Category Archives: East Asia

A Tiny Reef in the Philippines Offered Early Proof That Marine Parks Also Help Fishers

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from Oceana, an organization that works internationally to better manage fish stocks to save the oceans and feed the world

Protected areas on coral reefs are often established in spots that already have lots of fish and high diversity, making it tough for scientists to tell how effective no-take zones really are at boosting the populations of commercially important species. But around Sumilon Island, a speck of land in the Central Philippines that hosted the country’s first ocean sanctuary, a history of on-again, off-again protection offers some of the most clear-cut proof that fishing bans work — and that they actually help fishers too.

philippines
Click on photo to enlarge

In the 1970s, Sumilon reef “was among the best in the world,” said marine biologist Angel Alcala. Alcala, along with Garry Russ of James Cook University, was the author of a landmark study tracking commercially important fish in Sumilon for 17 years.

From 1974 to 1983, a quarter of the island’s reefs were closed to fishing. Valuable species — including large predators like snapper, emperor fish, grouper and jacks — thrived alongside whale sharks and forests of coral.

After nearly a decade of protection, the reserve was opened to fishing from 1983 to 1985. In addition to the more conventional fishing gear like gillnets and traps, fishermen used dynamite to stun fish or dropped stone blocks on corals to flush out hidden animals, a practice called “muro-ami” that reduced swaths of the reef to rubble.

The fishing ban was reinstated in 1987 and lifted again in 1992. In 1995, the reserve was permanently closed to all fishers except locals using hook-and-line.

Alcala and Russ noted that the loss of large predatory fish was immediate and rapid as soon as fishing efforts picked up after a ban was lifted. But during protected periods, losses in fish populations were matched by gains, some of them dramatic.

(Article continued in the right side of the page)

Question for this article:

If we can connect up the planet through Internet, can’t we agree to preserve the planet?

(Article continued from the left side of the page)

The density, or the number of fish in a given area, of the sixblotch hind (Cephalopholis sexmaculata), a brilliantly colored member of the grouper family, increased by 200 percent from 1990 to 1991 and by 300 percent from 1994 to 1995. By 2000, the number of blackspot snapper (Lutjanus ehrenbergii) was 820 percent greater than the annual average between 1983 and 1997.

Biomass — which measures the weight of all individuals of one species — recovered more slowly. This is because it takes several years for large predatory fish, which tend to be slow-growing and long-lived, to grow to their full adult size; these fish did not regain their average adult pre-1983 size until 1999.

In 2000, after six years of continuous protection, fish biomass and population increases showed no signs of leveling off. From its low point in 1985, biomass had gone up by nearly 30 percent.

Outside of the reserve, fishermen’s haul increased by almost 30 percent — demonstrating that the “spillover” effect of a marine reserve more than compensated for the fact that fishers were working in a smaller area than before the permanent protections went into effect.

This finding, since replicated on nearby Apo Island, showed that permanent closures of even small areas of a reef could offer big benefits to small-scale fishers.

The island — which now hosts a resort in addition to the reserve — supports a vibrant community of fish and corals. It’s important to note, though, that the reefs aren’t as diverse as they once were due to poorly regulated fishing and tourism in the past. Compared to the 1970s, Alcala explained, “many marine species, especially some unique species of corals, have disappeared.”

Despite that, the legacy of Sumilon’s marine protected area has far outstripped its borders. Other marine sanctuaries in the Philippines, including the renowned Apo Island and Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, have followed suit with no-take zones that sustain local fishing communities and healthy tourist industries.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article)

The historic visit of Barack Obama to Hiroshima marks a new stage in the international mobilization against nuclear weapons

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from the Huffington Post by Eddie Ait, Deputy Secretary General of the Radical Left Party (PRG), Philippe Rio, Mayor of Grigny and President-AFCDRP Mayors for Peace France, and Jacqueline Belhomme, Mayor of Malakoff and vice-President of the International network (translated by CPNN)

The president of the United States, Barack Obama, is at Hiroshima today [May 27] for an historic visit: the first by a US leader almost 71 years after the order of President Truman launched the first two nuclear attacks in history on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (9 August).

Hiroshima

For the International Mayors for Peace network, chaired by the mayors of these two martyr cities, and its French branch AFCDRP, such a visit is a positive sign which may mark a new stage in the international mobilization for achieving the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, as provided in the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Since its creation in 1982, Mayors for Peace has continued to invite world leaders to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over the years, more and more embassies have attended its commemorations. Last April, the arrival in Hiroshima of the Foreign Ministers of the G7, including three representatives of nuclear states -United States, France and United Kingdom- was already a step forward. As senior officials of States, all NPT signatories, they were willing to see with their own eyes the city that was a victim of this inhuman weapon, with indiscriminate effects.

US atomic bombs completely destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They turned the cities into immense mass graves. In Hiroshima, the chamber of commerce building, now the Dome of the atomic bomb, could hardly stand. It now shows the power of the blast. In 1945, over 200,000 people have died, victims of the explosion or radiation in the days and weeks that followed. After such horror, the survivors, the Hibakusha, have never ceased to carry a message of peace that no one should suffer as they have suffered. Their message has been relayed tirelessly by local representatives of more than 7,000 communities in 161 countries who are members of the Mayors for Peace network.

Primarily responsible for the safety of our citizens in case of conflict, we have a keen awareness of the magnitude of the nuclear threat to the world as a whole. We cannot take the risk of Hiroshima or Nagasaki being repeated, because today it would entail a suicidal escalation. For this reason, we must act on two levels: locally, by addressing the roots of conflict, drawing on the resources of the culture of peace as defined by UNESCO, and globally by working together with Hiroshima and Nagasaki to accomplish the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

There are still about 16,000 nuclear weapons on the globe. These weapons threaten the very existence of the human being and his environment. This “total risk” undermines humanity, opening the way to all sorts of deadly excesses that only a culture of peace and reconciliation can solve.

All elected officials in France who are inspired by the symbolic gesture made by the American President in Hiroshima are encouraged to join our network, the French Association of Communities, Departments and REgions for Peace.

(Click here for the original version in French)

Question related to this article:

Text of President Obama’s Speech in Hiroshima, Japan

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Transcript printed by the New York Times

Seventy-one years ago, on a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.

Obama
Video of Obama speech from Bloomberg news

Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner.

Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become.

It is not the fact of war that sets Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very first man. Our early ancestors having learned to make blades from flint and spears from wood used these tools not just for hunting but against their own kind. On every continent, the history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold, compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have been subjugated and liberated. And at each juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless toll, their names forgotten by time.

The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.

In the span of a few years, some 60 million people would die. Men, women, children, no different than us. Shot, beaten, marched, bombed, jailed, starved, gassed to death. There are many sites around the world that chronicle this war, memorials that tell stories of courage and heroism, graves and empty camps that echo of unspeakable depravity.

Yet in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies, we are most starkly reminded of humanity’s core contradiction. How the very spark that marks us as a species, our thoughts, our imagination, our language, our toolmaking, our ability to set ourselves apart from nature and bend it to our will — those very things also give us the capacity for unmatched destruction.

How often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth? How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause.

Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness, and yet no religion has been spared from believers who have claimed their faith as a license to kill.

Nations arise telling a story that binds people together in sacrifice and cooperation, allowing for remarkable feats. But those same stories have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.

Science allows us to communicate across the seas and fly above the clouds, to cure disease and understand the cosmos, but those same discoveries can be turned into ever more efficient killing machines.

The wars of the modern age teach us this truth. Hiroshima teaches this truth. Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.

That is why we come to this place. We stand here in the middle of this city and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell. We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see. We listen to a silent cry. We remember all the innocents killed across the arc of that terrible war and the wars that came before and the wars that would follow.

(Transcript continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Transcript continued from left column)

Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering. But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.

Some day, the voices of the hibakusha will no longer be with us to bear witness. But the memory of the morning of Aug. 6, 1945, must never fade. That memory allows us to fight complacency. It fuels our moral imagination. It allows us to change.

And since that fateful day, we have made choices that give us hope. The United States and Japan have forged not only an alliance but a friendship that has won far more for our people than we could ever claim through war. The nations of Europe built a union that replaced battlefields with bonds of commerce and democracy. Oppressed people and nations won liberation. An international community established institutions and treaties that work to avoid war and aspire to restrict and roll back and ultimately eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons.

Still, every act of aggression between nations, every act of terror and corruption and cruelty and oppression that we see around the world shows our work is never done. We may not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do evil, so nations and the alliances that we form must possess the means to defend ourselves. But among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them.

We may not realize this goal in my lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new nations and secure deadly materials from fanatics.

And yet that is not enough. For we see around the world today how even the crudest rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence on a terrible scale. We must change our mind-set about war itself. To prevent conflict through diplomacy and strive to end conflicts after they’ve begun. To see our growing interdependence as a cause for peaceful cooperation and not violent competition. To define our nations not by our capacity to destroy but by what we build. And perhaps, above all, we must reimagine our connection to one another as members of one human race.

For this, too, is what makes our species unique. We’re not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn. We can choose. We can tell our children a different story, one that describes a common humanity, one that makes war less likely and cruelty less easily accepted.

We see these stories in the hibakusha. The woman who forgave a pilot who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb because she recognized that what she really hated was war itself. The man who sought out families of Americans killed here because he believed their loss was equal to his own.

My own nation’s story began with simple words: All men are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Realizing that ideal has never been easy, even within our own borders, even among our own citizens. But staying true to that story is worth the effort. It is an ideal to be strived for, an ideal that extends across continents and across oceans. The irreducible worth of every person, the insistence that every life is precious, the radical and necessary notion that we are part of a single human family — that is the story that we all must tell.

That is why we come to Hiroshima. So that we might think of people we love. The first smile from our children in the morning. The gentle touch from a spouse over the kitchen table. The comforting embrace of a parent. We can think of those things and know that those same precious moments took place here, 71 years ago.

Those who died, they are like us. Ordinary people understand this, I think. They do not want more war. They would rather that the wonders of science be focused on improving life and not eliminating it. When the choices made by nations, when the choices made by leaders, reflect this simple wisdom, then the lesson of Hiroshima is done.

The world was forever changed here, but today the children of this city will go through their day in peace. What a precious thing that is. It is worth protecting, and then extending to every child. That is a future we can choose, a future in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare but as the start of our own moral awakening.

Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi Pushes for Peace With Ethnic Rebels

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

Roshni Kapur in The Diplomat

Democratic icon and National League for Democracy (NLD) leader Aung San Suu Kyi has reached out to some of the oldest ethnic rebel groups in Myanmar. Her goal is clear: she wants to push for a wide-ranging peace accord with all insurgent groups, including those that refused to participate with the previous government.

Myanmar
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons/ Claude TRUONG-NGOC

Friction between minority groups and the government have been ongoing for decades. Myanmar is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse countries in Asia. While the majority of the population is the Burman (Bamar) ethnic group making up an estimated 68 percent of the population, the remaining 32 of the population comprises a number of different groups, including the Shan (9 percent), Kayin (7 percent), Rakhine (3.5 percent), Chinese (2.5 percent), Mon (2 percent), Kachin (1.5 percent), Indians (1.25 percent), and Kayah (0.75 percent).

The tensions and antagonism are attributed to this heterogeneous composition. Myanmar’s ethnic groups are divided in terms of religion, language, and ideology, as well as being separated geographically. The British rulers tried to unite the variant ethnic groups before officially pulling out in 1947. Suu Kyi’s father, General Aung San, was a respected military leader who worked to unite various groups across the country for a democratic reform.

However, the Communist Party of Burma led firefights against some ethnic groups to maintain territorial control and a monopoly of power. As a result, many ethnic groups picked up arms to safeguard their states from majority rule. These ethnic rebel groups are located in remote parts of the country that do not receive sufficient international attention and are often simply labeled as “rebel armies” without any understanding the nuances of the situation.

Almost all ethnic groups have their own armies, which they have been using to protect their people and push for fundamental rights within their territory. The Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA), one of the oldest rebel groups in the world, have demanded autonomy and ethnic rights for the Karen people since 1949. In 1961, the Kachin rebels formed the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), the military wing of the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO).

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article

Is there progress towards democracy and respect for human rights in Myanmar?

(continued from left column)

Many rebel groups have complained about the unrestrained force used by the state army. Around 3,700 villages have been destroyed in eastern Myanmar in the past 15 years.

Each tribe wants to protect its individual languages, customs, roots, and natural resources. Some ethnic groups have historical ties to China. The Kokang, who are ethnic Han, speak Mandarin and their militia leader, Phone Kyar Shin, lived in China for years. The United Wa State Army, which controls one of the largest holdout territories in Myanmar, reportedly has Chinese backing too. They use the Chinese currency and have named Mandarin an official language.

The previous government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Thein Sein, pushed for a ceasefire with some holdout militias in October 2015, but only eight of the 15 militant groups turned up to sign the proposal. The armed wings of the Kachin, Wa, and Shan refused to cooperate until all ethnic rebel groups agreed to be a part of the government’s initiative.

However, the NLD’s accession into power marks signs of optimism for the country. People are hopeful that a permanent peace accord is possible, since many ethnic groups have welcomed the newly elected government and are willing to join renewed peace talks. Suu Kyi’s vision of a peaceful reconciliation is similar to her late father’s. She wants to bring all ethnic groups together for a nonviolent means of reconciliation that will pave way for a democratic society. The Kachin and Karen rebels may trust Suu Kyi and the NLD’s vision of a peaceful reconciliation more the military junta and its political arm, National Unity Party (NUP).

“We are eager to start peace talks,” La Nan, a spokesman of the Kachin Independent Army, was quoted as saying in an online article by Thailand’s Nation Multimedia.

Other insurgent groups such as the United Wa State Army and the Shan State Army (SSA) have also welcomed the NLD’s triumphant victory and sent positive signals. Suu Kyi may take additional steps to reassure ethnic minorities that their vested interests will be represented in the NLD-led government for an inclusive and participative democracy.

On remote Philippine island, female forest rangers are a force to be reckoned with

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

A blog by Molly Bergen, Conservation International

In honor of International Women’s Day (March 8), Human Nature is spotlighting “conservation heroines” around the globe. In this piece, we meet Nolsita Siyang, an indigenous farmer and mother of 10 who also finds time to patrol her community’s ancestral home as a forest ranger.

rangers
Nolsita Siyang, a forest ranger who regularly patrols the protected area surrounding her village on the island of Palawan, Philippines. (© Conservation International/photo by Tim Noviello)

Nolsita Siyang has not had an easy life. A member of the Palawan indigenous group on the southern end of the Philippine island of the same name, she has spent most of her nearly five decades farming a small plot of land on the slopes of the Mount Mantalingahan mountain range.

Siyang lives in Raang, a mist-shrouded, thatch-roofed village accessible only by a winding footpath that becomes a river of mud during the rainy season.

About 10 years ago, her husband, Federico, had a stroke, leaving him mostly incapacitated. Now the family relies primarily on the income she brings in. Each week, Siyang — usually accompanied by several of her 10 children — trudges several kilometers down the footpath from her village to the market in the lowlands, carrying surplus corn, peanuts and other wares on her back in hopes of making a sale.

Between caring for her land, making trips to the market and looking after her family, Siyang doesn’t have a lot of spare time, yet she chooses to spend it volunteering as a forest ranger, patrolling the protected area surrounding her village.

(Article continued in right column)

Questions for this article

Indigenous peoples, Are they the true guardians of nature?

(Article continued from left column)

Why does she do this? Siyang’s community is linked to the land by tradition, spirituality and survival. If the land isn’t protected, life as she knows it will cease to exist. Together with her only daughter, she is proving that women play a vital role in securing their community’s future.

The Palawan people are believed to be the descendants of the first settlers of the island, who may have arrived more than 50,000 years ago. Even today, the island’s sparse, pot-holed roads and lush greenery feel far removed from the air-conditioned shopping malls and urban sprawl that characterizes much of modern Philippines.

Most of the 12,000 or so people who identify as Palawan live in small villages around Mount Mantalingahan, the highest peak on the island and considered sacred by locals. In Siyang’s words: “The forest is our home, and has a direct connection to our daily lives.”

Palawan people observe a traditional boundary system called bertas, which identifies sacred sites based on myths passed down by their ancestors. These areas are left undisturbed based on the belief that the nature they contain has unseen guardians. These parcels of forest are interspersed with areas where indigenous people regularly hunt, grow crops and gather forest products, from wild vegetables to medicinal plants to reeds used for weaving intricate Palawan baskets.

Recognizing the need to conserve this vital place, Palawan communities were instrumental in establishing the Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape (MMPL) around their villages in 2009. The park covers more than 120,000 hectares (almost 300,000 acres), and is jointly managed by a protected area management board composed of representatives from local and national government, NGOs (including Conservation International), religious groups and the indigenous community.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article)

Fishing ban in remote Pacific waters is working, report finds

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

A blog by Bruno Vander Velde, Conservation International

A ban on commercial fishing in one of the world’s most significant hotspots of marine biodiversity appears to be working, according to a new report. The proof is in the pictures — in this case, satellite images compiled by Global Fishing Watch, a web-based platform developed by the marine conservation organization Oceana, in partnership with Google and SkyTruth.

Fishing
A lively reef in the Phoenix Islands Protected Area, set aside as a marine protected area by the island nation of Kiribati in 2006. Commercial fishing was banned there in 2015. (© Keith A. Ellenbogen)

The hotspot in question, the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA) — a Montana-sized swath of ocean set aside as a marine protected area by the island nation of Kiribati in 2006 — was declared off-limits to all commercial fishing in 2015. According to the report, Global Fishing Watch revealed a stark reduction in the number of fishing vessels detected there after the policy was enacted.

Monitoring and enforcing a ban on fishing in such a vast and remote area of ocean was all but impossible without recent advances in satellite technology and ship tracking. The new report shows the promise of this technology as a crucial piece of the puzzle for protecting oceans, proponents say.

“When sound policy, effective monitoring and reliable enforcement work together, we can truly protect important ocean ecosystems,” Jacqueline Savitz of Oceana said in a statement released Thursday. “With a fishing ban in place in PIPA, commercial fishing vessels seem to have gone elsewhere, giving tuna and other important fish stocks a chance to recover and seed other fishing grounds.”

(Article continued in the right side of the page)

Question for this article:

If we can connect up the planet through Internet, can’t we agree to preserve the planet?

(Article continued from the left side of the page)

Applying the same formula of policy, monitoring and enforcement in other marine protected areas, she said, might help to protect other marine ecosystems from illegal fishing of the kind chronicled recently in a recent New York Times report on poachers in the Pacific.

Located within the Republic of Kiribati in the heart of the Pacific Ocean, the Phoenix Islands are one of Earth’s last intact oceanic coral archipelago ecosystems, boasting more than 120 species of coral and 514 species of reef fish. The ecosystem has remained intact in large part due to its relative isolation, but the growing reach and sophistication of commercial fishing had begun to put increasing pressure on one of its most prized resources: the tuna that spawn in the region. The west central Pacific, which includes PIPA, is home to the largest tuna fishery on the planet.

This tuna is crucial both to Kiribati’s economy and to its own food security, and for years, groups including Conservation International have been working with Kiribati to better manage and protect its territorial waters, an area the size of India. Revenue from commercial fishing and licensing in other parts of Kiribati’s waters amount to almost half its national income; however, due to its large span and limited monitoring capacity, Kiribati loses untold millions of dollars of income per year from illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in its surrounding ocean waters.

Experts are hopeful that the tide may be turning.

“It is beautiful when a plan comes together the way PIPA has, and the data [that] Global Fishing Watch has provided us is a sign that large-scale ocean management can work,” said oceans expert Greg Stone, an executive vice president at Conservation International (CI) and an adviser to the government of Kiribati. “The government of Kiribati, the New England Aquarium and CI have been working for the better part of two decades to get PIPA to this point, and though we are seeing validation of success, we know PIPA’s story is just beginning and we need to remain vigilant.”

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article)

David v Goliath: Marshall Islands take on nuclear powers at UN court

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from RT.com

The Marshall Islands launch a legal campaign against the UK, India and Pakistan this week [March 6] in a David versus Goliath battle to achieve the goal of a “nuclear free universe”. The islands accuse the nuclear states of failing to halt the nuclear arms race, and are urging the UN’s highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to pursue a lawsuit against all three.

marshall-islands
Video: Tony de Brum Explains Marshall Islands Lawsuits

The Pacific Ocean territory, used as a US nuclear testing site for 12 years, filed applications with the ICJ in April 2014 accusing the world’s nine nuclear-armed states of not respecting their nuclear disarmament obligations under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law.

The nine nations possessing nuclear arsenals are the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel – though Israel is the only one which never acknowledged holding nuclear weapons.

The court admitted the cases brought against the UK, India and Pakistan because the three states have already recognised the ICJ’s authority.

The islands’ former Minister of Foreign Affairs Tony de Brum said they commenced “this lawsuit with the greatest respect and the greatest admiration for the big countries of the world, but we think it must be done”.

Hearings will take place in The Hague Monday to examine whether the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is competent to hear the lawsuits against India and Pakistan. Another hearing will take place on Wednesday to examine “preliminary objections” raised by London in the case against Britain, according to AFP.

(Article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Can we abolish all nuclear weapons?

(Article continued from left column)

De Brum has said the people of the Marshalls suffer quietly but they take this suit in “the cause of a nuclear free universe”.

“We are fighting for what we believe is the only solution in terms of peace and prosperity in the world.”

Olivier Ribbelink, senior researcher at the TMC Asser Institute in The Hague says “the case is in a very preliminary stage at this point”, but added: “Either way the outcome, the case has certainly sharply refocused attention on the dangers of nuclear proliferation.”

De Brum and the Marshall Islands legal team have been nominated for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize.

De Brum was nine years old when the Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb was dropped by the US on Bikini Atoll on March 1, 1954 during the Cold War nuclear arms race.

The 15-megatonne bomb was the largest US nuclear test on record at 1000-times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

The resulting characteristic mushroom cloud reached a diameter of 7km (4.5 miles) and a height of almost 40,000 meters (130,000ft) within six minutes of detonation.

The US carried out 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958.

Bikini Islanders lived in exile since they were moved for the first US weapons test, though some returned in the early 1970s after government scientists declared Bikini safe for resettlement.

However, residents were removed again in 1978 after ingesting high levels of radiation from eating local foods grown on the former nuclear testing site.

The Marshall Islands is appealing to the US Supreme Court after its case against the country was dismissed by a US federal court last year.

ASEAN urged to formulate policies on women, children in conflict situations

. DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION .

An article from InterAksyon

ASEAN should formulate policies on women and children in conflict and post-conflict situations, said participants to the ASEAN institute for Peace and Reconciliation (AIPR) symposium on the topic. Policies should include action plans on women in relation to peace and security in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1325, said participants to last week’s symposium in Tagaytay organized by Philippine Permanent Mission to ASEAN Ambassador Elizabeth Buensuceso.

ASEAN

In her message to the participants, Social Welfare and Development Secretary Corazon “Dinky” Soliman emphasized the need to work together to formulate a responsive framework for peace to be eventually supported by policies and programs to which every ASEAN Member State will adhere.

“Women and children are the most vulnerable and most affected when fighting erupts. But they must not be viewed as the weak sectors, because they are not. Children and women are the potential strongest tools of nations in peace-building, peace-making and peace-keeping,” Soliman said.

Ambassador Buensuceso, for her part, echoed Soliman’s call, suggesting that the main recommendations of the conference be forwarded to the various ASEAN mechanisms and fora for possible inclusion in their work programs and plans of action.

Participants also urged ASEAN to support the development of preventive measures to conflict, such as the advancement of a culture of peace and the promotion of moderation in the region. They said that this can be implemented through activities and initiatives in education, culture, human rights, and political-security, among others, under the various ASEAN-led mechanisms.

The two-day symposium discussed the following: surfacing the plight of women and children in conflict situations; the abuses women and children are exposed to, such as sexual violence, threats to their lives, identity and property, and others; women and children as active participants in conflict resolution and the peace process; and programs and mechanisms to ensure protection and promotion of the rights and welfare of women and children are protected during armed conflict and/or in post-conflict situations.

Speakers included Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs Evan P. Garcia, AIPR Governing Council Chair and Malaysia’s Ambassador to ASEAN Hasnudin Hamzah, Ambassador Buensuceso, Ambassador of Norway to ASEAN Stig Ingemar Traavik, Switzerland Ambassador to ASEAN Yvonne Baumann, Dr. Kuntoro Mangkusubroto of Indonesia, and UN Women (Myanmar) Head Dr. Jean D’ Cunha.

Other speakers from Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand and the Philippines presented actual experiences and case studies.

ASEAN Deputy Secretary-General for Socio-Culutural Community Vongthep Arthakaivalvatee also attended the symposium.

Representatives from all ASEAN Member States, including members of the AIPR Governing Council, the ASEAN Inter-governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), and the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC), participated in the symposium.

The AIPR was established to serve as the ASEAN institution for activities and research projects on peace, conflict management, and conflict resolution. The AIPR Governing Council oversees the overall functions and policy direction of the AIPR. It consists of senior representatives from all 10 ASEAN Member States, the Secretary General of ASEAN, and an Executive Director to be appointed by the members.

Questions for this article:

Regional organizations: do they promote a culture of peace?

Peace in Wellington, New Zealand

.. DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION ..

by Celia Wade-Brown, Mayor of Wellington, in Wellington Peace Newsletter

When Wellington became a Nuclear Free capital in 1982, I was protesting against nuclear missiles at Greenham Common in the UK. Given my interest in ending nuclear warfare, it’s a real pleasure to write this first annual newsletter as Wellington’s Mayor for Peace

Wellington

Wellington City has been a member of Mayors for Peace since 1988. Mayors for Peace started in Japan, there are now 6,940 cities in 161 countries around the world who are part of Mayors for Peace. The Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign pushes for a nuclear-weapon-free world by the year 2020.

The Mayor of Hiroshima, Matsui Kazumi, invited me to become an Executive Leader of Mayors for Peace. The other thirty New Zealand Mayors for Peace supported me taking up this coordinating role. This newsletter is one outcome.

Wellington City Council endorsed the invitation and recognised that, internationally, Mayors for Peace “strive to raise international public awareness regarding the need to abolish nuclear weapons and contribute to the realisation of genuine and lasting world peace.”

This year’s Wellington Women’s Walk for Peace theme was, “Peace is everyone’s responsibility.” It was an opportunity for women of all ethnicities and beliefs to send a message to the rest of the world that we care about peace.

Peace is something that everyone here has a part in creating. It is noisy, protest-filled and democratic. It is full of debate and differing opinions. From this active view of peace, we can build collective wisdom, common action and collaboration against nuclear weapons. There are many excellent organisations and individuals acting in the interests of peace in New Zealand. Coordinating communication, events and conferences has been busy in 2015.

I also called on cities around the world to join with me in sending a simple post of a “wave goodbye to nuclear weapons” on social media on 27 April 2015 as part of Global Wave 2015.

Our pledge, as Mayors for Peace, is to engage our constituencies and cooperate in eliminating nuclear weapons. The Council focuses on supporting a number of peace events, especially International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Hiroshima Day, International Peace Day and Gandhi’s birthday, the International Day of Non-Violence.

There is a strong link between peace and resilience and I’m delighted Wellington was chosen to be part of the Rockefeller 100 Resilient Cities. Resilience is about social cohesion, neighbourhood connections and access to resources as well as physical infrastructure and long-term planning.

The Climate Change talks in Paris also highlight how, like nuclear weapons, emissions and effects are not confined by national boundaries.

Resilience, nuclear abolition and greenhouse gas emission reductions are three issues, among many, where cities can take a lead, whatever their country’s national policies. Citizens and Mayors can consider wisely, commit positively to the community’s future and act locally with a global perspective. Enjoy the following snippets about 2015 events here and abroad and I look forward to working with you in 2016!

Questions for this article:

2015 MacBride Prize to Lampedusa (Italy) and Gangjeon Village, Jeju Island (S. Korea)

TOLERANCE AND SOLIDARITY .

A press release by The International Peace Bureau

The International Peace Bureau is delighted to announce its decision to award the annual Sean MacBride Peace Prize to two island communities who, in different circumstances, show proof of a profound commitment to peace and social justice.

ipb prize

LAMPEDUSA is a small island in the Mediterranean and is the southernmost part of Italy. Being the closest part of the territory to the African coastline, it has been since the early 2000s a primary European entry point for migrants and refugees. The numbers of persons arriving has been rapidly increasing, with hundreds of thousands at risk while travelling, and over 1900 deaths in 2015 alone.

The people of the island of Lampedusa have given the world an extraordinary example of human solidarity, offering clothing, shelter and food to those who have arrived, in distress, on their shores. The response of the Lampedusans stands out in stark contrast to the behaviour and official policies of the European Union, apparently intent only on reinforcing their borders in the attempt to keep these migrants out. This ‘Fortress Europe’ policy is becoming more and more militarised.

Aware of its multi‐layered culture, which epitomizes the evolution of the Mediterranean region where over the centuries different civilizations have blended and built on each others’ developments, with mutual enrichment, the island of Lampedusa also shows the world that a culture of hospitality and respect for human dignity are the most effective antidotes to nationalism and religious fundamentalism.

To give but one example of the heroic actions of the people of Lampedusa, let us recall the events of the night of 7‐8 May 2011. A boat full of migrants crashed into a rocky outcrop, not far from the shore. Although it was in the middle of the night, the inhabitants of Lampedusa turned out in their hundreds to form a human chain between the shipwreck and the coast. That night alone more than 500 people, including many children, were carried to safety.

At the same time the people of the island are very clear that the problem is a European one, not theirs alone. In November 2012, Mayor Nicolini sent an urgent appeal to Europe’s leaders. She expressed her outrage that the European Union, which had just received the Nobel Peace Prize, was ignoring the tragedies occurring on its Mediterranean borders.

The IPB believes that the dramatic situation in the Mediterranean – constantly visible in the mass media ‐ must be at the top of Europe’s urgent priorities. Much of the problem springs from social injustices and inequalities resulting in conflicts in which the West has – over centuries ‐‐ played an aggressive role. We recognise that there are no easy solutions, but as a guiding principle, Europe should be honouring the ideals of human solidarity, over and above the cynical considerations of governments and profit/power/resource‐seeking entities. When Europe contributes to the ruining of the livelihoods of people, as for instance in Iraq and Libya, Europe will have to find ways to help rebuild those livelihoods. It should be below the dignity of Europe to spend billions on military interventions, and yet not to have the resources available to meet the basic needs. The most vital question is how to develop cooperation between people of goodwill on both sides of the Mediterranean in a long‐term, constructive, gender‐sensitive and sustainable process.

(article continued on the right side of the page)

Question for this article

The refugee crisis, Who is responsible?

Readers’ comments are invited on this question and article. See below for comments box.

(article continued from the left side of the page)

GANGJEON VILLAGE is the site of the controversial 50‐hectare Jeju Naval Base being constructed by the South Korean government on the southern coast of Jeju Island, at a projected cost of nearly $1 billion. The waters around the island are protected by international law as they are within a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (in October 2010, nine geological sites on on the island were recognised as Global Geoparks by the UNESCO Global Geoparks Network). Even so, the construction of the base continues, although building work has been halted many times by mass protests of people concerned about the base’s environmental impact. These people see the base as a US‐driven project aimed at containing China, rather than enhancing South Korean security In July 2012, the South Korean Supreme Court upheld the base’s construction. It is expected to host up to 24 US and allied military vessels, including 2 Aegis destroyers and 6 nuclear submarines, plus occasional civilian cruise ships on completion (now scheduled for 2016).

Jeju Island has been dedicated to peace ever since around 30,000 were massacred there from 1948‐54, following a peasant uprising against US occupation. The South Korean government apologized for the massacre in 2006 and the late President Roh Moo Hyun officially named Jeju an “Island of World Peace”. This violent history helps to explain why the people of Gangjeon Village (population 2000) have been protesting non‐violently for around 8 years against the naval base project. According to Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, “About 700 people have been arrested and charged with hefty fines that amount to over $400,000, fines that they cannot or will not pay. Many have spent days or weeks or months in jail, including a well‐known film critic Yoon Mo Yong who spent 550 days in prison after committing multiple acts of civil disobedience.” The energy and commitment shown by the villagers has attracted the support (and participation) of activists from around the world. We endorse the construction of a permanent Peace Center on the site which can act as a focus for activities reflecting alternative views to those represented by the militarists.

IPB makes the award in order to increase the visibility of this exemplary non‐violent
struggle at a crucial time. It takes great courage to physically oppose the government’s growing aggressive and militaristic policies, especially as they are backed by, and at the service of, the Pentagon. It takes even more courage to maintain that struggle over a period of many years.

CONCLUSION
There is an important connection between the two situations. Not only do we recognise the common humanity of those who resist without weapons the forces of domination in their own island. We make the argument that public resources should not be spent on massive military installations that only increase the tension between nations in the region; rather they should be devoted to meeting human need. If we continue devoting the world’s resources to military rather than humanistic purposes, it is inevitable that we will continue to witness these inhuman situations with desperate people, refugees and migrants, at risk while crossing the seas and at the prey of unscrupulous gangs. Thus we repeat also in this context the basic message of IPB’s Global Campaign on Military Spending: Move the Money!