XII. Does Gaia need a Navy?

Because maybe Gaia already got one. Continuing our inquiry into the political actions of vegetarian or vegan movements, we came across the following image:

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is a nonprofit direct-action marine wildlife conservation organization founded in 1977. They are well-known for their missions directed at preventing Japanese whaling vessels from operating in the Antarctic whale sanctuary. They are considered by the broad media as a radical, passionate group that risks their lives to defend marine animals. They are often labelled “eco-terrorists”, or “pirates”. And they don’t seem to care about it. Their founder, Paul Watson, holds the title of “Captain”. Their flag is a white skull in a dark background, the symbol of piracy, but with Neptune’s trident beneath it, and their ships are painted with a military camouflage pattern, that signals an identification of the SSCS with military purposes. Indeed, the SSCS sees themselves as the “First Navy of the Earth”. (Nagtzaam, 2013, p. 10). The state of war is also part of their imaginary: Watson likes to say that we are at the World War III (Nagtzaam, 2013, p. 10), and the SSCS television reality show, that is now on its 7th season, is called “Whale Wars”.

On the other hand, they deny the title of “protesters”, or “activists”, once they do not want to be associated with the traditional environmental movement, considered by them too submissive and ineffective. According to Paul Watson (2010): “We may be pirates, but we are not protesters. I hate that name actually, it sounds so submissive, ‘please, please don’t kill the whales.’ I’ve never seen a banner, petition, or a hunger strike that has saved a whale – not a one. We on the other hand have cut Japan’s kill quota by a quarter to a half each year for the last five seasons.” In one of their videos, SSCS once more affirms that the other movements are not taking direct action to protect marine wildlife, either because they are unwilling or incapable of. They also say that they save “real whales”, not “paper whales”, or “virtual whales”, in a direct reference to the work of non-direct action environmental movements (especially Greenpeace), that mostly do demonstrations, collect signatures and distribute leaflets (Watson, 2010b).

Concerning their controverted image, the SSCS adds another layer of complexity, by identifying themselves as vegans, but denying the label of an animal rights movement: “We are vegans because it is an ecological crime to eat fish; we are vegans because we are marine conservationists and not because we are animal rights activists.” (Watson, 2008). Yet this position seems to stand more from the will of the SSCS to distinguish themselves from other groups than from an ideological discordance with them. This is so because the actions of Sea Shepherd aim at saving animals for their intrinsic value, not for their utility to humans – something that animal rights movements defend, too. As Nagtzaam states, “Watson compares the killing of whales to the murder of a human and justifies his statements by claiming whales are smarter than mankind and that their ongoing killing is a tragedy comparable to the Holocaust.” (2013, p. 10). Their distinctiveness to other groups would come from their strategy of engaging in direct action to prevent illegal whale fishing. As Watson (2011) puts it: “We are not your old school greenies. We don’t hold banners, bear witness, sit in trees, hold picket signs, collect petitions, and write to politicians. What we do is get in the faces of those who are illegally – and violently – destroying our oceans. We practice aggressive nonviolent direct action.” Even if the SSCS tries to posit themselves in a different position than “pacific” animal rights movements, due to their “aggressive nonviolent action”, they are still saying that we should grant animals equal treatment and respect, and that killing them to human consumption of meat is not acceptable.

Concerning the violent or nonviolent aspect of their operations, Sea Shepherd seems to make (once again) controverted statements. They consider their actions nonviolent because they do not harm other living beings, and they only attack things (private property, like boats), but never resorting to the use of weapons or missiles (Nagtzaam, 2013, p. 15). Yet at the same time they consider to be fighting a war, with aggressive methods, against illegal fishers and anyone who exploits the sea and the marine wildlife illegally. Their political struggle, their war is also against regulatory agencies, like the International Whaling Commission, and even other conservation groups, like the Greenpeace, that do not share or recognize their identity (Stuart et al, 2013, p. 756). “They” are seen as real “enemies”. “They” are opposed to “us”, a collectivity composed of the Sea Shepherd members, their boats and equipments, the whales, the dolphins, the tiny sea animals, and the marine ecosystem itself. SSCS considers the whales either as “our clients” or as “our family”; in both cases they shape their identity as those who are on the side of the whales.

Their territory is the international high sea waters, where they cannot be easily arrested by nation states, once none of them has jurisdiction over the high sea. However, if they are considered to be committing acts of piracy, then they would fall under the scope of the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), that obliges any state part to take action to prevent these acts (Nagtzaam, 2013, p. 50). This is the basic argument made by the Japanese government to combat and prosecute the Sea Shepherd. From this legal dispute arises the whole debate about the identity of the SSCS as green, just, or compassionate “pirates”. If they are committing piracy acts, then they would fall under the scope of the UNCLOS, that condemns and prohibits piracy. Some argue that, even if the SSCS sees themselves as “pirates”, this does not automatically justify Japanese repression under the UNCLOS, because what matter is the legal definition of “pirate”: “a private individual whose heinous acts are aimed towards achieving some personal economic benefit.” (Nagtzaam, 2013, p. 52). Thus it is defended that the expression “private ends” only encompasses acts done for economic gain, which is not the SSCS motivation, and that it excludes political activities, like the SSCS activities (Nagtzaam, 2013, p. 52).

Pirate or not, the Sea Shepherd is an organization that takes direct action to preserve marine wildlife, composing a collective “us” with animals, seen as “friends”, in opposition to the whale fishing industry and regulation agencies, considered “enemies”. They define their territory as the high sea, and they consider to be acting under the supreme authority of the “Earth”, or “Gaia”. They call themselves the “First Navy of Earth”, and consider to be fighting the World War III. They see the regulatory agencies, namely the International Whaling Commission, as a failed arbiter, that cannot intervene effectively to prevent violent acts that destroy the marine ecosystem. For them, this is the reason why the conflict arises, and also why they have to carry out aggressive strategies. In Schmittian terms, what the Sea Shepherd is doing is recognizing the conflict, taking seriously the opposition friend/enemy, and thus acting politically. It is never too late to remind that, to Schmitt, “[a] world in which the possibility of war is utterly eliminated, a completely pacified globe, would be a world without the distinction of friend and enemy and hence a world without politics.” (2008, p. 35). And the Sea Shepherd, taking theirs boats to the Antarctic whale sanctuary, assumes to be living in a world with politics, in a political world, after all. Troubled are the waters we navigate…

References:

Nagtzaam, Gerry, “Gaia’s Navy: The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s Battle to Stay Afloat and International Law” (2013). Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013/39. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2359776.

Schmitt, C. The Concept of the Political: Expanded Edition. University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Stuart, A. et al. “ ‘We may be pirates, but we are not protesters’: Identity in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society”. Political Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2013, p. 753-777.

Watson, P. (2008). “Frequently Asked Questions.” February 21, 2010. Sea Shepherd Website.

Watson, P. (2010). “Letter to the Editor (The Australian)”, February 18, 2010.

Watson, P. (2010b). “Should We Save Paper Whales, Virtual Whales or Real Whales?” Sea Shepherd Website. December 22, 2010.

Watson, P. (2011), “The Terrible Troubling Tribulations of Being Called an (shudder) Eco-terrorist” March 02 2011. Sea Shepherd.