together attack Iran and replaced Reza Shah with his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Reza Shah had become “far too Nazi-friendly.”

    Following a 1950 election, Mohammad Mosaddegh became president of Iran. He was committed to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, AIOC (successor of the IPC mentioned above). In a joint effort the Secret Intelligence Services of the UK and the US, MI6 and CIA, organized and paid for a “popular” uprising against Mosaddegh, though it backfired and their co-conspirator, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, fled the country. However, he did after a brief exile return and this time a coup d’état was successful. The deposed Mosaddegh was arrested and condemned to life in internal exile.

    Mosaddegh’s internally popular effort to remove oil revenues from foreign claws inspired other Middle East leaders to oppose Britain and France. In 1956, the Egyptian president Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal Company, primarily owned by British and French shareholders. An ensuing invasion by Israel, followed by UK and France, aimed at regaining control of the Canal, ended in a humiliating withdrawal by the three invaders, signifying the end of UK’s role as one of the world’s major powers. The same year, USSR was emboldened to invade Hungary, quenching a popular uprising.

    In 1960, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded in Baghdad. This was a turning point toward national sovereignty over natural resources. The US Iranian protégé, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, eventually came to play a leading role in OPEC where he promoted increased prices, proclaiming that the West’s “wealth based on cheap oil is finished.” The US was losing its ability to influence Iranian foreign and economic policy and discretely began to support the religous extremist Khomeini, who initially claimed that American presence was necessary as a counterbalance to Soviet influence. However, after coming to power in 1979 Khomeini revealed himself as a fierce opponent to the US. The US and some European governments thus ended up supporting the brutal Saddam Hussein’s war on Iran. The Iraqui leader, heavily financed by Arab Gulf states, suddenly became a ”defender of the Arab world against a revolutionary Iran.” The war ended in a stalemate,with approximately 500,000 killed.

    Ukraine is one last example of how a country has ended up in a siutaion where a superpower use its military force to impose its will upon it, while implying that other nations have similar intentions. Times are constantly changing and hopefully Russia will realise, like the UK once did, that it cannot maintain its might and strength through armed invasions, but instead have to rely on diplomacy and peaceful negotiations.

    Russia seems to be stuck in a time capsule where foreign greed and meddling in other nations’ internal affairs resulted in ruthless wars and immense human suffering. As the German philosopher Hegel stated in 1832:

      What experience and history teach is this — that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • War, Greed and Mass Manipulation

    War, Greed and Mass Manipulation

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jan Lundius (stockholm)
    • Inter Press Service

    Soon business flourished, satisfying foreign investors eager to enjoy Russia’s vast deposits of natural riches. At the same time, fear of terrorism was boosted by explosions in heavily populated residential areas. Putin’s answer to these assumed terrorist threats was in accordance with von Clausewitz´s advice to use “force unsparingly, without reference to the quantity of bloodshed.” The pursuing escalation of the war in Chechnya, pinpointed as the origin of terrorism in Russia, made Putin a nationalist hero, while his characteristics as teetotaler, capable administrator, quick learner and talented actor made him assume the role of a Hollywood-inspired saviour/hero. He single-highhandedly flew planes and rode bare-chested through the wilderness surrounding Siberian rivers. Media lionised him as a rough and strong judo/black-belt champion capable of leading an entire, long suffering nation onto a straight path to prosperity.

    Some worrisome signs were nevertheless written on the wall. In 2004, Putin declared the collapse of the Soviet Union as” the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century.” Meanwhile, his acolytes were amassing the spoils from the collapsed Soviet Empire. Putin supported and protected those oligarchs who backed him, while bankrolling his inner circle.

    In Munich 2007, Putin bared his teeth and claws in a speech given at an international Security Conference. He declared that the US was a predatory nation prone to apply an ”almost unconstrained hyper-use of force – military force – in international relations plunging the world into an abyss of conflicts.” This revelation was in 2008 followed by Russia´s military assault on neighbouring Georgia.

    General elections were rigged, while some political opponents ended up dead, like Boris Nemtsov, who in 2015 was killed on a bridge close to the Kremlin. Alex Navalny, Putin’s most prominent and fearless opponent, was arrested and imprisoned for thirteen years. Out of jail, he was in 2020 poisoned on a flight to Siberia. Close to dying, he was brought to Germany for expert treatment. After recovering, Navalny went back to Russia, where he was immediately put on trial and imprisoned.

    Non-compliant oligarchs were and are routinely harassed. First to be rounded up were those who controlled independent media, like Vladimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezovsky. Both fled the country. In 2013, Berezovsky died ”in suspicious circumstances”. Another oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who had funded independent media, was already in October 2003 arrested on board his private jet and imprisoned for ten years.

    Putin can now unopposed claim that the belligerent attack on Ukraine was necessary for protecting the Motherland. Subdued Russian media affirm that ruthless Ukrainian leaders have transformed their nation into a pawn in the cynical game of a Superpower intending to subjugate, or even annihilate, the Russian Federation.

    It appears as if Putin is not only dedicated to make “Russia great again”. Another goal of his seems to be to enrich himself and his cronies. As a means to cover up his greed, Putin poses as upholder of “strict” morals, based on “pro-life” and traditional “family” values, as well as heroic patriotism and religious fundamentalism. Twenty years after coming to power Putin could declare: “The liberal idea has become obsolete. Liberals cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do over recent decades.”

    In spite of the Ukrainian war and his disrespect for human rights, Putin remains an icon for right-wing nationalists. A symbol of defiance to Western Liberal Establishment’s alleged encouragement of mass immigration and affinity to ”multiculturalism”, conceived as attempts to undermine morals and national identities.

    As a counterweight to such assumed measures, backward looking politicians around the world pay homage to nostalgic notions, like a lost Great Chinese Tradition, a Russian Empire, Hindu pride before the arrival of Islam, a Global Britain, the Ottoman Empire, etc. This trend is occasionally joined with a global system where ruling elites consider themselves to be unrestrained by international norms, traditional modes of state governance, and democratic decision processes. Some world leaders try to pull the wool over the eyes of their followers by packaging their intents within populist opinions, like despise for political correctness, globalism, investigative journalism, LBTQ rights, feminism and environmental NGOs. A dangerous trend that, if unchecked, might as in the case of Putin´s Russia lead to socioeconomic conflicts degenerating into total war.

    In the US, a strengthened adherence to illiberalism was fostered by Donald Trump. Under his watch US politics began to shift from rule-based order to one where might and wealth make right, a message boosted by media like Fox – and Breitbart News. Trump behaved like a wannabe despot, trying to apply authoritarian tactics at home, while paying homage to thugs and dictators abroad. Before him, US presidents had pledged their adherence to human rights, democracy, and freedom of speech. Nevertheless, their governments occasionally supported despots and dictators, not linking concerns for human rights to security, economy and financial affairs. A Realpolitik, which to “friendly” despots indicated that the US did not care so much about repression and corruption within the fiefdoms of their friends. Such behaviour was based on strategic reasons, while Donald Trump appeared to embrace authoritarians because he actually admired them – Dutete, Xi Jinping, Orbán, Erdo?an, Kim Jung-un, and not the least, Putin.

    The former US president´s homage to ideas similar to those of Putin and his pose as a nationalistic superman might be connected with his obvious narcissism and appeal to nationalistic extremists. However, his senseless bragging is also combined with greed. A wealth of investigating reporting has demonstrated links between organized crime and corrupt rulers/oligarchs with the Trump Organization’s overseas business connections.

    Money is also part of Russian foreign relations. Populist, chauvinistic parties like Italian Lega Nord (currently known as the Lega) and the French Front National (currently Rassemblement National) have received intellectual and economic support from Russia. This support to European political parties may be considered as a Russian effort to secure support for Putin’s policies abroad, as well as locally.

    Germany’s former chancellor, Angela Merkel, a fluent Russian speaker far from being a friend of Putin, dismissed him as a leader using nineteenth-century means to solve twenty-first century problems. For sure, Putin’s attack on Ukraine mirrors age-old use of devastating warfare as a radical solution to complicated sociopolitical problems. It seems to be a stalwart application of the two-hundred-years-old advice provided by von Clausewitz:

      Philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are just the worst. As the use of physical power to the utmost extent by no means excludes the co-operation of the intelligence, it follows that he who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the quantity of bloodshed, must obtain a superiority if his adversary does not act likewise. By such means the former dictates the law to the latter, and both proceed to extremities, to which the only limitations are those imposed by the amount of counteracting force on each side.

    Putin´s Ukrainian war neglects human suffering and has now disintegrated into a bloody power struggle, where Russia “to the utmost extent” makes use of its military strength, while being supported by “the co-operation” of a propaganda striving to engage the entire Russian population in the war effort.

    The Ukrainian war not only concerns the protection of Mother Russia from a “predatory West”, its ultimate goal is to control a hitherto sovereign nation’s politics and natural resources. Putin’s declared support to an allegedly discriminated Russian minority in Luhansk and Donetsk seems to be a subterfuge for grabbing an essential part of Ukraine’s economic resources.

    During early 2000s, privatization of state industries yielded a so called Donbas Clan control of the economic and political power in the Donbas region. These oligarchs were supported by Kremlin and a rampant corruption soon took hold of an area dominated by heavy industry, such as coal mining (60 billion tonnes of coal are waiting to be extracted) and metallurgy.

    Before Russia in 2014 backed separatist forces in a ferocious civil war, this particular area produced about 30 percent of Ukraine’s exports and a huge amount of gas reserves in the Dnieper-Donets basin was beginning to be extracted. In those days, the most prominent oligarchs in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions were Putin proteges – Rinat Akhmetov and Viktor Yanukovych, the latter had become Ukraine’s President, though his attachment to Russia and conspicuous corruption led to his fall through the Maidan Uprising in 2013, starting point for Ukraine’s transformation into a prosperous nation.

    The Maidan Revolution caused a wave of insecurity sweeping through the former Soviet Empire, shaking up corrupt “counterfeit” democracies/dictatorships like Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Small wonder that the authoritarian leaders of these nations are stout supporters of Putin’s war in Ukraine.

    While reading von Clausewitz’s On War it is quite easy to relate it to Putin’s politics that undeniably have resulted in war as a “continuation of policy with other means.” It is not the first time in history that authoritarian regimes have plunged entire nations into a blood-drained pit of war. All of us have to be be aware that support of authoritarian regimes might lead us all down into Hell.

    Main Sources: Klaas, Brian (2018) The Despot´s Accomplice: How the West is Aiding and Abetting the Decline of Democracy. London. Hurst & Company. von Clausewitz, Carl (1982) On War. London: Penguin Classics.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • The Allure of Strongmen

    The Allure of Strongmen

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jan Lundius (stockholm)
    • Inter Press Service

    I get along very well with Erdogan. The tougher and meaner they are, the better I get along with them. — Donald Trump

    The Halo Effect is a tendency to unconditionally accommodate positive impressions of a single individual, a cognitive bias that influence personal opinions and feelings in a wide array of areas – religion, morals, patriotism, etc. The Halo Effect makes it possible for a political leader to exercise complete authority over millions of people. Historic and terrifying examples of this are the Führer Adolf Hitler, the Vozhd Joseph Stalin, the Duce Benito Mussolini, and the Great Helmsman Mao Zedong.

    This is far from being a recent phenomenon, some examples of Strongmen are power-hungry personalities like Qin Shi Huangdi, Augustus, Djingis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Shaka, Suharto, and Kim Il-Sung. Individuals guilty of leading their supporters into an Inferno of violence and misery. Political Strongmen generally maintain their grip on other people’s minds through lies and myths, while manipulating mass media to spread propaganda and fake news, as well as organizing spectacles and mass rallies,

    In his book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari mentions that chimpanzees, the human specie’s closest relatives, have social instincts allowing them to form friendships and hierarchies that facilitate communal hunting, gathering and defense against predators. However, thousands of chimps cannot create a stock market, a United Nations, a Vatican. They cannot unite behind an Alpha Male, or topple him through a revolution, nor create a Government ruled by common law, or build a temple.

    What makes humans unique is their sophisticated use of language, making it possible to ”gossip”, i.e. to talk about who is courting whom, who is a cheat, and who is an honest person. Such information may keep together a group of twenty, or fifty members, but seldom more than a hundred individuals. To achieve mass mobilization for work or war, much more than plain gossip is needed. According to Harari this is made possible through humans’ ability to fantasize and share their stories with others.

    It is abstract notions that bind us together. Tales about deities, life after death, human rights, laws and justice. Human constructs like money and nations are based on mental innovations that have become materialized. The majority of the world’s population no longer belongs to tribes where sorcerers and priests told tales about guardian spirits and divine punishments. Instead we trust business-people, artists, priests and lawyers. Most of us are now living in a world governed by huge business corporations, mass media, sophisticated weaponry and manipulating politicians, maintained through shared myths and ideas.

    Through preserved texts, computers and other means of communication we are now able to continuously increase and store large quantities of knowledge. And not only that, we are able to store and maintain information that actually is alien to ”reality” – invented conspiracies, ghosts, nations, limited liability companies, and even human rights. Fantasies are transformed into an actual existence.

    We are gradually distancing ourselves from nature, creating our own world. However, this does not mean that we have got rid of our animal instincts. We are still likely to become subordinated to alpha males who use mental innovations to subdue us through repressive violence. chauvinism, and various kinds of media manipulation.

    Even if Strongmen have been with us throughout human history, this does not mean that the phenomenon has constantly dominated our entire existence. Like all human behaviour, domination of our species is submitted to trends and change. It now seems to exist a current global trend that favours a return of the Strongman, combined with a spreading disrespect of compassion, human rights and a shared responsibility for the well-being of our world and planet.

    The world’s two most populous nations, India and China, are currently under the spell of increasingly autocratic leaders. In India Naendra Modi, leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Indian People’s Party, was once accused of condoning the Gujarat riots in 2002, when at least 790 Muslims and 250 Hindus were killed, followed by further outbreaks of violence against the minority Muslim population in the federal state of Gujarat, where Modi was Chief Minister. He is now the undisputed leader of the Indian Republic. According to the respected Indian historian Ramachandra Guha since May 2014, the vast resources of the State have been devoted to making the prime minister the face of every programme, every advertisement, every poster. Modi is India, India is Modi.

    The 2019 Balakot Airstrike, during which Indian warplanes bombed alleged terrorist training camps inside Pakistan, Modi’s support increased and during the general election campaign that followed Modi declared: ”When you vote for the Lotus , you are not pushing a button but pressing a trigger to shoot terrorists in the head.”

    In China, the hitherto all dominating Communist Party has become ”rejuvenated” and strengthened under the leadership of Xi Jinping and the party propaganda machine is creating a cult of personality around Xi Dada, Uncle Xi, whose presidential time limit was abolished in 2018, meaning that he could stay in power for life. Xi Jinping Thought has been incorporated in the Chinese Constitution, a distinction previously only accorded to Mao Zedong.

    Unchallenged autocratic regimes are maintained in several nations, like those of Saudi Arabia’s royal family and the emirs in the United Emirates. The political and ruthless repression in North Korea continues unabated under the Sogun, Military First, policy of the Il-sung dynasty. However, Strongmen are present within several democracies, ostentatiously in countries like Russia, the Philippines, Turkey, the Republic of India, Hungary, Israel, as well as in the US and several nations in Latin America and Africa. Even if such politicians use to state they respect ”democratic norms”, they are nevertheless intent to erode them.

    A common trait among Strongmen seems to be efforts to limit judicial independence. Both Saudi Arabia’s bin Salman and China’s Xi Jinping have used much needed ”anti-corruption campaigns” to get rid of opponents, while terrifying several members of their nations’ political elite. In China over a million people have been arrested and imprisoned in connection with such campaigns, while some have been executed. Poland’s Kaczynski and Hungary’s Orbán have changed constitutional arrangements to bring courts under their control. Donald Trump has rather than lauding the US’ independent courts and free elections, castigated judges as biased if they ruled against him and famously tried to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Like Trump, Natanyahu in Israel and Bolsonaro in Brazil have complained about ”fake news” and a ”deep state” working against them. When Nethanyahu lost power in 2021 he made Trump-like claims that he had the been victim of the ”greatest election fraud in the history of any democracy.”

    In Turkey more than 4,000 judges and prosecutors were purged, as well as academicians and army officers, after a State of Emergency had been declared by Erdo?an in 2016. The concept of The Deep State has for decades been used by Erdo?an to label opponents among traditional politicians and it was adopted by Trump when he declared that he was going to ”drain the swamp of Washington”.

    Political Strongmen have a tendency to scoff at ”political correctness”, generally connected with human rights’ advocates, supporters of minorities and environmentalists. In spite of their dictatorial cravings, Strongmen like to state they are supported by the ”common people”, declaring that even if they disdain institutions they love ”the people”. Their politics are funded on the concept of ”we and them”, ”black or white”, and the ones who are not with me are against me. Opponents are ridiculed and demonized as ”outsiders” or ”perverts”, epithets attached to immigrants, as well as ethnic-, religious- and/or sexual minorities. It is also common to accuse shady foreign forces of plotting against the Nation. Russian and Chinese politicians regularly refer to ”Western plots to split the Nation”. Or, like Orbán, indicate that sinister, global cabals are trying to annihilate Hungarian culture by promoting mass migration and ”liberal dissolution of morals”. His favorite scapegoat is the philanthropist Georg Soros, who also have had the honour of being denounced by Putin, Trump, Erdo?an, Orbán and Bolsonaro.

    Popular scapegoats can also be the EU, NATO, neighbouring nations, or Superpowers. Muslims are often sorted out as particularly dangerous, not only fanatics and terrorists, but all of them. Blaming ”others” is a simple solution to complex problems. A simplicity expressed in three words slogans – ”Get Brexit Done!”, ”Build the Wall!”, ”Law and Order!”, ”Lock them Up!”, or even in two words like ”Americans (or Italians, Hungarians, Swedes, etc.) First!”

    Much more could be written about political Strongmen, let us, however, return to the enigmatic Vladimir Putin. In 2018, his powerful press secretary Dmitry Peskov, multi-millionaire as so many of Putin’s closest associates, declared;

    There’s a demand in the world for special sovereign leaders, for decisive ones who do not fit into general frameworks and so on. Putin’s Russia was the starting point.

    Main Sources: Rachman, Gideon (2022) The Age of the Strongman: How the Cult of the Leader Threatens Democracy Around the World and Harari, Yuval Noah (2014) Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link