Oz lobby group promotes anti-environment rebellion to media

[Guest guest]

Oz lobby group promotes anti-environment rebellion to media

 

" GM WATCH " <info

 

Mon, 6 Dec 2004 14:19:21 GMT

 

Oz lobby group promotes anti-environment rebellion to media

 

http://www.gmwatch.org

-------

 

 

" CAP and TWN pointed out that in terms of doing the bidding of American

masters, Prof Prakash promoted himself on his AgBioWorld website as a

'speaker on behalf of the US State Department'. They also noted that he

had 'traveled to many countries including Malaysia to promote

biotechnology, often arranged by the U.S. Embassy' " (from item 2)

 

1.Conservative Think Tank Mulls Anti-Environment Rebellion

2.IPA - a GM WATCH profile

-------

AUSTRALIA: Conservative Think Tank Mulls Anti-Environment Rebellion

Bob Burton

http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=26549

 

CANBERRA, Dec 6 (IPS) - While Australia commemorated the 150th

anniversary of the Eureka stockade this weekend, where 30 miners

protesting

against colonial authorities were killed, a conservative think tank was

launching its own rebellion against what it refers to as ''environmental

fundamentalism''.

 

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) that is funded by mining, energy,

biotechnology and agricultural companies attracted approximately 150

people to its inaugural ''Eureka Forum'' to help launch a " strong

national network to counter the environmental movement''.

 

''Environmental fundamentalism is denying farmers, foresters,

fishermen, prospectors, miners, beekeepers, 4WD (four-wheel-drive)

enthusiasts

and others access rights, property rights, water rights.. It is also

generating excessive red tape and harming the environment,'' the IPA's

website for the forum proclaimed.

 

The forum invoked the spirit of the original 1854 Eureka rebellion

where approximately 120 miners, angered by the British colonial

authorities' proposals to impose a licence fee while denying them a

vote, fought a

bloody battle with several hundred soldiers and police.

 

But in the eyes of the IPA, environmentalists are now the new

''establishment'' to be overthrown.

 

If the original Eureka rebellion was open to anyone, the IPA's forum

was much more circumscribed with the registration form boldly stating

''the IPA reserves the right to select attendees''.

 

''The forum is not a public meeting. We are targeting resource user

groups with common interests,'' an IPA staff member wrote in an e-mail to

an inquiring member of the public.

 

Associate professor in Geography and Environmental Studies at the

University of Adelaide, Tim Doyle, believes the IPA's Eureka Forum mimics

the anti-environmental ''Wise Use Movement'' that emerged in the U.S. in

the early 1990's but waned as the political dominance of the Republican

Party grew.

 

''It is the same populist anti-government rhetoric that was employed in

the United States by think tanks and groups - some of which were funded

by corporations - to rollback environmental policies and undermine

public support for environmental groups,'' he told IPS..

 

Doyle, who authored a book on the environmental movement in Australia -

'Green Power', argues that ''the IPA seem to want to develop a grass

roots base to mask their free market ideology.''

 

''Their view is that all these issues should be left to the market and

that there is little role for the government in regulating to protect

the public's environment. It's an approach that would suit the IPA's

corporate sponsors fine,'' Doyle pointed out.

 

The Brisbane-based head of the IPA's Environment Unit, Jennifer

Marohasy, gave the opening address titled 'Environmental Fundamentalism',

echoing a speech with the same title she gave to the conservative

Sydney-based think tank, the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS)

earlier this

year.

 

Marohasy is particularly critical of the introduction by most state

governments of bans on genetically engineered crops, the ban on land

clearing by agricultural companies in Queensland and proposed

reallocation

of water for environmental restoration in the Murray-Darling Basin,

which drains over 14 percent of the entire continent of Australia.

 

''It is time we started demanding a rational evidence-based approach to

public policy on environmental issues,'' she said in her May speech.

 

''A problem with fundamentalist creeds is that they are driven by

adherence to predetermined agendas and teachings. The fundamentalist's

position is rarely tolerant of new information and is generally

dismissive

of evidence,'' she said. ''Environmental fundamentalism is subversive in

that it draws on science to give legitimacy to its beliefs -- the same

beliefs that, in many instances, have no basis in observation or tested

theory.''

 

Environmentalists, however, dismiss the IPA's accusations.

 

'' 'Environmental fundamentalism' sounds like a description of the

Institute of Public Affairs position denying climate change,'' said

Catherine Fitzpatrick, climate change campaigner for Greenpeace Australia.

 

The IPA, which has received funding from a range of fossil fuel

companies - including Shell, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon) and

fifteen major coal burning electricity generating companies - has been a

vocal critic of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

 

''The IPA's rejection of the scientific findings of the overwhelming

majority of the world's scientists on climate change reveals that it is

they who reject science,'' Fitzpatrick said.

 

''They claim that climate change is not happening or if it is happening

it is natural, or if its not natural its not large enough to worry

about. Or if it is, it is too expensive to do anything about. They just

won't accept scientific evidence,'' she added.

 

While the IPA is often dismissed as a fringe group for advocating

policies often at odds with mainstream public opinion, the forum enticed

journalists from mainstream media organisations to facilitate and

speak at

the conference.

 

Acting as master of ceremonies for the Eureka Forum was Tim Lee, a

journalist with the 'Australian Broadcasting Corporation's' national

rural

affairs program 'Landline'.

 

Lee attended in a private voluntary capacity even though the IPA

programme identified him without his permission as being from 'ABC'.

 

''I made clear at the start of the day that I was there as an

individual and a farmer. In my work as a journalist I'm tired of going

to whinge

fests ... but this wasn't that,'' he said.

 

''It will be interesting to see what comes out of this but I think the

point was to get some of these groups to get their message heard... It

was a good chance for these groups to realise they are all trying to

kick the ball in the same direction,'' added Lee.

 

Senior Lecturer in journalism at the University of Technology in

Sydney, David McKnight, believes journalists should tread warily when

invited

to events like this.

 

''The reason why journalists should keep some distance from being

involved is that they may be reporting on the organisation and issues it

raises in the future,'' he told IPS. (END/2004)

------

2.Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) - a GM WATCH profile

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=259 & page=I

 

The right-wing Australian 'think tank', the Institute of Public Affairs

(IPA), was established in 1943 and claims to have been 'a significant

player in the public policy debate' in Australia ever since. It is

comprised of four units located in Victoria and Queensland: a

Deregulation

Unit, an Economic Policy Unit, an Indigenous Issues Unit and an

Environmental Policy Unit.

 

With Monsanto amongst its funders, the IPA has a specific focus on

'biotechnology', saying it wants to 'combat the misinformation put out by

radical groups' who oppose genetic engineering. It claims this

technology is actually 'safer', 'cheaper' and 'more environmentally

friendly'

than conventional plant or animal breeding. According to its website, its

promotion of genetic engineering takes place via 'Biotechnology

Backgrounders, Speeches and submissions, IPA Review articles/Other

articles,

Newspaper articles and letters to the press'.

 

Among the scientists who have promoted GM crops from IPA platforms are

CS Prakash, Klaus Ammann and Steve Hughes. Amongst its published

materials are items by CS Prakash and David Tribe.

 

In 2001 IPA launched what it claimed was 'an international first' when

it 'started publishing a monthly corporate newsletter, by subscription

only, dedicated to watching activist NGOs' [Non-Governmental

Organisations]. These were, it warned, 'targeting business' and other

'organisations as never before'. This new corporate newsletter was

NGO Watch Digest

 

Head of the NGO Project was IPA Senior Fellow Dr Gary Johns. Johns

moved across from the IPA's Indigenous Issues Unit. The Unit has had a

highly controversial record of stridently challenging Aboriginal

rights. It

has also been accused of historical revisionism over its attempts to

downplay the significance of the long-undisclosed policy of forced

removal for adoption of Aboriginal children - a policy which lead them

to be

brought up totally removed from their families and communities (Stolen

Generations).

 

Johns edited the book, 'Waking Up to Dreamtime: The Illusion of

Aboriginal Self-Determination'. He has claimed the only successful

Aborigines

are those who have been given a 'western education' and has called for

Aborigine children ideally to be made to attend boarding schools that

are separate from their communities. He attacks attempts to help

Aborigines within their own communities as 'the politics of

preferment'. (The

Australian, 20 June 2003)

 

Also part of the IPA's NGO Project is a Malaysian-born researcher, Don

D'Cruz. Within a few months of the Projects launch, D'Cruz was quoted

in the Malaysian press attacking local NGOs which opposed

GM crops as 'local front organisations' for wealthy American

environmentalists. Well established and well regarded NGOs like the

Consumers'

Association of Penang (CAP) and the Third World Network (TWN), D'Cruz

implied, were 'doing the bidding of their wealthy American paymasters'

because some of their funding came from a US environmental group, of (

U.S

Groups Funding Disinformation Campaign In Malaysia , March 13 , 2001)

In the Far Eastern Economic Review a year later, D'Cruz made the same

accusation, 'What we are seeing is a new form of cultural imperialism

with Asian NGOs used as proxies. ( The Promise of Food Security, April 4

2002)

 

CAP and TWN hit back at the IPA attack by pointing out the IPA itself

was, by its own standards, very far from independent. On the IPA's board

at the time were Australian representatives of transnational

corporations with highly unenviable reputations in relation to the

environment

and public health - companies such as Rio Tinto, Western Mining

Corporation, Shell, and Philip Morris. (Australian Report is False and

Outrageous, March 14 2001)

 

With regard to its own funding, the IPA claims it maintains its

independence because, 'Our annual budget - of about $1 million - is

obtained

from more than 2,000 individuals, corporations and foundations'.

However, according to Sharon Bedder , 'Almost one third of IPA's $1.5

million

annual budget comes from mining and manufacturing companies.'

Interestingly, IPA's attack on Aboriginal treaty and land rights has

included a

call for 'no bias against miners' (Gary Johns, The Australian, 20 June

2003). The aggressive character of IPA's attacks on Aboriginal

self-determination eventually lead mining company RioTinto to withdraw

its

support. (Disinfopedia )

 

The insinuation that Malaysian NGOs were 'doing the bidding of their

wealthy American paymasters' originated, according to Don D'Cruz, with

Professor C.S. Prakash. The Malaysian News reported, 'IPA's month-long

investigation was initiated after a number of leading biotechnology

scientists such as Professor C.S. Prakash , a regular visitor to

Malaysia,

expressed concern over the funding sources of the well-funded

disinformation campaign being waged against biotechnology in countries

such as

Malaysia.'

 

CAP and TWN pointed out that in terms of doing the bidding of American

masters, Prof Prakash promoted himself on his AgBioWorld website as a

'speaker on behalf of the US State Department'. They also noted that he

had 'traveled to many countries including Malaysia to promote

biotechnology, often arranged by the U.S. Embassy'. (Australian Report

is False

and Outrageous, March 14 2001)

 

In fact, CS Prakash , who was trying to build bridges with NGOs at the

time, was anxious to disassociate himself from the IPA attack, '?My

name has been inadvertently dragged into this news without my knowledge

or complicity,' he wrote to GM Watch editor Jonathan Matthews. ' While

I did visit IPA last year to deliver an invited lecture on

 

agricultural biotechnology, I do not recall making any remarks about

this funding issue, and never knew about this press release or the

investigation of the funding.' (personal communication) Prakash even

obtained

an apology from D'Cruz:

 

> Don D'Cruz

> Re:

> X-Sender: prakash (Unverified)

> prakash

> Original-recipient: rfc822;prakash

>

> Dear Professor Prakash,

>

> I'm so sorry but the press release has already gone out. I really

> apologise because I had no idea it would concern you. I shall never

> mention you again. Please accept my apologies. I hope it won't cause

> you any problems. I feel really terrible. It has taken the gloss off

> what I have done.

>

> Once again I so sorry.

>

> Regards

> Don

 

IPA's NGO Project has provided a model for other right- wing lobby

groups. On June 11 2003 the IPA was nominally the co-host of a day-long

seminar in Washington DC on 'NGO influence and accountability' with the

American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The seminar was entitled

Nongovernmental Organizations: The Growing Power of an Unelected Few.

 

Among the speakers at the Washington seminar was IPA's Gary Johns.

Other contributors included Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise

Institute (CEI) and Roger Bate who also connects to CEI. According to

Bate ,

'NGOs definitely provide benefits in the short run. But I would argue

in the long run their influence is nearly always malign, either through

their own political acts directly or via aid agencies.' Some

commentators saw a profound irony in that fact that AEI, IPA etc. were

themselves

'unelected' NGOs. Bate himself connects to a whole host of right-wing

NGOs, eg CEI, AEI, IEA, ESEF, IPN, SDN etc.

 

Following on from the seminar, AEI and the Federalist Society launched

NGOWATCH.ORG - 'an effort to bring clarity and accountability to the

burgeoning world of NGOs'. The writer Melanie Klein describes it as in

reality, 'a McCarthyite blacklist, telling tales on any NGO that dares

speak against Bush administration policies or in

support of international treaties opposed by the White House.' Its

launch coincided with a push by the Bush administration to get NGOs

'to do

a better job of linking their humanitarian assistance to U.S. foreign

policy' - an effort overseen by USAID and its director Andrew Natsios.

(Bush to NGOs: Watch Your Mouths)

 

 

 

 

http://www.gmwatch.org

 

------------