Interview with a Drowning President, Kiribati's Anote Tong | The Nation


Interview with a Drowning President, Kiribati's Anote Tong

  • Share
  • Decrease text size Increase text size

If you've not heard of the central Pacific island nation of Kiribati (pronounced KIRR-i-bas), odds are you're not familiar with Tuvalu, the Maldives or the Marshall Islands either. These are the first nations expected to be lost—as early as mid-century—to sea-level rise linked to fossil fuel–fired climate change. In 2008,under the leadership of President Anote Tong, Kiribati made a grand gift to the world:it declared 150,000 square miles of its Phoenix Islands marine area a fully protected marine park, making it off limits to fishing and other extractive uses. This ocean wilderness is the size of California and has been designated a UN World Heritage Site. It has been described asone of the most pristine parts of our blue planet, with rich biodiversity including an abundance of healthy corals, big sharks, groupers, tuna, giant clams and other critters that have been depleted in much of the rest of the world.

About the Author

David Helvarg
David Helvarg is an author and President of the Blue Frontier Campaign, a marine conservation and policy group. His...

Also by the Author

With Republicans in full control in Washington, next year's prospects
are grim.

Questions about Enron's links to the White House and Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force are reassuring. They mean that the nation, after the September 11 attacks, is now confident enough to focus on some of the more traditional threats to our democracy, like the corporate takeover of our political system.

Following the release of the White House energy plan last year, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) demanded the Energy Task Force's records, including any interactions with major Bush campaign donors like Enron's Ken Lay. The Vice President's office refused to release the documents, claiming that Congress was exceeding its oversight authority. One of the oil and gas men whose privacy the White House wants to protect is Cheney himself, who in 1999, as CEO of Halliburton, was a member of the Petroleum Council, an advisory group to the Energy Department. The council issued a report calling for the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and of roadless areas of the West to fossil fuel exploitation, proposals incorporated into the White House plan.

The GAO was preparing to sue for the first time in its eighty-year history when the terrorists struck. It then put its suit on hold so it could focus on "homeland security" and let the White House do the same. With the collapse of Enron and the beginning of Congressional hearings on the largest bankruptcy in US history, that holding pattern appears to be ending.

Still, even as environmental groups backed away from criticizing the President after September 11, the White House continued to push its "free market" environmental agenda. This past October, Interior Secretary Gale Norton had to explain why she'd altered scientific data, in a letter to the Senate, to make it appear that oil operations in the Arctic would not harm hundreds of thousands of migratory caribou, when in fact her own Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had provided her with data suggesting it would. "We did make a mistake. We will take steps to clarify and correct that," she told reporters in explaining one of the many discrepancies in her letter.

Norton has also concluded that drilling in the Arctic won't violate an international treaty that protects polar bears. The FWS, which has twice issued reports stating that drilling poses a threat to the bears, was directed to "correct these inconsistencies" with Norton's position. Polar bears can live with oil drilling, the FWS now tells us. They'll just look more like panda bears.

Ten years after President Bush Sr. pledged "no net loss of wetlands," George W. has signed off on an Army Corps of Engineers proposal that will make it easier for developers and mining companies to dredge and fill America's vital wetlands through a "general permitting" process that is rarely if ever challenged. Again, Norton failed to forward comments from her FWS to the corps, even though the FWS had written that the proposed policy change would result in "tremendous destruction of aquatic and terrestrial habitat."

Among the beneficiaries of the new engineer corps rules will be mining companies involved in "mountaintop removal" in Appalachia. J. Steven Griles, Norton's deputy, was a longtime mining lobbyist, and Norton herself lobbied for the lead industry.

Over at the EPA Christie Whitman won greenie points when she ordered GE to begin dredging PCBs out of the Hudson River. At the same time, the EPA has begun moving top career people (from the office of wetlands, enforcement, etc.) around the agency in a strange reorganization no one quite understands. "Are they purposely designing this to hamstring EPA for the next twenty years?" wonders a career employee who also complains that enforcement actions (as opposed to industry-friendly out-of-court settlements) are down significantly in the past year.

Under White House and lobbyist pressure, the EPA is also getting ready to relax clean air standards (that, as governor of New Jersey, Whitman supported) requiring old coal-fired power plants to shut down or significantly reduce gaseous emissions that contribute to acid rain and other forms of pollution.

Even Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's recent Detroit auto show announcement that the government will work with the auto industry to develop pollution-free hydrogen-fuel-cell cars got mixed reactions. That's because he used the announcement to abandon a program aimed at improving existing auto fuel-efficiency standards. As usual, most of these environmental policy decisions are rife with corporate conflicts of interest, but conflicts that in recent months have gotten even less media attention than they normally would.

In her public appearances Whitman now emphasizes the need to protect America's water supply from terrorists (if not arsenic). Norton has been pushing the argument that drilling in ANWR can provide as much oil as we import from Iraq in eighty years (or the oily equivalent of sixteen years of Cheney's diet), and President Bush insists that Arctic drilling will make us "more secure at home." If nothing else, America's new "war on terrorism" is helping the Bush White House in its old war on the environment.

President Anote Tong is a slim, handsome man of mixed Chinese/Gilbertese ancestry with bright brown eyes, silver hair and a trim mustache. He was elected president in 2003 in a tight race against his older brother. He was re-elected in 2007 with a solid majority and has emerged as a global leader for both ocean conservation and a more rigorous response to global warming. I interviewed him at a California and World Oceans meeting in San Francisco in early September where he was the keynote speaker. We met on the seventh floor of the Hyatt Regency where, as a visiting head of state, he was being guarded by a security detail from the US Secret Service.

David Helvarg: What motivated Kiribati to set aside the largest marine reserve in history?

President Anote Tong: Earlier at the United Nations I was bitter at the international community for not listening [on climate change]. But then it became clear that if we made a contribution this large, it was also a statement on our part. So, this was a significant contribution to the world community in the hope they would also act.

Kiribati was the first nation to greet the new millennium [because of its location on the international dateline], but it may not be around to greet the next century, because of rising sea levels.

This is exactly right, and this is the challenge for the global community to act. I went to [the 2009 global climate negotiations in] Copenhagen and I was extremely disappointed. There was not what we'd have liked to see there. Where will our people go [if our land is submerged]? No one has come forward with an offer [for relocating Kiribati's population]. We would take what's available. The former president of Zambia told me "we have plenty of room," and we could move there, but he's since died. New Zealand allows 75 [Kiribati] people in its [annual] quota. A scenario like that is doable, but it would have to be greatly expanded.

Are you getting a response from Australia or the US?

I find people are more compassionate than governments. We keep asking the international community to act and to give more focus to our part of the world because you've done this to us and what are you going to do about it? I've been waiting for an answer quite some time and we are running out of time.

I'm calling a meeting in November in Kiribas, inviting large countries—the big polluters—and have them meet with the victims, the most vulnerable states: ours and the Marshall Islands and the Maldives. The November meeting will highlight the whole issue at very high tides. Our nation's average elevation is 2 meters.

Do you have agreement on this issue at home? Does the opposition support you?

At one time the churches opposed me, saying, "God created the world and God created the scientists and he will determine what happens." But that has since been resolved. We had one church leader who said the Bible was clear that there was only one flood. But then a junior minister pointed out that Noah's flood was rain, and this [coming inundation] was not going to be rain but the seas rising up. In Parliament I told the tale of the woman in New Orleans after Katrina who rejected people's help three times because she said God would save her. When she then drowned and went to heaven and asked why he'd let her die, God pointed out he'd sent her help three times.

So most people are now aware of the threat and prepared to move?

At first I didn't want to agitate the public about something they could not affect, but now we have to prepare the public. Not to be refugees—because that's a world we don't like—but for relocation with dignity. Our status is not at our initiation and our churches are now involved [in preparing people for the future]. All of our islands are now involved looking at possible options.

We have examples as recently as last week in Parliament of requests for sea walls to be constructed and we've been doing surveys. In one village it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and for another island with one village, the cost is closer to two million. We don't have the money. But still we try to attend to the most urgent issues, and the people all say, "'But we are in an urgent situation." You have the erosion and flooding at high tides and [saltwater] intrusion into food crops, but we don't have the money to respond.

Will you still have rights as a nation after the nation has been submerged?

These are new emerging questions. What legally happens to our nation? Can we maintain our rights to our Economic Exclusive Zone, to the largest world heritage site?

Can you envision your people being relocated intact, the whole population staying together in another place?

That's hard to envision.

Returning to the more hopeful subject of the new marine reserve, you're also working to create a linked system of protected areas across the entire Pacific Ocean, aren't you?

We're looking to work with others on a Pacific Oceanscape framework and again moving ahead, moving forward. You cannot do one of these in isolation. We need to link with the rest and beyond because the ocean does not stop where political boundaries are drawn. It's a dream, and if we all dream alike, we can make it so.

I understand that the size of the marine park is so vast—it's a five-day boat ride from the nearest port, in Fiji—that you have not yet visited this island group.

I definitely plan to go out there. I need to make sure we have a credible presence there.

And you'll be bringing your snorkel gear?

[Smiling brightly] I will definitely bring that.

  • Share
  • Decrease text size Increase text size

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.