The campaign is a response to the UN Secretary General’s Report entitled, ‘In larger Freedom : Towards Development, Security and Human Rights’ which many people feel fails to address the most critical challenges facing the world body today. The Report does not even acknowledge what is obvious to any human being: that the veto of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council makes a mockery of democracy within the UN. Neither does the Secretary-General’s Report make any attempt to strengthen the UN General Assembly which it recognizes as the “chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ of the United Nations”. It is the General Assembly and only the General Assembly that should have the authority - when all other avenues for the peaceful resolution of a conflict have been exhausted - to mandate the use of force against a member state. Instead of moving in this direction, the Report suggests that the UN “Charter gives full authority to the Security Council to use military force, including preventively, to preserve international peace and security.” This is a blatant attempt to justify the sort of pre-emptive military action that the world’s only superpower has begun to resort to in pursuit of its own agenda.

In view of these and other glaring omissions and commissions in the Report, it is imperative that the citizens of the world make it explicitly clear that they:-

1) Reject any attempt to use the UN Charter to justify pre-emptive military action by any nation against any other state or people.

2) Reject the UN Security Council veto and seek its immediate abolition.

3) Resolve to empower the UN General Assembly by bestowing it with the ultimate responsibility to prevent “the scourge of war” and to enhance global peace.

It is to enable the citizens of the world to express their support for these three demands that this global campaign for a democratic United Nations has been launched. The campaign aims to collect as many signatures as possible from all over the world from now until 31st August 2005. The signatures will then be presented to all the member states of the UN and the UN Secretary-General in time for the special session of the UN General Assembly in September 2005 which will debate the Secretary General’s Report.

You are cordially invited to endorse this campaign online at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/851365092. Please encourage your friends to sign up. Every signature counts.

We would also urge you to organize talks and seminars on the theme of a people oriented UN. Write articles on this in the media. Campaign for the democratisation of the UN in other peaceful ways. Join hands with other groups that are also working towards the same goal.

In a world wrecked by war and violence, the UN, in spite of all its weaknesses, remains our only hope for peace and justice. This is why we should never allow it to be a tool in the hands of a few who seek to perpetuate their global hegemony.

The UN belongs to us – the peoples of the world.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,
On Behalf of the Global Campaign for a Democratic UN.

What is Newsweek Up to ?

After 16 people had died in riots in Afghanistan ignited by a Newsweek report (9 May 2005) which stated that US military investigators had found evidence that American guards at the US Detention Centre in Guantanamo Bay had flushed a copy of the Quran down the toilet, the US magazine now admits that it “couldn’t be sure” whether its original source got his story right.

Are we to believe Newsweek? Perhaps it is telling the truth. It assumed its source was correct, published the story in the periscope section of the magazine only to find out later that the source was not certain. If this is the case it shows that Newsweek has failed to live up to journalistic ethics. Given the gravity of the allegation about the Quran and the predictability of Muslim anger and outrage, the magazine should have conducted a thorough investigation of its own, instead of relying entirely upon its source. It is important to note that Newsweek itself was not privy to the military investigators’ report containing the evidence. It had no direct knowledge that such evidence existed. Newsweek had not confirmed the ‘flushing incident’ with any of the military investigators or the guards or the detainees at Guantanamo. From what we know at this point it appears that the magazine had not acted responsibly.

On the other hand, Newsweek may not be telling the truth. It may be trying to cover up especially since the entire episode has generated so much fury among Muslims everywhere. It may also be trying to help the United States government itself which is the target of much of the wrath. In other words, the editorial by Newsweek’s Mark Whitaker in the May 23 edition of the magazine may be nothing more than a clumsy attempt at damage control on behalf of the Bush Administration.

There is yet another possibility. Some Muslims have argued that the ‘flushing incident’ may be a diabolical manoeuvre to test them : to see how far they would go in defending Islam. They are of the view that since the real motive behind the Washington led war on terror is to intensify the drive towards global hegemony, the imperialists are determined to crush Islamic resistance. To achieve this goal, Muslim fidelity to faith will have to be emasculated.

Whatever the truth about the incident, the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) urges both the US government and Newsweek to continue their investigations. They have both promised to do so. They should realize that incidents like this only create more antagonism and hostility towards the US and its allies among Muslims and widen further the growing chasm between the former and the latter. This will lead inevitably to more tension and violence.

In this regard, it is important to emphasise that while Muslims are justified in expressing their anger and unhappiness over the ‘flushing incident’ through demonstrations and the like, they should avoid actions which invite violence and bloodshed. As in the Salman Rushdie affair 16 years ago, some Muslims have again allowed their emotions to run wild, and, as a result, innocent lives have been lost. Muslims must learn to respond to affronts upon their dignity with reason—and restraint.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,
16 May 2005.

JUST Applauds Israeli Conscientious Objectors

On International Conscientious Objector Day, 15 May 2005, the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) salutes conscientious objectors around the world. By refusing to participate in wars and by repudiating violence, conscientious objectors have reinforced the valiant struggle for peace at a time when war and violence are exacting a huge toll on human lives.

In this regard, JUST is moved by the courage shown by young Israeli women and men who have refused military service in their country. They have taken this principled stand because they are opposed to the occupation of Palestinian lands and the violence and oppression that accompanies it. It is very likely that the Israeli authorities will send some of these ‘refuseniks’ to jail. It is certain that they will all face tremendous social pressure from significant segments of Israeli society.

JUST hopes that the courageous, principled resistance of these young Israelis will inspire many more of their fellow citizens to oppose the occupation of Palestinian lands and the oppression of the Palestinian people. It is only when opposition to occupation becomes a powerful current that the Sharon regime will see sense. Growing Israeli opposition will also help to strengthen the peaceful, non-violent movement for independence and sovereignty among the Palestinians.

The Israeli conscientious objectors are, for that reason, playing a critical role in the quest for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,
15 May 2005.

US Bases and The Containment of China

It is commendable that Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak , has made it explicitly clear that while Malaysia “is willing to cooperate with the United States” it “will never allow the superpower to set up base in the country” (Star 4 June 2005).

Given the negative perceptions of the US among Muslims everywhere, in the wake of Iraq and recent incidents over the Quran, any American military base in the country will only aggravate feelings towards the US. It will also undermine the credibility of the Malaysian government.

A base will not be a good idea for yet another reason. It is part of Washington’s larger geopolitical design in the region – a design which is inimical to the interests of our nation. Camouflaged in the guise of the war against post 911 terrorism, the real motive behind the push for bases and stronger military alliances with various Southeast Asian states is the encirclement and containment of China.

After all, it was the desire to contain Chinese communism which propelled Washington into the Vietnam-Indo-China debacle from the late fifties up to the mid seventies. While it views an ideologically different China today as an economic opportunity, there is no doubt at all that some policy makers and strategists in Washington are equally convinced that this emergent world power is a threat to American global hegemony. As the masters of a unipolar world, they are in no mood to accommodate another centre of power.

A number of overt and covert moves that Washington has made in recent times reveal its determination to contain China. Its offer of military protection to Taiwan; its posturing over North Korea; its encouragement of Japan to re-arm; its military overture to India; and its uncompromising opposition to the European Union’s proposal to lift its arms embargo against China, all carry the same underlying message. Indeed, even its insistence upon a role in managing the security of the Straits of Melaka is not just to protect its own maritime and trade interests but also to ensure that it has some strategic control over a sea lane that is vital to China. Similarly, by gaining control over the Central Asian republics and their oil resources as a result of its Afghan adventure, Washington has stolen a march over China. It is now becoming apparent that even Washington’s machinations against Iran are motivated to an extent at least by the latter’s expanding role as a major oil and gas supplier to China. Even in certain oil producing African states, the US and its imperial partner, Britain, are attempting to thwart China’s search for new sources of energy. In the present phase in global politics, control over strategic routes and energy sources will be a decisive factor in determining whether the world remains unipolar or becomes multipolar.

For us in Malaysia, the options are crystal clear. It is not in our interest to be drawn into the game of containing China. China is not a threat to us. On the contrary, it has been a reliable friend who has stood by us in some critical moments, notably the 1998 financial crisis.

As the first country in non-Communist Southeast Asia to establish diplomatic relations with China in 1974, Malaysia should take the lead in developing a political consensus within ASEAN that repudiates any attempt by any nation to draw any ASEAN state into an antagonistic relationship with China. Strengthening bilateral ties between individual ASEAN states and China, and forging a closer bond between ASEAN as a collectivity and China should be high on our agendas.

Our agendas, there is no need to emphasise, should not even include an item on foreign military bases, whatever their origin.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,
6 June 2005.

One hundred days of silence by Kunda Dixit

One hundred days after Nepal’s King Gyanendra seized power on February 1, there are signs that the international community’s criticism of his move is softening. The king’s ploy of giving his people and Nepal’s main donors a choice: “Me or the Maoists” seems to have worked, at least for now.

Nepal’s main allies in its decade-long war against Maoist insurgents are Britain, America and India. All three had suspended arms shipments to Nepal after the king took over. India has now said it will resume aid, while the US looks set to follow suit. This looks like a bargain struck with King Gyanendra to begin loosening up on curbs on civil liberties, press freedom and the jailing of political activists.

The Europeans, including Nepal’s big development partners Denmark and Norway, have continued to be sharply critical of King Gyanendra’s takeover and the continued curbs on freedom. Denmark suspended future aid, Britain has cancelled some assistance and other countries have put on hold all projects except relief and humanitarian aid.

Last month, under severe pressure from the Europeans, Kathmandu was forced to give in to a compromise resolution at the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva that allowed a large monitoring mission to be sent to Nepal to look into abuses by the army as well as the rebels.

King Gyanendra justified his takeover saying the political parties had misgoverned the country since the restoration of democracy in 1990 and blamed them for the rise of the Maoists. He said he needed three years to restore peace, bring democracy back on track and have fresh elections. He said he needed to suspend civil liberties to focus on the fight against the insurgents. Although the political parties, intellectuals, students and the media have been critical of the king’s move, many Nepalis are so desperate for an end to the conflict that they are willing to give their monarch a chance to set things right.

But three months on, despite the lifting of the emergency there hasn’t been any major change in the ground situation and the people’s patience seems to be wearing thin. Tension is still high outside Kathmandu Valley, there have been Maoist assassinations of prominent public figures, blockades, strikes, and forced recruitment of school children into the guerrilla army.
 
The security forces seems to be too busy putting down pro-democracy demonstrations by political parties, keeping politicians in detention, enforcing censorship and intimidating the media than fighting the Maoists.

A recent nationwide public opinion poll showed very few people support either republicanism or absolute monarchy, and most want the king to remain a constitutional monarch.

Nepal’s media which used to be vibrant and independent is still muted by a draconian law that bans any independent reporting of the security situation and stories that go ‘against the spirit’ of the royal move. Even after the emergency was lifted, some prominent journalists have been harassed and prevented from traveling.

Hardest hit have been Nepal’s vibrant community radio stations which are only allowed to broadcast music.

With this takeover, the king has opened himself up on three fronts: against the Maoists, the political parties and the international community. India, which is worried about a spillover of the Maoism to its own territory says without restoration of democracy and constitutional monarchy the Maoists would grow stronger. Nepal’s northern neighbour, China, which has itself abandoned Maoism says Nepal should be allowed to sort out its problems itself. But it is doubtful if China will jeopardise growing economic ties and geopolitical rapprochement with India and play tug-o-war over Nepal.

Nepalis are waiting impatiently for some hint that King Gyanendra has a plan to end the conflict. But the longer nothing happens, the more they will be convinced that February First was just a power grab.

 
*Kunda Dixit is the editor and co-publisher of the Kathmandu-based weekly newspaper, Nepali Times.

We carry below an Open Letter to the new President of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, initiated by the American NGO, ‘50 Years is Enough : US Network for Global Economic Justice’, and endorsed by a number of NGOs around the world. JUST is among the endorsers - editor

Dear Mr. Wolfowitz:

As you know, civil society organizations around the world reacted to your nomination and confirmation as president of the World Bank Group with alarm. Now, on the occasion of your formal accession to the office, we write you to make clear what we perceive as the major challenges facing the World Bank and the governments that control it. We are writing in the hope that you will address these issues in a satisfactory way.

The process itself that led to your appointment itself demonstrates the first challenge: of democracy and accountability. The 60-year-old unwritten agreement allowing only the president of the United States to choose the head of the World Bank Group is archaic and out of step with standard norms of democratic practice. The World Bank may be multilateral in name, but in practice it has become a tool for imposing a development and economic model that serves the interests of a few governments and corporations while rendering borrowing countries, the majority of its members, all but powerless to shift the Bank, or themselves, away from that model, or even to explore alternatives.

We anticipate that in the next five years the World Bank will set up a committee to examine its voting structure and presidential selection process, and that it may even make reasonable-sounding suggestions. But, given past experiences with such processes at the World Bank, we expect little real change. The secretive and undemocratic day-to-day decision-making processes at the international financial institutions weaken the credibility of the IMF and World Bank even as they profess transparency and accountability, and demand those qualities of borrowing countries.

We anticipate that early in your presidency you will announce your intention to engage in consultation and dialogue with civil society. But given the record of the World Bank over the last 10 years, it is likely that millions of dollars in public funds will be spent on processes, reports, and recommendations that will ultimately be ignored by the World Bank, as was the case with, among others, the World Commission on Dams, the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative (SAPRI), and the Extractive Industries Review (EIR). The Bank largely disavowed the results of these processes which made explicit recommendations to improve bank procedures, and to make it more transparent and democratic. The Bank’s recent controversial Joint Facilitation Committee neither improved relations with civil society nor made the Bank more responsive to its demands. Instead, it ignored the “voice of the peoples” affected by Bank policies and practices.

We anticipate that the World Bank will continue to devote millions of dollars to its public relations efforts. These efforts have deftly distanced the bank from its most unpopular policies and programs while maintaining the status quo. Over the past decade, the Bank has manipulated the meaning of terms like “poverty reduction,” its new name for structural adjustment programs; “good governance,” its new rationale for imposing conditions on borrowing governments; and “debt relief”, its deceitful euphemism for insuring that governments continue to maintain their place on the borrow-repay-reschedule debt treadmill.

The World Bank’s public relations staff now faces the challenge of convincing people that the new president is independent of the Bush Administration and its controversial policies. We fear that “democracy” will be among the new buzz-words at the Bank, and the basis for a new set of conditionalities, particularly in the Middle East. We fear it will be used not to help create space for people to choose their own economic systems and development models, but as a cover to impose rules prioritizing foreign investment and market liberalization above all else, and to disempower and discredit governments that choose to prioritize the priorities of their citizens over corporate interests.

Nowhere will the public relations staff be more challenged than in dealing with the World Bank’s role in Iraq. We anticipate a renewed politicization of the Bank, in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, in order to increase corporate access to oil and other resources and assets as well as markets and cheap labor. You will be asked to recuse yourself from the World Bank/UN investigation into the U.S. government’s distribution of Iraqi development funds to Halliburton, a contract with which you were personally involved; we hope you will do so. Ethical questions on that issue could well be compounded by the World Bank’s determination that Iraq’s food subsidies should be eliminated — in a country where acute malnutrition rates for children have nearly doubled since the invasion of April 2003. You could confound your critics by immediately announcing that the Bank will withdraw its conclusions about Iraqi subsidies.

We anticipate that you will talk about the need for more debt relief in the poorest countries, and perhaps even publicly advocate that President Bush co-operate with other wealthy countries to offer more relief. We believe that such calls would be greatly strengthened if you were to employ the logic you used in advocating for France, Russia, and Germany to cancel the debts they claim of Iraq — namely that loans contracted by undemocratic regimes which worked to the detriment of the population should be annulled. Many of our organizations have used the same logic with regard to the equally odious debts contracted by the apartheid regime in South Africa, Mobutu in Zaire, Marcos in the Philippines, the military junta in Argentina, and many more. We have never received a sympathetic hearing from the World Bank.

You have announced that you will travel to Africa shortly after taking office. We anticipate that while there you will meet with presidents and prime ministers, and declare the urgency of helping the continent. We fear that access to Africa’s oil will take precedence over poverty eradication and sustainable development and that, once again, there will be no material improvement in Africa’s outlook resulting from World Bank programs during your tenure. Despite an endless series of Bank anti-poverty initiatives in the region during the last 30 years, African per capita incomes are below their 1975 level. Only by demonstrating respect for the people of Africa, their knowledge and their own particular national priorities will you gain credibility on that continent.

We note that at this historical moment, Latin American countries are disavowing and resisting the imposition of the so-called Washington Consensus, and many Asian nations are increasing their financial independence so as to free themselves from the dictates of the IMF and the Bank.

Whatever stand you ultimately take on these issues, we commit ourselves to monitoring the performance of the World Bank, examining its rhetoric and exposing its deceptions and manipulations. We will invite others to do the same — governments; NGOs; and the media which have too often paid more attention to words than actions and evidence. The stakes for the Bank are high: its reputation is at an all-time low and its policies continue to be a major source of poverty, violence and injustice. It is in your hands to start the process of reversing this persistent trend. The world is watching.

The Price of Opulence by Chandra Muzaffar

Every now and then a news report appears about some Muslim Ruler building an opulent, extravagant edifice as an embodiment of his wealth and glory. The latest to hit the headlines is a two billion pound hotel, the Emirates Palace – the world’s most expensive and most luxurious hotel — that has just been completed in Abu Dhabi. Built on the orders of the Ruler of Abu Dhabi, which is part of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the hotel, needless to say, caters for the world’s super rich. The rate for a VVIP room is a whopping eight thousand pounds a night.

A few years ago, newspapers all over the world carried the story of a Muslim monarch whose palace boasted of a thousand rooms. There was also a Muslim President who constructed huge palaces in almost every major city in his country. Yet another Ruler is reputed to have plated the toilets in his palace with gold !

Whatever the media spin on these palaces and mansions, it is often forgotten that the money for them comes from a resource – this is true of all the cases cited above — that rightly belongs to the people. It is sad that in all these oil producing states the ruling elite tend to treat the people’s wealth as their own private property. Their management of petroleum revenue often falls short of established norms of transparency and accountability.

Of course, it is true that some of the Rulers have utilized a portion of the wealth to build schools and hospitals and to raise the people’s standard of living. In some instances, citizens in oil rich states do not have to pay income tax. While it is undeniable that some good has been done, there is also no doubt at all that a lot of oil money has been squandered on wasteful projects.

After all, even in wealthy oil producing Muslim states there are pockets of poverty. Besides, in many of these societies a wide chasm has developed between the extraordinarily affluent upper crust and ordinary citizens. It is relative deprivation of this kind, rather than absolute poverty as such, which alienates the masses from their leaders.

If for a moment we concede that neither poverty nor lack of basic amenities are serious challenges in most of the oil rich states, it is still legitimate to ask why their Rulers are not helping the abysmally poor in other Muslim societies such as Mali or Bangladesh? Since the Ummah (the global Muslim community) is a single body, shouldn’t the rich respond to the pain and suffering of their impoverished brothers and sisters? Indeed, don’t the fabulously wealthy Muslims have an obligation from an Islamic perspective to reach out to the deprived and downtrodden, regardless of their religious affiliation? In other words, instead of building lavish palaces, shouldn’t rich Muslim Rulers be in the forefront of a global endeavour to eradicate global poverty?

It is not just global poverty that should concern them. Shouldn’t the Sheikhs and Sultans of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, of Bahrain and Brunei, initiate programmes at the global level to eliminate illiteracy, to improve access to basic health care facilities, to upgrade infrastructure? If they did this, wouldn’t they help to transform the image of Islam and Muslims worldwide? By the same token, don’t they realize that their ostentatious living and their vulgar opulence merely reinforce negative stereotypes in the popular mind?

If many well endowed Muslim elites lack a sincere commitment to the well being of the poor, they are also guilty of showing little interest in the promotion of the sciences and in the pursuit of knowledge. Measured against the huge riches at their command, their investment in research especially in the basic sciences is pathetic. In this connection, I remember what the late Professor Abdus Salam, the 1979 Nobel Laureate in Physics, once told me about his experience in trying to persuade Rulers of the oil rich states to invest in research institutes specializing in various branches of the basic sciences. After he won the Nobel Prize he met with a number of these Rulers and told them that if they were prepared to set aside a small portion of their massive revenue from oil – and oil prices were astronomically high at that time — for the promotion of the basic sciences, the Muslim world would once again emerge as a major contributor to research and knowledge. Salam himself had pledged his entire Nobel Prize money to his proposed project. But the Rulers adopted a lukewarm attitude towards Salam’s request. They had very little understanding or appreciation of the potential role of the basic sciences in the intellectual emancipation of the Ummah. Their attitude is in sharp contrast to the passion for knowledge that characterized Muslim monarchs of the past such as the Abbasid Caliph, Harun Al-Rashid.

It is not just in their neglect of knowledge and the sciences or in their marginalisation of the poor and the needy that some contemporary Muslim Rulers have betrayed the letter and the spirit of the Quran. Their vulgar opulence and their hideous extravagance, there is no need to emphasise, are at total variance with the quintessence of Islam. The Quran reminds humankind constantly of the importance of simplicity and moderation. It eulogises restraint in consumption. It inveighs against extravagance and opulence. It condemns the ostentation of the wealthy.

There is perhaps no better example of the virtue of simple living than the Prophet Muhammad himself. As a non-Muslim scholar, Professor Ramakrishna Rao once put it, “After the fall of Mecca more than one million square miles of land lay at his feet. Lord of Arabia, he mended his own shoes and coarse woolen garments, milked the goats, swept the hearth, kindled the fire and attended to other menial offices of the family. The entire town of Madina where he lived, grew wealthy in the later days of his life. Everywhere there was gold and silver in plenty and yet in those days of prosperity many weeks would elapse without a fire being kindled in the hearth of the king of Arabia, his food being dates and water. His family would go hungry many nights successively because they could not get anything to eat in the evening. He slept not on soft bed but on a palm mat after a long busy day, to spend most of his night in prayer, often bursting with tears before his Creator to grant him strength to discharge his duties. On the day of his death his only assets were a few coins, a part of which went to satisfy a debt and the rest was given to a needy person who came to his house for charity. The clothes in which he breathed his last had many patches. The house from where light had spread to the world was in darkness because there was no oil in the lamp. Circumstances changed, but the Prophet of God did not. In victory or in defeat, in power or in adversity, in affluence or in indigence, he was the same man, disclosed the same character”.

No one is asking Muslim Rulers today to live exactly the way the Prophet did more than a thousand four hundred years ago. But can’t we expect them to at least emulate some of the noble values which informed his life, values such as simplicity and moderation — instead of wallowing in decadence and opulence?

30 May 2005.

Ecological Terrorism and its Human Rights Implications by Aliyu Barau

Since the September 11 episode, the global landscape has been overblown with all sorts of rhetoric on terrorism. We were all terrified by what happened during the 911 suicidal attacks. It is a wound that was well told in high volume for the world never to forgive or forget despite the fact that its aftermath has given rise to more worrisome scenarios of human rights abuse and even ecological problems especially in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

Before the 911, the clamour and debate for human rights centres on civil rights advocated by the West. On the other hand, economic rights were propagated by the Third World based activists. However, the two groups do not give due emphasis to the mass vandalisation of the environment by humankind. Human induced environmental degradation is the most serious danger on Earth today. This assertion is a verity because the very foundations of our habitat are being traded off for the pleasures of a small section of the human race.

Indeed, it is through the degradation of the natural environment that the worst abuses of human rights occur. For instance, pollution of water, land and air all lead to loss of lives, hunger and poverty across the world. There is hardly any part of the Third World where such problems do not exist. Pollution and degradation will in the long run phase out life on earth. And that will be the worst crime ever perpetrated on the universe.  

It is pertinent to review the genesis of this ecological decline, identify the wrongdoers and expose their nests where eggs of ultimate human rights abuse are hatched. In the ancient past, the relationship between humankind and nature was on the whole, harmonious and balanced. However, with the Industrial Revolution, a section of the human race has unravelled all that nature has woven into a beautiful, functioning ecosystem.

It is a fact that environmental degradation is ubiquitous by its nature, but the crisis in many places is engineered and perpetrated by imperialists and their corporate agents. Their activities have exacerbated poverty and pollution in the old colonies. The over exploitation of natural resources dates back to 1492 when Western hegemony began with the brutal and bestial occupation of the Americas. It is stated that the word gold appeared 140 times on Christopher Columbus’ thin ship log. He also waxed lyrical about the beauty of nature in the New World; Columbus salivated at the sight of its crystal-clear waters in the bays and its slim cedar trees. In the next breath, he thought of their worth as ports for exports from the Americas and as raw material for ship building! Indeed, no any natural disaster had ‘victimised’ humanity on the same scale as the conquista and other colonial genocides. To date the problem persists via western multi- national corporations. Natural endowments are exploited while the producing areas are increasingly being pauperised. For instance, in 1985, Germany exchanged a truck with 90 sacks of coffee but by 1990 coffee producers like Brazil and Costa Rica had to exchange every lorry with 300 sacks!

Now let us have a glimpse of some ecological disasters in Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa. There are scores of sorry scenarios that have taken place from the colonial period. In the north central plateau, the area was disturbed for its cassiterite and columbite during British colonial rule. The naughty legacies of the tin mining are identical with the eastern coalfields which are synonymous with gullies and pits that continue to eat up arable lands, roads and human settlements. The pockets of tanneries in the north pollute water for human and agricultural uses while the clean tanned hides and skins are exported to European markets.

But worst of all as far as ecological and human degradation is concerned is the Niger Delta, an area well known for its wealth of oil and gas reserves. Unlike the Middle East oilfields which are mainly found in the remote deserts, here, oil exploration is undertaken amidst towns, villages and fishing grounds. This area suffers from numerous ecological disturbances e.g. hazardous oil spills, breakage of flow lines, acidic solid wastes, sedimentation of waterways, decreasing biodiversity, air pollution due to gas flaring, noise pollution due to seismic surveys, flooding, coastal erosion and land subsidence to mention the most prominent. Paradoxically, it is here that one comes into closest contact with pathetic conditions of poverty and human rights abuses which are attributed directly and indirectly to the oil companies.

A clear picture of how the West holds us to ransom is depicted by the withdrawal of the United States from the Tokyo Convention on Climate Change. President Bush accused the Kyoto Convention of exempting China, India and other developing countries with 80% of the world population and even doubted the scientific truth of the much feared climate change repercussions. The stand of the US government remained fixed despite verifications from NASA on the authenticity of the threat of climate change. The US has barely 2% of the world’s population and yet is responsible for 24% of the obnoxious gases dumped into the atmosphere. Green house gas emissions from the Third World, on the other hand, are understandable because they come mainly from rice and wheat fields – our staple food. Whereas emissions generated by the West come largely from industries that produce luxury goods and services. The unbridled emission of gases leads to deluges in many parts of the world, including the US.

When such monumental ecological destruction is the order of the day, and when efforts to salvage the earth from the verge of collapse are hampered by the most powerful ruling elite in the world, doesn’t it tantamount to ecological terrorism?