Fifteen years ago, Wangari Maathai arrived in London for the first time to explain how she was organizing women and children in Kenya's poorest communities to plant trees. She hoped her Greenbelt women's movement would eventually be recognized.
"We have planted about 7 million trees so far. We use trees as a focal point around which other environmental issues are brought to attention. Trees have become a symbol of hope," she said.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Last weekend, with 23 million more trees planted in Kenya and beyond, Maathai herself became a symbol of hope as the first African woman -- and the first environmentalist ever -- to win the Nobel peace prize.
The accolade was hailed by many as "inspiring" and "adventurous." Maathai joins former South African president Nelson Mandela and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as one of the few Africans to have won a Nobel prize and one of only seven women to have won the peace prize.
But great celebrations and pride in Kenya -- where Maathai is a popular Green MP and a truculent deputy environment minister -- were tempered by prominent commentators' complaints that tree planting has little to do with peace, and that the Nobel committee had overlooked weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq war.
The raised eyebrows suggest that the peace prize should go only to mainstream politicians, perhaps to human rights workers.
"You don't give the Nobel chemistry prize to a professor in economics," said Carl Hagen, leader of Norway's opposition Progress Party. "A peace prize should honor peace, not the environment."
"It is odd that the committee has completely overlooked the unrest that the world is living with daily, and given the prize to an environmental activist," said Espen Barth Eide, a former Norwegian deputy foreign minister.
"The one thing the Nobel committee does is define the topic of this epoch in the field of peace and security. If it widens it too much, it risks undermining the core function of the peace prize. You end up saying everything that is good is peace," Eide said.
The criticisms, however, were dismissed by the Nobel committee which recalled that the first peace prize had gone to the founder of the Red Cross and that the definition of peace needed to be reconsidered for the 21st century.
"This is the first time environment sets the agenda for the Nobel peace prize, and we have added a new dimension to peace. We have expanded the peace concept to include environmental issues because we believe that a good quality of life on Earth is necessary to promote lasting peace in the world. Peace depends on our ability to secure our living environment," said committee chairman Ole Danbolt Mjoes.
Maathai herself said simply: "Many of the wars in Africa are fought over natural resources. Ensuring they are not destroyed is a way of ensuring there is no conflict. In managing our resources ... we plant the seeds of peace."
Maathai is living proof that 21st century peace work is politically and socially dangerous, and that being an effective environmentalist today is not just about planting trees, but working at the grassroots with the poorest communities and challenging powerful political and commercial forces.
In the past 15 years, she has become one of Kenya's most visible political dissidents, speaking out for democracy, forests and development that do not worsen the lives of the poor. She has twice been arrested and beaten up, her home has been broken into, she has been forced to flee Kenya, and discouraged at every turn.
When, in 1992, she opposed the ruling Kanu party's attempts to build a giant skyscraper in a Nairobi's main park, the then president, Daniel arap Moi, described her as a "mad woman," a "threat to the order and security of the country," and called for the public and the police to stamp out troublemakers.
Several ministers called her "an ignorant and ill-tempered puppet of foreign masters," an "unprecedented monstrosity" and accused her of inciting people to rise against "the government of men." She was denounced in parliament by boos and hisses, foot stamping and shouts of "Shame! Shame!"
"This building will cost US$200 million, which the ruling party -- the only party -- proposes to borrow mostly from foreign banks," she said at the time. "We already have a debt crisis. We owe billions to foreign banks now. And the people are starving. They need food; they need medicine; they need education. They do not need," Maathai said, "a skyscraper to house the ruling party and a 24-hour TV station."
Maathai is unlikely to give up her outspoken ways. The Nobel prize gives her credibility and political protection that colleagues and friends say she will most likely use in the national and international arena to oppose the African adoption of GM foods, the patenting of life forms, the further destruction of forests and policies that work against the poor.
"The increasingly contentious debate about the impact of patenting of life forms and genetic engineering is extremely important to all humanity. This is especially true for developing countries, rich in biological resources and the traditional practices which have generated this diversity for centuries. It is this resource, called `green gold,' which is now being explored and exploited by global transnational corporations," she said in a recent paper.
Back in 1989, Maathai was quite clear about what was at stake. "Development which plunders human resourcefulness, forests, land, water, air and food is shortsighted and self-eliminating ... but for many leaders, development means extensive farming of cash crops, expensive dams, luxury tourist hotels, airports, hospitals, heavily armed armies and supermarkets. These are the priorities in national budgets. Never mind that they may not reflect the needs of people who, if asked, would prefer basic needs like food, shelter, education, clean water, local clinics, information and freedom."
This week, her simple message may have got through to a few more people.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers