Archive for the ‘environment’ Category
the new kris: not new enough
kris says she’s leaving the buzz and snn by the end of the month para hindi siya makadagdag-problema sa administrasyon ng kuya niya with her tactless foot-in-mouth ways. but is that all she’s giving up? what about the product endorsements? will she continue to promote unbridled conspicuous consumerism, continue to sell sell sell any product that meets with her very-very-very-personal approval, continue to encourage her tens of millions of fans to buy buy buy the products she likes, continue to sell sell sell herself herself herself like nothing else matters?
Kris Aquino feels at home
by Dinna Chan VasquezThere is no doubt that Kris Aquino is one of the most sought after product endorsers in the country. Even the mere mention of a brand or label by the actress-TV host in any of her shows will result in brisk sales. For example, when she started wearing a jade bangle from Joy Lim’s Charms & Crystals, women flocked to the feng shui shop’s outlets to buy the same thing.
When Aquino says that she loves a restaurant, expect her fans to patronize the place. If she says that something is good, the public believes her.
“Kris really tests the products that she endorses,” says a source. “I have seen her refuse fat endorsement fees because she doesn’t like what she is supposed to sell to the public.”
For the record, getting Kris Aquino as an image model doesn’t come cheap, but according to one advertiser whose service the actress endorsed in the past, “her endorsement is worth every penny.”
It is no surprise that Aquino is the image model for a wide range of brands including telecommunications services, skin care, food and beverage, laundry soap, washing machine and many others. Advertisers send her products all the time because if she likes it, she will say so and the cash registers will work overtime. She even has inspirational CDs, one which includes her son. No, Kris doesn’t sing in any of the CDs. Rather, the songs were personally chosen for their inspirational and uplifting values.
When she launched her own magazine called K for ABS-CBN Publishing, it became a bestseller. As if her endorsements aren’t enough, they wanted to know what Kris Aquino is really like in private, what instant coffee she drinks (Nescafé); what body care products she prefers (The Body Shop) and what type of food she loves best (steaks).
A year ago, Aquino and ABS-CBN Licensing thought of releasing a line of home products that would bear her name. On TV, Aquino admitted that for the past year, products like pillows, cooking utensils and even plastic containers would arrive at her house and she would try them out to see if they passed her standards.
If they did, it was a go. If she didn’t like the products, it was back to the drawing board.
Karen Eve Coloma, licensing manager for the synergy division of ABS-CBN’s licensing group, says the products under the K Everyday Home Collection—from the linens to the cookware—have all been personally tested by Kris for reasonable periods of time.
“The suppliers were carefully chosen for the project because Kris didn’t want to put her name to anything that the public will be disappointed in,” Coloma says during the preview for the collection held at SM Makati.
She explains that Kris is very meticulous when it comes to her home and the things that she and her family use.
“The collection emulates Kris’ style and is inspired by her personal choices,” Coloma adds.
The first collection focuses on two of the actress’ favorite areas of her home, the bedroom and kitchen. There are bed linens and pillows from Dakki; cookware and kitchen accessories from Metro; stationery, journals, gift wrappers and gift boxes from Sterling Paper. A personal favorite of Kris is the home organization and storage solutions by Sawasdee,
“I am into boxes and storage these days. I even put notes on each box,” says the actress.
Kris shares that since she is in mourning for her mother, former President Corazon Aquino, for a year and promised to wear only black and yellow for the period, most of her “personal” clothes or the ones she doesn’t use for shooting movies and commercials and taping TV shows that are not in those colors are in storage. Thus, they need to be organized and labelled properly for future use.
Expect to see a lot of bright colors in the collection. Kris reveals that during the testing period for the products, she had to reject some of the colors as “they were not me.” The linens are in pinks and purples and everything—from the packaging to the items— is pretty and pleasing to the eye.
back in the reagan days, when the actor was campaigning for the presidency of the U.S., his opponents would show old tv commercials of the young handsome ronald selling a laundry detergent (a la tide or breeze), which was a huge turn-off for many. it was my first sense that for celebs, selling commercial products on the idiot box was not something to be proud of because it means you’ve sold out to the multinationals that greedily rule the world.
reagan won anyway but he certainly stopped his showbiz ways as it would have diminished the presidency and held it hostage to vested interests. i know, i know, kris is only a soon-to-be presidential sis. and i can hear the howls: but what’s wrong with selling/endorsing products, it’s an honest living, and so lucrative, she’d be crazy to give it all up. ah yes, the money is too good, the money makes it okay, and hey she pays tens of millions in taxes, as in role model, di ba.
i suppose if we were a first world country like holland where there are no poor, no beggars, no hungry, okay lang. but in a third world country where the televiewing masses can barely manage three meals a day and television is the great escape, it’s the height of cruelty (witting or unwitting) to raise material needs the way kris does when she sells non-essential products that the masses can only yearn for, dream of, but never ever in reality afford. and, by the way, let’s be clear: it’s not the fault of the poor that they’re poor. it’s the fault of the rich, who know only how to get richer at the expense of the masses, which is so terribly uncreative.
inquirer’s marinel cruz writes:
In her Twitter account, Aquino said that she would likewise stop appearing in the drama series “Kung Tayo’y Magkakalayo” in mid-August. She hinted on the possibility of hosting a lifestyle/travel program when she returns from a three-week vacation in September.
“Kris does not want to be in a program where she can make comments, opinionate or articulate her personal views,” Abunda said.
ganoon? but when she appears in tv commercials selling all kinds of commercial goods, isn’t that a super favorable comment, opinion, articulation, reflection on/of her personal worldview and lifestyle? inquirer’s ige ramos writes:
I just hope she’s aware of the power she wields. And I pray that she uses that power to transform this country into something bigger than herself, and not waste it on mundane show-biz activities.
Now that her brother is President, this is an opportunity for her to do something positive, great and wonderful. Something she missed out on when her mother was president.
actually, kung di niya ma-gets o di niya kakayanin, or if sayang the money, paano siya makakatulong kung wala siyang pera pang give-away, ok lang naman din. she can keep doing product endorsements and soap operas, do a lifestyle/travel show, even glamorize dole-outs with a million pesos worth of school supplies to favored barangays (they voted for noynoy kasi), just please please please, no talk about caring for the poor, or honestly trying to improve the lot of poor pinoys. because really, all that showbiz stuff is anti-poor. one cannot be for the poor on the one hand, and anti-poor on the other, and have ANY kind of credibility.
if kris truly wants to make a difference in the next 6 years, WHAT IF she embraced instead an environmental concern, what if she focused her super powers instead on metromanila’s garbage problem. zero-waste is the target. she can spend the millions she’s so happy to give away on plastic garbage pails, 2 to a household metro-wide, for segregating biodegradable from non-biodegradable. she could put together educational tv shows that would promote the campaign and get the public to join the bandwagon. she could collaborate with garbage truck contractors in putting up recycling centers. she could create a market for recycled goods by being the number-one customer and product endorser. o di ba. new jobs created, and no more flash floods, no more ondoys, no more blocked-up waterways, inang lupa would be so happy, and kris would come out smelling so good, even make it on the cover of time and newsweek, for sure, on her own merits. we could all be so proud.
environment & revolution 9
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AS
SPIRITUAL AND REVOLUTIONARY PRAXISJunie Kalaw
Toward the end of this century as of the last one, dramatic changes have taken place under the impact of, among others, the industrial revolution, two world wars, struggles for political independence, the internationalization of economics, and the globalization of mass media. These forces have had shearing effects on the fabric of political and economic society, some appearing first as part of the solution, even a boon (like pesticides), and only later as a problem. Through all these changes and upheavals, the structures of oppressive domination have persisted on different levels occasionally changing external form but otherwise entrenched firmly enough in society to continue denying Filipinos and other Third World populations their freedom and autonomy.
Today’s Revolutionary Conditions
Poverty remains the Philippines’ major problem, aggravated by the depletion of our natural resources, the impending breakdown of our life-support systems, and the high rate of our population growth. With our remaining forests down to less than 800,000 hectares, only 20% of our coral reefs in good condition, 18 major river systems biologically dead, 13 provinces severely eroded, fresh-water reservoirs drying up, and the population requiring 40% more food by the year 2000, we face a critical situation and time is not on our side.
The deterioration of the Philippine environment is traceable to economic activities designed to support the consumption needs of other countries. Ecological footprints of the development of industrialized countries are to be seen not only in our degraded ecology but also in the waste that is exported back to us. This historical trail of international trade based on the exploitation of our natural resources by former colonial masters has piled up ecological debts that remain uncompensated. Sadly, this system of “ecological colonialism” has been institutionalized in the present international economic order.
Highlighting the crisis are new perspectives from ecological economists like Herman Daly and Robert Goodland. They see our economic system as an open system functioning with the closed system that is our planet’s biosphere. With the current global economy amounting to about US$32 trillion, we are consuming 40% of the primary production of terrestrial photosynthetic energy from the sun. This means that in one doubling time, we will be using 80%, a condition that with its attendant waste may exceed the “carrying capacity” of the planet. Thus it is posited that there is no room for aggregate economic growth and that sustainable economic growth for everyone is not possible. This raises such issues as the rights of poor countries to their equitable share of remaining clean space, access to their own natural resources, access to information and technology, and bargaining power in markets. Further, inasmuch as the relationship between rich and poor is a function of power, there is nothing to stop the rich from using this self-same power to maintain their wasteful consumption patterns and perpetuate an inequitable system.
Revolution Based on Reconciliation
Pope John Paul II in Rome calls it a “moral crisis,” the lack of a “morally coherent world view.” A lumad datu in Mount Apo ascribes it to a foreign belief system that has exiled God to the heavens so that we no longer see God in the trees, streams, mountains, and animals, nor in our fellow humans. The reference is to the same fundamental gap between our personal ethics and the system’s ethics, and the need for a systems ethics which translates personal decisions in to decisions for the common good. More concretely, it is the gap between what is an honest living for loggers and what is good for the environment and the common welfare. The gap is widened not just by plain greed but also by a moral and ethical blindness to, and lack of comprehension of, the norms for a just and sustainable functioning of bigger systems.
At its worst, the gap renders futile church teachings on honesty and love for the poor on account of its inability to translate doctrine in terms of land reform or equitable wages or conservation of forest and marine resources. In the end we realize that we have not yet found our wholeness. We have yet to manage successfully the integration of personal and social transformation. The exception was the EDSA Revolution, when a critical mass of Filipinos got their inner and outer values together and created the spiritual and political space that made the sharing of pan de sal across military defenses an operative Communion of the People, and that produced transformative political change, but which, unfortunately, we were unable to sustain.
Nowhere is the fundamental gap between personal ethics and systems ethics more dramatic and disastrous than in the policy of equal access to the benefits of creation. Whereas in an ecological system life flows, sustaining and fulfilling the lives of all in a process we can call “ecological justice,” in the current system control over and access to life-giving natural resources are awarded to a privileged few — a situation which has produced the poverty and resource depletion that imperils our life-support systems. Moreover, we have cast the responsibility and accountability for these effects to the impersonal free enterprise and market systems.
The conflict between our economic system and nature’s ecological processes has been a fundamental cause of the destruction of our ecosystems. While natural systems consist of organic unities such as families, communities, cultures, and ecosystems, we manage to evaluate and reward our economic activities according to functional sectors and enterprise organizations. We gauge national development by adding the production of these sectors and industries into a gross national product (GNP); not measured are local community welfare and ecosystem enhancement. This has resulted in a big normative gap between the welfare of corporations, both transnational and national, and the welfare of local ecologies and communities. The bridging of this gap requires more than just environmental protection measures or community projects by business enterprises. It requires a whole re-orientation of the way we do business and a re-discovering of the true essence of hanapbuhay, a truly Filipino concept that searches for the life-flow, like the Kalinga concept of wealth that is based on the enrichment of life rather on a life of personal enrichment. We cannot relegate this revisioning to our economists and government planners alone. We need to take responsibility for our country’s economic development models, policies, and practices, and to participate in the political processes that will enable us to create a just and sustainable future not only for ourselves but for the generations of Filipinos to come.
Politics, whose primordial function is to serve the welfare of the whole, is the human activity that should be most spiritually informed. Most efforts at political reconciliation have as their objective the consolidation of power under the ruling regime. Thus, one presently sees accommodations being made with the forces of he past dictatorship under the pretext of hastening the healing of the nation. What needs reconciliation and healing is not the gap between contending politicians with vested interests but the gap between their interests and the welfare of the people, between the welfare of the state bureaucracy and the welfare of the environment and local communities. This requires the relocation of authority from the ideologies of political parties to the reality of the interdependence of life in an ecology; the re-vesting of power from the centralized bureaucracy of state, party committee, and church to persons in communities; the affirmation of the subsidiarity of parts and the ecological and spiritual solidarity of wholes; and the establishment of a local citizenship and a global polity.
It is a reconciliation that needs to find a new concept of security and management of changes in the shift from national security based on militarization and armaments to a “natural” security based on securing clean water, fertile soil, fresh air, and food. It requires a fundamental re-orientation of power from one based on the accumulation of goods and information to one based on the capacity to make goods and information flow, where power becomes something one does not hold on to but something ope opens up to for the life process to flow in service to others.
Such a reconciliation gives witness to the great lesson of ecology that all life is interconnected and echoes the teachings of all great spiritual traditions that the governance of communities is a sacred task, whether we call it the Christian Mystical Body, the Moslem Uhma, or the Kalinga ili.
Conversion and Renewal
Christian churches are now seeking an alternative to the ruling anthropocentric model of man subduing the earth. The new theological understanding of creation spans a spectrum of interpretations: the sacramentalist model, where everything is a manifestation of God; the stewardship model, which argues for the sustainable use of power, knowledge, and natural resources; the creative model expounded by Matthew Fox, where God is ever “birthing and nurturing creation”; the Franciscan model of kinship of “brother sun and sister moon”; and the evolutionary model of Teilhard de Chardin and Thomas Berry. They all have broadened the praxis of faith to include “justice, peace, and Integrity of Creation” and redefined “a spirituality that integrates our faith and our daily lives and all of Creation.”
Here at home, in defense of what we Filipinos call lupang hinirang (beloved country), the Philippine Independent Church recently announced its advocacy of a total ban on commercial logging for 25 years. Following the Catholic bishops’ pastoral letter “What Is Happening to Our Beautiful Land?” and the involvement of bishops and parish priests in blockading logging trucks on Bukidnon, picketing DENR offices in Nueva Ecija, and apprehending illegal loggers in Cagayan, there is clearly an escalation of activism among Christian churches and a growing concern for the integrity of life on earth.
A more concise expression of the revolutionary message of the Gospel has yet to be made by any church group in the Philippines, but it is important to remember that the times call for a new conversion. In the past, conversion was brought about by mediation between people and the Divine, or between people and other people. Today’s need is a mediation between people and nature, a mediation we call “sustainable development.” It is a conversion that comes from revelations through nature, revelations that link polarities into higher levels of integration and renewal, revelations that affirm the integrity of God’s creation whose truth lies beyond contending ideological positions and is encompassed in an ecology. It will come from re-remembering what our indigenous Filipinos knew about the sacredness of the land, our lupang hinirang. It will come from re-experiencing the tradition of nurturing the Earth, our tipan sa Mahal na Ina. It will come from responding to the biblical revelations to be stewards of the earth. A conversion where “carrying capacity” becomes the operative term for compassion, and the patterns of community life a metaphor for wholeness. It will require the devolution of power away from its institutional sites in the bureaucracies of state, party, and even church, and into people in the communities as the locus of the Mystical Body. It will empower people to participate in the creative act of sustainable development by witnessing the Spirit that runs through all life.
This kind of conversion will gain its meaning from the operationalization of sustainable development strategies, programs, and projects. It will need to find expression on the level of communities, affirming their cultural identity while cherishing diversity by upholding (1) indigenous rights to ancestral land, (2) equal rights for women, (3) social equity through agrarian, aquatic, and urban land reform, and social forestry, and (4) an ecologically sound economic system that is community-based and exports only ecological surplus or excess carrying capacities. It will practice the sustainable utilization of natural resources, clean production technologies, and the proper recycling and disposal of waste. It will come from governance that is based on moral values translated into public good, a democratic participatory process, a system called Pamathalaan — Pamamahalang nakatindig sa sariling taal at nakahandog kay Bathala.
In the final analysis, sustainable development depends on the personal conversion, commitments, and communion of everyone. It needs a conversion that translates into personal choices regarding what to consume and what lifestyle to live. In a post-modern age, it will mean making a conscious choice from among the diversity of options brought about by modernization. Many of these options will be offered by expert systems where people have little control over processes, whether these be biogenetic systems that program the sex of our offspring or communications systems that tell us we are what we consume. They will involve matters disembedded from space-time locality so that we no longer directly experience the consequences of our actions. Such will be the landscape of a “post-modern revolution.” The future will therefore need the wisdom of our historical traditions, the moral anchors of our faith, and our living communion with all people and God’s creation.
Enviroscope, Haribon Foundation Bulletin, December 1993
environment & revolution 7
THE DENR & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
(Why The Poor Will Always Be With Us)Junie Kalaw
In Mindanao, two years after her historic succession to the presidency, President Aquino, a very religious person, appealed for the help of the citizenry, especially institutions like the church and other non-government organizations (NGOs), in reaching “the poorest 30% of the population,” and offered the work of some monks as a model of what can be done. Appropriately enough, the monks of the Monastery of the Transfiguration in Bukidnon, where the President made the appeal, are involved in reforestation and adapting farming methods to sloping lands, and literally lived with the bottom 30%. These Filipinos occupy government-owned “forest land,” do not have access to government agricultural extension-work benefits or credit, and survive off the beaten track taken by the health-services delivery system. They are under the sufferance of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) which, in its capacity as representative of the state, controls 50% of the country’s land area, all its forests including the flora and fauna therein, and all other natural resources.
In calling for assistance to the country’s poorest 30%, the President could not have done worse than to refer the matter to the DENR which has always treated these 14 million Filipinos as problems, absurd as that may sound, and not as constituents whose poverty may have developed in them the prayerful habits commonly associated only with the likes of President Aquino and monks.
… The rural development strategy of Philippine policy-makers confirms government’s alienation from the people. The Department of Agriculture, for example, bewails the following:
Trade, tariff, and tax policies which strip agriculture of its attractiveness to private investors;
Monopolies and excessive government regulation of agricultural markets which steal from the farmer his fair share of returns from his produce and foster inefficiencies in the marketing system;
An exchange rate policy that overvalues the peso and thus makes exports less competitive than they would otherwise be in the world market;
The insufficient and declining share of government expenditures going to rural infrastructure and support services needed to pump-prime the rural economy;
These policies combining to create a biased incentive structure which favor the urban and industrial sectors and penalize agriculture and the rural sector.
It might help in planning as if the poor really mattered to flesh out impersonal technical terms like “rural sector” and call them what they in reality are: farmers, subsistence fishermen, kaingineros, and landless laborers. It is they who are penalized, not a “sector.” It is defective policies, not their poverty, that drive them to insurgency. Bureaucratese has its own way of annulling the government’s best intentions by reducing questions of ideology to technical cover-ups.
Consider the policy prescription of “fashioning a policy environment conducive to private investments in income-enhancing and employment-generating agro-based rural enterprises.” Thus worded, it effectively masks the fact that the biggest investors in our rural areas are our farmers, upland dwellers, small fishermen, and landless laborers who toil and sweat it out. They should be given control and tenure over the resources they work with. They are the ones entitled to support and incentives to make their investments profitable. A value-added increase the equivalent of Php1,000 per person of our rural population is about the same as a US$10 billion investment in the rural areas and amounts to a scenario far more honorable than foreign investments or even grants.
It was correct of the President to call on the church and NGOs to extend a helping hand, even though in the course of heeding this call many of them will have to develop alternatives to existing policies of government departments and to contend with being stigmatized as “subversive.” But perhaps the President should have first looked around her to see why, given the policies of the men she trusts, the poor may always be with us.
Philippine Daily Inquirer, 5 September 1990
environment & revolution 6
BEYOND TRANSPARENCY
Junie Kalaw
The launching of the Coalition for Transparency in Government provided President Corazon Aquino an opportunity to focus on a quality of governance whose absence from the national scene has been a major impediment to honest political and social reform. It was acknowledged that the lack of transparency has served to encourage and hide corruption and protect the vested interests of politicians and their business partners. It was also accepted that its presence should be an important mechanism for the participation of people in development. But what is not often pointed out is that transparency has an active dimension: it involves publicly disclosing and revealing what is in mere storage. Deliberate secrecy in government transactions is a crime against transparency.
It has been argued that the transparency of government was proven by the explosive headlines merited by such anomalies as the congressional fondness for overpriced coconut juice, sleek uzis, and smuggled cars. There is a sense, however, in which these thunderous dramas actually obscured the larger issue of the continuing legitimized plunder of our natural resources by a privileged few through multinational land tenure, forest logging concessions, and foreign mining and fishing operations. Real transparency has to begin with a disclosure of the involvement of public officials in the primary exploitation of natural resources, and this obviously is a responsibility of the state, which controls all access.
Within the context of development (the professed objective of all governments), the most relevant, and at the same time simplest, question to ask is: who will benefit from it? Land reform for whom? Selective logging for whom? In short, development for whom? In the interests of transparency, it must also be asked who should plan for development. And since the great majority of Filipinos today live below the poverty line, the issue is not just economic in nature but concerns the structural stability of Philippine society.
Upon examination of the mechanisms government has made available to the people to enable them to participate creatively in the democratic planning process, it seems that government did not sufficiently understand that it could actually be adding to the general muddiness. Public hearings, for example, were attended mostly by politicians and businessmen with personal vested interests. The Senate hearings on the log ban bill were attended mostly by loggers and government bureaucrats. There was no representation from the ethnic groups, upland dwellers, small fishermen, and farmers who are most affected by the continuing denudation of forests. The consultative conferences government held with academics included non-government organizations (NGOs). But these consultations were really just venues for the legitimization of the sponsor’s position with no provisions for feedback from divergent positions, let alone their resolution.
The Aquino government did not disdain to use the tripartite councils initiated during the dictatorship. But while these councils may have had the potential to be effective mechanisms for people’s participation, they suffered the tyranny of withheld information. To be truly effective, these councils need to share equally with private and non-government organizations all information about project assumptions and analyses.
The situation was compounded by the constraints imposed by the matter of foreign debt. In view of the profound effects of foreign debt transactions on the quality of the Filipino lives, it might be supposed that it was logical to be transparent. But sadly, logic did not prevail, and circumstances were not helped any by the refusal of multilateral debtor agencies themselves, like the Asian Development Bank and World Bank, to make public their program analyses and loan conditions. In this manner the people were deprived of opportunities to participate in decisions to incur loans or to assist in monitoring compliance.
Government needs to be reminded: development is not something the government can do for the people but something people will have to do for themselves. The people have to be empowered, however, through deliberate and active sharing of information about the government menu of plans, transactions, and programs. In the interdependence of our life processes, sharing invariably tends to benefit the whole, whereas hoarding breeds subtle tyrannies.
Philippine Daily Inquirer 4 July 1989
environment & revolution 5
ORMOC: TOWARD ECOLOGICAL SECURITY
Junie Kalaw
The Philippine environmental crisis took what is possibly its heaviest and cruelest toll on human life in Ormoc City. According to eyewitness reports by survivors, the waters had come abruptly, almost in the wink if an eye, sweeping everything in its path, a veritable deluge which the camera conveyed as so many bloated bodies floating like so many discarded dolls.
In the comparably torrential rush to absolve itself, the government attributed the denudation of forests in the Ormoc area to logging activities harking as far back as the 1950s, declaring that there hadn’t been any logging in the area in recent years. Media caused more disturbance by reporting intimations from sources within the government itself that politicians, military officials, and Department of Natural Resources (DENR) officials were, in some as yet indeterminate sense, culpable. The partisan character of government’s response once more evaded the fact that ecological responsibility is shared beyond the time-frames of electoral politics; similarly, the readiness of certain quarters within government to blame their cohorts indicates a tendency to pass the buck. But this is the way that government mocks the people’s suffering. We would have been surprised if it got around to pointing out how the geothermal facility in Ormoc contributed to the disaster, for that would have come too close to its plans for Mount Apo in Mindanao.
Our concept of security needs reorienting. We erode fertile topsoil at the rate of one billion cubic meters a year, enough land to produce 10 million sacks of rice. There are 13 badly eroded provinces in the country today that qualify as unrealized security risks. If conditions in one or two areas decline enough to reprise Ormoc next monsoon, will the new administration similarly wash its hands of responsibility?
Disaster relief operations in the country are usually undertaken by the military, who admittedly may be relied upon to fulfill this function. During such occasions, they are said to be diverted from their normal task of overseeing the country’s security. The frequent occurrence, however, of environmental disasters today compels us to ask if the current definition of “normal” military duties requires updating, having been drawn from an old and narrow perspective of national security. Isn’t it time that this old concept be amended to include ecological security, with the army tasked to protect our forests: the navy, our coral reefs and fishing grounds, and the air force our atmosphere?
For far too long, in all countries that have not had the fortune of having a long history of neutrality, the military has competed for resources that have promoted violence instead of peace, its concern being to maintain and modernize its armature, which amounts to a potential for violence. It will be argued, of course, that peace is precisely what is expected to bring about to the extent of adopting a functional rationality in the extreme case of war. However, it may in turn be argued that the concept of war has already changed substantially, as when the government itself speaks of the need to do war against ignorance or poverty, or when an industrial society exports toxic waste to secure its own people’s health, or strains another country’s standards of safety for its own profit.
The idea of ecological security entails the use of information as a weapon and shifts the focus from human targets to natural structures. Securing the integrity of natural structures then becomes a limit beyond which the military becomes obsolete because it will have transformed itself from being an instrument of genocide into a facilitator of the life process
10 November 1991