Safety at Sea: Japanese IWC commissioner still misleading people
Posted by Dave (at the last day of the International Whaling Commission, in Anchorage, Alaska)
Malcolm Turnbull, Australian environment minister, with Joji Morishita, Japanese IWC commissioner at the IWC in Anchorage
© Greenpeace/Walsh
Three days ago, at the opening of this International Whaling Commission meeting, the Japanese commissioner, Mr Joji Morishita requested that no slanderous statements be made during the meeting. It would have been a fine thing if they practiced what they preach. Yesterday, the Japanese delegation completely misrepresented the situation that occurred in the Ross Sea back in February of this year, and made some fairly dodgy comments about Greenpeace.
It's all stemmed from a joint New Zealand and Japanese proposal on "Safety at Sea". Japan's Powerpoint presentation showed a list of our expeditions and encounters with the Japanese whaling fleet. As Shane pointed out earlier - the Japanese delegation have to be commended on this, as it's possibly a better record than he has! The Japanese commissioner, then showed videos of incidents involving the whaling fleet and vessels from Sea Shepherd.
Next, Japan's commissioner talked about the fire on the Japanese factory whaling Nisshin Maru in the Ross Sea, culminating in the death of one crewman. Alas, he completely failed to acknowledge that our ship, the Esperanza (which I was on board) came at high speed to the assistance of the Nisshin Maru while it lay disabled, after being the first vessel to respond to the distress call.
He said, "the Greenpeace vessel approached, closed in and started their anti-whaling campaign right in front of our crew. This was an act of torment and an act that is quite unforgivable and as in the case of Sea Shepherd's terroristic acts cannot be forgiven in any way."
In reality, we spent a week standing by, providing ice surveys via helicopter, and offering towing assistance to the Japanese whaling fleet. All of our honest offers to tow the Nisshin Maru out of the pristine Antarctic environment were refused by the Japanese government - who simply responded by calling us "terrorists". This was despite the Esperanza being fully equipped to tow, and our captain, Frank Kamp, having ten years experience in marine salvage.
At the time, we made it clear to the whaling fleet and the government of Japan that our primary motivation was to ensure the safety of the Japanese whaling crew and the environment. The irony here is that Japan's statement fails to mention this in the context of a debate about safety at sea - which is a complete rewriting of history just for the sake of political expediency.
After the presentation, a few speakers chimed in to make some pretty weird comments about Greenpeace, and it seems that the Japanese delegation's briefing to its' the countries that it has on its side has implied that Greenpeace was somehow connected to the death of the Japanese crewman on board the Nisshin Maru - when in fact the incident was completely unconnected - we were a day's sail away at the time.
The disabled Japanese whaling ship Nisshin Maru with a re-fuelling vessel and hunter vessel tied alongside.
© Greenpeace / Daniel Beltra
St. Kitts claimed that Greenpeace had invaded their country during our protest as last year's IWC. "Who funds Greenpeace?", asked a speaker from Grenada. "They should be held accountable for the organisation's activities". Greenpeace, as can claim financial independence from political or commercial interests - 2.8 million people worldwide fund Greenpeace, and we've represented global opinion through 35 years of peaceful protest - something that not all IWC delegations can claim. More on fundraising here. The question is, who pays for these delegations trips to the IWC? Both Grenada and St. Kitts are on the list of countries who receive fisheries aid from Japan in return for voting with them at the IWC. Questioning where Greenpeace gets its money from... well, it's a kind of ironic situation.
Japan's vote buying »
Financial Grants and Votes for Whaling »
Of course we also useful non-violent peaceful means of protest, as a way of bearing witness to environmental issues. More on that here »
Unfortunately, although Greenpeace has delegates at the IWC, non-governmental organisations don't have the opportunity to vocally reply, at least not in the IWC itself - which is rather frustrating!
- Dave
Weblog from the 2007 Southern Ocean expedition »
Greenpeace right of reply letter sent to the IWC today »
Comments
Who cares what they say at the IWC? Thanks to Greenpeace the world can see who is telling lies and that is what matters!
Posted by: Lisa | June 1, 2007 2:05 AM
It's amazing how a representative of the Japanese government speaks out with such arrogance and hypocrasy about Greenpeace, and also Seashepherd, when they themselves constantly violated the moratorium on whaling under the pretext of science during these passed years, also by illegally entering the whalesanctuary. Buying votes from developing countries, to my opinion can be considered as subornation of those countries under the pretext of foreign aid. It shows that the Japanese have a huge lack of respect for the opinion of other IWC members and the population of this world as well who've voted "NO TO WHALING"!
The IWC has to modernize and it is at this moment a to weak instrument to defend and protect the whales and all other endangered species. After all there is no IWC policeforce to maintain and observe the law or moratorium. Also no sanctions are imposed to those nations who've been violating the moratorium. Is the IWC a paper tiger? To the Japanese it seems to be. To me to more reason to maintain my campaign to boycott all Japanese goods until such times whaling (and dolphining) is outlawed and legislation is passed to protect these magnificent creatures. Their future is our future!
Monica (roos)
Posted by: Monica S.D. Franken-van den Berg | June 1, 2007 9:49 PM