Heading: The difference between an apple and an apple
Sub-Heading: Caroline Lucas, MEP (Greens) on her aspirations of being a wasp, a bridge and a pacifist
Authors: Anne Giebel and Katharina Röhl
Date: 2001-10-25
Trail: It is difficult to characterize the European Greens. They seem to stand for concessions towards the nuclear power industry whilst at the same time for the “dynamite of Seattle”; they are torn between a bleak governmental and a strong parliamentary approach to green politics; and they make warlords like Joschka Fischer meet seasoned street activists like the British MEP Caroline Lucas. Last week, we learned from her that the “greening of Europe” implicitly depends on the “greening of the world”. Caroline Lucas, MEP for the South East of the UK, explains how this is possible.

This week in the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, you demanded that the Commission should immediately undertake the anti-aircraft defence of all nuclear power plants. Would it not be better to shut them down completely?
C. LUCAS: Of course, an immediate halt of the use of nuclear power would be ideal, and that is exactly what most Greens stand for. However, European governments want to build even more nuclear plants globally. Therefore, we should first aim at speeding up the phase out. In Strasbourg I demanded that the Commission should immediately undertake an analysis to assess the impact of a large aircraft, fully laden with fuel, crashing into a large scale industrial site or a nuclear power plant. According to a recent report in the New Scientist, such a disaster in, say, Sellafield would release 44 times as much radioactivity as in Chernobyl. Also, the FBI is currently studying reports that the hijackers of the 4th passenger jet on September 11th may have been intending to use it to attack the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island, site of the US’s most serious nuclear accident in 1979. It has become even more obvious now that nuclear plants are not a viable option, but a ticking time bomb.

Do you believe in a connection between terrorism and global economic injustice?
C. LUCAS: We will only be more secure when poverty and injustice are eradicated. Until we understand the violence of our economic policies and our foreign policies, we will continue to foster the conditions that make terrorism possible. In the first parliamentary session after the attacks on the US, the Greens were actually the only ones to address the US economic sanctions and the bombings of Iraq [which have been carried out every 2 weeks on average by the US and the British army since 1998]. We, the so-called first world, are indirectly responsible for terrorism.

This week-end you are going to attend the WTO conference in Qatar as a member of the official delegation of the EU. What do you want to achieve there?
C.LUCAS: I see my role as being something like a wasp buzzing around Pascal Lamy [the EU Commissioner for Trade]’s head, maybe even managing the odd sting, reminding him of what needs to be changed in the WTO. Several countries are so poor that they can’t even afford to send a representative to the negotiations. One of the major topics at this upcoming conference will be the Intellectual Property Rights, e.g. the patenting of indigenous knowledge. The Seattle negotiations on this topic provide a striking example: of the 111 members of the official US delegation, 96 were the representatives of big corporations.

You have yourself joined street activists in their protests against the WTO meeting in Seattle and elsewhere. Do you believe that these street protests are effective?
C. LUCAS: Definitely. It is very important that the anti-globalisation movement continues with their street protests. The challenge for them will now be the move from opposition to proposition. Personally, my aim is to function as some sort of bridge between the politicians and the pavement.

Why is it so difficult to change WTO rules?
C. LUCAS: There is still little impetus from the Western countries to do so, because the biggest myth about the WTO is so powerful: people believe that globalisation is inevitable. That is not at all true. Globalisation is failing – and alternatives are possible. I believe that it is perfectly feasible to design a fair trade system that pleases everybody. I demand a fundamental reform before the new WTO round starts.
There has to be a transition to regional and local markets, but in order to achieve that, EU resources are needed. It is a very worrying idea that the developing countries should always be dependent on the North.

You are in favour of giving more power to developing countries, but given that most of these states are dominated by authoritarian rulers, what would an increase in power on the international level really change for the people living in poverty?
C. LUCAS: We are increasingly trying to promote the fact that more power should be given to the civil society in these countries. For example, 70 MEPs attend the ACP Assembly twice a year. The main point there is to control and influence how EU funds are used in developing countries. There are two principles according to which money should be distributed. First of all, we try to support civil society groups, e.g. trade unions and women NGOs etc. The second argument for financial support is “good governance”. It is however true that we are still in the early days of this project and still have to go through the particular governments.

Is the EU doing anything to tackle the fair trade problem?
C. LUCAS: There are some drafts of really good legislations, but any positive move is permanently being undercut by a dogmatic and single-minded pursuit of globalisation. Also, a constant fear of criticism from the WTO keeps some progressive proposals off. For example, the Greens believe that the protection of higher product standards can be good. But according to WTO rules, import discrimination is not allowed if two products look the same. This way, Europe may not erect trade barriers against a genetically modified apple, which by its outer appearance cannot be distinguished from its organic counterpart. Equally, the EU is allowed not to ban T-shirts whose production process involved child labour, or cosmetics tested on animals. There is a movement to reduce protectionism within the Parliament’s Trade Committee. We have recently been debating Pascal Lamy’s ”Everything but arms” initiative, according to which all products from least developed countries, with the exception of arms, may enter our markets. But there also has to be a movement away from developing countries’ feeling that the only way they can achieve a decent life is through exporting to the North. I think that there really has to be a transition to more regional and national markets.

How do you resolve the tension between the challenge posed to the Common Agricultural Policy by the EU Eastern enlargement and protectionist policies so characteristic of the current EU ?
C. LUCAS: One of the current problems of agricultural politics is that the EU requires farmers to adapt to ever higher standards of animal welfare and ecological methods, but at the same time it forces them into ever fiercer competition, and this is having devastating consequences. We think that to ”protect” something is not at all bad. It is of course very worrying for Polish farmers to compete with subsidised Western European agricultural products. On the other hand, an expansion of the present system to the future member states would drive the EU into bankruptcy. I do believe in ”reform through enlargement”.

Apart from the Eastern enlargement, there are quite a few topical problems that provoke intense discussions. It is now an open secret that the European Greens differ significantly in their opinion on a number of issues. Where would you draw the line that principally splits them?
C. LUCAS: In the European Parliament, the group of the Greens is mainly split about the issues of integration in the EU, the single currency, the war, and the construction of a common military force. This is not surprising given the different backgrounds we come from, and that Greens form part of the government in five countries, which changes their position. For example, some members of our group favour the freezing of 27 Arab bank accounts, which are “suspected to be instrumental to terrorism“. I find that this is a very dangerous tendency. There is a risk that the criterion of “suspicion“ is applied arbitrarily, so that anyone could be the victim of this policy, and there is no democratic control.
Also, the German EP Greens think that the bombing of Afghanistan is quite a good idea, while the rest of the group is largely opposed to it. But it is important to remember that the Germans are only a minority in our group.

Talking of the German Greens, one of their leaders, Antje Vollmer, was recently quoted as commenting on the US-led war: “There is helpless pacifism, but also helpless military action.“ Would you agree?
C. LUCAS: No. I think it is far worse than that. The Western war against Afghanistan is not just a helpless reaction, but entirely counterproductive. It is likely to lead to more violence rather than end it. And it definitely turns a humanitarian crisis into a certain catastrophe. Also, it has turned Bin Laden turned into the hero he wants to be. Likewise the US is now proving to be the very villain that Bin Laden claims it to be. The West has therefore fallen into his trap.

Are you a pacifist?
C. LUCAS: I am an aspiring pacifist. I believe that pacifism is not just the absence of something, but a strong moral force.
Heading: The difference between an apple and an apple
Sub-Heading: Caroline Lucas, MEP (Greens) on her aspirations of being a wasp, a bridge and a pacifist
Authors: Anne Giebel and Katharina Röhl
Date: 2001-10-25
Trail: It is difficult to characterize the European Greens. They seem to stand for concessions towards the nuclear power industry whilst at the same time for the “dynamite of Seattle”; they are torn between a bleak governmental and a strong parliamentary approach to green politics; and they make warlords like Joschka Fischer meet seasoned street activists like the British MEP Caroline Lucas. Last week, EUROPA learned from her that the “greening of Europe” implicitly depends on the “greening of the world”. Caroline Lucas, MEP for the South East of the UK, explains how this is possible.

This week in the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, you demanded that the Commission should immediately undertake the anti-aircraft defence of all nuclear power plants. Would it not be better to shut them down completely?
C. LUCAS: Of course, an immediate halt of the use of nuclear power would be ideal, and that is exactly what most Greens stand for. However, European governments want to build even more nuclear plants globally. Therefore, we should first aim at speeding up the phase out. In Strasbourg I demanded that the Commission should immediately undertake an analysis to assess the impact of a large aircraft, fully laden with fuel, crashing into a large scale industrial site or a nuclear power plant. According to a recent report in the New Scientist, such a disaster in, say, Sellafield would release 44 times as much radioactivity as in Chernobyl. Also, the FBI is currently studying reports that the hijackers of the 4th passenger jet on September 11th may have been intending to use it to attack the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island, site of the US’s most serious nuclear accident in 1979. It has become even more obvious now that nuclear plants are not a viable option, but a ticking time bomb.

Do you believe in a connection between terrorism and global economic injustice?
C. LUCAS: We will only be more secure when poverty and injustice are eradicated. Until we understand the violence of our economic policies and our foreign policies, we will continue to foster the conditions that make terrorism possible. In the first parliamentary session after the attacks on the US, the Greens were actually the only ones to address the US economic sanctions and the bombings of Iraq [which have been carried out every 2 weeks on average by the US and the British army since 1998]. We, the so-called first world, are indirectly responsible for terrorism.

This week-end you are going to attend the WTO conference in Qatar as a member of the official delegation of the EU. What do you want to achieve there?
C.LUCAS: I see my role as being something like a wasp buzzing around Pascal Lamy [the EU Commissioner for Trade]’s head, maybe even managing the odd sting, reminding him of what needs to be changed in the WTO. Several countries are so poor that they can’t even afford to send a representative to the negotiations. One of the major topics at this upcoming conference will be the Intellectual Property Rights, e.g. the patenting of indigenous knowledge. The Seattle negotiations on this topic provide a striking example: of the 111 members of the official US delegation, 96 were the representatives of big corporations.

You have yourself joined street activists in their protests against the WTO meeting in Seattle and elsewhere. Do you believe that these street protests are effective?
C. LUCAS: Definitely. It is very important that the anti-globalisation movement continues with their street protests. The challenge for them will now be the move from opposition to proposition. Personally, my aim is to function as some sort of bridge between the politicians and the pavement.

Why is it so difficult to change WTO rules?
C. LUCAS: There is still little impetus from the Western countries to do so, because the biggest myth about the WTO is so powerful: people believe that globalisation is inevitable. That is not at all true. Globalisation is failing – and alternatives are possible. I believe that it is perfectly feasible to design a fair trade system that pleases everybody. I demand a fundamental reform before the new WTO round starts.
There has to be a transition to regional and local markets, but in order to achieve that, EU resources are needed. It is a very worrying idea that the developing countries should always be dependent on the North.

You are in favour of giving more power to developing countries, but given that most of these states are dominated by authoritarian rulers, what would an increase in power on the international level really change for the people living in poverty?
C. LUCAS: We are increasingly trying to promote the fact that more power should be given to the civil society in these countries. For example, 70 MEPs attend the ACP Assembly twice a year. The main point there is to control and influence how EU funds are used in developing countries. There are two principles according to which money should be distributed. First of all, we try to support civil society groups, e.g. trade unions and women NGOs etc. The second argument for financial support is “good governance”. It is however true that we are still in the early days of this project and still have to go through the particular governments.

Is the EU doing anything to tackle the fair trade problem?
C. LUCAS: There are some drafts of really good legislations, but any positive move is permanently being undercut by a dogmatic and single-minded pursuit of globalisation. Also, a constant fear of criticism from the WTO keeps some progressive proposals off. For example, the Greens believe that the protection of higher product standards can be good. But according to WTO rules, import discrimination is not allowed if two products look the same. This way, Europe may not erect trade barriers against a genetically modified apple, which by its outer appearance cannot be distinguished from its organic counterpart. Equally, the EU is allowed not to ban T-shirts whose production process involved child labour, or cosmetics tested on animals. There is a movement to reduce protectionism within the Parliament’s Trade Committee. We have recently been debating Pascal Lamy’s ”Everything but arms” initiative, according to which all products from least developed countries, with the exception of arms, may enter our markets. But there also has to be a movement away from developing countries’ feeling that the only way they can achieve a decent life is through exporting to the North. I think that there really has to be a transition to more regional and national markets.

How do you resolve the tension between the challenge posed to the Common Agricultural Policy by the EU Eastern enlargement and protectionist policies so characteristic of the current EU ?
C. LUCAS: One of the current problems of agricultural politics is that the EU requires farmers to adapt to ever higher standards of animal welfare and ecological methods, but at the same time it forces them into ever fiercer competition, and this is having devastating consequences. We think that to ”protect” something is not at all bad. It is of course very worrying for Polish farmers to compete with subsidised Western European agricultural products. On the other hand, an expansion of the present system to the future member states would drive the EU into bankruptcy. I do believe in ”reform through enlargement”.

Apart from the Eastern enlargement, there are quite a few topical problems that provoke intense discussions. It is now an open secret that the European Greens differ significantly in their opinion on a number of issues. Where would you draw the line that principally splits them?
C. LUCAS: In the European Parliament, the group of the Greens is mainly split about the issues of integration in the EU, the single currency, the war, and the construction of a common military force. This is not surprising given the different backgrounds we come from, and that Greens form part of the government in five countries, which changes their position. For example, some members of our group favour the freezing of 27 Arab bank accounts, which are “suspected to be instrumental to terrorism“. I find that this is a very dangerous tendency. There is a risk that the criterion of “suspicion“ is applied arbitrarily, so that anyone could be the victim of this policy, and there is no democratic control.
Also, the German EP Greens think that the bombing of Afghanistan is quite a good idea, while the rest of the group is largely opposed to it. But it is important to remember that the Germans are only a minority in our group.

Talking of the German Greens, one of their leaders, Antje Vollmer, was recently quoted as commenting on the US-led war: “There is helpless pacifism, but also helpless military action.“ Would you agree?
C. LUCAS: No. I think it is far worse than that. The Western war against Afghanistan is not just a helpless reaction, but entirely counterproductive. It is likely to lead to more violence rather than end it. And it definitely turns a humanitarian crisis into a certain catastrophe. Also, it has turned Bin Laden turned into the hero he wants to be. Likewise the US is now proving to be the very villain that Bin Laden claims it to be. The West has therefore fallen into his trap.

Are you a pacifist?
C. LUCAS: I am an aspiring pacifist. I believe that pacifism is not just the absence of something, but a strong moral force.