Survivors want action, not words, after report into sexual misconduct in military;

Guests: Donna Riguidel, Dawn Mcllmoyle

[clip] [/clip]

SOUNDCLIP

The challenges are big. This tradition has been very persistent. It is getting worse. Climate change is real. We are victims of climate change.

MATT GALLOWAY: Those victims are in East Africa where residents can't remember the last time it rained enough. The soil has turned to dust and famine is looming in 30 minutes. Why? What's unfolding now may only get worse in the face of climate change and why the U.N. is warning that this crisis of access to water may soon become our crisis. Also this morning. It is a long road ahead for a community shattered by gun violence. We'll hear from a psychologist who worked with the families of the Sandy Hook shooting a decade ago and is tired with a cycle of trauma that she says is anything but unimaginable. Plus.

SOUNDCLIP

We will not follow the narrative and the allegation of somebody who is thousands of miles away from his motherland.

MG: Those allegations are about a painting, a Picasso, to be precise. It was seen hanging in the Philippines apartment of Imelda Marcos years ago and was supposed to have been turned over as evidence of ill gotten wealth. Instead, it vanished. Now the painting seems to have turned up there again after her son, Ferdinand Marcos Jr, became the new Filipino president. Coming up, how a picture of a picture on a wall has set off an international search for missing art. We begin, though, with yet another call for culture change in the Canadian military. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: A new reality. A Paradigm Shift. Former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour's new report into how the military handles issues of sexual abuse, assault and harassment is not asking for half measures. This is the third such report in the past seven years to call for a major overhaul and comes after a tidal wave of allegations and revelations of misconduct in senior ranks of the Canadian military in the past couple of years. One of the report's key recommendations to make sure that civilian courts and tribunals, rather than military courts, handle all cases of sexual misconduct. The Minister of National Defence, Anita Anand, says this time around she's working together with military leadership and the bureaucracy to make sure the recommendations are carried out.

SOUNDCLIP

That's what's different this time, the team. If we do not take this moment for what it is, and implement the recommendations that identify deep areas of need for change in the Canadian Armed Forces and the defence team broadly, we run the risk of not being a fully effective military domestically and internationally. And in this moment in time, when the world appears to be growing darker, we must grab the bull by the horns and make these changes now.

MG: I'm joined now by two survivors from within the ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces. Donna, Riguidel left the military in 1997 as a result of military sexual trauma. She later founded Survivor Perspectives Consulting Group in efforts to help alleviate the sexual assault trauma crisis in the military. And Dawn Mcllmoyle, left the armed forces in 1993 after she says a male colleague raped her. She is now an advocate for survivors of abuse. They both join us now. Good morning to you both.

DONNA RIGUIDEL: Good morning.

DAWN MCLLMOYLE: Good morning.

MG: Donna. GOODELL This is the third report, as I said, in seven years that the government says it accepts it welcomes the recommendations. The minister says that this time is going to be different. Do you believe her that this will be different this time?

DONNA RIGUIDEL: I want to believe her. So what? What? The term that I've been using most often is I'm guardedly optimistic. I think that we have to believe that this change is coming because, honestly, survivors deserve it. We've waited long enough. I know that the vast majority of those who serve in uniform are really professional and very good at their jobs. And I'm hoping that we can finally create a Canadian Armed Forces that's worthy, honestly, of them and their efforts and potentially their sacrifice.

MG: But your guard in that optimism.

DONNA RIGUIDEL: Very guarded. This is not obviously the first time that you've had this even, you know, Madam Arbour made reference to that, that, you know, a lot of recommendations are basically, you know, hey, can you actually implement the stuff that was recommended the first time around? So that's where that sort of distrust comes from, is it's kind of a you said all the great, the right things the first time around and we didn't see the change that that we needed. So we're hoping that finally this time maybe we'll actually make further progress on this issue.

MG: Dawn Mcllmolyle, we'll talk more about the specific recommendations in a moment. But is that sound familiar? Is your optimism guarded? Are you optimistic at all?

DAWN MCLLMOYLE: I say that I'm cautiously optimistic. You know, I came forward in 1998 on the front cover of MacLean's, 24 years ago now. And I've just watched a merry-go-round of the same thing, go on and on and on. And all I'm seeing is words with no deeds. So lots of talk, no action.

MG: One of the key recommendations, Don, is that just as Cerber is recommending that criminal sexual offences are handled by a civilian court. What difference would it have made for you if your case was handled by civilians rather than military authorities?

DAWN MCLLMOYLE: Or you see, I apparently fell under the bracket in 1992 of the civilian authorities, yet I never even spoke to a civilian authority. I was interviewed by the military police who told me they talked to a crown attorney, but I never actually talked to a Crown attorney. So I didn't even know that I fell under civilian jurisdiction back in 1992 and that they changed it in 1998. I honestly I think that it was a complete, like you said, only need to deal with one system. So, you know, if. But then military police. And then I would have had to. Like, why did the military police investigate if I was under civilian jurisdiction? So, you know, that would be questions that'll have to happen this time, too. Like, is it going to be taken by civilian police right from the beginning? Are military police going to be obsolete in this now? Like, there's still a lot of questions to be asked and answered. But, you know, I see it as a way forward.

MG: Donna Riguidel, what difference would it make, do you think, in the cases of those who feel as though their cases weren't treated commensurate with the severity of the allegations?

DONNA RIGUIDEL: Right. I think that there's some very good reasons why this needs to happen. I point to the fact that, you know, last summer we had at least nine very high ranking members of the military accused of various acts, some, you know, severe acts of sexual misconduct, some not as severe, not as high harm. And, you know, they really there was a problem investigating them. I mean, up to the [unintelligible] couldn't be investigated because his rank was just so much higher than everybody else's. So I definitely see hope there. Where I see problems are things like there are crimes that are right now prosecutable under the military legal system that won't be under the civilian system. So those cases will fall in the cracks. We've had a, I know that under the military system, but we do have a lower conviction rate. I mean, conviction rates for sexual assault across the boarder, pretty abysmal. But in the CAF, it's even lower. And I know from speaking to victims that have gone through the military system that a lot of times they'll get rate up to, you know, the 11th hour and then the sexual assault element is pulled away and it only becomes, you know, conduct the prejudice, the good order of which is sort of our catch all. So now the survivor feels like they were sort of erased. Their experience didn't matter. So, again, a mixed bag. I had a case that we got all the way through the civilian system till again the 11th hour and then charges were dropped. So I recognise that, you know, the legal system can have devastating consequences for survivors and really has a long way to go, whether military or civilian. But I see reasons that it's going to be hopeful, but also some that I, I have cautious cautions about.

MG: What about this idea of an independent civilian body to oversee the military and report to parliament? A lot of people have been calling for this. Louise Arbour said that if her recommendations are fully implemented, that individual independent civilian body is not necessary. What do you make of that, Donna?

DONNA RIGUIDEL: I think it's a good idea. I don't have faith that it's going to work. I mean, originally the SMRC was supposed to be that sexual misconduct response centre was supposed to be a completely independent body from the CAF and outside of the chain of command. And they sort of are, but not enough there. Their budget, their activities is still so tied in to what the Canadian Forces does that although, you know, on paper they report directly to, you know, sort of the chain of command. They really they're in lockstep with a lot of what the chain of command does. So I think that, again, if there's an honest effort to actually implement the changes and the intent behind the changes, I think that we will go a long way in the right direction. I think where the CAF falls into in trouble is that, again, there's this desire to sort of do it like a checklist, right? Like, okay, did we put a training programme in check. Okay, but is it the right training programme? That question wasn't asked. It was just, 'Did we have one now? Yes, we did. Okay. We've met that recommendation.' It has to go so much more than that. It has to be, 'Is this effective. Is this the right solution? Is it meeting that spirit of it versus just the letter of the law?

MG: Well, let's talk a bit more about that, because, again, this is the spirit versus the letter or something that Louise Arbour raised. You raised the issue just now of an honest attempt to try and make change. We saw yesterday, Dawn Mcllmoyle, while the Federal Government saying that it's accepted these recommendations in full. But did you hear enough about how the government and the military will take action to correct this situation?

DAWN MCLLMOYLE: No, I heard a lot of support, which isn't the same as implementation. So she said, I support all of these recommendations. I'm going to work on the 17 recommendations, one third. But what happened? Like we're still working on the ten recommendations from Justice Marie Day.

MG: She being Anita Anand the Minister of Defence.

DAWN MCLLMOYLE: Yes, I'm sorry. Minister Andnd. Yes, you know, I. I understand when Justice Garber said that if all of these were implemented, there would not be a requirement for independent oversight. Because I feel like she even said in her statement that they'll they will drag their feet if they can for some reason. Like she said, if she didn't ask for monthly updates, she thought that the minister would still be writing her letter to provincial authorities. She had to request those monthly updates. So I think what she's saying is that until these are all implemented, there does require someone to oversee it and say what has been done and did it work effectively? Do you need to go back to the drawing board? It's okay to make mistakes when you're doing culture change and go back and learn from those mistakes. You know, like. We're not going to get it perfect the first time, you know? So it's not an overnight fix. This is going to take time and it's okay to get things wrong and go back and redo it.

MG: To a lot of people, it's taken too long. Let's go back seven years. Stephen Harper was the prime minister, another retired justice, Marie Deschamps delivered her report on this issue to that Conservative government. And on this programme we spoke with Nicola Peffers, a former member of the Canadian Navy, who alleged that she'd been sexually harassed while on duty. Take a listen to what she said in 2015 about how optimistic she was that things would change.

SOUNDCLIP

They might change slowly. It's like it's this kind of change. It has to go down deep into the culture of the organisation. It's it's not going to happen overnight. There are so many people that are into the culture of this machismo, sort of woman hating environment. And I mean, it is a lot of the older people that are now coming into retirement. So as those people retire, I think the culture will improve gradually over the next maybe five years. But this also the young people as well that are coming in that are being groomed to have that same attitude.

MG: So Don, Mcllmoyle, that's seven years ago. How much does the culture change since then, do you think?

DAWN MCLLMOYLE: I think they're more there's there's a more willingness to engage with survivors, you know, I think seven years ago. What she says is pretty bang on, like change doesn't happen overnight. You know, I think about in 1998, I was like so naive and gullible. I thought if I put my face on that magazine, that issue would stop. And now I realize that, you know, it does take quite a while for these things to happen. And I hold on to the hope. I have a granddaughter, and if she wants to join, I want to be able to say go for it.

MG: But you really put yourself out there and putting your face on that magazine. I mean, you believed that that would lead to change. You just wonder what it was like. We're having this conversation seven years after that initial report came out. Did you feel let down? Did you feel personally as though putting yourself out there did not achieve that goal?

DAWN MCLLMOYLE: No, because putting myself out there actually allowed other people to come forward and empowered other people to start their healing journey. So, you know, it was all worth it. No matter if the change in the military doesn't happen, it's still helping other people heal that this has happened, too. So putting myself out there in the long run was worth it.

MG: Donna Riguidel, you left the military and then you went back into the military. Do you think based on that, can a culture actually change?

DONNA RIGUIDEL: A culture can change, but not the way the military has been trying to do it. This is not a military problem. I know it seems that way, but it's a societal problem. And the the issue with the way the military's approached this the whole way along is they've tried to put a military solution on it. They've tried to order, you know, people to behave more ethically and tried to mandate the movement. You can't do that. You have to engage. You have to discuss. You have to, you know, give people an opportunity to see things through a new lens. It's not enough to just order somebody behave well because we're not just trying to create a better military. You need to be speaking to and changing that human that wears the uniform, not just the uniform itself.

MG: What if you do things like and again, this is something that was recommended in terms of looking at royal military colleges and examining what happens in those colleges and perhaps then eliminating those colleges and running people through civilian colleges. Is that the way to change a culture?

DONNA RIGUIDEL: I think that there definitely needs to be an examination of the culture at Arm's C. I don't think that's enough. I think that I mean, yes. Do we graduate a lot of leaders from C? Absolutely. But the vast bulk of the military doesn't go through Arm C, this is a problem that's so much deeper than just the college system. Again, it's about changing the toxic culture that we've all been saturated in for, you know, the length of our military career. And is that going to happen overnight? No, of course not. But it also cannot happen just by ordering people to be more ethical or be more compassionate, you actually have to go in and give them the tools and what that looks like. Like when we did our training, it's a matter of, look, this is how you support a survivor. Here's what you say. Here are some things not to say. This is how you recognise problems in your units before they escalate and hurt people and here's how to fix them. It has to be that clear, and you have to be really direct with your language, with your approach. The military has tried to, you know, take the edge off everything and use language like affected person or person lived experience or sexual misconduct or harmful and appropriate sexualised behaviour. No, call it what it is. Sexual assault, victimisation, survivor. It needs to be really clear and really blunt because you have to be clear about what happened. Don't diminish the experiences of the people that through this, be clear about what happened and let's really talk about it. That's how you create that change.

MG: The Chief of the Defence Staff, Wayne Eyre, spoke about his commitment to change yesterday. Have a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

For one who has grown up in this this institution, it can be a difficult read. And perhaps what has happened in the past is we've been too defensive when we had an external set of eyes on us. But we've got to take this report in the spirit in a way in which it was intended, and that is to make us a better institution, to improve our institutions so that we can continue to deliver for Canadians. In her opening comments and in the report, Madame de Boer talks about palpable change being in the air. I sense that as well. As I go around with the minister, as I have my own visits. Change is absolutely necessary. We have to welcome an external view of our organisation because as as we've made clear over the course of last year, we don't have all the answers, we don't have it ourselves.

MG: Dwan Mcllmoyle Royal, do you think the military is going to welcome that external view? Is the military at its core going to and it speaks to the difficulty of Wiener's job there be able to change itself.

DAWN MCLLMOYLE: You know, I don't think they have a choice now because all eyes are on them. And it's been pointed out that this is an ongoing issue. And so I think more and more people are saying, like, when is this going to finally stop? So I don't think I think they're going to have to get comfortable with being uncomfortable and having those hard conversations. I've actually spoken to the chief of Defence Staff. His willingness to engage with survivors is absolutely amazing. You know, he he treated me like a human. He didn't just treat me like, you know, just somebody, anybody. It was a beautiful experience. So if these, you know, if they are willing to listen and hear, you know, sometimes not so flattering things and learn from them — then we we have the capability of having a an honourable, respectful institution again, that doesn't have these issues.

MG: Donna Riguidel, this is something that we've spoken with a number of survivors with on this programme about the issue of Broken Trust, also with Wehner, the Chief of the Defence Staff, about how difficult it is to earn that trust when there's a parade of senior military officials who themselves are investigated as part of this crisis as the crisis unfolds. How do you regain that trust?

DONNA RIGUIDEL: I it's going to be a long. You have to, first of all, be accountable to it. And I don't know if that's entirely happened. I'll give you a really good example. On 30 March, I was released from the military medically due to PTSD. The day before my release, I received a CDS, achieved defence staff commendation for creating the training that year that we put 1500 people through. Three days before that I got a letter from CPC that the organisation has been charged with, with working this issue, letting me know that they were not going to continue or try to institutionalise my training in any way, shape or form, despite the fact that all told, we put eight 872 people through it and 98% of them said that this is training that they need that gave them the tools that they can work towards culture change. The element leads the Army, Navy and Air Force. Leeds all said that this is something that we need.

MG: Then you get a letter that congratulate you and they say they're not going to move forward on the training.

DONNA RIGUIDEL: Exactly. And now so we're trying to take because I still have almost 20 requests a little over. Yeah, about 20 requests waiting in my email box for again, units informations across Canada and overseas looking for this training. And we're trying to push it forward because we recognise that this is this is answering a lot of the questions that people have about how to best address this issue. So we still stand by, ready to help as soon as we, you know, get kind of tapped in. So I'm hoping that maybe with the report that this will once again drive home that the caf can't do this on its own. Similarly to you can't get through military training on your own. The military can't solve this on their own. They're going to need to bring people in to help them.

MG: We're just about out of time. And I'll ask you, Donna, what would you say to a young woman who is thinking about a career in the military right now? Just briefly, what would you say?

DONNA RIGUIDEL: I would, first of all, congratulate her for making a powerful choice. I would tell her that, you know, that there are risks involved, unfortunately, in being a woman anywhere, including in the uniform. And I would tell her that I've got her back that to please if if you see something or hear something or experience something, reach out. There's a lot of us out there that are that are willing and ready to help. I'm heartened by the fact that it's becoming more common that we're not hearing bad stories. And I hope that's going to continue.

MG: Thank you both for being here this morning.

DAWN MCLLMOYLE: Thank you.

MG: Donna Riguidel left the military in 1997 as a result of military sexual trauma. She's the founder of Survivor Perspectives Consulting Group. Dawn Mcllmoyle left the armed forces in 1993 after she says a male colleague raped her. She is now an advocate for survivors of abuse. We asked for interviews with both Anita Anand and Louise Arbour. Neither were available this morning. We'd love to hear from you on this. You can email us Thecurrent@cbc.ca or find us on Twitter. We're at the current CBC. I'm Matt Galloway. This is the. Back in 6 minutes. Stick around.

East Africa drought is everyone’s problem, says scientist

Guests: Barron Orr, Aliow Mohamed

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, the story of a missing Picasso, the new leader of the Philippines and the shadowy world of very high priced art. That's coming up in just under 30 minutes. But first, to East Africa, where drought has pushed countries to the brink.

[Music: Theme]

MG: East Africa is experiencing its worst drought in 40 years. Thousands of people have been displaced from their homes and they are on the edge of famine. Aid groups are overwhelmed and are in desperate need of help.

SOUNDCLIP

The situation is really dire, especially because what we are seeing is over 23 million people across Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia are facing extreme hunger. Nearly six million children are acutely malnourished. It's also getting worse. We are anticipating, unfortunately, that one person is likely to die every 48 seconds if indeed this is not addressed.

MG: That's Parvin Ngala. Oxfam International's regional director of East and Central Africa. They're up against not just the drought, but also convincing the world to pay attention.

SOUNDCLIP

In the Eastern Africa region. We've got an appeal for us billion dollars and at the moment only 3% of this has been funded. And as we speak, the Ukraine crisis is one of the other areas where a lot of the attention globally is, which means for other crises, such as the hunger crisis in the Eastern Africa region, it's not getting the attention needed, which trickles also to the resources allocated towards it.

MG: Aliow Mohamed is the Somalia country director for the humanitarian NGO Islamic Relief. He's in Hargeisa. Ali Muhammad, hello.

ALIOW MOHAMED: Thank you. Hello to you about. How are you?

MG: I'm well. Thank you for being here. I mentioned in the introduction that East Africa is experiencing its worst drought in 40 years. What does that look like on the ground where you are?

ALIOW MOHAMED: The situation on the ground is really very bad, just to say the least. And we are actually facing a humanitarian famine, which has been as a result of lack of rainfall for a couple of years, escalating for the last four. So about we haven't had enough sustained rainfall. So the situation has been continuously dire and as the time goes by. So things are really bad here on the ground.

MG: What is the humanitarian aid that you need the most right now? What is most urgently required?

ALIOW MOHAMED: The most urgently required, basically is food and water and medical intervention, because these are the three critical things that we needed like yesterday, lack of rain for the last four years or so state has resulted to people losing their livelihoods, their animals, their farms. So food basically to avoid how do we avoid hunger, how to avoid famine. So food is one of the critical thing. Water still is the most important thing that we require. And the compounding effect of this drought, lack of food. And you know, when you don't have food, your body is emaciated, you become weaker. And then, of course, there's an opportunistic infections and diseases like malaria. So the health of the children, elderly, women, all in a very sorry state. So these are the three critical things that we require as of today.

MG: When was the last time there was adequate rain in the region?

ALIOW MOHAMED: Actually, I can say that I don't remember because, you know, in 2011 there was a devastating drought and then there was some kind of shower there about in 2017, similar situation happened. And now we are in 2020, 2021, 2022 now. So there is no single year, I can say, maybe in the next five to 10 years that we had a sustained rainfall that has resulted to replenishment of the fodder for the animals, farming for the farmers, and also, you know, making the livelihood of these people better.

MG: Paint me a picture of what that looks like. I mean, what does the soil look like? What are the fields look like when you can't remember the last time that there was a sustained rainfall?

ALIOW MOHAMED: Seriously. You know, the farms I think the farms have already been abandoned. The land, the soils are all rocky and with no sense of lives and, you know, supporting any livelihood. And, you know, the community in this area, they're mainstays of basically keeping livestock. But we also have a small fraction of them who are engaging in farming. So people are now kind of abandoning their livelihood systems and end up in the camps and the countries where the government or the NGOs are supporting with the few resources that they have.

MG: What are the conditions like in those camps?

ALIOW MOHAMED: It's really overcrowded. And every other day, every other month, every other week, every other time we receive a new group of people to this camp. So the camp is basically overcrowded. And recently there was an outbreak of cholera. This is what we call acute watery diarrhoea. And close to 20 or so people deaths were reported in some other camps. Closer to 280 plus was admitted to the cholera treatment centres. We actually were hopeful for the rain, for the April rain and now April is gone and May is gone, June is gone. And you know, these are the usually the three months where we have the long rainfall. And now as we are going on to June, July, then we are now facing the real dry spell, which is in the Somali seasonal calendar in itself, the month of July, August, September, October is dry season. So with no rainfall already happening and with no rain expected as predicted, then these camps will continue to be overwhelming. And, you know, we will foresee some kind of sorry states of people dying and, you know, hunger, increasing famine, becoming likelihood.

MG: There is a real concern about a famine. And in part, this is connected to the cost of food. What's happened to food prices as the drought has continued?

ALIOW MOHAMED: Thank you. And actually, you know, in Somalia, during the good days when they were they were farming, they produce, you know, maize, sorghum. But things like rice with these are imported. And ever since the Ukraine war or the COVID happened, the process has been escalating. You know, by the day. And one of the things that when I was at INGOs as humanitarian organisations we are grappling with is the fact that now the prices of of the food, the prices of commodities have tripled. And where you you know, where we are able to use a certain amount of money to sustain a household with food for a month now. We cannot even do it for a week or so. And that is a significant tripling of prices of commodities. And this is even making the situation much more was because we cannot be able to get, you know, enough supplies or food as we wished, not because maybe there was no resources, but because the availability of this food is now not able to be found. And at the same time, the suppliers in between, sorry, tripling the prices. And we also, again, foresee this to continue in the couple of months to come, if not until the end of the year.

MG: Just finally, you mentioned 2011. A quarter of a million Somalis died in 2011 because of famine. What is it like for you to see this unfolding again?

ALIOW MOHAMED: And that is very likely to happen again. And, you know, earlier this year, we as humanitarian organisations, we sent an appeal to the international organisation. And also we just recently, a month ago, we sent again another appeal to the United Nations Secretary General as part of the humanitarian organisations working in Somalia, that we needed to have the U.N. to mobilise the international communities to be able to kind of mitigate the return of 2011. The good thing was that in 2011 we experienced similar situations, but the international community, having learnt from 2011, came together and we were able to divert the hunger. But at this point, I mean basically in 2011 things were different. Now we are talking of the Ukraine war, the COVID and many other things that is compounding this situation and the interest of, you know, the international community is divided. And actually, it's now almost four months since we have sent an appeal. And actually from the humanitarian response appeal, which we usually collate and put together and submit to the international community for funding. Only 16.8% were funded. That is a total of 1.46 billion, while the appeal and only 256 million thereabout were funded. So and we are just halfway through the year and that is even not half of the appeal were even reached. So and as the situation now gets deteriorating and with the with the appeal now only at 16% and and as we clock now, the media, I mean, the situation really is bad. And I don't want to, you know, imagine that 2011 scenario will again unfold. But it is actually we are heading there and hopefully the international communities and embassies and organisations out there will be able to listen to us and to our appeal and be able to support the people of Somalia from experiencing or being affected by this this hunger. And we have already started losing children, young children to malnutrition, elderly to lack of food and hunger and lack of water. And it comes as I say, it is overcrowded. So unless the international community now look at this side and say, we are here with you, I mean, the possibility of 2011 is likely to happen again to us.

MG: Do you feel abandoned by the international community?

ALIOW MOHAMED: I think that is how this situation sounds, actually, as I've just said, because we have submitted several appeal. You know, we haven't received any differences in terms of in terms of, you know, support coming forth. So I think I can say that, you know, we felt somehow, you know, abandoned and we still have time. But the other issue is, of course, we have lost this rain, the rainfall for the good rainfall or the longer rainfall for April to June, we have lost it. And if the international community come and help us in terms of giving us what is possible, possibly likely to ready to to prevent us from experiencing famine, we will be much more happy. But the scenario as it is, looks like we are somehow abandoned.

MG: Aliow Mohamed, thank you for talking to us and telling us what you're seeing on the ground there. I appreciate it.

ALIOW MOHAMED: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate that.

MG: Take care of yourself. Bye bye.

ALIOW MOHAMED: Okay, bye.

MG: Bye. Aliow Mohamed is the Somalia country director for the humanitarian NGO Islamic Relief. Other aid groups are also calling it the world's failure to act sooner to prevent this crisis. Here is Oxfam's Parvin Ngala again.

SOUNDCLIP

The ability of the global humanitarian system to really get to the scale that is needed is very limited. We need to be looking at how we respond to risks rather than crises. It's really unfortunate that we wait to see pictures of children who are starved to act rather than deal with the early warning signs.

MG: Barron Orr is the lead scientist at the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification? It's a UN body focussed on reducing and reversing land degradation and the effects of droughts. Barren or hello to you.

BARRON ORR: Hi.

MG: Is that your sense that the world has ignored those early warning signs that we are waiting as a global community to see the effects of drought before we take steps to to prevent it?

BARRON ORR: There's no question that in the past few decades, that has been the approach to respond to drought. However, countries in the last five to 10 years have really started to shift towards planning ahead and being prepared for drought.

MG: What were the early warning signs of another devastating drought in East Africa? What should we have taken note of?

BARRON ORR: Well, there are two sides of it. The first, of course, is the meteorological side, which has to do with the trends that have been projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, that predicted and increased frequency and severity in droughts. But the other side of that, which we call inside the convention. Water scarcity has everything to do with human decisions, and that side of it has to do with what we plant, whether the crops are thirsty or not, whether we allow the land to become degraded and therefore hold less water. Those kinds of things we can do to prepare and increase our resilience to drought that we missed as well.

MG: Had those steps been taken, what could have done to mitigate what we're seeing right now?

BARRON ORR: Well, there's no question that if you can get ahead of this and this is planning over the longer term and you can make better decisions in your entire agricultural arena towards more arid, adapted crops that can withstand periods of drought. If we were better at investing in improving our land and ensuring healthy lands, then the the impact of drought would have been less. Now, I'm not saying that we would have avoided this entirely. There's no question that the severity of this situation would have hit, but we would have had far more resilience if that had occurred.

MG: In this report, you talk about the world being at a crossroads in some ways, saying that over 70% of the world's population will be affected by drought by the year 2050. Tell me more about the crossroads that the world faces right now.

BARRON ORR: Well, I guess one way to think about it is that because we have increased warming, we're putting a lot more energy in the system and that leads to more extreme events. That's true across the board. Not only droughts, floods, we've heard a lot of discussion about hurricanes. But what we don't realise is that drought is the is the big one. It's a slower onset impact, but we're talking about far more impact, monetarily speaking. And of course, far more people die as a result of droughts. So this is the very key to looking forward to to where we go in the future.

MG: Where else would we see those droughts? I mean, we've been speaking on this programme about what's happening in the U.S. Southwest. Obviously now we're talking about East Africa, where else?

BARRON ORR: You know, it's extraordinary. And I could have shared with you articles from the news services all over the world of this past month about drought. And if you'd asked me six months ago, it would be different locations. Nowhere in the world are we immune to this. And I'm not saying that everywhere will increase in frequency at the same rate, but the entire world needs to prepare for a different normal than we had in the past practically.

MG: What does that look like? I mean, in those communities, when you say the entire world needs to prepare, prepare for this, what is that going to mean in terms of the impact on those communities?

BARRON ORR: Well, it's a differential impact, there's no question about that. And it's tied to two things. The closer you are in terms of your income to being dependent on land and the more vulnerable you will be to drought because of the water scarcity issue. And if you add to that that vulnerabilities that already exist, that have to do with poverty, that have to do with inequality, that have to do with perhaps you're a member of an indigenous group or some other vulnerable community that significantly increases the potential influence of drought on your livelihood.

MG: And do you pin this, if not entirely, then overwhelmingly on climate change, the acceleration of drought?

BARRON ORR: I think it's twofold drought itself. The meteorological phenomenon is, no question, strongly influenced by climate change, as demonstrated by the IPCC. But as I mentioned before, water scarcity, that's where human decisions come in. And if we can really look in a more forward looking way at what we do to reduce the risk of water scarcity, we can put a dent in the impact of climate change on drought.

MG: And so what can be done practically there when it comes to the issue of water scarcity?

BARRON ORR: So if we take some of the examples in the world that are in the news right now, very often there are research centres that are working with similar, if not the same crops that are being grown in different parts of the world for their potential adaptation to drought. You know, we've always talked about changing our food supply to make it more. We can withstand long distance transport, for example, what we can do the same thing to help it be more resilient to drought. That's a very big step that we can take in the right direction. But the second part of it has to do with how we use land. One way to think about it is if we can move a little bit away from full dependence on chemical fertilisers and put the biology back in our soils, well, with organic matter comes much greater water holding capacity in our soils, which means we're much more efficient in how we use water. And you might think, well, that's for one farmer, but most countries, a lot of land is dedicated to food supply. That's a big part of the equation.

MG: Is your sense that global leaders. Are cognisant of the urgency that you're speaking of.

BARRON ORR: I? Absolutely, yes. That doesn't mean they're in the position to enact all the steps that are necessary rapidly to address the problem. But there's at the global level, global leaders all the way to those working in the organisations specialising in this topic are talking about, for example, policy alignment. And you might think, well what does that have to do with it? But if you have economic policies working against each other and you're trying to use those policies to basically make stewards out of the 608 million farming families around the world, then you've got to stop, address those policies, incentivise sustainable land management, make those those farming families in a better position to withstand drought, and we can move forward. But the awareness of this is there. Getting the job done is about rolling up our sleeves and putting the investments in the right places.

MG: I guess I ask that question in part because you've referenced the IPCC reports a couple of times. Those reports for years have been urging action immediately to slow climate change, and that action is not matched with the urgency that that the scientists are calling for. We hear people in Somalia saying that they feel as though the international community has abandoned them. And so when you see in Eastern Africa, millions of people who are facing extreme hunger, who aren't having, you know, measurable rains for years because of all of the things that you've mentioned, it just it feels disheartening to some people. I just wonder whether whether you feel disheartened by what it is you're seeing given the warning signs that were out there, the bells that should have been ringing, that people should have heard.

BARRON ORR: Well, I can tell you that each time I read another article about a very big impact of drought, I get hit in the way that you're describing. But at the same time, I recognise that I'm in a position to be a voice for many and I think there are a lot of us in that position, you included, in the way that you're organising this programme. And that's the key here. I mean, the the earlier projections related to climate change didn't feel real for everyone. That is different today. Almost everyone can talk about something where they recognise these influences are there. What they're not fully aware of is that these kinds of issues that are happening, for example, in the Horn of Africa are actually also impacting them at home because that cup of coffee that you or I might have had this morning may have contributed to land degradation somewhere in the world, putting that country a little bit less resilient to drought. If you are if you multiply that, that it's everybody's problem everywhere. And that's where we've got to change the thinking, you and I.

MG: Barron Orr, good to speak with you. Thank you very much.

BARRON ORR: Thank you.

MG: Barron Orr is the lead scientist at the United Nations convention to combat desertification? He was in Bonn, Germany. This is The Current on CBC Radio. My name is Matt Galloway. We have a moment to tell you about something that's coming up on the programme later this week as the COVID pandemic is easing. For now, the opioid epidemic across this country has been getting worse. British Columbia has been seeing an ever increasing number of deaths from illicit drug toxicity. And that province's chief coroner, Lisa Lapointe, says those deaths can be blamed on a misguided war on drugs. She believes that government approaches have to change entirely right down to the language that we use. She argues that the word overdose itself is misleading, suggesting that the victim should have been more careful when in fact there is so much poison within the drug supply. It's not actually possible to know what's safe and what is dangerous because Chief Coroner Lisa Lapointe will join us. Coming up later this week to talk about drugs and addiction and how we as a society need to change how we think and talk about the issue of drug safety. That's coming up, as I say, later this week on The Current. Well, coming up, after your regional update, Uvalde, Texas has only begun to mourn the loss of their 19 children and two teachers.

SOUNDCLIP

People are solemn right now. It's like they're there walking around, some of them walking around like zombies are. I don't mean to say that in a disrespectful way, but it's like they're trying to find their bearing. In times like this, I don't know that there are any good words. I think a lot of it is just sitting, listening. Give them a hug, a smile. Let them know you care and just be there. I think that's the best thing we can do right now.

MG: As time passes, what can help a community find resiliency after a mass tragedy? We'll speak with somebody who has done that work to help other communities. And she's tired of doing that work in the face of gun violence. That's coming up in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Stay with us.

Confronting community trauma; and Imelda Marcos and the missing Picasso

Guests: Deb Del Vecchio-Scully, Georgina Adam, Ruben Carranza

MG: Hello. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Yesterday on this programme, our producer Joana Draghici, brought us to Uvalde, Texas, a community struggling to process its grief after 19 children and two teachers were killed in one of the deadliest school shootings in history. Joana spoke with Francisco Ramirez and his daughter Lourdes when the shooting began. She was at school at Robb Elementary. He was working outside of town, and he jumped in his pickup to race back.

SOUNDCLIP

FRANCISCO: I kept scrolling through my phone that through the pictures I have of her. She's my little sunflower, praying that she, you know, she was all right.

LOURDES: We were at lunch. We went out, locked down in the attic or behind the stage. We we also heard some gunshots. Some of my friends were crying because they wanted their parents in they didn't know what was going on. And then they said it was clear so we can come out of the school. We had to leave everything at the school.

FRANCISCO: And I get to the house. She just runs to me, starts crying. I just pick her up. When I hold onto her, I always give her big hugs. But this I just. I didn't want to let go. Everybody knows somebody that lost somebody. I can't help but feel guilty that, you know, they don't have their children, their grandkids or cousins or brothers or sisters to hold today. Right now. And and I. And I do.

MG: The pain sweeping Uvalde is tragically familiar. For those in other communities that have experienced the same tragedy. In 2012, the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killed 20 children and six teachers. Deb Del Vecchio-Scully was brought in to help. She specialises in mental health support for traumatised communities and was a clinical recovery leader and trauma specialist of the Newtown recovery and resiliency team to have. Good morning.

DEB DEL VECCHIO-SCULLY: Morning.

MG: Does what you have heard coming out of vivaldi echo what you heard after the Sandy Hook shootings?

DEB DEL VECCHIO-SCULLY: Actually, I think it's the same we here after every school shooting. It's the the shock, the despair. They just heart wrenching, waiting that the parents had to go through, waiting to find out news about their children. It's the same. Exactly the same.

MG: One of the things we hear from those children who survived is a sense of guilt from their parents, the sense that they feel fortunate that their child is there and they feel guilty because their child survived this horrible event. What does that do in a community that's so tight where everybody is so connected?

DEB DEL VECCHIO-SCULLY: Well, I think survivor guilt is unfortunately a very painful result of this kind of an event. There is this immense gratitude that your child is alive and survived. While there's this immense sadness and pain and grief for those families whose children were murdered. And you emotionally try to reconcile those two truths and it's nearly an impossible task. And guilt often arises because of that, not in the in the way guilt is typically experienced, where we've done something wrong. But this is wrong. How can these two things be true?

MG: What do families need in the community right now in the days and even weeks following an event like this?

DEB DEL VECCHIO-SCULLY: I think they're just coming out of this first week of trying to sort through what they need to do for their families, the arrangements that need to be made, the memorials, all of that. This this next week will be tremendously sad in this community. And I often say it's very small steps and deep breaths to get through each moment. And as they move through this phase, the world will start to quiet around them. The media will leave. And there's this phase of moving into what is a new normal, which is that this community has to now evolve into a community where they've had this immense tragedy occur. This is a journey that will take time and lots and lots of support, but really cannot actually begin until all the outsiders begin to leap.

MG: Can you tell me more about that and how you saw that play out in Newtown? Again, that the world is there right now and you. VARDI The world was in Buffalo. The world certainly was in Newtown. And then the media leaves and the world's attention is focussed elsewhere. And in Newtown, what did that do for the community?

DEB DEL VECCHIO-SCULLY: It's the ability to grieve privately after such a public loss. And I think that's one of the really nuanced aspects of school shootings, is that there's this intense spotlight on your family, your life. What went right, what went wrong, who's to blame, all of that. And what those families made the most of what we all made after a loss is to mourn in a private way. Respecting your privacy is a key. Heart to the healing.

MG: I spoke with a mother of a young girl who was killed in the Sandy Hook massacre, and she talked about how one of the ways that she coped was to throw herself into work to try to make communities safer. And she picked very deliberately what she could see, real change coming out of and stayed away from things that were just going to lead to further antagonism and shouting, as she said. What does resiliency look like? That was how she found resiliency. What does that look like more broadly to you?

DEB DEL VECCHIO-SCULLY: I think resilience is a very personal experience and what it will look like in me or look like in you could be very different even if we have the exact same experience. And so some cope very privately, and that is their resilience. Others cope much more publicly. They honour through action in a public way, meaning they have a cause, or they develop specific foundations to honour their children. So there's no right or wrong there. It's about what serves the individual and helps them on some level be able to find some moments of peace.

MG: And so if you were in Uvalde today, how would you try to offer some comfort to those who have gone through something unimaginable?

DEB DEL VECCHIO-SCULLY: I think it's an individual path to find comfort. I don't know that it's something I can necessarily give to another person. I can certainly listen and offer my presence to someone. But what is comforting comes from inside. The evolution of healing is that infancy. But the one thing that I can say, I think for anyone who is impacted by this, it's the families, it's the parents, if it's the parents, the survivors who are going through their own particular kind of hell right now to the first responders, to the officers who did go in and engaged with the shooter. You know, they're suffering in a way that they may have difficulty acknowledging or expressing. And there is definitely particular types of therapy that can help those images go away. And honestly, all the talking about those memories isn't going to change that, but very specific types of treatments can. And I speak from experience with this. I have treated law enforcement who were at the Sandy Hook school and saw the worst of the most unimaginable images who now live full rich lives.

MG: And again, is part of that, you know, voyage that that journey of healing, understanding that that people can get to that place that has, as you said, the hell that they're in right now seems unimaginable.

DEB DEL VECCHIO-SCULLY: But that's just if you can imagine it, we can imagine it. We do imagine it. That's our humanity. And what can not get lost through the abyss of gun violence in the United States is that it isn't the unimaginable. That's the problem. We don't have the luxury any longer of looking away. Too many look away. Too many who have the power to make change. Look away. We don't have that luxury any longer.

MG: You get angry when you speak about that given what you've seen.

DEB DEL VECCHIO-SCULLY: Anger is isn't even really a strong enough word. Change is possible, and by no means are we saying that we want to take away anyone's guns. That is the counter argument. But what's possible is simple things like a safe storage federal law. The federal background check law. You know, there are really simple things that can be done. But there are a group of politicians who have a stronghold and are absolutely wrong blocking these positive changes that could be saving lives. And we are past the point of looking away.

MG: Deb, thanks for talking to us about this.

DEB DEL VECCHIO-SCULLY: You're welcome.

MG: Deb Del Vecchio-Scully is a trauma counsellor and she's based in Connecticut.

[Music]

MG: This is the current on CBC Radio. My name is Matt Galloway. A mysterious painting is captivating the art world. It's Picasso. Or at least it looks like a Picasso. It was spotted hanging on the wall behind Imelda marcos in images with her son, Ferdinand Bongbong Marcos Jr, the newly elected president of the Philippines. This painting was part of a huge art collection amassed by the Marcos family during their dictatorial reign in the 1970s and eighties. It was supposed to have been seised by anti-corruption authorities in 2014. So now the question is, what's it doing there? Rubén Carranza is a former commissioner with the Presidential Commission on Good Government in the Philippines. Now director with the International Centre for Transitional Justice is in New York City. Rubén, good morning.

RUBEN CARRANZA: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Can you just briefly describe this painting? What does it look like?

RUBEN CARRANZA: Well, the title of the painting is Reclining Woman six So it's a woman reclining on a couch in the French title. There's a reference to that couch. It's a Picasso. So it's abstract. It's. The colours are vivid and the figure is large in the sense of not proportionate to a the way we might depict a person.

MG: It is very recognisable and I mean it looks like a Picasso. You see it and it grabs your attention. What was your first thought when you saw this painting in the home of Imelda marcos?

RUBEN CARRANZA: My first thought was that she once again has discovered the licence to be extravagant and to display that extravagance.

MG: In part because this painting was supposed to have been seised in 2014, right?

RUBEN CARRANZA: Right. It was seised by the then government, the same commission that they used to work for, but a later set of commissioners. And when they did go there to her apartment to seise it, they had to wait for over an hour in the lobby. And so in that hour, so many things could have happened. This is Imelda marcos. This is a person whose family was able to steal $10 billion worth of assets from the Philippines in the 21 years they were in power. So an hour is nothing to them in terms of stealing or hiding things.

MG: So where should the painting be right now?

RUBEN CARRANZA: Well, there were a lot of Filipinos who saw that painting in a documentary, The King Maker. The same painting apparently showed up when Imelda Marcos met with her son and her grandson and allowed cameras into their apartment. The question is whether the painting that was displayed in the documentary years ago during an interview with Imelda marcos and the same painting that showed up in this more recent footage is the same painting when the government seised a painting in 2014. It's not clear to me at least whether that was in fact a real Picasso or a replica of a.

MG: Picasso that in that hour she might have swapped the real one with a fake.

RUBEN CARRANZA: Yes. But the other possibility that no one should discount is that these are old fakes. Imelda marcos, during the Marcos dictatorship, bought several fake paintings. And in some of these cases, I think she bought them knowingly knowing they were fake, but nonetheless paid millions in ill gotten wealth. Florida, these fake paintings.

MG: What do you make of the fact that I mean, you mentioned this most recent photo, which is why we're talking about this this photo of Imelda Marcos and her son. Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Has this painting very prominently displayed in the background, released shortly after he won the election to become the president of the country. What do you make of of the placement of that painting? It's not as though it's hidden away somewhere. This is right in the centre of that photo.

RUBEN CARRANZA: Yes. And she is someone who uses extravagance as a display, not just of a wealth, but as a display of power and impunity. And in this situation, in this particular case, she was. Displaying her impunity, obviously celebrating the apparent election of her son to the presidency, but also celebrating what she thinks is her being able to get away with robbery with corruption, with enriching their families from that corruption, so that by displaying that painting on that wall, she is telling Filipinos whether they supported her and her son or voted against her son, that she is able to get away with what they did during the Marcos dictatorship.

MG: Can you tell me more about what you discovered in terms of what she had in her collection? She had over 200 paintings in her collection.

RUBEN CARRANZA: Right. And by one estimate, by the commission's estimate, she purchased over $25 million worth of paintings. These are just paintings. There are other works of art or other valuable items in what she bought. But that was 35 million in the 1970s and 1980. So the value is obviously higher, assuming that these were authentic paintings. She did buy authentic paintings. One of them, for example, is a monet that is part of a series of water lily paintings. The value of that Monet in 2012 was $32 million. We know that because one of Imelda Marcos's aides was charged and prosecuted and eventually convicted of racketeering and tax fraud for selling that painting owned by the Philippine government, selling that painting for 32 million. So that's an authentic Monet. However, she also, Imelda marcos also bought fake painting. She once claimed she bought a michelangelo in the seventies, only to be told that the Michelangelo only had one painting and what she bought, wasn't it?

MG: Why would she buy fake paintings?

RUBEN CARRANZA: She bought a couple of fake master's paintings, for example, to be able to say that she can afford it even with stolen money, and to be able to claim that she has taste. Imelda Marcos doesn't really have tasre. What she has is a taste for corruption, a taste for displaying extravagance. And that's what she's doing here again.

MG: How much money has the commission been able to recover up to this point?

RUBEN CARRANZA: The Commission has been able to recover from both domestic and international assets, about 174 billion pesos. So that's about $3 billion, more or less.

MG: Now, where does that money where does that money go after it's recovered?

RUBEN CARRANZA: Well, there's three main destinations. One is to buy land for landless farmers. A second was to pay reparations to victims of the Marcos dictatorship, human rights violations. And a third more specific portion went to millions of impoverished coconut farmers whose money was stolen by the Marcos dictatorship. So those are the three destinations of ill gotten assets that have been recovered.

MG: And so do you think there'll be a knock on the door where people trying to go and track down this this Picasso to figure out whether this is the real Picasso or the fake Picasso that was supposed to have been seised all those years ago.

RUBEN CARRANZA: Well, there was a knock on the door. It was her son visiting the mother. So that's what's going to happen under a marcos presidency. There will be impunity. There will be no attempt whatsoever, of course, at recovering more ill gotten wealth because it's the family who stole that wealth that is now in power.

MG: Ruben, good to speak with you. Thank you very much.

RUBEN CARRANZA: You're welcome. Thank you.

MG: Rubén Carranza is a former commissioner with the Presidential Commission on Good Government in the Philippines, now director of the Reparative Justice Programme with the International Centre for Transitional Justice. You know that expensive art and scandal are like peanut butter and jelly. They just go perfectly well together. Georgina Adam has covered some of the art world's biggest sales and intriguing mysteries. She is author of Dark Side of the Boom The Excesses of the Art Market in the 21st Century. Georgina, good morning.

GEORGINA ADAM: Good morning.

MG: What do you make of this story?

GEORGINA ADAM: Well, it's fascinating, isn't it, because there are so many imponderables. I mean, is it the same Picasso? Is it a fake Picasso now? Was it a fake Picasso then? So it's it's really interesting. I think that email and it was extremely well put by Ruben is that she's displaying a metamorphosis, displaying immunity, her taste for immunity and extravagance. But he also said something very interesting. He said she didn't have taste except this taste for excess. And I think that if you look at her, I was looking at the art collection part of it recovered part of it now, and it's completely scattergun. This is not a connoisseur's collection. She didn't love art. She just liked accumulating stuff, I would have said.

MG: Do you think we'll ever find out whether the painting that's on that wall in the photograph is the real Picasso or is it a fake?

GEORGINA ADAM: Well, yes, we might, because these pictures don't just disappear. And further down the line, it might, you know, things change and perhaps the sun will one day not be in power anymore and perhaps it will be a seizure. It's very difficult to tell. Paintings have a long, long life.

MG: She certainly isn't the only person who, I'll use your phrase, likes to collect stuff, perhaps does not have a taste beyond a taste for extravagance. But what is it? I mean, it's some ways obvious, but what is it about ultra high end art that would attract some controversial figures to collect that art and then display it prominently or just collect it because they can collect it because they can afford it?

GEORGINA ADAM: Well, I think I mean, let's just lay down some ground rules. Not all art bought by these awful individuals. But some is and because I think art has always been a way of of showing your power, showing that you've got money, showing that you have access and influence, and for some, showing that you have taste. Although, as we know in the case of Marcos, she didn't have taste and many others don't. But it's it's these are trophies. And if you think about it, what if you've got a great deal of money, particularly if it's not your money since you looted it, as in the case of democracies, what can you buy with it? That is really, really expensive. I mean, very expensive. There's really very few things that diamonds but that's not. Doesn't really have the same impact as a major painting that you can hang on your wall.

MG: The concerns of people who well, behind you and me in terms of our tax bracket. Let's talk about trophies and one of those trophies in particular. This is Salvator Mundi, The Da Vinci painting sold by a Russian fertiliser tycoon and allegedly bought in secrecy by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammad bin Salman, for something like $450 million. Tell us about the sale of this painting, because this is fascinating.

GEORGINA ADAM: This is a fascinating story. Absolutely fascinating, because this is, in a way, the ultimate trophy. And when I said there's not much you can spend your money on if you've got really vast sums, I mean, a painting, you can buy the art, you can have commissions, you can have a beautiful house. But there was only one Leonardo da Vinci left in the world that was possible to buy. So Mohammed bin Salman, I don't think we say allegedly, I mean, it was bought.

MG: IHe did buy it.

GEORGINA ADAM: He bought it. He didn't buy it physically himself. He sent a friend to do it. But he owns it. And we don't know where it is. It's disappeared. But I mean, the story is absolutely fascinating because this picture, which is or possibly part of it is by Leonardo da Vinci, that seems to be the consensus is that it came from his workshop, It's The Age. But at some point, having belonged to a British king, it had lost its attribution. It had become severely degraded, it had broken up, it had been over painted. And it was at one point it sold for £45 and quite a long time ago, but 45 GBP. And then after that, it was rediscovered in an estate sale. And so at that point, $10,000 to an American dealer who had a hunch that this could be a painting by Leonardo da Vinci, that they didn't know it had existed, but it did disappear. He restored it extensively over a number of years. And it was so finally to this Russian oligarch. And then he put it up for auction because he got into a dispute with the person who sold it to him, who was incidentally known as the [unintelligible], a Swiss entrepreneur. And he made $450 million. So here is a painting that went from £45 to $450 million in the space of less than 100 years.

MG: A lot of buyer's regret for people who didn't jump on it when it was perhaps a little bit less or a lot less expensive. Where do these paintings end up? I mean, do they end up just in a storage container in climate controlled vaults somewhere? Do people hang these works of art?

GEORGINA ADAM: Well, for a start, you might have an insurance issue and you certainly have a conservation issue, particularly something that's 500 years old. So you do want to make sure that it's in very careful, carefully climate controlled conditions. But a lot of people, when they spend that sort of money, they don't hang it on their walls or even worse in their yachts. They put them into storage and they put them into what are called Freeports and freeports are sort of armoured warehouses that generally close to an airport and once something goes into a Freeport it's secret in a sense. It's [unintelligible]. I peeked into a vault and you don't actually see anything except cranes, companies, nothing visible. And it'll set the hat while. One assumes the owner is waiting for it to go up in value or he might be doing something more [unintelligible] with it. He could be selling and buying and selling and buying the same picture using different entities like be the eyes but British were which in Ireland entities and sort of how should we say blurring the traces of this picture where he got it from.

MG: Just finally, we just have a minute or so left. I mean, as as somebody who loves art, does it break your heart when these beautiful things just vanish? I think if you know the basket that sold for $85 million, Warhols, Marilyn that sold for $200 million, these paintings, these works of art will just disappear. We may never see them again.

GEORGINA ADAM: It doesn't break my heart, although I'm very sad about it. But I bet it would break the artist because I'm sure that they didn't paint that picture. To have it stuck in a crate in a Freeport.

MG: Speaks to the value, the price of things in the value of things, and how we see them in different ways.

GEORGINA ADAM: Well, that, of course, is always the great question. If something is if you can make an identical copy of a painting, say, by Leonardo da Vinci, why is it that Leonardo is worth so much and the identical copy which you cannot distinguish from the original? Why is that not worth anything? But that's another question. It's a philosophical question.

MG: Georgina, great to speak with you. Delicious stories. Thank you.

GEORGINA ADAM: Thank you.

MG: Georgina Adam, an art journalist and author of The Dark Side of the Boom The Excesses of the Art Market in the 21st Century. That is the current for this Tuesday. Coming up next on CBC Radio One, it's q. Rhiannon Giddens. She is an extraordinary singer, songwriter, banjo player named a genius by the MacArthur Foundation, has just had her first opera debut. It's called Omar Tells the story of a 19th century Senegalese slave. Rhiannon joins Tom Power to talk about this new work changing narratives around American history. And they'll probably be talk of banjos as well because they both play the banjo. That's coming up in just a moment on CBC Radio One. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current and we'll talk to you tomorrow.

The Current Transcript for May 31, 2022

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

Survivors want action, not words, after report into sexual misconduct in military;

East Africa drought is everyone’s problem, says scientist

Confronting community trauma; and Imelda Marcos and the missing Picasso

Tuesday May 31, 2022 Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode