OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

@dlowan,

Probably maintain it's opposition to "scientific whaling" in the IWC. (which NZ appears to be wavering on), perhaps under pressure from the US & other supporters of the "compromise" amendment to be presented to the IWC in June.

That is what has limited Japanese whaling activities till now. And has endorsed the unacceptability of such arguments to justify whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Reserve, for example.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Probably maintain it's opposition to "scientific whaling" in the IWC. (which NZ appears to be wavering on), perhaps under pressure from the US ...

Nobody knows better than the locals, and if you consult Auckland newspapers you'll see their government is accused of caving to pressure from Japan, not the US. The NZ government counters it has a duty to protect its own citizens, one of whom is currently held under guard on the whaling vessel Shonan Maru, still in Antarctic waters, and faces arrest and trial when that ship returns to Japan.

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20100107/470_ap_shepherd_100107.jpg

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100216/whaling_protester_100216/20100216?hub=SciTech

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Sure. But there have been reports of the US pressuring Australia to drop it's objection the the "scientific research" loophole . (see one below) It wouldn't surprise me it all if NZ hadn't also received the same treatment. Either way, the US is supporting the compromise resolution to the IWC .

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/23/2605430.htm

2 Replies

@msolga,

I'm sure Australia is also under considerable pressure from Japan to drop it's alternative proposal as part of the ongoing "diplomacy" process leading up to the conference in June. Japan is a very important trading partner & is in a powerful bargaining position with Australia. Whatever is going on behind the scenes, there is a lot of pressure for the compromise proposal to be accepted.

0 Replies

@msolga,

It's not clear if the compromise would be advantageous to whales, since countries like South Korea have already said that if Japan starts commercial fishing in its own coastal territorial waters (as do Iceland and Norway) then they will follow suit.

Inside Japan cracks in the previously unified "scientific whaling" position started showing with the publication in an influential local magazine of an article by Tomohiko Taniguchi, the former spokesman of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs favoring the coastal compromise. It's unthinkable that Taniguchi would have published without MOFA's approval, then or ever. Here's what he said at an economic conference in London - as you see we're back to George OB's arguments about the overriding importance of protecting freedom of sea lanes:

Quote:

Taniguchi insisted that Japan must do
its utmost to help preserve the hegemonic stability of the US, which has been the sole provider of security
in the Asia-Pacific region in which the Japan-US alliance is the real linchpin. Barring the US, Japan has
virtual security pacts with India and Australia in order to keep maritime safety, but Taniguchi affirmed
that the US must remain the provider of the hegemonic stability on which all in the region have grown
and prospered.
Taniguchi claimed that Japan cannot afford a US in retreat and suggested that in order to preserve the
US-centred global economy, the UK, the US and Japan could form a de facto maritime power in order to
keep the US-centred world stable.

http://www.dajf.org.uk/_pdf/Global_Economy.pdf

2 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

"After broadly considering the national interest, Japan should drop its ocean-going research whaling,” wrote Taniguchi in the February edition of Wedge magazine. “Instead, it should revive its deficit-ridden coastal whaling and find a way to keep the sales channels and food culture of eating whale meat."

http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2009/02/04/rethinking_japans_whaling_practices/8199/

More background on the author (from the 2008 Daiwa economic conference proceedings in London, linked on previous post):

Quote:

Tomohiko Taniguchi is Adjunct Professor (International Political Economy) at Keio University, Senior
Advisor to Central Japan Railway, and Advisor to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA).
Previously, he was Deputy Press Secretary and Deputy Director-General for Public Diplomacy at MOFA.
He started his career with Nikkei Business and worked in London as the magazine’s first European
Bureau Chief (1997-2000). He has been a visiting fellow at Princeton University, Shanghai Institute of
International Studies, and the Brookings Institution. He is an author of several books on topics such as
international currency regime.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Insufficient time to properly read your links right now, High Seas. But thanks.
Interesting.

Quote:

...as you see we're back to George OB's arguments about the overriding importance of protecting freedom of sea lanes

The sole argument I've seen so far from the IWC is that is that a compromise position is necessary to preserve the viability of the IWC itself .
It seems as though whale conservation & welfare concerns are not exactly featuring highly in this push for compromise. From those pushing for the compromise.

2 Replies

@msolga,

Perhaps, by the time that the IWC meets in June, conservation & animal welfare groups might be the only organizations opposing a compromise proposal. (In whatever form it will be by that time.) Who knows? It's possible.
If this is the case (& of course these groups & their supporters do not have an actual say in IWC decisions) it will be interesting to see what their response will be, should a compromise proposal prevail. I guess it depends on the actual details of the proposal & the impact on whaling activities.

0 Replies

@msolga,

I suspect that is because there are different and perhaps conflicting opinions among those involved concerning whale conservation and the intersecting national interests in this ocean area. Do you see any practical possibility of a solution that does not involve compromise on these issues? Or do you insist that everyone does as you wish?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

I will have to respond later in the day, George. I must get moving now or I'll be late for work. (really.)

0 Replies

@farmerman,

It's been just over a year since; a "baby blue" has been reported swimming next to his mom NNE off the Bahamas heading to mom's summer restaurant in the Arctic. You may be right, but it's a wise child that knows his own father Smile

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Do you see any practical possibility of a solution that does not involve compromise on these issues

It depends on the nature of the compromise, George. And how you define the "problem".

Say the IWC passes a resolution which re-introduces whaling on some sort of "limited" basis, & removes all protection from existing whale sanctuaries, with the stated aim of phasing out whaling in the long-term ... however, in the meantime, nations who have refrained from whaling take it up again, because it's allowable again under the "rules" .... do you think any serious environmentalist/animal welfare advocate would see this as some sort of sensible compromise?

How could anyone who has closely watched developments since the IWC banned whaling have any real confidence that the IWC can actually deliver on what it promises? It has been unable enforce it's own laws with a member country who chose to continue commercial whaling via a convenient loophole. It is still refusing to budge on the contentious "scientific research" loophole (why?), despite the clear lack of any real evidence that killing whales for supposed "scientific" purposes has produced any useful "findings". And now (if the current compromise proposal does prevail) we are expected to believe that the IWC has the capability to oversee an eventual end to whaling ... at some time down the track. And that in the meantime, it actually has some control about the number of whales "harvested".

You might understand, George, that a person with environment/animal welfare concerns might be somewhat skeptical that the IWC is actually capable of delivering anything it promises, unless of course, powerful nations are actively supportive. And right now, it rather appears that the powerful nations which are pushing for compromise could be more motivated by their own political & economic concerns, rather than any thing much to do with concern about whales.

3 Replies

@msolga,

I'd be interested, George, to know what compromises (specifically about whaling) you think it would be reasonable for conservationists to accept & why.

2 Replies

@msolga,

I thought you were concerned about the impossibility of killing whales humanely Olga.

Look how chickens have ensured their survival as a species by being "finger lickin' good."

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I'd be interested, George, to know what compromises (specifically about whaling) you think it would be reasonable for conservationists to accept & why.

In the first place the existing agreement among the signatory nations to the whaling conventions (Your country is one) was itself a compromise among the competing interests of the various parties. Evidently you and other self styled conservationists don't like it, and insist on no whaling at all, anywhere and especially in the Antarctic waters south of Australia. This is not a position that itself appears to permit much compromise. Your efforts to persuade the Japanese, Norwegians and others who engage in the practice have not, so far been successful. Indeed the actions of the various activists appear to have increased the resolve of the Japanese government not to back down.

It is difficult to establish a mutually acceptable standard for what is "reasonable" with one who takes such an absolute position. There are competing interests here involving the rights and consent of other people who, like you, have their own concepts of what is acceptable or not. You and other conservationists in Australia appear to have sufficiently aroused your government to at least rhetorically challenge the Japanese. I'm not aware that any of the other national parties to the conventions in question have expressed support of PM Rudd's demands. That leaves your government with a dilemma. It must either frustrate some of its aroused constituents, or risk the consequences of damaged relations with an important trade partner and political ally. For you personally, it leaves you with the chore of coming to terms with whatever it is that your government eventually accepts in this matter. If you and Australia are unable to accept any compromise there are two available alternatives; prolongued impotent rage or war. In these circumstances I cant really offer you any suggestions: you must decide.

I find it somewhat bemusing that you would cite the writings of a self-styled philosopher who repeatedly asserts that there is no transcendental value to human life, but who goes on to assert that there is absolutely no humane way to kill a whale. Such illogic is the province of ivory tower academics, not folks who live in the real world. It is certainly not a sound philosophic foundation for such absolutism as you express.

You have referred to these points as "my agenda" or "my special interests". That is your right, but I see them as simply common sense.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

You might understand, George, that a person with environment/animal welfare concerns might be somewhat skeptical that the IWC is actually capable of delivering anything it promises, unless of course, powerful nations are actively supportive. And right now, it rather appears that the powerful nations which are pushing for compromise could be more motivated by their own political & economic concerns, rather than any thing much to do with concern about whales.

With respect to this point;

I don't think the IWC ever promised the absolute end to whaling everywhere by anyone. The "loophole" to which you have separately referred was put in the convention knowingly and deliberately - a compromise required to get an agreement.

I believe all the nations involved, Australia and New Zeland prominently included, will weigh this issue against their other legitimate political and economic interests in reaching a position on the matter. For them to do otherwise would be a betrayal of their responsibilities to their people.

It is one thing to cultivate and apply certain values and principles for ones self. It is quite another to demand that everyone else do exactly the same.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Searching out the contribution that the Japanese research has provided us after 20 years, I found very little. I did find one papaer on whale diestary needas . This was used to make some obscure point that "killing whales" will restore depleted fish stocks. TOTAL CRAP.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Searching out the contribution that the Japanese research has provided us after 20 years, I found very little.

Which doesn't say there was very little to find. Your search might have been superficial. What you found is hardly a scientific principle.

How many cod have to be trapped and crushed in giant nets to provide equal human nutrient to one whale of average size.

As whales are not preyed upon how many would there be if left unhindered. They certainly make a mess of a lot of seals. Baby ones too.

1 Reply

@spendius,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0qMT2YBIcg

0 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

Say the IWC passes a resolution which re-introduces whaling on some sort of "limited" basis, & removes all protection from existing whale sanctuaries, with the stated aim of phasing out whaling in the long-term ... however, in the meantime, nations who have refrained from whaling take it up again, because it's allowable again under the "rules" .... do you think any serious environmentalist/animal welfare advocate would see this as some sort of sensible compromise?

Does it matter, MsOlga, does it really matter?

Why do you continue to put words like rules in quotes? Rules are precisely what should be followed. Why do you offer support to those who continually go outside the rules, who harass those who are following the rules?

Again, it all boils down to the cuddly factor and the feelings of a small number of serious environmentalist/animal welfare advocates does not/should not be the deciding factor for all cultures of the world.

0 Replies

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know