[translated from Dutch]
Greenpeace's unsuccessful attempt to prevent the Russian oil tanker Mikhail Ulyanov from docking in the port of Rotterdam again drew attention to controversial oil drilling in the Arctic.
Coincidentally, the tanker in question was carrying oil that Russia had mined on the Prirazlomnaya drilling platform. Let that be precisely the platform against which Greenpeace took action last year, an action that resulted in the arrest of the crew members of the ship the Arctic Sunrise and in an open conflict between the Netherlands and Russia. It is somewhat ironic that the Dutch government has invested so much in getting the ship released and in the still pending lawsuit between the Netherlands and Russia, while it is now doing everything it can to get the Arctic oil unloaded in the port of Rotterdam.
This lack of policy coherence may still cost the Netherlands dear in its international relations. Yet there is a line to be seen in the Dutch performance. After all, the Dutch support for the Arctic Sunrise was not so much motivated by the conviction that the Greenpeace action against drilling in the Arctic was legitimate, but by the desire to safeguard the freedom of navigation of vessels registered in the Netherlands in principle. Likewise, the Netherlands wishes to defend the freedom of international shipping and trade by not impeding the access of the Russian oil tanker to the port of Rotterdam. Naturally, economic motives also play a role here; after all, the port of Rotterdam and the Dutch economy can make good use of the transshipment of that cargo of oil.
Moreover, international agreements on free trade, particularly within the framework of the World Trade Organization, prevent the Netherlands from simply restricting the access of goods on board foreign ships.
Nevertheless, these agreements allow for trade barriers insofar as they have a legitimate aim, for example to help protect the environment. It is therefore necessary in the first place to verify whether Russian oil drilling in the Arctic does indeed pose a serious threat to the environment, as claimed by Greenpeace. Only if the answer is affirmative, the authorities could - but should not - have denied the Russian ship access to the port of Rotterdam. In any case, it is not disputed that Russia is entitled to drill for oil in those parts of the Arctic over which Russia can legally exercise sovereign rights.
However, international law also stipulates that states must exercise due caution when engaging in mining activities. According to the precautionary principle, states should refrain from an activity when there is insufficient scientific certainty about the potentially irreversible environmental damage that this activity may cause. This is also what Greenpeace claims: it is better not to take risks given the natural fragility of the Arctic ecosystem. But Russia and the oil companies believe that all risks are under control, so there is no scientific uncertainty about a negative impact of oil drilling in the Arctic.
It does not seem to the Netherlands to save the Arctic on its own, especially when it seriously restricts freedom of trade.
Rather, a solution should be sought in a European or international context to regulate or even prohibit the transport of Arctic oil. Pending a multilateral solution, the Netherlands would do well not to hinder the transport of Arctic oil. The fact that this immediately yields a nice penny for the Netherlands is of course a bonus.