msolga wrote:
The problem, as I see it, is that the IWC is not the appropriate body to to resolve the conflict. It is a Commission about whaling & I believe its focus is too narrow to properly address the many other concerns about whales.
I'm inclined to agree, the IWC is mainly about preventing over-hunting, and helping to
sustain whaling.
For those trying to stop whaling altogether there is a conflict of objectives with any of the whaling treaties and it should come as no surprise that using the IWC's treaties doesn't quite work out for them since the IWC doesn't even share their goals.
Quote:
I believe it's time for a more appropriate body (with more authority) & which can better address all the real concerns (within a much broader context), to be formed.
I'm not sure what you mean, all such bodies would still be voluntary unless international law evolves more than it has throughout the entire course of history and sovereignty becomes a dated concept.
Let's say a new body is created with the purpose of stopping whaling altogether, Japan could simply not ever voluntarily join said body's treaties and you are back to "might makes right" as the only way of resolving the differences.
Quote:
I honestly don't believe the cartoons (posted by me, here, anyway) have been rascist, "insulting" or "stereotypical of the culture clash more so than the issue itself". (Could you point out which one/s you were referring to?)
I don't think I saw
any of the cartoons here (admittedly, that only amounts to a half-dozen or so) that didn't fit that description for me. But they are probably subtle and latent enough that we'd not agree.
But disregard whether we can agree on that for a minute and consider that if they are received as such it's problematic anyway. For many Japanese they are very similar to the World War 2 cartoons that emphasize racial stereotypes and they are also full of emotional appeals (just look at how much blood they tend to contain).
Whether or not you feel they
should insult Japanese people, I can tell you with a reasonable degree of certainty that they
do.
Quote:
They have just about exclusively been about "the whaling debate" which is the issue!
You can still have xenophobia and racism in a perfectly on-topic cartoon about the whaling debate. I'm not saying that those are primary motivations, I'm saying that the significant racial tensions between Australia and Japan have slipped into the debate. We may well not be able to agree on that but I think we could agree that if enough people on either side feel that way it is an impediment to agreement.
Quote:The last one was about the "whale research" argument by the Japanese. And I thought it was fair comment to a thoroughly discredited argument.
Japanese Whaling is obviously commercial, and for the purposes of this discussion we can say it has nothing at all to do with research. Proving this is pointless since it's being used as a legal loophole. There was no real agreement on the moratorium since its birth and Japan never agreed with the very principles of the voluntary moratorium they were coerced into.
So that they use the legal loopholes within the treaty to circumvent it should come as no surprise, nor should the fact that pointing out the obvious pretext won't make a bit of a difference.
Their "research" pretext is not at all an argument within the whaling debate, it is merely semantics that allows them to comply with the letter of a law that they are party to voluntarily without complying with the spirit of it, which they have never ever agreed to.
If Japan so desired they could just tell withdraw from the IWC and say they are whaling for commercial purposes and do so legally. As it stands, they have to call their commercial whaling "research" for it to be legal under the voluntary agreement they were bullied into.
Quote:
No one (that I can recall) actually said that the Japanese are "cruel bloodthirsty folk" because they eat whales.
You have posted articles or posts within the last couple of weeks depicting them as "cruel", "ruthless", "filling the oceans with blood" so I'm sure you are aware of the many people who do in fact do so.
Here's an example of a portion of an article that you posted that you emphasized with bold text (seemingly indicating agreement):
"Japan is an economic bully and will continue to bully Aussies and Kiwis until some politician with a modicum of backbone decides to defend AnZac honour by kicking their ruthless whale killing asses out of the Southern Oceans Whale Sanctuary."
But I'm not really talking about the people in this thread so much as the general level of debate on an international level, it's full of emotional appeals like bloody cartoons and these things do nothing to address the real issues and serve only to stir up already over-inflamed emotions.
Quote:But there are many concerns about why the Japanese continue to kill whales (for "research purposes") in ever increasing numbers & continue stockpiling them. Then run government campaigns to encourage more (not so enthusiastic, I assume) people to eat them. (Many articles here on that particular issue, if you'd like to take a look.)
I haven't read the articles in this thread on the stockpiling but am familiar with articles (possibly the same) on the sub-subject.
Personally, I think Japanese continue to kill whales because they do not agree that whales should not be killed and because they dislike being told what to do by other countries. Countries like China and Japan are quite xenophobic and have much stronger aversions to other's "meddling" in "their" affairs.
Quote:
A "pissing contest (mainly with Australia), "? You really think so, Robert?
Oh yes, I think it's much bigger of an issue for the majority of each side's population than the whales themselves.
Here is a quote from an article you posted: "The Japanese Government is trying to exert some chauvinistic superiority. They have already said that whaling is a question of pride."
Here is another quote from an article you posted:
"What Moronuki is saying is that Japan will do whatever it wishes, and to show contempt for Australians they have decided to target the beloved humpbacks. They will even kill Migaloo if they come across him. They are saying that Australians haven't got the guts to oppose them because Japan is the economic master of Australia and Australians have to accept everything the Japanese want for fear of losing resource sales to Japan. Japan is an economic bully and will continue to bully Aussies and Kiwis until some politician with a modicum of backbone decides to defend AnZac honour by kicking their ruthless whale killing asses out of the Southern Oceans Whale Sanctuary."
Those are just from the last couple weeks of this thread, I didn't have to go far to find good examples of how much of a matter of nationalism this has become for both sides.
Quote:Indulged in by whom? The government? Environment groups? The Oz media? The "people" ...?
All of the above. But especially by Oz Media and environmental groups and, of course, the Japanese whaling itself (being their non-verbal reaction).
Quote:Before I say any more, can I make it clear that I'm not some sort of rappant nationalist of the "my country, right or wrong variety", OK? :wink:
But I do take objection to what you've written & I don't believe your perception is correct.
I don't think one has to be a rampant nationalist to allow this debate to involve nationalism but let's just say that it's not at all about nationalism for a second. Even if it isn't, it's very obvious that many people within the debate think it is (see the articles you posted that I reference for example).
If people think it is, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quote:
As I've tried to say earlier, I don't believe this is some sort of racist excercise aimed targeting the Japanese.
I don't think racism is the primary motivation, but I think it's hard to ignore that it has become a component. That's why the cartoons you post often resemble World War 2 caricatures of Japanese. There is some significant history here and the stuff Australian cartoonists are churning out these days are very much reminiscent of cartoons from World War 2 like "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips". See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugs_Bunny_Nips_the_Nips
They go out of their way to emphasize racial stereotypes and are throwbacks to a much more racist time. But again, whether or not you or I think they are racist, if Japanese people do they are problematic for whales (if not for a pissing contest).
I feel that you get idiotic comments from Japanese like hinting that they'd be willing to kill Migaloo because of the heightened emotions that the uglier side of this debate had brought to light.
From one of your articles: "Captain Paul Watson reacted to the report on the potential threat to Migaloo by accusing the Japanese of deliberately goading Australians."
Yes! That
is goading, you depict it as some sort of calculated diversion but I feel it's an obvious response to what they feel is goading as well. Now I don't much care who started it but it's bloody obvious on both sides and wholly counter-productive toward the objectives of whaling, conservation or animal rights. It serves only one purpose: to fan the emotional flames on both sides.
Quote:
Anyway, I think it's fairly safe to say that we have a great affection for whales & there is a strong feeling that people do not want to see them "farmed" & die painful deaths by harpooning. (You may consider this "sentimental" or "emotional", but it's fairly understandable, I think)
I don't fault the emotion and sentimentality of the whales. I fault emotion and sentimentality in arguments that are aimed at protecting them because they are very clearly counter productive.
I'd like to point out that when I reference emotion I am not criticizing emotion for the animals, but inordinate emotion in the dialogue. For more on emotional appeals see here:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html
Like in many cases, hot blood doesn't tend to be the best condition for agreements. And what few people put enough importance in on this thread is the fact that this is only resolved by agreements or war. There is no legal authority.
So if Australians care about whales so much they should do less to so thoroughly offend Japanese people on the subject because it only motivates them to go out of their way to show that they will not be bullied. If Australians get so offended about the Japanese not
listening to them and portray this as a power struggle imagine how a very nationalistic country feels about being
told what to do.
This is about sovereignty now for the Japanese more than anything else. You keep wondering why the Japanese do what they do when whaling isn't all that important to them. They are reacting to what they see as very untoward meddling. And it takes a particular understanding of their culture to understand why they are so stiff-necked about such things (I've lived in both Japan and Australia and am familiar with both cultures).
National pride in Japan is a weird bird for western cultures to understand. But to put it very simply they are very sensitive to "meddling". This whole thing started off on the wrong foot and has gotten progressively worse. Since there is no authority the exchange should be more diplomatic.
I'm not sure if you are familiar with "saving face" within the Japanese culture either, but the Australians that make this a nationalist issue give Japan no way to do so.
Quote:
Especially when we are informed that much of the whale meat is actually destined for storage & in fact, there is not a huge demand for it on the world (or Japanese) market. And that the motivation appears to be to maintain broader Japanese fishing "rights" (& maintaining the industry) in the world's oceans, rather than specifically about whales. I think that's where a lot of Australian opposition to whaling comes from. I honestly think if it was say, the UK, or Canada, or whatever other country that was conducting the whaling activities that the reaction would be just as strong.
I don't. The US has commercial whaling activity in Alaska and Canada isn't even a member of the IWC, and not a part of the moratorium at all. Commercial Canadian whaling does occur (though in lesser numbers than by Japanese) and you don't hear much from Australia about it.
There are obvious reasons, Japan is a neighbor and there are proximity tensions in addition to the other tensions from World War 2 that still exist.
If you think the volume is the issue then why isn't Norway's whaling as big of a deal to Australia? They did not agree to the moratorium and have been working to increase their whaling as well. They don't even pay lip service to the treaties.
This is so clearly about nationalism by traditional Pacific rivals that I don't think I can make any better of a case for it that is already made on a daily basis by the involved parties. Vocal members on both sides have come out and said as much explicitly in the very articles you post.
And I think you are touching on it yourself when you mention that this is also largely about Japan maintaining other "rights". This is part and parcel of what I am getting at. Japan doesn't want to set a lot of precedents where other countries dictate their fishing "rights".
Quote:
Sorry, but I feel quite offended about you using this as an example of "culture wars" to support your argument. It is a far more complex & difficult situation than you are suggesting. No one (even those Australians with racist tendencies, I'd bet) wants the abuse of Aboriginal children within their own communities to continue.
No offense intended, but I think you may have misunderstood me. It was an example of too much self-righteousness and simple heavy-handedness in an issue that is much more complex than self-righteousness and heavy-handedness is adept at solving.
My point is that it was made unnecessarily inflammatory and counter-productively so (not specifically about the army). I maintain that in the case of whaling the same is the case. The most basic understanding of Japanese culture would indicate that if you want to make Japanese increase their whaling you should continue to publicly call them to task on it in culturally insensitive ways.
