eco-tourism

Dark Green V: Elephants & Tigers

By M.K. Styllinski

“… all two hundred delegates signed ‘Enemies of Conservation’” with one indigenous delegate rising to state that ‘… extractive industries, while still a serious threat to their welfare and cultural integrity, were no longer the main antagonist of indigenous cultures. Their new and biggest enemy, she said, was ‘conservation.’ ”

– Mark Dowie, Conservation Refugees:The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples


The same process of land ethic revivalism so favoured by the Nazis is alive and well under the Prince. WWF in partnership with Heineken Breweries and other environmental affiliates have paid for studies which conclude that a balkanisation of Europe and a dramatic increase in the creation of nature reserves, conservation areas and game parks all over Western Europe. [1]The Heineken study, sponsored by Board Chairman A.H. Heineken, “… calls for redrawing the map of Europe into 75 mini-states, with populations of 10 million people at the most. Each mini-state would be ruled by a member of one of the existing European Royal Houses.” John Loudon, International President of WWF from 1977-1981 and ex-chairman of the board of Royal Dutch Shell was a member of the Heineken board. [2]

Heineken8

“For a Fresher World” 2011 advertising artwork for Heineken brand

A long-time supporter of WWF, Heineken is one of the greenest businesses existing today with stakeholder activities focusing on sustainability, green commerce and a host of other ecologically sound initiatives. The 1994 IUCN study called “Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe,” followed the same pattern, namely the four-fold increase in setting aside land in Western Europe. All industrialisation would cease including any new infrastructure projects from water to rail links so that millions of hectares of land for parks could be allowed to flourish. [3] Wealthy landowners, families and 1001 Club members have been busily buying up land previously designated as parks and protected areas.

Author Mark Dowie believes this policy was the result of a concept as old as the colonial forefathers called “fortress conservation,” and which is present in almost every large-scale Anglo-American environmental initiative from Agenda 21 to the Wild lands Network: expressly no humans allowed access within these hallowed conservation zones. Even though WWF does not advocate forced relocation it nevertheless firmly believes in the concept of conservation areas off limits to humans. So, how does it get around the fact that there will undoubtedly be families who do not want to leave? [4]

Dowie draws our attention to the November 2004 Third Congress of the World Conservation Union in Bangkok, Thailand, convened to explore new ways to halt the loss of global diversity. In the audience was the only black person in sea of white faces comprising of environmentalists, conservationists and eco-bureaucrats. Martin Saning’o, the Maassai leader from Tanzania was next in line. When it was his turn to comment he described: “… how nomadic pastoralists once protected the vast range in eastern Africa that they have lost over the past century to conservation projects,” and further:

“‘Our ways of farming pollinated diverse seed species and maintained corridors between ecosystems,” he explains to an audience he knows to be schooled in Western ecological sciences. Yet, in the interest of a relatively new vogue in conservation called “biodiversity,”1 he tells them, more than one hundred thousand Maasai pastoralists have been displaced from their traditional homeland, which once ranged from what is now northern Kenya to the savannah grasslands of the Serengeti plains in northern Tanzania. They called it Maasailand. ‘We were the original conservationists,’ Saning’o tells the room full of shocked white faces. ‘Now you have made us enemies of conservation.’” [5]

As Dowie understates, drily, not exactly “… what six thousand wildlife biologists and conservation activists from over one hundred countries had traveled to Bangkok to hear.”

A 2004, United Nations meeting pushed for the passing of a resolution protecting the territorial and human rights of indigenous peoples. The UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples read in part, “Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation, and where possible, with the option to return.” Later in the year another meeting of the International Forum on Indigenous Mapping, “all two hundred delegates signed ‘Enemies of Conservation’” with one indigenous delegate rising to state that “… extractive industries, while still a serious threat to their welfare and cultural integrity, were no longer the main antagonist of indigenous cultures. Their new and biggest enemy, she said, was ‘conservation.’” [6]

02_wwf-horzWWF’s tasteful advertising campaign on species extinction with a nude black woman and man set against rainforest. I’m sure the Duke of Edinburgh would have got the joke…

Dowie describes other statements becoming increasingly common from the mouths of indigenous populations historically displaced from their homes and lands which now number in Africa alone, 14 million[7] “conservation refugees.” Since the colonial era: “conservation has become the number one threat to indigenous territories;” the “appropriation of common property for conservation,” or even at international and local meetings there was the ignoring “recommendations and interests” of indigenous members along with a general marginalization “… without opportunity to take the floor and express our views.” [8] It is no surprise that delegates have walked out of many conferences when the same neo-colonialism presented itself.

The author goes on to illustrate the experiences of transnational conservation with a wide range of indigenous peoples from the Miwok, Paiute, and Ahwahneechee of Yosemite Valley to the Pygmies of Uganda and Central Africa; the Karen of Thailand to the Adevasi of India; the Kayapo of Brazil and many others. The same story unfolds in each case though differing in response to the colonialism with: “the tendency of conservationists to ignore their basic rights, at times their very existence, in the course of protecting biological diversity.” [9]

As Dowie observes, it is the type of scientific conservationism that harks back to the “scientific technique” of Bertrand Russell and friends that we can see defining the rigid belief that humans cannot co-exist with nature – separation and segregation overseen by an Elite is the only way.

wwftigerSumatran Tiger|wwf.org

Sumatran tigers numbering no more than 500 in 2009 have been part of WWF fund-raising campaigns for many years. Many of the tigers are said to live in the Tesso Nilo, just a few hours from an WWF office. Jens Glüsing and Nils Klawitter of Der Spiegel take up the story:

Sunarto is a biologist who has long worked as a tiger researcher in the Tesso Nilo. But he has never seen a tiger there. ‘Tiger density is very low here, because of human economic activity,’ says Sunarto, who like some Indonesians goes by only one name. He also points out that there are still some woodland clearing concessions within the conservation area. To enable them to track down tigers, the WWF has provided the scientists with high-tech measuring equipment, including GPS devices, DNA analysis methods for tiger dung and 20 photo traps. During the last photography shoot, which lasted several weeks, the traps only photographed five tigers.

The WWF sees its work in Sumatra as an important achievement, arguing that the rainforest in the Tesso Nilo was successfully saved as a result of a ‘fire department approach.’ In reality, the conservation zone has grown while the forest inside has become smaller.

Companies like Asia Pacific Resources International, with which the WWF previously had a cooperative arrangement, cut down the virgin forest, says Sunarto. His colleague Ruswantu takes affluent eco-tourists on tours of the park on the backs of tamed elephants. The area is off-limits for the locals, and anti-poaching units funded by the Germans make sure that they stay out. ‘The WWF is in charge here, and that’s a problem,’ says Bahri, who owns a tiny shop and lives in a village near the entrance to the park. No one knows where the borders are, he says. ‘We used to have small fields of rubber trees, and suddenly we were no longer allowed to go there.’ ” [10]

The Der Spiegel investigation into WWF highlighted what many already knew: the organisation has overseen the dwindling of farms driven out of tribal lands and the decline of the species it appointed itself to protect. As one indigenous interviewee stated in the report, with the partnership between transnational corporations and the WWF, the organisation has helped to transform “… our world into plantations, monoculture and national parks.” [11] This also brings into relief the apparent contradiction between preserving wildlife and the predilection of aristocracy and Establishment for hunting animals. It seems they just can’t help themselves.

Back in 1961, the year that Prince Philip would inaugurate the creation of WWF to protect the endangered species of the world he was on a Royal tour of India with Queen Elizabeth. It was on this tour that the Prince decided he would blow away an Indian Tiger just for fun. Environmentalists, ecologists and just about everyone else didn’t share Prince Philip’s delight in bagging a 10ft tiger and no doubt confirming his manly virility to Lizzie.  Several tigers and a rare Indian rhino (a legacy given by British tea-planters) were killed for the Royal tour all recorded for posterity by the Queen. But Prince Phillip it seems wanted a bit more of the action. He later killed a female rhino which had got caught in the hunting party after many other members of the entourage had actively tried to assist the animal to leave. Her infant calf escaped though it is highly improbable it survived without its mother. With the launch of WWF months away the whole incident was covered up.

Killing for sport has continued to be a pleasure for royalty down through the ages. The only difference is in the past, they were not pretending to protect wildlife and preach on endangered species while taking great delight in blowing them out of the sky, skewering them with spears or hunting them to death. This sporting pleasure is endemic in so called “high society” and intimately tied up with rural traditions, though firmly divorced from anything approaching pest control or crop protection. The WWF finally had to dispense with King Juan Carlos I of Spain as The President of Honour of WWF after his blood-lust became a little too much of a PR problem. The King made no secret of his love affair for hunting big game in Africa and Eastern Europe. More recently, he took part in a hunt in Romania, killing a wolf and nine bears, one of which was pregnant.[12] A Russian official also claimed that a tame bear was plied with honey and vodka before being shot dead by the King. The bear (called Mitrofan) was killed during a private visit to Russia in 2006, though it was never proven that King Juan Carlos had pulled the trigger. [13]

royalhunt

The prelude to the launch of WWF. Prince Phillip (far left) The Queen is standing just behind the ex-tiger while Prince Jagat-Singh Has his foot on the animal’s head. The tiger was over 9ft long before it’s skin was sent to Windsor Castle as a trophy. Today – like so many animals championed by WWF – it is almost extinct.

Much like Prince Philip who is not one to let the hoi-polloi dictate his pleasures, in 2006 the Polish government allowed him to kill a European bison in Bialowieza forest, even when it is an endangered species. In April 2012, the patron of the WWF was still busy hunting elephants in Botswana.

Prince Charles, also deeply involved with environmental concerns and UK head of the WWF has followed in his father’s footsteps developing a love of fox hunting along with frequent bird shoots at Balmoral. His sons have not been spared the grand tradition either. Reports that William killed a young antelope with a 7ft spear on a trip to see the Maasai were unconfirmed but not surprising. William’s cultivated interest in shooting and stalking stopped his mother Diana from becoming president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, though admittedly, hunting has always been a non-issue for the WWF.

Whether it is buying 250 pheasant, duck and partridge for his brother Harry to shoot at his 27th birthday on Queen Elizabeth’s Sandringham Estate, or boar-hunting on their rural estate in Cordoba, Spain, William is merely embracing normal pastime within the aristocracy, civil list and super-rich. In their last shoot the brothers bagged a staggering 740 partridges on a single day with help from “… Beaters and packs of dogs [who] were brought in to ensure that the princes did not return home without several ‘kills’ to their name.” [14]

Killing animals for sport under the guise of countryside traditions is nothing new and is an activity simultaneously bound up in ancient practices of survival where the animal is either venerated as a source of food or regarded as something to slaughter in a society bereft or meaning. Indigenous cultures – even peasantry in the not so distant past – took the death of their fellow creatures very seriously and afforded them the respect they deserved for providing them with nourishment. Living as we do in mostly urban environments and suburban “countryside” dotted with corporate outlets of factory farming the respect for the cycles of life and death doesn’t play much part in shooting or hunting animals since it is tied to the market place, where weekend shoots act as cathartic exercises in manliness and / or a break from the high-octane pressure of city rat-race. Deals can be done and echoes of the gentry can resurface.

Though dressed up in numerous rationalisations, the idea that hunting and killing animals for fun rather than survival in what we consider to be “civilised” societies seems to be a tradition we can eventually do without. But unless one has grown up in the “country” or is steeped in aristocratic customs one cannot possibly understand this essential “tradition” it seems … However, if we ever return to a full spectrum of true ecological awareness, self-sufficiency, respect for the natural world, a just economy and an inclusive social autonomy with a minimum of government interference, there may be a place in the world for hunting animals as part of a sacred survival, something indigenous peoples understood. Since how we treat animals in any given nation is fairly good reflection of how well we treat humans, then it maybe sometime before the view of animals as playthings or products may change.

Be that as it may, it’s all part of the normal life of so-called Royalty or “nobility” where the residues of feudalism strengthen the explicit understanding that elitism, class divisions and inherited privilege must be supported by the tax payer.

How else are we to keep the vast families and civil list in the manner to which they are accustomed?

bucket of green paint‘Green-washing’ © infrakshun

The issue is not about individual royals, rather it is the notion that we need such a structure of vastly expensive aristocracy when its continued existence only serves to buttress and maintain the status quo and its social divisions. Indeed, this must remain if monarchy, corporatism and Elite privilege is to thrive, tangled up as it is in complex ponerological webs of custom, status and wealth. The idea that we are all still subjects to a ruling King or Queen rather than citizens, has power, even if implicit. Societies at this time, need leaders but leaders with the highest principles which honour tradition as means to free the mind rather than to repeat destructive customs of power privilege and indulgence.

Similarly, organisations and agencies are following a PR image which has little to do with the values a truly progressive society would hope to encourage. WWF does not oppose hunting or situations that pose a threat to animal welfare. “Conservation” is its priority. So much so, that the following statement on the Canadian seal hunt, is illuminating: “As long as the commercial hunt for harp seals off the coast of Canada is of no threat to the population of over 5 million harp seals, there is no reason for WWF Canada to reconsider its current priorities and actively oppose the annual harvest of harp seals.” [15]

Supporting the fur industry is the type of conservation we are talking about here not least the barbarism that seal hunts entail. Clearly, as WWF has stated humane treatment of animals and animal welfare is not its concern. Nor it seems, does it view exploitation as something to be concerned about.

The Sumatran Orangutan in Indonesia, is under intense pressure from Palm oil companies causing massive deforestation. Ian Singleton, Director of the Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Program told journalist Elizabeth Batt that the Sumatran orangutan will be extinct by the end of 2012. WWF being concerned about endangered species would see this as an opportunity to protect this species, right? Wrong. WWF and other eco-groups are involved in a huge green washing deal which operates like this:

“ The global organic food industry agrees to support international agribusiness in clearing as much tropical rainforest as they want for farming. In return, agribusiness agrees to farm the now-deforested land using organic methods, and the organic industry encourages its supporters to buy the resulting timber and food under the newly devised ‘Rainforest Plus” label.’

The ‘world’s biggest wildlife conservation groups have agreed exactly to such a scenario, only in reverse.’ And it’s being led by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Through ‘a series of global bargains with international agribusiness, in exchange for vague promises of habitat protection, sustainability and social justice, these conservation groups are offering to greenwash industrial commodity agriculture.” [16]

Sumatra is home to a rich variety of wildlife some of which only exist in this mountainous paradise. Palm oil is used in biodiesel, toiletries and food products and is in high demand across the world. But the boom in palm oil means environmental degradation with high quantities of pesticides and “slash and burn” deforestation, despite WWF claims of sustainability. Corruption is rife. For example, RSPO stands for “Roundtable on Sustainable palm Oil,” yet as one former Indonesian WWF employee commented:

“Sustainable palm oil, is really non-existent” for the following reasons: “The certificate makes it possible to crank up production while simultaneously placating the consciences of customers. Henkel, the Düsseldorf-based consumer products company, advertises its Terra range of household cleaning products with the claim that it supports ‘the sustainable production of palm and palm kernel oil, together with the WWF.’ ” [17]

But WWF calls all this “market transformation” allowing corporations such as Unilever to process 1.3 million tons of palm oil a year a record that transforms it into the one of the world’s largest palm oil processors along with Wilmar, one of the world’s major palm oil producers. Now that they have completed their “accreditation” and taken into account “social criteria” then, all is well according to WWF. Though virgin forest continues to be cut down and environmental toxicity levels abound.

Charges of profits before principles have dogged WWF since its inception. The Cambodian government was none too pleased with the organisation and its handling of the Irrawaddy Dolphin in the Mekong river systems, listed as critically endangered by WWF since 2004. In June 2009, Touch Seang Tana, chairman of Cambodia’s Commission for Conservation and Development of the Mekong River Dolphins Eco-tourism Zone, accused WWF of misrepresenting the level of extinction danger concerning the Mekong Dolphin in order to increase fundraising. He stated: “The WWF’s report did not implement scientific research,” citing that: “Most dolphins died of fishing net from local fishermen and explosion devices for local people to catch fish. They did not die from pollution, DDT, pesticide or dams.” [18]

Heavy-Pollution-Leads-Mekong-Dolphins-to-Extinction-2

Mekong river Dolphins ‘almost extinct’

Cambodian government estimates between 155 and 175 Irrawaddy dolphins still remain in Cambodia’s stretch of the Mekong River, while WWF last year put the figure at just 85. Since 2012 Cambodia cabinet has agreed to implement a conservation area which will cover a 180-kilometer-long stretch of river from Eastern Kratie province to the border with Laos.

When WWF does do its professed job of protecting endangered species it doesn’t succeed there either, at least according to the 1989 Phillipson Report named after Oxford professor John Phillipson. He did as WWF asked and completed a commissioned internal audit to gauge the organization’s effectiveness. The 252 page report proved the charity had produced a litany of embarrassing failures. Not one endangered species project had been successful. After spending a fortune on “saving the panda” through “scientific breeding” which the fund proclaimed should be applied to all other species, it consequently “relocated” thousands of peasant Chinese so that they were out of the range of the panda’s habitat. In their bid to save the panda from extinction they squandered the millions accrued from donations.

Phillipson states:

“despite a staff of 43 (23 allegedly science-trained), panda breeding has not been a success and research output negligible…. The laboratories, equipped at a cost to WWF of SFr 0.53 million, are essentially non-functional. … A lack of proper advice, inadequately trained staff, and poor direction have resulted in a ‘moribund’ laboratory … The obvious conclusion must be that WWF has not been effective or efficient in safeguarding its massive investment … WWF subscribers would be dismayed to learn that the capital input has been virtually written off.” […]

“It must be accepted that WWF activities in China are largely in disarray … The policy of widening WWF involvement to cover other interests has, in my opinion, been counterproductive and, in view of the virtual cessation of support for all forms of panda research, amounts to an abrogation of responsibility for the much publicized ‘Panda Program.’” [19]

Furthermore, WWF had bribed Chinese officials with donated funds in order to preserve panda habitat but which also allowed the building of hydroelectric dams leading to ever increasing demands for bigger bribes. [20]

After decades of so called expertise in the field of conservation this is surely an odd state of affairs for an environmental institution which is regularly consulted on conservation issues despite having a dubious record on animal welfare and an appalling success rate in protecting species from extinction. Its bank balance is certainly something that could be termed “successful.”

In 2010, WWF proclaimed it the “Year of the Tiger” in keeping with its long tradition of campaigning on behalf of this endangered species. In the early 1970s, it managed to convince the Indian government under then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Indian government to create some protected areas for the tigers. At the time it said there were roughly 4,000 tigers compared to just 1,700 today. Without WWF perhaps the tiger would be no more? It is hard to say. The issue of resettlement played out in India just as it would in China, with assurances by WWF staff that operations were handled properly. Given the magnitude of resettlement in India resulting 300,000 families being “persuaded” to leave their homes in order to create a conservation zone, it is hard to believe that such a mass displacement was willingly undertaken.

>WWF’s insistence that elephant populations were just fine underscored its preference for culling and hunting through much of the 1960s and 1970s. Though almost every environmental movement and nature conservation expert was saying that the elephant was in danger, WWF continued to support that line that estimates of sharp declines were exaggerated. In fact, from the results of various studies it was found that there were 3 million elephants in Africa in the early 1950s; 1.3 million elephants in the mid-70s when the ivory trade was at its height; 400,000 by 1988. Estimated populations of African elephants have recovered somewhat at between 490,000 or 65o, 000, with Asian elephants at only 60,000. [21]

International WWF chairman Sir Peter Scott also had a reputation for the option of culling animals regardless of whether numbers were dwindling or not. In 1963, in a report to the Ugandan Parks Board, Scott recommended the ‘culling’ of 2,500 elephants and according to EIR report by Allen Douglas “… game hunter Ian Parker, … massacred 4,000 hippos while he was at it.” It seems that the Chairman: “… had recommended the slaughter on the Malthusian premise that ‘overpopulation’ required the killing of many individuals in order to ‘save the species.’ In reality, as it later emerged, Scott wanted to create a valuable mahogany plantation in the forests where the elephants fed, and they were in the way.” [22]  If there was any truth to the notion that WWF was interested in preserving species then it was strongly called into question when it embraced the more lucrative idea of allowing only the privileged to kill endangered wildlife under the cover of that well-known term: “sustainable use”, which means the killing of animals in the most efficient way and which maximizes profits without damaging the long-term viability of the species.

An example of this strategy so common in nature conservation was discovered in 1994 where the Tufts Centre for Animals and Public Policy director Andrew Rowan found: “… a single difference in the responses of zoo and humane representatives to 12 hypothetical ethical problems he posed at the White Oak conference on zoos and animal protection. Most agreed that hunting is both ethically and pragmatically dubious as an alleged tool of wildlife management. Yet, endorsing the WWF view, the zoo people were virtually all willing to tolerate trophy hunting as a way to make wildlife lucrative for poor nations, and presumably therefore worth protecting.” [23]

Trophy-hunting and the neo-colonialism of the rich, white man pervades WWF philosophy and practice. In the context of “Sustainable use” this will actually speed up the likelihood of extinction when artificial practices based on blood sport and killing for pleasure wrapped up in rules and regulations replaces the natural balance of hunting for survival and necessity often sitting alongside a healthy wisdom and understanding of the natural world.  The same applies to the politics of “sustainable use” which have attracted the “change agent” doctrine that is seen in Agenda 21 and across the environmentalism movement. Such advocates within WWF and other groups have the gall to suggest to Africans and Asians living on the poverty line that they should allow rich Europeans and Americans to kill animals for sport as oppose to those who kill to survive and must be reduced to living on the scarcity of hand-outs to compensate. As one commentator reiterated: “ ‘Sustainable users’ argue that giving poor Africans and Asians a collective economic stock in wildlife will lead to the development of a collective ethic, whereby poachers will become pariahs. This ignores the history of collectivism wherever it has been attempted, from the failed USSR to Africa’s own overgrazed grasslands.” [24]

With the failure to save the Black Rhino in the 1960s and 70s as well as the declining populations of the White Rhino, John Phillipson stated:

“The project was ill-conceived and indefensible in conservation terms; the Southern White Rhino has never, at least in historic times, occurred in Kenya: Moreover, there is no evidence that the Northern White Rhino ever roamed the lands which now constitute the 87,044 hectare Meru National Park. The assumption must be that in the mid-1960s WWF was either scientifically incompetent, hungry for publicity, greedy for money, or unduly influenced by scientifically Naïve persons of stature.” […]

“The program came to an abrupt end in November 1988, perhaps mercifully in that it removed a constant source of embarrassment. Insurgent Somali poachers shot all the remaining white rhino in an act of defiance, an unfortunate end for the rhino but no doubt a welcome relief for concerned conservationists. Project 0195 is not a project that WWF should look back on with any pride.” [25]

Funded with 1 million Swiss francs Operation Stronghold was ostensibly conducted to save the Black Rhino in the Zambezi Valley from extinction. It soon became clear that this was something other than just Rhino protection and the transferral to safer regions. Taking a leaf out of the rise in private army outsourcing in countries such as America, Britain and Israel WWF paid Chief Game Ranger Glen Tatham and his men to protect the Rhino it seems at any cost. But was the Rhino really the main objective here?

blk-rhino

Black Rhino, Zambezi Valley

In November 1988, When two of Tatham’s unit were charged with murder after allegedly shooting dead “poachers” in cold blood, more details of their activities began to surface. Notwithstanding that over 145 “poachers” had been killed since 1984 and 1991, many had been targeted from helicopters manned by WWF employees. [26] Yet, according to the Game department’s own figures: “Of the 228 people killed or taken prisoner, only 107 guns were recovered. Given that another 202 individuals were recorded as having fled, some badly injured, some of whom would have lost or been unable to carry away their weapons, this means that Tatham et al., failed to recover weapons from three-quarters of those killed, taken prisoner, or driven away. This raises the question of whether those targeted by the guards were in fact armed poachers at all.”  [27]

Rhinos were in fact, shipped off to countries with privately-owned game reserves not just in Africa but all over the world, an immensely lucrative project for WWF.  Following in the wake of WWF’s sleight of hand, the IMF did what it does best and embarked on a restructuring of Zimbabwe’s economy, which meant placing it in debt and cutting what was left of social services. Dumped into the middle of this Western-imposed chaos was the monoculture business of beef ranching for Europe, slap-bang in the Zambezi Valley, the exact position where the rhino’s once lived. A government and corporate-mandated extermination of wildlife then ensued to provide for the IMF beef factories.

Black Rhinos have made a dramatic comeback after private land use was brought into the picture which also utilised armed guards and private army protection. Ever on the look-out for profit, a Price Waterhouse study commissioned by conservancies and WWF-Zimbabwe/Beit Trust to explore the land-use options available to the conservancies concluded that: “from a financial perspective, wildlife is a more desirable land-use than cattle in these Conservancies.” [28]

WWF’s earliest corporate sponsor was the petrochemical giant Royal Dutch/Shell. In 1961 it gave WWF-UK £10,000 a considerable sum back in 1961. So, before green righteousness goes to far let it be remembered that WWF was actually founded on oil money. But it doesn’t stop there. Corporate sponsorship continues apace some of whom include Canon, Volvo, Nokia and HSBC – the latter having been recently fined more that $1.5 billion for financial corruption, a banking cartel that was found to be laundering money for drug barons and crime lords whilst engaging in the kind  of financial terrorism second only to Barclays Banks. Yet getting into bed with oppressive regimes and finding time to indoctrinate slum kids in Pakistan we shouldn’t be too surprised, especially when we nip back to 1988…

In that year, a large cache of paintings were sold for £700,000 to raise money for the World Wide Fund for Nature. The money was deposited in a Swiss WWF bank account by former head of the WWF, Prince Bernhard. In the following year £500,000 was transferred back to Bernhard by director-general of the WWF, Charles de Haes for what was described as “a private project.” In fact, Prince Bernhard had used the money for Operation Project Lock to hire mercenaries—mostly British to ostensibly fight poachers in nature reserves.[29]In 1990, WWF’s cosseted existence was placed under the media spotlight embroiling the organisation in a very public scandal. A joint operation between WWF and British Special Air Services (SAS) had been tasked with infiltrating “commandos” in a bid to save the Rhino and in the hope of dismantling the illegal ivory trade and Rhino horn trading network. That was the theory hatched in the WWF boardroom. It proved to be colossal failure.

Firstly, £1 million went missing. This may have had something to do with the fact that her Majesty’s respected SAS group had set up shop with Rhino products and gone into business for themselves. Far from stopping the illegal trade, they had muscled in on the action taking over the market and continuing the supply lines. Large numbers of poachers were murdered according to statements made by Nelson Mandela’s National African Congress. Further revelations came to light about the depth of British Intelligence involvement which was fully supported by WWF’s own documents and published in the Africa Confidential Bulletin. MI5 was said to have orchestrated Operation Lock with David Stirling, creator of the SAS.

The history of African National Parks is a history of collusion between park wardens funded and armed by WWF. The “poachers” are often phantoms in that such fabrications cover the truth that they are often the very same park wardens. The SAS unit officially sent in to stop the trade were drawn from the ranks of seasoned military professionals with black operational or “dirty warfare” experience. They were members of a mercenary unit created by Stirling called KAS International and just the ticket it seemed for WWF’s designs.

Though largely downplayed and covered up by the media, the trail of culpability led directly to the door of the British Establishment and most notably Prince Philip, the Queen Mother and author Laurens Van Der Post Prince Charles’ tutor, then first counsellor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on African Affairs. (Incidentally, Van Der Post has been proven to have been a fraud who knew very little about the real Africa). Nevertheless, the Duke of Edinburgh is pleased with the legacy. And WWF’s present day “Market Transformation” team shows no sign of observing a distance between corporations and their cash. “Change agents” are at work where the big dealers and producers of commodities like soybeans, milk, palm oil, wood and meat can see the errors of their ways and be shown the righteousness of a sustainable lifestyle. As a result, Cargill and Monsanto, two of the most heinous polluters and human rights abusers on the planet, donate regularly to WWF and attend many of their meetings. Keeping the green spin turning is essential for such companies which have huge investments in genetically modified soybean.

Jobs for the boys continues in 2013 and not much has changed. Thanks to the European Union millions of pounds are being paid to green campaign groups so that they can effectively lobby themselves. The European Commission Environmental Fund and are giving grants to enable scores of green organisations to influence and promote EU policy. According to the Tax Payers’ Alliance which analyses organisations’ spending this special fund called Life+, has exceeded £90 million over the past fifteen years. Set up in the 1990s to fund non-profit initiatives at the European level but most importantly, it is in the development and implementation of Community policy and legislation where Life+ is designed to be most effective. It would be a stretch to say that this money is being used to protect the environment, rather it seems this is another example of EU policies being routed through the back door of environmentalism without due consultation. Sure enough, the European Policy office of WWF (now based in Brussels) is up at the top of the grant listing having received £7.4 million. According to a Deccember 21st 2013 report from The Telegraph entitled: ‘European Union funding £90m green lobbying con’ By Robert Mendrick and Edward Malnick:

“In its most recent round of grants for 2013, Life+ awarded £7.5 million to 32 groups, including:

  • £290,000 to CEE Bankwatch Network, a Czech-based organisation which campaigns against “the activities of international financial institutions in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region that cause negative environmental and social impacts”;
  • £80,000 to Counter Balance, also based in Prague, which lobbies banks to ensure they “adhere to sustainable development goals, climate change mitigation policy, and the protection of biodiversity, in line with EU goals”;
  • £260,000 to Brussels-based Health Care Without Harm Europe, which campaigns to “address the environmental impact of the health-care sector in Europe … to make the health-care system more ecologically sustainable”;
  • £44,000 to Kyoto Club, based in Rome, whose main actions include “lobbying and advocacy for EU climate change mitigation policies, through policy recommendations and reports, information-sharing and campaigning, participation in EU events and stakeholder meetings, and contacts with relevant MEPs, Council and Commission officials”;
  • £350,000 to the Italian-based Slow Food, a group which campaigns to “reduce the impact of food production and consumption on the environment” and will achieve this by “participating in the international and EU debate about food through EU institution advisory committees, expert working groups and other high-level groups”.

At last, finally some cash is being used to implement a global green policy? Well, by now, it should be obvious that all this money flying about doesn’t actually alter the fundamental socio-economic structure but certainly lines the pockets of new “eco” industries and their bureaucracies. Greenpeace is possibly the only well-known environmental activist group who is acutely aware of green-washing having chosen not to take any EU or government funding. It perhaps the best known environmental campaigning organisation, has refused to take any EU or government funding. It should be commended for realising the nature of such compromise and what this really entails. Independence means it is much less likely to provide and open door to ponerisation. (It’s only a shame they don’t apply the same principles to their stance on climate change).

clip_image002.jpg

WWF “Business partners” 2012

The green charity Friends of the Earth (FoE) is another recipient of Life+ with over £2.1 million in funds in 2012 from: “… at least seven different departments of the European Commission. By contrast, the charity’s arm in Britain said it receives less than one per cent of its budget from the EU, with the vast majority of its funding coming from individuals and trusts.” The report goes on to state: “FoEE used its funding last year to produce a four-minute video to put pressure on the British and German governments to back a new EC directive which set a series of legally binding energy efficiency targets across Europe. The video was co-produced with Climate Action Network Europe, which has received £2.3 million from Life+ to ‘improve existing EU climate and energy policies’.”

In fact, the overwhelming drive to promote and lobby for EU directives under sustainable development alongside SMART society in a European setting. Higher tax bills, zero consultation on environmental policy and the new Eco-technocratic bias which goes with it blankets European perception. In the UK austerity measures, rising debt and a generation of older folk frequently have to ration their food in order to pay the electricity bills which have risen by 150 per cent in the last ten years. The German online newspaper deutschewelle.de. reported the figure of 31, 000 Britons, mostly the retired or on low incomes who died in 2012 as a result of the cold. The social and environmental costs are driving the prices sky high. SMART implementation and serious economic difficulties the funding of activist groups for measures and initiatives without due oversight and accountability is an open door to corruption and misappropriation of funds. Since most eco-activist organisations have little or no awareness of the macro-social objectives of those currently shaping European policy it means funding is generally being absorbed into the already centralised belief system inherent in Establishment support. The compromise arrives over time not necessarily in the short-term acceptance of funds. Rather, it contributes to a slow process of attrition where green policy is gradually contoured into a new socio-economic structure which may not be based on the freedom and independence those organisations and NGOs sincerely believe exists.

Employees within WWF and other organisations believe that allowing corporations to continue their natural state of plunder and exploitation while hoping for a change of face is a practical endeavour. For the multitude of good-hearted persons working in organisations like WWF whose patrons clearly have a different environmental and ideological agenda, they are in danger of becoming agents of a change that lead away from what they would sincerely like to see: the betterment of our environment and the human sphere. This will not come without a very different kind of compromise.

**

See also: Greenpeace Helps Corporations Destroy the Planet

 


Notes

[1] Ibid.
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Parks for life: Action for protected areas in Europe’ IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe. 1994.
[4]
Dowie, Mark; Conservation Refugees:The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples Published by MIT Press, 2009. ISBN-10:0-262-01261-8.
[5] Ibid. (p.xvi intro.)
[6] Ibid.
[7] op. cit. Glüsing and Klawitter.
[8] op. cit. Dowie (p.xix)
[9] op. cit. (p. xx)
[10] op. cit. Glüsing, Klawitter.
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘Romania: Elite Hunting Spree Sparks Calls For Better Animal’, rferl.org/ September 12, 2012.
[13] ‘Royal row over Russian bear fate’ BBC News, October 2006.
[14] ‘William and Harry fly to Spain to hunt wild boar to celebrate the end of Harry’s helicopter training’ By Rebecca English, Royal Correspondent, 17 January 2012.
[15] Op-Ed: King Juan Carlos not the only questionable association for WWF’ By Elizabeth Batt, http://www.digitaljournal.com April 2012.
[16] ‘Way Beyond Greenwashing: Have Corporations Captured Big Conservation?” by J. Latham, Independent Science News.org.
[17] op. cit. Glüsing, Klawitter.
[18] ‘Cambodia Rejects CNN, WWF Reports about Mekong Dolphin’ June 24 2009. CRI English, Xinhua.
[19] op.cit. La Rouche et al.
[20] Ibid.
[21] IUCN’s African Elephant Status Report 2007 | ‘Asian Elephant distribution’. EleAid. 2007.
[22] ‘The oligarchs’ real game is killing animals and killing people’ by Allen Douglas, EIR.1994.
[23] ‘What’s Wrong with “Sustainable Use”?’ June 1994 Animal People http://www.animalpeople.org
[24] Ibid.
[25] op. cit. Phillipson.
[26]‘Can Mercenary Management stop poaching in Africa?’ Animal People, April 1999. http://www.animalpeople.org
[27] op. cit. Douglas.
[28] Private Conservation Case Study: Private Conservation and Black Rhinos in Zimbabwe: The Savé Valley and Bubiana Conservancies, by Michael De Alessi January 2000.
[29] “Pretoria inquiry confirms secret battle for the rhino”. The Independent. 18 January 1996.

 

Dark Green IV: 1001 Club, WWF & Green-Washing

By M.K. Styllinski

“I have never been noticeably reticent about talking on subjects about which I know nothing.”

– Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, Meeting of Industrialists 1961


WWFJust as there are many environmental organisations and advocacy groups who do extraordinary work for the planet’s environment and wildlife, there are also those that have their roots in eco-fascism and technocratic social engineering. For the sake of brevity and to remain on topic, we shall single out the WWF as an example of this “green mask” as well as its relationship to Prince Philip and corporate sponsorship.

The Nature Conservancy was founded by Royal Charter in 1949 and one of the four official research organisations under the British royalty’s Privy Council. It allowed for the legal protection of National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). After writing the legislation for the body, Edward Max Nicholson became its head in 1952 deeming it important enough to leave his government post as permanent secretary to the deputy Prime Minister. Though he stepped down as Director-General in 1966 he remained a powerful influence over conservation and the environmental movement as a whole, formulating strategy, tactics and direction for several decades. (Nicholson’s 1970 book title: The Environmental Revolution: A Guide for the New Masters of the World should give an idea where his sentiments lay…) Like his friend Julian Huxley, he was an advocate of eugenics and racial purification.

In 1931, the British policy think tank, Political and Economic Planning (PEP) took to the elite eco state with pressure from Huxley, the financier Sir Basil Blackett, the agronomist Leonard Elmhirst, the director of Marks & Spencer Israel Sieff among many others. Nicholson became chairman in 1953. [1]Being a non-governmental planning organisation financed by corporations it was perfectly suited as a pool from which members could be networked and managed to organise other initiatives and projects. [2]

Partially affiliated to the United Nations and with a constitution written by the British Foreign Office, the Swiss-based International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was founded in 1948 by Sir Julian Huxley, bringing together 77 nations, 114 government agencies, and 640 non-governmental organizations and over 10,000 scientists, lawyers, educators, and corporate executives from 181 countries. The IUCN’s mission is: “to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to assure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.” [3]

Working closely with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) it was this body that launched the “Global Biodiversity Strategy,” which now guides the conservancy and sustainability initiatives of many countries. The preservation of biodiversity is its primary goal. Back in 1948 however, it needed funds to survive.  The idea for a financial fund for the IUCN initially came from businessman Victor Stolan who passed his suggestion onto to Huxley who in turn, put Stolan in contact with Max Nicholson who had the intelligentsia and corporate elite at his fingertips. In 1961, with Stolan, Sir Peter Scott and Guy Mountfort, Nicholson formed the committee that would found the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (now the World Wide Fund for Nature) officially launching the organization on April 29, with none other than Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands as its official chairman in the following year. The first staff was assembled by more Rockefeller minions, this time in the guise of Godfrey A. Rockefeller and WWF offices opened on September 11th in Morges, Switzerland.[4] Though business as usual, a cat was let out of the bag and Prince Bernhard was embroiled in the Lockheed-Martin weapons scandals in the mid-1970s where he was found guilty of accepting bribes to sell aeroplanes. Prince Philip would eventually replace Bernhard to become WWF chairman from 1981 – 1996 and continues to hold the title of President Emeritus. Princess Alexandra, first cousin to the Queen was chosen to replace him.

The WWF is a meeting point and clearing house for some of the leading European eco-oligarchical families. It is the most powerful environmental organisation in the world, active in over 100 countries. It has frequently been accused of benefiting industry more than the environment and acting as a neo-colonial tool for British interests.  Anti-pollution, endangered species and encouraging renewable energies and sustainable practice form the policy objectives of WWF. To that end, conservation areas, parks and reserves have been set up usually outside the influence of the governments within those nations. According to Executive intelligence Review many of these “ecological reserves” are used “as training grounds and safe-havens for British-backed terrorist organizations” such as the “… national parks in Africa, [which] train and protect all the “liberation fronts” under British control.” [5]

The vast wealth, social, cultural and political influence of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh should not be underestimated in this context. He is patron, chair, trustee and shareholder for many corporations, committees, bodies, boards, panels, commissions and military ranks, which, as one biography mentions: “… cover sixty-six close typed pages in his Patronage Book at Buckingham Palace.” [6]The WWF was and remains dear to his heart. Remember that the handlers behind Sir Julian Huxley and his ideas for getting the general public and lower tier power brokers to “think the unthinkable” was to engage in a form of eco-Intelpro, where environmentalism would act as a mask for eugenics and other World State applications. For Prince Philip and his ilk, environmentalism, neo-feudalism and eugenics are inextricably linked. As author Walter William Kay observes: “During a 1960 tour of Africa, on the eve of the launching of the WWF, Huxley openly boasted that the ecology movement would be the principal weapon used by the British oligarchy to impose a Malthusian world order over the dead body of the nation-state system, and, most importantly, the United States.” [7]

By the time WWF had entered the 1970s and the waning influence and disappointment of the counter-culture, Philip, Bernhard and their associates were creating a funding base not just for the WWF, but for the hundreds of new environmental and ecology-based organisations appearing all over the world. There was a new generation to hijack and deploy “… as the storm-troopers of the new ‘green’ fascism.” This fund was named the “1001: A Nature Trust” or the “1001 Club” among its members. It was so called because Philip wanted to hand pick 1001 members of the crème de la crème of corporate elite. It was in reality a green Bilderberg Group  packed with the same brand of European corporatists and Synarchists. By far the greatest number of members were drawn from the heads of the banking cartels and with an initial fee of £10,000 members could enter the inner sanctum of ecological visions.

Prince_Philip__Duke_of_EdinburghPrince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1961 Meeting of Industrialists 1961

Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield was a 1001 Club charter member, and a motley crew of known criminals such as arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi and former Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, Robert Vesco, Edmond Safra and Sheikh Ali Ahmed, also happened to be on board and who became more widely known for their connection to Prince Bernhard when they were exposed by the Financial Times at the time of the Lockheed Scandal. Eco-guru Maurice Strong, also a member of the 1001 Club did his part in placing WWF at the centre of public awareness and the Establishment by sponsoring Earth Day, closely followed by the UN sponsored Stockholm conference which birthed the UNEP and Strong’s future eco-vehicle for the most potent global warming and sustainable development/SMART society propaganda.

In Executive Intelligence Review’s ground-breaking report “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor” evidence is presented that is very hard to deny yet still largely ignored in the MSM. Prince Philip and the House of Windsor is charged with heading the “Club of Isles” which is made up of green NGOs, organisations, corporations and councils, with Queen Elizabeth as the “chief executive officer.” The Club brings together the political and financial power base of intermarried European Royals and dynasty families which extends from Scandinavia to Greece. What this means is that there is eco-fascism at work which employs the same monopolistic methods of both the early Round Table Movement, its corporate cousin the Round Table of Industrialists and other power brokers to accomplish the same ends. Once again, as the global Red Shield Masters of financial directives, the House of Rothschild lie behind its inception as founding members of this interlocking membership of eco-fascists. Accordingly, we have:

“… a new British imperial revival, modeled on the eighteenth and nineteenth century British East India Company, with its private armies, and its corporate sovereignty over large tracts of land, ripped from the hands of nation-states. Today, relics of the heyday of the British Empire, such as Crown Associates and the Corps of Commissionaires, are directly running the affairs of state for such London puppets as [ ] Museveni, and are deploying private armies made up of “former” British SAS officers, now employed by companies such as Executive Outcomes, Defense Systems, Ltd., KAS, KMS, etc. Under the new imperial mandate, the agenda is now explicitly the depopulation of the globe. [8]

WWF and its sister organisation the IUCN has dedicated themselves to reducing the world’s population and controlling the world’s resources so that they stay in the clutches of an updated and modernized British and Anglo-Dutch Empire and their  ties to globalist groups. True to form, the push for a world government is a tacit requirement for its continuance, something which the WWF have dutifully advocated. [9]  Cecil Rhode’s Round Table with Rothschild money; Fabian cross-overs and much of the Anglo-American and Anglo-Dutch Elite lie firmly under the auspices of the Club of Isles, which draws its ideology from the British East India Company and its freemasonic roots in the late sixteenth century, the personification of British Empire’s early corporatism as conquest. Once the company had its royal charter from the Crown then the fortunes of British Aristocracy and elite families was secure.

Where and how does the Queen obtain her wealth? She is the richest woman in the world after all, with a tidy sum of at least $13 billion to her name. Being exempt from disclosing her innumerable holdings it is likely that the fortune is much, much greater. Some of these corporations and holdings operating in Africa are infused with British political directives partially or wholly owned by the Crown:

  • Anglo-American Corp. of South Africa, Ltd – the largest mining company in the world built from the Diamond trade of the Oppenhiemer family with financial support from JP Morgan and The Rothschilds;
  • RTZ Corp. PLC. The second-largest mining company in the world.
  • De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. Set up by Cecil Rhodes with Rothschilds’ support to monopolise world diamond production.
  • Barclays PLC. The primary banking cartel in Africa and Europe and membership of the 1001 Club and helped to co-found WWF.
  • Shell Trading & Transport PLC and Shell U.K. Ltd. – World’s largest petrochemical producer.
  • N.M. Rothschild & Sons Ltd. – One of the original families from the Hapsburg Empire and groomed and financed Cecil Rhodes’ exploitation of Africa’s gold and diamonds.
  • Imperial Chemical Industries PLC. (ICI) – Formed in 1926 by Lord Melchett. The present Lord Melchett, grandson of ICI’s founder, is head of Greenpeace, United Kingdom.
  • Unilever – Owns vast plantations in Africa and the continent’s largest trading company (United Africa Co.); key part of the world food cartel, particularly in fats and edible oils. Formed by 1930s strategic merger of English Lever Brothers firm, which owned the West African heirs to the Royal Niger Co, with a Dutch company. [10]

club of isleClub of Isles connections (revamped from ‘The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor’ By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. November 1994)

The only way such plunder can be continued is similar to the geo-political strategy favoured by her Majesty’s MI6, the MOSSAD and the CIA when they wish to claim a country for their own – create chaos and as much misery, violence and death that is proportionate to the prize.

This brings us back to one of a handful of pioneers on behalf of the British Crown: Cecil Rhodes and the British South Africa Company. It is exactly this perception of the world that informed the direction and policies of the WWF at the board level. The WWF-IUCN marriage is continuing what their 19th Century forerunners started though under an almost impenetrable cover of environmentalism and conservation. Africa has been violated, raped and plundered by the British Elite for two hundred years and is only increasing its activities as we enter the 21st century competing with American, Russian and particularly Chinese interests in the continent.

Neo-colonialism in Africa has been financed by a conglomerate of companies tasked with securing and expanding the fortunes of the Queen and the Crown Corporation of London and its bankers. Keeping civil wars and genocide intermittently turning over is essential to both land grabbing, resource catchment and long term destruction of “inferior races”. The new drive to conquer Africa has multiple benefits and it is perhaps for this reason that WWF has been so closely associated with corporate “green-washing.” The WWF claims that partnering with companies such as Coca-Cola, HSBC and Nokia will reduce their impact on the environment is both false and disingenuous. [11]With over €56 million (US $80 million) from transnational businesses in 2010 (an 8 percent increase from 2009) this is not small coinage we are talking about here. [12]  The organisation has an impressive stream of revenue from a long list of corporate, governmental, private and public sources. Millions of people donate their money around the world, contributing to its annual income of ½ billion euros a year. From just one source, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) WWF has received a total of $120 million over the last several years. [13]  So, how is it being invested?

Rwanda is an instructive example. While WWF’s national park gave refuge to the endangered species of Mountain Gorilla it also offered a safe haven for guerrillas of the Ugandan and British backed insurgency group Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) who at the time, were fighting a bloody war against Rwanda’s government and people. Much to the delight of her Majesty’s ruling elite, they have since become the ruling political party of Rwanda, led by President Paul Kagame.

eastern_lowland_gorilla_wallpaper_pc-horz

Silver-backed Mountain Gorilla (left)  Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) flag (right)

The sheer size of these parks is astounding. South Africa’s Kruger National Park is bigger than Ireland or Israel, while the Central Kalahari Game Reserve covers 51,800 square km and is larger than either Denmark and Switzerland. There are more than 1,100 national parks and related reserves in sub-Saharan Africa, of which 36 are designated World Heritage Sites. Since 1970, total protected-area coverage in Africa has increased nearly two-fold, and now encompasses 3.06 million km2 of terrestrial and marine habitats. Protected areas currently cover 15.9 percent and 10.1 percent of total land surface in the East/Southern African and West/Central African regions, respectively. [14]

It is also true that many reserves suffer from what is called “reserve isolation” ironically caused by habitat loss, fences and roads, overhunting, and disease being the most important factors. Ecologist William D. Newmark writing in Frontiers in Ecology describes:

“The ultimate drivers of protected-area isolation in Africa,” which are: “… rapid population growth, economic expansion, social and environmental human displacement, and poverty.” He continues: “Between 1975 and 2001, the human population in sub-Saharan Africa doubled, and it is expected to double again by 2034. Additionally, 42 percent of people living in the region subsist on less than one US dollar per day.” [15]

In fact, the parks have destabilised and disrupted the economic and ecosystems in Africa by: “decreasing the total energy throughput in the entire ecological system” and thus providing an open door to parasites and new strains of disease. The case of the tsetse fly seems to prove this point:

African tribesmen had long kept the tsetse fly – which carries the deadly disease Trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness – in check through extensive cultivation and bush clearance. The tribesmen understood that the fly lived off wild game, particularly antelope. For this reason, many tribal chiefs opposed the creation of the parks, and the related ban on hunting, as a threat to their herds. […]

Today, according to the admissions of Lee and Gerry Durrell, writing for the Conservation Monitoring Centre at Cambridge, England, an entity financed by Prince Philip’s WWF, ‘blood-sucking tsetse flies inhabit 10 million square kilometers of tropical Africa, in a wide band across the continent that takes in 34 countries.’ The authors bemoan modern-day spraying methods which have rendered new areas tsetse-free. In fact, ‘ the tsetse-free areas are growing so fast that … there is a real possibility that the spread of livestock onto marginal land will become a threat to wildlife …’ The eradication of the tsetse fly may be Africa’s misfortune.”  [16]

And it precisely the same interference in African affairs which has given rise to the serious economic situations in the continent with its inhabitants never having the chance to prepare for the future before the next Western-backed coup, land grab, manipulated famine or large-scale nature reserve to send both the social and ecological balance into chaos. Subsisting on one US dollar a day and coupled with Western foreign policy to exploit Africa any which way it can, may be linked to the rise in population growth.

When the mostly white, corporate and international banking fraternity sitting on the boards of WWF-INCU take massive swathes of African land out of circulation, this has economic consequences. The land often has resources lying beneath which can be covertly mined, harvested or extracted much to the frequent outrage of WWF subscribed members but with the sage approval of the hierarchy. The current theme we see over and over is a restricted area for humans where flora and fauna take precedence.

Harking back to Medieval England where lands and forests were sequestered for exclusive hunting by the King and his officers, this has continued first under the guise of the 19th and 20th Century colonial Elite and their obsession with hunting game and the often brutal eviction of local natives. Many early laws, conventions and colonial decrees dating from 1900-1933 paved the way for national parks which gradually drove indigenous tribes away from their homes while restricting their ability to hunt. Their naturally ecologically sound practice was overtaken by mass hunting where the European rich began to commercialise and consolidate nature in Africa. These internal frontiers within the African colonies decreed  the native population were prohibited from hunting or even walking on what was once their own land. It was to be a form of trespass under the pretext of protecting wildlife which continues to the present day, even though colonial rule appears to have long gone.

1024px-Kruger_Zebra

Two Burchell’s zebra in the central Kruger National Park, South Africa  Photo: Nithin bolar k | Location of Kruger National Park Photo: Htonl  (wikipedia)

The Kruger Park was created and named after South African President Paul Kruger in 1889 and lies along the border with the Portuguese colony of Mozambique. After the Boer War between the British and the Afrikaaners and the ecological destruction visited on the park and region by Lord Kitchener, it was re-established by Round Table member Lord Alfred Milner a close  colleague of Cecil Rhodes who was already busy stripping gold from Africa for his Rothschilds handlers. In 1902, he instructed the park’s first warden Maj. James Stevenson-Hamilton fresh from service in the Boer War to rid the park of indigenous black people. Under the banner of “anti-poaching” this took over 45 years with more than 11,000 miles of countryside ethnically cleansed. Locked out of their own parlour, black Africans were forced to find work in cities and mines following a pattern of slave labour which has continued today under corporate rule. As it was then, so it is today.

Where once tribal hunters used the animals they killed for good of the family and tribe, many are often forced to poach because history has shown that to have faith in governments that purport to protect wildlife is a false economy indeed. Corrupt governments with the help of organisations like the WWF sell animals to the highest bidder and make profits from both culling and hunting so “poachers” see no reason why they should not hunt these animals and take the profits before others do.

From the outset, destabilising the African continent was the avowed mission of British Empire agents with Rhodes and Milner two of the most well-known. The only way to secure power for the Empire was to break the spirit and land of the people. For example, from 1952 to 1960, the atrocities of the Mau Mau, an alleged secret society within the Kikuyu tribe was nothing more than a British plot to cut off the head of a Kenyan revolution against British colonial rule. Mass resettlement and severe ecological destruction ensued with many forests burnt to the ground by the British military. Kikuyu factions and tribal warfare was stimulated and encouraged by early British PSYOPS to encourage and perpetrate genocide. By exacerbating ethnic rivalries and historic enmities it reverse-engineered the revolution that was initially against the British so that it became focused on the tribes resulting in a conflagration against native peoples in the region. [17]  Most Mau Mau guerrilla units were an example of synthetic terror led by British military personnel and would serve as valuable knowledge for subsequent operations in present day warfare most notably in the genocides of Rwanda, the invasions of Iraq, Libya and the contemporary US-NATO and MOSSAD backed insurgents of the Syrian civil war. [18]

The British park system provided both cover and training for past and future operations and with the imposed tribal warfare doctrine it would define Africa for the next 100 years and beyond. By the 1960s, the British Empire was winding down from its more overt colonialism but the parks system remained a trenchant outpost of colonial rule while independence sprouted all around. Although still run by a largely British contingent the parks were now being outsourced to NGOs, shareholders and trustees unaccountable to African governments. As a consequence, the National Parks of Africa are mostly privately managed from trustees abroad.

The guerrilla war against the white minority rule of Rhodesia led by the Zimbabwe Peoples Union (ZAPU), and later the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) had both groupings trained by the KGB and Chinese instructors at the Queen Elizabeth park, Gorilla Park in Uganda and the Serengeti and Ruana national parks of Tanzania.[19]The Rhodesian government deployed the Mozambique National Resistance (Renamo) a former guerrilla unit created by Rhodesian intelligence against Zimbabwe and trained in South African regional parks in Natal, and nearby Kangwane.[20] The bloody civil war to originally overthrow Portuguese colonial rule was started in the 1950s by the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) and in the 1960s its rival, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) which lasted over 25 years. The West Zambezi Game Reserve, The Mupa National parks both played host to these warring factions.

Rwanda is a small country and much of the savannah area of the Akagera National park was re-settled by former refugees returning after the end of the Rwandan Civil War in the 1990s. In 1997 the western boundary was re-gazetted due to these land shortages and more land allocated as farms to returning refugees. The park was reduced in size from over 2,500km² to 1,200km² much to the chagrin of environmental groups. Organisations like WWF are using paramilitaries to fight poachers and to hold onto the land come what may. Whether this is strictly for the good of the parks and reserves or to maintain land for strategic and resource purposes is still a moot point. Many of the parks straddle the borders of neighbouring countries and despite being administered by UN agencies they are still effectively “militarised zones.” As journalist Linda La Hoyos describes: “Prince Philip’s WWF was administering the gorilla program in the Virunga Park, while the RPF was using the Virunga to maraud Rwanda.”

She goes on to write:

“In fact, RPF-sponsor Uganda has been profiting from the dislocation of the gorillas caused by the RPF operations. According to Africa Analysis, the RPF invasion had sent Rwanda’s gorillas running to Uganda, giving Museveni the opportunity to launch his own ‘eco-tourism program.’ Without the safe havens, provided by the royal family’s park system, the protracted civil and border wars afflicting Africa since the 1970s would have been impossible.” [21]

There are many ways to fleece a continent, but none prove more fruitful than the through the camouflage of charitable aid.

While conservation groups have been sounding the alarm on the plight of the elephant and calling for a ban on the sale of ivory, the WWF maintained nothing was wrong with the elephant population. When they eventually and grudgingly launched a campaign to assist the elephants in Uganda they set up a camp on the Rwandan border curiously more than 1,000 miles away from the main elephant colony in Murchison National Park. But it was from this exact location that the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) would invade Rwanda not long after and the events set in motion that would lead to genocide and human “culling.” Coincidence or forethought?

The game plan at the time and which has since been successful was to: “… destroy Rwanda and Burundi, turning the remains into satellites of Ugandan (British) domination; destroy Kenya by overthrowing [the government] and instigating tribal warfare; and seize mineral-rich eastern Zaire.”  [22]

Did WWF covertly assist in this neo-colonial warfare?

 


Notes

[1] p.210; Memories By J.S. Huxley, Published by Allen & Unwin, 1970 | ISBN 0-04-925006-X | British Archives at http://www.aim25.ac.uk/ archive reference code: GB 0097 PEP/PSI.
[2] ‘WWF in the 60’s’. wwf.panda.org.
[3] http://www.iucn.org/
[4] In Memoriam: Godfrey A. Rockefeller, Kerry Zobor (World Wildlife Fund). January 29, 2010.
[5] ‘How The Green Fascist Movement Was Created’ by Marcia Merry and Joseph Brewda, Executive Intelligence Review, July 18, 1997.
[6] ‘The English Environmental Elite, Global Warming,and The Anglican Church’ by William Walter Kay, 2000. http://www.ecofascism.com
[7] Ibid.
[8] ‘Tinny Blair Blares For Prince Philip’s Global Eco-Fascism’ by Jeffrey Steinberg Executive Intelligence Review, July, 1997
[9] Eco-logic papers ‘global governance’ Sep/October 1997. http://www.freedom.org/el-97/sep97/tocSep97-97.htm
[10x] ‘The Coming of the Fall of the House of Windsor.’ By Lyndon La Rouche, JosephBrewda, Mark Burdman, Carlos CotaMeza, Linda de Hoyos, Allen Douglas, William Engdahl, Manuel Hidalgo, Ken Kronberg, Hugo Lopez Ochoa, Rogelio Maduro, Marcia Merry, Silvia Palacios, Ana Maria Phau, David Ramonet, Raynald Rouleau, Michael Sharp, John Sigerson, Dennis Small, Gretchen Small, Jeffrey Steinberg, Geraldo Teran, Scott Thompson, Charles Tuttle, and Anthony Wikrent. Other collaborators contributed information from Asia, Africa, and Ibero-America. The project editor was Susan Welsh., Executive Intelligence Review. November 1994.
[11] http://www.wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/businesses/
[12] ‘Panda-ing to the Soya Barons?’ Corporate Watch, September 30, 2009 | ‘Ikea – you can’t build a green reputation with a flatpack DIY manual’ by Fred Pearce, The Guardian, April 2, 2009.
[13] ‘Green Veneer WWF Helps Industry More than Environment’ By Jens Glüsing and Nils Klawitter issue 22/2012 (26 May 12) of Der Spiegel.
[14] ‘Isolation of African protected areas’ by William D Newmark, Front Ecol Environ 2008; 6(6): 321–328, doi:10.1890/070003.
[15] Ibid.
[16] ‘World Wide Fund for Nature commits genocide in Africa’ by Linda de Hoyos, “The True Story Behind the Fall of the House of Windsor,” Executive Intelligence Review, Special Report, September 1997.
[17] Gangs and Counter Gangs by Col. Frank Kitson, Published by Barrie & Rockcliff, 1960 | ASIN: B0000CKJUV
[18] ‘NATO Death Squads Attempt to Ethnically Divide Syria’ – Refugees fleeing NATO’s “Free Syrian Army,” not government troops. By Tony Cartalucci, Global Research, July 23, 2012. | ‘British intelligence enabled Syrian rebels to launch devastating attacks on President Assad’s regime, official says – Disclosure is first indication of Britain playing a covert role in the civil war Intelligence from Cyprus ‘being passed through Turkey to the rebels’ Daily Mail, By Leon Watson, 19 August 2012.
[19] ‘The African parks were created as a cover for destabilization’ By Joseph Brewda, Executive Intelligence Review, 1994.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] op.cit. Brewda.


See also:

WWF International accused of ‘selling its soul’ to corporations

“Geneva-based WWF International has received millions of dollars from its links with governments and business. Global corporations such as Coca-Cola, Shell, Monsanto, HSBC, Cargill, BP, Alcoa and Marine Harvest have all benefited from the group’s green image only to carry on their businesses as usual.

World Wide Fraud: Pandering to Industry

WWF: Forcing indigenous tribes from their land for monopolisation of resources – An article from Do or Die Issue 7. In the paper edition, this article appears on page(s) 76-78:

“All around the world, as you read this, children of other cultures are being kidnapped and forced into schools against their will and that of their tribes. People from Indonesia to Zaire are being forcibly removed from their ancestral homelands into shoddy shanty towns with poor sanitation and bad food. These people want to stay in their homelands, living as they always have; with no leaders and no civilisation; hunting and gathering.

But the land they live on contains rich minerals and trees. The greedy eyes of westerners want it, so they take it. A familiar story? Corporate aggression? Despotic governments? Missionaries? Martian invaders? Yes, all these things (well, maybe not martians), but one other thing that may surprise many people: the World wide Fund for Nature, which is instrumental in these invasions the world over. Behind the nice caring fluffy panda logo lies a nasty evil empire that would make Ghengis Khan look like a local mafia hood.”

Survival International accuses WWF of involvement in violence and abuse

“Survival International has launched a formal complaint about the activities of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in Cameroon.

This is the first time a conservation organization has been the subject of a complaint to the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), using a procedure more normally invoked against multinational corporations.

The complaint charges WWF with involvement in violent abuse and land theft against Baka “Pygmies” in Cameroon, carried out by anti-poaching squads which it in part funds and equips.”

WWF’s Secret War

Internal Report Shows WWF Was Warned Years Ago Of “Frightening” Abuses


For more on WWF’s fake conservation visit:  www.pandaleaks.org/