jump to navigation

One Africa. One Degree. Two Degrees is Suicide. December 19, 2009

Posted by rogerhollander in Africa, Environment.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

 “$10 billion is not enough to buy us coffins”.

http://elliottverreault.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/one-africa-one-degree-two-degrees-is-suicide/

December 19, 209

Yesterday in Copenhagen, where leaders have come together to discuss the fate of the climate, lead G77 negotiator, Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan, broke down in tears. To a small group of press and civil society supporters, he divulged that many African negotiators, pressured by developeing countries, and some succumbing to their own self-interest, were ready to sign a weak deal.

What would a weak deal look like? A deal that locks Africa and the rest of the world into a 2 degree, 450ppm scenario — what President Nasheed of the Maldives, and now many African civil society leaders call a “suicide pact.”

He did not start his speech immediately. Instead he sat silently, tears rolling down his face. He put his head in his hands and said “We have been asked to sign a suicide pact.” The room was frozen into silence, shocked by the sight of a powerful negotiator, an African elder if you like, exhibiting such strong emotion. He apologised to the audience, but said that in his part of Sudan it was “better to stand and cry than to walk away.”

Di-Aping first attacked the 2 degrees C warming maximum that most rich countries currently consider acceptable. Referring continuously to science, in particular parts of the latest IPCC report (which he referenced by page and section) he said that 2 degrees C globally meant 3.5 degrees C for much of Africa. He called global warming of 2 degrees C “certain death for Africa”, a type of “climate fascism” imposed on Africa by high carbon emitters. He said Africa was being asked to sign on to an agreement that would allow this warming in exchange for $10 billion, and that Africa was also being asked to “celebrate” this deal.

He explained that, by wanting to subvert the established post-Kyoto process, the industrialised nations were effectively wanting to ignore historical emissions, and by locking in deals that would allow each citizen of those countries to carry on emitting a far greater amount of carbon per year than each citizen in poor countries, would prevent many African countries from lifting their people out of poverty. This was nothing less than a colonisation of the sky, he said. “$10 billion is not enough to buy us coffins”.

Calling the current deal that was being proposed “worse than no deal”, he called on Africans to reject it — “I would rather die with my dignity than sign a deal that will channel my people into a furnace.” Africans had to make clear demands of their leaders not to sign on. He suggested a couple of slogans: “One Africa, one degree” and “Two degrees is suicide”

The Courage to Say No December 18, 2009

Posted by rogerhollander in Africa, Environment.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment
Published on Friday, December 18, 2009 by The Nationby Naomi Klein

CopenhagenOn the ninth day of the Copenhagen climate summit, Africa was sacrificed. The position of the G-77 negotiating bloc, including African states, had been clear: a 2 degree Celsius increase in average global temperatures translates into a 3-3.5 degree increase in Africa.

That means, according to the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, “an additional 55 million people could be at risk from hunger” and “water stress could affect between 350 and 600 million more people.” Archbishop Desmond Tutu puts the stakes like this: “We are facing impending disaster on a monstrous scale…. A global goal of about 2 degrees C is to condemn Africa to incineration and no modern development.”

And yet that is precisely what Ethiopia’s prime minister, Meles Zenawi, proposed to do when he stopped off in Paris on his way to Copenhagen: standing with President Nicolas Sarkozy, and claiming to speak on behalf of all of Africa (he is the head of the African climate-negotiating group), he unveiled a plan that includes the dreaded 2 degree increase and offers developing countries just $10 billion a year to help pay for everything climate related, from sea walls to malaria treatment to fighting deforestation.

It’s hard to believe this is the same man who only three months ago was saying this: “We will use our numbers to delegitimize any agreement that is not consistent with our minimal position…. If need be, we are prepared to walk out of any negotiations that threaten to be another rape of our continent…. What we are not prepared to live with is global warming above the minimum avoidable level.”

And this: “We will participate in the upcoming negotiations not as supplicants pleading for our case but as negotiators defending our views and interests.”

We don’t yet know what Zenawi got in exchange for so radically changing his tune or how, exactly, you go from a position calling for $400 billion a year in financing (the Africa group’s position) to a mere $10 billion. Similarly, we do not know what happened when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Philippine President Gloria Arroyo just weeks before the summit and all of a sudden the toughest Filipino negotiators were kicked off their delegation and the country, which had been demanding deep cuts from the rich world, suddenly fell in line.

We do know, from witnessing a series of these jarring about-faces, that the G-8 powers are willing to do just about anything to get a deal in Copenhagen. The urgency clearly does not flow from a burning desire to avert cataclysmic climate change, since the negotiators know full well that the paltry emissions cuts they are proposing are a guarantee that temperatures will rise a “Dantesque” 3.9 degrees, as Bill McKibben puts it.

Matthew Stilwell of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development–one of the most influential advisers in these talks–says the negotiations are not really about averting climate change but are a pitched battle over a profoundly valuable resource: the right to the sky. There is a limited amount of carbon that can be emitted into the atmosphere. If the rich countries fail to radically cut their emissions, then they are actively gobbling up the already insufficient share available to the South. What is at stake, Stilwell argues, is nothing less than “the importance of sharing the sky.”

Europe, he says, fully understands how much money will be made from carbon trading, since it has been using the mechanism for years. Developing countries, on the other hand, have never dealt with carbon restrictions, so many governments don’t really grasp what they are losing. Contrasting the value of the carbon market–$1.2 trillion a year, according to leading British economist Nicholas Stern–with the paltry $10 billion on the table for developing countries, Stilwell says that rich countries are trying to exchange “beads and blankets for Manhattan.” He adds: “This is a colonial moment. That’s why no stone has been left unturned in getting heads of state here to sign off on this kind of deal…. Then there’s no going back. You’ve carved up the last remaining unowned resource and allocated it to the wealthy.”

For months now NGOs have gotten behind a message that the goal of Copenhagen is to “seal the deal.” Everywhere we look in the Bella Center, clocks are going “tck tck tck.” But any old deal isn’t good enough, especially because the only deal on offer won’t solve the climate crisis and might make things much worse, taking current inequalities between North and South and locking them in indefinitely. Augustine Njamnshi of Pan African Climate Justice Alliance puts the 2 degree proposal in harsh terms: “You cannot say you are proposing a ’solution’ to climate change if your solution will see millions of Africans die and if the poor not the polluters keep paying for climate change.”

Stilwell says that the wrong kind of deal would “lock in the wrong approach all the way to 2020″–well past the deadline for peak emissions. But he insists that it’s not too late to avert this worst-case scenario. “I’d rather wait six months or a year and get it right because the science is growing, the political will is growing, the understanding of civil society and affected communities is growing, and they’ll be ready to hold their leaders to account to the right kind of a deal.”

At the start of these negotiations the mere notion of delay was environmental heresy. But now many are seeing the value of slowing down and getting it right. Most significant, after describing what 2 degrees would mean for Africa, Archbishop Tutu pronounced that it is “better to have no deal than to have a bad deal.” That may well be the best we can hope for in Copenhagen. It would be a political disaster for some heads of state–but it could be one last chance to avert the real disaster for everyone else.

Copyright © 2009 The Nation

*This column was first published in The Nation (www.thenation.com).

Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist and author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.  See more at www.naomiklein.org.

Shell Must Clean up Its Act in Nigeria December 4, 2009

Posted by rogerhollander in Africa, Environment, Nigeria.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment
Published on Friday, December 4, 2009 by The Guardian/UK

As Nigerian villagers take Shell to court over huge oil spills, it’s time for the group to take responsibility for polluting practices

by Chima Williams

A court in The Hague is considering whether Shell can be held liable for alleged pollution in Nigeria, and a ruling is expected on 30 December. This case could set a precedent for corporations based in Europe that exploit lax environmental regulations and violate the rights of communities in the developing world.In the village of Ikot Ada Udot, south-eastern Nigeria, a rusty complex of tubes pokes five feet out of the ground. A familiar sight to locals, it is known as the “Christmas tree”. But unlike its innocuous namesake, this “tree” is an abandoned oil wellhead owned by oil multinational Shell. According to environmentalists, the wellhead spewed toxic oil and gas into the land and fish ponds of local villagers for months in August 2006, and again in 2007. As of May 2008, the area around the Christmas tree was still heavily polluted and villagers remain destitute.

This is one of three oil spills in the case against Shell that will begin its first hearing at The Hague civil court this week. Four Nigerian villagers, in conjunction with Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), are charging Royal Dutch Shell with causing massive oil spills that have resulted in loss of livelihoods. The case provides a snapshot of the environmental and social devastation caused by Shell in the Niger Delta.

The bigger, more disturbing picture is that oil spills have contaminated the once fertile Delta with approximately 1.5m tonnes of crude oil, equivalent to one Exxon Valdez disaster every year for the last 50 years. As Amnesty International pointed out in a report this July, Shell “has failed to respect the human rights of the people of the Niger Delta … through failure to prevent and mitigate pollution”.

The parent company, Royal Dutch Shell, denies responsibility for the pollution of its subsidiary, Shell Nigeria, and is challenging the jurisdiction of the Dutch court over its actions abroad. It also blames oil spills on sabotage to its equipment. It seems that if Shell had its way, no court would have jurisdiction over any violations of human rights and environmental law. In 2005, the federal high court of Nigeria declared Shell’s gas flaring to be a violation of human rights and ordered the company to stop the illegal practice. Shell has still not complied with this court order. With little or no legal remedy in Nigeria, villagers from the Niger Delta have decided to bring their case to The Hague to hold the company headquarters to account.

Should the case go forward, the court would hear about Shell’s systematic pollution across the region. In Goi, a massive oil spill from Shell’s Trans-Niger pipeline caught fire in 2005, incinerating farmland, property and polluting fisheries. It took 33 months before Shell cleaned up the mess. Chief Barizaa, an Ogoni elder, and one of the four plaintiffs in the case said: “I lost everything … the oil flowed into my fishponds and killed all my fish. The five canoes I had in the creeks were consumed by the inferno. I have nothing left to feed my family.”

Another oil spill flowed from a high-pressure pipeline in Oruma, Bayelsa state, in 2005, polluting the land and drinking water of several neighbouring communities. Shell waited 12 days before containing the spill, and four months later it began its clean-up operation by dumping the polluted soil into pits and setting them on fire, causing further damage to the environment.

The oil-rich Niger Delta is prized by multinational corporations; chief among them is Shell, which derives approximately 10% of its global profits from the region. The oil companies have made enormous profits and enriched a succession of Nigerian regimes, but pollution is driving local people into poverty. Until Shell takes responsibility for its impact on the environment and human rights, it can expect legal actions like this one to expose ugly truths about their polluting practices. Shell must bear the cost of its environmental devastation. The alternative is daily injustice on a massive scale.

© Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
Chima Williams is a lawyer by profession. He is an activist with Environmental Rights, Action/ Friends of the Earth in Nigeria. He advocates for changes in policy and environmental regulation in Nigeria and West Africa

True Cost of Chevron (Alternative Report) June 3, 2009

Posted by rogerhollander in Africa, Asia, Environment, Human Rights, Latin America, Nigeria.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Cheveron%20C3_wo8_05

 

  True Cost of Chevron Coalition Releases Alternative Annual Report“Chevron refuses to clean up its mess in Nigeria.” ChevWrong Ad Campaign designed by Underground Ads 
                                                       

 

  

Dear Friends,

JINN is a member of the large coalition that wrote and released The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report last week in time for Chevron’s shareholder meeting.  Several members of the coaltion presented the report to shareholders, the board of directors and Chevron’s CEO David O’Reilly inside the shareholder meeting.  O’Reilly responded by saying the report belonged in the trash can and that he was personally insulted by the statements made by the proxies who represented Chevron affected communities around the world.  Read the Full Press Rlease from the Coalition

Our ally from the Niger Delta, human rights activist, Tunde Okorodudu was able to speak inside the shareholder meeting. He said:  “David O’Reilly showed nothing but disrespect to all those who traveled from around the world to address the shareholder meeting, Chevron has done nothing but enable the culture of violence that now permeates my region.”

Below is the announcement for the report and website with full information. Read the report and spread the word!  TrueCostofChevron.com

The
True Cost
of Chevron

An Alternative Annual Report
May 2009

 
 
Amazon Watch · CorpWatch · Crude Accountability · Environmental Rights Action
EarthRights International · Filipino-American Coalition for Environmental Solidarity · Global Exchange Justice in Nigeria Now · Mpalabanda · Rainforest Action Network · Richmond Progressive Alliance Trustees for Alaska · US Labor Against the War · West County Toxics Coalition 
Think you know Chevron? Think again.Chevron’s 2008 annual report is a glossy celebration of the company’s most profitable year in its history. What Chevron’s annual report does not tell its shareholders is the true cost paid for those financial returns, or the global movement gaining voice and strength against Chevron’s abuses. Thus, we, the communities and our allies who bear the consequences of Chevron’s oil and natural gas production, refineries, depots, pipelines, exploration, offshore drilling rigs, coal fields, chemical plants, political control, consumer abuse, false promises, and much more, have prepared an Alternative Annual Report for Chevron.

The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report is a one-stop-shop for activists, policy makers, journalists, investors, analysts, and communities in struggle.

It is the most comprehensive exposé of Chevron’s operations – and the communities in struggle against them – ever compiled. It includes reports from Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, the Gulf Coast, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Utah, Washington, D.C, and Wyoming; internationally across Angola, Burma, Canada, Chad, Cameroon, Ecuador, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, and the Philippines.

Antonia Juhasz is the lead author and editor of the report, which includes the writings of sixteen additional authors from across the U.S. and around the world and the contributions of dozens of organizations.

The 44-page report is available to download at TrueCostofChevron.com – a visually stunning website using our ChevWrong “Inhumane Energy” ads that reveal the hypocrisy of Chevron’s human energy ad campaign. The report and the ads can be downloaded for free from the website, which also provides links to the organizations involved in the True Cost of Chevron campaign and more.

 

 


 

 

 

 

Justice In Nigeria Now!
2017 Mission St. 2nd Fl
San Francisco, California 94110chevron contamination

Photo LEFT: Fire burning at Chevron Pascagoula, MS refinery, photograph by Christy Pritchett ran August 17, 2007.
Courtesy of the Press-Register 2007 © All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Chevron, Shell and the True Cost of Oil May 27, 2009

Posted by rogerhollander in Africa, Environment, Human Rights, Nigeria.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far
Published on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 by TruthDig.com by Amy Goodman

The economy is a shambles, unemployment is soaring, the auto industry is collapsing. But profits are higher than ever at oil companies Chevron and Shell. Yet across the globe, from the Ecuadorian jungle, to the Niger Delta in Nigeria, to the courtrooms and streets of New York and San Ramon, Calif., people are fighting back against the world’s oil giants.

Shell and Chevron are in the spotlight this week, with shareholder meetings and a historic trial being held.

On May 13, the Nigerian military launched an assault on villages in that nation’s oil-rich Niger Delta. Hundreds of civilians are feared killed in the attack. According to Amnesty International, a celebration in the delta village of Oporoza was attacked. An eyewitness told the organization: “I heard the sound of aircraft; I saw two military helicopters, shooting at the houses, at the palace, shooting at us. We had to run for safety into the forest. In the bush, I heard adults crying, so many mothers could not find their children; everybody ran for their life.”

Shell is facing a lawsuit in U.S. federal court, Wiwa v. Shell, based on Shell’s alleged collaboration with the Nigerian dictatorship in the 1990s in the violent suppression of the grass-roots movement of the Ogoni people of the Niger Delta. Shell exploits the oil riches there, causing displacement, pollution and deforestation. The suit also alleges that Shell helped suppress the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People and its charismatic leader, Ken Saro-Wiwa. Saro-Wiwa had been the writer of the most famous soap opera in Nigeria, but decided to throw his lot in with the Ogoni, whose land near the Niger Delta was crisscrossed with pipelines. The children of Ogoniland did not know a dark night, living beneath the flame-apartment-building-size gas flares that burned day and night, and that are illegal in the U.S.

I interviewed Saro-Wiwa in 1994. He told me: “The oil companies like military dictatorships, because basically they can cheat with these dictatorships. The dictatorships are brutal to people, and they can deny the human rights of individuals and of communities quite easily, without compunction.” He added, “I am a marked man.” Saro-Wiwa returned to Nigeria and was arrested by the military junta. On Nov. 10, 1995, after a kangaroo show trial, Saro-Wiwa was hanged with eight other Ogoni activists.

In 1998, I traveled to the Niger Delta with journalist Jeremy Scahill. A Chevron executive there told us that Chevron flew troops from Nigeria’s notorious mobile police, the “kill ‘n’ go,” in a Chevron company helicopter to an oil barge that had been occupied by nonviolent protesters. Two protesters were killed, and many more were arrested and tortured.

Oronto Douglas, one of Saro-Wiwa’s lawyers, told us: “It is very clear that Chevron, just like Shell, uses the military to protect its oil activities. They drill and they kill.”

Chevron is the second-largest stakeholder (after French oil company Total) of the Yadana natural gas field and pipeline project, based in Burma (which the military junta renamed Myanmar). The pipeline provides the single largest source of income to the military junta, amounting to close to $1 billion in 2007. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, popularly elected the leader of Burma in 1990, has been under house arrest for 14 of the past 20 years, and is standing trial again this week. [On Tuesday the government said it had ended the house arrest of Suu Kyi, but she remains in detention pending the outcome of the trial.] The U.S. government has barred U.S. companies from investing in Burma since 1997, but Chevron has a waiver, inherited when it acquired the oil company Unocal.

Chevron’s litany of similar abuses, from the Philippines to Kazakhstan, Chad-Cameroon, Iraq, Ecuador and Angola and across the U.S. and Canada, is detailed in an “alternative annual report” prepared by a consortium of nongovernmental organizations and is being distributed to Chevron shareholders at this week’s annual meeting, and to the public at TrueCostofChevron.com.

Chevron is being investigated by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo about whether the company was “accurate and complete” in describing potential legal liabilities. It enjoys, though, a long tradition of hiring politically powerful people. Condoleezza Rice was a longtime director of the company (there was even a supertanker named after her), and the recently hired general counsel is none other than disgraced Pentagon lawyer William J. Haynes, who advocated for “harsh interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding. Gen. James L. Jones, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, sat on the Chevron board of directors for most of 2008, until he received his high-level White House appointment.

Saro-Wiwa said before he died, “We are going to demand our rights peacefully, nonviolently, and we shall win.” A global grass-roots movement is growing to do just that.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

© 2009 Amy Goodman

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 700 stations in North America. She was awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and received the award in the Swedish Parliament in December.

Niger Delta in the Midst of Worst Violence in Years May 25, 2009

Posted by rogerhollander in Africa, Nigeria.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far
  Niger Delta in the Midst of Worst Violence in Years     Displaced women and children taking refuge at the relief camp at Ogbeh-Ijoh (Vanguard)
                                             JUSTICE IN NIGERIA NOW! (JINN)                              

nigeria displace women and children

Displaced women and children taking refuge at the relief camp at Ogbeh-Ijoh (Vanguard)

Dear Friends,

You may have heard about the current violence that has taken over the Niger Delta. We at JINN are extremely concerned about the Nigerian military attacks over the past several days.  Through the efforts of our allies working to bring peace to the Niger Delta, Senator Russ Feingold and Senator John Kerry have recently issued statements condemning the violence. 


Worst Violence in Years, Niger Delta Communities Under Siege

I heard the sound of aircraft; I saw two military helicopters, shooting at the houses, at the palace, shooting at us. We had to run for safety into the forest. In the bush, I heard adults crying, so many mothers could not find their children; everybody ran for their life.”  An Eyewitness to the Oporoza Village Massacre on May 15th
For the past 12 days, the Nigerian military Joint Task Force/JTF has been razing villages and killing civilians across the Warri South portion of the Niger Delta.  According to reports received by Amnesty International, hundreds of bystanders, including women and children, are believed to have been killed and thousands have fled to the mangrove forests in fear for their lives.   The JTF has been allegedly targeting areas where armed groups are located, but over 20,000 people have been caught in the crossfire.  For the first several days of the attacks, the Nigerian government prohibited any journalists or aid groups from entering the region, and the military attacks have escalated under the guise of rooting out militants associated with the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND). 

According to Reuters, “Nigeria’s lower house of parliament has passed a resolution urging President Umaru Yar’Adua to extend the biggest military operation for years in the Niger Delta into neighbouring states.”

Read other articles on the escalating crisis 

Broad Coalition Urges International  Criminal Court to Prosecute

In response to these outrageous attacks, JINN, as part of a broad international coalition of groups, requested the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor to open an immediate investigation into what appears to be a systematic campaign of violence against civilians by the Armed Forces of the Nigerian government.  We are still awaiting a response. Read the letter to the ICC

Senator Feingold and Senator Kerry Condemn the Military Attacks in the Delta

Those who learn what is happening in the Niger Delta are outraged and concerned for the safety of thousands. On May 22, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold spoke out strongly against the Nigerian government’s actions, and called for the Nigerian government to address the legitimate concerns of the people of the Niger Delta.   He said “I urge the Obama administration to think creatively about how we can work multilaterally to help end this long-standing crisis in the Niger Delta.” Read Full Statement

Senator John Kerry followed with his statement on May 23 stating: “Civilian protection and humanitarian needs must be prioritized in the current offensive, and all parties to the conflict should engage in a process to bring an end to the widespread violence and criminality that have long plagued the region and to address the needs of the population.” Read Full Statement

Amnesty International Reports Eye-Witness Accounts
Amnesty International gathered reports directly from the effected villages stating: “Many houses in the communities have been set on fire and destroyed by the military. People are still in hiding in the forest, with no access to medical care and food. The main method of transportation for these communities is by boat. However, according to reports, people attempting to travel by water are being targeted”  Read Full Statement   

The current crisis in the Delta means that your attendance and involvement in this weeks upcoming activities is even more important.  Join JINN on Wednesday and Thursday!

“I Will Protest Chevron” at Chevron’s Headquarters in San Ramon   Wednesday, May 27, 7am – 10:30 am, in front of Chevron Headquarters (6001 Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon, CA) with carpooling options – Map   Join our broad coalition of protestors representing Richmond, the Philippines, Nigeria, Ecuador and Burma and others effected by Chevron.  To view a new parody Chevron’s ads and for more information on rally logistics, go to our coalition website: TrueCostOfChevron.com    Sweet Crude – San Francisco Premiere  Thursday May 28 7pm: Sweet Crude and Filmmaker Sandy Cioffi at the CounterCorp Film Festival
Sadly, this amazing new film on the Niger Delta by Sandy Cioffi is centered in the village of Oporoza that has just been razed by the Nigerian military.  This film gives one of the best historical contexts to what is happening now.   Come for a discussion with the filmmaker about the current crisis in the Delta.  Victoria Theater 2961 16th Street (at Mission St.) Map  
Thank you for giving these issues attention in the midst of your busy schedules. The people of the Niger Delta need ot feel your support  Please let everyone you know about what is happening!
Sincerely,
Sarah, Laura and JINN Volunteers

Justice for Nigerians Brings Shell to Court in NY April 9, 2009

Posted by rogerhollander in Africa, Environment, Nigeria.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

On May 26, 2009, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), co-counsel EarthRights International (ERI) and other human rights attorneys will bring oil giant Shell to federal court in New York for the start of a landmark trial for corporate accountability. CCR is pleased to make two exciting announcements as we draw nearer to the trial: we are launching a short film developed by CCR and ERI titled The Case Against Shell, and a new website, www.WiwavShell.org

In the early 1990’s, following decades of Shell’s environmental devastation in the Niger Delta in Nigeria, the Ogoni people of the region organized a non-violent movement against the oil company.

Shell’s response? They armed, financed, and otherwise colluded with the Nigerian military regime to repress the non-violent movement – leading to the torture and shootings of Ogoni people as well as massive raids and the destruction of Ogoni villages. In one incident, Shell was building an oil pipeline and requested support from the Nigerian military. The pipeline destroyed Karalolo Kogbara’s farm and, as she was crying over her lost crops, the soldiers shot her. In a separate incident, Uebari N-nah was shot and killed by soldiers near a Shell flow station; the soldiers were requested by and later compensated by Shell. Furthermore, Shell helped develop a strategy that resulted in the 1995 executions of nine of the movement’s leaders, including internationally acclaimed writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa.

Shell must be held accountable. As Ken Saro-Wiwa’s son, Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr. has said about the upcoming trial against Shell, “We need to have people account for their role in the executions and the displacement of the Ogoni people, many of whom feel traumatized. It will be a relief. It will enable people to face the future. That’s the most important thing. Let’s account for the past, so we can move forward.”

Sincerely,

Vince Warren
Executive Director, CCR

P.S. If you are in New York City, we are looking for volunteers to help throughout the trial. Come hear about this case at two upcoming events in Manhattan and plan to attend the trial.

If you are outside of New York City, please see our events page for events near you or organize an event.

On “Saving” Darfur … and Africa in general April 9, 2009

Posted by rogerhollander in Africa, Dafur/Sudan.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

By Anne Bartlett

www.sudantribune.com, Tuesday 7 April 2009 05:00.

April 6, 2009 — There is a dirty little secret that operates in the battle to “save” Darfur. It is the same dirty secret that has plagued Africa for years. Its name is colonialism and in Darfur, this impulse is alive and well. It exists in the guise of many of the large advocacy organizations who seem to feel that only white middle class people can “save” the people of the region by extracting money on their behalf. In the last few days, Jerry Fowler of Save Darfur tells me that where the situation in Darfur is concerned: “This cannot stand. We will not allow this. This cannot happen.” I am told that there are only hours left to reach the $200,000 target. If I donate $50 now, I can end the genocide in Darfur. Sadly however, nothing could be further from the truth.

The obnoxious reality is that there is a business to “saving” Africans in Darfur (and elsewhere for that matter). It is a business worth hundreds of millions of dollars. In this business Africans are portrayed as childlike, unable to save themselves, unable to advocate, unable to face up to their own problems or authoritarian leaders. This is indeed ironic in a country like Sudan where people have been jailed, tortured, murdered and abused since 1956 as they fought for their rights and to escape the dynamics created by authoritarian and colonial rule.

For the record, let’s examine the outcomes of some of these organizations. The largest, Save Darfur, is virtually unheard of in Darfur. Why? Because the money they’ve raised hasn’t been spent there. It has been spent on advocacy, marketing, entertaining, conferences, hotels and in fact, a whole variety of events that are of little consequence to those suffering on the ground. It has been spent to produce events that empower peripheral figures who have next to no chance of creating a sustainable program of change. Of course this situation is a source of confusion to the people of Darfur who can’t understand why their views aren’t important in producing a plan for their own survival. They’re not the only ones. Frankly, it’s also rather puzzling to me.

Despite endorsements from people like Alex de Waal, organizations like GI Net are also equally pointless. Besides engaging in advocacy, their claim to “intervene” in genocide has yet to be proven. To date, much of their money has been spent on AU or UNAMID forces – the very same forces that singularly failed to protect the people of the region. Looking at their website there seems to be a lot of information about the responsibility to protect and civilian protection. There seems to be rather less detailed information about precisely how they plan to accomplish this task, except, that is, by collecting more money.

Of course, if someone like me has the audacity to mention this fact we are told that such organizations only “do” advocacy. But what does this actually mean? Just to remind those involved, advocacy means the ability to support or speak in defense of another. With this role comes responsibility. In particular, it is impossible to advocate effectively for someone without engaging them first about what they want. Also, at the risk of stating the obvious here, there also has to be some assessment of how likely this is to succeed. It is not a matter of how many photo opportunities one has on the White House lawn, but rather a realistic assessment of the positions and interests of those involved.

One of the problems here is that there is an assumption that shouting louder will change the situation. Manifestly however, this is untrue. Foreign policy priorities of counties like the United States are mediated by a whole bunch of things that include, but are not limited to economics and other larger regional interests. It is hard to see how the US can take a really tough stance with Sudan when huge amounts of its national debt are held by China. If anything served to illustrate this fact it was Premier Wen Jiabao’s recent comments about the value of US Treasury Bonds which sent the Department of the Treasury into a tailspin. Then there was Secretary Clinton’s visit to the region when nothing was even mentioned about human rights. In the last few days, the US Special Envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration made the position abundantly clear by saying that “The United States and Sudan want to be partners and so we are looking for opportunities for us to build a stronger bilateral relationship” Diplomatic speak or not, the message is certainly not ambiguous.

Organizations who want to “save” Darfur might start with the basics like helping the people they purport to serve. To spell this out, they might help some of the organizations at the sharp end – such as The Sudan Social Development Organization (SUDO) or the Amel Center – who have served the people of Darfur for years. These organizations, who have had all of their belongings stolen by the egregious actions of the Sudanese state need help now. Moreover, since they are used to working in the incredibly politicized conditions of Darfur, they are far more effective in getting help to the people that need it. And to Mr. Gration, please dispense with the fiction that Sudanese government organizations will help local people. They won’t.

Alternatively, organizations who want to “save” Darfur might help facilitate the peace process. Over the years I have been working on this issue, I have seen honest, decent Darfuris become increasingly impoverished, depressed and often lose all hope for the future. Unable to even afford the cost of flights to have some sort of dialogue about how to make change happen on the ground, they are trapped in a spiral which can only take them further into desperation. This is evidenced in the dangerous trend of acquiescing around JEM’s position – a position backed by the resources and organizational ability of Chad. For those who are unfamiliar with JEM’s position, this development is extremely dangerous. Khalil Ibrahim was the architect of the policy of using one marginalized group to annihilate another in the North-South war. Many others within the movement are also from the Islamist ranks, irrespective of how well they articulate their cause to others. Besides sucking Darfur into a larger regional war, these dynamics will ultimately result in the installation of a group of people that were behind the Jihadist movement in the first place. This is not what the people of Darfur want or need. It will not bring peace to the region.

Finally, organizations who want to “save” Darfur should engage in fiscal responsibility first. This means publishing your accounts so that the people you claim to help can see where the money is going. In this new era of financial transparency, it seems only fair that you subject yourselves to the same rules that everybody else has to abide by. Perhaps you should also think about changing your name to one that has a bit less of a colonial valence. As I’ve often said elsewhere, Darfuris can save themselves if they receive even a fraction of the money collected in their name and on the backs of their suffering. Maybe the day has come for these organizations to work with local people to do just this.

Dr. Anne Bartlett is a Professor of Sociology at the University of San Francisco. She is also a Director of the Darfur Centre for Human Rights and Development based in London. She may be reached at albartlett@usfca.edu

The Sins of the Christian Church March 30, 2009

Posted by rogerhollander in Africa, Religion.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Globe and Mail Update

The Roman Catholic Church is preying on my mind. There are several immediate reasons, some entirely obvious. Pope Benedict XVI embraces an excommunicated bishop whom everyone but he (we are told) knew was a demented Holocaust denier. Pope Benedict pronounces, as he departs for Africa, that condoms actually increase the AIDS problem. HIV and AIDS remains an out-of-control plague across southern Africa and the Pope has again done incalculable damage to AIDS prevention.

But it’s not just Benedict. As I prepare to leave on my own Africa trip — to Rwanda to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the genocide of its Tutsi people — I also think of Benedict’s charismatic predecessor. John Paul II wanted to be known as the great healer who apologized on behalf of the Church for its multiple sins and crimes of the past. Most renowned was his apology for the 2000 years his Church fomented anti-Semitism among Catholics. But he too was a ferocious public foe of condoms, for which he never sought forgiveness. Equally infamous but less well-known was his steadfast failure to apologize for, or indeed to even acknowledge, the notorious role of his Church in setting the stage for, enabling and ultimately participating in the genocide in Rwanda.

Many in rich countries still regard Africa as the dark, backward continent and might be surprised to learn that about 80 per cent of Rwandans are Christian, two thirds of whom are Roman Catholic. This is true of both Hutu and Tutsi. It was Catholic missionaries almost a century before the 1994 genocide who invented the fraudulent and destructive notion of Hutu and Tutsi as two irreconcilable, inflexible races, forever divided. As with Pope Benedict, knowledge was absolutely no criteria for making authoritative and deadly statements.

For most of the 20th century the Church in Rwanda shared power with secular authorities. In the years just before the genocide, the most influential Catholic archbishop was an intimate of both the Hutu dictator and his wife, who ran the country as a corrupt ethnic family dictatorship. The Catholic hierarchy in Rwanda, mostly Hutu by 1994, failed to condemn its Hutu extremist friends who were carrying out this African holocaust. While some priests and nuns distinguished themselves by saving threatened Tutsi, far more actively collaborated with the genocidaires in their murderous exploits or at best stood by, silent.

Had they stood up and denounced the plot, had the Pope flown to Rwanda during the genocide (as he had before it) to demand that his flock stop their killing, the genocide could have been stopped in its track.

Instead, they allowed perhaps a million defenseless, innocent Tutsi to be murdered to satisfy the greed and lust for power of the Hutu elite, their close friends.

In a powerful book published in 2004, Genocide in Rwanda: Complicity of the Churches?, some 20 mostly Catholic writers, including the nun who co-edited the book and several Rwandans, overwhelmingly agreed that the Church was indeed complicit. But one contributor, Jerry Fowler, then at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, wondered what the fuss was about. He pointed to the large number of contemporary situations, from El Salvador to Chile to Argentina to Zaire/Congo, when significant and leading elements of the Church had openly aligned themselves with terrorizing elites who practiced wholesale violence and unspeakable human-rights abuses, or at best remained bystanders. Why did similar behaviour seem so shocking in Rwanda? Instead of being scandalized, we should understand that the Church’s role there was really par for the course.

Yet even I was shaken by the latest outrage out of Brazil. A Catholic girl is raped by her stepfather and will give birth to twins. Instead she gets an abortion. The Vatican excommunicates the family and the doctors. The girl is 9 years old. The Archbishop of Recife, fiercely unapologetic, compares abortion to the Holocaust. A child, whose life is permanently scarred, becomes a Nazi.

The power of the ignorant sometimes seems infinite. In Africa, thanks in part to Church influence, abortions are banned in most countries. As a result, unsafe procedures are a leading cause of the continent’s appallingly high maternal mortality rates. A staggering 30,00 African women die each year from unsafe abortions.

The West has made a meal out of feasting on the murderous excesses of extreme Muslims. Yet in Rwanda in 1994, while Christian Hutu were busily slaughtering Christian Tutsi, most Muslim Hutu refused to join the genocide.

From Israel, we now learn that during the recent Israeli war against Gaza, rabbis assured Israeli soldiers that they were holy warriors with a religious mission to expel non-Jews who were “interfering with the conquest of the Holy Land.”

Let me begin this essay again. Religion is preying on my mind …

Gerald Caplan is the author of The Betrayal of Africa and Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide