Not 'pirates,' but 'hooligans': Russia reduces charges against Greenpeace crew

But the organization is remaining defiant, calling the new charges over the September oil-rig incident 'ridiculous.'

Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP
Russian Greenpeace activists display photos of arrested members during a protest in Moscow, Oct. 18, 2013.

Greenpeace gave a defiant retort to Russian authorities who said 30 activists jailed after a high-seas Arctic oil rig protest would face lesser criminal charges, saying new charges of “hooliganism” were even more ridiculous than piracy.

The incident last month, captured in a dramatic video, and Russian prosecutors’ announcement they would charge the activists with piracy sparked a diplomatic standoff with The Netherlands, where the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise is flagged. It also focused new attention on the Kremlin’s policies to drill for oil and gas in the fragile Arctic.

On Wednesday, Russia’s Investigative Committee announced the group of 30 people – which include 28 activists hailing from 18 countries, plus two freelance journalists — would stand trial instead for "hooliganism.” That is a standard criminal charge in Russia that carries a maximum seven-year prison sentence.

Anton Beneslavsky, a Greenpeace-Russia lawyer, said Thursday that the Kremlin should drop the charges altogether, because hooliganism, under Russian law, means some kind of negligence toward social order committed with violence. The activists arrested were trying to board an oil rig owned by the state-owned corporation Gazprom-Neft to hang a protest banner.

"No weapons, no violence, and no activist boarded the platform. And all this took place in Russia's exclusive economic zone, but in international waters. So international law should apply here. It's clearly nothing to do with hooliganism, since Russian social order wasn't in the least affected," Mr. Beneslavsky says. “At least piracy had some validity, since the oil platform might be considered Russian territory. But this new charge is even more ridiculous.”

In its statement, the Investigative Committee gave an unusual explanation for why the stiffer charges of piracy were filed in the first place, suggesting the activists’ refusal to cooperate with authorities was the motivation.

"The refusal of the accused to provide testimony compelled authorities to carefully check all possible versions of what their motives may have been, including seizure of the platform with commercial intentions, terrorism, or carrying out illegal scientific work and espionage," the statement said.

The committee has also hinted that some of the Arctic Sunrise crew might yet face more serious charges, including possible drug offenses.

The affair has triggered an escalating dispute, with Moscow accusing The Hague of allowing the Dutch-flagged Greenpeace ship to stage "illegal provocations" in Russia's Arctic zone of economic influence.

For its part, the Netherlands turned this week to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to adjudicate what it regards as Russia's unlawful seizure of a Dutch ship on the high seas.

Russia's position is that its zone of economic interests is subject to Russian sovereignty, and therefore its border guards had every right to seize the ship and arrest its crew. Holland argues that the action occurred in international waters, and Russian law does not apply.

It's exactly the kind of case the Tribunal was established to resolve. But in a statement Wednesday, Russia's Foreign Ministry insisted that Moscow was "open to the settlement" of the case, but would not take part in the Tribunal's deliberations or recognize any ruling, despite being a signatory to the United Nations treaty that established the Tribunal.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Not 'pirates,' but 'hooligans': Russia reduces charges against Greenpeace crew
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today