Animal Rights Africa (ARA) is dismayed at the unwarranted attack on ARA by SANParks CEO, Dr David Mabunda in his opinion piece, Anti-hunting groups have misfired, Sunday Independent, 30 August 2009. But clearly, in our dedication to ending the unnecessary suffering of oppressed and exploited sentient beings, and to the total liberation of human animals, nonhuman animals, and the Earth, ARA has struck a raw nerve.
Let us start with Dr Mabunda’s simplistic and patent attempt to side-line and discredit ARA. By implying that ARA is part of some kind of international illuminati-type conspiracy from the North, Dr Mabunda makes use of apartheid-style smear tactics, a-la-PW Botha. Why is it so difficult for Dr Mabunda to accept that ARA is a “proudly South African” initiative that is simply part of a global trend towards the expansion of justice and respect for all animals (humans included)?
The liberation struggle in South Africa was part of a global momentum towards recognizing the dignity and integrity of oppressed people the world over. Why are the same principles, when applied to the animal liberation struggle, so difficult for him to comprehend? It is clear that Dr Mabunda has not bothered to understand what the guiding principles of the animal liberation and animal rights movement are. It is therefore absurd and disingenuous in the extreme that he tries to link our movement to colonialism and imperialism.
We are a new global breed of activism and we are part of the new social movements: seeking new relations with the natural world and an end of hierarchies. As a South African advocacy and campaigning organization that is trying to contribute to policy debates and formulation in relation to wildlife, ARA obviously welcomes robust engagement, but Dr Mabunda’s vitriolic response is worrying because at its core it damages constitutional democracy in South Africa.
By striking out at NGOs like ARA he is showing unacceptable intolerance for those that he perceives as not totally in support of SANParks – the kind of censoring “if you are not with us you are against us” position. Not everything can and should be State-driven. By taking such an intolerant stand Dr Mabunda is directly making a cynical and comprehensive attack on the rights of civil society to legitimately organize themselves.
The irony is that it is current government neoliberal conservation policies which are reproductions of old colonial economic logic where the unfettered exploitation of natural and human resources was (and is) the norm. So it does not surprise us that in South Africa it is pro-utilization lobby organisations, donors, individuals and governments from the North that rule the roost and with whom government conservation agencies partner with.
Along with Dr Mabunda, members of the IUCN and other aligned organisations are largely proponents of so-called “wise use” interest groups, the very antithesis of “progressive conservation”. Rather than consider the sustainability of wildlife and ecosystems, wise-use emphasizes sustaining the maximum human consumptive use of the animals and the environment.
Dr Mabunda’s unwarranted swipe at Kenya and its wildlife policies, which he says have been hijacked by animal rights and welfare NGOs is patronising and dismissive of Kenya’s sovereignty. It is far-fetched to claim, as he does, that animal rights and welfare NGOs have the financial and political clout to influence the views of Kenyans on such a grand scale. Kenya will no doubt reply to this poisonous allegation itself. But, let us be clear, through a consultative process, it is the majority of communities living with wildlife in Kenya who are overwhelmingly opposed to the resumption of trophy hunting , believe that it will negate conservation and provide even fewer returns for local communities in wildlife areas. The fact that Kenyans seem to be weighing up the arguments and then choosing to take a more measured and respectful is laudable. It is Kenya who leads the fight at every CITES meeting against countries, such as South Africa and Namibia, and “wise use” lobby groups, that are trying to weaken protection at CITES meetings and who push trophy hunting and the trade in wildlife as the panacea for protecting wildlife. Is this the real reason why Dr Mabunda is so keen to misrepresent Kenya?
ARA will continue to positively contribute and push for vigorous public debate and policy change that will build our growing democracy and not stifle it, and we can only hope that SANParks will be gracious enough to accept that.
Michele Pickover (Coordinator: Animal Rights Africa)
No comments:
Post a Comment