View previous stories
	World must heed early warning signs to prevent genocide by United Nations News   January 2014   Twenty years after the Rwanda genocide, where “the consequences of failing to heed the warning signs were monumentally horrifying,” the world must respond early to the risk of mass atrocities amid mounting religious and ethnic polarization and demonization, a United Nations special event warned today.   “We must never forget the collective failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide,” Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson told participants at UN Headquarters in New York. “Repeating the phrase ‘never again’ is in itself a sign of continued failure.”   The event, formally called “Understanding early warning of mass atrocities twenty years after the genocide in Rwanda,” was co-organized by the UN Department of Public Information (DPI), the Permanent Mission of Rwanda and the non-governmental Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.   The special event comes in the run-up to the 20th anniversary commemorations of Rwanda genocide, when in a mere 100 days beginning on 7 April, 1994, more than 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred by Hutu militants. Among today’s attendees was retired Canadian Lt. Gen. Roméo Dallaire, the head of the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda at the time, who had appealed in vain for the world to take action before it was too late.   “If we are to prevent future tragedies, progress requires leadership and courage to speak out at every level – the kind of leadership and the kind of courage, that Roméo Dallaire showed 20 years ago,” Mr. Eliasson said. “It requires action by Governments to uphold their fundamental responsibilities – and by the international community when that does not happen.   “As never before, the people of the world are measuring the performance of the United Nations by our efforts to protect human rights and civilian populations.”   He stressed the importance of the role civil society in preventing atrocities, highlighting the “responsibility to protect” concept endorsed in 2005, and the commitment of many individuals, including UN staff in the field, who are providing early warning and supporting local and national efforts to seek to protect human rights and stop conflicts from escalating.   “In South Sudan today for an example in spite of a tragically great number of people being killed in the conflict, thousands of civilians are alive today because they have sought shelter inside United Nations facilities and have been provided with protection and assistance.”   Some 65,000 civilians are currently being sheltered in 10 UN bases in South Sudan where well over 1,000 people, possibly thousands, have been killed and more than 400,000 have been driven from their homes since conflict erupted between President Salva Kiir’s forces and those of former deputy president Riek Machar a month ago today. Mr. Eliasson, noted, however that the lessons learned over the years have not always been followed by action.   “Since the tragedy in Rwanda, hundreds of thousands of people have died in mass atrocities and tens of millions have been displaced,” he said. “Over the last few weeks alone, men, women and children have been slaughtered not only in South Sudan but also in the Central African Republic (CAR) and in the nightmare of Syria.”   He stressed that the wider impact has been disastrous for peace, security and the economic and social development of entire regions. “This is all the more so because of the deeply worrying and growing divisions along religious or ethnic lines that we are witnessing in many nations,” he warned.   “The demonization - I use that word intentionally - of people of different faiths or ethnic belonging is one of the most toxic deeds of which human beings are capable. It undermines the fundamental principle that must lie at the heart of human interaction – and in fact of the United Nations - the incontrovertible truth of every human being’s equal value.   “When people are killed or violated in the name of religion, race or ethnicity, everybody’s humanity is diminished. We are all brutalized – victims and perpetrators as well as bystanders.”   Lt. Gen. Dallaire, a member of the UN advisory board on the Prevention of Genocide, told the meeting that “the most easily identifiable warning tool out there” that a society is about to implode and possibly degenerate into genocide is the massive use of child soldiers “in the thousands upon thousands as the primary weapon of war, not as an adjunct.   “As the primary instrument of war from up front with AK 47s to machetes to all the way back to girls being abused and used as sex slaves and bush wives by the adults. It is in my opinion the instrument of warning,” he stressed, citing Syria, CAR, Mali and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as instances where this has happened.   Statement by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay on the International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust.   “Today, we honour the memory of the millions of people - men, women and children - brutally murdered seven decades ago for the simple fact of being Jewish, Roma, Slav or homosexual, because they had disabilities, or were Jehovah’s witnesses or political opponents.   I visited Auschwitz a few months ago, and I have a simple message for all those who deny that the Holocaust happened, or who engage in anti-Semitism or other forms of religious, racial or ethnic intolerance or discrimination: visit this historic and terrible place. It is a truly humbling and harrowing experience to feel the chill of evil and immense tragedy that permeates its walls and grounds. It is important to feel -- not just to know in an abstract way -- where such behaviour can lead.   Each year, on 27 January, we take time to remember the victims of the Holocaust and to reflect on how it came about, and how the world at large failed so dismally to prevent it. The Holocaust stands as a searing reminder of the perils of discrimination and intolerance, and of just how powerful and deadly the incitement to racial hatred can be. It also should make us more aware of the importance of reacting quickly and firmly to manifestations of discrimination, hostility or violence against individuals and entire communities, wherever they occur.   In the decades since the end of World War II, and the revelation of the full horror of the Holocaust, the flames of hatred and persecution have risen again to consume other countries, people and societies – from the killing fields of Cambodia, to the forests of Srebrenica and the hills of Rwanda.   Even today, in many places around the world, people are persecuted or discriminated against because of their race, religion, origin, sexual orientation or political opinions, and in countries such as Syria, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, people are still being maimed and slaughtered because of the group to which they belong.   We need to stop turning a blind eye to the warning signs of serious human rights violations whenever and wherever they appear. That much, at least, we can do to honour all those millions murdered en masse by their fellow human beings, who attempted to justify war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide with hate-inspired political philosophies and propaganda. We must also be aware that the seeds of such hatred are often sown in times of peace as well in times of war.” Visit the related web page
	Moving Beyond the Corporate Vision of Sustainability by Rajesh Makwana Share The World"s Resources   The corporate capture of policymaking has dire implications for how we achieve sustainable development in the 21st century, and it must be strongly opposed in the coming years as deliberations on climate change and sustainable development reach important conclusions. Private sector influence over politics at the national level is already widely recognised, but the extent to which powerful industries are able to influence global negotiations on some of the world’s most pressing problems is far less reported by the media or discussed in the public sphere.   A prominent example of this was the Rio+20 Earth Summit in 2012, which was dominated by the presence of multinational corporations whose ‘green economy’ proposals starkly clashed with the more urgent and radical perspectives from indigenous communities, civil society organisations and environmental groups. The outcome was a watered-down vision for sustainable development, and the conference was widely condemned by civil society as a failure. Nonetheless, the pro-market approach to resolving the global environmental crisis has shaped the mainstream discourse on the green economy ever since, even at the United Nations (UN).   After Rio+20, many civil society organisations published reports denouncing the corporate push for a green economy and the excessive influence of big business during the event. Most people agree that the UN is by far the most appropriate organisation for facilitating a conference addressing critical global issues, as it is more inclusive and representative than any other global forum, such as the G8, G20 or the World Bank. But ever since the inauguration of the Global Compact by Kofi Annan and the head of Nestle in 2000, civil society groups have been dismayed at the continual rise of corporate influence over the UN and its processes.   According to Friends of the Earth International (FOEI), there are various ways that big business exerts influence at UN negotiations. They directly influence the position of national governments; they dominate some UN bodies as well as certain discussion spaces within the UN; they are often given a privileged advisory role in negotiations; UN officials have a ‘revolving door’ relationship with the private sector; and UN agencies are increasingly financially dependent on the private sector for their funding.   FOEI state that one of the most worrying consequences of this is “the emergence of an ideology among some UN agencies and staff that what is good for business is good for society”.   Invariably, the big business lobby advocates for market-based solutions to environmental problems and the ‘greening’ of economic growth, and essentially works to safeguard opportunities for private sector investment and shareholder profit. But environmentalists and civil society organisations have long argued that there is something deeply misguided about putting corporate profits and market-based solutions at the forefront of our response to climate change and the wider environmental crisis.   Indeed, it is widely accepted that the endless pursuit of profit and consumer-driven growth, the deregulation of corporate activity, and the privatisation of natural resources are some of the key drivers of ecological degradation.   Most market-based solutions necessitate putting a monetary value on nature, which plays into the paradigm of commercialisation: the value of the natural world is reduced to its potential for generating financial returns. Such solutions adhere to the logic of a neoliberal economic model that continues to dominate mainstream policy discourse even despite its role in precipitating the global financial crisis in 2008. But endless growth is a primary driver of resource consumption and environmental degradation, and GDP is now widely regarded as an inappropriate measure for human progress.   On the question of whether economic growth can ever be sufficiently green, the evidence suggests that we cannot decarbonise economic activity fast enough to meet pressing climate targets.   In her latest book ‘Making Peace with the Earth’, Dr Vandana Shiva reflects on the environmental impacts of a world order built on limitless growth, corporate greed and the commodification of nature. She concludes that “Green economics needs to be an authentic green, it cannot be the brown of desertification and deforestation. It cannot be the red of violence against nature and people, or the unnecessary conflicts over natural resources”.   There is clearly a huge gulf between corporate proposals for a green economy and the ‘deep green’ alternatives of environmentalists who call for extensive reforms at the national and global level. At the heart of the more progressive proposals is a vision of a new economic paradigm that is not dependent on producing and consuming ever-greater quantities of material goods for its continued success.   Instead, it recognises that if we want to safeguard planet earth and survive as a species, governments need to find new ways of cooperating internationally and sharing the world’s resources sustainably. Economic sharing on a global scale means respecting planetary limits and ensuring equitable access to natural resources for present and future generations, wherever they might live.   Of course, the political barriers to implementing a paradigm shift of this magnitude are immense. As mentioned above, however, as long as policy decisions face undue influence from the corporate sector, international attempts to mitigate climate change and reverse decades of environmental abuse are likely to remain dangerously insufficient. In the first instance, overcoming the illegitimate power of corporations requires that citizens of all nations reclaim their democratic right to a ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’.   This may not be perceptible in many countries as yet, but across the world ordinary people are rising up en-mass to voice their opinion on the future direction of public policy. From the anti-war protests in 2003 to the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, the recent protests in Turkey, Brazil, Ukraine, Thailand and elsewhere, people are demanding that political power is shared fairly throughout society.   But the demand for public policy to closely represent the needs of people must also extend beyond national borders to encompass global governance institutions, such as the UN. The next two years will see stakeholders finalise the Sustainable Development Goals, while climate change negotiations will continue in Peru and Paris to formalise a successor to Kyoto in 2015.   It is therefore essential that decisions affecting the future sustainability of life on earth are made democratically in the interests of all people, and are not unduly influenced by the immense lobbying power of the private sector. In light of these ongoing international negotiations, it is worth revisiting FOEI’s post Rio+20 civil society statement, which was supported by hundreds of organisations and spells out a roadmap for ending corporate capture at the UN:   “Steps to be taken include limiting the privileged status that business currently has in official UN negotiations and policy-making and increased transparency around corporate lobbying at the UN; disclosure of existing relations between the UN with the private sector; a review of existing UN-business partnerships, and a halt to entering into any new such partnerships; a code of conduct for UN officials; and the establishment of a legally binding framework to hold companies accountable to environmental, human rights and labor rights law.”   The fierce debates around what constitutes a green economy are symptomatic of a more fundamental issue that cuts to the heart of what so many in the global justice movement are calling for: democratic representation at the local, national and global level. Until policymaking is wrestled free from corporate influence, it is impossible that international negotiations on climate change and sustainable development can lead to the transformative reforms that the environmental crisis urgently demands.   In order to shift away from an unsustainable and outdated paradigm based on the relentless pursuit of corporate profit, millions more people around the world need to recognise what is at stake and bolster civil society efforts to get big business out of politics. Visit the related web page
	View more stories