(c) Copyright 1998: by Graham Strachan
Only a fool believes that the waterfront dispute is the straightforward issue presented by the media, and that there are not vested interests acting behind the scenes with ulterior motives concerning control of the nation’s wharves. The same must be said now for the sudden obsession by the media with the preciousness of water, including concern for the country’s rivers.
This is not to deny there are problems with the rivers. There are, and there have been for some time. After all, the original excuse given by John Howard for having to sell a third of Telstra was to clean up the Murray-Darling system. That was before the election. Once in power something happened to that idea. But why the sudden revival of interest now?
State-funded advertisements are running on TV praising the virtues of water as a ‘precious resource’. Satellites are being used by the government to spy out ‘unlicenced dams’ on farming properties. Then on Sunday May 3, ‘60 Minutes’ ran a story called ‘Cry Me a River’. [I did not see the programme, so my comments are based on inferences from the contents of the 60 Minutes website]. It seems the focus was the Murray-Darling river system and the cause of the environmental damage was identified as ‘farmers’, particularly cotton farmers, who use too much water and chemical fertiliser: irresponsible land use, in other words.
If the purpose of the programme was to get people stirred up about water and rivers it certainly succeeded, at least with some viewers. Patrick from Victoria e-mailed 60 Minutes saying that, “the Cotton Farmers should not have been given the the water in the first place. Cotton what it is (sic) a crop that sucks the life blood out of the land....How could a govenment allow this to happen?” Anonymous from NSW thought, “its about time the farmers and the politicians became environmentally educated so they can grasp the cause and affect process....the farmers [needed to] learn better farming techniques....that use the land efficiently and wisely.” Ochre of Queensland asked, “We are of the Earth. We poison ourselves. Why? When will people, that includes farmers and politicians, realise that our spectacular continent is not a thing to be plundered or raped for the sake of money? Greed and selfishness poison the land, and our Spirits.”
Ochre was right about the greed, but ‘we of the earth’ did not cause this problem. Only some people of the earth did. So who are they and why? And is it fair to put the blame on ‘farmers’?
First, what those readers did not realise, and 60 Minutes could not tell them because its major sponsors are multinational corporations (MNCs), is that the Australian countryside is suffering from the ravages of economic rationalism and its policy of ‘profits, and to hell with people and the environment’. To attibute that to ‘farmers’, obscures the real cause. ‘Farmers’ ain’t ‘farmers’ anymore. The influence of multinational agribusiness on the farming sector is now dominant, which means that remaining traditional Australian farmers have to compete with conglomerates on the conglomerates’ terms: they have to ‘get big or get out’, and that has been the policy of successive Australian governments towards the rural sector since the 1970s.
Secondly, they have to produce not for Australian use, but for the global economy. The phony theory of economic rationalism says that countries must produce primarily for export, and import everything they need for local consumption. That’s what ‘globalisation’ of the economy means. Consequently, agricultural production in Australia is not geared to Australia’s needs, or to what the land can withstand, but to the needs of the global market, relentlessly driven by the need to make ever-expanding profits. Part of the blame for the state of the rivers must therefore be laid at the feet of economic rationalism and the government’s policy of ‘globalisation’ of the Australian economy.
To compete with MNCs, traditional Australian farmers have had to borrow money from banks to buy heavier machinery, thereby increasing farm debt and interest payments. This in turn brings pressure on them to increase yields. To do that they have to use high yield variety (HYV) genetically engineered seeds, the only sort available from MNC agribusiness suppliers anyway. To perform to expectations the HYVs require massive amounts of chemical fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides, again supplied by the MNCs. They also require massive amounts of water which leaches out the chemicals into rivers and streams, causing ecological damage and poisoning bird and animal life.
The problem is not ‘farmers’, or even fertilisers as such, but economic rationalism which encourages over-cropping, and agricultural practices which require chemical fertilisers (‘fossil fuel based agriculture’) as opposed to organic or natural fertilisers. The salination of the Murray-Darling system is the result of these sorts of practices. As Susan George observed in her book ‘How the Other Half Dies’ (1976), multinational agribusiness and its policy of economic rationalism are capable of destroying virtually everything they touch: traditional farming patterns, the land, and the environment (p.159).
But it has long been recognised that these practices were incompatible with environmental safety. The state of those rivers is not new. Had governments acted responsibly and not been intimidated by multinationals, the problem could, and should have been tackled long ago. So why the sudden upsurge of interest now, along with all the other propaganda about water suddenly emanating from the media?
Well, it’s all to do with the United Nations (UN) and a bid for GLOBAL CONTROL OVER LAND USE using ‘water’ and ‘rivers’ as the excuse. Consider the following sequence of events.
On March 21, a UNconference on managing the world's fresh water supplies was held in Paris. The environment ministers and officials from 84 countries (you can bet Australia was represented) agreed that water should be paid for as a commodity rather than be treated as an essential staple to be supplied free of cost. So precious was water, in fact, that it should become the property of multinational corporations and investors and sold back to the human race for profit.
Within a fortnight on April 4, 1998, an article appeared in the Brisbane Courier Mail, ‘Satellite sinks illegal dams’, revealing that satellite technology was being used by the government to ‘catch up’ with illegal dams on farming properties in Queensland along the Cooper Creek catchment area. Offending farmers were being sent threatening letters: licence the illegal dams, or face stiff penalties. Ads started to appear on TV extolling the virtues of that ‘precious resourse: water’.
Then on April 13, 1998, confirmed globalist President Clinton set the example by issuing a presidential decree (by-passing the Congress), launching his American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI), nominating a number of rivers to receive ‘special attention from the federal government’.
What does the ‘special attention’ involve? Government bodies are to be formed to control the rivers in order to preserve ‘natural, historic, cultural, social, economic, and ecological diversity’. A ‘River Navigator’ is to be assigned to control federal services and benefits for each river. Thirteen Federal Agencies are to be involved in the planning, implementation, management and enforcement of the program. Aerial photography and satellite surveillance are to be used to police and expand the program. The use of land in AHRI designated areas for ordinary commercial or agriculture purposes may be severely restricted or eliminated. Land use in adjacent zones will be controlled also.
Then on May 3, 1998, ‘60 Minutes’ puts to air its piece on the tragic state of the Murray-Darling system. Are we about to see the Howard government announce what the media will hail as a ‘radical new proposal’: an Australian Heritage Rivers Initiative, which will place vast areas of the Australian continent under ‘de facto’ UN control, with the federal government acting as the local policeman?
Economic rationalism not only destroys sustainable farming practices and the environment, but its ravages can then be used by globalists as the excuse for controlling land use world-wide. Very convenient.