Has anybody been following this story ? Thirty Greenpeace activists try to occupy a Russian oil rig in defiance of the law and every principle of common sense. They've now been arrested and they face charges of piracy which could send them to prison for up to 15 years. Does anybody have any sympathy for them ?

I have to say my sympathies lie primarily with the Russians. Greenpeace has this insufferably arrogant sense of entitlement whereby they seem to think that any kind of action they take is both morally correct and justified by virtue of some kind of 'right to protest', which apparently means they should be free to engage in acts that range from trespass to criminal damage to (in this case) piracy and never have to face the consequences. We typically indulge them here in the West but the Russians are much less sentimental when it comes to showboating do-gooders interfering with their vital strategic assets.

These 30 protesters should have known the risks before they set off on such a hazardous publicity stunt. Greenpeace management should have thoroughly briefed them on the legal ramifications. If that didn't take place then serious questions have to be asked about Greenpeace. Why did they send 30 naive young people away on a mission which they must have known would land them in a Russian prison ?

Perhaps the extreme agenda is more important to Greenpeace than the health and well being of it's supporters?

Nope, no sympathy here.

Sass, while what the activists did was perhaps foolish, I think you are too quick to judge them - and seems you have a chip about Greenpeace itself which is clouding the issue a bit.

Not sure it really was 'piracy' as you state - Putin has said it wasn't, for a start, and while that is the most serious charge that can be applied it doesn't mean it has merit. Piracy is violence or robbery at sea. I've seen no evidence that the Greenpeace activists used violence or tried to steal anything.

Also, the Netherlands (where the Greenpeace ship is registered) are claiming that the boarding of the Arctic Sunrise was itself a breach of international law. The Russians didn't just arrest the three people who trespassed on to the rig, but everyone on board, including the crew and a journalist.

Personally, even if you don't have sympathy for Greenpeace, I am not sure that means you should have any sympathy for Russia - an autocratic, virtual one-party-state with significant human rights issues and a propensity for using nationalism and violence to bolster the regime, which has a judicial system that is often politically motivated and used to repress dissent. Do you also have sympathy for Russia over the Pussy Riot case?

As for 'indulging them' in the West, there was that time the French secret service bombed and sank the Rainbow Warrior, killing a photographer. I guess that's one way of using kid gloves.

Considering that the intent of the demonstration was to raise awareness of environmental safety concerns from high arctic drilling, I sympathize with the aim of the Greenpeace activists. I suspect that the Russians have fairly lax regulation and a leak or spill like the recent Gulf of Mexico leak would have enormous consequences for the Arctic. Especially because the conditions in which Arcitic rigs hae to operate are so significantly more difficult than the Gulf of Mexico.
Which highlights one of the absurd charges. The Russian apparently think that two activists clambering up the side of the rig with ropes, put the rig and its crew in danger. If the rig is put in danger by that ...god knows what'll happen when an ice berg hits...
The charges are excessive.
The actions of the GPers were also excessive... However I think we have here, what Malcolm Gladwell is writing about. A David and Goliath moment. Even if one doesn't sympathize with the way the GPers are going about trying to enact change in environmental standards and law .... I don't doubt they've made some progress at shining some light upon the issue with the public.
These activists take risks and suffer consequences for their ideals. I think 15 years would be too great a consequence. Though i think there should be some minor consequence that dissuades the riskier parts of their protest.
If a Russian rig has a disaster in the next couple of years, you might well rethink the value of their actions too.

rickyp wrote:Which highlights one of the absurd charges. The Russian apparently think that two activists clambering up the side of the rig with ropes, put the rig and its crew in danger. If the rig is put in danger by that ...god knows what'll happen when an ice berg hits...

Apparently the Greenpeace activists were shot at from the platform. I'm no expert, but I think firing guns on an oil platform poses a greater risk than a banner.

Not sure it really was 'piracy' as you state - Putin has said it wasn't, for a start, and while that is the most serious charge that can be applied it doesn't mean it has merit. Piracy is violence or robbery at sea. I've seen no evidence that the Greenpeace activists used violence or tried to steal anything.

Well yes, this is probably true. I very much doubt that they'll end up getting convicted of that though, more likely it'll be a more minor charge which will see a short jail term followed by a high profile return home where they all get to profit from selling their story.

Personally, even if you don't have sympathy for Greenpeace, I am not sure that means you should have any sympathy for Russia - an autocratic, virtual one-party-state with significant human rights issues and a propensity for using nationalism and violence to bolster the regime, which has a judicial system that is often politically motivated and used to repress dissent. Do you also have sympathy for Russia over the Pussy Riot case?

I don't have a general sympathy for Russia, but there are significant differences between this situation and the Pussy Riot case. These activists are not even Russian citizens. They travelled to a foreign country with the express intent of breaking the laws of that country in order to make a cheap publicity stunt at Russian expense. It was massively irresponsible and foolish and it was done in full knowledge that it would draw down a firm response from the authorities. The reason I have little sympathy for them is because they deliberately put themselves in that position knowing full well what the consequences were likely to be. Greenpeace are not the victims here, they intentionally broke the law of a land which is notorious for having a very harsh legal system for no reason other than a photo opportunity.

As for 'indulging them' in the West, there was that time the French secret service bombed and sank the Rainbow Warrior, killing a photographer. I guess that's one way of using kid gloves.

Rainbow Warrior happened a long time ago. Typically the consequences for Greenpeace activists are minimal.

Ricky:

Even if one doesn't sympathize with the way the GPers are going about trying to enact change in environmental standards and law .... I don't doubt they've made some progress at shining some light upon the issue with the public.

What's happened here is that Greenpeace management have exploited the idealism of their volunteers by sending them off to face what was sure to harsh treatment in Russia while they get to sit home in Amsterdam and score cheap publicity points. It's very irresponsible and morally dubious to say the least.

Well, when you are challenging powerful interests nice little chit-chats over tea and crumpets tend to have little impact. It is interesting why Greenpeace seems to make people so mad. My god, they trespassed on an oil rig! We should not implicitly condone Russia's conduct by saying that Greenpeace should have known better than to antagonize a repressive regime. Or is your complaint that Greenpeace should not in effect expect Western pressure to bail them out here? (those darn lefties, just expecting us to bail them out when they get into trouble...)
The salient issue is whether Artic drilling is bad for the environment. If it is, then I hardly think that this Greenpeace stunt, designed to put negative publicity on oil drilling in the Arctic, is worthy of our condemnation.
Greenpeace uses aggressive methods because those who harm the environment can be very powerful and sometimes the only thing to stop them is to confront them while they are at it and shine a spotlight on their activities. And of course those powerful interests attempt to stir up public resentment by alleging that Greenpeace has broken laws or endangered lives. Instead of condemning the Artic 30 I think they should be praised for taking risks to make the world a better place. Last time I checked Russia was not in the van of making the world a better place.

Neither is Greenpeace. How was this publicity stunt supposed to make the world a better place ? I think that's highly debatable to say the least. Drilling in the Arctic is opposed mostly because they oppose and and every attempt to exploit fossil fuels, because they have a vested interest in trying to drive up the cost of oil wherever they can. I'm not sold on this as evidence that they're trying to improve the lot of the people.

Greenpeace is most certainly 'in the van' of the attempt to suppress GM foods. They've been responsible for any number of stunts where they send in the heavies to destroy trial crop fields to try and prevent scientific studies from taking place. Most notoriously, they're doing everything they possibly can to suppress any efforts to introduce golden rice, which is a completely non-profit and perfectly harmless crop which has the potential to save millions of people around the world from blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency. How is that making the world a better place ?

This one is simple to me. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The arctic seas are melting and the greed of men must be checked. The Greenpeace activists knew they might be martyrs for the cause. Now they are.

It's in the strategic interest of the West to co-opt Greenpeace's taking on of Russian arctic oil exploitation.

neal

It's in the strategic interest of the West to co-opt Greenpeace's taking on of Russian arctic oil exploitation.

They are also opposed to drilling in the US and Canadian Arctics. SO I don't think this fits.

freeman3

What's happened here is that Greenpeace management have exploited the idealism of their volunteers by sending them off to face what was sure to harsh treatment in Russia while they get to sit home in Amsterdam and score cheap publicity points. It's very irresponsible and morally dubious to say the least

.
Google Pete Wilcox. he's one of the imprisoned. He's been at this for 30 years... There might be some sofa surfing sctivists somehere at Green Peace, but most of them are pretty hard core... and involved. And conscious or potential consequences. I think this criticism is wrong.

freeman3

The reason I have little sympathy for them is because they deliberately put themselves in that position knowing full well what the consequences were likely to be. Greenpeace are not the victims here, they intentionally broke the law of a land which is notorious for having a very harsh legal system for no reason other than a photo opportunity.

Recently saw the Butler. It reminded me of the Freedom Riders in the US who did exactly the same thing....
If not for them would there have been progress on civil rights?

Do you think enough is being done to safeguard the Arctic environment from oil and gas drilling?
Hell, do you think the milder parts of the ocean are truly safe from another major disaster on an oil rig?
If the answer is no, or you're not sure , then the actions of Greenpeace might be defensible.

Sass - you do know that some of the '30' are Russians, right?