A Greenpeace member responds

To my post Sunday about the collision between the Nisshin Maru and the Artic Sunrise. Andrew Davies, stationed aboard the Greenpeace ship Esperanza, posted the following comment:

Thanks for trying to tell both sides of the story, but there is an important inaccuracy in the above post.

The captain of the Arctic Sunrise in fact did put his ship into full astern, trying to avoid the collision.

Check out the video on our site again. You can see from the smoke coming out the stack of the Sunrise that her engine is working hard. You can also see that she is moving dead slow, or even in reverse - while the Nisshin Maru is moving at a good clip.

So yes, at first the Arctic Sunrise captain maintained course and speed (as required), then realizing the Nisshin Maru was not going to give way (as required), he went full astern in an attempt to avoid the collision.

It should also be pointed out that in the minutes before the incident, the Nisshin Maru was tied up along the OTHER side of the tanker (the third ship in the video). It cast off, turned to port and went all the way around the stern of the tanker in order to line up on the Sunrise.

Finally, I want to also point out that we have as much a right to be in this part of the ocean as they do. I have been out myself in our small boats, getting between whale and harpoon, and we are at all times considerate of the whaler's safety - if only they were as considerate of ours.

For more about our work I encourage you to check out our crew weblog.

First, thanks to Andrew for his comment. It's always nice to hear from folks you write about. And since he surely realized that this is a conservative site unlikely to be friendly toward leftist organizations like Greenpeace, worthy of respect as well.

I've taken his advice and viewed the video again. And again. I must have watched it over 50 times. So many times that I delayed posting this until today. And it appears he may be right about a couple of things.

The Artic Sunrise is indeed moving slow - nonetheless, when the video starts it is moving toward the Nisshin Maru's bow. Since the Nisshin Maru was making a hard left turn at the time, it's obvious that it's bow was not moving toward the Greenpeace ship - it was the Greenpeace ship moving toward the Nisshin Maru.

As you play the video, listen to the engine sound. It doesn't vary throughout the tape segment. From the time the video starts, it appears that Artic Sunrise is indeed in reverse. I take this not from the audio alone, but from the video and a couple of photographs released by the owners of the Nisshin Maru. I found them posted at Jennifer Marohasy and they really clarified things:

This first photo has a good view of the water near the Artic Sunrise's bow. It's clearly the wake of a boat in reverse. In the second picture, look at the churning water towards the stern. Remember that the engine sound doesn't vary. Not knowing the sounds of the engine in the Artic Sunrise, I had no way of knowing prior to viewing this picture whether the Sunrise was idling or working hard. The smokestack didn't help here, Andrew. Could be a dirty engine (wouldn't that be ironic), and this is also in a cold climate - no, the smokestack alone is a poor indicator. But the picture helps to show that the Greenpeace vessel is indeed in reverse and actively trying to avoid collision for the duration of the tape. So to answer the question of whether the Artic Sunrise rammed the Nisshin Maru... No. They didn't.

But that doesn't automatically answer the question of who's at fault for the collision. As I mentioned before, the Sunrise is closing on the bow of the Maru at the beginning of the video. If the ships were over a kilometer apart at the beginning of the incident, then the Artic Sunrise closed much of that gap herself - and unnecessarily so. The purposeful close proximity manuvering of the Greenpeace ship in a wide-open stretch of sea, combined with their signature tactic of blockading created a condition under which accidents were more likely to occur.

Andrew is right that Greenpeace has as much right to be in the ocean as anyone else. But that right needs to be applied with a little wisdom. A pedestrian has a right to cross the street. If I step out in front of a moving car, I should expect to be hit. In most places, the law would likely be on my side. But as a practical matter, it would still be my fault, since I could easily (and wisely) wait for the car to pass, giving that large, moving chunk of metal the respectful distance it deserves.