Apr 28, 2008

India PM calls aborted fetuses shameful
By GAVIN RABINOWITZ –

NEW DELHI (AP) — India's widespread practice of aborting female fetuses is a "national shame," the prime minister said Monday, insisting the country can no longer ignore the problem if it wants to be a modern nation.

Experts say up to 500,000 female fetuses are aborted in India every year because of a deep-rooted cultural preference for male children, who will help support their parents in old age and attract wives with substantial dowries.

"This is a national shame and we must face this challenge squarely here and now," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told a conference on ways to "Save the girl child."

"No nation, no society, no community can hold its head high and claim to be part of the civilized world if it condones the practice of discriminating against one half of humanity represented by women," Singh said.

The British medical journal The Lancet recently reported that up to 500,000 female fetuses are aborted every year.

Singh said the number of girls per 1,000 boys declined nationally from 962 in 1981 to just 927 in the last census in 2001. Activists believe the problem has become even worse since the census.

The gap in the ratio between girls and boys is more extreme in wealthier urban areas where couples want fewer children and the pressure to produce a male increases. In the northern state of Punjab, there were only 798 girls for every 1,000 boys, Singh said.

For a recent report, the group ActionAid sent interviewers to 6,000 households in five north Indian regions. In Punjab, researchers found rural areas with just 500 girls for every 1,000 boys, and communities of high-caste urbanites with just 300 girls per 1,000.

Labels: , ,

Apr 23, 2008

Carter comes back from Hamas with an olive branch

Aijaz Ahmad: Carter including Hamas in peace process is itself a major development
Wednesday April 23rd, 2008

David Newman, professor of political geography at Israel’s Ben-Gurion University, tells The Real News Network that Hamas’ claim that it will respect a peace deal with Israel—if it is accepted in a vote by Palestinians—represents “a more moderate position” than what the group has previously expressed.

The Real News senior analyst Aijaz Ahmad concludes that Hamas’ new, slightly softened stance could represent “a major breakthrough” in the ongoing standoff between Israel and the Islamic militant group.

David Newman is a Professor of Political Geography and a Senior Research Fellow at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, where he founded the Department of Politics and Government. Editor of the international journal, Geopolitics, and former columnist for The Jerusalem Post.

excerpt:

AIJAZ AHMAD, SENIOR ANALYST, THE REAL NEWS: A very important thing to understand in this context is just who Jimmy Carter is. He's not only a former president of the United States, but the one president who negotiated between Israel and Egypt the most durable peace agreement that there has ever been between Israel and the Arabs. And it is because of that agreement that there has never been, since then, an Arab-Israeli war. So painting him today as somebody who's somehow opposed to Israel, particularly sympathetic to Palestinians, and so on is really contrary to historical fact. As the head of Carter Center, he has been intimately involved in observing the two key elections in Palestine, both 2005 and 2006, and therefore understands the political landscape.

The principal achievement of President Carter during this trip is that he has tried to establish the fact that it is both necessary and legitimate to speak to Hamas, contrary to the position taken not only by the Israeli government, but also all the western governments. The criterion for legitimacy for Carter is simple: you don't have to like Hamas; you don't have to agree with Hamas; you simply have to recognize the fact that Hamas won the elections of 2006 and thus represents a very vast amount of Palestinian public opinion. In talking to Hamas, President Carter seems to have extracted from them a very interesting public statement, namely that President Abbas has the right to negotiate any peace agreement with Israel that he considers appropriate, and if the Palestinian people accept that agreement, Hamas will accept it too. Finally, President Carter has also helped clarify and make public a position that Hamas has been expressing for a long time but has not been covered in the media. What it says is that Hamas would be willing to live side by side with Israel as a neighbor and would even offer a complete truce for ten years. This is a major breakthrough, I believe, and this should be taken up by the United States, the western powers, and anyone else who wants to see peace established between Palestinians and Israelis.

Labels: , ,

Apr 17, 2008

No Peace Without Hamas

By Mahmoud al-Zahar, WashingtonPost
Thursday, April 17, 2008; Page A2
GAZA -- President Jimmy Carter's sensible plan to visit the Hamas leadership this week brings honesty and pragmatism to the Middle East while underscoring the fact that American policy has reached its dead end. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acts as if a few alterations here and there would make the hideous straitjacket of apartheid fit better. While Rice persuades Israeli occupation forces to cut a few dozen meaningless roadblocks from among the more than 500 West Bank control points, these forces simultaneously choke off fuel supplies to Gaza; blockade its 1.5 million people; approve illegal housing projects on West Bank land; and attack Gaza City with F-16s, killing men, women and children. Sadly, this is "business as usual" for the Palestinians.

Last week's attack on the Nahal Oz fuel depot should not surprise critics in the West. Palestinians are fighting a total war waged on us by a nation that mobilizes against our people with every means at its disposal -- from its high-tech military to its economic stranglehold, from its falsified history to its judiciary that "legalizes" the infrastructure of apartheid. Resistance remains our only option. Sixty-five years ago, the courageous Jews of the Warsaw ghetto rose in defense of their people. We Gazans, living in the world's largest open-air prison, can do no less.

Labels: , ,

Stern takes bleaker view on warming
By Fiona Harvey and Jim Pickard in London

Published: April 16 2008 22:02 | Last updated: April 16 2008 22:02

The Stern report on climate change underestimated the risks of global warming, its author said on Wednesday, and should have presented a gloomier view of the future.

“We underestimated the risks ... we underestimated the damage associated with temperature increases ... and we underestimated the probabilities of temperature increases,” Lord Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, told the Financial Times on Wednesday.

In retrospect, he said, he would have taken a much stronger view in the report on the drastic changes that would come about if greenhouse gas emissions were not abated.

In the report, he estimated the costs of climate change at between 5 per cent and 20 per cent of global gross domestic product.

But these costs would be much higher if the report had taken a more aggressive stance on the probable consequences of warming.

Lord Stern said data published since his report came out, in October 2006, had led him to change his mind.

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world’s leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, published the most comprehensive study of climate change science.

It predicted a temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius within the next 100 years with catastrophic consequences for the planet, unless greenhouse gas emissions were stabilised and then cut within the next decade.

“The damage risks are bigger than I would have argued. Things like the damage associated with a 5 degree temperature increase are enormous. We can’t be precise about what it would be like but you can say it would be a transformation,” he said.

But he defended his estimates of the cost of taking action on emissions, which he put in the report at about 1 per cent of global GDP.

“Subsequent reports, [from] McKinsey, the International Energy Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have pointed to the [Stern report’s] costs of action being roughly in the right ball park. Nothing [since] has led me to revise the cost of action,” he said.

Labels: ,

Apr 13, 2008

To go green is glorious

From Tibetan monks to human rights activists, recent events have shown that China can still be a dangerous place to be vocal. But when it comes to environmental lobbying, there are signs the system may be changing, reports Mukul Devichand.

In the shadow of the Great Wall of China, I watch men in blue overalls hack at the soil of the forest floor and carefully plant new saplings.

They are trying to restore this depleted ancient woodland to the high international standards of the Forest Stewardship Council.

Sustainable forests like this are a symbol of how things are slowly being changed by the new kids on the political block in China: green activists.

Charismatic campaigner Wen Bo has lobbied against deforestation, which he says has caused violent dust storms and floods - and a host of other effects.

He is not like most Chinese politicos, with a stylish haircut and a fleece jacket rather than a Mao suit. But what really sets him apart is the language he uses.

"We are not passively being governed, being ruled by the government," he told me. "We have our rights."

This is electric stuff in the world's biggest one-party state. Some outsiders hope that movements like his will give birth to a civil society - and even democracy - in repressive China.

They hope that China's reaction to the epic environmental consequences of its growth - with a quarter of drinking water contaminated - will allow people power to break free and put a brake on pollution.

But on a visit to Beijing to meet activists and experts on the environmental movement, I found it hard to gauge the size and effectiveness of this new green political space.

The limits of tolerance

None of the environmentalists I spoke to risk lobbying for democracy or challenging the political system overtly.

"That would be like throwing an egg against a stone," says Wen Bo.

Instead they work together with officials who will listen. The activists say their ideas, such as "public participation," fit into a Communist Party framework.

It seems to be working somewhat on paper, with the central government recently upgrading the main environmental agency to a ministry.

Official statistics say there are now over 2,000 "green" NGOs. One unofficial study says there are up to two million informal groups of students, farmers or other activists. Several campaigns have received positive coverage in the state-controlled media.

But Wen Bo told me intelligence agents sometimes pose as green volunteers to keep an eye on what's going on.

And it's still not unusual to see activists arrested - one was recently charged with subversion. So is green politics making any real difference?

A Chinese Erin Brockovich

Zhang Jingjing, who works at a centre that helps pollution victims get legal aid, has been called the Erin Brockovich of China because of some famous victories in class action cases.

In 2005 she worked with the centre's boss, Wang Canfa, to help residents of a village in Fujian Province successfully sue a factory for compensation.

The factory was poisoning local crops with chromium - the same chemical Ms Brockovich fought in California.

But Ms Zhang sees limits to China's "green political space" because of the clout polluters have with local governments and judges.

In a country focussed on economic growth, factories and developers allow local officials to boost their area's GDP figures. The officials in turn pressurise judges.

"We have no independent judiciary, that is our problem," she says.

Because local officials and judges often side with polluters, the greens see central government as their ally. It's an internal power struggle in China that outsiders rarely see.

Outsourcing harm

So although the activists do challenge the government, they themselves say it would be premature to call them a democracy movement.

Instead they are seeking much more basic mechanisms of accountability, like planning law and public hearings, which still don't exist in China.

What's more, many Chinese green activists don't see their own system as the sole cause of the problem. Instead, they blame the West.

I met Xiao Wei, the popstar whose message of love and green harmony inspired several of the 30-something activists I'd met, back when they were teenagers.

Given his soft style and hippy lyrics, I expected him to rail against the consumerism of today's China, with its 10-lane highways and enormous shopping malls.

Instead he said: "Everybody has the right to pursue a good life, to buy a big house or a car if they want to."

He pointed out that China is still a developing country and that much of the pollution is actually caused by factories which make products for the West. The waste generated by "Made in China" products is left for Chinese people to deal with.

Chinese environmental groups call this "the outsourcing of harm".

Technological solutions

The basic dilemma for China is that polluting factories mean cheap exports, and potentially more jobs for the 300 million still living on less than $1 a day.

Chinese green groups often face the taunt that they put nature above the needs of the poor.

But Lo Sze Ping, the young director of Greenpeace's Beijing branch, thinks this very dilemma will force China's ecologists to come up with creative technological solutions.

"Imagine if China could produce solar panels just like China is producing DVD players now," he says.

"It would genuinely kick-start an energy revolution, not just in China but for the world."

Labels: ,

Apr 9, 2008

Food price rises threaten global security - UN

Hunger riots will destabilise weak governments, says senior official

This article appeared in the Guardian on Wednesday April 09 2008 on p1 of the Top stories

Rising food prices could spark worldwide unrest and threaten political stability, the UN's top humanitarian official warned yesterday after two days of rioting in Egypt over the doubling of prices of basic foods in a year and protests in other parts of the world.

Sir John Holmes, undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs and the UN's emergency relief coordinator, told a conference in Dubai that escalating prices would trigger protests and riots in vulnerable nations. He said food scarcity and soaring fuel prices would compound the damaging effects of global warming. Prices have risen 40% on average globally since last summer.

"The security implications [of the food crisis] should also not be underestimated as food riots are already being reported across the globe," Holmes said. "Current food price trends are likely to increase sharply both the incidence and depth of food insecurity."

He added that the biggest challenge to humanitarian work is climate change, which has doubled the number of disasters from an average of 200 a year to 400 a year in the past two decades.

UN staff in Jordan also went on strike for a day this week to demand a pay rise in the face of a 50% hike in prices, while Asian countries such as Cambodia, China, Vietnam, India and Pakistan have curbed rice exports to ensure supplies for their own residents.

Officials in the Philippines have warned that people hoarding rice could face economic sabotage charges. A moratorium is being considered on converting agricultural land for housing or golf courses, while fast-food outlets are being pressed to offer half-portions of rice.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation says rice production should rise by 12m tonnes, or 1.8%, this year, which would help ease the pressure. It expects "sizable" increases in all the major Asian rice producing countries, especially Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Burma, the Philippines and Thailand.

Holmes is the latest senior figure to warn the world is facing a worsening food crisis. Josette Sheeran, director of the UN World Food Programme, said last month: "We are seeing a new face of hunger. We are seeing more urban hunger than ever before. We are seeing food on the shelves but people being unable to afford it."

The programme has launched an appeal to boost its aid budget from $2.9bn to $3.4bn (£1.5bn to £1.7bn) to meet higher prices, which officials say are jeopardising the programme's ability to continue feeding 73 million people worldwide.

Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, said "many more people will suffer and starve" unless the US, Europe, Japan and other rich countries provide funds. He said prices of all staple food had risen 80% in three years, and that 33 countries faced unrest because of the price rises.

In the UK, Professor John Beddington, the new chief scientific adviser to the government, used his first speech last month to warn the effects of the food crisis would bite more quickly than climate change. He said the agriculture industry needed to double its food production, using less water than today.

He said the prospect of food shortages over the next 20 years was so acute it had to be tackled immediately: "Climate change is a real issue and is rightly being dealt with by major global investment. However, I am concerned there
is another major issue along a similar time-scale - that of food and energy security."

Labels: ,