Disgraceful: island nations have to beg for survival

by: Natasha Chart

Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 18:00


Tuvalu's ambassador, Ian Fry, pleaded with the UN assembly to save his country this weekend. He said it was "an irony of the modern world that the fate of the world is being determined by some senators in the U.S. Congress," noting that climate change is the "greatest threat to humanity, ... the greatest threat to security." He got no response when the US ambassador spoke soon after:

The fifteenth Conference of the Parties, as many other very important gatherings are, should be known for what it is: just another place where the poor have to come begging for their lives while the wealthy make a big show of having been generous enough of their time to be present for this grimly polite supplication.

As Fijian youth leader and TckTckTck activist, Leah Wickham, told the president of the COP15 conference, Danish Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard:

"We [are] here in Copenhagen to fight for our identity, for our culture, and for our very right to exist," she said tearfully. "All the hopes and dreams of my generation rest on Copenhagen."

As that Guardian article goes on to note, Wickham's comments were followed by very important people talking about the many reasons why nothing can be done to answer her. Hedegaard's response to the arrest of a small anachist contigent among the 100,000 or so peaceful protestors, was fascinating, saying that they didn't "have to use that kind of violence to be heard."

Well, fine. Granted. Maybe she should tell it to her own country's police forces, who detained hundreds of peaceful marchers on the ground for hours on a day when it started snowing not too long after sunset.

But seriously, wtf will it take to be heard? I don't know whether everyone's fresh out of ideas or if the jerks in power are just that deaf.

Will Hedegaard really listen to the 10 million people who signed the petition Wickham delivered to her, or the 99,000 people, give or take, who showed up peacefully with candles and signs and chants and a burning sense of urgency that brought them to Copenhagen in December where they were outside for hours in the freezing cold? Will the eminences of the G20 hear the church bells that rang 350 times today to call the world to climate justice? Will Gordon Brown and Barack Obama listen? Will the media listen? Will the haughty finance leaders who tell these presidents and ministers when they're allowed to sit down, stand up and break to scratch their bums listen to the people whose lives and futures they're destroying?

What will it take?

Because we're never going to get anywhere if industrialized and wealthy nations keep playing a destructive game of trying to get the other person to give more, first. Each nation must commit to do what's right, and they should stick to that because it would shame them to look back on this time and say that they did nothing to prevent all the suffering that's only at its beginning. They must look to find their national honor in the greatness of their souls and the depths of their humanity instead of the heights of their office towers.

If they won't do what's right, their citizens had better break through our creativity blocks to figure out a way to convince them that they can't ignore. Time is fleeting. Physics is unforgiving.

Natasha Chart :: Disgraceful: island nations have to beg for survival

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
If there is such a thing as a war crime (0.00 / 0)
where there is a customary agreement of how human beings should treat one anther so as to avoid unjust killings of civilians during conflict, then why isn't there such a thing as an "environmental crime" where there is an agreement about what nations can't do to endanger the lives of civilians through the effects of government policies and actions on the environment? If we could arrive at such an agreement then there are US Senators who are surely guilty.

us (4.00 / 1)
Because we're never going to get anywhere if industrialized and wealthy nations keep playing a destructive game of trying to get the other person to give more, first.

Well, the good news, if it counts as such, is that if the US decided to lead on this issue, then China would likely follow along, and Europe even more certainly would. Those are the three main players, and if they're all in, then the rest of the world follows.

The caveat is that the US would actually have to lead on this issue, and it looks to me like we're too firmly set on our path of decline, too corrupt and too politically ossified to shake up the status quo in the manner that would be necessary to actually do so. But if by some miracle we moved toward the forefront on global warming, then global change could happen relatively quickly, I think.

On second thought, maybe this isn't good news. Maybe this is just even more depressing.


the filibuster has to go (4.00 / 1)
It's taken me a long time to accept it, because I remember 2005, when the filibuster saved social security from Karl Rove.  But a Senate that can't act, a Senate that produces the same non-legislation regardless of which party is in charge, is an active detriment to public life.  Let the GOP do what they want when they get 55 senators, and let the voters judge them for it.  But for the love of god let us legislate when the voters give us 55 senators.  Because if the bar to action is this high, then the only legislation that can be passed are things like Wall Street bailouts and wiretapping regimes that both parties support.

The example of the California legislature is instructive too.  Let the Senate govern.  51 votes is a high enough bar.  


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search