Suits, not Balaclavas

The following is a copy of an article of mine that recently got published in the comment section of The Cambridge Student. Thanks go to Dan Heap for getting me my print debut. It's not yet made it onto the website, so here it is for your viewing pleasure:

"Save the whales, save the world. That was the message at the heart of one of the crazier Star Trek films. But it seems that director Leonard Nimoy’s message may have been taken up recently by environmental groups in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary. As activists attempt to prevent further whale killings in the name of Japanese “research”, tales of boarding, kidnap and sabotage have highlighted ideological differences between both Japan and the international community, but more intriguingly between environmental groups.

Japan has been applying strong international pressure to ease the international ban on commercial whaling for several years now. All whale meat in Japan comes from those 500 whales that are killed for “scientific purposes” each year, and this whaling charade appears to be wearing thin. Australia’s new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd put the point bluntly: “This is not scientific whaling - this is commercial whaling”. Japanese consumers are also putting pressure on the industry by moving away from the bland whale meat popular during wartime rationing, in favour of more exotic fish caught nearer to home. The real reasons behind the continued hunting of whales are political rather than scientific. For all of the damage that the whaling industry causes, it provides much needed jobs in coastal communities and provides an opportunity for nationalist politicians to make a stand against increased international pressure on the state.

Against the backdrop of political gamesmanship, two rival groups are continuing to hunt the hunters in the icy waters of the Southern Ocean. The Greenpeace vessel MY Esperanza is on a mission to document the operation, and if possible, occupy the danger-zone between whale and harpoon. This media and commercially savvy operation contrasts strongly with that of the MV Steve Irwin. Representing the California-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a radical group founded by expelled Greenpeace board member Paul Watson, their previous methods have included ramming and sinking whalers. They have been labelled pirates and terrorists; albeit backed by personalities including Mick Jagger, Orlando Bloom and the Dalai Lama.

The two groups represent a growing polarisation within the international environmental community. Two campaigners from Sea Shepherd were recently detained on the main Japanese vessel, having attempted to attach ropes to the main propeller and throwing bottles of acid at crew members. Recent Camps for Climate Change and Plane Stupid protests have also used direct action recently to protest against major carbon emitters who breach targets negotiated with the input of more mainstream groups. Should the flagbearers of ecological awareness be consorting with politicians, oil companies and top executives; or should they be there on the ground, doing whatever it takes to prevent damage and death? Should environmentalists wear suits or balaclavas?

There is a distinct appeal to those donning the latter. Just think about Subcomandante Marcos, the balaclava-clad freedom fighter-cum-poet leader of the Zapatista rebels in Mexico. His writings speak of a desperate campaign to prevent the ecological and political destruction of the Chiapas region. Let us remember, however, that politicians do not negotiate with terrorists; even those that write nice poetry. It might appeal to the sense of mischief of Paul Watson, but flying a version of the skull and crossbones and shooting nails at boats does not help your cause in diplomatic circles. One only need look at the public backlash against the Animal Liberation Front in the UK and USA to see the potential consequence of further acts of violence and “eco-terrorism”. Far from achieving their own aims, groups such as Sea Shepherd risk making martyrs of the whalers themselves; perhaps even encouraging other whaling nations to resume hunting in solidarity with Japan. Their fervour and zeal is admirable, but it blinds them to the fact that consensus is the only viable weapon in the modern environmental and political arenas.

That places a lot of pressure on the suits. Long-established groups have built up large international networks over many years and making high-powered friends and donors in the process. Whilst Greenpeace do not accept donations from governments and companies, concerns over the mainstreaming of the organisation were demonstrated most effectively by the presence of a delegation at the 2002 UN Earth Summit in Johannesburg. However, the rise of more radical groups suggests that these close relationships appear too intimate and must be more discretionary if these groups are to become unifying movements again. The plaudits achieved in the whaling arena must not be translated into a greater number of networking events and social engagements, but instead invested in giving new impetus to leadership on pressing issues such as climate change and the return of the nuclear power agenda.

For all of the discussion surrounding politics, it would be easy to forget the whales. The Japanese recently backed-down over threats to hunt the vulnerable humpback whale, but are still predicting to kill as many as 1,000 mainly minke whales. Their best chance lies not in the destruction of one boat, but in an end to violations of international treaties. Radical voices may raise the alarm and ram the boats, but only mainstream pressure can stop them leaving their home port in the first place."

Blygt.

Grow Fast, Breed Young

A group of scientists from the University of California, Berkeley have discovered that dinosaurs bred as early as age eight, long before they actually became adults in the eyes of their peers. Whilst they were originally descended from reptiles, their breeding patterns are similar to those of modern mammals.

Calcium-rich medullary bone found in the shin bones of fossilised remains of the meat-eating Allosaurus and the plant-eater Tenontosaurus, indicate that these species had the required levels of calcium to produce eggs. Analysis of the leg bones indicates that the age of both samples was between eight and ten years, with most dinosaurs believed to have a life-expectancy near thirty years. This discovery adds further weight to arguments surrounding the reproductive strategy of the dinosaurs. Like modern birds, the environment and the nature of predator-prey relationships indicates that these species needed to maximise the reproductive potential of the individual before the female of the species became prey for another species.

And they say that teenage pregnancy is a problem in the UK... maybe it's just a sophisticated survival strategy!

Blygt.

Why is there so little violence in Africa?

"It is sad to see Kenyans die in the name of democracy". So said a recent post from a Kenyan man on the BBC website. Over the past couple of weeks in this East African nation, held by many to be a prime example of economic and political success and stability, the world has seen a side of Africa (and arguably mankind itself) that many had hoped had been seen for the last time in the killing fields of Rwanda. The hundreds of deaths in this "peaceful" part of the continent necessitate the observer to ask why violence is not more widespread. Why don't people kill/maim/burn/smash in areas of greater poverty and oppression?

Violence is not new to Africa as I have already mentioned. But I would argue, the scale of the violence is far larger than conflict in the pre-colonial era. Colonisation brought with it the rapacious desire to accumulate and exploit (as well as a habit of drawing box-shaped nations on the map), pitching once peaceful neighbours against one another in a battle for favour and favours from the European powers. The Mau Mau and Algerian independence movements began a wave of violence legitimised by the need to end a colonial policy of exploitation. Yet, independence in the Cold War period merely cast African states as new pieces in the great diplomatic game between the USA and USSR. Proxy wars were fought in Angola and Mozambique; the superpowers and their African pawns destabilising any developing sense of freedom and prosperity.

Punishment of the silent civilian population exacted a massive toll on the continent, with armament spending vastly outgrowing that on education and healthcare. The tragic legacy of the Cold War is the emergence of self-financed civil wars; undefeated factions continuing to settle old scores, financed through the control of economic wealth. A very disturbing aspect of these contemporary civil wars is the level of violence against civilian populations, and also the fact that this violence is often carried out by child soldiers. During the fall of Kampala in 1986, the front-line troops that spearheaded the final assault were predominantly children. They are the individuals that man the many barricades seen in urban conflict zones; armed gangs of youths car-jacking and mercenaries in private armies collecting revenue for their wealthy pay-masters.

Harsh economic conditions created by the debt, debt servicing, IMF and World Bank Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), and the withdrawal of state subsidies for health account for millions of additional deaths even in countries where peace prevails. Where is the research to establish the levels of debt- and SAP-related deaths? It's conclusions would only be too close to home (ironically, as are the very factories that pump-out those bullets found in the victims of "African" violence). And finally, in the post-cold war democratisation process violence has been precipitated by the politicisation of ethnicity. Afraid to face free and fair elections, incumbents have promoted politically-motivated "ethnic" clashes. For example, in the run-up to Kenya’s 1992 general elections when multi-partyism became inevitable, ethnic groups which for years lived peacefully alongside each other suddenly began to fight. There is a lot of talk about conflict resolution by groups inside and outside Africa but this type of social intervention has minimal impact. Dealing with all the different emerging facets of violence in Africa requires a deeper understanding of the problems than hurriedly-formed NGOs are capable of.

The sheer level of violence is rather shocking I think you'll agree. But let me ask you this: where are the riots in one-party Chad? Or against the absolute monarchy of Swaziland? Against large-scale corruption in Niger? I'd argue that the population of Africa should be admired rather than condemned by the international community. With so much hardship to contend with, you wonder how ordinary Africans can survive at all. The levels of pain and suffering that are present in certain parts of the continent would not be permitted in the West, yet despite this they cling on to the hope that change can be brought about through non-violent means. Africa is largely excluded from global trade because of globalisation, and the nation state is extremely weak. But the people are surviving. Africans are not naturally violent as some accounts would have us believe, indeed they show a greater resilience than many of us in the West.

However, we need to make sure that this silence is not interpreted as satisfaction with the process. "Silence" in Kenya appeared to conceal conflict and high levels of poverty behind a veneer of progress and success. Support should be given to that great silent majority of Africans who desire peace and a right to have a say in their country and their future. Let's not wait until there is more conflict and death before we act. Democracy for all of its supposed failings seems like the best choice here. There is a line of thought that says African ethnicity is bound to make government difficult. But only representative governments can represent a people. In favouring strong-men who rule from one powerful tribe, we return to the politics of the past. Let us hope and pray that violence remains low in Africa. The people should find their voice, but it should be on the platform and in the ballot box, rather than the streets and the battlefield.

Blygt.