The Smell of Victory

"You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end..."
(Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore, Apocalypse Now)

I have spent the past few weeks working on a project to reform and revitalise Indonesia's forestry sector, which has seen so much unsustainable logging over the past few decades. There now seems to be an overwhelming consensus in the world that forest destruction is wrong, and so it is instructive to review a period of history when forests seemed less important.

I can recall that Agent Orange was a herbicide manufactured by Dow and Monsanto to be used by US forces to clear foliage in Vietnam. I was not aware, however, of the scale of physical destruction wrought by this chemical warfare aside from the thousands of Vietnamese people poisoned by the dioxin.

According to the UN, between 1962 - 197, 70 million litres of Agent Orange was deployed over 1.7 million hectares. 36% of the mangrove forest in South Vietnam was destroyed, and 20% of the natural forest, with a further 300,000 hectares physically cleared by tractors.

The academic journal BioScience concluded that:
'In those 0.5 million hectares of multiply sprayed jungle, these effects have been more drastic, permitting significant amounts of conversion to Imperata grasslands or bamboo brakes whose reversion to forest is not expected for at least several decades. Over 20% of S. Vietnam's 0.5 million hectares of mangrove forest have been sprayed, causing total annihilation of the vegetative cover without subsequent recovery for a time measurable in decades. The plant and animal communities have been totally disrupted.' (Westin, A.H., Ecological Effects of Military Defoliation on the Forests of South Vietnam in BioScience, Vol. 21, No. 17 (Sep. 1, 1971), pp. 893-89)

Our current debate about forestry seems to indicate that we would never allow such wanton destruction again, as L. P. Hartley began 'The Go-Between': "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." However, it does seem hypocritical of northern countries to criticise Indonesia over the current rates of deforestation, without first acknowledging the legacy of destruction in South East Asia perpetrated by northern interests.

As a 'just-so' exercise, it is worth reminding ourselves that the Vietnam war was part of a political strategy in Asia to prevent the spread of communism and thus allow US interests to permeate emerging markets in the region. Suharto's violent coup of 1965 was supported by the US as it was seen as a way to asphyxiate the communist movement in Indonesia. It is interesting to consider that Suharto's brand of US-supported crony capitalism, the legacy of which still despoils this country, was also the main driver for deforestation in the 1980's and 90's, culminating in the structural and governance weaknesses that frustrate sensible forest policy today.

If Indonesia had been allowed to follow its own path, even becoming a quasi-communist state in the style of Vietnam or Cuba, there is a reasonable argument to be made that the forests would be in a better state than they are now. This would have had important implications for the rural livelihoods of 50 million people, bio-diversity and climate change, though shed a tear for the dozen oligarchs who would be a lot poorer. One wonders if there is any evidence, in Asia, Latin America or the Middle East, where it can be said that US geo-political strategy (often prosecuted with no regard to long-term consequences) has improved matters in the long run.

Comments

[Cameron Smith]

I agree with most of your post but not the last bit. Most authoritarian regimes, especially but not limited to those with a proclaimed communist/socialist background, have a terrible record of environmental management. Typically because they prioritized economic production (measured according to 1950s criteria and not considering any environmental factors) above all else.

Secondarily, the fear of speaking out in these regimes, made any kind of protest movement very difficult.

Finally, the inherent vulnerability of these regimes to corruption, makes it difficult to actually implement any kind of control measures without the regulators themselves being corrupted. The rewards can be so high for these inviduals.

I write this from Mozambique where a an ex-"socialist" (it was always really more nationalist) regime, in cahoots with the notionally still communist government of China, is literally ripping the country's forest cover out in chunks. Some local NGOs estimate that as little of 10% of illegally logged wood is officially apprehended by the authorities. And that 10% is a huge volume. There is also a great deal of evidence that senior state officials, tasked to control this problem, are in fact up to their necks in it.

[eko]

i have no doubt with u.
But it worthless to know it all.
Just wake up and face the world now.

I think global crisis will come soon.