Africa - INTER PRESS SERVICE

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');  

Credit: UN Women

By Claudia Sadoff
WASHINGTON DC, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

The increased empowerment of rural women in Bangladesh over the past 10 years has been no accident.

A decade ago, not even one in four rural women could be said to be “empowered” across five key metrics, a figure that surprised even those working on the ground with the country’s poorest. By 2015, this had risen to more than two in five, or 41 per cent, with continued gains in recent years.

A key reason for this rise was a systematic effort to measure empowerment among rural women in real terms using measurements that were directly related to their daily lives, including farming and fishing.

The findings were a wake-up call that guided and motivated action towards a more targeted approach to improving women’s participation and decision-making in food systems.

The result is not only greater gender equality but subsequent improvements in nutrition, health, and productivity. And while the gender gap was slowly closing, Bangladesh achieved lower-middle-income status, with reductions in extreme poverty, as well as child and maternal mortality.

Clearly, for women around the world, there remains a long way to go. But as Bangladesh has demonstrated, unlocking the multiple benefits that gender equality can bring begins with first quantifying the level of empowerment and gender parity among rural women and their communities. In this case, researchers deployed a pioneering tool, the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI).

Bangladesh became the first country to carry out a national household survey that included the WEAI in 2012. One component of the index provided the first measure of women’s empowerment across five key domains: decisions about agricultural production; access to and decision-making power about agricultural resources; control of use of income; leadership in the community, and time allocation.

In addition, another component measured gender parity, or the percentage of women who are empowered or whose achievements are at least as high as the men in their households. This allowed women’s empowerment to become a litmus test for agricultural productivity, nutritional status, and public health.

The publicly available data was instrumental in demonstrating the scale of gender inequality in Bangladesh as well as exposing the variation in empowerment within the country. And this information also enabled the second step, which was to inspire government-backed programs that addressed the mutual links between women, agriculture, and food security.

The Agriculture, Nutrition, and Gender Linkages (ANGeL) program, designed in partnership with Bangladesh’s Ministry of Agriculture, featured agricultural training, nutrition behaviour change communication and gender sensitization trainings in Bangladesh between 2015 and 2018.

Not only did these trainings positively impact women’s empowerment by up to 13 percentage points, but the program also increased the production of crops other than rice and improved the quality of household diets. The ANGeL program has since been rolled out nationwide.

To date, the WEAI has spawned several different versions, some including more extensive metrics and others fewer, to meet the needs of more than 200 organizations in 58 countries.

But applied at a global level, supported by CGIAR, tools like WEAI can provide a common metric that helps design policies to meet multiple goals, from improving diets and childhood development to increasing women’s livelihoods.

If more countries, governments and agencies made use of the WEAI or similar, to guide policy and investment decisions, women’s empowerment could be leveraged as a gateway towards a healthier, more inclusive and fairer world.

When performance is measured, performance improves but when performance can also be directly compared across countries, regions, and different production systems, the result can accelerate progress by inspiring a race to the top. This is why efforts are under way at CGIAR to harmonise different instruments to allow progress worldwide to be monitored and stimulated more widely.

Governments also have a critical role to play in investing in collecting and reporting on empowerment indicators and working alongside development partners to act upon their insights.

The more policymakers and researchers know about the extent of gender inequality and its wider role in the health and prosperity of its population, the more governments, researchers and NGOs can take targeted and effective action that addresses global challenges at their roots.

Women’s empowerment in agriculture leads to greater diversity in food production and household diets, and, in many countries, helps children’s long-term nutritional status. With a consistent approach that first reveals and then reduces the gaps in women’s empowerment, everyone stands to benefit.

 

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:

Dr. Claudia Sadoff is Managing Director for Research Delivery and Impact at CGIAR, the world's largest publicly funded agricultural research network.
 
The following opinion piece is part of series to mark International Women’s Day, March 8.

A case worker at a camp for internally displaced people in Somalia helps abused women get medical care. Credit: UNDP

By Caroline Ngonze
JOHANNESBURG, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

It was on a visit to Lesotho that I first heard the derogatory term Mmutla – nocturnal hare. It is a word used in some southern districts to insult adolescent girls who have been forced into sexual exploitation and transactional sexual relations for survival.

That one cruel word summed up the multiple marginalisations faced by so many adolescent girls across sub-Saharan Africa: excluded for being poor, for being female, for being young; excluded further through exploitation, and then excluded further as they get blamed for that exploitation.

On our continent, one in four adolescent girls in a relationship have experienced physical and/or sexual violence from their partner, and over a third of girls are married while still children.

The consequences are seen in the unrelenting young female HIV pandemic. In West and Central Africa, 82% of new HIV infections within the age group 15-19 years are of girls. In the East and Southern Africa region, that figure rises to 85%.

On visits to Lesotho, South Africa, Senegal and Malawi, I’ve heard from the public and private sector, from civil society organizations, from traditional and religious leaders, and teenagers in and out of school, including teenage mothers, the same message: if Africa is to fulfil its potential, it has to enable all of its girls to fulfil theirs. And that depends on all girls completing school and being empowered at school.

Evidence shows that completion of secondary education by adolescent girls can reduce HIV infection by up to 50%. A layered approach to interventions that combines completion of secondary education with universal access to comprehensive sexuality education, fulfilment of sexual and reproductive health and rights, ensuring that school environments are free from gender-based and sexual violence, and successful school-to- work transitions for economic security and empowerment, will lower the risk of HIV infection even further.

Communities concur on the main reasons why so many girls do not complete secondary school. The cost of education is cited as a key barrier everywhere I visit. Even when fees are removed, charges for “school development”, or for exams or text books or uniforms keep many girls out. In addition, discriminatory policies, laws and practices (both at school and in the community) deny girls their right to education and entrench inequalities, poverty, quality and relevance of education. Adolescent girls with disabilities, those from rural settings, low-income and child-headed households as well as those from marginalized groups are at a significantly elevated risk of sexual exploitation and abuse, violence and teenage pregnancies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has turned a chronic challenge into an acute one. For instance, the restrictions imposed to curb the spread of COVID19 led to school closures, disruptions to health and social services, and job losses in households. With the protective cover of school pulled back, huge spikes have been recorded in teenage pregnancies, child marriage, gender-based and sexual violence, and sexual exploitation. Millions of girls may not ever return to school.

Fixing such a crisis depends on a whole-of-society commitment. It is that recognition which has brought together allies from across the African continent and beyond in the Education Plus Initiative – a high-level political advocacy drive and broad-based campaign, co-led by the Executive Directors of UNAIDS, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF and UN Women. It leverages and combines the mandates, expertise, knowledge, skills and impact of five UN agencies, and brings in too the insights and determination of civil society organizations, adolescent girls and young women, youth and feminist networks.

Unequal gender power dynamics and harmful gender norms – compounded by intersecting forms of discrimination based on income, education, and disability – drive the risks girls face. These risks help drive the HIV pandemic, which, in turn, further exacerbates these inequalities. There is no way to succeed in ensuring that girls are safe and healthy unless they are empowered. As this year’s International Women’s Day theme notes, we need gender equality today for a sustainable future tomorrow.

Gender inequalities are systemic, and can only be countered with social mobilization, bold policy reform and scaled-up financing.

Every group of girls I meet on this continent teaches me something new, but they all remind me of one key lesson that we need all decision-makers to align their policies and their investments to: Everything we do to give girls a fair chance, they will give us back so much more in return.

Africa’s girls are the ones who will ensure that our development goals are realized. All they ask is that we ensure that they are schooled, safe and strong.

Caroline Ngonze manages Education Plus, a movement for the education and empowerment of every adolescent girl and young woman. You can read more about Education Plus here https://www.unaids.org/en/topics/education-plus

 

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.

Credit: United Nations

By Gabrielle Lipton
BONN, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

When I was a young girl, a friend and I spent our summers building a treehouse. We built it because our older brothers were building one and wouldn’t allow us to help them. So, we asked our parents to support us through the procurement of basic tools, collected scrap wood from the local hardware store, chose a tree, and then spent day after day puzzling beams and boards together into structure in which only people of our small size could fit.

Our brothers would often scope out our progress, refusing to believe we had managed some of the architectural feats on our own, but we didn’t mind their judgements. It was sturdy, it was ours, and it was perfect.

Although we’ve outgrown the treehouse now too, I pay it a visit from time to time, remembering the seasons spent among the branches building our humble stronghold – and building ourselves. Those summers taught me that even with the most minimal amount of support, there was little I couldn’t do with hard work, resourcefulness, teamwork and friendship.

I share this story today, ahead of International Women’s Day 8 March 2022, because I believe that every woman has such a story – likely one that involves far more odds that had to be overcome than the simple and privileged ones from my youth. Indeed, the statistics about gender equality in the context of sustainable development continue to be staggering.

While the exact percentage is debated, it’s widely agreed that women comprise the majority of the world’s poor. Eighty percent of people displaced by climate change are women and girls, and sixty percent of the world’s food insecure people are women and girls. And pretty much all pre-existing gender inequities have been exacerbated by COVID-19.

But what is more staggering still are women’s stories of triumph despite the obstacles – when they’ve turned others’ doubts into opportunities, when the fruits of their tireless labors yielded literally unbelievable results, when they were given a dime and built a castle.

This deserves reflection and recognition, which is why we at the Global Landscapes Forum are honoring such leaders and agents of change in our annual 16 Women Restoring the Earth campaign. This list raises up women from across five continents, three generations and all sectors who are using their efforts, resources, relationships, and willfully-built selves to help piece together a better reality – and future reality – for everyone else too.

This is our third year publishing 16 Women Restoring the Earth (see here 2020 and 2021), and in each iteration, it has been an immense privilege to learn about the lives of such extraordinary women and to work with them on creating and sharing this feature.

In this year’s list, we have a Grammy-nominated artist and musician who documents the hardships and joys of womanhood in Africa through song; a Pulitzer Prize–winning politician who helped negotiate relationships between major global powers while raising children; a young Indian activist who filed a lawsuit against her government at the age of 9 for not doing enough to protect her future from climate change; a scientist who has tracked the Amazon’s greenhouse gas emissions for decades so that we can know the state of the world’s most important forest; and a philanthropist who is courageously finding new ways to channel funds to local communities, to name just a few.

The phrase “restoring the Earth,” as one might notice, is used in the broadest sense, to encompass the multitudinous ways women are using their minds, bodies, time and gifts to reinstate harmony on this planet. The common thread between the women we’ve featured is their level of integrity, determination, resilience and humor.

The mission of the Global Landscapes Forum, in essence, is to help usher in a new relationship between communities and ecosystems in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. The women we choose for our 16 Women Restoring the Earth campaigns have all been involved in our organization in some form or fashion during of our nine years of existence, whether they’ve spoken at one of our events, supported us through partnerships, or simply believed in our mission and played an active part of our global community.

It’s a difficult selection process each year, but one filled with gratitude for the contributions so many women have made to helping build our treehouse, so to speak.

This campaign, then, is a means by which to gently remind ourselves of the many forms of inequality that exist on this planet, some of which can be numerically quantified but many only told through words, stories and life experiences. It is to put forward a group of diverse role models that anyone can look to and think, “If she can do it, so can I.” It is a collection of light in challenging times to celebrate the many reasons for optimism and hope that still exist.

Most of all, we hope it serves as a pause, a moment for you to think of what it is you’re building and how you are contributing to the restoration of our Earth, whatever that means to you.

 

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

Women predominate in the world's food production (50-80 per cent), but they own less than 10 per cent of the land. Credit: Jency Samuel/IPS

By Baher Kamal
MADRID, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

The picture is gloomy: not only do women represent 70% of the 1.3 billion people living in conditions of poverty, but also up to 40% of the poorest households in urban areas are headed by women.

Should this not be enough, please know that:

• Women predominate in the world’s food production (50-80%), but they own less than 10% of the land.
• 80% of the displaced by climate-related disasters and changes around the world are women and girls.
• Climate change may lead to more gender-based violence, an increase in child marriages, and worsening sexual and reproductive health.

The above staggering data come from the UN on the occasion of the 8 March International Women Day.

Despite all that, the UN goes on, women and girls are effective and powerful leaders and change-makers for climate adaptation and mitigation.

“They are involved in sustainability initiatives around the world, and their participation and leadership result in more effective climate action.”

 

Equality, essential

Continuing to examine the opportunities, as well as the constraints, to empower women and girls to have a voice and be equal players in decision-making related to climate change and sustainability is essential for sustainable development and greater gender equality.

“Without gender equality today, a sustainable future, and an equal future, remains beyond our reach.”

In fact, the 2022 International Women’s Day claims “Gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow”.

 

Women and climate change

For its part, the UN Women underlines that advancing gender equality in the context of the climate crisis and disaster risk reduction is one of the greatest global challenges of the 21st century.

“The issues of climate change and sustainability have had and will continue to have, severe and lasting impacts on our environment, economic and social development. Those who are amongst the most vulnerable and marginalised experience the deepest impacts.”

Women are increasingly being recognised as more vulnerable to climate change impacts than men, as they constitute the majority of the world’s poor and are more dependent on the natural resources which climate change threatens the most, adds UN Women.

According to this United Nations entity in charge of promoting the rights of women worldwide, “Without gender equality today, a sustainable future, and an equal future, remains beyond our reach.”

 

Women empowerment

The theme for International Women’s Day is aligned with the priority theme for the upcoming 66th Commission on the Status of Women (CSW66): “Achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls in the context of climate change, environmental and disaster risk reduction policies and programmes”.

UN Women puts the focus on four key action areas:

• Economic empowerment
• Ending violence against women
• Peace and security
• Humanitarian action

 

Leadership, political participation

Women’s equal participation and leadership in political and public life are essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. However, data shows that women are underrepresented at all levels of decision-making worldwide, and achieving gender parity in political life is far off.

 

Women in executive government positions

• As of 1 September 2021, there are 26 women serving as Heads of State and/or Government in 24 countries. At the current rate, gender equality in the highest positions of power will not be reached for another 130 years.
• Just 10 countries have a woman Head of State, and 13 countries have a woman Head of Government.
• Only 21 percent of government ministers were women, with only 14 countries having achieved 50 percent or more women in cabinets. With an annual increase of just 0.52 percentage points, gender parity in ministerial positions will not be achieved before 2077.
• The five most commonly held portfolios by women ministers are: Family/children/youth/elderly/disabled; followed by Social affairs; Environment/natural resources/energy; Employment/labour/vocational training, and Women affairs/gender equality.

 

Equality out of reach

In another report, UN Women says that with the latest data, we now understand the vital link between gender, social equity and climate change, and recognise that without gender equality today, a sustainable future, an equal future, remains out of reach.

“Women and girls experience the greatest impacts of the climate crisis as it amplifies existing gender inequalities and puts women’s lives and livelihoods at risk. Across the world, women depend more on, yet have less access to, natural resources, and often bear a disproportionate responsibility for securing food, water, and fuel.”

As women and girls bear the burden of climate impacts, they are also essential to leading and driving change in climate adaptation, mitigation and solutions.

“Without the inclusion of half of the world’s population, it is unlikely that solutions for a sustainable planet and a gender equal world tomorrow will be realised.”

A Play Leader in a BRAC Play Lab. Credit: Shananuzzaman Angkan

By Erum Mariam
DHAKA, Bangladesh, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

Women around the world play crucial roles in education as formal educators, school staff members, and parents of students. But women are also transforming education as non-formal educators in ways that can be scaled to improve education broadly. As we celebrate International Women’s Day (March 8), it’s important that this transformative role is recognized.

I’ve seen it first-hand in my work with the BRAC Institute of Educational Development (BRAC IED) in Bangladesh, where we conduct research, develop curricula, and train and mentor women in Asia and Africa to become proficient in non-formal educational roles. That enables us to create educational innovations that can be scaled efficiently and broadly, because they rely on women in local communities, recruited from and trained in those communities, adapting and delivering programmes using locally available resources.

A recent study by researchers at the University of Cambridge and Columbia University, and supported by researchers in Bangladesh, underscores the point. A new two-year study reveals that an early childhood development model led by locally trained women has achieved one of the greatest goals of early childhood development – enabling children regardless of their initial readiness or level of privilege to enter kindergarten equally prepared.

The focus of the research is BRAC’s Play Lab model in Bangladesh. Play Labs provide safe spaces where children aged 3-5 engage in playful activities, supported by a flexible play-based curriculum – one that is culturally relevant and contextualized to suit local settings, and that promotes cognitive, language, physical, and social-emotional development. The activities are led by non-formal educators called Play Leaders – young women trained by BRAC IED, who also design the curriculum.

What’s so exciting about the study’s results is not only that it proves the extraordinary impact of Play Labs but that it demonstrates the power of the Play Leaders. These non-formal educators are the backbone of this study, and what’s even more encouraging is that there are young women whose potential is ready to be unlocked in every community in the world. That’s the key to scaling this proven solution, and a new Play Lab PlayBook provides essential resources and tools to equip partners and practitioners to scale this approach.

When COVID-19 arrived, it was the Play Leaders who innovated first. With limited or no access to the physical Play Labs, Play Leaders used basic mobile phones to maintain regular contact with children and teachers. This organic beginning led to the creation of Pashe Achhi (which means Beside You in English), a remote learning mechanism that provides learning opportunities for children and psychosocial support for caregivers. It also serves as a new emergency infrastructure for early childhood development during crises.

Experts at BRAC IED brought together psychologists and play-based curriculum developers to create 20-minute tele-conversational scripts, with a component for psychosocial support and another component for play-based learning. 1,300 Play Leaders were trained on effective delivery of scripts, and Play Leaders facilitated weekly 20-minute one-on-one calls with caregivers and children. In total, 40,000 calls took place weekly until Play Labs reopened.

The experts provided scripts and training, but 1,300 young women working as non-formal educators put the plan into action.

The focus on women as non-formal educators derives from BRAC’s investment in women in communities across Bangladesh to work as catalysts for change in a wide variety of roles. These health workers, legal aid providers, programme organisers, non-formal educators and community mobilisers have been the backbone of Bangladesh’s incredible social development. In education, for example, Bangladesh faced a massive challenge: 40% of its primary-aged children were not in school in the early 1980s. Half of the students who enrolled dropped out, and only 30% went on to complete primary education.

BRAC reimagined education: instead of expecting students to go to distant schools with all the logistical burdens and costs associated with that, BRAC brought schools to the students. It created an extensive system of one-room schools in almost every community and trained women in each community to teach grades 1-5. The training of these non-formal educators made scaling possible, and the results were impressive. Almost 100% of students completed fifth grade, and BRAC students consistently did better than public school students on government tests.

The role of women as non-formal educators should be celebrated for its proof of impact, its scalability, and its vital importance. At least 175 million children do not have access to quality, play-based early childhood education, and the world needs 69 million new teachers by 2030. Women – especially those serving as non-formal educators – are the key to meeting this need.

The author is Executive Director of the BRAC Institute of Educational Development at BRAC University in Bangladesh.

 

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.

Peruvian farmer Hilda Roca, 37, stands in her agro-ecological garden in Cusipata, a town located at more than 3,300 meters above sea level in the highlands of Cuzco, where she grows vegetables for her family and sells the surplus with the support of her adolescent daughter and son. CREDIT: Mariela Jara/IPS

By Mariela Jara
LIMA, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

“Pachamama (Mother Earth) is upset with all the damage we are doing to her,” says Hilda Roca, an indigenous Peruvian farmer from Cusipata, in the Andes highlands of the department of Cuzco, referring to climate change and the havoc it is wreaking on her life and her environment.

From her town, more than 3,300 meters above sea level, she told IPS that if women were in power equally with men, measures in favor of nature that would alleviate the climate chaos would have been approved long ago. “But we need to fight sexism so that we are not discriminated against and so our rights are respected,” said the Quechua-speaking farmer.

The link between climate change and gender is the focus of the United Nations’ celebration of this year’s International Women’s Day, Mar. 8, under the theme “Gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow”.

The aim is to “make visible how the climate crisis is a problem that is closely related to inequality, and in particular to gender inequality, which is expressed in an unequal distribution of power, resources, wealth, work and time between women and men,” Ana Güezmes, director of the Gender Affairs Division of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), told IPS.

Latin America is highly vulnerable to the climate crisis despite the fact that it emits less than 10 percent of the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet.

In addition, climate injustice has a female face in the region: lower-income population groups, where the proportion of women is higher, are more exposed to climate effects due to their limited access to opportunities, despite the fact that they are less responsible for emissions.

The extreme poverty rate in the region increased from 13.1 percent to 13.8 percent of the population – from 81 to 86 million people – between 2020 and 2021, according to data released by ECLAC in January. Women between 25 and 59 years of age are the most affected compared to their male counterparts. This situation is worse among indigenous and rural populations, who depend on nature for their livelihoods.

These aspects were highlighted at ECLAC’s 62nd Meeting of the Presiding Officers of the Regional Conference on Women, held Jan. 26-27, whose declaration warns that women and girls affected by the adverse impacts of climate change and disasters face specific barriers to access to water and sanitation, health and education services, and food security.

And it is women who are mainly responsible for feeding their families, fetching water and firewood, and taking care of the vegetable garden and animals.

“That is why we maintain that the post-pandemic recovery must be transformative in terms of sustainability and equality,” Güezmes emphasized from ECLAC headquarters in Santiago, Chile.

To this end, she said, this recovery “must untie the four structural knots of gender inequality that affect the region so much: socioeconomic inequality and poverty; the sexual division of labor and the unjust organization of caregiving; the concentration of power and patriarchal, discriminatory and violent cultural patterns; and the predominance of the culture of privilege.”

Luz Mery Panche, an indigenous leader of the Nasa people of Colombia. : Courtesy of Luz Mery Panche

Reconciling with Mother Earth

Luz Mery Panche, an indigenous leader of the Nasa people, discussed the need to incorporate a gender perspective into the climate crisis. She talked to IPS from San Vicente del Caguán, in the department of Caquetá, in the Amazon region of Colombia, a country facing violent attacks on defenders of land and the environment.

For her, more than sustainable, “it is about moving towards a sustainable future.”

“We need to change the conditions that have generated war and chaos in the country, which is due to the hijacking of political and economic power by an elite that has been in the decision-making spaces since the country emerged 200 years ago,” she said.

Panche is a member of the National Ethnic Peace Coordination committee (Cenpaz) and in that capacity is part of the special high-level body with ethnic peoples for the implementation of the peace agreement in her country. She is a human rights activist and a defender of the Amazon rainforest.

She argued that to achieve a sustainable future “we must reconcile with Mother Earth and move towards the happy, joyful way of life that we deserve as human beings.”

This, she said, starts by changing the economic model violently imposed on many areas without taking into account the use of the soil, its capacities and benefits; by changing concepts of economy and the educational model; and by organizing local economies and focusing on a future of respect, solidarity and fraternity.

Panche said that in order to move towards this model, women “must have informed participation regarding the effects of climate change.

“Although we prefer to call Mother Earth’s fever ‘global warming’. And it is up to us to remember to make decisions that put us back on the ancestral path of harmony and balance, what we call returning to the origin, to the womb, to improve coexistence and the sense of humanity,” she said.

Uruguayan ecofeminist Lilian Celiberti carries a banner reading “Our body, our territory” in the streets of Tarapoto, a city in the central Peruvian jungle, during an edition of the Pan-Amazon Social Forum. CREDIT: Mariela Jara/IPS

Changing times: another kind of coexistence with nature and equality

Lilian Celiberti, Uruguayan ecofeminist and founder of the non-governmental Cotidiano Mujer and Colectivo Dafnias, told IPS from Montevideo that governments have the tools to work on gender equality today in order to have a sustainable future tomorrow, as this year’s Mar. 8 slogan states.

But against this, she said, there are economic interests at play that maintain a development proposal based on growth and extreme exploitation of nature.

She called for boosting local economies and agroecology among other community alternatives in the Latin American region that run counter to the dominant government approach.

“But I believe that we are at a very complex crossroads and that only social participation will be able to find paths of multiple, diverse participation and collective sustainability that incorporate care policies and awareness of the eco-dependence of human society,” she said.

Celiberti said “we are on a planet of finite resources and we have to generate a new relationship with nature, but I see that governments are far from this kind of thinking.”

ECLAC’s Güezmes emphasized that social movements, especially those led by young indigenous and non-indigenous women in the region, have exposed the multiple asymmetries and inequalities that exist.

Ana Güezmes is director of the Gender Division of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. CREDIT: ECLAC

“We have an intergenerational debt, where young women have put at the center of the debate the unsustainability of the current development style that has direct impacts on our future at a global level and direct impacts on their livelihoods, territories and communities,” said Güezmes, who is from Spain and has worked for years within the United Nations in several Latin American countries.

She recognized the contribution of feminist movements that focus on a redistribution of power, resources and time to move towards an egalitarian model that includes the reduction of violence.

And she warned that from a climate perspective, the window of opportunity for action is closing, so we must act quickly, creating synergies between gender equality and climate change responses.

Güezmes said that “we are looking at a change of era” with global challenges that require a profound transformation that recognizes how the economy, society and the environment are interrelated. “To leave no one behind and no woman out, we must advance synergistically among these three dimensions of development: economic, social and environmental,” she remarked.

The expert cited gender equality as a central element of sustainable development because women need to be at the center of the responses. To this end, ECLAC plans to promote affirmative actions that bolster comprehensive care systems, decent work and the full and effective participation of women in strategic sectors of the economy.

She also raised the need to build “a renewed global pact” to strengthen multilateralism and achieve greater solidarity with middle-income countries on issues central to inclusive growth, sustainable development and gender equality.

“We have reiterated the urgent need to advance new political, social and fiscal pacts focused on structural change for equality,” Güezmes stressed.

She stated that in this perspective, the participation of women in all their diversity in decision-making processes is very important, particularly with regard to climate change.

To this end, she remarked, it is necessary to monitor their degree of intervention at the local, national and international levels – where asymmetry persists – and to provide women’s organizations, especially grassroots ones, with the necessary resources to become involved in such spaces.

“It involves strengthening financial flows so that they reach women who are at the forefront of responses to climate change and who are familiar with the situation in their communities, and boosting their capacities so that women from indigenous, native and Afro-descendant peoples participate in decision-making spaces related to the environment to promote the exchange of their ancestral knowledge on adaptation and mitigation measures,” she said.

Güezmes highlighted the contribution of women environmental activists and defenders to democracy, peace and sustainable development. It is necessary to “recognize their contribution to the protection of biodiversity and to development, despite doing so in conditions of fragility and exploitation and having less access to land, productive resources and their control,” she said.

For her part, Roca, who like other local women in the Peruvian Andes highlands practices agroecology to adapt to climate change and reconcile with Pachamama, calls for their voices to be heard.

“We have ideas and proposals and they need to be taken into account to improve the climate and our lives,” the indigenous farmer said.

With climate change becoming a contentious issue contributing to political paralysis, few elected governments are able to adopt the necessary legislation and implement the needed actions to address climate change. Credit: Bigstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

While more than a half century ago the Twist was the craze in dance halls globally, today the Climate Change Shuffle is the craze in government halls and conference sites worldwide as officials dance around the dangers of climate change.

The first step in the Climate Change Shuffle is a straightforward maneuver: deny climate change. With feet solidly on the floor, confidently dismiss any scientific consensus on climate change and global warming, including it is caused by human activities. Deny that climate change is a threat to humanity and health of the planet as long as possible (Table 1).

 

Source: Author’s composition.

 

The second step in the Climate Change Shuffle, which is highly popular and easily done, is the delay. With body swaying gently from left to right, emphasize that the true answers to environmental issues are economic growth, advanced technologies, and human ingenuity, all of which will need some time and resources. Lean forward proposing the establishment of commissions to produce lengthy technical reports and continue to delay as long as possible.

The third and final step in the Climate Change Shuffle, which should be performed effortlessly without movement, is to do nothing. Simply remain still, don’t take any steps forward and let time slowly pass waltz by as long as possible. Climate change will likely soon be forgotten, displaced by something more immediate, such as gas prices, a sex scandal, or a military invasion.

Mounting scientific evidence, including the recent Sixth Assessment Report of International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), indicates that global warming is reshaping the world more rapidly and severely than was known several years ago. Nevertheless, governments, especially the major emitters of greenhouse gases, continue dancing the Climate Change Shuffle.

The top ten emitters of greenhouse gases account for two-thirds of the world’s CO2 emissions. Far in first place is China, which is responsible for about 30 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions. In a distant second place is the United States at 14 percent, followed by India at 7 percent and Russia at 5 percent (Figure 1).

 

Source: Statista.

 

Environmental scientists, naturalists, and concerned citizens, including young activists, worldwide have warned that human-induced climate change is causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature and affecting the lives of billions of people and calling for needed action. Ecosystems and populations least able to cope are expected to be hardest hit by the consequences of climate change.

Also, thousands of scientists have warned governments that the future habitability of planet earth depends on immediate, large-scale action in no less than six critical and interrelated areas: energy, short-lived pollutants, nature, food, economy, and population.

Their recommended actions include limiting the burning of fossil fuels, restoring ecosystems, moving to plant-based diets, curtailing consumption or degrowth, and stabilizing world population.

However, most of the recommended actions are largely unappealing to governments and their constituents. Transitioning from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy, for example, is considered a difficult task. Global greenhouse gas emissions are broadly from energy, agriculture, industry, and waste, with almost three-quarters from energy consumption.

The alternatives to fossil fuels are not readily available to meet the rising global demand for electricity. Fossil fuels account about two-thirds of global electricity generation, with coal, natural gas, and oil contributing 38, 28 and 3 percent, respectively versus renewables contributing 9 percent.

Some progress has recently been achieved moving from meat to a plant-based diet. However, curtailing consumption, or shrinking the economy, is not likely to be embraced by most populations any time soon.

Also, attempts to stabilize populations are anathema to most governments, businesses, and many others. They consider demographic growth essential for economic growth, political power, and national identity. Consequently, rather than stabilization, world population is expected to increase from 8 billion today to 10 billion by around mid-century.

When confronted by the overwhelming evidence of climate change, governments that have a major impact on global warming glide to the Shuffle’s delay step. As witnessed at the disappointing Glasgow climate change summit (COP26) last November, many countries are simply not prepared to make firm commitments on needed actions with timetables.

An important reason why many governments perform the Climate Change Shuffle is the demand for electricity and the reliance on coal-fired power stations to meet that rising demand. The top four countries, namely, China, India, the United States, and Japan, were responsible for 76 percent of the world’s coal-fired electricity in 2020 (Figure 2).

 

Source: EMBER.

 

With its 1,110 coal-fired power stations, China alone accounted for approximately 53 percent of the world’s coal-fired electricity in 2020 and those power stations provided 61 percent of China’s electricity. Following China but at a considerably lower level is India, which is responsible for 14 percent of the world’s coal-fired electricity with its coal-fired power stations providing 71 percent of India’s electricity.

In third and fourth place are the United States and Japan, which accounted for 11 and 9 percent, respectively of the world’s coal-fired electricity in 2020. However, in contrast to China and India, the contributions of the coal-fired power stations to domestic electricity consumption in the U.S. and Japan are substantially less, 19 and 29 percent, respectively.

Another important reason why some governments continue doing the Shuffle is because climate change has become a highly partisan issue. With climate change becoming a contentious issue contributing to political paralysis, few elected governments are able to adopt the necessary legislation and implement the needed actions to address climate change.

In the United States, for example, 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress continue to deny the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change. Also, Democratic and Republican voters in the U.S. are far apart in their views regarding climate change.

Whereas 78 percent of Democrats said climate change should be a top priority in 2020, 21 percent of Republicans said it should be. Moreover, the gap between them has widened over the past several years, with increasing proportions of Democrats saying climate change should be a top priority (Figure 3).

 

Source: Pew Research Center.

 

When faced with the unequivocal scientific evidence about climate change and the lack of needed actions, some observers, organizations, and funds have increased their efforts to urge governments to adopt the needed climate change policies.

However, others, including many students, have become incredibly worried by years of empty promises by political leaders and are pessimistic about the outlook for future.

They note that a quarter century ago when world population was nearly 6 billion, government leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, and agreed to curb greenhouse emissions. Seven years ago, when world population had reached more than 7 billion, governments adopted the Paris Agreement’s vision of holding global warming to 1.5 degrees. And today with world population at 8 billion and expected to reach 9 billion in 15 years, few nations are living up to their commitments.

Also, others have become fatalistic about global warming as they witness a rapidly closing window to secure a livable future as governments dance the Climate Change Shuffle. Additional scientific studies, they feel, will make little difference in the near certain outcomes. They are convinced that governments will not be able to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. With direct and clear language, many have simply concluded: “we’re screwed”.

In sum, whether one is optimistic, pessimistic, fatalistic, or indifferent regarding climate change and the responses of governments, three conclusions seem warranted.

First, the widely reported scientific evidence and findings of published reports on human-induced climate change and its far-reaching effects worldwide are clear, unequivocal, indisputable, and distressing.

Second, countries will continue to experience the consequences of climate change with serious disruptions to the planet’s natural environment and severe adverse effects on human populations, including flooding, droughts, heat waves, shortages of water and food, warming oceans, storms, rising sea levels, wildfires, and melting glaciers and polar ice caps.

Third, until governments are fully committed to taking the needed actions to address climate change, which does not appear likely any time soon, government officials will continue to dance the Climate Change Shuffle, i.e., deny, delay, and do nothing.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

By External Source
Mar 7 2022 (IPS-Partners)

One of our greatest challenges is advancing gender equality in the face of the climate crisis.

They constitute the majority of the world’s poor.

They are also more dependent on the natural resources threatened by climate change.

In the 21st Century, women are more vulnerable to climate impacts than men.

Of the 1.3 billion people on earth living in poverty, 70% are women.

In urban areas, 40% of the poorest households are headed by women.

80% of those displaced by climate related disasters are women and girls.

Women are more likely to be killed by natural disasters than men.

Women and girls are also more likely to go hungry.

The UN believes that without gender equality today, a sustainable and equal future will remain beyond our reach.

However, women and girls are effective and powerful leaders and change-makers for climate adaptation and mitigation.

They are involved in sustainability initiatives around the world.

Their participation and leadership results in more effective climate action.

This International Women’s Day, let’s claim “Gender equality today for a sustainable tomorrow”.