How a U.N. Bid to Prevent Sexual Violence Turned Into a Spat Over Abortion

In an internal document, Trump officials threatened to reject an anti-rape measure over language on sexual and reproductive health.

U.S. President Donald Trump chairs a United Nations Security Council meeting in New York City on Sept. 26, 2018. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

BY ROBBIE GRAMER, COLUM LYNCH

| APRIL 23, 2019, 12:58 PM

The Trump administration pressured Germany into watering down a United Nations resolution aimed at preventing rape in conflict situations, forcing it to remove language on sexual and reproductive health that key Trump administration officials say normalizes sexual activity and condones abortion, according to U.N.-based diplomats and an internal State Department cable reviewed by Foreign Policy.

The United States was set to veto the resolution, underscoring the growing rift between Washington and its European allies and the increasing U.S. isolation in multilateral institutions under President Donald Trump. But Germany relented and stripped the resolution of the language to secure the U.S. vote. It passed on Tuesday afternoon with 13 votes in favor. Two countries, Russia and China, abstained.

Trump administration officials say the term “sexual and reproductive health” refers to abortion. But other governments and advocacy groups dispute this view.

In behind-the-scenes negotiations in the run-up to a vote expected on Tuesday, other key elements of the U.N. resolution were removed, including establishing a U.N. monitoring body to report atrocities. The United States continued opposing the resolution over its use of the phrase “sexual and reproductive health,” according to the confidential cable, even without the mechanism.

A U.S. veto would have dealt a blow to Germany’s signature initiative during its rotating term on the Security Council presidency this month. The resolution was supported by a diverse group, including the German foreign minister, the Nobel Peace Laureates Nadia Murad and Denis Mukwege, and the human rights lawyer Amal Clooney.

“There is simply no excuse for continuing to fail those who have already been victimized—as well as those who continue to be at risk of—devastating levels of sexual violence in conflict,” said Mukwege and Murad in a new statement. Both spoke at Tuesday’s meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

The internal State Department cable, sent by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s office to the U.S. Embassy in Berlin and U.S. Mission to the U.N. on Tuesday morning, made clear how the German push has angered the Trump administration. The cable told U.S. diplomats to notify the German government of the U.S. intent to vote no on its U.N. Security Council Resolution on Sexual Violence in Conflict if it didn’t change language to address U.S. concerns

The cable criticizes Germany for conducting a “rushed process of negotiations characterized by artificial, abbreviated timelines that failed to permit member states, the United States included, to represent national positions or debate the complex issues related to them.”

PassBlue, an independent women-led journalism site covering the U.N., and the Guardianwere first to report the U.S. push to veto the measure. The internal State Department cable has not been previously reported.

The cable says that Germany’s draft text, before it was changed hours later, crossed U.S. red lines: The United States “has consistently and clearly communicated red lines since the beginning of negotiations on Germany’s draft [Security Council resolution], which include: budget implications related to a new mechanism; references to the International Criminal Court (ICC); and references to sexual and reproductive health services.”

The State Department did not respond to request for comment.

U.N.-based diplomats tell Foreign Policy that alongside Germany, the United Kingdom and France pushed for the measure to include language on “sexual and reproductive health.”

Germany’s campaign showcases how Berlin is playing an increasingly assertive role in the international body, driving through changes to resolutions in an apparent attempt to pick up the slack from the Washington, where the administration is increasingly spurning multilateral organizations.

“This is definitely a moment where Germany and its EU allies are stepping up to show they stand beside multilateral values and principles even if the U.S. is walking away,” said Richard Gowan, the director of U.N. issues at the International Crisis Group think tank.

If the U.S. vetoed “the resolution, it [would have made] them look like the voice of the international community in contrast to the isolated U.S.”

Some experts on gender-related rights were incensed by the lengths the Trump administration appeared willing to go to quash the resolution. A U.S. veto at the U.N. Security Council on a subject such as this would have been highly unusual, U.N.-based diplomats said.

“The U.S. is turning its back fully and completely on human rights and … it’s not hiding it,” said Tarah Demant, the director of the Gender, Sexuality, and Identity Program at Amnesty International. “It’s forcefully displaying its absolute disregard for human rights, particularly for women. And it will go to extreme measures to do so.”

Jessica Neuwirth, a former special advisor on sexual violence to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said in a statement that it is “unthinkable and bizarre to see the [United States] lining up with Russia and China to block efforts to strengthen the U.N.’s ability to effectively address rape in conflict and to provide sexual violence survivors with sexual and reproductive health services.”

“This resolution is about the [Rohingya] girls systematically raped in Myanmar, the Yezidi girls enslaved by ISIS, the Congolese girls who flock to Panzi Hospital seeking medical help and desperately needing comprehensive health services for the sexual violence they have endured,” said Neuwirth, now the head of a women’s advocacy think tank, The Sisterhood Is Global Institute
The State Department cable stresses that the United States “is strongly committed to preventing conflict-related sexual violence and holding responsible persons accountable.”

“We understand and agree that more needs to be done to deter the recurrence of such crimes and assist survivors. The United States plans to be supportive in shaping future action on this important issue,” the State Department cable says.

But it adds, “We cannot accept unamended explicit, or implicit, references to ‘sexual and reproductive health’” because “we do not support or promote abortion” in global women’s health.
The term “sexual and reproductive health” has been widely accepted and used in international institutions for decades.

Women’s rights advocacy groups and other nonprofit organizations dispute the Trump administration’s view that language on sexual and reproductive health condones abortion, and they say the international community can’t address sexual violence in conflict without acknowledging the importance of these issues.

“Any international response to rape as a weapon of war that doesn’t consider sexual and reproductive health rights is a false response, it’s an empty response,” said Demant of Amnesty International.

Trump administration officials have been trying for the past two years to strip language from U.N. General Assembly resolutions promoting sexual and reproductive health. But they have failed to secure sufficient votes to win in the General Assembly, where resolutions are generally adopted by consensus.

Update, April 23, 2019: This article was updated after the vote on the U.N. resolution passed, adding quotes from Nadia Murad, Denis Mukwege, and Jessica Neuwirth.

 Polarised politics: how two teenagers will vote after surviving 2002 Gujarat riots

Pooja Jadhav, 18, poses as she stands at the entrance of her house in Ahmedabad, April 12, 2019. REUTERS/Amit Dave

Rupam Jain-APRIL 23, 2019

AHMEDABAD, India (Reuters) - On the night of February 28, 2002, two toddlers living in adjacent alleys were dragged out of a slum district in Ahmedabad in Gujarat that had been set ablaze by a mob in one of India’s worst ever Hindu-Muslim riots.

The attack in the Naroda Patiya area of the state’s biggest city was among scores of clashes in which more than 800 Muslims and 255 Hindus were killed in the month-long violence in the home state of Narendra Modi. He had just become its chief minister and would rule there until becoming India’s prime minister in 2014.

Rights groups say about 2,000 people were killed, mostly Muslims, and including scores of children.

The toddlers who survived, a Muslim boy and a Hindu girl, were both one-year-olds at the time of the riots. Now, 17 years later, they are among an estimated 15 million first-time voters in a general election in which Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are seeking a second term on a platform that, critics say, marginalises Muslims in favour of the nation’s majority Hindus.

    Mohammad Rafiq and Pooja Jadhav, now both 18, met for the first time during the Reuters interview. Jadhav hesitantly acknowledged Rafiq’s presence but said they were too shy to talk.

    ”I have many Muslim female friends but I don’t talk to Muslim boys,” she said in the presence of her mother.

    But despite the silence between them, they have a lot in common.

    Both are largely uneducated and work 10 hour-days in menial jobs to support their families, who fled with them from one-room homes on that fateful day. Both want to secure permanent employment but do not have the educational qualifications, and say they want to vote for a party that will resolve this problem.


Mohammad Rafiq, 18, poses near a landfill in Ahmedabad, April 12, 2019. REUTERS/Amit Dave

They also want to get married within their communities, move to better homes and forget the 2002 riots.

But both grew up in a world of communal anger and are wary of people from the other religion. That is also reflected in their politics.
       
    “Even before I understood the word politics or elections, I was told that the BJP is an anti-Muslim political party,” said Rafiq who works at a factory printing election flags with symbols of the BJP and the main opposition party, Congress.

“RAGE” TOWARDS BJP

Rafiq’s family-run furniture shop and house were looted by Hindu men during the riots. His father was hit in the leg by a police bullet as he was fleeing the slum and his mother suffered head injuries when terrified people stampeded.

The family lived in a relief camp and later moved into a house situated next to Ahmedabad’s biggest garbage collection site.

“My rage towards the BJP is part of my life story. I can forgive but I cannot forget,” said Rafiq as he stood next to a huge black mound of garbage.

“If Modi ever cared for Muslims he could come to see how we have learned to live with the stench from the landfill. His disrespect for Muslims defines my political choice,” said Rafiq, who said he will be voting for the Congress party at the polls in Gujarat on Tuesday. The votes from a 39-day staggered election will be counted on May 23.

    Back in 2002, at least 97 people, mostly Muslims, living in Naroda Patiya were killed and 950 houses and shops were set on fire in less than 10 hours.

Modi, the state’s chief minister at the time, has faced allegations of allowing, or even encouraging, the Hindu attacks on Muslims, but he has vehemently denied the charges and a court-appointed investigation panel found no evidence to prosecute him.

The attacks were in retaliation for the death of at least 59 Hindus after a train carriage carrying hundreds of  pilgrims caught fire following a scuffle between Hindus and Muslims at a railway station in Gujarat.

Demarcation along religious lines has become pronounced in Ahmedabad since the riots. Hindus refused to sell houses to Muslims, forcing them to set up ghettos on the edges of the prosperous city.

    Rafiq’s father sold the house in Naroda Patiya and used the money to start a metal trade business, and buy clothes and items for their new home, which was given to them by a Muslim charity organisation.

    “We had a choice to go back and live in the house where my neighbours were killed or live near this garbage site. My father chose the garbage site,” said Rafiq.

Rafiq travelled with Reuters to his old home in Naroda Patiya for the first time in two years. He met his relatives and stood near the house now owned by Muslims not known to him.

    “The air is better here. There is no stench. I would have been happier if we lived here,” said Rafiq.

Slideshow (3 Images)

    COMFORTED BY MODI

    By contrast, Jadhav’s family returned to their partially damaged house in Naroda Patiya after the riots to live among Muslim neighbours.

    ”We had no choice. Muslim victims left this area and new Muslims came to live here. We are stuck,” she said.

    Over a dozen members of 37 Hindu families in Naroda Patiya interviewed by Reuters said they want to live in a Hindu neighbourhood but they lack the financial resources to move. 

    When Modi became prime minister in 2014, Jadhav said her mother, a widow, celebrated his victory.

    ”Seeing her happy made me happy too. I have nothing against Muslims, but I like Modi,” said Jadhav, who works as a domestic helper.

    Jadhav says she is comforted by BJP rule, especially living among Muslims. But she declined to say who she will vote for.

    “We live in a country ruled by the BJP and Muslims know that they cannot behave badly with us. No one wants riots again,” said Jadhav. She says she enjoys listening to Modi’s speeches emphasising his pro-Hindu brand of nationalism.

“I have heard about the riots and since then I know Muslims and Hindus should not engage after a point. There has to be a boundary forever,” she said.

The teenagers are both products of angry times.

    “Children read comic books, fairy tales but we have grown up listening about Hindu, Muslim riots. My vote will be my reaction to our painful past,” said Rafiq as he scanned his mobile phone to play and sing the latest Bollywood hip hop song.

    “Our time will also come,” he sang in Hindi and smiled at Jadhav. She hesitantly smiled back as she stood at door of her home.

(Pooja and Mohammad in their own words )

Greta Thunberg condemns UK's climate stance in speech to MPs

Teenager who sparked global youth movement hits out at airport expansion and support for fossil fuels

• ‘You did not act in time’ – Thunberg’s full speech

 A name plate marks a place for the absent prime minister as Caroline Lucas and Jeremy Corbyn meet Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Damian Carrington and Peter Walker-Tue 23 Apr 2019 13.30 BST

The UK government’s active support for fossil fuels and airport expansion is “beyond absurd”, Greta Thunberg has told MPs.

The 16-year-old Swedish student, who sparked a global youth-based movement when she began a “climate strike” outside Sweden’s parliament last year, gave a typically blunt speech. She told MPs: “This ongoing irresponsible behaviour will no doubt be remembered in history as one of the greatest failures of humankind.”

Thunberg, who had earlier met the heads of several of the UK’s political parties, also said today’s generation of leaders around the world had not acted fast enough to halt climate change. “You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to,” she said. “You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before.”


Greta Thunberg tells MPs: 'Our future was sold' – video

Some consider the UK to be a leader in the fight against global warming, but Thunberg was fierce in her criticism: “The UK’s active current support of new exploitation of fossil fuels, like for example the UK shale gas fracking industry, the expansion of its North Sea oil and gas fields, the expansion of airports, as well as the planning permission for a brand new coalmine, is beyond absurd.”

She said the UK had a “mind-blowing historical carbon debt”, referring to the nation’s cumulative emissions since the industrial revolution. The UK government also uses “very creative carbon accounting”, she said, by not including the emissions from imported goods in headline figures. The former UN chief Ban Ki-Moon also recently criticised the UK government’s funding of fossil fuel projects in other countries.

Thunberg said there was still just about time to stop climate change: “I’m sure that the moment we start behaving as if we were in an emergency, we can avoid climate and ecological catastrophe. Humans are very adaptable. But the opportunity to do so will not last for long.”

She said the deciding factor for every new economic development must be the level of carbon emissions it will produce. “Every time we make a decision we should ask ourselves; how will this decision affect that [emissions] curve?”

About 1.6 million students are estimated to have skipped school to protest against climate inaction, prompting some criticism over lost education. Thunberg said: “I assure you we will go back to school the moment you start listening to science and give us a future. Is that really too much to ask?”


‘We will never stop fighting’: Greta Thunberg addresses London climate protests – video
Earlier on Tuesday, Jeremy Corbyn and several other Westminster party leaders met Thunberg at parliament, with a symbolic place left at the table for the absent Theresa May.

Thunberg, who came to London to speak at the Extinction Rebellion environmental protests, and was due to address activists at Parliament Square later on Tuesday, met Corbyn, the Liberal Democrat leader, Vince Cable, the Green MP Caroline Lucas and the Westminster leaders of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, Ian Blackford and Liz Saville Roberts.

May was chairing cabinet on Tuesday morning. Her spokesman said he did not have information about whether the prime minister had been invited to see Thunberg.

Organisers of the event said May had been invited, but there had been no response. A place at the table was left empty, with the prime minister’s name.

Thunberg told the MPs: “We just want people to listen to the science.” Corbyn told her: “Well done for what you have done.”

Lucas, the former Green leader who is the party’s sole MP, told the activist: “I think all of us are really committed to trying to ensure that there’s an ongoing way to really make sure that all of our policies and all of our work in parliament is properly scrutinised by young people with a perspective on climate in particular.

“We want young people’s voices to be heard in parliament. This is such an important moment, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say we have just 11 years left to get off the collision course we are on for climate catastrophe.

“That sense of urgency is here as never before, at a time when there have been protests on the streets not just of London but around the country and all the different nations of the UK. More than ever, politicians have our ears open to your message.”

While in parliament Thunberg also met the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, as well as the former Labour leader Ed Miliband and the Lib Dem MP Layla Moran.


Greta Thunberg met with applause in House of Commons - video

Outside on Parliament Square, more demonstrators supporting the Extinction Rebellion group were massing, with police warning they risked arrest if they did not remain in a certain area and the protest continued after midnight.

More than 1,000 people have been arrested amid sit-in protests in London over the past week, which blocked Parliament Square, Oxford Circus and Waterloo Bridge. Activists are still at Marble Arch. More than 10,000 police were deployed to contain and then break up the protests.

More plastic bags than fish: East Asia’s new environmental threat

Author: Lina Gong, RSIS-20 April 2019

In March 2019, the fourth Session of the UN Environment Assembly convened in Kenya to discuss the environmental and climate challenges outlined in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 agenda. The protection of oceans with a specific focus on curbing marine plastic pollution was among the points discussed.

Protecting marine environments is a growing priority in East Asia. In 2016, the World Economic Forum predicted that there would be more ocean plastic waste than fish by 2050 without effective intervention. The conference adopted resolutions on promoting sustainable development, including cooperation in reducing marine plastic debris.

Marine plastic pollution can threaten the security and development of regional countries and destroys the marine ecosystem by killing sea creatures and polluting the marine environment. Seafood contaminated with microplastics threatens food safety and public health across Asia as many people in the region rely on seafood for their protein intake.

Unsustainable practices in marine-related economic sectors are contributing to the surging amount of plastic debris in regional seas that harm local businesses. Bali and Boracay depend on revenues from tourism. Severe plastic pollution in the coastal areas damages their reputation as popular tourist destinations, while disruption in the marine ecosystem can also intensify competition between states for marine resources.

China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand accounted for 60 per cent of the plastic waste disposed of in the oceans according to a report by the Ocean Conservancy and the McKinsey Center for Business and Environment in 2015. Japan ranks second globally at the per capita level.

But some countries are taking action to tackle the challenge. Indonesia has set a target to reduce marine plastic debris by 70 per cent by 2025. The central government imposed a trial of taxing single-use plastic bags in some cities in 2016. In 2017 they pledged US$1 billion to reduce marine plastic debris and other wastes.

In Singapore, the National Parks Board and the International Coastal Cleanup, a non-governmental organisation, started a two-year study in 2017 at nine coastal sites. Conservationists and scientists presented The Blue Plan to the government in October 2018 outlining recommendations on how to monitor and reduce marine plastic waste.

Vietnam and the Philippines are developing a national action plan to deal with the mounting challenge. The Japanese government started the discussion to draft a national strategy with specific goals and targets in August 2018. There are also discussions on strengthening regulations and laws related to the issue, with a bill passed in June 2018 aimed at reducing microplastics.

Indonesia held the Our Ocean Conference in October 2018 where Indonesia, New Zealand and Japan called for regional cooperation in tackling marine plastic waste and invited regional countries to join the initiative. The East Asia Summit (EAS) adopted the Leaders’ Statement on Combating Marine Plastic Debris in November 2018.

Indonesia is pushing for the development of a Regional Plan of Action to be adopted by the EAS in 2019. Thailand — as Chair of ASEAN — sees addressing the issue of marine plastic debris as part of its overall effort to promote sustainability through cooperation and partnership. ASEAN held the Special Ministerial Meeting on Marine Debris in Bangkok in March 2019 to discuss how the region can address the challenge through strengthened cooperation. A regional declaration on combating marine plastic wastes is likely to be presented to ASEAN leaders later this year.

The increasing attention to marine plastic waste reduction is encouraging government commitments and public awareness. But more needs to be done.

The approach to effectively reduce marine plastic debris and microplastics should include restrictions or prohibition on single-use plastic products and improve waste management, legislation, law enforcement, the transformation of consumption and production, financing and the application of technology.

Despite the increasing awareness and commitments, challenges remain. Restricting the use of single-use plastic products is likely to increase business costs and meet resistance from the business community, influencing government policies. For example, the Indonesian government drafted a regulation to tax plastic bags in 2018 but the draft is still being debated by different ministries and the release is likely to be later than expected.

Reducing single-use plastic products and increasing recycling means gradual changes in people’s consumption habits. To seek public understanding and cooperation, raising awareness and providing incentives is necessary in the initial phase. Grassroots groups — both governmental and non-governmental — are on the forefront of facilitating these changes.

The Philippines and Thailand closed down tourist islands in 2018 to tackle coastal and marine pollution. This raised concerns over the livelihoods of the local communities that are dependent on the tourist industry. Incentives and alternatives are needed to ensure understanding and cooperation from locals.

Technological advancements that make degrading plastic less harmful for the environment is also part of the solution. Japan initiated cooperation with ASEAN by providing technological and financial support for the Knowledge Centre on ASEAN Marine Debris. The epistemic community and the private sector have important roles in providing technological expertise and financing schemes. A holistic approach that addresses different dimensions of marine plastic pollution and involves multiple actors is essential for effective solutions to the challenge.

Lina Gong is a Research Fellow with the Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

A version of this article was first published here by RSIS.

China plastic waste ban throws global recycling into chaos

This photo taken on April 17, 2019 shows recycled paper at the Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority's recycling site in Edinburgh, near Adelaide. From grubby packaging engulfing small Southeast Asian communities to waste piling up in plants from the US to Australia, China's ban on accepting the world's used plastic has plunged global recycling into turmoil. Source: Brenton EDWARDS / AFP

@ascorrespondent-23 Apr 2019

FROM grubby packaging engulfing small Southeast Asian communities to waste piling up in plants from the US to Australia, China’s ban on accepting the world’s used plastic has plunged global recycling into turmoil.

For many years, China received the bulk of scrap plastic from around the world, processing much of it into a higher quality material that could be used by manufacturers.

But at the start of 2018, it closed its doors to almost all foreign plastic waste, as well as many other recyclables, in a push to protect the local environment and air quality, leaving developed nations struggling to find places to send their waste.

“It was like an earthquake,” Arnaud Brunet, director general of Brussels-based industry group The Bureau of International Recycling, told AFP.

“China was the biggest market for recyclables. It created a major shock in the global market.”

SEE ALSO: More plastic bags than fish: East Asia’s new environmental threat

Instead, plastic is being redirected in huge quantities to Southeast Asia, where Chinese recyclers have shifted en masse.

With a large Chinese-speaking minority, Malaysia was a top choice for Chinese recyclers looking to relocate, and official data showed plastic imports tripled from 2016 levels to 870,000 tonnes last year.

In the small town of Jenjarom, not far from Kuala Lumpur, plastic processing plants suddenly appeared in large numbers, pumping out noxious fumes day and night.

Huge mounds of plastic waste, dumped in the open, piled up as recyclers struggled to cope with the influx of packaging from everyday goods, such as foods and laundry detergents, from as far afield as Germany, the United States, and Brazil.

Residents soon noticed the acrid stench over the town — the kind of odour that is usual in processing plastic, but environmental campaigners believe some of the fumes also come from the incineration of plastic waste that was too low quality to recycle.

“People were attacked by toxic fumes, waking them up at night. Many were coughing a lot,” local resident, Pua Lay Peng, told AFP.

“I could not sleep, I could not rest, I always felt fatigued,” the 47-year-old added.

Toxic fumes

Pua and other community members began investigating and by mid-2018 had located about 40 suspected processing plants, many of which appeared to be operating secretly and without proper permits.

Initial complaints to authorities went nowhere but they kept up pressure, and eventually the government took action. Authorities started closing down illegal factories in Jenjarom, and announced a nationwide temporary freeze on plastic import permits.

Thirty-three factories were closed down, although activists believe many have quietly moved elsewhere in the country. Residents say air quality has improved but some plastic dumps remain.

In Australia, Europe and the US, many of those collecting plastic and other recyclables were left scrambling to find new places to send it.

They face higher costs to get it processed by recyclers at home and in some cases have resorted to sending it to landfill sites as the scrap has piled up too quickly.

“Twelve months on, we are still feeling the effects but we have not moved to the solutions yet,” said Garth Lamb, president of industry body Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia.

This picture taken on March 8, 2019 shows plastic waste at an abandoned factory in Jenjarom, a district of Kuala Langat, outside Kuala Lumpur.  Source: Mohd RASFAN / AFP

Some have been quicker to adapt to the new environment, such as some local authority-run centres that collect recyclables in Adelaide, southern Australia.

The centres used to send nearly everything — ranging from plastic to paper and glass — to China but now 80 percent is processed by local companies, with most of the rest shipped to India.

“We moved quickly and looked to domestic markets,” Adam Faulkner, chief executive of the Northern Adelaide Waste Management Authority, told AFP.

“We’ve found that by supporting local manufacturers, we’ve been able to get back to pre-China ban prices,” he added.

SEE ALSO: What happens to your plastic waste after you ‘recycle’ it?

Consume less, produce less

In mainland China, imports of plastic waste have dropped from 600,000 tonnes per month in 2016 to about 30,000 a month in 2018, according to data cited by a new report from Greenpeace and environmental NGO Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.

Once bustling centres of recycling have been abandoned as firms shifted to Southeast Asia.

On a visit to the southern town of Xingtan last year, Chen Liwen, founder of environmental NGO China Zero Waste Alliance, found the once-booming recycling industry had disappeared.

“The plastic recyclers were gone — there were ‘for rent’ signs plastered on factory doors and even recruitment signs calling for experienced recyclers to move to Vietnam,” she told AFP.

Southeast Asian nations affected early by the China ban — as well as Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam were hit hard — have taken steps to limit plastic imports, but the waste has simply been redirected to other countries without restrictions, such as Indonesia and Turkey, according to the Greenpeace report.

With only an estimated nine percent of plastics ever produced recycled, campaigners say the only long-term solution to the plastic waste crisis is for companies to make less and consumers to use less.

Greenpeace campaigner Kate Lin said: “The only solution to plastic pollution is producing less plastic.” – Sam Reeves/Agence France-Presse

Innovative child malaria vaccine test starts in Malawi

The vaccine has already been tested in smaller trial programmes

23 April 2019

A large-scale pilot of what has been called the world's first malaria vaccine to give partial protection to children has begun in Malawi.

The RTS,S vaccine trains the immune system to attack the malaria parasite, which is spread by mosquito bites.

Earlier, smaller trials showed that nearly 40% of the 5-to-17-month-olds who received it were protected.

Malaria cases appear to be on the rise again after a decade of success in combating the deadly disease.

"This is a landmark moment for immunisations, malaria control, and public health," Dr Kate O'Brien, Director of Immunisation and Vaccines at the World Health Organization, told the BBC.

According to the most recent annual figures, global malaria cases are no longer falling, sparking concerns about its resurgence.

Malawi is the first of three countries chosen for the pilot to roll out the vaccine. It aims to immunise 120,000 children aged two years and below. The other two countries, Ghana and Kenya, will introduce the vaccine in the coming weeks.

The three countries were picked because they already run large programmes to tackle malaria, including the use of bed nets, yet still have high numbers of cases.

How big a problem is malaria?

Malaria kills some 435,000 people around the world each year, the majority of them children. Most of these deaths are in Africa, where more than 250,000 children die every year, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Dr O'Brien said that malaria is "a really difficult disease to develop a vaccine against".

An early trial of the vaccine began in 2009.

"There were seven countries participating in a large trial where over 15,000 children participated," Dr David Schellenberg, who has been working on the development of the vaccine with the WHO, told the BBC's Newsday programme.

"[The trial] showed pretty clearly that this vaccine is safe and it is efficacious in terms of its ability to prevent clinical malaria episodes and also severe malaria episodes," he said.

What difference will the vaccine make?

RTS,S has been more than three decades in the making, with scientists from drugs company GSK creating it in 1987.

Years of testing supported by a host of organisations, including the Path Malaria Vaccine Initiative, and costing an estimated $1bn (£770m), have led to this point.

Campaigners have long been calling for an effective way to deal with malaria

The nearly 40% efficacy is not high in comparison with vaccines for other diseases, but Dr Schellenberg says RTS,S will add to the preventative measures, such as bed nets and insecticides, already being used.

"Nobody is suggesting that this is a magic bullet," Dr Schellenberg said.

"It may not sound like much but we're talking about 40% reduction in severe malaria which unfortunately still has high mortality even when you have good access to good treatment," he added.

Dr O'Brien said the vaccine lasted for at least for seven years and would target infants because they are most at risk.

The vaccine needs to be given four times - once a month for three months and then a fourth dose 18 months later.

Dr Schellenberg accepted that it might be a challenge for mothers in some areas to take their children to clinics for all four doses.

This stage of the trial is expected to be completed by 2023, according to Path.

A cartoonist has failed if he puts cooperation between races in jeopardy'- K.W Janaranjana

April 22, 2019, 12:00 pm 

His elegant handwriting was the first tell-tale signs of a cartoonist in the making. He could draw from an early age, a skill he probably inherited from his artistically inclined father, although the cartoonist of this week's Pen Pricks admits that his father never taught him how to draw. In fact, he never studied art formally, not even for the O/Levels until he took up painting under Chandraguptha Thenuwara later.

On the contrary, his father, along with his contemporary, Jayasiri Semage, studied art under the renowned Motagedara Wanigaratne. But his late father's role as an editorial cartoonist came as a surprise to the former Editor of Ravaya and present Editor of Anidda, K.W Janaranjana, who became privy to it only a week prior to this interview. "My father Indrasena Withanage worked for the 'Dawasa' published by Independent Newspapers Ltd of M. D. Gunasena and Company. It was the most popular paper at the time apart from the Lake House newspapers," said Janaranjana. His father has also contributed editorial cartoons for Siyarata and Vinivida.

Work

Educated in St. John's College, Nugegoda and D. S. Senanayake College, Colombo, Janaranjana lived in the semi-urban area of Kalubowila, Dehiwala. After the demise of his father, Janaranjana inadvertently became the go-to person for banners, pandol and Vesak Jathaka story enactment stage artwork. This was when Gevindu Kumaratunga invited him to join, as a layout artist, the newly established paper Lakmina, funded by Pioneering member of the JHU Thilak Karunaratne, with Editors Sunil Madawa Premathilaka and Dr. Nalin de Silva at its helm.

"It was 1989, a politically volatile time at the height of JVP riots and when it's Deshapremi Janatha Vyaparaya (DJV) was most active." Janaranjana recounted how he had to painstakingly draw a full Sinhala alphabet for the lead story headline. Letters had to be put together one by one in those pre-Sinhala-typeset days. He was responsible for layout of all the articles, which were pasted on cardboard in preparation for print. He remembered with much interest how he illustrated for the serialised Sinhala translation of 'Cry Freedom' by John Briley on the true life story of South African anti-apartheid activist, Steve Biko.

Unfortunately, a conflict between the two editors, resulted in the de Silva faction, inclusive of Janaranjana, pulling out. When asked whether he was politically inclined at such an early age, or whether the political line of the newspaper influenced his line of thinking, Janaranjana said that he joined the paper only because their political line of thinking aligned. "It was a UNP government and we were all anti-government," said Janaranjana.

Ravaya was first published in 1986 in the form of a magazine. In 1990, Janaranjana approached a friend of its layout department who introduced him to founder-Editor Victor Ivan. He was asked to join as a layout artist when Ravaya commenced printing as a tabloid in 1991. In addition, he was also asked to do a caricature for page 1, a style of cartoon new to Sri Lanka at the time. "Ivan showed me a bunch of caricatures from Indian papers. The new style was catching up in India, with magazines like the Illustrated Weekly of India working to popularize the genre."

His Ravaya page one pocket cartoon, Ayubowan, came into being as a result this. His first victim was J.R Jayewardene. "He was retired and therefore safe," smirked Janaranjana. Ayubowan is the first and last time a caricature was published on page one of a Sri Lankan newspaper. Ivan then invited Janaranjana to do the editorial cartoon, a tradition he follows to date, now in Anidda.

In 1991, Janaranjana gained entrance to the Law College and was forced to resign as a layout artists. By then Ravaya had won the Best Layout Design in 2014,2016 and Merit in 2017, conferred by the Sri Lanka Press Institute and The Editors’ Guild of Sri Lanka. This is specially significant as Ravaya is a black and white paper. He continued to contribute the editorial cartoon and caricature, part time. In 1995 Ravaya was printed in broadsheet. In 2000, Janaranjana was made the editor of the Balaya magazine of Ravaya and in 2008 Deputy Editor of Ravaya itself and in 2012 Victor Ivan relinquished his 30-year editorship to Janaranjana. He has been the Editor of Anidda since its establishment in April 2018. Each time he became an editor or deputy, Janaranjana passed a milestone. Before his promotion to the post of an editor a cartoonist becomingan editor was virtually unheard of.

Different genres

Most artists perfect one form of art, whether it be water colour, sketching or cartooning, but Janaranjana switched from genre to genre, from water colour, oil paint, pencil sketches, illustrations to masthead and letter design with the ease of a duck taking to water. In 1989 he held a joint painting exhibition with three other friends. He has done illustrations for articles and poetry, numbering in the thousands. The cover he designed for S.G Punchihewa's 'Purawesi Pethsama' received the State Literary Award for best book cover in 2013. His knack for letter designing allowed him to design the titles for Prasanna Vithanage's movies 'Purahanda Kaluwara' and 'Ira Mediyama'. When asked how he managed to perfect such diverse styles, Janaranjana said that it is as if he is possessed by the genre he is engaged with at the moment.

His Ayubowan, a signature caricature style marked by lines on the face is reminiscent of Ryan R Lurie. When asked whether he was ever influenced by such world renowned cartoonists, Janaranjana said that although he studies other cartoonists such as R.K Laxman, Surendra and Keshav, he never imitates them. "Caricature style is different for each cartoonist. Some use brush strokes and colours. I use lines drawn in pen." Also unique to Ayubowan was the caption that went with the caricature.

His editorial cartoons are completely different. His unique cartoon style rarely employs words. He said that his training in art, such as examination of facial features and figures came in handy in creating wordless, yet compelling cartoons. "If I can't convey my message through the image, then I have failed as a cartoonist, specially since I don't use words." He admitted that there are certain disadvantages to not using words, but pointed out the obvious advantage that anyone, even a non Sinhala speaker should be able to understand his cartoon. "Provided the reader is familiar with the political background. The Editorial cartoon is second in importance only to the editorial and Ravaya being a hardcore political paper the pressure on the cartoon to be ultra political and to the point, was high," explained Janaranjana.

Politics

Unlike most cartoonists, Janaranjana rarely aspires to entertain with sarcasm. Often completely avoiding subjects of social import, he religiously confines himself to politics. Janaranjana is political animal to the bone. A founder member and CEO of Rights Now Collective for Democracy during 2007 and 2008, having served as the assistant secretary and secretary for Free Media Movement, an executive committee member and an active member of Lawyers for Democracy and Citizens’ Rights, it's safe to say that he is probably the most politically vocal of the editorial cartoonists. Something most cartoonists shy away from.

When asked if political activism and cartooning is this mutually beneficial, Janaranjana said, "Rather it is my political activism that influences my cartoons. As a politically active person I meet a lot of politically active people, engage in discussions and a political ideology takes form. This helps with my cartoons. In fact, the cartoon has the same purpose, to deliver a political message." Janaranjana said that he never wished to be identified as a cartoonist. "It's just one of the things I do." This is why he doesn't have awards and accolades to attest for his cartoonistic prowess, because he never bothered to apply.

Having been a member of the X group, convener of Purawesi Balaya, a Director of NGO Rights New, when asked whether his political allegiances ever clouded his judgement as a cartoonist, Janaranjana said that he has been inspired by his political role and not unduly influenced. "There's no question about it, I am biased. I am biased towards democracy, power sharing with minorities and judicial independence."

But shouldn't a cartoonists steer clear of political activism to remain unbiased? "There's nothing such as unbiased in the newspaper industry and there are no unbiased cartoonists. We're all biased to some degree." Janaranjana explained that even if a cartoonist does not engage in political activism, but does so through his cartoons, this is political activism enough.

Being a lawyer and a law lecturer, his command of law has been imperative to understanding politics. "And therefore indirectly responsible for keeping me open to political points of view that may escape other cartoonists."

He has always held an ati-government stance, very vocal and unafraid in his criticism. When asked whether this was supported by the political liberalness of the alternative newspapers he worked for, he answered in the affirmative. "Neither my editor nor the management ever influenced me to draw or not to draw one thing or the other. Now with my own subordinates, I follow the same example."

Most cartoonists exercise self-restraint, specially when it comes to depicting sensitive subjects such as religion of clergy in politics. But even in portraying such controversial subjects, one might say that Janaranjana is quite candid. "I exercise no religious or racial restraint. Having said that, I know my ethics," said Janaranjana who had never been threatened, verbally or otherwise, for his vociferousness. "A cartoonist, as a journalist, has failed if he or she incites violence and puts the cooperation between races in jeopardy. A cartoonist should aspire to elevate the public rather than just provide entertainment."

He explained that the Hutchins Commission was formed during World War II, when publisher of Time Magazine, Henry Luce, asked Chicago University President, Robert Hutchins to form a commission to inquire into the function of media in a modern democracy. Its social-responsibility theory proposed that media take it upon themselves to elevate society's standards, providing citizens with the information they need to govern themselves. "This has been my motto as a journalist as well as a cartoonist."

Enemies of democracy – Part I Demand for a strongman to rule the country

Demand for a strongman to establish discipline among citizens

Monday, 22 April 2019


I posed the following question to a group of university students recently: ‘Do you desire to have a strongman to rule Sri Lanka today?’ The students, made up of both genders in the age group of 25 to 35, chorused the answer in the affirmative. When probed further, they revealed that Sri Lanka very badly needed discipline in every aspect of life today and only a strongman could deliver it.

But, they qualified the strongman to be a disciplined visionary in the calibre of Singapore’s strongman – Lee Kuan Yew – the model for many Sri Lankans. In other words, he should be a person without any personal or family agendas. The strongman should be brought to power not through a military coup. He should be voted to power, they opined, through the normal electoral process. That model had already been tested in Germany in 1933 when Adolph Hitler was voted to power through popular ballot. True to the expectations of Germans, he was a strongman – and in that sense, too strong a man.

Indiscipline is everywhere

These students are not alone in entertaining this view. They are angry at indiscipline which has stained the fabric of Sri Lanka’s society like a cancer. Indiscipline here can be defined as behaviour that goes against the set order of society. Since a society is made up of diverse people, it is a must that everyone obliges to that set order to assure interpersonal interaction among society’s members. But in Sri Lanka’s case, indiscipline is found everywhere in the country to the annoyance of civic minded citizens.

In Parliament, lawmakers very often hurl abusive slogans at each other, prompting the Speaker to expunge them from the Hansard. As if it is not sufficient, they also resort to physical violence when they cannot prove a point to their opponents. At universities, students who believe that ragging of new students is a right, resort to boycotting classes when authorities try to be tough on raggers. They block the roads with unannounced demonstrations putting the public to innumerable inconveniences. Government doctors go on strike even for issues that are not related to them. Roads are blocked by protesting men, women and children wishing, because, for them, the way to resolve conflicts is only through violence.

The indiscipline among the road users is the most annoying. A bad motorist may knock at your vehicle and keep on driving as if he had a right to do so. When the Government increases penalty for errant drivers, private bus operators choose to take their buses off the road when buses are most needed by commuting public. But, this is not mere indiscipline in society. It is an instance of using violence to win demands or resolve disputes. Since it has become endemic, the angered public has demanded the restoration of discipline in society. For that, the suggested solution has been the bringing of a strongman to power.

Even some Buddhist monks have demanded authoritarian rulers

In Sri Lanka, there have been many instances where such authoritarian rulers have been proposed even by the Buddhist clergy. In late 1960s, an influential Buddhist monk, Rajakeeya Panditha Henpitagedera Gnasaseeha Thero in a book in Sinhala titled dictatorship called for the election of an authoritarian ruler to govern the country.

The crux of the argument was that people in Sri Lanka had been a lazy lot compared to those who lived here in ancient times. Hence, to force them to work, a strict ruler was necessary. Under democracy, that could not be done, because people can vote such disciplinarians out of power. More recently, the Deputy Chief Prelate of the Asgiriya Chapter of Theravada Buddhism was reported to have advised the former Secretary of Defence, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, to be a Hitler if that helped the country to solve its present problems.

The sentiments expressed for such authoritarian rulers have been voiced by many who have been disillusioned by the failure of democratic ideals to solve the country’s problems.

Direct rule of a country by people

Democracy was simultaneously born in ancient Greece and ancient India in the 5th century BCE. In both instances, it was people who directly participated in ruling them. In the city states in Athens and in the republics of Lichchavis in India, adults sat together in assemblies to decide on their destiny. However, it was not an inclusive democracy since only the elites and aristocracy that had the right to participate in the assembly meetings. Women, slaves and low caste people had been excluded from this democratic process. Besides, those direct democracies did not last for more than 200 years in both Europe and India.

People in power lack time or knowledge to make rational decisions

Thus, democracy came under criticism of both Socrates and Aristotle. Socrates had two objections to democratic rule. One was that those who formed the majority rule in democratic form of government did not have the time or intellectual capacity to make judgments. Hence, they were all substandard judgments.

This was similar to what Nobel laureate Herbert Simon found in 1957 when he conceptualised what he called ‘bounded rationality’. He said that the rational thinking of Homo sapiens have been limited or bounded by the lack of information, time and brain power to process that information.

The other reason adduced by Socrates was that in the absence of knowledge, those who came forward to rule others sought to create impressions among those being ruled by delivering favours to them. Thus, democracy is twisted and corrupted. It is not the free thinking of people that will rule them. It is the opinion of a vast majority of people whose support is essential for the rulers to remain in power. These two criticisms are valid and relevant even today.

Aristotle criticised democracy on the ground of kings turning themselves into tyrants, given the state of power struggles among different groups in a democracy. Accordingly, democracy was a rule by tyranny.

Government of which people? 

Yet, from the 19th century onward, democracy was hailed as the ideal form of government. One time US President, Abraham Lincoln, had described it as a ‘government of the people, for the people and by the people’. Thus, people were involved inclusively in the whole process of making democracy to work.

But, critics began to point out that the people involved in the democratic process were just a minority who had assumed power through the ballot. To those with a left leaning, that elite group was those who owned capital; to those with liberal thinking, they were power groups in society; and to those with religious affiliations, it was religious leaders belonging to other religions. Thus, democracy is simply an eternal battle among different power seeking groups in society. In this way, there were many who had been disgruntled with the way democracy worked on the ground. As a solution, they sought alternatives. The present day demand for a strongman or an authoritarian ruler is one such alternative.

Sacrifice today’s comforts for a better future

According to the proponents, the rule by a strongman here is simply a temporary strategy in which today’s comforts are sacrificed for a better future. To move forward, a nation has to work hard. But hard work cannot be established as the accepted norm of society. This is because the democratic system of government is too weak to enforce its will. It is hard on silent law-abiding citizens, but lax on law breakers with loud voices. Since law breakers live on the fruits of the labours of others, there is natural dissent among citizenry about the way society is ruled. If a strongman appears to take charge and delivers order and discipline to society, it is wholeheartedly welcome by many.

Post-independence Sri Lanka was full of authoritarian rulers

But, in the post-independent Sri Lanka, all democratically-elected governments had more or less functioned as authoritarian rulers. It was not the authoritarian rule proper that had been established in its own right. It was the authoritarian action that had been taken by using the majority power in the name of democracy.

On each occasion, such action had been justified on social, economic, cultural, ethnic, spiritual or political grounds. Accordingly, the right of the citizens, freedom of thought and expression, right to assembly, right to hold property, right to elect their own representatives and the right to be treated equally under the Constitution had been suppressed. Yet, over the past seven decades, Sri Lankan authoritarian rule could not deliver prosperity to its people.

For instance, Sri Lanka’s per capita GDP, according to World Bank metadata series, amounted to $ 160 in 1969, the earliest year for which these GDP data are available. After five decades in 2017, it had grown a little more than $ 4,000 which is a third of the level required for a country to become a rich country. Sri Lanka had graduated to the status of lower middle income country in 1997. Because of the low economic growth thereafter, it had remained in that category for the last 22-year period. Meanwhile, Thailand whose per capita GDP stood at $ 186 in 1969 had witnessed a faster growth than Sri Lanka reaching a level of $ 6,500 in 2017. Accordingly, Sri Lanka’s authoritarian rulers had failed to deliver the promised prosperity to Sri Lankans.

What Sri Lanka needs today is not an unchecked strongman. It needs a firm leader who would take the country forward by observing rule of law, protecting property rights and leaving the positions in the very first instance he would find that his remaining in power is not welcome by people. When questioned by a journalist from TIME magazine in 1995 why he chose to quit, Nelson Mandela quipped: ‘Quitting at the appropriate time is also leading’. This should be an example to Sri Lanka’s prospective leaders

A docile man today may be a monster tomorrow 

The problem with strongmen is that they may be docile at the time of election to power. But their behaviour is unpredictable and there is a chance that they may turn out to be monsters later. This is because after enjoying the comforts associated with power, it is difficult for any human being to resist the temptation to taste it for personal benefit.

Thus, the 4th century BCE Indian Guru Kautilya advised the king in his treatise on economics, The Arthashastra, not to place honey at the tip of the tongue of king’s servants. That is because they could not resist the temptation to taste it secretly. The king has a double predicament here since he is unable to see whether king’s servants abuse power ‘just like one cannot say whether a fish swimming in water is drinking it or not’.

What this means is that strongmen who are brought to power with good intentions may betray the trust of people and emerge as the worst enemies of society.

Tendency for strongmen to accumulate wealth

The normal tendency for any strongman is to remain in power as long as possible. After his time is gone, he may want to hand over the mantle of power to his children or relatives. To do so, he will have to consolidate more power around him. That takes the form of wealth accumulation, building an unchallengeable power base in society and loyal armies – military or para military – nurtured through extraordinary privileges.

Strongmen are gullible to corruption 

Wealth is accumulated via shady business deals in which fixed cuts are paid to the strongman himself or to his close family members. The gullible public is brainwashed to believe that those businesses would make the nation stronger one day. There is evidence in Sri Lanka as well as elsewhere how strongmen or their close family members have accumulated unearned wealth through such deals.

In Nepal, as revealed by Billionaire Binod Chaudhary in his autobiography, ‘Making It Big,’ no one can start a large-scale business unless he offers 51% of free shares to a member of the royal family. In Indonesia, Suharto and his family have been accused of embezzling state funds amounting to about $ 25 billion during his 32-year rule. Malaysia’s former Prime Minister Najib Razak has been charged in courts for looting $ 4.5 billion through his deals with 1MDB Corporation. There are many other examples of strongmen voted to power with good intentions accumulating unearned wealth belonging to the people of respective countries.

Suppression of people’s voices

To establish their power base firmly so that no one could challenge it, strongmen in power use all coercive laws to suppress public opinion. To reinforce it, they also arouse nationalistic or religious sentiments among people. The first makes them involuntary prisoners in their own country. The law enforcement agencies are brought under the control of the strongman or his associates so that the aggrieved public cannot seek redress through the judicial system.

On the other hand, the arousal of nationalistic or religious sentiments makes the public voluntary prisoners of the land. They suppress their rational thinking and blindly believe what they might be told by national leaders without questioning. As long as people are gullible, the strongmen could manipulate them according to their wishes as if they handle lumps of clay. The strongmen and their family members will remain in power unopposed, but the conscience of the nations concerned is killed making them laggards in a fast moving world.

Use of the military to remain in power

The objective of loyal military or para-military forces is to brutally suppress public uprisings. In this way, even the slightest opposition to the rule is severely dealt with. In many countries, there have been extra-judicial killings placing the entirety of population in a very vulnerable position. Any civil society organisation that questions such killings is immediately branded as those who shout with dollars paid to them by external conspirators. The nation is struck with fear and a fear stricken people could not be creative or innovative. The corollary is that such nations would limp in their development process when other nations move forward in leaps and bounds.

According to the proponents, the rule by a strongman here is simply a temporary strategy in which today’s comforts are sacrificed for a better future. To move forward, a nation has to work hard. But hard work cannot be established as the accepted norm of society. This is because the democratic system of government is too weak to enforce its will. It is hard on silent law-abiding citizens, but lax on law breakers with loud voices. Since law breakers live on the fruits of the labours of others, there is natural dissent among citizenry about the way society is ruled. If a strongman appears to take charge and delivers order and discipline to society, it is wholeheartedly welcome by many

Fault of strongmen

Thus, calling for a strongman to come and rescue Sri Lanka has its own costs and risks. Once the man is in power, there is no way to remove him without resorting to bloodshed and violence. Such violence in turn impedes the country’s growth momentum. Hence, without a counterchecking and counterbalancing institutional structure in place, it is a risk to call for a strongman to come and occupy the country’s power base.

The need is for a firm leader 

What Sri Lanka needs today is not an unchecked strongman. It needs a firm leader who would take the country forward by observing rule of law, protecting property rights and leaving the positions in the very first instance he would find that his remaining in power is not welcome by people. When questioned by a journalist from TIME magazine in 1995 why he chose to quit, Nelson Mandela quipped: ‘Quitting at the appropriate time is also leading’. This should be an example to Sri Lanka’s prospective leaders.

(W.A. Wijewardena, a former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, can be reached at waw1949@gmail.com.)