GreenPeace v VW

[SeeFive]

Derek Smith said:

Put himself at risk eh? I'm not sure anyone thought that the French secret service would go out of its way to kill someone him a foreign harbour. This was extreme even by French standards. Murder and bullying of a country. Like the Americans when they shot down the Iran Air flight 655, the pepetuator of the murder of an innocent acutally got a medal.

The lives and livelihoods of the japanese whalers is against international law. They are the ones committing offences. Any blood must surely be on their hands. When no one else cares then what should you do? Just say 'someone should do something'?

Yes, he put himself at risk by boarding a vessel that had just suffered a major explosion and was sinking. There was a car sized hole in the hull. The explosions were planned 10 minutes apart in order to allow people off the boat. The French plan was to sink the boat, not kill people - if you believe them of course. This delay from the small to large charge was probably as misguided as the decisions to return to the ship after the first explosion, but not all plans are prefect in execution.

Yes, it was an extreme act by the French. But, where is the view on cause and effect that led to this extreme action? how long had the fly been buzzing the French in different ways? Yes the Americans shot down a plane, however I do not see that is relevant here, so will not respond to that right now.

If the law is correctly implemented and not putting undue restrictions on the normal industry and lifestyle of the country in question, then it would be enforceable by the appropriate parties. If not, then perhaps the international community did not take into account the needs of Japan when writing the law. I am not saying what the Japanese are doing is right, but obviously the Japanese think it is having done so for many generations. What would we do if suddenly the international community has the same view on Cod as they do Whales, or Cows, or Sheep?

We have to remember that not all cultures hold our views on the animal world / food chain, and therefore will react differently to enforcement from those that differ - take the waste of life for entertainment purposes in bullfighting, or dropping donkeys off towers in Spain as an example. I don't see many international laws against Spanish entertainment.

IMO, It is not up to a self-appointed pressure group of political activists to enforce their specific choice of international laws that are being flouted. Such vigilantism would not be appreciated by any other legitimate force (given your career, I am sure you can recognise this Derek), especially when putting (their own or other) lives at risk. Would you agree with me laying in the road in front of car thieves (actually best not answer that while we are expressing different opinions ).

[aizvara]

SeeFive said:

Yes, it was an extreme act by the French. But, where is the view on cause and effect that led to this extreme action? how long had the fly been buzzing the French in different ways?

Atmospheric nuclear testing had been going on in French Polynesia for a long while and New Zealand had already objected, sending their own fleet of ships some time before. Greenpeace got involved and, shortly after, that testing stopped. Underground testing continued controversially, and Greenpeace were to send their ships in a similar action. Greenpeace claim that the French were mostly concerned about any show of Polynesian independence, and thus wanted the protest stopped (it would have involved Polynesians). Its also claimed that Greenpeace were going to place radiation monitoring volunteers on the island illegally, and this is what the French wished to stop.

I don't see how any of this context can justify an act of espionage and destruction on foreign soil, against peaceful protesters. The world agreed, the French tried to cover it up, failed, and ended up paying compensation to New Zealand, Greenpeace, and to the family of the photographer.

SeeFive said:

IMO, It is not up to a self-appointed pressure group of political activists to enforce their specific choice of international laws that are being flouted

So who is it up to? What if no-one knows about political prisoners, deforestation, dumping of waste, or whaling? Is it always on the shoulders of those directly affected to take action, despite them often being the least able to? Are you opposed to campaigning and protests in general?

SeeFive said:

As mentioned, his loss of life is not the thing that springs to mind when thinking of the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. I am not pleased that a man lost his life, and his kid lost a father - whether through his own bad decisions or not, whatever his motivation. One thing for sure, I would not have taken his action to get my gear, or gather propaganda.

I wouldn't have hung around either; but he wasn't alone in doing so, he was just the only one unlucky enough to be caught by the second blast. For me what springs to mind about the incident is that a foreign power attempted to stop a protest, using spies and bombs rather than talking.

Anyway, I never really intended to get into a justification of Greenpeace's actions then and now; I simply found the idea of laughing at the sinking a bit harsh.

[Silver Smudger]

aizvara said:

<snip>

Anyway, I never really intended to get into a justification of Greenpeace's actions then and now; I simply found the idea of laughing at the sinking a bit harsh.

Very well written post - Exactly what I wanted to say while reading this thread - The Greenpeace of today are a very different animal to those on the first Rainbow Warrior - It will be a shame if they are not remembered for the good they were doing at that time.

[Rude-boy]

Silver Smudger said:

The Greenpeace of today are a very different animal to those on the first Rainbow Warrior - It will be a shame if they are not remembered for the good they were doing at that time.

Agreed.

Someone close to me was once a supporter but is disgusted with the way that they have changed in the last 25 years (F-me just realised how long ago 1985 was!)

[SeeFive]

Wow this is a long way from an external, isolated, narrow view holding pressure group politically jamming the steering the business of an international corporation, but here goes my thoughts... You do not have to agree of course, that is not my motivation here. Just open two-way discussion, no forcing of my narrow view on anyone.

I like the points that you are raising and it increases my understanding of the view from the other side existing in the average Joe like me - no bad thing given all we get from them is soundbites.

aizvara said:

Atmospheric nuclear testing had been going on in French Polynesia for a long while and New Zealand had already objected, sending their own fleet of ships some time before. Greenpeace got involved and, shortly after, that testing stopped. Underground testing continued controversially, and Greenpeace were to send their ships in a similar action. Greenpeace claim that the French were mostly concerned about any show of Polynesian independence, and thus wanted the protest stopped (it would have involved Polynesians). Its also claimed that Greenpeace were going to place radiation monitoring volunteers on the island illegally, and this is what the French wished to stop.

I don't see how any of this context can justify an act of espionage and destruction on foreign soil, against peaceful protesters. The world agreed, the French tried to cover it up, failed, and ended up paying compensation to New Zealand, Greenpeace, and to the family of the photographer.

Don't get me wrong, I am not looking at a justification for such activity on foreign soil, although one could contend that Greenpeace and NZ had essentially joined forces on previous action. For me, the end of the Rainbow Warrior was not a bad thing, with the exception of loss of life which again, is not in my primary memory when that subject is raised. Agreed, it was badly executed, but I guess if the French felt that they had to remove it, the option to blow it out of the water at sea had more severe risk to the crew.

So was the French testing on foreign soil, or was it French Polynesia? Was such testing illegal? Who was supposed to be policing it if indeed it was illegal? What difficulties did Greenpeace cause the French researchers during then-legal atmospheric testing? When were Greenpeace activists being placed on the island for underground testing, before or after the detonation? Was Greenpeace's real agenda for placing people on the island really to monitor radiation, or to prevent the test? Should they be doing that, from a legal perspective. If I trespass on a range when the military are unloading, the chances are I will get hurt. The French knew this, Greenpeace knew this, and Greenpeace were using it to prevent testing via a media aware risk laden campaign that the French could not ignore.

aizvara said:

So who is it up to? What if no-one knows about political prisoners, deforestation, dumping of waste, or whaling? Is it always on the shoulders of those directly affected to take action, despite them often being the least able to? Are you opposed to campaigning and protests in general?

I guess in many ways, I am against campaigning based upon an isolated view of how things should be. Not everyone agrees with Greenpeace's agenda or methods, and therefore as much as Greenpeace speak against their enemies, others should be able to speak against Greenpeace with similar impunity. Does that stretch to bombing their ships, well it depends on the stakes and the response of the opposition. It's nice to see that the French Government stumped up for their bad behaviour. When was the last time Greenpeace or their like did similarly after causing damage?

There are many things that Greenpeace stand for that I actually agree with. There are many I do not. There are many cultures that mean that entire countries would not agree with Greenpeace. So why should they thrust their views upon them? I am sure that France and the French were very keen to ensure that their nuclear deterrent was thoroughly tested and potential enemies knew it. I am sure that the Japanese have an industry around Whales as we have around Cod, with similar feelings for the creature that we consume. Arguably, some pressure group campaigns are no better founded than the West's behaviour in the Middle East (admittedly less violent) trying to set up ideologies on a foreign soil with no respect for the views of all parties actually involved.

aizvara said:

I wouldn't have hung around either; but he wasn't alone in doing so, he was just the only one unlucky enough to be caught by the second blast. For me what springs to mind about the incident is that a foreign power attempted to stop a protest, using spies and bombs rather than talking.

Some people talk, some don't. Some listen, some don't. There is not much point in talking to a closed mind about not putting people in the way when you are just about to detonate an atomic bomb if they are not listening. Similarly, the French were not listening. This was always going to come down to who had the right, and who had the might. AFAIK, the French were within their rights to conduct those tests in French Polynesia, but not necessarily third party applied moral rights. The lack of a diplomatic approach is not all one sided when dealing with an extreme and committed pressure group who will not listen (and vice versa with the French). So the French got the big stick out, as I said earlier rightly or wrongly, and paid for it afterwards. Obviously it was very important to them to ensure that their tests finished without Greenpeace getting in the way, and they had the wherewithal to so that.

aizvara said:

Anyway, I never really intended to get into a justification of Greenpeace's actions then and now; I simply found the idea of laughing at the sinking a bit harsh.

Yup, already got that. I agree that justification to the methods and execution are tough, but the loss of the Rainbow Warrior as a symbol of Greenpeace did not make me sad. Looking at them (and their splinter groups) now, my emotions to their approach are even less positive than that.

[aizvara]

SeeFive said:

I like the points that you are raising and it increases my understanding of the view from the other side existing in the average Joe like me - no bad thing given all we get from them is soundbites.

Yes, this conversation has drifted pretty far off course.
Glad to be of service, but I do fear I'm not the best person to represent the "other side", and particularly Greenpeace's variant. I was generally in favour of them and similar organisations when younger, and there are still existing groups whose work I actively support (more conservation related these days, and certainly no-one who indulges in PR-led stunt campaigns), but I'm pretty far from a fully paid up eco activist.

SeeFive said:

Don't get me wrong, I am not looking at a justification for such activity on foreign soil, although one could contend that Greenpeace and NZ had essentially joined forces on previous action. For me, the end of the Rainbow Warrior was not a bad thing, with the exception of loss of life which again, is not in my primary memory when that subject is raised. Agreed, it was badly executed, but I guess if the French felt that they had to remove it, the option to blow it out of the water at sea had more severe risk to the crew.

So was the French testing on foreign soil, or was it French Polynesia? Was such testing illegal? Who was supposed to be policing it if indeed it was illegal? What difficulties did Greenpeace cause the French researchers during then-legal atmospheric testing? When were Greenpeace activists being placed on the island for underground testing, before or after the detonation? Was Greenpeace's real agenda for placing people on the island really to monitor radiation, or to prevent the test? Should they be doing that, from a legal perspective. If I trespass on a range when the military are unloading, the chances are I will get hurt. The French knew this, Greenpeace knew this, and Greenpeace were using it to prevent testing via a media aware risk laden campaign that the French could not ignore.

Thinking about this further as a result of your comments: even if you actively dislike Greenpeace, I don't see how the result of the sinking can be seen positively? The end of the RW was an immediate setback for Greenpeace on that one campaign, but must have helped them long term more than hindered. They received offers of support from NZ government, and obviously direct compensation from the French. Beyond that, the less tangible publicity would have been a huge benefit to them. Rainbow Warrior II and now III, I think, have since replaced it, and Greenpeace are a far larger organisation today.

Regarding your questions: I'll try to answer some, but I don't know enough to answer all. It was French soil - as I said the French were allegedly scared of Polynesian independence, and this may have bee part of the reason for the bombing; Greenpeace had been working with locals and even rescued others from an irradiated island (caused by US testing), so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility. The testing was not illegal, Greenpeace's intended actions likely were; I don't know if they ever did place people on the island itself, and as testing stopped years later, I doubt it. Greenpeace's agenda was always to stop the ongoing testing, monitoring was, I assume, in order to gain evidence of environmental impact.

SeeFive said:

I guess in many ways, I am against campaigning based upon an isolated view of how things should be. Not everyone agrees with Greenpeace's agenda or methods, and therefore as much as Greenpeace speak against their enemies, others should be able to speak against Greenpeace with similar impunity. Does that stretch to bombing their ships, well it depends on the stakes and the response of the opposition. It's nice to see that the French Government stumped up for their bad behaviour. When was the last time Greenpeace or their like did similarly after causing damage?

I've not followed Greenpeace's campaigns, nor seen what damage they may have caused, so I can't answer that last question. I'm in favour of campaigning in general, even, in some cases, when it is in order to change the law and results in the law being broken. Many protests in the past have improved things immeasurably for us today; the suffragette movement's agenda was fairly strongly opposed by many, for instance, but I'm glad they persisted. I may be hypocritical in my support, as I do oppose violent protest, and I do tend to oppose fascist/authoritarian/racist/sectarian protest, largely as it tends to result in violence and further division.

SeeFive said:

I am sure that the Japanese have an industry around Whales as we have around Cod, with similar feelings for the creature that we consume. Arguably, some pressure group campaigns are no better founded than the West's behaviour in the Middle East (admittedly less violent) trying to set up ideologies on a foreign soil with no respect for the views of all parties actually involved.

Its funny you mention cod; it is soon if not already a severely depleted stock; it is endangered. I think UK fishing of it will not continue. Greenpeace have addressed over-fishing in general, which affects us, so there is no special treatment for UK culture. Whaling is opposed by many, and largely due to the mammal/fish division and relative intelligence; that's a whole other discussion though. I personally don't wish to see either cod or whales pushed closer to extinction.

Regarding the actions of the US in Iran and other countries: that was to further the interests of the US, Greenpeace would normally be acting to stop damage to the environment or similar. Personally, I don't subscribe to moral relativism; I disagree with Japan's whaling and would like it stopped, I don't much give a st if that's their culture, just as I don't care that in certain countries it is expected that women who are raped kill themselves in shame and the perpetrators are not punished. There are many grey areas here, obviously, but regarding the actions, no matter how extreme, of other cultures as sacrosanct is not something I can do.

SeeFive said:

Looking at them (and their splinter groups) now, my emotions to their approach are even less positive than that.

Being involved with charities in my personal life, I find I have become more and more cynical toward larger charities, regardless of their aims. Its not just the bureaucracy either, I've seen and heard of instances where the actions of these organisations makes the situation they intend to resolve worse.

Anyway, that's now waaaayyy off topic! It has been interesting to read your views, and I can't quite believe this has spiralled out of my sense of humour failure.