A woman in Madagascar walks for up to 14km a day to find clean water. Credit: UNICEF/Safidy Andrianantenain

By Kumi Naidoo
GLASGOW, Scotland, Nov 9 2021 (IPS)

As the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) is swiftly moving to its conclusion on Friday, climate justice could not be more urgent or timely.

The health of our planet and our very survival are at stake. How can we ensure that this meeting achieves real action that improves people’s lives in rich and poor countries alike?

More than empty political rhetoric, what we need is a new social contract between decision-makers and people, one that achieves genuine mass support for climate action and connects people with their planet.

Leaders need to ensure that their climate action plans will tackle inequality, poverty, injustice, and promote the implementation of human rights above all.

After all, climate change threatens the enjoyment of a range of human rights, including food, health, housing, culture and development. And there is one human right in particular that is at risk from climate change and could have a domino effect on all the others: the human right to clean drinking water.

This is the most basic of all human rights (together with sanitation), and a key one in the fight against climate change.

90 % of climate change is happening through weather related events which have a profound impact on the hydrological cycle – often resulting in too much water or too little water.

All this in a world where two billion people, or 1 in 4, lack access to safe drinking water, nearly half the world’s population (3.6 billion people) don’t have adequate sanitation, and 2.3 billion people can’t wash their hands at home for lack of water or soap.

The most outrageous injustice is that the same people who lack access to water and sanitation are usually the ones most vulnerable to the effects of climate change – and the least responsible for causing it in the first place.

One report estimates that by 2040, almost 600 million children are projected to be living in areas of extremely high water stress. And the odds are against the most vulnerable, as under 1% of the billions pledged to address climate change goes to protect water services for poor communities.

In the end, those left furthest behind end up bearing the brunt of increasing water scarcity and poverty. These marginalized populations – women, children, and those living in extreme poverty – face a vicious and unjust cycle, in which a lack of access to water and sanitation is aggravated by extreme weather events, leading to more expensive, and unaffordable, services.

Connecting the Dots

But where the problem starts may also be where the solution begins. We need a radical approach that guarantees the human right to water by tackling inequalities and putting people’s needs front and center – especially the needs of those whose voices continue to be marginalized and disregarded.

This is both a necessary response, and a step toward ending the climate change crisis, as it offers benefits both for mitigation (stopping climate change) and adaptation (adjusting to the new normal).

The good news is that the solutions are well known and readily available. Well-managed water systems can protect access to reliable water supplies during times of drought. Strong sanitation systems can resist floods.

And protecting water and sanitation services from extreme weather is highly cost-effective – for every $1 spent upgrading flood-resistant infrastructure, $62 is saved in flood restoration costs.

If world leaders were to prioritize universal access to climate resilient water and sanitation infrastructure, it would be a long-term investment, yielding net benefits of US $37–86 billion per year and avoiding up to 6 billion cases of diarrhoea and 12 billion cases of parasitic worms, with significant implications for child health and nutrition over the next twenty makers understand the adaptation needs and mitigation opportunities of water and sanitation systems, as well as the risks that climate change poses to sustainable services.

And, they must align climate and water policies so that access to water is equitable, climate risks are reduced, and there is more money available for adaptation.

After all, ensuring effective climate action and sustainable access to water and sanitation are matters of human rights. This means that we must years.

Just Add Water

As we look to COP26, we need to ensure that climate decision- tackle the root causes of the water crisis globally and ensure prioritization of water for the realization of human rights, over other uses, such as large-scale agriculture and industries, including extractive industries.

To realize these rights, municipalities and villages also must be supported to improve their capacity to manage their water sources sustainably and efficiently.

Without urgent measures to slow climate change and adapt to the damage already done to our planet, there is a real risk that people’s access to water and sanitation will worsen rather than improve. And, without sanitation, we cannot guarantee the right to education; without hygiene, our health is diminished, and without reliable access to water, gender equality can never be achieved.

COP 26 is an opportunity for a reset, not only for the planet, but also for the social contract between governments and people. Eliminating inequalities, including in access to water and sanitation, is a foundational requirement for effective climate action. We hope that decision makers in Glasgow are champions for this vision of a better world.

Kumi Naidoo is a Global Leader for Sanitation and Water for All and Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy. He is also former Secretary-General of Amnesty International and former Executive Director of Greenpeace.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Kumi Naidoo
LONDON, Mar 11 2013 (IPS)

When the environment changes, smart creatures adapt. And, in the face of a changing climate and changing economics, smart people are backing green energy. In 2011 almost a third of new electricity came from renewable sources. But, just as the first mammals had to contend with a world of dinosaurs, the pioneers of green energy have to contend with a world based on an obsolete carbon-based energy system that refuses to upgrade.

Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International.
Credit: Courtesy Greenpeace.

Although burning the world’s proven fossil fuel reserves will damage our climate beyond repair the dinosaur corporations who profit from carbon pollution are determined to find more. Shell’s 2012 annual report claims the company is doing its part in “building a better energy future”, but highlights developing oil fields, exploring for oil and gas, and mining oil sands as key activities. That means finding more fossil fuels that we can’t afford to burn, and trying to sell them to customers who, in reality, have or should have better options.

As easily extracted fossil fuels become scarce and global consumption of fossil fuels grows, the dirty energy industry is turning to more and more extreme methods of extraction.

The latest madness is “fracking”: a technique of drilling for gas in which a high pressure cocktail of water and toxic chemicals is used to split open rock formations far below the ground. The unconventional fuel expansion is, in fact, a delaying tactic. Fracking, deepwater drilling and tar sands extraction are dangerous fossil fuel fantasies in which we are supposed to think we can postpone the energy revolution and not move firmly in the direction of renewable energy. This delaying tactic has a massive price associated with it.

Fracking requires huge quantities of water. It also threatens to poison nearby water reserves and cause small earthquakes. It also releases unknown quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

In my own country, South Africa, Shell has been given a licence to explore the possibility of fracking in Karoo, threatening to turn a semi-desert into a total desert. Shell promises jobs and enough energy to power South Africa for years. These are the same promises extractive industries make everywhere they go.

Everywhere they go they do more than extract raw materials. They extract wealth and hope. Just ask the people of Nigeria. Or Venezuela. Or even Canada, where indigenous peoples have seen their rivers poisoned and traditional ways of life destroyed.

If South Africa wants jobs and energy it should withdraw the licence today, and remove all grey area around grid tie-in legislation, beginning with a clear net metering programme that allows for the inclusion of the small to medium renewable energy power producers. A nation blessed with enough sun, wind and waves to power itself has no need to sell its future. Nor to rupture its land for gas!

Fossil fuel companies claim fracking is clean, because burning gas emits less carbon than burning coal. Well, assault isn’t murder, but it’s still a crime. The world doesn’t need more gas to burn. There’s no need to lock emerging economies into nineteenth century technologies. Modern energy supplies are cleaner, cheaper and lack the destructive side effects of ripping up the ground in order to set it on fire.

The push for new extreme dirty energy forms is happening at a time when global carbon dioxide emission growth has been exceeding even the most pessimistic forecasts, and the impacts of climate change are already being felt. Pouring money into new fossil fuel production seems absurd in these conditions. At the same time, the amazing progress in renewable energy that has been achieved in recent years makes it abundantly clear that these destructive projects can be made redundant. We just don’t need dirty energy expansion.

Just as fixed line telephony has been passed over in favour of mobile phones, fossil fueled energy needs to be passed over in favour of modern renewable energy. The kind of domestic electrification needed to end fuel poverty can be delivered to a home by a few solar panels in hours, compared with the wait for a reliable national grid that in many countries has already been going on for decades.

In the absence of a global agreement on greenhouse gas emission reductions, it falls on every government – national and local — and business to implement clean and safe energy solutions, instead of scouring the ends of the earth for more dirty fuel.

And, it falls on every citizen to demand the extinction of the carbon dinosaurs.

(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

Disruptive diplomacy may be the only way out of the Iran-Israel nuclear crisis, the only way to pierce the hegemony of hypocrisy dominating the power politics of nuclear weapons control, of those who have them, and of those who are accused of developing them.

Otherwise, this weekend’s meeting on Iran’s nuclear programme is likely to be yet another missed opportunity, yet another exercise in futility.

Who will meet in Istanbul this Saturday? Iran and the ‘P5+1’, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the only “legitimate” nuclear weapons states under the U.N.’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – the United States, China, Russia, France and the UK, plus Germany.

Together, their collective history with Iran and Israel is one of complexity, pain and – so far as nuclear weapons are concerned – utter hypocrisy. There is no easy solution. What is needed is disruptive diplomacy in which both sides put forward something challenging, and in which everyone gives something up to win peace.

Only four countries sit outside the NPT: Israel, India and Pakistan never signed, and North Korea withdrew.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: by joining the NPT Israel can pierce the veil of its policy of “ambiguity”, place its facilities under international safeguards, and begin to dismantle its nuclear arsenal. In this way Israel can help end hypocrisy and build trust. Israel does not need nuclear weapons; these do not offer a safety net, instead they provide a destabilising influence throughout the entire region.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Iran could equally afford to dismantle its entire nuclear programme in favour of smart energy systems, efficient energy use and renewable energy sources. This is not cheap rhetoric. It could be done, and would benefit Iran’s people.

In 2007 the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior embarked on a Nuclear Free Middle East tour to address the threat of nuclear weapons in the region and the threat of another “weapons of mass destruction” war.

Greenpeace commissioned a study showing that a combination of decentralised energy systems, renewable energy use and energy efficiency would allow Iran to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, end its nuclear programme and meet the development needs of its people.

At the same time, Greenpeace activists demonstrated outside Israel’s Parliament, the Knesset, arguing, “Nuclear developments and nuclear weapons in any country provoke proliferation and undermine security region-wide.”

What about the so-called P5? The high-handed posturing of Iran’s principle accusers requires some scrutiny. They are the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. They are proof that nuclear weapons provide a seat at the top table of global security and thus power politics. Why else would Britain and France still have their own chairs? What right do any of them have to discuss illegal, so- called “preventative” attacks on a country?

Together they stand for over four decades of bad faith. Under the NPT they promised to disarm in return for all other signatories forgoing nuclear weapons. The P5 committed to negotiate away their deadly nuclear arsenals. They have not done so. Instead, they continue to invest; they continue to modernise their nuclear weapons and delivery mechanisms; they continue to undermine global nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Before accusing Iran of duplicity, the nuclear weapons nations need to stop and reflect. In reality the grand bargain of the ‘Atoms for Peace‘ pact at the heart of the NPT was always a dangerous lie. A diplomatic deceit promising to control the spread of nuclear weapons in return for support in developing nuclear power, an abundant power source that was supposed to be clean, safe and reliable, though it turned out to be dirty, dangerous, and expensive. A pact that Iran agreed to, but Israel has not.

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are the Janus faces of nuclear technology: you cannot have one without the other. No amount of agreement, treaties and inspection will ever remove the risk and temptation of a nuclear power state becoming a nuclear weapons state.

It can be made harder, but never impossible. Just as the risks of meltdowns are present at every reactor site, the risk of nuclear proliferation is attendant in every nuclear programme and the temptation to balance the possession by others of nuclear weapons is always there. The temptation to enter the arena of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is ever present.

The world does not need nuclear power. Greenpeace’s Energy [R]evolution – developed over many years with leading scientists and engineers – shows how we can avert catastrophic climate change, phase out nuclear power and transition to a clean energy system based on smart, efficient use and renewable energy sources.

As the first anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear crisis passes it is even more significant to note that this crisis was man-made, predicated on the inherent failures and risks of civil nuclear power. The earthquake and tsunami may have been natural in origin but the profit-before-safety ethos that pervades all industrial activity left the people of Japan and the world vulnerable to multiple nuclear meltdowns. For all its so-called reliability Japan is down to only one operating nuclear plant.

It is hard to see how any plan to bomb Iran into submission will do anything other than protract the problem and threaten to ignite a powder keg of conflict in the Middle East. As ‘The Economist’ has noted, bombing Iran will not eliminate the nuclear threat.

In truth, only a world free of all nuclear technology will help to build a workable trust on which to build a lasting peace. In Istanbul, governments should dare to disrupt the endless cycle of hypocrisy, accusation and counter-accusation and take real steps towards peace.

If we are really concerned about human security, if we are really concerned about our children and grandchildren’s peace and security, then we should be mustering all investments to move us in a direction of green, clean, renewable energy options. We must recognise that our quest for nuclear energy, the attendant threat of nuclear proliferation, and our reliance on fossil fuel-based energy have been the major drivers of conflict, war and flawed foreign policies.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: those from whom we borrow this world, for whom we keep it in trust and who are always caught up as collateral damage in foolish wars and sanctions – our children – deserve a clean, green future free of the threat of nuclear accidents and nuclear war.

*Kumi Naidoo is the executive director of Greenpeace International

By Kumi Naidoo
MONTREAL, Canada, Sep 12 2011 (IPS)

Durban should not be the burial ground for the Kyoto Protocol, says Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, about his expectations from the 17th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change happening in his hometown in South Africa later this year.

Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, said Africa will be looking to a binding treaty at COP 17. Credit: CIVICUS

For Naidoo, a former anti-apartheid activist who assumed Greenpeace‘s helm in 2009, a legally binding treaty, support for Africa’s women farmers and protection for the continent’s forests are among his wish list for COP 17, which may decide the the Kyoto Protocol‘s fate. The protocol, which expires in 2012, sets binding targets for 37 industrialised countries and the European community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Naidoo recently met with South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane. She is also the incoming COP 17 president.

South Africa has been holding talks with African ministers in order to present a united front at the international meeting in late November.

Speaking to IPS at the 2011 CIVICUS World Assembly, Naidoo said that while Africa will also be looking to a binding treaty, it will also be keen on clarifying how issues on climate change adaptation and mitigation will be dealt with.

Q: What are the chances that we will see a legally binding treaty come out of COP 17? A: The track record on compliance in regard to U.N. summits is so paltry it’s pathetic. We need to have a fair, ambitions and binding treaty. By fair, we mean that it should give expression to a common and differentiated responsibility, which takes into account that developed nations bear the culpability in terms of the crises we find ourselves in. That should reflect itself with rich nations being willing to pay their climate debt to support poor countries to be able to adapt and mitigate the impacts of catastrophic climate change.

We need the level of ambition that is equal to what the science says we need. The science tells us that developed nations need to be looking at between 25 and 40 percent in terms of emission targets and very few countries are close to that.

Given the position of the United States, and the fact that countries like Russia, Canada and Japan are trying to kill the Kyoto Treaty – I think the stars are not aligned to get a legally binding treaty. What we need to do then is get as close to the legally binding treaty as we can. If the United States is the only blocking nation, we need to find a way in which we can move ahead with pressure being brought on the U.S. to develop national legislation to provide equivalents to the commitments being made by other nations so that we get on with the serious task of acting, not just negotiating.

Africa is very keen on making sure Kyoto survives; we want the second commitment period agreed to. Durban should not be the burial ground for Kyoto. If it collapses, my sense is that the whole United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will collapse.

Q: Previous COP meetings have led to the creation of the Green Climate Fund to support mitigation, adaptation, technology and capacity building in order to respond to climate change. The decision to place the fund within the World Bank has been controversial, what are other ways the fund could be managed? A: There is a tension from (last year’s COP 16) in Cancun about the role the World Bank will play in the fund. The compromise is that the World Bank (WB) will start the fund and eventually it will evolve outside of the bank. I think many African countries, based on their experience with WB funding mechanisms, have a lot of reservations about that and that’s totally understandable and it’s shared by civil society largely.

It makes sense for the fund to be governed in a way that it is not seen to be disproportionally dominated by the World Bank, because saying it’s dominated by the World Bank is another way of saying it’s disproportionally influenced by rich countries that dominate its institutional governance.

There is a range of other possible mechanisms…and a body of experience now with HIV funding, like the Global Fund to Fight HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria and other vertical funds. It’s not rocket science.

Q: Where would you like to see money from the fund go? A: We know that African women farmers are in the overwhelming majority among farmers on the continent and that they have not been supported with seeds, fertiliser or technology…that’s where I’d like to see some of the Green Climate Fund resources being used. We also need to think about investing in things like water harvesting… supporting access to water for women. Those that have been vulnerable and marginalised must be the beneficiaries of climate negotiation and they must not be thrown crumbs – they need substantive policy support, structural support and technical support.

Q: Anything else on your COP 17 wish list? A: We need movement on forest protection, this affects the Congo basin countries, particularly the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Congo basin forests is one of the most important forests in the world….some might argue as equally important as the Amazon rain forest. We have to do everything in our power to prevent further destruction of that forest and have a sustainable forestry approach to del with he needs of the millions of people that live in the forest. It’s a key part of the lungs of the planet.

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo
THE INSTITUTION PRISON, NUUK, Greenland, Jun 20 2011 (IPS)

Nuuk is a long way from my hometown of Durban, and the Arctic is a long way for an African to come to campaign about climate change. Yet, here I sit, in a jail cell, with my colleague Ulvar Arnkvaern, in the ‘Institution’, a prison in Greenland’s capital. I sit here for breaching an exclusion zone and climbing aboard a dangerous deep water drilling rig some 120 km off Greenland’s coast.

Kumi Naidoo. Credit: Greenpeace

I came in defence of the fragile Arctic environment. I became the 22nd Greenpeace activist who in the last few weeks has volunteered to climb the rig in the middle of the Arctic. I came to add my body to the protest and my voice to the call for sanity and an end to dangerous deep water oil drilling in the Arctic. I became the 22nd activist to be arrested and held in a Greenlandic cell.

How can it be that in the wake of the 2010 Deep Water Horizon oil spill disaster an oil company can be allowed to drill at a similar depth in the Arctic, where any clean up operation would be all but impossible. Given the events of the Gulf of Mexico blow-out it would be logical that greater transparency and public scrutiny would be needed, not less or none.

The reason for Cairn’s secrecy is clear, a clean up would be impossible, the ecosystem would be decimated, Greenland’s fisheries would be destroyed and the 10 billion dollar Cairn oil company would be bankrupt: not a good look at the start of an oil rush, and a poor signal to the venture capitalists who hope to turn a big profit.

All of the above is more than enough reason to say no to deep water oil drilling in the Arctic. But, there are many more reasons to say no to Arctic drilling and to call for the world to go beyond oil.

Fossil fuel burning is altering our climate and melting the Arctic sea ice, changing the nature of one of the remotest places on earth, and one of the most hostile. The radically reducing ‘summer sea’ ice is a stark warning of a warming world. Yet the oil industry and the politicians who are beholden to it are treating the warning as an invitation to ‘drill baby drill!’

Climate change is already wreaking havoc around the world, it is hitting the poorest hardest and fastest. The Arctic is not only a victim of the change but in turn will likely reflect and magnify that change.

As an African I care about what’s happening in the Arctic in part because scientists say that the unprecedented warming up here could have grave knock-on consequences for vulnerable people across the world. A warming Arctic could dramatically change weather patterns many thousands of miles away.

At some point we have to draw a line and say: no more, and I say we draw that line here and now in the Arctic ice. I say we draw it in the world’s rainforests. I say we draw it in the wake of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, I say we draw it when someone proposes wasting billions on new fossil fuel stations when they should be investing in energy efficiency and clean, safe and secure renewable energy sources.

As I sit in jail, a Cairns dangerous drilling rig gets closer and closer to the oil and gas it is looking for, closer and closer to the spill zone, where a deep water blow-out could happen. Yet we are no closer to seeing their secret clean up plan.

As they drill deeper and deeper under the Arctic the world spins closer and closer to a climate tipping point, a point of no return in which our fossil fuel burning creates climate chaos, propelling extreme weather events, sea level rise, hunger and conflict.

Nature has presented us with warning and with that warning comes a test. An intelligence test, one we cannot afford to fail. How we respond here and now will decide what kind of world we are going to live in and what kind of world we will pass on to our children….

My stay in Nuuk will be a short one, soon I am likely to be set free and deported. But, I will think of Nuuk and the lesson of the metaphor of deep drilling in the Arctic when I return home to Durban in November. When I lobby and demand a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement at the 17th annual UN meeting designed to save the climate.

Let’s not be stupid, let’s say no to Arctic oil and yes to a world free of the threat of catastrophic climate change.

*Kumi Naidoo is executive director of Greenpeace International.

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
DAVOS, Jan 31 2011 (IPS)

“Smothered in white mud”, to quote South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma, Davos is a long way from the Durban township where I grew up. It is as far from my comfort zone as I’m likely to get. Yet, this was the tenth time in 12 years that I found my self cloistered in the expensive and exclusive resort surrounded by the corporate world’s aristocracy and a great many presidents and prime ministers.

My participation as a long-time activist has raised an eyebrow or two and has been the topic of an heated internal dialogue. I ask myself, as I hear news of anti-capitalism protesters, am I on the right side of the security fence? On the right side of the fortress that is Davos?

There are occasions where it makes sense to be on the inside, when it makes sense to ‘suit up’ and reach out to the captains of industry for some straight talk or, as we would say in Greenpeace, ‘direct communication’. After all, there are occasions when we go to great lengths -often involving a very long rope, indeed- to get our message heard by company directors. In Davos I met over the last days with no fewer than 15 CEOs of major corporations, men -and yes they were all men- whose decisions help shape our environment and affect workers’ rights and ultimately what kind of world we pass on to our children and grandchildren.

Davos for those who dismiss it as nothing more than an elitist executive speed-dating event -and it can be- was founded to ‘improve the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas’.

In discussions with colleagues we estimate that just over 200 or so of the more than 2,000 Davos participants come from civil society, trade unions, and faith-based groups -around 10 percent. That puts civil society representation just below that of women, which is a feeble 16 percent. Davos is far from representative, but wealth and power are certainly present, and the chance to speak truth directly to power makes it worth the trip.

Two examples among many serve to highlight the value of showing up: the first was a breakfast briefing with Unilever and some 150 of its customers. This was a golden opportunity to raise awareness of the impact of the company’s sourcing policies, to talk about the impact of palm oil plantations on rainforests in Indonesia and on the wildlife, and on the small farmers and indigenous peoples who are often cleared along with the forest.

I was invited by the CEO, who in offering me a chance to address the audience spoke of the curious relationship his company enjoys with Greenpeace. He spoke of our debate over the need to protect the forest and of the time last year when Greenpeace activists descended from the roof of Nestle’s annual general meeting to press home the point about palm oil and rainforest destruction.

The second example came when I was interviewed by Randi Zuckerberg, sister of Facebook founder Mark, which was broadcast live on Facebook from the Davos social media corner.

It was a great opportunity to tell Randi in person about our on-going campaign to convince FB to unfriend coal. I was also able to speak to directly to many in the company who would also be watching the broadcast. For months we have been calling on FB to go green and announce a plan to quit using energy from coal-fired power stations to run its massive data centres. Watch the interview on our web site www.greenpeace.org as I present Randi with a Greenpeace t-shirt and a set of demands that would allow the company to live up to its claim of being an innovative, forward- looking company.

Davos is not exactly a revival meeting for the socially or ecologically aware, but there are many who are beginning to realise that social and ecological bottom lines are directly linked to their companies’ bottom line. They know that more and more consumers are looking at the true cost of products and voting with their pockets to demand clean production and respect for the rights of workers and local people.

While all of the pressure on the outside has helped drive environmental issues up industrialist’s agendas, it is clear after several days walking the corridors here, that all too few genuinely share the sense of urgency about tackling the climate threat.

Greenpeace has no permanent enemies or allies, and we seek to work in concert with all who share our desire for a green and peaceful future, I’d have hoped to find more of those in Davos. While we fiercely protect our independence by not accepting funding from corporations, that does not mean we will not work in common purpose.

For me Davos is a key opportunity to speak truth directly to power and to stress what connects us rather than what divides us. It is a chance to make a direct appeal to the captains of industry as parents, as grandparents, and fellow citizens on this finite fragile planet of ours. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Kumi Naidoo is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International.

Excerpt:

The fact that an international climate deal is possible at next year's climate summit in Durban, South Africa is a good omen for the future of our planet, writes South African Kumi Naidoo, head of Greenpeace International.

- Fabricio Vanden Broeck

We at Greenpeace will not simply sit back and wait patiently for the politicians to act. We have begun to “follow the money” and will be working in the coming months to expose the billions in tax payers money being squandered on propping up dirty oil, coal and risky nuclear projects. We will be working to highlight the benefits of investing in safe alternatives like renewable energy.

Arguably, the marketplace is moving faster than the diplomatic process, some captains of industry are moving faster than the politicians and we expect that a political breakthrough will also result from a recognition that the markets will react favorably to leadership which reduces risk and uncertainty: that provides a stable regime for future investment.

At Cancún's carbon fuelled carnival of chaos, I witnessed rounds of applause and cheers as country after country agreed to fund climate protection and adaption in the developing world and agreed that much deeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts would be needed to stay in line with what climate scientists say is necessary.

Of course they have not yet agreed the fair, ambitious and legally binding deal the world needs to save the climate: a deal to save hundreds of millions of lives, to prevent countless species from becoming extinct and to preserve some of the world’s most precious habitats. It is, however, cause for hope, a down-payment on such a deal.

It shows us in civil society where to focus some of our efforts: • Governments not only stated that emissions cuts needed to be in line with the science — 25-40 percent cuts by 2020 — and that they need to keep global temperature rise below two degrees, but the also conceded that current commitments won't meet that goal. We need to push for higher cuts.

• A climate fund is being established that could deliver the billions needed for the developing world to deal with climate change and stop deforestation. But so far they have not established any way of providing that money. One way could be an international levy on aviation and shipping, for example. We need to make sure they put the money on the table and they need to do so without any further delays.

• An agreement has also been reached that deals with a mechanism to protect tropical forests in a way that benefits indigenous peoples and local communities as well as the rich biodiversity that resides in the forests. The Cancún agreement on forests further stressed the need for protecting forests nationwide and not on a project-by-project basis.

Much was left to decide over the next year before the delegates come together again in Durban, South Africa.

We have to really push to ensure that, in Durban, we see exactly where that crucial money is going to come from to pay for the forests, and for developing country action on climate change and help them cope with the impacts of climate change like the floods we have seen this year in Pakistan, Mexico and Colombia.

In the developing world we must move to get our governments to move quickly and be clearer about their own commitments — they and the international community must tell us what their pledges are — and get them openly and transparently on the table, so that we can work out just how far we are from that crucial temperature rise threshold.

As always not everyone came to the party in Cancún with good intentions, more could have been accomplished if not for the destructive role of the United States, Russia and Japan, for example. The U.S. in particular came across the border with feeble commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, despite being the world's highest historical emitter, proceeded to use its might to water down several important areas of agreement and even place a successful outcome in serious doubt. It brought nothing to the table except its own interests, interests that lie more with the intense pressure from the fossil fuel industry and the climate science denying Republicans in the U.S. Congress. Much will need to be done to pressure the United States into becoming a constructive partner on climate change, to say the least.

Developing countries were looking for strong action by the industrialized world, especially with the Kyoto Protocol. But Japan and Russia, by saying that they don't want to enter into Kyoto's second phase, caused those countries to weaken their commitments. Japan and Russia need to be convinced to change their minds. We at Greenpeace and all of civil society need to continue to pressure our governments to act in good faith, to put their money and emissions where their mouths are.

We have of course been at this juncture before, this crossroads, and despite over whelming evidence and benefits governments have balked and taken the wrong road. Isolationism, separatism and short-term political cowardice have all taken their toll on progress towards the fair, ambitious and legally binding treaty the world needs to avert climate chaos and to smooth the path to a greener more equitable economy.

But we cannot afford to give up hope, and for me at least, the fact that a deal is now once more possible and that the next place it can be realized will be in Durban, South Africa, is a good omen.

I grew up in a Durban township under the tyranny apartheid, and it was there I became an activist and worked for a peaceful end to the brutal regime. And, although many times wrong moves were made and hope for a peaceful resolution was all but extinguished, we held onto our hope, we persevered and we won.

Durban must now be the final destination in the long journey since the Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio, where talks on a climate saving deal were begun. The time is now. Let's hope that next year we can dust off the vuvuzelas and blow them in celebration for the planet when our governments agree a fair, ambitious and legally binding climate treaty!

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
DURBAN, Dec 15 2010 (IPS)

Next year will be another big year for civil society, a year which will see every effort focused on achieving climate justice: getting a good deal for the climate out of the United Nations World Conference on Climate Change in Durban, but also making sure that governments and corporations take action outside of the so-called political process.

We at Greenpeace will not simply sit back and wait patiently for the politicians to act. We have begun to “follow the money” and will be working in the coming months to expose the billions in tax payers’ money being squandered on propping up dirty oil, coal, and risky nuclear projects. We will be working to highlight the benefits of investing in safe alternatives like renewable energy.

Arguably, the marketplace is moving faster than the diplomatic process, some captains of industry are moving faster than the politicians, and we expect that a political breakthrough will also result from the recognition that the markets will react favourably to leadership which reduces risk and uncertainty: that provides a stable regime for future investment.

At Cancun’s carbon-fuelled carnival of chaos, on the morning of December 11, I witnessed rounds of applause and cheers as country after country agreed to fund climate protection and adaption in the developing world and agreed that much deeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts would be needed to stay in line with what climate scientists say is necessary.

Of course they have not yet agreed the fair, ambitious, and legally-binding deal the world needs to save the climate: a deal to save hundreds of millions of lives, to prevent countless species from becoming extinct, and to preserve some of the world’s most precious habitats. It is however, a cause for hope, a down payment on such a deal.

It shows us in civil society where to focus some of our efforts:

Governments not only stated that emissions cuts needed to be in line with the science -25-40 percent cuts by 2020- and that they need to keep global temperature rise below two degrees, but they also conceded that current commitments won’t meet that goal. We need to push for higher cuts.

A climate fund is being established that could deliver the billions needed for the developing world to deal with climate change and stop deforestation. But so far they have not established any way of providing that money. We need to make sure they put the money on the table and without any further delays.

An agreement has also been reached that deals with a mechanism to protect tropical forests in a way that benefits indigenous peoples and local communities as well as the rich biodiversity that resides in the forests. The Cancun agreement on forests further stressed the need for protecting forests nationwide and not on a project-by-project basis.

Much was left to decide over the next year before they come together again in Durban, South Africa, from November 28-December 9.

We have to really push to ensure that, in Durban, we see exactly where that crucial money is going to come from to pay for the forests, for developing country action on climate change, and for helping them cope with the impacts of climate change, like the floods we have seen this year in Pakistan, Mexico, and Colombia.

In the developing world we must move to get our governments to be clearer about their own commitments -they must tell us- and the international community -what their pledges are- and get them openly and transparently on the table so that we can work out just how far we are from that crucial temperature rise threshold.

As always not everyone came to the party in Cancun with good intentions. More could have been accomplished if not for the destructive role of the United States, Russia, and Japan, for example. The US in particular came across the border with feeble commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, despite being the world’s highest historical emitter, proceeded to use its might to water down several important areas of agreement and even place a successful outcome in serious doubt. Much will need to be done to pressure the US into becoming a constructive partner on climate change, to say the least.

We have of course been at this juncture before. Despite the overwhelming evidence and benefits, governments have balked and taken the wrong road. Isolationism, separatism, and short-term political cowardice have all taken their toll on progress towards the fair, ambitious, and legally-binding treaty the world needs to avert climate chaos and to smooth the path to a greener, more equitable economy.

Durban must now be the final destination in the long journey from the Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio, where talks on a climate-saving deal were begun. The time is now. Let’s hope that next year we can dust off the vuvuzelas and blow them in celebration for the planet when our governments agree a fair, ambitious, and legally-binding climate treaty! (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Kumi Naidoo is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International.

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
AMSTERDAM, Feb 8 2010 (IPS)

As the new Executive Director of Greenpeace International I am often asked what changes I plan to make for the organisation. The response I give is one which I believe applies to Civil Society as a whole: I would like us to become even more inclusive in our membership, even more united with other groups in our work, even more determined in talking truth to power, and even more active all around the globe.

Many of our world’s most important international infrastructures are in shambles, which has both contributed to and exacerbated the current series of manmade crises: food crisis, oil crisis, poverty crisis, and, of course, the climate crisis.

We are at a crossroads. We can choose to patch up dysfunctional infrastructures with weak “accords”, pursue unbalanced bailouts, and turn a blind eye to the poor and needy, but this route, apparently favoured by President Obama and other world leaders, does nothing to address the fundamental problems that got us in the mess in the first place.

Or we can reshape our future by creating new infrastructures that will put our society, indeed our whole planet, on a course for sustainability and equability. This is not the easy option, but I believe it is the right one.

In the case of climate, for example, nature demands that certain fundamental changes be made in how we live our lives. We need to change our economy from one run on fossil-fuels and based on consumption to one that harnesses clean and efficient energies and is based on moderation.

Kofi Annan’s Global Humanitarian Forum estimates that 300,000 people a year are dying from the effects of climate change. The horrible irony is that the great majority of those affected are the poor of the developing world although the problem was caused by the rich of the industrialised world. A new infrastructure demands that we look beyond local and national self-interest and think globally because, like most of the biggest problems today, climate change knows no borders. Unfortunately politicians lacked the courage to see to this at December’s UN climate talks in Copenhagen.

Something good did come out of Copenhagen, and that was a real unity of civil society. At Copenhagen we saw the World Council of Churches and other faith-based groups, trade unions, and development organisations that don’t normally get involved in climate issues unite to demand climate justice. This was the aim of the Tck Tck Tck campaign (a coalition of civil society organisations including Greenpeace, Oxfam, Amnesty International, the International Trade Union Federation, and others) and it is this willingness to find the interconnection between different struggles that builds our strength.

As governments continue to pay lip-service to the urgency of the climate crisis without making any substantial commitments, the impacts will become increasingly severe, making people poorer, development more difficult, and health issues more critical as communities are less able to adapt.

At Copenhagen, we collectively demanded that President Obama, Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy, and other industrialised world leaders commit USD 140 billion per year to enable the poorest and most vulnerable countries to adapt to and tackle the effects of climate change. In the end only a part of that sum was agreed -and even that is in doubt as they did not state where the money would come from or how it would be delivered. Moreover, they did not all adopt the accord or make it legally binding.

Civil society must continue to work together, as we did in the run-up to Copenhagen, to pressure governments to choose the path that will avert catastrophic climate change. Yes, there are tensions within civil society, between North and South NGOs, differences of opinion on personal issues like the right to choose or Palestine. They must not be allowed to get in the way, because ultimately there is much more that unites us than divides us. This is what we focused on at Copenhagen, and although we are far from winning the battle for climate justice, I believe we have made a good start.

We must also intensify the use of peaceful civil disobedience, drawing on the inspiration of Mandela, Tutu, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi. Those with power need to be kept under intense pressure if we are to ensure that they deliver the urgently needed change. In the words of the inspirational Howard Zinn (who passed away January 27), “What matters is not who’s sitting in the White House. What matters is who’s sitting in!” Let us all sit-in.

The battles ahead will be tough and we will need courage -but courage can take many forms. There is the courage of my four Greenpeace colleagues who carried out a peaceful act of civil disobedience at Copenhagen (which resulted in their spending 21 days in prison over the holidays, despite the fact that have not yet had their day in court), the courage of families to make life-style changes, of ordinary men and women to write letters, attend rallies, and use all non-violent means at their disposal to ensure that government and industry make the changes necessary for us to pass on a healthy planet to our children and our children’s children. A better world is possible, it is up to us, the people, to build it. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Kumi Naidoo is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International.

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and Claudia Ciobanu
COPENHAGEN, Dec 17 2009 (IPS)

“Climate change is an opportunity to deal with all the issues of equity and justice that we have been struggling for all along,” said Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International in an interview with IPS on Thursday in Copenhagen.

Kumi Naidoo, head of Greenpeace International Credit: Claudia Ciobanu/IPS

Q: With less than two days before the end of negotiations in Copenhagen, world leaders seem reluctant to commit to a fair, ambitious and legally binding deal. Why? A: I think that developed countries are still in denial about their responsibility, even if they formally acknowledge it. The bottom line is we have global economic apartheid and essentially what we are seeing here is a sort of climate apartheid.

I want to stress that it is the developed countries’ governments that do not care. The publics in the developed countries see the injustice of it and I think that not only do rich country governments betray the people of poor countries but they are also betraying the citizens of their own countries and they are betraying democracy.

Q: They are also using their publics as an excuse not to act? A: Absolutely. And that was indicated on Saturday, 12 December, with all the mobilizations around the world.

The level of mobilization on Saturday shows there is momentum building up now and what was most important for me is that it was not only the usual suspects (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and other environmental organizations), but also churches, trade unions, and development organizations that traditionally did not focus on the environment.

Q: So the environment works as a catalyst for a global movement? A: Yes. Because people can see the interconnections. How can we have human rights if the planet is uninhabitable, how do we make progress with development if people end up in a situation where every progress they make gets lost. Look at Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries in the world – it had huge innovations on the part of the NGO community, many of those progresses have been reversed already by the effects of rising sea levels that are contaminating the water supply and creating water scarcity.

Take gender equality for example. If we look at Africa, where climate change is already having a devastating impact on agriculture, and then we ask who are the most vulnerable, it is small farmers and many of them are women.

One of the things that rich countries don’t pay attention to is that climate change has already lead to conflicts, and it will continue to increase conflicts because, sadly, the new wars won’t be about oil but about water.

If you take the genocide in Darfur, people always see it as an ethnic conflict, but they forget that Lake Chad which neighbours Darfur was one of the largest inland seas in the world and now it is virtually dry. Water scarcity, along with land scarcity, is one of the biggest drivers of the tragic conflict in Darfur.

The US is spending 30 billion dollars annually now just on the war in Afghanistan. If they are worried about the kinds of money we are asking for, then what is the point of spending money on war, military conflict and conflict resolution when in fact they could actually create real life opportunities for people who have been desperately poor and socially excluded. If we address that, it is a way to prevent conflict and war.

Q: Climate change is a major security issue… A: It is a fundamental security issue and, even if everyone knows it, the summit has sadly not given enough attention to that.

At the end of the day it is a matter of political will. If months ago they could mobilize trillions of euros to bail out the banks, why can’t they mobilize in the same way to save lives and turn this crisis into an opportunity.

Because there is a real opportunity here. In Africa, we have not even begun to scratch the surface with solar energy. If we make serious investments in solar, it is very likely that within the next 20 years Africa, particularly North Africa, could be net exporters of energy into Europe.

And I think all developed countries here, particularly the EU as a collective and within it Germany, and mainly the US have behaved pathetically, especially when we put it in a framework of justice. Developing countries have been least responsible for the situation we find ourselves in and they are the ones who are paying the first and the most brutal price.

They were told that they needed to put targets on the table and they have done so in the run up to Copenhagen. India and China for example passed or are in the process of passing domestic legislation, and they are moving in the right direction, but the rich countries have not reciprocated.

If you want to put it bluntly, if we don’t deliver a fair, ambitious and binding treaty here, we are issuing a death warrant for small island states and the least developed countries.

Q: The way things look today, global leaders are just about to sign such a death warrant this week. A: We should remember that two years ago in Bali, at a similar time in the conference, people were even more pessimistic. It was on the last day that the moral pressure coming from the intervention of Papua New Guinea forced the US to compromise in the early hours of the morning.

In some cultures they say ‘it ain’t over until the fat lady sings’ and so I say ‘it ain’t over until the thin man from Washington DC sings.’ So let’s see when he (US President Barack Obama) comes.

Q: What do you think of the exclusion of NGOs from the negotiation center in the last three days of the conference? A: I think the actions against the NGOs represent a betrayal of democracy, a betrayal of the informal compact that civil society has with the United Nations. It is desperately unjust and cruel, especially for small NGOs.

For them – who have spent this year saving money and preparing to come here – to be so brutally, unceremoniously and without any sense of dignity tossed out is a really big betrayal. When you look at some of the smallest grassroots groups present here, people who actually have the most authentic voices, being treated as they have been is very painful.

It’s been very painful for me to be here inside and I have actually thought about walking out myself. But if you are going to get any movement in the negotiations we have to use any limited capacity we have (Naidoo, who explains that he comes from a background of small NGOs, has moist eyes as he speaks about this topic).

We cannot blame the exclusion of NGOs on the Danish government. We are here in a UN space and the UN should know very well that this conference would not take place without the activities of civil society over decades, the heads of states would not be here if it wasn’t for us putting pressure on them in virtually every country around the world over the last year to come here because this issue is too important to be left to junior delegates.

Also, the legitimacy of any outcome here is undermined if it’s being done behind close doors, behind people and civil society.

The UN needs to realize that even if by some last minute trick a fair, ambitious and binding treaty is agreed on – and we can live without the legal exact wording right now, we need a clear set of ambitious targets, with the right kind of money, with the right kind of specific actions agreed and drafting the deal language in the next couple of months – the real work starts the day after to actually implement the deal.

And who is going to hold governments accountable and complement government capacity if not the NGOs?

Even if CoP15 will be a failure, what I would say to all NGOs, community groups, social movements, big NGOs, trade unions and everyone who came here is that they must take heart. It is not their failing. It is a failing of political leadership and what we have done has created a global momentum. We need to consolidate that, unite more, work more aggressively and continue the struggle.

(*This story appears in the IPS TerraViva online daily published for the U.N. Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen.)

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
LONDON, Apr 6 2009 (IPS)

For those of us focused on eradicating poverty and inequality, the greatest risk about the G20 summit was that the richest countries would use the global financial downturn to cut back on aid commitments and put the interests of their own countries first. This would spell disaster for the millions of people suffering from rising hunger and climate change and living in deep poverty across the developing world.

When Gordon Brown finally emerged to announce the terms of the “deal”, those of us watching were cautiously optimistic. He spoke of the more than USD 1 trillion for emergency loans to help struggling countries. The scale seemed impossible to grasp and the mechanisms for delivering it to the poorest countries appeared dubious, to say the least.

That the G20 proposes to deliver such massive new resources mostly through existing International Financial Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and regional development banks, which have in the past insisted on failed policies of globalisation as a condition for poor countries getting their help, is perhaps the most worrying aspect.

Poor country governments have often been forced to implement policies of free trade and deregulation of their financial markets, and caps have been imposed on government spending for health and education. Will this continue now? The meeting was not clear.

We have been saying for years that these institutions urgently need to be reformed, and giving them more money without thorough reforms may not help the people who need the help the most.

We were also wary of the lack of detail in their communique on using stimulus investments to build a green economy.

It all boils down to the big governance question; is this the forum best suited to make these decisions and really tackle the flawed financial order that has been created recklessly over decades?

The G20, comprised of a tiny fraction of the world’s nations, is not the best place to work out the details of how to address the multiple global crises the world faces. The details need to be addressed at the UN, which has 192 member states. UN meetings coming up later this year -the United Nations Conference on the World Economic and Financial Crisis and Its Impact on Development, set for June, and the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change in December- will be key to moving forward on these issues, so we must be there and we must make sure they are not sidelined. Sarkozy cannot speak for Bangladesh, nor can Brown for Zimbabwe.

We cannot fix in one day what has been broken for more than 30 years.

We have long attended summits and meetings of world leaders which promised big on development aid and financing but delivered little. Frankly the words of our leaders often ring hollow. For Africa alone, the donors are USD 40 billion behind on the aid commitments they made at Gleneagles in July 2005. Countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, need untied grant money to help them achieve the MDGs: ODA, not more loans. Otherwise, the solution itself could become a problem. The reaffirmation of the commitment of the G-20 to achieving their respective ODA pledges, including commitments on Aid for Trade, debt relief, and the Gleneagles commitments, especially to sub-Saharan Africa, is therefore welcome.

This is about something real. Poor countries are in utter despair. They are suffering from the crippling effects of inflated food and energy prices, and from worsening climate change, and now they’re being hit by a financial crisis that their governments played no part in causing.

We really need equal representation of all the world’s countries on a fair platform to repair a de-stabilised and tipping global economy. The sentiments expressed in the G20 communique are good but it lacks the important details showing how the poor will be protected and how money will be channelled to the neediest women and children. Those of us in the anti-poverty movement will not be able to relax for a minute in the months ahead. We will be poised at the upcoming World Bank and IMF meetings in Washington, at the UN meetings in June and December, and of course the meeting of that even more elite group of nations, the G8, in July. This struggle is far from over. Only if we step up the pressure considerably will we be able to deliver justice to those that deserve it the most. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Kumi Naidoo is co-chair of Global Call to Action Against Poverty.

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo
JOHANNESBURG, Oct 16 2008 (IPS)

Since 2005, the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) has mobilised millions of unionists, activists, and ordinary people to demand an end to poverty and inequality.

Credit: Zahira Kharsany/IPS

IPS correspondent Zahira Kharsany caught up with Dr Kumi Naidoo, co-chair of the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) and honorary president of CIVICUS (the World Alliance for Civic Participation) in Johannesburg and asked him what progress this global campaign is making towards a more just world.

IPS: The Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) says that 50,000 people around the world die unnecessarily each day. What causes these deaths? Kumi Naidoo: If you look at just Africa: 7,000 people die of malaria, 6,000 of HIV/AIDS and 1,500 of tuberculosis each day. If you were to put that number together, in terms of loss of human life, it is the equivalent of five 9/11's every single day.

That's why GCAP called what's going on a practiced genocidal tsunami. Especially after what's been happening (with the global financial crisis) in the last few weeks.

We are convinced that if 50,000 people were dying everyday in Western Europe and North America, you can bet your last cent that the European Union, the U.S. and Canada and the G8 and so on would have found the money long time ago and addressed the problem.

We are then left with only one conclusion that, in fact, the lack of urgency has to relate to the colour of our skin. It is subliminal racism if you want to be kind about it.

Of the 50,000 deaths, 30,000 of those are young children. Too many children are dying at birth or shortly after birth, and also from other diseases and areas of conflict, and from just sheer hunger and poverty.

IPS: Three years ago, at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, the leading industrialised nations made commitments to fighting poverty and funding development in the South that you said could reduce that daily death toll to 37,000 by 2010. What progress has been made on implementing those commitments? KN: Firstly, the commitments made by the G8 in 2005 at Gleneagles Summit were not what the global call to action against poverty was all about. It was much less. Sadly, not even 20 percent of those commitments have actually been implemented.

The events of the last three to four weeks have shown very, very clearly that when there is political will, humongous amounts of resources can be found to actually address a particular global problem.

To give an example, to write off the third world debt would cost in the region of 500 billion dollars or even less. Five hundred billion is a figure that has been tossed around (in recent weeks) to bail out bankers who have behaved irresponsibly and so on. But there is a political will to save this banking system, so resources can be found.

IPS: The Global Call to Action against Poverty has long advocated greater justice in trade relations. What progress has been made on this front? KN: There has been no progress on trade justice. In fact, if there's been one area where there's been a cynical blocking on the part of the European Union, the US and a few of the allies in the north like Australia, it has been on the whole area of trade.

We needed to get a global trading system that would have clear developmental benefits and that would also address some of the injustices in the system. But the conduct over the years – and GCAP has been there, I have been there – what we saw was that even though the rich countries and the poor countries were not starting on a level playing field, you saw rich countries wanting to deny poor countries the same economic instruments that they used when they were still developing.

IPS: What exactly are the aims of this campaign from Oct. 17-19? What is the purpose of mobilising millions to "Stand Up and Take Action"? KN: In 2005, when we launched GCAP, we had a vision to unite trade unionists and NGOs and religious groups and so on. If each of us lobby and do our small little campaigns we can only get so far.

In 2005 we had three days of action around the G8, around the UN General Assembly and around the WTO meeting. Those three events mobilised close to 30 million people.

In the next two years we kept it going, but there were a couple of things we wanted to do. We didn’t want the figure we say we mobilised to be our figure, we wanted an external party to do it. And secondly we wanted to make it self-organising, where it doesn’t mean if you live in Tzaneen (South Africa) and there is a march in Pretoria, you say "It's too far" and so you can't make it.

We wanted people to be part of it where they live, where they work, where they pray and where they play. This year is the first time we set a target of getting 1 percent of the world's population to participate. The nice thing about this is people are also allowed to frame their demands as they want it.

We take a view that this struggle for human rights and the struggle for gender equality and the struggle to end global poverty – these struggles are marathons and not sprints, so we can’t take a view that if we take one action we will get an immediate response.

What we are seeing is that there is a critical mass of momentum that’s building up. We are building a strong collective momentum. If we look at the financial crises, if we and developing countries are smart we can come out of it with some of these agendas being addressed. And if we are not smart,the financial crisis will be used as an excuse for a reduction in development.

*The version of this interview originally posted Oct. 17 contained an error. Ingrid Srinath is the Secretary General of CIVICUS. Dr. Naidoo is presently co-chair of the Global Call to Action against Poverty and Honorary President of CIVICUS.

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
JOHANNESBURG, Oct 6 2008 (IPS)

Zimbabwe\’s new political pact, though a 180-degree turn from violence and deadlock to cooperation and progress, is unlikely to create sustainable change for the country, writes Kumi Naidoo, Honourary President of CIVICUS. In this article, Naidoo writes that the power-sharing agreement would leave Mugabe as president and make opposition leader Tsvangirai prime minister. The national healing that the agreement alludes to will require a realistic acknowledgement of the fact that it was the Mugabe government\’s past policies and actions that destroyed Zimbabwe\’s economy and threatened to decimate its people. A realistic assessment of that past starts with the recognition of the government\’s use of violence and intimidation. The acceptance of the past is the only viable foundation for instituting an effective system of transitional justice for the people of Zimbabwe. But this kind of realism will be difficult to attain with President Mugabe continuing to hold any amount of power.

Signed on September 15 by the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), the party of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, and the Zimbabwe African People’s Union-Patriotic Front (ZAPU-PF), the party of President Robert Mugabe, the power-sharing agreement would leave Mugabe as president and make Tsvangirai prime minister and head of a council of ministers responsible for day-to-day governmental operations. The president and prime minister would share the exercise executive power.

Though the text of the agreement is steeped in the rhetoric of cohesion and unity, equality and healing, the talks seem to have transpired in a familiar air of uncertainty and tension. While the world watches hoping that this represents a genuine step toward a true handover of power, most people are not holding their breath.

The agreement recognises the need to develop mechanisms to promote national healing, but it does nothing to create them. The international community and the people of Zimbabwe have been calling not for a document but for substantial changes that will affect the politics of the country and the lives of the people. The recognition of certain values on paper in no way guarantees them in practice.

To begin with, the national healing that the agreement alludes to will require a realistic acknowledgement of the fact that it was the Mugabe government’s past policies and actions that destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and threatened to decimate its people. A realistic assessment of that past starts with the recognition of the government’s use of violence and intimidation. The acceptance of the past is the only viable foundation for instituting an effective system of transitional justice for the people of Zimbabwe. But this kind of realism will be difficult to attain with President Mugabe still holding power.

Despite initial cynicism, however, it seems that the agreement provides some real grounds for hope, especially in its prescription for a new constitution for the country. However, the drafting of a new constitution will involve a prolonged process of collaboration by all parties working towards the same vision of peace. For an outside observer, it is difficult to know whether the ZAPU-PF and the MDC actually share a common vision, and if so, whether this vision reflects the voices of the people.

If the MDC and ZANU-PF are in fact miraculously seeing eye-to-eye for the first time – and for the sake of hope and optimism let’s assume they are – the power-sharing deal still lacks one crucial element of democracy: the input of the Zimbabwean people. The agreement remains a strict reflection of the politicians involved. Zimbabwean civil society continues to be excluded from the peacemaking and rebuilding processes of the country. History has shown that neglecting the voices of the people often leads to tremendous failures at times of transition and change.

If the government of Zimbabwe is truly turning over a new leaf, then it is time for it to encourage the participation of the people. It is more likely, however, that Zimbabwean civil society will continue to be ignored, which shamefully reveals that Zimbabwean politics -whether superficially democratic or not- is not moving towards empowerment but rather repeating a cycle that represses the voices that matter most.

Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether the rhetoric of the power-sharing agreement will be converted into action, whether institutions to guarantee the rights of the Zimbabwean people will be created and respected, and whether the crises that the people have endured will be properly recognised and addressed in the reconciliation and transition process.

That said, the real work starts now. The true intentions of the Zimbabwean government will be revealed only in the period to come. Power-sharing agreements are fragile at best. Without people and systems to protect them, they stand no chance against past resentment. This agreement represents a break from the past and may mark the beginning of a process of change. And if there is hope that this agreement will give rise to new attitudes and effective reform, then the international community must support the process.

But as with almost anything related to Zimbabwean politics and Mugabe, there will always a knot in the stomachs of onlookers. Though this agreement may reveal that Mugabe does in fact intend to slowly extract himself from power – and many hope he is ready to leave – the world can never be certain. Sudden actions have always resulted in little change for Zimbabwe, so the world will simply have to wait and see if the power-sharing deal is stronger than the paper it’s written on. But, to be honest, there is always the looming fear that Mugabe may have a trick or two left up his sleeve. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
JOHANNESBURG, Mar 18 2008 (IPS)

In a frightening turn, torture has made its way back into the public debate, with the governments that supposedly advocate democracy and freedom coming to its defence, writes Kumi Naidoo, former Secretary General of CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. In this article, the author writes that President Bush recently all but acknowledged the use of torture against suspected terrorists and essentially condoned its practice by US officials when he vetoed a bill outlawing torture. This decision comes in the wake of recent testimony by CIA director Michael Hayden that the agency has used waterboarding techniques on detainees. For the US to publicly admit and condone torture undermines the efficacy of the Convention Against Torture, which the US ratified in 1984, and undermines the positive work of many American activists and progressive politicians who have advocated for political freedom and good treatment of detainees. The message this approach sends is clear: If you can justify it, torture is okay (look, even the Americans do it!).

US President George Bush recently all but acknowledged the use of torture against suspected terrorists and essentially condoned its practice by US officials when he vetoed a bill outlawing torture.

The 2008 Intelligence Authorisation Act would have applied the US Army Field Manual on interrogations to all government agencies, including the CIA. The Manual, which currently applies only to the Department of Defense, prohibits specific acts of torture and abuse, including waterboarding (simulated drowning), and authorises an array of legitimate interrogation methods.

This decision comes in the wake of recent testimony by CIA director Michael Hayden that the agency has used waterboarding techniques on detainees, ongoing allegations of the torture of Guantanamo Bay prisoners, and the release of shocking pictures of abuse of detainees by American soldiers in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison in 2004.

The US ratified the 1984 Convention Against Torture on 18 April, 1988, becoming the 63rd nation to do so. The Convention specifically outlawed torture, which it defined as ”any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person” for punishment or to extract information or ”when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

The US president at the time, Ronald Reagan, stated, ”By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.”

Unfortunately, at present the US (and many other signatories of the Convention) appears to be justifying torture in the context of the war on terrorism. Rather than ensuring that the war on terror protects basic human rights – such as freedom from torture – it is in fact allowing it to legitimise such practices.

In South Africa, during apartheid, the notion of terrorism was used as an instrument of widespread and systemic human rights violations by the regime. But even the apartheid state, as brutal as it was, publicly denied its use, aware that publicising its use of cruel interrogation methods would place it under an even hotter international spotlight.

For a democratic state, notwithstanding some of its own democratic deficits and with its global standing seriously waning, to publicly admit and condone torture, undermines the efficacy of the Convention Against Torture and the positive work of many American activists and progressive politicians who have advocated for political freedom and good treatment of detainees. The message this approach sends is clear: If you can justify it, torture is okay (look, even the Americans do it!). The sometimes scathing US State Department Reports which highlight the abuse of detainees in numerous countries will now seem hollow and insincere.

Even more worrying is that evidence obtained through official cruelty is now being used in military commission trials at Guantanamo Bay. In allowing this, the US administration is undermining its own judicial system and ensuring that many who have been accused under terrorism laws receive patently unfair trials. As Human Rights First pointed out in its recent report, which documents the use of such evidence, research has consistently shown that suspects who are tortured often provide false or misleading information merely to stop the abuse or because their mental or physical functions have been impaired.

The connection between torture and false or misleading information was recently demonstrated in the Hollywood film Rendition, which highlights yet another questionable practice of the US government: extraordinary rendition, a system of torture by proxy by which suspects are transferred to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques.

We at CIVICUS join civil society organisations throughout the US who have expressed disbelief and outrage with President Bush’s decision to veto the bill. An appeal published by Common Dreams, an alternative news wire, asked their supporters to stand up and exclaim ”That’s not my America. My America Doesn’t Torture!”. As an international organisation, we join this appeal in stating that America is not only letting down its citizens, but those in states whose governments are influenced by American policies and who have long sought legitimacy for their own brutal practices.

The real test of democracy is not refraining from human rights abuses when all is well but rather upholding its values in the face of internal and external threats. Undermining certain fundamental tenets of democracy in the name of the fight against terrorism only impoverishes the idea of democracy, the practice of human rights and ultimately undercuts the fight against terrorism. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
JOHANNESBURG, Feb 13 2008 (IPS)

With Russia\’s presidential elections — notoriously a time of clampdown on dissent — looming, it is important to ask whether non-governmental organisations (NGOs) there will be able to freely go about their legitimate activities, whether providing services, election monitoring, or holding the government to account, asks Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General of CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and Tanzilya Salimdjanova, associate at CIVICUS – Civil Society Watch programme. In this analysis, the author writes that while in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, anti-NGO campaigns and policies were quickly implemented with devastating impact after independence, in Russia there is still time and space to advocate for civil society and support NGOs and human rights activists in their efforts to prevent civil society space from vanishing altogether. As Russia is a gravitational force, its moves towards protecting or suffocating civil society will play a huge role in influencing the policies of surrounding countries. Let us hope that they choose the path of openness, cooperation, and providing space for their vital partners in civil society.

Not so long ago, the people of Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan celebrated as the various hues of revolution swept through their countries and opened up new space for public dialogue and debate. Conversely, citizens in neighbouring countries felt the strong grip of their governments grow ever tighter. The most restrictive and, therefore, most fragile regimes in the neighbouring post-Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and also the Russian Federation itself, reacted immediately, launching campaigns against independent citizen groups.

Turkmenistan decided from the very beginning of its independence to restrict citizen activism, allowing only a handful of environmental groups to register. In Uzbekistan since 2003, and in Russia since 2006, the governments have specifically labelled NGOs involved in public mobilisation and protest the major threats to their regimes.

The governments in the region use various justifications for their crackdown on NGOs, including the enforcement of measures to combat terrorism and extremism in the region. NGOs that cooperated with and received funding from international organisations were accused of undermining state security and their staff members were criminalised as foreign intelligence agents. Public speeches were made by the presidents of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and government officials in Russia warning citizens of the harmful influence that foreign-funded NGOs could have on internal stability. A documentary was even made in 2005, profiling a conspiracy theory linking human rights groups with British intelligence agents in Russia. The film was re-run several times on Russian public TV, and watched in the neighbouring countries as well. In this way, citizens’ organisations were scapegoated and became the ”enemy of the state”, an easy target for authorities, but the wrong one.

In Uzbekistan, the restrictive decrees of 2003 to 2005 forced all NGOs to re-register and undergo a thorough investigation into their activities. As a result, by 2005 about 2000 NGOs were forced to close, and regulations on foreign grants stopped virtually the entire flow of international funding. The Russian campaign against NGOs appears to have drawn inspiration from these actions by its southern neighbour: amendments to the NGO Law in 2006 made it impossible for many NGOs to re-register, prevented the registration of new groups, and imposed cumbersome reporting procedures on NGOs, especially those who received funding from abroad. This campaign continues, and has led to the gradual closing of space for public dialogue, subjecting civil society and human rights activists to scrutiny and harassment by a range of government monitoring bodies, and severely restricting freedoms of expression, assembly, and association.

In July 2006, President Putin met with a group of international NGOs that raised the issue of the implementation of the new NGO law and its effect on the operations of NGOs in Russia. Noting that the law had some weaknesses, President Putin personally promised that the implementation of the law would be reviewed during 2007. It is already 2008 and so far no moves have been publicly made to begin the review.

In the past year, many of the flaws of the NGO law and its implementation have come to the fore. As highlighted by numerous reports by Russian NGOs, the law has been shown to be unclear, burdensome, and accompanied by disproportionate penalties. This limits the contribution that Russian NGOs can make to their country and its people.

While in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan anti-NGO campaigns and policies were quickly implemented with devastating impact, in Russia there is still time and space to advocate for civil society, and support NGOs and human rights activists in their efforts to prevent civil society space from vanishing altogether.

Here at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, we echo the calls of many in Russian civil society in appealing to President Putin and his successor to listen and act for their citizens and their organisations. They must also act with the region in mind, as Russia is a gravitational force : the moves Russia makes towards protecting or suffocating civil society will play a huge role in influencing the policies of surrounding countries. Let us hope that they choose the path of openness, cooperation, and providing space for their vital partners in civil society. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
JOHANNESBURG, Dec 19 2007 (IPS)

In the last twelve months we have seen civil society organisations challenged by political threats to civil society\’s right to exist, by the need to improve its internal governance, and by the threats that face humankind, from climate change crisis to poverty and inequality, writes Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General of CIVICUS: A World Alliance for Citizen Participation. In this article the author writes that in 2007 civil society found itself under attack in many countries around the world. In Ethiopia peaceful anti-poverty campaigners Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie are still in prison after 25 months on charges of conspiring to overthrow the government. The verdict of their case is due on 24 December, 2007. In Burma (Myanmar) we saw a vicious state-sponsored crackdown on civil society expressing its right to assembly and expression. In Pakistan activists, lawyers, and campaigners were the victims of President Pervez Musharraf\’s imposition of emergency rule. Unfortunately these are not isolated cases but a few of many continuing attempts across the globe to clamp down on dissenting voices, often in the name of the \’war on terror\’. These are being waged increasingly through legislation to restrict civil society\’s legitimate work.

In 2007, civil society has found itself under attack in many countries around the world. In Ethiopia peaceful anti-poverty campaigners Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie are still in prison after 25 months on charges of conspiring to overthrow the government. The verdict of their trial is due on 24 December, 2007. In Burma (Myanmar) we saw a vicious state-sponsored crackdown on civil society expressing its right to assembly and expression. In Pakistan activists, lawyers, and human rights campaigners were dealt a major setback in the form of President Pervez Musharraf’s imposition of emergency rule on November 3.

Unfortunately these are not isolated cases but a few of many continuing attempts across the globe to clamp down on dissenting voices, often in the name of the ‘war on terror’. These efforts are being waged increasingly through legislation that is intended to restrict civil society’s legitimate work. Let us hope and work for 2008 to be the year when this rollback of civil liberties ends and civil society is allowed its rightful space to flourish.

In addition to responding to these external challenges, in 2007 civil society sustained its consideration of its own internal governance structures. While polling has consistently indicated that people trust civil society leaders and organisations more than they trust business or government, it is essential that civil society continue to lead by example in accountability and transparency if it is to confront and monitor governments, international institutions, and corporations.

In this regard, it is a very encouraging development that by the end of 2007 nearly 60 organisations will have signed the International NGO Accountability Charter (launched in 2006), which outlines a common commitment to excellence, transparency, and accountability. Moreover, throughout 2007, workshops, meetings, and conferences were held as part of an ongoing process intended to create and improve civil society governance systems.

In the past year, civil society has also been challenged by a number of major problems currently affecting humankind as a whole. Issues like the climate change crisis and the prevalence of poverty and inequality continue to affect citizens in every area of their lives and, in turn, have a significant impact on the work and focus of civil society organisations. In 2007 civil society responded to many of these global issues with coordinated and successful campaigns and mobilisations. On October 17th the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP), in partnership with the United Nations Millennium Campaign, mobilised more than 43.7 million people in more than 125 countries to take action against the structural causes of poverty and inequality. In addition, civil society organisations organised a series of coordinated and powerful events and advocacy initiatives around the world in conjunction with the December United Nations climate change meetings in Bali, Indonesia.

The developments of the past twelve months have highlighted how important it is for civil society to continue to confront external threats, to proactively improve its internal governance structures, and actively work to advocate and campaign for solutions to the major issues affecting humankind. In this context, there can be no doubt that the work of civil society for the purpose of building a more just world remains as relevant as ever, if not more so. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
JOHANNESBURG, Jun 6 2007 (IPS)

It was in Germany in 1884 that Africa was carved up randomly and its communities destroyed by the dominant world powers; is it to redress this that the G8 summit in Germany is focused on poverty relief and climate change? asks Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General of CIVICUS, chair of Global Call for Action Against Poverty (GCAP). In this article, Naidoo writes of the need to involve those whose situation we aim to improve in formulating the shape and direction of assistance offered to them. This is not just a moral call but a matter of basic human rights. Aid is not a panacea; increasing aid should come with increased efforts to make aid work. We need both more and better aid, fairer trade conditions, and renewed efforts to lift the debt burden, so that the promises made truly improve the lives of the poorest. It is the G8\’s duty to ensure that this happens. 123 years after the Berlin Conference and 61 years after the Marshall Plan, Germany has an opportunity to change its legacy. It could be remembered not only as the place where Africa\’s woes began but also as the place where impoverished nations got the chance they needed to recover, once and for all. Just as Germany benefited from the Marshall plan, surely a global Marshall, or perhaps Merkel, plan now makes sense. It would ensure that future generations live in a world with political, social, economic, gender, and environmental justice.

In many ways, the fact that Africa is now extremely rich beneath the ground yet extremely poor above it dates back to this period. Africa’s poverty and degradation is principally due to colonial actions and to the failure to redress the injustices done both by colonial plunder and the neglect of many African post-independence leaders.

So is it to redress the errors of the past that the G8 summit in Germany is focused on poverty relief and climate change?

It is widely acknowledged that both poverty and global warming are caused by human behaviour and affect the entire planet. The Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP), a coalition spanning over 100 countries and representing millions of people, is demanding that justice be done by planning a future that favours everyone, not just the rich; a future that favours all the complex parts of human existence, not only material wealth. To this end, all of us — civil society, governments, and business — need to get serious about accountability of all to all.

While the direct results of the horrendous colonial past maintain and worsen poverty, they are also one of the most detrimental forces to our common environment. For instance, what peace brought the Democratic Republic of Congo was not so much an improvement in people’s daily lives as access to virgin forests for Western companies and corrupt Congolese government officials, causing further degradation of both the socio-economic and natural environment.

Congo’s problems are only a symptom of the current global economic and environmental apartheid. As I have witnessed myself as an anti-apartheid activist in my country, South Africa, such divisions create downward spirals with their own momentum that have far-reaching detrimental consequences. History has shown that the spiral can be broken only by bringing the system down through mass mobilisation and a peaceful transition in which all parties join.

These days civil society organisations take the issue of accountability seriously, acknowledging that all they have to work with is the trust that people worldwide place in them. They understand that they will be closing their doors sooner rather than later if they lose the trust of the wider public. This seems to be yet another inconvenient truth for G8 leaders who feel the need to build a wall around their meeting venue to keep their citizens out. The fear and aggression represented by this wall is part of a larger trend marked by a clamp-down on civil liberties in the name of the ”war on terror”.

The real test of democracy is upholding the right to be heard against all odds. When G8 countries act in ways that undermine democracy, it makes it more difficult for people in repressive countries struggling to be heard and get involved at basic levels. Accountability cannot be measured in aid figures alone. Though aid efforts indeed still fall behind the G8 promises of 0.7 percent of GDP, and though this amount is a minimum necessary to address matters on a subsistence level, real accountability is but part of a broader picture. As Oscar Wilde said: only fools know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Here lies the link between voice, development, and democracy. The ritual announcements of new large promises of aid during and after G8 meetings only serves to draw attention away from the larger issue. What matters here and what matters most is that billions of citizens of this planet lack the power they need to solve their own problems.

Consequently, central to our demands are calls for citizens to be involved in their own governance. We underline the need to involve those whose situation we aim to improve in formulating the shape and direction of assistance offered to them. This is not just a moral call: this is a matter of basic human rights. Since the Marshall Plan of sixty years ago, we know that this approach works when properly managed and directed to the provision of essential services. Aid is not a panacea; increasing aid should come with increased efforts to make aid work. We need both more and better aid, fairer trade conditions, and renewed efforts to lift the debt burden, so that the promises made truly improve the lives of the poorest.

It is the G8’s duty to ensure that this happens: 123 years after the Berlin Conference and 61 years after the establishment of the Marshall Plan, Germany has an opportunity to change its legacy. It could be remembered not only as the place where Africa’s woes began but also as the place where impoverished nations got the chance they needed to recover, once and for all. Just as Germany benefited from the Marshall plan, surely a global Marshall, or perhaps Merkel, plan now makes sense. It would ensure that future generations live in a world with political, social, economic, gender, and environmental justice. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo
JOHANNESBURG, May 12 2007 (IPS)

Less than a fortnight remains before the seventh annual World Assembly of CIVICUS – the World Alliance for Citizen Participation. This Johannesburg-based body brings together non-governmental organisations from across the spectrum to strengthen civil society, notably where its activities are under threat.

Kumi Naidoo, secretary general of CIVICUS Credit: Moyiga Nduru

To find out more, IPS writer Moyiga Nduru spoke to Kumi Naidoo, secretary general of CIVICUS.

IPS: Why the decision to retain the conference theme?

Kumi Naidoo (KN): The world is fragmenting rather than uniting at the moment: there are more fault lines that are emerging, North-South divisions are strengthening, regional divisions are strengthening, unfortunately internal conflicts are strengthening…So the theme ‘Acting Together for a Just World’ is relevant and timeless.

IPS: How many organisations are you expecting to see represented in Scotland? Will they be the same groups that attended the last assembly?

KN: I think we’ll have at least a 50 percent return rate. However, I should say that it’s not necessarily the same person from the organisation who was there last year that will come again. It’s good in cases where that happens, but from our perspective it’s not a bad thing to have different people, so that we can build relationships more broadly.

In terms of numbers, we hope it will be more or less like it was last year when about 600 people from around 110 countries attended.

IPS: The World Assembly is taking place ahead of the G8 summit in Germany, for the eight leading industrialised nations, which is set for June. Are you hoping that the conference will deliver a message to G8 leaders – and if so, on what issues?

KN: Debt cancellation, improving the quality of aid, increasing the quantity of aid, trade justice, gender equality – and corruption and good governance.

Just two years ago in Scotland itself, in Gleneagles, all sorts of nice commitments were made (by G8 leaders). On debt cancellation, they cancelled for 14 African countries and four Latin American countries. We wanted 56 countries to benefit from the deal.

The G8 have dragged their heels on trade negotiations. They are focussing on the selfish interests of their own countries. The European farmers, for example, dump poultry in Ghana. The Ghanaian farmers are screwed in their own national market because the European farmers dump poultry at next to nothing…We’re living in a world of global economic apartheid…These are the types of messages we’ll be taking to the G8.

IPS: Looking at discussions that are scheduled to take place at the assembly about civil society, what are some of the main issues that will be raised?

KN: One of the things we will be doing consistently throughout this assembly, as we did in the last, is focusing on civil society activists who are in prison: we pick 20 people, and focus on them on the basis of regional diversity. We want to make the point that this is taking place across the world.

We’ll be opening the World Assembly – as we did last year – with a focus on two Ethiopian colleagues, Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie, who have been in prison now for more than 18 months. We have been campaigning for their release. We met with (Ethiopian Prime Minister) Meles Zenawi just over a year ago to plead on their behalf. We were optimistic, based on things that Zenawi had told us, that they would have a fast trial.

IPS: The war on terror is said to have undermined civil society…What effects have you noted in this regard?

KN: The war on terror has a devastating impact on democracy generally, and the space for civil society specifically. Through their actions, the United States and United Kingdom have sent a message that if you have a (security) threat you can legislatively detain people without trial. You can engage in torture.

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
JOHANNESBURG, May 10 2007 (IPS)

Africans have to stand in solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe by holding their governments to the democratic principles which they profess, writes Kumi Naidoo, secretary general of CIVICUS, an international network of civil society organisations In this analysis, Naidoo writes that the myriad of problems the country faces must be addressed on several levels and, most important, these efforts should focus on the citizens of the country. Civil society organisations are integral to this equation. However, government threats against civil society are increasing and there are legal limitations on their work, particularly in organising public meetings. And there has been a frightening rise in both open and clandestine attacks against peaceful civic activists.

As Africans, however, we hold many tools in our hands. The myriad of problems the country faces must be addressed on several levels and, most important, these efforts should focus on the citizens of the country.

Civil society organisations are integral to this equation. They are providing affordable food as inflation skyrockets; medical care to those unable to pay hospital fees; shelter for the growing number of orphans; and legal defence to those forced onto the streets after the ZANU-PF government’s Operation Murambatsvina demolished their homes.

It is essential that we, both as African governments and citizens, support the vital work and the struggles of civil society organisations in Zimbabwe.

I travelled to Zimbabwe from 13-16 April with my colleague, Clare Doube, who has been leading CIVICUS’s work in supporting civil society groups under threat in Zimbabwe and in other countries through our Civil Society Watch programme.

In Bulawayo and Harare, and in our car trip between the two cities, we were struck by the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe: the disintegration of the health and education systems, the meltdown of the economy, the fragmentation of families, the general sense of fear and trepidation, and the ”disappearances” of citizens — as many as 600 according to some observers.

We spoke with representatives of beleaguered non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade unions, and religious groups who told us that government threats against civil society are increasing. There are legal limitations on their work, particularly in organising public meetings.

And there has been a frightening rise in both open and clandestine attacks against peaceful civic activists. And people who are dedicated to their country are being forced to leave, simply to survive.

One particularly disturbing example is a new government report entitled ”Opposition Forces in Zimbabwe: A Trail of Violence” which attempts to undermine peaceful civil society organisations, including some of CIVICUS’s partners, by criminalising their legitimate activities and falsely accusing them of promoting violence.

On a Saturday during our visit, we witnessed such intimidation firsthand when roadblocks and displays of water cannons and heavily-armed riot police were used to discourage people from attending a prayer meeting of civic activists and church leaders in Bulawayo– though the event itself passed without disruption. It was the first public gathering in Zimbabwe since the viciously repressed 11 March meeting in Harare.

It was even more worrying to read a leaked memorandum from Zimbabwe’s police commissioner, Augustine Chihuri, stating that the police should identify the ”ringleaders” of the event and ”not to hesitate to shoot to kill”.

Just as we arrived back in South Africa, our colleagues called from Zimbabwe to tell us that the information minister had made a statement revoking the registration of every NGO in the country, effectively shutting them down. We were shocked. But a colleague from the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition dismissed the remark as merely an empty threat designed to intimidate civil society because no law was passed.

Civil society activists like this colleague are used to threats. While they may wake up in fear at night or continually look over their shoulders, such threats have not stopped their work — yet.

One of the speakers at the prayer meeting that Saturday was a priest from Malawi. He told the story of a grasshopper that was being moved only by the collaborative and cumulative efforts of many small ants. So, what can we, the small ants of Africa, do when faced with a grasshopper?

Civil society organisations in Africa have an integral role to play. As well as offering solidarity, we must also lobby our governments to stand up for what they profess to believe in: human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

While the Southern African Development Community and the African Union choose to label the crisis in Zimbabwe a political one, we insist that the real struggle is not seen on political platforms, but in people’s homes.

Accordingly any lasting solution must involve not only political parties but also the people of Zimbabwe through NGOs, trade unions, and religious groups. We must look beyond politics and listen to the voices of the people of Zimbabwe.

It is imperative that all Africans must stand up and offer solidarity. This is not a time for indifference, inaction, and platitudes. Silence is not an ethical option. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
JOHANNESBURG, Mar 3 2007 (IPS)

Gender equality is a challenge to all men and women who want to create a just world. During the struggle against apartheid we learnt that white people will never be free until black people are free. Similarly, men will not enjoy full freedom if women do not enjoy full gender equality, writes Kumi Naidoo, Secretary-General of CIVICUS, the Worldwide Alliance for Citizen Participation. In this article, the author writes that gender equality is central to meeting the various challenges that humanity faces. Like all social challenges, the struggle for gender equality must be equally shared by men and women. I and all fellow men will have to decide whether we are part of the problem or part of the solution. However, the leadership role of women in the fight for gender equality must be recognised and asserted at all times. Just as it would be impossible for someone who has not experienced racism to fully understand the totality of racial oppression, so too while men can be supportive of the struggle for gender equality, they can never understand the totality of gender injustice. For men and women alike it is important to recognise that we are all products of intense gender socialisation. Only once we accept this can it become clear that it takes more than a great effort to understand how we men have been socialised in a predominantly sexist world. Consequently, it will take men a lifetime to fully understand the impact of gender inequality let alone dealing with it.

”What legitimacy have governments that are raising the biggest concerns about development of nuclear energy in Iran, if they themselves are brazenly going ahead to upgrade their nuclear weapons?”

Other speakers asked why billions of dollars are raised for nuclear weapons and other weaponry seemingly overnight, while by comparison relatively small sums of money are offered to take action against poverty and inequality. Between banners and flags, I was struck by two women in their seventies carrying a small poster that read: No peace without gender equality. Another remarkable feature was the large number of women, both young and old, that were present in the march. This was a powerful reminder that we are on the eve of perhaps the most important day of global observance, International Women’s Day, which is March 8.

A feminist activist friend of mine once said: ”Given that men have ruled the world for so long and have mainly given us war, conflict, and injustice, it would be great to give women a chance. How much worse can they do?” At the time of the remark, the feminist activist friend was a young man in his late twenties working on the role of men in tackling gender based violence. A feminist man was an oddity then, but today it might just not be any less rare. This lack of male involvement is more than just unfortunate: it is blocking gender equality.

Like all social challenges, the struggle for gender equality must be equally shared by men and women. I and all fellow men will have to decide whether we are part of the problem or part of the solution. However, the leadership role of women in the fight for gender equality must be recognised and asserted at all times. Just as it would be impossible for someone who has not experienced racism to fully understand the totality of racial oppression, so too while men can be supportive of the struggle for gender equality, they can never understand the totality of gender injustice. For men and women alike it is important to recognise that we are all products of intense gender socialisation. Only once we accept this can it become clear that it takes more than a great effort to understand how we men have been socialised in a predominantly sexist world. Consequently, it will take men a lifetime to fully understand the impact of gender inequality let alone dealing with it.

Gender equality is central to meeting the various challenges that humanity faces. Thus the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP, www.whiteband.org), whose global secretariat is hosted by CIVICUS, is rightly linking poverty and gender equality much more tightly. Members of the GCAP Feminist Task Force met in Nairobi, Kenya, prior to the last World Social Forum to develop a mobilisation strategy for GCAP days of mobilisation in 2007. GCAP’s first mobilisation in 2007 will be on March 8th, International Women’s Day. The March 8th campaign will be global in scope with national and regional specific demands to apply pressure on national and local governments.

My mother, who passed away when I was fifteen years old, used to say that it is more important to try and fail than to fail to try. Her relatively short life and experience taught me that gender equality is a challenge to all men and women who want to create a just world. During the struggle against apartheid we learnt that white people will never be free until black people are free. Similarly, men will not enjoy full freedom if women do not enjoy full gender equality. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
JOHANNESBURG, Jan 1 2007 (IPS)

One fact of globalisation is that many decisions that affect virtually all human beings everywhere, for many generations, are increasingly taken by a few, writes Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General of CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation. In this article Naidoo writes that countering this ever-increasing democratic deficit at both the domestic and international level is a major concern of this World Social Forum. One of the current challenges is the trend of increasing threats to civil society\’s very existence. These are closely associated with the so-called \’war on terror\’ discourse and practice and take the form of legislation passed by an ever-growing number of countries to restrict the rights and activities of civil society. As civil society has grown more powerful, at both the national and global level, there is also increased questioning by governments and critics of the legitimacy, transparency, and accountability of civil society. Many efforts are underway to address this challenge.

One fact of globalisation is that many decisions that affect virtually all human beings everywhere, for many generations, are increasingly taken by a few. The importance of efforts to counter this ever-increasing democratic deficit at both domestic and international levels cannot be overemphasized, and the WSF represents a key part of these efforts.

The WSF will bring together representatives of civil society organisations and individual citizens from across the world to voice their concerns regarding the forces of globalisation, and to exchange ideas on how best to promote meaningful citizen participation and social justice. This year’s forum will provide space for participants to exchange ideas around such important topics as HIV/AIDS, gender, privatisation, landlessness, peace and conflict, migration and diaspora, youth issues, debt relief, free trade agreements, labour and housing, and others.

One of the current challenges is the increase in threats to civil society’s very existence. These are closely associated with the so- called ‘war on terror’ discourse and practice and take the form of legislation passed by an ever-growing number of countries to restrict the rights and activities of civil society. CIVICUS hopes that during this year’s WSF there will be calls to make greater efforts to support and help defend the civil society organisations and activists that are being increasingly threatened in many parts of the world.

As civil society has grown more powerful, at both the national and global level, there is also increased questioning by governments and critics of the legitimacy, transparency, and accountability of civil society. Many efforts are underway to address this challenge, such as that of a diverse group of NGOs that have agreed an International NGO Accountability Charter in 2006. The charter illustrates civil society’s commitment to ensure that it maintains the highest ethical standards possible and that it never takes the high level of public trust that it enjoys for granted.

Another challenge that civil society must face is to find greater common ground for dialogue and action. The space offered by the WSF is an indication that civil society continues to make progress in this regard, but much more needs to be done. There are other encouraging signs as well, such as the recent unification of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the World Confederation of Labour, and a few other independent trade unions. This was arguably one of the most important steps toward greater unity within civil society and has important lessons for NGOs and other parts of civil society.

The ongoing efforts of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) also give reason to hope for more united civil society action across countries, sectors, and regions. In October 2006, around the International Day for Poverty Eradication, GCAP led a mobilisation effort called Stand Up Against Poverty. According to the Editor-in-Chief of the Guinness Book of Records, the 23.5 million people who participated constituted the largest-ever single mobilisation of people in a twenty-four-hour period in the book’s history. These actions — which seek to keep pressure on governments to deliver on their fairly modest commitments and to open up pathways to participation by new constituencies of citizens — show how important it is that we focus on the considerable number of areas where there is agreement and common ground, and to agree to respectfully disagree on the smaller number of areas of difference.

Most broadly, the challenge we must accept is to reflect deeply, at the local to the global level, on how civil society can enhance and improve our effectiveness. We as civil society across the world are called upon to recognise that one of our strengths stems from our diversity. The danger is that diversity can sometimes be used as an excuse for parochialism, a lack of willingness to explore collaborative ways of working, and sometimes individualistic approaches to social change for the greater public good. CIVICUS’ hope for the vast, diverse, and complex ‘global community’ that we call civil society is that we will be able to take advantage of the space that we already have for meaningful dialogue, learning, and strategising — including the WSF — to talk more about how we can act together more effectively to create a better and more just world. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
JOHANNESBURG, Jun 1 2006 (IPS)

In its present form the United Nations is ill-equipped to advance humanity\’s best interests, writes Kumi Naidoo, Secretary-General of Civicus: World Alliance For Citizen Participation. In this article the author writes that the democratisation of the UN cannot be limited to the current efforts at reform. Calls by the Secretary General for full, systemic, and meaningful civil society participation must be urgently implemented in order to make the UN system more transparent, accountable, and democratic. What is most urgently needed is a changed consciousness at the international level. This is an essential prerequisite for the UN to achieve a profound democratic transformation that will allow humanity to deal effectively with the new challenges of the 21st century. Civil society traditionally has helped bring about great societal changes. It shall continue to do so in the years ahead.

Since the end of the Second World War the world has seen breathtaking geopolitical changes and technological breakthroughs, but our system of international governance has failed to keep pace with the times.

Now, sixty years later, as humanity faces increasingly intractable global challenges in a profoundly interdependent world, the urgent need for coordinated, collective responses is obvious. Quite simply, the global challenges of the 21st century require global institutions of governance capable of dealing with them in a democratic and effective manner.

In its present form the United Nations (UN) is ill-equipped to advance humanity’s best interests. As an inter-governmental institution, the UN provides a forum for global issues, but only to member states through their representative governments. It was designed for a time when crises on one side of the world did not necessarily affect national interests on another, but globalisation has changed that once and for all. Nowadays, a crisis anywhere is a crisis everywhere.

A change in consciousness is required at the national level, where, in the words of British prime minister Tony Blair, ”national self-interest becomes delivered through effective communal action”.

The veto power in the Security Council of the permanent members (P5) is the most glaring example of the nationalistic foundation on which the UN was built. With it a single member can block any initiative, for any or no reason.

The P5 veto privileges are blatantly anachronistic and, if not eliminated entirely, they should at the very least be reserved for truly exceptional circumstances. Veto power certainly should not be extended to potential new permanent members; on the contrary, its exercise should be strongly discouraged by all member states and eventually phased out.

In relation to the selection of the Secretary General, it can be argued that the veto was never intended for use in this context. Furthermore, the selection process should be open to the General Assembly and civil society. It should include steps to insure the selection of the best qualified woman or man for the position.

The democratisation of the UN cannot be limited to the current efforts at reform, however welcome these may be. Calls by the Secretary General for full, systemic, and meaningful civil society participation must be urgently implemented in order to make the UN system more transparent, accountable, and democratic.

Some member states see NGOs as anti-government and not as necessary partners providing expertise and legitimacy to UN processes. This perception must change. While some governments will reject any level of civil society participation out of fear for their own legitimacy, others are honestly concerned by the large increase in the number of ECOSOC-accredited (UN Economic and Social Council) NGOs. Thus the current trend at the General Assembly away from the large conferences of the 90s toward informal meetings and other ”NGO-free spaces”.

This trend is troubling to civil society, but it also provides new opportunities for more effective and focused NGO participation at the General Assembly (GA) level. We at CIVICUS welcome GA President Jan Eliasson’s current consultations to explore concrete and pragmatic new forms of collaboration between the General Assembly and civil society.

However, while this is a positive development, it is no substitute for participation in agenda setting, preparatory processes, and the events themselves.

For its part, civil society must recognise its own transparency and accountability deficits and adopt new international codes of conduct. An ”Accountability Charter” developed by CIVICUS and a group of leading international NGOs has just been announced.

The economic and social objectives of ECOSOC are regularly thwarted by the de facto independent policies and decisions of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). While ECOSOC is powerless to enforce its rules, these organisations are not, which allows the seven powerful countries that control these bodies to dictate economic models at odds with ECOSOC goals.

The private sector needs to be persuaded to enter into a sincere collaboration with governments, international institutions, and civil society in the understanding that such collaboration will benefit all. Some of the most pressing issues of common interest include human rights, the eradication of poverty (including but not limited to the MDGs), climate change, responsible production and consumption, and migration. The market can no longer be allowed to dictate economic and social policy. New rules are needed to govern international capital flows, trade, markets, and multinational corporations. The Global Compact must undergo a radical transformation, including the adoption of basic rules of corporate responsibility and accountability which are internationally binding and enforceable.

Gender equality and the empowerment of women must figure prominently in all aspects of UN reform. The current widespread exclusion of women from the international institutions’ rosters of high-level officials is disgraceful and counter-productive.

But first and foremost, what is needed is a change in consciousness at the international level. This is essential for the UN to achieve a profound democratic transformation that will allow humanity to deal effectively with the new challenges of the 21st century. Civil society traditionally has helped bring about great societal changes. It shall continue to do so in the years ahead. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
JOHANNESBURG, Jan 1 2006 (IPS)

As thousands of activists prepare for the two World Social Forum (WSF) events to be held in Mali and Venezuela in January, there are those both within and outside the WSF process that are asking, What global solutions is the WSF generating? writes by Kumi Naidoo, Secretary-General of Civicus: World Alliance For Citizen Participation. In this article, Naidoo writes that while it would be mistaken to straitjacket all WSF delegates into an artificially-constructed consensus on policy positions, it is important that the Forum correct the myth that there are no major policy directions that most WSF delegates share and advocate — both within and outside of the WSF. For example, on the question of the debt crisis facing many countries in the South, there is already a broad consensus on a fairly clear set of recommendations. Given that one of the driving motivations of the WSF was to serve as a counterpoint for the World Economic Forum, it is important that in the battle of ideas, vision, and perspectives on what world we want to create for future generations, the WSF serves as an enabling space which can present alternatives that reach the hearts and minds of people who are not yet actively involved in the commendable efforts to ensure global justice.

As thousands of activists prepare for the two World Social Forum (WSF) events to be held in Mali and Venezuela in January, there are those both within and outside the WSF process that are asking, What global solutions is the WSF generating?

While the WSF has consciously sought to create a space for dialogue and engagement and not to produce agreement on specific policy positions, the Forum does provide a useful opportunity for different civil society actors to find common ground, engage in joint strategizing, and plan joint activities for the future. The launching last year of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) in Porto Alegre was a conscious decision by GCAP organizers to align this effort with the broad and positive message of the WSF that ”Another World is Possible”. There was no expectation, though, that all WSF delegates would agree with all the policy positions it advocated.

To those critics who have tried to dismiss the WSF as ”the anti-globalisation forum” it is important to point out that in essence what the Forum represents is a voice of concern and criticism about the deeply inequitable and painful social and economic realities that ordinary citizens are facing in both rich and poor countries today. In a relatively short period of time, the WSF has come to represent a yearly occasion where civil society can draw attention to some of the enduring and new injustices that citizens around the world face, from conditions relating to growing militarization, the deepening democratic deficit, inequalities in global governance, to growing human rights violations. This is a just and important contribution.

The WSF has come to represent a loose network of forces around the world advocating social, economic, and political justice. To dismiss it as simply an ”anti-globalisation” movement is to ignore, among other things, the fact that it is one of the most globalised movements in the history of this planet.

While generating agreement on specific policy positions in the delegates’ numerous areas of focus would be extremely difficult for the WSF decision-making structures, particularly given the diversity of views within the Forum, I think there is a balance that might be found in highlighting the propositional elements in the WSF message. The Forum’s critique of the current global political and economic order clearly contains kernels of proposals for change.

Although it would be a mistake to straitjacket all WSF delegates into an artificially-constructed consensus on policy positions, it is important that the Forum correct the myth that there are no major policy directions that most WSF delegates share and advocate — both within and outside of the WSF.

For example, on the question of the debt crisis facing many countries in the South, there is already a broad consensus on a fairly clear set of recommendations. While there might be specific differences between various participating organizations, both within a particular WSF coalition and amongst WSF delegates, finding a way to more forcefully communicate areas of considerable agreement is a viable possibility. The leading coalitions in the different sectors can take the lead in advancing these positions in the run-up to, during, and after the WSF events, whether through high-profile media conferences or other specific activities organized around the WSF.

It is also important to learn from other civil society gatherings that put themselves under pressure to agree on a communique and a set of resolutions. We have often seen how a sense of unity is dissipated by an overwhelming focus on deciding which specific words should go into a resolution — a process that hobbles creativity and innovation. Keeping demands for change at a broader level –whether regarding the environment, gender, or prosecution of the so-called ”War on Terrorism”– might be worth pursuing, while recognizing of course areas of difference. Such a move would silence those who argue that the WSF crowd knows how to complain about what is wrong with the world but is incapable of saying what should be done to make it more just, equitable, and sustainable.

The World Economic Forum, with considerably greater resources and far more access to the media, is of course in an advantageous position in terms of getting its messages out via most mainstream media networks. However, given that one of the driving motivations of the WSF was to serve as a counterpoint for the WEF, it becomes critically important that in the battle of ideas, vision, and perspectives on what world we want to create for future generations, the WSF serves as an enabling space which can present alternatives that reach the hearts and minds of people who are not yet actively involved in the commendable efforts to ensure global justice.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
LONDON, Jul 1 2005 (IPS)

As the campaign against global poverty gathers steam in the run-up to the G-8 summit, the pressure on leaders is mounting to increase the measly amounts they currently give in aid to the poorest countries, writes Kumi Naidoo, Chair of the Global Call to Action against Poverty. Along with cancelling debt and reforming unfair trade rules, an immediate increase of USD 50 billion in aid from the richest countries is a pivotal demand of campaigners worldwide, the author writes in this article. Ending global poverty, the kind of poverty that kills one child every three seconds, is not a distant dream but a practical, achievable objective, an economic essential, and a moral imperative. The eight men that will meet July 6-8 in Gleneagles know that by making a small change to the policies of the richest countries in the world, they can play their part in halting the 50,000 deaths from poverty every day. Millions of people in the world\’s largest anti-poverty campaign, The Global Call to Action against Poverty, are demanding pro-poor policies from governments that are transparent and accountable to citizens. They are all calling for justice, not charity and marching on their capitals, all wearing white bands, they are a visible demonstration of the power of people to unite, across borders, around a simple ask: take action to stop poverty.

As the campaign against global poverty gathers steam in the run-up to the G-8 summit, the pressure on leaders is mounting to increase the measly amounts they currently give in aid to the poorest countries. Along with cancelling debt and reforming unfair trade rules, an immediate increase of USD 50 billion in aid from the richest countries is a pivotal demand of campaigners worldwide.

July 1 the White Band Week has started — the week when millions of ordinary people around the world, from Georgia to Germany, Nepal to Nicaragua, stand united by wearing a white band, the symbol of the Global Call to Action against Poverty, and ask for action on poverty.

Ending global poverty, which kills one child every three seconds, is not a distant dream but a practical, achievable objective, an economic essential, and a moral imperative. The eight men that will meet July 6-8 in Gleneagles know that by making a small change to the policies of the richest countries in the world, they can play their part in halting the 50,000 deaths from poverty that occur every day.

Today the G-8 countries have never been richer and yet never given less. G-8 governments give half as much now as they did in 1960 — USD 80 billion, the equivalent of cup of coffee per week in aid per citizen to the developing world. In comparison to the USD 1 trillion the world spends on defence each year, the GCAP demand the G-8 leaders to increase aid annually by USD 50 billion is just small change — the cost of just one more cappuccino per week for each G-8 citizen.

Campaigners’ demands for the G-8 to reach 0.7 percent of national income in aid are based on a 35-year-old commitment made by the G-8 countries themselves.

And we know that this extra aid will work. Millions of children are now in school in Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi and Zambia, thanks to money provided by debt relief and aid. For the same reason, Ugandans no longer have to pay for basic health care, a policy which resulted in a 50-to-100 percent increase in attendance at Ugandan health clinics and doubled the rate of immunisations. These people are living proof that aid can and does give people the opportunity to progress out of poverty.

Of course there’s a long way to go. Hit by years of poverty and HIV/AIDS, education and health systems in poor countries are stretched to the limits. And as long as governments are forced to spend more on debt repayments than they receive in aid, there is little hope for true development.

The announcement by G-8 finance ministers in June of cancellation of the debt owed by 18 countries was a step in the right direction, but it is still just a drop in the ocean. Much more political will is needed — like that seen when Iraq’s USD 30 billion debt was written off in a single day. Forty-four other countries needing debt relief to achieve their anti-poverty targets, including Sri Lanka, Haiti, and Vietnam, have been left out of this deal, and the debt mountain for these countries will only continue to grow.

Some critics of development finance blame the continuance of world poverty on corruption. It is true that if we are to make poverty history then corruption has to be tackled, whether in rich or poor countries, governments, international institutions, or businesses. It is ultimately the people of developing countries who are best placed to hold their governments to account on corruption. And, often supported by aid, they are already doing so. A growing and strengthening civil society across the developing world is now demanding that the aid and debt relief received by their governments is applied where it can make the maximum possible difference to the poorest people’s lives.

Millions of people in the world’s largest anti-poverty campaign are demanding pro-poor policies from governments that are transparent and accountable to citizens. Spread across national platforms in 72 countries, the majority of the 150 million people involved in the GCAP campaign are from the developing world. They are calling on governments to be more effective in the delivery of basic services and development, and to meet the Millennium (minimalist) Development Goals. They are also strongly calling for significant progress towards full gender equality, recognising that women and children carry the biggest burden of poverty.

It is time for the tired ”basket case” stereotype of the developing world to be dispensed with once and for all. As this campaign shows, citizens from all around the world have united in their demands to world leaders to double aid and ensure accountable and transparent anti-poverty policies. They are all calling for justice, not charity and marching on their capitals. All wearing white bands, they are a visible demonstration of the power of people to unite, across borders, around a simple ask: take action to stop poverty. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Kumi Naidoo and - -
GENEVA, Jan 1 2005 (IPS)

As the World Economic Forum and the World Social Forum convene in Davos and Porto Alegre, respectively, there is the sense that deep forces we can barely discern are reshaping the world and that the national and global institutions we have always counted are inadequate, write Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, and the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, and Pamela Hartigan, Managing Director of the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship. Yet we are optimists, the authors write: for the past four years we have worked closely with the world\’s leading social entrepreneurs whose inspired pragmatism banishes pessimism. While we cannot reformulate our institutional systems overnight, we are convinced that we can do it in the long run because we witness the current work of social entrepreneurs who are now creating different types of institutions that combine public and private sector approaches to achieve economic and social transformation. Governments and aid agencies no longer can be the sole actors in addressing injustice and inequity. The private sector can no longer see itself as simply in the business of making business. And the philanthropic sector cannot be expected to fill in the gaps. We need a hybrid organisation that does all of these things. This column is a part of the special series on \”Globalisation & Human Rights\”, a joint effort of Dignity International (http://www.dignityinternational.org) and the IPS Columnist Service.

As the World Economic Forum and the World Social Forum convene in Davos and Porto Alegre, respectively, the mood is one of foreboding, a sense that deep forces we can barely discern are reshaping the world and that the national and global institutions we have always counted are inadequate.

Yet we are optimists. Why? Because for the past four years we have worked closely with the world’s leading social entrepreneurs whose inspired pragmatism banishes pessimism. Their passion, energy, and ability to see opportunities for social innovation and transformation at every turn are contagious.

We need social entrepreneurs as never before, for we are asked to do nothing less than rethink the world’s economic models. Over the last 200 years the primary global economic system has been driven by three interrelated processes: the growth of industrial production and mass consumption; market capitalism within a framework of government regulations and minimum standards; and technological advances. This has benefited some people hugely, others somewhat less. But two billion people have no stake in the present global order. Both the World Economic Forum and the World Social Forum have recognised that the gap between the rich and the poor is the central challenge before us.

While we cannot reformulate our institutional systems overnight, we are convinced that we can do it in the long run because we witness the current work of social entrepreneurs who are now creating different types of institutions that combine public and private sector approaches to achieve economic and social transformation. We are in an interesting phase of new thinking and experimentation, where the key ingredients are imagination, disciplined innovation, and the ability to spot talent and persistence.

Our solutions lie in helping those successful social entrepreneurs achieve scale, for we cannot expect the systems that created the problems we now experience to now come up with solutions to those problems. We need new alliances, new thinking. Governments and aid agencies no longer can be the sole actors in addressing injustice and inequity. The private sector can no longer see itself as simply in the business of making business. And the philanthropic sector cannot be expected to fill in the gaps. We need a hybrid organisation that does all of these things. Here are two examples of what we mean:

Farouk Jiwa founded Honey Care and introduced a new beekeeping technology into Kenya. Honey Care supplies beekeepers with beehives and trains them in the new method. It subsequently acts as honey purchaser from the communities. Honey Care partners with NGOs to provide micro-financing and beekeeping training. In five years Honey Care has captured 27 percent of the domestic honey market — Kenya was a major importer of honey– and established a network of 2,500 bee-keepers located in extremely poor, subsistence-based rural communities in the western of the country. As a result, these farmers are earning between USD 200 and 250 a year, double their previous incomes. Jiwa’s operation is for-profit, but rather than focus on generating wealth for shareholders, Honey Care is using the market for social transformation, and he is achieving it.

Then there is Rodrigo Baggio who had a dream in which he saw the poorest children in the favelas of his home town of Rio de Janeiro using computers. Today, Rodrigo’s Committee for the Democratisation of Information (CDI) has moved beyond Rio to 869 cities throughout Brazil and 10 other countries. Working in close partnership with community centres in Brazil’s poorest and most violent communities, as well as prisons, CDI teaches computer literacy to the digitally excluded, using as content material to stimulate citizens’ rights and responsibilities. CDI has certified over 80,000 students, 87 percent of whom report it has transformed their opportunities for gainful and dignified employment.

These examples, and many others, are all the more amazing because each was achieved without substantial financial backing. We have lost sight of the scale on which one person can create social change, and the minimal quantity of euros or dollars required to achieve it.

The growth trajectory for social entrepreneurs starts out slowly. Unlike many donors who want to see transformational results in 18 months, social entrepreneurs have learned it takes time to change the world. It often takes them 5 to 10 years before their ideas become viable solutions. Even then, their approach must be continuously modified to respond to unforeseen obstacles or dynamics along the way.

Social entrepreneurs face challenges at every step of their evolution because they challenge the accepted way of doing things. They are a different sort of revolutionary. They see opportunities others don’t because most of us are blinded by the established way, whether we are governments, companies, or NGOs.

Thus new, innovative solutions to complex social problems are there, staring us in the face; we’ve just been looking in the wrong places for them! Social entrepreneurs, working in partnership with open-minded and self-critical partners, be they governments, business, philanthropists or NGOs, can change the world much more effectively than working alone, as they have been until now.

While it may seem risky to seize the opportunity opened up by today’s apparent chaos and confusion to invest in innovative solutions, it is more risky to cling to the past and to inflexible, unimaginative bureaucratic structures and practices. The future belongs to entrepreneurial individuals and organisations that relish challenging current ‘wisdom’ and reinventing the future. Let us keep this in mind at Davos and Porto Alegre. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: