P & R
UNEPUNDP
Print Edition
ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
 
Inter Press Service
Search Archive
 
  Home Page
  Current Issue
  Report
  Analysis
  Accents
  Eco-briefs
  Books
  People of Tierramérica
                Notable
              Writings
   Dialogues
 
Kyoto Protocol
  About us
  Inter Press Service
The world's leading provider of information on global issues
  UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
  UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
 
Q&A


Carlos Monsiváis
"Leaving future generations with the right to breathe once every three days"

By Pilar Franco *

MEXICO CITY - Many in Mexico agree that it is impossible to categorize writer Carlos Monsiváis, but he defines himself as "a reader". Regardless, his active participation in an array of cultural, social and political movements in this country has made him a privileged witness of contemporary history.

Among his many facets, his work as an implacable analyst and critic has turned Monsiváis into a point of reference.

"We live as if future generations would only have the right to breathe every three days," the winner of the 2001 Anagrama International Essay Prize said in a conversation with Tierramérica, referring to the environmental scars left by military conflicts.

Also a journalist, he was born in the Mexican capital in 1938, has written several books of poetry and of the most varied topics of Mexican pop culture.

Q: What would you consider a successful battle in the "war against the war" that has been launched by societies around the world?
A: The great victory would be the creation of a global citizenry, one that emerges simultaneously in all parts of the world, under the principle stimulus of information. There was minimal effort to coordinate the two major marches in many cities and countries (in February and March). Resulting in what could be called "joint intuition" or an organic will that does not come from political parties or assemblies, enormous contingents that have demonstrated against the war, acquiring along the way an international knowledge and informed solidarity. This is the first great battle won against indifference, fear of finding out. The second great battle is the certainty that it is impossible to accept that only one country, and a tiny group in that country, as owners of the fundamental decisions on the planet. The third great battle is the importance of information. Frequently via the Internet, through avid readership and obsessive consumption of news, it is now understood why information is power, not to halt the war but to say that ignorance and frustration can no longer be a pretext.

Q: Are poets, writers and artists building a global reference point for the peace cause?
A: Poets, writers and artists have had multiple participation in the opposition to the war. The role of artists has stood out most because they are inevitably the most well known. And there was the wonderful effort of staging the Aristophanes play "Lysistrata" on the same day in so many countries. However, the core of the mobilizations has been the young people, the great generational rebirth of the democratic struggles. It is exciting to see the commitment of young people who were thought to be isolated forever on some reality show.

Q: Do you think an environmental security treaty prohibiting harm to the natural surroundings would also serve to hone a global anti-war policy?
A: The government of George W. Bush, typically, refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol (on climate change), proving -- even before the war -- his absolute and brutal indifference to the planet. Of course an environmental security agreement is indispensable, but it runs counter to the interests of the big transnationals that the U.S. government so unrelentingly serves.

Q: Why do you think so little concern was expressed about the ecological harm caused by recent wars?
A: We haven't incorporated ecological awareness among our daily duties. We live as if future generations only had the right to breathe on every third day. Governments, not wanting to upset the big capitalists, do not recognize all of the environmental catastrophes (a good example of this is the series of governments in Mexico). Society worries about its children but not about the ecosystems they are destined to inhabit.

Q: According to the Bush perspective, preserving the environment cannot be part of an energy policy. Is conserving energy and using it efficiently up to government leaders?
A: Of course not, but so far issues like energy policies have not been electoral issues. It is up to non-governmental organizations, political parties and society as a whole to politicize the issue -- in the good sense of the word.

* Pilar Franco is a Tierramérica contributor.

 


Copyright © 2003 Tierramérica. All Rights Reserved
 


Carlos Monsiváis