add comment

Comments: Daily Summit has finally found out

The protesters who heckled Powell were from Greenpeace and other NGOs that do not deliver a single grain of food or water systems or energy to villagers in any community around the world. These are NGO activists who don't have a clue how real people live or the challenges they face. In a sense they are also terribly racist and condescending. They prefer a world of subsistence farmers, relegated to their villages rather than workers who can enjoy the benefits of wages and a cash society. Greenpeace activists and their allies have never lived in a rural African village. They have never delivered services of any kind to those who are impoverished.

If you want to talk to real NGO activists who understand the world then talk to World Vision, Care, Catholic Relief Services, or former U.S., UK or Japanese Peace Corps volunteers. They have done much more than heckled speakers and unfurled banners. They have actually gotten their hands dirty trying to help people.

Posted by LM on September 4, 2002 03:05 PM

Those who can, do.

Those who can't, heckle.

Posted by Carl on September 4, 2002 03:38 PM

A serious down side of the heckling Powell received is that it will help to legitimise Bush's decision not to attend the World Summit... it may or may not cause a few people to reflect on why the abuse was hurled in the first place (but overall I doubt it). If the US feels that it has tried (which it may, even if no-one else does) and still been spurned it is quite likely that they will wonder why they should bother and will continue to walk away from international summits and agreements, even more than they already have... Being angry is understandable given the state of the world but I feel the jeering and interuptions witnessed during Colin Powell's speech will play into the hands of those advocating a US withdrawl from international affairs in nearly every instance which does not directly further the US economic interest.

Posted by Matt Prescott on September 4, 2002 04:55 PM

The ngo hoodlums who heckled powell remind me of the two brutes, Mugabe and Nujoma masquarading as presidents of Zimbabwe and Namibia respectively.
The two groups exhibit the same uncouth behaviour.

Posted by Chibinga on September 4, 2002 07:08 PM

What else should the US government and its representatives expect? They show no respect to their fellow inhabitants of the planet in their refusal to compromise the interests of the US economy with action on renewable energy.
The sense of outrage felt by the protestors is understandable.
Heckling is just one expression of outrage - but all just-minded people should be outraged by the ethical failures of Bush's government.
Perhaps then more concrete action would actually be taken to reverse the damage to our environment.

Posted by mike on September 4, 2002 07:40 PM

Others have noticed that too Chibinga. They are bullies disinterested in the environment and poverty, they seek only power. Powerless regimes such as the EU go buns up and give them their lunch money, but those who resist get the screeching treatment. Those pointing out the stupidity of summits may have a point since all they do is provide legitimacy and a forum for bullies.

Posted by back40 on September 4, 2002 07:43 PM

The Powell action was the best thing that happened inside the centre as far as I can see. Too many NGO's get over-excited about being on the inside of these ridiculous and appalling conference/trade fairs. Let's hope that a few more of them will pull out of the UN climate negotiations now for exactly the same reasons - that the only agenda that is making headway is the business agenda, and the real solutions will have to come from down below in the roots of the grass.

Bye,

Harry

Posted by Harry Helios on September 4, 2002 07:52 PM

I agree that unprofessionalism is no way to advance ones agenda. The apparent US unilateralism is disturbing however. I have watched the US do more to obstruct concrete efforts throughout this summit rather than provide the kind of leadership they are capable of. The frustration on the part of the protesters I can sympathize with. When I hear Secretary Powell stand in front of the international community and claim we are leaders in Sustainable Development and Pollution control causes me to scoff in the irony of such a statement. Still I advocate for professionalism despite the continual rebuff's of our political leaders.

As to the comment by lb:

"If you want to talk to real NGO activists who understand the world then talk to World Vision, Care, Catholic Relief Services, or former U.S., UK or Japanese Peace Corps volunteers. They have done much more than heckled speakers and unfurled banners. They have actually gotten their hands dirty trying to help people."

I think this is far from the truth. I sense a bit of slanted nationalism. As a Peace Corps Volunteer in Africa, I am under no illusion that for three years of my life I was promoting America and Western ideals. I am familiar with aid agencies such as world vision and CRS. We all do our part to uphold the curtain of inferiority that the west has been diligently cultivating in Africa for over 400 years. I am proud of my service in the Peace Corps, however I am careful to announce that my three years of delivering services to the world's "impovershed" dismisses me from being accountable for the potential development of underdevelopment.

Posted by Jamie Houle on September 4, 2002 07:55 PM

Greenpeace activists have
- never dug a well
- never helped install a village latrine
- never built a fishpond
- never built a road in a rural community
- never constructed or stocked a health clinic
- never taught in a community school
- never provided life saving drugs to combat TB, malaria, or AIDS
- never helped fund a bicycle repair shop
- never dropped a seed in the ground.

They are overwhelmingly white, midlle and upper class, and privileged.

That is why they have no support in America's Black and Latino, and working class communities.
- kirk

Posted by kirk on September 4, 2002 08:07 PM

All of the things listed above are worth doing and there are no doubt groups who trying to do many of them. However, everyone knows that Greenpeace are campaigners for international issues such as whaling, nuclear pollution, global warming... If they had ever pretended to provide latrines or fishponds this criticism would be very valid but they do what they have do set out to do and not the random set of things you listed above. It is interesting to see that NGOs have spotted the weakness in their expertise and advocacy by teaming up (e.g the Eco Equity Coalition including the WWF, Oxfam, Rio +10, Greenpeace and others) with one another in order to provide more rounded and convincing advocacy on inter-connected issues. Focus and specialisation are needed in order to campaign effectively and it has to be hoped that a coalition of NGOs will offer the broader representation you suggest quite rightly is necessary.

Posted by Matt Prescott on September 4, 2002 08:20 PM

"Focus and specialisation are needed in order to campaign effectively and it has to be hoped that a coalition of NGOs will offer the broader representation you suggest quite rightly is necessary."

This increases their irrelevance. They are merely politicians, special interest groups seeking power for themselves. Their initiatives help neither the environment nor human kind.

People help the environment, not politicians. Politicians tell people that they can't achieve useful things, that they need a leader and a kleptocracy to fund them. But what happens is the money is stolen and frittered away on bureaucratic dithering. They lobby for more money and power to make up for the money and power they squandered before.

It's a broken way to solve problems, bad for the environment and bad for human kind. We need a new breed of environmentalist that is knowledgable, intellectually honest and free from crippling political agendas. We've wasted the last 30 years with the existing wankers and it's time the people of the world stand up and rid themselves of these parasites. While they fiddle, bully and pander the earth and its people suffer.

Posted by back40 on September 4, 2002 08:48 PM

"We've wasted the last 30 years with the existing w*****s and it's time the people of the world stand up and rid themselves of these parasites. While they fiddle, bully and pander the earth and its people suffer."

Is this a call to arms? You offer a poignent argument as to why we should not trust greedy politicians. Certainly getting beyond this era of political insolvancy is important. The truth is the power hungry have been doing more than fritter their money away on bureacratic dithering. They have developed massive assenaults of weapons and machines of war to keep their power base and their grip on the exploitation and comodification of the earths natural resources.

Posted by Jamie Houle on September 4, 2002 09:52 PM

Those with power won't...
Those without power have to express opposition with what little they do have -- their voices.

Colin Powell deserved to be heckled if he attempted to spin the Bush Administration's inaction on global warming. Who believes silence on the issue will accomplish anything? At least heckling unmistakeably registers disagreement.

Posted by john on September 4, 2002 10:32 PM

Not a call to arms, that's the broken way. It's easy to get people marching around with their fists in the air, but you can't get them to do anything but break things and kill people.

Posted by back40 on September 4, 2002 10:36 PM

The speechs at summits -- this one especially, with all the press and coverage (now the Internet in real-time!) -- are simply political theater. The real deals, if any happen, all go on far beyond the platform and everyone knows what's going to be said up there long before it goes down...

Except, perhaps, the press and the civil society for who they cover such spectacles.

In this sense, then, considering the doublespeak and the big business-as-usual agenda hammered out by the US at an event that was suppossed to "save the world," the protest was welcome anti-theater theatrics and had EVERY RIGHT TO TAKE PLACE.

In my opinion, the WSSD might have truly achieved something if it acted as if such protest really meant anything at all to it, instead of simply asking it to "quiet down and leave" so that it could get on with business as usual.

Next stop: Washington DC for the IMF/World Bank summit.

Posted by Richard on September 4, 2002 11:57 PM

Yes, the ugliness of the NGOs has a right to take place, and we should critique their performance. They represent negativity, protest, destruction, non-cooperation and non-action. They are an integral part of society if only as antagonists, the bad example which helps us see how to do better.

The trick is to not be drawn into their nightmare world of anger and waste. We need to see their defects, how they wallow in anger and self-pity, their self-destructiveness and self-righteousness. They hold their breath, stamp their feet and mess themselves, and then scream for mommy to come wipe them.

Most of all we need to take constructive environmental action since the NGOs do not represent that perspective, do not fill that need. They do not do or create, they undo and destroy. We need to just get on with doing good deeds ourselves.

Posted by back40 on September 5, 2002 12:23 AM

"They do not do or create, they undo and destroy. We need to just get on with doing good deeds ourselves."

Yes, but what is the do? How do we do? In science we can only determine what is NOT wrong. We can never determine what is right. This is the age old question that keeps the philosopher on their existential task. We know, we see, we live what is wrong. What is right? I think this is a philisophical debate...

Posted by Jamie Houle on September 5, 2002 01:33 AM

***CORRECTION*** in the above statement "NOT wrong" should be replaced with "NOT right"!

Sorry for the foul-up.

Posted by Jamie Houle on September 5, 2002 01:35 AM

It would be nice if everyone cared enough to stop what they are doing and openly took a stance on the greatest issues of our day but the bitter truth is that the vast majority are preoccupied with their day-to-day concerns and unsure of what to do.

I am not going to spend all my time defending politicians or NGOs as I have done plenty of this already. All I will say is that even if our democratic institutions and subscription-based NGOs are hugely flawed they are what we've got to work with and we simply have to make them work better.

A revolution in our attitude to the planet and one another is almost certainly needed but most people, especially those with any influence, are comfortable, fairly happy with their lot and consequently have zero interest in an aggressive revolution... the silent majority who could hypothetically launch a revolution are mostly waiting for someone else to do it and as a result it just ain't going to happen... even in Argentina which has been rogered about as visibly as anywhere in recent memory the country has settled into a miserable subsistence, while the rest of the world simply looks on hoping their economy won't be the next to unravel due to the fantasies of greed and corruption.

I would like to see the WTO, World Bank, UN, EU and other key institutions fundamentally reformed to be far more democratic, consistent, transparent and accountable. Alll of this change should be possible but, if it is to happen ,I know it is going to take years of reasoned argument plus the securing of widespread support if anything fundamentally new is to be put in place. Matt

Posted by Matt Prescott on September 5, 2002 01:50 AM

I just want to make a response to Back40...
I have a feeling that you are missing the point of groups like Greenpeace. Who else is hammering a particular kind of awareness into our heads? If Greenpeace 'troopers' weren't there to call attention to a lot of the environmental crimes going on in the world who would?
I used to think that protests were a waste of time, until I spoke to a project manager for a big bad (and they were bad) property developer in Australia. He pointed out to me that without the protesters and the lobby groups and different advocacy groups out there a lot of projects would have gone on completely unhindered, making no compromises or deals when it came to environmental issues. He made a specific example of where there had been enough pressure from a particular interest group to protect the habitat for a rare bird species where they were planning to develop. I know it is just a silly 'small scale' example. But those lobbyists and protestors were the people who were getting on with and doing good deeds themselves...

Posted by Andrea Hamann on September 5, 2002 08:50 AM

Instead of pointing fingers to each other, time has come for each and every one of us to get down and do some serious business projects, look around us, see how we as part and parcel of the world can help to eliminate poverty, it is our responsibility, reduced the spread of HIV/Aids, go to the rural areas, see in what way can we help. The WSSD helped the rich and poor to evaluate ourselves, and SA been the host country played a very crucial and important role, i must thank our leaders of the world and a special thanks to the Hon. Min. for Foreign Affairs, Lady, we are proud of you for doing such a good job. It is time we all become role models by approaching NGOs in assisting, in involving those in need of houses, let them (poor)build by supplying raw materials, seeds for planting plain simple vegetables, how to improve sanitation, teach them about hygience. Summits like these are what we need, to screen each and everyone of us in our poverty stricken world. Stop blaming each other, lets all get our hands dirty by doing something positive.

Posted by Rokia Banda on September 5, 2002 12:59 PM

Instead of pointing fingers to each other, time has come for each and every one of us to get down and do some serious business projects, look around us, see how we as part and parcel of the world can help to eliminate poverty, it is our responsibility, reduced the spread of HIV/Aids, go to the rural areas, see in what way can we help. The WSSD helped the rich and poor to evaluate ourselves, and SA been the host country played a very crucial and important role, i must thank our leaders of the world and a special thanks to the Hon. Min. for Foreign Affairs, Lady, we are proud of you for doing such a good job. It is time we all become role models by approaching NGOs in assisting, in involving those in need of houses, let them (poor)build by supplying raw materials, seeds for planting plain simple vegetables, how to improve sanitation, teach them about hygience. Summits like these are what we need, to screen each and everyone of us in our poverty stricken world. Stop blaming each other, lets all get our hands dirty by doing something positive.

Posted by Rokia Banda on September 5, 2002 12:59 PM

The same day that the NGO wackos heckled Powell. the U.S. announced a donation of 53 million dollars, along with Jane Goodall, for preservation of the Congo River Basin. The U.S. didn't need hecklers to do what was right. They did what was right because it was simply the right thing to do.

While the Greenpeace and NRDC ninnies jumped up and down and made fools of themselves, serious people like Jane Goodall were working with the U.S. for the preservation of biodiversity.

Posted by Lou on September 5, 2002 01:57 PM

My comment will be lightly different.
May I ask a question to all of you? Did you notice that there were two black leaders Colin Powell and Kofi Annan who were managing the summit? Is n't it the peak of acculturation that a black people become the leader of the neo liberalist world and get the use of UNO to press the privileges of the rich against all the other politicians?

Posted by Etienne on September 5, 2002 01:59 PM

Call me cynical, but:

Was this not just another bureaucratic gabfest?

Just my guess, but were delegates 90% publically funded to attend? (Nice Hotel)(Hmmm wonder where all those taxes came from to pay? Private growth and endeavor I dare say).

Anyone complaining about Boeing's success in getting them to the Joburg hotel. Not likely.

How many delegates have ever had to actually earn a dollar apart from being a civil servant "project officer". The other 5%?

The world and people are utterly chaotic. No summit will ever control it.

Yours wishfully thinking

Posted by Rod on September 5, 2002 02:27 PM

The proportion of civil servants was surprisingly low 20-30%% or so... a very large proportion of the delegates were from the world's press and the NGOs... Personally, I would rather our representatives, of every hue, got together and talked to one another than stayed at home. Also being able to show your national government that something is important enough to get x thousands of people to fly half-way round the world must help to get the issue taken more seriously at home, even if this still isn't all that seriously... In the UK sustainable development was hardly being talked about even a month ago, now it had 2 weeks of intensive coverage. The weak spot for governments, NGOs, businesses and ordinary people alike is keeping the momentum and concern going once all the flashy confrontations have been and gone...

Posted by Matt Prescott on September 5, 2002 02:52 PM

"If Greenpeace 'troopers' weren't there to call attention to a lot of the environmental crimes going on in the world who would?"

The fourth estate. That's why we give them such an exalted place in society. They have a job to do crtical to our functioning. They are among the first to be silenced in totalitarian regimes beacuse they shine lights in dark corners.

Posted by back40 on September 5, 2002 02:53 PM

Sorry to post twice, but thought it might advance the discussion by pointing out that we can use the treatment of journalism as a barometer of political crime.

For example, Chavez in Venezuela is opposed in part because of his suppression of journalism (as did his opponents when briefly in power). The same problem exists in Zimbabwe, Cuba, N. Korea, China, Zambia, Iraq and a host of other existing and former states, notably, the Soviet Union.

Oddly, some of these criminal states have been praised in Jo'burg, see the article linked by Mick above, http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldsummit2002/story/0,12264,786250,00.html

Early in this discussion the link between those criminal states and the NGOs was mentioned. That they are fellow travelers is clear, they admire one another, and their efforts to silence dissent is an important part of that.

Journalists are offensive, sometimes corrupt, often foolish, seldom admirable, as flawed a group of humans as exists anywhere, but it isn't the individuals that are important it is the aggregate affect that they have on society that we require.

If they cede their role to political interest groups, lose their independence and just become note takers for power groups, they lose their value to society. We require them to question the press releases and staged events of political groups not assist them. When they fail at this task the public is not informed, they are merely persuaded. No good comes of this.

Posted by back40 on September 5, 2002 03:37 PM

"If they (journalists) cede their role to political interest groups, lose their independence and just become note takers for power groups, they lose their value to society."

The same could be said of NGO's. NGO's originally formed to advoacate for and represent civil society have increasingly oriented themselves towards the ideals of the economic capital that sustains them. Much like the magnetic needle of a compas, NGO's are continually juggling their mission in response the the shifting magnetic field of the dollar.

jamie...

Posted by Jamie Houle on September 5, 2002 06:48 PM

Some political NGOs have taken a page from the Chinese play book; market communism, the decoupling of politics and economics. Increasingly, totalitarian political groups have realized that market economics is not only successful, it is not inconsistent with the political repression they favor. Market economies exist in various political hues.

Political NGOs are not diminished by this change, they are strengthened. It provides them the funds they need to subvert democracies.

The tragedy is that they have coopted environmentalism to 'green wash' their politics. Sincere, good hearted people interested in environmental issues are duped into supporting them. Journalists could help to out them for this deceit and allow those who care about the environment to give their support to other organizations that truly care about this issue.

Posted by back40 on September 5, 2002 08:16 PM

Interesting lamentation on the summit and anti-globos marking against the UN, for the first time:

http://www.corpwatch.org/campaigns/PCD.jsp?articleid=3831

Posted by Steve Cisler on September 10, 2002 01:26 PM

"Civil society has been ambivalent, caught between the "positive visioning" of the UN as the voice of "We the Peoples," and the reality of its tightening embrace of global corporations."

This is a fairly clear statement of a central confusion in the Corpwatch attitude; the naive idea that states are not self-interested and that citizens of states are not the most self-interested of all. The UN has never been anything but a rabble of self-interested players seeking advantage, at the expense of all others if need be.

The current drift of the UN away from silly anti-corporatism is a reflection of a similar drift in the member nations as they come to realize the errors of the 'English disease' of planned economies. Planning has proved a disaster for economies, peoples, and environments and we are seeing the measured dismantling of institutions and attitudes accreted during that period of sickness.

"One small women's farm project had such a beautiful display that I couldn't help but ask how they were funded. By Nestle, was their unembarrassed reply.

The crux of the problem is not just that small-scale farmers are cornered into accepting support from Nestle when government assistance is not forthcoming. At issue is the fact that the UN is unabashedly -- anxiously -- partnering with corporations that define sustainability to suit themselves."

How is government funding better than corporate funding? Why is funding needed? If democracy was a concern for Corpwatch they would object to funding rather than making weak bleats about the sources of funding. Corpwatch is not interested in democracy, they are merely another special interest group seeking power and influence for personal gain; just like corporations and states. The difference is that Corpwatch is merely destructive, oppositional, without any constructive aspects.

Sustainable development and democracy will not be imposed on the world, cannot be mandated, bought or otherwise forced on the world. There's no way to cheat, to demand SD or declare SD, it has to grow from the soil up. The way to sustainable development is to just do it and converse with others about your experiences. If it is a good thing it will spread. Wasting our energy on protest, activism, opposition and petty politics assures that SD will die. SD is not 'concept art', it has to be created not just described.

Posted by back40 on October 13, 2002 05:10 AM

 Post a comment

All debates will be passively moderated, so postings may be edited. The Daily Summit reserves the right to remove any comments which use defamatory, libellous, racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language. The views expressed in discussion areas do not represent Daily Summit policy and are intended as a means of inviting debate on relevant issues.