WHOSE WORLD IS IT, ANYWAY?
Non-governmental organisations are more
powerful than some governments. Justin Marozzi wonders how worried we should be TIME was when the words De Beers were synonymous with the company's market- ing slogan: 'A diamond is for ever'. In the run-up to Christmas and St Valentine's Day there would be those faintly cheesy adverts with suave young things success- fully proposing to their belles with the aid of a sparkling rock from De Beers. The message was clear. A diamond, like a dog (not to mention a wife), was for life, not just for Christmas.
These days, there is a more defensive style to the company's public pronounce- ments. As Gary Ralfe, managing director of De Beers, pointed out to the biennial World Diamond Congress in Antwerp last month: 'Guns kill people, diamonds do not kill peo- ple.' It is a moot point whether adapting the rhetoric of Charlton Heston's National Rifle Association in the USA was an appropriate strategy for the company, but no matter. That Ralfe should feel the need to do so was illustrative of the intense pressure the world diamond industry has come under recently from a number of non-governmen- tal organisations (NGOs), among them Global Witness of the UK, over its involve- ment with 'conflict diamonds' — gems that fund wars — from Angola, Sierra Leone and the Republic of Congo.
The Antwerp meeting produced a nine- point plan to rid the global trade of such diamonds, including a stiff certification scheme and a new International Diamond Council to police it. All in all, it was radi- cal stuff for a notoriously dodgy and old- fashioned industry, particularly when you consider that less than two years ago the term 'conflict diamonds' scarcely existed, and that Global Witness was only a fledgling NGO with a staff of six. But whether the plan will really prevent illegal African diamonds from adorning the necks of the rich in London, New York and Paris is debatable. As one insider puts it, 'once a diamond is cut and polished, it's like a human being losing his skin'. That is to say diamonds are not easily policed.
In one respect, whether the plan works or not is immaterial. For Global Witness and other NGOs, at least, it was a triumph, the latest for a movement that in recent years has emerged as an increasingly powerful force, to be ignored or resisted at a compa- ny's, government's or multilateral organisa- tion's peril. In 1995, Greenpeace prevented Royal Dutch/Shell from sinking its Brent Spar oil rig in the North Sea. More recently, Monsanto has faced a hugely damaging assault by, among others, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Soil Association over genetically modified food. In Decem- ber, NGOs (including Dyke Action and Rag- ing Grannies) completely overshadowed the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seat- tle to the chagrin of the po-faced bureau- crats assembled there. In June, following a lengthy campaign by Greenpeace, Coca- Cola announced it would be phasing out the use of gas hydrocarbons (HFCs) in its refrig- eration units by 2004. Multinationals around the world, from Nike to Nestle, have found themselves under fire.
Some see this triumph of the tree-huggers as a worrying development. Long hair, eth- nic jumpers and Birkenstock sandals are bad enough, they huff, but when companies start caving in to bullyboy eco-warriors and the like, what is the world coming to? Big Business, runs the argument, has come under siege from a dastardly conspiracy of unelected, unaccountable do-gooders. Petrol Colossus Inc. is doing its level best to max- imise shareholder returns and all these guys want to talk about is the threat of extinction facing the Lesser Spotted Nigerian Swamp Mosquito.
Critics accuse NGOs of being undemo- cratic. This is a truism, but then companies are hardly paragons of democratic virtue, either. 'I think it's a fact rather than a criti- cism,' says Peter Melchett, executive director of Greenpeace UK. 'Democratic govern- ments are elected and have democratic legitimacy. Other organisations, such as Greenpeace, The Spectator and the Guardian, do not. We have the legitimacy of our market of who buys us or supports us. I 'That's why it's so cheap, the petrol tank's empty.' don't claim any greater legitimacy than that, nor do I want it.'
The issue of whether an NGO can bully a multinational is more problematic. The claim is 'absolutely ridiculous', says Charmian Gooch, co-director of Global Witness, recalling the initially hostile reac- tion that this NGO met from De Beers when it began its campaign against 'conflict diamonds'. 'Rather bizarrely for a multina- tional, multi-billion-dollar company which controls 60-70 per cent of the world dia- mond market, they said why are you pick- ing on us? It was rather sweet.'
But NGOs, like politicians, have an unfortunate tendency to dramatise and dis- tort the issues they confront. In the case of diamonds, they began by claiming that 20 per cent of the world diamond market con- sisted of 'conflict diamonds', a figure eager- ly embraced by the ethically sound British government among others. Having learnt more about the industry, NGOs now use De Beers's estimate of 4 per cent. Green- peace, lion of the NGO movement, admit- ted some of the information used in its campaign against Royal Dutch/Shell over Brent Spar was false.
Most people would have limited sympa- thy for a multinational crying foul. In gen- eral, they are big enough to look after themselves. Many feel large corporates have been having their own way for too long and that globalisation has brought new responsibilities in addition to new profits. 'The corollary of the new world order is that companies will have to under- stand society better,' says Professor Grove- White, director of the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, a research unit of social scientists at Lancaster University. 'Until recently, governments have been there to intervene on moral and ethical issues but companies are now coming into touch more directly with citizens rather than just consumers.' Handling information openly would be a start. Monsanto, trau- matised by its recent run-in with NGOs and the media, declined to comment for this article. Nestle and Shell were equally coy.
Whichever way your sympathies lie, the emergence of NGOs as important political players raises important questions. Some believe they have left a democratic deficit in their wake. Where once NGOs would lobby elected governments directly, which in turn put pressure on companies to change or adopt a particular practice, NGOs increas- ingly go straight to the companies. Any agreements reached, such as that in Antwerp over diamonds, cut out the demo- cratic element. It is not entirely fanciful to envisage a situation in which companies approach NGOs, rather than governments, for certification, seeking, for example, Greenpeace's Eco-Warrior Order of Merit.
The nature of representation within demo- cratic systems is changing and politicians are the losers. Fearful of adverse publicity and dedicated to more 'inclusive' politics, govern- ments and intergovernmental organisations routinely establish NGO liaison units to deal with this noisy mob, and then rely on input from them to formulate policy. NGOs now call the shots in determining the full range of World Bank policy.
This is a giant and damaging cop-out, insists Fareed Zakaria, managing editor of Foreign Affairs, the US periodical. We may think little of politicians but it is they, rather than NGO types, that we elect. The media- friendly, poll-driven, soft-focus leaders of the West, typified by Blair and Clinton, tend to avoid difficult and contentious issues, he says, thereby devolving power to interested, unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable NGOs. New entrants to the Political arena are not necessarily a bad thing per se. Many would argue the faceless bureaucrats and self-seeking politicians need a good shake-up. The problem, says Zakaria, is that we are drifting towards gov- ernment of the noisy.
'The whole thing is based on an ability to make noise or sense in front of a CNN cam- era, like the Woodstock dancefest in Seat- tle,' he says. What is alarming is the fact that it is in NGOs' interests to make a big splash to ensure their continued funding. In the smouldering aftermath of the battle of Seattle, Zakaria contacted ten NGOs. Most consisted of 'three people and a fax' and many had been established specifically for Seattle. In his view, they were 'largely unrepresentative' of public opinion. Never- theless, infinitely more media-savvy (and sexy) than the trade negotiators they were targeting, they were able to hoover up air- time on all the major networks. 'My con- cern,' Zakaria says, 'is that governments will listen too much to the loud minority and neglect the fears of the silent majority. One of the reasons why legislators are held in such low repute is because they follow rather than lead. They need to do what they're there for, which is to govern.' Wishful thinking, perhaps, in a modern era in which conviction politics is old hat and inclusion is all. Never mind if small, special-interest groups have an influence over the political process that is complete- ly disproportionate to the numbers of peo- ple they 'represent'. Everyone, from Raging Grannies to the NRA, has a place at the Political table these days. For those who disapprove of the NGO boom, there is only one thing to do. Start an NGO. Call it something catchy like FUN (Fed Up With NGOs) or DRONGO (Ditch the Right-on NG05) and get out on the streets. If it's popular, which is everything these days, it could be a goer. Failing that, and it does seem unlikely, brace yourselves for the next big NGO campaign. Conflict diamonds are becoming passe already. The diamond industry is getting its house in order. Noises in the noisy world of NGOs suggest they have another target in their sights. Arms dealers, you have been warned.
Justin Marozzi is a contributing editor of The Spectator.
Previous page
