Three weeks ago, in the premier issue of Stump Talk, we reported on the World Wildlife Fund's nomination in British Columbia of Shell Oil for a provincial award for outstanding environmental practices. Shell is notorious for cavalier destruction of all sorts; particularly noxious is their recent support of the murderous military regime of Nigeria and its execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni environmental activists.

As with other large, extremely well-funded green groups (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund), the WWF has found a comfortable niche in the Clinton era by bartering trades of ecosystems they want to "save" for resource-rich parcels elsewhere. Such was the deal, off the Queen Charlotte Islands, which prompted WWF to nominate Shell for the B.C. Environmental Award. Shell, of course, was not motivated in the least by conservation concerns; they simply got better assets by taking the deal. The WWF-nominated award would be for following businesses practices which can and will lead to greedy, short-sighted, and destructive actions in the future. This gets high praise by an "environmental" group?

In case you need any further proof of the lack of commitment of groups like WWF to any movement for environmental or social justice larger than their own well-funded jobs, here's a portion of the response to an ETS! reader, sent by one Pegi Dover, Director of Communications for WWF Canada pdover@wwfcanada.org:

"...WWF holds strongly to its right to act independently in the best interests of conservation. In return, we do not try to tell other groups whom they should support or criticize. In some cases, our approach may mean commending corporations for specific conservation contributions in one part of the world and, where warranted, criticizing those same companies for inappropriate activities in another part of the world. We do not see this as a contradiction in terms or as being hypocritical; we see it as a practical effort to reform corporate behaviour in the best interests of the environment and people."

In other words: 1) You have no right to criticize us; 2) We will never use our working relationship with corporations locally to request (let alone demand) accountability globally; 3) If we ask for very, very little--after all, nothing else is practical--we've done our job; and 4) We don't care in the first place, so how can we be hypocrites?

Your tax-deductible gift at work. Look for the next full-color mailer with photos of cute furry animals soon, funded by a generous donation from Pew, Rockefeller, or some other major charitable trust fund whose Board members work for outfits like Shell Oil.

Meanwhile, descending further into the slimy world of Non-Profits Sucking Up To The Wealthy: The United Jewish Appeal-Federation (UJA) hosted its annual "Humanitarian of the Year" award on May 29, in the bare bones surroundings of New York's Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Who, you ask, is this year's honoree, the modest man who's done so much in UJA's eyes to alleviate the suffering of the oppressed?

Rupert Murdoch.

Murdoch, when not busy with humanitarian volunteer work, occupies himself by buying off politicians wherever possible and running famously vile and extremely conservative media outlets on four continents. He's also, of late, been snuggling up to the Chinese government, agreeing to censor news content to its liking (e.g., dropping the BBC because it carried reports critical of Beijing) in exchange for the coveted China satellite franchise for his Asian-based Star TV.

Introducing Mr. Murdoch at the banquet was another man who has been publicly supportive of the Tienanmen Square massacre (while having extensive business holdings in China himself): noted humanitarian icon Henry Kissinger.

Orwell would be proud.