At the end of December 2019 and the beginning of January 2020 the wave of wildfires in Australia that in the previous few months had hit the country in an extremely dry and torrid southern summer worsened enormously.

A veritable firestorm devastated wide areas of the bush, the traditional rural landscape of Australia with its shrub, bushes and small and medium-sized vegetation. Although the wildfires had more or less been raging continuously from June onwards it was not until the beginning of the Australian summer that the wildfire problem degenerated into a national emergency.

L'articolo Wildfires in Australia: what really happened proviene da InsideOver.

The state of Tuvalu and Pacific Smaller Island States warned Australia about its actions for environmental protection on August 13th. This warning is very relevant in the context of sinking Pacific island states. Rising ocean levels threaten the security of these already geographically disadvantaged states. How will these island nations continue to cope with nature taking away land?

Apart from tourism, only a few miscellaneous industries (web domain selling, fishing permits) contribute to a notable share of GDP of the islands. Most island nations in the Pacific receive aid in some form. This shows that on their own, states like Nauru, unless they find natural resources to extract, won’t be able to cope with natural phenomena on their own.

Rising sea levels will first and foremost threaten the tourism industry in the islands. Taking away beaches and presenting a threat to tourism infrastructure (hotels, restaurants), the sea levels rising at around 12mm per year could cause a major blow to this important industry.

The income share from tourism makes up a significant share of GDP of these states: from 38.9% in Fiji to Vanuatu’s 18.3%. Even the lower income shares in the region are far higher compared to rest of the world.

Remittances are also a large part of income for Pacific states, such as Tonga, Kirabati and Samoa. The growing migration from islands to countries with more job opportunities (Australia and United States) presents an opportunity for easier survival of the nation states.

Since migration from Pacific islands is increasing, the welfare of family members receiving remittances should also increase. Moreover, a smaller amount of people living in the islands presents an opportunity for lower amounts spent on sea level rise preparedness.

If this will become a snowball effect, the problem of having to relocate citizens could fade away.

A Sealand-like solution could theoretically be used in the worst case scenario. Living on a platform would be an expensive solution, considering the population size of the Pacific nations. Moreover, few residents, except the most attached ones, are likely to want to live in a makeshift “island”.

Rising sea levels aren’t necessarily a death sentence for these islands. In nature, everything moves towards an equilibrium.

Many scientists propose a theory that rising sea levels will contribute to increase in ice sheets. Sounds impossible, until considering the evaporation of water from the rising seas and transfer of it into clouds, and, later, the transfer of that water as snow onto the poles. This theory has been confirmed by scientific research by NASA and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS).

If this theory will prove true, the problem of rising sea levels could diminish, and, with it, the uncertainty surrounding the future of Pacific island states.

Then, can alternatives to relocation of island citizens to larger neighbouring countries ever be viable?

The total GDP of all Pacific island small states is 10.3B US dollars. Even with international aid, non-relocation alternatives would be too costly for them. It is estimated that only the state of Florida could spend up to $74B on seawalls – a relatively simple measure. The Netherlands, through brilliant engineering initiatives, have successfully avoided the shrinking of land size. More so, the country bordering the North sea has increased its land size by taking away space where sea has been.

If strategies used by Netherlands to prevent the ocean taking the land can be used in the Pacific, it could be a viable alternative to relocation. However, some of the recent projects, like Deltaplan cost 5 billion euros. That’s almost half of the current GDP of Pacific island states. Nevertheless, the costs of these projects could be lowered through the cheaper workforce in the islands and nearby countries compared to the Netherlands.

Even better news for these states is that the islands have reached a consensus, and their representatives don’t lack the political will to take action. The Pacific island nations have released many joint statements throughout the years on the threat from sea levels. Pacific island nations are so cooperative that Fiji pledged to accept Tuvalan citizens in a worst case scenario.

There also have been intra-regional initiatives (e.g. by the Secretariat of the Pacific community) to avoid the consequences of this threat from nature. They have garnered positive results.

Total relocation (one of the possible outcomes) of the population of 2.3 million sounds almost impossible.

Getting this amount of residents to leave would not only be a political challenge, but also a financial one. Each family would require housing, income in the period before getting a job in their new location, and possibly education to be equipped with the skills needed in their new place of living.

Pacific island states, which are already coping with many challenges, wouldn’t be able to offer this scale of financial support. The burden then would fall on countries like Australia, which has promised to support these nations. There’s a problem with that.

These countries already have areas where financial support is necessary. Each individual citizen of these countries would be no more or less responsible, compared to other countries of the world, for the costs of relocating Pacific island state citizens. It would be unfair for them to solely carry this financial burden.

Yet, financial support from other states of the world is far smaller compared to the support offered by Australia and New Zealand.

Some of the world’s biggest polluters (China and India) have made great strides to lower emissions. This reduction in emissions should stall rising sea levels. However, offering more financial support to the states most hard-hit by the outcomes from emissions in the worst case scenario, would be a nice altruistic action.

Small island states have always been at a higher risk from the impact of natural phenomena. Warning larger states about their record on environmental protection brings attention to this problem. Without a doubt, exposure in media has the power to bring change. Yet, for the Pacific island nations, moving away from the status quo would bring only losses, in one form or another.

L'articolo What Does the Future Hold for Pacific Island States? proviene da InsideOver.

Australia confirmed that it would not host the US intermediate-range missiles deployed in Asia, following Washington’s formal withdrawal from the Cold War-era nuclear deal signed with then-Soviet Union, called the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF).

US Defense Secretary Mark Esper expressed his plan to put missiles in the Asia Pacific “in coming months” during his visit to Australia last weekend. Both Canberra and Washington agreed to monitor China’s suspicious activities in the region.

Esper’s remarks sparked speculations that the US has requested Australia to provide Darwin, the capital of the Northern Territory, for those missiles, which was denied by Australia’s Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. The 51-year-old prime minister stressed that he would refuse if asked to do so.

“It’s not been asked to us, not being considered, not been put to us. I think I rule a line under that,” Morrison briefed reporters in Brisbane, the state capital of Queensland, as Reuters wrote.

Such a request from Washington will put Canberra in hot water, given the latter’s good trade relationship with the Xi Jinping administration and close ties with the US. Washington has been involved in a year-long trade dispute with Beijing, and both states have imposed a tariff on each other.

China and Russia vow to retaliate

China threatened to take action against the US if the latter insists on deploying its ground-based medium-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region.

“China will not stand idly by and be forced to take countermeasures should the US deploy intermediate-range ground-based missiles this part of the world,” director of the foreign ministry’s Arms Control Department, Fu Cong, told reporters, as The Washington Post reported.

Fu did not elaborate specifically about what countermeasures to be taken, but would consider all available options if all US allies allow Washington to put missiles in the region.

Russia echoed China’s warning, saying that it would take retaliatory steps if the US places its missiles in the Asia-Pacific.

The Kremlin did not want to get provoked by Washington’s plan when asked about the possible missile deployment. However, Russia would do anything to defend itself if the US puts arms across Asia, following the collapse of the INF signed in 1987.

“If the deployment of new US systems begins specifically in Asia, then the corresponding steps to balance these actions will be taken by us in the direction of parrying these threats,” Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergey Ryabkov, told a news conference.

Washington pulled out from the INF, the Cold-War nuclear pact that banned the US and Russia (then the Soviet Union) to develop, possess, and test ground-based missiles within a range of between 310 and 3,400 miles.

The US repeatedly accused Russia of violating the deal by testing 9M729 missiles or the SSC-8, as the US called it. But Moscow snubbed the allegations, and slammed Washington for hyperbolizing claims to justify the development of new weapons.

The US works hard to convince its allies

Despite being one of the US’ allies, South Korea insisted that it has no intention to host Washington’s missiles.

“Our government did not have any official discussions with the US on the possible introduction of intermediate missiles (on South Korean soil). We have not internally reviewed the issue, and have no plan to do so,” South Korea defense ministry spokesperson Choi Hyun-soo was quoted as saying by Yonhap news agency.

Deploying missiles in South Korea could be a nightmare for Washington, as it will worsen a denuclearization talk with North Korea. Despite President Donald Trump’s boastful remarks that he has a very good relationship with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, the denuclearization negotiations have yet to produce any concrete outcomes.

Other possible options for the post-INF US missiles allegedly developed are Japan and the island of Guam. However, the presence of the US military in Japan (especially in Okinawa) will face bitter public opposition, while the deployment in Guam will also provoke North Korea to do something crazier than just test missiles.

The US has limited options for post-INF missiles, as it heavily relies on sea-and air-based missiles in Asia, as Ankit Panda wrote in the New Republic. 

China is also reluctant in being included in the post-INF treaty initiated by the US, saying that Beijing is not at the same level as Russia and the US in terms of the military build-up.

The latest SIPRI data showed that China has around 290 nuclear warheads, while the US and Russia account for 90 percent of warheads globally (about 6,000 each). The US’ withdrawal from the INF and the Iran deal will make other countries think twice when inking an agreement with Washington.

China is also committed to pursuing a nuclear strategy for national defense, as the country’s white paper on defense stated. Beijing will keep its nuclear weapons at minimum level, and supports a total ban on nuclear arsenals.

“China is always committed to a nuclear policy of no first use of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances, and not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones unconditionally. China advocates the ultimate complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. China does not engage in any nuclear arms race with any other country and keeps its nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security,” said the paper, titled “China’s National Defense In The New Era.”

L'articolo Asia Refuses To Host US Missiles, Adding to Washington’s Post-INF Deal Headache proviene da InsideOver.

The United States is increasing its presence in the Indo-Pacific area with new navy military construction in the North of Australia, which will serve as support for its Marine contingent stationed in that area. The US base is the Robertson one in Darwin and at about 40 kilometers north of the Australian city, in Glyde Point, a new port will be built that will be capable of harboring the American wasp-class amphibious naval units.

The news was leaked for the first time this past June, when the Australian news network Abc News reported it, but only now has it been confirmed thanks to a provision from the US Congress, which has allocated 221.5 million dollars (305.9 million Australian dollars) to the construction of the new infrastructure.

US presence in Australia

On Australian soil, the United States uses the Marine communications and intelligence station in Pine Gap, which is not far from Alice Springs in the center of the Northern Territory desert. The US has exclusive use of the location even if access is formally guaranteed to Australian soldiers as well. Washington also has two bases that it shares with Australia: Kojarena, a land satellite station of the Australian FFAA, and the Robertson base in Darwin. Then there are several Australian military infrastructures that Canberra makes available to the US: two air bases (in Tindal and Darwin), two naval bases (again in Darwin and on the Cocos islands) and a certain number of training sites and shooting ranges scattered throughout the country (Bradshaw Field, Delamere, Mount Bundey, Shoalwater Bay, Townsville Field, Cowley Beach).

The Robertson base in particular is able to house a fully equipped contingent of 2,500 Marines according to agreements established with the Australian government during the Bush administration. The base in Kojarena, on the other hand, falls under an agreement for implementation of the satellite communication systems and is home to a MUOS station (Mobile User Objective System) and the shared WGS system (Widebrand Global Satcom). 

The military alliance between Australia and the United States goes back to 1951 with the signing of the Anzus treaty (which also includes New Zealand) for anti-Soviet purposes, but the ties didn’t stop with the end of the Cold War despite experiencing highs and lows. During American intervention in Afghanistan, it had military support from Canberra, even though there were voices of dissent that lead the two nations to rediscuss their cooperation. Nonetheless, Australia has continued to guarantee its support in American exercises in the Indo-Pacific area.

A common enemy: China

Relations between Washington and Canberra have been reinforced in recent years thanks to the rise of China as a regional power. Australia, who up until then trusted in the distance between them as its safety net, began to look worriedly at Chinese expansionism towards the South, which manifested in the militarization of the islands in the South China Sea. 

These archipelagos provide an outpost that allows Beijing to expand its range of military action by thousands of miles, reaching the shores of the Australian “continent.”

However, this has not prevented Canberra from giving Chinese company Landbridge a 99-year lease for port infrastructure in Darwin with a contract signed in 2015. This created a massive headache for Washington since it is one of the nerve centers of the West Pacific and one of the most important stopovers in Australia.

The decision, made by the then Liberal Party government, was considered sinister by Australian and American analysts. Transfer of the infrastructure to the Chinese company led by billionaire Ye Chen will give Beijing an important stopover for the New Silk Road (One Belt One Road), even though the two countries didn’t sign any sort of agreement, unlike what was done in Italy.

The decision to build a new base for the American Marines has not yet been confirmed by Canberra. The Australian Minister of Defense continues to deny that any sort of agreement has been established with Washington, stating that “there is no plan for the development of a new port infrastructure in the Northern Territory.” Even the local governor, Michael Gunner, denies knowing anything about its development.

This attitude is not surprising though. Australia has historically always denied the presence of US bases on its soil, going as far as to claim that the placement of Pine Gap, for example, was exclusively used by the Australian armed forces. The motive is simple: although Canberra watches Beijing’s moves suspiciously and apprehensively, it has no intention of scaring one of its biggest commercial partners. A third of all Australian exports, equal to 78.6 billion American dollars, are directed for China. 

Chinese military activity, however, is nonetheless understood as a threat and Australia has not loosened ties with the US at all, carrying out various military drills together (the “Talisman Sabre” is taking place at the moment) to demonstrate to China that it has no intention of overlooking its rearmament and desire to expand its power in the Indo-Pacific area.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal Party) has clear ideas regarding such. In April of last year, during a press conference in which the Chinese attempt to construct a naval base on Vanuatu was discussed, he said that “we watch with great apprehension the construction of any foreign military base on those Pacific islands and in all countries around us.” It is not only a clear reference to the incident itself, but also to what is occurring a bit everywhere in the Far East, where China is openly building “dual use” infrastructures. An emblematic case is that of Cambodia, where China plans to build new commercial and touristic ports, which can easily harbor military ships.

Although the Australian government is trying to juggle both support for the US’s political dispute against China and commercial agreements with Beijing, the situation in the Far East requires that a clear decision be made because of the unique nature of the ongoing conflict between the two powers, a commercial, economic and even military dispute – although not war – that is defining a fiery front, which requires choosing one side or the other.

L'articolo The United States Will Have a New Base in Australia to Oppose China proviene da InsideOver.

New Zealand has launched an aggressive campaign to rid the country of invasive species – namely rats, opossums and stoats. The Department of Conservation (DOC) feels that these animals are bringing about environmental, cultural and economic damage to the country. 

New Zealand, a bird watchers paradise, has 80% of their bird population in danger from predation. One of those birds is the famous ground dwelling Spotted Kiwi. Only 5% of Spotted Kiwis reach adulthood, because the eggs and babies are eaten by invasive predators.

This has caused a unique conflict between scientists. Some scientists feel that extreme measures are necessary to halt the predation and save New Zealand’s unique wildlife. Others are concerned that the methods are endangering the environment as a whole. 

New Zealand, being a country of islands, has had a unique evolution of species. There are no native mammals other than bats and sea mammals such as Hector’s dolphins. Many of its native birds are flightless because they evolved without predation. These birds have no protection from predatory animals, such as the stoat, which can climb trees or ravage nests on the ground. 

Concern for native species has prompted scientists to educate people on the problems of invasive species. Education programs include instruction on how to trap, poison and kill rats, stoats and possums. The DOC encourages monitoring to identify pest populations and decide what tactics will work best. 

School children wearing kiwi shaped hats are often taken into the woods and taught to trap and catch predators in order to save the kiwi birds.  

New Zealand is providing assistance to citizens who wish to participate in trapping and poisoning these “pests”. Citizens can borrow traps from their local library or form a neighborhood group which receives free supplies and training from the Department of Conservation. 

One of the problems with this plan, according to ecologist Cam Speedy, is that the DOC is promoting the use of poisons. Many of these poisons are very toxic to a broad range of animals, not just the target species. Native species, such as the kiwi, often peck at the package and inadvertently ingest poison. 

Brodifacoum, a broad spectrum rat poison, is used extensively by the DOC. In particular, it is harmful to cats and dogs who may eat animals that have ingested the poisons. There have been reports of family pets dying due to eating animals who have ingested the poison. 

In addition, the DOC has dropped poison in scented packets throughout parks and mountainous regions. The poison it contains, sodium fluoroacetate, is highly toxic. Sodium fluoroacetate, otherwise known as 1080, causes death to numerous other species including the birds it means to protect. 1080 is so strong that one tablespoon has enough chemicals to kill one hundred people. 

Opponents of the plan state that killing animals indiscriminately is bad for New Zealand’s image, as a country that has a $12 billion dollar tourist industry. Many persons who travel to New Zealand do so to enjoy the outdoors and experience hiking the pristine mountains and beaches. 

Clyde Graf, the director of Poisoning Paradise: Ecocide New Zealand has filmed the government dropping 1080 on tourists who were given no warning of the intended chemical distribution. 

“I think it’s time to call for a moratorium on the aerial spread of 1080,” said Kea Heritage Tours managing director Matt Lysaght who feels tourism is being negatively impacted on an international level. 

L'articolo New Zealand Strikes Back At Invasive Species proviene da InsideOver.

The first was on January 3rd. She was fifteen, and died in her hometown in Queensland. Less than a week later, three more girls had passed away, each in a different corner of the giant landmass. January 11th saw a fifth death recorded, again a schoolgirl, this time only 12-years-old. She was followed quickly by three others. No more than a fortnight into the year, 2019 had witnessed the deaths of at least eight Australian children. Each of them was of Indigenous heritage, and all had committed suicide.

It’s a spiralling problem that’s been brewing for decades. Indigenous children make up less than 5% of Australia’s youth population, but account for a quarter of all child suicides. In some states, that number is as high as 60%. And while coverage of the issue often links it to remote communities – especially in the sparsely populated northwestern region of Kimberley – self inflicted juvenile deaths are increasing nationwide.

In response to the particularly troubling spate of suicides, Australia’s Federal Government earlier this year injected funds into community prevention schemes. The financial boost was well received, noted Adele Cox, who leads the Indigenous charity Thirrili, but “no amount of money […] will take away the pain that the families of these young people will be experiencing,” she said.

Experts agree that funding alone will not solve this incredibly complex phenomenon. Such is the size, diversity and convoluted history of Australia, it is impossible to point to one single factor. The past decade has seen numerous major inquiries hand down hundreds of recommendations – the most recent in February of this year – but the trend of Indigenous child suicides continues to accelerate unhindered.

A lack of equality is often identified as a key driver in the crisis. The Government’s ‘Closing the Gap’ initiative has for ten years aimed to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people – the two groups which constitute Australia’s Indigenous community – but critics say progress is slow. The current situation is “unforgivable” a very candid Prime Minister Scott Morrison said as the report’s 2019 edition was released, adding that he didn’t know when Indigenous kids would have equal health, education and employment outcomes as their non-Indigenous counterparts.

The disparity in access to appropriate mental health services has been singled out as a critical factor in the suicide crisis. This imbalance is particularly evident in remote communities – which account for 20% of the Indigenous population – where psychological treatment is both difficult to obtain and culturally inappropriate, an Australian Senate inquiry recently concluded. So lacking in cultural competency are rural mental health services that at times they “traumatise and re-traumatise the very people for whom they are supposed to provide therapeutic treatment,” the report said.

But mental illness is not always the cause of Indigenous suicide, the inquiry found. Housing, for instance, was identified as a decisive factor in the downward spiral. Waiting lists for public housing often reach eight years in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, said Cheryle Kaesler, who runs an emotional wellbeing unit. Psychological unrest in family units can be difficult to escape for young people, who everyday are subjected to a cycle of stress, frustration and hopelessness.

These psychological burdens are often passed from one generation to the next. Poverty is endemic among Indigenous people, with 50% of the community in Australia’s bottom quartile of prosperity. From this disadvantage flows alcoholism, domestic violence and sexual abuse. Difficult to escape in a tight knit society, these social affiliations are passed from parent to child. The “crushing effects” of this so-called ‘intergenerational trauma’ are shaping the suicide epidemic, said Western Australia’s State Coroner Ros Fogliani after the most recent cluster of deaths.

This anguish has plagued Indigenous families for centuries, extending back to the colonial era. The native people of Australia – like their counterparts elsewhere – were subjected to brutal displacement, rape and murder at the hands of white imperialists. This disempowerment has become institutionalized within Indigenous communities, experts warn – and continues to manifest itself in the inequality and racism experienced by modern day members of Indigenous society.

And so it is this, the most primordial factor in the suicide epidemic, that must be tackled first. That’s according to Professor Pat Dudgeon, Project Director of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Evaluation Project (ATSISPEP), whose team is leading the fight against Indigenous suicides. In practice, that means “dedicated and community-specific and led responses,” the group said. To this end, it is important that Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike acknowledge and understand the devastating and enduring impact of the colonial legacy. With greater insight comes greater empowerment and a sense of self-determination.

But such is the precipitous spiral of the crisis, short-term more immediate remedies are required too. ‘Postvention’ – intervening in a child’s life after a community death – is key to this, experts say, particularly in the case of suicide clusters. Psychological therapy and material support should be made available to any vulnerable youngsters touched by death as a matter of urgency.

In the medium-term, progress can be made too. The culture of sensational suicide coverage – especially on social media – must be tackled to prevent children building an association with self-harm. And lessons from past Indigenous suicide reduction programs must be learnt. This means establishing peer-to-peer mentoring networks, engaging children in sport and the arts, and connecting youngsters with community elders and their culture.

While these changes need to be enacted with the support of Australia’s federal authorities, to do so with non-Indigenous ideals would be futile. Historical grievances must be redressed, racial inequalities confronted and community-led support championed – all the while imbuing the cultural wisdom of the Indigenous people. Whether or not the Australian government – and those like it around the post-colonial world – can commit itself to a ‘follow rather than lead’ agenda remains to be seen. If it can’t, the seemingly incessant cycle of death and despair looks set to plague yet another generation.

L'articolo The Suicide Crisis in Australia’s Indigenous Community proviene da InsideOver.