TIME FOR CHANGE (OF ATTITUDE)

Lima summit exposes Greenpeace irresponsibility

Last week, Greenpeace decided to make its own unique contribution to the difficult, stuttering negotiations at the COP 20, which finished yesterday in Lima.

True to style, they used a highly visible prank to make their point, illegally entering the Nazca Lines, a Peruvian archaeological treasure designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO around 20 years ago. Access to the site is prohibited due to the frailty of the works of art (the “lines”) which are between 1,500 and 2,000 years old. Once inside, they placed cloth letters on the ground,. and in the process, they are likely to have damaged the relic or its surroundings. The message was aimed — Greenpeace said — at the 190 delegates meeting in Lima.

In the organization’s own words “20 Greenpeace activists from seven countries unfurled massive letters at the historic landmark of Nazca in Peru, delivering the message: ‘Time for Change: The Future is Renewable.’”

The message was directed, the NGO said in a statment, at “the world leaders and ministers at the ongoing UN climate talks, in Lima, who are failing to take real climate action, while countries like the Philippines, which is again being battered by a massive typhoon, are paying the price of their inaction.”

In fact, the whole stunt triggers some other difficult questions.

The first one has to do with obeying the law. This is not the first occasion in which Greenpeace has sent activists to engage in unlawful activities. In addition, this was a clear show of disrespect by a foreign organization and its activists toward the Peruvian people. In fact, Greenpeace does not even have an office in Peru. Confronted with the uproar, the NGO apologized, in the manner of someone who has made a minor mistake. But, I ask, is it enough?

It might be argued that these, and other similar actions, are “minor transgressions” justifiable for the sake of the greater good. But what is Greenpeace’s mandate to embark on such actions?

The election of the organization’s leadership does not involve any kind of popular vote. They are appointed at its International Annual General Meeting which involves the regional boards. And where do these boards come from? Who elects them?

According to Greenpeace “boards are usually elected by a voting membership of volunteers and activists, who are firmly rooted within the local environmental communities and are well positioned to represent the wider public in influencing Greenpeace decisions and policy.”

Please note the vagueness of the word “usually” and the phrase “represent the wider public.” It very much seems that — like most others in the world of NGOs — authorities and boards get to their positions because they are part of well-organized but informal (and never too explicit) professional NGO network.

Another question: was the message really targeted at the delegates?

For better or worst, mitigating the effects of climate change is about national and business (often conflicting) interests, as well as the economy and jobs.

Did the Greenpeace strategists really believe that such a message would influence national governments and get them to change their positions? It does not sound too credible. A cynic might be led to think that the real objective of the stunt was further promotion of the Greenpeace brand among the general public. But Mr and Mrs General Public did not have any immediate say in the COP 20 meeting taking place at the time of the prank. Thus, God forbid, some cynics might even say that such brand-promotion is directly linked to fundraising targets.

In fact, we are talking big money. In 2013, Greenpeace received US$282 million in donations from across the world. And they spent slightly more than 50 percent of that money — US$144 million — on fundraising (US$98.8 million) and organizational support (US$45.6 million). Quite a sizeable kitty.

That, combined with its numerous international staff, thousands of volunteers and millions of supporters worldwide means a lot of power in the hands of people who, whatever their good intentions, have no other mandate than their own.

True, their objectives are sound — and possibly are — worthy, even though in some cases they might appear slightly unrealistic. But sympathy for their objectives cannot mean endorsing their actions when these challenge the law. Especially, if such actions put people — Greenpeace volunteers or third parties — in harm’s way. A risk which the Greenpeace authorities themselves presume to exist.

This is clear from reading their 2011 report: “Security Policy describes Greenpeace International’s duty of care to our people who operate in places of higher risk, be this due to local conditions or as a result of our campaign activities. It obliges us to put measures in place to manage risk, and explains the limits to this, allowing our staff to make informed decisions prior to committing to activities on behalf of Greenpeace.”

The whole idea of a non-state organization engaging in activities that put their people in “high-risk” situations does not sound right. States have defence and security forces which, by the very nature of their duty, take risks. Non-governmental organizations have no legitimacy or mandate for putting anybody at risk. Even if they are volunteers.

In fact, nowadays, democratic states have enough trouble with “the bad guys” so as to have to deal with “the good guys” from Greenpeace. Its leaders might want to look again at the way they are doing things, as well as their attitudes toward the law and state authorities.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD