"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.
No comments:
Post a Comment