WORLD TRANSITION, CIVIL COURAGE AND WHISTLEBLOWING TO PROTECT SOCIAL PEACE
1. World Transition 1.1. Introduction: The world has never changed as much as during the last 200 years, one of the reasons for this being the expansion of the world population, another one the progress of science and technology. Many traditional values were thrown overboard. Milestones (without evaluation) include the steam-driven engine, automobile, electric bulb, telephone, refrigerator, film projector, the splitting of the atom, television, space travel, organ transplants, the discovery of quantum physics, electronic communication systems, the decoding of DNA, the development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), etc. This paper deals with the dark sides of social and technical developments and the possibilities of correcting underlying structures before too much damage will come of them. These darker sides and the resulting conflicts are realized only gradually. If we wish to continue our development, we will have to take a critical look at the conflicts and disasters. We have a tendency to ignore all this, society needs whistleblowers, concerned citizens, opponents of injustice, those who pay attention, who have individual courage and a sense of responsibility. Whistleblowers discuss the critical, intolerable dangers, within their sphere of activities by passing on crucial information to their superiors. If that does not bring about the necessary changes, they address the public, ignoring the risks to their own person. Turning against the trends of the time and the establishment, they withstand lobbyism as well as the economic and political forces in power. They expose the abuse of technical power and criminal machinations. They uncover those technological or scientific developments or methods which are perfectly legal but do present dangers to the general public. Those who warn the public regardless of the consequences for their own well-being will get a bad reputation; they are all too often silenced or exposed to reprisals. Called denigrators of their own countries, they are regarded as traitors, as enemies of the State. In England and the USA, this has changed since there have been passed some laws protecting these courageous people. However, much effort will be needed to ensure that the laws are obeyed. Whistleblowers are secret heroines and heroes. To achieve more peace in this world, the integration of whistleblowing and civil courage into our culture will be a fundamental requirement. 1.2 Expanding world population and limit of resources Humanity is facing enormous challenges. The risks to the survival of the human species and the preservation of nature are increasing steadily. According to the 'Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung', the world population is growing at a rate of about one billion every 13 – 16 years. The question remains how the growing world population will be able to assure its food supplies. There are a number of projections. In the year 2010, there will supposedly be seven billion people and,
according to the UN, in 2050 as many as nine billion. Three alarming consequences of this development are desertification, urbanization and migration. With a growing population and limited resources, the fight against poverty, illness and malnutrition plays an increasing role. In many regions, basic resources such as clean water or fertile ground will, in the very near future, become scarce. In an increasingly interconnected world, the economic forces are trying to reach maximum benefits and to control ever more spheres of life. Even basic food is becoming the possession of the big corporations who are interfering with nature by genetic modifications and patented products . They are now aiming to take over the seeds of crop cultures, free to all humans for thousands of years up to now, to make sure that in future these seeds can only be bought from them. And this in times when global warming causes dwindling water resources, over salting of the earth‟s crust and the destruction of fertile soil. The US, for instance, ordered Iraq to grow genetically modified crops. Millions of small farmers are now faced with ruin. A dependency on corporations for most of the basic needs of life is artificially created. The indispensable natural basics of life such as air, water and ground are no longer freely available for all, but have fallen under the power of a few who are abusing them for their own purposes or destroying them. The result: underprivileged people and many animal species no longer have access to them. Will humanity have to impose restrictions on the use of the resources on our planet? And if so, who is going to decide that? 1.3 Western Civilization causes Risks and endangers Life 1.3.1 Consumerism as a threat to the planet Our planet earth is a "self-regulating organism" says British-born chemist, medical doctor and biophysicist James Lovelock. Our future depends on how we treat this organism. Intervening with this complex and sensitive system can have incalculable consequences. José A. Lutzenberger, winner of the “Alternative Nobel Prize”, the Right Livelihood Award, and former Minister of the Environment in Brazil has more than once quarreled with those in power. His accusation: "Ever increasing, excessive consumer needs and a battle for material values have become the religion of the West. The terror of consumerism is to the detriment of future generations and the world as a whole. Forces are at work spreading this lifestyle into the farthest corners of our earth. Modern industry sees the world just as a sort of free-of-charge warehouse, where we serve ourselves and use up the resources which are supposed to be limitless", (criticizes Lutzenberger(2002). 1.3.2 The disastrous Role of Natural Science There may be various causes for a state allowing risks to the health and life of its citizens. Max Born, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1954, blames the natural sciences for the breakdown of all ethical principles. He writes: "The idea that this break in human civilization caused by the discovery of scientific methods cannot be corrected depresses me." Therefore, his view of the future is gloomy. "The natural scientists themselves are an unimpressive minority; however, the excellent achievements in technology assigns them a special place in society. They are conscious of possessing a superior objective knowledge accessible through their method of thinking, but they do not see their own limits. So, their political and ethical judgment is often primitive and dangerous..." (Born and Born 1969) Max Born was the only great physicist of that time period [during the second world war] who refused to cooperate in the US project of the atom bomb.
During the first period of Enlightenment, during the 17 th and 18th centuries, society experienced a secularization and negation of God. This has lead to an analytic method of thinking, losing sight of the whole. Dr. Vandana Shiva, vice president of the Third World Network in New Delhi is a philosopher, physicist and pacifist. She also won the alternative Nobel Prize (1993). She criticizes the antiquated concept of natural science which looks only on monocausal relations between cause and effect. The physicist Arthur Eddington has described the missing parts in scientific logic very vividly: A scientist goes fishing, using a net which has a mesh diameter of ten centimeters. He states: ”All fish would be at least ten centimeter in size and have fins. But a passerby remarks: "I have seen fish which were only five centimeter in size." To which he receives the absurd reply: "What my net cannot catch isn't fish!" Every scientific study has its certain size "mesh"... But science claims for itself the domain of objective truth. Such way of thinking has devastating consequences especially in the field of health and ecology. In most spheres of life, we will have to rely on credible references and "substantial evidence". In our modern world, a mechanistic concept of nature has developed which presents everything as ascertainable, analyzable, available, replaceable and feasible, and this permits unlimited access to everything on this planet. But most phenomena are accessible only by a multi-causal or transdisciplinary view. Laszlo, co-founder of the Club of Rome and founder of the Club of Budapest speaks of an unfortunate mechanistic view of the clasical natural science. The cream, however, in the meantime would abandon this view: Their ideas are expressed in networks and fields and the spontaneous interaction of various causalities.(Laszlo 2001) Furthermore, public finances are in a bad state. Science depends on allocations by the economy. The deciding factor is economic benefit. This has led to the dressing-up and falsifying of study results in science. Unfortunately this intellectual corruption has hardly any consequ ences, neither in universities nor in the law courts. However, it does have consequences for scientists when their research conflicts with economic interests. If they don't play the game, they must expect to sacrifice their careers or lose their jobs. 1.4 Neo-liberalist Thinking and Acting 1.4.1. The Imposition of Dangers on People How can we still maintain our present attitude towards human beings and nature? Modern technology is intervening destructively in the intricate processes of life. Technology is creating residual risks. Chemical substances in our environment lead to asthma, neurodermatitis, a weakening of the immune system, etc. Electromagnetic waves are causing brain damage, cardiac disrhythmia and high blood pressure; the low frequency radiation of nuclear power stations can change our genetic make up. Residual risks are imposed on humans in an increasing measure. In Western culture, where neoliberalism and capitalism are advancing their structures, an indirect power is exercised. Some are earning money on products that sicken others. "The makers of technology are testing fate more than they themselves may perhaps think," resumes Shiva (Lüpke 2004) One glaring example: Two ”fathers of the atom-bomb”, Julius Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller were not even quite sure if, when testing the atom-bomb in the White Sands desert of southern New Mexico, it would not ignite the whole atmosphere. Did anybody hear a whistle blowing?
Who decides about the risks? Until about two generations ago, people still assumed that they could – at least in times of peace – calculate their own risks of life and health to a great extent, or at least they thought they could. Even when dangers become obvious, in most cases no changes will be made as they should be. The truth is withheld or the cases legalized and categorized as residual risk, but even if the factor is, for example, only 0,01, over time, thousands of people could be affected. Whistleblowers stand by undesired truths. They uncover corruption, dangers and risks, in this way preventing health problems and the destruction of the environment. They do not wish to be used for objectives to which they cannot agree. 2. Unloved Heroes of our Establishment - Examples 2.1 Guillermo Eguiazu demands Transparency in the Development of new Technologies. The 52 year-old Eguiazu suffered outrageous treatment at the University Rosario, Argentina. He had acted according to his conscience. The Department of Education in Argentina counted him amongst the most qualified scientists in his country. This, however, was of no help to him. He had to give up his career because he had made himself unpopular with his colleagues. Eguiazu and his assistant Alberto Motta had developed a theory that they called "technopathogenology" (TPG). The objective was to avoid the risks of new technologies, that is to assess systematically, as early as possible, any dangerous developments and to prevent health risks for the consumer right from the start. His concept of natural science also includes ethics. Eguiazu was engaged in the study of genetic engineering, pesticides and electromagnetic pollution and he especially focused on the carcinogenic fungal poison of Aflatoxine. However, he did not stop there; he also informed the population. He and Motta held lectures in the villages. The results of their research were written in Spanish and in plain, easy-to-understand language. Eguiazu even fought for a law for the reduction of mould formation through better storekeeping for instance, of cereals. The university administration found that it was not Eguiazu‟s job to care about the social side of the problem or meddle in questions of economics and politics. For years, Eguiazu and Motta had to suffer reprisals. Their laboratory was ravaged and the professor's salary reduced, his assistant‟s salary even eliminated. The professor was no longer allowed to teach in his institute. In 2002, the laboratory equipment was simply removed after he had permitted a group of students to do research on the electromagnetic radiation of cellular radios. Many modern technologies have inherently negative effects which may become evident at any time. To reduce the risks of damage from the start, this should be done by the scientists themselves. 2.2 Wangari Maathai and her non-violent Commitment to Democracy and the Environment. The preservation of nature is playing an increasingly important role as the world population is rising steadily. This is expressed in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for the year 2004 to the 64-year-old Kenyan professor Wangari Maathai. The Prize is endowed with the sum of ten million Swedish crowns (about one million US dollars). She is the first African woman to be awarded this prize. The Nobel Prize Committee in Oslo (2004) declaires, that Maathai stands at the forefront in the battle for an ecologically responsible, social, economic and cultural development in Kenya and Afrika as a whole. This is the first time, the Nobel Committee gives the prize to the issue protection of the environment!
During the regime of president Arap Moi, when corruption, torture and attacks on citizens were the rule of the day, she was able to get courageous environmental and democratic projects off the ground. In the beginning of the seventies, she founded the first environmental movement of Kenya, the ”Green Belt Movement”. Since 1977, she has motivated many thousands of poor women to plant about 30 million trees. However, the more successful her movement was, the more difficult became her own position. In 1991, the regime arrested her and she was ill-treated. More than once she was beaten up by the police when demonstrating. Once she had even to be brought to hospital. Wangari Maathai was the first female professor for veterinary anatomy and later the dean of her faculty at the university of Nairobi. Her resistance in 1998 against a building project to be carried out in the jungle and supported by president Moi, drew worldwide attention. Repeatedly, she went to court against the government to prevent deforestation. With the change of power at the end of 2002, she finally became deputy minister of the environment in the cabinet of the new president Mwai Kibaki. But the deforestation continued even in her own constituent area of Tetu. Wangari Maathai announced that she would rather give up her office than tolerate further deforestation. The Nobel Prize Committee stated, that the protection of forests to prevent desertification is an important factor in the struggle to strengthen our environment on the earth which we all share . ”Most conflicts in Africa are about the distribution and the access to the steadily decreasing raw materials”, says Maathai in an interview with the German magazine "Focus". We have to restore the natural basis and to manage everything in a sustainable and responsible way. People realize that problems like AIDS, war or erosion are symptoms of the deterioration of our environment. If we master the environmental problem, many other problems will simply disappear."(Wagner, 2004) 2.3 Mordechai Vanunu and the Secret which isn't Whistleblowing in the field of atomic policy is particularly dangerous. The atomic lobby and the armed forces don‟t tolerate any critics. This the Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu had to learn. He is still a prominent whistleblower. In 1986, Vanunu had leaked information about the Israeli nuclear plant Dimona to the London Sunday Times. Experts could conclude from it, that Israel is in fact a nuclear power and possesses more than one hundred atomic warheads. Vanunu was kidnapped by the Mossad and other western securities even before the explosive news was published, even though there had already been public information about Israel possessing atomic bombs in Time Magazine (1973). In a secret trial, he was sentenced as a traitor to his country and was kept in solitary confinement in Ashdod jail for 18 years. A great number of international organizations for human rights tried unsuccessfully to have him released. Even appeals by celebrities and Nobel Prize winners were unsuccessful. In the spring of 2004, he was released. In spite of cruel and barbaric treatment through the Mossad, it had not been possible to break him, said Vanunu. The release from prison was tied to incredibly harsh restrictions for him. He is not allowed to leave Israel and has to report any change of address. He is not allowed to use the Internet or a cell-phone. He may not come into the vicinity of any foreign embassy, may not contact any journalists, etc.
But Vanunu will not be intimidated. In the Arab daily newspaper 'El Hajat' he warned of the 40year old nuclear plant Dimona and of a “second Chernobyl” in Israel. In case of an accident, millions of people in Israel and the neighboring countries could be victims of radiation. Israel also still refuses to offer any details of her atomic weapons program. In the year 1969, Golda Meir and Richard Nixon made a deal: Israel would be allowed to have and produce nuclear weapons as long as she kept it secret. Up to this day, Israel is an inspection-free zone. Experts estimate that it has approximately 200 bombs and 400 atomic warheads. That Vanunu constitutes a real threat to the USA may be doubted. Israel is known to be an atomic power. The nuclear technique poses a genuine threat, warns Rotblat, that the survival of humanity can no longer be seen as guaranteed.. In spite of international agreements, the USA is producing a new kind of small atomic weapons. and intends to carry out nuclear tests in the atmosphere. The legacy of nuclear technology is the worldwide dissemination of radioactive substances. 2.4 The case of Nikitin – Environmentalist or Spy? Towards the end of the "Cold War" – when there were hardly any spies left – the Secret Service feared for their jobs. So they focused on environmentalists. The new slogan was "analytic espionage." One of the victims of the Russian Secret Service (FSB) was the former inspector-in-chief for nuclear safety of the Russian Navy, Alexander Nikitin from Petersburg. Like Vanunu, he was sentenced as an enemy of the state. The navy officer knew that he entered dangerous ground when he started studying the nuclear pollution of the Polar Sea. With incredible courage, he announced that the Russian Navy left Russian nuclear submarines in the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea to rot or sank them after accidents. Especially in danger were, so Nikitin, Murmansk and Archangelsk. In February of 1996, Nikitin was arrested by the FSB and put into solitary confinement for ten months. He had to endure nine court cases, always in fear of disappearing for 15 years in a prison or a labor camp as a traitor of his country. The public prosecutors' office used secret decrees in their work and for a long time refused the lawyers access to the documents. Nikitin became a famous whistleblower. His court proceedings were followed by representatives of the US Congress, the consulates of Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, as well as Amnesty International, the Norwegian environment protection organization Bellona and numerous other initiatives. Even Bill Clinton supported his cause. What helped him was the agitated mood in the population about the accident of the nuclear submarine "Kursk" on the 12 th of August 2000, which was armed with one of the very problematic weapon systems built in Russia. TV spectators worldwide had been able to sympathize with the relatives of the 118 sailors and knew that Russia's government had withheld relevant information. Finally, the Russian Supreme Court released Nikitin on 13 th of September, 2000. Today, Nikitin is a representative of Bellona in Petersburg and criticizes the basically problematic relations of the Russian State to non-governmental organizations. He always feels this hostile attitude they have towards environmentalists. In his lectures, Nikitin never tires to warn of the radioactive pollution in the Polar Sea and the poisoning of the foodchain.
The radioactive waste of the submarines of the Northern Fleet amounts to 14 000 m³ of solid substances and 10 000 m³ liquids, according to the estimate of the Norwegian-Russian environment protection movement Bellona. 2.3 Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon-Papers Courageous individuals being bearers of secrets have disclosed information about violations of the Law of Nations. One of them was Daniel Ellsberg, an advisor of the State Department during the term of President Richard Nixon. During the Vietnam-war, Daniel Ellsberg was an officer of the marine-corps. There, he went "through hell". The supporter of the war turned into a decided opponent. He is now one of the most well-known whistleblowers in America. He and his confidant Anthony Russo secretly copied 7000 pages of untruths written by the Government about the Vietnam war. A pretended torpedo-attack against an US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonking had been propagated as the cause of the war. So Congress could authorize President Lyndon B. Johnson to start a war as an answer to the North Vietnamese "provocation". They also read of the failings and mistakes of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the murder of the South Vietnamese President Diem, the attacks on Cambodia and Laos and the intention of Nixon to extend the war against Vietnam. This in spite of warnings by the US military command. Ellsberg passed the strictly confidential Pentagon Papers (The History of United States DecisionMaking Process on Viet Nam Policy ) on to the New York Times. When the renowned paper published the first part of the series on 13th of June 1971, they were threatened and forbidden to publish further details. Then, the Washington Post decided to withstand political pressure and to print the second part. In her autobiography, the publisher Katharin Graham reports the affair of State. Nixon called Ellsberg a "son of a bitch" and for Kissinger, he became the "State Enemy no. 1", while the political Right called him guilty of high treason. An ex-agent of the FBI put a gang of thugs on his trail and organized a burglary into the rooms of his psycho-analyst. But nothing scandalous was found. For the leftists, Ellsberg became a martyr. Ellsberg and Russo were spared a sentence and in April 1973, after 80 days trial, the case was closed. The exposure of the president's excuses and his insincerity in connection with the war in Vietnam helped them. Finially after Watergate Nixon fall in 1974. Yet, as if neither the Administration nor most of the public had learned anything from the catastrophe of the deception, recklessness and blatant aggression demonstrated in Iraq, just three years later Ellsberg sees the very same script being followed effectively to prepare the nation for an air attack against Iran. Among other disastrous consequences, such a new aggression, perhaps in company with Israel, will further inflame Muslim support for Al Qaeda by confirming its claims that the US is engaged in a broad war against Islam. 2.4 The "Little Soldier" Joseph M. Darby serving for a set Time In the spring of 2004, the torture scandal in the prison of Abu Ghraib near Baghdad became worldwide known. It was a case of systematic torture, rape of men and women, maltreatment and, in the end, also
murder. Those were no tragic isolated cases but had obviously been happening for a long time and with the knowledge or even on the command of those in higher ranks and in conformity with the service regulations. The objective of the torture was to prepare prisoners for interrogation and to break their will. Abdel Bassat Turki, a member of the Iraqi government council already knew in 2003 about Abu Ghraib. At first, nothing happened. The International Committee of the Red Cross (IKRK) had information and passed it on. The Swiss government cited the ambassadors of the USA and Great Britain and pointed out that the USA as well as the United Kingdom were bound by the Geneva Convention. This, too, went without any consequences. It was a little soldier, Joseph M. Darby, who first of all informed a superior, while remaining anonymous. Later, he was a witness and swore an oath. He passed the photographs of the maltreatments on because he did not want the cruelties to be continued. On them, sham executions of Iraqi prisoners could be seen, naked heaps of bodies, and a prisoner held on a leash like a dog. Darby is a hero. His family is proud of his courage. Even the US Minister of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, praised him during the hearing and called him the "hero of Abu Ghraib". And yet, in many the hatred of the Iraq is deep. For them, Darby is a traitor and a denigrator of his country. Somebody smeared on the fence of his house the word "Iraq". Somewhat later, Great Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, US President George W. Bush and his Minister of Defense Donald Rumsfeld excused themselves under the pressure. But legally prosecuted after this scandal were only some smaller charges. 2.2.10 George Carlo – from Saulus to Paulus After much discussion during the recent years about mismanagement and the pollution of water and soil as well as the global warming, the atmosphere is now also being adversely affected by numerous new technical processes. Besides industrial emissions and exhaust gases, the following technologies are posing heavy threats to our health: the mobile radio frequencies; HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), used for communication and the locating of flying objects and submarines by ELF (Extremely Low Frequencies); the Tetra-Hertz digital radio of the police and fire brigade, the Global Position System (the GPS-technique for the surveillance of satellites, microwave-weapons etc... these are partly technologies strongly threatening our health. Many tons of kerosene are let out into the atmosphere every year when jet planes are too heavy to land. The weather is manipulated by the use of chemicals like Barium- Titanium- and Aluminum-oxides sprayed into the clouds and then floating to the ground. Very much in the discussion at present is the cellular radio with its enormous market. The question of possible health risks caused through this technology is of course not very popular. In this context, some scientists in various countries have had to feel the power of the corporations. Dr. George Carlo in Washington also experienced this. He had established his own institute and he was the man having claimed that smoking wasn't all that damaging for our health after all. He obtained an order from 28 US telephone companies to examine the effects of cellular radio, being almost sure he would ascertain that the radiation of cell-phones was rather harmless. His research from 1993 until 1999 required the sum of 28 million dollars. Carlo set up his studies in a strictly scientific design. Nobody was to reproach his team of scientists, the wireless TechnologyResearch-Group (WTR) for having worked in an unscientific manner. The sad result of the study:
cell-phone users die more frequently of brain tumors than people who do not use them. Carlo was forbidden to publish the costly study. Later enterprises spent millions of Dollars to discredit him. In the international scene, some whistle blowers working on cellular radio either received no more money to continue their research, were sent to early retirement or lost their job because their research results displeased the cellular radio-lobby. 2.2.12 Thamasaroj, the "crazy dog" – "If only they had listened" The following tragic example shows that an early warning carries with it a number of major problems: The flood waves of the seaquake on 26 th December 2004, with its epicenter near the north-west coast of Sumatra, caused enormous devastations in the coastal regions of the Gulf of Bengal, the Andaman Sea and South Asia. It is said that about 270 000 people died in the Tsunami (Japanese: big harbor-wave). In East Africa, too, people lost their lives. Altogether five million inhabitants of the Indian Ocean coastal lands lost their homes. Many disappeared as nameless victims in mass graves. There were only ten or fifteen meters making the difference between life and deadly catastrophe. “Why”, asks the swiss „Neue Zürcher Zeitung‟ (Bangkok, 2005) few days after the tsunami, “wasn't at least a red alert given as quickly as possible, an alert given by sirens, television, radio, Internet and/or telephone? Why had no one phoned the BBC? If they had, a warning would have gone around the world in a matter of minutes. Even if this had been done just twenty minutes before the first Tsunami wave hit the coast, by some kind of action from the ever-present police in Thailand, for example, a great number of people could have been saved”. Gradually, it is becoming apparent that some scientists elsewhere in the world and numerous authorities were in a position to sound a warning. But out of a mixture of ignorance, bureaucra cy and the fear of a possible panic – perhaps also because of incompetence or fear of a possible false alarm – no one dared take the responsibility. For example, the earthquake in South East Asia was registered: In Hawaii,by the Pacific-Tsunami warning center In Vienna, by the organization Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). In the Indian Air force base on the Nicobar Islands via Madras. In the warning center in New Delhi In the seismic center in Golden, Colorado. The responsible people passed the information on to the White House and to Hawaii. In Sri Lanka,by the National Meteorological Bureau in Colombo In Bangkok in Thailand, government officials had been sent the news one hour before the wave hit. A conference was convened. But the gentlemen did not decide to send out an alert. One of the members of the conference disclosed that the decision was based on a desire not to harm tourism. Officially they declared that they had not been certain about the impending wave. He said that after a Tsunamiwarning on May 7th, 1986, the inner city of Honolulu had been evacuated, but the Tsunami never arrived. The estimated cost of the false alarm: 30 million dollars. The seaquake on 26 th of December 2004, measured nine on the Richter Scale. However, according to the regulations, warnings should be issued in the event of any quake measuring higher than six on the Richter Scale. There was a whistleblower. His name was Smith Thamasaroj (alias Samith Dharmasaroja). In the summer of 1998, Smith, as the boss of the Meteorological Department in Thailand, had predicted that the holiday paradise of Phuket in the Indian Ocean would surely, sooner or later, be struck by
a Tsunami due to tectonic tensions between the Indian-Australian continental plates and the Eurasian plate. Smith had studied electrical engineering in Vermont, USA. In the 1960s he returned to Thailand and made a career for himself with the Meteorological Services in Thailand. He became director of the services and undertook private studies in seismology because he had a special interest in earthquakes and Tsunamis. In China, he met experts in this field. Every Tsunami he studied had begun with an earthquake showing at least 7,4 on the Richter Scale. The meteorologists thought that the island of Sumatra would act as a shield and that therefore there was little chance that a Tsunami would hit Phuket. Smith was of a different opinion and developed disturbing theories. Although a Tsunami was, at that time, not seen as a danger to Thailand, his data led him to the conclusion that a Tsunami disaster would be unavoidable. The media published this prediction by Smith not as a theory but as an actual announcement. It led to a panic, to traffic accidents and grave consequences for the tourism branch: 10 000 tourists checked out or cancelled their holiday... so it is reported. Smith was harshly criticized by members of the government. After the Tsunami several Newspapers in Thailand and international quoted Smith: ‟At that time everyone said, I was a mad, mad dog. If only they had listened.‟ Smith was sent into early retirement. From the hotel industry, he received open threats of murder should he dare to set foot on the island again. One year before, the Prime Minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, had heavily criticized the meteorologists because the tourism industry had unnecessarily been troubled by a warning of a disaster that never came. Thailand had not had any Tsunamis for the last 300 years and there wouldn't be any in the near future, said Thaksin. It was the declared policy of the Prime Minister and his government to support tourism along the entire coastline. This Sunday, the 26 th of December 2004, Smith had unsuccessfully tried to warn the Department of Meteorology in Thailand. Smith later went to Phuket to have a look at the destruction. The Prime Minister called him back from his retirement and installed him as a personal advisor to the Government. The seventy-year old is now carrying through what he had proposed in 1998, and he is to play a part in setting up a Tsunami early warning system for the Indian Ocean. This example shows how difficult it can be to assume such great responsibility at the right moment and in the right place, and to give a red alert. There have been several false alarms for the Indian Ocean. The responsibility perhaps seemed too enormous for the meteorologists, and so not a single authority warned the countries bordering the Indian Ocean. However, there had existed an order to pass a warning on if an earthquake measured six or higher on the Richter Scale. The assessment of the disaster is multi-faceted. Apart from the fate of the thousands of people killed, the Tsunami has endangered the ecological balance, already destabilized, and not just in the coastal regions of Indonesia. This shows the importance of installing an early warning system just as Smith had wanted to. Many ecologists point out that the climate change, harmful substances and the overexploitation of the natural resources have already done enormous harm to the sea and the coastline. A healthy environment would have been able to stop the flood wave. But most of the coral reefs and the extensive mangrove forests of the tropical coasts are already destroyed. They could have weakened the impact of the waves. The shrimp farms, intensive tourism and the construction of hotel complexes on the beach have contributed to the ecological degradation. For Indonesians, it was previously seen as too dangerous to
settle down very close to the beach, but the country has been subject to the pressures of a materialistic society. The Indonesian rain forest, too, belongs to the most endangered jungle forests of the world. It will take vast amounts of wood to rebuild the houses. Hopefully tourism, which thus far, has brought more harm than good, will develop in a more ecologically-friendly and less damaging way. Donations of wood from other countries may also help to prevent more ecological damage. 2.3 Whistleblowing inside Enterprises and Authorities The state is trying to silence whistleblowers, but corporations and smaller enterprises are also often rough in their dealings with people who point out problems or corruption, be it internally or externally. The expert knowledge and efficiency of the "traitor" are called into question. He becomes a troublemaker, is seen as disloyal, and is allegedly endangering the jobs of his colleagues. Many whistleblowers are slandered and humiliated, their motives are under suspicion. The supposed troublemaker is excluded, put under pressure and even threatened. Co-workers often do not show solidarity with the whistleblower either but prefer to observe things from a distance. Even those colleagues who were his friends and shared his opinion now turn away as the pressure on him builds up. At home among the family, there may be difficult discussions and soulsearching about whether or not the risk to career, family and friendship is worth it. Especially in times of high unemployment, the question of ethics and responsibility is likely to be pushed into the background and concerns about job security take priority. If the management does not succeed in resolving the conflict within the company, they will still make every effort to prevent public exposure. On the political level, lobbyists will create the "right" basic conditions, and finally, economic pressure in various degrees is applied. In order to suppress opposing viewpoints, strong measures are used. The threat, for instance, that no more advertisements will be ordered in case an unwanted article is to be published or broadcast. Should this still not help and the script be published, an expert biased in favor of the institute or combine will publish a counter argument according to the proverb "he who pays the piper calls the tune." Powerful concerns and enterprises often use the threat of high legal costs. Their claimed damages caused by loss of prestige are calculated in enormous sums of money, in hundred of thousands of Euro, if not millions. No wonder that many whistleblowers, in the face of squadrons of well-paid lawyers representing the interests of the industry, give up instead of following their conscience. But the Psychologist Werner Bierhoff, Professor of Bochum University does not want to miss whistleblowing in modern enterprises. He sees whistleblowing as a spontaneous act of helpfulness. Employees are encouraged to actively think where qualities like politeness, friendliness and honesty are required. It is an advantage for the company when employees concentrate on the wishes of customers and point out technical shortcomings to the management. For those enterprises developing technologies that are carrying risks, or where risks are included in a production process, whistleblowing is an absolute necessity. This is because the suppression of problems may lead to scandals and discredit the enterprise. These are aspects which deserve more attention. In addition to the moral prerequisites of the individual, institutional and economic conditions too are decisive for the success. Seen in this context, an openminded attitude and a well-reflected corporate culture should be in the foreground. So-called "open systems" are more humane, more effective and more successful. Therefore, whistleblowing should be a part of modern management concepts.
2.4 Whistleblowing in the Case of State Secrets. Whistleblowers who reveal strictly kept state secrets or secrets of the military sector are especially endangered. Israel wishes to be unassailable through its atomic weapons. The knowledge alone, or more precisely the assumption of the existence of nuclear weapons is intended to intimidate potential assailants of Israel and so prevent a second Holocaust .. Russia has no idea of how to dispose of its atomic waste and would like to continue to dump it in the sea. All risks to life and health as well as the danger of proliferation seem to be of secondary importance to this state. The state uses the following means as deterrents: secret negotiations; Secret decrees, ordinances and laws which are known only to the security services and the secret service; charges for offences which were never perpetrated; the removal or leaving out of consideration of such material that could be used for the defense of the accused; the withholding of papers from the accused and his defense counsel; witnesses being manipulated, bought or put under pressure to give false evidence. strong psychological pressure being exerted to such a degree that the whistleblower withdraws his statements or even commits suicide. In the worst case: the whistleblower or witnesses disappear. Instead of eliminating the problem, these illegal and brutal measures sometimes act as boomerangs. Attempts to use psychological terror and physical violence against protesters following their own conscience will provoke indignation in the public and bring them to the side of the whistleblower. Resistance develops and further inquiries are demanded. Often there will be a scandal and the conflict escalates. The background of the case is divulged and spread worldwide by the media and the Internet. The Pentagon Papers eventually led to a change of government, and Tony Blair nearly tripped up over the David Kelly affair. US Minister of Defense Donald Rumsfeld twice offered to resign because of the Abu Ghraib affair. The Prime Minister of Thailand, Thaksin, was prosecuted for his conduct in connection with the Tsunami-disaster. It is only a question of time until resistance forms. In this way, the prestige of the State is harmed. People will say, that "the government is corrupt", "Russia is not ready for democracy". Or, in the West: "The economy is dominating politics", or: "Politicians only care about their private financial interests." "The military do not respect the Geneva Convention." "The courts are not independent." 3. Civil Courage 3.1. Civil Courage and Conscience Everyone who discovers intolerable dangers and makes them public, who is non-conformist and does not show „politically correct‟ behavior needs courage. He or she risks a lot and puts his or her career or even his or her existence in danger. Civil courage means to be brave and not to change your viewpoint even if some people are openly against it. It means to stand up for yourself and others, for a good cause and to open your mouth when you witness a wrongdoing.
Civil courage can happen in the street, too, when helping a homeless person being attacked by skinheads. Civil courage can mean rescuing someone out of the cold sea or a burning house. It is not necessarily contrary to public opinion or the values of the established societies, nor does it have to have judicial consequences. Civil courage is first and foremost an act of caring for other people and the environment. How do people develop civil courage? Is it the ability to listen to an inner voice, the conscience, that tells you what to do and what is good or bad? Even people who denied their responsibilities at first can later become unhappy and develop psychological damage because of their bad conscience. A professor from Munich, Kurt Singer, used the examples of two pilots who participated in the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima on 6th of August 1945 (that killed more than 140 000 people and more than 10 000 in its aftermath). The one pilot, Mayor Claude Eatherley, tried to commit suicide several times, sent money to Hiroshima and committed bizarre crimes. He forged checks (for small amounts), broke into a store but stole nothing, then broke into a mail office leaving the cash register untouched. The “hero of Hiroshima” became the “crazy Hiroshima pilot”. He felt happier in prison because guilt he could relieve his feelings by being punished. The other pilot committed suicide on the anniversary of the bombing. Nobody can tell precisely what psychological damage soldiers, both winners and losers, may suffer from a war, the professor says. Civil courage means listening to your conscience and acting accordingly. How does such an attitude develop? That is what Kurt Singer and Wolfgang Heuer (Editor of the international “Hannah Arendt Newsletter”) wanted to know. Wolfgang Heuer (2002) asked 35 people from Eastern Germany about civil courage and analyzed their answers based on the qualitative social research. Those people had all shown civil courage in important situations and were victims of repression because of that. Heuer found out that the inner drive to show civil courage requires a certain respect for others and some sensitivity. But normally, courageous behavior is driven by personal motives rather than by the wish to help others, he explains. What is important to life has priority. Courageous behavior is intuitive and not rational. It helps to create an „inner balance‟ and does not come from a sudden decision to obey ethics and morals or because courage as a great value requires a certain behavior. Therefore, writes Heuer, civil courage cannot be acquired in „crash courses‟. 3.2. Learning Civil Courage from Role Models Singer points out the educational aspect and calls upon the responsible people of educational institutions to teach civil courage as a behavior that is worth acquiring. Singer claims that it can in fact be learned. People who stand up for something unselfishly, most likely grew up in a protected surrounding. Where problems are discussed within the family and the opinions of kids are respected. Where the children were raised to make their own decisions. At least one parent or another person was remembered as socially responsible and exemplary. There are kids who show civil courage early on. Singer reports about the writer Erich Fried and the German resistance fighter Sophie Scholl. Fried was already brave as a six year old. On the 15 th of July 1927 the police in Vienna attacked rallying workers. One police officer and 86 workers died. Fried writes: “My mother and I went to downtown Vienna this day. Since the streets were closed because of the strike, we found shelter in a store. Through the window, I saw people carrying dead and wounded workers. Shortly after that posters of the author Karl Kraus, directed to the police chief, were put up, which stated: „I ask you to resign!‟ Of course, the „Bloody Friday‟ was debated for weeks.
It was my first year at school. On Christmas, I was supposed to recite a poem in our school auditorium. On stage, I heard someone say that the police chief was one of the guests. I stepped up to the front of the stage, made a bow and said, in the best manner: „Ladies and Gentleman! I cannot recite my Christmas poem. I just heard that the police chief is here today. I was in downtown Vienna on the „Bloody Friday‟ and saw those corpses. I cannot recite a poem before Dr. Schober!‟ – I bowed again and stepped back. The police chief jumped up and left the auditorium. I then said: „Now I can recite my poem.‟ 27 The boy received a big applause. Erich Fried‟s role model was probably his mother because he did not get along so well with his father…(Fried 1993) Another example is Sophie Scholl. She and her brother were members of the resistance group “Weiße Rose” (White Rose) against the Hitler regime. She was beheaded at the age of 22. After Stalingrad was recaptured by the Russians on the 18 th of February 1943, she dropped flyers against the Nazi government from the gallery of the University of Munich which told the Germans to resist the Nazis and renew Germany with a “reasonable socialism” in a federal republic. She fought against the indifference of the people. People should not wait for someone else, nobody would start, she warned. Sophie was a quiet and rather shy girl. Why was she so courageous, Singer asks? She grew up in a tolerant home. The children‟s opinions were respected, even if they opposed the parents. Their father encouraged them not to believe without criticism what grown-ups tell them. There were a lot of discussions about politics and books. To act in a courageous way does not mean to be fearless. Only if you admit your fears you can develop courage and strive for social changes. Fear makes us recognize the dangers which we have to confront and protect ourselves from. Therefore it is important to recognize fear to be able to deal with it. 4. Whistleblowing 4.1. Reaction out of Disappointment In dictatorships, people who rebel or blow the whistle are often treated like spies, traitors or collaborators. They are sent to a mental institution or imprisoned and have to face torture or even the death sentence. People who make uncomfortable truths public are still treated as traitors. There are rules that whistleblowers should obey, if they do not want to end up as martyrs. Many are naive and make severe mistakes. They think that if they tell the truth, everyone will react immediately. When this does not happen, whistleblowers write complaints to the authorities, the President, the government, etc. But they forget that mostly, the recipient is not interested in their matters, and has enough other work to take care of. Often, those letters end up in the waste bin. If whistleblowers begin to get annoying or offensive, the authorities often threaten to send them to a psychiatrist. 4.2 Successful Whistleblowing Social scientist Dr. John A. Riolo from Rhode Island, USA, advises people resisting for ethical reasons to act like chess players. He says that a whistleblower has to be completely sure of what he is doing. He has to plan ahead for up to seven steps in any case. Some strategic moves will get one closer to one‟s goal and some are supposed to confuse one‟s opponent. Or it is like in a poker game: Not only does one have to know all the cards in one‟s hand but also the cards that have already been played. One should also hold back one‟s anger, one‟s emotions and respect the opponents, Riolo writes on his Website:
„ ….it‟s important to understand the other side‟s position. Empathize with them. Most of your opponents are just as honorable as you and believe that they are just as right as you are however they don‟t agree with you. Be prepared to play devil‟s advocate. You should be able to argue the other side‟s position just as effectively as you argue your own position and those who don‟t know you should not be able know the difference. Understand the weaknesses of your own position. If you are not aware of them, it is almost assured your opponent will and uses them against you. It‟s better to assume that your opponent is smarter than you think. If your opponent turns out to be a fool then it is a walk in the park. However if you underestimate your opponent, you could be knocked out of the park and the game. Don‟t demonize your opponent. Odds are that those on the other side are as decent human beings as you. The only difference is they don‟t agree with you and they want you to see things their way. Don‟t make it personal. Never lie, deceive give false facts. Not only is it unethical but also if your opponent finds out and they most likely will, your cause and your reputation are damaged, perhaps permanently. It‟s OK to get angry at your opponent. But, focus your anger where it will do the most good. Control your anger and let it work for you, not control you. (Riolo, http://www.psychjourney.com/Advocacy%20Series.htm)
Dr. Donald Soeken from Maryland, USA, is a popular advisor for whistleblowers. He is often guest expert in the media, too. He warns bosses of whistleblowers, to make no mistake. If they have to be silent, we'll sooner or later pay a tragic price for it, he writes. (Soeken 1988) But whistleblowers have to expect hard times when they publicize a secret. Soeken tries to prepare people who are looking for help by, for example, showing them ho to deal with slander. He points out that this might cost a lot of money and require patience and time and mentions possible judicial consequences. The studies about the situation of whistleblowers which Soeken and his wife made, are very interesting. In a study about whistleblowers Soeken found out: Two thirds of whistleblowers lose their job. Their colleagues do not talk to them anymore. 81% feel isolated and helpless and 78% become very suspicious. 66% have financial difficulties. 19% have problems with their families. But they would still blow the whistle again. They feel good afterwards, even though they have suffered. Only 10% of whistleblowers regret what they have done. (Soeken K. & Soeken, D., 1987) 4.3. What you should know about Whistleblowing – the ABC of Whistleblowing The message is important, not the messenger. The spotlight is often on the messenger and not on the message. The public, the media and the authorities focus on him, concentrate on his motivation, analyze his behavior in a judiciary and psychological way and often say that the whistleblower acted selfishly . This way, they can distract from the important topic. Whenever irregularities and corruption in the corporations, the EU Commission or other institutions were made public, they first looked for the holes the information had leaked through. Precautions are better than repairs. In future, it will be better to find solutions for the small and great catastrophes which conscientious people have uncovered. Insider knowledge makes a whistleblower especially credible and competent. Even if unplanned investments become necessary and everything seems complicated: the problem has to be dealt with. Not dealing with it might increase the risk
and the damage and eventually grows into a scandal. The enterprise or authorities suffer a bad image and sometimes the good image can't be restored. Loyalty does not have to be uncritical If someone who fails to intervene to stop criminal or dangerous behavior he can become guilty himself. Loyalty doesn't mean to accept everything without questioning it. False harmony and peaceableness are no alternative. Most whistleblowers identify themselves very strongly with the enterprise and want responsibilities. The great majority of whistleblowers thinks of themselves as loyal. They want no harm for their company. It is bad for an enterprise or the authorities to be involved in criminal activities. A 'critical loyalty' is crucial. Bierhoff remarks at an International Psychologist‟s Congress in Munic 1996, that whistleblowing is not disloyal. It would be a sensitive indicator for problems instead. Great loyalty to an institution includes a high probability of whistleblowing. Employees proposing practical and environmentally friendly steps should be supported and information about the negative effects of certain products not be suppressed, says Bierhoff. Whistleblowers are often isolated There is the threat of retributions. If they go public to inform about potential dangers, obstacles will be placed in their path. But resistance can be a duty in some cases. If an enterprise doesn't allow complaints about criminal or dangerous practices or products it can lead to an 'internal quitter-mentality'. The co-workers lose their motivation, they resign and hand over their responsibility is the experience of Klaus M. Leisinger. He is Professor for Continued Development and Developmental Sociology at the University of Basel, Switzerland and an Expert for Whistleblowing.(Leisinger 2003) False news Enterprises and administrations should allow for a thorough cleaning up without the need for pressuring. Even when a whistleblower's concerns prove to be wrong, he shouldn't be punished, if he can show that he believed he had serious reasons to raise the alarm. When he justifiably denounces corruption or irregularities he shouldn't have the burden of a 100% proof. The integrity of the „ethical resistor‟ and substantial evidence should be enough. Internal or external whistleblowing A whistleblower should, if the superior is not corrupt, try to solve the problem internally. It is very important to know who to talk to. The hierarchy of the institution has to be taken in consideration, too. “In institutions which seem to react positively and responsibly to criticism and actually stop the reported anomalies, the probability of internal whistleblowing increases. Businesses with an open structure where employees identify themselves with the aims of the corporation promote internally expressed criticism.” (Leisinger 2003) Only if internal whistleblowing is without success, a whistleblower should turn to higher ranks or the media to apply pressure from the outside. “The probability of external whistleblowing is higher in a strictly hierarchical, authoritarian type of business. If employees are confident that their superiors take reasonable criticism serious, external criticism becomes unlikely and constructive internal criticism becomes a normal procedure.”(Leisinger 2003) Anonymous Whistleblowing
Anonymous whistleblowing is controversial. If someone lacks the courage to go public, his message may not be taken seriously. Assumptions about the possible traitor are made. And everything will be done to find out who is behind it. Only one known whistleblower managed to stay anonymous for many years. In the June 2005 issue of the magazine Vanity Fair, 91 year old Mark Felt, formerly a high-profile FBI agent, revealed himself after 33 years: "I am the guy, they called Deep Throat." (O‟Connor 2005) He gave information about the Watergate affair and the criminal wheelings and dealings of Nixon to the two journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post. He had always declared - even to his family - to have been loyal to the Nixon administration. Ombudspersons and mediators Things for whistleblowers and business are easier if there are ombudspersons or mediators. If it is for the good of business and society, both sides can try to analyze the conflict objectively and work out solutions together. Messages can be wrong. Not every information given is solid and verifiable. Highly important information always have to be researched carefully and later be examined by independent experts before they can be regarded as reliable.
4.4 Protection laws for whistleblowers 4.4.1 Legality, illegality, legal illegality The ethics of the whistleblower are not always identical with the predominant ethics. Leisinger writes: “While the illegality of an action is clearly defined by laws and its interpretations, it is very difficult to define the legitimacy of actions being part of whistleblowing. In addition to the common values, legitimacy is also defined by a whistleblower's morals and his personal situation.”(Leisinger 2003) Problematic is when laws don't cover moral values or when interpretations of fundamental laws are dominated by lobby interests. With the moral ideals of society being defined by the global economy and consumerism, fundamental laws and human rights are often diluted by neoliberal theories. The technological development has literally exploded and the lawmakers cannot keep up. It does not seem likely that there has been a great effort to do that, though. 4.4.2 Protection of Whistleblowers A state protecting its whistleblowers by law can show that it values ethics. So whistleblowers may be less afraid when raising alarm. They can endure the consequences with more confidence. Those laws do not only protect unpopular messengers but also serve as a warning for potentially criminal officials, employees and civilians. Guy Dehn, director of the organization Public Concern at Work (UK), Louis Clark and Tom Devine, directors of the Government Accountability Project (USA), witnessed the great effect that these laws can have. Their organizations have already won spectacular cases. But lawmakers can't regulate everything. A law can't always count more than morals. Laws can't guarantee a complete protection anyway. A state and its administration can‟t see everything. It rather tends to be complacent and tries to maintain its hierarchy. But if laws do exist, they have to be implemented, often against public opinion.
4.4.3 Sarbanes-Oxley Act According to the regulations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, employees who uncover business crime or other kinds of economical misconduct have a right to judicial protection for the first time in history. This Act is a milestone, because it forces enterprises to show responsibility towards its shareholders and employees. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is binding for all business on the American stock market. Even a European employee who works for a multi-national company can refer to it - as long as its stocks are traded on the American stock market. The main points of this law include: Securing the freedom of speech and the protection by law when uncovering business misconduct that could endanger the funds of shareholders. The introduction of administrative regulations and emergency measures for the protection of employees and orderly proceedings when the suspicion of pestering is raised. The right to a trial in an American district court, if there has been no administrative decision after 180 days. The abolition of antiquated rules of the burden of proof for administrative hearings and court cases. (The number of cases that were ruled in favor of the defendant increased from 2-5% to 30%) Prison sentences of up to 10 years for discrimination and mobbing. Non-governmental organizations like the Government Accountability Project had fought many years for the possibility to guarantee whistleblowers a swift and fair procedure to secure their rights. Employees who have won such a trial are entitled to extensive compensations. That includes a rehiring to their earlier job, indemnification, compensatory damages and compensation of court and lawyer fees.
4.4.4 Military Whistleblower Protection Act, USA In the beginning of the 1990s, a law was passed in the USA that ensures whistleblower protection for members of the US military who work for the justice department or in the field of criminal prosecution. However, this law doesn't protect people serving within the "chain of command", i.e. not regular soldiers. Since most whistleblowers are from within the "chain of command", the value of this law is questionable. A new law which will soon be put in effect will also cover military personnel from the "chain of command". This change is a direct response to the prison scandal of Abu Ghraib. It was at first thought that the whistleblower Joseph Darby, who uncovered the torturing, did not follow the rules of this hierarchy. But it was discovered later that he turned to another officer and could then claim protection by the law. The whistleblower organization Government Accountability Project (GAP) intensively dealt with the protection of whistleblowers from the Multilateral Development Bank (MDB) and the World bank and proposed a bill that became law as a part of the International Financial Institutions Act in January of 2004. This act defines detailed goals for US politics in regard to the transparency and the responsibility when dealing with MDBs and the protection of whistleblowers. This law states that the processing of complaints for the protection of employees is mandatory. GAP observes the development and works for an implementation of this law. 4.4.5 The "Public Interest Disclosure Act", UK
The English whistleblower law, the "Public Interest Disclosure Act", is part of the existing labor law. An employee who has lost his job or suffered other repressions because he passed on information that indicate a crime, a breaking of the law, an error of justice, the endangerment of a person's health or security or environmental damage, can claim compensation before an industrial tribunal. He must have acted in an unselfish way and be convinced that he was doing a good thing. It doesn't necessarily have to be correct. The main idea of this law is to promote so-called "protected disclosures" within the enterprise. The "Public Interest Disclosure Act" also offers protection if authorities or the media have been alerted because of the suspicion that evidence might be destroyed or other disadvantages might occur. 5. Social Peace 5.1 The Sensitivity of life Processes Technological innovations of powerful companies promise great margins. But should life with its sensitive, complex, differentiated and interlocking processes, adapt to all of this? "We can't improve the world" says Lutzenberger in his speeches around the globe again and again. The more people there are on this earth, the more important it is to care for peace, social justice and the dignity of humans. When only the maximizing of profits is essential and multinational companies move virtually three billion Dollars around every day, this seems a grotesque process that doesn't serve life in any way. When so-called 'top managers' fire people and they themselves get huge amounts of money as compensations, the social peace is undermined. These are basically just signs of hopelessness and, seemingly, helplessness that have captured the powerful people. Luck can't be bought. They, their kids and their grandchildren can be victims of residual risks, too. 5.2 Peter Ustinov in Davos The famous actor Peter Ustinov, who died in 2004, was an extraordinary personality. He was humorous, optimistic and courageous. He reported, on the occasion of the millennium celebrations at the 'Club of Budapest', about a deprived political and economical elite: "The powerful can't escape their prisons. That's in the nature of things. I don't know where the mistake was, when I was invited to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in 1999. I was very surprised. The astonishing thing was to see the most powerful people of the world, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Bill Gates and all those extraordinary people talk about their imprisonment. They appeared to report about their self created incarceration and how miserable they feel, without knowing how to get out of it. When I recognized that, I suddenly felt an incredible relief. I didn't get an invitation a year later. After the meeting in Davos, I wrote a column in a newspaper which stated that Jesus threw the moneylenders out of the temple 200 years ago and I advised readers that nowadays, when the money-lenders own the temples, it might be wiser to go to the World Economic Forum to Davos and find out how they're doing. Right now, the old form of democracy, which is entirely built upon elections is collapsing. Elections can't influence people's opinions. The people have a mind of their own. The national boarders have vanished from our consciousness. We can communicate internationally via the internet. The prejudices we acquired when we were kids vanish, too. Even a single person can influence politics."(Bultmann 2001)
5.3 A new Security Because of the attacks of September 11 th of 2001, security has once again become a world wide topic. It is understood as a protection from terror and brutality, that is supposed to be guaranteed by the military and the international collaboration of police and intelligence agencies. In the new "State of the World" report with the topic "Redefining Global Security", the Worldwatch Institute points out how important it is to recognize and understand how worldwide poverty, the destruction of the environment and terrorism are interrelated. Terrorism can only be fought by reducing the gap between the rich and the poor and stopping the destruction of the environment which effects mostly the poor people. Klaus Milke of Germanwatch, the German division of Worldwatch is urgently convinced, that we need a new understanding of the term „security‟. The wrong consumption and production habits as well as a failed energy policy are already creating extreme weather situations. There are many victims and a lot of damage, and it will get even worse. People need security and the confidence that the political elite will seriously deal with the great questions of a lasting economy and a safe future for our children and the generations to come. 5.4 Whistleblowing as an „early warning system‟ for a healthy economy Whistleblowers can avert impending dangers if they are included in political and economical processes. Even if the conflict surrounding a whisleblower is mainly political, like in the cases of Vanunu, Nikitin, Ellsberg or Darby, this is after all about the life and well-being of humanity and nature. Trying to build a lasting economy on the destruction of forests (the lungs of the earth), the pollution of water or the destruction of thousands of years old genetic make-ups is absurd. If the Peace Nobel Price winner Maathai initiates the planting of 30 000 trees, the Kenyan economy can grow. If the soil is not contaminated by radiation, the economy can make sufficient supplies. If - as Eguiazu demands it technologies are being tested for their risk potential before they enter the market and if people are not misused as test dummies, the economy can grow. And when Frentzel-Beyme brings to notice that unhealthy working conditions in a pharmaceutical company need to be improved in order to prevent the premature death of its employees. People are much more content when something is actually done about all this. They will be better workers. When the earth, the water and the air are clean, life will prosper. 5.5 Creating a Culture of Civil Courage. Whistleblowing and civil courage have to be integrated in the democratic process. "Especially the ability to improve is significant for a democratic society. We have to live with the difficulties and imperfections of democracy. The preservation of our peaceful 'living together', the prevention of force against the weak and the prevention of discrimination of minorities in this society are tasks of every active citizen in a democracy. […] Cultural changes result in a new way of thinking in the public, to improve the situation", said Guy Dehn from Public Concern at Work (PCaW), at the International Whistleblower Congress at Lake Starnberg, 2003. Time magazine gave an impulse for cultural change when it named the women Sherron Watkins, Cynthia Cooper and Coleen Rowley "Heros Of The Year 2002". The magazine has been picking the "people of the year" for 60 years. It dedicated 40 pages to these whistleblowers, who risked their jobs and exposed the three biggest political and corporate scandals in 2001 and 2002. The "detectives of the truth" are the two managers Sherron Watkins, who worked for Enron, and Cynthia Cooper, of Worldcom, and the FBI special agent Coleen Rowley. Those three "reminded the country of its 'truly American' values by unselfishly making severe corruption in their organizations public out of their own
feeling of responsibility." (Time Magazin 2002-12-30) Rowly tried in vain to convince her superior that the case of Zacarias Moussaoui ( the so-called „20th attacker‟) had to be looked at more carefully. Vice president Cooper uncovered a big scandal in the telecommunication company and Vice president Watkins told their superiors about big financial irregularities in their balance sheets and the confidence of investors in corporate governance in the U.S. and far beyond. The article about three women in the Time magazine had a big echo in Europe, too. There, NGOs like PCaW, the Fairness Foundation and the Ethikschutz-Initiative (Ethics Protection Initiative) try to bring whistleblowing into the public discussion. The initiative for a cultural change has to be as much political as social. It will take a lot more work from churches, the government, NGOs and civilians. There should also be more sincere conscience in the media for ethical conduct, serving social peace in society. The media have to preserve their freedom of speech. Even if it is a matter of millions: the argumentation of companies producing risky products can not just be copied. Whistleblowers who serve the common good are role models and should be portrayed as such. They should not just be used as informants but they should be celebrated as "ethical resistors". Hopefully, other European countries will follow England and create a law for the protection of whistleblowers soon. 5.6 Awards and Rewards for whistleblowers Civil courage and whistleblowing must be regarded as admirable behavior and should be rewarded. Prizes and awards should be granted by educational institutions which are as desirable as good grades for intellectual work. Whoever speaks out unselfishly in favor of health, life and social peace cannot be a traitor. Not even when he is up against influential lobbies, loses his job or is imprisoned. He is, as the Time magazine points out, a hero!