Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC

Between the Lines: A New Environment for GreenpeaceAuthor(s): Michael BondSource: Foreign Policy, No. 127 (Nov. - Dec., 2001), pp. 66-67Published by: Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLCStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3183295 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 14:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Foreign Policy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.101 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:12:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BETWEEN THE LINES

A New Environment

for Greenpeace Since its formation in Vancouver in 1971, Greenpeace has become one of the world's most successful nongovern- mental organizations (NGOs) by doing outlandish things to save the planet, while bringing the world's media along for the ride. In a recent article commemorating the group's 30th birthday [excerpted below], Greenpeace Interna-

tional Executive Director Gerd Leipold declared, with some justification, that his organization has changed the world.

But today, critics accuse Greenpeace of failing to respond to the more complex issues of the 21st century. One for-

mer member maintains it "abandoned science and logic somewhere in the mid-1980s." Thirty years ago, environ-

mentalism was all about confrontation. Now it is about conciliation. How well has Greenpeace moved with the times, and what lessons does its evolution from upstart to global institution offer for other NGOs?I By Michael Bond

Greenpeace: the phenomenon

This statement is no exaggeration.

Greenpeace International has about 2.5 million

members and offices in 39 countries.

On 15 September Greenpeace marks the thirtieth Anniversary of the expedition that led to the birth of the organisation. Then, it was a big idea to stop U.S. nuclear testing at Amchitka, off Alaska. Now, with a unique global reach, it's still all about the future. And the need for Greenpeace to continue its global fight to save the envi- ronment is ever more urgent. It is time to take back the planet....

It's hard to imagine that from such small, even disorganised, beginnings, Greenpeace has become an organisation with the abil- ity to shake established power brokers and influence the interna- tional environmental agenda. But that is what it has done.

It was rather an uneven contest: The activists sailed to the bomb zone in an old fishing boat. The U.S. detonated its bomb, but later that year nuclear testing on Amchitka was banned and the place declared a bird sanctuary.

Leipold goes on to describe Greenpeace's accomplishments. He might also have mentioned the considerable growth of Greenpeace itself. Greenpeace today is run like a company, with a worldwide annual budget of over $100

million. It has a huge media arm and is extremely sensitive about its public image. Its mission statements, such as this one, read like corporate reports. The Greenpeace name is marketed as a brand. Many of the founding members

resent this "corporatization" because they believe it has sullied the spirit of that "small, disorganized" beginning.

Greenpeace was hardly responsible for democracy the world over-though NGOs

under oppressive regimes have often

been the precursor of political upheaval. One

of the parties in the ruling coalition in

Hungary, Fidesz, start- ed off as an environ-

mental protest group.

Greenpeace cannot claim to have single-handedly changed people's thinking about the world they live in. However, in adopting its spe- cial non-violent, direct action approach of 30 years ago it set a pat- tern for others to follow....

In Lebanon, ravaged by civil war in the 1970s, in the Soviet Union and later Russia, in China and in Turkey to name only a few, Green- peace has pioneered civil, peaceful protest. It has shown that, when something is important enough, it makes a difference to stand up for principle and challenge the decision-makers....

Sometimes, though, these confrontational tactics backfire. The recent policy of uprooting fields of genetically modified trial crops in Britain- spearheaded by Lord Melchett, Greenpeace U.K.'s former executive director- caused a major rift within the group.

66 FOREIGN POLICY

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.101 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:12:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The news media has, of course, recorded these changes as incidents and events. They are already history. Only when reflecting on how things may have looked today had Greenpeace not existed at all, can you start to realise the impact it has made.

For instance, how many of the world's whales would have been hunt- ed to extinction? Sustained Greenpeace pressure transformed the International Whaling Commission [Iwc] from an organisation allocating whaling quotas into a body protecting whales. It went on to ban commercial whaling.... Many other examples demonstrate how Greenpeace arguments, often criticised at the time, have come to be accepted reasons for governments and industry to change....

Possibly a short-lived victory. Japan and Norway are using aggressive tactics, including vote buying at the IWC, to get the 1986 ban on commer- cial whaling lifted.

Leipold then declares that Greenpeace is ready to assume the mantle of global environmental leadership in the years ahead. Other environmental organizations are not mentioned. This omission illustrates the "ghetto mentality" within the entire green movement-the tendency of self-interested green groups to fight their own

corners and forget the bigger picture. In 1993, Greenpeace U.S. published a "blacklist" of environmental groups whose methods it disliked. Today it may be more diplomatic, but the divisions are still there.

McTaggart's environ- mental activism began

with sailing his tiny boat into the French

nuclear testing exclu- sion zone around

Muroroa Atoll. His philosophy: "Keep the

number one thing in mind: You're fighting to get your children

into the 21st century, and to hell with the

rules."

Greenpeace has grown to become a global organisation. One of its greatest visionaries, David McTaggart, who died earlier this year, understood the significance of 'globalisation' long before the phrase came into common use, and was instrumental in expand- ing Greenpeace into eastern Europe and later Asia.

The need for global leadership is clear. The United States has retreat- ed to a position of short-term political expediency, pulling back from its global responsibilities on environmental issues. President George W. Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol shows that he has chosen to listen to the partisan voices of corporate America....

Thanks, in part, to the "Toxic Texan's" plans for Arctic oil drilling and national missile defense, Greenpeace's popularity is once again on the rise. The group's net income is the highest it's been in five years.

Leipold then outlines Greenpeace's priorities for the next century, including opposition to the burgeoning biotechnology industry. Greenpeace admits that it campaigns against genetically modified (GM) crops not

only on scientific grounds, but because it believes companies like Monsanto are holding farmers and consumers to ransom. The fight against genetic contamination is also a fight against corporate control.

Greenpeace's blanket opposition to GM crops in any guise has infuri-

ated scientists in devel- oping countries, whose

funding has dried up as a result of Greenpeace's

campaign. The group has drawn particular

criticism for opposing even those applications

that appear entirely beneficial, such as vitamin A-enriched

"Golden Rice."

Greenpeace continues to campaign on many fronts. It has a proj- ect based in the heart of the Amazon where industrial logging interests are plundering timber and destroying precious eco-system. In taking the lead in opposing the attempts by the biotechnology industry to introduce genetically engineered crops into agriculture, it has alerted the world to the potential threat that uncontrolled releases pose to wildlife, biodiversity and even human health....

Greenpeace is committed to being there to hold to account those who should be accepting... leadership. In 30 years time, it may be too late to take action. That is why in looking towards the next 30 years Greenpeace can say with unchallenged legitimacy, 'we are here for all our futures'. It is time to take back the planet.

The Big Issue here is climate change. It is probably the only one on which the environ- mental movement and the scientific establish- ment see eye to eye. In the next 30 years, the planet might warm by as much as 20F, according to a recent study funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation. On this one at least, they share a common enemy.

Michael Bond is opinion editor at New Scientist. FP welcomes submissions to Between the Lines. Contributors should consult the writers' guidelines at www.foreignpolicy.comn.

NOVEMBER I DECEMBER 2001 67

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.101 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:12:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions