– Environmental NGOs in the International Arena

November 29, 2002 by Richard Wilcox Tsuda College/International Relations, Environmental Studies “Globalization is premised on the promise that the poor may become a little less poor only if the rich become immeasurably, abusively richer: if it had been the intention of humanity to wreck the Earth, no more effective formula could have been imagined.”–Jeremy Seabrook Table of Contents 1. Abstract 2. Introduction 3. The Imperial Context 4. The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) 5. The World Wildlife Fund: A Case Study in Compromise 6. The Grassroots Imperative and the Ecology of Hope 7. An Annotated Directory of Japanese Grassroots Organizations 8. Bibliography 1. Abstract I will argue that preservation of the Earth’s environment requires a decentralized movement to nourish resistance to capitalism and effect the necessary structural transformation in not only the socio-economic realm but in the realm of cultural values and commonly accepted social assumptions. Environmental NGOs can fulfill a critical role toward this end. 2. Introduction “Globalization is premised on the promise that the poor may become a little less poor only if the rich become immeasurably, abusively richer: if it had been the intention of humanity to wreck the Earth, no more effective formula could have been imagined.” Jeremy Seabrook (2002) “The current ecosystem may disappear, but nature will create a new one.” Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries commenting on the government’s destruction of Japan’s last great wetland, Isahaya Bay (Kerr 2001) Today, there are some fifty thousand grassroots and non-governmental organizations in the world and the number continues to grow (Petras and Veltmeyer 2001). A large proportion of these groups are addressing environmentally related issues. The failure of the world’s governments to effectively address worsening environmental and social crises has forced the civil sector to act. Ironically, though government is presumably meant to represent the general public’s interests, it is the so-called non-governmental sector that has had to increasingly bear this burden. But what are NGOs (non-governmental organizations)? The term is fraught with ambiguity, contradiction and complexity. While there are NPOs (non-profit organizations), these may not necessarily be non-governmental since they may be subsidized by government. The terms Advocacy Group or Citizen Group are often used to refer to groups which have overtly stated political or public policy agendas. Yet, the most common term we seem to hear these days is, NGO, which is used so often that it has taken on a dull ring of neutrality. But this is not always the case. The term NGO can refer to tiny, impoverished groups of concerned people dealing with backyard issues, or to World Bank and Ford Foundation public relations organs whose budgets run into the billions of dollars. Industry sponsored advocacy groups are not what is normally thought of as civil society, but are generally public relations organs for big business and ruling class interests. Thus, while such groups may purport to be non-governmental, they do not qualify per se as being reliable representatives of the general population. Secondly, it is not clear that the NGOs that do claim to represent the general public are necessarily non-governmental. A large proportion of them appear to actually receive substantial funds from governments. Technically this would make them semi governmental. According to Seligman (2000), 85% of advocacy NGO’s are funded by Government or Inter-government budgets. If the non-governmental sector is meant to more accurately represent public interests, why are these supposedly autonomous organizations receiving so much governmental largesse? Of course, this assumes that governments have largely abandoned their role to supply services to their country’s inhabitants. Therefore, Koshida (8/02) argues that many Japanese development NGOs see their role in society as one of attempting to redirect Official Development Assistance (ODA) funds towards projects that will help local communities in recipient countries. Without such efforts by NGOs, ODA would be used by Japanese corporations to build infrastructures in the Third World whose primary purpose is to secure natural resources and cheap labor, while having nothing whatsoever to do with assistingÓ developing countries. Petras and Veltmeyer (2001) have differentiated between Radical Social Movements and NGOs and describe global NGOs as being in service of imperialism due to the way the G7 (the world’s seven richest governments) distributes development funds. Moen (2002) describes citizens who act to resist ruling class oppression and genocide as grass roots-based organizations in a struggle of transformational politics. Finally, since the battle in Seattle in 1999 when grassroots organizations from around the world gathered to protest the World Trade Organization’s economic policies, an articulate coalition of activists have emerged which has often been described as the Decentralized Anti- (Corporate-led) Globalization Movement (Cockburn and St. Clair 2000). Such groups address a wide array of social, political and environmental issues that immediately affect ordinary people around the world. While having understandable disagreements of strategy from within, this movement is staunchly opposed to corporate-led globalization and the social inequality and environmental destruction that it is causing. Rather than obsessing about definitions of social organizations, our concern should lie in understanding the attitudes and actions of people who are working to create a socially just and environmentally sustainable society. Whichever term one adopts, the value and role of such social actors can be fairly easily made by determining funding sources, how transparently such resources are used, and how successfully stated goals and objectives are met. If funding sources substantially compromise the principles of the NGO then indeed there may be cases of NGOs in service of imperialism. Finally, it is worth noting the relative insignificance of autonomous development and environmental aid in use in the world today. Sutcliffe (2001) notes that “Aid in the form of untied foreign exchange amounts to one fiftieth of one percent of global income.” This fact alone makes a mockery of the hard work of civil society and global citizens who are donating their time, energy and money for progressive campaigns in competition with gigantic state and corporate budgets. Of course, a monetary measurement does not do justice to the immeasurable actions of individuals of conscience who are each contributing to the totality of the resistance movement. 3. The Imperial Context There is an inherent conflict between imperial prerogatives to plunder the world’s natural resources and environmental organizations seeking to protect those resources. To understand the behavior of the civil sector within the existing global political structure, it is necessary to identify the most powerful and hegemonic state in the world: the United States of America. Since the conclusion of World War II, the U.S. has been in a position of economic and military dominance. The attitude of the emerging American empire was succinctly stated by U.S. State Department planner, George F. Kennan (architect of the U.S. containment doctrine toward the Soviet Union), in an internal governmental memo written at the end of the war. “We have 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population…In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will allow us to maintain this position of disparity…We should cease to talk about the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts” (quoted in Bennis 2000). Of course, Kennan fails to admit that the primary reason the U.S. had such vast wealth was because it had been plundering North America and other regions of the world for centuries. Today, U.S. military and corporate power is unrivaled in the history of the world (Petras and Veltmeyer). U.S. military power is expanding its permanent bases to every region of the planet in order to secure crucial natural resources such as fossil fuels and oil. Every new war carried out by the U.S. is accompanied by a spate of military base building as seen recently in South America, Eastern Europe and Central Asia (Blum 2002). The U.S. military budget for 2003 is $400 billion and is greater than the world’s next eight largest military powers combined (Watson 9/21/02). Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, U.S. belligerence has steadily intensified culminating with calls for vengeance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. The U.S. led genocide against Iraq for more than a decade has led to plans to replace Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein with U.S. General Tommy Franks, and in essence, turn Iraq into a U.S. colony (Borger 10/12/02). This is small potatoes compared to the grander visions of U.S. empire builders. Goals of further dissection of Russia for its resources and even toppling China have now become an open U.S. political agenda and have earned the U.S. title of rogue state (Israel 7/19/02; Watson 2002; MacKay 2002: Blum 2000). A recent document written for the Bush administration explicitly calls for plans to build and maintain…defenses beyond challenge while U.S. forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States. President Bush’s policy of “you are either with us or against us” contradicts his campaign promise that he would pursue a “humble foreign policy” if elected. The doctrine of “pre-emptive strikes” was employed vigorously during the Cold War, when policies of covert foreign intervention and Mutually Assured Destruction were mainstays of U.S. foreign policy concerning potential adversaries. However, for the first time in U.S. history the Congress recently voted to authorize presidential prerogative to wage pre-emptive war, thereby officially abdicating the role of congress in declaring war (Thomson 10/12/02). The permanent U.S. concern about ruthless adversaries is mainly a ruse used to serve U.S. imperial goals. Enemies, either real, imagined, potential or supported and created by the U.S. itself, are crucial for justifying the military system to public taxpayers. Given that the U.S. has consistently opposed and undermined international treaties aimed at reducing or abolishing conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, the latest “war on terror” against an “evil axis” of formidable enemies (ie., communists, drug traffickers or Islamic fundamentalists) rings hollow (Chomsky, 2001). In addition to the terrestrial expansion of U.S. military bases, the U.S. is calling for “full spectrum dominance” of the outer space surrounding the planet, as well as control of global cyber technology and information systems (Wirbel 11/02). Within the military empire, U.S. corporations have excelled. European and Japanese corporations that share in the global spoils crucially benefit and participate in the U.S. imperial alliance system: the G 1+ 6 (the world’ richest countries headed by the richest, the U.S.). While this system is justified to the citizens of the imperial countries as being in their interest, in fact, corporate-led globalization has not benefited the majority of people in either the rich or poor countries of the world. Even in the much envied U.S.,the real median wage in 1973 was $12.45 (measured in 2000 dollars) while in 2000 it was about $12.90. Considering that the US economy grew by 72 percent (per person) during that period– the majority of employees in the United States, about three-quarters of the US labor force has suffered a net loss due to globalization (Weisbrot 8/29/02). 4. The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) The WSSD was held in Johannesburg, South Africa from August 26 to September 4, 2002. It offers an ideal case to study the behavior of environmental NGOs in the world arena. Surely, nothing could be more important than a global gathering to determine the fate of forests, oceans and ecosystems. That NGOs failed in uniting the world to meet this task is less an indictment of their own inadequacies than it is of the nations and corporations that rendered every means necessary to insure that the NGOsÕ progressive agenda would be utterly crushed. Extrapolating from the directives of U.S. planner George Kennen after World War II, it is not difficult to understand why the world did not develop toward becoming more stable and prosperous. The United Nations has generally been regarded with hostility by the U.S. Unless it can serve imperial interests as during the Gulf War, a U.N. which tries to serve the interests of the world’s poor is attacked by U.S. reactionaries as being a bastion of communism or incompetence and worthy of abolishment (Bennis 1996). In turn, that U.N. summits are forced to bow to U.S. prerogatives should be no surprise. At the time of the much trumpeted “Rio Earth Summit”, Sachs (1992) published a seminal essay exposing the contradictory nature of the U.S.’s post WW II global development plan. “The concept of development…presented the world as a collection of homogeneous entities, held together not through the political dominion of colonial times, but through economic interdependence. It meant the [post WW II] independence process of young countries could be allowed to proceed because they automatically fell under the wing of the US anyway when they proclaimed themselves to be subjects of economic development… Development was the conceptual vehicle which allowed the US to behave as the herald of national self-determination while at the same time founding a new type of worldwide domination – an anti-colonial imperialism.” Some fifty years later, instead of addressing the crux of the issue that modern industrial practices are ecologically unsustainable, the WSSD 2002 turned truth on its head and used the opportunity to promote corporate power. NGOs were not amused, and most did not succumb to the corporate greenwashing that coated the hallways of the meeting center. If there was any illusion that the summit was really going to address root causes, this was quickly dispelled. “The setting of the summit tells the story. Government, WTO and corporate delegates gather in the lavish hotels and convention facilities of Sandton, the fabulously wealthy Johannesburg suburb that houses huge estates, English gardens and swimming pools, and has become South Africa’s new financial epicenter.” (Barlow, 2002) As an indication of how bad things have become, the only bright spot in the Summit was when Greenpeace and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) stood side by side to appeal to government leaders to combat global warming. The powerful WBCSD consists of 163 multinational firms whose environmental record has been vilified by activists. Yet on this grave matter, even the WBCSD could agree with Greenpeace that climate change is a threat of such magnitude that U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Protocol was unacceptable (anon 8/29/02). Since it has been estimated that climate change could cost the U.S. economy up to 335 billion dollars a year, the WBCSD position need not be construed as altruistic but merely rational economics (Gallon 11/3/02). To show that civil society was not being duped by the corporate take-over of the Summit, thousands of people began the conference by demonstrating at the Global Day of Action (Lobe 9/22/02). The Summit finished with the unprecedented jeering of an official speaker, the U.S. representative Colin Powell (Lean 9/5/02). During the Summit, corporations claimed that their commitment to the environment was not merely window dressing as evidenced by their “partnership initiatives.” One such campaign involves France’s Elf Petroleum which is promoting “modern farming practices” in Africa, and Unilever and WWF who claim to promote sustainable fishery practices (Lobe). “Partnerships” between largely unaccountable mega-corporations and the poor are most likely a propaganda exercise. While trumpeting their commitments, corporations went on to renege on the original Rio Summit charter and its mandate for strictly enforced regulations and in its place implemented a regime of voluntary compliance (Monbiot 8/20/02). If history is any indication, voluntary compliance to environmental regulations by powerful and undemocratic institutions means little if any compliance at all. Secondly, such proposals from the business community must be viewed within the context of conflicting global trade regimes. The World Trade Organization, whose record of opposing environmental regulation is well documented, was handed the responsibility by the WSSD of deciding how to “resolve the legal conflicts between international agreements to prevent climate change, protect biodiversity and clean up the environment” (Kingsnorth 11/02). Thirdly, U.S. President George W. Bush instructed his delegation headed by Secretary of State Colin Powell to roll back two key principles crucial for global sustainability. The blundering “Backward Step” (Barlow 8/27/02) and corporate “hijacking” (Retallack 9/02) of the Summit advanced mainly by the U.S. included reneging on two of the cornerstones of the Rio Summit: the Precautionary Principle and Northern/Rich country responsibility for funding environmentally progressive initiatives in the South/Poor world. Clearly, U.S. imperial prerogatives come first, and the planet’s people and ecosystems come dead last: The United States, Canada and Europe are working hand in glove with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization to subsume environmental and development agendas into their larger agenda of economic globalization, which includes unlimited growth, free trade, liberalized investment, privatization and a reduced role for government. The UN is being pressured to adopt as its overarching framework the text that came out of the WTO’s ministerial meeting in Doha, Qatar, last December (Barlow). As long time development critic Jeremy Seabrook notes, the U.S. “commitment to a fundamentalist economic salvation simply writes the ecological imperative out of the scenario” (8/5/02). He believes that “the brave concepts offered up by environmentalists such as “sustainable development” are now doomed slogans along with “empowerment, participation, poverty-abatement, and inclusiveness.” While these terms originated from the environmental and development NGO community out of a sincere desire to improve the world, they were quickly appropriated by ruling class institutions. “Sustainable is what the rich and powerful can get away with” (Seabrook). 5. The World Wildlife Fund: A Case Study in Compromise The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was established in 1956 to respond to the decline of wildlife in East Africa. In 1961, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was created by wealthy donors and animal trophy hunters in order to broaden IUCN’s research activities (Princen and Finger 1994; anon 1998). Today, WWF offers an interesting example of how an NGO can become so successful that the contradictions in its policies eventually overwhelm its effectiveness. Most people think of WWF as a very progressive-minded organization devoted to saving wildlife from extinction. Indeed, I would submit that WWF carries out many valid and important environmental education projects around the world. Certainly, along with other major environmental organizations, general efforts toward consciousness raising and democratic participation are laudable activities. Yet, while many of the reports produced by WWF offer useful information regarding conservation issues, the organization is clearly not devoted to ruffling the feathers of its wealthier members and corporate donors. As Dowie (1996) notes in his classic study of the modern environmental movement, in 1993 the World Wildlife Fund received donations of over $50,000 each from Chevron and Exxon [oil companies]. In reciprocation for their generosity and cooperation several top officers of these corporations were invited to join the boards of WWF and other environmental nationals. In a more recent example, a report meant to be critical of free trade and its detrimental effect on the environment begins as follows, “International trade and investment are necessary for achieving conservation and sustainable development– necessary but not sufficient” (WWF 2001). Thus, in one introductory sentence we learn that WWF is devoted to the idea that conservation and sustainable development can only be achieved within the established economic order. This “compromise at all costs” approach adapted by most major environmental organizations has outraged many grassroots activists (Dowie). That WWF has a large and privileged constituency is evident in the following litany of environmental betrayals: * WWF delayed taking any action throughout the 1980Õs as Africa’s elephant population was being decimated by ivory poachers. Only in 1989 did they ambivalently support the international ivory ban (Douglas-Hamilton 1992). * Friends of Peoples Close to Nature reports that WWF has been heavily involved in clearing the way for wildlife tourism and trophy hunting in several African and Asian countries at the expense of indigenous peoples residing on these lands (anon 1998). * WWF was a major proponent of the “debt for nature swap” campaign in the 1980s (Wapner 1996). Such a scheme failed to stem the tide of forest destruction. However, this scheme gave legitimacy to the Third World Debt which is in fact an economic device of the IMF, World Bank and other G7 institutions to dominate the Third World (Payer 1974). * “Mexico has a tremendous wealth of biological diversity. Unfortunately the large international environmental organizations…like the World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy are actually covering up the destruction of biological diversity in Mexico. They together with others are speaking about the creation of…a biological corridor in Mexico: where the idea would be to have large [corporate] plantations with small protected biological reserves between them…” (Barreda 2001). * WWF supports animal testing in the US where “horrific and redundant chemical tests [are] being conducted on tens of thousands of animals” and has “opposed the Earth Island Institute’s definition of Dolphin Safe tuna. EDF and WWF sided with Clinton/Gore and Mexico to allow for weakened dolphin deadly tuna to be imported into US as dolphin safe” (Berman 2003). Forest ecologist, Glen Barry has observed that WWF’s established alliance with the World Bank is damning evidence that WWF places rhetoric above principle. The World Bank has a notorious record of perfidy regarding environmental assessments of the construction projects and logging of old-growth forests that it funds. He also denounces WWF and other groups’ support for so-called certified logging as grossly unscientific. It is so disappointing to see WWF facilitating the demise of the World’s last large and contiguous primary and old-growth forests through their embrace of certified commercial forestry. Even Greenpeace refuses to take a strong line against industrial logging of the World’s remaining ancient rainforests– assuring us that if done in a certifiably sustainable manner, it is ok. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) is even worse– facilitating and then cleaning up after industrial logging in Africa…So called environmental groups…are aiding and abetting the destruction of ancient forests and their evolutionary heritage…WWF and the WCS in particular can not have it both ways– raking in millions from logging companies while misinforming their members and supporters regarding the effects of their forest conservation programs. These groups are like fattened pigs feeding on the trough of forest ecocide (Barry 2002). 6. The Grassroots Imperative and the Ecology of Hope According to the internal logic of capitalism and its various elite institutions and individuals, as long as profits and power are to be garnered there is no reason to change. This behavior is immoral since it excludes benefits to a majority of the world’s people. It is pathological since it must ultimately lead to the destruction of the inhabitable Earth, including habitation for the rich and powerful. Such short term logic even violates capitalism’s own greed-driven imperative. As a recent peer reviewed scientific study revealed, habitat destruction costs the world the equivalent of about $250 billion each year and the “network of global nature reserves would ensure the delivery of goods and services worth at least $400 trillion more each year than the goods and services from their converted counterparts” (anon 8/12/02). In a system unwilling or unable to change, there is a grassroots imperative for human survival. Since the 1960s, people have been uniting at the local, grassroots level in an enormous number of diverse social movements in attempts to effect basic structural changes. Participants have created new cultural values and social relations, and are offering alternative interpretations of social reality that challenge the dominant culture’s social assumptions. (Moen 1998) Drawing inspiration from the great Italian communist, Antonio Gramsci, Moen calls for an investigation of “the relations between power and domination, social control and ideology, and resistance to the dominant culture’s values and norms of behavior”, and the conflict between “hegemony and counter-hegemony.” Every day, people throughout the world are increasingly involved in inter-dependent struggles for survival as their local means for subsistence are eroded. The immediate problem that faces a majority of the world’s people is how to resist the destructive forces from above while simultaneously securing their daily bread and water. The struggle for labor unions, food cooperatives, decent housing, schooling and health facilities and a clean and thriving environment are some of the demands that are causing a grassroots movement to grow. In Japan,where middle class indifference to the suffering of the rest of the world is apparent, there is also vigorous grassroots activity. For example, the Pacific Asia Resource Center (PARC) publishes both the AMPO and Alternatives journals in Japanese. PARC’s journals deal with critical issues involving the continuing U.S. military occupation of Japan as well as other global political, social and environmental issues. PARC is both an “advocacy” as well as an “umbrella” group connected to other Japanese grassroots organizations and NGOs. PARC began in the 1960s as part of the student uprising against the U.S. military occupation of Japan and is therefore still considered an old type, politically radical group by some of the newer organizations whose experience began after the ferment of the 1960s. The Japanese environmental movement evolved in many ways similar to the development of the U.S. environmental movement. Both movements were born from the student protest movements of the 1960s and then came to fruition in the 1970s. By understanding the history, strategies and interrelationships of grassroots organizations in both the Rich world and the Poor, people can work to enact cultural counter hegemonic change in cooperation with a widely dispersed grassroots movement of resistance, renewal, and ecological hope. 7. An Annotated Directory of Japanese Grassroots Organizations ALIVE All Life in a Viable Environment. Tel: 03 5978 6272 Fax: 03 5978 6273 Website: http://www.alive-net.net/ (Japanese) Email: <alive@alive-net.net>. ALIVE was founded and is directed by Nogami, Fusako. Ms. Nogami is one of JapanÕs most knowledgeable and involved environmental campaigners. Since Japan has very few laws protecting animals and their environments, ALIVE works to raise public awareness. ALIVE investigates issues of indigenous wildlife, companion animals, zoo animals, animal experiments, animal factory farming and biotechnology. CBIC Citizens’ Biotechnology Information Center . Tel: 03-5308-7188 Fax: 03-5308-7189 Websites: http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/~cbic/ (Japanese) http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/~cbic/english/index.html (English) Email: <cbic@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp> CBIC is directed by journalist, Keisuke Amagasa, who is one of the leading authorities on the politics of genetically engineered food in Japan. Mr. Amagasa gave a lecture in March, 2002, at the International Green Forum in Tokyo. It was entitled, “Genetically Modified Crops: The Current Situation and Risks to the Environment.” CNIC Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center. Tel: 03 5330 9520 Fax: 03 5330 9530 Website: http://cnic.jca.apc.org/ (Japanese) Email: <cnic-jp@po.iijnet.or.jp> CNIC is Japan’s foremost nuclear industry watchdog organization. CNIC has extensive publications available on the internet in both Japanese and English, and publishes the bi-monthly Nuke Info Tokyo newsletter in English. Gauss Network. Tel: 042 565 7478 Fax: 042 564 8664 Website: http://village.Infoweb.ne.jp/~gaussnet Gauss Network is Japan’s leading group devoted to studying and raising public awareness of the dangers of portable phones and towers and other issues of electrical infrastructure and radiation. They frequently publish a newsletter in Japanese. Global Greens Japan: A Political NGO Network. Website: http://nvc.halsnet.com/jhattori/green-net/ (Japanese and English) Email: <jhattori@st.rim.or.jp> Computer programmer, Hattori Junji originally set up home pages for his local community and other projects devoted to democratic participation. Through an understanding of “systems theory”, Mr. Hattori started connecting local issues with Green issues and created the Japanese/English website devoted to green transformational politics in Japan. International Green Network Japan. Website: http://www9.ocn.ne.jp/~aslan/ignintro.htm The IGNJ was founded in March, 2001 as a result of the International Green Forum which was held in Tokyo. The IGNJ is devoted to promoting multi-cultural cooperation between Japanese and foreigners who are concerned with green issues. The IGNJ has some materials published in Japanese, but is mainly a forum for English speakers who can post their notices and comments on a list service. IKAN Iruka and Kujira (Dolphins and Whales) Action Network. Tel & Fax 03-3366-8122 Email: QWP06555@nifty.ne.jp Website: http://homepage1.nifty.com/IKAN/ (Japanese and English) IKAN was founded by veteran Japanese environmental writer and activist, Kurasawa Nanami. Her editing of the highly successful Japanese environmental magazine, Oikos, led to her involvement in the controversial whaling issue. JANIC The Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation. Tel: 03-3294-5370 Website: http://www.janic.org/ (Japanese and English) “JANIC is a non-profit, non-partisan networking NGO founded in 1987 by a group of NGO leaders who saw the need to better coordinate activities in Japanese society and facilitate communication with overseas groups.” PARC Pacific Asia Resource Center. Tel: 03-5209-3455 Website: http://www.jca.apc.org/parc/index-j.html (Japanese) Email: office@parc-jp.org/ One of Japan’s most progressive and internationally-minded groups, PARC’s imaginative Freedom School offers adult learning courses in a variety of fields involving Third World development and relevant social issues. 8. Bibliography anon. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Pandering to the Demands of Industry. Do or Die (UK)/Earth First! Journal, No. 7, http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no7/76-78.html 1998. anon. Achieving Sustainable Commerce in the Americas. WWF Archives, http://www.panda.org 2001. anon. ÒHumanity Loses $250 Billion a Year in Wild Habitat. OneWorld.net., http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0812-06.htm August 12, 2002. anon. Corporate Giants Join Greens in Attack on US Over Environment. Agence France Presse, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0829- 01.htm, August 29, 2002. Barlow, Maude. Blame it on Johannesburg, The World Summit on Sustainable Development Will Be a Backward Step from Rio.Ó The Toronto Globe & Mail, http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0827-01.htm., August 27, 2002. Barreda, Andres. “Beyond Biodevastation: 5th Grassroots Gathering.” Video tape recording. June, 2001, San Diego, CA. Barry, Glen. Commentary: Corporate Environmentalists Enable Commercial Rainforest Destruction. Forests.org, http://forests.org., August 25, 2002. Bennis, Phyllis. (2000). Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s UN. New York: Olive Branch Press. Berman, Mark. Animal Testing; Letter to the Editor. Earth Island Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, Winter, 2003. pp. 3. Blum, William. (2000). Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower. Monroe: Common Courage Press. Blum, William. Bush’s Wars: Anti-Terror or Empire Building? CounterPunch, http://www.counterpunch.org., October 28, 2002. Borger, Julian. US plans military rule and occupation of Iraq, Saddam would be replaced by General Tommy Franks. The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4522940,00.html October 12, 2002. Chomsky, Noam. Survival or Hegemony? (Parts One and Two). ZNET, http://www.lbbs.org., July, 2001. Cockburn, Alexander and Jeffrey St. Clair. (2000). 5 Days That Shook the World: Seattle and Beyond. London: Verso. Douglas-Hamilton, Iain and Oria Douglas-Hamilton. (1992). Battle for the Elephants. London: Doubleday. Dowie, Mark. (1996). Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Gallon, Gary. Cost of Inaction on Global Warming to the U.S. Will Range Between $61.6 Billion to $335.7 Billion A Year. The Gallon Environment Letter, Email: cibe@web.net., November 3, 2002. Israel, Jared. Is Brisard and Dasquite’s Book Theater of the Absurd? Or is it Worse? Emperors Clothes.com, http://emperors- clothes.com/letters/gold.htm, July 19, 2002. Kerr, Alex. (2001). Dogs and Demons: The Fall of Modern Japan. New York: Penguin. Kingsnorth, Paul. Just Say Yes. The Ecologist, November, 2002. pp. 15 – 18. Koshida, Kiyokazu, Director of International Cooperation Unit, Pacific Asia Resource Center. Personal Communication. Tokyo, Japan, August 8, 2002. Lean, Geoffrey.Colin Powell’s Barracking Reveals Delegates’ Fury and Frustration. The lndependent/UK, http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0905-05.htm., September 5, 2002. Lobe, Jim. Anti-Corporate Campaigners Mobilize Around Earth SummitÕ.Ó OneWorld.net., http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0831-01.htm., September 22, 2002. Mackay, Neil. Bush Planned Iraq ‘Regime Change’ Before Becoming President. The Sunday Herald (Scotland), http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-01.htm., September 15, 2002. Moen, Darrell Gene. “Analysis of Social Transformative Movements in Advanced Capitalism: A Neo-Gramscian Approach.” Journal of Policy and Culture, Vol. 3. March, 1998. Moen, Darrell Gene. Personal Communication. Tokyo, Japan, May, 2002. Monbiot, George. Earth Summit Will Not Only Fail to Tackle the Ecological Crisis, It Will Make It Worse.Ó The Guardian of London, http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0820-07.htm., August 20, 2002. Payer, Cheryl. (1974). The Debt Trap: The IMF and the Third World. Monthly Review Press: New York. Petras, James and Henry Veltmeyer. (2001). Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century. London: Zed Books. Princen, Thomas and Mathias Finger. (1994). Environmental NGOs in World Politics. London: Routledge. Retallack, Simon. US Hijacks Johannesburg Summit. The Ecologist, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 20-23, September, 2002. Sachs, Wolfgang. Development: A Guide to the Ruins.Ó The New Internationalist, http://www.newint.org/ No. 232, 1992. Seligman, Adam B. Untitled lecture delivered in Dublin, Ireland for the International Society for Third Sector Research, http://www.jhu.edu/~istr/conferences/dublin/seligman.html., July 6, 2000. Seabrook, Jeremy. Sustainable Development is a Hoax: We Cannot Have It All. The Guardian of London, http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0805- 05.htm., August 5, 2002. Sutcliffe, Bob. (2001). 100 Ways of Seeing an Unequal World. London: Zed. Thomson, William J. A Day of Infamy. Antiwar.com, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/thompson1.html, October 12, 2002. Wapner, Paul. (1996). Environmental Activism and World Civil Politics. Albany: State University of NY Press. Watson, Roland. Military Supremacy at Heart of Bush Strategy. The Times/UK, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0921-01.htm, September 21, 2002 Weisbrot, Mark. ÒGlobalization Fails to Deliver the Goods. CommonDreams.org, http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0829-05.htm, August 29, 2002. Wirbel, Loring. ÒThe Space Industry: Supporting U.S. Supremacy.Foreign Policy in Focus, Vol. 7 No. 13, http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol7/v7n13space.html November, 2002