By 1985, 20 years ago, when the Rainbow Warrior was bombed, the groundwork for modern Greenpeace was already laid, by the establishment of International Greenpeace pulled together by David McTaggart at the end of 1979. I attended that 1979 conference in Amsterdam with Martin Gotje and David Moodie, the three of us being crew on sailing ship Fri, sailing the previous seven years under the auspices of Greenpeace NZ. The ship was now in the UK, and we were acting as non-voting observers for Greenpeace NZ who though one of the oldest offices, didn't have money to contribute financially to Greenpeace International.

Those present at the conference were all from GP offices who had grown independently of each other, with powerful independent histories, but under McTaggart's cajoling finally sat down together to co-operate. It was a fantastic gathering of people. I do clearly remember the awe with which (Patrick Moore I think) announced that the budget internationally was over $1 million US, and that for the first time we could envision major campaigns like the Antarctic Campaign.

By 1985, 20 years ago, the momentum for modern Greenpeace was well underway, although the boats were still operated on very modest budgets. When Martin Gotje, now 1st Mate on Rainbow Warrior, contacted me from Jacksonville Florida to be crew for what became the Warrior's last campaign to the Pacific, I turned it down because (after seven years of Greenpeace related work) I still felt burnt out from the work load I knew can be involved, on little or no pay, even though it can be tremendously satisfying (the crew were themselves converting the vessel to sail, a project I normally welcome, and the last campaign to evacuate the people of Rongelap was the Warrior's last and most moving). I was focused on gaining my commercial sea-going qualifications.

Now the vessels are operated on a vastly larger budget, with pay and leave conditions for core crew similar to the merchant navy. When we join the vessels we don't always know what the campaign is going to be, as crew don't have input into the planning, and it may be any of the seven major world-wide Greenpeace campaigns.

Greenpeace demonstrates its ongoing relevance by identifying the changing main global issues, which is now Climate change, but Oceans and Nuclear campaigns remain central ones for me personally. The nuclear issue has changed. We no longer need to try to stop bomb tests, but the legacy of nuclear testing, and the nuclear industry is even more of a reality now than 30 years ago. Information is finally coming out of French Polynesia of what we always maintained, that the health of the workers and populations surrounding the test sites is seriously compromised by cancers and early deaths. Greenpeace has been able to visit nuclear sites in the old Soviet Union, and has long standing campaigns against nuclear power stations in the UK and the rest of Europe. Micronesia still leads the world in showing how devastatingly long term the effects of radiation contamination can be.

In the Oceans campaigns, the biggest difference is the broadening of issues from whales and seals to all ocean life and habitat, and in this the Greenpeace fleet plays as direct and effective role as it ever did, which is very satisfying to me personally.

What do you think of the stance of nuclear-free countries - like NZ, 20 years
on?
New Zealand's non-nuclear stance came at some cost to the country. The U.S. still hasn't forgiven New Zealand, we lost our military co-operation with U.S. (which some of us think is an advantage), and we are still trying to persuade the U.S. that we are a friendly enough country to be given trade concessions, (though it is the U.S. farming lobby which firmly shuts New Zealand out of an open U.S. market). It says a tremendous amount for the support for non-nuclear policy in NZ that both conservative and labour governments have maintained it until now (a question mark hangs over its future). I believe that NZ's non-nuclear policy contributed to the movement for nuclear non-proliferation by the great powers, and believe that maintaining New Zealand's policy is as important as ever.

In your opinion, what makes a 'Rainbow Warrior'?
Anyone can be a 'Rainbow Warrior'. I see them everywhere; anyone who tries to be careful with the resources they use in daily life, even in small ways, not succumbing to throw away consumption, using public transport, recycling waste. Greenpeace ships use a lot of resources and are not always a good advertisement for our beliefs, but life always has contradictions, and Greenpeace did not have the funds to build new ships with completely alternative technologies. What we can do on the ships as high profile 'Rainbow Warriors' is to keep highlighting problems, where there are few other witnesses to see.

- Naomi, 2nd Mate on the Rainbow Warrior, from New Zealand