In recent months, several Western multinational companies have elected to halt the purchase of agricultural products from Southeast Asia.
The companies - which include household names such as Unilever and Nestl* - have hastily caved in to political pressure from environmental groups and European labor and business interests.
But these companies' decision has been based on false and misleading information. And unless they revisit their actions, they threaten to do lasting harm to the people of Indonesia, to the global environment, and to their customers around the world.
The products in question include palm oil, and pulp and paper products that are produced in Indonesia. The companies are responding to claims by Greenies like Greenpeace, WWF and the Rainforest Action Network. These eco-activists allege that the industrial production of these goods excessively harms biodiversity, rain forests, wildlife as well as indigenous people and culture.
These claims are false. And as we'll see, coming from organizations based primarily in Europe, they are also insulting. Indonesia in the last two generations has become the world's leading producer of palm oil and the raw goods used for paper and wood products.
During that time, these sectors have created work for more than 30 million people - about twice the entire population of Unilever's home country The Netherlands. And hundreds of millions of consumers around the world benefit from these products that are high in quality and low in cost. It's important to note that these industrial developments in Southeast Asia have occurred well after the Western world industrialized.
People in this region have learned from the ecological mistakes and abuses of Europe, the United States and other now-developed regions. Responding to concerns raised at landmark environmental summits in Rio and elsewhere, Indonesia has pioneered practices designed to protect the environment while permitting sustainable economic development to unfold. As a result, over one quarter of Indonesian land is set aside for conservation.
No Western nation can boast such a commitment to their domestic environment. Malaysia is similarly ecologically minded. Southeast Asia are pursuing a development strategy exactly as those pursued by wealthy Western nations.
The nations in this region permit industrial and agricultural development in certain limited areas. This fosters badly needed jobs and economic growth while providing products for global markets. All the while, the commitments to the environment have not wavered.
Indeed, they have strengthened over time as incomes in these countries have risen - a good reason to support and deepen trade with developing countries. The region is the planet's poster child for genuine sustainable development in action.
These facts are never mentioned by the environmentalists pressuring Western multinationals to stop purchasing products from Southeast Asia. Indeed, with no evidence to back up the radical environmental claims, the multinationals caved in to the "Greenmail" campaign in an attempt to protect their reputation in their home markets.
They never stopped to consider how this decision would affect their Indonesian trading partners, the various member companies of organizations such as the Indonesian Palm Oil Association or companies like Sinar Mas, one of Indonesia's leading palm oil, and pulp and paper companies. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the livelihoods of the tens of millions of people for which these industries provide hope and opportunity matter little to the radical environmentalists.
After all, socialists always care more about humanity as an abstraction than about the fate of real human beings. It is unforgivable, though, that Unilever and Nestl* didn't stop to consider the evidence (or lack thereof) before taking a decision that would affect the fate of millions of Indonesian workers. Unless they change, consumers in Indonesia and elsewhere in Asia will be unlikely to forgive them.
Why did they overlook Indonesia's commitment to the environment? There are two possible reasons. One is that most of these groups are headquartered in Europe and the United States, and as such they have very little familiarity with the region. Another reason is more complicated but certainly plays a role.
European and other Western producers of competing products, such as rapeseed oil or American paper, are hostile to trade with outsiders. As a result they are pressuring governments, NGOs and the media to oppose goods imported from developing countries and to protect domestic markets.
There are some glimmers of hope that common sense will prevail. A new group in Germany called Okowatch is now investigating these Greenmail campaigns launched against Western multinationals by environmental groups. Public opinion appears to be turning against the radical green groups in Europe in reaction to their anti-development smear tactics and wild use of EU tax money.
And following mass protests by desperate farmers - which included the destruction of a Greenpeace outpost in Indonesia by native landholders - and complaints from their former trading partners, Unilever and Nestl* announced late last month that they would ask for an independent review of the environmental impact of palm oil production in Indonesia.
It obviously raises the question why they didn't ask for this review in the first place before taking such a monumental decision, and suggests that the decision was really motivated only by the intimidation campaign organized by the radical environmental lobby.
That said, if the outcome of the review is that both companies decide to re-establish the contracts with their Indonesian suppliers that would of course be a good thing. They could then work together to create sustained economic growth and opportunities on both sides of the globe, leaving the likes of Greenpeace (and WWF) in the dust.
The writer is a columnist with Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, and editor of Dutch internet magazine De Dagelijkse Standaard"
