At this point we must ask why the Indian government considers Greenpeace, the Ford Foundation, the ClimateWorks Foundation, and other civil society groups a threat to Indian national security and economic development. The answer is simple. These NGOs are considered to be impacting the Indian GDP by a negative 2-3%, which correlates to a whopping US$ 108-162 billion per annum loss to the state.
If we bring this analysis into the Indonesian context this would mean an annual loss of between US$ 47-71 billion. Since the campaign against Asia Pulp and Paper (APP), for example, ran for 10 years, according to Greenpeace, the loss to the Indonesian state and communities would be a staggering US$ 477.6 to 716 billion. With the forestry industry representing an estimated 0.7% of GDP, negative Greenpeace, NGO, and foreign-funded campaigning costs Indonesia between US$ 334 to US$ 501 million every year.
The threat of economic warfare carried out by a bunch of has-been hippies who claim, according to a Malaysian website, to be bringing US corporations to their knees, and now Indonesian industries like APP and its competitor APRIL, has a direct, measurable impact on the national economy and the people. According to Greenpeace propaganda, APP lost 75% of its US market share. A similar campaign targeting a Malaysian company, WTK, resulted in 80% of its UK market share being wiped out by 2001.
In 2011 a report for the World Bank found the loss of the Indonesian palm oil market share was mainly caused by the negative campaigns initiated by NGOs in European countries. This led to a loss of taxes to the Indonesian state. The report made a convincing scientific argument between the economic loss and hostile NGO actions harming the Indonesian state.
It seems the Indonesian government has not considered the geo-political implications of Greenpeace actions despite the obvious signs that groups like Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network have caused economic losses to Indonesians. But, the Indian government’s position may change all that. Chinese, Philippine, and the usual docile Indonesian intelligence services have taken notice of the Indian government’s position.
It is time for Indonesians and the incoming administration to ask the hard questions – before it is too late. But first we must first ask if the Green fantasy of the outgoing administration of SBY has contributed to a better life for the country’s citizens. A number of US academics, despite being sponsored and possibly paid with government funds by the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry, don’t think so. The heated rebuttal by SBY officials to a recent University of Maryland study suggests the data are being politicized.
It seems the departing government has finally gotten the message that greener policies which claim to improve everything are nothing more than a folly, just like Marxism and other variations of socialist ideology associated with the Green agenda. Interestingly, a United Nations report and a US Senate report released in early July 2014 support the claim that extreme leftist billionaires are funding actions by NGOs against sovereign nations.
The UN report is perhaps a wake-up call. After all it’s a UN report. It states, “They found… a developing culture of “defensive and secretive” practice among NGOs, which have become “uncritical of their won and donor practices.” The 2006 UN report states further, “Looked at baldly, this is an unhealthy scenario in which a hierarchy of power is brought about by control of funds, creating a culture of resentment and secrecy.”
In a speech given in the UK, the currently embattled Greenpeace Executive Director Kumi Naidoo oddly enough told the stunned audience that the NGOs, and in this case Greenpeace, are the “cheap labour” that governments can use to go into places the government cannot go. This was a stunning revelation, especially when taking into account that Greenpeace always claims it does not work for governments. After all, they are just a bunch of tree huggers battling evil corporate greed and preaching the new Green religion. However, a European Union study on funding of civil society groups dispels the myth that Greenpeace and others like it do not get money from governments. Directly or indirectly, huge sums of money are funnelled into NGOs like Greenpeace.
For example, since 2012 the Ford Foundation has funnelled US$ 1.4 million into the US Greenpeace Fund Inc. for campaign actions in Indonesia. In September 2013 the Climate Works Foundation granted US$ 1 million to the Greenpeace Fund, Inc. “to support continued work on campaigns and commodity market pressure to end deforestation caused by palm oil expansion in Indonesia.” A year earlier, in June 2012 Greenpeace declared war against “environmental criminals” and “commodity traders” to bring the green war to a complete new level of “waves of disobedience”.By December funding was provided by Climate Works Foundation. Specifically, in December 2012 the foundation granted the Greenpeace Fund, Inc. US$ 400,000 “to further Greenpeace’s campaign to stop deforestation and peat land clearance for palm oil expansion in Indonesia.” At the same time, another US$ 400,000 to “scale up….[the] development of an integrated global campaign”. The Ford foundation funnelled US$ 467,500 to a Norwegian NGO to be filtered into Indonesia.
More recently, in April 2013 the Ford Foundation granted the beloved Hollywood star Harrison Ford US$ 400,000 towards his enviro-rant against the Indonesian government, which aired on Showtime in April 2014. The Ford Foundation grant specified the grant was “to produce a film segment on deforestation and community rights in Indonesia for a television show about climate change called “The Years of Living Dangerously,” an obvious allusion to the Mel Gibson film of roughly the same name which portrayed the overthrow of President Sukarno.
The fact that such massive funding for programs that threaten the sovereignty of the Indonesian state is originating from the legacy of automobile baron Henry Ford, whose Ford Motor Company continues to enjoy consistent growth in sales in Indonesia, particularly in sales of the gas guzzling Ford pick-up trucks, is ironic to say the least.
Another eco-consultancy called Climate Advisers has, in conjunction with the Indonesian Center of Environmental Law (ICEL), influenced the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to exclude palm oil in the renewable fuel standards of the United States.  The chairman of the board of the ICEL is no less than Mas Achmad Santosa, an official of the SBY administration. Santosa’s position in connection with the grant funding with Climate Advisors is, at the least, a conflict of interest; at the most it is a violation of his fiduciary duties as a government official to protect the state instead of subversively working against Indonesian economic interests.
Although seemingly, unprecedented, the Indian Intelligence Services report outlined, besides the economic case, evidence as to why and how Greenpeace is meddling in internal affairs of the state. The report outlines influencing of political parties, activism, and unrest. This allegation can be applied to Indonesia as well and can be documented by a Climate Works Foundation funding document for 2014, which shows funding allocated to influence Indonesian politicians. This raises the question of whether a private organization is bribing Indonesian legislators to change legislation and if this would be a test case for the KPK.
But the Indian government is not the only government that has over the past years changed its political views towards militant civil society actors, and in particular Greenpeace, and recognized the threat the group represents. In addition to India, governments responding to the threat with a more hard-line approach include Malaysia, China, Laos, Bangladesh, New Zealand, a country considered on the forefront of environmental protection, the UK, Australia who revises legislation to allow unfair product boycott campaigns to be subjected to civil liability, the United States,with the 9th circuit court just having enough, Canada, France, Germany, and the Russian Federation. Russia with its long standing relationship between funding the anti-nuclear movement in Germany Soviet secret police, the KGB, in particularly changed the terminology declaring foreign NGOs as ‘foreign Agents’ and ‘extremists’. New Zealand revoked the charity status of Greenpeace since the group engages “in criminal trespassing” not consistent with a charity charter.
Australian legislators are debating anti-product boycotting legislation that would enable targeted industries to retaliate against Greenpeace or others who stage boycotts. This is a move being closely monitored by Indonesian lawmakers, who will consider similar legislation once the new cabinet is sworn in.
Last September Russia threw up piracy and terrorism charges at Greenpeace activists, not unlike France and the United States had done previously. Only the Winter Olympics saved the 30 activists from lengthy jail sentences in a Russian gulag.
In the US state of Ohio, nine Greenpeace activists are currently in the docks facing felony charges and up to eight years jail time. A second charge of vandalism was added carrying an 18-month sentence if they are found guilty. To beat the US felony charges Greenpeace has had to engage costly lawyers, including a high profile lawyer who represented the American porn king Larry Flynt. The legal team petitioned to have the burglary charges dropped. But the Court rejected the petition, stating that the First Amendment right of freedom of speech does not apply since Greenpeace targeted the US Company Procter and Gamble through “carefully planned, deceptive means.”
Besides these criminal prosecutions and legislative actions, corporations are increasingly fighting back. Greenpeace is fighting multi-million dollar lawsuits in India, including Tata, and the tea industry, one of the economic corner stone of India, Canada and in the UK against its perpetual enemies, Shell and BP.
And if all this were not bad enough, in June a rogue Greenpeace finance officer at the Amsterdam headquarters lost US$ 5.3 million (about 3.8 million euros) in a wild currency speculation scheme. Greenpeace donors were irate; some 7,328 donors fled, and the finance officer was reportedly fired. But if a corporate banker had committed such a financial atrocity he would probably have wound up in jail. Not so with Greenpeace. So much for accountability.
Kumi Naidoo said that Greenpeace is currently facing 72 million euros in legal bills.  With an estimated budget of annually 300 million euros, Greenpeace is spending an estimate 25% of donor funding on legal bills.
The German magazine Der Spiegel points out that squabbling over money and financial scandals is a regular affair at Greenpeace, painting a disturbing picture about what appears to be a financial corporation with a political wing. The financial corporation is Greenpeace; the political wing the Green Party.
But most importantly is the military wing of the financial corporation: The Green Army, i.e. the Greenpeace Direct Action Unit under the command of John Sauven.
Activism is a Crime
Greenpeace, in its own words, has developed a sophisticated communications narrative in its offices in Thailand. This admission fuels the argument that the group is not just merely hugging trees but has a more sinister objective in mind: meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign Asian nations.
Military style Greenpeace operations are not new and have their origin with members of Greenpeace serving with the French Foreign Legion or more recently the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But more importantly, the organization is under the leadership of a former African National Congress (ANC) political operator, Kumi Naidoo, whose best friend was shot in a security operation by Apartheid security forces after he returned from military training. Greenpeace’s pacifist roots have long been forgotten. The organization has become irrevocably militant and Hell-bent on global activism. Legally or otherwise.
Despite its current legal challenges Greenpeace still maintains the delusion that it is infallible and untouchable. Its executives continue to boast that everyone doing business with “Company X” will be targeted by Greenpeace. Such threats generally inflict the desired fear response by the company in question.
Greenpeace officials often speak in public forums and write in global media openly calling for boycotts of products, targeting companies, and misrepresenting facts. Close examination of Greenpeace documents shows blaring holes in the narrative presented by Greenpeace and others.
Back to its increasing militarization, Greenpeace is extremely adept at psychological warfare and has a well-trained propaganda wing that cleverly manipulates images to portray the “truth” as Greenpeace sees it. Its Army of foreign (mainly European and North American) trainers, many of whom are actual real war veterans, travel the four corners of the globe slipping in under the pretext of non-violent Direct Action training, when in fact they conduct paramilitary style Direct Activist training to eager militants, many of them in Asia.
Greenpeace’s Navy is legendary. One of its ships was even blown up and sunk by the French intelligence service.  Greenpeace’s armada of three war ships is constantly circling the globe, its sailor-activists ready to climb any oil rig or board any vessel belonging to any evil capitalist company in their sights.
A US judge, ruling against an NGO cousin of Greenpeace, said it well when he wrote, “You don’t need a peg leg or an eye patch. When you ram ships; hurl containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.” Though the Jolly Roger doesn’t fly from their sterns, the triad of Greenpeace war ships is nothing more than a pirate armada.
And let us not forget the Greenpeace Air Force. Costly over flights by helicopters, air planes, and drones, are routinely carried out against companies who they relentlessly bombard, accuse, and smear.
The May 2013 environmental protests in Gezi Park in Istanbul shed some light on the militancy that has taken hold of the environmental movement.  Very little coverage prior to the protests was given to the Direct Action seminar held by the extremist NGO 350.org, with support by Greenpeace, to teach 500 activists Direct Action activism. Titled “The Global Power Shift,” the environmental protests spun rapidly out of control and resulted in 11 dead and 8,163 injured. Soul searching is not expected, but recommended, if the NGOs and Greenpeace want to retain the title “non-violent.”
As part of the second stage of its plan, 350.org is attempting to develop 5,000 Direct Action activists globally. Although 350.org claims to be targeting the global fossil fuel industry, it has attracted a large group of other anarchist and militant groups, which are not controllable by either Greenpeace or 350.org. What were once non-violent, tree-hugging protests have now become a deadly business.
This reality is vehemently denied by Greenpeace. But open source research indicates that hundreds of Greenpeace activists have a wide range of criminal records  ranging from modest trespassing to the more serious federal indictments Greenpeace activists are facing in Ohio. Other activists have been prosecuted under anti-terror legislation for their activities with domestic terror organizations.  Media reporting about these activists indicates they take pride in their criminal records and wear their arrests proudly, like a soldier wears his medals.
No exact numbers on the size of the Direct Action activists are known but the activists are appearing increasingly in Asian countries. A well-informed observer of the militant scene in Asia noted, “If you don’t have a criminal record, when you join Greenpeace very likely you will get one.”
The methods used by Greenpeace and its kin are noteworthy for Asian policy makers to consider. For example, following their arrest and subsequent release, a US and German national appeared in 2010 in Manila where they were spotted training an Asian 10-man Direct Action cell. The cell consisted of Filipino, Indonesian, and Thai activists, many of whom have since appeared in criminal recordings. The Indonesian activist Adhonian C was charged by Korean authorities and later released.
In the End…
Greenpeace often states it’s a movement, which in the context of the Greens (the Green Party), is the politicization of a commercial enterprise, Greenpeace.
But Greenpeace’s halcyon days may be numbered. Increasingly, governments are perceiving non-state actors such as Greenpeace as a greater threat to national security and passing legislation to rein them in.
Whereas Greenpeace and other NGOs view this as shrinking of the democratic space,  Direct Action activism, often violent, is what triggers the legislative backlash in the first place. Therefore, we can rightly ask if activism is what in fact undermines democratic space.
So far Greenpeace is still getting away with its antics. But global trends show that Greenpeace’s actions are often the cause for change in legislation to control what is perceived as an increasingly militant organization.
It will be interesting to see how Greenpeace moves forward with all the myriad challenges it faces. Besides the trials and lawsuits, perhaps the most deadly challenge Greenpeace faces is a loss of face due to the currency trading scandal and the recently attempted coup d’etat against Kumi Naidoo launched by 39 out of 40 Amsterdam staffers. Will donors think twice before giving money to what could be a sinking ship?
Some most definitely will, but the hard core “insurgents” will likely stay loyal. Nevertheless, fundraising must be a priority in order for the organization to be able to fight a war on two fronts: on the high seas, climbing bridges and buildings, and in general wreaking havoc on normal people’s lives; and in the court room, both civil  and criminal. Greenpeace has to pay for all this. Campaigning is its raison d’etre. But the legal bills are growing. Therefore, undiminished funding must be maintained to keep the current 25% of budget for legal bills from expanding. It won’t be surprising if more and more donors think twice about donating their hard-earned money to Greenpeace.
Editor’s Comment: The original print resulted in vile banter and offensive commentaries by a group of activists and eco-PR service providers engaged, according to a Nigerian publication, by an Indonesia paper and pulp company accused by the same NGOs of human rights allegations and deforestation, among other nefarious deeds.
The reaction shows how polarized the topic has become and any critical perspective is immediately attacked for whatever reason. This is typical of the new eco-service providers to serve their masters but is deeply disturbing. It also gives rise to our point that democracy applies to so-called civil society activists. We have decided to reprint the 22 September 2014 publication and provide the same trolls who display unprofessional ethical behaviour with a large bulk of evidence to let the readers make up their own mind. That what democracy really is, yes, really!
 http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/10/59251.htm – 10 July 2013
 http://www.chroniclejournal.com/content/news/local/2013/09/27/lawsuit-proceeds-against-greenpeace – 27 September 2013; http://theontarioherald.com/greenpeaces-troubles-with-canadian-charity-status-2/ – 19 September 2014
 http://www.robinwood.de/Newsdetails.13+M5720239d40b.0.html – 31 July 2012
 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/26/app-deforestation-greenpeace-campaign; deported as a threat to national security? 26 March 2014
 http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983452,00.html; Dead-Serious Prank: A Greenpeace Operation; Matthew Whiting climbs aboard from the ketch. Whiting, 36, is lately of the French Foreign Legion; 18 September 1985
 http://www.leagle.com/decision/19961719946FSupp773_11609.xml/GREENPEACE,%20INC.%20(U.S.A.)%20v.%20STATE%20OF%20FRANCE; Greenpeace (Inc.) vs State of France, the deposition named “Larry Doe, “a U.S. individual unknown last name, serving in the French Foreign Legion” (“Doe”). United States District Court, C.D. California, 4 October 1996
 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10333480; Third team in the Rainbow Warrior plot
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2013%E2%80%9314_protests_in_Turkey#Injuries; original citation no longer available
 http://www.trevorloudon.com/2007/12/gp-file-1-police-affadavit-alleges-greenpeace-staffer-attended-urewera-training-camp/ – 11 December 2007
 http://triblive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/s_644707.html#axzz3EYmtuzTg; 24 September 2009
 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/choices-voices-and-being-heard/blog/46334/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=blog&utm_term=082213_0508&utm_campaign=Other; 22 August 2013
 Cit. needed
 http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/greenpeace-financial-scandal-how-the-organization-lost-millions-a-976868.html; Greenpeace spent close to €90 million on fundraising — one third of all expenditures.
 http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/ngos-of-the-mind/article6161277.ece; 30 June 2014 http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/victories/ “(Early 2013) Announced an unprecedented breakthrough for the Indonesian rainforest. After more than a decade of campaigning against Asia Pulp & Paper, one of the largest paper companies in the world announced a forest conservation policy and a commitment to zero deforestation.”
 http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan040102.pdf; page 9, Catherine Agg, Is the « Golden Age » of the NGO Behind Us ?
 http://www.climateandlandusealliance.org/uploads/PDFs/Global%20Initiative%20Grants%20List_Q1%202014.pdf; November 2012 Ford Grant funding