When an Australian citizen gets into trouble overseas, the Australian embassy is the first port of call. It is expected that our diplomatic service will establish contact and see that the citizen is not mistreated, has access to legal aid and is promptly put before a court and that any charges will be made clear.
A row has now broken out because a Greenpeace activist claims that our embassy did not do enough to gain his freedom when he was arrested and placed in a Russian prison. This is denied by the government which claims that representation on his behalf cost " tens of thousands of dollars " - and raises the question of whether such money should be reclaimed because Greenpeace is threatening to repeat the incursion that got this activist arrested.
The Russians are exploring for oil and minerals where retreating ice in the Arctic makes access possible. This breaks no international law, but Greenpeace objects on ecological grounds and sent in a protest ship manned by an international consortium of activists who tried to storm aboard a Russian drilling platform. They were met by armed special forces, arrested at gun point and their ship was seized. These activists were initially charged with piracy, but this was later downgraded to " Hooliganism " and they seemed set for a prison term. Eventually, an amnesty was declared and they were freed.
Greenpeace claims to be above the law. Here in Australia, it's members broke into a test farm plot growing a test crop of a genetically modified crop to evaluate it's safety. Greenpeace opposes all forms of genetic modification and this crop was destroyed by the activists, denying science the opportunity to prove or disprove it's benefits - and costing the Australian government a great deal of money.
That raid on a Russian drilling platform contravened international law and the Russians were justified in taking invaders into custody. Russia is an authoritarian regime and it's laws are different to Australia. Just as visitors to another country are subject to prevailing law there, Greenpeace has no mandate to break laws with impunity - but that is just what it does !
Whenever an Australian is in trouble in a foreign country he or she has the right to representation by our diplomatic services. Whether they are innocent or guilty, this country tries to ensure that they are given fair due process. Greenpeace has a long history of ignoring any law with which it does not agree, and when faced with the consequences, pulling media strings to try and gain sympathy with the claim that the end justifies the means.
Australia certainly has an obligation to try and help Greenpeace activists in trouble overseas, but where that organization has knowingly and willingly sent them on these missions, the bill for this assistance should be claimed against the organizations assets.
There seems to be a fine line between what some consider " terrorist action " and what others define as " crossing boundaries to achieve change ".
In simple terms - Breaking laws involve consequences !
No comments:
Post a Comment