Tweet
Daily Nation , Kenya
May 27 2007
Death, courtesy of excesses of the rich
Story by MWENDE MWINZI
Publication Date: 2007/05/27
Before he dropped him through the trapdoor that completed his hanging
act, George W. Bush had nuked Saddam Hussein several times in his
head. `F--- Saddam; we're taking him out,' he had gallantly announced
during a Senate Republican policy launch in March 2002 - a whole year
before the US invasion of oil-rich Iraq.
The tyrant, as he referred to him some months later at the Cincinnati
Museum Centre, was `a homicidal dictator addicted to weapons of mass
destruction' -- one who, if not stopped, `would be eager to use
biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon' against America.
When he was later convicted by the court for `crimes against
humanity' and handed the death sentence, George Bush (privately
popping champagne) celebrated publicly. The verdict, after all, was a
`landmark event in the history of Iraq''.
But what precisely are `crimes against humanity' and might these not
one day come back to haunt America? Or at least `George Dubya?'
By definition, such crimes comprise acts of persecution or atrocity
against any body of people. They are, according to the Rome Statute
Explanatory Memorandum, `particularly odious offences in that they
constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or
a degradation of one or more human beings.
They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a
government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify
themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities
tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority.'
Okay, so based on this, you've got the Ottoman Government (for the
forcible deportation and massacring of over a million Armenians from
1915 to 1917), the South African apartheid government, Saddam Hussein
(for killing 148 people in Dujail following the assassination attempt
on him in 1982) and a few others all based on the past. But what of
the future and what of George Bush?
If you think this is radical, you are right. It is. But it is not
about Iraq though that, too, could be argued. It is about Africa, her
development and her possible demise. My eyes are on green. And very
simply here is why.
Last week and in the middle of the hot talks on global heat, the
United States, it was revealed, was waging war yet again; no - not
with Iran. With the G-8 -- the Group of Eight planning talks on
global warming next month.
Washington, says Reuters, `wants references taken out to the urgency
of the climate crisis and the need for a UN conference in Bali in
December to open talks on a new global deal.'
The information, made available through a leaked draft of the final
communiqué, points to the American support of the deletion of the
paragraph, `We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international
action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas
emissions and sustain our common basis of living.'
The US, instead, wants the watered down statement `Addressing climate
change is a long-term issue that will require global participation
and a diversity of approaches to take into account differing
circumstances.'
The US has long fought this issue, even pulling out of the Kyoto
Protocol so this position is not surprising. Yet it remains dangerous
nonetheless. Though it covers just about five per cent of the world's
land mass and represents approximately five per cent of the world's
population, the US produces an estimated 26 per cent of the world's
greenhouse gas emissions. Its impact on us is grave.
With about 70 per cent of Africans being dependent on rain-fed,
small-scale agriculture, global warming and poverty are inextricably
linked. Poverty cannot be solved without considering environmental
issues and climatic shifts. The two feed off one another.
Africans depend heavily on trees and crop waste for firewood and
energy (think deforestation and fire emissions) and they also spend
an inordinate time acquiring water (think women and children) when
they could be, for instance, going to school or being otherwise
productive.
With positions such as that of Bush (most Americans do not support
this) and with the rest of the world (including in Africa itself)
only mildly appreciating its dangers, global warming threatens our
future survival.
And Africa, though she emits far less carbon than other continents,
will suffer the most.
As you read this, there has been an increase in unpredictable
weather, unusual crop pests, malaria and other mosquito-borne
diseases including the Mediterrenean's dengue and West Nile Virus.
There is also the visible reduction (some say by 50 per cent) of our
coral reefs and the over 80 per cent shrinkage of Mt Kilimanjaro's
ice cap since the year 1900.
If you think that is bad, keep your britches on. Scientists predict a
minimum temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Centigrade in Africa by
2030, meaning a rise in sea level, more violent weather, more
diseases, food and water insecurity and, of course, more deaths. So
why, despite this knowledge, is the US still rejecting the
increasingly subscribed to Kyoto Protocol?
Like terrorism, global warming is an issue in which every nation has
a stake. Yet George Bush - as he has done consistently with his
foreign policy -- does not care. Or so it seems. Big American
business comes first. Everything else, including the lives and future
of Africa's children, are an after-thought.
So why should, as the Economist asked in its May 10, 2007 edition,
`the poorest die for the continued excesses of the richest?' And at
what point do such positions convert to crimes against humanity?
After the 2008 presidential elections in the US, George Bush will
make an exit much more elegant than Saddam's. But will that be the
end of him? It is possible. But as it would be, climate changes are
not the only shift occurring in the globe. There is power as well.
And this someday might not be so forgiving of Bush, his negligence
and his policies of omission.
May 27 2007
Death, courtesy of excesses of the rich
Story by MWENDE MWINZI
Publication Date: 2007/05/27
Before he dropped him through the trapdoor that completed his hanging
act, George W. Bush had nuked Saddam Hussein several times in his
head. `F--- Saddam; we're taking him out,' he had gallantly announced
during a Senate Republican policy launch in March 2002 - a whole year
before the US invasion of oil-rich Iraq.
The tyrant, as he referred to him some months later at the Cincinnati
Museum Centre, was `a homicidal dictator addicted to weapons of mass
destruction' -- one who, if not stopped, `would be eager to use
biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon' against America.
When he was later convicted by the court for `crimes against
humanity' and handed the death sentence, George Bush (privately
popping champagne) celebrated publicly. The verdict, after all, was a
`landmark event in the history of Iraq''.
But what precisely are `crimes against humanity' and might these not
one day come back to haunt America? Or at least `George Dubya?'
By definition, such crimes comprise acts of persecution or atrocity
against any body of people. They are, according to the Rome Statute
Explanatory Memorandum, `particularly odious offences in that they
constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or
a degradation of one or more human beings.
They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a
government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify
themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities
tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority.'
Okay, so based on this, you've got the Ottoman Government (for the
forcible deportation and massacring of over a million Armenians from
1915 to 1917), the South African apartheid government, Saddam Hussein
(for killing 148 people in Dujail following the assassination attempt
on him in 1982) and a few others all based on the past. But what of
the future and what of George Bush?
If you think this is radical, you are right. It is. But it is not
about Iraq though that, too, could be argued. It is about Africa, her
development and her possible demise. My eyes are on green. And very
simply here is why.
Last week and in the middle of the hot talks on global heat, the
United States, it was revealed, was waging war yet again; no - not
with Iran. With the G-8 -- the Group of Eight planning talks on
global warming next month.
Washington, says Reuters, `wants references taken out to the urgency
of the climate crisis and the need for a UN conference in Bali in
December to open talks on a new global deal.'
The information, made available through a leaked draft of the final
communiqué, points to the American support of the deletion of the
paragraph, `We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international
action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas
emissions and sustain our common basis of living.'
The US, instead, wants the watered down statement `Addressing climate
change is a long-term issue that will require global participation
and a diversity of approaches to take into account differing
circumstances.'
The US has long fought this issue, even pulling out of the Kyoto
Protocol so this position is not surprising. Yet it remains dangerous
nonetheless. Though it covers just about five per cent of the world's
land mass and represents approximately five per cent of the world's
population, the US produces an estimated 26 per cent of the world's
greenhouse gas emissions. Its impact on us is grave.
With about 70 per cent of Africans being dependent on rain-fed,
small-scale agriculture, global warming and poverty are inextricably
linked. Poverty cannot be solved without considering environmental
issues and climatic shifts. The two feed off one another.
Africans depend heavily on trees and crop waste for firewood and
energy (think deforestation and fire emissions) and they also spend
an inordinate time acquiring water (think women and children) when
they could be, for instance, going to school or being otherwise
productive.
With positions such as that of Bush (most Americans do not support
this) and with the rest of the world (including in Africa itself)
only mildly appreciating its dangers, global warming threatens our
future survival.
And Africa, though she emits far less carbon than other continents,
will suffer the most.
As you read this, there has been an increase in unpredictable
weather, unusual crop pests, malaria and other mosquito-borne
diseases including the Mediterrenean's dengue and West Nile Virus.
There is also the visible reduction (some say by 50 per cent) of our
coral reefs and the over 80 per cent shrinkage of Mt Kilimanjaro's
ice cap since the year 1900.
If you think that is bad, keep your britches on. Scientists predict a
minimum temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Centigrade in Africa by
2030, meaning a rise in sea level, more violent weather, more
diseases, food and water insecurity and, of course, more deaths. So
why, despite this knowledge, is the US still rejecting the
increasingly subscribed to Kyoto Protocol?
Like terrorism, global warming is an issue in which every nation has
a stake. Yet George Bush - as he has done consistently with his
foreign policy -- does not care. Or so it seems. Big American
business comes first. Everything else, including the lives and future
of Africa's children, are an after-thought.
So why should, as the Economist asked in its May 10, 2007 edition,
`the poorest die for the continued excesses of the richest?' And at
what point do such positions convert to crimes against humanity?
After the 2008 presidential elections in the US, George Bush will
make an exit much more elegant than Saddam's. But will that be the
end of him? It is possible. But as it would be, climate changes are
not the only shift occurring in the globe. There is power as well.
And this someday might not be so forgiving of Bush, his negligence
and his policies of omission.