OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

Perhaps the fundamental issue for Msolga & farmerman is, do they suppose their environmental concerns trump the actions of Japan and the other signatories of the Whaling Convention they repeatedly cite ? The convention itself establishes the right of the Japanese to hunt whales where they are doing so, and to do it just as they are doing. I agree this violates what they and others assume is the basic purpose of the convention. However, the fact is the Convention in this case does not do what Msolga and fgarmerman wish it to do.

Japan is therefore not violating international law, and the endless repetition of the mantra that it is doing so doesn't change any of the relevant legal facts.

It is certainly OK for them and others to support a political campaign to motivate the signatories of the convention to literally prohibit all whaling in the sanctuary in question. Indeeed, that's why I term this an political issue.

Those who wish to act outside the law presumably in support of higher principles are hardly different from Islamist jihadists who kill and destroy in the name of their own supra legal concepts of right and wrong. The Greenpeace environmental jihadists who attempt to use physical force to prevent the whaling, putting themselves and the crewmen of the Japanese whalers in danger in the process are, however, breaking international law.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

I really hope more of these details of the Japanese whaling industry are revealed (as well the truth behind the charges against Tokyo two) as part of the inquiry.:

Quote:

Not just whale meat

While the scandal of stolen whale meat is the most shocking, it's not the only revelation to come from this investigation. Further allegations from our informants that require investigation include:

* Throwing tonnes of whale meat overboard daily because they did not have processing capacity for the increased quotas

* Cancerous tumours being found and cut out of whales and the remaining meat processed for public sale

* Targeted hunts to ensure maximum catch, not random "sampling" as required by the research permits

* Harsh working conditions because of the increased workload from the increased quotas ....

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/whaling/ending-japanese-whaling/whale-meat-scandal

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Im certain that your tolerance for prevarication is greater than mine. Here are a few points from the IWC suits filed against the Japanese fleet and the syndicate in charge (The Japanese Govt)

Quote:

Whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is a violation of International Treaties and Australian Law
Japan is violating international and Australian law. The following list summarizes some of the violations.

1. The Japanese are whaling in violation of the International Whaling Commission's global moratorium on commercial whaling. The IWC scientific committee does not recognize the research that the Japanese are using as an excuse.
2. The Japanese are killing whales in the internationally recognised Southern Ocean Sanctuary for whales.
3. The Japanese are killing whales unlawfully in the Australian Antarctic Territory (Australian Law - Federal Court judgement January 2008 under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999)
4. The Japanese are targeting fin whales and humpback whales. One is listed as an endangered species and the other listed as a threatened species. This is a violation of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, of which both Japan and Australia are signatories.
5. The Japanese are in violation of IWC regulation 19. (a) The IWC regulations in the Schedule to the Convention forbid the use of factory ships to process any protected stock: 19. (a) It is forbidden to use a factory ship or a land station for the purpose of treating any whales which are classified as Protection Stocks in paragraph 10. Paragraph 10(c) provides a definition of Protection Stocks and states that Protection Stocks are listed in the Tables of the Schedule. Table 1 lists all the baleen whales, including minke, fin and humpback whales and states that all of them are Protection Stocks.
6. The IWC regulations specifically ban the use of factory ships to processy any whales except minke whales: Paragraph 10(d) provides: "(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10 there shall be a moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales, except minke whales, by factory ships or whale catchers attached to factory ships. This moratorium applies to sperm whales, killer whales and baleen whales, except minke whales."
7. the presence of military/ security forces breaches the Antarctic treaty
8. the whaling fleet regularly refuels in the treaty zone below 60 degrees south in breach of the Antarctic treaty. In October 2008 the whaling fleet's refueling and cargo vessel, Oriental Bluebird, was deflagged following a ruling by Panamian Authorities. The maximum fine of 10,000 Balboas (US$10,000) was imposed on the owners of the ship, Hiyo Shipping Co. Ltd, in Japan who on October 8th removed its Panamanian registration and flag. Japan has ratified an international treaty which seeks to end the practice of 're-flagging' vessels in order to circumvent international environmental law.
9. the Whaling fleet fails to submit Environmental Management Plans in case of a maritime disaster in the Treaty zone which breaches the Antarctic treaty. The Nisshin Maru factory ship caught fire in 2007 losing all power including to its engines. One crew member died. An environmental disaster was threatened, but did not eventuate

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Many thanks for posing that, farmer.

There it is. All in one post!

I will save that list & use it often! Wink

1 Reply

@msolga,

Here's the transcript for the Radio National program:

MARK COLVIN: A new skirmish over whaling is about to erupt in a small courtroom in Japan's north.

Next week two Japanese Greenpeace activists will be brought to the dock accused of trespass and of stealing whale meat.

The charges could see them put in jail for up to 10 years.

The two activists, dubbed the 'Tokyo Two', say the whale meat was smuggled off a Japanese research ship with the full knowledge of government officials and that it was headed for the black market.

They intercepted the package and took it to the police, but instead they were charged with theft.

Now the ABC has obtained a United Nations report condemning the detention of the two activists for contravening international covenants on human rights.

Our correspondent Mark Willacy reports from Tokyo.

(Sound of large ship docking)

MARK WILLACY: When Japan's whaling fleet flagship the Nisshin Maru returned to port from its annual hunt two years ago it was under surveillance.

But it wasn't the police watching the boat, it was activists from Greenpeace, among them Junichi Sato.

JUNICHI SATO: We were investigating the corruption in the whaling industry that is funded by taxpayer's money. So we wanted to show the real face of the whaling industry, how corrupt this industry is to the Japanese public.

MARK WILLACY: Junichi Sato and his Greenpeace colleague Toru Suzuki were acting on a tip-off from a former whaling crew member who blew the whistle on the alleged smuggling of whale meat off the ship and on to the black market.

WHALER (voiceover): muffled voice speaking Japanese.

MARK WILLACY: In this interview recorded by Greenpeace, the former whaling crew member, his voice disguised, describes how the meat was taken from the ship…

"Everyone knows, but it's not talked about in public" he says. "They all do it, with tacit understanding. There are shipping company staff there too, but it seems that they see and pretend not to see" he says.

Acting on this information, Greenpeace activists Sato and Suzuki tracked a package from the Nisshin Maru to a mail depot in northern Japan.

There they took the package which was marked "cardboard" and opened it. Inside there was no cardboard but there was 23 kilograms of salt-cured whale meat.

After showing the media, the activists handed the package to prosecutors, seeking charges of embezzlement against the crew.

Instead police arrested Sato and Suzuki for theft and trespass.

JUNICHI SATO: This is really a politically motivated arrest. We were trying to stop the bigger crime. This is not a theft case but it is about whaling on trial.

MARK WILLACY: The stakes are high for the Greenpeace activists who've been dubbed the Tokyo Two.

In Japan the conviction rate in criminal cases in 99.8 per cent. And if Sato and Suzuki are found guilty they could face 10 years in jail.

Yuichi Kaido is their defence lawyer…

"We will argue in court that these two men are members of an NGO" Kaido tells me. "There is a significant argument that research activities carried out by NGO members based on whistle-blower evidence has the same rights and freedoms as investigative reporting by journalists" he says.

The defence will also argue that the conditions the two activists were held under contravened international law.

Sato and Suzuki were held without charge for 23 days, questioned without a lawyer and while tied to a chair and interrogated for up to 12 hours a day.

The ABC's Lateline program has obtained a report by the United Nations Human Rights Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

It found:

UN REPORT (voiceover): The detention of Messrs Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki is arbitrary and contravenes the dispositions contained in articles 18, 19 and 20 of the universal declaration of human rights and articles 18 and 19 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, to which Japan is a state party.

MARK WILLACY: The UN working group also noted that Sato and Suzuki acted in the greater public interest, because they sought to expose criminal embezzlement within the taxpayer funded whaling industry.

The ABC approached both the Japanese Fisheries Agency and the prosecutors about the case of the Tokyo Two but both refused to comment.

This trial could cost both Greenpeace activists their freedom but Junichi Sato argues that will only bring more scrutiny of both Japan's judicial system and its whaling program.

JUNICHI SATO: Well for the theft case the maximum penalty is 10 years in jail, however if this trial is fair I don't think we will get that.

MARK WILLACY: How does the prospect of jail sit with you at the moment?

Well of course for private reasons I don't want to be in jail, but if they are putting us in jail of course then we can fight back and think we have more stronger arguments why this is a politically motivated arrest, because they want to simply shut us down.

MARK WILLACY: The trial of the Tokyo Two is expected to last several months.

This is Mark Willacy in Tokyo for PM.

MARK COLVIN: And Mark Willacy's full report can be seen on Lateline on ABC 1 tonight.

2 Replies

@dlowan,

Thank you very much, Deb.

I'll be watching developments very closely. This is not just about persecution of "the Tokyo Two", it's about the corruption & the ethics of the Japanese whaling industry.

Quote:

MARK WILLACY: When Japan's whaling fleet flagship the Nisshin Maru returned to port from its annual hunt two years ago it was under surveillance.

But it wasn't the police watching the boat, it was activists from Greenpeace, among them Junichi Sato.

JUNICHI SATO: We were investigating the corruption in the whaling industry that is funded by taxpayer's money. So we wanted to show the real face of the whaling industry, how corrupt this industry is to the Japanese public.

Quote:

MARK WILLACY: The stakes are high for the Greenpeace activists who've been dubbed the Tokyo Two.

In Japan the conviction rate in criminal cases in 99.8 per cent. And if Sato and Suzuki are found guilty they could face 10 years in jail.

Yuichi Kaido is their defence lawyer…

"We will argue in court that these two men are members of an NGO" Kaido tells me. "There is a significant argument that research activities carried out by NGO members based on whistle-blower evidence has the same rights and freedoms as investigative reporting by journalists" he says.

The defence will also argue that the conditions the two activists were held under contravened international law.

Sato and Suzuki were held without charge for 23 days, questioned without a lawyer and while tied to a chair and interrogated for up to 12 hours a day.

The ABC's Lateline program has obtained a report by the United Nations Human Rights Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Where is this whale sanctuary? Does Australia really have jurisdiction over it? Generally international law does not recognize any claims of national jurisdiction for areas more than 200 miles off shore. Indeed beyond 50 miles jurisdiction is severely limited.

There are many such claims for exclusive jurisdiction in open sea areas and most are ignored by other nations. Offshore fisheries are often a disputed point and the list of currently active disputes in these areas is long indeed. Japan, Russia (and the USSR), the UK, and in some areas Spain are particularly aggressive in exploiting fishing areas that nearby nations try to limit and control.

Bodies such as the IWC do not have the same rights or stature as sovereign nations. They don't have Navies either. Basically international law is simply what sovereign nations agree to and choose to enforce.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

George, I don't wish to be rude, but the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary & commercial whaling in it & surrounding waters by the Japanese has been the main focus of this & the previous "whales" thread.

2 Replies

@msolga,

George seems to like his "rules of conduct" malleable so that he isnt tied down by international agreements and compacts.

A series of international agreements fall within the same type of classification as does the IWC compact. For example the UNcharter, and the several sub organizations that attempt to cure diseases, provide agricultural assistance, and send emergency aid and technical services to areas that need it.

You are , at least consistent in deniying that international agreements have any merit and that we shouldnt attempt any further agreements.

Msolga has been totally consistent in her discussions, because they are valid. Youve been all over the barnyard to see whether anything will stick. Whats next, that minke whales are a danger to the environment?

0 Replies

@msolga,

I'm well aware of the focus of the thread.

My question had to do with how far it is from the coast of Australia, and the legal significance of Australian attempts to regulate it by law, if that is indeed the case. Nations can't enact & enforce laws applicable to oceanic areas far from their coasts - no matter how much they may wish to do so.

The number and content of international agreements of various types has certainly multiplied in recent decades. However, most are observed in the breech and very few are enforcable as international law.

There are numerous international agreements and claims by littoral nations that are routinely violated and ignored by the governments of both Australia and the United States .... and many others.

It is nations themselves that like rules limiting them to be malleable: it isn't my idea at all, or even very original.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

By the way.... It appears that environmentalists and anti whaling folks also like the rules limiting their behavior to be malleable as well.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

There are numerous international agreements and claims by littoral nations that are routinely violated and ignored by the governments of both Australia and the United States .... and many others.

Isee, reciprocity is the only standard for enforcement?
The Antarctic is administered by the several nations and AUstralia is but one. The signatories of the IWC have agreed , (by their own hands) That this SOuthern Sanctuary is creted and is valid. Japsn has agreed for about 20 yeasr and then they decide that their chi chi dietary interests should modify the "words" that theor own government had given.

Its true, in the past some treaties have not been adhered to. However, is that a valid reason to abandon the idea so that we return to some form of international chaos like SOmalia?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/images/sanctuaries.gif

THis displays the combined areas of the INDIAN OCEAN SANCTUARY (est 1978)and the SOUTHERN OCEAN SNACTUARY(est 1994). SInce the snctaury ban language is against "commercial" whaling, the Japanese have used the term "research whaling" just to circumvent the sanctuary rules.

I erred in that the Japanese had originally opposed the sanctuaries formation. They did , however, comply until the 2004 whaling season.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Isee, reciprocity is the only standard for enforcement?

Not the only one, but certainly a time-honored and reliable one.

farmerman wrote:

Its true, in the past some treaties have not been adhered to. However, is that a valid reason to abandon the idea so that we return to some form of international chaos like SOmalia?

Our President recently signed an international agreement pledging the United States to achieve something like a 17% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions within the next decade or so. However the agreement has not been ratified by our Congress, and, even in our own terms, doesn't constitute an enforcable or binding agreement. The many European nations that signed, and duly ratified, the supposed binding agreements under the Kyoto treaty all failed to live up to the obligations they willingly accepted. The result... no consequences, not even any shame or regrets.

Many international issue groups are increasingly seeking to carry out their aims through various international agreements. Sovereign national governments are increasingly willing to quiet public concerns by signing these agreements. However those that occasionally sign them are notable mostly for their disregard for the agreements whenever their own important political or economic interests are at stake. Iran is a signatory to the supposedly binding nuclear Non proliferation treaty, however, it blandly refuses to comply with it. The likelihood of any international effort to enforce its terms on Iran is very dim indeed.

One could argue that this proliferation of unenforcable and unenforced "international law" seriously jeopardizes all the rest of the international law, even that which has until recently been generally observed and enforced. Indeed some have suggested that this proliferation of relatively unserious agreements has already returned us to the age of chaos to which you referred.

Interestingly, the case of Somalia to which you referred involves a time-honored element of international law (against piracy at sea) that was until recently vigorously enforced by maritime nations. Now it appears that the will to do so has evaporated under the weight of a growing body of international policing "agreements" that enforce nothing, but have in effect abrogated the previous law - an excellent example of the point in the paragraph above.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Scientific evidence is slowly turning against the Anthropogenic Greenhouse GAs Guys , so to conflate that with whaling has only one parallel. In that, I wish that the already existing treaty be honored and that the research to determine whether the Minke whale and species of finbacks are being affected , be completed. Conducting an activity while determining whether its safe or not is the basis for Russian Roulette.

Your support of business interests seems unencumbered by any concern for the natural world, and your dependence of "scientific data" is, in this casequite flawed, since there is virtually none to support the Japanese cause but there is suitable evidence to support the shout out by IWC to cease whaling in the Sanctuaries. Is there a reason that the Japanese dont similarly **** around in the Indian Ocean Snactuary? I wonder whose might they respect? couldnt be India or China could it?.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I'm well aware of the focus of the thread.

Of course. That should be pretty clear to anyone.

But my comment was in response your some of your questions, including:

Quote:

Where is this whale sanctuary?

I was trying to say that this information was already here, if you'd care to look. In fact, soon after you joined this discussion, I reposted background information on the Southern Ocean Whale sanctuary for you.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The number and content of international agreements of various types has certainly multiplied in recent decades. However, most are observed in the breech and very few are enforcable as international law.

Here's how I see it, George. I'll try to make this as simple as I can.

Pretty much your sole argument here appears to be that if member nations do not agree with the "rules" of the organizations they belong to, then it's OK for them not adhere to the majority rulings of those organization/s, for their own reasons.

(To use an analogy) a member nation of the UN decides to invade Iraq, in defiance of United Nations guidelines, on the basis of its own interests & perceptions on weapons of mass destruction. That member nation then acts unilaterally & invades, arguing at the same time that the UN position is weak, or wrong. That member nation chooses, at the same time, to remain within the fold of the UN, though clearly acting outside the (voluntary) accepted guidelines of the organization. This is what I'd described as "having it both ways". Enjoying the respectability of "belonging", while at the same time pursuing a separate agenda, undermining the effectiveness of the organization .

OK. The Japanese government is a member nation of the IWC. The IWC bans whaling & supports the creation of the Southern Whale Sanctuary in 1994. The ban obviously does not suit Japanese commercial interests, but it is the majority ruling. Japanese then chooses to exploit a "scientific research" loophole to continue commercial whaling, in defiance of the organization it belongs to.

Now, while the UN & the IWC are both voluntary organizations, I would argue that both the US (by invading Iraq) & Japan (by continuing commercial whaling) are not acting in good faith, are not responsible members of the the organizations they belong to. Yet they continue to "belong" to those organizations while clearly acting outside their "rules".

Where you & I differ, George, is that you appear to believe that it's OK for for member nations to act outside the "rules" if it suits their interests. I believe they are acting outside the law, (as imperfect the law making organizations might be).

You can go on & on, clutching at technicalities, regarding the validity or otherwise of international laws, to justify Japanese commercial whaling. (the same could be done to "justify" invading Iraq, too, if one wanted to) but frankly, you should not be at all surprised that many people believe that the Japanese have not acted ethically. You, of course, you can choose to believe whatever you want to believe. That's your prerogative. I just don't buy it.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I'm not arguing with the scientific case as you present it. I'm sure you know more about this aspect of the issue than do I, and I don't have a basis on which to argue with - or even dispute - your views on these matters.

However, Japanese science, particularly that involving oceanography and marine biology are themselves, quite advanced: perhaps they have something to say in the matter as well.

After all is said and done the, as yet unsolved, problem of persuading the Japanese to go along with our wishes is very much a political issue. It seems pretty clear to me that the activities of the activists who try to physically interfere with the Japanese whalers have not only been ineffective themselves, but have also likely strengthened the resolve of elements in Japan and the Japanese government not to be bullied by such zealots.

Nations that are offended by the Japanese position can either offer continued discussions and negotiations; apply political and economic sanctions against Japan; or take up arms to force them. The latter two options offer the opportunity for Japanese counter moves which themselves may add to the consequences for all.

For Msolga - I knew from prior reading here that the whale sanctuary in question was far from the Australian coast and well beyond its recognized exclusive economic zone, which by generally accepted convention extends no more than 200 miles from shore. My question "Where is...." was a - perhaps awkward - rhetorical device intended to remind you that Australian law has no reach there.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

For Msolga - I knew from prior reading here that the whale sanctuary in question was far from the Australian coast and well beyond its recognized exclusive economic zone, which by generally accepted convention extends no more than 200 miles from shore.

Yes, I'm well aware that this would almost certainly be challenged by the Japanese government in an (Australian government) international legal case against whaling. However, the Australian government has committed itself to such a challenge (pre-election promise) so it'll be interesting to see where this goes to from here.

1 Reply

@msolga,

I don't think the Japanese would bother to challenge any such Australian action: rather they point out the lack of jurisdiction and simply ignore it.

1 Reply

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know