"GREEN" CONFLICT IN ARCTIC COLD

Since the end of September, scandal has been gathering momentum between the environmental organization Greenpeace and the Russian authorities. Why are the Russian oil producers and law-enforcement bodies so displeased with the movement's activists who are inspired, according to their only words, by the "dream of a clean world without war and violence"? 

This is not the first time the "Greens" have been involved in this kind of conflict: they have huge experience in this domain. It is rather Russia's stiff response that is more noteworthy in this situation. In addition the very "battlefield" is quite exotic: it is the Arctic. Greenpeace protests against producing oil in this part of the globe as it believes that this can cause irreparable harm to the region's unique environment. 

The thing is that, according to researchers' estimates, the Arctic has huge reserves of hydrocarbons and there are not so many states entitled to this sweet spot: Denmark, Canada, Norway, Russia and the USA. Maybe it is premature to talk about producing hydrocarbons amid the ices or maybe even the idea has no prospect: the cost of the products may be higher than its market price. Yet it is clear nonetheless, that this is a matter of the future and it is time now for all interested parties to take their first steps. 
Simultaneously with scientists and oilmen, the environmentalists are also wide awake: back last summer they initiated a drive, "Let's Protect the Arctic", aimed at creating a reserve around the North Pole "with a total ban on oil production, fishing and wars in this region". Some 4 million signatures have been collected in support of this project by now. 

"Russia is a graphic example of industry destroying life in the Arctic. People who have lived their habitual lifestyle for centuries here are being ousted by oil corporations. This should not repeat in the rest of the Arctic," a Greenpeace statement reads. Meanwhile the importance of observing environmental safety and the use of natural resources was discussed during a meeting of the Arctic council chaired by President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation early this month. So what is the essence of their differences? 
The incident that caused the scandal happened on 18 September in the south-eastern part of the Barents Sea which is also locally called the Pechora Sea. Greenpeace activists properly trained and with climbing outfit and equipment tried to climb the Prirazlomnaya oil platform of the Gazprom Oil Shelf company. The platform workers called commandos of the Border Guard Service of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) for help. They came and arrested two Greenpeace activists who had managed to climb the platform: Sini Saarela from Finland and Marco Polo from Switzerland. All the environmentalists hid themselves aboard the Arctic Sunrise vessel under the Dutch colours. The border guards headed towards the ship the next day. After firing warning shots, they detained the Arctic Sunrise and escorted it to Murmansk. The activists - 28 citizens of 19 countries - were taken aboard and placed in a remand centre.

The Russian Investigation Committee's official spokesman Vladimir Markin reported that investigators had instituted criminal proceedings for an offence under Part 2 of Article 227 of the Russian Criminal Code (piracy committed by an organized group) which entails up to 15 years in prison. All the persons will be taken to justice irrespective of their nationality. 
The Russian side is speaking about the instigative nature of the environmentalists' actions, that their action threatened human lives and could even have caused an environmental disaster with unpredictable consequences. Gazprom's official spokesman Sergey Kupriyanov said the following: "The apparently clear demands for environmental protection were presented in an absolutely illegitimate fashion". Russian Natural Resources Minister Sergey Donskoy also said that the organization expresses its opinion in an aggressive way and everyone can see what this may lead to. 

For its part, Greenpeace Intl has announced that Russia set the there-mile radius arbitrarily and broke the rules itself. Meanwhile the environmentalists' vessel Arctic Sunrise was outside Russia's territorial waters at the moment of its seizure, in exclusive economic zone where free navigation is allowed for civil ships. Moreover, Greenpeace insists that the "action was of a peaceful nature, there was no seizure of someone else's property, attempts to establish control over a vessels or part of a vessel, neither in actions nor in goals," said Vladimir Chuprov, manager of the Greenpeace Russia arctic programme. Moreover, considering the platform as part of the territory of the Russian Federation, Saarela and Polo were on the outside of Prirazlomnaya when detained and therefore they cannot be accused of violating the state border. 
Thus the strong card in Greenpeace's hand of is that its intentions were peaceful and there were no victims or material damage. The strong card in Russia's hand is the right of each sovereign state to protect its interests, citizens and property and, correspondingly, the right to take preventive actions. Such things have happened more than once. In 1985, Greenpeace activists headed aboard the Rainbow Warrior to a nuclear weapons testing ground near Mururoa, an atoll in French Polynesia. Their attempt to penetrate there ended in the Warrior being blown up and one person killed. On 31 May 2010, the Mavi Marmara humanitarian vessel (the flagman of the so-called "Freedom Flotilla" of nine vessels) bound for Gaza with food, medicines and building materials aboard was attacked by Israeli commandos in neutral waters leaving nine people killed. By the way, in August 2012, Greenpeace activists made an attempt to settle down on the Prirazlomnaya platform and were not detained on that occasion. 

Meanwhile some commentators in Russia view Greenpeace actions as tantamount to political provocation. Especially hard on the environmentalists was the programme "ChP Rassledovaniye: [Emergency Investigation] Under the Green Cover" aired by the NTV channel. It said in plain text that Greenpeace does not protect nature at all but is used as a tool for political pressure and economic blackmail. According to the programme authors, this organization can be caught using double standards when acting selectively, in keeping with the lists of "goodies" and "baddies". This suggests the logical conclusion that the Greens are no protectors of nature but a method to wage corporate wars and remove competitors. Used as a proof to this is footage from an exclusive interview of Patrick Moore of Canada, one of Greenpeace founders and head of its board of directors in 1971-1986. Moore had even earlier appeared on Russian TV arguing that Greenpeace is a certain "political group using neither scientific data, nor logic to define its position". 

The environmentalists are also being blamed for not quite properly selecting targets for their efforts. Thus for instance it is hard to speak about obvious threat to the environment in the Arctic so far and there is no population there. This cannot be said about Japan where the situation still remains critical around the Fukushima 1 nuclear power station hit by a devastating earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. The main danger is posed by leaks from its damaged cisterns containing radioactive water used to cool the reactors. Earlier the Fukushima 1 operator TEPCO admitted that there might be excessive concentrations of radioactive strontium and tritium in the ground waters near power unit No 2 and the seawater around the station. The media have been permanently, nearly every week, reporting new leaks of radioactive water from a cistern.
One cannot but acknowledge Greenpeace's services in the cause of struggle for the safe use of nuclear technologies. This organization's website quite justly says that "no nuclear facility is guaranteed against a big accident". Then why should the environmentalists not take an interest, for instance, in the Metsamor nuclear power station in Armenia which is based in a seismically active zone, where outdated technologies are used and which is likely to become a centre of disaster for a huge and densely populated region? R+ has received an answer from the Twitter account of Greenpeace Russia over Fukushima: "A mission is working at Fukushima right now. It is daytime in the Japanese office now, so you can write to them. They reply promptly." As regards the Metsamor nuclear power station, the Greenpeace gave no reply… 
As regards the accusations from the Russian TV, the Greenpeace has announced that "untrue information was voiced" about the organization "which had repeatedly been refuted including judicially". Detailed explanations are available on the environmentalists' website on each point of the accusation aired by the NTV channel. 
Special attention was given to matters related to the organization's funding. Thus for instance NTV emphasized that the organization has obviously no shortage of funds: it uses expensive equipment and hires real specialists. Greenpeace's likely sponsors were also named, such as for instance the Rockefeller Foundation. For its part, the organization insists that it "did not and does not accept any financial support either from governments, businesses or political parties", that it undergoes annual external audits and is ready to provide links to the organization's financial statements. In fact they are also available on the organization's website. 
Naturally enough, Various versions have proliferated on this fertile soil, up to so-called "conspiracy theories" saying among other things that the interests of the Rothshilds and the Rockefellers have clashed in this region of the world. It was also recalled that precisely last September (was it a coincidence or not?), a detachment of ships and vessels of the Russian Northern Fleet led by the Petr Velikiy heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser carried out a long-distance cruise to the Arctic. It delivered personnel, hardware, equipment, weapons and material supplies needed to restore the arctic airfield Temp and establish an air commandant's office. For the first time in Russia's history, a unique operation was held in the Arctic involving Russia's entire nuclear surface fleet. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the efforts taken will help efficiently control this part of the Russian Arctics… 

Thus the conflict between Greenpeace and the Russian authorities is obviously not confined to the environment alone. It is clear that the trial in Murmansk is just a small chapter of a large-scale geopolitical confrontation. This confrontation touches very clumsily upon some sore spots of international law and refers us to unpleasant international incidents. It also urges us to think once again about what could serve as an actual guarantee of impartiality and transparency for the numerous non-governmental human rights and environmental organizations. Lastly, the environment itself. Indeed, as we can see from experience, nature is that part of human life that neither laws, nor money, nor army or agreements are able to place under control at the most crucial moments...