The Barbed whistle-snout (in a Whaled conflict) or a Greenpeace advocation article

Reads: 213  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 2

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Non-Fiction  |  House: Booksie Classic
This should provide an independent (i.e. my own) view of Greenpeace, without contrapment of external bias. this I feel you will infer means I knew little of Greenpeace before hand thus no reason for bias. On reading both advocacy and Critism, as well as its history, of Greenpeace, I have decided upon my views, thus this should provide some information. I would suggest that the supplied links [in the bibliography] are visited.

Submitted: March 28, 2011

A A A | A A A

Submitted: March 28, 2011

A A A

A A A


PLEASE NOTE: I am not a member or officially associated with Greenpeace, the opinions that I have expressed and information published is of my decision, once sources have been read, and an opinion could be formed based on a balance of information.
 
 
 
Greenpeace have been a group for the preservation of the world since 19711a, holding key values for saving mankind from itself., a problem prominent then, especially with the Cold War, CND, and the Vietnam War, part of the Cold War, more and more people were realising that the government are not always right, and that the public have power over them if they can form a powerful protest, shown by the failure of the Vietnam war, when constricted Americans burnt their papers in protest of the war.
In 1971 Greenpeace was a group of activists from Vancouver, Canada, who built the Phyllis Cormack, a vessel that would show the methods of Greenpeace constantly moving to protect those in need1a, giving an almost super-heroic connotation to them. The reason for this was to stop the nuclear testing of the arms race of the then ongoing cold war between USA and USSR (CCCP) at the island of Amchitka, refuge for 3000 endangered sea otters, peregrine falcons and other wildlife. While the mission to stop the nuclear bomb being tested on the island failed, the reputation Greenpeace gained from this and publicity earned them much advocacy, which aided to fund their first anti-whaling campagn in 19751a.
Since then, the campaign against whale hunting has been opposed by Greenpeace, and they claim that public opinion changed because of their motives to preserve the whale and legislation was passed to forbid whaling, which was passed by the international Whaling Commision in 1982.1a
While it seems that Greenpeace enjoys success, there is much prejudice against thei views and are unfortunately stereotyped as “hippies.” Some may associate these “hippies” as part of a drug commu ntiy, going against social issues (getting drunk.) However this is not the case, many people who would be seen as “respectable” support Greenpeace, such as Annie Lennox and David A. Stewart from the “Eurythmics.”3
It seems that Greenpeace,because of their motives to “protect the earth” can get sympathy from reporters and articles when other organistaions act against them. For instance, when the Rainbow Warrior, Greenpeace’s vessel to stop whale hunting and damage to the environment, often destroying whaling nets. The Direction Générale de la Sécurité Exterieuré (General Dirrectory for External Secuirty)7 shot down the ship as itr neared Auckland harbour, many witnesses recall this incident; such as the Director of Greenpeace South Pacific Steve Sawyer, claiming to have been celebrating the fact that New Zealand was disarming their nuclear Weapons, the Cuban Missile Crisis seemed to show how dangerously close the world was to nuclear war (of which no-one an truly win, as there were enough nuclear arms to destroy the Earth several times over.)
“When we arrived in New Zealand, it was in the midst of declaring itself nuclear free and we had a fabulous welcome. It was my 29th birthday. We had a few meetings during the day, got back to the ship in the evening and had a cake and some music.”5
On the 10th July 1985; the Rainbow Warrior experienced two explosions and killed Fernando Pereira, a photographer for Greenpeace. The leaders of this operation were arrested and Greenpeace ordered an international arbitration, to solve the dispute between the DGSE and Greenpeace, however this took until September 1987 to reach a settlement of $8.2 million5.
While there seems to be much sympathy, and therefore more emmtional attachemt to Greenpeace thus people will be more willing to aid them, some indiidulas disagree with their aims, for instancePhilip Stevens sated that Greenpeace were wrong to support the “myth”2 that DDT (the chemical that eradicatd malaria in the USA and Europe) has causal links to cancer, birth defectsor other toxins, however Stevens calims that it was “not backedby scientific evidence” yert Greenpeace will still oppose the use of DDT,
They still emphasise the alleged dangers, despite all the proof to the contrary after 60 years of use.” 2
Should this be true and Greenpeace are usding theior influence to stop aid being given to a country, despite the same aid being in their country of operation, then their aims could be seen as hypocritical, that they will not show empathy and aid another group and actually oppose aiding them because of risk, when the other solution is death from malaria.
While this is one opinion and the fact is that Greenpeace’s motives are to oreserve thew environment that humans live in. If mosquitos were destroyed there could be a large impact on the food chain, as the predetors of mosquitos would deplete, then their predetors and so on. Also the mosquitos would pass higher concentrations of this toxin up the food chain, thus humans could be indirectly affected in this sense as well so in some respect, Greenpeace may have decided to do, what they felt was the greater good. As there is also evolutionary evidence that those who live in places where malaria is present, have sickle cell anemia, which prevents the full effects of malaria.
While this seems to somehow justify part of Greenpeace’s decision, there is the fact that the idea of allowing the people to be “naturally selected” would seem inhumane, comparing the people-who are innocent in this-as animals, depriving them of the right to have access to basic human physiological needs (i.e. the best available medical care, a right enjoyed by many MEDCs – more Economically Developed Countries.)
Other criticism of Greenpeace was from the Japanese Fisheries Agency, where Greenpeace crew “digreardes the international law of the sea” by intercepting harpoon devices and tampering with nets set out. Greenpeace claimed that the “research” that the agency wanted to carry out, acted as a vehicle to allow personal profit from whale meat cuts, with legislation to do so under the guise of “research.”9
While both sides have bias, the agency has the official “victory” as there is no evidence to prove that they are using the guise of research to suit their own needs, despite speculation by Greenpeace, especially because Japan has the clear and strong view against forbidding whaling and have successfully returned to their same rights of whaling from the St. Kitts declaration of 2006.1a
Greenpeace has also been criticised for not heeding scientific resaearch as Thomas Diechmann said in his article, commenting on Greenpeacs protest to Müller Company, for using “GM milk”15 in their yoghurt, yet providing a campaign that is “lacking in scientific foundation”15 and “totally out of reach of reality”15 about Greenpeace’s protest to the use of GM ingredients, claiming them to be “infected ansd unsafe.” On the contrary, the argument for GM crops has been one of great contriversy and many discoveries are being uncovered on their effects, as biodiversity may be reduced as they could “contaminate”15 other non-GM crops. If these crops obatins genetic material from a GM plant,” e.g., pollen flowing
from GM to non-GM crops, or the same farm machinery being used for both types.”15 it could be subject to heredetary mutations, caused by human interference in the genetics-which could lead to effects in the plant’s functions (photosyntheis may not occur as well, or active transport of nutrinets is inhibited) should the plant be affected, it is certain that the overall food chain is affects, and sometimes, as with the case of Müller yoghurt there is a direct affect to human consumption, as the cow is altered, so the milk could be altered as well.
In conclusion, it is my belief that while Greenpeace has little hard evidence to prove that the oragnisations they attempt tto fight and the change they want to bring. The events can easily be “covered up” so while Greenpeace may be right, there is no certain way of truly saying whether such events happened or not. The issue is not on whether some facts are true, but how Mankind is progressing and how the planet that they live in is affected. Greenpeace has the motive to preserve the Earth in a natural state as much as possible, for the future generation- so they can have a fair chance of further progressing mankind, which really benefits all those who would want to see anything (science, music, art and many more) be shared with the future and for man to learn from such events being carried out today to know how to keep their home planet.
Therefore Greenpeace must be advocated as their views affect all who live on Earth or have the desire to keep their basic rights for the future. It is how Greenpeace works that may need to change, which can only be done by public input directly to Greenpeace.
Jake Lane
Contact;
www.greenpeace.org.uk
 http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/what-you-can-do/campaign-online,
info@uk.greenpeace.org
Tel; 020 7865 8100,
Greenpeace, Canonbury Villas, London
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bibliography (By Appendix number)
1.  Greenpeace website:www. greenpeace.org.uk, updated: 08/02/2011, 14:50:56
a. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/impact/history
2. http://www.policynetwork.net/category/social-tags/criticism-greenpeace 08/02/2011, 14:34:24
Philip Stevens’ criticism of Greenpeace’s action to oppose the use of DDT in thrid world countries to rid the malaria protazoan, despite being used in the USA and Europe.
3. http://www.looktothestars.org/charity/142-greenpeace
Related to appendix 5, as it highlights celebrity endorsement controversies, however as having people who are “famous” does not make Greenpeace’s actions any better, in terms of being advocated. While Celebrity endoresement aids some groups, it is contradictary if money is spent on their expenses or if the action’s message is diluted from the popularity and excitement of meeting someone “famous.”
4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2004/jan/11/features.magazine47?INTCMP=SRCH , Tom Templeton, Sunday 11th January 2004, on the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior concerning Steve Sawyer, director of Greenpeace international in Auckland 1985, by Direction Générale de la Sécurité Exterieuré (DGSE) The General Directorate for External Security (GDES)
5.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/jul/15/activists.g2?INTCMP=SRCH
Paul Brown, on the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior by the DGSE
6. http://www.worldlandtrust.org/news/2010/07/celebrity-endorsement.htm
An article introducing the controversy of celebrity endorsment, however as this article did not provide any more than a discussion topic, I did not use any quotations from this website.
7. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/france/dgse.htm
To explain the role of the DSGE, giving context to the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland, 1985
8. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rainbow-warrior-relaunched-for-the-hitech-age-2180287.html?action=Gallery&ino=2
Images of the new rainbow Warrior, rebuilt to tackle modern technology used by their opponents.
9. http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/collision1.pdf
The head of Cetacean Research, Mr. Junichi Sato, in an “open letter” to Greenpeace’s actions to hinder the activity of the group.
10. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/2843/
 
11. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-176767759.html
12. http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Sectors/Seafood/Greenpeace-targets-Princes-HQ-with-direct-action
13. http://www.policynetwork.net/health/media/ddt-spray-slaughter-innocents
14. http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/28990/1/IND44078852.pdf
15. http://oro.open.ac.uk/10275/1/LLKB_CoExistence-Geoforum08.pdf


© Copyright 2018 Vival Jellieel. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments:

Comments

More Non-Fiction Articles