Greenpeace under attack by UN and US ( 2003-11-19 11:10) (OneWorld.net)
One of the world's most
prominent and effective non-governmental organizations, Greenpeace, is coming
under attack at both the United Nations and by the U.S. Justice
Department in Washington, D.C.
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is moving to lift Greenpeace's
"consultative status," which permits the environmental group to submit briefs to
and address the UN agency--responsible for ensuring "safer ships" and "cleaner
seas"--on the grounds that the group practices unsafe seamanship.
The action comes as U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is pressing a
criminal case against Greenpeace for allegedly violating an obscure 1872 law
against individuals who lured sailors to their establishments with offers of
liquor or prostitutes, and encouraging local authorities to deny Greenpeace
docking rights at its ports.
Both actions come amid efforts by groups close to the Bush administration to
more closely monitor progressive international NGOs, such as Greenpeace, that
they accuse of pursuing a "globalist agenda" that threatens U.S. interests
abroad.
"There is this falsehood that they are somehow from the grassroots," said
Danielle Pletka, vice president of the neo-conservative American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) at the annual meeting of the Federalist Society
for Law and Public Policy Studies here last weekend. "That is an untruth."
AEI and the Federalist Society launched a new website, www.ngowatch.org, last
June that publishes information about the agendas and financing of more than 100
international NGOs, including Greenpeace.
The major complaints of both the IMO and the Justice Department appear to be
aimed at Greenpeace's efforts to publicize environmental abuses at sea,
sometimes through direct action against ships that may be violating
environmental regulations or laws.
Greenpeace has had consultative status with the IMO since 1991, and has
worked for stricter regulations against dozens of environmentally unsound
practices, from the transport of high-level radioactive waste at sea to a ban on
single-hulled oil tankers.
The IMO initiated action to expel Greenpeace in June 2002, when several
states formally charged that the group practice unsafe seamanship. A number of
the complaining countries are "Flag of Convenience" states, which have been
targets of Greenpeace protests for operating unsafe oil tankers or carrying
unsafe cargoes in the past.
Without a vote, the IMO chair decided to uphold the complaints and expel
Greenpeace, an action that must now be taken up by the IMO Assembly, its
governing body, when it meets in London from November 24 to December 5. No other
observer has ever been expelled, nor has Greenpeace been expelled from any other
international body.
Greenpeace argues that the only grounds on which an observer can be expelled
under IMO rules is for certain procedural reasons, such as failing to attend
meetings.
The group says the IMO decision is particularly ironic given that
consultative status has never been withdrawn from any other observer, including
corporate lobby groups such as Intertanko, the industry association of
supertanker owners, despite the "unsafe seamanship" of its members that resulted
in catastrophic oil spills such as the 1989 Exxon Valdez in Alaska and the
Prestige spill off Spain one year ago, whose costs were estimated last week in a
new study by the World Wildlife Fund at well over US$5 billion.
Instead, the IMO is claiming that some Greenpeace activities contravene the
1972 collision regulations, called "ColRegs," laws aimed at ensuring safety at
sea. It argues that recent protests by Greenpeace against the shipment of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), substandard tankers, and nuclear
shipments, that have involved boarding or close monitoring of the vessels in
question, have violated the ColRegs.
Greenpeace, however, says that safety both for crewmembers of all vessels and
the marine environment in which they operate has always been paramount in its
operations and that its activists are thoroughly trained. "Unlike the oil
industry, we don't put other people's lives or the environment at risk with our
actions," the group insists. Moreover, when Greenpeace was first granted
consultative status, it made a formal commitment to observe the rules of good
seamanship, including the ColRegs.
"The reality is that our activities have upset some members of the shipping
industry--those which are involved in environmentally damaging activities," the
group says, noting that it is currently canvassing governments for support at
the Assembly, and is meeting with the U.S. delegation in Washington Tuesday.
In Washington, the Justice Department has charged Greenpeace with
"sailor-mongering," a crime that it says was committed by Greenpeace when it
shadowed and then boarded a vessel, the APL Jade, as it approached the port of
Miami in April, 1992. At the time, Greenpeace was leading a campaign to stop the
illegal import of mahogany into the U.S., and it believed that the APL Jade was
engaged in the trade.
U.S. President Bush had publicly committed Washington to help developing
countries prevent illegal logging of mahogany at the time, and the two activists
who boarded the ship carried a banner that read, "President Bush, Stop Illegal
Logging." The two were arrested when they came into port and pleaded guilty to a
misdemeanor.
Fifteen months later, however, the Justice Department filed an indictment in
Miami against Greenpeace under the 1872 law, which, according to George
Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, has been used only twice
before.
If convicted, Greenpeace could lose its tax-exempt status, an action that
would likely close it down permanently. "This prosecution is unprecedented in
American history," Greenpeace USA director John Passacantando told Inter Press
Service recently. "Never before has our government criminally prosecuted an
entire organization for the free speech activities of its supporters."
Citing the prosecution, the director of the Port of Miami, Charles Towley,
denied Greenpeace docking space for its ship, MV Esperanza on the grounds that
its presence posed a security risk and that its presence could result in "delays
and operational costs" for the port.
When the Esperanza subsequently approached Miami's port October 29, it was
boarded by Coast Guard officials who detained the crew for three hours and did
not permit it to proceed to port. It has since sailed on to
Greece.
