ATLANTA, USA, Nov 11 2024 (IPS) – For religious, humanitarian, and scientific reasons, Israel’s increasingly apparent plan for the de facto colonization of the Northern Gaza Strip is a bad idea. When that program was rejected recently by Israel’s own Defense Minister Yoav Galant, he was summarily fired by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
However, the founding document of the worldwide Jewish community, the Torah, and especially the Decalogue, states plainly, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife…or anything that is thy neighbors.” If religion still means anything to people in the modern nation of Israel, it should be clear that whatever belongs to others should be left alone and neither coveted nor stolen.
For obvious humanitarian reasons the one-sided bombing of Gaza must stop. After more than a year of an ongoing holocaust in Gaza, Israel’s relentless bombing has produced casualties totaling nearly 150,000 dead and wounded people, mostly civilians.
Now with UN sources reporting that starvation is setting in, people everywhere must demand that this racist, inhumane bloodshed stop immediately. Otherwise, international law has no force and the word “humane” has no meaning.
In scientific terms, the contamination of the water, soil, and air in northern Gaza from explosive dust, including Depleted Uranium, will clearly persist for decades, if not generations. That is neither good for the inhabitants if they manage to return to their homes, nor for the Jewish colonists if they should return to their previous colonies in the strip.
US bombing of Iraq two decades ago, especially in and around Basra, as much scientific and eyewitness testimony—including my own on the scene report—proves, has produced a plethora of birth defects.
The idea of some capitalists that Gaza will become a future Dubai—a wealthy trade zone that will be a veritable Las Vegas on the Mediterranean shore—is actually a good one. Geographically and commercially, Gaza is a potential Hong Kong.
The only thing wrong with the plan is the question of who will control this mighty future entrepot, the Palestinians, investors from the Gulf States and the West, or Israel? Answering that will take another century of bloodletting.
Far better that the United States, NATO, the United Nations, the International Court of Justice in the Hague or somebody other than HAMAS or the extreme right wing and increasingly bloodthirsty Likud government now in power in Jerusalem should deal with that issue and guarantee justice.
The ICJ/International Court of Justice, responsible governments everywhere, and especially the campus protesters and those on the streets of cities around the world, must keep chanting, “NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!” “NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!”
James E. Jennings, PhD is President of Conscience International and Executive Director of US Academics for Peace
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, addresses the General Debate of the General Assembly’s 75th session September 2020. Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas
NEW YORK, Nov 8 2024 (IPS) – On the day following the US election, UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres issued a brief statement commending the people of the United States for their active participation in the democratic process. He wisely omitted to mention that the election of Donald J. Trump – who attempted to overturn the people’s mandate by inciting an insurrection in 2020 – is a major setback for the UN’s worldwide quest to advance human rights and the rule of law.
Trump is a self-avowed admirer of authoritarian strongmen like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orban who disdain international norms that the UN seeks to uphold. Unsurprisingly, questions posed to the UN Secretary General’s spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, in a press conference on November 6, ranged from what will be Trump’s response to the war in Ukraine to potential funding cuts that might come with the new US administration to whether the UN has contingency plans ready for when Trump takes office.
The US plays an outsized role in global affairs. Therefore, any changes in policy in Washington impact the whole world. As someone who bears responsibility for stewarding a global civil society alliance, it worries me what a second Trump presidency will unleash.
Even without Trump in power we are living in a world where wars are being conducted with complete disregard for the rules; corrupt billionaires are dictating public policy for their benefit; and greed induced environmental degradation is putting us on a path to climate catastrophe. Hard fought gains on gender justice are in danger of being rolled back.
The first Trump administration showed disdain for the UN Human Rights Council and pulled the US out of vital global commitments such as the Paris Agreement to combat climate change. It restricted support for civil society groups around the world and targeted those that sought to promote sexual and reproductive rights of women. Promotion of democracy and human rights are key pillars of US foreign policy.
It’s deeply concerning that when disinformation and misinformation have assumed pandemic level proportions, the majority of the US electorate have cast their vote in favour of a candidate who ran his campaign on divisive dog whistles, half-truths and outright lies. These tactics have deepened fissures in an already polarized United States.
Families countrywide were left devastated by Trump’s negligence and COVID denialism as president which resulted in tens of thousands of Americans dying of avoidable infections. His administration’s immigration detention and deportation policies instilled fear in minority communities. This time Trump has vowed to deport millions of people.
Trump’s stances on abortion rights have caused women immeasurable suffering in several US states that have introduced laws to ban the procedure. He has promised to accelerate harmful fossil fuel extraction and undoubtedly views gender justice advocates, environmental defenders and migrant rights activists as a threat his power.
Given the stated predilections of Trump and his advisors, opposition politicians, activists and journalists exposing corruption and rights violations are likely to be at risk of enhanced surveillance, intimidation and persecution by the new administration.
At the international level, Trump’s election casts a pall over efforts to ensure accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Sudan and Ukraine due to his tacit support for authoritarian leaders in Israel, Russia and the United Arab Emirates, all of whom are fueling conflicts and causing havoc abroad. A future Trump administration could try to starve the UN of funding to erode the rules based international order, emboldening autocrats.
Even if things appear bleak today, it’s important to remember that there are hundreds and thousands of civil society activists and organisations around the world who remain steadfast in their resolve to celebrate diversity and promote justice and equality. To imagine the future we sometimes have to take heart from the past.
India’s freedom struggle, South Africa’s struggle against apartheid and the civil rights movement in the United States wasn’t won by authoritarian leaders but by brave and determined individuals united in solidarity and determined to resist oppression for as long as it takes.
There is a lesson here for civil society in the US that higher American ideals are worth standing up for and will outlive any sitting president.
Mandeep S. Tiwana is Interim Co-Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. He also serves as CIVICUS representative to the United Nations.
‘Endless nightmare’ of death and destruction in Gaza, UN officials tell Security Council. July 2024. Credit: UNRWA
GENEVA, Nov 4 2024 (IPS) – While the expansion of democracy is a key condition for peace, the Achilles’ heel of democracies is that their leaders are constrained by electoral calendars, forcing them to push for peace or delay, whereas autocracies can afford to play the long game to achieve the favorable outcomes they desire.
Take, for example, the current wars in Ukraine and the Middle East: U.S. leadership may be influenced by the approaching November elections, skewing policy decisions, while autocratic leaders of rival powers can be confident in their long-term tenure.
To be clear, this does not suggest that we should abolish democracy. Quite the opposite—more democracy and more bottom-up scrutiny of leaders are needed, as outlined below.
Short-termism lies at the heart of several misconceptions within Western democracies that complicate peacebuilding efforts. One such misconception is the “better the devil you know” mentality, which has long been used to justify support for brutal regimes in exchange for short-term gains.
From the Cold War to the present, global powers have backed dictators and militias, prioritizing strategic influence over human rights. For instance, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, once an international outcast, was quickly embraced by Western leaders after making some concessions.
However, such cynical realpolitik is not only morally wrong but counterproductive. Supporting autocrats for short-term diplomatic or economic gains only fuels anti-Western sentiment. Recent research shows that U.S. military aid to dubious regimes has often backfired, leading to more, not fewer, terrorist attacks from those nations. Instead of supporting despots, Western nations should focus on promoting long-term peace through jobs, representation, and security.
These are the true foundations of stability, and investing in them is far more effective than cutting deals with dictators. In the end, helping to build peaceful societies is a far better investment than propping up corrupt regimes.
Short-termism has also frequently prompted leaders to prioritize quick cash transfers—often subject to embezzlement—over policies that enhance long-term economic productivity and resilience in fragile countries. The belief that financial aid can “buy” peace is a common misconception.
Peace cannot simply be bought; it must be “invested in” through the development of human capital and productive capacities. Large sums of money, like oil revenues, often fuel corruption and conflict in unstable states. Countries such as Venezuela, Sudan and Nigeria have suffered from the “resource curse,” where abundant resources become a source of instability rather than prosperity.
Similarly, foreign aid, when poorly managed, can have unintended negative consequences. Studies indicate that U.S. food aid can sometimes exacerbate conflict in recipient regions, as armed groups divert resources for their own benefit. This is not to say that Western democracies should abandon aid. Instead, they should focus on smarter investments in education and healthcare, which reduce incentives for violence.
Human capital cannot be stolen, and improvements in education and health increase employment opportunities, diminishing the motivation for conflict. Investing in people is the best path to sustainable peace.
A third common misconception in conflict resolution is that winning over “hearts and minds” should come first, with security following later. This is again driven by short-termism, as providing services may be quicker than establishing security. The theory is that by providing amenities and increasing local support, tensions will ease. However, this approach rarely works in practice.
When people’s basic safety is at risk, they prioritize security over services or political ideals. Research in places like Iraq shows that security and basic infrastructure must be established first—without them, no other policy can succeed. For instance, the Dayton Agreement in Bosnia successfully ended a brutal war and prevented its resurgence, largely thanks to international peacekeepers.
Offering security guarantees to all parties is essential for bringing armed factions to the negotiating table and laying the groundwork for lasting peace. Without security, efforts to win hearts and minds are doomed to fail.
After examining these misconceptions that jeopardize peace efforts, my new book, The Peace Formula: Voice, Work, and Warranties, Not Violence, outlines the solid fundamentals for achieving sustainable peace in the long term, based on hundreds of empirical studies.
First, there is a growing body of evidence that a democratic voice makes a crucial difference. When citizens have political rights, civil liberties, and their preferences are considered, their incentives for violent attacks on the state diminish.
Every regime in history has eventually felt the need to extend political rights or collapsed. Even autocratic Rome was forced to extend citizenship beyond Italy to survive for a few more centuries. Long-term stability and peace are impossible when citizens are treated as slaves.
Similarly, a strong and productive economy is another prerequisite for lasting peace. Having a fulfilling, well-paid job makes it much less tempting to join a warlord or enlist as a volunteer in a brutal war. These higher opportunity costs of abandoning work for warfare form the second pillar of sustainable peace and stability.
Finally, security guarantees are crucial. When the state lacks a monopoly on legitimate violence over its territory, power vacuums typically give rise to warlords, organized crime, and insurgents that challenge state authority. Consider the rise of the mafia in historical Sicily or the situation in Somalia today. Security is one of humanity’s basic needs, and if a state is too weak to provide it, UN peacekeeping troops must be ready to step in when invited.
If the academic literature increasingly provides clear answers on what needs to be done, why then are the components of a peace formula not consistently implemented? While we can point to successful examples of post-conflict reconstruction, such as Germany and Japan after World War II, the list of failed states and aborted democratization efforts is equally long.
The problem can be reduced to the concept of “smart idealism.” It isn’t rocket science. The issue with “smart idealism” is twofold. First, the “smart” aspect is relatively new. Many of the scientific insights underpinning the above arguments—such as the failure of supporting bad regimes and the importance of human capital—are based on cutting-edge research. Only recently has empirical evidence shown that cash handouts can backfire and that “winning hearts and minds” is futile without basic security.
Second, the “idealism” aspect is a tough sell. Peacebuilding is a long-term commitment that requires significant investments. After World War II, the Allies transformed Germany, Japan, and Italy into functioning democracies, but it came at a steep financial cost. The fear of another world war motivated these efforts.
Today, however, few political leaders are willing to commit such resources to nations like Somalia, where the political payoff is uncertain, and re-election prospects at home may be harmed. Additionally, most politicians operate within short-term electoral cycles, bringing us back to the issue of “short-termism.”
Their incentives favor projects with immediate returns, not long-term peace investments that would benefit their successors. In the short term, shady deals with despots may seem politically advantageous, even if they prove disastrous later.
Are these roadblocks insurmountable, or can we do something about them? Yes, we can! Rather than relying solely on elected officials to make the right choices, civil society must apply pressure, advocating for democracy globally. Ordinary citizens have historically driven positive change—think of the movements that dismantled South African apartheid.
Despite global setbacks in democracy over the past decade, fighting for sound, evidence-based policies remain essential. Democracies may falter, but they have an extraordinary capacity to recover, drawing on the remnants of past democratic capital, as Argentina’s history demonstrates. As Abraham Lincoln famously noted, “Those who shall have tasted actual freedom I believe can never be slaves, or quasi slaves again.”
Dominic Rohner is a globally recognized authority on armed conflict and peacebuilding. He serves as Professor of Economics at the Geneva Graduate Institute, where he holds the prestigious André Hoffmann Chair in Political Economics and Governance, and is also a Professor at the University of Lausanne. He holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Cambridge, and his pioneering work has earned multiple international awards and accolades.
The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is the largest aid agency in the Gaza Strip where it provides emergency and other assistance to vulnerable Palestinians. Credit: UNRWA
ATLANTA, USA, Oct 31 2024 (IPS) – The most solemn and terrifying words ever uttered are those inscribed over the gateway to Hell in Dante’s Inferno: “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here!” Hope is essential for human survival both as individuals and as nations.
Surveying the history of the seemingly endless series of wars and counter-wars between Israel and its foes in Gaza and Lebanon from 1948 until now—a period of 76 years—it seems that all hope for peace has been lost. Palestinians, Lebanese, the people of Gaza—and yes, the Israelis too—are all residents of this inferno, the endless Hell of war.
If you pay close attention to the weak, mealy-mouthed utterances of US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken—the emissary of the equally weak President Joe Biden—you’ll understand that the Middle East region and therefore the world is rapidly approaching the Ninth Circle of Hell.
Both of them utter meaningless phrases that reveal their lack of understanding at best, or at worst their vicious, inhumane complicity.
Now, the latest, and possibly most obscene, third act in this modern Greek tragedy was played out October 28 in Israel’s Knesset. Nearly 100 of the 120 members of that wise and honorable body voted to cut the lifeline for millions of Palestinians who depend on the UN’s Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for health care and education.
Credit: UNRWA
Besides irrationally imposing new cruelties—rubbing salt in the wounds of an entire population of innocent people—the Knesset’s decision constitutes cultural genocide, an essential factor underlying the supreme international crime of Genocide as defined by the United Nations.
UNRWA’s registry constitutes the primary link millions of 1948 War refugees and their descendants have to their lost properties. Destroying that link erases an entire people from history. It obliterates Israel’s “Crime of the Century,” which is the theft of the nation of Palestine.
Is this the hand of friendship, the “Light to the Nations” Israel’s founder Ben Gurion promised in 1948? Review the numbers: there are still 1.2 million registered Palestinian refugees dependent on food aid in 68 camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank, and Gaza. UNRWA services in Gaza alone include 140 health care centers and 700 schools educating 300,000 students.
Is there hope in this darkened scenario? Actually, there is. Sun Tzu’s long-ago Chinese classic, The Art of War, records the following sardonic, understated observation: “There is no example of a long war benefitting anybody.”
Which means that at some point people will have to come to their senses, or else generations will pass away before their descendants, with new issues to deal with, will wonder what the fuss was all about.
But that’s in the future—perhaps the distant future. What about now? Is there any hope? Surprisingly, yes, there is.
In an interview on al-Jazeera television on October 25, 2024, after more than a year of the most devastating and genocidal war on Palestine’s civilian population, leading Palestinian politician and spokesman Mustafa Barghouti, expressed optimism.
He said that the single positive development during the longest and most destructive war against Palestine in its history is the continuing determination of the Palestinian people to remain on their land and to resist efforts to expunge their national identity, as is their right.
In Arabic it is called Sumud, “steadfastness,” loosely translated as “Staying power.” Hope survives. Where there’s life, there’s hope.
James E. Jennings is President of Conscience International, an international aid organization that has responded to wars in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and Gaza since 1991.
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 18 2024 (IPS) – When Dr Gamani Corea, a former Secretary-General of the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was holding court in the delegate’s lounge, I asked him what he thought of the bitter dispute between then Secretary-General (SG) Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1992-1996) and the United States over the Egyptian’s determination to win re-election for a second term.
Dr Corea, a product of two prestigious universities, Oxford and Cambridge, and a one-time Sri Lankan Ambassador to the European Economic Community (EEC) in Brussels, pondered for a while, and declared: “I cannot really figure out why anyone in his right mind would ever want such a demanding job.”
And perhaps he was right.
Trygve Lie of Norway, the first UN Secretary-General, once remarked the SG’s job was “the most impossible job on this earth.”
Still, the post of SG, in contemporary history, has attracted at least three ranking officials from their respective country’s highest political hierarchies: Boutros Boutros-Ghali, acting Foreign Minister of Egypt, Secretary-General Ban ki-moon, a former Foreign Minister of South Korea and the current Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, a former Prime Minister of Portugal.
The SG, for all intents and purposes, is the UN’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) who is virtually subservient to 193 political leaders, including presidents, prime ministers, reigning monarchs, foreign ministers and even UN ambassadors.
But he also has no means of implementing UN resolutions or a standing army to enforce them.
Guterres, who has taken a strong stand against the Russian invasion of Ukraine and publicly condemned the devastating killings of civilians in Gaza has come under fire, mostly from Israeli politicians and senior officials, who have not only called for his resignation but also declared him persona non grata (PNG), banning him from entering Israel.
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, a former UN Under-Secretary-General and one-time Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations, told IPS the incumbent Secretary-General recently lamented to the media that “Well, it is absolutely true that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has very limited power, and it’s also absolutely true that he has very little capacity to mobilize financial resources. So, no power and no money.”
“That is the reality which every Secretary-General faces and have been aware of”, said Ambassador Chowdhury.
“That is also known generally to the people who follow the United Nations regularly and thoroughly understanding the functional complexity of the world’s largest multilateral apparatus. Why then this reality surfaces and brought to public attention only when the UN leadership fails to carry out the mandated responsibilities?”
This “very limited power”, as worded by SG Guterres, should be highlighted as often as possible to avoid unnecessary and undue expectations of the global community about the UN and its top leadership.
“No Secretary-General has pointed out these limitations as he campaigned for the post and on assuming the office, he said. Current SG Guterres was no exception. He would have been realistic and factual if he had pointed out the limitations – better termed as obstacles – to his leadership as he took office in 2017, and not in 2024 after being in office for nearly eight years.”
Irrespective of the major ongoing wars, the built-in operational weakness and inability of the world’s most important diplomat has always been there, said Ambassador Chowdhury, former Senior Special Adviser to UN General Assembly President (2011-2012) and President of the UN Security Council (2000 and 2001).
Ian G. Williams, President of the Foreign Press Association USA, told IPS it is time for the pandering to stop. Former Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan’s shredding of the UN Charter should have been be taken as Israeli abrogation of the Charter, but barring the Secretary General indicates that Israel has no part in the organization, as should banning UNRWA and the threat to confiscate its assets in Jerusalem to build illegal settlements on occupied territory.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) got Al Capone for tax evasion – and now is the time for Israel to be squeezed out for its manifest procedural breaches of the UN Charter and Vienna Convention even if the two veto holders cover for it on genocide, said Williams.
“Being declared PNG by Israel has probably saved Antonio Guterres’ reputation, which until now has been dimmed by his relative caution in addressing Israeli depredations. To be attacked by an enemy of mankind and international law is no bad thing”.
But now there should be follow-up, he pointed out.
“The members hip of the United Nations should now be carving away at Israel’s membership prerogatives since, even if states are reluctant to act on the state’s egregious violations of international law, it has now clearly broken the basic rules of international diplomacy.”
“Will it take (Israeli Ambassador) Danny Danon dancing across the General Assembly podium with the SG’s head on a platter to provoke action? asked Williams, a former President of the UN Correspondents Association (UNCA).
Asked about the PNG declaration by Israel, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said: “We saw this announcement, which we see as a political statement by the Foreign Minister. And just one more attack, so to speak, on UN staff that we’ve seen from the government of Israel.”
“Look, this issue of PNG has been announced by different countries at different times towards a representative. And as we said every time, we do not recognize that the concept of persona non grata applies to UN staff”, he added.
Time and again, said Ambassador Chowdhury, “I have pointed out that “essentially there are four main constraints to the effectiveness of the Secretary-General”.
Firstly, veto and veto-wielding members of the Security Council, which influences matters in all areas of UN system’s work; secondly, promises and commitments made by the Secretary-General as a candidate to secure his election; thirdly, aspiration to get re-elected for a second term from day one of the first term; and, fourthly, the labyrinthine UN bureaucracy.
“We need to revisit the operational credibility of our much-cherished world body. What was needed in 1945 to be enshrined in the UN Charter is to be judged in the light of current realities.”
If the Charter needs to be amended to live up to the challenges of global complexities and paralyzing intergovernmental politicization, let us do that. It is high time to focus on that direction. Blindly treating the words of the Charter as sacrosanct may be self-defeating and irresponsible. The UN could be buried under its own rubble unless we set our house in order now, declared Chowdhury.
“I am often asked, during ‘questions and answers’ segment following my public speaking, if I want to recommend one thing that would make the UN perform better, what would it be. My clear and emphatic answer always has been “Abolish the Veto!” Veto is undemocratic, irrational and against the true spirit of the principle of sovereign equality of the United Nations”.
In an opinion piece in the IPS Journal in March 2022, I wrote that “Believe me, the veto power influences not only the decisions of the Security Council but also all work of the UN, including importantly the choice of the Secretary-General.”
The same opinion piece asserted that “I believe the abolition of veto requires a greater priority attention in the reforms process than the enlargement of the Security Council membership with additional permanent ones. Such permanency is simply undemocratic. I also believe that the veto power is not ‘the cornerstone of the United Nations’ but in reality, its tombstone.”
Abolishing the veto would also release the election of the Secretary-General from the manipulating control of the veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council.
After choosing nine men successively to be the world’s topmost diplomat, “I strongly believe that it is incumbent on the United Nations to have the sanity and sagacity of electing a woman as the next Secretary-General in 2026 when the incumbent’s successor would be chosen,” he added.
“I would also recommend that in future the Secretary-General would have only one term of seven years, as opposed to current practice of automatically renewing the Secretary-General’s tenure for a second five-year term, without even evaluating his performance,” he noted.
Participants a United Nations event about Indigenous Peoples in 2024. (Photo courtesy Nana Osei Bonsu)
COLUMBUS, Ohio, USA, Oct 17 2024 (IPS) – In a world where the fight for land rights often pits the powerful against the marginalized, Indigenous communities stand as resilient defenders of their ancestral lands.
These communities, rich in culture and tradition, face numerous challenges, from encroachment and exploitation to climate change. Empowering Indigenous communities is not just a matter of justice; it is a crucial step towards sustainable development and environmental stewardship.
The Importance of Land Rights
Land is more than just a physical space for Indigenous peoples; it is the foundation of their identity, culture, and livelihood. The connection to their land is deeply spiritual and integral to their way of life.
However, this connection is under constant threat from various forces, including government policies, corporate interests, and illegal land grabs. Ensuring secure land rights for Indigenous communities is essential for preserving their cultural heritage and promoting social stability.
Challenges Faced by Indigenous Communities
Indigenous communities around the world face myriad challenges. In many regions, they are subjected to forced evictions, violence, and discrimination. The lack of legal recognition of their land rights leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and displacement.
Additionally, climate change disproportionately affects Indigenous peoples, as their livelihoods are closely tied to the natural environment. Rising temperatures, changing weather patterns, and deforestation threaten their traditional ways of life.
Empowerment Through Legal Recognition and Support
One of the most effective ways to empower Indigenous communities is through the legal recognition of their land rights. Governments must enact and enforce laws that protect these rights and provide mechanisms for Indigenous peoples to reclaim their ancestral lands. International bodies, such as the United Nations, play a crucial role in advocating for these rights and holding governments accountable.
Moreover, providing financial and technical support to Indigenous communities can help them manage their lands sustainably. This includes funding for education, healthcare, and infrastructure, as well as training in sustainable agricultural practices and resource management.
Empowering Indigenous women, who often play a central role in community leadership and environmental stewardship, is particularly important.
The Role of Indigenous Knowledge
Indigenous knowledge systems offer valuable insights into sustainable land management and biodiversity conservation. These traditional practices, honed over centuries, are often more effective and sustainable than modern techniques. By integrating Indigenous knowledge with scientific research, we can develop innovative solutions to global environmental challenges.
For example, the practice of controlled burning by Indigenous Australians has been shown to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Similarly, the agroforestry techniques used by Indigenous communities in the Amazon contribute to biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration. Recognizing and valuing this knowledge is essential for creating a more sustainable future.
Successful Indigenous-Led Initiatives
1. Indigenous Guardians Programs in Canada:
Indigenous Guardians programs are active in over a quarter of First Nations across Canada. These initiatives involve Indigenous communities in environmental monitoring and conservation efforts.
For example, the Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg Nagadjitòdjig Guardian Initiative focuses on preserving traditional knowledge, monitoring ecological health, and maintaining culturally significant sites.
2. Inuit Community-Led Development in the Arctic Circle:
The Inuit population in Canada has faced significant challenges, including poverty and limited access to healthcare. Community-led development projects have been crucial in addressing these issues. These initiatives focus on improving housing, healthcare, and economic opportunities while preserving Inuit culture and traditions.
3. Environmental Education in Tamazight in Rural Morocco:
In Morocco, Indigenous communities have initiated environmental education programs in the Tamazight language. These programs aim to raise awareness about environmental issues and promote sustainable practices among rural populations. By integrating traditional knowledge with modern environmental science, these initiatives help protect local ecosystems.
4. Mapuche Traditional Medicine in Chile:
The Mapuche people in Chile have revitalized their traditional medicine practices to provide healthcare to their communities. These initiatives not only preserve cultural heritage but also offer alternative healthcare solutions that are accessible and culturally relevant.
The integration of traditional medicine with modern healthcare systems has improved health outcomes for many Mapuche communities.
5. Sustainable Tourism among Tsaatan Reindeer Herders in Mongolia:
The Tsaatan reindeer herders in Mongolia have developed sustainable tourism initiatives that allow visitors to experience their unique way of life. These projects provide economic benefits to the community while promoting cultural exchange and environmental conservation.
By managing tourism sustainably, the Tsaatan people ensure that their traditions and natural environment are preserved.
6. The Huahi Achama Tutuwaa Royal Family, Indigenous People of Benimasi-Boadi Community, Ghana:
The Huahi Achama Tutuwaa Royal Family, descendants of King Osei Tutu I, the founder of the Ashanti Empire, have been instrumental in preserving their ancestral lands and cultural heritage.
The Benimasi-Boadi community, under the leadership of the Huahi Royal Family, has successfully managed to balance development with conservation. Approximately 60% of their territory is maintained as a nature reserve, encompassing water bodies, natural reserves, and heritage sites. Their efforts in legal advocacy and community-led conservation serve as a model for other Indigenous communities facing similar challenges.
Building Alliances and Solidarity
Empowering Indigenous communities requires building alliances and fostering solidarity among various stakeholders. Non-governmental organizations, civil society groups, and the private sector must work together to support Indigenous rights. This includes advocating for policy changes, raising awareness about Indigenous issues, and providing platforms for Indigenous voices to be heard.
Consumers also have a role to play by supporting ethical and sustainable products that respect Indigenous rights. By making informed choices, we can contribute to the economic empowerment of Indigenous communities and promote fair trade practices.
Empowering Indigenous communities is a moral imperative and a strategic necessity for achieving sustainable development. By securing their land rights, providing support, and valuing their knowledge, we can create a more just and equitable world. Indigenous communities are not just victims of exploitation; they are vital partners in the global effort to protect our planet and build a sustainable future for all.
Nana Osei Bonsu, the founder of Land Rights Defenders Inc., has been a tireless advocate for Indigenous land rights. His organization, established in 2023, has made significant strides in protecting the rights of Indigenous communities, particularly in Ghana. Land Rights Defenders Inc. works to secure land rights, fight judicial corruption, and protect Indigenous Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs).
