On 10 December, 2004, the noted environmentalist, women's rights activist and pro-democracy campaigner Ms. Wangari Maathai became the first African woman - and one of only 12 women in history to win the Nobel Peace Prize. She first gained international recognition in 1977, when she founded the Green Belt Movement to combat deforestation and soil erosion in her native Kenya. Nearly three decades and 30 million trees later, the movement had literally transformed the Kenyan landscape and become an influential force for democracy and women's rights.
During an exclusive interview with Africa Renewal in New York on 19 December and published on January 06, the 64-year-old biologist spoke about her long struggle for environmental and social justice and challenged African governments to "do their part" to accelerate Africa's social and economic development. She spoke about the connection between human rights, democracy and environmental conservation, and called on industrialized countries to support African initiatives for peace, democracy and environmental justice. The interview is reproduced here in accordance with Africa Renewal's republication policy, which states that material may be freely reproduced, with attribution to "Africa Renewal, United Nations".
AR: Could you please talk about the connection between human rights and environmental issues, and how you came to it?
Maathai: It is not as if, 30 years ago, I saw the link and worked on it. I was responding to the needs of rural populations, especially women, who were looking for firewood. They were looking for food. They were looking for building materials, for fodder for the animals. They were trying to meet the basic needs in their communities.
I happened to be at the University of Nairobi at that time, teaching. At the same time I was participating in the National Council of Women of Kenya, which is an umbrella organization for women of different social backgrounds. Rural women would bring to the table the issues I've just mentioned.
In listening to those women -- and since I had grown up in the rural areas -- I immediately connected what they were asking for, with the environment, with the land. I suggested that what we needed was to plant trees, because if we planted trees we would get firewood. Of course it would take a long time, but not too long because we are in the tropics and trees grow very fast. At any rate I could not see an alternative. I said, "If we protect the soil and we don't lose the topsoil, we are likely to produce more food. If we plant indigenous food crops, we are more likely to get food that is more nourishing.
When I am confronted with a problem I want to know: What's the source? If I'm dealing with the symptoms, I will continue dealing with them for a very long time! But if I get to the bottom, I can deal with the cause.
I started seeing that we really needed to do massive rehabilitation of our land. We needed to stop soil erosion. And I realized we needed to do that in large numbers; we needed to organize.
It was then that I confronted the problem of democratic governance. I noticed that we really did not have a democratic system, because immediately we started organizing, the government did not want us to organize. The government said you cannot meet. You need a license. That was their way of controlling. I eventually understood that what the government was doing was preventing people from meeting, from sharing information, asking questions, getting to the root causes of the problems they were facing.
AR: You could have gone to the president and perhaps persuaded him to act, instead of mobilizing the people. But you didn't organize it that way. Why was that?
Maathai: I didn't organize it that way because in the beginning I did not even think anybody would interfere. I thought it would be almost automatic: if people wanted to organize, they should be able to organize. Why did the government refuse people to organize? Because the president himself did not want people informed, people organized. This was a way of controlling people.
By the time we were massively organizing -- in the mid-'80s -- nobody was paying much attention to us, because it was just a bunch of women organizing. But when President [Daniel arap] Moi started really getting a grip on the country, that's when this organizing became noticed. The government machinery decided it should not be allowed. There was need to control the information that was reaching the people.
Now, why do we not have adequate clean drinking water? It is because there is logging in the forests protected by the government. So if there is logging in the forests, we must ask the government that question. If the government is doing it to benefit itself -- to benefit individual members of the government or to benefit companies that are connected to the government -- then of course the government does not want anybody to ask those questions.
Another thing we have been very much concerned about is green open spaces in the cities. There was a lot of privatizing of green open spaces by the people in power, or rich people. They would take the space and sell it to businesspeople to build development complexes. But we needed open spaces. So if you're going to say you cannot privatize this green open space because it is necessary for the urban environment, then you're going to be in trouble with the government or people who are connected with the government, because they're the ones getting these spaces.
These are examples to show how I eventually came to understand the importance of democratic space to be able to protect the environment. And to understand that if you're in a system which does not allow its citizens to participate in decision-making, or demand certain decisions from their government, it is impossible to protect the environment. Therefore for me, the connection between protecting the environment, managing resources responsibly and allowing for equitable distribution of these resources to avoid conflict required democratic space. The [Nobel] committee recognized this holistic approach -- that we need democratic space to be able to manage our resources responsibly, sustainably and to be able to share them equitably.
Otherwise, sooner or later there will be conflict. And we had quite a bit in the country [Kenya]. Sometimes it can flare into major conflicts such as we saw in Rwanda, or as we are seeing in Darfur. [There are] many examples in the world. What are people fighting over? Natural resources. Where these conflicts are, there is not democratic government. It is a government that does not respect democratic space or human rights. It's a government where a few people are in charge and the majority are not.
AR: Most economists define development in a traditional way -- producing cash crops, industrial development, emphasizing trade. But you don't define it that way.
Maathai: No. Development to me is a quality of life. It's not necessarily acquisition of a lot of things. I have been using the example of an African stool. An African stool has three legs. On those legs balance a basin. One of those three legs is peace. Another is good governance. And the other is good management of our resources. Now this good management of our resources, as I've said, includes equitable distribution -- allowing as many people as possible to share in the natural resources. This allows as many people as possible to experience respect, dignity [and] respect of their rights -- and therefore avoids conflict.
When you have these three legs, then the basin to me is development. It may be a very small basin, but it may also be a very wide basin. That basin, if it is not resting on the three legs, will not last. It will collapse. Even in countries where we can think there is peace, there is dissension. There is dissatisfaction.
AR: What impact does the international economic system have on this stool?
Maathai: Quite often we are used to thinking in blocks. When we look at peace, we just concentrate on peace. We go to the United Nations and have a Security Council decision: how much money we want to use for reconstruction, how much for peacekeeping forces and all that. Another agency is looking at what kind of democratic space is needed. Another one is trying to see how resources are going to be managed. Everybody is looking at their own sectors differently. Hardly ever do they come together so that they work in synergy. That is partly why the basin doesn't hold.
The Norwegian Nobel peace committee has told the world two things. Firstly, it is extremely important for us to look at all these things holistically, together, simultaneously. Secondly, to invest before there is conflict. If we invested as many resources before the conflict as we invest after, we would probably prevent more conflicts in the world.
If we invested as many resources before the conflict as we invest after, we would probably prevent more conflicts in the world.
We spend so many resources trying to reconstruct, trying to rebuild peace. Yet before we went over the cliff, we were not too willing to work together, to work holistically and to invest all those resources to deal with the causes that threw us over that cliff!
Will the United Nations development agencies address this? I hope so. Will the governments in the industrialized countries address these issues that way? I hope so. Will the Africans -- I feel that a big challenge has come to Africa -- will the African governments address this holistically? I hope so. If we do, then we will have changed the way we think. We will have reached a new level of consciousness.
AR: Back in 1995 you gave a presentation at the Beijing women's conference that included criticism of the world economic system and globalization. Now, 10 years later, globalization is that much farther advanced. What are your views today?
Maathai: It has only gotten worse. Africa has not been given the opportunity to trade fairly. The trade balance, the trade tariffs, the rules and regulations which are required for Africa, are still very harsh, very unequal.
In the year 2000 we were part of the [debt reduction] campaign Jubilee 2000. The debt has continued to eat into the capital of Africa so strongly that many governments are still not able to service their people as long as they are servicing the debt. We raised all the issues why it should be cancelled, but the industrialized countries did not do very much. They did very little in terms of the HIPC [Heavily Indebted Poor Countries] initiative.
Unfortunately, our own governments have not done their part either. I remember the industrialized countries and even the World Bank saying, "If we cancelled this debt, it is not the poor who will benefit. It is the leaders -- who are corrupt, who are mismanaging the economies of your countries, who are undemocratic, who are engaging in wars and making it impossible for people to do even the little that they could -- who will benefit. Therefore it doesn't make any sense to cancel."
That's where the challenge is today -- for African governments to decide whether they want to continue doing business as usual or whether they want to appreciate this challenge that has been brought to us. If our friends want to assist, we need to create an enabling environment in Africa. An enabling environment will then require that the international system deals with African governments justly and fairly. But until we put that house in order, this international system will continue giving excuses.
Fortunately, there are some governments that have addressed some of the bottlenecks. Kenya is one good example. As part of our campaign, we eventually reached democracy in the year 2002. But the challenge is still on the African side to a very large extent, to not give an excuse to those who don't want to help us.
* For the rest of the interview, please click on the link below.
AR: What is your assessment of the state of governance in Africa at this point? Are African governments becoming more accountable to their citizens?
Maathai: Yes, I believe that African governments at this time are actually much more responsive to the issue of governance than they have been in the past. We see more governments which have been brought into place by the ballot rather than the bullet. We have seen a lot of long-standing conflicts eventually come to an end. We see greater and greater engagement by leaders to consult with each other, to engage in dialogue, to decide among themselves to end conflicts, rather than wait until people come from outside Africa to help.
We have seen, for example, within the African Union, a desire to provide checks and balances for good governance. They have come up with this formula of peer review. These are all good signs that Africans are willing to judge themselves, to urge each other to practice good governance and give the region peace, so that they can begin to develop, rather than spend all their resources on war. We see the [peace"> initiatives with Somalia and Darfur, Sudan, with a lot of intervention by the African Union. I find that more and more Africans are saying, "Let's solve our problems. Let's judge ourselves before other people come to judge us."
These are good signs. They need to be given a chance. African governments need to be supported. They need to be supported by their own people. They need to be supported by each other. Even the Nobel Peace Prize is partly an effort to encourage them to move in that direction.
It is important to have good governance. We cannot run away from that. Good governance means democratic space. It may not be the same definition for every country. But definitely we need dignity. We need respect for our rights. We need to be good to ourselves and to our people. And we need to share our resources more equitably!
We cannot afford to have a region where a few people are filthy rich and a huge number of people are in dehumanizing poverty. Definitely, we cannot use our resources to fight each other and kill each other, to the extent that we are now engaging our children to go to the forefront. By doing that we don't have a future! To me, that is the message this prize brings to Africa.
To have focussed on the environment and good governance is extremely relevant to Africa. If we in Africa were to respond positively to this challenge and were to take advantage of the movement that has already started, then I am sure that our friends, those who really wish us well in Africa, will have an opportunity to come and assist.
AR: Africa's natural wealth often does not translate into benefits for its people. Petroleum extraction in West Africa is often cited as an example. Should human rights and democracy be the price of admission to the world market or is it just another conditionality that burdens Africa, as some argue?
Maathai: Quite often, people think that democracy, perhaps because it's a Western concept, a Greek word, is something that is being imposed on Africans. But I know that even within our own traditional governance systems, this concept of equity was very strong -- even stronger than it is in many Western democracies. So I believe very strongly that it is not a new concept. It is not a Western concept. It is not a conditionality that is coming from outside. [Authoritarianism"> is just something that has happened in the last 100 years or so.
When we got independence, for some reason people who became leaders at that time failed to see that the kind of lifestyle the colonial administrators were living was exploitative, undemocratic and brought conflicts. In many African countries we talk of the change of guards. But there was not a change of thinking: "We're taking over in order to improve the quality of life of our people, to restore the dignity and respect that our people had."
We changed guards and continued with the lifestyle. That lifestyle can only survive if you don't have democratic governance and if you don't share resources equitably. If you have oil in your country, the oil does not belong to those in power. Oil is a natural resource. It belongs to the people and therefore should be exploited for the benefit of the people. But quite often what happens is that those in power get in business with outsiders and they benefit at the expense of the majority.
It is only the African leaders who can change that. If they do not change that -- if they do not shift their consciousness, if they cannot see that that is intolerable for a few of them to live so comfortably and the rest of their people to live in such poverty -- then it is very difficult to ask outsiders to come and change that system for them.
That's why we say citizens must empower themselves! They must demand better governance! That's what some governments have been able to do. That's why in Kenya we were able to change. But even having changed that, it's very important for citizens to understand that, even in Western democracies, those who were in power did not give that power freely and happily to the citizens. Citizens sometimes have to come to terms with the fact that they cannot tolerate mismanagement of their resources. They cannot tolerate misgovernance. And they cannot accept to be engaged in wars that never end.
AR: Many African leaders would say that with the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) they are breaking with some of the old relationships. But the plan has its critics, including many in African civil society. What is your assessment of NEPAD at this point?
Maathai: All of these initiatives are very good on paper. There is even a new initiative by the prime minister of Britain, the Commission for Africa. In East Africa we have IGAD [Inter-Governmental Authority on Development">, we have several economic blocs. All these initiatives mean well. The NEPAD document itself, when you read it, looks very good.
But the test of these initiatives is delivery. The challenge is in the leadership. Are they going to engage in a series of talk shops or are they going to be seriously interested in bringing about change? We have to see. The taste is in the pudding.
A new partnership? Yes. But if we go back to that African stool metaphor, nobody can come to Africa as a partner in the NEPAD concept and make this basin unless you have the pillars. And the three pillars are not going to be created by the partners. They have to be created by the African governments themselves. If they can create those three pillars, then the partners will come and development will be created. That's the basin. Then we will be able to say, "Yes. NEPAD is a good initiative."
I've seen it that way for a very long time. I know that there has been colonialization. There has been globalization. There has been neo-colonialism. So who do you blame? Those who are taking advantage -- or those who are facilitating?
AR: African leaders argue they are creating that enabling environment. In addition to NEPAD and its peer review mechanism, they have launched a new and stronger regional body, the African Union. What would you like to see wealthy countries do in response?
Maathai: The developed countries know very well what Africa needs. There has been so much debate about it. We all know that their excuses have been corruption, misgovernance and money being used for weapons. They are excuses, but to a certain extent legitimate. Nobody's going to pour money into a corrupt government. Nobody's going to give money that is meant for development and then is used for buying weapons. Nobody's going to pour money into a country impoverishing itself by destroying its environmental base, by logging illegally or facilitating desertification.
What would be the excuse if we really created the enabling environment and ensured that the resources that are made available are actually going for the purposes for which they are intended? What would be their reason not to give, not to raise their contributions?
It would be interesting! We would be talking about a different era altogether. We would be saying, "OK, what you give, it's used for what is intended. There is no corruption any more. There is no misgovernance any more. There is commitment by the government." Then the developed countries would be challenged to meet their commitments.
The pressure will even be put on by their citizens, who are very keen to see change happen. I was very encouraged by the Jubilee 2000 campaign. We collected more than 17 million signatures and took them to the G-8 [group of industrialized countries">. But the G-8 still wouldn't do much -- they said African leaders are not providing an enabling environment.
AR: Is there a sense that the Western countries, as the former colonial powers, must still make restitution to Africa, or are we past that time now? It is sometimes argued today that Western liability for Africa has ended.
Maathai: Their liability hasn't ended, because they haven't done anything yet! We are dealing with the almost inevitable consequences of a transference of power without the mental shift and governance shift that the people of Africa expected. The citizens of Africa wanted freedom. They wanted development. They wanted to move away from colonialism to development.
It is their leaders who did not take them towards that path! And for many years, the citizens believed in their leaders. That's almost the tragedy of the African people they have been so trusting of their leaders. So many of the leaders are like me. They have come to the West. They have studied in the West. We gained skills and knowledge and we were expected to go back and help our people. But many of us went back and took advantage of their confidence in us -- believing that we knew better than them. We were coming to deliver them! Well, we didn't. We took advantage of them and we used them.
Because they trusted us, it took a long time for them to believe that we truly betrayed them. We now need to tell them we are sorry we betrayed them. Now we have to do it right. Then it would be time to tell those who did their damage: "Can you help us put this thing right? Because you are part of the problem too."
I know there are lots of friends who are willing to help. In the Green Belt Movement, we would never have been able to do what we did without those friends. The majority of the people who assisted us were from other NGOs, civil societies, individuals.
Now, if we create the right environment, there are governments who are very willing to come and help, because they know where we have come from. They also understand the damage that has been done to us. So they will be quite willing to help with our reconstruction. But it's we who must create an environment in which that reconstruction can be done genuinely, for the benefit of the many.
AR: You are known for your work with and for African women. What must be done to help the women improve their quality of life?
Maathai: We get very worried about the African women. But working from where I do, at the grassroots level, it is sometimes very difficult to differentiate what men are going through and what women are going through. It is not as if those African women are going through a lot of difficulties but their men are going through wonderful times!
In a country like Kenya where 50 per cent of the population lives under a dollar a day, there are just as many men who live under a dollar a day as there are women. A lot of these women are in the situation they are in because of the situation of their men.
We need to raise the quality of life of communities. When we go into a community and are addressing the problems of that community, we use the tree and we use the women. But once we are in the community, we look at all members, because there is something that is happening to the men that puts the women in a very vulnerable situation.
If I may go back to what I said at the very beginning: I don't like dealing with symptoms. I prefer to go to the cause of the problem. The situation that women find themselves in is a symptom of a much deeper problem. Why are men in such a situation that they cannot provide a better quality of life to their women and children? Can we really improve the society by focusing on the women alone? Or should we improve the quality of those communities, so that the men can play their role, the women can play their role and the children can play their role?
So as much as I want to say "let us look at the women" and I'm working very hard with the women, I'm looking for the men. I find the men hanging around in the shopping centre, and I want to know what has happened so that that these men can find it OK to stand here or be drinking while their women are working themselves dead in the fields. What is it? That's what I would like to get into.
* Africa Renewal is published by the Strategic Communications Division of the United Nations Department of Public Information, with support from UNDP, UNICEF and UNIFEM. Its contents do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or the publication's supporting organizations. Portions of this interview may be freely reproduced, but please credit: This interview was first published by Africa Renewal, www.un.org/AR
Author
Anonymous (not verified)
