Before you read this can I appologise for those of you who may already have discussed this issue, the following film aired on Channel 4 shortly after Christmas.
Every year Japanese Whaling ships sail to the Antarctic to undertake 'research' on Whales. What they are actually doing is harpooning and killing Whales for the Japanese Sushi market. Battleship Antartica follows the Greenpeace ship Esperanza and her crew as she heads out into the Antarctic ocean to campaign against this breech of international law.
The film was both breathtaking, showing the true beauty of the ocean, and the Antarctic, as well as disturbing. It featured graphic images of Whale hunts and the resulting kill. Morgan Matthews, presenter and director, explored both the motivations and hypocrasy of the crew. How can a big diesel chucking ship be good for the environment? And the ship's hold had over 400kg of meat in it.
The most controversial theme of the film was the division between the non violent indirect approach of Greenpeace, compared to the direct, and allegedly violent action of the Sea Shepard Conservation Society. Throughout the film Greenpeace went to great lengths to ensure the distance between the two, the tension being verging on the dramatic. At one point Greenpeace ignore the Sea Shepard ship Robert Hunter, which results in an irate reply.
The film does report that Sea Shepard's hurl acid bombs at the whaling fleet, and use their own ships to intentionally ram the whalers. The Sea Shepard website, and numerous press releases deny this. Citing that it was the whalers, who infact rammed them.
But whatever the truth the programme does throw up many interesting questions. Not least which approach is best? Watching the film I got the feeling that Greenpeace were no more effective than human shields during the initial coalition attack against Iraq. They can make headlines, but will fail to stop armed adversaries. Likewise Greenpeace can place themselves infront of the harpoons, but as the film showed, they will still fire.
But this then raises the question, is jepordising the safety of both crews a legitimate and ethical undertaking? Maybe that is exactly what we need, direct action.