Chicken, baldness and Coca-Cola (1)

While the ‘Western’ media were dusting off their camera lenses, Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, presented in Cochabamba the blueprints of the peoples’ answer to the failure of Copenhagen. From April 20th till April 22nd, over 35,000 people from 142 countries exchanged ideas and experiences on how to combat climate change and save our planet. This event came to a close on the International Day of Mother Earth, with traditional dances, festivities and speeches from Evo Morales, Hugo Chávez and other high dignitaries from socialist Latin America. The centre-piece of the closing event, however, was the Peoples’ Agreement, laying the foundations of a more unified reform movement, trying to save humanity and Mother Earth from destruction.

Rather than presenting in brief the Agreement’s findings, I’ll leave the reading of it to yourself and stick to some critical reflections of this event. This is not to do away with the idea behind the gathering of peoples from all over the world - we do need a reaction to the international community’s long lasting failure to find more sustainable ways of living on this planet. The Cochabamba experience taught me, however, that there is still a long road to go before we reach realistic and feasible alternatives.

For starters, it was quite contradictory, to say the least, that this conference was convened at the initiative of a state representative, while the whole purpose of it was to give a voice to the peoples - a voice so profoundly ignored at Copenhagen. However benign his intentions may have been, it was very easy for Morales to ‘abuse’ this forum for his own political convenience and to further build on his socialist political programme [read: orchestrated by Castro and Chávez]. Not surprisingly were the peoples granted only one hour of centre stage attention at the closing ceremony to present their agreement, whereas socialist leaders from all over South America were playing the audience for over three hours with their propaganda filled rhetoric, vaguely reminiscent of the conference’s topics.

The black sheep was, quite predictably, capitalist imperialism and its voracious extraction and contamination of natural resources, disrespectful of the ecologic, cultural or spiritual value that the peoples attach to their environment. It is just too simple, though, to blame it all on a ‘system’. At the end of the day, it’s us, people in real life, politicians and Joe the plumber alike, who act (or tolerate actions) - the consequences of which are becoming ever more visible now, all over the world, especially with the most vulnerable.

Of course, there’s plenty of things wrong with capitalist society, but we shouldn’t forget that a lot of things we take for granted in our lives, we do so thanks to the fruit of capitalist labour. Just think of the many drugs that help us deal with previously deadly diseases (such as cholera or leprosy); the gamut of communication tools at the disposal of even distant communities to obtain loans, call doctors or help them develop economically in another way; the roads, schools and hospitals that are being built by multinational enterprises in the areas where they operate - even though this should be the government’s role.

One of capitalism’s flaws is the commodification of natural resources. Whereas a few decades back most people had water, land, medicinal plants and the like freely and readily at their disposal, these commodities turned into goods now come at a cost. Every voice that goes against this kind of market dynamics is being marginalised or done away with, ignoring more sustainable visions. That is why this conference was so important, lest we forget that these other visions exist, that there are other ways of dealing with natural resources, more in line with the Agreement’s ‘Buen Vivir’. Not sharing these visions does not give developed states the right to prevent peoples to live in more harmony with their environment. [It is quite disappointing, in this respect, to read that the Agreement still talks of ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ states - a terminology which presupposes that the development model of these so-called developed states is the most sustainable model, and hence to be followed; quod non.]

On the other hand, we should not lose our realism. One cannot undo globalisation. Plastic found its way all over the world and far away communities are welcoming visitors with a Coca-Cola sponsored sign. Denying this would actually do more harm than good. If governments don’t have efficient waste policies in place, then all this waste - extracted in Congo, made in China, shipped by Greeks, publicised by Americans, traded by Chileans and bought by Bolivians - will become part of our new environment. It was rather appalling to see that you couldn’t look not even 5 seconds (!) outside a bus window in the middle of a deserted highland without spotting plastic wraps, bottles or other waste, simply thrown out by thousands of travelers through their windows. Not a single working group at the conference, not a single word in the Agreement that raises this issue.

It is exactly this kind of realism that is missing in two of the more striking conclusions of the Peoples’ Agreement. It is not hard to understand that the conference’s participants demand justice for all the environmental damage that is being done to them by the polluting ‘North’ (or ‘West’, so you prefer). The question is, however, whether an International Climate and Environmental Tribunal is the right answer to these peoples’ plights. A look at the current proceedings of the International Criminal Court seems to suggest the contrary. However nobel its statutes, the Court’s young life has taught us that it is very difficult, expensive, time and labour consuming to present cases. It is mostly the big fish that end up in front of the Court - the smaller ones sleek through the net as they aren’t worth all the effort and expense. Yet the actions of these smaller culprits are the ones people feel and see the most, and for which they seek justice. An Environmental Tribunal, similar to the Court but also allowing states and companies to be brought to trial, would no doubt face the same problems and frustrations, thereby not generating the hoped for rebuttal of environmental injustice.

Another interesting proposal is the World Referendum, allowing all peoples of the world to express their opinion with regards to the above mentioned Environmental Tribunal; the role of the current capitalist model in our world (I wonder how they will put this one into a yes/no question); the level of emission reductions by which developed countries should abide; the necessity of an international treaty establishing Mother Earth’s Rights; and so forth. Not only will this Referendum pose tremendous logistical challenges, there are other practical obstacles that still have to be solved - such as establishing the quorum that will give this Referendum legitimacy, or the fact that holding a referendum presupposes democratic structures. Let us not forget that one in five people on this planet live in a not so democratic country, apart from the many other regimes on earth that rule without bothering about their population’s opinion.

In their enthusiasm for this particular Referendum, participants seem to have ignored the fact that not the whole world was present at this conference - possibly making it a lot harder to get the worldwide support necessary to legitimise the Referendum’s demands. Although more than 142 countries were represented in Cochabamba, over 70% of these participants came from Bolivia alone. Add to these the bunch of Latin Americans for whom it was relatively easy and cheap to come over for this three day event, and you notice that, in fact, the four other continents - and their voices - were fairly underrepresented. If this movement is really to succeed, it should aim for more legitimacy and reach by gathering similar voices from across the globe, before claiming global representation.

To conclude, the road ahead of us, to a more sustainable society on a global level, is still long and winding. There is a good reason why Greek philosophers stated that a synthesis is the result of a thesis and an antithesis. Kyoto/Copenhagen was the thesis, Cochambamba the antithesis. Let us now try to combine the best of both worlds, from traditional peoples’ cultures and capitalist society, and mix it into a solution, without marginalising dissenting voices or consolidating structural injustice. But, most importantly, let us not wait for the synthesis to happen for us to contribute our fair share in the battle against climate change.

Cochabamba closing ceremony (c) Tom Van den Steen