Ron Smith: Greenpeace and the Temptations of Utopianism

The Greenpeace response to the actions of the Russian authorities, following the invasion of their oil-drilling platform by Greenpeace activists, has been revealing and deeply ironic.  The Russian actions, they said, were an ‘assault on the very principle of peaceful protest.  Most pointedly, Greenpeace also said of the Russian tactics, that they were, ‘intimidatory’.

Of course, they were right in this latter comment.  What the Russians did (and are continuing to do) is indeed, intimidatory.  They are intent on putting up the price of the kind of ‘protest’ that is Greenpeace’s stock-in-trade.  And this is where the irony comes in.

The forcible obstruction by Greenpeace of activities of which they disapprove, is also intimidatory, and it is something that they have done over many years in relation to oil exploration (and extraction), whaling, certain kinds of forestry, nuclear power generation, to name but a few.

And the object of the exercise is to coerce the party concerned to stop doing what they are doing in order to avoid further action of the kind.  That is what the Russians are doing with the threat of serious and unpleasant jail-time, and it is what the Greenpeace activists are attempting to do when they chain themselves to railway lines (see my ‘Sheep and nuclear waste’, November 2010), or the superstructures of ships when nuclear materials are being carried. It is ‘intimidation’ (The word comes from the Latin for ‘threat’ and it means, ‘to force or deter with threats’.)

‘Protest’, in this context, is a weasel word.  The kind of activity exemplified here is not intended to be the mere expression of a point of view, but rather a means of coercion.  As the philosopher Karl Popper pointed out many years ago, there is a crucial distinction between methods of political advocacy which are essentially intended to be persuasive, and those that are essentially coercive.  In relation to the former, Popper envisages a process that utilises argument based on empirical data, logic and shared values, and the possibility that differences may remain un-reconciled.  In the case of the latter, (as Popper observes) the process proceeds by ‘intimidation and threat’ (Karl Popper, ‘Utopia and Violence’, in Conjectures and Refutations).

Given that the other side is intent on coercion, there is really nothing that a party subjected to this sort of tactic can do but, either cease the activity that is the subject of the protest, or resist the obstruction, with whatever force the situation seems to require.  Whatever else may be said about the tactic, it is not ‘peaceful’, since it is patently provocative of violence, and, indeed, may risk serious harm to those who may be put to defend the activities concerned.  It is also positively Orwellian to describe it as ‘peaceful protest’.

Greenpeace activists clearly have a very uncomplicated world view.  They are right and they couldn’t possibly be wrong, so it doesn’t matter if they are unwilling to engage in the democratic process, in the matter of burning fossil fuels, or utilising nuclear power.  This is where the utopianism of Popper’s title comes from.  As he recognised (although he had communists and fascists more in mind) people who have this kind of absolutist world-view tend also to have a simplistic ‘ends-justify-the-means’ mind-set.  They see causes that are so evidently worthy, that it is not necessary to reflect upon the means.  In the contemporary world, it is an attitude which environmental activists share with terrorists, who are also frequently driven by a view of the world as they would like it to be, and they cannot bear that it is not so.

For all that, the sort of activity that Greenpeace activists engaged in on 18 September isn’t obviously ‘piracy’, even when it concerns ships, or as in this case, maritime platforms.  According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Piracy is, ‘any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation committed for private ends …against property, outside the jurisdiction of any state’.  Clearly what Greenpeace does in this sort of case is not done for ‘private gain’ and arguably, the focus was not so much on ‘destruction’ (which is part of the meaning of ‘plunder’) as it was on obstruction.   On the other hand, it is not so obvious that the forced occupation of the property of another could not be considered an illegal act, or even (depending on your definition of ‘violence’) a violent act. 

We shall see how the Russian courts determine the matter.  A prison sentence for the Greenpeace activists beyond what has already been served (or will have been served by the time the matter comes to trial, if it does) would be manifestly inappropriate.  The purposes of counter-intimidation will have been well and truly served.  But it really is about time, that the Greenpeace organisation itself, recognised that many of the causes that they so unreflectively espouse are debatable and that they are not justified in simply attempting to coerce those with whom they disagree, and indeed, that such persistent extremist action may be considered to be unlawful behaviour, which more states determine to prosecute.