Protecting Mother Earth? In Harmony with Nature?

Support for and questions about Evo Morales’ initiative

Francine Mestrumwww.globalsocialjustice.comEvo Morales, President of Bolivia, played a strong and very positive role at theclimate summit in Copenhagen. After the failure of the meeting, Morales issuedan invitation to the ‘Peoples World Conference on Climate Change and MotherEarth’s Rights’. This people’s summit will take place in Cochabamba, Bolivia, from19 to 22 April 2010. The initiative immediately raised a lot of interest andenthusiasm from activist networks across the world. The aim of the conference is to analyse the structural and systemic causes of climate change, to agree on proposals for new commitments to the KyotoProtocol and projects for a COP Decision under the UNFCC, to work on theorganization of a world referendum on climate change, and to analyse and drawup a plan of action to advance the establishment of a Climate Justice Tribunal. This is a very important political proposal that can contribute to changing thepower relations that now hinder a global agreement in the interest of nature andhumankind. While it certainly is possible to have some doubts on the technicaldetails of some proposals, I can only welcome the possibility to discuss them andto try to reach a major convergence.However, if it is the objective to reach a global agreement, I have serious doubtson the wording of some demands. The first question in the proposed referendum is: ‘Do you agree with re-establishing harmony with nature while recognizing the rights of Mother Earth?’While I can answer positively to the other questions of the referendum, here I amafraid my answer has to be NO. I do not think there is any political disagreementbetween us, but this question raises some philosophical and legal problems. Thequestion has been worded from an indigenous perspective, and I fully accepttheir right to do so. However, for people raised within another philosophicalparadigm, it is more difficult to accept.1.‘Mother Earth’: this seems to me to be fundamentally anti-feminist. Whycan our planet not also be our ‘father’? Can and should men not alsonourish their children? By feminizing the Earth, one gives a specific role towomen and this is precisely what feminists have been fighting against fordecades. The point can certainly be debated among feminists, but I thinkthat most of us want a strict equality principle to be respected. Speaking of ‘Mother Earth’ gives women and mothers a specific responsibility that isimportant to share with men, if ever we want to have more just andbalanced societies.2.‘In Harmony with Nature’: never ever in history have men and women lived‘in harmony’ with nature, they have always searched for ways of co-existence with nature, some civilizations being more aggressive thanothers. Nature has not only a positive dimension, but also many negativedimensions. Think of the earthquake in Haiti, an ‘Act of God’ as was said inthe past, a natural fact for which we can and should try to diminish thedisastrous impact. Precisely because Haiti is so poor it was never able tointroduce the necessary protections. Throughout history, societies have