| Sports |
by ALAN OXLEY
Many see red over Greenpeace tactics
GREENPEACE loves controversy. It is a
modern day Robin Hood riding inflatable boats instead of horses
and shooting videos instead of arrows.
Greenpeace claims to follow Gandhi’s model of non-
violent direct action.
It reflects more the radical activists in the 1960s who broke the
law to create sensation to win publicity.
So Greenpeace trespasses, creates disturbance, slanders and breaks
international maritime law to create video files for the evening
news. Is this about to change?
It recently signed on to a code of conduct for non-governmental
organisations that calls for honesty, fair comment, responsible
public criticism and high standards of behaviour.
What is its record?
It describes companies that have broken no law as corporate
criminals. Shell, Nufarm, Monsanto and McDonald’s have had the
treatment.
Last year, it profiled Charlie Banks, chief executive of a large
British publicly-listed company, the Wolseley group, in a glossy
report sensationally titled Partners In Crime: the UK timber
trade, Chinese sweatshop, and Malaysian robber barons in Papua New
Guinea’s rainforests.
Wolseley’s crime was to import timber from China that may have
included timber from PNG.
Greenpeace claims most timber in PNG is illegally logged.
SGS, a reputable Swiss-based inspection company, monitors exports
of logs for the PNG Government.
It reports it has never seen a log exported that did not come from
a legally-licenced concession.
PNG has the misfortune to have a bit part in Greenpeace’s global
campaign for a treaty to control forestry. Greenpeace claims the
paradise forests in PNG are on the verge of destruction.
That is not true. Nearly two-thirds of PNG is forest and one-third
of that is not earmarked for any commercial use.
Yale University reports deforestation has virtually halted.
The Food and Agricultural Organisation reports that PNG’s take
from forestry is below its sustainable yield.
Greenpeace has publicised allegations of rape of workers and
criminal and human rights abuse of employees and villagers against
the largest forestry company in PNG, Rimbunan Hijau. None stands
scrutiny.
Greenpeace accuses Rimbunan Hijau of devastating the Solomon
Islands even though the company has never operated there.
Rimbunan Hijau is Malaysian-owned. Greenpeace has used innuendo
about the Chinese ethnicity of the owners in terms that would not
be acceptable in Australia. It is an old hand in the South Pacific
and knows the issues.
Greenpeace has created a cynical definition of legality. Unless
government administration of all regulations is up to date, any
action taken under regulation is illegal.
Greenpeace boasts that more than a dozen companies in Europe have
agreed not to buy timber from PNG.
What about the people of PNG? Social indicators are falling,
HIV/AIDS is rising, and three-quarters of children in rural areas
do not attend school. Forestry employs 10,000 people, generates up
to 9% of gross domestic product, US$100 million in tax revenue and
US$250 million in exports.
Greenpeace is pushing for eco-forestry, which is uneconomic. The
people of PNG would suffer.
Greenpeace has not publicised in PNG its accession to the code of
conduct. If it did, people would be right to wonder if it meant to
exclude actions that affected the poor in developing countries.
*The writer is principal of ITS Global,
consultants on global issues. The company consults to Rimbunan
Hijau on forestry, development and sustainability. The article was
first published in The Australian Financial Review on Jan 24.
 
|
