On March 8, in the midst of the global Coronavirus crisis, former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf offered a bright, glittering antidote to the fear and uncertainty of Covid-19 with the International Women’s Day (IWD) launch of the Ellen Johnson Sirleaf Presidential Center on Women and Development.
The Monrovia-based center aims to advance women’s public leadership in Africa with an emphasis on political participation.
The launch was not a moment too soon for Angela O., still haunted by the memory of going to bed elated that she had won her primary but waking up to read in the newspaper that her party had named her opponent as its election standard bearer. Or for Catherine W., named one of the ten best finance ministers in Africa, but summarily dismissed from the cabinet for opposing corruption and having the audacity to argue with her president for needed reforms.
As the first and only democratically elected female African president, “President Ellen” remains an iconic role model and inspiration to countless women across the continent. And she hasn’t let them down. She is using her 2017 Mo Ibrahim Democracy Award of $500,000 a year for ten years and an additional $200,000 per year for public interest projects for up to ten years, to methodically develop a plan for a Liberia-based center with a mission to promote African women’s leadership in the public arena, especially in politics.
The Center’s first project, Amujae (a Kru word meaning moving up together), brings together 15 up-and-coming women leaders from across the continent–Anglophone, Francophone and Lusaphone– for a long weekend three times a year to meet with senior leaders and veteran women politicians to give the younger women new skills and deeper insights into the complex role of a female leader.
To underscore the gravity and urgency of the Center’s mission Ellen invited former Malawi President Joyce Banda and former Central African Republic President Catherine Samba-Panza to join her for the workshop and launch.
The workshop’s carefully curated curriculum was a rich mix of practical sessions and intimate meetings with the women presidents. In one session on women and the media participants learned that the mere mention of what the candidate wore dropped her polling numbers by six to eight percent. What to do!!
Listen to and learn from your elders: The highlight of the weekend was the full participation of the three women presidents. Each of them had been harassed, jailed and/or violently attacked. Yet each has summoned the courage to face the unimaginable vitriol and ultimately prevail to manage complex post-conflict recoveries, govern democratically and advance their countries’ economies. Their willingness to spend hours with the younger women, patiently answer their questions and offer advice grounded in gritty experience gave the younger women concrete take-aways. As a bonus, the younger women learned the power of storytelling and the importance of controlling their own narratives.
To launch the Center on international Women’s Day, Ellen invited African leaders from across the continent, including Bineta Diop, AU Special Envoy for Women, Peace and Security; Finda E.M. Koroma, the (first female) vice president of ECOWAS; K.Y. Amoako, president and CEO of ACET, Africa’s premier economic think tank; Antoinette Sayeh, the Liberian economist and former Minister of Finance, who has just been named Deputy Managing Director of the IMF; and countless other high profile African dignitaries.
The three former women presidents were joined by former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, Liberian President George Weah and other senior Liberian officials including former Liberian President Amos Sawyer and Senator Nyonblee Karnga-Lawrence, the only female Senator in the Legislature.
Former President Obasanjo spoke for the entire assemblage when he noted that Ellen had raised the bar for other African presidents’ post-office achievements. Equally important, she inaugurated and ensured a stellar pipeline of accomplished, confident women ready for senior leadership for decades to come.
The second important component of the EJS Center is its archives, an ongoing effort to collect and preserve Ellen’s papers. In an era that demands documentation, the archives will encourage female literacy as well as comprise a permanent record of her legacy. The Ellen Johnson Sirleaf Presidential Foundation, a U.S.-based complement to the EJS Center, has been established to support the archives.
The IWD launch of the Ellen Johnson Sirleaf Center for Women and Development was a watershed for Africa, especially its women. When Angela, Catherine and their 13 counterparts departed Liberia, they left armed with a personal development plan, new strategies for enhanced political participation, a tensile network of likeminded women activists and a confidence that only caring former female presidents could bestow on their potential successors.
The weekend stretched and strengthened the 15 women participants in ways that not even the Coronavirus could tarnish, for the EJS Center is a gift that will keep on giving, continuously nurturing women leaders and enriching the continent.
Vivian Lowery Derryck is Founder and President Emerita of The Bridges Institute – Strengthening African Democracy through Global Partnerships. She previously served as Assistant Administrator for Africa of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of State, Executive Vice President of the National Council of Negro Women, Vice President of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, and President of the African-American Institute.
William Clark Enoch of Queensland. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who comprise only 2.5 percent of Australia’s nearly 24 million population, are part of the oldest continuing culture in the world. At a Covering Climate Now panel in New York on Friday, indigenous leaders reiterated the need for the world to listen to them in addressing climate concerns. Credit: Neena Bhandari/IPS
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 19 2020 (IPS) – Mina Setra remembers the story clearly. As a Dayak Pompakng indigenous person from Indonesia, when visitors from the city who came into her community; brought bottled water with them because they were worried about the water not being suitable for drinking.
Setra, who is the deputy secretary-general of the Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), recalls one of the elders telling the visitors, “This is the problem of you city people: You eat and drink all the dead things. Like the water that is already in a bottle? It is dead water. The vegetables that you buy from the freezer in the supermarket, they’re all dead plants.”
The anecdote sums up a much bigger conversation that is relevant today: how climate change is linked to coronavirus, and why it’s important to listen to indigenous leaders on the matter.
Setra shared the story with IPS when asked about links between climate change and coronavirus, during a panel talk by Covering Climate Now in New York on Friday, where indigenous leaders reiterated the need for the world to listen to them in addressing climate concerns — and reminding them how climate change can lead to or exacerbate a global health crisis as grave as the current virus.
The talk took place as global communities scrambled to take effective measures against the deadly virus, and just as the U.S. announced a global emergency while struggling to contain its coronavirus cases. More than two months since the world became aware of coronavirus — and increasingly learned of its alarming implicants — the pandemic has globally claimed 8,810 lives, with more than 218,800, cases.
While global conversations have mainly focused on the issue of death rate, or the racism attached to the virus, or different countries’ isolation methods (or lack thereof), little has been said about the link to climate change.
This remains a much bigger conversation that indigenous leaders want people to be aware of: how climate change can exacerbate the dangers of something like the coronavirus, and why the world should’ve been listening to indigenous leaders to avoid such a catastrophic spread. While many believe that coronavirus started with a bat, experts argue it’s not so black and white. A February report established what the leaders discussed at the talk: how deforestation can lead to a loss of habitat for many wild animals and species. As a result, they move to habitat that brings them to closer proximity to humans which can lead to repeated contact between them.
“The inequilibrium of our planet is not just about climate change, but it’s also about the global economy,” Levi Sucre Romero, a member of the BriBri indigenous community from Costa Rica, told IPS at the panel talk. “So coronavirus is now telling the world what we have been saying for thousands of years: that if we do not help protect biodiversity and nature, that we will face this and worse future threats.”
While wild animals and species are forced to find a home in close proximity to humans as a result of deforestation, another crucial concern is the treatment of animals by people from commercial hubs and cities that can act as a catalyst for such a global crisis.
“Our animals are not contaminated by themselves. They get contaminated by people,” Tuxá said in response to IPS’ question about the link between coronavirus and climate change. “And the proof is that these viruses start in the commercial centres of the world. There is a direct correlation between this and coronavirus and other pandemics that are to come.”
Tuxá added the next pandemic’s cure can be found in the diversity of indigenous peoples’ lands.
“That’s why it’s really important to demarcate and recognise our lands, to protect our lands and our biodiversity because future life depends on it,” he said.
Equity apologised to Laurence Fox on Friday and agreed an out of court settlement for calling him a ‘disgrace’ following his Question Time interview back in January.
But the UK actors union’s apology has sparked conflict within the organisation and the WHOLE of the Race Equality Committee have resigned.
Tweets branded Laurence, 41, a ‘disgrace’ after he questioned the presence of Sikh soldiers in Sam Mendes movie, 1917, and said the media’s treatment of the Duchess Of Sussex was not racist.
They were posted by Equity’s Minority Ethnic Members’ Committee (renamed the Race Equality Committee).
‘Not in MY name’: Equity’s Race Equality’s ENTIRE committee has RESIGNED after Laurence Fox received apology and out of court settlement from union following QT ‘race row’
Apology: Equity, the UK actors union, shared this statement on social media on Friday morning which led to the mass resignation
Chairman Daniel York Loh announced that he has resigned from his position, saying the apology was ‘not in my name’.
He tweeted: ‘Equity and Laurence Fox can issue as many joint statements and apologies as they like. It’s nothing to do with me and I apologise for nothing #NotInMyName.’
The committee said that ‘all members of Equity’s recently renamed Race Equality Committee (formerly the Equity Minority Ethnic Members Committee) feel we have no choice but to resign as committee members’.
‘Deep regret’: The committee posted soon after to write that they had no choice but to resign following the union’s apology
Daniel York (pictured) was Chairman of Equity’s Race Equality Committee
Sassy: The committee’s chairman, Daniel York Loh shared a GIF to express his distaste for the situation and wrote that Equity’s statement was a ‘hot mess’
Opinionated: He also shared some cry face emojis in response to Ben Obese-Jecty’s comment
‘You lemon’: And he had some choice words for Richard Lenwade who slammed the committee
Laurence received an apology from Equity, the UK actors union, on Friday, after they called him a ‘disgrace’ following his Question Time appearance in January.
Equity apologised on social media and have agreed an out of court settlement with Fox writing that ‘it was a mistake for the organisation to criticise him in this way.’
They penned: ‘On 17 January a series of tweets were posted by the @EquityMEM Twitter account about Laurence Fox’s appearance on BBC Question Time.
‘We are sorry that in the tweets he was called a ‘disgrace’ by Equity. It was a mistake for Equity as an organisation to criticise him in this way.
Divisive: He had sparked a race row by claiming the inclusion of a turban-wearing soldier in Sam Mendes film 1917 was ‘incongruous’
‘Nothing in Equity’s later statement was intended as a slur on his character or views or to suggest that he should be denied the ability to work.
‘We would like to make that clear. Equity and Laurence Fox condemn prejudice unequivocally in all its forms.’
He had sparked a race row by claiming the inclusion of a turban-wearing soldier in Sam Mendes film 1917 was ‘incongruous’.
He sparked controversy when he responded to a claim from an audience member that the media’s treatment of the Duchess of Sussex amounted to ‘racism’.
He said: ‘It’s not racism … we’re the most tolerant, lovely country in Europe. t’s so easy to throw the charge of racism and it’s really starting to get boring now.’
The audience member then described Fox as a “white, privileged male”, to which he responded: ‘To call me a white, privileged male is to be racist.’
Free speech matters: Piers Morgan immediately took to Twitter to express his support for Laurence
The episode received more than 250 complaints and sparked a social media backlash, which Fox called ‘water off a duck’s back’.
Fox, who was previously married to actress Billie Piper, said he had received death threats and had suffered from ‘temporary insomnia’ after his appearance.
He later hit out at black and working-class actors for complaining about the industry once they have ‘five million quid in the bank’ before saying he was signing off Twitter because ‘I have to turn this noise off for a while’.
Meanwhile, a source close to Laurence also told MailOnline: ‘Equity have finally apologised and agreed an out of court settlement with Laurence after calls for him to be “unequivocally denounced” by the equity minority members committee.
‘He is pleased and grateful to Equity for this decision. He looks forward now to moving on in his professional and personal life after what has been a very difficult period for him and his family.’
Laurence himself also took to Twitter on Friday morning ahead of the announcement, following a 19 day social media break.
He said: ‘I thought I’d let you know that I have an update in regards to my situation that I will share with you at around 9am.’
Opinion: Fox (pictured, left, with interviewer Julie Hartley-Brewer) hit back at Lily Allen (right, crying at a migrant camp in Calais) after she told him to stick to acting despite her regular interventions on political issues
Then, following Equity’s post, he wrote: ‘Hopefully this might an opportunity for us to continue to celebrate diversity in all its forms. Including diversity of opinion.’
Piers Morgan then wrote: ‘Finally… this was a shameful way to treat @LozzaFox for having the audacity to express an opinion. Good to see @EquityUK acknowledge how wrong it was. Free speech matters.’
Laurence had apologised to the Sikh community but in a follow up tweet said ‘I stand by everything else I said’.
The outspoken actor made the comment about the critically-acclaimed film and Sikhs in a podcast on Saturday while being interviewed by James Delingpole.
Mr Fox was a guest panellist on Question Time last week when an audience member called him a ‘white, privileged male’ and he called her description of him racist.
The actor has also previously said that ‘woke’ people are ‘fundamentally racist’.
Fox – who railed against identity politics on Question Time – told Julia Hartley-Brewer on Talk Radio that the country is tired of being told it’s racist in an appearance on Monday.
He also spoke about his dispute with singer Lily Allen who she was ‘sick to death’ of ‘luvvies’ like Fox who are guilty of ‘forcing their opinions on everybody else’.
Something to say: Laurence broke his 19 day Twitter silence on Friday ahead of Equity’s post
She added: ‘He’ll never have to deal with what normal people have to deal with in his gated community.’
She concluded the rant by saying that he should ‘stick to acting mate, instead of ranting about things you don’t know about’.
Fox mocked her statement, saying that she had a ‘privileged’ upbringing herself and pointing out he doesn’t live in a gated community.
He said sarcastically on Talk Radio: ‘She’s had a pretty privileged upbringing but she speaks for the common man doesn’t she.’
Mr Fox also slammed ‘woke’ culture, a term that originally was used to positively convey an alertness to oppression but is now also used derisively as a term for those who argue that white privilege stops people like Fox being able to see racism.
Fox also said that it was the woke who are actually guilty of racism against the white people they accuse.
‘What they are accusing you of is what they are,’ he said. ‘They are everything they accuse you of. The wokist are fundamentally racist.’ He added: ‘Identity politics is extremely racist.’
Back in January, he had apologised to the Sikh community after his outburst about the Sam Mendes
More to say: The outspoken actor’s apology only extended to the Sikh community for his comments about 1917
When asked about his remarks by GMB hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid the next day about whether the inclusion of the character was historically out-of-place, he replied: ‘I’m not a historian I don’t know.’
Sikh historian Peter Singh Bance told MailOnline that Fox should ‘check his facts’, saying: ‘Laurence Fox is incorrect with his facts as Sikhs did fight with British forces, not just with their own regiments.’
The Lewis star had then posted on his Twitter account and apologised for the ‘clumsy way’ he expressed himself.
When asked about his remarks by GMB hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid the day after QT, he told the hosts ‘I’m no historian’ and admitted he didn’t know Sikh soldiers fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the British in World War One
He had said: ‘Fellow humans who are #Sikhs. I am as moved by the sacrifices your relatives made as I am by the loss of all those who die in war, whatever creed or colour.
‘Please accept my apology for being clumsy in the way I have expressed myself over this matter in recent days.’
But in a follow up tweet soon after, he said: ‘I stand by everything else I said and will continue to do so. Sleep well.’
The epic film follows two young British soldiers tasked with traversing no-man’s land with a message as the Germans pull back from the Western Front.
The Lewis star said that ‘forcing diversity on people’ is ‘institutionally racist’ after saying that the inclusion of Nabhaan Rizwan portraying Sepoy Jondalar was not in keeping with the film’s surroundings.
Speaking on podcast, The Delingpod, Mr Fox said: ‘It’s very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin because of the oddness in the casting. Even in 1917 they’ve done it with a Sikh soldier.
‘Which is great, it’s brilliant, but you’re suddenly aware there were Sikhs fighting in this war. And you’re like ‘ok’. You’re now diverting me away from what the story is.’
The truth behind 1917’s Sikh soldier: Troops from the Empire DID fight in same regiments as the British in WWI as top historian slams Laurence Fox over claim Sam Mendes’ blockbuster was ‘racist’ for including Indian recruits
By Mark Duell and Shekhar Bhatia for MailOnline
Soldiers from foreign countries served shoulder-to-shoulder alongside British forces in the same regiments during the First World War, military experts said today.
More than three million soldiers and labourers from across the British Empire joined the British Army in their own regiments during the conflict from 1914 to 1918.
But other foreign soldiers also fought within British regiments, it emerged after actor Laurence Fox criticised the ‘incongruous’ inclusion of a Sikh soldier in the film 1917.
Sikh historian Peter Singh Bance said Sikhs and other Indians fought with the British Army corps, such as the 1st Manchesters and the 47th Sikhs fighting as one.
Sikh soldiers from the Indian Service Corps with British Army soldiers on the Western Front in the war in 1916. ISC members were from all over India and also performed labouring tasks
George MacKay plays Lance Corporal Schofield (centre) in 1917, alongside Nabhaan Rizwan, who plays Sikh soldier Sepoy Jondalar. They are pictured trying to push a truck out of mud
Mr Bance today told Fox to ‘check his facts’, saying: ‘Laurence Fox is incorrect with his facts as Sikhs did fight with British forces, not just with their own regiments.’
He told MailOnline: ‘There were definitely Sikhs and other Indian soldiers who fought among the British Army corps, and they wore the same uniform.’
The details come after Fox questioned the storyline of 1917 over Sikh soldier Sepoy Jondalar, played by Nabhaan Rizwan, being in the ranks of British forces.
Fox, 41, told writer James Delingpole’s podcast that it causes ‘a very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin’ because of ‘the oddness of the casting’.
Around 1.5million men were recruited from India, while Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland gave a further 1.3million soldiers.
A Sikh soldier lines up with three British comrades on the Western Front during the war in 1917
1917 director Sir Sam Mendes speaks to Nabhaan Rizwan on set during the film’s production
Some men from the West Indies served in regular British Army units, but most of the 15,000 involved were in their own regiments and served in France, Italy and Africa.
Indian troops fought against the Ottoman Turks in Palestine; African troops helped contain the Germans in East Africa; and Newfoundlanders fought at the Somme.
Estimated deaths by British Empire country
Australia – 62,000
Canada – 65,000
India – 74,000
New Zealand – 18,000
Newfoundland – 1,000
South Africa – 9,000
West Indies – 1,000
United Kingdom – 885,000
Figures rounded to the nearest 1,000 after being compiled by the Centre Européen Robert Schuman in France
Mr Bance said of Fox’s comments: ‘This has nothing to do with diversity, history is history and we can’t distort it for a film. Over 1.5million Indians fought in World War One, over 80,000 Indians died.
‘Sam Mendes should be commended as finally World War One films are becoming historically accurate, as earlier films totally ignored the presence of Sikh and other colonial soldiers who fought for the Empire alongside the British
‘Laurence’s comments are totally out of context as the presence of one Sikh is not to distract the audience but to give historical accuracy which most World War One films lack.
‘When over 1.5 million Indian soldiers fought in this campaign, how can showing one Sikh soldier be distracting?’
Mr Bance added: ‘There were definitely Sikhs and other Indian soldiers who fought among the British Army corps, and they wore the same uniform.
A patrol of Indian lancers near Amiens in France soon after the outbreak of war in autumn 1914. The I Indian Corps of 3rd (Lahore) and 7th (Meerut) were part of Indian Expeditionary Force A
Indian cavalry after a charge at the Somme during the First World War on July 14, 1916
‘For example The 1st Manchesters were fighting with members of the 47th Sikhs brigade as one.
‘And the 7th Ferozepur Brigade consisted of 47th Sikhs and the London Brigade.
‘Sikhs not only fought from within their own Sikh regiments but they were also in the Punjabi Regiments, cavalry, sappers and miners regiments as well.
‘There was also Sikhs and other Indian soldiers who were present in British Army service corps working as labourers too.’
MailOnline has approached Sir Sam Mendes’s representatives for a comment.
Britain started the war with 700,000 trained soldiers, before thousands of untrained volunteers also signed up in 1914 and conscription was introduced two years later.
A Sikh regiment marching in France in 1914, where Indian soldiers made a huge contribution
Two Senegalese soldiers serving in the French Army as infantrymen, in June 1917. They were part of the Tirailleurs Sénégalais and from the Bambara, a Mandé ethnic group in West Africa
But the size of the military was also significantly bolstered by forces from across the Empire – which later became the Commonwealth – all of which had backed Britain after it declared war against Germany.
Laurence Fox (pictured on the BBC’s Question Time last Thursday) questioned the Sikh soldier’s appearance in the film 1917
The Indian sub-continent of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh had sent two infantry and two cavalry divisions to the Western Front by the end of 1914.
In 1915, Indian troops fought against the Ottoman Turks in Palestine and Mesopotamia (now Iraq), and alongside British, Australian and New Zealand troops at Gallipoli.
Some 1.27million Indians voluntarily served as combatants and labourers, also helping Allied forces occupy former enemy territory in East Africa and the Balkans.
Dr Simon Walker, a military historian at the University of Strathclyde, said: ‘The remarks by Fox are very much ill informed.’
He said more than 74,000 Indian soldiers died in service in the First World War, and claimed they were of ‘paramount importance’ at key battles including Ypres in 1914, Neuve Chappelle and Gallipoli.
The expert said soldiers from different races were mainly separate at the start of the war, but this changed as huge losses meant men were transferred around the various battle grounds.
Indian troops march through France in August 1914. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh had already sent two infantry and two cavalry divisions to the Western Front by the end of 1914
Dr Walker added: ‘Therefore by the middle of the war it would not be unusual for sikh soldiers to serve side by side with their British comrades, as was necessitated by the demands of the war and losses.
‘This was visible in Britain, as burial practices were briefly changed to allow open air cremation for such soldiers.’
Sikh historian Peter Singh Bance (pictured) told Laurence Fox to ‘check his facts’
African troops were also involved in containing the Germans in East Africa and defeating them in West Africa – in an area where Europeans had struggled in the hot climate.
By the end of the war, the ‘British Army’ in East Africa was mainly soldiers from Nigeria, Gold Coast (Ghana), Sierra Leone, Kenya, Uganda and Nyasaland (Malawi).
Some 60,000 labourers came from South Africa, but black South Africans were only allowed a logistical role because the country’s government feared arming them.
White South African units were sent to the Western Front and 3,153 were involved in a battle at Delville Wood on the Somme in July 1916, with only 750 left unharmed.
Around 15,000 men from the Caribbean enlisted, with a few serving in regular British Army units – although most were in the West India Regiment and the British West Indies Regiment.
African-American soldiers return home from Europe after the First World War in 1918
They served in France, Italy, Africa and the Middle East.
Canada also made a huge contribution to the war, with the Canadian Expeditionary Force fighting in most of the major battles on the Western Front from 1915.
Descendant of Sikh WWI soldier praises contribution of troops
Dr Tejpal Singh Ralmill, 40, whose Sikh great-great-grandfather fought alongside British servicemen in the First World War, spoke today about the contribution of Sikhs to the military.
Dr Tejpal Singh Ralmill with a photo of his great-great grandfather Major Bawa Singh at a Royal Albert Hall Remembrance event
He told MailOnline: ‘A lot has been done over the last five years to raise awareness of the fact that many thousands of Sikh soldiers fought bravely alongside Western troops.
‘My great-great grandfather Bawa Singh was with the 23rd Sikh Pioneers and spent six years fighting in Aden, Egypt and Palestine.
‘He told my grandfather of the loneliness of being so far away from home and from his family. There were also language problems with unfamiliar people in unfamiliar surroundings.
‘The British and other western troops could go home on leave every three months, but the Indian soldiers carried on as they were a long way from home and that continued abroad even after Armistice Day.’
They were at the Somme, Passchendaele and in the Hundred Days offensives of 1918. Nearly 10 per cent of the 620,000 Canadians who enlisted were killed in the war.
Newfoundland, which only became part of Canada in 1949, fought at Gallipoli in 1915, but was almost wiped out at Beaumont Hamel on the Somme the next year.
And more than 410,000 Australians served in the war, suffering about 200,000 casualties in campaigns at Gallipoli, on the Western Front and in the Middle East.
New Zealand forces helped Australia capture Germany’s colonies in the Pacific and fought on the Western Front, with 5 per cent of the country’s men aged 15-49 killed.
The Sikh Network, a collective of Sikh activists and professionals in Britain, also hit out at Fox – saying his remarks were ‘offensive’ and needed retraction.
Manvir Bhogal from the organisation told MailOnline: ‘Thousands of Sikhs saw battle at the front line and many died. It is highly offensive and inappropriate for Laurence Fox to term the inclusion of a single Sikh soldier in Sam Mendes’ production in order to at least represent the extent of war with a microcosm of diversity of historic fact as ‘incongruous’ .
‘It is outrageous and of deep hurt to Sikhs not just in the UK but throughout the world and to the rest of those whose communities were forcibly sent to war.
‘His comments should be retracted with an apology immediately.’
‘Where this doesn’t take place, it marginalizes entire communities that, in this case, made a huge sacrifice and contribution to the welfare and protection of freedoms for all mankind despite the oppression being faced due to European imperialism itself back home.’
Earlier this week, Fox told Mr Delingpole’s podcast that the Sikh character distracted from what the story was about.
He questioned the credibility of the storyline and said the casting of Rizwan caused ‘a very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin’ because of ‘the oddness of the casting’.
He praised the performance of Rizwan himself, saying it was ‘great’, adding that the inclusion of a Sikh soldier in the ranks ‘didn’t bother me particularly’.
But he added that the inclusion ‘did sort of flick me out of what is essentially a one-shot film [because] it’s just incongruous with the story’.
Sir Sam Mendes with actors Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay on the set of 1917
Equity apologised to Laurence Fox on Friday and agreed an out of court settlement for calling him a ‘disgrace’ following his Question Time interview back in January.
But the UK actors union’s apology has sparked conflict within the organisation and the WHOLE of the Race Equality Committee have resigned.
Tweets branded Laurence, 41, a ‘disgrace’ after he questioned the presence of Sikh soldiers in Sam Mendes movie, 1917, and said the media’s treatment of the Duchess Of Sussex was not racist.
They were posted by Equity’s Minority Ethnic Members’ Committee (renamed the Race Equality Committee).
‘Not in MY name’: Equity’s Race Equality’s ENTIRE committee has RESIGNED after Laurence Fox received apology and out of court settlement from union following QT ‘race row’
Apology: Equity, the UK actors union, shared this statement on social media on Friday morning which led to the mass resignation
Chairman Daniel York Loh announced that he has resigned from his position, saying the apology was ‘not in my name’.
He tweeted: ‘Equity and Laurence Fox can issue as many joint statements and apologies as they like. It’s nothing to do with me and I apologise for nothing #NotInMyName.’
The committee said that ‘all members of Equity’s recently renamed Race Equality Committee (formerly the Equity Minority Ethnic Members Committee) feel we have no choice but to resign as committee members’.
‘Deep regret’: The committee posted soon after to write that they had no choice but to resign following the union’s apology
Daniel York (pictured) was Chairman of Equity’s Race Equality Committee
Sassy: The committee’s chairman, Daniel York Loh shared a GIF to express his distaste for the situation and wrote that Equity’s statement was a ‘hot mess’
Opinionated: He also shared some cry face emojis in response to Ben Obese-Jecty’s comment
‘You lemon’: And he had some choice words for Richard Lenwade who slammed the committee
Laurence received an apology from Equity, the UK actors union, on Friday, after they called him a ‘disgrace’ following his Question Time appearance in January.
Equity apologised on social media and have agreed an out of court settlement with Fox writing that ‘it was a mistake for the organisation to criticise him in this way.’
They penned: ‘On 17 January a series of tweets were posted by the @EquityMEM Twitter account about Laurence Fox’s appearance on BBC Question Time.
‘We are sorry that in the tweets he was called a ‘disgrace’ by Equity. It was a mistake for Equity as an organisation to criticise him in this way.
Divisive: He had sparked a race row by claiming the inclusion of a turban-wearing soldier in Sam Mendes film 1917 was ‘incongruous’
‘Nothing in Equity’s later statement was intended as a slur on his character or views or to suggest that he should be denied the ability to work.
‘We would like to make that clear. Equity and Laurence Fox condemn prejudice unequivocally in all its forms.’
He had sparked a race row by claiming the inclusion of a turban-wearing soldier in Sam Mendes film 1917 was ‘incongruous’.
He sparked controversy when he responded to a claim from an audience member that the media’s treatment of the Duchess of Sussex amounted to ‘racism’.
He said: ‘It’s not racism … we’re the most tolerant, lovely country in Europe. t’s so easy to throw the charge of racism and it’s really starting to get boring now.’
The audience member then described Fox as a “white, privileged male”, to which he responded: ‘To call me a white, privileged male is to be racist.’
Free speech matters: Piers Morgan immediately took to Twitter to express his support for Laurence
The episode received more than 250 complaints and sparked a social media backlash, which Fox called ‘water off a duck’s back’.
Fox, who was previously married to actress Billie Piper, said he had received death threats and had suffered from ‘temporary insomnia’ after his appearance.
He later hit out at black and working-class actors for complaining about the industry once they have ‘five million quid in the bank’ before saying he was signing off Twitter because ‘I have to turn this noise off for a while’.
Meanwhile, a source close to Laurence also told MailOnline: ‘Equity have finally apologised and agreed an out of court settlement with Laurence after calls for him to be “unequivocally denounced” by the equity minority members committee.
‘He is pleased and grateful to Equity for this decision. He looks forward now to moving on in his professional and personal life after what has been a very difficult period for him and his family.’
Laurence himself also took to Twitter on Friday morning ahead of the announcement, following a 19 day social media break.
He said: ‘I thought I’d let you know that I have an update in regards to my situation that I will share with you at around 9am.’
Opinion: Fox (pictured, left, with interviewer Julie Hartley-Brewer) hit back at Lily Allen (right, crying at a migrant camp in Calais) after she told him to stick to acting despite her regular interventions on political issues
Then, following Equity’s post, he wrote: ‘Hopefully this might an opportunity for us to continue to celebrate diversity in all its forms. Including diversity of opinion.’
Piers Morgan then wrote: ‘Finally… this was a shameful way to treat @LozzaFox for having the audacity to express an opinion. Good to see @EquityUK acknowledge how wrong it was. Free speech matters.’
Laurence had apologised to the Sikh community but in a follow up tweet said ‘I stand by everything else I said’.
The outspoken actor made the comment about the critically-acclaimed film and Sikhs in a podcast on Saturday while being interviewed by James Delingpole.
Mr Fox was a guest panellist on Question Time last week when an audience member called him a ‘white, privileged male’ and he called her description of him racist.
The actor has also previously said that ‘woke’ people are ‘fundamentally racist’.
Fox – who railed against identity politics on Question Time – told Julia Hartley-Brewer on Talk Radio that the country is tired of being told it’s racist in an appearance on Monday.
He also spoke about his dispute with singer Lily Allen who she was ‘sick to death’ of ‘luvvies’ like Fox who are guilty of ‘forcing their opinions on everybody else’.
Something to say: Laurence broke his 19 day Twitter silence on Friday ahead of Equity’s post
She added: ‘He’ll never have to deal with what normal people have to deal with in his gated community.’
She concluded the rant by saying that he should ‘stick to acting mate, instead of ranting about things you don’t know about’.
Fox mocked her statement, saying that she had a ‘privileged’ upbringing herself and pointing out he doesn’t live in a gated community.
He said sarcastically on Talk Radio: ‘She’s had a pretty privileged upbringing but she speaks for the common man doesn’t she.’
Mr Fox also slammed ‘woke’ culture, a term that originally was used to positively convey an alertness to oppression but is now also used derisively as a term for those who argue that white privilege stops people like Fox being able to see racism.
Fox also said that it was the woke who are actually guilty of racism against the white people they accuse.
‘What they are accusing you of is what they are,’ he said. ‘They are everything they accuse you of. The wokist are fundamentally racist.’ He added: ‘Identity politics is extremely racist.’
Back in January, he had apologised to the Sikh community after his outburst about the Sam Mendes
More to say: The outspoken actor’s apology only extended to the Sikh community for his comments about 1917
When asked about his remarks by GMB hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid the next day about whether the inclusion of the character was historically out-of-place, he replied: ‘I’m not a historian I don’t know.’
Sikh historian Peter Singh Bance told MailOnline that Fox should ‘check his facts’, saying: ‘Laurence Fox is incorrect with his facts as Sikhs did fight with British forces, not just with their own regiments.’
The Lewis star had then posted on his Twitter account and apologised for the ‘clumsy way’ he expressed himself.
When asked about his remarks by GMB hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid the day after QT, he told the hosts ‘I’m no historian’ and admitted he didn’t know Sikh soldiers fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the British in World War One
He had said: ‘Fellow humans who are #Sikhs. I am as moved by the sacrifices your relatives made as I am by the loss of all those who die in war, whatever creed or colour.
‘Please accept my apology for being clumsy in the way I have expressed myself over this matter in recent days.’
But in a follow up tweet soon after, he said: ‘I stand by everything else I said and will continue to do so. Sleep well.’
The epic film follows two young British soldiers tasked with traversing no-man’s land with a message as the Germans pull back from the Western Front.
The Lewis star said that ‘forcing diversity on people’ is ‘institutionally racist’ after saying that the inclusion of Nabhaan Rizwan portraying Sepoy Jondalar was not in keeping with the film’s surroundings.
Speaking on podcast, The Delingpod, Mr Fox said: ‘It’s very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin because of the oddness in the casting. Even in 1917 they’ve done it with a Sikh soldier.
‘Which is great, it’s brilliant, but you’re suddenly aware there were Sikhs fighting in this war. And you’re like ‘ok’. You’re now diverting me away from what the story is.’
The truth behind 1917’s Sikh soldier: Troops from the Empire DID fight in same regiments as the British in WWI as top historian slams Laurence Fox over claim Sam Mendes’ blockbuster was ‘racist’ for including Indian recruits
By Mark Duell and Shekhar Bhatia for MailOnline
Soldiers from foreign countries served shoulder-to-shoulder alongside British forces in the same regiments during the First World War, military experts said today.
More than three million soldiers and labourers from across the British Empire joined the British Army in their own regiments during the conflict from 1914 to 1918.
But other foreign soldiers also fought within British regiments, it emerged after actor Laurence Fox criticised the ‘incongruous’ inclusion of a Sikh soldier in the film 1917.
Sikh historian Peter Singh Bance said Sikhs and other Indians fought with the British Army corps, such as the 1st Manchesters and the 47th Sikhs fighting as one.
Sikh soldiers from the Indian Service Corps with British Army soldiers on the Western Front in the war in 1916. ISC members were from all over India and also performed labouring tasks
George MacKay plays Lance Corporal Schofield (centre) in 1917, alongside Nabhaan Rizwan, who plays Sikh soldier Sepoy Jondalar. They are pictured trying to push a truck out of mud
Mr Bance today told Fox to ‘check his facts’, saying: ‘Laurence Fox is incorrect with his facts as Sikhs did fight with British forces, not just with their own regiments.’
He told MailOnline: ‘There were definitely Sikhs and other Indian soldiers who fought among the British Army corps, and they wore the same uniform.’
The details come after Fox questioned the storyline of 1917 over Sikh soldier Sepoy Jondalar, played by Nabhaan Rizwan, being in the ranks of British forces.
Fox, 41, told writer James Delingpole’s podcast that it causes ‘a very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin’ because of ‘the oddness of the casting’.
Around 1.5million men were recruited from India, while Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland gave a further 1.3million soldiers.
A Sikh soldier lines up with three British comrades on the Western Front during the war in 1917
1917 director Sir Sam Mendes speaks to Nabhaan Rizwan on set during the film’s production
Some men from the West Indies served in regular British Army units, but most of the 15,000 involved were in their own regiments and served in France, Italy and Africa.
Indian troops fought against the Ottoman Turks in Palestine; African troops helped contain the Germans in East Africa; and Newfoundlanders fought at the Somme.
Estimated deaths by British Empire country
Australia – 62,000
Canada – 65,000
India – 74,000
New Zealand – 18,000
Newfoundland – 1,000
South Africa – 9,000
West Indies – 1,000
United Kingdom – 885,000
Figures rounded to the nearest 1,000 after being compiled by the Centre Européen Robert Schuman in France
Mr Bance said of Fox’s comments: ‘This has nothing to do with diversity, history is history and we can’t distort it for a film. Over 1.5million Indians fought in World War One, over 80,000 Indians died.
‘Sam Mendes should be commended as finally World War One films are becoming historically accurate, as earlier films totally ignored the presence of Sikh and other colonial soldiers who fought for the Empire alongside the British
‘Laurence’s comments are totally out of context as the presence of one Sikh is not to distract the audience but to give historical accuracy which most World War One films lack.
‘When over 1.5 million Indian soldiers fought in this campaign, how can showing one Sikh soldier be distracting?’
Mr Bance added: ‘There were definitely Sikhs and other Indian soldiers who fought among the British Army corps, and they wore the same uniform.
A patrol of Indian lancers near Amiens in France soon after the outbreak of war in autumn 1914. The I Indian Corps of 3rd (Lahore) and 7th (Meerut) were part of Indian Expeditionary Force A
Indian cavalry after a charge at the Somme during the First World War on July 14, 1916
‘For example The 1st Manchesters were fighting with members of the 47th Sikhs brigade as one.
‘And the 7th Ferozepur Brigade consisted of 47th Sikhs and the London Brigade.
‘Sikhs not only fought from within their own Sikh regiments but they were also in the Punjabi Regiments, cavalry, sappers and miners regiments as well.
‘There was also Sikhs and other Indian soldiers who were present in British Army service corps working as labourers too.’
MailOnline has approached Sir Sam Mendes’s representatives for a comment.
Britain started the war with 700,000 trained soldiers, before thousands of untrained volunteers also signed up in 1914 and conscription was introduced two years later.
A Sikh regiment marching in France in 1914, where Indian soldiers made a huge contribution
Two Senegalese soldiers serving in the French Army as infantrymen, in June 1917. They were part of the Tirailleurs Sénégalais and from the Bambara, a Mandé ethnic group in West Africa
But the size of the military was also significantly bolstered by forces from across the Empire – which later became the Commonwealth – all of which had backed Britain after it declared war against Germany.
Laurence Fox (pictured on the BBC’s Question Time last Thursday) questioned the Sikh soldier’s appearance in the film 1917
The Indian sub-continent of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh had sent two infantry and two cavalry divisions to the Western Front by the end of 1914.
In 1915, Indian troops fought against the Ottoman Turks in Palestine and Mesopotamia (now Iraq), and alongside British, Australian and New Zealand troops at Gallipoli.
Some 1.27million Indians voluntarily served as combatants and labourers, also helping Allied forces occupy former enemy territory in East Africa and the Balkans.
Dr Simon Walker, a military historian at the University of Strathclyde, said: ‘The remarks by Fox are very much ill informed.’
He said more than 74,000 Indian soldiers died in service in the First World War, and claimed they were of ‘paramount importance’ at key battles including Ypres in 1914, Neuve Chappelle and Gallipoli.
The expert said soldiers from different races were mainly separate at the start of the war, but this changed as huge losses meant men were transferred around the various battle grounds.
Indian troops march through France in August 1914. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh had already sent two infantry and two cavalry divisions to the Western Front by the end of 1914
Dr Walker added: ‘Therefore by the middle of the war it would not be unusual for sikh soldiers to serve side by side with their British comrades, as was necessitated by the demands of the war and losses.
‘This was visible in Britain, as burial practices were briefly changed to allow open air cremation for such soldiers.’
Sikh historian Peter Singh Bance (pictured) told Laurence Fox to ‘check his facts’
African troops were also involved in containing the Germans in East Africa and defeating them in West Africa – in an area where Europeans had struggled in the hot climate.
By the end of the war, the ‘British Army’ in East Africa was mainly soldiers from Nigeria, Gold Coast (Ghana), Sierra Leone, Kenya, Uganda and Nyasaland (Malawi).
Some 60,000 labourers came from South Africa, but black South Africans were only allowed a logistical role because the country’s government feared arming them.
White South African units were sent to the Western Front and 3,153 were involved in a battle at Delville Wood on the Somme in July 1916, with only 750 left unharmed.
Around 15,000 men from the Caribbean enlisted, with a few serving in regular British Army units – although most were in the West India Regiment and the British West Indies Regiment.
African-American soldiers return home from Europe after the First World War in 1918
They served in France, Italy, Africa and the Middle East.
Canada also made a huge contribution to the war, with the Canadian Expeditionary Force fighting in most of the major battles on the Western Front from 1915.
Descendant of Sikh WWI soldier praises contribution of troops
Dr Tejpal Singh Ralmill, 40, whose Sikh great-great-grandfather fought alongside British servicemen in the First World War, spoke today about the contribution of Sikhs to the military.
Dr Tejpal Singh Ralmill with a photo of his great-great grandfather Major Bawa Singh at a Royal Albert Hall Remembrance event
He told MailOnline: ‘A lot has been done over the last five years to raise awareness of the fact that many thousands of Sikh soldiers fought bravely alongside Western troops.
‘My great-great grandfather Bawa Singh was with the 23rd Sikh Pioneers and spent six years fighting in Aden, Egypt and Palestine.
‘He told my grandfather of the loneliness of being so far away from home and from his family. There were also language problems with unfamiliar people in unfamiliar surroundings.
‘The British and other western troops could go home on leave every three months, but the Indian soldiers carried on as they were a long way from home and that continued abroad even after Armistice Day.’
They were at the Somme, Passchendaele and in the Hundred Days offensives of 1918. Nearly 10 per cent of the 620,000 Canadians who enlisted were killed in the war.
Newfoundland, which only became part of Canada in 1949, fought at Gallipoli in 1915, but was almost wiped out at Beaumont Hamel on the Somme the next year.
And more than 410,000 Australians served in the war, suffering about 200,000 casualties in campaigns at Gallipoli, on the Western Front and in the Middle East.
New Zealand forces helped Australia capture Germany’s colonies in the Pacific and fought on the Western Front, with 5 per cent of the country’s men aged 15-49 killed.
The Sikh Network, a collective of Sikh activists and professionals in Britain, also hit out at Fox – saying his remarks were ‘offensive’ and needed retraction.
Manvir Bhogal from the organisation told MailOnline: ‘Thousands of Sikhs saw battle at the front line and many died. It is highly offensive and inappropriate for Laurence Fox to term the inclusion of a single Sikh soldier in Sam Mendes’ production in order to at least represent the extent of war with a microcosm of diversity of historic fact as ‘incongruous’ .
‘It is outrageous and of deep hurt to Sikhs not just in the UK but throughout the world and to the rest of those whose communities were forcibly sent to war.
‘His comments should be retracted with an apology immediately.’
‘Where this doesn’t take place, it marginalizes entire communities that, in this case, made a huge sacrifice and contribution to the welfare and protection of freedoms for all mankind despite the oppression being faced due to European imperialism itself back home.’
Earlier this week, Fox told Mr Delingpole’s podcast that the Sikh character distracted from what the story was about.
He questioned the credibility of the storyline and said the casting of Rizwan caused ‘a very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin’ because of ‘the oddness of the casting’.
He praised the performance of Rizwan himself, saying it was ‘great’, adding that the inclusion of a Sikh soldier in the ranks ‘didn’t bother me particularly’.
But he added that the inclusion ‘did sort of flick me out of what is essentially a one-shot film [because] it’s just incongruous with the story’.
Sir Sam Mendes with actors Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay on the set of 1917
VIENNA, Mar 12 2020 (IPS) – This year marks the 50th anniversary of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and coincidentally the tenth quinquennial (five yearly) review conference is scheduled to be held at the United Nations in New York from 27 April to 22 May.
With 191 States parties, the NPT is the cornerstone of the global regime for nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
An unexpected complication is that of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and its impact on the NPT review conference – thus far, there is an inexplicable thundering silence from the UN regarding the postponement of the conference.
COVID-19
Yesterday, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 to be a global pandemic affecting more than 114 countries with 118,000 people infected, 4,291 fatalities and many thousands more fighting for their lives in hospitals.
The WHO stated that this is the first pandemic caused by a coronavirus and that never before has there been a pandemic that can be controlled.
In the United States, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the total number of cases as of 11 March is 938, total deaths 29, in 38 states and the District of Columbia). The New York State Department of Health is reporting 52 cases in New York City and 164 in the State.
Thus, it is clear that New York City is affected by COVID-19 and there is a high risk of the further spread of the virus. Add to this, the expected arrival of more than 400 delegates from all parts of the world, to attend the NPT conference, including obviously from countries and regions already afflicted with the corononavirus.
Should this transpire, it would not take a virologist or a rocket scientist to predict a rapid transmission of the virus to many of the delegates all concentrated in the UN General Assembly chamber for several days and in other large meeting rooms for another three weeks.
Furthermore, the US may restrict entry to delegates coming from countries afflicted with coronavirus and either deny visas or place them under quarantine for two weeks or more? In fact, President Donald Trump already has suspended all travel from mainland Europe for 30 days starting on Friday.
So, why has not the UN ordered the postponement of all large conferences till the virus infections subside and the environment is safe again for large and small congregations of people drawn from all corners of the world?
And, why have not the diplomats accredited to the UN in New York, from States parties to the NPT, already decided to postpone the NPT review conference? What is it about COVID-19 that they do not understand and why are they delaying taking the common sense decision to postpone the event?
The UN Secretary-General’s “Message on COVID 19” is limited to bulleted points such as, “All of us face a common threat – the coronavirus – COVID 19. Today’s declaration of a pandemic is a call to action – for everyone, everywhere”, which is not reassuring!
UN General Assembly President Tijjani Muhammad-Bande, on the other hand, has stated that the coronavirus will only be tackled “through a multilateral response” in which the UN “must lead by example” and that the UN should take a “coordinated and coherent approach” regarding decisions on whether major meetings can go ahead.
He added that at the UN Secretariat “we have started the process looking at scaling down, postponing and/or cancelling meetings, as appropriate”. Well, it’s high time to do so – the sooner the better!
Options for the NPT Review Conference
Reportedly, “options” are being considered but no decision has been taken as yet. One option seemingly gathering support, and reportedly pushed by some States, is to convene the NPT Review Conference as scheduled on 27th April but then to immediately prorogue (or adjourn) it to August or later this year after possibly adopting a statement or declaration commemorating 50 years of the NPT.
The stated rationale being that the NPT conference is a scheduled quinquennial event according to the Treaty and therefore must be convened – if only for a day under present circumstances – going from the sublime to the ridiculous!
The logic of such a bizarre “option” can only emanate from New York and capitals, as oftentimes they tend to be oblivious to the calendars of events and meetings in other UN capitals that deal with nuclear matters, namely Vienna (Austria) and Geneva (Switzerland).
Not surprisingly, the reaction in Vienna and Geneva has tended to be one of shock and disbelief. What were these diplomats/officials thinking? Are they not aware that the third session of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva is scheduled for 3 August to 18 September?
And, do they not realize that in Western Europe the civilized practice of annual vacation in August is nearly sacrosanct! Just because in the United States the concept of taking an annual vacation is generally frowned upon is no reason to subject others to this stress of giving up their vacation time.
Postpone to 2021 and Convene in Vienna
As I have recommended earlier this month, there is only one sound course of action: that to postpone the NPT review conference to 2021 (possibly 26 April to 21 May) and to convene it from then on in Vienna. The following are the reasons for my recommendation, which is beginning to get some traction:
1. The year following an NPT review conference always is a gap year; hence there should not be any impediment to moving it to next year. No important decisions need to be taken this year and the 50th anniversary of the NPT can be marked by speeches and statements by ministers in capitals, New York, Geneva and Vienna. 2. At present, there are no prospects for any progress on nuclear disarmament – a key element of the NPT. Both the Russian Federation and the United States are engaged in modernization of their nuclear weapons; and the United States is pursuing a policy of steadily abandoning treaties, multilateralism and striking out in favour of unilateral nationalistic policies. Last year, the United States abandoned the 1987 Intermediate- and Shorter-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty as well as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) limiting Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme; earlier in 2002 it pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that formed the basis of strategic stability between Russia and the United States. In addition, thus far, the United States has not indicated any interest in extending the 2010 New START Treaty limiting strategic nuclear weapons that will expire in February 2021, and in preserving the Open Skies Treaty that permits confidence-building aerial overflights. In addition, some officials now are openly verbally attacking those in countries who promote fulfilling the nuclear disarmament obligations under the NPT. Thus, postponing the NPT conference to 2021 provides a respite of a year with the possibility of an improved climate in 2021? 3. The technical and policy expertise for nuclear verification, safety and security, and peaceful uses always has resided in Vienna (Austria) at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA provides secretariat support and expertise to the NPT review conference on two of the three pillars of the NPT – nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful uses. 4. The expertise and experience for negotiating multilateral nuclear arms control resides at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva (Switzerland) – the third pillar of the NPT. 5. UN New York has no diplomatic or technical expertise related to the NPT; it is basically a political talk shop. Negotiations on resolutions on nuclear arms control matters in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, as well as in the UN Disarmament Commission, normally are conducted by diplomats coming over to New York from Geneva and from capitals. 6. Staff from the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (ODA) in New York, together with IAEA staff form the “secretariat” for NPT review conferences and their preparatory committees. UN ODA New York staff travel to Vienna and Geneva, respectively, to service the preparatory committee sessions held there along with UN ODA staff based in these two European cities. Thus, UN ODA New York staff can easily support the review conference held in Vienna. 7. The claim that participation in NPT review conferences held in New York is higher as all Member States of the United Nations are represented there is not credible. Of the 191 States Parties to the NPT, generally not more than 150 attend review conferences and then too small delegations only make a showing on the first and last days in order to be listed in the official list of participants. It need not be a burden for small States to attend review conferences in Vienna. 8. Given concerns about the effect on the climate from air travel and current tendency to minimize long distance travel by air to reduce the carbon footprint; convening the review conference from 2021 onwards in Vienna also can have a positive impact in reducing the carbon burden of attendance. The geographic location of Vienna in Central Europe will greatly reduce distances to be travelled by delegates from Asia, Africa and Oceania, as well as of course by European countries – these regions put together comprise the largest number of countries in the world. Only the North and South American delegates will have increased travel distances, but these obviously are a minority compared to those from the regions noted above. 9. It is obvious that costs of hotel accommodation in New York are inordinately high with tax upon taxes, as are the high costs of food and meals. Hotel and food costs in Vienna are much cheaper than in New York or Geneva, as are hotel costs. Thus, significant savings can be incurred by foreign ministries in connection with participation in the review conference held in Vienna. Such savings would be even more beneficial for civil society representatives, who obviously cannot draw upon tax payer funding as can official delegates. 10. Finally, there is now no rationale to hold NPT review conferences at any location in any nuclear-weapon State (NWS), especially since 25 years after the indefinite extension of the NPT the deficit in nuclear disarmament remains significant, nuclear weapons are being modernized in some NWS, the threshold of possible use of nuclear weapons has been lowered, and existing treaties are under threat. Better to hold review conferences in a “neutral” country such as Austria that is a strong champion on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.
Decide Now
The longer this decision is delayed to move the NPT review conference to 2021 in Vienna, the higher the costs incurred this year in cancelling New York flights and hotel rooms. While government delegates may well be able to afford such penalties as tax dollars pay for their expenses, for civil society participants cancellation costs would be onerous and unaffordable as they either self-finance or rely on charitable donations.
Thus, as I have described in some detail above, there are no compelling reasons at all to convene the presently scheduled NPT review conference in New York this year. It makes eminent common and fiscal sense to convene it next year in April-May and to hold it in Vienna – the historic capital location of important conferences for more than two centuries and imbued with the intangible “spirit of Vienna” that encourages harmony and compromise.
* Tariq Rauf has attended all nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) meetings since 1987 as a delegate, including as senior adviser to the chair of Main Committee I (nuclear disarmament) in 2015 and to the chair of the 2014 preparatory committee; as alternate head of the International Atomic Energy Agency delegation to the NPT; and as a non-proliferation expert with the Canadian delegation from 1987. Personal views are expressed here.
