Filed under: ethical consumerism, politics | Tags: arms-trade, clarion, dsei, the-baby-show, uk, unicef
UNICEF have pulled out of The Baby Show after links were exposed between the shows organisers and the arms trade. The Baby Show is owned by Clarion Events, who recently extended their portfolio to include several defence exhibitions, including Defence Systems Equipment International – the world’s largest arms fair.
UNICEF were due to receive donations from The Baby Show as part of a one ticket/one vaccination promotion this week. On hearing news of the links between Clarion Events and DSEi, Kate Morrison, a UNICEF spokesperson stated, “We have taken the matter very seriously and can confirm we will not be accepting any donation from Clarion Events.” Furthermore, Pampers who are running the vaccination campaign with UNICEF, have agreed to donate the additional money expected to be raised from ticket sales to the vaccination campaign.
The Baby Show runs at Earls Court between 17 and 19 October and is advertised as, “a great day out with the chance to try and buy all the essentials you need to give to give your baby the best start in life.” The arms trade has been described by Oxfam as “out of control” and state that “as well as prolonging and intensifying conflicts, the poorly regulated arms trade causes huge levels of waste, corruption and debt.”
Since hearing the news regarding UNICEF’s decision, many exhibitors and sponsors have pulled out of the event or expressed concerns about the integrity of ongoing relations with Clarion. Bounty, the “UK’s favourite parenting company” and one of the major sponsors, have withdrawn from the exhibition. Other exhibitors have given statements and are “appalled” and “shocked” by the news.
Vitabiotics, makers of Pregnacare and vitamin supplements, described the link between Clarion Events, The Baby Show and DSEi as “incompatible”. They said that it “will certainly make a difference as to whether we continue to exhibit at future show whilst the DSEi link is maintained.”
Charities have been particularly concerned about the news. Westminster Children’s Society stated, “by no means consider our involvement with this particular event an endorsement in any way of the company behind it, let alone their involvement – direct or otherwise – in such an abhorrent ‘industry’.”
This is not the first time DSEi has come in for criticism. The previous owners of the arms fair, Reed Elsevier, were forced to sell the exhibition after concerns from leading academics and writers from their publishing interests. Their Chief Executive, Sir Crispin Davis declared that the business was no longer “compatible” with their other business concerns.
The Good Agency, a PR company representing The Baby Show refused to make any comment about the links. However, other charities they represent, including Action Aid, have been assured that Good have resigned from the contract with The Baby Show.
A spokesperson for DISARM DSEi, an umbrella organisation who campaign against the arms fair said: “This is fantastic news. DSEi is a marketplace for dealers profiting in death and destruction and this is clearly not compatible with The Baby Show. These companies must, and will, be held accountable for their actions.”
Despite several opportunities to comment on the situation, Clarion Events have refused to make any statement.
Filed under: democracy, environment, politics | Tags: economics, environment, politics
Again George Monbiot manages to offer some interesting comment on what is happening to our economic situation…Having watched Garbage Warrior last night I have come to the conclusion that change is only possible in times of great uncertainty and so can only view this time as positive.
It is unrealistic to think that economic growth could continue in this unsustainable fashion, and so now we have a moment to re-evaluate our relationship with money and wealth. If economics was going to help us then why are there still 1billion people in the world living on less than a dollar a day?
Why have we disconnected so far from the earth that we want to buy everything with a plastic wrapping, and children are growing up not understanding where fruit and vegetables come from…?
Read George’s article…it’s food for thought…
Filed under: environment, ethical, politics | Tags: lang-rights, ngorongoro, safari, tanzania
This is an article written by Navaya ole Ndaskoi on October 08, 2008. I am very interested in this story as it seems to highlight a problem of land rights and environmental concerns.
President Kikwete, Thomson Safaris, Rice and our dilemma…
I read with interest the rejoinder by Terri Rice published in Arusha Times of August 9, 2008 (1). From the outset, I must thank Terri for bring it up because I was just waiting. Terri writes, perhaps with pride, that she was a wife of the late Hugo van Lawick. Nobody begrudge her steep rice to the wife of a Baron, she deserve it even. But for the life of her, she should stop creating the impression that she is a dispassionate spokeswoman of Thomson Safaris. She is not! It is time she declared her interest.
Terri wrote that in ‘June 2006 Rick Thomson and his partner Judi Wineland bought, in a transparent bidding process, 12,000 acres at Sukenya in Loliondo.’ Was the land bought? Was it leased? How much, if not at a throwaway price? What is the exactly size of the land in question? Is it 12,000 acres only? Are they not 12,600 acres?
I asked some of these questions in a press conference called by the Arusha Region Peace and Security Committee and was told Thomson Safaris can answer. Implicitly, even the Ngorongoro District Commissioner who told me so did not know the details; so much then about the transparent bidding as well as ‘active support’ of the DC.
I was surprised to read that the Thomsons ‘bought’ the land ‘in order to provide the community with resources they need.’ Which resources is Terri talking about? To the best of my comprehension of the conflict, the Maasai want nothing but their land!
She also talks of ‘the long list of schools and local communities which have benefited from Thomson Safaris’ largesse.’ Assuming Thomson Safaris build schools, pay salaries of teachers, buy school uniforms and so on, what will the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania be doing? Will the said ‘investors’ also feed hungry pupils whose family land, the source of food and life, was allocated to Tanzania Breweries Limited which in turn ’sold’ it to the so-called ‘investor,’ Thomson Safaris? By the way, there is only one school, which is still under construction and like many other schools in Tanzania is in a pitiable state of affairs, in the gigantic Sukenya sub-Village of the Ngorongoro District. Thomson Safaris did not build that school.
Now let me hit on some sensitive issues you did not read in the article under fire: an unanswered deaths and injuries of people in connection to the disputed land.
On April 18, 2008 Lesingo ole Nanyoi was shot in the jaws (2). Both the Government and Thomson Safaris denied strenuously being responsible for his shooting. To this day, and to the irritation of many, the mad sharp shooter remains unknown (3).
Trent Keegan, a New Zealand-born photo-journalist living in Ireland, flew into Tanzania to investigate the conflict between Thomson Safaris and villagers of Soit Sambu. On May 28, 2008 Trent was assassinate in Nairobi, Kenya (4).
Trent emailed his friend, Tim Gallagher, on May 16, 2008 telling him ‘he was writing a story about a tribe that was being kicked off its land to make way for a safari park.’ (5) Before his death, Trent Keegan was in Loliondo. He was to travel to Dar es Salaam to interview ole Nanyoi who was by then still fighting for his dear life in Muhimbili National Referral Hospital where he was admitted for over two long months.
Before the shooting of Lesingo ole Nanyoi and the brutal killing of Trent Keegan, Shangai ole Putaa, a Maasai traditional leader, died in the hands of the cruel Loliondo police. The Government claimed that Putaa was shot while attempting to escape. Basilio Matei is the Arusha Regional Police Commander. He is the unyielding spokesman of the force. He asserted: ‘The police officers said Putaa was understood to know where the guns were hidden and that, when they asked him to show them the spot in question, he tried to run away and that was when they shot him.’
‘The police should find a better excuse, Putaa was the most respected person in the whole Maasai community, being a spiritual advisor and was always with the council of elders in the community,’ said James Leimbikas the Soitsambu Village Chairman. (6)
The pained family of Putaa and other informed sources claim that the old man was tortured and beaten to death by the police. They add that available evidence indicates that the body of Putaa was shot after he died. They assert that Putaa was presiding over a Maasai ritual ceremony on November 6 when two police Land Rovers pulled up with full force and the officers in the vehicles asked to see the old man. The deceased’s brother, Loserian Minis, said the police officers then ordered Putaa to accompany them on an emergency operation. He said, ‘The police explained that they would bring him back soon after and he asked them to allow me to go with him. But somewhere in the middle of the forest they ordered both of us out of the vehicle, told the Putaa to lie down on a rock and hit him with sticks, clubs and butts of guns.’ (7) Minis said that the police asked for his sword but, ‘fearing the worst, I refused and ran back to the village to seek help’. By the time he returned to the location accompanied by elders all they found was a blood-soaked club. It was not until the next day that Putaa’s body was identified at Wasso Hospital by a local resident who sported it.It must be remembered that in March 2007 President Jakaya Kikwete of the United Republic of Tanzania toured the Ngorongoro District. It is said that the late Putaa, on behalf of his fellow villagers of Soit Sambu, made a brief presentation to the President, in a closed party meeting, telling Kikwete, in graphic terms, that he as the President should give the stolen land back to its rightful owners. Seven months later, on November 7, 2007 to be exact, Putaa was murdered by the police.
A letter from the villagers of Soit Sambu to the Ngorongoro Member of Parliament reads in part that the police in Loliondo have been banding together with the security guards of Thomson Safaris to arrest the Maasai and impound their livestock. It reads that over 100 people have been illegally arrested and ordered to pay fines to the tune of about US $ 500 each. This piracy, the letter states, has been a money generating project for the security guards of Thomson Safaris and the police.
The mass media have been asking who shot Lesingo ole Nanyoi. Did the police arrest the crazy shooter? Was he taken to court? Who killed Trent Keegan? Why did the police kill ole Putaa? What is the rationale of allocating pastureland to Tanzania Breweries Limited which in turn sells it to the third party, Thomson Safaris?
Now demanding answers to these questions is like questioning the institution of motherhood. Is Thomson Safaris a golden cow? Is anybody above the law?
I hope Saint Paul will not prevent me from joining the ancestors when my turn arrives because I seriously doubt a company whose directors, according to Terri Rice, ‘Rick Thomson and his wife, Judi Wineland, were invited last year to meet in New York City with President, Kikwete in thanks for their investment in tourism in Tanzania!’
References
- See Arusha Times
- See Arusha Times 2
- On July 23, 2008 The Arusha Region Peace and Security Committee called a press conference which was chaired by Arusha Regional Commissioner. Government officials, one after another tried to distance the police force and Thomson Safaris from the shooting. They also said that the Tanzanian Government should not be held responsible about the mysterious death of Trent Keegan killed in Kenya on May 28, 2008. I have high definition footage of that press conference.
- See Trent Keegan’s website
- See New Zealand Herald
- See Arusha Times 3
- See The Guardian
- Their photo opportunity with the President
Filed under: animation, environment, film, politics | Tags: activism, change, climate, environment, new economics
Change
Change is coming; social change on a massive, unprecedented scale. There are three potential avenues through which this change will manifest.
In the best case scenario we ourselves will be the architects of this change, working collectively and creatively to reshape social structures and ways of life from the bottom up to build a new paradigm based on equity and sustainability, and the kind of lifestyles that can still afford us a high quality of life and the opportunities for joy and prosperity that our own generation has enjoyed – albeit with much lower levels of material consumption.
The second option is to allow / demand the state, and very likely other powerful transnational institutions, to impose change from the top down, accepting massive curtailments of our personal freedoms and a new paradigm characterised by unprecedented levels of social control, state intrusion and global governance and enforcement in order to ensure that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations remain at or below safe levels.
The third option is to continue on our present path, and invite change to be visited on us, abruptly, at some point in the nearish future, through the medium of humanitarian catastrophe and eco-system collapse. Society will be certainly be restructured as a consequence; but into something chaotic, unplanned, dreadful, bereft. Only a very small proportion of the humans alive when the shit finally hits the fan will survive this new paradigm. They will be the ones with the access to guns and the lack of conscience required to use them. What will the ‘society’ they build look like?
Doom and gloom aside, what seems clear to me is that there are plenty of alternative models of ways of life we could easily choose to adopt at the level of our local communities – alternatives that could not only avoid ecological Armageddon, but also result in an improved quality of life for those enacting them. What is to be done at the national and geo-political scale is much less clear, but I would point to the work of the New Economics Foundation for some very clear thinking on this problem. Profligacy and materialism are not only bad for their victims; they are bad for their beneficiaries too.
Surely we can do better than this?